f



Make OS X terminal work like linux

I've been looking for a list of aliases that would allow a mac-using 
friend to follow my bash instructions (no idea at all about mac, never 
even touched one) to accomplish various tasks. Haven't found anything at 
all.  Am I the only person on earth who wants to do this?   What I want 
is as long a list as I can find of the form

	alias linuxcommand="OSX Command"

Any ideas?

-- 
Cheers, Bev
==============================================================
"I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns and
  women join the unqualified men in running our government"
                                            -- Cissy Farenthold
0
The
10/14/2014 8:43:43 PM
comp.os.linux.misc 33599 articles. 1 followers. amosa69 (78) is leader. Post Follow

47 Replies
1139 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 50

The Real Bev wrote on 14. October 2014:
>
> I've been looking for a list of aliases that would allow a mac-using
> friend to follow my bash instructions (no idea at all about mac, never
> even touched one) to accomplish various tasks. Haven't found anything
> at all.  Am I the only person on earth who wants to do this?   What I
> want is as long a list as I can find of the form
>
> 	alias linuxcommand="OSX Command"
>
> Any ideas?

Isn't there a bash in Unix? Since MacOS runs on some Unix flavor.

A full blown bash installation on the Mac might already do the trick,
unless your bash also accesses Linux specific things and programs not
installed or even available on Mac's Unix.
-- 
Andreas

I wish my grass was emo. Then it would cut itself.
0
Andreas
10/14/2014 9:19:48 PM
On 2014-10-14, Andreas Kohlbach <oct14.5.ankman@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote on 14. October 2014:
>>
>> I've been looking for a list of aliases that would allow a mac-using
>> friend to follow my bash instructions (no idea at all about mac, never
>> even touched one) to accomplish various tasks. Haven't found anything
>> at all.  Am I the only person on earth who wants to do this?   What I
>> want is as long a list as I can find of the form
>>
>> 	alias linuxcommand="OSX Command"
>
> Isn't there a bash in Unix? Since MacOS runs on some Unix flavor.

OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).  bash itself is certainly
available on OS X (and thus was vulnerable to Shellshock, joy), but even
if you avoid things like linux device names, there are still some
differences in the environment.  For example, GNU coreutils is not
installed by default, so ls behaves differently on OS X than on most
linux distributions.

For the OP, it would be helpful if you clarified what you mean by
"accomplish various tasks".  Setting PS1 should be the same anywhere,
but if you have a bash script that pulls down a source package and tries
to compile it that may not work the way you hope.

--keith



-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

0
Keith
10/14/2014 9:32:52 PM
On 2014-10-14, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been looking for a list of aliases that would allow a mac-using 
> friend to follow my bash instructions (no idea at all about mac, never 
> even touched one) to accomplish various tasks. Haven't found anything at 
> all.  Am I the only person on earth who wants to do this?   What I want 
> is as long a list as I can find of the form
>
> 	alias linuxcommand="OSX Command"
>
> Any ideas?
>

Ask the friend if he had installed any of the full "unix environments"
as in "fink", MacUpdate, or Mac?????; think read about another one.

I've installed "fink" which isn't "up to date" but stable & less
dependent on the mac os onto my macmini; still had to install mac
xcode environment but it is free even if one had to register first 
(get an apple-id) as a developer at the apple developer site; it even
has a home/hobbiest selection for purpose.

fink is nice as there is a "self-update" & update-all command that
just update the fink stuff when needed/available & the update-all
includes updating the source & compiling any apps like the newsreader
slrn or "midnight commander" file manager.

Don't recall if the "native" terminal has bash capablities but it may.
There is an Xterm terminal available but I never got it running good
like I wanted as in a larger size on my 27" monitor.

Just have your friend enter a couple of commands like "echo $path",
ls or env to see what happens in a terminal.
0
lew
10/14/2014 9:45:28 PM
At Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:43:43 -0700 The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> I've been looking for a list of aliases that would allow a mac-using 
> friend to follow my bash instructions (no idea at all about mac, never 
> even touched one) to accomplish various tasks. Haven't found anything at 
> all.  Am I the only person on earth who wants to do this?   What I want 
> is as long a list as I can find of the form
> 
> 	alias linuxcommand="OSX Command"
> 
> Any ideas?

MacOSX runs Darwin, which is a version of *BSD. The shell one gets with the
MacOSX 'Terminal' application IS bash, so all of the basic built-in bash
commands are exactly the same as under Linux.

What IS different are a *few* of the OS specific commands in /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, and /usr/sbin. The differences are the differences between BSD and
Linux -- it should be possible to find a BSD vs. Linux comparison with a web
search. Most of the basic common commands, like cat, cp, ls, mv, rm, etc. are
exactly the same, so unless you are helping your friend with the inner
workings of the O/S, things should generally be the same. Most of the sorts of
the things a typical (non UNIX expert) used might normally do in terms of
'system administration' on a Mac are probably best handled with the supplied
GUI tools.  In terms of general software development (other than the sorts of 
things involving messing with the kernel or diging deep into the O/S innards), 
things would pretty much be exactly the same as under Linux.  That is, once 
you install the development build toolset (XCode and whatnot): your basic 
autoconf, automake, etc. and then ./configure, then make.  There are tricky 
bits if you need to build 'universal' binaries and mess with things like 
shared libraries, and stuff like that, but you garden variety HelloWorld.c 
type programs are pretty much just the same as under Linux (or any UNIX 
system). 




> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                       
0
Robert
10/14/2014 11:35:47 PM
On Tuesday 14 October 2014 23:32, Keith Keller conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).

Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
certified UNIX™, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.

GNU/Linux, the various BSDs and even GNU/Hurd would be more UNIX-like 
than OS X in many respects, but they've never applied for the expensive 
Open Group certification.  At least one GNU/Linux distribution has 
however already applied for /and/ attained POSIX certification, and 
given that POSIX is a superset of the SUS ("Single Unix Specification"), 
it's safe to say that GNU/Linux in general is definitely a de facto 
UNIX.

Ken Thompson, one of the principal developers of the original AT&T Unix, 
certainly seemed to agree with that. ;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/14/2014 11:44:32 PM
On 2014-10-14, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 October 2014 23:32, Keith Keller conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
>
> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
> certified UNIX

Huh, I am way out of touch!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#OS_X

I apologize for the misinformation.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

0
Keith
10/15/2014 1:53:06 AM
Aragorn writes:
> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
> certified UNIX

A largely meaningless designation.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
10/15/2014 2:04:57 AM
On Wednesday 15 October 2014 04:04, John Hasler conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.misc...

> Aragorn writes:
>
>> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open
>> Group- certified UNIX
> 
> A largely meaningless designation.

One has to see it within its own context.  UNIX is a trademark and it 
has long been carrying weight with the pointy-haired bosses of the 
corporate sector due to all the qualities a UNIX-style operating system 
possesses.  Meanwhile, Linux is itself also a registered trademark 
(owned by Linus Torvalds) and carries just as much weight already.

Personally I find POSIX more valuable, because POSIX is not a trademark 
but rather a standard.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/15/2014 3:29:15 AM
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> Keith Keller conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
>
> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
> certified UNIX™, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
> UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
> case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
> character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.

I’m not sure what you intend by ‘sitting underneath’.  You can get a
text console if you want.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
10/15/2014 10:46:00 AM
In article <wwvh9z5zk47.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf87AxnpFoA.invalid>,
Richard Kettlewell  <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>> Keith Keller conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
>>
>> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
>> certified UNIX™, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
>> UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
>> case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
>> character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.
>
>I’m not sure what you intend by ‘sitting underneath’.  You can get a
>text console if you want.

I assume this is more "feigned ignorance" (a all-too-common
Usenet/online-forum ploy).

You do really know what he means.  The point is the difference between (on
Linux) tty1-ttyX and opening a "terminal window" from inside the GUI.
In OSX, the former option does not exist.

-- 
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. 

    - John Kenneth Galbraith -

0
gazelle
10/15/2014 12:39:50 PM
At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:39:50 +0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> 
> In article <wwvh9z5zk47.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf87AxnpFoA.invalid>,
> Richard Kettlewell  <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> >> Keith Keller conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> >>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
> >>
> >> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
> >> certified UNIX™, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
> >> UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
> >> case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
> >> character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.
> >
> >I’m not sure what you intend by ‘sitting underneath’.  You can get a
> >text console if you want.
> 
> I assume this is more "feigned ignorance" (a all-too-common
> Usenet/online-forum ploy).
> 
> You do really know what he means.  The point is the difference between (on
> Linux) tty1-ttyX and opening a "terminal window" from inside the GUI.
> In OSX, the former option does not exist.

I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).

> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                      
0
Robert
10/15/2014 1:22:21 PM
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>>> Keith Keller conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
>>>
>>> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
>>> certified UNIXâ„¢, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
>>> UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
>>> case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
>>> character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.
>>
>>I’m not sure what you intend by ‘sitting underneath’.  You can get a
>>text console if you want.
>
> I assume this is more "feigned ignorance" (a all-too-common
> Usenet/online-forum ploy).
>
> You do really know what he means.  The point is the difference between
> (on Linux) tty1-ttyX and opening a "terminal window" from inside the
> GUI.

They aren’t really “underneath” the GUI in any meaningful sense, which
is why I queried the terminology.

> In OSX, the former option does not exist.

It does exist, I’ve used it.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
10/15/2014 2:37:52 PM
On 2014-10-15, Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>
> I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
> would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
> under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).

OS X starts in runlevel 3 by default.  It also starts the GUI on the
console by default.

It used to be possible to start in runlevel 1 and get a text console.  I
haven't tried that in a while so I do not know if it still works.

I have never tried this, but someone claims it's possible to start a
text console in runlevel 3 (the date is super old, but my /etc/ttys file
is very similar, so perhaps this trick still works):

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20030716220410216&query=%252Fetc%252Fttys

None of this helps the OP, unfortunately.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

0
Keith
10/15/2014 3:14:26 PM
At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:37:52 +0100 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> > Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> >>> Keith Keller conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> >>>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
> >>> certified UNIXâ„¢, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
> >>> UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
> >>> case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
> >>> character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.
> >>
> >>I’m not sure what you intend by ‘sitting underneath’.  You can get a
> >>text console if you want.
> >
> > I assume this is more "feigned ignorance" (a all-too-common
> > Usenet/online-forum ploy).
> >
> > You do really know what he means.  The point is the difference between
> > (on Linux) tty1-ttyX and opening a "terminal window" from inside the
> > GUI.
> 
> They aren’t really “underneath” the GUI in any meaningful sense, which
> is why I queried the terminology.

They are 'underneath' in the sense that the GUI (under linux and UNIX/X11 in
general) can be considered an interface 'layer' that is added 'above' the base
system. A 'base' UNIX system has no GUI -- the GUI is an added on set of
'modules': the X11 server is the core, with all of the other 'stuff': XLib,
xdm (gdm, lightdm, kdm, et al.), *wm (twm, fvwm, mwm, et al.), and all of the
desktop glob (GNome, KDE, Unity, XFce, Mate, whatever), and the various widget
libraries (Gtk, Qt, etc). It is generally possible to install Linux (or *BSD)
without the GUI packages. On Linux you generally get tty1-ttyX, that you can
switch between with Ctrl-Alt-Fn (n=1 to X). I don't know if *BSD supports
anything beyond tty1. I know that Ultrix and SunOS 3 and 4 only had a console
tty with started without the GUI login (their version of runlevel 3) (Ultrix 
and SunOS 3 and 4 were based on BSD).

> 
> > In OSX, the former option does not exist.
> 
> It does exist, I’ve used it.
> 

So is it possible to boot OSX without a GUI?

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                                        
0
Robert
10/15/2014 3:58:52 PM
In article <Zuudna_enM-Q6KPJnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Robert Heller  <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
....
>I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
>would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
>under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).

Heh heh.  It probably *is* possible, in some obscure hacker-ish, and
hacker-defined, way to boot either OSX and (current versions of) MS Windows
directly to a full screen text console, with no GUI running.

But not in any normal way, as defined by normal people [*].

[*] As there clearly is for Linux.  And for DOS/Windows through Win98 [**].
[**] Or even ME, but nobody talks about ME.  Or they try not to.

Final note: There is some kind of text-mode Windows NT/XP - that you boot
from a CD.  I've seen it.  You can't do much with it, though.

-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
	by the wise as foolish,
	and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

0
gazelle
10/15/2014 4:08:00 PM
At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:14:26 -0700 Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:

> 
> On 2014-10-15, Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
> > would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
> > under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).
> 
> OS X starts in runlevel 3 by default.  It also starts the GUI on the
> console by default.
> 
> It used to be possible to start in runlevel 1 and get a text console.  I
> haven't tried that in a while so I do not know if it still works.

OK, my meaning (intent) by "'starting in runlevel 3'" is starting in full 
multiuser mode, but without the GUI.  All of the Linux systems *I* have used 
(early Slakware and later RedHat, through CentOS (RHEL)), define runlevel 3 as 
'full multiuser, but without the GUI login' and runlevel 5 as 'full multiuser, 
but with the GUI login'.  On those systems runlevel 1 is single-user mode with 
none of the 'normal' multi-user services started, including getty (or 
whatever) running on /dev/tty1 though /dev/tty6 (usually 6).

Older Linuxes fired up xdm (or gdm or kdm) from a symlink in rc5.d/, newer
ones have something in inittab (this allows for automaticly re-starting the GUI
login in the event it crashes or is killed). I don't remember what Ultrix or
early versions of SunOS (3 and 4) did. Since Ultrix and SunOS 3 and 4 were BSD
they didn't have a SysV5 type init, but the original BSD init, which works
differently.  I believe there was some sort of configure file living in /etc/ 
somewhere that handled the enablement of the GUI on the console on startup -- 
you either got a GUI login screen (ala xdm) or a 'console' login (like a tty). 
In the latter case you would use xinit (now startx) to fire up the GUI.  *I* 
still set both my laptop and desktop machines to start in runlevel 3 and use 
startx to fire up the GUI.

> 
> I have never tried this, but someone claims it's possible to start a
> text console in runlevel 3 (the date is super old, but my /etc/ttys file
> is very similar, so perhaps this trick still works):
> 
> http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20030716220410216&query=%252Fetc%252Fttys
> 
> None of this helps the OP, unfortunately.
> 
> --keith
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                      
0
Robert
10/15/2014 4:18:17 PM
At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:08:00 +0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> 
> In article <Zuudna_enM-Q6KPJnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Robert Heller  <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> ...
> >I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
> >would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
> >under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).
> 
> Heh heh.  It probably *is* possible, in some obscure hacker-ish, and
> hacker-defined, way to boot either OSX and (current versions of) MS Windows
> directly to a full screen text console, with no GUI running.
> 
> But not in any normal way, as defined by normal people [*].
> 
> [*] As there clearly is for Linux.  And for DOS/Windows through Win98 [**].
> [**] Or even ME, but nobody talks about ME.  Or they try not to.
> 
> Final note: There is some kind of text-mode Windows NT/XP - that you boot
> from a CD.  I've seen it.  You can't do much with it, though.

The *presumption* is that for MacOSX, it is *probably* possible to make it
behave like a 'typical' FreeBSD system with something like getty running on
the console as if it were a tty, which would then let you log into a bash (or
even tcsh or ksh or zsh, etc.) shell with an otherwise full multiuser UNIX
environment (eg running network and all the usual daemons running). It is just
that by default MacOSX generally 'skips' the part of the startup where getty
is started on the console(s). That is it does not have the equivalent of this
(SysV5) inittab section (which is typical of a Linux system):

# Run gettys in standard runlevels
1:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty1
2:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty2
3:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty3
4:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty4
5:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty5
6:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty6

I expect that something like that is simply not going to happen with and
version of MS-Windows based on WinNT (eg MS-Windows 2000 and later). It
probably relates to the level of GUI integration: MacOSX is just a FreeBSD
with a (proprietory) GUI 'layer' as opposed to an open source GUI (xorg/X11).
With WinNT, the GUI is integrated into the kernel. My *guess* is that the
text-mode Windows NT on the boot CD is some kind of simple 'rescue mode'
shell, and not anything like the fully functional operating system.


> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                             
0
Robert
10/15/2014 7:46:09 PM
Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> They aren’t really “underneath” the GUI in any meaningful
>> sense, which is why I queried the terminology.
>
> They are 'underneath' in the sense that the GUI (under linux and
> UNIX/X11 in general) can be considered an interface 'layer' that is
> added 'above' the base system.

You would expect a software architecture diagram to put both the
terminal emulation and the bottom layers of the GUI’s rendering system
on top of some more-or-less common interface to video hardware.

The only part of the terminal system that unavoidably underpins part of
a typical GUI system is the pty subsystem, which is used by GUI terminal
applications (xterm, Terminal.app etc).

A tightly integrated system might share terminal emulation code between
the kernel’s text console and GUI terminal applications, though as it
happens this isn’t so in the case of Linux.

> A 'base' UNIX system has no GUI -- the GUI is an added on set of
> 'modules': the X11 server is the core, with all of the other 'stuff':
> XLib, xdm (gdm, lightdm, kdm, et al.), *wm (twm, fvwm, mwm, et al.),
> and all of the desktop glob (GNome, KDE, Unity, XFce, Mate, whatever),
> and the various widget libraries (Gtk, Qt, etc). It is generally
> possible to install Linux (or *BSD) without the GUI packages. On Linux
> you generally get tty1-ttyX, that you can switch between with
> Ctrl-Alt-Fn (n=1 to X). I don't know if *BSD supports anything beyond
> tty1. I know that Ultrix and SunOS 3 and 4 only had a console tty with
> started without the GUI login (their version of runlevel 3) (Ultrix
> and SunOS 3 and 4 were based on BSD).

It’s also possible to install a Unix system without getty or any kind of
display support at all.  The sensible configurations depend entirely on
what the application is; the ‘base’ you describe is really just one
possible choice among many.

>>> In OSX, the former option does not exist.
>> It does exist, I’ve used it.
> So is it possible to boot OSX without a GUI?

AFAIK the login window is a launchd job like any other, so I expect you
could disable it and start a getty instead.

That’s rather more intrusive than just typing ‘>console’ into a login
window so I’m not really inclined to experiment.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
10/15/2014 10:35:26 PM
At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:35:26 +0100 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
> > Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> They aren’t really “underneath” the GUI in any meaningful
> >> sense, which is why I queried the terminology.
> >
> > They are 'underneath' in the sense that the GUI (under linux and
> > UNIX/X11 in general) can be considered an interface 'layer' that is
> > added 'above' the base system.
> 
> You would expect a software architecture diagram to put both the
> terminal emulation and the bottom layers of the GUI’s rendering system
> on top of some more-or-less common interface to video hardware.
> 
> The only part of the terminal system that unavoidably underpins part of
> a typical GUI system is the pty subsystem, which is used by GUI terminal
> applications (xterm, Terminal.app etc).
> 
> A tightly integrated system might share terminal emulation code between
> the kernel’s text console and GUI terminal applications, though as it
> happens this isn’t so in the case of Linux.
> 
> > A 'base' UNIX system has no GUI -- the GUI is an added on set of
> > 'modules': the X11 server is the core, with all of the other 'stuff':
> > XLib, xdm (gdm, lightdm, kdm, et al.), *wm (twm, fvwm, mwm, et al.),
> > and all of the desktop glob (GNome, KDE, Unity, XFce, Mate, whatever),
> > and the various widget libraries (Gtk, Qt, etc). It is generally
> > possible to install Linux (or *BSD) without the GUI packages. On Linux
> > you generally get tty1-ttyX, that you can switch between with
> > Ctrl-Alt-Fn (n=1 to X). I don't know if *BSD supports anything beyond
> > tty1. I know that Ultrix and SunOS 3 and 4 only had a console tty with
> > started without the GUI login (their version of runlevel 3) (Ultrix
> > and SunOS 3 and 4 were based on BSD).
> 
> It’s also possible to install a Unix system without getty or any kind of
> display support at all.  The sensible configurations depend entirely on
> what the application is; the ‘base’ you describe is really just one
> possible choice among many.

The 'base' I describe relates to how *current* Intel (eg 'IBM-PC') hardware is
organized -- *all* such hardware follows the same basic pattern, with some
kind of 'video chip' leading to either a VGA or DVI connector and with a
'BIOS' that expects to find a keyboard (connected to a PS/2 or USB port). Some
newer 'BIOS'es even expect to find a pointer device connected to either a PS/2
or USB port. This even applies to 'headless' servers. And all VM software
emulates all of this, even for 'headless' VMs. Yes, with something like a
PDP-11 or VAX-11/780, where there isn't ANY 'video' hardware at all, things
would be different. Maybe a RS232 port, if you are 'lucky'. Did DEC-10s or
DEC-20s have a console port? I know a VAX-11/780 has one and I *believe*
PDP-11s do. If I remember correctly a PDP-15 uses a PDP-11 as its console (or
something like that). 

(And yes, the various 'appliance' / embeded devices that run Linux/UNIX don't
have consoles.  But that is a whole 'nother animal...}

> 
> >>> In OSX, the former option does not exist.
> >> It does exist, I’ve used it.
> > So is it possible to boot OSX without a GUI?
> 
> AFAIK the login window is a launchd job like any other, so I expect you
> could disable it and start a getty instead.
> 
> That’s rather more intrusive than just typing ‘>console’ into a login
> window so I’m not really inclined to experiment.
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                  
0
Robert
10/15/2014 11:33:02 PM
On 2014-10-15, Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:08:00 +0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>> 
>> In article <Zuudna_enM-Q6KPJnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Robert Heller  <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> >I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
>> >would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
>> >under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).
>> 
>> Heh heh.  It probably *is* possible, in some obscure hacker-ish, and
>> hacker-defined, way to boot either OSX and (current versions of) MS Windows
>> directly to a full screen text console, with no GUI running.
>> 
>> But not in any normal way, as defined by normal people [*].
>> 
>> [*] As there clearly is for Linux.  And for DOS/Windows through Win98 [**].
>> [**] Or even ME, but nobody talks about ME.  Or they try not to.
>> 
>> Final note: There is some kind of text-mode Windows NT/XP - that you boot
>> from a CD.  I've seen it.  You can't do much with it, though.
>
> The *presumption* is that for MacOSX, it is *probably* possible to make it
> behave like a 'typical' FreeBSD system with something like getty running on
> the console as if it were a tty, which would then let you log into a bash (or
> even tcsh or ksh or zsh, etc.) shell with an otherwise full multiuser UNIX
> environment (eg running network and all the usual daemons running). It is just
> that by default MacOSX generally 'skips' the part of the startup where getty
> is started on the console(s). That is it does not have the equivalent of this
> (SysV5) inittab section (which is typical of a Linux system):

Except of course inittab does not exist on a systemd system anymore.
There is a possibility of doing the equivalent in systemd, but how and
where is obscure to me. 

>
> # Run gettys in standard runlevels
> 1:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty1
> 2:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty2
> 3:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty3
> 4:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty4
> 5:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty5
> 6:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty --noclear tty6
>
> I expect that something like that is simply not going to happen with and
> version of MS-Windows based on WinNT (eg MS-Windows 2000 and later). It
> probably relates to the level of GUI integration: MacOSX is just a FreeBSD
> with a (proprietory) GUI 'layer' as opposed to an open source GUI (xorg/X11).
> With WinNT, the GUI is integrated into the kernel. My *guess* is that the
> text-mode Windows NT on the boot CD is some kind of simple 'rescue mode'
> shell, and not anything like the fully functional operating system.
>
>
>> 
>
0
William
10/16/2014 12:23:35 AM
In article <m1n367$apo$2@dont-email.me>,
William Unruh  <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
....
>Except of course inittab does not exist on a systemd system anymore.
>There is a possibility of doing the equivalent in systemd, but how and
>where is obscure to me. 

Um, ah, er, ah, ...

I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using systemd.

-- 
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve
all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer,
so they'll go and vote for cancer.

0
gazelle
10/16/2014 1:29:03 AM
On 2014-10-16, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <m1n367$apo$2@dont-email.me>,
> William Unruh  <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> ...
>>Except of course inittab does not exist on a systemd system anymore.
>>There is a possibility of doing the equivalent in systemd, but how and
>>where is obscure to me. 

I haven't used CentOS 7 yet, but I've seen references to it on their
mailing list, and I'm fairly certain systemd supports virtual consoles.

> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using systemd.

It uses launchd, which is IIRC the default FreeBSD init equivalent.
Ironically launchd looks quite similar to systemd: there's launchctl to
start and stop services, and each service has a configuration file (in
..plist format, which looks JSON-like but I don't believe is) which tells
launchd how to start it.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

0
Keith
10/16/2014 2:35:40 AM
Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using
>> systemd.
>
> It uses launchd, which is IIRC the default FreeBSD init equivalent.

Current FreeBSD does not use launchd by default, nor even include it as
a package.

    $ uname -s
    FreeBSD
    $ pkg search launchd
    $

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
10/16/2014 8:22:37 AM
Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
> The 'base' I describe relates to how *current* Intel (eg 'IBM-PC')
> hardware is organized -- *all* such hardware follows the same basic
> pattern, with some kind of 'video chip' leading to either a VGA or DVI
> connector and with a 'BIOS' that expects to find a keyboard (connected
> to a PS/2 or USB port). Some newer 'BIOS'es even expect to find a
> pointer device connected to either a PS/2 or USB port. This even
> applies to 'headless' servers. And all VM software emulates all of
> this, even for 'headless' VMs. Yes, with something like a PDP-11 or
> VAX-11/780, where there isn't ANY 'video' hardware at all, things
> would be different. Maybe a RS232 port, if you are 'lucky'. Did
> DEC-10s or DEC-20s have a console port? I know a VAX-11/780 has one
> and I *believe* PDP-11s do. If I remember correctly a PDP-15 uses a
> PDP-11 as its console (or something like that).
>
> (And yes, the various 'appliance' / embeded devices that run
> Linux/UNIX don't have consoles.  But that is a whole 'nother
> animal...}

So a ‘base’ Unix system is defined by the architecture of a subset of
the hardware it runs on?  How strange.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
10/16/2014 8:25:15 AM
Robert Heller wrote:
> Keith Keller wrote:
> > Robert Heller wrote:
> > > 
> > > I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
> > > would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
> > > under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).
> > 
> > OS X starts in runlevel 3 by default.  It also starts the GUI on the
> > console by default.
> > 
> > It used to be possible to start in runlevel 1 and get a text console.  I
> > haven't tried that in a while so I do not know if it still works.
> 
> OK, my meaning (intent) by "'starting in runlevel 3'" is starting in full 
> multiuser mode, but without the GUI.  All of the Linux systems *I* have used 
> (early Slakware and later RedHat, through CentOS (RHEL)), define runlevel 3 as 
> 'full multiuser, but without the GUI login' and runlevel 5 as 'full multiuser, 
> but with the GUI login'.  On those systems runlevel 1 is single-user mode with 
> none of the 'normal' multi-user services started, including getty (or 
> whatever) running on /dev/tty1 though /dev/tty6 (usually 6).
> 
> Older Linuxes fired up xdm (or gdm or kdm) from a symlink in rc5.d/, newer
> ones have something in inittab (this allows for automaticly re-starting the GUI
> login in the event it crashes or is killed). I don't remember what Ultrix or
> early versions of SunOS (3 and 4) did. Since Ultrix and SunOS 3 and 4 were BSD
> they didn't have a SysV5 type init, but the original BSD init, which works
> differently. I believe there was some sort of configure file living in /etc/ 
> somewhere that handled the enablement of the GUI on the console on startup -- 
> you either got a GUI login screen (ala xdm) or a 'console' login (like a tty). 

On NetBSD it still works like that. By default you get anything started
and a text login. If you want a graphical login, you have to add a line:
| 
| xdm=YES

to "/etc/rc.conf". The BSD init approach can be viewed as having only 2
"runlevels": The system is up (in multiuser mode as configured with or
without X) or it is in singleuser mode for maintenance.

> In the latter case you would use xinit (now startx) to fire up the GUI.  *I* 
> still set both my laptop and desktop machines to start in runlevel 3 and use 
> startx to fire up the GUI.

I configure my machines the same way.
0
Michael
10/16/2014 10:37:42 AM
Robert Heller wrote:
> 
> [...] It is generally possible to install Linux (or *BSD)
> without the GUI packages. On Linux you generally get tty1-ttyX, that you can
> switch between with Ctrl-Alt-Fn (n=1 to X). I don't know if *BSD supports
> anything beyond tty1.

Yes, it does.

> I know that Ultrix and SunOS 3 and 4 only had a console
> tty with started without the GUI login (their version of runlevel 3) (Ultrix 
> and SunOS 3 and 4 were based on BSD).

NetBSD provide multiple virtual screens via wscons(4).
0
Michael
10/16/2014 10:46:16 AM
On 2014-10-16, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
>>
>> It uses launchd, which is IIRC the default FreeBSD init equivalent.
>
> Current FreeBSD does not use launchd by default, nor even include it as
> a package.
>
>     $ uname -s
>     FreeBSD
>     $ pkg search launchd

Hmm.  When I read the man page, the header said "BSD System Manager's
Manual".  But it appears to be strictly an Apple thing.  The BSD
reference must just be some artifact.  Thanks (again) for the
correction.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

0
Keith
10/16/2014 3:00:26 PM
On 2014-10-16, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <m1n367$apo$2@dont-email.me>,
> William Unruh  <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> ...
>>Except of course inittab does not exist on a systemd system anymore.
>>There is a possibility of doing the equivalent in systemd, but how and
>>where is obscure to me. 
>
> Um, ah, er, ah, ...
>
> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using systemd.
>
It was the "(which is typical of a Linux system)" that I was refering
to. It was stated that OSX did not have an inittab anyway.

0
William
10/16/2014 3:09:47 PM
Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:
> Hmm.  When I read the man page, the header said "BSD System Manager's
> Manual".  But it appears to be strictly an Apple thing.  The BSD
> reference must just be some artifact.  Thanks (again) for the
> correction.

OSX and FreeBSD are both BSDs, although OSX is a bit of an outlier in
technological terms.  (In adoption terms I expect it beats all the rest
put together, integrated over history.)

launchd is an Apple thing in terms of origins and deployment, though
it’s free software and designed to be suitable for other platforms.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
10/16/2014 4:27:13 PM
On Thursday 16 October 2014 12:37, Michael Baeuerle conveyed the 
following to comp.os.linux.misc...

> Robert Heller wrote:
>
>> In the latter case you would use xinit (now startx) to fire up the
>> GUI.  *I* still set both my laptop and desktop machines to start in
>> runlevel 3 and use startx to fire up the GUI.
> 
> I configure my machines the same way.

Same thing here.  Although the following is not my only reason for doign 
it this way, a display manager (alias "graphical login screen") is a 
process running with root privileges, and every process with root 
privileges you can cut out of the equation is an improvement.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/16/2014 6:45:37 PM
On Thursday 16 October 2014 17:09, William Unruh conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.misc...

> On 2014-10-16, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using
>> systemd.
>>
> It was the "(which is typical of a Linux system)" that I was refering
> to. It was stated that OSX did not have an inittab anyway.

systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev, which is 
also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived system, nor on 
something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris), and it wouldn't even 
work on GNU/Hurd.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/16/2014 6:50:40 PM
On 2014-10-16, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 October 2014 17:09, William Unruh conveyed the following 
> to comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> On 2014-10-16, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using
>>> systemd.
>>>
>> It was the "(which is typical of a Linux system)" that I was refering
>> to. It was stated that OSX did not have an inittab anyway.
>
> systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev, which is 
> also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived system, nor on 
> something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris), and it wouldn't even 
> work on GNU/Hurd.
>

You shall be assimilated!
0
William
10/16/2014 7:36:52 PM
On Thursday 16 October 2014 21:36, William Unruh conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.misc...

> On 2014-10-16, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thursday 16 October 2014 17:09, William Unruh conveyed the
>> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>
>>> On 2014-10-16, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using
>>>> systemd.
>>>>
>>> It was the "(which is typical of a Linux system)" that I was
>>> refering to. It was stated that OSX did not have an inittab anyway.
>>
>> systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev, which
>> is also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived system,
>> nor on something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris), and it
>> wouldn't even work on GNU/Hurd.
> 
> You shall be assimilated!

Well, I myself have so far been able to resist the assimilation by 
Lennartus of Borg [1]. :p  Granted, I'm running an old distribution on 
this machine here, but I'm still happily using a traditional System V 
init. ;-)

As for the other UNIX-/POSIX-family of operating systems (and for the 
sake of those readers who don't really understand the basics), systemd 
relies on udev, which was created by Greg Kroah-Hartman but is currently 
maintained at RedHat by Kay Sievers and Lennart Poettering.  udev is 
currently packaged together with systemd.  (Alternatives do exist for 
distributions that don't wish to use systemd, e.g. eudev, which is a 
udev fork created by a number of Gentoo developers who refused to drink 
the systemd Kool-Aid, or mdev, which is used in embedded systems and as 
another Gentoo developer has proven, works rather well for servers with 
a static /dev population.)

udev relies on the Linux kernel's exporting of information via sysfs, 
typically mounted on /sys.  This is specific to the Linux kernel, 
because the BSD kernels, the Solaris/OpenIndiana kernel or the GNU 
Mach/Hurd microkernel-and-userspace-daemon set don't export information 
in this manner [2].  As I understand it - but I could be wrong - the 
BSDs use devfs, which runs in the kernel.  (At least, it did in Linux 
2.4, and I'm assuming that devfs on BSD would be similar.)  I don't know 
what the Solaris/OpenIndiana kernel does in that regard.


[1] Apart from PulseAudio, another piece of Lennartware that came
    installed by default.  And then there's dbus, which as I gather also
    comes from the RedHat dungeons.

[2] And even if they were to go there, then the syntax and nomenclature
    of the exported information would most likely still be sufficiently
    different from that of the Linux kernel for udev to be able to pick
    up on it.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/16/2014 8:02:35 PM
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 October 2014 21:36, William Unruh conveyed the following 
> to comp.os.linux.misc...

> > On 2014-10-16, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Thursday 16 October 2014 17:09, William Unruh conveyed the
> >> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> >>
> >>> On 2014-10-16, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I somehow seriously doubt that Mac OSX is now or ever will be using
> >>>> systemd.
> >>>>
> >>> It was the "(which is typical of a Linux system)" that I was
> >>> refering to. It was stated that OSX did not have an inittab anyway.
> >>
> >> systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev, which
> >> is also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived system,
> >> nor on something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris), and it
> >> wouldn't even work on GNU/Hurd.
> > 
> > You shall be assimilated!

> Well, I myself have so far been able to resist the assimilation by 
> Lennartus of Borg [1]. :p  Granted, I'm running an old distribution on 
> this machine here, but I'm still happily using a traditional System V 
> init. ;-)

FWIW, Slackware has not been assimilated yet, and it also normally runs
BSD style init scripts with skeleton support for sysvinit rc.? symlink
files for those packages that only ship with such.
0
Rich
10/16/2014 8:06:38 PM
On Thursday 16 October 2014 22:06, Rich conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 16 October 2014 21:36, William Unruh conveyed the
>> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> 
>> > On 2014-10-16, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev,
>> >> which is also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived
>> >> system, nor on something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris),
>> >> and it wouldn't even work on GNU/Hurd.
>> > 
>> > You shall be assimilated!
> 
>> Well, I myself have so far been able to resist the assimilation by
>> Lennartus of Borg [1]. :p  Granted, I'm running an old distribution
>> on this machine here, but I'm still happily using a traditional
>> System V init. ;-)
> 
> FWIW, Slackware has not been assimilated yet, and it also normally
> runs BSD style init scripts with skeleton support for sysvinit rc.?
> symlink files for those packages that only ship with such.

Yes, but Pat has stated that he won't necessarily dismiss systemd.  So 
for now, Slack still uses the BSD-style init, but there's no guarantee 
that it won't switch to systemd in the foreseeable future.

One of RedHat's insidious mechanisms for promoting systemd is by making 
stuff depend on it.  That is already the case with GNOME 3.8 and later.  
So if Slackware wants to support GNOME 3.8 or later, then it'll have to 
at least offer systemd.  Not necessarily as PID 1 yet, but it would at 
the very least have to be installed.  That's also how Debian Jessie does 
it right now, albeit that Debian Sid has already fully adopted systemd 
as PID 1.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/16/2014 8:19:34 PM
At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:19:34 +0200 Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On Thursday 16 October 2014 22:06, Rich conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.misc...
> 
> > Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 16 October 2014 21:36, William Unruh conveyed the
> >> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> > 
> >> > On 2014-10-16, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev,
> >> >> which is also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived
> >> >> system, nor on something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris),
> >> >> and it wouldn't even work on GNU/Hurd.
> >> > 
> >> > You shall be assimilated!
> > 
> >> Well, I myself have so far been able to resist the assimilation by
> >> Lennartus of Borg [1]. :p  Granted, I'm running an old distribution
> >> on this machine here, but I'm still happily using a traditional
> >> System V init. ;-)
> > 
> > FWIW, Slackware has not been assimilated yet, and it also normally
> > runs BSD style init scripts with skeleton support for sysvinit rc.?
> > symlink files for those packages that only ship with such.
> 
> Yes, but Pat has stated that he won't necessarily dismiss systemd.  So 
> for now, Slack still uses the BSD-style init, but there's no guarantee 
> that it won't switch to systemd in the foreseeable future.
> 
> One of RedHat's insidious mechanisms for promoting systemd is by making 
> stuff depend on it.  That is already the case with GNOME 3.8 and later.  
> So if Slackware wants to support GNOME 3.8 or later, then it'll have to 
> at least offer systemd.  Not necessarily as PID 1 yet, but it would at 
> the very least have to be installed.  That's also how Debian Jessie does 
> it right now, albeit that Debian Sid has already fully adopted systemd 
> as PID 1.

Well RHEL 5 / CentOS 5 still uses SysVinit (SysVinit-2.86-17.el5). RHEL 6 /
CentOS 6 uses upstart (upstart-0.6.5-13.el6_5.3). RHEL 7 / CentOS 7 uses
systemd. *I* use CentOS 5 on *my* machines (desktop, laptop, and VPS) and
manage one machine running CentOS 6. I have no personal experience with RHEL 7
/ CentOS 7. Ubuntu 14.04 LTS also uses upstart (1.12.1-0ubuntu4.2). I manage a
batch of diskless Ubuntu 14.04 LTS workstations via DRBL (with a Ubuntu 14.04
virtual machine server running under KVM on the CentOS 6 system I manage).

I still have a few years before RHEL 5 / CentOS 5 goes EOL and a few more 
years before RHEL 6 / CentOS 6 goes EOL.  I suspect that by then the whole 
systemd thing will settle down.

> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                  
0
Robert
10/16/2014 9:47:31 PM
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 October 2014 22:06, Rich conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.misc...

> > Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 16 October 2014 21:36, William Unruh conveyed the
> >> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> > 
> >> > On 2014-10-16, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> systemd is also very Linux-specific, because it includes udev,
> >> >> which is also Linux-specific.  It wouldn't work on a BSD-derived
> >> >> system, nor on something like OpenIndiana (formerly OpenSolaris),
> >> >> and it wouldn't even work on GNU/Hurd.
> >> > 
> >> > You shall be assimilated!
> > 
> >> Well, I myself have so far been able to resist the assimilation by
> >> Lennartus of Borg [1]. :p  Granted, I'm running an old distribution
> >> on this machine here, but I'm still happily using a traditional
> >> System V init. ;-)
> > 
> > FWIW, Slackware has not been assimilated yet, and it also normally
> > runs BSD style init scripts with skeleton support for sysvinit rc.?
> > symlink files for those packages that only ship with such.

> Yes, but Pat has stated that he won't necessarily dismiss systemd.  So 
> for now, Slack still uses the BSD-style init, but there's no guarantee 
> that it won't switch to systemd in the foreseeable future.

True, but also largely true for any distro. where someone else decides
the makeup of the system for you.

> One of RedHat's insidious mechanisms for promoting systemd is by making 
> stuff depend on it.  That is already the case with GNOME 3.8 and later.  
> So if Slackware wants to support GNOME 3.8 or later, then it'll have to 
> at least offer systemd.  Not necessarily as PID 1 yet, but it would at 
> the very least have to be installed.

Very true, except that Slackware dropped Gnome cold in 2005
(http://lwn.net/Articles/129282/) so the fake Gnome dependency that
RedHat is generating will not, by itself, likely be a reason that Pat
decides to include systemd.

 
0
Rich
10/16/2014 11:12:40 PM
Aragorn wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > 
> > FWIW, Slackware has not been assimilated yet, and it also normally
> > runs BSD style init scripts with skeleton support for sysvinit rc.?
> > symlink files for those packages that only ship with such.
> 
> Yes, but Pat has stated that he won't necessarily dismiss systemd.  So 
> for now, Slack still uses the BSD-style init, but there's no guarantee 
> that it won't switch to systemd in the foreseeable future.

We would see how long they can resist (Slackware and Gentoo).

> One of RedHat's insidious mechanisms for promoting systemd is by making 
> stuff depend on it.  That is already the case with GNOME 3.8 and later.

It started here:
<https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00427.html>
 
> So if Slackware wants to support GNOME 3.8 or later, then it'll have to 
> at least offer systemd.  Not necessarily as PID 1 yet, but it would at 
> the very least have to be installed.  That's also how Debian Jessie does 
> it right now, albeit that Debian Sid has already fully adopted systemd 
> as PID 1.

The next step on this way is the so called "new-style" daemon:
<http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/daemon.html>
Needless to say that "new-style" means "linux only" and "systemd only".
Looking at point 2 of chapter "Porting Existing Daemons" reveals the
well known strategy:
<http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/sd_listen_fds.html>
Such software will not even compile on other Unix systems.

The whole systemd thing is the opposite of POSIX in the sense of the
philosophy: POSIX tried to unite the APIs of all Unix variants for over
two decades now (write software once and run it on every Unix).
systemd now goes in the opposite direction: Introduce new APIs that are
tightly bound to special Linux kernel features and make things as non-
portable as possible (intentionally!). This will sadly split the Unix
world again.
0
Michael
10/17/2014 8:37:06 AM
In article <AABUQNUyNS4AAAnL.A1.flnews@WStation3.stz-e.de>,
Michael Baeuerle  <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> wrote:
....
>The whole systemd thing is the opposite of POSIX in the sense of the
>philosophy: POSIX tried to unite the APIs of all Unix variants for over
>two decades now (write software once and run it on every Unix).
>systemd now goes in the opposite direction: Introduce new APIs that are
>tightly bound to special Linux kernel features and make things as non-
>portable as possible (intentionally!). This will sadly split the Unix
>world again.

Yes, but Bill Gates (& co.) will be so proud.

What you describe is exactly Microsoft strategy.

-- 
BigBusiness types (aka,
    Republicans/Conservatives/Independents/Liberatarians/whatevers)
don't hate big government.  They *love* big government as a means for
them to get rich, sucking off the public teat.  What they don't like is
*democracy* - little people actually having the right to vote and stuff
like that.

0
gazelle
10/17/2014 9:27:13 AM
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:27:13 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Yes, but Bill Gates (& co.) will be so proud.
> 
> What you describe is exactly Microsoft strategy.

Actually, it isn't. Microsoft owns OpenSuse, one of the few distributions 
that still can boot using init. Looks like Bill Gates is actually looking 
to keep OpenSuse alive. Probably, killing OpenSuse would be a bad karma, 
just like asking for a raise. 



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
0
Mladen
10/18/2014 6:07:33 AM
On 10/14/2014 04:35 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:43:43 -0700 The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been looking for a list of aliases that would allow a mac-using
>> friend to follow my bash instructions (no idea at all about mac, never
>> even touched one) to accomplish various tasks. Haven't found anything at
>> all.  Am I the only person on earth who wants to do this?   What I want
>> is as long a list as I can find of the form
>>
>> 	alias linuxcommand="OSX Command"
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> MacOSX runs Darwin, which is a version of *BSD. The shell one gets with the
> MacOSX 'Terminal' application IS bash, so all of the basic built-in bash
> commands are exactly the same as under Linux.
>
> What IS different are a *few* of the OS specific commands in /bin, /sbin,
> /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin. The differences are the differences between BSD and
> Linux -- it should be possible to find a BSD vs. Linux comparison with a web
> search. Most of the basic common commands, like cat, cp, ls, mv, rm, etc. are
> exactly the same, so unless you are helping your friend with the inner
> workings of the O/S, things should generally be the same. Most of the sorts of
> the things a typical (non UNIX expert) used might normally do in terms of
> 'system administration' on a Mac are probably best handled with the supplied
> GUI tools.  In terms of general software development (other than the sorts of
> things involving messing with the kernel or diging deep into the O/S innards),
> things would pretty much be exactly the same as under Linux.  That is, once
> you install the development build toolset (XCode and whatnot): your basic
> autoconf, automake, etc. and then ./configure, then make.  There are tricky
> bits if you need to build 'universal' binaries and mess with things like
> shared libraries, and stuff like that, but you garden variety HelloWorld.c
> type programs are pretty much just the same as under Linux (or any UNIX
> system).

Thank you, gentlemen.  It turns out that the commands needed (general 
file management, etc.) are the same in both systems so I didn't really 
need to ask the question in the first place :-(


-- 
Cheers, Bev
---------------------------------------------------------
If I know that chaining yourself to a dead cow is stupid,
how come Carly makes so much more money than I do?
0
The
10/18/2014 6:42:58 AM
On Saturday 18 October 2014 08:07, Mladen Gogala conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.misc...

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:27:13 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 
>> Yes, but Bill Gates (& co.) will be so proud.
>> 
>> What you describe is exactly Microsoft strategy.
> 
> Actually, it isn't. Microsoft owns OpenSuse, one of the few
> distributions that still can boot using init.

That's a complete fabrication.  Microsoft is leading a consortium of 
corporations called CPTN Holdings LLC and this consortium has made a bid 
to acquire Novell's patent portfolio, but this transaction has not yet 
been approved due to antitrust concerns and an ongoing investigation in 
that area.

Novell did at one point also sign an interoperability deal with 
Microsoft, which Microsoft itself portrayed in the mainstream media as 
being a non-litigation agreement due to - or so Microsoft claimed - 
Novell's acknowledgment that there was Microsoft "intellectual property" 
in Novell SUSE.  However, Novell itself has always denied having 
acknowledged so, and the deal was strictly about interoperability.

Either way, openSUSE is a community-driven distribution sponsored by 
Attachmate, who are currently selling the enterprise-grade shrinkwrapped 
SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) and SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise 
Server) distributions, and Attachmate is to the best of my knowledge 
still an independent company.

> Looks like Bill Gates is actually looking to keep OpenSuse alive.
> Probably, killing OpenSuse would be a bad karma, just like asking for
> a raise.

Bill Gates has no say whatsoever on what happens with openSUSE, or even 
with SLED and SLES.  Microsoft does not own Attachmate, and it most 
certainly doesn't own the community of FLOSS developers.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/18/2014 9:07:03 AM
It was reported that Aragorn posted:

> On Saturday 18 October 2014 08:07, Mladen Gogala conveyed the following 
> to comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:27:13 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, but Bill Gates (& co.) will be so proud.
>>> 
>>> What you describe is exactly Microsoft strategy.
>> 
>> Actually, it isn't. Microsoft owns OpenSuse, one of the few
>> distributions that still can boot using init.
>
> That's a complete fabrication.  Microsoft is leading a consortium of 
> corporations called CPTN Holdings LLC and this consortium has made a bid 
> to acquire Novell's patent portfolio, but this transaction has not yet 
> been approved due to antitrust concerns and an ongoing investigation in 
> that area.
>
> Novell did at one point also sign an interoperability deal with 
> Microsoft, which Microsoft itself portrayed in the mainstream media as 
> being a non-litigation agreement due to - or so Microsoft claimed - 
> Novell's acknowledgment that there was Microsoft "intellectual property" 
> in Novell SUSE.  However, Novell itself has always denied having 
> acknowledged so, and the deal was strictly about interoperability.
>
> Either way, openSUSE is a community-driven distribution sponsored by 
> Attachmate, who are currently selling the enterprise-grade shrinkwrapped 
> SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) and SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise 
> Server) distributions, and Attachmate is to the best of my knowledge 
> still an independent company.

Attachmate is now merged with Micro Focus International, a British company.
http://www.microfocus.com/about/press/pressreleases/2014/pr15092014.aspx

>> Looks like Bill Gates is actually looking to keep OpenSuse alive.
>> Probably, killing OpenSuse would be a bad karma, just like asking for
>> a raise.
>
> Bill Gates has no say whatsoever on what happens with openSUSE, or even 
> with SLED and SLES.  Microsoft does not own Attachmate, and it most 
> certainly doesn't own the community of FLOSS developers.

Exactly.

-- 
 "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the 
fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
into it in the first place and continues to do so today." 
 -- Douglas Adams --
 
0
William
10/18/2014 11:30:29 AM
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:07:03 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

> That's a complete fabrication.  Microsoft is leading a consortium of
> corporations called CPTN Holdings LLC and this consortium has made a bid
> to acquire Novell's patent portfolio, but this transaction has not yet
> been approved due to antitrust concerns and an ongoing investigation in
> that area.

I know about that. The "consortium" is made of MS, Oracle, Apple and EMC. 
I thought that the deal has gone through. Oh well.



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
0
Mladen
10/19/2014 3:33:38 AM
On Sunday 19 October 2014 05:33, Mladen Gogala conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:07:03 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
> 
>> That's a complete fabrication.  Microsoft is leading a consortium of
>> corporations called CPTN Holdings LLC and this consortium has made a
>> bid to acquire Novell's patent portfolio, but this transaction has
>> not yet been approved due to antitrust concerns and an ongoing
>> investigation in that area.
> 
> I know about that. The "consortium" is made of MS, Oracle, Apple and
> EMC. I thought that the deal has gone through. Oh well.

Nope, the antitrust investigation is still ongoing.  

But either way, even if the transaction is finalized, then all CPTN 
Holdings LLC will have acquired is Novell's patent portfolio.  That does 
not include ownership of the commercial SUSE distributions, nor control 
over the community-developed openSUSE distribution.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
10/19/2014 8:50:52 AM
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:47:31 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:


> I still have a few years before RHEL 5 / CentOS 5 goes EOL and a few
> more years before RHEL 6 / CentOS 6 goes EOL.  I suspect that by then
> the whole systemd thing will settle down.

You have until 2020 for 6.x series.  I run SL 6.5 and am not going to 
upgrade to 7 until necessary.

0
sctvguy1
10/20/2014 6:18:09 PM
In article <Zuudna_enM-Q6KPJnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
heller@deepsoft.com says...
> 
> At Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:39:50 +0000 (UTC) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In article <wwvh9z5zk47.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf87AxnpFoA.invalid>,
> > Richard Kettlewell  <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > >Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> > >> Keith Keller conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> > >>> OS X is based on FreeBSD, not any UNIX(TM).
> > >>
> > >> Yes, but as of OS X "Leopard" onward, OS X /is/ actually an Open Group- 
> > >> certified UNIX�?�, even though it is arguably the least UNIX-like of all 
> > >> UNIX-family operating systems - its native filesystem, HPFS+, isn't even 
> > >> case-sensitive by default, for instance, and there is no full screen 
> > >> character mode sitting underneath the proprietary GUI layer.
> > >
> > >I�?m not sure what you intend by �?sitting underneath�?.  You can get a
> > >text console if you want.
> > 
> > I assume this is more "feigned ignorance" (a all-too-common
> > Usenet/online-forum ploy).
> > 
> > You do really know what he means.  The point is the difference between (on
> > Linux) tty1-ttyX and opening a "terminal window" from inside the GUI.
> > In OSX, the former option does not exist.
> 
> I presume that this also means that 'starting in runlevel 3' (or whatever it 
> would be called in BSD) is not possible under OSX, just as the 'equivalent' 
> under MS-Windows is also not possible (since the effective demise of MS-DOS).
> 
> > 

Just a note but the recommended setup on the current release of Windows 
Server does _not_ install or load the GUI.  A big part of the training 
for admins transitioning to the current release is learning enough 
Powershell to be able to function without the GUI.

I suspect there's a way (possibly involving brute force and awfulness) 
to install Windows 7 and 8 without the GUI but I've never been 
interested enough to try to figure out how.
0
J
11/24/2014 1:34:18 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

[News] Making Linux More Like OS X and OS X More Like Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mac OS X - Highly Customized Linux ,----[ Quote ] | Few players in the Linux arena creates their Linux distro to look like Mac OS | X or Windows.... | | Here I'm going to list some distro which looks like Mac OS. `---- http://linuxtreat.blogspot.com/2008/07/mac-os-x-highly-customized-linux.html A Linux User's Guide to Mac ,----[ Quote ] | Take a deep breath and repeat after me: A computer is just a tool. It is only | so good as it serves to make life better for users. A "better" life is | obviously not the same thing fo...

[News] Mac OS X-Like Dock for GNU/Linux Reviewed by Linux.com
KXDocker: More than a task manager ,----[ Quote ] | The basic idea behind Mac OS X's Dock is that when you need an | application, you click on its icon on an on-screen bar, and the | application is launched (if it has not been yet) or switched to | (if it has). Stefano Zingarini has borrowed this concept for | KXDocker, a KDE variation of OS X's Dock (which is also usable | with GNOME and other desktop environments). `---- http://applications.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/12/28/1956207&from=rss Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VekgyKQoTeM&NR http://www.youtube.com/wa...

[News] [Linux] Mac OS X Becomes More Like Linux, Exposes Big List of Bugs
More Unix in Apple's Leopard ,----[ Quote ] | Among the new features comprising the Leopard's innards Apple points to | the automounter autofs, with the aid of which the Finder will in future | be able to mount remote file systems asynchronously. A new feature of | interest to both professional developers and interested laymen is | DTrace, borrowed from Sun's Solaris, which permits detailed monitoring | of the performance of programs during run-time. `---- http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/91448/from/rss09 Like all O/Ses, Apple has many problems in Tiger as well. W...

[News] Making Linux Look Like OS X Couldn't be Easier
[New article, for those who are hooked on the Mac looks] Make Your Linux Desktop Look Like A Mac - Mac4Lin Project Documentation ,----[ Quote ] | Do you want to give your desktop a dash of Mac OS X? Do you want to change | your GNOME desktop from the default look to something like this? `---- http://www.howtoforge.com/mac4lin_make_linux_look_like_a_mac For KDE: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=8692 Related: [Opinion] Switch to Linux? No. Get a Mac Clone. ,----[ Quote ] | I'm a marketing guy, and I look at everything in my world from a marketing | perspective. Fro...

[News] Making Ubuntu Linux Look Like Mac OS X and Windows XP
Changing the Ubuntu look This article will detail how to mold the Ubuntu Gnome desktop into anything you want it to be (including Windows and OS X) http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/change_ubuntu_look Some interesting screenshots here: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/change_ubuntu_look?page=0%2C5 ...

ROX Linux and ROX on OS X and arm linux
Hi I've just just done some searches on Google for ROX linux, and ROX on other platforms. I've not managed to find anything. Is ROX available for OS X? Is ROX available for Acorn\Iyonix Arm linux? Did ROX Linux ever come to anything? I was a member of the mailing list a while ago, it started off interesting and then seemed to go off on a tangent then it all went quiet. It seemed like an excellent idea, a linux distro structured like RISC OS. It would have been an ideal compliment to a RISC OS system, same UI but different set of applications (probably not quite so consiste...

[News] [Linux] Linux More Secure Than Mac OS X, Windows
How secure are Linux, Window and Mac OS? ,----[ Quote ] | Overall it looks like the Linux kernel turns out to be the most | secure system. Not only does it have virtually no security holes | that lead to system access, it's also very resilient to remote | attacks, two areas where both Windows and Mac OS X aren't doing | very well. `---- http://www.masuran.org/node/29 Lots of nice charts on the page. Good summary. Related: Linux hacks rare as hens' teeth, says survey ,----[ Quote ] | Adding more fuel to the Linux versus Windows fire, a US research firm | this week released a ...

[News] New GNU/Linux Distribution Called Lin-X Looks Just Like Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Lin-X: A Quick Review ,----[ Quote ] | Recently a new Linux distribution was born, called Lin-X. Based off Ubuntu | 8.10, and designed to look like Mac OS X, it grabbed my attention. `---- http://jonreagan.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/lin-x-a-quick-review/ Related: Linux That Looks Like Windows: Bad! ,----[ Quote ] | Conclusion: Linux already has excellent mainstream desktop environments | which have a unique look and feel which differs from that of Windows. | That's not a bad thing: Linux doesn't need to look like Windows. If a | us...

Choosing the right OS between Mac OS X, Linux dist, Win
Hi Guys, I have a 4 year old Dell Inspiron 5100 P4-2.8 GHz (1.25 GB RAM, 40GB HDD). Its been running fine with some heating problems, and a few fresh installations of win-xp needed. Now, I have a need to buy a second laptop (it has to be a laptop since I am moving place to place every few months). Thats when I hit the question.. What to buy... Well, before anything else, I should mention my intended usage of the system... - Running software like - Oracle 10g Server, - Oracle Warehouse Builder - Some ETL tools... - some shell programming - some perl programming - lots of...

Linux, Linux, Linux
Hi, Interested in trying Linux? Well you came to comp.os.linux.advocacy for some reason, and you probably won't stay long. Here's a list of Linux distributions to choose from. Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com Newbie friendly and good support forums. SuSE http://www.novell.com/linux Pay for some support if you're not opposed to spending a little money. Fedora Core http://fedoraproject.org If you're more comfortable with your computer, try this one out. If you get frustrated, don't give up so easy. There is a wealth of information online for whichever distro you choose....

[News] [Linux] Man Chooses Linux Over Mac OS X, Windows
Which OS for Ruby on Rails development? ,----[ Quote ] | I've had experience using Linux servers (no GUIs), so I figured I | could always drop back to the command line if something broke and | I've had to once or twice during installations. But overall I have | been pleasantly surprised at how civil an experience it has been. `---- http://falkayn.blogspot.com/2007/05/which-os-for-ruby-on-rails-development.html ...

[News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows
Following illustrates why Microsoft Vista Windows is losing to a more superior OS: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html or http://tinyurl.com/fwnxt Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X [quote] A Mac user since 2000, upgrading to each new version of Mac OS X: 1. �$300 in operating system updates, or nearly $400 if purchased at full retail. 2. �Three major new releases that significantly improved performance of the same hardware and introduced new apps. 3. �Thirty one regular minor updates with bug fixes and new features, in addi...

OS Smackdown: Linux vs OS X vs Vista vs XP
Mount your soapboxes fanboys of all denominations - It's playtime... OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Windows Vista vs. Windows XP Since the dawn of time - or, at least, the dawn of personal computers - the holy wars over desktop operating systems have raged, with each faction proclaiming the unrivaled superiority of its chosen OS and the vile loathsomeness of all others. No matter how fierce the language or convincing the arguments, however, these battles began to seem somewhat irrelevant to regular working stiffs. While Mac OS, OS/2, Linux and many other desktop operating systems...

[News] [Linux] Linux Gets Prettier, Mac OS X Plays Catch-up
H-K Suite [EN] ,----[ Quote ] | Suite H-K is an union of skins, themes, icons, scripts and | configuration files which got the purpose to create an elegant, | linear Desktop. Differently from meny other dark themes, I tried | to avoid reading problems in most commons programs. Here are some | screenshot from version 0.1. `---- http://embracesblog.mine.nu/?page_id=5 Apple's latest catchup: [Apple's 'Beryl/XGL'] ,----[ Quote ] | With Mac OS X, you can multitask like never before. You can run | several applications at once and have multiple windows open at the | same ti...

Web resources about - Make OS X terminal work like linux - comp.os.linux.misc

Howland Hook Marine Terminal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Howland Hook Marine Terminal is a container port facility in the Port of New York and New Jersey located in northwestern Staten Island in ...

Fires rage at Libyan oil terminal after ISIS attack
Fires at oil storage tanks in the major Libyan terminal of Ras Lanuf were still raging two days after Islamic State militants set fire to the ...

FIFO headache: new Virgin terminal to cause airport parking havoc
Virgin Australia's new domestic terminal is set to become a headache for fly-in, fly-out workers who leave their cars in long-term airport parking ...

Brisbane's new $100m cruise ship terminal to go to Cabinet
The world's largest cruise ships could be in Brisbane from mid-2019 with plans for the city's second cruise ship terminal to be built in a $100 ...

Fires rage at Libyan oil terminal after ISIS attack
Fires at oil storage tanks in the major Libyan terminal of Ras Lanuf were still raging two days after Islamic State militants set fire to the ...

Hands-on: Square Contactless is an Apple Pay payment terminal for any business
... and iPads, which means small businesses and pop up shops can take Apple Pay payments from iPhones and Apple Watches without expensive terminal ...

Gogol Bordello rang in 2016 at Terminal 5
photos by Dana (distortion) Yavin As the 10(ish) members of the band hit the stage at 9 p.m. and the giant banner of Underdog World Strike's ...

These incredible images show how Wall Street traded before the Bloomberg terminal
Today's traders are spoiled by their Bloomberg terminals. Back in the day, before broadband fired live quotes and analysis straight to our smartphones, ...

Police: eHarmony date leads to rape at bus terminal
An alleged rape victim told police she was raped after meeting a date at New York City's Port Authority bus terminal

North Port Terminal packed with passengers
Hundreds of passengers found themselves stranded at the North Port Terminal in Manila on Thursday (December 24). Most were supposed to sail last ...

Resources last updated: 1/26/2016 10:12:27 AM