Linux is an OS kernel blah blah blah
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| npan Aug 20, 2007 12:19 PM EDT |
My definition of an operating system is that it provides a *base* platform system for other software to operate. To do this, it must provide these three functions - without these functions, a lot of time is wasted implementing operating system functionality into each end user application:
1) It manages the hardware resources
2) It manages the software resources
3) Provides *general purpose and rudimentary* functionality for end user software It must do all three. The third point is important because it is annoying to implement rudimentary functions for functions that are known to be general purpose. Linux by itself (together with hardware drivers) doesn't do too much to provide a rudimentary platform for end user software, but it does manage the hardware and software resources of the computer system so it belongs under the title of operating system. GNU (particularly the POSIX implementation) provides a suitable operating system platform - it is rudimentary and general purpose enough to belong to the OS. GNU's current OS kernel is currently incomplete. I draw the line of operating system at X - the video drivers for X belong to the operating system but the implementation of the X protocol as well as the API that it provides is too high for my definition of operating system as it fails to be rudimentary; I would classify it as system support software. The argument is made about X being rudimentary for the desktop but I would argue that it isn't necessary for the operating system - you can run a computer without needing to see high level output (think embedded devices). KDE, Gnome and even ps, more and tar all belong as either system platforms (not part of the OS) or end user software. So yeah, GNU provides part of the functionality of an OS, Linux provides part of the functionality of an OS and together, they provide a full operating system platform. By themselves, they fail to do this and hence the name GNU/Linux as GNU existed before Linux. |
| azerthoth Aug 20, 2007 12:51 PM EDT |
May I ask if I am reading your post correctly and that what you are saying is that anything that falls outside of kernelspace belongs to GNU. I realize that it is a simplistic view because there is a functional level that could be described as falling between kernelspace and userspace. Just seeing if I am in the ballpark of your reasoning. |
| npan Aug 20, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
I'm saying that there should be a distinction between operating system, system platforms that are higher than operating system level (think Java, Qt/gtk, large parts of win32, or even X) and end user software (think Amarok, Winamp, tar, grep, aptitude). I believe a Linux kernel module web server exists but I wouldn't call that part of the operating system. I also believe that something like init is hardly end user software but it isn't really part of the kernelspace. |
| Libervis Aug 21, 2007 12:54 AM EDT |
You know when I usually recognize the stupidity of calling the whole OS by merely its kernel? When we are actually talking about the kernel and calling that "Linux". I'm wondering what the heck would a newbie think when reading an interview with Linus Torvalds as he talks about the kernel and yet using the name that they think refers to a whole operating system. It's just stupid. There are names of components and there are names of operating systems. Noone so far came up with an unique name for this OS except the GNU Project which in fact started the whole process which, with Linus's kernel, led to an OS we have today. That say, if you are arguing for it not to be called GNU/Linux, and the way you do argue about it (don't call it by components of which it consists) you are in fact easily arguing in favor of calling it just "GNU"! ;) Thank you very much. It's even shorter and more convenient to call it just GNU, and that's what you're after anyway - shortness and simplicity. ;) Cheers |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 1:03 AM EDT |
>It's even shorter and more convenient to call it just GNU Not to mention stupid beyond words. |
| jacog Aug 21, 2007 1:38 AM EDT |
Can I call it Sally? |
| Libervis Aug 21, 2007 1:53 AM EDT |
Dinotrac, you can't win. :) Either I can respond with "explain why it's stupid" or "well, take that up with azerthoth". ;) So at the end of the day "GNU/Linux" really seems like the best middle ground. It's a name of the OS, not the kernel hence there is no confusion between the two and it gives sufficient credit to the name given to the original OS (GNU). So.. in other words if you don't like GNU, call it GNU/Linux. At least you can occasionally justify "Linux" as an abbreviation of GNU/Linux. ;) Oh and btw, Azerthoth, I don't appreciate the "Saint Stallman" and "Stallmanists" remark being put on those who agree it's called "GNU/Linux" (as you did on your blog). As always I think it's silly. I am not a religious man. I don't believe in saints. :P |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
>explain why it's stupid That one's actually easy, but only because you suggested "GNU" instead of "GNU/Linux". GNU/Linux is just inferior to Linux because it's a mouthful for no good reason. Real People don't say Microsoft Windows. They say Windows. Same diff. But...as to GNU alone -- that really is stupid to anybody who thinks about it. A name is many things, but it is, first and foremost, how you identify something. A lot of people at least recognize Linux. It means something to a far broader group than GNU does. GNU is the province of raving geeks, not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just a stupid name for Linux. |
| jdixon Aug 21, 2007 5:43 AM EDT |
> ...explain why it's stupid... Because GNU is not limited to Linux. It can be used with the BSD's, Solaris, HPUX, AIX, et.al. |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 6:27 AM EDT |
>Because GNU is not limited to Linux. It can be used with the BSD's, Solaris, HPUX, AIX, et.al. That, too. Besides, if you're determined to call an OS just "GNU", that would have to be the HURD. |
| jrm Aug 21, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
> Can I call it Sally? If we're going to rename it, we should use a recursive pleonasm. Triple recursive, if possible. And the most obvious pronunciation should not actually be correct. Hey, what about a name that can only be pronounced using buzzes, whistles, and clicks? |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 8:16 AM EDT |
>Hey, what about a name that can only be pronounced using buzzes, whistles, and clicks? And I've come up with a great one, but I don't know how to spell it. |
| jrm Aug 21, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
> And I've come up with a great one, but I don't know how to spell it. That's okay. On the trademark application just put "The operating system formerly known as Linux, but sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux, because Linux is really just the kernel." I think that should avoid any possible confusion. |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
>The operating system formerly known as Linux, Time to party like it's 1999? |
| jrm Aug 21, 2007 9:47 AM EDT |
You mean as a marketing slogan? "Downloads are free... but party like it's $19.99" |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 9:51 AM EDT |
>"Downloads are free... but party like it's $19.99" You're a Prince. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 21, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
Linux limited time offer: Was $19.99, now Free as in Beer. Offer ends with the heat-death of the Universe. |
| hkwint Aug 21, 2007 10:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:It gives sufficient credit to the name given to the original OS (GNU). Huh? Since when is GNU an operating system? WP says OS is 'the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer.' GNU isn't capable of this as far as I know. It's like a building with a first floor without a ground floor. While giving the building the name of the ground floor isn't right, giving the whole building the name of the first floor seems even more wrong to me. The first two floors, I can live with (But it should be called Linux/GNU if that's the case if you'd ask me, not the other way around) |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 21, 2007 10:59 AM EDT |
Question: There's Linux (or GNU/Linux), the various BSDs ... and of course ol' Windows, but what else is there out there in the world of PC operating systems? |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 21, 2007 11:01 AM EDT |
When I ran a SunOS machine, I said I ran SunOS. I didn't say I ran a Xwindow/GNU/Netscape/SunOS system. When I run a Windows machine, I say I run Windows. I don't say I run a OpenOffice/Firefox/Eudora/Windows system. When I run a Linux machine, I say I run Linux. I don't say I run a Xorg/GNU/KDE/Linux system. I've run Minix and Hurd to try them out. I didn't say long, drawn out, redundant names. I used the names Minix and Hurd. When I ran a BSD machine, I said I ran BSD. And etcetera. Even the GNU people don't call GNU an OS, they call HURD an OS. They call Linux an OS. They call the GNU tool suite a "user environment", without which an OS is pretty much useless for a human being. To give credit where credit is due, ever since my first experience with a UNIX style system in 1992, I have been using the GNU user tools. I salute the GNU effort as successful and heroic. I use GNU gladly, on my Linux system. |
| jdixon Aug 21, 2007 11:16 AM EDT |
> ...but what else is there out there in the world of PC operating systems? Microsoft's DOS, FreeDOS, OpenDOS, QNX, OS9000, OS/2, FreeGEM, and ReactOS; that I know of. A quick search on Google turns up VMOS/3. A better question would be which of those operating systems are currently supported/being developed. I believe that drops you down to FreeDOS, OpenDOS, QNX, ReactOS, and possibly FreeGEM. |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 1:59 PM EDT |
> ...but what else is there out there in the world of PC operating systems? Umm...cough...MacOS. Mac may be it's own universe, but Macs are personal computers. |
| jezuch Aug 21, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Huh? Since when is GNU an operating system? Since RMS founded the GNU Project. Their aim was to produce a Free operating system, the GNU System. They had all the tools (if you drop to the console, almost everything you use is from GNU), but the kernel was missing. So they took the almost-GNU-system and plugged Linux-the-kernel into that. Hence "GNU system on Linux kernel" or, for short, GNU/Linux. It least that's what I understood from their explanations :) |
| Libervis Aug 21, 2007 3:21 PM EDT |
That's exactly it jezuch. So the intention was to build an entire OS which doesn't mean they must have started with the kernel. It turned out their own kernel never really materialized as it should due to an admitted design flaw and so they adopted an outside kernel to complete what they were doing - a Free Operating System called GNU, except that since now they're using an outside core component they had to add the "Linux" into the name: GNU/Linux. dinotrac: Quoting:GNU/Linux is just inferior to Linux because it's a mouthful for no good reason. Well I suppose that depends on what you consider to be a good reason. Just as "Open Source", "Linux" is starting to represent just another operating system poised to conquer the world (as its fan boys are, naturally hoping). Does this mean that it will run Free Software once its dominant? How much of the stuff on it will be Free Software? Not many really care about that. Thanks to Open Source not many businesses care to refer to the social responsibility of that kind either. Free Software movement with the FSF and the "GNU" in the name of "GNU/Linux" are adding a bit of hope that some of those masses will actually be referred to that other part of the reason why this thing everyone knows as "Linux" actually exists, and that it isn't about making just another alternative operating system, but also about making a world in which software users will be treated with more respect for their rights. That's the social justice/ethics part that is so easily ignored by those who find it sufficient to call everything by their current trendy buzzwords.. So it may not be a sufficiently good reason for you, but it is for me. I want to carry the message of GNU over to as many people as I can and even if that is the only reason to do it, I will do it. There is just too much weight put on that other "easy, convenient, trendy" option for me to just ignore the GNU side of the story. It is not just about another OS. It is about Free Software *no matter the OS* and *no matter the current trends, fads, buzz and whatever*. It's about long lasting freedom, not short term benefits and hype. Cheers |
| npan Aug 21, 2007 4:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:When I ran a SunOS machine, I said I ran SunOS. I didn't say I ran a Xwindow/GNU/Netscape/SunOS system.I posted my definition of operating system when I created this thread. I tried to make a distinction between operating system, system platform above the OS and end user software. If you are running Sun's operating system, then chances are, you're not using GNU's operating system platform. Since I tried to make it clear to not include end user software as part of the operating system, merely using GNU's end user software doesn't make it part of the operating system and so, it doesn't need to be mentioned when referring to the computer's operating system |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 6:07 PM EDT |
>I posted my definition of operating system when I created this thread. I could a post a chocolate chip cookie recipe and it would have as much to do with what anybody calls Linux as your definition of an operating system. Linux is Linux because that's what people call it and that's what people have called it for 16 years. That's its name. Don't like it? That's fine. Your likes are as important to its name as mine are: not at all. |
| azerthoth Aug 21, 2007 7:02 PM EDT |
Well interestingly enough, my intent was not to aggrandize myself as I have read was my intent on several other sites that picked up the article. The shock of my life was to see it show up on digg, it runs a close second to"honey, we are pregnant" for a "oh boy here we go" moment. I linked it to LXer, because face it, I like and respect nearly everyone here and wished to share my opinions with you folks and see which side the toast landed on, nor did I expect it to get much further (silly me). I fully expected my computer to catch fire from screen content, and as expected many of the comments elsewhere were fairly unreasoned, so thank you LXer readers for explaining your positions with thought. There has been a point or two where I have given serious thought to a follow up article, however the urge is quickly squashed when I realize that I have no need to defend what is wholly my personal opinion. I said my piece on it and have been dutiful I believe in reading all the posts both positive and negative that I have found. I have truly found nothing to change my opinion either. I apologize for nothing in the article and for me it still stands. Nowhere in it however did I ever suggest that anyone other than myself call it make the choice of what to call it, just that we should not be made to willingly tolerate those who would religiously correct those of us who choose our freedom to not call it GNU/Linux. I would like to share a post that was left on my miserable attempt at a blog that really and truly made a lot of sense to me and summed up my feelings fairly well. Quoting: Stix213 said... There are more, both positive and negative that struck a chord with me, however that one stands out for me. Call it what you will, its your choice and freedom. I for one am content with being able to verbalize my reasons for my choice. |
| npan Aug 21, 2007 8:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:I could a post a chocolate chip cookie recipe and it would have as much to do with what anybody calls Linux as your definition of an operating systemI beg to differ. My objection is the usage of the magic words "operating system" - people use that term to describe "a distribution of software that includes an operating system kernel". In my opinion, people's definition of operating system is far too lax and there are bound be confusion and misinformation if such a lax definition remains acceptable. I defined operating system here because it is a reasonable definition and it is not as ambiguous as others. Therefore, my definition is very relevant because people refer to Linux as an operating system when they are wrong in their usage of "operating system". Quoting:Linux is Linux because that's what people call it and that's what people have called it for 16 years.If something is inherently incorrect, the length of time that people perpetuate misinformation is irrelevant. Linux is part of an operating system and it is not an operating system in itself. I don't mind if people refer to a free software distribution that includes Linux and GNU as Linux. However, I object if you use the term "operating system" to refer to that distribution. An operating system's scope definition is limited and shouldn't be ambiguous.. Quoting:Call it what you will, its your choice and freedom. I for one am content with being able to verbalize my reasons for my choice.IMO, the naming fiasco is directly related to the general populace's (incorrect) usage of the term operating system. IMO, way too many people are confused and therefore, wrong. |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 11:49 PM EDT |
>the naming fiasco There is no naming fiasco. > IMO, way too many people are confused and therefore, wrong. Yawn. With all due respect for everybody's carefully laid out arguments, Shakespeare nailed this one 400 years ago in Romeo and Juliet: What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; |
| hkwint Aug 22, 2007 4:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:but what else is there out there in the world of PC operating systems? May I add: Inferno OS (distributed open source network OS, successor of Plan9, gratis for non-commercial goals, developed by the 'remainders' of Bell Labs, runs native, on top of Win, Lin or BSD, or as a plug-in in IE6): http://www.vitanuova.com/ Syllable; http://www.syllable.org/docs/users/welcome.html (own kernel and everything, capable of running some Linux programs) CoyotOS: An open source experimental non-finished (though still in development) OS, which aims at 'provable security'; it should become the most secure open OS available. http://coyotos.org/ |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 22, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
Nobody mentioned Minix so far... |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2007 6:18 AM EDT |
> Therefore, my definition is very relevant because people refer to Linux as an operating system when they are wrong in their usage of "operating system". In your opinion, yes. They may not agree. > If something is inherently incorrect, the length of time that people perpetuate misinformation is irrelevant. If something is incorrect, yes. You've stated an opinion that it is. There's a famous quotation about opinions which seems applicable but doesn't bear repeating. The only factual detail involved in this matter are that to be called a Linux system it should be running the Linux kernel, and to be called a Gnu system it should be running the Gnu utilities. Which takes priority in naming, or whether both should be used, is entirely a matter of personal opinion. I use the term Linux because it's better recognized, it's easier to say, I started calling it that before RMS started his crusade, and I'm lazy. I should also note that the distribution I use is officially named Slackware Linux. |
| theboomboomcars Aug 22, 2007 10:43 AM EDT |
Is there a linux system that doesn't use the GNU tools? If not then it seems redundant to call it GNU/Linux. Since if they all use the GNU tools then if you get a linux systems then you get the GNU tools, and there is no need to differentiate from a non-GNU Linux. |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2007 11:27 AM EDT |
> Is there a linux system that doesn't use the GNU tools? Not that I know of. If anyone does know of one, I'll sure they'll let us know. |
| azerthoth Aug 22, 2007 3:55 PM EDT |
Depends, some base installs use busybox and then the end user adds in the GNU components as needed. Some bits of the GNU tools may be added to flesh out what busybox doesn't cover. Debian I know ships busybox in its base install. You can then start looking hard for GNU stuff in embedded products, it is harder to find it there than not. According to a few of the posts I have read elsewhere in relation/retaliation to the article it seems that there are perhaps GNU free distro's, although none were named and I haven't searched for any corroboration. |
| hkwint Aug 23, 2007 6:51 AM EDT |
> Is there a linux system that doesn't use the GNU tools? Gentoo/FreeBSD comes close I think, except it doesn't have the Linux kernel and it does have gcc, but for the rest it's intended to be the same as Gentoo/Linux (all a bit odd, I admit). |
| Abe Aug 23, 2007 8:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; I think Dino said it best as he quoted Shakespeare above. On the other hand, Linux is simple, short, a good sounding easy to say and not like many other FOSS names we hear. But if you insist on changing it, how about Gnunix? I bet this will give Linus a fit. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 8:47 AM EDT |
>But if you insist on changing it, how about Gnunix? I bet this will give Linus a fit. And, let's face it: Once a name is in popular use, it's very hard to change. Microsoft tried for years to get people to call its OS Windows. It has now given up, and is trying Vista. And yet, few people call it that, preferring the ever-popular "F---ing piece of s--- " as in "that (popular name for Windows) has hosed up my report again". |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 23, 2007 8:48 AM EDT |
> how about Gnunix? Oh blast it all, I won't know if I'm running Debian/Hurd, Debian/OpenSolaris, Debian/Linux or Debian/BSD at that point, since Gnunix fits all of them. |
| Abe Aug 23, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:Oh blast it all, I won't know if I'm running Debian/Hurd... Now Bob, do you really need to know? Aren't they all about the same! Do you really believe Hurd is going to materialize as usable OS? What do you know that we don't? OpenSolaris is not going to survive as an alternative to the Linux we have now. In my opinion that is. Gnunix would be equivalent to Gnu+Linux and each will add their brand name to it. ex. Debian Gnunix, Ubuntu Gnunix, PCLOS Gnunix, etc... ( I really think that every brand/distro should include Linux to its name). BSD: Let's leave this alone since it doesn't fit in the GPL group. After all, it was just an on the fly suggestion. :) |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 23, 2007 10:20 AM EDT |
> Now Bob, do you really need to know? Aren't they all about the same! You're right, I'll run Windows. :^) |
| jdixon Aug 23, 2007 10:25 AM EDT |
> You're right, I'll run Windows. Seriously, what do we call a Windows system with Cygwin installed? Gnudows? |
| tuxchick Aug 23, 2007 10:28 AM EDT |
Linux is.... a state of mind. It....cannot be....labeled, or....pigeonholed. Linux is...a state of being; a....Oneness....with the Many. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm |
| Abe Aug 23, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:Seriously, what do we call a Windows system with Cygwin installed? Gnudows? Seriously! You are close but not quite right. It would be called GnuDOS. :) That will make RMS happy. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 23, 2007 10:52 AM EDT |
This may seem an academic argument, but when there were rumours of KDE porting to run on the Windows kernel, it didn't seem all that far fetched. Don't ask me _why_, it wasn't me who thought of it. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 23, 2007 10:56 AM EDT |
The key to Firefox, OpenOffice and the GIMP's success is that they are available on multiple platforms. KDE is such a rich collection of applications, as well as a desktop environment that if it did run over Windows, it would a) make another giant example of free, open-source software wildly popular and b) give its users that much more reason to leave Windows and Mac OS behind for Linux or BSD. I've heard that you can, or will be able to run KDE over Mac OS X, too. |
| number6x Aug 23, 2007 11:05 AM EDT |
Microsoft's Services For Unix (formerly Interix, formerly OpenNT) also shipped with many GNU tools. So you could make Windows NT into Windows gNuT with product completely sold by MS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix |
| Abe Aug 23, 2007 11:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:if it did run over Windows ... I've heard that you can, or will be able to run KDE over Mac OS X, too. I believe KDE 4 will be available on Windows. See these links http://www.kdelibs.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://qtwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/index.php I also believe that Qt 4.x is available for Windows under the GPL. Quoting:So you could make Windows NT into Windows gNuT with product completely sold by MS! Purchased by MS to be contained or/and destroyed, what else! |
| jezuch Aug 23, 2007 3:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:KDE is such a rich collection of applications, as well as a desktop environment that if it did run over Windows, ...I could run something usable on my Windows computer at work! |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 23, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
Doesn't the current version already sorta work in Cygwin? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!