F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Interface pour UNIX System V

Interface pour UNIX System V

Interface pour UNIX System V

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
C
CLPSGAMER
Member
176
02-01-2016, 01:02 PM
#11
Most standard GUI features rely on visual frontends for terminal scripts—unlike contemporary Windows where native apps interact directly with the NT kernel. Certain programs function as console-based GUIs that run in the background (e.g., Gparted for parted, Kdenlive for ffmpeg). The approach remains command-dependent, though users don’t manage these processes directly.
C
CLPSGAMER
02-01-2016, 01:02 PM #11

Most standard GUI features rely on visual frontends for terminal scripts—unlike contemporary Windows where native apps interact directly with the NT kernel. Certain programs function as console-based GUIs that run in the background (e.g., Gparted for parted, Kdenlive for ffmpeg). The approach remains command-dependent, though users don’t manage these processes directly.

F
foxkiuby123
Member
64
02-03-2016, 02:26 AM
#12
Great to hear!
F
foxkiuby123
02-03-2016, 02:26 AM #12

Great to hear!

T
TheN3on
Junior Member
3
02-03-2016, 01:08 PM
#13
In my mind, this is how a computer should work! Old versions of Windows worked this way and they were amazing! It means you can operate the same functions using ssh on a machine or directly on the gui, or through a bash script... Now try to script something on Windows! You need to use powershell and call Gui functions through a terminal! Is is horrible! (I don't like Powershell.. I am biased!)
T
TheN3on
02-03-2016, 01:08 PM #13

In my mind, this is how a computer should work! Old versions of Windows worked this way and they were amazing! It means you can operate the same functions using ssh on a machine or directly on the gui, or through a bash script... Now try to script something on Windows! You need to use powershell and call Gui functions through a terminal! Is is horrible! (I don't like Powershell.. I am biased!)

T
Tomydu53
Junior Member
15
02-10-2016, 08:16 PM
#14
It's accurate to favor HP-UX, AIX, or other UNIX systems over macOS, though it's misleading to claim macOS isn't UNIX-based.
T
Tomydu53
02-10-2016, 08:16 PM #14

It's accurate to favor HP-UX, AIX, or other UNIX systems over macOS, though it's misleading to claim macOS isn't UNIX-based.

N
NonstopGem
Junior Member
13
02-11-2016, 06:00 AM
#15
It is not compatible with any system.
N
NonstopGem
02-11-2016, 06:00 AM #15

It is not compatible with any system.

B
BaconCraft3r
Member
205
02-11-2016, 06:37 AM
#16
AT&T still uses their proprietary version of Unix for their ISP backend. I noticed this when playing around with my router. But there's a way to force GNU to be POSIX compliant, and henceforth a real Unix in the end. https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual...POSIX.html https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4091...t#40922501 EDIT: I forget if Linux has POSIX compliance as a filesystem switch or if you need to recompile the Linux kernel. But I forget. It may not be as straightforward as a shell script switch. Plus you'd still need to identify POSIX compiler macros when compiling your C code. Overall, though, Red Hat (bought by IBM) and SUSE Enterprise Linux (used by Microsoft internally) are the mainline industry's sources for most GNU/Linux stability and enhancements features. Canonical (that makes Ubuntu) focuses on client side improvements, but now has a focus on cloud deployments, so they do add general value to the work that red hat and SUSE provide. I'm paying 12 dollars a year or so in donation to System 76 for their hardware/software parity as a small time hardware vendor like Apple started out as, but they piggy back off of canonical and the arch community it looks like. But the X windowing system was released in 1984. That's the GUI backend for Unix at the time. Start by looking into that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System Of course if you're interested in putting the Wayland compositor on an old Unix, it has the latest version of a GUI display server. Mira is another makeshift display server.
B
BaconCraft3r
02-11-2016, 06:37 AM #16

AT&T still uses their proprietary version of Unix for their ISP backend. I noticed this when playing around with my router. But there's a way to force GNU to be POSIX compliant, and henceforth a real Unix in the end. https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual...POSIX.html https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4091...t#40922501 EDIT: I forget if Linux has POSIX compliance as a filesystem switch or if you need to recompile the Linux kernel. But I forget. It may not be as straightforward as a shell script switch. Plus you'd still need to identify POSIX compiler macros when compiling your C code. Overall, though, Red Hat (bought by IBM) and SUSE Enterprise Linux (used by Microsoft internally) are the mainline industry's sources for most GNU/Linux stability and enhancements features. Canonical (that makes Ubuntu) focuses on client side improvements, but now has a focus on cloud deployments, so they do add general value to the work that red hat and SUSE provide. I'm paying 12 dollars a year or so in donation to System 76 for their hardware/software parity as a small time hardware vendor like Apple started out as, but they piggy back off of canonical and the arch community it looks like. But the X windowing system was released in 1984. That's the GUI backend for Unix at the time. Start by looking into that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System Of course if you're interested in putting the Wayland compositor on an old Unix, it has the latest version of a GUI display server. Mira is another makeshift display server.

A
aguzz123123
Senior Member
599
02-16-2016, 07:39 AM
#17
The nearest Unix for x86 appears to be OpenBSD, though it still differs from other variants I’ve worked with. Irix, Solaris, AIX are also in my experience. I’ve been managing AIX since 2007. If budget allows, I suggest a modest VPS setup to run AIX systems like IBM PowerVS. Among the remaining Unix options, AIX seems to be the last one standing.
A
aguzz123123
02-16-2016, 07:39 AM #17

The nearest Unix for x86 appears to be OpenBSD, though it still differs from other variants I’ve worked with. Irix, Solaris, AIX are also in my experience. I’ve been managing AIX since 2007. If budget allows, I suggest a modest VPS setup to run AIX systems like IBM PowerVS. Among the remaining Unix options, AIX seems to be the last one standing.

S
SuperTao
Junior Member
10
02-16-2016, 09:27 AM
#18
I recall CDE was widely used across many Unix platforms. It’s likely something many people recognize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Des...nvironment
S
SuperTao
02-16-2016, 09:27 AM #18

I recall CDE was widely used across many Unix platforms. It’s likely something many people recognize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Des...nvironment

B
BryceMcGaming
Member
60
02-17-2016, 07:08 PM
#19
GUI as we understand it today didn't emerge until Apple introduced containerized interfaces within rectangular windows, complete with mouse interaction features like dragging, resizing, and stacking. Prior to this, computing was more akin to text-based terminals where users entered commands manually. Many non-GUI programs still functioned similarly, resembling the older console-style interfaces before the GUI revolution.
B
BryceMcGaming
02-17-2016, 07:08 PM #19

GUI as we understand it today didn't emerge until Apple introduced containerized interfaces within rectangular windows, complete with mouse interaction features like dragging, resizing, and stacking. Prior to this, computing was more akin to text-based terminals where users entered commands manually. Many non-GUI programs still functioned similarly, resembling the older console-style interfaces before the GUI revolution.

D
DunkelMax
Member
60
02-25-2016, 09:21 AM
#20
I understand darwin is just part of OsX, but how sure are you about that? It wasn't released until 1976, so it wasn't available before then. The differences aren't from the apple version itself, but from other updates.
D
DunkelMax
02-25-2016, 09:21 AM #20

I understand darwin is just part of OsX, but how sure are you about that? It wasn't released until 1976, so it wasn't available before then. The differences aren't from the apple version itself, but from other updates.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next