nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Unix-Linux

nollaig

Is Unix the same as Linux?

Sorry but Im not really into computers!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ntlbell

nollaig wrote:

Is Unix the same as Linux?

Sorry but Im not really into computers!

the short and sweet answer is no.

Goodshape

Linux is the core of a system called GNU, which stands for "GNU's Not Unix".

GNU/Linux is a 'unix-like' operating system but they are not the same thing. Probably most importantly, one of them (Unix) costs a lot of money and the other (GNU/Linux) is free.

I don't think anyone would seriously look at using Unix as a desktop operating system. (and I'm not too sure why the name of this forum hasn't been changed... seems to be almost 100% GNU/Linux discussion that goes on here).

Wikipeida - Unix
Wikipedia - Linux
Wikipedia - GNU

dubhthach

nollaig wrote:

Is Unix the same as Linux?

Sorry but Im not really into computers!

The Linux kernel is basically a clone of the Unix kernel implementing most of the API's in Posix (and SUS - Single Unix Standard)

Unix = Full OS (eg. Kernel + libraries + basic utilities)
Linux = Kernel

Ye can get a "unix-like" system by combing Linux kernel with GNU userland or with other ones such as ulibc+busybox.

Basically Unix is a family of Operating systems that share a common programming heritage and tradition. This can be seen by having a fairly standard API across multiple versions. The key difference between the "commerical Unix" and Linux/gnu/whatever is that the commerical unix systems have a code heritage that goes back to the mid 1970's and include original code from Bell Labs (the birthplace of Unix). I know for example of at least one code snippet in Solaris that dates from "Unix version 6" which was released in 1976 or so!

bpmurray

If he says he doesn't understand this stuff, then spouting reams about the relative pedigrees of various OS's doesn't help.

The short answer is that, for the ordinary user, Linux is the same as Unix. Functionally Linux, Unix, AIX, Solaris, HPUX, all have the same commands, GUIs, functionality, system setup, etc. so they all behave very similarly. The key difference is that a Linux distribution tends to cost less than the equivalent commercial offering, despite having similar abilities.

dahamsta

dubhthach wrote:

The Linux kernel is basically a clone of the Unix kernel

I was under the impression that Unix uses a macrokernel model, whereas Linux uses a microkernel model. Which would be substantialy different, and may confuse the OP.

adam

nollaig

Ok, So to put in a different way. Would a person capable of using Linux be capable of using Unix?

ntlbell

nollaig wrote:

Ok, So to put in a different way. Would a person capable of using Linux be capable of using Unix?

The learning curve wouldn't be as big and should be easily able to work how tp perform most tasks on the machine.

Khannie

ntlbell wrote:

The learning curve wouldn't be as big

So small in fact that there would be none.

I agree entirely with what bpmurray says. For all intents and purposes, to the average user, unix and linux are the same thing.

ntlbell

Khannie wrote:

So small in fact that there would be none.

I agree entirely with what bpmurray says. For all intents and purposes, to the average user, unix and linux are the same thing.

There most definitley would be a learning curve, especially in a large production enviroment.

Syth

In the age where too many people think Windows is the only OS, knowing Linux puts you at a huge advatage to learning Unix.

I suppose it depends on what you know about Linux and what you want to know about whatever favour of Unix. If you are a faily nifty Linux driver developer, then not a lot of that skill would be transferable. However if you stayed in userland in Linux then you should be fine. It's all POSIX.

krinDar

Syth wrote:

I suppose it depends on what you know about Linux and what you want to know about whatever favour of Unix. If you are a faily nifty Linux driver developer,

If you are a nifty driver developer then I think the platform will have not make much difference impact

Syth wrote:

then not a lot of that skill would be transferable. However if you stayed in userland in Linux then you should be fine. It's all POSIX.

I completely agree. However, I think it is possible to be have "experience"
of Linux without venturing past the graphical environment, and this wouldn't
be of much use working on some unix systems where these are not available.

nollaig wrote:

Would a person capable of using Linux be capable of using Unix?

If you are going to be doing similiar work in Unix as you were doing in Linux
then probably yes.

If your experience of Linux is having mostly mail/browsing etc then trying
to administer Unix might be difficult.

Mach

Simple Linux is about 95% the same as Unix.Most(if not all the basic) commands in linux are the the same as in unix.So if know linux, ie cd ls cat ect them you know unix.

electrofelix

Ken Shabby wrote:

I was under the impression that Unix uses a macrokernel model, whereas Linux uses a microkernel model. Which would be substantialy different, and may confuse the OP.

adam

no, both are monolithic kernel in architecture, as is Windows, Solaris, OSX and most of the main OS's in use these days.

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

If your curious about microkernels I suggest looking at the GNU Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html

Which makes use of the mach microkernel.

Civilian_Target

Linux is Monolithic, Windows NT architechture is microkernel (believe it or not)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_frm/thread/c25870d7a41696d2/f447530d082cd95d#f447530d082cd95d

electrofelix

Actually I believe that the NT 3 kernel was a micro kernel but the NT4 was not, since it included the graphics system code into the kernel.

I've gone back to look this up since I had assumed with the inclusion of the graphics subsystem into the windows kernel it was now a monolithic kernel. Appears the correct classification is that is a hybrid.

interesting actually.

Syth

Mac OSX uses the Darwin kernel, another microkernel.

electrofelix

Hybrid actually

Although it still shows I didn't look it up very well originally

Zombrex

nollaig wrote:

Is Unix the same as Linux?

Sorry but Im not really into computers!

The easiest way to think about Unix and all the types of Unix based operating systems (GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, Sun Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc) is to think of the way desktop PCs are.

Originally IBM made a desktop PC, based on off the shelf parts including Intel processors in the early 1980s. This PC was so popular everyone copied this design, reverse engineered it etc and made their own versions. Eventually, over the years standards were ironed out so things were made even more compatable, so a Dell PC will run exactly the same as a Gateway PC or a PC you build yourself from parts of the internet.

So a Dell PC and a Toshiba PC and a Gateway PC etc are all known as "IBM compatable" which means it is basically a copy of the standard IBM first used all those years ago.

Kinda a similar thing happened with Unix.

Unix was developed in the late 60s, and was so popular that people started making their own compatable versions. There is a long history of different versions, with a long legal history over court battles over who actually "owns" Unix.

That means if you write source code following the standards of Unix you can pretty much get things to work with different types of operating systems based on Unix without too much trouble, just like if you buy a DVD-ROM drive for a PC it should work in pretty much any PC (but might not work in a X-Box or an Apple Mac)

Linux is just another Unix compatable operating system, but because of weaves of history it has become quite popular. Its insides will be quite different from other Unix operating systems, but the interface it presents to programs running on it is based on the original way Unix worked all those years ago when it was first designed. So a program running on Linux just thinks "Ok I'm running on a Unix based operating system, so I can expect this this and this to be here", just like a DVD drive made for an IBM compatable machine doesn't need to know if it is running on a Dell PC or a Sony PC, it just has to know it is running on a IBM compatble PC and can expect this this and this to be there.

Zombrex

Someone in IBM must read boards.ie

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec13/?ca=dgr-lnxw01UnixStandard