1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Linux users?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by embellisher, Mar 12, 2006.


  1. AspiringBassMan

    AspiringBassMan

    Dec 10, 2005
    UK
    embellisher
    here is a recent review of PC linux in case you're interested. i've quoted the conclusion here:

    http://www.cutlets.info/node/820





    jive1

    bear in mind that fedora is cutting edge and, as a result, is not super-stable. its very stable, but not as stable as it could be. red hat is best used for an ultra-stable server and/or development disto. also bear in mind that fedora core 5 is released in 6 days time. a live cd for fedora is also in the works and should be available soon.

    BSD is well known for its stability. OS X is built on top of it. FreeBSD differs from linux only slightly - linux is written entirely in C. FreeBSD is written using a combination of C and assembly. it is therefore not as portable as linux is.
    there's nothing to it. just install the distro and it will detect the other distros. i have suse and fedora on mine.
     
  2. BSD is a direct descendent of Berkley Unix. Linux was written from scratch to be 'Unix Like'
     
  3. seanm

    seanm I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize!

    Feb 19, 2004
    Ottawa, Canada
    I only run Linux at home. All my home machines run Slackware.

    At work I write Linux (and soon windows) device drivers for PIKA.

    Linux is UNIX like. It looks like UNIX but was written from scratch.

    BSD *is* UNIX. Bell Labs developed UNIX and gave the code to Berkley and that code became BSD.

    Is it a good thing? The BSDs are geared towards servers. The SMP support is not as mature. They have less device drivers.
     
  4. mdurell

    mdurell

    Mar 9, 2006
    Boulder, CO
    What they said about BSD...

    Basically when Bell Labs made UNIX they were prevented from selling software because of the mandated telecom monopoly they were basically only allowed to be a telecom company. As such when they developed UNIX they either had to or choose to give away the source all one had to do was pay for the 9-track tape. UC Berkley did just this (with System 3 I believe but I could be wrong, this was way before my time) and shortly there after the first fork was born. For a long time BSD shared significant code with UNIX.

    There was a lawsuit back in the 80s and as such some of the BSDs was forced to be rewritten. The BSDs (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and I'm sure there are others) of today share no code with UNIX. Neither does Linux. From a users point of view there's functionally no difference. From an administrators standpoint the only difference is how the kernel is tweaked (and this varies with every kernel anyway) and how the usual tools are managed. You see the BSD camp often prefered and shipped different tools than the SysV camp (printing deamons were always problematic). Through the years most of this has worked itself out and pretty much every *nix uses basically the same tools or at least the same options.

    To the developers, however, often different libraries were used but this has been, basically, resolved today with portable glibc and such. But, there are basic low-level architectual differences that shouldn't concern you unless you are a kernel developer (device drivers and such) or are a hard-core C developer.

    The biggest difference really boils down to licensing. The BSDs are licensed under a BSD-style license (imagine that) that basically says you can use the software for anything, modify it anyway you wish and do whatever with it you want... just don't go whining to UCB if it causes WW III.

    Linux, OTOH, is licensed via GPL v2 and places one significant limitation the BSD license doesn't. It says if you release any software that is based on GPL-licensed code, you are obligated to release your modifications under the GPL as well. Techincally speaking the BSD license is more "free" (as in speech) but the GPL is more "open".

    Anyway, stick with CentOS to learn on... then get a feel for the others. If you end up doing commercial work eventually you'll need to know Red Hat pretty well and it's not like skills don't transfer, it really boils down to differences in how the distributions are managed and configured.

    Oh, and as far as shells go... don't worry about learning a bunch of them... There are basically two flavors... Bourne and C. C shell was the original shell. Only masocists use C shell. ;-) All others are some derivitive or Bourne and inside these you see Bourne Again (bash... clever, huh?) and Korn (ksh). Straight Bourne shell is dead but good to script in as it's an awesome "least common denominator". While there are derivitives these are the two primary. On some *nixs ksh is vendor preferred (AIX), on others standard Bourne (most others outside of Linux and AIX) but on newer releases we are seeing Bourne being heavily replaced with Bourne Again.

    Do yourself a big favor and learn either bash or ksh really well then figure out how to do similar stuff that you use all the time in the other once you are comfortable. I can get around equally well in bash and ksh but prefer bash to a larger degree because it's considerably more modern and has more and better features. But, if you can move around one you can move around the other just fine. csh on the other hand... yuk.

    Oh, and it's *never* a good idea to change root's default shell. I've seen this break some *nixs only in single-user mode (as in the system won't boot and now you just lost access to your recovery shell) and can cause other issues with poorly written startup scripts. In fact, it's a good idea to change AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE with root's enviornment. Use sudo and/or su instead.

    I'll get off my soap box now.
     
  5. AspiringBassMan

    AspiringBassMan

    Dec 10, 2005
    UK
    i know the history. they are highly compatible with one another, so there is almost no difference on the surface. the differences(that i've mentioned) lie in the kernel.
    z shell would be a better bet than either ksh or tcsh. but bash is the most suitable of all - the only reason not to use bash is if there is a good reason not to...and thats not likely.
     
  6. I wasn't trying to correct you, I was clarifying for whoever asked the original question.

    I used BSD (and I have it on a SPARC box in my bedroom) and actually found the few differences to be initially quite frustrating, despite having used slackware linux for years. I think it annoyed me because in linux I can solve any problem I come up against, but with BSD I had errors where I just didn't know what to do and couldn't find the same issue anywhere on the net. I guess using a minority OS on minority hardware really doesn't help the issue...
     
  7. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Alexandria,VA
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound
    Thanks folks, looks like CentOS is the distro for me at the moment. I'm in the middle of installing it now, and it has the packages that I am looking for. I really like the fact that the distro is gear toward server/desktop or both. I'm gonna run it as both, and it doesn't look like I'll need to dual boot as long as it does what it needs to do.

    Thanks for the great advice
     
  8. mdurell

    mdurell

    Mar 9, 2006
    Boulder, CO
    I disagree... At home or in pure linux enviornments this may be (somewhat) true... But out there in the commercial world there are many *nixs that just don't have this choice and installing new shells isn't possible either because you don't have root access or are prohibited by policy.

    Outside the Linux and Free/OpenBSD worlds often times you are given three choices for a shell: sh, ksh and csh and that's it. I can tell you from experience that working on AIX with anything other than ksh is going to be a bear and AIX is pretty common in high-end enviornments.

    Of course, as with anything, when it's your machine you can do what you please but there is a need for well-qualified professionals with this *nix experience out there. No one is going to hire someone that can't use the default shells. Granted most are similar enough that you can deal with the others but it's quite frustrating when you have to work with a shell that's fighting you. It really all just depends on what you want to accomplish but also on what tools are at your disposal and, quite frequently, your choice in shells in high-end commercial enviornments is VERY limited. My suggestion of ksh or bash was based around this premise.
     
  9. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Alexandria,VA
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound
    CentOS has been installed. And I really dig it. No need for dual boot at the moment, cuz this seems to be the distro for me.

    Now it looks like I'm going to be losing some sleep as I install cool apps, and configure it.
     
  10. AspiringBassMan

    AspiringBassMan

    Dec 10, 2005
    UK
    you can disagree all you like. i've been there, done that. guess what i was using (mostly) when i worked on a HP-UX platform for several years? answer: zsh.
     
  11. You were using zsh, but are you saying the bourne (or bourne again) shell wasn't available at all?
     
  12. Geek fight...geek fight!!!!! :hyper:
     
  13. AspiringBassMan

    AspiringBassMan

    Dec 10, 2005
    UK
    . the bourne shell was there (ie sh). the c shell was there. and the z shell was there. bash wasn't. the korn shell wasn't. and neither was tcsh.
     
  14. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Alexandria,VA
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound
    Could get ugly

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Holy crap!!! I just nearly pooped myself! Thanks jive1 :eek:

    Geek fights can get pretty scary...
     
  16. mdurell

    mdurell

    Mar 9, 2006
    Boulder, CO
    Look at what I started... Sorry everyone.

    Oh, and Star Wars sucks! Captain Kirk could kick Darth Vader's rear-end any day of the week! ;-)

    Jive1 - Glad you're digging CentOS... It's a good distribution and a very safe choice.
     
  17. embellisher

    embellisher Holy Ghost filled Bass Player Supporting Member

    That is one of the reviews that steered me towards PCLOS. And I am loving it more each day! I haven't booted Windows in almost a week.:hyper:
     
  18. anonymous278347457

    anonymous278347457 Guest

    Feb 12, 2005
    I used to have SUSE dual booted with XP, but since SUSE didnt work with my usb modem. so all i used it for was to make myself feel "uber-pro"


    also on a more serious note it somehow screwed up my MBR, so it made me panic so much because i couldent boot xp i got rid of it
     
  19. mdurell

    mdurell

    Mar 9, 2006
    Boulder, CO
    fdisk /mbr in DOS.

    Afraid to say it but Windows is the one with the screwy MBR...
     
  20. phxlbrmpf

    phxlbrmpf

    Dec 27, 2002
    Germany
    Ok, I tried to install Gentoo (using the installer) last night but screwed up when adding users. Can someone tell me how to fill out the forms correctly? What do I put in for "Group", for example? I left it blank which caused the install to fail. :meh:

    I recognise all of them except the dude with the star on his chest. :D
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.