<strong>Linux is just the kernel. However, it almost always comes standard in a UNIX-type package.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does Linux, by itself, provide one with terminal access to the system then? Can you install mySQL and PHP and Apache on Linux by itself? Or is there some sort of "terminal OS" that needs to be installed?
[quote]<strong>
Since Linux doesn't provide any GUI functionality itself, everything is theoretically up for grabs. Most often though, Linux comes with the X Window System and things diverge from there, since X alone isn't a full GUI.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean by "full GUI"? What sort of features are left out of X?
[quote]<strong>
There are multiple possible starting points for new standards, but since X is so established, most efforts would probably start from there. The Blue Eyed OS project, for instance, intends to recreate the BeOS GUI on top of X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would it be possible to build a native OS for Linux without putting something on top of X, or do I have the wrong idea about how this works?
[quote]Does Linux, by itself, provide one with terminal access to the system then? Can you install mySQL and PHP and Apache on Linux by itself? Or is there some sort of "terminal OS" that needs to be installed?<hr></blockquote>
The kernel allows programs to read from and write to the console. It's those programs that actually allow you to interact with the system. I'm answering your questions with a general knowledge of operating systems, so I can't tell you what any specific program needs.
[quote]What do you mean by "full GUI"? What sort of features are left out of X?<hr></blockquote>
X provides a standard way of accessing the mouse, keyboard and display. It allows client programs to draw bitmaps, squares, circles, etc., into windows, and reports to clients about where the mouse is, which keys are pressed, etc. It provides the bits and pieces of a GUI, but it's up to client programs to put them together.
[quote]Would it be possible to build a native OS for Linux without putting something on top of X, or do I have the wrong idea about how this works?<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you could build a native OS on top of Linux and throw everything else out.
That's great, thanks for the information. I have one more quick question if I may... is it possible to set up Linux on a machine and just stick a Mozilla browser on top of X and have a surfing machine?
According to the Mozilla website, this is what you need on Linux (x86):
[quote]he following library versions (or compatible) are required: glibc 2.1, XFree86 3.3.x, GTK 1.2.x, Glib 1.2.x, Libstdc++ 2.9.0. Red Hat Linux 6.0, Debian 2.1, and SuSE 6.2 (or later) installations should work.<hr></blockquote>
So if you're asking if the ready-made version of Mozilla would run on just Linux and X, the answer is 'no'. You can do whatever you want with the source code though.
[quote]Does Linux, by itself, provide one with terminal access to the system then? Can you install mySQL and PHP and Apache on Linux by itself? Or is there some sort of "terminal OS" that needs to be installed?
The kernel allows programs to read from and write to the console. It's those programs that actually allow you to interact with the system. I'm answering your questions with a general knowledge of operating systems, so I can't tell you what any specific program needs.[QB]<hr></blockquote>
Its actually quite a bit more complicated than that and depends on which shell you are running. With the bash shell, you are actually interacting with a program by the name of readline.
While linux and unix are quite stable and mature at the component interface level, they are far from clean in their design. The further you dig, the more you realize that they are huge piles of stable and well optimized kludge. This goes all the way back to the terminal server days. There are hundreds of different types of terminals and absolutely no standards. Instead of reimplementing the unorganized mess, another layer was added in between (terminfo and termcap).
You can pick and choose between the different packages in order to trim your system down but this is rarely done. There are tons of dependancies between components that aren't well documented. For example, many things depend on sendmail even if they don't send mail. It is useually best to install the default components even if you don't plan on using them.
At my company, we save tens of thousands of dollars each year by running our servers off a CD we found in the back of a magazine I _love_ red hat on our servers but wouldn't wish it onto the desktop of even my least favorite coworker.
[quote]Its actually quite a bit more complicated than that and depends on which shell you are running. With the bash shell, you are actually interacting with a program by the name of readline.<hr></blockquote>
If one wants to view the whole universe with a microscope...
I'd like to make sure I give people the impression that programmers don't have to know everything that their program ends up doing in full detail. Like when you wake up and want coffee, you don't think about how you use the coffee machine until you're actually using it. You only think about how the coffee machine works inside when it breaks (and if you don't want to fix it, then you throw it out and get a new one). Eventually, you might know all the details of a coffee machine, but it's from the top down, not the bottom up. You understand that a coffee machine is complicated overall, but nobody deals with the whole thing at once.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: Mac The Fork ]</p>
At least one person in my department flirted with the "wouldn't it be cool if ... XServe and then ... Powerbooks .... that would be great."
In the end they went with a number crunching Linux monster. Price vs. Performance & software we need is Linux ready. The Powerbook is still a good solution for some. OS X with W Windows goes well with the Linux and VMS (yes that's right VMS) systems we'll have.
There could be a Linux/OS X future for us. My boss says he wants a powerbook Unix+X Windows+MS Office. The chairman and one prof still use Macs. So it could happen. Plus we just hired a guy that used to be big into NeXT (or his company was). So who knows what will happen? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
The better question is why use OS X Sever insead of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or even Darwin. They are all FREE aswell. Servers DON'T need a GUI! The Apple monioring software is nice, but unessiary.
Comments
<strong>Linux is just the kernel. However, it almost always comes standard in a UNIX-type package.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does Linux, by itself, provide one with terminal access to the system then? Can you install mySQL and PHP and Apache on Linux by itself? Or is there some sort of "terminal OS" that needs to be installed?
[quote]<strong>
Since Linux doesn't provide any GUI functionality itself, everything is theoretically up for grabs. Most often though, Linux comes with the X Window System and things diverge from there, since X alone isn't a full GUI.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean by "full GUI"? What sort of features are left out of X?
[quote]<strong>
There are multiple possible starting points for new standards, but since X is so established, most efforts would probably start from there. The Blue Eyed OS project, for instance, intends to recreate the BeOS GUI on top of X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would it be possible to build a native OS for Linux without putting something on top of X, or do I have the wrong idea about how this works?
Thanks in advance for any help.
The kernel allows programs to read from and write to the console. It's those programs that actually allow you to interact with the system. I'm answering your questions with a general knowledge of operating systems, so I can't tell you what any specific program needs.
[quote]What do you mean by "full GUI"? What sort of features are left out of X?<hr></blockquote>
X provides a standard way of accessing the mouse, keyboard and display. It allows client programs to draw bitmaps, squares, circles, etc., into windows, and reports to clients about where the mouse is, which keys are pressed, etc. It provides the bits and pieces of a GUI, but it's up to client programs to put them together.
[quote]Would it be possible to build a native OS for Linux without putting something on top of X, or do I have the wrong idea about how this works?<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you could build a native OS on top of Linux and throw everything else out.
Thanks again in advance.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
[quote]he following library versions (or compatible) are required: glibc 2.1, XFree86 3.3.x, GTK 1.2.x, Glib 1.2.x, Libstdc++ 2.9.0. Red Hat Linux 6.0, Debian 2.1, and SuSE 6.2 (or later) installations should work.<hr></blockquote>
So if you're asking if the ready-made version of Mozilla would run on just Linux and X, the answer is 'no'. You can do whatever you want with the source code though.
Whoops, I got specifics!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The kernel allows programs to read from and write to the console. It's those programs that actually allow you to interact with the system. I'm answering your questions with a general knowledge of operating systems, so I can't tell you what any specific program needs.[QB]<hr></blockquote>
Its actually quite a bit more complicated than that and depends on which shell you are running. With the bash shell, you are actually interacting with a program by the name of readline.
While linux and unix are quite stable and mature at the component interface level, they are far from clean in their design. The further you dig, the more you realize that they are huge piles of stable and well optimized kludge. This goes all the way back to the terminal server days. There are hundreds of different types of terminals and absolutely no standards. Instead of reimplementing the unorganized mess, another layer was added in between (terminfo and termcap).
You can pick and choose between the different packages in order to trim your system down but this is rarely done. There are tons of dependancies between components that aren't well documented. For example, many things depend on sendmail even if they don't send mail. It is useually best to install the default components even if you don't plan on using them.
At my company, we save tens of thousands of dollars each year by running our servers off a CD we found in the back of a magazine
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: dfiler ]</p>
If one wants to view the whole universe with a microscope...
I'd like to make sure I give people the impression that programmers don't have to know everything that their program ends up doing in full detail. Like when you wake up and want coffee, you don't think about how you use the coffee machine until you're actually using it. You only think about how the coffee machine works inside when it breaks (and if you don't want to fix it, then you throw it out and get a new one). Eventually, you might know all the details of a coffee machine, but it's from the top down, not the bottom up. You understand that a coffee machine is complicated overall, but nobody deals with the whole thing at once.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: Mac The Fork ]</p>
In the end they went with a number crunching Linux monster. Price vs. Performance & software we need is Linux ready. The Powerbook is still a good solution for some. OS X with W Windows goes well with the Linux and VMS (yes that's right VMS) systems we'll have.
There could be a Linux/OS X future for us. My boss says he wants a powerbook Unix+X Windows+MS Office. The chairman and one prof still use Macs. So it could happen. Plus we just hired a guy that used to be big into NeXT (or his company was). So who knows what will happen? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Here's a link to Linux desktop information:
<a href="http://www.thelinuxschool.com/desktoplinux.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thelinuxschool.com/desktoplinux.html</a>;
I've only just started looking, so I'm sure there's more.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>