• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Linux and Unix essentially the same thing?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jhu said:
Technically Linux is just the kernel. Why most people refer to the whole OS as "Linux" is beyond me. The most correct way to refer to these things is by distribution: Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc. Incidently, most people don't refer to Android as "running Linux" whereas when referring to a distribution they do say "running Linux", which is not wholly consistent.

In summary, refer to your OS by distribution name instead of just the kernel.
Click to expand...

Because it's more likely that someone has at least heard of linux over Fedora, Ubuntu, or Red Hat. The truly anal refer to it as GNU/Linux. While yes it is correct, I'm not gonna go that far. I don't feel like it's that important to make that distinction when talking to non-linux geeks, or even linux geeks for that matter. Those that care already know the difference. Hopefully RMS isn't reading this, he would not be pleased...🙂
 
lxskllr said:
I dunno, if you say Linux, it describes the core experience of what you run. A distribution tweaks the experience, but there's commonality to them all. It's especially useful when talking to people who are only somewhat aware of what's going on in the tech world. They may very well know what Linux is, or at least have heard of it, but would have no idea what you were talking about if you said Debian.

Imo, both ways are correct, and usage depends on who you're talking to.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup:
 
lxskllr said:
I dunno, if you say Linux, it describes the core experience of what you run. A distribution tweaks the experience, but there's commonality to them all. It's especially useful when talking to people who are only somewhat aware of what's going on in the tech world. They may very well know what Linux is, or at least have heard of it, but would have no idea what you were talking about if you said Debian.

Imo, both ways are correct, and usage depends on who you're talking to.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you're mainly using KDE as your gui and Open Office as your productivity suite, what difference are you really going to notice if the underlying system is Debian, Ubuntu, or FreeBSD? The "core experience" in this case, is KDE and not "Linux" or FreeBSD. Is it then okay to call KDE+FreeBSD "Linux" when clearly it's not?

OTOH, as servers, a Debian system, Redhat system, FreeBSD system, etc. all have their own quirks. If you say "This machine runs Linux", that gives you absolutely no clue as to what the underlying system is.
 
JD50 said:
Because it's more likely that someone has at least heard of linux over Fedora, Ubuntu, or Red Hat. The truly anal refer to it as GNU/Linux. While yes it is correct, I'm not gonna go that far. I don't feel like it's that important to make that distinction when talking to non-linux geeks, or even linux geeks for that matter. Those that care already know the difference. Hopefully RMS isn't reading this, he would not be pleased...🙂
Click to expand...

I don't feel that GNU/Linux is a good term either (RMS be damned!) since other software, especially X Window, takes up a lot more space than the kernel and system libraries.
 
jhu said:
I disagree. If you're mainly using KDE as your gui and Open Office as your productivity suite, what difference are you really going to notice if the underlying system is Debian, Ubuntu, or FreeBSD? The "core experience" in this case, is KDE and not "Linux" or FreeBSD. Is it then okay to call KDE+FreeBSD "Linux" when clearly it's not?
Click to expand...

It comes down to look and feel, and once you open the terminal, most of the differences vanish. It's still Linux, and that's all many people need to know. Instead of a blank look when I say "Gentoo", I can say "Linux", and the conversation can move on.

OTOH, as servers, a Debian system, Redhat system, FreeBSD system, etc. all have their own quirks. If you say "This machine runs Linux", that gives you absolutely no clue as to what the underlying system is.
Click to expand...
It's still Linux, and quirks don't matter. There's as much difference between Win98 and Win7, as there is between different distros. Despite the whining you hear around here, the differences aren't that great, and both Windows have the same underlying "feel". It's the same with Linux. I prefer Debian based systems, but if Debian and all it's derivatives disappeared, I'd still run Linux, and I'd pick something different. The core experience doesn't change.
 
lxskllr said:
It comes down to look and feel, and once you open the terminal, most of the differences vanish. It's still Linux, and that's all many people need to know. Instead of a blank look when I say "Gentoo", I can say "Linux", and the conversation can move on.
Click to expand...

My point was that even before opening the terminal, the quirks are in the gui and software that runs under the gui. If you're running X Window and not digging around, there are no visible clues as to whether or not you're running Debian, Redhat, Slackware, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris, etc. underneath the windowing system.

lxskllr said:
It's still Linux, and quirks don't matter. There's as much difference between Win98 and Win7, as there is between different distros. Despite the whining you hear around here, the differences aren't that great, and both Windows have the same underlying "feel". It's the same with Linux. I prefer Debian based systems, but if Debian and all it's derivatives disappeared, I'd still run Linux, and I'd pick something different. The core experience doesn't change.
Click to expand...

In one sense you're right, the quirks don't really matter. OTOH, Darwin, Solaris and the BSDs are not "Linux". Debian, using a BSD kernel or HURD kernel, is not "Linux" even if the user interaction is practically the same. I use the term "unix-like system" to refer to all of these OSes because that's what they are.

The issue is that people can associate an operating system as a separate entity without identifying it just by its kernel. For example, consider Android: it is "Linux" by whatever vague definition we have for that term, but people still refer to the operating system as Android. The problem, as I see it, is that for the past 15 years people in the know have not been doing a very good job of educating the public about these terms. RMS's rant regarding GNU/Linux has not helped either.
 
Last edited:
jhu said:
The issue is that people can associate an operating system as a separate entity without identifying it just by its kernel. For example, consider Android: it is "Linux" by whatever vague definition we have for that term, but people still refer to the operating system as Android. The problem, as I see it, is that for the past 15 years people in the know have not been doing a very good job of educating the public about these terms. RMS's rant regarding GNU/Linux has not helped either.
Click to expand...

You have a point, but there aren't as many choices with phones. Also, Android has been pushed as a brand name more than Linux distros have in the past. Ubuntu has changed that a bit, but it's still 50:50 how people refer to it.

For better or worse, Linux as a brand puts people into a "club", just like Apple does. When someone says they run Linux, a lot can be inferred regarding their philosophy on software distribution, and the values they place on how they interact with their O/S, and software in general. With techies, Tux is as recognizable a "trademark", as is the Windows window, and the Apple face. Linux almost has a life of it's own, regrdless of distro.
 
jhu said:
Technically Linux is just the kernel. Why most people refer to the whole OS as "Linux" is beyond me. The most correct way to refer to these things is by distribution: Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc. Incidently, most people don't refer to Android as "running Linux" whereas when referring to a distribution they do say "running Linux", which is not wholly consistent.

In summary, refer to your OS by distribution name instead of just the kernel.
Click to expand...

I agree. I only ever use linux when speaking in general when referring to a class of OSs. Otherwise specificity is important and in linux those are the distros.
 
Scarpozzi said:
It's like that scene from Jurassic Park when the girl sits down at the company mainframe and says, "IT'S A UNIX SYSTEM!!! I KNOW THIS!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFUlAQZB9Ng

How freakin' convenient. 😛
Click to expand...

Yea, it should've been more like "THIS IS UNIX, I KNOW THIS! Oh wait, this one's a little different than what I learned on, gimme a minute. Almost there, damn they don't have the GNU tools installed. Hmmm, maybe this'll do it..."
 
I always understood that UNIX was the foundation of Linux. It borrows code. There are a lot of UNIX-like operating systems around. Mac OS X is one of them.
 
mmntech said:
I always understood that UNIX was the foundation of Linux. It borrows code. There are a lot of UNIX-like operating systems around. Mac OS X is one of them.
Click to expand...

The GNU system was started by RMS and others precisely because Unix was not free. They share concepts but not actual code. The actual code sharing would have been with the BSDs, but I think it's been free of legacy Unix code for many years now. Linux is a kernel, not the enire OS (unless the kernel is all you have running on your computer).
 
Can anyone comment on enterprise "adoption" for linux/gnu?

Is the future going to be linux for the back-end and Apple iOS/OSX for the front?
 
intogamer said:
Can anyone comment on enterprise "adoption" for linux/gnu?

Is the future going to be linux for the back-end and Apple iOS/OSX for the front?
Click to expand...

For me, Apple will never touch my front or back end. And I doubt they'll ever get a significant enterprise marketshare because they just don't seem to care. I would guess that Android will do better in the enterprise space in the long term because it's not under the stranglehold of one corporation, anyone can release a Android powered device and compete. The Cisco Cius is a good example.

But sadly Windows will be the leader on the front and back ends for quite some time, simply because it's already there and the cloud won't change that. Lots of people still need full desktops and in business that means Windows 99% of the time.
 
Nothinman said:
For me, Apple will never touch my front or back end. And I doubt they'll ever get a significant enterprise marketshare because they just don't seem to care. I would guess that Android will do better in the enterprise space in the long term because it's not under the stranglehold of one corporation, anyone can release a Android powered device and compete. The Cisco Cius is a good example.

But sadly Windows will be the leader on the front and back ends for quite some time, simply because it's already there and the cloud won't change that. Lots of people still need full desktops and in business that means Windows 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

Front end yes, but in the big business, I rarely see Windows as the full backend... For Oracle servers, Web servers, etc. Various flavors of Linux or deticated UNIX servers (SUN or HP) are what I see most often for the backend in medium to large businesses. The only windows backend we currently have is the email server (what a nightmare... Exchange... yuck...) and a few minor web servers.. All of the major parts are however not windows. And this similar setup is what I've seen in over a dozen similar sized businesses. If for no other reason than; they don't have to pay for licensing fees to Microsoft for the servers. Plus a lot of the system differences in memory intensive applications and server performance. And these companies will also have the technical skills to obviously handle non-windows platforms which generally is the biggest hurdle for growing businesses to surpass.

But yes, it's extremely common to see Windows for the front-end user interface systems... Unfortunately... I've seen very few Linux front end businesses and even fewer Apple bassed... They are out there though... A lot of that might also depend on the original companie's personel comfort level. The one place I know of with zero windows in their business is full of a lot of real computer geeks like myself so for them Linux/Apple is a no brainer with no learning curve... But 'most' people/companies won't be so lucky... The average joe knows only windows (and actually really doesn't even know windows)... as sad as that is...
 
Nothinman said:
Yea, it should've been more like "THIS IS UNIX, I KNOW THIS! Oh wait, this one's a little different than what I learned on, gimme a minute. Almost there, damn they don't have the GNU tools installed. Hmmm, maybe this'll do it..."
Click to expand...

Well, lucky for her, they had an Atari 2600 emulator installed to help guide her through the park security.

Who doesn't love movies...ever notice how hackers always crack passwords on the third try...simply typing/guessing?

What's worse is all the movies that have people hacking the CIA or DOD site through a terminal and they see images of the departmental US Govt Seals in full 1024x768 graphics. Crap like that makes me respect "War Games" so much more... At least it was somewhat more consistent. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top