[ale] Differences in UNIX & UNIX-like systems...

[Michael B. Trausch]

Jeff Lightner wrote:
> 
> Most Linux commands are either clones of or derived from UNIX
> commands of the same name.   Since UNIX has been around for more than
> 30 years most of your favorites predate Linux.  I will say that for
> the most part the features in the Linux versions of commands are
> broader than those of their UNIX counterparts.  (Of course even the
> UNIX variants don't always have the same options for the same named
> commands.)
> 

Yeah, that's very true.  When I worked for IBM, I found many variants of
UNIX systems that forced me to read man pages to learn how to do things
that I thought I knew how to do quite well.  :->

I like that Linux has "multiple" personalities with many of the tools
that are in use.  For example, 'ps' supports both BSD and AT&T UNIX
syntax, and that rocks, because I had to learn BSD (I think? Whichever
one it was that used 'ps -ef' instead of 'ps axu') syntax when I was
working at IBM, and I started typing things that way on my systems at
home, mostly out of habit.  And, surprisingly, it worked as I expected,
even though that's not what I was expecting!  :-)

It would seem that Linux is definitely a superset, at least, in most
areas.  Lately, though, I am thinking that the ultimate system is a
FreeBSD kernel, paired with the GNU utilities in the userland... Well,
at least on servers.  I haven't tried such a pairing on my desktop
machine... yet.  I might at some point, if I can ever get a secondary
machine again.

	-- Mike

-- 
Michael B. Trausch <fd0man at gmail.com> - Jabber: fd0man at livejournal.com

Demand freedom: Use open and free protocols, standards, and software.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature