Download Unix ????

[softwebdev]

hello all,

i would like to learn more about Unix. There is no better way to learn it except installing and configuring Unix by myself. If anybody knows where and how I can download or obtain a copy of Unix LEGALLY, please let me know.

thank you very much.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

netbsd.org
openbsd.org
freebsd.org
debian.org
gentoo.org
redhat.com
mandrake.com
suse.com
sun.com

 

[pitupepito2000]

linuxiso.org

 

[Goosemaster]

Here is my recommendation:

Install Redhat....run it for a few days....

Delete it....

Install mandrake....run it for a few days....



Delete it....


Now comes the hard part...


Now that you know what linux handles like..menuwise...get int othe nitty gritty


1. Slackware...good stuff/modeately medium

2. Debian....you're getting deep into..."apt", the package manager is the best there is

3. Gentoo......my choice..this thing is COMPLICATED compared to anything else. Trust me when I say that installing it will teach you alot about Linux. What is nice about this is that the pacakge manager 'emerge' is very nice and simple as is apt, PLUS in the process, EVERYTHING gets Compiled('optimized') for your pc...unfortunately this means htat things take foreever to install, but when your done they run as smoothly as silk


This is what I did and I was pretty satisfied....

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Here is my recommendation:

Install Redhat....run it for a few days....

Delete it....

Install mandrake....run it for a few days....



Delete it....


Now comes the hard part...


Now that you know what linux handles like..menuwise...get int othe nitty gritty


1. Slackware...good stuff/modeately medium

2. Debian....you're getting deep into..."apt", the package manager is the best there is

3. Gentoo......my choice..this thing is COMPLICATED compared to anything else. Trust me when I say that installing it will teach you alot about Linux. What is nice about this is that the pacakge manager 'emerge' is very nice and simple as is apt, PLUS in the process, EVERYTHING gets Compiled('optimized') for your pc...unfortunately this means htat things take foreever to install, but when your done they run as smoothly as silk


This is what I did and I was pretty satisfied....

Then delete it and install a Unix like you want.

 

[softwebdev]

all the software you recommend is LINUX. What i want is UNIX. like the one big company is looking for.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: softwebdev
all the software you recommend is LINUX. What i want is UNIX. like the one big company is looking for.

hmmm... the only true unixes are those that you need to shell cash for... (except in the case of Sun).

do you have a non-pc platform? the only way to get Unix for free is to have a sparc-based machine and download Solaris 9. Once upon a time Sun made the x86 version of Solaris 8 a free download, but now they seem to charge $20 for the x86 product.

actually, i think SGI also has Irix maintenace downloads for free... if this is a full OS or something else is beyong my knowledge.

 

[drag]

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

 

[Nothinman]

You're only choices on x86 hardware are SCO and Solaris x86, neither of which I would recommend. Solaris isn't bad, but the x86 port leaves a lot ot be desired performance wise.

If you can find your way around Linux or FreeBSD you can find your way around Solaris or Tru64, 99% of the basics are all the same. There are things specific to Solaris, Tru64, HP-UX, etc and the only way to learn them is to actually use those systems. But to get you started any of the free unixes will work like Linux or FreeBSD.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

I dont believe they are, under trademark and copyright laws. But Im not a lawyer.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

I dont believe they are, under trademark and copyright laws. But Im not a lawyer.

"trademark and copyright laws" fall under semantic garbage. It's all just a legal dance, if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck, whether or not lawyers say it's not legally able to call itself a duck. IMO anyways.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

I dont believe they are, under trademark and copyright laws. But Im not a lawyer.

"trademark and copyright laws" fall under semantic garbage. It's all just a legal dance, if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck, whether or not lawyers say it's not legally able to call itself a duck. IMO anyways.

deja vu...

And I say, if they want to limit their group to just a few well paying OSes, screw them. We dont need them. Im not going to give them a reason to give the worst profession in the world another red cent (and if you cant figure out what that profession is, think of the farkest deepest pits of hell, they're filled with these animals).

 

[civad]

Solaris 9 for X86....

Solaris

Good luck!

 

[EmperorRob]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
deja vu...And I say, if they want to limit their group to just a few well paying OSes, screw them. We dont need them. Im not going to give them a reason to give the worst profession in the world another red cent (and if you cant figure out what that profession is, think of the farkest deepest pits of hell, they're filled with these animals).

And what is it they say is the oldest profession in the world ?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: EmperorRob

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
deja vu...And I say, if they want to limit their group to just a few well paying OSes, screw them. We dont need them. Im not going to give them a reason to give the worst profession in the world another red cent (and if you cant figure out what that profession is, think of the farkest deepest pits of hell, they're filled with these animals).

And what is it they say is the oldest profession in the world ?

Yeah, but when they screw you its only painful if you ask them to make it painful.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

actually it's not semantic garbage... i don't know if you follow the freebsd-questions thread, but there was some legal issues with using the word "UNIX" to describe FreeBSD as a "UNIX"... also let's not forget the huge ordeal with FreeBSD and "UNIX" in past.

this is from Greg Lehey's "The Complete FreeBSD"
FreeBSD is a direct descendent of the original UNIX, thought it contains no residual AT&T code

the AT&T lawsuits earlier were about this i believe.

also, as far as i know, the current UNIXes are System V based... the *BSD's are not. don't look at from an adminsitration viewpoint... look at it from the viewpoint of a developer. ask these questions on the *BSD newsgroups, and they'll tell you there are serious differences when it comes to the basic way in how to do things.

i don't agree with the "semantic garbage" argument... it reminds me of somethign scottmac said in another post "i don't care if 1000 people call an apple an orange, it's still an apple and thinking any other way is just wrong..."

there is a history and there are things that are agreed upon as a standard, you can't dismiss them just because you don't agree with them. that's plain wrong... and preaching such, is mis-educating those that don't know.

 

[drag]

quick snippit from freebsd's site:

"It is true that AT&T UNIX is not open source, and in a copyright sense BSD is very definitely not UNIX,"

So that's why I suppose thats why they don't refer FreeBSD as FreeUNIX? heh. I know that FreeBSD is about as Unix as one can get without going and paying for a System V-based OS. If you want to get down to it it just doesn't realy make any diffence to me whether you considure Linux a unix OS. Unix-like is good enough for me. I definately ain't no puriest, but you will have a hard time convincing me that FreeBSD is Unix because some people decided that in the mid-nineties that Linux is not a Unix when FreeBSD cannot even legally call themselves UNIX! Some standard that is. :/

You cannot call a apple a orange and visa versa, but hey they are both fruit! And I tend to considure unix (with a lowercase "u" if that make you happy) the "fruit" classification and Unix, FreeBSD, BSD4.2, System V, and Linux as the subcatagory as apples, oranges, cherries, and tomatoes. Maybe Linux is a unix tomato? Heh, a sort of fruity, but not quite as fruity as the BSD's or SunOS.

But I do suppose that from the OS developer's point of view that Linux is defienitly not a Unix, but the point of view of the common User or Admin, the differences are minor. When you compare Linux and FreeBSD to say Windows, Novell, Plan9, Be0S or some such thing they are both definately Unix OS's. And even though I have no personal experiance with it I would suppose that their are bigger diffences between HPunix, SunOS, and FreeBSD then there are between FreeBSD and some Linux distros.

Its not like I would like to get in a fight over it or anything, but all I know is once you learn one of the afformentioned OS's then you will feel comfortable operating in any of the other ones.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

actually it's not semantic garbage... i don't know if you follow the freebsd-questions thread, but there was some legal issues with using the word "UNIX" to describe FreeBSD as a "UNIX"... also let's not forget the huge ordeal with FreeBSD and "UNIX" in past.

this is from Greg Lehey's "The Complete FreeBSD"
FreeBSD is a direct descendent of the original UNIX, thought it contains no residual AT&T code

the AT&T lawsuits earlier were about this i believe.

also, as far as i know, the current UNIXes are System V based... the *BSD's are not. don't look at from an adminsitration viewpoint... look at it from the viewpoint of a developer. ask these questions on the *BSD newsgroups, and they'll tell you there are serious differences when it comes to the basic way in how to do things.

I am well aware of all of this.

i don't agree with the "semantic garbage" argument... it reminds me of somethign scottmac said in another post "i don't care if 1000 people call an apple an orange, it's still an apple and thinking any other way is just wrong..."

there is a history and there are things that are agreed upon as a standard, you can't dismiss them just because you don't agree with them. that's plain wrong... and preaching such, is mis-educating those that don't know.

You are misunderstanding me. I don't care what source it uses, where the source was derived from, how many companies were or weren't involved with it, what the settlement of any lawsuit was, it doesn't matter. Unix, in the sense that I am using it, is essentially slang, and refers to any operating system that follows the same basic principles of the original Unix. If it works the same, then to ME, it is Unix. To a court of law, no. To picky developers scared of lawsuits, no, but to me, yes. Beating around the bush saying "oh, well, it uses none of the same source code, so it isn't unix", is pointless to me. Unix is a style of operating system design. Essentially when I say Unix I mean the same thing as when most people say "*nix", I just don't like that term for whatever reason.

 

[Nothinman]

You are misunderstanding me. I don't care what source it uses, where the source was derived from, how many companies were or weren't involved with it, what the settlement of any lawsuit was, it doesn't matter. Unix, in the sense that I am using it, is essentially slang, and refers to any operating system that follows the same basic principles of the original Unix. If it works the same, then to ME, it is Unix. To a court of law, no. To picky developers scared of lawsuits, no, but to me, yes. Beating around the bush saying "oh, well, it uses none of the same source code, so it isn't unix", is pointless to me. Unix is a style of operating system design. Essentially when I say Unix I mean the same thing as when most people say "*nix", I just don't like that term for whatever reason.

Just like all the people who call tissues 'kleenexes', basically taking a certain brand name and applying it to everything that seems remotely similar.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

You are misunderstanding me. I don't care what source it uses, where the source was derived from, how many companies were or weren't involved with it, what the settlement of any lawsuit was, it doesn't matter. Unix, in the sense that I am using it, is essentially slang, and refers to any operating system that follows the same basic principles of the original Unix. If it works the same, then to ME, it is Unix. To a court of law, no. To picky developers scared of lawsuits, no, but to me, yes. Beating around the bush saying "oh, well, it uses none of the same source code, so it isn't unix", is pointless to me. Unix is a style of operating system design. Essentially when I say Unix I mean the same thing as when most people say "*nix", I just don't like that term for whatever reason.

Just like all the people who call tissues 'kleenexes', basically taking a certain brand name and applying it to everything that seems remotely similar.

EXACTLY. That actually reminds me of when I was in junior high, I was always annoyed at how people called all inline skates "rollerblades", while rollerblade was a brand, and the proper term was inline skate (I just called them skates but whatever), anyways, someone used the kleenex thing as an example, and from then on, I understood the thinking behind it. Uh, anyways, back to computer stuff....

 

[majewski9]

UNIX is pretty much a dinosaur. These Linux distros are much better than most UNIXes you are going to find out there. Are you talking about Solaris cause thats about as UNIX as you are going to get. Trust me Linux Distros like Mandrake are much better than Solaris. I have been pleading that we switch to Linux Mandrake instead of Solaris. Hasnt happened fully yet.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: majewski9
UNIX is pretty much a dinosaur. These Linux distros are much better than most UNIXes you are going to find out there. Are you talking about Solaris cause thats about as UNIX as you are going to get. Trust me Linux Distros like Mandrake are much better than Solaris. I have been pleading that we switch to Linux Mandrake instead of Solaris. Hasnt happened fully yet.

Haha, I'm not sure you realize what you just got yourself into

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are as about as Unix as you are going to get, becuase, ummm, they are Unix. BSD combined with the historical UNIX, those BSD's are it's direct decendents. Anyways for all intensive purposes their really isn't a whole lot of differences between linux and other types of unix. Anybody who says otherwise is being a bit nit-picky in my opinion, all it realy comes down to is personal taste. Linux developers is mostly concerned about the advances of technology, user-freindliness, and convience. (ofcourse all distros very in this), Were as *BSD's care more about orginization and "correctness". Both of them have there paticular advantages and both play off of each other for advances and provide good competition.

Here if you are doutful is a simplified graphical history of Unix.

Good luck!

They are not Unixes. Sorry.

Bah, semantic garbage. They are unix.

actually it's not semantic garbage... i don't know if you follow the freebsd-questions thread, but there was some legal issues with using the word "UNIX" to describe FreeBSD as a "UNIX"... also let's not forget the huge ordeal with FreeBSD and "UNIX" in past.

this is from Greg Lehey's "The Complete FreeBSD"
FreeBSD is a direct descendent of the original UNIX, thought it contains no residual AT&T code

the AT&T lawsuits earlier were about this i believe.

also, as far as i know, the current UNIXes are System V based... the *BSD's are not. don't look at from an adminsitration viewpoint... look at it from the viewpoint of a developer. ask these questions on the *BSD newsgroups, and they'll tell you there are serious differences when it comes to the basic way in how to do things.

i don't agree with the "semantic garbage" argument... it reminds me of somethign scottmac said in another post "i don't care if 1000 people call an apple an orange, it's still an apple and thinking any other way is just wrong..."

there is a history and there are things that are agreed upon as a standard, you can't dismiss them just because you don't agree with them. that's plain wrong... and preaching such, is mis-educating those that don't know.

Im not sure if this was directed at my comments or not. But Ill respond, and I am probably interpretting the comment in a way xyyz did not intend because I have not slept well for the past week or so.

The BSDs (Free, Net, Open, BSD/OS (darwin is excluded in this for the moment)) are very Unix-like. They follow the Unix philosophy, many of the standards, and if Unix was not a registered trademark or whatever they would be Unixes. Until the Open Group or whoever owns Unix now gets their heads surgically removed from their backsides (or until it is no longer profitable to get the Unix name) they will not be Unixes. And that, in my not so humble (and quite grumpy) opinion, is a good thing.