BT same terminal as Ubuntu

[seanm]

Before I format my hard drive, I was wondering if BT had the same terminal as Ubuntu, meaning the same syntax can be written and you would get the same outcome. Thanks (and don't get on me because this is the newbie area)

[mfBaranian]

This being the newbie area doesn't protect you from getting flamed.

As for your question - terminal doesn't determine the definition of the commands used because the tools used in the distro do. (And a hint - BT4 is Ubuntu based).

You really should acquire some basic linux know-how before getting on with BT4. (Gonna save yourself from some flames too )

[lupin]

Before I format my hard drive, I was wondering if BT had the same terminal as Ubuntu, meaning the same syntax can be written and you would get the same outcome. Thanks (and don't get on me because this is the newbie area)

If only it were possible to try BackTrack without having to install it to a system's hard drive. You know, if it worked like a "live CD" that allowed you to boot into the Operating System without changing the underlying systems configuration...


And Backtrack does by default use the same shell (bash) as Ubuntu, so you will have a similar command line experience in both. You wont get the "same" outcome for syntactically identical commands, but you will get an equivalent outcome (e.g. "ls /" on each system may not show the "same" output on both systems, but it will show more or less equivalent information - a file listing from the root directory).

Be careful about your terminology when posting to any specialist IT forum, many IT professionals will take your questions very literally and give you logically correct but useless answers if you misuse terms. Giving you what you asked for instead of what you may have wanted is usually a subtle hint that you should learn to phrase your questions better.

[seanm]

alright thanks guys

[mfBaranian]

Hey lupin, you're good at reading people too! (Read me like a book )

[lupin]

Hey lupin, you're good at reading people too! (Read me like a book )

Heh

[Virchanza]

The terminal commands are all the same. E.g. you use "ifconfig" for setting your IP address, you use "ls" to list the files in a directory.

99% of the command line stuff you're used to is actually a part of the Linux kernel, (stuff like "ls" and "ifconfig"), so you'll find them in every Linux distribution. You'll also find them on Apple Mac's and on Solaris (and loads more).

[Barry]

The terminal commands are all the same. E.g. you use "ifconfig" for setting your IP address, you use "ls" to list the files in a directory.

99% of the command line stuff you're used to is actually a part of the Linux kernel, (stuff like "ls" and "ifconfig"), so you'll find them in every Linux distribution. You'll also find them on Apple Mac's and on Solaris (and loads more).

Unix and linux commands are pretty much exchangeable. mostly....

[lupin]

99% of the command line stuff you're used to is actually a part of the Linux kernel, (stuff like "ls" and "ifconfig"), so you'll find them in every Linux distribution.

Technically, they are not part of the kernel, they are part of the GNU base packages that are distributed along with the Linux kernel to provide a usable Operating System. After all, Linux is just a kernel, and it needs other packages, usually taken from the GNU project, to do anything useful. If these tools were part of the kernel you wouldn't see them sitting in the filesystem as ELF binaries (e.g. the ls program usually sits on disk in /bin/ls ).

Most of the "main" tools that are expected to be in every GNU based OS (including most "full" distributions of Linux) are taken from Coreutils.
Coreutils - GNU core utilities

The versions of these tools from other Unix like Operating Systems (e.g. Solaris, BSD) are generally not from the GNU project, but as Barry mentioned they are still mostly interchangeable...