[Ilugc] Different UNIX variants
- From: knura9@xxxxxxxxx (Arun Khan)
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:17:38 +0530
@Girish,
With all due respect to your technical prowess, please keep your
comment to technicalities.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Girish Venkatachalam
<girishvenkatachalam at gmail.com> wrote:
It is good to know that Linux is not the world. People think Windows
and Linux are the only OSes.
What about Mac? And what about mainframe eh? ;)
Please remember that this is ILUG-Chennai mailing list i.e. it is
primarily a Linux mailing list. You don't see people discussing
Linux in Windows forums and Mac OS X mailing lists.
Anyway it is not bash. You are wrong there.
Bash is frowned upon by the UNIX community. It is full of bugs,
bloated and acts crazy.
bash ("Born Again SHell") is a GNU replacement for the original "sh"
in AT&T Unix. As for ksh IIRC, pdksh (ksh clone came later).
ksh is the preferred shell. The binutils in UNIX is different from
that of Linux. You don't have so
many switches, so many colors.
What is wrong with that? Most utils behave very similar to their *nix
counterparts and by default most utils do not use color and so what is
your issue with it?
It is overall much more mature and serious.
Please justify these claims.
The file systems; that is where the major difference lies.
Every OS has it's own file system. The default ext[234] is used in >
95% installation (perhaps even more) and I have not heard of any
catastrophic complaints about it in any IT forums.
Linux has 100 ways to do each thing. Everyone wants a gratification of
their ego.
What is wrong with Linux creating an environment that attracts
developers at large? It gives us more choice.
The other *nix variants should strive for the same kind of attraction
for the developers to flock there and contribute.
That is not how UNIX works.
The legacy Unix followed the "Cathedral" model.
Primarily UNIX means base install has gcc,make and ssh and also comes
with web and ftp servers.
gcc? To the best of my knowledge gcc stands for GNU cc.
IMO, your write up on Unix history had quite with a lot of "I think")
when the very same information was readily available (as pointed out
by KG).
Commercial interests like Redhat came long and blew such ideas to bits.
How so?
I can go on and on but the reality is that 99.9999999999999% of LUG is
still stuck in the Linux mud.
Once again, a reminder that LUG stands for Linux User Group. In
that respect you got your math wrong, you should have said 100%.
And my effort to raise people from that is not helping, has not
helped, and I don't think really
serious hackers hang around in LUG at all....
What is your benchmark for "serious hackers"? How many "devel"
mailing lists are you a member of? Those would be the place to hang
around if you are looking for a mental challenge vis-a-vis "serious
hacking." Start commenting about Linux's implementation of your
favorite OS topic in the kernel mailing list if you have not done so.
It is all a matter of choice. Members in this LUG mailing list hang
around for Linux related knowledge and issues; they are here by their
own choice.
BTW, why do you hang around here if you think Linux is mud and that
most of the members here do not measure up to your benchmark of
"serious hackers"
Please refrain from diatribe.
My two cents.
-- Arun Khan
Other related posts: