Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,432 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I must say a lot of Linux commands look very similar to what the AMIGA dos commands were or I should say Shell commands. Does that mean that AMIGA was based on Linux coding?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
The Amiga predated Linux. It was probably based on BSD Unix, an offshoot of AT&T Unix. BSD Unix predated Linux by about 25 years. Since Linux copied Unix and incorporated parts of BSD Unix, it was similar in operation and popularity. Linux eventually became more popular than BSD. BSD still survives, mostly in servers and as a basis for operating systems such as iOS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Since Linux copied Unix and incorporated parts of BSD Unix, it was similar in operation and popularity.
Copied/re-implemented yes but no incorporation of the BSD's it was written from scratch by mainly one man at the start for the most part, Richard Stallman until others joined him in the GNU project these GNU tools were combined with Linus Torvals kernel he started in the early 90s to give us what is called Linux today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
It is always best to think of Linux as "Unix-like". As the idiotic, marathon SCO litigation (financed in part by Microsoft) eventually proved, there is no Unix code in Linux.

As for AmigaOS, DOS, and other small-scale OSes of that time, many commands were so well known in the computer world as to be defacto standards, so that's why you see them reused in similar purposes albeit with different syntaxes in most cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,378 Posts
Since Linux copied Unix
He didn't copy it. He wrote his own Unix like operating system.

Copied/re-implemented yes but no incorporation of the BSD's it was written from scratch by mainly one man at the start for the most part, Richard Stallman until others joined him in the GNU project these GNU tools were combined with Linus Torvals kernel he started in the early 90s to give us what is called Linux today.
Not quite sure what you're saying there, as you seem to confuse a few points. Unix started at AT&T, but due to an anti-trust decree, they couldn't sell it. So, they made it available to universities etc., for little more than duplication and shipping costs. A copy wound up at University of California, Berkely, where it was greatly enhanced, utilities created, etc. Bill Joy, who later founded Sun, made a lot of the contributions to this Berkley Software Division (BSD) version of Unix. Berkley was then sued by AT&T but won the suit, so there is now both original AT&T and BSD code in Unix. There were other Unix versions from IBM, DEC, HP and others, but they couldn't call it Unix, even though developed from AT&T/BSD code. Linus Torvalds created Linux, as he couldn't afford to buy a Unix and the one he was using in school, Minux, he considered inadequate. Richard Stallman didn't create BSD, but developed the Hurd/Mach microkernel system. He also created the GPL open source licence. Linux also uses a lot of the GPL utilities. Further, Linux survived a lawsuit from SCO, which was making outrageous claims about owning Unix and everything it touched. SCO tried claiming Linux contained stolen Unix code, but was unable to provide any proof, but certainly produced a lot of nonsense. This was thoroughly covered on the Groklaw web site. The last remnants of that case died a few weeks ago, when a court ruled they had nothing to proceed with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Confusing is not the word for it with all the mess in your posting. Linus created a kernel with the GNU (GNU is not UNIX) tools available at the time not an operating system others did that in the packaging of the GNU tools with the Linux kernel into distributions available for installing. No where did I state RMS created UNIX he after being frustrated with proprietary restrictive nature of the software direction at the time decided to create his own operating system. This lead to him doing hell of a lot of work on what would become the GNU project software leading to the GPL (GNU Public License) free software licensed software movement. He states this clearly in the only DVD I own Revolution OS a damn fine video history of these events with all the major players at the time involved in its production. A link to that open source video below if you would like to view some actual history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8K460vx1c
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,378 Posts
^^^^
Linux refers to the kernel, which Linus developed. The GNU stuff came from elsewhere, I have never claimed otherwise. Many of the other parts were in Unix, but other people wrote open source versions that had similar function. Regardless, there is no Unix code in Linux but, in fact, some GNU stuff has made it's way into various commercial Unix variants.

The history of Unix is a real mess due to the way AT&T originally distributed it, which encouraged others to improve on it, so that it's impossible to determine who wrote some parts of it. With Linux, they try to keep track of stuff like that.

No where did I state RMS created UNIX he after being frustrated with proprietary restrictive nature of the software direction at the time decided to create his own operating system.
Well, in an earlier post you said "Copied/re-implemented yes but no incorporation of the BSD's it was written from scratch by mainly one man at the start for the most part, Richard Stallman until others joined him"

It sure looks like you claim RMS created BSD, though the way you wrote it makes it difficult to understand what you're saying. Regardless, RMS, while creating GPL worked with HURD/Mach microkernel, which is a completely different philosophy from the Linux monolithic kernel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
In response to someone claiming Linux incorporated BSD code I say they (Stallman and others) copied/re-implemented parts written from scratch of the BSD system while the it was referring to the Linux used earlier in the other sentence I quoted, perhaps I missed out on a comma after the BSD's used there to make it even clearer to such a pedantic person as you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
there is now both original AT&T and BSD code in Unix.
BSD Unix no longer contains any AT&T code. In order to remove any remaining restrictions, the AT&T portions were completely rewritten in the 1990s. Some variants are truly open, in that there is no restriction on their use. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have used BSD to create or enhance their own operating systems without any attribution, licenses or royalties.

I find it ironic that BSD contributed so much to Unix and its adoption but AT&T and others turned around and sued BSD for what was, by then, relatively small amounts of remaining AT&T code in the kernel. It just shows how two faced modern corporations are.

Microsoft Unix-like product was Xenix, not Unix. It was yet another spinoff of an early version of Unix. Like most Microsoft products at the time, Xenix was extremely buggy and was eventually abandoned by Microfoft. During the 1990s, Microsoft licensed the full version of AT&T Unix and sold it under the Xenix brand.

Don't know what that has to do with the Amiga except that the Amiga had a Unix-like kernel. Don't know where it came from but it was certainly an improvement over MS-DOS. It was more like early versions of the Apple Macintosh or Windows at the user interface level.
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
Why Unix, DOS, and Linux command lines are similar

Stepping back into the mists of time, to the mid-1970s/early 1980s, from my own memories:

Unix was born as the "Unics Time Sharing System" and was created on a PDP minicomputer, which was no slouch for performance in that era. SInce Unix, the C programming language, and TCP/IP networking were all born and co-developed within the same time frame and often by the very same people, Unix was designed from the very beginning to be a multitasking, multiuser, networked operating system with a very powerful shell and a variety of networking protocols baked in. The tools at hand, such as pipes, links, and redirection, were tremendously useful. Even so, the command names and syntax were kept minimal in an age when every bit and byte was precious.

Small OSes like DOS emerged to run on very limited hardware, especially with very low processing power and tiny quantity of addressable memory. They were typically single process, single user hobby OSes with no networking capability. Understandably, the user commands had to have few characters with little complexity of syntax.

All of those OSes needed to present an interface to the user with functional commands that required learning their syntax and proper usage. With the small scale DOS it was possible to memorize most or all of those. WIth Unix, it was a whole new universe with amazing possiblities.

I won't go over the AT&T - Berkely battles here all over again, so to cut right to the chase the essential command line utilities of Unix became standardized, regardless of the Unix flavour. Unix-like commercial OSes like Apollo Domain were wise to use very similar commands and shells.

Given all the legal nonsense, Stallman et al began their own clean sheet GNU project at MIT to recreate all the Unix utilities in standards-compliant GPL form from scratch, with no copying or license encumbrances. They had hoped to eventually write a kernel (called HURD) but never quite got it completed for decades. Nevertheless, they had created an otherwise fully capable GNU environment with utilities, shells, compilers, libraries, etc. etc. ready to go for just about any Unix-like OS.

By the time Torvalds came along with his inability to afford a Unix license, it was possible for him to write a clean sheet kernel while using the free and open source GNU utilities. Thus, Torvalds did not have to write a shell (with command line utilties) or an entire networking stack from scratch when so much of that was already available. That was the beauty of his implementing the GPL for Linux. The kernel remains pure Linux. That's why Linux is "Unix-like". Unix users had been using the GNU utilities for years beforehand and glommed onto Linux readily.

I've left out a whopping amount of detail and haven't even touched on the command lines of proprietary mainframe or minicomputer OSes and great environments like MULTICS, VMS, MPE, etc. etc. that tended to use quite different commands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
... Torvalds came along with his inability to afford a Unix license
I have to wonder about the accuracy of that statement. There were other options, such as FreeBSD and OpenBSD. At the time, I was using FreeBSD and it was a free, very capable Unix operating system. FreeBSD was widely used as a network server on low end PC hardware at the time. It is still regarded as one of the most stable server OS available. FreeBSD's major limitation was hardware support. For example, it did not support ATA drives so SCSI drives were required. That added some extra expense but Torvalds was free to add ATA support (or anything else) to the FreeBSD kernel if he wanted. It took many years before Linux became as mature as FreeBSD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
I actually learnt UNIX on a PDP-11 in 1982. No networking, the particular machine had no network hardware and if it had it would only have been a 1200 baud dial up modem! But it was a real UNIX from AT&T I have no idea who ported from the original PDP-7 to the 11 which had quite a different architecture.


One common use for BSD nowadays is for Firewalls as there is a version stripped of every bit of bling that is as secure as a UNIX system can get and is a great base for a firewall.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
ExDilbert said:
I have to wonder about the accuracy of that statement. There were other options, such as FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
Torvalds was studying the Minix kernel in university, which was created by Prof. Tanenbaum. Torvalds wasn't looking for a kernel to use, he was looking to create his own. The GPL allowed far more freedom than the BSD license. He posted on Usenet that he was starting a new GPL'ed kernel project and people jumped right in. Back then a guy I worked with (in the next office) was one of the first hackers trying (unsuccesfully at the time) to get Linux running on the IBM PS/2's proprietary MCI bus. Someone solved it years later but the poor guy sure pulled his hair out back then trying to write drivers for it with no vendor support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
I did some work on an IBM PS/2 running Xenix. They were nicely built systems but pretty much a dead end since the industry wanted an open hardware architecture. IBM's profit margins were very high as well.

Torvalds wanting to create his own kernel makes more sense to me. While I have no doubt that he couldn't afford an AT&T Unix license either (they were about $1800 for a PC,) that's not a huge motivating factor for such a project. Freeing Unix-like systems from any AT&T/Sun/Microsoft encumbrance is a much better reason. It's ironic that Linux was a major factor in the decline of AT&T Unix and its proprietary derivatives. I've got to wonder if such a project would even survive in today's legal minefield of lawsuits over questionable software patents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,378 Posts
There were other options, such as FreeBSD and OpenBSD
Linux was first released in 1991, FreeBSD in 1993 and openBSD in 1995, so the BSDs weren't available when LInus created Linux. At school, he had to use Minix, which he found unsatisfactory and any other *nix was too expensive.

to get Linux running on the IBM PS/2's proprietary MCI bus. Someone solved it years later but the poor guy sure pulled his hair out back then trying to write drivers for it
I couldn't get Linux running on an MCI bus computer, back when I was at IBM in the late '90s.

I've got to wonder if such a project would even survive in today's legal minefield of lawsuits over questionable software patents.
Linux survived SCO's bogus lawsuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,959 Posts
Linux survived SCO's bogus lawsuit.
The software patent lawsuit scenario in the US today is quite a bit different than it was then. It was more difficult to win such a lawsuit then and the number of lawsuits being filed were fewer. Patent filings, patent trolls and the lawsuits they produce have reached epidemic proportions in the US due to a few districts where it is easy to win large awards. Some corporations exist for the sole purpose of buying patents and suing tech companies for alleged patent infringements. Some of the patents they purchase have expired so they are cheap to purchase but allow the awarding of backdated damages under US law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
All I can say to Jamesk,Stampeder and Exdilbert is....there were Giants in the industry in those days!
I spent those years on Vaxen, PDP11 and on the 80xxx machines with Xenix,SCO and later Windows NT where we ported an OLTP system originally written in GEAC's system development language all the way through to Windows Servers. We had to write and modify libs and drivers and our own compiler and assembler. While meanwhile every release on all the platforms supported at any time had to support some large Insurance applications without having to recompile any of them. We wrote our own X25 comms controllers and firmware on ASCII terminals.
Spent years at it and those application still run, the remains of the team will be celebrating 30 years of it in 2018
For all that none of the stuff we did was research as you guys talk about it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
The amiga os is actually tripos os , that commodore purchased for the amiga and wrote the command line shell and Workbench gui. This is a great lean fast os.

I have been running amiga computers since 1987. I still run amiga software today useing the fsuae amiga emulator on linux. I love the great commodore 64 and amiga games, tons of great software that you can not find on windows or mac.
The 80 and 90's programmers wrote pure gold for software, so much modern software has flashy graphics but the new games on playstation and xbox are as boring as watching a freshly painted wall.

I love the classic shootem up games and pinball games, you just dont see this stuff anymore.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top