« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows  (Read 1100 times)

enigma

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.geekmeister.net
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« on: 6 November 2002, 11:39 »
Which one do you favor? Do note if you choose windows, i will, infact have to eat your soul and face. I like linux, its free, its open source, and gee golly, it makes me laugh! that penguin is awsome. I dont use unix too much though, or mac os, and i think the problem is i use windows too much. Just gettin a feel on what everyones OS of expertise is..
Logged
Out of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. -Ozzy Osborne

mn- micro-nazism - from the post comparing Gates to Hitler. I did not make up this term, "micro-nazism", i merely use it.

Doctor V

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 661
  • Kudos: 0
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #1 on: 6 November 2002, 12:26 »
Thats right, if you use windows at all, then you use it too much.  I'd be lying if I said I was completely free of windows though.  The one last thing holding me back is that once per month I have to fill out a certain excel form that will not work properly in open office.  Every other spreadsheet I have used has, but this one still holds me down.  I use Mandrake Linux, but am messing around with RedHat as well.

V
Logged

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #2 on: 6 November 2002, 13:09 »
i haven't used solaris or unix, and why are none of the BSDs or GNU in the list? seems less people will have used unix than any BSD or GNU...

I like mandrake but i hope to one day have a hard drive big enough to boot many different systems, hopefully including FreeDOS, Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Windows 3.1 for workgroups(!) and BeOS. I'd like a RiscOS machine too, but when will i ever be able to afford one?

i've only ever used red hat (7), windows(3.1 and later), mandrake (8 & 9) and turbolinux (6.1), MacOS (6 to 9) though, so i can't judge really from lack of experience.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Calum & his insidious little spies ]

Logged
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

KernelPanic

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,878
  • Kudos: 222
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #3 on: 6 November 2002, 13:09 »
Solaris is Unix
Logged
Contains scenes of mild peril.

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #4 on: 6 November 2002, 13:15 »
no it isn't.
solaris is commercial. unix was never commercially released. Solaris is actually based on SunOS (how surprising!)
Logged
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

hm_murdock

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,629
  • Kudos: 378
  • The Lord of Thyme
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #5 on: 6 November 2002, 14:50 »
then Mac OS X aint really UNIX either. It's NeXTStep!
Logged
Go the fuck ~

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #6 on: 6 November 2002, 16:05 »
you're darn tootin'!

Here's a flow chart diagram showing how each of the *major* unices relate to each other.

[edit - according to that diagram, macosx is based on mach 3 which is based on 4.2BSD, but i personally don't know.]

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Calum & his insidious little spies ]

Logged
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

HighLamb

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • Kudos: 0
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #7 on: 6 November 2002, 20:30 »
quote:
Posted by Calum & his insidious little spies:
I like mandrake but i hope to one day have a hard drive big enough to boot many different systems, hopefully including FreeDOS, Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Windows 3.1 for workgroups(!) and BeOS. I'd like...  

As I know, All the M$ OSes: M$-DOS and  Windozes 9X/NT cannot be booted beyond the 1024 cylinder boundary. This is the biggest fault of Microsoft. If you really want to do mulit boot, you need to install DOS/NT at the very first place.
Logged
mac == easy
*nix == power
windoze == nothing

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #8 on: 6 November 2002, 22:36 »
hmm. well i don't need any other MS system except windows 3.1 in my imaginary multiboot setup, since it will be on a computer with an EIDE or SCSI CDwriter (USB cdwriter being the only reason i need windows right now). Therefore, i can put MSDOS on the first 300MB, FreeDOS on the next 300MB, and then carry on from there. And to think a few years ago people were moaning about how LiLo was so retarded for having this exact same flaw.

Also, i find it hard to believe that that is windows' greatest flaw...
Logged
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

flap

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,268
  • Kudos: 137
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #9 on: 6 November 2002, 22:55 »
Just out of interest, why do you want to run dos/windows?
Logged
"While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara

http://counterpunch.org
http://globalresearch.ca

Fett101

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,581
  • Kudos: 85
    • http://fgmma.com
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #10 on: 7 November 2002, 02:11 »
quote:
Originally posted by Got Root?:
Which one do you favor? Do note if you choose windows, i will, infact have to eat your soul and face.


I use XP. So... Eat me. (you said it, not me. ;)
Logged

DC

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Kudos: 0
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #11 on: 7 November 2002, 02:46 »
Calum, if Solaris isn't unix, Unix pretty much doesn't exist (since nothing else will qualify). So it is.
And besides, what is that chart you linked based on? Usually those charts are based on code usage, but that means Linux is off the chart (or seperate anyway), but if not that, there is no real criteria. Linux wasn't really based upon Minix, you know, it was based on a lot of systems (Minix mostly, but far from entirely).

To the point, of the systems I used I like Linux best, with Solaris a close second (I don't have too much experience with Solaris though). Windows NT is third with a whole lot of distance, followed by Win9x/DOS. Those are the only OS-es I used really (I'm a lameass), so any others should be considered unrated.
Logged
GS/CS d- s-: a--- C++ UL+ P+ L++>+++ E W++ N>+ o K- w-- O- M V? PS+>++ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X R tv+ b+++ DI+ D+ G++ e>++++ h! r- y
A quantummechanical wavefunction describing an unknown amount of bottles of beer on the wall
A quantummechanical wavefunction describing an unknown amount of bottles of beer on the wall
We take a measurement, the wavefunction will collapse, and one of the bottles of beer will fall

Pantso

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,249
  • Kudos: 55
    • http://www.support-freesoftware.org
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #12 on: 7 November 2002, 02:57 »
quote:
Originally posted by Got Root?:
Which one do you favor? Do note if you choose windows, i will, infact have to eat your soul and face. I like linux, its free, its open source, and gee golly, it makes me laugh! that penguin is awsome. I dont use unix too much though, or mac os, and i think the problem is i use windows too much. Just gettin a feel on what everyones OS of expertise is..


For the past two months (since I got my first Mac), OS X. I've also used Linux (SuSE, RedHat, Debian, Mandrake) a lot since '97 but I kept coming back to Windows once in a while, not because I wanted too but because I had too. Now, with OS X, I have everything I need: Security, Stability, Reliability and a plethora of software, even open source. What else does anyone need?
Logged

voidmain

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,605
  • Kudos: 184
    • http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #13 on: 7 November 2002, 07:28 »
If you want to know what can be legally called a "UNIX based system" you have to go to the owner of the "UNIX" trademark which is "The Open Group". Here you can get a list of operating systems that are certified as UNIX:

http://www.opengroup.org/regproducts/catalog.htm

You will find Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, Compaq Tru64 to be UNIX98 certified. You will find Caldera SCO UnixWare, Compaq Tru64, FSC Reliant, HP HP-UX, IBM AIX, NCR UNIX, NEC UX, SGI Irix, Sun Solaris to be UNIX95 certified.

Now there is no mention of the original(s) like ATT System V (and prior) and BSDs.

I have extensively used AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, SCO, ATT Unix (original System 5 and some of the newer OSs) and FreeBSD. I have also used many distributions of Linux. I have to say that Linux is my favorite (I consider it UNIX even though the trademark holder does not agree).

However, if I need a big piece of hardware to run a large Oracle database I will probably run Solaris, HP-UX, or AIX as those are the OSs designed to run on the type of hardware I would likely be using. Also, the application can determine which OS I need. For general purpose type of needs Linux is the clear favorite, BSD would be my second choice.
Logged
Someone please remove this account. Thanks...

Pissed_Macman

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,499
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.macrevolution.tk
Unix, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Windows
« Reply #14 on: 8 November 2002, 03:32 »
I have the perfect solution to your guys' problem.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »