Does Linux have an Amiga feel?

[commodorejohn]

That sounds interesting! AmigaOS and Linux are both offshoots of UNIX. That's what I thought.

Except for the part where it isn't, at all.

This is an amazing thread! I'm going to have to  do some research into the other operating systems mentioned here, such  as UNIX, DEC, and VAX. What hardware would I need to run any of them,  though?

Unix comes in a wide variety of vendor-specific flavors - you can of course get free clones (FreeBSD or Linux) that run on any PC, or you could dig up an SGI, Sun, or whatever Unix workstation from the '90s for fairly cheap. DEC wasn't an OS, it was a company; they made multiple lines of computers, and operating systems for them. VMS ran on their VAX hardware; you can sometimes nab a VAXStation for cheap if you're lucky, (or, as psxphill notes, you can run an emulator like SIMH,) and HP (who currently owns VMS) runs the OpenVMS Hobbyist Program, from which you can get a license to install it on whatever you get. It's interesting stuff.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Theoretically, but what would you gain from it? Singularity has no software and runs on a VM, which is never good for performance. The only really interesting thing about it is its eschewing memory protection for some kind of static analysis that prevents access of out-of-process memory at the code level, which is incompatible with Amiga-style message-passing anyway.

Just a thought experiment, not a practical suggestion. If we are going to talk about OS concepts that the Amiga could have had, I said something "like" Singularity, not actually Singularity of course. The point is it is intended to have modern levels of security but achieves this in a single address space, this latter being one of the principles of TripOS. Switching address spaces has a big overhead, as well as requiring MMU which the first Amigas didn't have. So yes. "The only really interesting thing about it" is precisely what I was calling attention to.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Unix comes in a wide variety of vendor-specific flavors - you can of course get free clones (FreeBSD or Linux) that run on any PC...

Talk of Unix "clones" is a bit misplaced since Unix isn't really an OS so much as a standard. It's not a proprietary product as such and an OS doesn't need to be source-code descended from any older Unix in order to be considered Unix.

FreeBSD and Linux are described as "Unix-like" because they adhere to the standards but don't pay for the Unix certification so aren't actually allowed to call themselves Unix. Apple OS X however is significantly based on FreeBSD, but they DO pay for certification, so they can call it Unix.

[nicholas]

Seriously ? I cannot think of a single operating system that epitomized a revolution than Linux. Without it and the open source ecosystem that blossoms from its very roots , the internet, the mobile space, even the desktop space would be a very different place indeed. Companies like google - if they even existed at all would be very different to what we see today.

you need to read this book  
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Rebel_Code.html?id=kIU1scm4w6QC

Im not trying to start an OS war here - but I cant stand by and read a comment like yours without responding.


As much as i love the Amiga - Im not so dumb as to make suggestions that Linux does not feel like a revolutionary OS. That really just shows that you've never taken the time to understand its roots or even use it for any great length of time. The amiga OS was great in its time , but its time is in the past.
I cannot comment on os 4.x - But by todays standards classic amiga OS does not cut the mustard against most modern operating systems. I chose to use Linux as my primary OS many many moons ago and my initial thoughts were that it reminded me of AmigaOS - things have changed since then - but Id rather not be hold to either Microsoft OR Apple - and that sentiment has not changed much since then. (I had leanings towards Mac when OSX hit the scene but when i realised they were taking a lot from the community and not giving back it didnt help matters)


N

Much as I despise the whole hipster culture associated with Apple products, their corporate greed and their patent war BS, I have to correct your last comment.

All of the Open and Free code that Apple takes is improved and contributed back, even the stuff they don't have to keep open due to the permissive BSD licence is available for anyone to download.

What they don't give the source away for is some of their own in-house developed proprietary stuff like the Cocoa Framework and Logic Pro etc.

http://opensource.apple.com

[psxphill]

Seriously ? I cannot think of a single operating system that epitomized a revolution than Linux. Without it and the open source ecosystem that blossoms from its very roots , the internet, the mobile space, even the desktop space would be a very different place indeed. Companies like google - if they even existed at all would be very different to what we see today.

I think you've over-estimated Linux's role in all of that.
 
I've used various operating systems, including Linux & I never got indoctrinated into any of the cults.
 
The way you talk suggests you have an unhealthy relationship with Linux. Like people who thought that Amiga was viable in the mid 1990's. I still had an A1200 as my main machine at home until 1999, but I was increasingly doing personal stuff on my work PC after hours.
 
Linux also jumped the gun, GNU provide most of the software stack and were working on their own kernel. Linus took an old monolithic kernel based OS and cloned it.
 
But if you enjoy living your life like that then go ahead.
 

Talk of Unix "clones" is a bit misplaced since Unix isn't really an OS so much as a standard. It's not a proprietary product as such and an OS doesn't need to be source-code descended from any older Unix in order to be considered Unix.

Actually Unix is a product, you can find the real descendent of Unix for sale here http://www.xinuos.com/
 
You can read about it here.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer
 
POSIX is the name of the standard.
 

The point is it is intended to have modern levels of security but achieves this in a single address space, this latter being one of the principles of TripOS. Switching address spaces has a big overhead, as well as requiring MMU which the first Amigas didn't have.

Multiple address spaces implies an MMU, while a single address space can work without an MMU. However to achieve any security you either need to use an MMU, which will have the same overhead as using a multiple address space. Or you have to use a virtual machine, which means that any code you write will automatically check bounds on every access. This is also quite an overhead too. It would preclude running any legacy software as there is no way of knowing what the bounds should be. You could try sandboxing it, but shared libraries expect that they can write to different tasks memory and so compatibility is a problem (the same problems as trying to use an MMU for the same purpose).

[psxphill]

Talk of Unix "clones" is a bit misplaced since Unix isn't really an OS so much as a standard. It's not a proprietary product as such and an OS doesn't need to be source-code descended from any older Unix in order to be considered Unix.

Actually Unix is a product, you can find the real descendent of Unix for sale here http://www.xinuos.com/
 
You can read about it here.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer
 
POSIX is the name of the standard.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Actually Unix is a product, you can find the real descendent of Unix for sale here http://www.xinuos.com/
 
You can read about it here.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer
 
POSIX is the name of the standard.

Being "descended" from the original Unix is not a requirement for registering to use the Unix trademark. Meeting the standard is. The standard is called the Single Unix Specification. There are Unixes that are products, of course, but no single one of them is exclusively "The Real Unix" no matter what its lineage.
 

...Or you have to use a virtual machine, which means that any code you write will automatically check bounds on every access. This is also quite an overhead too. It would preclude running any legacy software as there is no way of knowing what the bounds should be.

Well given that the thought experiment was about what OS the Amiga could have had, rather than what would be a practical replacement for it today, "legacy code" is really irrelevant since it only exists in the real world, not the hypothetical alternative reality.

[desiv]

This perfectly describes AmigaOS. It is absolutly wrong regarding any *nix variant!

You aren't using Unix variants the same way I am then...

One of the most brain dead concepts is the separation (or read: non-integration) of user interfaces (GUI, command line) in those *nix stuff.

That's not what I was talking about..
It's kind of, sort of, in a way, maybe a related thought, but twisted..

I said they complemented each other...
That doesn't mean that they are integrated....  They aren't and I'd never say that.  Been using Unix and Linux too long not to know that..  

Way to jump to a conclusion tho.. ;-)

.. Not that easy nowadays,

Yes, it still is...

Wow.. People seem to have an issue with "similar" and "the same."

Now, whether Carl and the guys were inspired at all by some of the Unix variants at the time, not sure..  (Maybe not given Carl's early HP centric background)

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if it was "inspired by" Unix in any way or not.   The question was about a "feel," not about actual genealogy of the OS.  ;-)

To me, there was that feel.  To others, not so much...

That's the thing about a "feel," it's not about right or wrong.  If someone feels something is similar, then it feels similar to them.

desiv

[AmigaBruno]

Except for the part where it isn't, at all.


Unix comes in a wide variety of vendor-specific flavors - you can of course get free clones (FreeBSD or Linux) that run on any PC, or you could dig up an SGI, Sun, or whatever Unix workstation from the '90s for fairly cheap. DEC wasn't an OS, it was a company; they made multiple lines of computers, and operating systems for them. VMS ran on their VAX hardware; you can sometimes nab a VAXStation for cheap if you're lucky, (or, as psxphill notes, you can run an emulator like SIMH,) and HP (who currently owns VMS) runs the OpenVMS Hobbyist Program, from which you can get a license to install it on whatever you get. It's interesting stuff.

Unfortunately, I have no real idea how old any of the Sun or Silicon Graphics workstation models are, I don't know how long it would take me to find out, or how they compare to a modern equivalent. Earlier tonight, I saw someone using a Sun computer in a news story about the NSA surveillance scandal, so this made me realise that people are still using them and possibly for very demanding purposes. Here's one on eBay, but I don't know how old it is, what kind of keyboard or mouse or anything else I'd need to go with it. Perhaps you can tell me. I know it's no good comparing the specs to a PC, because the CPU is probably more powerful than an Intel x86 CPU of the same speed and any software probably takes up only about 25% of the RAM it would take under Windoze. This is the situation with the classic Amiga.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sun-SPARCclassic-X-UNIX-Workstation-/290939712355?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item43bd5bb363

As for Silicon Graphics workstations, I know they were designed mainly for doing graphics, and then sort of replaced the Amiga in this field for CGI effects. I don't know if they can do anything else apart from produce graphics, though. They may have been "fixed" to do graphics only, like with "dedicated" word processors.

[haywirepc]

I think yes of course its similar, but amiga os is much simpler.

I love linux, but I can't stand some things. Like dependency nightmares.

You know what I like? install a program and it just runs.

Linux, as much as I love it has been over complicated by geeky developers.

I personally don't see the need for each distro to maintain a software repro. They should just standardize some things and save so many wasted resources having everyone use the same installs.

Besides that gaming is slowly coming to linux, which I'm real happy about.
Needs some good video and audio editing tools...

Otherwise, I'm very happy with linux as an alternative.
Linux kind of IS the new amiga. Back in the day, amiga was different... Now its windows or mac or linux. Sure there are some other OS systems out there but not many people actually using them.

[commodorejohn]

Unfortunately, I have no real idea how old any of the Sun or Silicon Graphics workstation models are, I don't know how long it would take me to find out, or how they compare to a modern equivalent. Earlier tonight, I saw someone using a Sun computer in a news story about the NSA surveillance scandal, so this made me realise that people are still using them and possibly for very demanding purposes. Here's one on eBay, but I don't know how old it is, what kind of keyboard or mouse or anything else I'd need to go with it. Perhaps you can tell me. I know it's no good comparing the specs to a PC, because the CPU is probably more powerful than an Intel x86 CPU of the same speed and any software probably takes up only about 25% of the RAM it would take under Windoze. This is the situation with the classic Amiga.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sun-SPARCclassic-X-UNIX-Workstation-/290939712355?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item43bd5bb363

As for Silicon Graphics workstations, I know they were designed mainly for doing graphics, and then sort of replaced the Amiga in this field for CGI effects. I don't know if they can do anything else apart from produce graphics, though. They may have been "fixed" to do graphics only, like with "dedicated" word processors.

I can tell you that my Sun Ultra II (2x166MHz, 128MB RAM) is pretty responsive and at a guess I'd say it's faster than a comparable x86 system (disclaimer: I've never used a dual Pentium board, I'm just extrapolating from my experience with comarably-clocked single-processor systems.) The one you linked I'd expect to probably be a little zippier than my VAX, but not especially impressive.

Never used SGI anything myself, but they weren't fixed-function systems; they were full IRIX Unixoid workstations, and they still have a following today. If you really want to get into oldschool Unix workstations, I'd talk to the guys over at the Nekochan forums; the site's specifically geared towards SGI, but the forums cover plenty of other high-end computing solutions of yesteryear.

[psxphill]

Being "descended" from the original Unix is not a requirement for registering to use the Unix trademark. Meeting the standard is. The standard is called the Single Unix Specification. There are Unixes that are products, of course, but no single one of them is exclusively "The Real Unix" no matter what its lineage.

Well that is POSIX
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification
 
However, that just qualifies you as Unix compliant.
 
While there are Unix products available that actually use the Unix source code that descended from the Unix product from Bell labs (later AT&T).
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
 
"Other companies began to offer commercial versions of the UNIX System for their own mini-computers and workstations. Many of these new Unix flavors were developed from the System V base under a license from AT&T; others were based on BSD. One of the leading developers of BSD, Bill Joy, went on to co-found Sun Microsystems in 1982 and created SunOS for their workstation computers. In 1980, Microsoft announced its first Unix for 16-bit microcomputers called Xenix, which the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) ported to the Intel 8086 processor in 1983, and eventually branched Xenix into SCO UNIX in 1989."
 
fwiw Amiga Unix came from the AT&T source code, which is one of the reasons the source code has never surfaced.
 
Sun jumped between using Unix and BSD for their operating system and then back again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunos

[AmigaBruno]

I can tell you that my Sun Ultra II (2x166MHz, 128MB RAM) is pretty responsive and at a guess I'd say it's faster than a comparable x86 system (disclaimer: I've never used a dual Pentium board, I'm just extrapolating from my experience with comarably-clocked single-processor systems.) The one you linked I'd expect to probably be a little zippier than my VAX, but not especially impressive.

Never used SGI anything myself, but they weren't fixed-function systems; they were full IRIX Unixoid workstations, and they still have a following today. If you really want to get into oldschool Unix workstations, I'd talk to the guys over at the Nekochan forums; the site's specifically geared towards SGI, but the forums cover plenty of other high-end computing solutions of yesteryear.

So, based on what you say above, this one http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sun-Ultra-Enterprise-2-Workstation-UltraSPARC-II-296MHz-128MB-RAM-/230994413805?pt=UK_Computing_DesktopPCs&hash=item35c85708ed also looks "pretty responsive", but I still don't know how old it is or what I may need to go with it. I had a quick look at that forum, but I don't know how long it will take to find out what I need to know. Of course, I have got lots of other expenses. My social life is in ruins at the moment, so it would be a good idea for people on here to tell me why I don't really need to buy a Sun or Silicon graphics workstation.

[smerf]

@commodorejohn,

OK, spent all day up in the attic and opening up over 20 boxes of old electronic parts and books, disks, magazines, etc.

the only thing I could find associating the Amiga with Unix or even the word Unix was in an old Amiga magazine that said that the Amiga had a exec that multi tasked just like Unix but only took up 256k of resources. I always thought that the Amiga was an off shoot of Unix, due to its multi tasking but wow, I am wrong twice in one year. Now I know that I have been tied up in learning Windows and Linux, but has my mind been that warped to have me forget the Amiga that bad.
Well any way, I found all my original Rom Kernal, OS, books, Intuition etc. I have the complete collection. Great stuff, first time I read them since oh probably 1989 or so.
Been completely engulfed in learning new languages at work during the past 8 years, but know that I am retired have time to get back to the Amiga, and other systems that I want to build and play with.

Hats off to you commodorejohn, you beat me this time, I will see to it that it doesn't happen again.

Hmmm the old brain is getting senile.

[Duce]

I find Linux and Amiga OS (and its variants) to be similar only in the fact they are all operating systems.  If you want to throw an Amiga knock-off skin on Linux and call it the second coming of Amiga OS for the modern age, go nuts.  It's not.  

I used Amiga OS for a lot of years solely.  Nothing in my experiences with it I found *nix like in the least, and I've used Linux since early the early Redhat days.

[Ami_GFX]

In answer to the original question, no, Linux in any flavor or varity I've tried doesn't in any way feel like an Amiga. This is purely subjective. The only OSes that have a feel like an Amiga that I've tried are OS/2 Warp 3, 4 and 4.5. Once again purely subjective but OS/2 used the Rexx scripting language which on the Amiga was ARexx. It also had really good multitasking which extended to DOS and Windows 3.1 applications that weren't designed to multitask.

Amiga OS isn't a direct derivative of UNIX but UNIX multitasking and a few other things had an influence on Amiga OS. UNIX and Linux have some serious multi user security features like file permissions that don't exist in Amiga OS. Classic Amiga OS has no user accounts. There's no logon. No file permissions. There is multitasking and a really good file system once you know how to use it. The GUI is a bit eccentric but very efficient. Compared to Linux, it is far simpler but it does what it was designed for very well.