Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: Why Linux?

  1. #11
    Lifetime Member N0DIH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    467

    Default

    MacOSX is closer to real Unix (BSD derived flavor IIRC, aka Darwin), not Linux....

    Quote Originally Posted by joecar View Post
    Subscribing to new thread as I have Mac OSX (linux).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X

  2. #12
    EFILive Developer Site Admin Blacky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    9,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N0DIH View Post
    MacOSX is closer to real Unix (BSD derived flavor IIRC, aka Darwin), not Linux....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X
    Ahh UNIX - what is "real UNIX"? Many years ago I was employed to develop and port a virtual run time system and compiler (written in C) between various flavors of Unix. Nowadays UNIX is pretty ubiquitous, but back then (in the 80's) UNIX came in all shapes and sizes (both SYS-V and BSD). They were not particularly compatible at the processor/machine architecture level. And some were not even compatible at the system utilities level (i.e. lp, cron etc)

    I ported the virtual run time to these systems: XENIX, HP-UX (PA-RISC 32bit and Itanium 64bit), DG/UX, DEC OSF1 (Alpha 64bit), AIX, Solaris, UniSys Unix and a few other ones I can't remember.

    Regards
    Paul
    Before asking for help, please read this.

  3. #13
    Lifetime Member N0DIH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    467

    Default

    I always loved the term "real unix", it is pretty humorous to say the least!

    It is truly amazing how many flavors came from Unix and now Linux. I used to know HP-UX some and Solaris, and now MacOS. I passed my Unix Admin course, but honestly don't remember much! The funny thing is I passed all my scripting on my MacOS 10.3 (Panther), it was easier to use than Linux!

    I know enough simply to be dangerous....

  4. #14
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,747

    Default

    I knew Bell Labs System III... I can't remember how long ago...

  5. #15
    Lifetime Member N0DIH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    467

    Default

    I never got used to using DOS, I had learned the Unix commands first and they were first nature, DOS and I never got along....

  6. #16
    Lifetime Member swingtan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    Today, there is really only 3 major commercial Unix vendors left,
    • HP
    • IBM
    • Solaris


    While there are still a few other brands around ( like SGI, NCR MP-RAS, SCO, etc ) they really have a very minor market share and if there is any real development, it's probably aimed more toward an appliance based device.

    Generally speaking and I really mean "generally", given the limited number of commercial Unix vendors, you can break it into 2 groups...

    1. HP-UX and Solaris: Pretty much SVR4 Unix with a few propriety addins. If you can administer HP or Sun with confidence, you can do pretty good in the other OS.
    2. IBM AIX: The easiest way to describe this is that it's a mainframe with a Unix like front end. ( I'll cop it from the AIX guys but it's the easiest way to describe it ).


    The two groups have good and bad points, as you would expect. I've had pretty extensive exposure to most flavours of Unix and have seen the difference in them. AIX was the most difficult for me coming from an SVR4 background. But I can see there are great advantages in both HP-UX and AIX. Solaris on the other hand I can see slowly being replaced by a port of Linux.

    Speaking of Linux and Unix, there is a major reason people in the Unix space will differentiate between the two. Basically, due to the historical architecture of the Linux kernel, it doesn't scale as well as a commercial UNIX and doesn't seem to have the data throughput of the big UNIX boxes. I ran a few tests a coup,e of years ago, pitting a 1Ghz HP PA-RISC CPU against a 3Ghz Linux Intel CPU. While the server architecture was different, the disk subsystem was the same, an HDS USP server connected via fibre. When attempting to compress a large data block ( 5GB ) the HP server was 3 times faster than the Linux box. Don't get me started on the "Itanic" processor though...

    But, I still love Linux and my current main server at work is a quad core Linux box. It's all "horses for courses". I've also just built a Linux laptop up for my 13 yr old daughter to use. Lately, the only thing stopping me from ditching Windows all together is EFILive.......

    Simon.

  7. #17
    Lifetime Member N0DIH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    467

    Default

    I have my HP-UX 11 install CD's somewhere.... Had a HP J210 (3 of them) dual processor and stacked with ram was going to install it on, but never got around to it, I just ditched them, talk about HEAVY machines! My last box was a Sun Ultra 60, dual 450 MHz ultraSparc processors, 2GB ram, SCSI160, man was it nice!

    Yup, I hear you on that, would rather be on MacOS or Linux myself, but my wife likes her stuff that works better in IE7 and won't work right at all anywhere else, so I gave in.... But the kids all miss Linux... I had games galore and cool ones too....

  8. #18
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N0DIH View Post
    MacOSX is closer to real Unix (BSD derived flavor IIRC, aka Darwin), not Linux....



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X
    Ah, I see.

  9. #19
    Lifetime Member Chevy366's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,603

    Default

    Kernel 2.6.xx.xx has FTDI drivers in the Kernel , and HAL sees the V2 and apparently loads the correct drive for the FTDI chip .
    FTDI says since Kernel 2.4.xx.xx the drivers have been include in the kernel here : http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm
    http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page
    if you just have to have IE .
    Minix is the best , Solaris 11 is still KDE (oops looks as if it can run Gnome also) on top of UNIX , or at least openSolaris : http://opensolaris.org/os/ it is ok .
    Last edited by Chevy366; December 18th, 2008 at 02:40 PM.
    2005 1500 HD , Custom OS3 SD tune .
    2006 Trailblazer
    Dinosaurs and Plants gave their lives so that we may drive , long live fossil fuel .

  10. #20
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N0DIH View Post
    MacOSX is closer to real Unix (BSD derived flavor IIRC, aka Darwin), not Linux....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X
    Looking at some of those chronology trees, I can say I have also used TSS7 "System 7".

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Any Linux Developers?
    By Blacky in forum EFILive on Linux
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: April 11th, 2016, 04:53 AM
  2. EFI live in Ubuntu/linux
    By CC&M in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 11th, 2009, 05:47 AM
  3. EFILive on Linux
    By Chevy366 in forum EFILive on Linux
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: May 8th, 2009, 12:58 PM
  4. EFILive on Linux
    By Chevy366 in forum Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 16th, 2008, 09:46 PM
  5. Linux Version
    By Chevy366 in forum Lounge
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: September 30th, 2008, 08:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •