Unix or Linux?

[PaperclipGod]

For a new user, not yet accustomed to one over the other, what would be the best place to start? Unix (a BSD, Solaris, etc) or Linux (debian, ubuntu, etc)? By "best", I mean which is a more capable OS? Which gives you more control over the hardware? Which supports more types of hardware? Which is more universal? Which is best supported? Which has the largest number of active developers, open-source or not? Which has the most novel features? Which has a brighter future?

Complexity isn't an issue, as this isn't something I need to learn ASAP for work or anything important, just something I'd like to poke around with for fun.

 

[sourceninja]

For a first time user, start with linux. I prefer ubuntu personally. Now you are going to ask why.

My reasoning is as follows:

Linux has more of an active development process for desktop users. This means it will be easier to get into for a new user. Ubuntu is very focused on the desktop, so it will be even easier. Ubuntu is probably the most popular deskto distro out today, that means tons of help on google and forums.

Unix on the other hand is much more server oriented with a much more reactive development cycle. The focus on perfect stability holds it back from doing the stuff we expect from desktop computers (easily).

95% of what you learn using any flavor of linux will be transferable to any other flavor of unix. So start with linux.

 

[Brazen]

I would suggest starting with Linux, too. It's going to be easier to get comfortable with, and switching to Unix later will be a breeze.

 

[slugg]

+1 for linux

 

[Nothinman]

That's a lot of separate questions. Best place to start is usually Linux because the hardware support is better. If you can't get your wifi working chances are you'll get frustrated pretty quickly.

All are about equally capable. Usually the capabilities that you need are determined by the job of the box and most unix-like systems can run all of the same software. Some of the odder ones require more work to get things going but it's possible.

The one with the most control over your hardware is also going to be the one that supports the most hardware. And that's generally Linux. Just about every commercial release of UNIX has a very strict HCL that usually limits you to that specific company's hardware. The free BSDs and Solaris x86 are more lenient but they still lag behind Linux in support in most areas.

I'd probably have to give more universal to OS X because Apple sells a lot of laptops these days. It might also get best supported since it supports virtually all of the free unix software plus the commercial Apple stuff. You have to do some hacks like run X on top of the OS X GUI but it works.

Active developers is hard to gauge because of the different models. The BSDs have what they consider a base system that includes the kernel and a lot of core CLI tools while Linux is just the kernel. The core CLI tools are handled by the GNU people. And the developers for things like Gnome, KDE, etc probably end up looking at different OSes occasionally since their software runs on all of them.

Novel features would have to go to Solaris. With ZFS and dtrace right now being the big two although I'd rather have the convenience of a Debian system than put up with Solaris just for ZFS.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Complexity isn't an issue, as this isn't something I need to learn ASAP for work or anything important, just something I'd like to poke around with for fun.

if you just want to poke around for fun (giggity!), then just install any and all and see what you like. i remember starting on my main computer starting with redhat, then suse, then linux from scratch, and finally settling on debian. for my macs (when i had them) i've had debian, netbsd but finally settled on mac os x.

 

[JD50]

+1 for Linux
+1 for Fedora

 

[Net]

linux. larger user base. more people working on it to improve it.

 

[degibson]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
For a new user, not yet accustomed to one over the other, what would be the best place to start?

Ubuntu Linux (+1 Linux)

which is a more capable OS?

Tough question. Highest performance on a free *nix is probably Solaris. Easiest to use is probably Ubuntu. Linux is probably the most feature-rich. (+1 Solaris, +1 Linux)

Which gives you more control over the hardware?

I'd say Solaris -- assuming Solaris will run your hardware. (+1 Solaris)

Which supports more types of hardware?

Linux for sure. (+1 Linux)

Which is more universal?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean on this one.

Which is best supported?

Among free distros I've tried, Ubuntu again. Among non-free *nix's I've tried, Solaris 10. (+1 Linux, +1 Solaris)

EDIT: Solaris 10 is free. Support packages are not.

Which has the largest number of active developers, open-source or not?

If you count all Linuxes as one OS, then you have a clear winner. Its debatable whether the raw number of active developers is a good measure of the code quality, however. (+0.5 Linux)

Which has the most novel features?

Define 'novel'. Really novel stuff doesn't make it into production OSes -- but you're more likely to find exotic add-ons for Linux. (+0.5 Linux)

Which has a brighter future?

Linux. (+1 Linux)

Complexity isn't an issue, as this isn't something I need to learn ASAP for work or anything important, just something I'd like to poke around with for fun.

Again, Linux is great for poking. Slackware has a good mix of exposed details and hidden ones if you really want to learn the guts of Linux.. but it is less fuzzy than Ubuntu. (+1 Linux)

Summary:
Linux: 7
Solaris: 3

 

[PaperclipGod]

Wow, thanks for the excellent responses, everyone!

nothinman, you mentioned solaris and ZFS -- ZFS is what actually sparked my renewed interest in unix-like OS's. I think ZFS is being fully implemented in OSX 10.6 (server initially), once this happens, is there any reason to continue considering solaris? AFAIK there isn't a performance penalty with Apple's implementation, like there is with the FUSE port.

degibson, cheers for the point-by-point response! One point that you were pretty blunt on was the promising future of Linux over Unix, though -- why is that? Do you see the free unices dying off, replaced by Linux? Do the unices offer anything Linux doesn't? Slackware sounds good -- however, what exactly makes it less "fuzzy" than ubunutu? Is there less abstraction?

And just a few more general questions...
Why do several versions of open-source Unix still exist? What do they offer that Linux cannot? Are they really no more different than the various linux distro's?

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Wow, thanks for the excellent responses, everyone!

nothinman, you mentioned solaris and ZFS -- ZFS is what actually sparked my renewed interest in unix-like OS's. I think ZFS is being fully implemented in OSX 10.6 (server initially), once this happens, is there any reason to continue considering solaris? AFAIK there isn't a performance penalty with Apple's implementation, like there is with the FUSE port.

if you don't mind paying the apple tax for osx 10.6. otherwise you can use darwin or opensolaris, which are both free.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Wow, thanks for the excellent responses, everyone!

nothinman, you mentioned solaris and ZFS -- ZFS is what actually sparked my renewed interest in unix-like OS's. I think ZFS is being fully implemented in OSX 10.6 (server initially), once this happens, is there any reason to continue considering solaris? AFAIK there isn't a performance penalty with Apple's implementation, like there is with the FUSE port.

ZFS is also in the FreeBSD kernel.

 

[Nothinman]

nothinman, you mentioned solaris and ZFS -- ZFS is what actually sparked my renewed interest in unix-like OS's. I think ZFS is being fully implemented in OSX 10.6 (server initially), once this happens, is there any reason to continue considering solaris? AFAIK there isn't a performance penalty with Apple's implementation, like there is with the FUSE port.

I'd actually probably choose Solaris over OS X for a server regardless of OS X's feature support.

degibson, cheers for the point-by-point response! One point that you were pretty blunt on was the promising future of Linux over Unix, though -- why is that? Do you see the free unices dying off, replaced by Linux? Do the unices offer anything Linux doesn't? Slackware sounds good -- however, what exactly makes it less "fuzzy" than ubunutu? Is there less abstraction?

It's already happening in lots of places. Linux has work to do in some areas to compete with the longer standing unixes like HPUX and AIX but the works already been started in just about all of those places.

I'm sure by fuzzy he means new-user-friendly. Ubuntu does a lot of things automatically to set things up by default that slackware won't. Distros like Slackware or LFS (if you can consider that a distro) are good for learning but I wouldn't be able to stand using it for any period of time. I like the >24,000 packages prebuilt by Debian that are available for installation for nothing more than the download time. I'm lazy, I want my computer to do as much for me as possible.

Why do several versions of open-source Unix still exist? What do they offer that Linux cannot? Are they really no more different than the various linux distro's?

You mean FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD? They still exist because a community was built around them and it's still active. They all have slightly different goals and their overall philosophy is different than that of Linux so technically they all still have a niche. I personally have become a Debian zealot so using anything else annoys me to no end.

 

[PaperclipGod]

The BSD's and OpenSolaris, yes.

And why would you choose Solaris over OSX for a server, regardless of features? Is it a stabler system?

 

[Nothinman]

And why would you choose Solaris over OSX for a server, regardless of features? Is it a stabler system?

Solaris has a longer track record, recent versions are open source, more 3rd party server software is tested on Solaris and you're tied to one hardware vendor with Solaris. Solaris' hardware support is slimmer than that of Linux but it's still going to be better than OS X. But that's only if I had no other choice than Solaris or OS X, in most cases I'd most likely choose either RHEL because it's the most commercially supported Linux or Debian and just get hardware support since I don't usually need software support myself.

 

[MGMorden]

Linux is wider supported, easier to work with, and generally flexible enough to compete with most of what you named. Besides "Unix" is not some cohesive thing. It's more or less a label that can be applied to various system. Most "official" Unixes don't all run the same kernels. They don't use the same init systems (Solaris uses SysV like most Linux's do, while the BSD's use BSD style). All in all Linux is about as related to most "true Unix's" as they are related to each other, and moreso depending on which two you're comparing. Linux is certainly closer to Solaris than Solaris is to Mac OS X.

 

[degibson]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And why would you choose Solaris over OSX for a server, regardless of features? Is it a stabler system?

Solaris has a longer track record, recent versions are open source, more 3rd party server software is tested on Solaris and you're tied to one hardware vendor with Solaris. Solaris' hardware support is slimmer than that of Linux but it's still going to be better than OS X. But that's only if I had no other choice than Solaris or OS X, in most cases I'd most likely choose either RHEL because it's the most commercially supported Linux or Debian and just get hardware support since I don't usually need software support myself.

Solaris's parallel scalability is still better than Linux. Its a generally better OS for throughput computing: web servers, dbms's, etc., because Solaris's OS-side scaling, locking, and synchronization is still superior to Linux. For typical workstation-side stuff, Linux is a lot better.

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
degibson, cheers for the point-by-point response! One point that you were pretty blunt on was the promising future of Linux over Unix, though -- why is that?

Sun has some commercial apps going for it -- but nothing beats the scalability of a $0 operating system. Free is better than capable any day and twice on Sunday.

Do you see the free unices dying off, replaced by Linux?

In most domains, yes. Some machines will always run their favorite version of *nix... G-series for instance. PowerPC. Any SPARC box is still way better off with Solaris. But thats about all.

Do the unices offer anything Linux doesn't?

Mostly RAS. Linux fails and recovers. Thats OK for 99.9% of users.

Slackware sounds good -- however, what exactly makes it less "fuzzy" than ubunutu? Is there less abstraction?

Slackware install gives you a terminal. Ubuntu install gives you a GUI. If you're a point-and-click user, use Ubuntu. If you know how to use a terminal, starting with Slackware will give you a good experience in learning how to configure a system to do what you want (e.g. activate the mouse, add a windowing environment... )

 

[MGMorden]

Originally posted by: degibson
Slackware install gives you a terminal. Ubuntu install gives you a GUI. If you're a point-and-click user, use Ubuntu. If you know how to use a terminal, starting with Slackware will give you a good experience in learning how to configure a system to do what you want (e.g. activate the mouse, add a windowing environment... )

Just a note: Ubuntu does have a "server edition" of their install available which is a bare command line with no installed GUI (though like Slackware, it certainly can be added later). I've actually used it on several servers here at work. Normally I use virtualized severs anyways, and end up doing everything remotely via SSH, so installing X11 is a waste on most of my servers.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I thought Unix was basically dead at this point. Is that something people actually go out and buy to install on a new server?

 

[degibson]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I thought Unix was basically dead at this point. Is that something people actually go out and buy to install on a new server?

Absolutely -- lots of midrange+ new machines run Unix of some kind. There's not a lot of point in running anything non-Linux on current x86 machines. That might change for the ~8+ core products coming down the pipe.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'm an OpenBSD guy myself, but I've found various flavors of Linux to be quite usable.
Solaris is... Solaris. It's generally thought to be slow, hardware support is kinda iffy (unless you go SPARC), and the userland is completely buggered.
The BSDs don't offer you much over Linux, and I would say the reverse is also true. I prefer OpenBSD because it's the right system for me (or maybe it's because all of the rest are the wrong systems for me?). But I also use OS X and Linux pretty much daily.
I wouldn't mind a T2+ for Solaris, but I'm too poor for that.

 

[Nothinman]

Holy shit, n0c lives...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Holy shit, n0c lives...

Depends on your definition of lives.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Holy shit, n0c lives...

Depends on your definition of lives.

I was just thinking about you yesterday, and that I hadn't seen you in awhile. I couldn't remember the name though... :^/

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Holy shit, n0c lives...

no one ever mentions me when i leave and come back after a few years. in fact, what happened to all the old timers?