Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:55:20 -0500 (EST) | | From | Speed Racer <> | | Subject | Re: Linux isn't an operating system |
| |
On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I learned to distinguish between an operating system and its kernel > while working at MIT, since before starting the GNU project. That is > why the GNU system is not the same as the GNU Hurd plus Mach. > > I was surprised to learn that some people consider "operating system" > to be synonymous with "kernel". But they have quoted textbooks, so > this usage seems to be well established.
I am surprised by this too. A number of people on this list, all of whom seem very well-educated, point to numerous academic textbooks (I've counted at least 3 so far), all of which describe an "operating system" as what we would generally call a "kernel". However, I think that all of us have at least passing familiarity with at least one other "operating system"; seeing as the PC and Macintosh are far and away the most popular (at least it appears that way to me), let's look at the "operating systems" for each of those:
PC's can use DOS/Win3.1, Win95 or WinNT. I've heard many people state that the first pair isn't an operating system; this seems to be based more in opinion than in any analysis of technical flaws. All three are operating systems, all of which include a kernel as well as some basic utilities (file management tools, disk management tools, a command line interpreter & a graphical front end to all of the above). There are a number of programs that are technically not essential to the operation of the computer, but you would be hard pressed to get any real work done without some basic ones. Macs have a similar configuration, except that there's no CLI and the GUI is built into the kernel (forgive me for the simplistic treatment). They too include some standard utilities. When I talk installing the Windows 95 operating system, I don't mean that I've put just the kernel on my machine; I mean that I've installed it and its ancillary management tools.
> The other usage, which distinguishes the two terms, is also well > established. Here's what the Feb 1966 issue of Linux Journal says, on > page 7, in answer to the question "What is Linux?" > > Linux itself is the kernel, the "core" of the operating system, > Most people use "Linux" to mean all of the software that goes along > with the kernel to make a usable operating system.
I should think everyone uses Linux to mean the whole OS (kernel + utils). When I say I run SunOS, BSDI & Irix, I certainly don't mean I just have the kernels. I have 3 individual setups, each of which works differently. > Many of the users of Linux have got their idea of the meaning of > "operating system" from there. That explanation distinguishes clearly > between the kernel and the whole collection of software you need to do > actual work, but it suggests calling them both "Linux". > > So it appears that "operating system" is ambiguous. It can mean the > whole collection of system software, or it can mean just the kernel. > This ambiguity probably tends to encourage confusion between those two > different entities.
It really shouldn't be ambiguous. I think everyone reading this knows the difference in meaning between "kernel" and "operating system"; let's not get bogged down in semantics, regardless of what some academics say. No matter what we call it, we should let "the Linux operating system" mean the kernel that manages the hardware & software tasks, as well as the tools that use the above through the kernel. > Most users who use Linux install whole collections of software, which > contain Linux. These collections include Slackware, Debian, > Plug-and-Play, RedHat, and so on. They are analogous to > non-Linux-based collections such as NetBSD, SunOS, HPUX, and Unix. We > can call such collections operating systems, or ready-to-use > self-sufficient software distributions, or some other term. Whatever > name we use, the difference between these collections and the kernel > is clear.
You make a good point here. The different distributions of Linux are somewhat like the different variants of Unix out there, in that every one is just different enough to be different. All the Linux distributions have a similar code base (Linus' source), as do all the Unix distributions (whether it be Berkeley or Bell based, it's all related). I feel we should simply use "operating system" to describe them all. Microsoft describes DOS, Win95 & WinNT as operating systems; as I mentioned before, all those utilities are included, just as they are with variants of Linux/Unix.
> I call these collections "Linux-based GNU systems" to help promote > unity and cooperation in the whole community. I hope some of you will > join me in doing this.
This is certainly a noble effort. I, for one, will continue to call it Linux, if only to save 4 or 5 syllables. However, I will not try to keep anyone else from calling it what they want. Moreover, I would encourage Linux developers to work with GNU/FSF developers (and vice versa) as best they can to promote Linux. The recent discussion of Linux libc vs. GNU libc has revealed some interesting issues, but we should work to resolve those issues, not fight about them.
My personal feeling towards GNU/FSF is that they should work at getting software released a bit faster; say it's a pre-alpha-undeveloped-you'd-be- crazy-to-use-this version if you want, but let people see it, touch it and hack at it. I don't mean FSF should work harder or faster; I know they are some of the hardest working people there are. I just mean that they shouldn't have to feel like their work is complete before they show it to anyone. Part of the lure of the latest Linux kernel, that you are as cutting-edge as can possibly be. Who knows why this is such a lure, but it is, so we might as well exploit it. Get people using the stuff more quickly and we can improve it more quickly as well.
shag
Judd Bourgeois shagboy@bluesky.net Finger for PGP public key There's a lost man with a bitter soul For only a moment did life make him whole And while he was, he thought he was invincible... Matthew Sweet, "Smog Moon"
|  |