On Friday, 02/04/2005 at 11:27 ZE7, Andri W Sundara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Does anybody have comparison between Linux and Unix ?
Mr. Thornton's cough syrup-induced remarks aside, "Unix" is a brand name
conferred upon a variety of POSIX-oriented operating systems, indicative
of a common ancestor in their implementations. "Linux" refers to a
specific implementation of a POSIX-oriented operating system that does not
to contain any DNA from the common ancestor. On the surface, many would
claim that there is no difference (Adam's point), but that's more a side
effect of the POSIX nature of the operating systems. [The limb is weak; I
can go no further.]
So, you really can't compare "Unix" and "Linux". They are terms of art.
Well, I guess you can compare, but it's just a
philosophical/legal/religious/spelling discussion. In terms of specific
features or characteristics, you can only compare specific
implementations. E.g. "AIX vs. Linux on PowerPC" or "Sun Solaris vs.
Linux on x86".
Comparing across architectures ("Solaris on x86 vs. Linux on zSeries") is
problematic at best. That's not a comparison of Solaris vs. Linux, but
one of x86 vs. zSeries. Enter, stage left, discussions about Total Cost
of Ownership, CPU speeds, I/O capacity, partitioning, and virtualization
features.
But in this mainframe-specific forum, there is no [commercially viable]
mainframe implementation of anything you would recognize as "Unix", so the
implementation comparison is impossible.
To splitters of hairs: Yes, z/OS has a Unix-branded API and shell
available, but I you can't call z/OS "Unix".
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
