Linux: What`s yours called


Vitel

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
560
Website
vminko.org
Alerino said:
Dead1nside said:
I thought they said something about getting 10% for free, although the battery's are still rated at 4000mAh?

that's what his site says, http://www.openpandora.ca/ last line
- Runs on the Linux operating system (2.6.x)
There is no such thing as 'the Linux operating system'. Linux is just a kernel. The whole OS is called GNU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vitel said:
There is no such thing as 'the Linux operating system'. Linux is just a kernel. The whole OS is called GNU.

There's no real definition for what "OS" means, for many people it really is just a kernel. For many other people it's certainly not limited to kernel + the various pieces of system software GNU provides, as is implied by "GNU/Linux." Maybe someone might consider the operating system to be the distribution. At any rate, I don't consider "GNU/Linux" to be a very official name and it has always felt to me like more of the usual viral mentality behind the FSF people. Or bitterness over GNU Hurd never becoming a success.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vitel said:
There is no such thing as 'the Linux operating system'. Linux is just a kernel. The whole OS is called GNU.
That is certainly what Richard Stallman would tell you.

Many other people would tell you that "GNU" is a toolset that is something that runs on the "Linux Operating System".

Additionally, some other people might tell you that both the "GNU toolset" and the "Linux Kernel" are components of "distributions" like Debian or Ubuntu, and that "Operating system" is a term with no real meaning used only by non-technical types.


Personally, when one of these people tries to tell me something along these lines I roll my eyes as hard as I can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OS is what it is when everything gets wrapped up.

So Ubuntu = OS, Windows XP = OS, OSX 10.6 = OS.

The kernel is a huge part of an OS, as is everything running underneath - but neither makes a complete OS. Neither is usable by itself.
 
Yeah, I would say X is a good chunk of the OS too (if you use it). Anything that interfaces with the hardware is basically part of the operating system if you ask me. The O.S. is basically modular.
Edit: Since the kernel is usually the lowest common denominator, it serves as a nice reference point.
 
There's no real definition for what "OS" means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux
"This article is about operating systems that use the Linux kernel. For the kernel itself, see Linux kernel."

for many people it really is just a kernel.
They are wrong and incompetent.
 
Alerino said:
question: what OS do you use?

Person 1: Windows XP!
Person 2: err.. it's linux... err... no, it's a linux kernel, err, hmmm, but there's something called distribution, aka, distro, it's like a shell for the kernel, its name is Ubuntu, you know, it's an african word that stands for "humanity towards others". It's linux for human beings! But hey, don't ask me why they use animals as mascots, i don't know... Also, you can choose between Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, UbuntuStudio... and you have Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Matchbox, E17, and others to have as desktop environments, isn't that cool?? But it is linux, ok???

I use the Gentoo (for example) distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - that's the correct answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vitel said:
I use the Gentoo (for example) distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - that's the correct answer.
A bunch of the O.S. is likely neither GNU software nor part of Linux though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vitel said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux
"This article is about operating systems that use the Linux kernel. For the kernel itself, see Linux kernel."

Most of the defense of "GNU/Linux" and Stallman's definitions of words like "operating system" and "freedom" comes from either GNU themselves or GNU supporters - hardly NPOV. Wikipedia on its own is not considered a very reliable source, especially on contentious issues - although in this case I don't think it's really preventing itself as authoritative.

They are wrong and incompetent.

Ignorance has little to do with most kinds of competence. What exactly are you suggesting these people are incompetent at?

I would like to know your source of authority for considering the definition of "operating system" to be the one Stallman prescribes. See any number of "operating systems" courses taught at universities, and you will find they are almost exclusively about kernel operation and design. They are typically not about compilers, toolchains, editors, libraries, or even shells. Stallman consider an "operating system" to consist of software that is useful to a wide audience, but that reckoning is itself subjective and therefore unsuitable for definition. As far as I'm concerned, an operating system need only contain the minimal infrastructure to allow a user to launch non-embedded software programs, perhaps simultaneously. All that's necessary for this is a kernel and at most a shell.

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of GNU, but I think that the GNU project is out of touch with exactly is important. They like to play up the amount of GNU code Linux distributions contain, but just because GNU has all sorts of projects under its wings that are easy to get into distros doesn't mean that this is the software that can be considered "most useful." I would say that for the typical end user experience, not a lot of GNU software is really even coming into the picture. The Linux kernel will be at the core of operation, with a window server such as X11, and a window manager - this may be GNOME, but it may also very well not be (as on Pandora). The common programs from here are more likely to be those such as Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin, Open Office, media players such as mplayer and Audacious (okay, just using two examples), Windows programs through WINE, various games, and so on. In other words, it's connectivity (internet clients), productivity (word processing and design), entertainment, and gaming that people care about in a software system, and most GNU software is not at the forefront of this. I would say that the only major exception that feels very necessarily central in the Linux experience is glibc, which is also far from exclusive on say, embedded platforms (there's ucLibc, newlib.. often deployed on embedded Linux).

GNU's role today is most prominent in developing software, which is essential but disconnected from the end user experience. If anything, being able to call Windows an operating system divorces the requirement of many of the functionalities GNU believes an operating system must have. I understand that this is the "Unix model", but that's hardly an all encompassing thing either, and you can very much have a POSIX system without having the level of system software GNU presents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruh roh, I hope this wifi / e-peen thread isn't heading into FOSS territory. There aren't enough kittens in the world.

[edit] Oh crap, I could not have been ninja'd more brutally. :lol:
 
Gruso said:
Ruh roh, I hope this wifi / e-peen thread isn't heading into FOSS territory. There aren't enough kittens in the world.

[edit] Oh crap, I could not have been ninja'd more brutally. :lol:

It's not technically about FOSS yet, but we'll see where the day takes me ;D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sphinxter said:
Deep meaningful open-penis waving discussions like these remind me why arguing on gp32x is like running in the Special Olympics.

What place did you come in :-O
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sphinxter said:
Deep meaningful open-penis waving discussions like these remind me why arguing on gp32x is like running in the Special Olympics.
ROFL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheesh, I was curious where this GNU/Linux thing originates and I came across this:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
Is it just me, or does he not come across very well at all in this article?
 
*ignores Sphinxter like usual*

Seriously not getting how talking about "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" has anything to do with FOSS. Aside from that they're both about Richard Stallman being Richard Stallman.

crade said:
Sheesh, I was curious where this GNU/Linux thing originates and I came across this:
http://www.gnu.org/g...-linux-faq.html
Is it just me, or does he not come across very well at all in this article?

Haha, is this the first time you've read something from FSF?

"It is possible to make a system that uses Linux as the kernel but is not based on GNU. I'm told there are small systems, used for embedded development, that include Linux but not the GNU system."

Yeah, like this one small embedded Linux that doesn't include GNU, called Android.

"In the small embedded systems, Linux may be most of the system; perhaps “Linux systems” is the right name for them. "

So basically, if the userland software doesn't have GNU he doesn't care if you just call the whole thing Linux, cool ;)

Me, I work with embedded Linux a lot (Pandora is actually not really embedded by my definitions though) so this stuff is pretty relevant to me.

Check this site out:

http://en.windows7sins.org/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exophase said:
Haha, is this the first time you've read something from FSF?

I have read FSF articles before (and linux users bashing windows never surprises me), I even write GPL software,
but that GNU/Linux one still took me by surprise. He really should redo that article.. It comes across really badly I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
crade said:
(and linux users bashing windows never surprises me)
There are many of us Linux users who simply roll our eyes at those types, though, and just get on with things. Please don't forget about us. :lol:

It is a grievance of mine that legitimate criticisms I have may get lumped in with the knee-jerk rantings of those sorts, just because I happen to use Linux. It's annoying. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top