3 ms·

Is there anything about Unix -- then or now -- which is unquestionably better than Linux? And if yes, are the Linux versions of the features or capabilities a

by mikece 4y ago

Is there anything about Unix -- then or now -- which is unquestionably better than Linux? And if yes, are the Linux versions of the features or capabilities a significant enough constraint to warrant using Unix instead? It seems that certain networking and NAS applications are measurably better on Unix (Netflix is still a big using of FreeBSD caching servers iirc) but can't Linux close the gap?

AlbertCory 4y ago
interesting but not what I asked
- simonh 4y ago
  It’s a heady picture because there were many Unixes. Most were me-to and fairly generic for the most part, but some had novel capabilities in specific areas. IRIX for graphics, Solaris for Zones and ZFS, but none of them had everything. Often what was special was down to proprietary hardware.
PeterWhittaker 4y ago
Well, that very much depends on the UNIX in question. If one defines UNIX as POSIX, then, for the most part, or at least a pretty good part, Linux IS UNIX, because Linux implements much of POSIX, and in some cases does it better, e.g., certain functions for which POSIX is quiet or negative about thread safety are thread-safe on Linux, and there are almost always TS versions, e.g., strtok_r. Outside of POSIX, one has to conside OS specific features, two of which come to mind as superior, though this is a judgement call: Solaris Zones and Mac OS. I was a Linux desktop user for years, but I found that over time the desktop just started getting in my way (this was tennish years ago, so I am sure things have changed). I’d curse how gnome or KDE had once again broken my UX, then I’d help my wife or daughter with their Macs, enjoy the experience, the curse when I got back to my machine. One day, after a particularly frustrating battle with whatever desktop I had then (I’d gone from Ubuntu to Mint to Debian to I cannot remember what, trying to find the sweet spot), I cursed, yelled that I would be back in 90 minutes, and bought my first Mac. They’ve been a joy to use since. If Apple does something stupid, e.g., stopping at an old, brain dead bash, well, homebrew, et al, to the rescue. Solaris Zones were wicked. One could get full MAC with labelled networking and restricted root with ease. It’s finally possible to get close to Zones with a mix of capability management, namespace management, SELinux, et al, but not as easily. So, yeah, there are individual UNIXisms that are better than Linux, but overall, at least on the server side, Linux is UNIX improved.
- lizknope 4y ago
  I've been using XFCE for about 15 years. It feels like nothing has changed during that time and I think that is one of its best features.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    That's a major benefit of numerous older desktops. XFCE is one of my own fallbacks (I usually prefer WindowMaker), though fvwm, twm(!), the boxes (open-, black-, flux-, hacked-, etc.), tiled WMs, etc., are all perfectly serviceable. Some may look* vaguely dated, but tend to be rock stable and blazingly fast. XWinMan is still live, I find: <http://www.xwinman.org/ http://www.xwinman.org/>
    - lizknope 4y ago
      I'm not sure what window manager was on AIX in 1991 on an RT. Maybe it was twm. That is the first time I used Unix / X11. When I started college in 1993 our default environment was mwm but I quickly switched to vtwm and had a really cool setup. I switched to AfterStep because I loved the NeXTSTEP look and used that and WindowMaker for 10 years before moving to XFCE.
bombcar 4y ago
Some Unices come with things that Linux can technically do, but they were built-in, not bolt-on. ZFS is an example of one that's recognizable, you can bolt it onto linux and it (now) works quite well, but it was integrated much more into Solaris. There are also Unix platforms that fully support hot-swappable just about everything, which you CAN do with Linux but it's not as simple. Most of that stuff is gone by the wayside now, Linux is "good enough".
- lonelygirl15a 4y ago
  I seem to recall that Sun put ZFS under a license that has been deemed incompatible with the GPL by pretty much everyone except Canonical, and so that it can't be integrated with the kernel but must remain a "bolt-on" for legal reasons. It won't surprise me if one of these days Oracle decides that Canonical is a ripe lawsuit target over ZFS.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, but even if bolt it on (which Ubuntu does for you, any other distro it's easy to do) it's still a "bolt-on" that doesn't integrate as fully as it could if it were the native filesystem, allowing full system rollback, snapshotting, boot management, etc. It's similar to the "polish" available on macOS or Windows, Linux has all the pieces but you have to assemble them yourselves, even today.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Why would they if they haven't already? It's not like Canonical has a lot of money. But, yes, anyone else who Oracle might actually elect to sue won't go anywhere near ZFS.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Likely because they want to keep that powder dry until someone with deep pockets gets involved, Microsoft, or IBM or someone. Because there's a moderate change that it goes against them.
fsckboy 4y ago
> Is there anything about Unix -- then or now -- which is unquestionably better than Linux? back when, unices were better at real multiuser, while linux was much faster at all sorts of I/O and CPU bound things in the personal-computer, single login context. Like massaging massive amounts text data (which everybody was doing to webify it), linux was blindingly fast, but don't trying to do much else at the same time, it would bring your machine to its knees.

by mikece 4y ago

AlbertCory 4y ago

interesting but not what I asked

simonh 4y ago
It’s a heady picture because there were many Unixes. Most were me-to and fairly generic for the most part, but some had novel capabilities in specific areas. IRIX for graphics, Solaris for Zones and ZFS, but none of them had everything. Often what was special was down to proprietary hardware.

PeterWhittaker 4y ago

Well, that very much depends on the UNIX in question. If one defines UNIX as POSIX, then, for the most part, or at least a pretty good part, Linux IS UNIX, because Linux implements much of POSIX, and in some cases does it better, e.g., certain functions for which POSIX is quiet or negative about thread safety are thread-safe on Linux, and there are almost always TS versions, e.g., strtok_r. Outside of POSIX, one has to conside OS specific features, two of which come to mind as superior, though this is a judgement call: Solaris Zones and Mac OS. I was a Linux desktop user for years, but I found that over time the desktop just started getting in my way (this was tennish years ago, so I am sure things have changed). I’d curse how gnome or KDE had once again broken my UX, then I’d help my wife or daughter with their Macs, enjoy the experience, the curse when I got back to my machine. One day, after a particularly frustrating battle with whatever desktop I had then (I’d gone from Ubuntu to Mint to Debian to I cannot remember what, trying to find the sweet spot), I cursed, yelled that I would be back in 90 minutes, and bought my first Mac. They’ve been a joy to use since. If Apple does something stupid, e.g., stopping at an old, brain dead bash, well, homebrew, et al, to the rescue. Solaris Zones were wicked. One could get full MAC with labelled networking and restricted root with ease. It’s finally possible to get close to Zones with a mix of capability management, namespace management, SELinux, et al, but not as easily. So, yeah, there are individual UNIXisms that are better than Linux, but overall, at least on the server side, Linux is UNIX improved.

lizknope 4y ago
I've been using XFCE for about 15 years. It feels like nothing has changed during that time and I think that is one of its best features.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  That's a major benefit of numerous older desktops. XFCE is one of my own fallbacks (I usually prefer WindowMaker), though fvwm, twm(!), the boxes (open-, black-, flux-, hacked-, etc.), tiled WMs, etc., are all perfectly serviceable. Some may look* vaguely dated, but tend to be rock stable and blazingly fast. XWinMan is still live, I find: <http://www.xwinman.org/ http://www.xwinman.org/>
  - lizknope 4y ago
    I'm not sure what window manager was on AIX in 1991 on an RT. Maybe it was twm. That is the first time I used Unix / X11. When I started college in 1993 our default environment was mwm but I quickly switched to vtwm and had a really cool setup. I switched to AfterStep because I loved the NeXTSTEP look and used that and WindowMaker for 10 years before moving to XFCE.

bombcar 4y ago

Some Unices come with things that Linux can technically do, but they were built-in, not bolt-on. ZFS is an example of one that's recognizable, you can bolt it onto linux and it (now) works quite well, but it was integrated much more into Solaris. There are also Unix platforms that fully support hot-swappable just about everything, which you CAN do with Linux but it's not as simple. Most of that stuff is gone by the wayside now, Linux is "good enough".

lonelygirl15a 4y ago
I seem to recall that Sun put ZFS under a license that has been deemed incompatible with the GPL by pretty much everyone except Canonical, and so that it can't be integrated with the kernel but must remain a "bolt-on" for legal reasons. It won't surprise me if one of these days Oracle decides that Canonical is a ripe lawsuit target over ZFS.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, but even if bolt it on (which Ubuntu does for you, any other distro it's easy to do) it's still a "bolt-on" that doesn't integrate as fully as it could if it were the native filesystem, allowing full system rollback, snapshotting, boot management, etc. It's similar to the "polish" available on macOS or Windows, Linux has all the pieces but you have to assemble them yourselves, even today.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Why would they if they haven't already? It's not like Canonical has a lot of money. But, yes, anyone else who Oracle might actually elect to sue won't go anywhere near ZFS.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Likely because they want to keep that powder dry until someone with deep pockets gets involved, Microsoft, or IBM or someone. Because there's a moderate change that it goes against them.

fsckboy 4y ago

> Is there anything about Unix -- then or now -- which is unquestionably better than Linux? back when, unices were better at real multiuser, while linux was much faster at all sorts of I/O and CPU bound things in the personal-computer, single login context. Like massaging massive amounts text data (which everybody was doing to webify it), linux was blindingly fast, but don't trying to do much else at the same time, it would bring your machine to its knees.