old-www/LDP/LG/issue25/sorensen.html

338 lines
11 KiB
HTML

<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<title>Linux compared to other OS's Issue 25</title>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#A000A0"
ALINK="#FF0000">
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
<H4>
"Linux Gazette...<I>making Linux just a little more fun!</I>"
</H4>
<P> <HR> <P>
<!--===================================================================-->
<center>
<H2>Linux Compared to Other Operating Systems</H2>
<H4>By <a href="mailto:elof@image.dk">Kristian Elof Soerensen</a></H4>
</center>
<P> <HR>
<P>You might have the feeling that Linux is a real good OS.
<P>In this article I will pit some of Linux' features against those of
some competing *nix's, and thus identify some of Linux's relative strengths
and weaknesses.
<P><B>Linux and it's competitors</B>
<P>Not so long ago a frequent Linux question was "Is it really useful or
is it just another geeks only OS". Now most insightful people consider
Linux as being on par with the best, and the interesting question is "when
is it best to use Linux and when should some other *nix be preferred".
<P>To help people identify Linux' place in the market, I've made a comparison
of ten different OS's eight of them *nix's, where each OS's capabilities
in a number of specific areas, are pitted against each other.
<P>The comparison is available as an interactive chart at: <A HREF="http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx/WS_Linux/OS_comparison.html">http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx/WS_Linux/OS_comparison.html
</A>.
<P>It's part of a bigger Linux-page called "The Linux Resource Exchange"
that holds a lot of other Linux-info such as a searchable HOWTO-mirror,
guides to both unofficial and official patches to the 2.0.* and 2.1.* kernels,
Linux on workstation hardware pointers, and much more. Take a look at it
at <A HREF="http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx">http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx
</A>.
<P>It will be noted that the emphasis of the Comparison Chart as well as
this article is on usability and suitability for "real-world-usage" rather
than the more technically features of the kernels.
<P>In this article I will present a summary of the information for Linux
2.0, Solaris 2.6, SGI Irix 6.2/6.4 and Digital Unix 4.0 and discuss it.
The web-site has more info, and holds information for BSDI 3.0, Freebsd
2.2, MacOS 8, OS/2 4, UnixWare 2.1 and OpenServer 5.0 as well. While this
article is fixed in time, I intent to keep the web-site up-to-date in a
long time from now.
<P><B>A small extract of the OS Comparison Chart</B>
<BR>&nbsp;
<CENTER><TABLE BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=2 CELLPADDING=3 WIDTH="547" BGCOLOR="#FFFFCC" NOSAVE >
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>Linux 2.0</B></TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>SGI Irix 6.2/6.4</B></TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>SUN Solaris 2.6</B></TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>DIGITAL Unix 4.0</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>OS interoperability</B></TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP NOSAVE>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Runnable foreign binaries</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%" NOSAVE>DOS, Windows 3.1, Macintosh, some SysV</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Dos and Windows 3.1</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Macintosh, Windows 3.1</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Mountable foreign filesystems</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">FAT, VFAT, UFS ro, SysV, HPFS ro, MAC</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">MAC, FAT</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Java</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>OS-standards</B></TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Posix.1</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Designed to comply, but only a hacked version has been
certified.</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">XPG4 base 95</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Unix 95</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">yes</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Unix 98</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">no</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%"><B>Policy-issues</B></TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR VALIGN=TOP>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Pricing</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Free</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Pay per release</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Pay per release or 2 year subscriptions</TD>
<TD WIDTH="20%">Pay per release</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE></CENTER>
<DIV ALIGN=right>See the complete chart at <A HREF="http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx">http://www.falconweb.com/~linuxrx</A></DIV>
<P><B>Linux and the OS standards</B>
<P>The days of the great Unix wars are sort of gone. It has always been
part of the Unix-philosophy that a program written for Unix should not
need anything more than a recompile to work on any vendors *nix. In reality
there have always been many minor and major differences, making the task
of writing applications runnable on a vide selection of *nix'n a challenging
one.
<P>During the 90' the vendors have agreed to write down and follow a set
of common standards for *nix behavior. The first one to gain big following
was the Posix.1 standard. In the last couple of years this standard have
been enchanged by standards such as Unix 95 and Unix98, the newer standards
including up-to-date versions of the older standards as well as standardizing
additional areas of Unix. It seems that after a quarter of a century Unix
can finally live up to the "Unix-box" metaphor, e.g. a generic square box
with some flavor of *nix capable of running every random Unix-program you
care to use.
<P>It's as if OS's are becoming less important from now on. People want
a box with 100 % standard Unix behavor so they can run all ther applications,
and buy equipment and OS from whichever vendor has the best offer at the
day of purchase.
<P>The versions of *nix made before Linux consisted of many niveaus of
revorkings of code that stemmed back from the earliest versions. This was
necessary in order for a *nix version to behave to applications like it's
counterparts so applications could run everywhere.
<P>When Linus turned his Linux-development into a quest for a complete
OS, the Posix.1 standard was his guideline. Having the OS &lt;-> application
interface ready, allowed him and the other developers to build all the
internal parts of the OS without using any old code. Ideas fostered and
experience gained since the original Unix could be freely used in the development
of Linux, since none of the code from older *nix's had to be used.
<P>This is one of the main factors that allowed Linux to be so much better
than the competition. All the innards are brand new modern OS code, taking
full advantage of modern hardware.
<P>As can be seen in the chart above, Linux haven't got the official "I
am Posix.1 compliant" stamp. A German company named <A HREF="http://www.unifix.de">Unifix
</A>has hacked on Linux and gotten their versions of both 1.2 and 2.0 certified.
Their work have more or less been included in the main Linux-code. This
doesn't make Linux Posix.1 certified, but it ensures that it's very close,
probably as close as it's certified counterparts non-certified patchlevels
and minor releases.
<P>It's important that work is done to keep Linux in sync with recent standards,
or it will turn into a non-standard *nix only suited for certain niche
purposes, like we are currently seing various BSD derived *nix's do.
<P><B>Linux does only have a cost of zero if your time is worthless</B>
<P>The fact that Linux' price tag says zero is not as interesting as it
might seem.
<P>Most of the cost of owning and using a computersystem, is the cost of
time spent on learning how to use the system, time spent on installation
and maintaining it over it's lifetime, and the initial cost of purchase
of computer, applications and OS.
<P>If Linux is a cheap OS then it's because it can do more with less hardware
than many of it's competitors, or because it comes preinstalled with many
hundreds of apps., saving installation time, or since it gives it's users
the ability to work smarter, rather than by the OS itself being obtainable
without expense
<P>Linux has better documentation than most OS's, and all of it is on-line,
so it keeps itself current and is search-able, unlike shelves full of expensive
vendor supplied paper manuals. The newsgroups and mailing-lists provide
a rapid help and support forum, that beats every phone-support system I
have ever used. This ensures more rapid problem fixing than most other
OS's even when the local gurus are out of luck, and can be used as a learning
tool, thus helping all Linux users work smarter than people using some
other *nix.
<P>Linux can make a PC do most of the tricks an ordinary workstation-user
makes his workstation do. A workgroup with workstations can be renewed
to a few high-end workstations as shared CPU servers and a Linux PC on
every table. This costs less, and the really speedy CPU servers ensures
that the users gets more power than before.
<P>What makes Linux an economically OS isn't so much it's own cost of zero,
but all the related savings and improvements it gives it's users.
<P><B>Linux speaks many tongues</B>
<P>One of the first business support purposes Linux was widely put to was
to act as a multipurpose network device and server. It's capable of handling
most of the purposes needed to keep a modern LAN or WAN running. It can
be both router, firewall, bridge, gateway, modem and ISDN dial-up server,
nameserver and many other network task imaginable. It's also really good
at server jobs like mail, ftp and web.
<P>Having the same OS with the same tools doing all these very different
jobs, instead of having to use a different device for every task, is saving
people a lot of time, gives more flexibility, and ties up a lot less money
in equipment purchases or leases.
<P>Other *nix'n have somewhat similar abilities, but most require expensive
workstations and really expensive network peripherals, and those that does
run on PC's doesn't support an equally huge amount of cheap peripherals
and software as does Linux.
<!--===================================================================-->
<P> <hr> <P>
<center><H5>Copyright &copy; 1998, Kristian Elof Soerensen<BR>
Published in Issue 25 of <i>Linux Gazette</i>, February 1998</H5></center>
<!--===================================================================-->
<P> <hr> <P>
<A HREF="./index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/indexnew.gif"
ALT="[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]"></A>
<A HREF="../index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/homenew.gif"
ALT="[ FRONT PAGE ]"></A>
<A HREF="./pardo.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/back2.gif"
ALT=" Back "></A>
<A HREF="./linder.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/fwd.gif" ALT=" Next "></A>
<P> <hr> <P>
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!--endcut ============================================================-->