new too unix
rose
know which unix i must to install.i have sony vaio laptop .can u help
me to start unix?
thanks
viza
IMHO the play-school way into unix-like operating systems is
Ubuntu Gnu/Linux:
Rainer Weikusat
NetBSD.
NB: This assumes that you really mean what you wrote.
RyanMcCoskrie
> me to start unix?
> thanks
C is the central language of Unix with shell script (see below)
python, perl, ruby, C++ closely following as languages that
are popular.
Learn to use a proper command line interface (sh/bash/csh/tclsh)
first.
These have most of the power of Unix systems and the commands are
all implemented as individual programs so one can write a program in
shell script (the equivalent of a batch file) that simply moves data
around
other programs and give you the results.
> i am windows programmer.
Do not trust mice. They will numb your creativity.
This should help to http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/
Aaron W. Hsu
You should be aware that UNIX is quite a bit different in many ways
than saying *NIX. Linux is a very popular operating system, but it is
only meant to be UNIX-like, and not to be a true UNIX. Keep in mind
also that Linux varies with each distribution based on that
distribution's goals.
I for one find a more true UNIX (if you can call it that) in the
BSDs. OpenBSD is my Unix of choice, but I don't know if it has been
tested for compliance.
To get started with Unix, first choose whether how you want to be
introduced. Are you trying to learn something about programming, or
learn something about real technical skill, or are you interested
mostly in sticking it to the M(S)an? If the third, it's best that
you choose a distribution that is meant and oriented towards doing
just that, and forget about learning Unix. That way, you can just
happily continue on your path without learning much more than you
would have to learn with a Mac. In fact, why not try a Mac? It
might suit you well if that's all you want to do, and it will give
you an opportunity to play around with a system that can be called
UNIX to some degree.
On the other hand, if you are interested in understanding how to
program UNIX, and how to get under the hood, I suggest that you
take a UNIX that provides good documentation, a clean environment,
with minimal overhead; grab yourself a good book on UNIX; learn how
to read man pages and use the shell; and, dive right into the midst
of things, knowing that at first you are going to have a steep
learning curve.
If you are willing to do that, then Slackware and OpenBSD, or NetBSD,
are all good choices.
Aaron Hsu
--
+++++++++++++++ ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) +++++++++++++++
Email: <arc...@sacrideo.us> | WWW: <http://www.sacrideo.us>
Scheme Programming is subtle; subtlety can be hard.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
vipp...@gmail.com
> rose <salehizadeh.mehdi2...@gmail.com> writes:
> >hi i am windows programmer but i want too change to unix but i do not
> >know which unix i must to install.i have sony vaio laptop .can u help
> >me to start unix?
>
> You should be aware that UNIX is quite a bit different in many ways
> than saying *NIX. Linux is a very popular operating system, but it is
> only meant to be UNIX-like, and not to be a true UNIX. Keep in mind
> also that Linux varies with each distribution based on that
> distribution's goals.
>
> I for one find a more true UNIX (if you can call it that) in the
> BSDs. OpenBSD is my Unix of choice, but I don't know if it has been
> tested for compliance.
It's not compliant to IEEE 1003.1 2004, just close.
> To get started with Unix, first choose whether how you want to be
> introduced. Are you trying to learn something about programming, or
> learn something about real technical skill, or are you interested
> mostly in sticking it to the M(S)an? If the third, it's best that
> you choose a distribution that is meant and oriented towards doing
> just that, and forget about learning Unix. That way, you can just
> happily continue on your path without learning much more than you
> would have to learn with a Mac. In fact, why not try a Mac? It
> might suit you well if that's all you want to do, and it will give
> you an opportunity to play around with a system that can be called
> UNIX to some degree.
Stiking it to the man by getting a mac?
> On the other hand, if you are interested in understanding how to
> program UNIX, and how to get under the hood, I suggest that you
> take a UNIX that provides good documentation, a clean environment,
> with minimal overhead; grab yourself a good book on UNIX; learn how
> to read man pages and use the shell; and, dive right into the midst
> of things, knowing that at first you are going to have a steep
> learning curve.
>
> If you are willing to do that, then Slackware and OpenBSD, or NetBSD,
> are all good choices.
I agree, but you don't mention FreeBSD at all; Is there a specific
reason?
Aaron W. Hsu
>On Oct 6, 6:45 am, Aaron W. Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>Stiking it to the man by getting a mac?
Depends on which man you want to stick. I know a lot of people who
like to get Macs simply because they don't like Microsoft. Granted,
I might suggest switching for other, better reasons, but this reason
still is used.
>> If you are willing to [read/learn], then Slackware and OpenBSD, or NetBSD,
>> are all good choices.
>I agree, but you don't mention FreeBSD at all; Is there a specific
>reason?
I don't mention FreeBSD mostly because I don't have enough experience
with it to recommend it, and it has always appeared to be more of
a Linux in BSD (much as I see Slackware as a BSD in Linux). The reason
I recommend Slackware is because I think there are valid reasons for
someone to want to run Linux, even if they want something more
traditional. I don't see as much of a reason for there to be a Linux-like
BSD.
Still, there are plenty of good reasons to use FreeBSD, and I am not
saying that no one should try it, but I just don't like to recommend
it because I feel it's in a different class than the Slackware, NetBSD
and OpenBSD crowd.
Of course, that is just my personal opinion, and since I am listing
my personal recommendations . . . :-).
toby
Or just stick with the Mac... it's an extremely productive
environment, and good for non-coding tasks as well.
> > grab yourself a good book on UNIX; learn how
> > to read man pages and use the shell; and, dive right into the midst
> > of things, knowing that at first you are going to have a steep
> > learning curve.
>
> > If you are willing to do that, then Slackware and OpenBSD, or NetBSD,
> > are all good choices.
Also Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. Other Linux distributions would also
be suitable, notably Gentoo.
Aaron W. Hsu
>Or just stick with the Mac... it's an extremely productive
>environment, and good for non-coding tasks as well.
It is good for non-coding tasks, but if you just want a no hassle
system for understanding UNIX, it is a rough place to start, because
many of the features will be non-standard or will operate in non-standard
ways.
>> > If you are willing to do that, then Slackware and OpenBSD, or NetBSD,
>> > are all good choices.
>Also Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. Other Linux distributions would also
>be suitable, notably Gentoo.
Solaris would be a good one to try, though I might suggest that Gentoo
is pretty hands on in a bad way. There are many Gentoo Specific things
involved with using Gentoo that might make it difficult to distinguish
what is standard UNIX behavior and what is not.
On the other hand, it's certainly not a bad system to use.
James Kanze
> toby <t...@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >Or just stick with the Mac... it's an extremely productive
> >environment, and good for non-coding tasks as well.
> It is good for non-coding tasks, but if you just want a no
> hassle system for understanding UNIX, it is a rough place to
> start, because many of the features will be non-standard or
> will operate in non-standard ways.
A lot also depends on what you mean by "Unix". It's obviously
not part of the standard, but most people I know, when they say
Unix, also expect X. Which I don't think that the Mac has.
> >> > If you are willing to do that, then Slackware and
> >> > OpenBSD, or NetBSD, are all good choices.
> >Also Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris. Other Linux distributions would also
> >be suitable, notably Gentoo.
> Solaris would be a good one to try, though I might suggest
> that Gentoo is pretty hands on in a bad way. There are many
> Gentoo Specific things involved with using Gentoo that might
> make it difficult to distinguish what is standard UNIX
> behavior and what is not.
Formally, Solaris is the only "Unix" that's been mentionned so
far. Practically... depending on what he's trying to learn,
just installing CygWin or UWin under Windows might be all he
needs. If not, Linux (and doubtlessly the others mentionned,
although I'm not familiar with them) are close enough to Unix
for most purposes.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james...@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
Rainer Weikusat
[...]
>> Solaris would be a good one to try, though I might suggest
>> that Gentoo is pretty hands on in a bad way. There are many
>> Gentoo Specific things involved with using Gentoo that might
>> make it difficult to distinguish what is standard UNIX
>> behavior and what is not.
>
> Formally, Solaris is the only "Unix" that's been mentionned so
> far.
Not really. Mac OS X 10.5 (IIRC, 'Leopard') is certified as UNIX(*),
too.
> Practically... depending on what he's trying to learn,
> just installing CygWin or UWin under Windows might be all he
> needs.
'Practically', just reading the UNIX(*)-standard should be entirely
sufficient. That would at least avoid having to deal with anything
not really suitable for minors :->.
> If not, Linux (and doubtlessly the others mentionned,
> although I'm not familiar with them) are close enough to Unix
> for most purposes.
'Linux' is a kernel and systems using this kernel come in many
different flavors, which are basically all designed by Windows
refugees to recreate their familiar environment, ie lots of
complicated software trying to heuristically solve unsolvable
problems (or even non-problems, ie 'Why is booting so simple that even
I understand it? Time for a change !!!1') which causes all kinds of
really weird failure in situations believed to be fringe cases.
A Linux-based system can make a nice UNIX(*)-workstation, provided
one already knows what that is and actually wants it. But I suspect
the typical new-user experience is rather that of a half-assed
Windows-clone, 'this program has just crashed'-popups included, with
some macintoshy elements. A variant of Vista, so to say.
David Spencer
>A lot also depends on what you mean by "Unix". It's obviously
>not part of the standard, but most people I know, when they say
>Unix, also expect X. Which I don't think that the Mac has.
It does.
--
dhs spe...@panix.com
Kenny McCormack
To clarify, it isn't installed by default, so the statement that it
doesn't is valid. I'm told that it can be installed (from the original
distribution media), but I've never gotten around to doing so.
Aaron W. Hsu
Most of the machines I have seen that have been sent out recently
do come with X11 installed by default.
toby
> gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> >In article <gcl561$dh...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >David Spencer <spen...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>>A lot also depends on what you mean by "Unix". It's obviously
> >>>not part of the standard, but most people I know, when they say
> >>>Unix, also expect X. Which I don't think that the Mac has.
>
> >>It does.
> >To clarify, it isn't installed by default, so the statement that it
> >doesn't is valid. I'm told that it can be installed (from the original
> >distribution media), but I've never gotten around to doing so.
>
> Most of the machines I have seen that have been sent out recently
> do come with X11 installed by default.
Indeed Leopard has it by default.
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=80171
Also see:
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/X11.html
But it's all rather moot. OS X is a very congenial and polished
introduction to UNIX, lacking little. If someone wants Linux-style
package management and window management then they can fire up one of
the great distros out there. It all depends on what the OP is most
comfortable with.
>
> Aaron Hsu
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++ ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) +++++++++++++++
> Email: <arcf...@sacrideo.us> | WWW: <http://www.sacrideo.us>
Rainer Weikusat
> On Oct 19, 8:41 pm, Aaron W. Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>> gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>> >In article <gcl561$dh...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> >David Spencer <spen...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >>James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>>A lot also depends on what you mean by "Unix". It's obviously
>> >>>not part of the standard, but most people I know, when they say
>> >>>Unix, also expect X. Which I don't think that the Mac has.
[...]
>> Most of the machines I have seen that have been sent out recently
>> do come with X11 installed by default.
>
> Indeed Leopard has it by default.
> http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=80171
>
> Also see:
> http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/X11.html
>
> But it's all rather moot. OS X is a very congenial and polished
> introduction to UNIX, lacking little.
It is possible to find a random collection of partially dysfunctional
FreeBSD-parts below what people would usually consider to be Mac OS X
(the GUI). Additionally, the system supports a programming environment
(one of several, this being the most 'alien' one) sufficiently
compatible with the UNIX(*)-standard to achieve a certification.
As an introduction to 'UNIX(*)', using a Mac OS X installation will be
somewhat less painful and a little less 'incompeletly hanging in the
air' than a Cygwin-installation on Windows (except insofar the Mac can
be expected to 'crash' whenever it is left alone for more than five
minutes, at least, that was a behaviour common to all such beasts I
had the mispleasure to deal with so far).