Ok,

I am going to risk my reputation (if I have one) at asking the worlds stupid question...

Whats the difference between UNIX,LINUX,BSD etc etc etc??

I was under the impression the UNIX was nothing to do with LINUX?

Which is what? :confused:

What? You mean you weren't born with all knowledge of computers and Operating Systems? ;) While the below doesn't cover FreeBSD, I think some of it applies as well (as the below explantion covers things nicely).

This is just a small excerpt from a 1999 interview with Robert F. Young, chairman and chief executive officer of Red Hat Software Inc. (at the time, not sure if he still is):

There’s a primary difference between Linux and Unix. Linux is a reimplementation of Unix, but it doesn’t use any of the same code. It mimics the way Unix does things, and it includes many Unix standards, including most of the Posix specification.

The difference is in the licensing terms. Unix was proprietary, closed technology. When you bought a copy from Sun Microsystems Inc. or SCO or HP or IBM, all you got were the binaries—the ones and zeros—not the source code.

We ship both the source code and the binaries. The user has the right to modify them. The general public license from the Free Software Foundation says that you can modify the software however you want, but you can’t impose any further restrictions on anyone to whom you give the software.

The original Unix came from AT&T Corp. After AT&T licensed it to Sun and HP and IBM and everyone else, all their various flavors of Unix started to move off in different directions. Every now and again, the Unix industry would hold a big conference and acknowledge that it was imposing a burden on users and suppliers, and they would try to pull all the technology back together.

Literally the day after the conference ended, the whole process would start all over again.

The difference with Linux is that it’s open-source software. If Red Hat wants to make an innovation to the kernel, we can do so. If the innovation becomes popular in the marketplace, all the other Linux builders are going to use it. We don’t own the innovation any more than they do. And vice versa.


Full interview: http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1999/May10/14.htm

I see I think,

So Linux is an open-source implementation of a system which works in the same way/principles as UNIX?

Now - Is Linux a general term or a trademark of anyone imparticular?

Would it be wrong to ask why we don't see Webhosts running on UNIX itself?

Actually I think I will search the net for some bg info on this stuff

Originally posted by The Laughing Cow
So Linux is an open-source implementation of a system which works in the same way/principles as UNIX?You got it.

Now - Is Linux a general term or a trademark of anyone imparticular?It's named after the guy who started it all - Linus Torvalds. Ya' know, I'm not sure if it's trademarked, but if not it should be. In fact, if it isn't, it probably doesn't matter - everyone knows what it is. Well, almost everyone :-)

Would it be wrong to ask why we don't see Webhosts running on UNIX itself?There are web host running UNIX, lots of 'em. Out of my league at least. Unix hosts are a bit pricey. Why? Linux is free, FreeBSD is free. Unix costs. Unix costs a lot.

So were does FreeBSD fit in. Don't think this a stupid subject at all. This will answer alot of questions for everyone.

Agreed, a very good subject to discuss. FreeBSD was derived from BSD Unix (agin, a commerical product)...

This article tells a little about the differences between Linux and FreeBSD:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=580

Originally posted by The Laughing Cow
Now - Is Linux a general term or a trademark of anyone imparticular?




Originally posted on linux.org
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds


:D

Originally posted on linux.org
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Now that certainly makes sense.

Please read this thread:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35875

The difference between a UNIX OS and a Linux OS is analogous to the difference between an IBM PC and an IBM compatible PC (clone). They're fundamentally the same thing.

Originally posted by bitserve
The difference between a UNIX OS and a Linux OS is analogous to the difference between an IBM PC and an IBM compatible PC (clone). They're fundamentally the same thing. Hmm, I can't agree with that. A PC clone is just that, a clone. Linux is NOT a Unix clone, it is a Unix "lookalike", or a Unix "workalike". There are some major(?) architectural differences, in spite of the fact that they look so much alike.

Originally posted by Abu Mami
Hmm, I can't agree with that. A PC clone is just that, a clone. Linux is NOT a Unix clone, it is a Unix "lookalike", or a Unix "workalike". There are some major(?) architectural differences, in spite of the fact that they look so much alike.

Did you read that thread? Linux and UNIX are fundamentally the same thing with different names. There are major differences between OpenBSD and FreeBSD. There are not fundamental differences between Linux and AIX. If you read the UNIX 95 standards as set by the Open Group, it describes the Linux OS. However, Linux is not registered with the Open Group.

The Open Group now has the Single UNIX Specification which has combined POSIX specifications, which Linux is moving towards along with every other UNIX OS. They're all headed in the same direction.

People say that Linux "mimics" UNIX only because none of it's source actually derived from the original UNIX code (supposedly). However, the code does the same thing, hence my analogy. If it walks like a UNIX, and quacks like a UNIX...