final linux term paper

8/8/2019 Final Linux Term Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/final-linux-term-paper 1/21

Name : MD NAUSHAD ALAM

Prog. Name : B.TECH (CSE)150

Section : RC-1912

Roll No. : B 51

Subject Name : LINUX PROGRAMMING

Subject Code :CSE-207

MS. MANEET KAUR GILL

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT



2. ABSTRACT

3. INTRODUCTION OF LINUX OPERATING SYSTEM

4. ADVANTAGE OF LINUX OPERATING SYSTEM

5. DIA-ADVANTAGE OF LINUX OPERATING SYSTEM

6. CRITIQUE OF LINUX OPERATING SYSTEM

7. THE ZERO INSTALL CRITIQUE

8. A CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE OF DEBIAN LINUX

9. REFERENCES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT



I take this opportunity to present my votes of thanks to all those guidepost

who really acted as lightening pillars to enlighten our way throughout this

term paper that has led to successful and satisfactory completion of this

study.

We are really grateful to our HOD SIR for providing me with an opportunity

to undertake this term paper in this university and providing us with all the

facilities. We are highly thankful to Ms MANEET KAUR MAM for her

active support, valuable time and advice, whole-hearted guidance, sincere

cooperation and pains-taking involvement during the study and in

completing the assignment of preparing the said term paper within the time

stipulated.

ABSTRACT OF LINUX OPERATING SYSTEM



INTRODUCTION OF

LINUX OPERATING

SYSTEM



The origins of Linux lie with the

development of the UNIX

operating system. UNIX was

developed in 1969 by researchers

based at AT&T Bell Laboratories

to provide an operating system

tailored to the needs of a research

environment; an efficient and

affordable operating system

designed to run on minicomputers

with multitasking and multi-user

capabilities. Over the years, UNIX

evolved to a portable, powerful

and flexible operating system,

used within research laboratories

and enterprise computer systems

around the world. It had been

designed at a time when

mainframes and minicomputers

were the only computers

available, and as these computers

evolved in terms of power,

capability and features, UNIX

evolved alongside to provide the

operating system support that was

required. In a nutshell, UNIX is an

operating system designed to run

on big, powerful computers in

order for the computers to carry

out big, powerful tasks.

Technologies such as networking

and the World Wide Web were

originally developed with UNIX

in mind, and for these reasons

UNIX remains the most popular

choice of operating system for

network servers and mainframe

systems.

The Linux operating system was

originally conceived by Linus

Torvalds, a research student based

at the University of Helsinki in

Finland. His intention was to

develop a version of the UNIX

operating system that could

effectively run on a PC

workstation. The first released

version of the software, version

0.11, was widely distributed over

the Internet, and in the following

years Linux was added to and

refined by programmers from

around the world. In time, all of

the main features and applications

of the UNIX operating system

were implemented into Linux.

Due to its ‘open-source’ nature,

the source code for the Linux

kernel is freely available for users

and programmers alike.



ADVANTAGES OF

LINUX:

• COST – The most

obvious advantage of

using Linux is the fact

that it is free to obtain,

while

Microsoft products are

available for a hefty

and sometimes

recurring fee.

Microsoft licenses

typically are only

allowed to be installed

on a single computer,

whereas a Linux

distribution can be

installed on anynumber of

SScomputers, without

paying a single dime.

• SECURITY – In line with

the costs, the security

aspect of Linux is much

stronger than that of

Windows. Why should I

have to spend extra money

for virus

protection software? The

Linux operating system

has been around since the

early nineties and has

managed to stay secure in

the realm of widespread

viruses, spyware and

adware for all these years.

Sure, the argument of the

Linux desktop not being as

widely used is a factor as

to why there are no

viruses. My re-buttle is

that the Linux operating

system is open source and

if there were a widespread

Linux virus released today,

there would be hundreds of

patches released

tomorrow, either by

ordinary people that use

the operating system or by

the distribution

maintainers. We wouldn’t

need to wait for a patch

from a single company like

we do with Windows.

• CHOICE (FREEDOM) –

The power of choice is a

great Linux advantage.

With Linux, I have the

power to control just about



every aspect of the

operating system. Two

major features I have

control of are

your desktops look and

feel by way of

numerous Window

Managers, and the kernel.

In Windows, MY either

stuck using the boring

default desktop theme, or

risking corruption or

failure by installing a

third-party shell.

• Software - There are so

many software choices

when it comes to doing

any specific task. You

could search for a text

editor on Freshmeat and

yield hundreds, if not

thousands of results. My

article on 5 Linux text

editors you should know

about explains how there

are so many options just

for editing text on the

command-line due to the

open source nature of

Linux. Regular users and

programmers contribute

applications all the time.

Sometimes its a simple

modification or feature

enhancement of a already

existing piece of software,

sometimes its a brand new

application. In

addition, software on

Linux tends to be packed

with more features and

greater usability than

software on Windows.

Best of all, the vast

majority of

Linux software is free and

open source. Not only are

you getting

the software for no charge,

but you have the option to

modify the source code

and add more features if

you understand the

programming language.

What more could you ask

for?

• Hardware - Linux is

perfect for those old

computers with barely any

processing power or

memory you have sitting

in your garage or basement

http://www.freshmeat.net/

http://www.freshmeat.net/



collecting dust. Install

Linux and use it as

a firewall, a file server, or

a backup server. There are

endless possibilities.

Old 386 or 486 computers

with barely any RAM run

Linux without any issue.

• Stability: Linux doesn’t

need to be rebooted

periodically to maintain

performance levels. It

doesn’t freeze up or slow

down over time due to

memory leaks and such.

Continuous up-times of

hundreds of days (up to a

year or more) are not

uncommon.

• Performance: Linux

provides persistent high

performance on

workstations and on

networks. It can handle

unusually large numbers of

users simultaneously, and

can make old computers

sufficiently responsive to

be useful again.

• Network

friendliness: Linux was

developed by a group of

programmers over the

Internet and has therefore

strong support for network

functionality; client and

server systems can be

easily set up on any

computer running Linux. It

can perform tasks such as

network backups faster

and more reliably than

alternative systems.

• Flexibility: Linux can be

used for high performance

server applications,

desktop applications, and

embedded systems. You

can save disk space by

only installing the

components needed for a

particular use. You can

restrict the use of specific

computers by installing for

example only selected

office applications instead

of the whole suite.

• Compatibility: It runs all

common UNIX software

packages and can process

all common file formats.



• Fast and easy

installation: Most Linux

distributions come with

user-friendly installation

and setup programs.

Popular Linux

distributions come with

tools that make installation

of additional software very

user friendly as well.

• Multitasking: Linux is

designed to do many

things at the same time;

e.g., a large printing job in

the background won’t slow

down your other work.

• Open Source: If you

develop software that

requires knowledge or

modification of the

operating system code,

Linux’s source code is at

your fingertips. Most

Linux applications are

Open Source as well.

Today the combination of

inexpensive computers and free

high-quality Linux operating

systems and software provide

incredibly low-cost solutions for

both basic home office use and

high-performance business and

science applications. The available

choices of Linux distributions and

Linux software may be

overwhelming at first, but if you

know where to look, it shouldn’t

take long for you to find good

online guidance.

DISADVANTAGES OF

LINUX:

• Understanding –

Becoming familiar with

the Linux operating system

requires patience as well as

a strong learning curve.

You must have the desire

to read and figure things

out on your own, rather

than having everything

done for you.

• Compatibility – Because

of its free nature, Linux is

sometimes behind the

curve when it comes to

brand new hardware

compatibility. Though the

kernel contributors and

maintainers work hard at



keeping the kernel up to

date, Linux does not have

as much of a corporate

backing as

alternative operating

systems. Sometimes you

can find

third party applications,

sometimes you can’t.

• Alternative Programs –

Though Linux developers

have done a great job at

creating alternatives to

popular Windows applicati

ons, there are still some

applications that exist

on Windows that have no

equivalent Linux

application.

.ZERO INSTALL

CRITIQUE

Zero Install is one of the more

promising alternatives to native

package systems for Linux

distributions, such as RPM and

Debian's dpkg. Originally

developed by Thomas Leonard,

who works in the Department of

Electronics and Computing at the

University of Southampton, it

begins with a criticism of existing

package systems the difficulties of

using them, and is built to provide

an answer to the problems raised

by the critique. However, like

other alternative package systems,

it faces the problems of winning

acceptance from the major

distributions and fine-tuning its

features.

Zero Install is an offshoot of

the ROX Desktop project.

Leonard says users were reluctant

to try ROX unless it was packaged

for their distro, but packaging took

time away from development.

Moreover, maintainers could be

hard to find, and their work was

not always consistent, complete,

or high-quality. At any rate,

Leonard says, "the distributions

had enough to do supporting

GNOME and KDE, and mostly

ignored us."

ROX's woes lead to the start of

Zero Install in 2003. According to

Leonard, Zero Install has been

downloaded about 26,000 times,

and at least 112 programs can

currently be installed with it.



Traffic on the developer list is

light but steady, since, as Leonard

points out, the program "is simple,

and the important part is the

content that people provide using

it."

OTHERS THE ZERO

INSTALL CRITIQUE

Like auto-package part of themotivation for Zero Install comes

from dissatisfaction with the

existing native systems.

The first problem that Leonard

brings up with native package

systems is a lack of freedom.

"Users are effectively confined to

the software their distribution

packages," Leonard says. "Some

distributions don't want their users

running 'unauthorized' software,

because it increases their support

costs if users report bugs to them

by mistake." While Leonard

acknowledges that this attitude is

"understandable," he also

characterizes it as "worryingly

similar to hardware manufacturers

wanting to reduce costs by using

Trusted Computing."

Another issue is security. Using

his own workstation as an

example, Leonard says, "I

currently have 2,100 Debian

packages installed. Every time I

update my computer, the authors

of every one of these packages get

to run a shell script of their choice

as root on my machine -- even the

maintainers of documentation

packages, or of packages I

installed months ago and never

ran again. Even if I trust the

packagers to this extent, what



about the risk that one of them has

their machine compromised?"

For Leonard, this arrangement

violates the basic security of least privilege, which "demands that a

desktop application shouldn't have

permission to destroy the system."

Efforts to allow sandboxing --

contained testing of programs --

exist, but Leonard asks, "What

policy can you possibly write for

apt-get?" The same comment, of

course, applies to YUM or any

other package management utility.

Finally, Leonard complains about

the lack of flexibility. "I'm forced

to have only a single version of

each package on my machine," he

says. "I can't compile a program

against the GTK 2.4 header files

because I have GTK 2.8 installed.

I can't install a security update to

gnupg because it will uninstall

user-mode-linux due to a conflict

with libreadline5. I can't run a

program that's ten years old,

because the libraries it needs have

changed." Yet such problems are

not inevitable. Rather, Leonard

points out, "they are arbitrary

limitations imposed by current

installation systems.

Zero Install is designed to

overcome all these problems.Rather than relying on a list of

repositories than must be

manually edited, it allows Web

pages that contain programs in a

number of formats, ranging from

Debian packages and RPMs

through tarballs and zip files that

are digitally signed and work with

any distribution, to be entered on-

the-fly. Since software is not

installed by the root user,

installation or updates of desktop

applications cannot damage the

entire system, and software can be

easily sandboxed by maintaining a

user account solely for the

purposes of experimentation.

Similarly, Zero Install tracks

different versions of a program

separately.

THE MAIN DRAWBACK TO

ZERO INSTALL is that software

must be installed separately for

each user. However, this problem

is relatively minor, since Leonard

sees Zero Install as a supplement



the distributions for which they

are designed.

FUTURE PLANS

Leonard describes Zero Install as"mostly complete." However,

the project roadmap includes a list

of enhancements that are currently

being considered. In addition to

system-wide installs -- or, at least,

the ability to share installs with

other uses -- Leonard would also

like to see integration with native

package systems, so that Zero

Install can use existing

dependencies instead of installing

duplicates. He is also considering

functionality to clean out the

cache of installed programs, to

include recommended as well as

required programs in the

dependencies, and to display

messages about what has been

installed.

Some of these features raise

critical issues. In particular,

installs for more than single users

raise security issues that Leonard

is only too aware of. Yet, on the

whole, Leonard is satisfied that

solutions can be found. Most of

these future features, he says, "just

make [Zero Install] faster or more

efficient or reliable. These are

minor technical problems, so it's

more a matter of choosing from

many possible solutions."

CONSTRUCTIVE

CRITIQUE OF DEBIAN

LINUX BY BINH

NGUYEN

The Debian Linux distribution is

widely regarded as a stable, albeit

difficult to use, operating system.

Yet, its usability happens to be the

very reason why I have selected it

as my primary desktop operatingsystem. From package

management to system

dependencies, I have found

Debian to be second to none.

Also, Debian's standards-based

approach is found throughout the

distribution, as illustrated in file

layout and configuration. For

example, configuration files are

always found in /etc while

documentation is almost always

found in /usr/share/doc.

http://www.debian.org/





Such stability means that creating

packages for Debian-based

systems is astonishingly easy,

since the development cycle is

more reminiscent of Windows

than Linux releases, which tend to

change more often than not --

occurring on a weekly or even

daily basis, rather than yearly

cycles. Although it could be

argued that this results in a

superior product at any given

time, it is also quite clear that so

much constant change can result

in some less than trivial issues

such as program crashes due to

segmentation faults and mangled

configuration files. Both are

simple consequences of the lack

of full testing. It is almost like

having your user base serve as a

means of prototype testing.

Because of the numerous strengths

of Debian, many other

distributions have selected it as a

starting point including Xandros,

Knoppix, and most recently

Ubuntu. What they then do is

attempt to fix some of the more

obvious flaws in Debian such as

the installer and configuration

utilities. The resulting repackaging

often turns out to be quite

attractive.

Nonetheless, while people often

complain about the difficulties of

using the Debian installer, I've

found it to be quite usable. In my

opinion, the only difference

between Debian and other

installers from Red Hat,

Mandrake, and SuSE (now

Novell) has been the use of a GUI

(Graphical User Interface). That

issue is being addressed as part of

the Debian installer project

DEBIAN STRENGTHS

AND USABILITY

On the other hand, I believe that

Debian could be made

significantly more usable by

taking away the menu-based

interface with the 'OK' and

'Cancel' buttons, and replacing it

with a step-by-step 'state machine'

mechanism with just two

'Forward' and 'Back' buttons.



While this may detract from the

ability of experts to jump around

through the install process, there's

no reason why you can't have the

best of both worlds: the older

install system could remain

available as an alternative

installation method.

Hardware autodetection is non-

existent during the installation

process. It could also be said that

this is a flaw, but we must

remember that Debian was

intended to be able to be installed

on virtually any system, by

bringing things down to a

common denominator. For

example, let's say you had a video

card that was incompatible with

Linux but did work in VESA

mode (which I assume the

installer will tend to run under).

Most installers will give you the

option to test whether the card will

work or not. However, in my

experience most people will tend

to skip this option and the next

time they boot up they won't be

greeted with a XDM/GDM/KDM

welcome screen, but instead are

met with a garbled array of grey

and white lines. One could argue

here that you could make it

compulsory to test your X

configuration before proceeding

though the installation process.

In terms of system configuration

Debian provides no centralized

mechanism such as those

produced by SuSE, Mandrake, and

Red Hat. Consequently, most

applications must be configured

through a program's own

configuration utilities, 'dpkg-

reconfigure', direct text file

editing, or a third party utility.

This means that it can sometimes

be extraordinarily difficult for

someone to determine how to

configure a piece of software such

as X, or hardware such as a

network car.

The packaging and dependency

checking systems are without a

doubt what set this distribution

apart when it first came about.

The ability to update your system

almost flawlessly is extremely

attractive no matter what

operating system you may use.



A FULL FEATURED

SYSTEM THAT ACTS

THIN

People perennially argue about

speed and simplicity. What could

be simpler than not having

packages you don't want installed

but still having the ability to make

them available through a menu

system such as 'dselect', 'tasksel',

and/or 'aptitude'. For speed, I have

little doubt that Debian would

give most other (unoptimized)

distributions a run for their

money. It is here that the

minimalistic approach of the

distribution comes to the fore.

Fewer services means decreased

boot time, means less wasted

memory -- which translates into a

more enjoyable desktop

experience. At last count the

differences between Mandrake,

Red Hat, and Debian boot timeson my primary system were quite

marked. If memory serves me

correct, it came out to something

like 50 seconds, 45 seconds, and

30 seconds, respectively. From my

experience, the only distributions

which are able to equal or surpass

this are Gentoo and Slackware.

I do believe that multimedia

support should be included as part

of any operating system. After all,

the computer has become a centre-

piece in home entertainment. It is

now being used not only for work,

but also for leisure. It is not

uncommon, these days, to find a

computer being used as a second

television, radio, and/or stereo

system. In time, I have little doubt

that it will also be able to interface

with the rest of your home

appliances such as your

refrigerator and toaster. I don't

doubt that one day we shall see

the refrigerator interface with your

computer and act as a gateway to

the rest of the Internet, and order

food automatically when you run

out. Imagine a stove which would

interface with your fridge and

computer, which would then

download a recipe for a food that

it knows that you may particularly

enjoy, order the food, and then

cook for you? This may sound



entirely outlandish, but I do

believe that it will become a

reality someday.

For this reason, I must insist upon

the inclusion of such "extensions"

into the Debian and other Linux

distributions. Not doing so would

deprive many users the ability of

being able to maximize the

capabilites of their systems. By

doing so, I believe that in time, a

sufficiently large critical mass will

be generated such that Linux

communities will be able to

influence companies to open up

their systems and protocols.

THE ELITE NATURE OFLINUX

Another problem I have with

Debian and some other Linux

communities is the elitist nature of

certain mailing lists and user

groups. You may ask a perfectly

valid question and receive a

completely derogatory answer,

such as "RTFM" (Read The

F****** Manual). In my opinion,

this is just not appropriate. To me,

it is the equivalent of ringing up

technical support and then paying

to be insulted.

That offers some insight into

probably the biggest problem that

I have with Debian -- the lack of

highly visible documentation.

Although, I understand that there

are many examples of books and

references as part of the Debian

Documentation Project, and most

of remarkably high quality, I

believe the availability should be

more obvious to the end user. It

should be visible to the user where

they can readily find

documentation on their system

and how they can access it.

Perhaps, too, there should be links

created on the desktop to the

location of documentation; and,

that visible introductory

documentation should be installed

as a standard part of the

distribution. Even something

resembling the "Welcome" screen

of Microsoft Windows would be

sufficient and would significantly

aid a new Linux user; I have often

seen users give up on using



Debian and/or Linux simply

because there wasn't anyone

around to guide them through the

introductory process.

Overall, I consider Debian to be a

competent, robust distribution --

having few flaws as an operating

system, but possessing some

critical ones that have led to the

unfortunate perception of it being

an elitist distribution.

AN IMPARTIAL

CRITIQUE OF RED HAT

LINUX

• In the enterprise-class

Linux market, there are

two dominant vendors:

Novell (with SUSE Linux)

and Red Hat (with Red Hat

Enterprise Linux — or

RHEL for short).

Enterprise IT buyers

frequently ask Clabby

Analytics which Linux

distribution they should

buy — and our answer is:

“we have no preference;

they are both good”. But,

we also observe that there

are distinct differences

between each vendor’s go-

to-market and product

strategies. The primary

differences in these two

Linux offerings can be

found in each vendor’s:

• Release philosophy;

• Investment/innovation in

Linux;

• Virtualization approach

(Xen vs. KVM);

• Strategic commitment (as

evidenced by business unit

commitment); and,

• Cost

COSTS/PRICING

Red Hat admits that Novell’s

SUSE Linux generally costs 20-

30% less than its own RHEL

environment — but emphasizes

that Novell’s investments in Linux

development, testing, and

innovation are lower, hence its

costs are lower. This cost

differential, according to Red Hat,

is why Novell SUSE generally

costs less than RHEL.



STRATEGIC COMMITMENT

Red Hat makes a big deal about its

strategic commitment to Linux —

and points to recent

reorganizations at Novell as an

indicator that Novell’s focus on

Linux may be waning. For

instance, during a recent set of

reorganizations at Novell, the

company has eliminated its Linux

business unit.

REFERENCES

http://www.foogazi.com/2006/12/19/5-advantages-of-using-linux-

over-windows/

http://linux.about.com/cs/linux101/a/linux_2.htm

http://www.rtcubed.com/consulting/linux-advantages-

disadvantages.html

http://www.foogazi.com/2006/12/19/5-advantages-of-using-linux-over-windows/



http://www.rtcubed.com/consulting/linux-advantages-disadvantages.html









http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/114230

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7588639943.html

www.solent.ac.uk/.../Linux%20Network%20Management%20System.pdf





final linux term paper

Documents