I realize this question automatically labels me a newbie, but can someone give me a quick rundown on the advantages/disadvantages of Linux vs. NT. vs. Unix?

Well first off... Linux is a Flavour of Unix
Eg. Unix= Coke
Linux= Diet Coke

They are pretty much the same thing. There are a lot of flavours of unix out there... Like Slackware etc...

Do a Search on the Board for "Linux" "Unix" "NT"
That will get you started.


Chris

thanks for the info, creid... I'll check it out.

Some of it will really boil down to the featues that you are looking for. If you want to use ASP, it will prob. be an NT box running IIS. If you want to use PHP and MySQL, then it will prob. be a Linux box running Apache.

Frank

And if you want to be able to CHMOD your files, I'd go with Unix/Linux. Unless there's some way to CHMOD on an NT system that I don't know about, which is highly possible.

Originally posted by Evelyn
And if you want to be able to CHMOD your files, I'd go with Unix/Linux. Unless there's some way to CHMOD on an NT system that I don't know about, which is highly possible.

There are user/file permissions on NT.

Originally posted by bitserve


There are user/file permissions on NT.

Which can only set by the admin I believe. BTW FreeBSD is above Linux. Rock Stable.

appreciate all the info here folks. anyone have any experience with setting CHMOD permissions using MacOS?

Originally posted by creid
Well first off... Linux is a Flavour of Unix
Eg. Unix= Coke
Linux= Diet Coke

They are pretty much the same thing. There are a lot of flavours of unix out there... Like Slackware etc...

Do a Search on the Board for "Linux" "Unix" "NT"
That will get you started.
Chris

True, Linux was derived from Unix but they are not exactly the same. While Linux is closer to Unix by far than an NT system it is still different so keep that in mind.

My order of preference is
1. Unix : FreeBSD
2. Linux : RedHat
3. NT : Windows (well, I won't touch an NT system but since you asked)

Originally posted by kloh
appreciate all the info here folks. anyone have any experience with setting CHMOD permissions using MacOS?

If you mean OS X, I'm sure lots of people have: OS X is really just FreeBSD with a Mach microkernel and a proprietary GUI. If you mean other editions of MacOS, probably no... OS X is the first system Apple has released which is really suited to server use.

Originally posted by Jag
While Linux is closer to Unix by far than an NT system it is still different so keep that in mind.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. The linux userland is more similar, but my experience coding is that the NT API has rather more of a UNIX flavor than linux does. The same goes for the development process... much of NT comes out of academic work (MSR isn't entirely academic, but it's pretty close from what I've seen) compared to the "let's write some code and see if it works" approach behind linux.

Originally posted by cperciva

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. The linux userland is more similar, but my experience coding is that the NT API has rather more of a UNIX flavor than linux does. The same goes for the development process... much of NT comes out of academic work (MSR isn't entirely academic, but it's pretty close from what I've seen) compared to the "let's write some code and see if it works" approach behind linux.

While that may be true, unix libraries have more in common with linux than NT. That makes it easier to modify your unix app run on linux than to make it run on NT at least in my experience.

to answer a question with a question :
what do you want to use the OS as? server/home/testing ?

Originally posted by kunal
to answer a question with a question :
what do you want to use the OS as? server/home/testing ?

For me it would be
Linux/Windows/Linux


Chris

Server I'm looking at is Linux and I'll be uploading and managing the sites with macs... so I'll need to be able to set permissions using a mac.

Let me clarify a little... the web host I'm going to be using is on Linux. I'm not running my own server.

Originally posted by kloh
Server I'm looking at is Linux and I'll be uploading and managing the sites with macs... so I'll need to be able to set permissions using a mac.

I'm a Mac user myself (using Mac OS X as I am typing this). No matter what version of the Mac OS you are using, setting file permissions can do done with the FTP client you use to upload your site.

Personally I really like the FTP client Transmit ( www.panic.com ). Basically from your FTP client just get info on the file or folder, and it'll give you the option to set permissions.

Hope this helps. :)

avara, is OSX stable for you? 10.0 or 10.1? I'm still on 9.1.

OS X is as stable as FreeBSD (I think Apple even hired some of the original FreeBSD team), so yes it is extremely stable -- in fact it hasen't crashed for me once, and as it's Unix, you can keep it running for weeks without restarting. :)

That said it tends to like lots of memory and a fast computer. Also some apps like Adobe Photoshop will only be out in OS X form next spring, so you might want to wait a little before upgrading.

I currently have Mac OS 9.2.2 installed as well.

I remember seeing a thread about mac in a rack.. Any one remember what happened with that? But yes since, Mac OS is built around unix it is very stable.

I sure hope MAC OS X Server 10.1 is a lot more secure then 10.0.3, I will be testing it in 3-4 weeks when my current project is over. At the time the server software had numerous installation problems and the manual was lacking important details. For example if you installed the Server edition without the quicktime streaming server or netboot (I forget which one) many totally unrelated software like the server admin agent would not function. My only problem with Mac OS is performance and usability issues. I personally would prefer any flavor of UNIX other then this highly modified form of BSD. Alot of the config files (apache, php) are made more complicated with multiple config files for the same software.

BTW, for the version I had just deleting files can be a hassle, even as root. I received numerous unknown errors just trying to delete. I don't know why they scream at Microsoft as far as bugs go... OS X 10.0 has more prominent bugs then 98 and NT combined.

Don't get me started with the GUI guys... It looks nice but...

I never used any 1.0 release of Mac OS X. That said, I did hear that it had some issues at the time. Version 1.1.1 which I'm using doesn't seem to have any bugs however, at least I didn't find any yet.

Think of it a little bit like this: 1.0 software is never fit for use right away. Even with Adobe's high-quality line of products, I always wait until at least 1.1 or 1.5. Hell do you remember Microsoft Windows 1.0?

You have a very good point... there... I can't really say much about 10.1 for another 3-4 weeks.... Still it's 10.1 I believe... not 1.1 :) Although it should be 1.1 and possibly with a totally different name.

How about OS X 1.1 instead of making it stand for the number 10, maybe they should have just called it X. As it really has very little do to with MacOS 1-9...

Oops you're right, it's Mac OS X 10.1.1 which I'm using. :D I agree with you, they should have simply called it 1.0, 1.1, and so on.

hmmmmmmmm...

~~~~~~~~~~~ Mac OS Section ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well actually boys, while this thread is not about Apple's numbering systems, their numbering of OS X is in perfect cadence with all previous system versions, e.g., 7.5 --> 7.5.1 --> 7.5.2 --> 7.6, etc.

Also please realize that with ver. 10.0.3 there are documented security issues if the software is not ALL installed in its entirety; did you run software update? When there are software issues, Apple is good about plugging them right away. There are to this day holes in Linux that are simply inherent in Linux -- could this be related? I am not saying X is perfect, NO SERVER PLATFORM IS. Generally speaking though, Apple's not one to let stuff sit out there for weeks on end with no recourse.

Case in point, 10.1 had a security issue released at like 3 a.m. shortly after it came out -- Apple had a Security Update on software update within hours (9 a.m.?) the same day. After Security Update 10/19/01, came Installer Update 1.1? I am not sure of the number, sorry, but it would not let you update to 10.1.1 without it. Then came the 10.1.1 update, and a couple of days ago I ran software update and upgraded to 10.1.2. OS 10.2 is to be released in late spring according to rumors. And for all of those who are so confused, X = 10, it's a roman numeral. :) X just looks cooler. It's really not such a big thing. 10 is 10. 10 came after 9. :D

FWIW, I found OS 10.0.foo to be buggy, slow and rather unstable. I would get a lot of pinwheel "hangs" and had to force-quit apps pretty often. I also got a ton of postscript printing errors from Internet Explorer. However, with the 10.1 update (the one on the CD-ROM) all that stuff disappeared and the finder is as snappy as my 9.2 partition. It's like a totally new deal from the ground-up... I bet the finder is double in speed and performance than it was before. 10.1.1 seemed to clean up some of the rough edges on 10.1 -- still less hangs, and I have yet to Force Quit in two weeks -- and with the upgrade to 10.1.2 I haven't seen any differences, but I am assured by those running the affected video cards etc. that the performance increase is profound. Should be noted that those postscript printing errors also disappeared with 10.1. I am running a Lexmark E310. They must have come out with an updated driver.

~~~~~~~~~~~ As It Relates to Servers Section ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now given that, I believe we are discussing the ability to interface a home Mac system with a various flavor web server..... this discussion was not involving Mac OS X Server (I'll go on record that I don't much like X Server, Apple's own site loads VERY slowly and drives me nuts with that WebObjects crap... ugh let's not go there). As a DESKTOP or LAN system, OS X kicks major butt. All I need is Dreamweaver for X and I'll be set for life. :) And let's not make this a platform war, I believe we are all grown up enough to realize that we each have picked the best OS for our individual needs, and nobody wants to get sold something else, or bashed on their choice. We could each tick off the intricate shortcomings of each other's desktop OS's. :P

For OS 9.2, which I am running now on all my machines, I use the old-fashioned Fetch to do my permissions-related FTP work. Select a directory, check or un-check boxes, and away you go. Easy as pie. For OS X... I confess, I don't have an FTP program yet, although I am sure there's something over at Version Tracker http://www.versiontracker.com

~~~~~~~~~~~ Mac OS Section ~~~~~~~~~~~~
kloh> I am running 10.1.2 on a blue & white G3 (400 mhz) with 256 mb RAM. I split my hard drive into 2 partitions so I can cold-boot into 9.2 if I want to. Very, very good idea in case one partition or another goes bad, then you're not up a creek to boot up your machine *somehow*. :) This is FAR from the "optimal" machine to be running OS X.

BTW I also have an Acomdata firewire drive plugged into it, which is literally plug-and-play.. here the instruction manual had like 18 pages of "how to install your drive in Windows." I took the cord, plugged it into the computer, and hit the power button... and the drive just popped up on the desktop and has been smooth as a baby's butt since. No drivers, installations, whatever... in true Mac elegance. :) Same performance under both operating systems -- 9.2, and 10.1.2.

~~~~~~~~~~~ All done with my Hodgepodge ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well boys, that's about all I can think of anymore tonight. Any other Mac questions, always glad to field what I can. :) I don't know a lot about X Server, but am fairly well-versed in desktop flavors.

:D Bailey

>>>>>>>>> MERRY CHRISTMAS! <<<<<<<<<<

I think we know what Roman numerals are, that's why I suggested it not stand for the number but just the letter. At the time i did use software update and it updated from 10.0.3 to 10.0.4. Not a huge difference in my opinion... But 10.1.x is supposed to be...


We are still using Mac OS 9.2 and webstar for our webserving needs, which is small. Unfortunately I am in a school environment and we really have no choice but to use Mac OS. I am going to try yellow dog linux for one of the free G4's with 512 megs of memory. Yep, we have powerful G4's sitting there doing nothing at all. Now that's a waste of local taxes, but I'm in no power to make decisions... I can only attempt to convince...

I think that if you want to run Unix you should probably try FreeBSD and a form of Linux if your tight on your budget and Solaris if you can spare a little more cash. If your going into the webhosting biz and have the budget I think setting up a Windows 2k or XP pro server with commonly used databases would be a good idea as you'll need this for future win clients.

BTW: Some uninformed claim that Linux isn't UNIX. But it has an assembly language kernel, a shell, and commands and utilities written in a high level language. That's what describes a UNIX OS. Just because Linux hasn't been certified with The Open Group, to receive their trademarked UNIX certification, it doesn't make it not UNIX by definition. It is even POSIX compliant.