I wonder if anyone can help me. I am trying to research a magazine article for a computing for dummies factsheet, and one of the topics that I want to cover is Unix. Being a dummy myself, I know very very little about this operating system that judging by this website is hugely popular. What is it about Unix that Unix fans love ? What are the bits that Unix users find annoying ? How does it compare with MacOS and Windows? I would be interested in any comments from users, and very grateful for any help.

Thanks a lot

The pros of Linux are measured in its open source policy, reliability, and powerful server and Internet applications. Anyone can modify, and/or optimize the code for most applications, as well as the OS itself. Also, since it is open source the application can be tuned to excellent efficiency in response time.

The golden boy in the Linux arsenal application is the power of Apache web server. On the Internet it is the staple web servers use. Sendmail is another plus in the Linux arsenal. Sendmail is a well-used email system for ISPs. The advanced clustering technology of the Linux is the catalyst that leads people to Linux. It rounds out the features packed into Linux. The assortment of free software available has become a vast collection. There is everything from graphics programs like Gimp to database software like MySql. The rest span every computer application you could possibly think of. Plus the kernel is very stable, so when something dies in Linux you only have to restart the application, not the whole system. Finally, Linux runs on every architecture[/b].

The cons against Linux are the obstacles one encounters while attempting to use Linux in a desktop or graphic environment. First, the best office solution on Linux does not compare to Windows Microsoft Office in availabilty and ease of use and effectiveness. Second, all of the major graphics companies do not port their software to the environment. Adobe makes excellent graphic software like Photoshop which does not even exist in the Linux environment. Macromedia does not port any of their high-end graphics software, and they are only recently announcing that they are porting some of their graphics solutions. Macromedia's Generator 2 is porting their Flash technology as well. Another con against Linux is the steep learning curve. Unix is very deep but an effective language. The environment has a powerful ability to control the system, down to the kernel, even more the Solis or IRIX, but at the expense of user friendliness.

Linux advantages

It's almost free to relatively inexpensive.. Linux can be downloaded off the internet, which makes it free or close to it. Or you can purchase CD-ROMs for $2 or so from Linux vendors. Unfortunately, these include no manuals or support. Or you can purchase a boxed distribution (with manuals and support) from a variety of companies for anywhere from $40 to $150.

Source code is included. While this may not seem like an advantage if you aren't a programmer, the fact that the source code is available to anyone means that it would be very difficult for someone to charge you hundreds or thousands of dollars for a copy of Linux. If everyone has the source code, then you can go get the same thing somewhere else for less. In addition, if Linux didn't support some operation or piece of equipment you needed, you or someone else could always change the source code to do what you wanted.

Bugs are fixed quickly. Development in Linux is worldwide. Programmers from all over the world participate in making Linux a better and more stable product. When bugs are found, people in the Linux world don't try to explain them away or tell you to wait six months. With thousands of programmers across the globe involved, bugs are often fixed in a matter of hours or days. And when was the last time you talked to or emailed the programmer who wrote your program? On Linux, this can happen.

Linux is more stable than other modern operating systems. "Uptimes" in the Linux world are on the order of months and years, not days. Usually when a Linux machine is brought down, it is to upgrade the machine or the software. While no operating system is "crash proof", in general it is extremely difficult to "crash" a Linux machine.

Linux is truly multi-user and multi-tasking. From the beginning, Linux was programmed with multiple users and the ability to do many things at once in mind. This came from its Unix roots. Today, twenty years later, that capability is mature and stable.

Help is readily available. With programmers and users spread across the world, help is as close as the internet. You can get help via email, or directly from the various Linux vendors. No more sitting on hold for hours and then talking to someone who has no idea how to fix your problem.

Linux comes with commercial-grade applications that make office work simple. Many vendors are taking an interest in the Linux phenomenon. Corel has Word Perfectfor Linux, and is working on porting the rest of the Corel office products to Linux. IBM is working on a port of Lotus Notesfor Linux. Sybase, Informix, Oracleand IBMnow have working versions of their database products for Linux. And Linux has its own set of vendors creating new productivity applications for Linux. StarDivision in Germany has StarOffice, an office suite similar to Microsoft Office. StarOffice's word processor even reads Microsoft Word files. Applixalso has an office suite available, as well as several other companies. Even game makers like Id Software are releasing games like Doomand Quakefor Linux. Civilization, one of the most popular games in the Windows world, is now in stores for Linux.

Linux has internet connectivity built in. Internet connectivity is part of Linux's Unix heritage. Every major distribution of Linux comes with tools that can immediately get you up and running on the internet. Most even include Netscape Navigator as their browser of choice.

Linux runs on equipment that other operating systems consider too underpowered. Linux was originally created on a 386 computer, and it still supports small systems like this. A minimum Linux installation is a 386 processor with 4 megs of memory and about a hundred megabytes of hard disk storage (though it can work with less hard disk space). In this configuration, it works well as a departmental, print or web server. But Linux also runs on high powered Alpha machines, Macintoshes, and machines with multiple processors.


Linux disadvantages

My ______ program won't run on Linux. Sadly, some vendors, including Microsoft, have been reluctant to port their software to Linux. And some may never do so. However, substitute programs often exist. Adobe Photoshop does not currently exist on Linux, but The Gimp, a program with similar capabilities, does. And it is also an open source program. Quicken does not exist on Linux, but a program called CBBdoes run on Linux and is similar to it. Microsoft Word does not run on Linux, but as mentioned before StarOffice's word processor and others will read Microsoft Word files. Spreadsheets exist on Linux, some of which will read Lotus and Excel files.

Isn't as popular as Windows. On the desktop, this is true. But the fact that Chryslers aren't as popular as Fords doesn't keep people from buying them. And the fact is that much of the internet runs on Linux machines. In fact, corporate CIOs are often surprised to find how many machines in their own companies are running on Linux.

No one commercial company is responsible for Linux. Although this is true, there are drawbacks to having one company responsible for all your software needs. Support can be a nightmare. Upgrades can take too long to come out and cost too much. Bugs can be redefined as "features" or never admitted in order to limit corporate liability. But Linux has thousands of programmers and millions of users all over the world who are jointly responsible for it. The Linux community is strong on support and quick with upgrades and remedies for security and software glitches.

Linux is hard to install, learn and use. This actually isn't true. Going from one operating system to another (PC to MacOS, MacOS to OS/2, OS/2 to Pick) can always be difficult, but it doesn't have to be. With the X-Windows Linux GUI, programs are available to do most of the things you're likely to want to do on your computer, in a GUI environment similar to Microsoft Windows. And documentation is available online with almost all Linux distributions, if you need help. Installation, manuals and system administration tools are generally designed by the vendor you buy Linux from. And some vendors do these things better than others. Caldera's OpenLinux 2.2 has an installation that is as simple as it gets. And SuSE's manuals are some of the best in the Linux world.

Lastly about Linux vs windows:

I don't know how many more torpedoes Windows can take before it sinks, but if and when it does, a whole batch of specialized programs are going down with it. Obviously, for reasons relating to the open source movement, Linux doesn't have this particular problem.
Larry Wall The Guru of Perl

Anyway, am still using windows in my home. Why? I don't know

[Edited by mib on 01-25-2001 at 07:21 AM]

Mib, great reply, objective and well written. Did you write the comparision above or is it an extract from another article? Did Larry Wall write it?

[Edited by Neo on 01-25-2001 at 08:38 AM]

Good answer, but remember that Linux is by no means the only Unix in town. Some of your statements, such as the open-source nature, and variety of platforms, do not apply to many commercial versions of Unix.

So, more generally, what do people like about Unix? One thing is its command-line power and flexibility. One of the central themes of all Unix flavors is that the command-line tools are written to each do one thing, and do it well. Combined with the power of piping and redirection this allows you to perform complex tasks easily.

Example: I have a 10,000 line text file. I want to know how many lines contain the word "dog" as the fifth word on the line. How would you do this quickly in Dos/Windows? In Unix, its one line:
awk '{print $5}' text_file | grep dog | wc -l

Other benefits, as already mentioned: stability, speed, powerful networking. And, of course, choice! If your platform is Intel, your choices include: Linux, Solaris, any of the BSD's, Minix, etc. Linux runs on 12 platforms right now, with more in development stages, *BSD runs on almost as many I believe.

hi Neo & PxT,

Ofcourse the pros & cons that I described above is not written by me. But I collected those informations from different sources periodically for my own reference and when I came across this question I took important things from my collected information and posted here.

And Larry wall's statement of future of Linux and Windows, I got it from an interview with Larry Wall that published in Linux Journal Magazine. http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issu...ue61/3394.html

If I could write those pros & cons myself, I'd be a smarter person than I am. I'm just smart enough to know I'm no smarter than that.

mib, good collection of information. I was hoping that you wrote it yourself and I was going to suggest to write an article for a magazine and publish. You still might consider publishing as you have a gift for bringing information together well.

Now, I will add my .02 cents worth:

UNIX-based system were built 'from the inside-out'. This means that that the development of these systems (Linux, BSD, HPUX, Solaris, et al) was done by starting with a small multitasking kernel; making the kernel robust, and adding layers of functionality to the kernel OS. The development was generally done with cross-platform interoperability in mind (althought this has not happened 100 percent, it is a basic criteria). The presentation of information to the end-user (in bullet-proof and idiot-proof GUIs) was not the core priority in the early development ---- robustness, scaleability, and interoperability were.

Windows-based systems, on the other hand, were built from more of an 'outside-in' development. The core requirements were building end-user GUIs that had mass-appeal from a commerical marketing perspective. The goal of Windows-based development was to dominate the market (a worthy single-company commerical goal) and not to overly dilute their marketshare with interoperability. Building a true-robust, scaleable, multi-tasking kernel was not a central, original design goal.

The end results today are just what we see in the market. UNIX-based systems are more robust, scaleable, reliable, fault-tolerant, interoperable, etc. Windows-based systems are more graphically-heavy, presentation-oriented. Windows-based systems strive to be more robust, scaleable, reliable, fault-tolerant but not necessarily interoperable (due to commerical considerations). UNIX-based systems, on the other hand, tend to lag in idiot-proof presentation (GUIs); however, in the past few years there has been progress in that area (from my understanding, I am mostly UNIX command line oriented).

The commercial company which developed Windows (Microsoft) has been verified as having an internal business strategy dubbed: "embrace, extend, and extinguish". The core ideas behind this philosophy are to embrace the standards to the minimum that users will tolerate and the add proprietary extensions to the standards. They can do this because of such a tremendous user-base. After the non-standard extensions have been accepted by the user-community, the effect is to drive the end-user to a single-vendor solution and 'extinguish the competition'.

The 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' business strategy is brilliant, from a commerical perspective and Microsoft has done very well with this strategy. From a single-vendor and stockholder perspective, the strategy is pure-genius.

UNIX-based and UNIX-like systems, on the other hand, do not have a core strategy of "embrace, extend and extinguish." The core strategy is to interoperate across a wide variety of systems based on a collaborative, open (and often slow) standards process. Commerical considerations have traditionally been secondary to interoperability design criteria.

Luckiliy, there is a place in the marketspace for both approaches. However, I tend to believe that the 'extend, embrace, extinguish' commercial philosophy and strategy has a limited lifetime. Futhermore, I tend to believe that the open collaborative approach will survive, in the longer term. Perhaps this is a 'hope' more than a prediction, because the future is very uncertain.

As for me, I use both Windows-based systems and UNIX-based systems. I tend to use UNIX-based systems for servers and services; and tend to use Windows-based systems as my desktop. I used to use LaTeX and postscript for all pubs and documents, but now I use MS Word and Adobe Acrobat for publishing, etc. I tend to read mail with MS Outlook but store and process mail on UNIX-servers.

So the answer to 'UNIX vs Windows' is complex and varies depending on the user requirements. However, all users with both desktop business applications and requirements for a robust, scaleable computing and server environment will tend to use both Windows and UNIX systems. This is not different from families who have both a truck and a sports car; or a van and a sedan. There is simply not one computing environment that meets or exceeds the needs of all users; just as there is no one automobile that can run a grand-prix rally and carry a load of firewood with a ton of bricks. Both are important; both are critical.

Personally, I am not a fan nor supporter of 'embrace, extend, extinguish' because I tend to hope for cross-vendor interoperability vs. single-vendor commerical interests. I also believe the power of the network is in the number of interoperable nodes vs. nice-to-have proprietary extensions and features. This tension is not easily resolved and will not be resolved anytime soon; so IMHO it is 'more-than-likely' the better approach to be realistic and for the user to take advantage of the benefits of both as appropriate to their computing and networking environment.

[Edited by Neo on 01-27-2001 at 12:17 PM]