Difference Between Linux and Unix

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

KahunaHube

Senior member
Aug 16, 2001
523
0
0
hello,

I'm a newbie to linux and unix, and was wondering if anyone could explain what the difference between these 2 are? I read a little about how linux is built around the same standard as unix, but it's open source. Anything else to add? Such as do they both share the same commands?

Thanks!
-Hubert
 
P

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Well, Unix is Unix, and Linux is Linux. Linux is not based, per se, on Unix, and does not have Unix code within it. Linux is a clone of Minix, which is a clone of Unix. Linux is compiling using the GNU C compiler, gcc. Linux is very good at cloning Unix. It offers similar functionality, and is usually source compatible. Linux is free, while Unix is not. Uhm, that's all I can say, but some of the more Linux knowledgable people can help.
 
B

Bremen

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
658
0
0
the difference is: linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, while Unix is the trademark of some company whose name I forget. Also being declared "unix" involves paying that company lots of money :0)
 
T

topaz22

Senior member
Dec 9, 1999
208
0
0
many of the same commands exist, but different *nix have slightly different heirarchies of startup and configuration files. there are many flavors of unix: commercial versions include: (sun)solaris/sunos, (sgi)irix, hp-ux, (ibm)aix, sco unix, heck, even microsoft made a "unix-lite" called xenix that they licensed to sco, and created xenix... i think the orignal unix was made by bell labs.

linux has different distributions associated with it, and each are slightly different because they have different goals, like security, desktop, server, etc contexts. different distributions also use different methods of package management (tar/gz, rpm, deb, etc).... i don't really think any one is better than another, its just a matter of preference. linux is open source and widely available across many platforms.

then there are the BSDs, which also come in different flavors, mainly BSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. They also have different goals. BSD, i believe, is berkley's commercial product. FreeBSD is the general free version. openbsd is the security minded version, and netbsd runs on just about anything.
 
S

Superwormy

Golden Member
Feb 7, 2001
1,637
0
0
Linux is a Unix wannabe.

Some commercial Unixs are things like Solaris, Irix, HP's Unix version wahtever that is called, etc.

BSD Unix is Berkley Systems Distribution of Unix, originally put together at Berkley College in Calif., and all the BSD's are based on that ( hence the BSD in the name... ) If you want to be able to call your product something with Unix in teh name, you need to buy a license for $$$ from whoever owns it ( Bell Labs / AT&T yes? ), otherwise you can use the source, just can't use the name Unix.


For all intensive purposes, Linux / Unix are almost always compatible and VERY similar, however Linux tends to be a little more supported / popular now for Desktop users / Techies as compared to BSDs.
 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Bremen
the difference is: linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, while Unix is the trademark of some company whose name I forget. Also being declared "unix" involves paying that company lots of money :0)
Click to expand...

Caldera/SCO who bought it from Novell, who bought it from AT&T I believe.
 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: topaz22
many of the same commands exist, but different *nix have slightly different heirarchies of startup and configuration files. there are many flavors of unix: commercial versions include: (sun)solaris/sunos, (sgi)irix, hp-ux, (ibm)aix, sco unix, heck, even microsoft made a "unix-lite" called xenix that they licensed to sco, and created xenix... i think the orignal unix was made by bell labs.
Click to expand...

Bell labs was an off shoot of AT&T, Xenix was a dog, and some versions of Solaris, HP-UX, SCO, and AIX are the only real Unixes out there (the requirement being that you have to license the name Unix).

linux has different distributions associated with it, and each are slightly different because they have different goals, like security, desktop, server, etc contexts. different distributions also use different methods of package management (tar/gz, rpm, deb, etc).... i don't really think any one is better than another, its just a matter of preference. linux is open source and widely available across many platforms.

then there are the BSDs, which also come in different flavors, mainly BSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. They also have different goals. BSD, i believe, is berkley's commercial product.
Click to expand...

Berkley does not really touch BSD as much anymore. Bill Joy (the B in Bill's Software Distribution AKA Berkley Software Distribution) helped create BSD and later moved on to help found Sun. I believe he also had a hand or two in vi, but thats speculation, I havent checked on the validity of that yet :)

FreeBSD is the general free version. openbsd is the security minded version, and netbsd runs on just about anything.
Click to expand...

They are all free, but some are free-er than others. OpenBSD regularly does extensive license audits to remove non-free bits. FreeBSD and NetBSD appear to be less stringent in their requirements.
 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Superwormy
Linux is a Unix wannabe.

Some commercial Unixs are things like Solaris, Irix, HP's Unix version wahtever that is called, etc.

BSD Unix is Berkley Systems Distribution of Unix, originally put together at Berkley College in Calif., and all the BSD's are based on that ( hence the BSD in the name... ) If you want to be able to call your product something with Unix in teh name, you need to buy a license for $$$ from whoever owns it ( Bell Labs / AT&T yes? ), otherwise you can use the source, just can't use the name Unix.
Click to expand...

Caldera/SCO owns it I believe (or opensystems or something stupid like that). I dont think you can use the source. There was a lawsuit against Berkley for exactly that reason in the 80's (I think).


For all intensive purposes, Linux / Unix are almost always compatible and VERY similar, however Linux tends to be a little more supported / popular now for Desktop users / Techies as compared to BSDs.
Click to expand...

BSDs have their places. Extensive security use by the government and various organizations is one of OpenBSD's claims to fame. :D
 
M

mattbta

Senior member
Dec 15, 2001
223
0
76
brotherson.com
I was wondering the same thing. I had to pick up C++ for my BCIS degree, and upon going to the CSCI lab at school, they said they were handing out UNIX accounts. When I logged in, "UNIX" was really debian with ICE for a window manager. I'm such a linux n00b that I wasn't able to answer the question for myself. (I have a redhat test partition and boot to knoppix every now and then) I knew there was a difference and it struck me odd that the computer science department was calling linux "unix".

Good thread.
 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
The open group supposedly certifies something a Unix.

Tru64, Solaris (7,8,9), and AIX v4R3/5.0.1 are Unix 98 ceritified. Maybe Im wrong about who owns the trademark, or maybe Caldera/SCO own the Open Group... I dont know.
 
B

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
basically there was unix itself, made by bell labs in the 70s (up through the 80's iirc), then BSD forked off that in the late 70's, many other commercial unixes came to be, which were compatible and generally worked the same as unix, eventually linux popped up, BSD got its legal issues worked out (netbsd and freebsd both forked from 4.4BSDlite (4.3 at first i think)), and now we have what he have today. HP/UX, AIX, solaris, all of those commercial unixes were written by their vendors, and they together with the open source BSD's and linux all form the category of os's referred to as unix. they work essentially the same as the original unix, the same ideas and functionality are all there, although each one makes its own changes and improvements.
 
S

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The open group supposedly certifies something a Unix.

Tru64, Solaris (7,8,9), and AIX v4R3/5.0.1 are Unix 98 ceritified. Maybe Im wrong about who owns the trademark, or maybe Caldera/SCO own the Open Group... I dont know.
Click to expand...
Something similar to the X consortium and X perhaps?
 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: Sunner
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The open group supposedly certifies something a Unix.

Tru64, Solaris (7,8,9), and AIX v4R3/5.0.1 are Unix 98 ceritified. Maybe Im wrong about who owns the trademark, or maybe Caldera/SCO own the Open Group... I dont know.
Click to expand...
Something similar to the X consortium and X perhaps?
Click to expand...

Check'em out. If you have the time to spend looking at the site trying to figure it out instead of doing something worth while like... Uhhhhh... downloading stuff, go ahead. I lost interrest :p
 
B

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I believe he also had a hand or two in vi, but thats speculation, I havent checked on the validity of that yet :)
Click to expand...

that would make him the official anti-gnu ;)

FreeBSD is the general free version. openbsd is the security minded version, and netbsd runs on just about anything.
Click to expand...

while this is true, people take it to heart a bit too much. openbsd makes a fine desktop, and netbsd makes a great webserver (just examples of course). their abilities all overlap fairly well. except portabiliity :p

They are all free, but some are free-er than others. OpenBSD regularly does extensive license audits to remove non-free bits. FreeBSD and NetBSD appear to be less stringent in their requirements.
Click to expand...

for example, ipf is considered 3rd party software in netbsd and freebsd, while openbsd got rid of it to make their own totally free equivelant.

Updates of most third party packages that are shipped in the base system to the following latest stable releases:

- amd 6.0.6
- BIND 8.3.3
- binutils 2.11.2
- bzip2 1.0.2
- cvs 1.11
- dhcp 3.0.1rc9
- file 3.38
- gcc 2.95.3
- groff 1.16.1
- Heimdal 0.4e
- IPfilter 3.4.27
- kerberos4 1.1
- ksh from pdksh 5.2.14p2
- less 374
- nvi 1.79
- OpenSSH 3.4
- OpenSSL 0.9.6g
- Postfix 1.1.11
- ppp 2.4.0
- routed 2.24
- sendmail 8.11.6
- tcpdump 3.7.1
- XFree86 4.2.0 (i386 only)

 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I believe he also had a hand or two in vi, but thats speculation, I havent checked on the validity of that yet :)
Click to expand...

that would make him the official anti-gnu ;)
Click to expand...

:D

FreeBSD is the general free version. openbsd is the security minded version, and netbsd runs on just about anything.
Click to expand...

while this is true, people take it to heart a bit too much. openbsd makes a fine desktop, and netbsd makes a great webserver (just examples of course). their abilities all overlap fairly well. except portabiliity :p
Click to expand...

Each of the systems is portable. OpenBSD has something like 9 official archs, FreeBSD has 3 or 4 now. NetBSD is the best at portabilitiy, but it does overlap there too ;)

They are all free, but some are free-er than others. OpenBSD regularly does extensive license audits to remove non-free bits. FreeBSD and NetBSD appear to be less stringent in their requirements.
Click to expand...

for example, ipf is considered 3rd party software in netbsd and freebsd, while openbsd got rid of it to make their own totally free equivelant.
Click to expand...

I can run IPF on OpenBSD too. Unfortunately, before the removal and license change of IPF, it was non-free.

Updates of most third party packages that are shipped in the base system to the following latest stable releases:

- amd 6.0.6
- BIND 8.3.3
- binutils 2.11.2
- bzip2 1.0.2
- cvs 1.11
- dhcp 3.0.1rc9
- file 3.38
- gcc 2.95.3
- groff 1.16.1
- Heimdal 0.4e
- IPfilter 3.4.27
- kerberos4 1.1
- ksh from pdksh 5.2.14p2
- less 374
- nvi 1.79
- OpenSSH 3.4
- OpenSSL 0.9.6g
- Postfix 1.1.11
- ppp 2.4.0
- routed 2.24
- sendmail 8.11.6
- tcpdump 3.7.1
- XFree86 4.2.0 (i386 only)
Click to expand...

Is this default or all of the 3rd party stuff you have installed?
 
B

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Updates of most third party packages that are shipped in the base system to the following latest stable releases:

- amd 6.0.6
- BIND 8.3.3
- binutils 2.11.2
- bzip2 1.0.2
- cvs 1.11
- dhcp 3.0.1rc9
- file 3.38
- gcc 2.95.3
- groff 1.16.1
- Heimdal 0.4e
- IPfilter 3.4.27
- kerberos4 1.1
- ksh from pdksh 5.2.14p2
- less 374
- nvi 1.79
- OpenSSH 3.4
- OpenSSL 0.9.6g
- Postfix 1.1.11
- ppp 2.4.0
- routed 2.24
- sendmail 8.11.6
- tcpdump 3.7.1
- XFree86 4.2.0 (i386 only)

Is this default or all of the 3rd party stuff you have installed?
Click to expand...

that's the default.

ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-1.6/i386/INSTALL.html#Miscellaneous
 
N

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Updates of most third party packages that are shipped in the base system to the following latest stable releases:

- amd 6.0.6
- BIND 8.3.3
- binutils 2.11.2
- bzip2 1.0.2
- cvs 1.11
- dhcp 3.0.1rc9
- file 3.38
- gcc 2.95.3
- groff 1.16.1
- Heimdal 0.4e
- IPfilter 3.4.27
- kerberos4 1.1
- ksh from pdksh 5.2.14p2
- less 374
- nvi 1.79
- OpenSSH 3.4
- OpenSSL 0.9.6g
- Postfix 1.1.11
- ppp 2.4.0
- routed 2.24
- sendmail 8.11.6
- tcpdump 3.7.1
- XFree86 4.2.0 (i386 only)

Is this default or all of the 3rd party stuff you have installed?
Click to expand...

that's the default.

ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-1.6/i386/INSTALL.html#Miscellaneous
Click to expand...

Cool. I did a quick google search for license issues fixed in OpenBSD and I only found one of the emails. I am pretty sure there are more, but I couldnt find them right away.

In the last week or so we have have dealt with these license issues:

package:

ipf no modify reed removed by deraadt
yacc/test/ftp.y no modify UCB removed by deraadt
tcpwrappers no modify wietse fixed wietse & deraadt
cron/popen.c no modify UCB alternative by millert
md5(1) no modify RSA rewritten by millert
games/hunt/list.c no modify d leonard fixed by d leonard
login_fbtab no modify wietse fixed wietse & deraadt
rpc.pcnfsd may not sell sun fixed sun & deraadt
NRL code not on file NRL/craig metz fixed cmetz & deraadt

We have a whole bunch of others to fix. I have contacted the authors
of the other packages. I am optimistic that we can get most of these
issues worked out.

The ones which have particularily large problems:

the multicast tools
pppd
ppp
tcpdump
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom