Any Unix-like aspect in AmigaOS?

[obscurepanic]

I found this page.

http://www.osnews.com/story/16543/A_Very_Critical_Look_at_OS_Re-creation_Projects/page5/

It says

In 1985, the Amiga was, conceptually, a Unix-like workstation that could run on custom, inexpensive hardware while still offering cutting-edge multimedia capabilities.

I only have a very basic grasp on what Unix(-like) is.

Is AmigaOS that we know of really a Unix-like operating system?

I wonder.

[SamuraiCrow]

It was Unix-like in the sense that it can multitask.  The differences between them are much greater than the similarities.  Most Unix implementations have trouble with desktop use and graphics acceleration and are better served on a server.  The few that were useful as workstations typically used proprietary graphics chips that were not at all well-suited for home use.

[marcfrick2112]

Well, I think there might be more similarities, but of course, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me....

Both Amiga and Unix can be controlled entirely from the command prompt, and that the command prompt is always there, even if you can't see it...
the  ' . ' and '..' commands to go up one level, and to the root directory respectively... although in AmigaDos it's '/' and ':'
Both have more types of file protection bits than windows (I believe)


And there is more, I'm sure .... hmm, the ixemul.library ...  
The Amiga 3000UX won 'Best in Show' at the UnixWorld show, does that count?

[countzero]

check here.

I think also the interprocess communication stuff is similar.

[Golem!dk]

check here.

Had to stop reading after the first line there or perhaps he meant to write AmigaDOS?

[SamuraiCrow]

Well, I think there might be more similarities, but of course, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me....

Both Amiga and Unix can be controlled entirely from the command prompt, and that the command prompt is always there, even if you can't see it...
the  ' . ' and '..' commands to go up one level, and to the root directory respectively... although in AmigaDos it's '/' and ':'
Both have more types of file protection bits than windows (I believe)

In Unix, the '.' points to the current directory and '..' points to the parent directory.  '/' points to the root directory.  The mount points of additional drives are often in a /mnt/ or /media/ directory while on AmigaDOS, each volume has its own device name and volume name.  There aren't many similarities between the file systems of the two operating systems.

[kolla]

AmigaOS has many elements inspired by UNIX, not so strange considering what systems it was developed on. AmigaOS also has alot in common with VMS, allthough I'll gladly have AmigaShell over DCL any day

[Argo]

Tripos, the Roots of AmigaDOS:
http://www.pagetable.com/?p=193

[Ive]

Tripos, the Roots of AmigaDOS:
http://www.pagetable.com/?p=193

Trip-OS.

Heyya, provide it with an anti and call it somma, who would mind.

:-))) Quite an OS here it seems...
:-))

[neofree]

Amiga 3000UX came shipped with UNIX instead of AmigaDOS...  So it's simularity to UNIX was that it was actually running UNIX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_3000UX

[rare_j]

kingcon with unixdirs feels very bash-like... but bottom line is amiga is more fun.

[Trev]

Both have more types of file protection bits than windows (I believe)

In Windows, securable objects--files, pipes, devices, processes, desktops, registry keys, et al--have a 32-bit access mask, so that's 4,294,967,296 possible "protection bits." ;-) They're not all implemented for most objects, of course, but a cruel and ruthless designer could implement them if they wanted.

[Ami_GFX]

At the Amiga DOS level, a little bit. The Amiga OS is vastly simpler OS than UNIX and is a single user, multi tasking system while UNIX is a multi user, multi tasking system. File permisions and security, user accounts and logons aren't necessary in a system designed for a single user and weren't implimented in Amiga OS--part of it's charm. Amiga OS was written by programmers well versed in UNIX and it's command prompt structure, although much simpler, follows the UNIX model. It also shows some UNIX derivation in the way it is organized but once again, it is much simpler.

In a more genaral way, it is like UNIX in that, if you know the system, you know where everything is and should be and this makes it very easy to troubleshoot and maintain. I can't say this about any version of Windows since 3.1.

What is really special to Amiga OS is Intuition. It is unique amoung GUIs.

And among OSs, the only only one I've ever played with that ever reminded me of Amiga OS--in terms of sheer multitasking feel at least--was IBMs OS/2 which also used the Rexx programming language and had similar scripting capabilities to Amiga OS.

[marcfrick2112]

Amiga 3000UX came shipped with UNIX instead of AmigaDOS...  So it's simularity to UNIX was that it was actually running UNIX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_3000UX

Well, yes, but the 3000UX ran AMIX System 5 Release 4 AND AmigaOS 2.1 ... (I'm guessing AmigOS was selected from the Early Startup)  

@trev: Ugggh! I hope no one ever tries to use all 4,294,967,296 possible 'protection bits' in Windows... man, and I thought the registry was a mess...

As for the rest, well I did say to correct me if I'm wrong That'll teach me to post after a few drinks... lol...

[Trev]

Yeah, I think the short answer is that AmigaOS isn't very UNIX-like at all: there's no separation of kernel (privileged) and user (unprivileged) spaces, and there are clear differences between file and device I/O.