Where can I find a pure Unix OS?

[MSWindosNT]

I wish to try a current pure Unix Operating System i.e. as pure as it could be. Can someone guide me which one is the purest and where can I find it?

[Whiffle]

You're going to need to be a little more descriptive, what do you mean by pure?

[kellemes]

One of many..
Solaris (http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/?cid=919567)

[MSWindosNT]

You're going to need to be a little more descriptive, what do you mean by pure?





By pure I mean the continuation or recreation of the Unix OS. Since Linux is also Unix based but it has the addition of Linux kernel and other things and BSD is a branch of the original Unix, I think but I am not confident that may be Solaris is as pure the continuation or recreation of Unix? Also please confirm if BSD could be classified as pure Unix?

[Whiffle]

Judging by my handy dandy monster chart, BSD looks like a good bet.

http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

[p_quarles]

Unix currently refers to a specification for operating systems, and as such Unix-compliant systems often vary a great deal. Currently registered systems are listed here:
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm

Mac OS X 10.5 is officially a Unix system, but is obviously a lot different than Solaris 10.

Basically, I don't think there's such a thing as a "pure" Unix system today -- just those that pay for the expensive certification process (IBM, Apple, Sun, SCO) and those that don't (BSD, GNU/Linux).

Mac OS X, by the way, is built around FreeBSD -- so that should give you the sense that FreeBSD's unofficial status is not due to non-compliance, but due to having not registered.

[koenn]

By pure I mean the continuation or recreation of the Unix OS.
Take a look at that chart Whiffle posted, or read a bit on Unix history, and then try to find a 'straight line descendent' of AT&T's Unix in that spaghetti.
BSD is indeed a good bet, Berkeley got its hands on Unix source code quite early. But then Mac OSX is just as pure.
There have been so many versions on the past 40 years - which one are you going to call a pure "continuation or recreation of the Unix OS" ?

[mellowd]

I'd go with BSD

[andhar]

I have a copy (real disks) of I beleive its HP's Alpha true unix downstairs in storage , I've considered putting it on ebay since I don't have an Alpha.... impulse buys are great aren't they?

I'd also go with BSD, pretty close to the real thing.

[koenn]

I wish to try a current pure Unix Operating System i.e. as pure as it could be. Can someone guide me which one is the purest and where can I find it?

Not claiming that it is the 'purest" in any way, but if you want to spend a few bucks on a HP server, you could get one with HP-UX. ...
just to illustrate that "Unix"
- usually doesn't come cheap
- is usually hardware-specific

so if it's just about trying something else than Linux, try one of the free BSD's

[LookTJ]

Mac OS X, by the way, is built around FreeBSD -- so that should give you the sense that FreeBSD's unofficial status is not due to non-compliance, but due to having not registered.

Isn't Mac OS X based on Darwin, not BSD?

[p_quarles]

Isn't Mac OS X based on Darwin, not BSD?
Huh? Darwin is just OS X with the proprietary stuff (applications, Aqua) stripped out. It is also based on FreeBSD.

[koenn]

Isn't Mac OS X based on Darwin, not BSD?
Don't know the details of where Mac got it's OSX,
but it's a certified Unix :
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm

[p_quarles]

Isn't Mac OS X based on Darwin, not BSD?
Oh, wait a sec, I know what you're thinking of: OS X grew out of NextSTEP, Steve Jobs' project while he wasn't at Apple. That, though, was built around BSD.

[vambo]

For all intents and puposes, you're using it !):P

[LookTJ]

Huh? Darwin is just OS X with the proprietary stuff (applications, Aqua) stripped out. It is also based on FreeBSD.Thanks for sharing a little more info about OSX :)

[LaRoza]

You might want to try Minix, a Unix clone. It may be what you are looking for, it predates Linux (Linux is in fact, a Minix clone), and was built to be a free Unix, although it has a different license and purpose of Linux.

[koenn]

For all intents and puposes, you're using it !):P
true.
I once had to troubleshoot a minor networking issue on an SCO Unix system. not too different from using Linux shell. I know nothing about SCO Unix, so I had to use man a couple of times for syntax and options of commands, and the thing didn't have tab completion so it wasn't as easy as Linux, but other than that ... very similar.

[khurrum1990]

Actually any Unix like operating system can become pure Unix if they pay the money for Unix certification which is very expensive. To Linux Unix certification doesn't matter any more cause its Unix that now copies Linux. Haven't u wondered why OS X is Unix and even though its based on freeBSD using the same Darwin kernel, still freeBSD isn't Unix, thats because they didn't get a Unix certificate. The only true Unix u can find is by going back in the 70's or something I think. Unix now is a group of operating systems that work in the same way and Linux is the best out of all of them.

[Compucore]

As free as free can be like Ubuntu here is the link from sun solaris where you can download their Solaris 10 for free. I have tried it over here on my lappy and prefer ubuntu instead of Solaris 10. http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp

But that is just a matter of taste though. If I needed something that was strictly based for Sun Solaris. I would use it more often. But I don't.

Compucore

[ericesque]

wow. cool Unix history lesson right there.

Looks to me like that chart confirms the general concensus. Solaris or BSD FTW.

I think it's time I try both in a VM...

[HermanAB]

You'll have to call Darl over at SCO...

Seriously though, being a clean rewrite, GNU/Linux is likely the purest Unix.

[jrusso2]

If you wanted the most original Unix that ran on i386 it would be SCO Unix since it is descended directly from the original AT&T code.

However as many have pointed out already UNIX is now a trademark of the Open Group and any Posix compliant Operating system that pays the fee could be considered Unix so the term most pure Unix has become rather meaningless at this point.

[wesley_of_course]

This is a very interesting thread indeed ; note to self try Solaris
in Virtual !:popcorn:

[Harpalus]

I wouldn't pay much attention to the Unix specification nonsense. It comes down to just marketing, really.

Mac OS X is PARTLY based on FreeBSD. It uses the Mach kernel. It's also coded just well enough to "get the job done", as customers don't care about the underlying OS, they care about the eyecandy piled on top.

Your best bet is one of the BSDs. They're all direct descendants of the original Unix. If you want purity, then go for NetBSD or OpenBSD - FreeBSD and DragonflyBSD have both, in effect, been redesigning the kernel - Net and Open haven't strayed from 4.4 BSD quite as much.

Solaris is another option. Out of the proprietary Unixen, it's the most usable on common hardware. (All right, somewhat proprietary, it's opening up)

Linux is far from your best bet. It's not a clean rewrite of Unix, it's a new kernel inspired by and based on Unix. Not a redesign of Unix. It's quite different in a number of places from the original Unix, like OS X.

You can try AIX, HP-UX, etc - but they require specialized equipment, and aren't particularly well done. I believe SCO Unix is floating around, but again - probably not worth using. They're primarily used by companies that need Unix with commercial support.

Again, *BSD or Solaris are probably your best bets. The Unix specification is more about marketing then anything else. Don't listen to Apple fanboys, either - sure, it's based in part on FreeBSD, but the quality of the underlying command line can't compare to operating systems that focus on the command line. Mac OS X focuses on the eyecandy. It doesn't even have a proper Unix hierarchy.

[koenn]

Your best bet is one of the BSDs. They're all direct descendants of the original Unix.
True, but BSD were also the first to heavily modify the source and create additions to it, so you might as well say BSD forked from 'unix" early, and thus has had a longer separate evolution. BSD is quite different from the rest, the "System V" type Unixes

Linux can be considered a Unix because it implements the unix API, which is (besides the open group certification), a common way to define unix nowadays.
Linux borrows from both System V and BSD Unix - not in source code, but in "ways of doing things", eg the init procedure, device names, directory hierarchy, ...

[shaun_54au2]

Here is some information that might help:

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

The Single Unix Specification is the standard specification that allows an operating system to use the label "Unix". These operating systems are compliant with this standard:
AIX

HP/UX

Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server

Reliant UNIX

SCO UnixWare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnixWare) 7.1.3 Solaris

Tru64 UNIX

IBM z/OS
[/URL]
Other operating systems registered as UNIX 95 or UNIX 93 compliant:


[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCR_Corporation"]NCR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#cite_note-11) UNIX SVR4
NEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEC) UX/4800
SGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics) IRIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX) 6.5[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#cite_note-12)

[ubudog]

Back to sleep thread.