On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Nicholas Bodley wrote:
>
> what the differences are. Seems to me:
> 1) Installation procedures differ
> in the details
Very probably, although I have never installed a "typical" Un*x
> 2) Other OSes co-existing on some home/hobby Linux
> machines are likely; not so with Un*x
Yep.
> 3) Linux users have routine root
> access when they need it
> 4) Linux users are their own sysadmins.
>
These are basically the same thing. It is probably true that many linux
boxes are basically single user machines (ie the user is their own
sysadmin), but there are more and more linux boxen with multiple users,
who are not all their own sysadmins.
> (P.S.: Also, 5) If you want to run the latest release of a given
> application, you can do so! My ISP's systems people seem not to care
> about upgrading Lynx and Pine. :)
Heheh. There are often good reasons why people don't upgrade things even
when their users want them to...
> Of course, there seem to be less-commonly-used commands unique to either
> Unices or Linux, but, it seems to me that if one learns Linux well, one
> is also well prepared to use Un*x seriously.
>
Yep. Linux and other Unices are basically pretty much the same in most
respects.
> Are shell scripts likely to be essentially identical, as well, given the
> same shell for both?
>
They should be identical except that some in some unices commands like ls
and ps take slightly different (non-POSIX, wrong) arguments.
> (I'm well aware that Linux strives to be Un*x-like.)
>
And, IMHO, succeeds.
--
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
"FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"
