Re: [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux Kernel

Mark-Andre Hopf (hopf@informatik.uni-rostock.de)
Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:23:02 +0100 (MET)

> Craig Sanders <cas@vicnet.net.au>:
> :
> : > Such as? The only substantial chunk is gcc and that isn't part of the
> : > operating system.
> :
> : well, apart from glibc and gcc, gasm, cpp, ld and other compilation
> : tools there are also bash, shellutils, fileutils, findutils, textutils,
> : gnu m4, gnu make, gnu awk, and gnu sed that i can think of off the top
> : of my head.
> :
> : ....and that's exactly stallman's point - the GNU system existed long
> : before the linux kernel did. When Linux came along, the only thing
> : missing from GNU was a free kernel. Linux filled that gap, resulting
> : instantly in a complete, free operating system.
>
> As I have pointed out to Craig in private mail, Linux is an operating
> system, by all of the commonly held definitions (without exception)
> in the popular OS texts, such as Operating Systems Concepts and Modern
> Operating Systems, etc.

But why do people say things like `linux kernel' when it's equivalent
with `linux'? And could it be that most OS books tend to focus on the OS
core? Who knows?

> The GNU tools are _applications_, again, by all of the commonly
> held definitions of an application. To describe the list above as
> an "operating system" is to simply show one's ignorance - those are
> applications, they aren't an operating system.

They aren't an operating system but i think they're part of it.
When you say Linux in itself is the whole operating system, then to me
Linux would be no use at all, because i can't even log in. Just think of the
`/sbin/init' and the shell applications.

So how can i call a program that doesn't turn my computer into an
operating system an `operating system'? No way.

When people refer to GNU/Linux they don't mean the kernel but the minimal
set of software making it a useful system. That's what Stallman said and
that's what i'm doing because i'm using so much GNU software right now
beside the kernel and other stuff, eg. the GPL and LGPL i put in almost
every piece of code i write ;).

> Furthermore, Stallman - being the person who caused all of this fuss -

The worst thing Stallman did was, as i believe to remember, suggesting
the name "lignux". Funny position to place the "g" but not very stylish.
But "GNU/Linux" reads nice.
What really started the fuss were people who started to scream when RMS
talked before giving it a second thought. Just to clarify it i think most
people would agree with these definitions:

Linux : the Linux kernel and sometimes short for a software distribution
based on the Linux kernel
Linux kernel: the kernel itself
GNU/Linux : the Linux kernel with GNU software

Do you agree? Let's assume you say "Yes", then there's only to decide
what's needed to make an operating system:

(1) kernel
(2) + user shell
(2) + system libraries
(3) + user shell & system libraries
(4) ...

I say (3), you say (1). That's it.

Bye,
Mark

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| the wizard himself, Mark-André Hopf | Every sufficiently |
| hopf@informatik.uni-rostock.de | developed technology |
| Visit the TOAD GUI Toolkit Project Homepage at | is indistinguishable |
| http://toad.home.pages.de/ | from magic. (A.C.C.) |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------+

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/