What is the difference between Unix and DOS?
542076
lot more. unix is shall based and dos is a simple command based
674369
hey linux is more secure and not virus prone . security was unix is far better to unix. and stable to less bugs . but less user friendly too. you can send me mail at kshounish@yahoo.com.i am into linux world for past 7 years.
378506
This is due to old DOS legacy\n\n"con" is short for console. \n\nIn the DOS days, you could do\nCMD>copy con a.txt, type into the console, on Ctrl-Z, the file contents that you typed got saved as a.txt.\n\nThere are other reserved names like lpt1 etc. You cannot have files or folders called any of these reserved names.
471976
well the answer to your question is very vast to i would ask you to refer the following links for more information.\n\nbest different between all existing major linux distribution\nhttp://www.linuxforums.org/reviews/overview_of_the_ten_major_linux_distributions.html\nUser's openion : http://digg.com/linux_unix/Overview_of_the_ten_major_Linux_distributions\nthe basic technical difference : http://www.softwareinreview.com/cms/content/view/26/1/\narticle on osnews : http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13238\nBookwise difference between different distribution : http://www.rodsbooks.com/distribs/\nrefer this forum for more detailed user reviews : http://www.linuxquestions.org/reviews/index.php\nYou want to know why and how different distros came : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distro\nand the best review from official site : http://distroreviews.com/\n\nAn if all this links don't suffice your thirst then you know there is always www.google.com to look for.
556858
There is not much difference, both are writeable CDs. They say that +R is more compatible with most of the computers existing today.
810117
There are two types of commands in computer - which are used in DOS.\n\nThey are\n* Internal Commands\n* External Commands\n\nInternal Commands are present in the computer itself. They are stored in command.com and whenever you open the dos prompt, you can use these commands. Examples of Internal commands are DIR, MD, CD, etc.\n\nExternal Commands are commands which can be used in DOS but are not present in command.com since their size are larger and they are not frequently used. Whenever they are required, they could be loaded from an outside source like floppy and can be used. Examples are SORT, FDISK, etc.\n\n**********\nVasu M\n**********
267684
If you are running any version of Windows from 98 on, then your computer does not have MS-DOS. It only has a command line interface that emulates DOS.
482191
Both are operating systems, but owned and priced differntly. Windows is a Dos based, Microsoft owned platform. It is most widely used, and it's source code is owned by Microsoft, who keeps upgrading it over time. This is not a free software, and comes on licence to use basis. MS also provides regular support and upgrades. Most developers develop new software to be first compatible with Windows.\nLinux, is a Unix based OS. Unlike Windows, it is not owned by anyone. The source code is free, and freelancers develop it to make it better. Some companies sell a version to cover the support cost, but mostly it is available free to download and install. It has limited product support and upgrade support, but being on Unix, is more safer when it comes to virus attacks etc. More companies are switching to Linux now, for these reasons.
227739
Unix is not one single operating system, but rather a family of similar ones.\n\nThere are three (in my opinion) main groups of Unix-based and Unix-like operating systems:\n\n1. Enterprise-level commercial Unix operating systems\n2. Linux and BSD, free Unix-like operating systems\n3. Mac OS X, a BSD-based operating system from Apple\n\nI'll try to compare each group with Windows XP.  If you want more details, please be more specific with your question.\n\n1. These are traditionally very expensive operating systems that are very stable and secure, but they're geared more towards businesses than consumers/home users.\n\n2. Linux is a free and open-source project that aims to provide Unix-like functionality and security to the general public.  Like Unix, Linux is not one operating system but a family of similar "distributions" that share a common central core (called the "kernel").  There are differences between the distributions, but taken as a whole, the following can be probably be said about Linux versus Windows XP:\n\n* Linux is, basically, an attempt to bring a Unix-like operating system to the masses.  It combines the power and security of Unix with the extensibility and price attractiveness of open-source software.\n\n* A default Linux installation with the latest patches is more secure than a default Windows installation with the latest patches.  Both systems can be made relatively secure with proper administration and usage techniques, but Linux is less vulnerable to worms, viruses, spyware, etc. "out of the box".  It is not entirely clear whether this situation is due to inherent security advantages of Linux or due to Windows's overwhelming popularity as a target for malware writers; likely, it's a combination of both.\n\n* The majority of software for Linux is both open-source and free of charge.  Most Linux distributions come with a huge variety of free software and additional ones can be easily downloaded from the Web.  A relatively complete suite of personal desktop applications (including web browser, email client, office programs and more) for Linux can be downloaded for free and installed in a few hours' time, whereas an equivalent setup for Windows would usually cost several hundred dollars in licensing fees.\n\n* Linux comes with a lot of powerful software.  It has, for example, an extremely powerful command-line interface that puts Windows XP's DOS box to shame.  However, except for the most basic computing tasks, Linux can be very difficult to use and especially to troubleshoot.\n\n* Consumer computer hardware is usually designed and tested for Windows.  Linux support is less common and rarely guaranteed; Linux relies on its community supporters to provide hardware support.  Generally speaking, Linux has worse support for modern hardware than Windows.  Some distributions, however, may work better with older, "legacy" hardware.\n\n3. Mac OS X is Apple's attempt to combine the power and security of Unix with the ease-of-use of the Macintosh operating system.  Compared to Windows XP, the following can be said:\n\n* OS X is just as easy, if not easier, to use than Windows XP.  However, as with any unfamiliar product, there may be a slight learning curve for long-time Windows users.\n\n* OS X, like Linux, is relatively free of the virus and adware problems that often plague Windows PCs.\n\n* OS X has fewer hardware issues than Linux or Windows, as long as you stick with products that are either made by Apple or designed for the Mac.\n\n* Macs and OS X software in general can be very expensive and not as widely available.\n\n* OS X does a very good job of hiding the underlying Unix system from its users.  It provides an user-friendly "front" to its complicated innards, resulting in a system that, for the most part, "just works".  However, the power of the Unix system and command line is still there for users who want to access
987984
Okay, here's a short version:\n\nThe term UNIX refers to any operating system based on a certain codebase; visit http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html to get some information on the specifics (but it's an incomplete history; search for "what is UNIX" for more info.)\n\nHowever, most people who say "UNIX" are really referring to any number of operating systems that look like, and work similarly to, UNIX: FreeBSD and GNU/Linux are just a few of these. All use different code, and are developed and maintained (and owned, where ownership applies) by different people or organizations. They don't necessarily run the same software (although they can in many cases) but they work in very similar fashion from a user perspective.\n\nNotice that I said "GNU/Linux" rather than just "Linux"; that's because the actual name of the operating system most people refer to as "Linux" is "GNU/Linux". GNU/Linux is a collection of free software tools (GNU applications) compiled to run on the Linux kernel. \n\nHopefully that clears up your misconception: Linux is actually a software kernel, and GNU/Linux (commonly referred to as Linux) is the collection of software compiled for and packaged with the LInux kernel that you can find distributed (hence "Linux Distributions") as Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc.\n\nYour quesion "do all these flavors use [the] same linux kernel" is a good question, because they do and they don't. On the one hand, each distribution -- and each version of each distribution, and in many cases each user's installation of each distribution -- may use a kernel that is based on a different version of the kernel source code, and may have been complied with different options. So you can't necessarily take a kernel from one system and drop it on to another; the applications and config files for distribution foo might require a kernel compiled with certain source code and options that a kernel from distribution bar won't have.\n\nHowever, at the end of the day, all Linux distributions are using one version or another of the Linux kernel codebase; that's what makes them Linux. If you collected the same applications and compiled and ran them on a BSD kernel, you'd be running BSD; compile and run 'em on Darwin and you're running Darwin; and so on. People running all three of those kernels could use the same apps, and have a desktop that looks and works absolutely the same.\n\nSo why choose one over the other? Well, different kernels have different numbers of programmers writing drivers and whatnot for them; some are trendier or better known than others; some kernels have stability or (obscure) features that the others lack, or perhaps a distribution you really like uses a particular kernel instead of another. As a user, you shouldn't really care (unless you have a preference between GPL, BSD and other code licenses, which you probably don't at this stage); you should just use the kernel that comes with whatever UNIX-style distribution you like, and which has drivers supporting all of your hardware.
740470
Most of the flavors of Unix rely heavily on text commands - although this is becoming less and less as time goes by.\n\nSeveral of the operating systems used in OEM products (phones, cars, etc) rely completely on text commands.
559007
At one point of time when DOS followed what is called the 8.3 naming convention. The file name was allowed to be 8 characters long and the extension was 3 characters long.\n\nBack then we needed hacks like htm for html files and mpg for mpeg files.\n\nNow, we dont really need them any more. So basically for all purposes, these are the same things!
223566
all above answer are true\nBUT - MS Windows is still based on DOS - (though it uses only Basic Functions of DOS for running Windows)\nand its definitely and totally different from the operating system used by the Mac
997615
(m)\n\nDisk Operating System (specifically) and disk operating system (generically), most often abbreviated as DOS (not to be confused with the DOS family of disk operating systems for the IBM PC compatible platform), refer to operating system software used in most computers that provides the abstraction and management of secondary storage devices and the information on them (e.g., file systems for organizing files of all sorts). Such software is referred to as a disk operating system when the storage devices it manages are made of rotating platters (such as hard disks or floppy disks).\n\nIn the early days of microcomputing, memory space was often limited, so the disk operating system was an extension of the operating system. This component was only loaded if it was needed. Otherwise, disk-access would be limited to low-level operations such as reading and writing disks at the sector-level.\n\nIn some cases, the disk operating system component (or even the operating system) was known as DOS.\n\nSometimes, a disk operating system can refer to the entire operating system if it is loaded off a disk and supports the abstraction and management of disk devices. An example is DOS/360. On the PC compatible platform, an entire family of operating systems was called DOS
386448
In traditional Dos based systems it is a simple matter of including relevant assembly code in C language. May not be so easy if you are in applicaton mode on other operating systems. Not very difficult, need to know assembly language if you want to directly manipulate, other you can use operating system routines to access it (if your program resides within the kernel).
182307
the dos is single task os, windows is multitask freindy os
1107872
This actually is a unix-like feature. DOS device drivers are accessible like normal files, i.e. the everything-is-a-file philosophy. CON is the equivalent of /dev/tty, NUL of /dev/null, COM# of /dev/ttyS#, LPT# of /dev/lp# and CLOCK$ corresponds to /dev/rtc (PRN is an alias to LPT1, AUX is COM1). Every character device can be opened this way, block devices (which are assumed to be FAT formatted...) are named A: to Z:, as you will know. Many pseudo character devices (drivers which had to be loaded as drivers but were no character devices, like EMM386, HIMEM.SYS, ..) had forbidden characters like '*' in their device names to be hidden from the user.\n\nHere is how you create the directory if you really need it to be named con\n\nIn your command prompt.. Start>Run>Command "OK"\n\ntype mkdir &#92;&#92;.&#92;c:&#92;con\nIt will create a con folder in c:&#92;\nHowever, you cannot access it by going cd&#92;con\nit will have an error, You can access it through windows explorer though..