Index
> Unix > Why Linux != Unix ?Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
| Author |
|
|
vid 30 Jun 2007, 11:36
unix thread is for BSD kernels. Linux thread is for Linux kernels.
|
|||
30 Jun 2007, 11:36 |
|
|
m 30 Jun 2007, 11:57
So if we separate them based on kernels, I wonder if we have to
make a thread for Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinXP and Vista each... |
|||
|
30 Jun 2007, 11:57 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 30 Jun 2007, 14:36
Quote: unix thread is for BSD kernels. 
Unix is forum is for general Unix like OSes (FreeBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris, etc). But additionally there is a Linux forum in case you have to discuss something realated to Linux-only things. Since the others are not popular enough here I think it's not worth to create forums for them. As for Windows, the user-mode land doesn't differ much between each other, only driver development really takes difference (except when using WDM no Win98 and above). |
|||
|
30 Jun 2007, 14:36 |
|
|
vid 30 Jun 2007, 17:34
Loco: sorry, i missed the solaris. but still, AFAIK it's always about BSDs
|
|||
|
30 Jun 2007, 17:34 |
|
|
crc 01 Jul 2007, 04:16
There may be more discussion of Solaris in the future since Sun has open-sourced it... Also MacOS X could fall into the Unix category as well. (When I find time to update the binaries for fasm on the various Unices, I'll try to build it on Solaris and Minix as well. No guarantees on success though)
|
|||
|
01 Jul 2007, 04:16 |
|
|
rugxulo 01 Jul 2007, 22:09
The saying is that "All the world's a VAX" has become "All the world's a Linux" these days (i.e., lots of stuff will only compile on Linux). And GCC breaking older code in order to be more "strict / conformant" doesn't always help, IMO. Technically, you can (try to) install an older toolset, but who wants to do that for every little app??
In short, if you don't stick to POSIX etc. very strictly, it may indeed only compile on (your variant of) Linux (e.g. > 2.2). P.S. This is just my perception, no offense intended, clarification welcome. |
|||
|
01 Jul 2007, 22:09 |
|
|
f0dder 02 Jul 2007, 11:23
Well, if you want to do high-performance software, you'll eventually need to do OS-specific calls, and can't just stick with POSIX...
If you're writing a torrent client and have the choices of "spawn a process for each connection", "use a pthread for each connection", and "write /dev/kqueuem /dev/epoll and IOCP variants", which would you choose?  |
|||
|
02 Jul 2007, 11:23 |
|
|
pjd 17 Jul 2007, 10:58
LocoDelAssembly wrote:
Technically windows 9x has a DOS kernel (just a newer 32bit version compared with real DOS) and the NT to vista kernels are just different versions of each other. The major differences between Linux and UNIX do lie in the kernel but are roughly consistent in all modern BSDs and Solaris... UNIX uses different calling conventions on the kernel to Linux. most UNIXs use aoutb executables (FreeBSD is the main exception I think) and the list could probably go on with small differences. The main reason all the differences are in the kernels is that Linux is a kernel and no more. By the way anything that sticks to posix/libc/qt/gtx/x11/sdl/opengl calls should compile on any modern UNIX or freeBSD |
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 10:58 |
|
|
f0dder 17 Jul 2007, 13:14
I wouldn't call Win9x a "DOS kernel", since it's a lot more than that... protection (although not very well done), a driver model, etc. I do often joke that Win9x is basically a "dos extender on steroids" though
|
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 13:14 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 17 Jul 2007, 14:38
Quote:
If by UNIXs you mean plain UNIX versions I can't comment but If you mean UNIX-like OSes then it is pretty strange considering that ELF has defined constants for lots of ABI. Here a list Code: EI_OSABI equ 7 ; Operating System/ABI indication ELFOSABI_NONE equ 0 ; UNIX System V ABI ELFOSABI_HPUX equ 1 ; HP-UX operating system ELFOSABI_NETBSD equ 2 ; NetBSD ELFOSABI_LINUX equ 3 ; GNU/Linux ELFOSABI_HURD equ 4 ; GNU/Hurd ELFOSABI_SOLARIS equ 6 ; Solaris ELFOSABI_AIX equ 7 ; AIX ELFOSABI_IRIX equ 8 ; IRIX ELFOSABI_FREEBSD equ 9 ; FreeBSD ELFOSABI_TRU64 equ 10 ; TRU64 UNIX ELFOSABI_MODESTO equ 11 ; Novell Modesto ELFOSABI_OPENBSD equ 12 ; OpenBSD ELFOSABI_OPENVMS equ 13 ; OpenVMS ELFOSABI_NSK equ 14 ; Hewlett-Packard Non-Stop Kernel ELFOSABI_AROS equ 15 ; Amiga Research OS ELFOSABI_ARM equ 97 ; ARM ELFOSABI_STANDALONE equ 255 ; Standalone (embedded) application |
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 14:38 |
|
|
Furby 17 Jul 2007, 16:00
simply Linux is not as Unix as FreeBSD
Linux kernel is derived from Minix and FreeBSD is derived from BSD4.3 to main Unix source :O or something |
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 16:00 |
|
|
pjd 17 Jul 2007, 18:02
LocoDelAssembly wrote:
Yeah I meant proper UNIX (like BSD) the post should have mentioned that elf is default on linux but I think the Net and Open BSDs use aoutb as the default. The biggest difference between Linux and UNIX is the use by GNU (because GNUs Not Unix) |
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 18:02 |
|
|
rugxulo 17 Jul 2007, 19:13
None of the BSDs, last I heard, use much (if any) old code left over from the old AT&T stuff. And Linux never borrowed any code from Minix, it was written from scratch (and basically started because Minix's license was too restrictive), hence it using the GPLv2. Linux is really only Unix-like ("UNIX" is actually a trademark). And even the BSDs, which don't prefer GPL, use GCC a lot these days (hey, why not? good is good).
|
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 19:13 |
|
|
crc 17 Jul 2007, 22:00
Quote: Yeah I meant proper UNIX (like BSD) the post should have mentioned that elf is default on linux but I think the Net and Open BSDs use aoutb as the default. ELF is used as the default on recent NetBSD and OpenBSD releases. So it is used across the mainstream BSD world as well as on Linux. |
|||
|
17 Jul 2007, 22:00 |
|
|
rugxulo 18 Jul 2007, 21:39
crc wrote: ELF is used as the default on recent NetBSD and OpenBSD releases. So it is used across the mainstream BSD world as well as on Linux. I was actually glancing through a FreeBSD book today (yikes, a bit too much to memorize, and too hardware savvy, IMO), and apparently newer BSDs don't run a.out except via KLD ("kernel loadable driver" or whatever). So yeah, they now use ELF instead of relying on weird hacks in a.out for shared libraries. And there's supposedly only one FreeBSD distro (as opposed to hundreds for GNU / Linux). The differences to average users probably seem less pronounced these days, especially when books like this (The Complete BSD) mention GCC, GNU Emacs, bash, KDE, etc. |
|||
|
18 Jul 2007, 21:39 |
|
|
OzzY 22 Jul 2007, 21:13
What's is the easiest to install BSD and also more suitable for Desktops?
I'm thinking about trying BSDs. I also requested free DVDs for OpenSolaris from Sun.  |
|||
|
22 Jul 2007, 21:13 |
|
|
f0dder 22 Jul 2007, 21:31
The most commenly known BSDs would be OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD, with Free being the easiest to obtain and work with (from what I know, anyway). BSD is not as fast-moving as linux, but it tends to feel more solid, and a bit more well-planned... again, just my opinion.
You might want to check out http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ - I never got so far, but it sounds interesting. |
|||
|
22 Jul 2007, 21:31 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 22 Jul 2007, 22:15
In the case of FreeBSD I warn you that the instalation is more or less difficult as Gentoo Linux. You will need to follow a handbook as Gentoo.
I heard what f0dder says and also I must tell that the driver support is not good as on Linux. Also, FreeBSD can execute Linux binaries (when kernel is compiled with such support), but I'm not sure if it provides a good environment for full compatibility, only ABI emulation is what I'm sure it has. |
|||
|
22 Jul 2007, 22:15 |
|
|
crc 22 Jul 2007, 23:28
FreeBSD installation isn't that bad (especially compared to OpenBSD, where I did need a guide). Though if you want to use it as a desktop, you might be better off using PC-BSD (http://www.pcbsd.org/) which is based on FreeBSD, but already comes with X, KDE, etc ready to use.
|
|||
|
22 Jul 2007, 23:28 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|