Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 12:30 AM

I find the history of Unix fascinating...

The people controlling the fate of Unix historically have never been businessey type people, but a bunch of geeks, often with strong beliefs about computing that have conflicted with the interests of guys wearing business suits. Based on business and marketing type considerations alone, Unix should have died long ago.

Unix has faced all sorts of competition. Why hasn't Microsoft crushed Unix/Linux? Why is a design that is so old still in use and driving some of the highest profile businesses and services in the world?

Why is it that with all of the technological advancements over the years, many still rely on basic Unix command line tools that have been in existence for longer than some of us have lived? What is it about Unix that has allowed it to survive for so many years, especially if so few people use Linux as their primary Desktop OS?

I do have my own theories and have done some reading on the subject, but I'm curious as to what your thoughts are.

Please, let's leave this broad, historical, and perhaps philosophical, rather than getting into OS debates involving how OS X is better or worse than a Linux distro and all that...

Laminar · May 3, 2007, 01:00 AM

I tried Ubuntu once and it didn't work well.

butterfly0fdoom · May 3, 2007, 01:12 AM

If you're using OS X, you're using Unix (or, at least, a loose derivative of Unix). ;D

Railroader · May 3, 2007, 01:19 AM

I like FORTRAN. And DOS. DOS very rarely crashed.

Railroader · May 3, 2007, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom

If you're using OS X, you're using Unix (or, at least, a loose derivative of Unix). ;D

[BESSON3C]But your not typing commands at a command line so your not really using UNIX, which is the best way to use the best OS ever made. [/BESSON3C]

Art Vandelay · May 3, 2007, 01:21 AM

Leopard is Unix. Apple finally paid for Mac OS X to be fully certified as a Unix OS. Prior to Leopard, OS X was always labeled as Unix-based.

Railroader · May 3, 2007, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Please, let's leave this broad, historical, and perhaps philosophical, rather than getting into OS debates involving how OS X is better or worse than a Linux distro and all that...

Are you trying to tell me how to lounge? What are you now, a forums police/back-seat mod?!?!

I guess Mr. Guttenberg has pooped in your kitchen while using a GUI instead of typing his commands at the command line and now we have to pay for it.

Buckaroo · May 3, 2007, 01:44 AM

I'm getting real close to my 2000th post. Oh my gosh. I am starting to feel geekish.

Correction. This is my 2000th post.

It's official. I'm a geek.

j/k

faragbre967 · May 3, 2007, 01:45 AM

Because it works. Is it really still that confusing to some people? It was designed well from the beginning; hence it works today.

His Dudeness · May 3, 2007, 01:50 AM

Why hasn't Microsoft crushed Unix/Linux? Well, UNIX has been around longer than Bill Gares has been alive, I bet. And as for Linux, I'm using Kubuntu 7.04 and every piece of software I have on here is FREE. That's why. Oh, and it works.

Buckaroo · May 3, 2007, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Why hasn't Microsoft crushed Unix/Linux? Well, UNIX has been around longer than Bill Gares has been alive, I bet. And as for Linux, I'm using Kubuntu 7.04 and every piece of software I have on here is FREE. That's why. Oh, and it works.

I don't know much about Linux programs, and found your post interesting. I googled Kubuntu and found it interesting.

Are there any programs that you miss using Kubuntu instead of Mac OSX?

Post #2001

badidea · May 3, 2007, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Unix has faced all sorts of competition. Why hasn't Microsoft crushed Unix/Linux? Why is a design that is so old still in use and driving some of the highest profile businesses and services in the world?

Because it costs Millions if you lose worktime because of troubleshooting your work computer in a big business environment!

My HP/UX visualize workstation is now up and running crash free since about 10 months - and back then it only crashed because someone forgot to leave the windows open last summer and there is no A/C in this crappy building...over 50°C roomtemperature was too much! Not good for a 15.000€ HP computer!

kick52 · May 3, 2007, 03:55 AM

microsoft haters, servers, open source, and lots and lots of geeks.

Chuckit · May 3, 2007, 04:45 AM

What has allowed Unix to survive is that it was never truly alive in the same sense that Windows and Mac OS X are. Windows and Mac OS X are singular products tied to specific companies. Unix, however, is just a concept. Unix branches have come and gone, but none of those things were themselves Unix, so we say it continued. As long as the source to a Unix exists somewhere, it's not dead. Thus, Microsoft can't crush it — nor does Microsoft have to crush it. As long as Microsoft prevents Unix from infringing on its areas of interest, Zombie Unix can go on its merry way and it won't make a bit of difference to Redmond.

Super Mario · 03:50 PM

DOS never crashed for me. DOS is hot. It's gonna make a come back.

Why hasn't Microsoft crushed Unix/Linux?
...
Please, let's leave this broad, historical, and perhaps philosophical, rather than getting into OS debates involving how OS X is better or worse than a Linux distro and all that...

Linux is not Unix. It is a clone. OS X is closer to being a Unix.

His Dudeness · May 3, 2007, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I don't know much about Linux programs, and found your post interesting. I googled Kubuntu and found it interesting.

Are there any programs that you miss using Kubuntu instead of Mac OSX?

Post #2001

No, not really. All the functionality of the Linux programs under KDE are there, the same way is in OS X. I've been using Ubuntu for a few years and love it. I also have another laptop with Fedora Core 6, plus I still have my iMac G5.

His Dudeness · May 3, 2007, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Super Mario

DOS never crashed for me. DOS is hot. It's gonna make a come back.

Linux is not Unix. It is a clone. OS X is closer to being a Unix.

Linux is based off of much of the same core programs as Unix. Linux was created to run on the x86 platform and its code was released by its creator for free. OS X is based off of FreeBSD, which is essentially the same thing. UNIX just costs mucho money and Linux is free, so is FreeBSD.

Kevin · May 3, 2007, 07:22 AM

Because it still has a small footprint for things like servers and whatnot. Like Mac OS, *nixs have their niche factor.

I don't think ANYONE would say various flavors of .nix systems are useful. They are!

Just not for everything. Linux hasn't came that far in the past 5 years as far as ease of use and GUI goes. Sure it's slicker etc.

They need to make a OS like OS X. All the .NIX goodness if you want it. But if you don't want to deal with command line you don't HAVE to. That and major application support. If Linux or whatever has those two things I could be brought into mainstream use. Otherwise it will stay as a niche OS used for mostly server work and geek usage.

The real reason that it's still around however is, There is no one company that could go under and kill it.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Please, let's leave this broad, historical, and perhaps philosophical, rather than getting into OS debates involving how OS X is better or worse than a Linux distro and all that...

Considering how many times you've derailed a Windows or Mac OS thread with your .NIX rambling, I would say if it happens you'll just have to deal with it.

Kevin · May 3, 2007, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What has allowed Unix to survive is that it was never truly alive in the same sense that Windows and Mac OS X are. Windows and Mac OS X are singular products tied to specific companies. Unix, however, is just a concept. Unix branches have come and gone, but none of those things were themselves Unix, so we say it continued. As long as the source to a Unix exists somewhere, it's not dead. Thus, Microsoft can't crush it — nor does Microsoft have to crush it. As long as Microsoft prevents Unix from infringing on its areas of interest, Zombie Unix can go on its merry way and it won't make a bit of difference to Redmond.

Basically what I was trying to say above. But you said it better.

Super Mario · 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Linux is based off of much of the same core programs as Unix. Linux was created to run on the x86 platform and its code was released by its creator for free. OS X is based off of FreeBSD, which is essentially the same thing. UNIX just costs mucho money and Linux is free, so is FreeBSD.

The guy who started this discussion thinks Linux is a Unix. Linux is not a Unix. It is a unix-like OS that does not meet SUS (Single Unix Specification). BSD is a true Unix derivative. OS X uses parts of BSD but at the moment it is not a true Unix either because the XNU (X-not-Unix) kernal isn't SUS although that could change. Linux can never be SUS because it isn't derived from a Unix branch at all. Darwin is also not a true Unix.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 08:00 AM

I know full well that Linux isn't Unix, and I know full well the difference.

I was speaking to "Unix" in umbrella terms - the Unix concept, and all OSes that came from this original concept. This includes HP/UX, Solaris, all Linuxes, OS X, etc.

mac128k-1984 · May 3, 2007, 08:09 AM

Well for my job I maintain a number of servers some of which are unix (Solaris) and to be honest they're much more stable then windows and provide more horse power. If the perception that unix is for "heavy lifting" then it will continue. What I find facinating is the fact that Linux is making major inroads in corporate America. Why should we pay major $$$$ for Solaris when we can pay a fraction of that

Super Mario · 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I know full well that Linux isn't Unix, and I know full well the difference.

You don't know the difference. I quote you.

Why hasn't Microsoft crushed Unix/Linux?

You never put a slash between Unix and Linux even talking umbrella terms. Then you won't shut up about Linux when you have created a Unix discussion. Not all unix-like operating systems 'came from this original concept' as you say it. Make your mind up about which OS you want to talk about.

Laminar · May 3, 2007, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Basically what I was trying to say above. But you said it better.

And in a single paragraph.

C.A.T.S. CEO · May 3, 2007, 08:20 AM

From wikipedia

OS X isn't on there but we know where it goes.

kick52 · May 3, 2007, 08:26 AM

Why is it still around?

Because CATS CEO downloads thousands of distros onto Parallels.

Kevin · May 3, 2007, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

And in a single paragraph.

PWNT11

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Leopard is Unix. Apple finally paid for Mac OS X to be fully certified as a Unix OS. Prior to Leopard, OS X was always labeled as Unix-based.

I wonder what motivated Apple to do this?

besson3c · 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What has allowed Unix to survive is that it was never truly alive in the same sense that Windows and Mac OS X are. Windows and Mac OS X are singular products tied to specific companies. Unix, however, is just a concept. Unix branches have come and gone, but none of those things were themselves Unix, so we say it continued. As long as the source to a Unix exists somewhere, it's not dead. Thus, Microsoft can't crush it — nor does Microsoft have to crush it. As long as Microsoft prevents Unix from infringing on its areas of interest, Zombie Unix can go on its merry way and it won't make a bit of difference to Redmond.

I think it does make a difference to Redmond. They compete against each other in the server space, and Linux represents the biggest threat to Windows. MS has a history of crushing companies it wants to do away with.

Your point about Unix not being a company is a valid one though, but with the way technology changes so rapidly, isn't it rather interesting how Microsoft has not figured out a way to make Unix obsolete and unappealing? Unix has changed too, but at its heart is the same basic foundation and computing it has had for years, right?

Maybe this is because people internalize Windows or the Mac as being equal to the GUI in which the OS runs on, where Unix is a more abstract and esoteric kind of thing, like you were saying? Maybe the Windows core hasn't really been gutted either since its DOS days?

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Linux is based off of much of the same core programs as Unix. Linux was created to run on the x86 platform and its code was released by its creator for free. OS X is based off of FreeBSD, which is essentially the same thing. UNIX just costs mucho money and Linux is free, so is FreeBSD.

Historically speaking, some geeks wanted to clone Unix in a manner that wasn't commercially controlled, so they started piecing together an OS based on "gnu" software. Richard Stallman is considered the founder of the Gnu software movement, IIRC. Linux is simply a kernel coupled with gnu software, the kernel invented by Linus Torvalds. BSD features a different style kernel which has origins in proprietary Unix, OS X is based on the BSD "mach" kernel.

Correct me if any of these details are wrong.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Well for my job I maintain a number of servers some of which are unix (Solaris) and to be honest they're much more stable then windows and provide more horse power. If the perception that unix is for "heavy lifting" then it will continue. What I find facinating is the fact that Linux is making major inroads in corporate America. Why should we pay major $$$$ for Solaris when we can pay a fraction of that

Yeah, we are entertaining replacing some of our Sun boxes with Linux machines. While the hardware/software integration Sun offers has been very cool, it doesn't offer the conveniences that Linux does for us.

It seems that old paradigm of having big expensive mainframes is being replaced by clusters of Linux drones, which is how Google is setup.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Super Mario

You don't know the difference. I quote you.

You never put a slash between Unix and Linux even talking umbrella terms. Then you won't shut up about Linux when you have created a Unix discussion. Not all unix-like operating systems 'came from this original concept' as you say it. Make your mind up about which OS you want to talk about.

The programming styles, administration techniques, and many other concepts are identical enough that competent Linux admins can get jobs admining proprietary Unix machines and vice versa. I was speaking in shorthand because I was thinking of the broader picture, not why Unix or Linux individually has survived, but how Posix Unix-like OSes and all of their iterations have survived.

Moving on?

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 10:02 AM

Unix exists in many flavors because the companies and groups that develop them have different goals for their projects. One of the reasons why Unix was fragmented was because of AT&T's longstanding lawsuit against BSD, which is what allowed Linux to gain greater popularity. I'm glad that you clarified you aren't asking how, in general, Unix survived, because that's a really noobish question.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Unix exists in many flavors because the companies and groups that develop them have different goals for their projects. One of the reasons why Unix was fragmented was because of AT&T's longstanding lawsuit against BSD, which is what allowed Linux to gain greater popularity. I'm glad that you clarified you aren't asking how, in general, Unix survived, because that's a really noobish question.

In general? Do you mean in specific?

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

In general? Do you mean in specific?

You're wondering about how specific incarnations of Unix with very limited popularity survived, right?

Aron Peterson · May 3, 2007, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Linux represents the biggest threat to Windows.

The year is now 1997. I repeat, the year is now 1997.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 10:17 AM

Building on what Chuckit said so well, as well as one of my comments to him, if people equate the Windows GUI to being Windows and the Mac GUI to being the Mac, what GUI would you equate to being a Linux/Unix GUI?

In Eric Raymond's book "The Art of Unix Programming", he mentions how the original programming philosophy of Unix was not to dictate policy, but to simply provide mechanism. In other words, there have been developers that have worked on libraries and mechanisms abstracted from any GUI, while others have attempted to make GUIs and devise policy. Apple is one company that worked very hard on perfecting GUI policy in coming up with Aqua.

When users criticize Linux as being too hard to use, what often seems to really be criticized is the lack of overarching policy and consistency. Perhaps this hasn't originated from the community because the community has never been particularly interested in doing this?

Now that Ubuntu has been gaining in popularity and momentum, it will be interesting to see if this team is able to do what Apple did, working closely with the developers of GNOME and/or KDE (or any other front runner default window manager). It will probably take several more years, open source development is not always as fast as commercial development, but I believe that it will eventually be able to accommodate the killer applications we have devised thus far.

When will the next killer application be? We've had the word processor, spreadsheet, desktop publishing app, internet applications... It seems like the next major one has been a long time in the making and that we have spent many years refining these existing innovations. As long as we are refining and not taking computing in radical new directions, it seems like only a matter of time before we are able to put some of these earlier innovations in the public domain via open source software and/or Linux.

Just some musings...

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You're wondering about how specific incarnations of Unix with very limited popularity survived, right?

No, see my last post to Super Mario.

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson

The year is now 1997. I repeat, the year is now 1997.

Huh? The fact that Linux threatens Windows is a reality, not a pipe dream. There are governments and companies all over the world that are running Linux and/or open source software. This is a threat to Microsoft. I have not measured the threat or predicted Microsoft's demise, but it is a threat.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

No, see my last post to Super Mario.

Yeah, I thought that's what you meant.

Aron Peterson · May 3, 2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Huh? The fact that Linux threatens Windows is a reality, not a pipe dream. There are governments and companies all over the world that are running Linux and/or open source software. This is a threat to Microsoft. I have not measured the threat or predicted Microsoft's demise, but it is a threat.

The market is growing so fast and has plenty of space for Windows, OS X and Linux. The idea of one OS being a threat to another is a decade old when not many foresaw how wide the global economy would be in 2007. Usage of all three operating systems has grown on servers and desktops and isn't slowing down. There's space for everyone to achieve either profitability or development goals.

In fact, right now the WTO is coming down hard on countries like China, India, Brazil, etc forcing them to eradicate pirate movies, music and software and to respect global intellectual copyrights. That will mean more legitimate usage of Windows (Microsoft is lowering prices and creating cheap tailored versions of Windows for developing countries) and Mac OS X, as well as a rise in Linux usage.

SirCastor · May 3, 2007, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Huh? The fact that Linux threatens Windows is a reality, not a pipe dream. There are governments and companies all over the world that are running Linux and/or open source software. This is a threat to Microsoft. I have not measured the threat or predicted Microsoft's demise, but it is a threat.

The response that Microsoft gives is probably a good measuring stick. They have websites devoted to addressing the benefits of Windows Server over Linux, something I have yet to see from them regarding OS X.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by SirCastor

The response that Microsoft gives is probably a good measuring stick. They have websites devoted to addressing the benefits of Windows Server over Linux, something I have yet to see from them regarding OS X.

Yeah, but M$ also bristled over unfavorable comparisons between Vista and OS X. And comments have been made against the Mac ads.

Aron Peterson · May 3, 2007, 10:53 AM

Microsoft says this about its Server product vs Linux
Get the Facts Home

Recent article at Zdnet says Microsoft starting to win over Linux servers.

The London Stock Exchange also chose Windows Server over Linux for reliability reasons.

Windows Server vs Linux benchmark results from 1999 (way back then) had Linux trounced.

Also, in the developing world people are more likely to choose Windows over Linux because they come from computer illiterate backgrounds and more often than not won't be able to comprehend configuring Linux or repairing it when things go wrong.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 10:55 AM

The developing world is going to start accepting Linux in large volume if the OLPC project takes off. Governments around the world have been choosing Linux.

Aron Peterson · May 3, 2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The developing world is going to start accepting Linux in large volume if the OLPC project takes off.

OLPC just won't take off for very obvious reasons (giving nuts, which is what OLPCs are, to the poor only makes them think that you believe they are monkeys) and Linux growth will always be limited by what you can do with Linux.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson

OLPC just won't take off for very obvious reasons (giving nuts, which is what OLPCs are, to the poor only makes them think that you believe they are monkeys) and Linux growth will always be limited by what you can do with Linux.

What's so bad about the OLPC? Just that it runs Linux only?

Aron Peterson · May 3, 2007, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What's so bad about the OLPC? Just that it runs Linux only?

They make poor people feel like beggars. Give them something useful like refurbished or old but fully featured PCs that they can fill their schools with. Kids learn computing by first playing games and going in chatrooms. They need proper PCs to get that not a wind-up toy. The OLPC is like passing a homeless person in the street and giving him a plastic cup to beg with. It's an insult when we've got so many PCs going for recycling every year.

analogika · May 3, 2007, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

From wikipedia

OS X isn't on there but we know where it goes.

This one's a lot more comprehensive, and it includes all branches of NeXTstep/OPENstep and Mac OS X:

http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson

Microsoft says this about its Server product vs Linux
Get the Facts Home

Recent article at Zdnet says Microsoft starting to win over Linux servers.

The London Stock Exchange also chose Windows Server over Linux for reliability reasons.

Windows Server vs Linux benchmark results from 1999 (way back then) had Linux trounced.

Also, in the developing world people are more likely to choose Windows over Linux because they come from computer illiterate backgrounds and more often than not won't be able to comprehend configuring Linux or repairing it when things go wrong.

Are you trying to claim the accuracy and balanced nature of these reports?