[quote]Originally posted by PJH:
[b]I don't quite understand your point Entil'Zha. Why do you want to keep doing everything hard way by writing commands in the command line instead of using easy, convenient and nice looking environment where you can do the same much more easily and faster by using a mouse in addition of a keyboard??? I can understand that if you want to have the know-how of the command line usage because of work or whatever other reason, but still why would you use only the command line for all the everyday tasks and such?
Linux unstable??? How in the earth have you been running it??? Linux is famous of being stable! That's one of the biggest reasons why it's widely used in servers in the first place, security issues being an other. That's the first time ever I've heard anyone saying that Linux is unstable.
- PJH[/b][/quote]
Because you have no need of the GUI on a server, since most of the configuration for server tasks is not GUI based anyway, there would be absolutly no point.
We're not talking about a Windows NT server, where everything is built on a GUI, With linux/Unix, the GUI is a totally seperate entity, and is frankly not needed, For example, I do have X Windows on my FreeBSD machine for the very few times that i need to run opera or Mozilla on it. When i run the GUI, it uses up about 70% of the Machine's resources, why on earth would you want to give 70% of your processing and memory over to the GUI instead of having those resources available for your webserver and mailserver etc.
As for unstable, Linux can be just as unstable as any other OS. Our linux box at work is one of the most unstable machines that i've ever worked on. Heck, my WinME box was more stable than that machine. But all the BSD boxes i've ever worked on have been perfectly stable.
so you have only worked/used one linux box? Thats like saying that science fiction is dumb only because you wached one ST:V ep. Linux also doens't need a gui. I have done plenty of stuff on linux on the command line. (it was on my Dads computer and the version of linux I had didn't support his graphics card)
[quote]Originally posted by croxis:
[b]so you have only worked/used one linux box? Thats like saying that science fiction is dumb only because you wached one ST:V ep. Linux also doens't need a gui. I have done plenty of stuff on linux on the command line. (it was on my Dads computer and the version of linux I had didn't support his graphics card)[/b][/quote]
Umm when did i say i've worked with or used only one, i've been a unix administrator for 15 years.
and again, its personal preferance with Unix/Linux. I have just happened to have much better luck with Straight Unix (FreeBSD, BSDi and Solaris) than with Linux (slackware, Redhat and Cobalt)
[quote]Originally posted by Striker:
[b]Hey, if my company was able to setup our new server completely from command line (and some of it remotely) then you don't really need X-Windows. =)
X-Windows is good if you are physically at the same location of the server. Otherwise, it is pointless.
[/b][/quote]
Exactly, I tend to use it like i said, when my windows box is otherwise in use and i need a web browser (not lynx)
I swear this board needs another Babe-pic thread....
*Remembers tha last ill-fated one where some idjit posted some pr0n.... the worst thing being that the thread was deleted when the pic was *JUST* above nipple-level [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] *
[quote]Originally posted by WHY:
[b]I swear this board needs another Babe-pic thread....
*Remembers tha last ill-fated one where some idjit posted some pr0n.... the worst thing being that the thread was deleted when the pic was *JUST* above nipple-level [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] *
This wasn't about Linix... so sue me...[/b][/quote]
I could prolly find more pics of the chick in the FreeBSD suit....
[b]-[/b]rwxrwxrwx (standard issue file)
[b]d[/b]rwxrwxrwx (standard issue directory)
[b]c[/b]rwxrwxrwx (device file)
[b]l[/b]rwxrwxrwx (link/symbolic link file)
-rw[b]s[/b]rwxrwx (SUID bit set file)
-rwxrw[b]s[/b]rwx (SGID bit set file)
-rwxrwxrw[b]s[/b] (should never see this one!) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
-rwxrwxrw[b]t[/b] (Sticky bit set file)
What are the following? (If anyone knows... I'm really curious)
[b]b[/b]rwxrwxrwx (b?)
[b]p[/b]rwxrwxrwx (p?)
[b]s[/b]rwxrwxrwx (s?)
I have examples of all except for
-rwxrwxrw[b]s[/b] right after a fresh install of Mandrake 8.2 in my file system.
[quote]Originally posted by Entil'Zha:
[b] Because you have no need of the GUI on a server, since most of the configuration for server tasks is not GUI based anyway, there would be absolutly no point.[/b][/quote]
No need of GUI for the server? There was no talk about only servers anywhere above, or at least I didn't notice that. Weren't you saying that you don't use Windows nearly at all? At least that's what I understood.
Anyway, I agree that running a server on a M$ WINDOWS, X-WINDOWS, or such similar kind of OS would not necessarily be a good idea, because like you stated it takes valuable resources of the computer, which could be used for other tasks.
However, I think that even for a server use there would be use for a [b]Windows like interface[/b], which would make it all that much easier and more simple for common users to work with servers. I'd appreciate one myself.
[quote][b]We're not talking about a Windows NT server, where everything is built on a GUI, With linux/Unix, the GUI is a totally seperate entity, and is frankly not needed, For example, I do have X Windows on my FreeBSD machine for the very few times that i need to run opera or Mozilla on it. When i run the GUI, it uses up about 70% of the Machine's resources, why on earth would you want to give 70% of your processing and memory over to the GUI instead of having those resources available for your webserver and mailserver etc.[/b][/quote]
I don't know about X-Windows, but at least M$ Windows 2000 takes only a fraction of CPU time. It does take quite a bit of memory though, but nowadays memory is so cheap that it isn't really an issue. Besides, the percentage of resources the OS uses depends of how much do you have resources in your machine in the first place, of course. But as I was saying above, it would be a good idea indeed to not run a server on a Windows based OS's, because it does take some of those resources indeed.
[quote][b]As for unstable, Linux can be just as unstable as any other OS. Our linux box at work is one of the most unstable machines that i've ever worked on. Heck, my WinME box was more stable than that machine. But all the BSD boxes i've ever worked on have been perfectly stable.[/b][/quote]
WinME more stable? Excuse me my language, but that's a load of bull, or then you have some serious hardware issues in that machine, OR you don't know how to use it properly. Linux is far far FAR more stable than Win ME could ever be. Pretty much anything is more stable than WinME. Perhaps even worse OS's being only Win 95 and 98.
[quote][b]Again, its personal preferance.[/b][/quote]
I agree, but which one is actually better overall is a whole different issue and can be usually find out based on simple facts. I don't know which one would be better, because I don't have that much experience of them, but if I had to choose between Unix and Linux I'd choose Linux, because as far as I know it's been developed much more than Unix.
[quote]Originally posted by PJH:
[b]WinME more stable? Excuse me my language, but that's a load of bull, or then you have some serious hardware issues in that machine, OR you don't know how to use it properly. Linux is far far FAR more stable than Win ME could ever be. Pretty much anything is more stable than WinME. Perhaps even worse OS's being only Win 95 and 98.
[/b][/quote]
No no no no no no no... Win ME [b][i]IS[/i][/b] the worst OS ever created...
And that just so happens to be the version I am running. But I refuse to upgrade as long as M$ forces be to call in to install XP
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
I agree Croxis - I will not purchase XP for the primary reason that I don't want to register. I don't want them keeping track of my computer specs, changes, etc. The sole purpose for that data is likely not for anti-piracy but for user database identification for the purposes of understanding the user market. And frankly I will not be restricted on how many times I can upgrade my computer becuase of some BS by MS.
I'm running Win2k and frankly that IS one of the best MS OS's...compared to ME, it is stable [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
"No need of GUI for the server? There was no talk about only servers anywhere above, or at least I didn't notice that. Weren't you saying that you don't use Windows nearly at all? At least that's what I understood."
Most Linux/Unix machines are used as servers, More and more people are starting to use them as workstations, but the vast majority are still server machines.
And no, I never said i don't use Windows, My current primary machine is Windows XP, i've got machines running WindowsXP, WindowsMe, Windows95, MacOS9, FreeBSD 4.5, Redhat Linux, Cobalt Linux, and even one Running Windows 3.11/Dos 6.22.
I actually just got another 486 today thats prolly going to become another unix/linux box (that is if it works, i found it on the street)
"However, I think that even for a server use there would be use for a Windows like interface, which would make it all that much easier and more simple for common users to work with servers. I'd appreciate one myself."
Thats actually an almost totally false statment, Because for a Unix server environment, even if you are running a GUI, all the setup for the server componets is still text conf based, wether you edit your httpd.conf in a gui or via commandline, its still a text based process, Unless you use a 3rd party utility like webmin, which doesn't depend on the GUI anyway"
"I don't know about X-Windows, but at least M$ Windows 2000 takes only a fraction of CPU time. It does take quite a bit of memory though, but nowadays memory is so cheap that it isn't really an issue. Besides, the percentage of resources the OS uses depends of how much do you have resources in your machine in the first place, of course. But as I was saying above, it would be a good idea indeed to not run a server on a Windows based OS's, because it does take some of those resources indeed."
Its a lot different with Unix, with a windows server, the webserver and ftp server etc are basically a part of the OS itself, So you can't really seperate how much system resources the OS Vs the Servers are using, since you can't run them without the GUI.
With Unix, The system resources for the GUI would be available to the Daemons if you were not running the GUI, I'm sure i've made this point about as clear as a muddy pond.
WinME more stable? Excuse me my language, but that's a load of bull, or then you have some serious hardware issues in that machine, OR you don't know how to use it properly. Linux is far far FAR more stable than Win ME could ever be. Pretty much anything is more stable than WinME. Perhaps even worse OS's being only Win 95 and 98.
Its actually the particular distro of Linux, Cobalt linux is a piece of shi.. Umm a Fuc.... Umm, its junk. That was the point in comparing it to WinMe, My WinMe box here at home is actually more stable than that machine.
"I agree, but which one is actually better overall is a whole different issue and can be usually find out based on simple facts. I don't know which one would be better, because I don't have that much experience of them, but if I had to choose between Unix and Linux I'd choose Linux, because as far as I know it's been developed much more than Unix."
What do you mean "its been developed more" Linux was designed as a free version of Unix when you still had to pay for Berkeley Unix or AT&T unix, Unix is the more developed operating system in fact. even tho recently linux has made its way into some corperate machines, the Vast majority of companys still use Unix based machines, wether it be a BSD based professional unix (BSDi) or Solaris.
I hope i've managed to clear up a few points, but since i suck at explaining things, i doubt i have [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Originally posted by Random Chaos:
[b]
I'm running Win2k and frankly that IS one of the best MS OS's...compared to ME, it is stable [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
The sad thing is, In my experience WindowsXP blows 2k out of the water in terms of stability, But i hate the having to activate and register it. I know it violates site licences, but i've got 9 machines, and in the past i would just buy one copy of Windows and install it on whichever machines need it. But with Xp if i want to do that, i need to buy 9 copies (or however many machines i want it on) I'd have no problem buying extra licences, say buy the first OS at their $150 bucks, and then maybe $20 per additional licence, but i'm not paying $150 for each machine, heck thats more than i paid for some of the machines.
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I've actually found WinXP to be slightly less stable than 2K and noticeably (but not significantly) slower in performance. However, I attribute this to running it on an older machine (P3 500).
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
[b]I've actually found WinXP to be slightly less stable than 2K and noticeably (but not significantly) slower in performance. However, I attribute this to running it on an older machine (P3 500).
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, the one big drawback to Xp is that it is a resource pig, I'm running it on the same k6/2-300 that was running win2k on, so far its been slower, but more stable. But that machine is basically a fileserver, mp3 server and part of my digital entertainment system, its my DVD player, it plays Mp3's through my stereo etc.
What, no CP/M? no VAX? no Xenix? what about BeOS? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
NT and 98 before 2k? I find that odd.
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
NT 4 is horrid.
95 is horrid
98 SE is not bad
ME is the most horridest.
XP, IMHO, is very good. Although you do need around a 800 with 256 ram to really get it running well.
Activation doesn't really bother me. Heck, I give out more info about myself to get on forums (or signing up for a beta test) than MS is getting from my computer.
I've used Linux, and it IS a really nice OS, for what it's good for. Which is mostly servers and hobbiests. Sure, it's a (mostly) stable development platform (I did manage to crash it)..that is, until I want to show my program to a windows using friend on their computer.
Unfortunatly, I could never use it as my primary OS, I am too much of a multimedia and gaming nut. That and every part of the OS wasn't made by all of these seperate people. Just keeping an install of linux up to date is a huge, time consuming task.
The only thing so far that has given me any trouble (BSOD) in XP is a memory chip going bad...which would have had the same result in any OS.
Linux is definatly a good OS. It just isn't for everyone. It has a lot of great features, and it's free. But, it's also not the easiest thing on the planet to get configured right, and reconfiguring some parts of it are difficult at best. I really want to install it again on some computer or another and mess with it more..but school work (which all has to be done in office, and don't even get me started on the "office replacments" for linux....those don't hold a candle to the real thing, esp when a lot of this stuff is done in excel) is taking most of my time at present.
[quote]Originally posted by Keyan:
[b]XP, IMHO, is very good. Although you do need around a 800 with 256 ram to really get it running well.
[/b][/quote]
I've got Xp running perfectly well on an AMD K62/300 with 340 megs of ram, and on an Athlon 700 with 64 megs of ram.
Its not as snappy as it is on my Athlon 850 with 512 megs, but its certainly usable
[quote][b]Most Linux/Unix machines are used as servers, More and more people are starting to use them as workstations, but the vast majority are still server machines.[/b][/quote]
That's probably true.
[quote][b]And no, I never said i don't use Windows, My current primary machine is Windows XP, i've got machines running WindowsXP, WindowsMe, Windows95, MacOS9, FreeBSD 4.5, Redhat Linux, Cobalt Linux, and even one Running Windows 3.11/Dos 6.22.
I actually just got another 486 today thats prolly going to become another unix/linux box (that is if it works, i found it on the street)[/b][/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up, I got the impression that you were not using Windows nearly at all.
[quote][b]Thats actually an almost totally false statment, Because for a Unix server environment, even if you are running a GUI, all the setup for the server componets is still text conf based, wether you edit your httpd.conf in a gui or via commandline, its still a text based process, Unless you use a 3rd party utility like webmin, which doesn't depend on the GUI anyway"[/b][/quote]
I don't have any personal experience of IIS, but I've read that its setup has a wizard which tells you what to do and that it's much faster and easier to install and configure than Apache. Why couldn't there be similar setup for Apache and also for Unix/Linux environment?
I have no knowledge of any 3rd party software like that Webmin, so no comments about that.
[quote][b]Its a lot different with Unix, with a windows server, the webserver and ftp server etc are basically a part of the OS itself, So you can't really seperate how much system resources the OS Vs the Servers are using, since you can't run them without the GUI.[/b][/quote]
Windows server? M$'s own servers may be a part of the OS, but Apache and others are definitely not. They just run on top of the OS and you can see how much each separate process takes resources from a Task Manager.
[quote][b]With Unix, The system resources for the GUI would be available to the Daemons if you were not running the GUI, I'm sure i've made this point about as clear as a muddy pond.[/b][/quote]
That's true.
[quote][b]Its actually the particular distro of Linux, Cobalt linux is a piece of shi.. Umm a Fuc.... Umm, its junk. That was the point in comparing it to WinMe, My WinMe box here at home is actually more stable than that machine.
Then why didn't you say that you meant Cobalt Linux? You were just talking about Linux. I don't know anything about Cobalt myself so that may be true, but I still find it quite hard to believe though.
[quote][b]What do you mean "its been developed more" Linux was designed as a free version of Unix when you still had to pay for Berkeley Unix or AT&T unix, Unix is the more developed operating system in fact. even tho recently linux has made its way into some corperate machines, the Vast majority of companys still use Unix based machines, wether it be a BSD based professional unix (BSDi) or Solaris.[/b][/quote]
Exactly, Linux is [b]free[/b] and that's my main argument. Of course I can't say which [b]really[/b] is more developed or used, because I don't have any factual numbers, but I don't think any of us here have either.
But I find it hard to believe that any product which costs money would be more developed than a similar as well known free product. M$ Windows could be an exception though, because it's so common due to it's position on the markets and easy usage compared to e.g. Unix/Linux.
And to correct, Linux was not designed to be a free version of Unix, it was designed to "fix" many things Unix lacked, or had poorly done. That was why Torvalds started to develope it in the first place. It's true though, that one of his motivations was a free OS too.
[quote][b]I hope i've managed to clear up a few points, but since i suck at explaining things, i doubt i have [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
I got to admit that I suck at that too. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
- PJH
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[quote]Originally posted by PJH:
[b]I don't have any personal experience of IIS, but I've read that its setup has a wizard which tells you what to do and that it's much faster and easier to install and configure than Apache.[/b][/quote]
And which one is more secure? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[quote]Originally posted by PJH:
[b] I got to admit that I suck at that too. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
- PJH[/b][/quote]
Aparently you are missing the point, UNIX is an older more developed platform. How can you say that its not as developed because its not free. statements, Have you not heard of FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or NetBSD, Or Darwin? all are UNIX, all are Free. all are based on the same Kernel as the pay os's and have been around much longer than linux.
Remember, Unix came before Linux. Linux at its basest level is just a unix clone.
(which came first, the unix or the egg?)
"Windows server? M$'s own servers may be a part of the OS, but Apache and others are definitely not. They just run on top of the OS and you can see how much each separate process takes resources from a Task Manager."
I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here.
"I don't have any personal experience of IIS, but I've read that its setup has a wizard which tells you what to do and that it's much faster and easier to install and configure than Apache. Why couldn't there be similar setup for Apache and also for Unix/Linux environment?"
Because thats not how apache works. And IIS itself is easy to install, but not so easy to configure.
And as for your comment that linux wasn't designed to be a free clone of unix
Look up Linux in the dictionary.
Lin·ux Pronunciation Key (lnuks)
A trademark for an open-source version of the UNIX operating system.
And as someone did say, apache/unix is MUCH more secure than IIS, IIS is exploited all the time. a well secured apache install is much harder to screw with.
[quote]Originally posted by Entil'Zha:
[b] Aparently you are missing the point, UNIX is an older more developed platform.[/b][/quote]
No, it's older, but not necessarily more developed.
Which came before is actually irrelevant for being an argument which is more developed, except that usually older software is no longer developed after new versions take their place, which are usually better and more advanced. Longer existed does not mean most developed.
I base my knowledge to what I've read and heard, that Linux would be nowadays much more popular and that Unix is fading away and making more room for Linux every day. Prove me wrong. Maybe there's somewhere some figures?
[quote][b]How can you say that its not as developed because its not free.[/b][/quote]
Because usually people choose free over not free when chosen between two (or more) similar kind of products, especially if the free one is newer and told to be improved over the older one, thus making the free one more tempting and interesting, thus making the free one more popular, thus making the free one more used, thus making the free one more developed. Simple as that.
[quote][b]statements, Have you not heard of FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or NetBSD, Or Darwin? all are UNIX, all are Free. all are based on the same Kernel as the pay os's and have been around much longer than linux.[/b][/quote]
I didn't know what those were until just recently. So no, I hadn't heard about them before that, but I have heard about Linux a long long time ago already and I'm pretty damn sure that Linux is much more widely known than any free Unix. Every computer user and many who don't use knows what Linux is, or at least has heard about it.
All are free? Ok then when exactly did they become free? As stated Unix wasn't available for free at the time when Linux was created, so Linux has been free for a longer period of time. Linux has existed and been publicly available already over a decade (Torvalds did continue developing it all the way to 1994 though) and that's a long time to develope software and free software is pretty damn surely developed much more rapidly than a non-free similar counterpart, which I have already let known.
When Linux became free a lots of people who had used Unix switched to Linux, or started to use both, [b]because it was free and improved over Unix[/b] and many just out of curiosity to find out what it's like and then got hooked. Linux achieved quite a big popularity pretty fast, which boosted it's development greatly.
[quote][b]Remember, Unix came before Linux. Linux at its basest level is just a unix clone.[/b][/quote]
Linux is an [b]improved[/b] version of Unix. Torvalds coded a whole new Kernel for Linux, which was [b]based on Unix[/b] and made [b]lots[/b] of improvements compared to the Unix Kernel. Perhaps Unix has catched up since then, as you seem to be stating, but I don't see any evidence here.
Besides, aren't FreeBSD and those others you mentioned also [b]only Unix clones[/b] and probably even more so as you were saying earlier that they are more "true Unix systems"?
[quote][b]I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here.[/b][/quote]
>My< point? I was just replying to your statement about separating how much system resources of the OS and the server uses. I don't actually quite understand the point what >you< were trying to make with that statement in regards to what we've been discussing about so far.
[quote][b]Because thats not how apache works. And IIS itself is easy to install, but not so easy to configure.[/b][/quote]
Well, as I said I've read that it's a whole lot easier to configure as well. Maybe the person who wrote that was wrong, but then why did he say that?
Yeah, sure Apache probably works in a different way (whatever that actually means??), but that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have easier setup process. At least you have not given any real arguments why, except that "because that's not how Apache works", or that "it's still text based editing". Care to explain [b]why[/b] it couldn't be turned into an easier "Windows" like process with step-by-step guidance? I have explained some of my ideas how it could be made easier.
I have installed Apache only 3 times myself, once on a Red Hat Linux machine and twice on a Windows 2000 Professional machine and based on what I remember I know that the configuring process could indeed be made easier by turning it into a Windows/Windows-like interface and made easier and even faster with well done step-by-step guidance implemented. That's why Windows' wizards were made and there's still info those wizards require you to type in of course, because it simply can't know all the required info, but it's a whole lot of easier than what it would be without them.
Or maybe Apache's setup process was so easy that it can't be any easier? Well, it definitely wasn't. I remember asking help from a friend because I couldn't get the job done by myself and I'm not a newbie with computers and their software.
[quote][b]And as for your comment that linux wasn't designed to be a free clone of unix
Look up Linux in the dictionary.
Lin·ux Pronunciation Key (lnuks)
A trademark for an open-source version of the UNIX operating system.
[quote][b]And as someone did say, apache/unix is MUCH more secure than IIS, IIS is exploited all the time. a well secured apache install is much harder to screw with.[/b][/quote]
I know that it's more secure than IIS, but what this has got to do with anything and why was this even brought up here???
IIS can be secure, after a lot of extra work. This is the fault of Microsoft more than anything.
Unix has been a developed OS for some time, and is quite secure out the gate by default. The numerous flavors of it that have been developed over the years have given it that.
Linux is a way for the average Joe to use his machine without having to go into debt to do it. There are down sides though, as in support is not guaranteed, or necessarily provided. You are at the mercy of those around you or yourself to fix something.
A little more hands on... I really like the simplistic approach to security though...
" base my knowledge to what I've read and heard, that Linux would be nowadays much more popular and that Unix is fading away and making more room for Linux every day. Prove me wrong. Maybe there's somewhere some figures?"
Absolutly untrue, Unix is still prefered by most corperations, and universities, I'll look for some data on that later when i'm not feelin lazy, Most Linux users are still home users, while IBM and Dell do ship some high end servers running Linux now, most serious servers are still BSDi and Solaris.
" but I have heard about Linux a long long time ago already and I'm pretty damn sure that Linux is much more widely known than any free Unix. Every computer user and many who don't use knows what Linux is, or at least has heard about it."
That just proves that they may not be as educated in computers as they thought they were, as anyone who is serious about *nix operating systems knows what Unix is.
"Besides, aren't FreeBSD and those others you mentioned also only Unix clones and probably even more so as you were saying earlier that they are more "true Unix systems"?"
No, Linux is the Unix clone, BSD is Unix. BSD = Berkely Systems Design Unix
You really sound like someone who's just buying into hype about linux, without actually learning anything about it or unix.
I'm really done on this discussion, I have no wish to debate it further.
Oh and one more thing, as far as Ease of Use, or how many people use it, Remember that anyone running MacOS X is running BSD Unix [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
..And so it Begins
[url="http://www.firefoot.com"]http://www.firefoot.com[/url]
[This message has been edited by Entil'Zha (edited 10-08-2002).]
Comments
[b]I don't quite understand your point Entil'Zha. Why do you want to keep doing everything hard way by writing commands in the command line instead of using easy, convenient and nice looking environment where you can do the same much more easily and faster by using a mouse in addition of a keyboard??? I can understand that if you want to have the know-how of the command line usage because of work or whatever other reason, but still why would you use only the command line for all the everyday tasks and such?
Linux unstable??? How in the earth have you been running it??? Linux is famous of being stable! That's one of the biggest reasons why it's widely used in servers in the first place, security issues being an other. That's the first time ever I've heard anyone saying that Linux is unstable.
- PJH[/b][/quote]
Because you have no need of the GUI on a server, since most of the configuration for server tasks is not GUI based anyway, there would be absolutly no point.
We're not talking about a Windows NT server, where everything is built on a GUI, With linux/Unix, the GUI is a totally seperate entity, and is frankly not needed, For example, I do have X Windows on my FreeBSD machine for the very few times that i need to run opera or Mozilla on it. When i run the GUI, it uses up about 70% of the Machine's resources, why on earth would you want to give 70% of your processing and memory over to the GUI instead of having those resources available for your webserver and mailserver etc.
As for unstable, Linux can be just as unstable as any other OS. Our linux box at work is one of the most unstable machines that i've ever worked on. Heck, my WinME box was more stable than that machine. But all the BSD boxes i've ever worked on have been perfectly stable.
Again, its personal preferance.
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
[b]so you have only worked/used one linux box? Thats like saying that science fiction is dumb only because you wached one ST:V ep. Linux also doens't need a gui. I have done plenty of stuff on linux on the command line. (it was on my Dads computer and the version of linux I had didn't support his graphics card)[/b][/quote]
Umm when did i say i've worked with or used only one, i've been a unix administrator for 15 years.
and again, its personal preferance with Unix/Linux. I have just happened to have much better luck with Straight Unix (FreeBSD, BSDi and Solaris) than with Linux (slackware, Redhat and Cobalt)
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
X-Windows is good if you are physically at the same location of the server. Otherwise, it is pointless.
------------------
Chase
Web Hosting Provider for FirstOnes.com
http://www.radiusco.com/
[b]Hey, if my company was able to setup our new server completely from command line (and some of it remotely) then you don't really need X-Windows. =)
X-Windows is good if you are physically at the same location of the server. Otherwise, it is pointless.
[/b][/quote]
Exactly, I tend to use it like i said, when my windows box is otherwise in use and i need a web browser (not lynx)
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
*Remembers tha last ill-fated one where some idjit posted some pr0n.... the worst thing being that the thread was deleted when the pic was *JUST* above nipple-level [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] *
This wasn't about Linix... so sue me...
[b]I swear this board needs another Babe-pic thread....
*Remembers tha last ill-fated one where some idjit posted some pr0n.... the worst thing being that the thread was deleted when the pic was *JUST* above nipple-level [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] *
This wasn't about Linix... so sue me...[/b][/quote]
I could prolly find more pics of the chick in the FreeBSD suit....
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
[b] I could prolly find more pics of the chick in the FreeBSD suit....
[/b][/quote]
Sounds good. Chick pics are good (hey that rhymes...)
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I know what the following entries are:
[b]-[/b]rwxrwxrwx (standard issue file)
[b]d[/b]rwxrwxrwx (standard issue directory)
[b]c[/b]rwxrwxrwx (device file)
[b]l[/b]rwxrwxrwx (link/symbolic link file)
-rw[b]s[/b]rwxrwx (SUID bit set file)
-rwxrw[b]s[/b]rwx (SGID bit set file)
-rwxrwxrw[b]s[/b] (should never see this one!) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
-rwxrwxrw[b]t[/b] (Sticky bit set file)
What are the following? (If anyone knows... I'm really curious)
[b]b[/b]rwxrwxrwx (b?)
[b]p[/b]rwxrwxrwx (p?)
[b]s[/b]rwxrwxrwx (s?)
I have examples of all except for
-rwxrwxrw[b]s[/b] right after a fresh install of Mandrake 8.2 in my file system.
Thanks in advance...
[b] Because you have no need of the GUI on a server, since most of the configuration for server tasks is not GUI based anyway, there would be absolutly no point.[/b][/quote]
No need of GUI for the server? There was no talk about only servers anywhere above, or at least I didn't notice that. Weren't you saying that you don't use Windows nearly at all? At least that's what I understood.
Anyway, I agree that running a server on a M$ WINDOWS, X-WINDOWS, or such similar kind of OS would not necessarily be a good idea, because like you stated it takes valuable resources of the computer, which could be used for other tasks.
However, I think that even for a server use there would be use for a [b]Windows like interface[/b], which would make it all that much easier and more simple for common users to work with servers. I'd appreciate one myself.
[quote][b]We're not talking about a Windows NT server, where everything is built on a GUI, With linux/Unix, the GUI is a totally seperate entity, and is frankly not needed, For example, I do have X Windows on my FreeBSD machine for the very few times that i need to run opera or Mozilla on it. When i run the GUI, it uses up about 70% of the Machine's resources, why on earth would you want to give 70% of your processing and memory over to the GUI instead of having those resources available for your webserver and mailserver etc.[/b][/quote]
I don't know about X-Windows, but at least M$ Windows 2000 takes only a fraction of CPU time. It does take quite a bit of memory though, but nowadays memory is so cheap that it isn't really an issue. Besides, the percentage of resources the OS uses depends of how much do you have resources in your machine in the first place, of course. But as I was saying above, it would be a good idea indeed to not run a server on a Windows based OS's, because it does take some of those resources indeed.
[quote][b]As for unstable, Linux can be just as unstable as any other OS. Our linux box at work is one of the most unstable machines that i've ever worked on. Heck, my WinME box was more stable than that machine. But all the BSD boxes i've ever worked on have been perfectly stable.[/b][/quote]
WinME more stable? Excuse me my language, but that's a load of bull, or then you have some serious hardware issues in that machine, OR you don't know how to use it properly. Linux is far far FAR more stable than Win ME could ever be. Pretty much anything is more stable than WinME. Perhaps even worse OS's being only Win 95 and 98.
[quote][b]Again, its personal preferance.[/b][/quote]
I agree, but which one is actually better overall is a whole different issue and can be usually find out based on simple facts. I don't know which one would be better, because I don't have that much experience of them, but if I had to choose between Unix and Linux I'd choose Linux, because as far as I know it's been developed much more than Unix.
- PJH
[b]WinME more stable? Excuse me my language, but that's a load of bull, or then you have some serious hardware issues in that machine, OR you don't know how to use it properly. Linux is far far FAR more stable than Win ME could ever be. Pretty much anything is more stable than WinME. Perhaps even worse OS's being only Win 95 and 98.
[/b][/quote]
No no no no no no no... Win ME [b][i]IS[/i][/b] the worst OS ever created...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
I'm running Win2k and frankly that IS one of the best MS OS's...compared to ME, it is stable [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Most Linux/Unix machines are used as servers, More and more people are starting to use them as workstations, but the vast majority are still server machines.
And no, I never said i don't use Windows, My current primary machine is Windows XP, i've got machines running WindowsXP, WindowsMe, Windows95, MacOS9, FreeBSD 4.5, Redhat Linux, Cobalt Linux, and even one Running Windows 3.11/Dos 6.22.
I actually just got another 486 today thats prolly going to become another unix/linux box (that is if it works, i found it on the street)
"However, I think that even for a server use there would be use for a Windows like interface, which would make it all that much easier and more simple for common users to work with servers. I'd appreciate one myself."
Thats actually an almost totally false statment, Because for a Unix server environment, even if you are running a GUI, all the setup for the server componets is still text conf based, wether you edit your httpd.conf in a gui or via commandline, its still a text based process, Unless you use a 3rd party utility like webmin, which doesn't depend on the GUI anyway"
"I don't know about X-Windows, but at least M$ Windows 2000 takes only a fraction of CPU time. It does take quite a bit of memory though, but nowadays memory is so cheap that it isn't really an issue. Besides, the percentage of resources the OS uses depends of how much do you have resources in your machine in the first place, of course. But as I was saying above, it would be a good idea indeed to not run a server on a Windows based OS's, because it does take some of those resources indeed."
Its a lot different with Unix, with a windows server, the webserver and ftp server etc are basically a part of the OS itself, So you can't really seperate how much system resources the OS Vs the Servers are using, since you can't run them without the GUI.
With Unix, The system resources for the GUI would be available to the Daemons if you were not running the GUI, I'm sure i've made this point about as clear as a muddy pond.
WinME more stable? Excuse me my language, but that's a load of bull, or then you have some serious hardware issues in that machine, OR you don't know how to use it properly. Linux is far far FAR more stable than Win ME could ever be. Pretty much anything is more stable than WinME. Perhaps even worse OS's being only Win 95 and 98.
Its actually the particular distro of Linux, Cobalt linux is a piece of shi.. Umm a Fuc.... Umm, its junk. That was the point in comparing it to WinMe, My WinMe box here at home is actually more stable than that machine.
"I agree, but which one is actually better overall is a whole different issue and can be usually find out based on simple facts. I don't know which one would be better, because I don't have that much experience of them, but if I had to choose between Unix and Linux I'd choose Linux, because as far as I know it's been developed much more than Unix."
What do you mean "its been developed more" Linux was designed as a free version of Unix when you still had to pay for Berkeley Unix or AT&T unix, Unix is the more developed operating system in fact. even tho recently linux has made its way into some corperate machines, the Vast majority of companys still use Unix based machines, wether it be a BSD based professional unix (BSDi) or Solaris.
I hope i've managed to clear up a few points, but since i suck at explaining things, i doubt i have [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
[b]
I'm running Win2k and frankly that IS one of the best MS OS's...compared to ME, it is stable [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
The sad thing is, In my experience WindowsXP blows 2k out of the water in terms of stability, But i hate the having to activate and register it. I know it violates site licences, but i've got 9 machines, and in the past i would just buy one copy of Windows and install it on whichever machines need it. But with Xp if i want to do that, i need to buy 9 copies (or however many machines i want it on) I'd have no problem buying extra licences, say buy the first OS at their $150 bucks, and then maybe $20 per additional licence, but i'm not paying $150 for each machine, heck thats more than i paid for some of the machines.
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[b]I've actually found WinXP to be slightly less stable than 2K and noticeably (but not significantly) slower in performance. However, I attribute this to running it on an older machine (P3 500).
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, the one big drawback to Xp is that it is a resource pig, I'm running it on the same k6/2-300 that was running win2k on, so far its been slower, but more stable. But that machine is basically a fileserver, mp3 server and part of my digital entertainment system, its my DVD player, it plays Mp3's through my stereo etc.
Xp runs very sweetly on my Athlon 850.
Linux
Windows NT 4
Windows 98
Windows 2000
In that order...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[b]Favorite OS's :
Linux
Windows NT 4
Windows 98
Windows 2000
In that order...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
What, no CP/M? no VAX? no Xenix? what about BeOS? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
95 is horrid
98 SE is not bad
ME is the most horridest.
XP, IMHO, is very good. Although you do need around a 800 with 256 ram to really get it running well.
Activation doesn't really bother me. Heck, I give out more info about myself to get on forums (or signing up for a beta test) than MS is getting from my computer.
I've used Linux, and it IS a really nice OS, for what it's good for. Which is mostly servers and hobbiests. Sure, it's a (mostly) stable development platform (I did manage to crash it)..that is, until I want to show my program to a windows using friend on their computer.
Unfortunatly, I could never use it as my primary OS, I am too much of a multimedia and gaming nut. That and every part of the OS wasn't made by all of these seperate people. Just keeping an install of linux up to date is a huge, time consuming task.
The only thing so far that has given me any trouble (BSOD) in XP is a memory chip going bad...which would have had the same result in any OS.
Linux is definatly a good OS. It just isn't for everyone. It has a lot of great features, and it's free. But, it's also not the easiest thing on the planet to get configured right, and reconfiguring some parts of it are difficult at best. I really want to install it again on some computer or another and mess with it more..but school work (which all has to be done in office, and don't even get me started on the "office replacments" for linux....those don't hold a candle to the real thing, esp when a lot of this stuff is done in excel) is taking most of my time at present.
[b]XP, IMHO, is very good. Although you do need around a 800 with 256 ram to really get it running well.
[/b][/quote]
I've got Xp running perfectly well on an AMD K62/300 with 340 megs of ram, and on an Athlon 700 with 64 megs of ram.
Its not as snappy as it is on my Athlon 850 with 512 megs, but its certainly usable
That's probably true.
[quote][b]And no, I never said i don't use Windows, My current primary machine is Windows XP, i've got machines running WindowsXP, WindowsMe, Windows95, MacOS9, FreeBSD 4.5, Redhat Linux, Cobalt Linux, and even one Running Windows 3.11/Dos 6.22.
I actually just got another 486 today thats prolly going to become another unix/linux box (that is if it works, i found it on the street)[/b][/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up, I got the impression that you were not using Windows nearly at all.
[quote][b]Thats actually an almost totally false statment, Because for a Unix server environment, even if you are running a GUI, all the setup for the server componets is still text conf based, wether you edit your httpd.conf in a gui or via commandline, its still a text based process, Unless you use a 3rd party utility like webmin, which doesn't depend on the GUI anyway"[/b][/quote]
I don't have any personal experience of IIS, but I've read that its setup has a wizard which tells you what to do and that it's much faster and easier to install and configure than Apache. Why couldn't there be similar setup for Apache and also for Unix/Linux environment?
I have no knowledge of any 3rd party software like that Webmin, so no comments about that.
[quote][b]Its a lot different with Unix, with a windows server, the webserver and ftp server etc are basically a part of the OS itself, So you can't really seperate how much system resources the OS Vs the Servers are using, since you can't run them without the GUI.[/b][/quote]
Windows server? M$'s own servers may be a part of the OS, but Apache and others are definitely not. They just run on top of the OS and you can see how much each separate process takes resources from a Task Manager.
[quote][b]With Unix, The system resources for the GUI would be available to the Daemons if you were not running the GUI, I'm sure i've made this point about as clear as a muddy pond.[/b][/quote]
That's true.
[quote][b]Its actually the particular distro of Linux, Cobalt linux is a piece of shi.. Umm a Fuc.... Umm, its junk. That was the point in comparing it to WinMe, My WinMe box here at home is actually more stable than that machine.
Then why didn't you say that you meant Cobalt Linux? You were just talking about Linux. I don't know anything about Cobalt myself so that may be true, but I still find it quite hard to believe though.
[quote][b]What do you mean "its been developed more" Linux was designed as a free version of Unix when you still had to pay for Berkeley Unix or AT&T unix, Unix is the more developed operating system in fact. even tho recently linux has made its way into some corperate machines, the Vast majority of companys still use Unix based machines, wether it be a BSD based professional unix (BSDi) or Solaris.[/b][/quote]
Exactly, Linux is [b]free[/b] and that's my main argument. Of course I can't say which [b]really[/b] is more developed or used, because I don't have any factual numbers, but I don't think any of us here have either.
But I find it hard to believe that any product which costs money would be more developed than a similar as well known free product. M$ Windows could be an exception though, because it's so common due to it's position on the markets and easy usage compared to e.g. Unix/Linux.
And to correct, Linux was not designed to be a free version of Unix, it was designed to "fix" many things Unix lacked, or had poorly done. That was why Torvalds started to develope it in the first place. It's true though, that one of his motivations was a free OS too.
[quote][b]I hope i've managed to clear up a few points, but since i suck at explaining things, i doubt i have [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
I got to admit that I suck at that too. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
- PJH
[b]I don't have any personal experience of IIS, but I've read that its setup has a wizard which tells you what to do and that it's much faster and easier to install and configure than Apache.[/b][/quote]
And which one is more secure? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[b] And which one is more secure? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
So?
What has easy, fast and guided setup got to do with that? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
- PJH
[b] I got to admit that I suck at that too. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
- PJH[/b][/quote]
Aparently you are missing the point, UNIX is an older more developed platform. How can you say that its not as developed because its not free. statements, Have you not heard of FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or NetBSD, Or Darwin? all are UNIX, all are Free. all are based on the same Kernel as the pay os's and have been around much longer than linux.
Remember, Unix came before Linux. Linux at its basest level is just a unix clone.
(which came first, the unix or the egg?)
"Windows server? M$'s own servers may be a part of the OS, but Apache and others are definitely not. They just run on top of the OS and you can see how much each separate process takes resources from a Task Manager."
I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here.
"I don't have any personal experience of IIS, but I've read that its setup has a wizard which tells you what to do and that it's much faster and easier to install and configure than Apache. Why couldn't there be similar setup for Apache and also for Unix/Linux environment?"
Because thats not how apache works. And IIS itself is easy to install, but not so easy to configure.
And as for your comment that linux wasn't designed to be a free clone of unix
Look up Linux in the dictionary.
Lin·ux Pronunciation Key (lnuks)
A trademark for an open-source version of the UNIX operating system.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
linux
an entire clone of Unix for 386, 486 and Pentium
Source: Jargon File 4.2.0
And as someone did say, apache/unix is MUCH more secure than IIS, IIS is exploited all the time. a well secured apache install is much harder to screw with.
------------------
..And so it Begins
http://www.firefoot.com
[b] Aparently you are missing the point, UNIX is an older more developed platform.[/b][/quote]
No, it's older, but not necessarily more developed.
Which came before is actually irrelevant for being an argument which is more developed, except that usually older software is no longer developed after new versions take their place, which are usually better and more advanced. Longer existed does not mean most developed.
I base my knowledge to what I've read and heard, that Linux would be nowadays much more popular and that Unix is fading away and making more room for Linux every day. Prove me wrong. Maybe there's somewhere some figures?
[quote][b]How can you say that its not as developed because its not free.[/b][/quote]
Because usually people choose free over not free when chosen between two (or more) similar kind of products, especially if the free one is newer and told to be improved over the older one, thus making the free one more tempting and interesting, thus making the free one more popular, thus making the free one more used, thus making the free one more developed. Simple as that.
[quote][b]statements, Have you not heard of FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or NetBSD, Or Darwin? all are UNIX, all are Free. all are based on the same Kernel as the pay os's and have been around much longer than linux.[/b][/quote]
I didn't know what those were until just recently. So no, I hadn't heard about them before that, but I have heard about Linux a long long time ago already and I'm pretty damn sure that Linux is much more widely known than any free Unix. Every computer user and many who don't use knows what Linux is, or at least has heard about it.
All are free? Ok then when exactly did they become free? As stated Unix wasn't available for free at the time when Linux was created, so Linux has been free for a longer period of time. Linux has existed and been publicly available already over a decade (Torvalds did continue developing it all the way to 1994 though) and that's a long time to develope software and free software is pretty damn surely developed much more rapidly than a non-free similar counterpart, which I have already let known.
When Linux became free a lots of people who had used Unix switched to Linux, or started to use both, [b]because it was free and improved over Unix[/b] and many just out of curiosity to find out what it's like and then got hooked. Linux achieved quite a big popularity pretty fast, which boosted it's development greatly.
[quote][b]Remember, Unix came before Linux. Linux at its basest level is just a unix clone.[/b][/quote]
Linux is an [b]improved[/b] version of Unix. Torvalds coded a whole new Kernel for Linux, which was [b]based on Unix[/b] and made [b]lots[/b] of improvements compared to the Unix Kernel. Perhaps Unix has catched up since then, as you seem to be stating, but I don't see any evidence here.
Besides, aren't FreeBSD and those others you mentioned also [b]only Unix clones[/b] and probably even more so as you were saying earlier that they are more "true Unix systems"?
[quote][b]I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here.[/b][/quote]
>My< point? I was just replying to your statement about separating how much system resources of the OS and the server uses. I don't actually quite understand the point what >you< were trying to make with that statement in regards to what we've been discussing about so far.
[quote][b]Because thats not how apache works. And IIS itself is easy to install, but not so easy to configure.[/b][/quote]
Well, as I said I've read that it's a whole lot easier to configure as well. Maybe the person who wrote that was wrong, but then why did he say that?
Yeah, sure Apache probably works in a different way (whatever that actually means??), but that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have easier setup process. At least you have not given any real arguments why, except that "because that's not how Apache works", or that "it's still text based editing". Care to explain [b]why[/b] it couldn't be turned into an easier "Windows" like process with step-by-step guidance? I have explained some of my ideas how it could be made easier.
I have installed Apache only 3 times myself, once on a Red Hat Linux machine and twice on a Windows 2000 Professional machine and based on what I remember I know that the configuring process could indeed be made easier by turning it into a Windows/Windows-like interface and made easier and even faster with well done step-by-step guidance implemented. That's why Windows' wizards were made and there's still info those wizards require you to type in of course, because it simply can't know all the required info, but it's a whole lot of easier than what it would be without them.
Or maybe Apache's setup process was so easy that it can't be any easier? Well, it definitely wasn't. I remember asking help from a friend because I couldn't get the job done by myself and I'm not a newbie with computers and their software.
[quote][b]And as for your comment that linux wasn't designed to be a free clone of unix
Look up Linux in the dictionary.
Lin·ux Pronunciation Key (lnuks)
A trademark for an open-source version of the UNIX operating system.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
linux
an entire clone of Unix for 386, 486 and Pentium
Source: Jargon File 4.2.0[/b][/quote]
To be accurate that first one should read: "A trademark for an open-source operating system which is based on the UNIX operating system."
That second statement is entirely false.
And I said, that it wasn't the main reason to develope Linux, but was one of the motivations behind it.
Here: [url="http://www.linux.org/info/index.html"]http://www.linux.org/info/index.html[/url]
[quote][b]And as someone did say, apache/unix is MUCH more secure than IIS, IIS is exploited all the time. a well secured apache install is much harder to screw with.[/b][/quote]
I know that it's more secure than IIS, but what this has got to do with anything and why was this even brought up here???
- PJH
IIS can be secure, after a lot of extra work. This is the fault of Microsoft more than anything.
Unix has been a developed OS for some time, and is quite secure out the gate by default. The numerous flavors of it that have been developed over the years have given it that.
Linux is a way for the average Joe to use his machine without having to go into debt to do it. There are down sides though, as in support is not guaranteed, or necessarily provided. You are at the mercy of those around you or yourself to fix something.
A little more hands on... I really like the simplistic approach to security though...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Absolutly untrue, Unix is still prefered by most corperations, and universities, I'll look for some data on that later when i'm not feelin lazy, Most Linux users are still home users, while IBM and Dell do ship some high end servers running Linux now, most serious servers are still BSDi and Solaris.
" but I have heard about Linux a long long time ago already and I'm pretty damn sure that Linux is much more widely known than any free Unix. Every computer user and many who don't use knows what Linux is, or at least has heard about it."
That just proves that they may not be as educated in computers as they thought they were, as anyone who is serious about *nix operating systems knows what Unix is.
"Besides, aren't FreeBSD and those others you mentioned also only Unix clones and probably even more so as you were saying earlier that they are more "true Unix systems"?"
No, Linux is the Unix clone, BSD is Unix. BSD = Berkely Systems Design Unix
You really sound like someone who's just buying into hype about linux, without actually learning anything about it or unix.
I'm really done on this discussion, I have no wish to debate it further.
Oh and one more thing, as far as Ease of Use, or how many people use it, Remember that anyone running MacOS X is running BSD Unix [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
..And so it Begins
[url="http://www.firefoot.com"]http://www.firefoot.com[/url]
[This message has been edited by Entil'Zha (edited 10-08-2002).]
[url="http://www.internetnews.com/index.php/4681"]Linux News[/url]