Douglas Mayne <doug@sl12.localnet> writes: >On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:30:33 +0000, zeno wrote: >> Would someone(s) clarify the diff between Sun O.S. and Linux (e.g. >> SuSE). I used SuSE and RedHat in previous times, but was restricted >> to Windows during the past five years until I reached this point to >> use UNIX or Linux. I find that in my absence, Linux has advanced, >> changed, become more user friendly but also retains many quirks from >> before, such as needing to install an app twice >> rather than just a one-shot task. From just first glance at Sun, it No idea what you are talking about. No app I have ever installed required that it be installed twice. >> seemed much more sophisticated and mature than Linux. So...what are glances can be deceiving. >> the advantages to one or the other. And any other things to consider >> before I blow away SuSE or use some other distro. A HUGE program base in Linux which is not there in SunOS is just one. >> >> TIA Geoffrey Zeno >> >Zeroing in on the definitions... >Suse, RedHat, and others are GNU/Linux distributions. A GNU/Linux >distribution contains the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset which >eanable it to function as a Unix-like OS. There are several officially >certified Unices; AFAIK, no GNU/Linux distribution has received official >Unix certification. Sun's Solaris is a certified Unix. The wikipedia And the advantage of Unix certification is what? >is your friend: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Unix.png >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like >Licenses... >The development process for GNU/Linux uses an open source model, with the >GPL license at the core of its success, IMO. Until recently, Sun has used >a totally closed-source development process. Now, it has released >OpenSolaris which has some desirable features, but without totally >adopting a GPL philosophy. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License >Choices... >As for me, I use GNU/Linux because it gives the stability and features >that I need, which includes the freedom to use it as I see fit. >GNU/Linux had a relatively slow start, with some "ugly" interfaces along >the way. The OS has momentum now with more and more developers, software >projects, and new hardware devices joining the GNU/Linux camp everyday. >The "face" that GNU/Linux presents to the world is also a lot prettier >today than several years ago. (More Cover Girl makeup?) It has some fancy >3-D GUIs available via Beryl, or just a clean, nicely rendered user >desktop as typified by the XFCE project. Be advised that if you >are used to the "one-size fits all" approach offered by MS, then you could >be confused by the wealth of choices: >MS: "What's a firefox and why would you use that if our sweet, little IE >is available?" >Be advised that that GNU/Linux still does not adhere to that approach. >The user is assumed to be educated enough to use the tool which is most >appropriate for a given task. If there is no tool available which fits the >need, then new projects spring up to fill the void. And usually there are 10 tools, each with advantages and disavantages. >-- >Douglas Mayne

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article <1189168233.946142.233790@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, zeno wrote: NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. >Would someone(s) clarify the diff between Sun O.S. and Linux (e.g. >SuSE). SunOS is an obsolete BSD derived flavor of UNIX. The last version was 4.1.4 released in November 1994. SunOS only works on Sun Microsystems hardware (and the few clones). SunOS was superseded by Solaris, which is a SVR4 based UNIX that can be found for Sun hardware as well as a limited selection of x86 hardware. The current version is Solaris 10. There are three definitions of Linux: the Linux kernel, the Linux OS, and the various Linux distributions. Most people, however, refer to the operating system kernel, system software, and application software, collectively, as "Linux". The Linux O/S is an independently written system that is similar to, but not licensed to use the tradename UNIX. As for the actual differences between SunOS, Solaris, Linux, and other similar O/S, it's pretty much the same as the differences between a car built by General Motors, compared to one built by Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and so on. The O'Reilly book 'Essential System Administration, Third Edition' (Aug 2002, US$54.95, ISBN 0-596-00343-9) is relatively dated, but goes a long way in explaining the differences. If you need comparisons to SunOS, you'd have to find a copy of the second edition of this book (ISBN 1-56592-127-5, Sep 1995). As regards details of individual distributions of Linux, they're all pretty much the same if you are using the command line rather than the purty GUI tools, but as there are literally hundreds of distributions, with each distributor improving things to "make it right", some things can get rather bizarre. >I used SuSE and RedHat in previous times, And you noticed the differences between those popular distributions >I find that in my absence, Linux has advanced, changed, become more >user friendly but also retains many quirks from before, Well, even windoze has changed over five or six years. >such as needing to install an app twice rather than just a one-shot >task. Explain? Linux distributions with package managers (which is to say just about all of them) are pretty much a 'one-step' install, although this being a multi-user operating system you may want to tweak the user's configurations. That's no difference from what you'll find installing SunOS or Solaris or any other branded UNIX. >From just first glance at Sun, it seemed much more sophisticated and >mature than Linux. Sun has been in the UNIX business since 1983 (the first Linux distros date from ten years later), but if you're talking about SunOS rather than Solaris, you are talking about a long dead operating system. Sun has much more experience, but supports a lot less hardware. There is a far greater selection of software available for Linux, but just as an binary for Solaris won't work on an IRIX, or AIX box, some applications available for operating system "A" may be different, or not available on operating system "B". >So...what are the advantages to one or the other. What is the advantage of a Ford over a Chevrolet? Plymouth? Toyota? >And any other things to consider before I blow away SuSE or use some >other distro. Do you like Millers over Bud, or is Coors better? Sorry, but it's a personal taste type of thing, just like those beers, or colas, or ice cream. Your taste, your choice. Old guy