I thought "Linux is not unix"

wolfric

Just thought i'd ask... i thought the very name indicates linux isn't unix...

Galen

Linux (commonly pronounced /ˈlɪnəks/[5]) is a generic term referring to Unix-like computer operating systems based on the Linux kernel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

croo

indeed, Linux is technically just the kernel. And we should more correctly refer to most linux installations as GNU/Linux. Which www.gnu.org refers to as a unix-like operating system and "GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux".

[-0-]

Will we ever see the GNU kernel?

Naikon

[-0-] wrote: »

Will we ever see the GNU kernel?

You mean the Hurd?

Considering it's been in development for nearly 20 years, I doubt we
will see anything resembling a 1.0 release for quite some time.

A more practical solution would be to integrate the FreeBSD kernel
with the GNU tools. The Debian project aims to bundle GNU/FreeBSD

oMega_2093

Linux is Unix, but not every Unix is Linux. Don't lose hope, see VLC is finally 1.0 release

niallb

The name comes from Linus Torvalds, who started the project.
It's not a GNU name, so it doesn't have to use one of those "Pine Is Not Elm" style puns for an acronym.

The Hurd is defined in the same kind of why, only squared.

HURD is a mutually recursive acronym, standing for HIRD of Unix-Replacing Daemons, where HIRD stands for HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth. It is also a play on the words herd of gnus, reflecting how it works

The fact that Linux Is Not UniX helped though :-)

jingx3

I use Jaunty Jackalope. Is this LinuX or UNIX? It says Ubutnu.

I'm confused

big_show

Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux, while Jaunty Jackalope is the code name for the version of Ubuntu you have (which is 9.04)

FruitLover

oMega_2093 wrote: »

Linux is Unix, but not every Unix is Linux.

Nope.

EvilMonkey

Linus Minix = Linux

croo

[-0-] wrote: »

Will we ever see the GNU kernel?

I don't know. I was only quoting the gnu.org site.
According to it; you can run hurd now but it's not production ready.

I do feel a little sorry for Richard Stallman though, he spends a decade or more writing all those tools that most people considered to be unix - then before he can finish his cutting edge kernel for them some kid from Finland comes along and releases kernel based on minix that uses all his tools and becomes a big hit as linux.

oMega_2093

FruitLover wrote: »

Nope.

Please post why I am wrong.

Linux kernel is Unix like. Every Linux distribution uses Linux kernel, so every Linux is Unix like. However, there are a lot of different Unix like OS's not Linux:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Unix_history-simple.svg

That's what I meant.

An Fear Aniar

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Linus Minix = Linux

But Minix = Mini Unix ???

.

Galen

Minix according to Wikipedia.

MINIX is a Unix-like computer operating system based on a microkernel architecture. Andrew S. Tanenbaum wrote the operating system to be used for educational purposes; MINIX also inspired the creation of the Linux kernel. Its name is a portmanteau of the words minimal and Unix.

MINIX has been free and open source software since it was released under the BSD license in April 2000.

History

Andrew S. Tanenbaum created MINIX at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam to exemplify the principles conveyed in his textbook, Operating Systems Design and Implementation (1987). An abridged 12,000 lines of the C source code of the kernel, memory manager, and file system of MINIX 1.0 are printed in the book. Prentice-Hall also released MINIX source code and binaries on floppy disk with a reference manual. MINIX 1 was system-call compatible with Seventh Edition Unix.[1]

Tanenbaum originally developed MINIX for compatibility with the IBM PC and IBM PC/AT microcomputers available at the time. MINIX 1.5, released in 1991, included support for MicroChannel IBM PS/2 systems and was also ported to the Motorola 68000 and SPARC architectures, supporting the Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, Apple Macintosh and Sun SPARCstation computer platforms. There were also unofficial ports to Intel 386 PC compatibles (in 32-bit protected mode), National Semiconductor NS32532, ARM and INMOS transputer processors. Meiko Scientific used an early version of MINIX as the basis for the MeikOS operating system for its transputer-based Computing Surface parallel computers. A version of MINIX running as a user process under SunOS and Solaris was also available, a simulator called SMX.

Demand for the 68k-based architectures waned, however, and MINIX 2.0, released in 1997, was only available for the x86 and Solaris-hosted SPARC architectures. It was the subject of the second edition of Tanenbaum's textbook, co-written with Albert Woodhull and was distributed on a CD-ROM included with the book. MINIX 2.0 added POSIX.1 compliance, support for 386 and later processors in 32-bit mode and replaced the Amoeba network protocols included in MINIX 1.5 with a TCP/IP stack. Unofficial ports of MINIX 2.0.2 to the 68020-based ISICAD Prisma 700 workstation[2] and the Hitachi SH3-based HP Jornada 680/690 PDA[3] were also developed.

Minix-vmd is a variant of MINIX 2 for Intel IA-32-compatible processors, created by two Vrije Universiteit researchers, which adds virtual memory and support for the X Window System.

EvilMonkey

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

But Minix = Mini Unix ???

.

Yeah but it was coded from scratch as was Linux and the GNU tools

FruitLover

oMega_2093 wrote: »

Please post why I am wrong.

Linux kernel is Unix like. Every Linux distribution uses Linux kernel, so every Linux is Unix like. However, there are a lot of different Unix like OS's not Linux

That's better. You didn't mention 'Unix-like' in your original post, just Unix.

Linux is not Unix, and no Unix is linux.

johnl

That's all true, but Ubuntu isn't Linux.

FruitLover

johnl wrote: »

That's all true, but Ubuntu isn't Linux.

And linux isn't Ubuntu!




Glad we got that all cleared up...

I now know less then when I started reading this thread!!!!!

aidan_walsh

Deleted User wrote: »

I now know less then when I started reading this thread!!!!!

Basically everything is exactly what it says it is, except when it isn't. Unless it might be depending on which way you want to split the hair.

croo

Deleted User wrote: »

I now know less then when I started reading this thread!!!!!

Wikipedia explains the relationships well - including a nice little family tree
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Unix-history.svg

oneway

I was in college in the last millennium. Back then the guys who owned the rights to Unix (Bell Labs I think) wouldn’t let us study the official computer code of Unix. So before Linus got his project off the ground a guy called Douglas Comer rewrote much of the interesting parts of Unix - he called this partial OS "Xinu" and explained that this stood for "Xinu is not Unix".

He described how it all worked in a book (http://www.amazon.com/Operating-System-Design-XINU-Approach/dp/0136375391 ) and we were allowed study the details of how memory management and the paging system worked, all without breaking the Unix licencing limitations.

Have fun

FruitLover

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Unless it might be depending on which way you want to split the hair.

You mean fork the hair.

Khannie

johnl wrote: »

That's all true, but Ubuntu isn't Linux.

We have now reached pedant point.

I don't mind "Linux is not unix" and "unix is not linux" and all the rest of this hair splitting, but saying that ubuntu is not linux is just taking it a step too far for anyone who's not a complete and utter geek IMO.

Naikon

The whole 'Unix' name is a complicated issue, but it's best to think
of all operating systems that conform mostly to unix traditions as
'Unix like'. The Unix name is a total legal nightmare.

That is, they don't share genetic AT&T/sco code, but
behave in a very similar manner with simple Unix like API's for
networking, systems calls(C standard library) ect.

I consider Linux 'a Unix' along with FreeBSD, but in the legal sense
they are not, because the projects don't pay an arse load of money
to be officially called such. These systems fall under 'functional unix'.

Both(and most others) are Unix in all but name.
The Unix name is a very, very complicated legal issue.

Now consider 'Mac OSX'. I hate the way they break Unix traditions
and use mad concepts like microkernels ect. Everything depends
on fecking cocoa and other nasties Apple throw out to maintain
a strong foothold.

Apple systems are not traditional in any sense.
Yet the bastard Unix is 'official' because apple paid a lot
of money to the open group, the current holders of
the current 'Unix' trademark.

So yeah, anything from redmond can't be considered Unix
because they nick some high level concepts from unix and
bastardize the rest. 'Stolen' BSD network stack ring a bell?

BSD and the like share ancestry with original Unix code
Which had to be re-implemented to avoid legal crap.
These are called 'genetic Unixs' by name.

OS's sitting outside 'Unix like' can't be functionally called
'Unix like' systems because they do not behave like one!

So to summarise, legal crap confuses the whole issue
of non unix vs unix.

Don't worry, most 'Unix like' systems are
very similar to paid Unix's in all but name imo.

Now get back to messing with Unix/Linux :P

jingx3

johnl wrote: »

That's all true, but Ubuntu isn't Linux.

I was told that Ubutnu was a LinuX! I'm so confused.

FruitLover

jingx3 wrote: »

I was told that Ubutnu was a LinuX! I'm so confused.

Ubuntu is an operating system with the linux kernel at its core, often referred to as a 'linux distribution'.

Khannie

jingx3 wrote: »

I was told that Ubutnu was a LinuX!

It is yeah.

valen

Well, BSD is Unix, and has the AT&T lawsuit to prove it. Linux just looks very like it. These days, if it looks like unix, smells like unix...it probably is unix enough for what most users want.

John