Hello geek hosteners,
I like to learn Linux, but my company said i cannot get a Linux because it will not be used in the company, but they said i can get unix. What i heard is linux are almost the same with unix.
Is this true? and what will be the similarity?
Please advice.

Thanks

Linux and Unix are not the same, but very similar. Its about the same as the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows NT (if you've ever used both), they're both very similar, but at the same time, not the same operating system. There are many *nix types of operating systems or flavors that are all similar to each other. If you learn the basics of Linux, changes are you'll do find on a Unix system (depending on the flavor), and vice versa.

Porcupine explained it well.:)

Linux is a clone of Unix, originally inspired no doubt by Minix (another unix like os of the time).

You can read its history here:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,9457,00.html

There are many 'free' unixes available - I'll make your search easy and suggest that you won't go wrong if you select FreeBSD to work with. Its a mature, real unix, that has a big following - not as big as Linux, but big enough. Hotmail and Yahoo for example use FreeBSD based servers extensively.

Unlike Linux, FreeBSD is 'real' Unix and that may satisfy your IT department.

mwatkins, i have never worked with freebsd, but what are the major differences between redhat linux and freebsd.

And what are the hardware requirements? I tried looking for the info on freebsd.org, but couldn't find it.

I know you can install RH on a very small configuration, both in processor power and in disk space, but what of BSD?

I'd like to give it a shot and install it on a spare computer I got here, but it's no speed demon (the computer) nor does it have plenty of space.

Thanks

FreeBSD will run just as good, if not better, on a very small configuration. Just don't expect FreeBSD to setup everything for you like Red Hat does.

Major differences - some of them are style in nature, such as bsd init scripts rather than system v style; FreeBSD is a single 'distro' - changes are controlled by a core team of people, managed centrally. There are no counter parts to the redhat / debian / slackware etc various flavours or Linux. There is one FreeBSD.

Historically many have felt that FreeBSD is a more stable system; probably those differences are becoming less marked as Linux grows up, although some feel that the centralized management of FreeBSD is an advantage that leads to stability and also improved security.

The TCP/IP stack in FreeBSD is regarded to be somewhat superior.

Many of these things a user would not 'see'. You'll still use ls / chmod / grep / etc as you do on all unix / unix-like OS's.

I like the ports system i.e.
cd /usr/ports/www/apache13
make install clean

The build / ports system knows how to deal with dependencies and will download parts that are not already on your system abd build them too.

You can install FreeBSD from a floppy, which you create by downloading utils from the Internet; and the install will carry on over the Internet once the minimal environment is booted. Or if you have a CD burner you can download ISO files and make an install CD.

Re hardware, my 'sandbox' machine is running on a P233 :
CPU: Pentium/P55C (233.86-MHz 586-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x543 Stepping = 3
Features=0x8001bf<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,MCE,CX8,MMX>
real memory = 67108864 (65536K bytes)

But it can take advantage of much better hardware too ;)
CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (1263.45-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x6b1 Stepping = 1
avail memory = 2087911424 (2038976K bytes)
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor motherboard
cpu0 (BSP): apic id: 3, version: 0x00040011, at 0xfee00000
cpu1 (AP): apic id: 0, version: 0x00040011, at 0xfee00000

I've never run a SMP Linux box but am told that Linux does multi processors better at this point; as of version 5 of FreeBSD this edge for Linux may disappear.

There are a myriad of other differences. What is in /usr in one may be in /usr/local in another. Minor things.

In the end, for learning purposes it probably matters little which you run. Every OS has its adherants and promoters, and detractors. I like FreeBSD partly for its style and history ( a descendant of Berkely unix ), they way its developed and managed, and the resulting stability and security.

If you want cutting edge drivers for the latest graphics card, go with Linux. That stuff appears in FreeBSD much later. If you want to learn a robust unix server OS, pick either. I just happen to prefer FreeBSD.

Not to confuse things even more but your mixing "branches" of *nixes.

There are two main "branches" of *nix. BSD based systems like FreeBSD very old versions of SunOS etc. These are based on the "Berkely" version of Unix. SVR4 (System 5 release 4) based systems like Solaris, Red Hat etc.

The BSD based systems all act more or less the same and the SVR4 systems all act more or less the same. There are some major differences between BSD and SVR4 however.

For example on a BSD system you would enter ps -auxw to get a process list of everything where on a SVR4 system you would enter ps -ef.

Even within a "branch" of *nix they are different. The startup scripts for a Solaris box are in a different location than where they are on a Red Hat box (but both are based on SVR4).

I'm not sure if that make things clearer or more confused :(.

Frank

I never considered SunOS a real OS. :D

System requirements for freeBSD? i386 platform, a processor, ram, and a harddrive, i'm pretty sure it'll run on pretty much anything you can throw at it. a 486 with 8mb ram should cut it, maybe at least a 500mb drive.

FreeBSD requirements:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x2780.html

Here's the most recent ( very recent ) release notes:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/4.6-RELEASE/HARDWARE.HTM

An excerpt:
Almost all i386-compatible processors are supported. All Intel processors beginning with the 80386 are supported, including the 80386, 80486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, and variants thereof, such as the Xeon and Celeron processors. (While technically supported, the use of the 80386SX is specifically not recommended.) All i386-compatible AMD processors are also supported, including the Am486, Am5x86, K5, K6, Athlon, and Duron processors. The Transmeta Crusoe is recognized and supported, as are i386-compatible processors from Cyrix and NexGen.

Tastes great. Less filling.

Break out those old 386 door stops and turn them into useful learning machines.