UNIX help

cma5636

I need help developing some criteria for a research paper. I am new to the unix world and am in the process of writing a paper. The paper is to compare two different flavors of unix, which I chose Linux versus Solaris. I need to develop some criteria to compare the two. Can someone please give me some ideas?

Thanx,
Monty

ecksor

Possible areas to look at could be the different kernel features of each OS, different standards they do and don't support (posix, xpg4, svr4), development lifecycles (which in the case of linux is an excuse to talk about GNU and open source) etc. In the case of the two OSs you selected I think you'll find a lot of similarities.

I'm moving this to the Unix forum.

cma5636

Thanks for the input.

Gerry

You could compare the places where these OS's are being deployed, and how this is changing. Talk about the changes that are happening in the linux world, how this affects solaris. Compare the hardware that the OS's run on. And as ecksor said, you should talk about the massive common ground between the two.

cma5636

Thanks to both of you. You have given me a great start on the paper.

logic1

Are you already decided on definately using Linux and Solaris? I think a much more interesting paper would involve the comparison of Unix and OS X.

OS X is touted as being based on a Unix OS but most Unix users have found that OS X is much more inhibitive than any *nix distro.

http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/557/

Interesting article above.

.logic.

Gerry

Thats a considerably tougher project, requires much more background knowledge. Hmm, not so sure about that article. For a start, they got their facts wrong. OS X is based on a heavily modified MACH kernel, and the userland stuff comes from FreeBSD 4.6 or 4.7 ( They are going to go to FreeBSD 5 soon ). Since they got that wrong, can't take the rest of the article seriously. They also state that OS X doesn't come with gcc, gdb. Well neither does the base install of debian..
They say that "it didn't even come with bash". Well guess what, only linux comes with bash as standard.
So what if you have to "enable" the terminal. I figured it out in 5 minutes in CompUsa. Anyone who knows anything can add the stuff thats missing from OS X, even kde 3.1 if you want it. ( I prefer jaguar ).

JustHalf

Hilarious article to be honest. Let's have some laughs at the concisely-packed hilarity.

A closer look at their stories betrays their motives, which reveal that they weren't using Linux for the right reasons and never really "grokked" the platform.

What are the right reasons for using Linux?

I've only recently begun to appreciate how fun and cool my Linux workstation is when I'm running gaim and Mozilla off my desktop at home, bounced through Solaris and HP-UX servers to a lab on campus.

I don't think this guy is representative of the typical computer user. This sounds like he's running a remote X session, something most users of a computer wouldn't go near.

A few of O'Reilly's testimonies do give some concrete examples of user problems they had: "I refuse to spend weekends and late nights fiddling, Linux-hacker-style, with the scripts and codes and config files...". This sentiment reinforces that these users shouldn't have been using Linux in the first place.

Eh, Linux elitist nonsense, to be polite.

But Linux was never meant to be a sports car

Linux is what I declare it to be, for I am the Lunix Holy See!

Not one ex-Linux OS X user mentioned anything about freedom. I'm not referring to some Stallmanesque argument about whether the "GNU" goes before, after, or behind the "Linux", but rather my ability to look at the source code and find out exactly what it's doing if I need to, from the kernel on up.

Why should this matter to them? If they can't program, it won't mean anything to them anyway; and why should Linux be a programmer-only OS?

Typedef

Originally posted by JustHalf
Why should this matter to them? If they can't program, it won't mean anything to them anyway; and why should Linux be a programmer-only OS?

Yeah... and about 10% of the PCs sold in India every year are Linux based.

That figure is growing also.

Zaltais

Originally posted by Typedef
Yeah... and about 10% of the PCs sold in India every year are Linux based.

That figure is growing also.

Just wondering if you happen to have the source of that info handy Typedef?

Cheers,

Zaltais

logic1

Originally posted by Gerry
OS X is based on a heavily modified MACH kernel, and the userland stuff comes from FreeBSD 4.6 or 4.7 ( They are going to go to FreeBSD 5 soon ).

Actually it's based on a combination of the FreeBSD 4.4 and the OSF/mk Mach 3 kernel.

Since they got that wrong, can't take the rest of the article seriously. They also state that OS X doesn't come with gcc, gdb. Well neither does the base install of debian..

Yeah he's definately taking a wrong turn with the gcc stuff as they're usually part of the developers kit and not installed as standard.

They say that "it didn't even come with bash". Well guess what, only linux comes with bash as standard.

Guess again, BeOS uses bash as it's standard shell, also I'm not sure what you mean by "as standard". Every distro will usually have bash on the install cds.

Maybe you mean a minimum install? Personally I've never installed any distro without adding or removing certain packages.

So what if you have to "enable" the terminal. I figured it out in 5 minutes in CompUsa. Anyone who knows anything can add the stuff thats missing from OS X, even kde 3.1 if you want it. ( I prefer jaguar ).

I think the point is maybe you shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to enable something as vital as a root shell. It would be taken as granted by any unix user that this would come enabled. But certainly the article oes make a fewbad points but also a few good ones.

.logic.

ecksor

I don't see why a root shell is vital on OS X. I've never successfully used su on my iBook, since I don't have a root password. I use sudo, but I wouldn't even need that if I wasn't installing fink packages.

Typedef

Just wondering if you happen to have the source of that info handy Typedef?
Here you go

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/11/1912218&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185

Red Hat projection on Linux sales in India, to be accurate.

logic1

Originally posted by ecksor
I don't see why a root shell is vital on OS X.

You wouldn't.

I've never successfully used su on iBook, since I don't have a root password.

That might be your problem then.

I use sudo, but I wouldn't even need that if I wasn't installing fink packages.

That's nice.

.logic.

ecksor

logic1, My point is that this is not a 'problem' on OS X. Do you actually know anything about this and are holding back on making the intelligent comments that your brain is no doubt absolutely brimming with, or are you making some assumptions here?

logic1

Originally posted by ecksor
logic1, My point is that this is not a 'problem' on OS X. Do you actually know anything about this and are holding back on making the intelligent comments that your brain is no doubt absolutely brimming with, or are you making some assumptions here?

I doubt a root shell is abosultely necessary anywhere if you have alternatives such as SUDO.

But it certainly is more convenient to have a root shell for complicated install rather than using sudo every 5 seconds. The point being someone migrating from Unix would expect a root shell to be available if needed without having to explicately set it up.

And please try to keep the snide comments to a minimum. It doesn't promote debate as I'm sure you're more than aware.

Good boy.

.logic.

ecksor

Originally posted by logic1
I doubt a root shell is abosultely necessary anywhere if you have alternatives such as SUDO.

Have you used OS X much?

Being more convenient is one thing, and being vital is another. As I said, if I didn't install the odd fink package I wouldn't need or use sudo, and for all I know someone with more OS X skills can point me to a smarter fink installer that doesn't require sudo by utilising the same mechanism as the regular OS X installers use for gaining admin privileges.

And please try to keep the snide comments to a minimum. It doesn't promote debate as I'm sure you're more than aware.

Good boy.

"Good boy" and "You wouldn't" surely don't promote debate either. If you want to continue a discussion of how to conduct a discussion or how to moderate a forum I suggest you take it to the appropriate forums or to a private message.

logic1

Originally posted by ecksor
Have you used OS X much?

I run it on my G4 cube. I've also been part of the Alpha QA team during development. Yes I have used it "much"

Being more convenient is one thing, and being vital is another.

For any Sys admin running OS X I would consider it vital to ones sanity to be able to run a root shell as oppossed to constant sudo.

As I said, if I didn't install the odd fink package I wouldn't need or use sudo, and for all I know someone with more OS X skills can point me to a smarter fink installer that doesn't require sudo by utilising the same mechanism as the regular OS X installers use for gaining admin privileges.

Being an end user and a sys admin in a production environment are two different situations I would imagine. Different needs for different users.

"Good boy" and "You wouldn't" surely don't promote debate either. If you want to continue a discussion of how to conduct a discussion or how to moderate a forum I suggest you take it to the appropriate forums or to a private message.

Your suggestion is noted but I'm fine to discuss it here. But thanks for the offer.

.logic.

ecksor

Getting off-topic for this thread, but I prefer the situation where systems administrators use sudo always over su, and have rarely found this to be a problem doing it myself.

quozl

you can just type "sudo bash".

And back on topic. You could compare fact that linux is open source vs the fact than solaris is closed source. And how this effects the speed of development of both, security, etc etc

ecksor

Originally posted by quozl
you can just type "sudo bash".

Your default sudoers will have a Cmnd_Alias for SU and SHELLS commented out. Edit to suit your local system and you can create groups with exceptions for those commands. It takes more effort to then ensure that logs can't be tampered with and that utilities such as editors don't provide a further route to a shell, but it can be done.

I was really thinking of the usefulness of having a standard record in one place of all administrative tasks done and who they were performed by rather than restricting access to functions though.

Gerry

Originally posted by logic1


Actually it's based on a combination of the FreeBSD 4.4 and the OSF/mk Mach 3 kernel.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I read in several places that apple developers just modified the last Mach kernel ( which must be Mach 3 ), but I didn't think that any of the kernel was taken from FreeBSD. Ok then, maybe userland is taken from 4.4 instead of 4.6. Thats a separate issue though..

Originally posted by logic1
Guess again, BeOS uses bash as it's standard shell, also I'm not sure what you mean by "as standard". Every distro will usually have bash on the install cds.

Ok, so I mistakenly said that it was only linux. The point is that most UNIX versions do not come with bash as standard. FreeBSD doesn't, Solaris doesn't, HP-UX doesn't, I'm pretty sure AIX and SCO Unixware don't either. etc,etc. I know its readily available for all these distros, but they haven't chosen to make it standard. Yes, I know this is nitpicking.

Originally posted by logic1
I think the point is maybe you shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to enable something as vital as a root shell. It would be taken as granted by any unix user that this would come enabled. But certainly the article oes make a fewbad points but also a few good ones.

.logic.

For the people who think it is vital, its pretty damn easy to find and enable. For everyone else, they can do everything they need without it. They weren't going to use it anyway.

logic1

Originally posted by Gerry
Not quite sure what you mean here, but I read in several places that apple developers just modified the last Mach kernel ( which must be Mach 3 ), but I didn't think that any of the kernel was taken from FreeBSD. Ok then, maybe userland is taken from 4.4 instead of 4.6. Thats a separate issue though..

As I said it's not just a modified Mach kernel it's a new kernel based on both Mach and FreeBSD kernels. They have that information freely available on their web site.

.logic.

Gerry

Ok fair enough, I'll go read about it

nadir

As usual this seems to have turned into more of a flame.

getting back to the origional topic, solaris is a bit of an awkward one to go for imo. I mean considering the very different types of hardware. Its difficult to compare performance for example. It may well be an interesting study but its a bit far out if your a nubie to linux. There may be just too much stuff to take into account. Maybe like was said previously a comparison of OS X. Personally id go for something like Debian Vs RedHat, or if u want to be a little more origional, Debian Vs Gentoo. Anyhow some areas of interest may be.

Low latency Kernel, performance latency.

stability of kernel. max load .etc (do some benchmarking, nothing beats testing it practically, if u really want to be sw33t see how UT2003 performes on the different distros)

Ease Of Use, i.e rpm vs emerge, vs apt -get.

Advantages, disadvantages of having availability of stable-woody, beta type packages.

stuff like prefered packages, like safari, konqueror. Web apps, squid .etc

dunno if thats much help.
im sure you can come up with much more.

Typedef

Go do a comparison between the Hurd and Linux.

That would be fun.

nadir

just looked up HURD to see what it was.

`Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms.

FFS, what next

Gerry

Linux vs FreeBSD would be good also. Linux has made strides in its performance under high loads, and FreeBSD has now got a more efficient threads system than it had before, and both have improved memory management so the old stereotyped comparison between these two hardly hold true still.