Detailed responses below.
One general comment: "Linux" is ambiguous. Technically, it is only a kernel
and a few related files (modules). Informally, everyone (except Richard
Stallman, I suppose) uses it to refer to the group of packages that makes up
the core of a Linux distribution, such as Slackware, Red Hat, Debian, or any
of many others. This second usage is necessarily imprecise, since there is
no well-defined core set of packages. So often, questions you pose about
"Linux" need to be posed in the conetxt of specific distributions.
At 03:05 PM 7/3/99 -0500, Richard Salts wrote:
>Linux and Unix: When I've downloaded files for Linux, the directories from
>which I've gotten them from describe them as being in a Unix archive, or
>something like that. What is the relationship between Linux and Unix?
Linux is, technically, a "Unix-like" operating system. The reason why it is
"Unix-like" and not Unix has to do mainly with ownership of the trademark
"Unix", and you'd need a lawyer (or someone brave enough to venture legal
opinions though not a lawyer) to explain the details accurately. In
practice, ignoring legal distinctions, you can treat Linux as though it were
a form of Unix without encountering technical problems.
One suggestion for the future, though: when you ask technical questions,
tossing in "or something like that" is generally bad form. It means the
people who are trying to help you have to begin by guessing what you mean,
and that makes it harder for us. I imagine the archives you saw were tar or
tar.gz (or possibly tgz) files. The tar suffix identifies a file that
consists of a tar archive, possibly then compressed using gzip compression.
"man tar" and "man gzip" will tell you what you need to know about these
from a technical standpoint. There are other kinds on "Unix" archives ("man
compress" will tell you about the most common alternative), but these are
the most common.
>System maintenance: Does Linux have anything like Windows for system
>maintenance? Like, for example, Windows has 'Disk Defragmenter', which I
>understand Linux doesn't need but does Linux need any kind of regular
>Windows-like maintenance program(s) to keem itself and computer in optimum
>running order?
What does Windows have besides a degragmenter? You can find a defragger for
Linux, and systems with a lot of file changes may benefit from an occasional
use of a defragger, but most people run one rarely if ever (I've never done
so, for example, in 6+ years of using Linux).
>Messy file installations or not? When installing and uninstalling (I'm
>assuming that Linux has some sort of 'uninstall' for removing unwanted
>software?) programs for Linux to use or not to use, how does Linux put
>programs on the hard drive? Does it scatter the various program files
>helter-skelter like DOS/Windows does or does it install its programs in a
>more uniform manner that does not require much, if any, constant
>straightening up of files?
As to "uninstall" programs, here is a case where the distinction between
Linux itself and a specific distribution is important. The rpm system
developed by Red Hat and since used by many others maintains a database that
permist uninstalld. I believe the Debian package manager also has some such
capability. Generally speaking, though, programs that you install from tar
or tar.gz files have no uninstall machanism.
People will disagree about this, but to my eye, Linux software installation
remains messy. There are efforts to standardize the Linux filesystem layout,
but these are well short of success and seem to spark flamewars whenever I
see the details discussed on lists. My practice is always to keep careful
notes on **everything** I add to a system after initial installation of the
distribution, and to keep the archive file somewhere safe, so I have a
fighting chance of restoring things after a failure. Since I haven't had a
real failure in years, I haven't been able to test the success of this
approach ... but it's served me well for upgrades to new versions of a
distribution.
>Anti Virus programs? Is there any kind of anti-virus program(s) available
>for Linux? Or is Linux not troubled as much as the MS-Windows crowd is by
>the virus vandals?
Generally speaking, Linux is not virus prone. Certainly not the way Windows
is, for a couple of technical reasons -- better memory management in the
kernel, a more secure file-permissions structure, and none of the "features"
that introduce vulnerabilities by way of making it wasy to run application
macros from an e-mail reader. Also, there are enough fewer Linux systems
than Windows systems that, I suspect, the idiots who write and release
viruses don't yet see Linux as a sufficiently entertaining target.
I did see a posting a few days ago about a beta version of a program to
screen e-mail for viruses. Don't have the details, though - sorry.
If your Linux system is regularly on the 'net, you may want to look into
improving its security. Like any networked operating system, Linux does have
vulnerabilities to break-ins, and, unfortunately, most distributions don't
go far enough in configuring the system to be safe from intrusion. Without
knowing which distribution and version you have, it's hard to give you
specific advice ... I think there is a Security HowTo that would be a good
place to start.
------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3603 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
