"Unix (officially trademarked as UNIX, sometimes also written as Unix) is a multitasking, multi-user computer operating system originally developed in 1969 by a group of AT&T employees at Bell Labs"

Very Happy

*AHelper sees that the posts are off-topic :-\
CalebHansberry wrote:
TheStorm wrote:

Just a short list of issues with XP.

    Window manager isn't hardware accelerated
    The process scheduler is utterly terrible, especially on muti processor systems
    It completely ignores filesystem permissions in many places
    It defaults to running everything as admin
    There are spaces in the standard filesystem hierarchy which breaks so many things
    No proper 64-bit support, or even PAE, which means you are limited to <4GB of ram
    IE5-7 are utter jokes and 8 is barely passable, and you have to use the IE renderer for many core OS functions, ones that do access the web so using another browser isn't a complete option
    Microsoft Update for XP requires using a web browser to get non-critical updates, and is barely usable if you try and avoid using a web browser


There are more but I think this covers a decent chunk of it.


Firstly, as I said, it is getting outdated after 11 years; that covers a lot.
I want everything run as admin, and I want to ignore filesystem permissions.
That's a REALLY bad idea. Running everything as admin is just begging for a wrong click or a bad email to trash your entire system. Same deal with ignoring fs permissions (meaning that randomuser can edit files in C:\ WINDOWS).
Quote:

I support Mozilla Firefox and I am fine with IE 8 for most purposes.
You are right about Microsoft Update, that is not WinXP's fault. That is Microsoft's fault for cutting off support for XP SP2 and Windows Update.
Aaaaand who was windows made by?[/quote]
64-bit and multi processor are newer things that I wouldn't expect of Windows XP.[/quote]Yeah, but they should have been fixed in one of the service packs.

Windows XP was also littered (and I mean it) with security holes. Without service packs, windows quite literally looks like swiss cheese. Even after everything is up to date, there are still many flaws in windows that need to be fixed.
Running stuff as admin. Ok. Now, if you join IRC as the user 'root', you get kicked from the server. Why? Its a bad idea. If you use a nix-like OS, why does it typically set up a root user and a limited user? Because if you are root, you can step out line. That's why it is more secure and writing malicious programs are harder.

Supporting IE you say? It recently had a large exploit found and made everyone at risk using it (IE8 or 9, not sure)

<will finish shortly>
elfprince13 wrote:
How different they are also depends on how pedantic you're being about the GNU/Linux distinction and whether you're talking about SUS compliance, or SUS certification and actual Unix branding. And it's going to vary from distro to distro.


GNU/Linux doesn't contain a single shred of Unix code and never has - that's kind of the point Razz

Quote:
OS X is pretty a Unixy under that sexy Apple exterior. I can't say for sure how Unixy iOS is under the hood, but it shares a lot of code with OS X, and I'm pretty sure it's the same core OS with a different set of UI and hardware-related APIs.


Unixy, yes, but not really unix - hell, OSX's kernel is called "XNU is Not Unix" after all. It's too far forked from the Unix origin at this point. It has a sprinkling of Unix left in it, but not much.

HP-UX & BSD are about the "purest" remaining Unix systems afaik.

Quote:
What? Unix was definitely an operating system. If you're only talking about the original Unix kernel, I don't think ANYTHING around today qualifies (except maybe HP-UX?). But....Unix isn't "just the kernel".


Ha, woops, I blame drinking & posting for that one.
Kllrnohj wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
How different they are also depends on how pedantic you're being about the GNU/Linux distinction and whether you're talking about SUS compliance, or SUS certification and actual Unix branding. And it's going to vary from distro to distro.


GNU/Linux doesn't contain a single shred of Unix code and never has - that's kind of the point Razz

Quote:
OS X is pretty a Unixy under that sexy Apple exterior. I can't say for sure how Unixy iOS is under the hood, but it shares a lot of code with OS X, and I'm pretty sure it's the same core OS with a different set of UI and hardware-related APIs.


Unixy, yes, but not really unix - hell, OSX's kernel is called "XNU is Not Unix" after all. It's too far forked from the Unix origin at this point. It has a sprinkling of Unix left in it, but not much.

HP-UX & BSD are about the "purest" remaining Unix systems afaik.

Unix isn't defined in terms of code ancestry anymore, but compliance with a specification of OS behavior. That may be part of the confusion. Also you still seem to be mixing and matching the terms "kernel" and "operating system". HP-UX is the only Unix I'm familiar with whose kernel shares code ancestry with the original Unix - the first thing that was done to differentiate BSD from its heritage was a kernel rewrite. OS X's (and Darwin's) XNU kernel may not be derived from the original Unix kernel, but neither is BSD's (though XNU is a hybridization of Mach with some elements of the BSD kernel). And the OS X userland Unix software is ripped straight out of FreeBSD. So that aspect of its code ancestry IS "original-Unix" derived. I'll also point out that CUPS is one of Apple's open source projects.

But the real defining trait for being Unix is having certified SUS-compliance, which OS X definitely does. There are currently no Linux distributions which are SUS certified, but most BSDs aren't either, and I know the LSB aims for SUS compliance.
elfprince13 wrote:
Unix isn't defined in terms of code ancestry anymore, but compliance with a specification of OS behavior. That may be part of the confusion.


Your confusion stems from you not following the thread context.
Kllrnohj wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
Unix isn't defined in terms of code ancestry anymore, but compliance with a specification of OS behavior. That may be part of the confusion.


Your confusion stems from you not following the thread context.


I was following it. You tried claiming that (a) Unix is not ubiquitous, (b) OS X/iOS don't have "much Unix left in them", (c) Linux is ubiquitous, but "VERY DIFFERENT" from Unix.

My point was to demonstrate that (b) is nonsensical under any reasonable definition of "having much Unix" that doesn't exclude everything but HP-UX, and that (c) is sort of true but definitely misleading based on common usage of "Linux" as meaning "GNU/Linux", where GNU is explicitly designed to be a Unix-like OS, and where the LSB standard aims for SUS compliance. Given both of those, (a) doesn't make much sense either, unless you really just mean "the original PDP Unix isn't ubiquitous". I'm not sure why you would mean that though, unless you also want to claim that "Windows isn't ubiquitous" because nobody runs Windows 3.1 anymore and the Windows 7 codebase looks nothing like the Windows 3.1 codebase.
elfprince13 wrote:
I was following it. You tried claiming that (a) Unix is not ubiquitous, (b) OS X/iOS don't have "much Unix left in them", (c) Linux is ubiquitous, but "VERY DIFFERENT" from Unix.

My point was to demonstrate that (b) is nonsensical under any reasonable definition of "having much Unix" that doesn't exclude everything but HP-UX, and that (c) is sort of true but definitely misleading based on common usage of "Linux" as meaning "GNU/Linux", where GNU is explicitly designed to be a Unix-like OS, and where the LSB standard aims for SUS compliance. Given both of those, (a) doesn't make much sense either, unless you really just mean "the original PDP Unix isn't ubiquitous". I'm not sure why you would mean that though, unless you also want to claim that "Windows isn't ubiquitous" because nobody runs Windows 3.1 anymore and the Windows 7 codebase looks nothing like the Windows 3.1 codebase.


So close yet so far. The context was someone claiming Windows XP was the best OS ever, to which someone else countered with Unix. Not best specification ever, best OS. As such, we have to assume he meant the actual Unix OS, not Unix-like, not SUS.
It's a question of how you define an operating system. I'm saying your definition is incoherent, silly, or both. Any program (OS or otherwise) is specified in terms of its i/o behavior at some level of abstraction - the question is what level of abstraction do we care about? Machine code for the kernel? C code for the kernel? C code for essential-but-not-kernelspace-libraries? ABI compatibility with said libraries? API compatibility with said libraries? User interface compatibility? Some combination thereof?

We're also struggling through a name/value distinction here (branding/name for legal purposes vs what's underneath). Mac OS X *is* Unix, for all legal purposes. They've paid the fees to be certified for SUS compliance, which means they are legally entitled to use the name Unix in a self descriptive fashion. The non-commercial BSDs, which are probably closer to the original Unix sourcecode, and which by most practical definitions "are Unix", are NOT legally entitled to use that name.
Kllrnohj wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
I was following it. You tried claiming that (a) Unix is not ubiquitous, (b) OS X/iOS don't have "much Unix left in them", (c) Linux is ubiquitous, but "VERY DIFFERENT" from Unix.

My point was to demonstrate that (b) is nonsensical under any reasonable definition of "having much Unix" that doesn't exclude everything but HP-UX, and that (c) is sort of true but definitely misleading based on common usage of "Linux" as meaning "GNU/Linux", where GNU is explicitly designed to be a Unix-like OS, and where the LSB standard aims for SUS compliance. Given both of those, (a) doesn't make much sense either, unless you really just mean "the original PDP Unix isn't ubiquitous". I'm not sure why you would mean that though, unless you also want to claim that "Windows isn't ubiquitous" because nobody runs Windows 3.1 anymore and the Windows 7 codebase looks nothing like the Windows 3.1 codebase.


So close yet so far. The context was someone claiming Windows XP was the best OS ever, to which someone else countered with Unix. Not best specification ever, best OS. As such, we have to assume he meant the actual Unix OS, not Unix-like, not SUS.


I meant *nix. Now lets leave it at that.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 5 of 5
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement