Linux: What`s yours called

[Letalis Sonus]

Windows = both, because windows is both the OS's name and the kernel itself

How did you got that idea? "Windows" is a desktop environment for MS-DOS, calling it "Windows" instead of "Windows XP" and the alike is even worse than just saying "Linux"

BTW, Win7 is actually using a NT 7 kernel (hence the name), they just decided to tag it with a lower version number because they noticed too many software developers were too shortsighted to get the idea that the next Windows OS would actually increase that version number, resulting in many broken programs that needed to check that number to be Vista compatible.

 

[zevdawg]

question: what OS do you use?

Person 1: Windows XP!
Person 2: (cut) ... 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...

Don't ask about the mascots, because furries might start using it too h34r:

Definitions of operating system on the Web:

* (computer science) software that controls the execution of computer programs and may provide various services
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* The THE multiprogramming system was a computer operating system designed by a team led by Edsger W. Dijkstra, described in monographs in 1965-66 ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THE_operating_system

* An operating system (OS) is an interface between hardware and user which is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer that acts as a host for computing applications run on the machine. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

* The Linux kernel is an operating system kernel used by the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(operating_system)_Linux

* Software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, CPU time, disk space, and input and output devices
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/operating_system

* A series of computer programs which control the operation of the computer itself. Application programs such as GIS software run under an operating system. Examples of operating systems include MS Windows 95, MS Windows NT, UNIX, VMS, DOS and OS/2.
www.digimap.gg/glossary

* Program (a set of multiple programs) which enables basic communication within the computer. Without an OS, the computer is useless. ...
www.adminxp.com/begin/index.php

* software that controls and manages hardware and basic system operations for a computer. The operating system loads programs into the computer's memory, runs these programs, and manages peripherals like disks and printers.
www.iolo.com/labs/Glossary.aspx

* The operating system facilitates communication between the hardware (the PDA) and the software.
www.npcentral.net/pda/pdaterms.shtml

* Software controlling the overall operation of a multipurpose computer system, including such tasks as memory allocation, input and output distribution, interrupt processing, and job scheduling.
www.satech.com/glosofmemter.html

* System that consists of several programs that help the computer manage its own resources, such as manipulating files, running programs and controlling the keyboard and screen.
www.tyner.com/glossary.htm

* The software that manages the hardware and software interface of a computer.
www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/tapuser/gloss.html

* The most important program run on a computer because it manages all the other programs. Operating systems perform basic tasks, such as recognizing input from the keyboard, sending output to the display screen, keeping track of files and directories on the disk, and controlling peripheral devices ...
www.iscfr21.it/21cfr_glossary.html

* The foundation software of a machine; that which schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user between applications.
www.portlandonline.com/Auditor/Index.cfm

* Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition, Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Microsoft Windows NT, Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows Server 2003
www.fixya.com/recommendations/p13157-human_concepts_orgplus_5_standard_op5f5

 

[WizardStan]

BTW, Win7 is actually using a NT 7 kernel (hence the name), they just decided to tag it with a lower version number because they noticed too many software developers were too shortsighted to get the idea that the next Windows OS would actually increase that version number, resulting in many broken programs that needed to check that number to be Vista compatible.

The same thing occurred with Win95. Officially version 4, but under the hood it would return 3.99 because of some programs that wanted to make sure you were running version 3, not at least version 3. Microsoft has done a lot of things to break their own OS in order to maintain compatibility, including leaving in known bugs, or putting unintended and unfortunate side effects into the standard. On one hand, it's a good thing: if a program someone used to use suddenly stops working they're first stop of complaint is going to be the OS, for the very reason that the average person says "that was Windows, this is Windows, it is all Windows, and it should work!" Even though it's the programs fault for relying on undocumented features, bugs, or just plain wrong, that usually doesn't get taken care of. The company has already made their money, they'll make more when they release their "Vista compatible" version or whatever, and blame Microsoft for changing things.
On the other hand, it's very bad, because Windows continues to include code and broken standards that at the least make some things confusing, at worst makes things unstable or bloated. An MS developer friend once confided that he had had to write the same function three times, carefully checking the context for each call at (un)reasonable delay, to decide whether it should return the Win3.1/95 value, the Win98 value, or the new WinME value.

 

[pder]

RMS is to open software as Jerry Falwell is to religion.

What has RMS has done so terrible to be compared to that vile human being?

You are comparing an advocate of free software to someone that has made this statement:

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' --on 9/11 attacks

 

[Vitel]

2. Lie is still a lie even if millions believe in it. (c) Leo Tolstoy

One man's opinion does not equal fact. (c) WizardStan

Wrong when this man's opinion is true.

A name is not a lie, it's an accepted convention. ... the fact that Linux is clearly named after Linus Torvalds is irrelevant, and the fact that it was the name of the kernel is also irrelevant.

What an absurd idea. Man's name is not changed even if most people call him by an alias. And Linux still _is_ the name of the kernel.

 

[Vitel]

What has RMS has done so terrible to be compared to that vile human being?

He brought freedom to lots of computers. What else can be so terrible?

 

[Exophase]

Wrong when this man's opinion is true.

An opinion, by definition, does not contain truth value.

What an absurd idea. Man's name is not changed even if most people call him by an alias. And Linux still _is_ the name of the kernel.

You know, it'd be nice if you wouldn't take everything I say, snip it up, and respond with "that's absurd" without much of a rationale behind it. There's no reason why Linux can't refer to both the kernel and more than the kernel, likewise there's no reason why a kernel can't be an operating system (if you look at all of the definitions zevdawg posted you'll see that it's in fact the most common); the fact is, operating system is a contentious term that does not have a rigidly defined (much less rigidly agreed upon) meaning.

If most people call a man by an alias then that's his "name" in another regard. Who is to say that "Linux" is not merely an alias?

Incidentally, forks of GPLed often receive unique names despite contributing much less than their predecessors. The GPL doesn't discourage this.

Yes, in response to your arguments regarding the importance of names let's all take a moment to bask in the irony that is "GNU Icecat", with more of an emphasis on the "adoption" into GNU than the forced rebranding.

 

[moxie]

RMS is to open software as Jerry Falwell is to religion.

What has RMS has done so terrible to be compared to that vile human being?

You are comparing an advocate of free software to someone that has made this statement:

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' --on 9/11 attacks

Try again. There clue is in "X is to Y as W is to S"

Or like this: Falwell (and his ilk) is a problem for most religious believers (there are, of course, similar nutjobs in other religions). He makes well publicised statements in which he speaks utter garbage, yet claims to speak for the whole group. He also claims right of definition - Falwell wants to define what is the true expression of christianity, what is the correct opininon on abortion or homosexuality, and so on. Normal christians always have to answer to the ridiculous and frankly evil position of these clowns, even though they ar as repellent to them as to everyone else.

RMS claims right of definition. RMS claims to speak for the True movement of free software, and claims rights to define what is and isn't free, and what is and isn't correct behaviour. And RMS makes public ridiculous statements, in a way that forces every sane person in the free software world hedge their commitments with "Oh, yes, I develop free software - Mind you, I'm not a nutjob!"

RMS could have brought freedom to a lot of computers. Instead, he became a zealot nutjob, and is nowadays used as FUD by non-free developers: "Well, you consider useing free software? Ok, let me read you some statements by one of the leading Free Software proponents..." He is a hindrance to wider acceptance of free software these days.

 

[Vitel]

Wrong when this man's opinion is true.

An opinion, by definition, does not contain truth value.

It does when it asserts the truth value.

there's no reason why a kernel can't be an operating system (if you look at all of the definitions zevdawg posted you'll see that it's in fact the most common)

Are you trying to say that a kernel is an operating system in the common case? This is kinda silly.

operating system is a contentious term that does not have a rigidly defined (much less rigidly agreed upon) meaning.

True, but it's definitely not equal to the term 'kernel'.

If most people call a man by an alias then that's his "name" in another regard.

No, it does not.

Who is to say that "Linux" is not merely an alias?

It's a person who's called by wrong alias in general and GNU developers in particular.

 

[Exophase]

It does when it asserts the truth value.

No, then it's not an "opinion", it's a "fact."

Are you trying to say that a kernel is an operating system in the common case? This is kinda silly.

What's the "common case"? Operating system is term of technical and field-specific origin that has gained a manner of very loose, ad-hoc colloquial meaning over the years - given that rms is anything but supporting of ad-hoc colloquial meaning (or we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place) then I wonder what you're getting at. In technical context "operating system" is usually used to describe the functions you attribute to "kernel."

True, but it's definitely not equal to the term 'kernel'.

Seriously, did you even read zevdawg's post? Because almost all of the given definitions for "operating system" are limited to the functionality you attribute to a kernel (or at the very least, functionality easily provided by the Linux kernel)

No, it does not.

Good god, I don't know what it is with you and demanding your limited definitions.

Here's one definition:

'a language unit by which a person or thing is known; "his name really is George Washington"; "those are two names for the same thing"'

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dname&ei=EkPDS8jxEsP88Ab61LCFCQ&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CBsQpAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNFllCxZwE1myPKuceeMB1I0LT8WBw

Seriously, maybe go spend some time arguing with a dictionary face to face, since that's what you seem intent on doing over and over again.

It's a person who's called by wrong alias in general and GNU developers in particular.

Right, we're back to an alias being "wrong"...

Okay, yeah, I'm sure I'm just frustrating everyone else by even continuing this. I'm out. You are way too caught up in your absolutes and perceptions to have a reasonable discussion about this.

 

[Vitel]

No, then it's not an "opinion", it's a "fact."

Opinion can be a fact. For example, "IMHO I live on the Earth". That's my opinion and that's a fact.

In technical context "operating system" is usually used to describe the functions you attribute to "kernel."

Some of the functions - yes, of course. But not all of them.

(or at the very least, functionality easily provided by the Linux kernel)

Yep, like a user interface, for example. But I'm afraid most GUI developers will rather die than develop a new version of their programs right on the kernel.

Here's one definition:

Hmmm yes, you are right. I think this word is not a correct translation of the term I meant, because the word 'alias' is also suitable for this definition.

Okay, yeah, I'm sure I'm just frustrating everyone else by even continuing this. I'm out. You are way too caught up in your absolutes and perceptions to have a reasonable discussion about this.

I hope our discussion was not useless. Al least we paid some attention to this question.

 

[darionapole]

RMS isn't a hindrance for FOSS adoption. people have brain don't they? well if you use your brain you know that Free Software has a filosophy behind, and that Open Source is just that. Then KNOWING that, you can call it whatever you want, but u know what you're talking about.

tell me one thing, u choise a car for it's name, or for what you see the car has and is capable of?
same with foss, you don't use foss just because it's foss, u use it because it more convenient for you.

using both FOSS and OSS, you give 1 and recieve 10. Using propietary software you pay 100 and recieve half. RMS only says that if we want to respect our own freedom we must use foss because if we don't we are giving away our freedom to big software companies (or the software developer)

 

[mahousaru]

RMS isn't a hindrance for FOSS adoption. people have brain don't they? well if you use your brain you know that Free Software has a filosophy behind, and that Open Source is just that. Then KNOWING that, you can call it whatever you want, but u know what you're talking about.

tell me one thing, u choise a car for it's name, or for what you see the car has and is capable of?
same with foss, you don't use foss just because it's foss, u use it because it more convenient for you.

using both FOSS and OSS, you give 1 and recieve 10. Using propietary software you pay 100 and recieve half. RMS only says that if we want to respect our own freedom we must use foss because if we don't we are giving away our freedom to big software companies (or the software developer)

I've gone head to head with some proprietary solution sellers and they play hard ball.

They do actually use quotes from FSF to convince the upper management that they will get locked into a viral situation where all their products must be made opened or given away for free.

Techies might be able to differentiate between bollocks and truth, but the upper management who hold the purse strings get distracted by words such as platinum support from x blue chip company and of course the dreaded "discount".

 

[Aninhumer]

When it comes to the meaning of words, "A million people can't be wrong" is totally applicable.
If a large number of people use and understand a specific word to discuss something, that word means whatever they want it to. Even if it isn't the "proper" word.

However, even if we take the premise that the Linux kernel cannot be considered an Operating System on its own (highly debatable), it still does not follow that the "proper" name would be "GNU/Linux", as quite clearly there is a large variety of software from a multitude of other sources that make up the system.

A more accurate term that one could consider the "proper name" would be "A Linux based system".
The only reason to use the term "GNU/Linux" is in order that the GNU project be acknowledged, which you may personally consider a worthwhile end, but is NOT a basis to enforce the use of this term by others.

 

[mahousaru]

When it comes to the meaning of words, "A million people can't be wrong" is totally applicable.
If a large number of people use and understand a specific word to discuss something, that word means whatever they want it to. Even if it isn't the "proper" word.

However, even if we take the premise that the Linux kernel cannot be considered an Operating System on its own (highly debatable), it still does not follow that the "proper" name would be "GNU/Linux", as quite clearly there is a large variety of software from a multitude of other sources that make up the system.

A more accurate term that one could consider the "proper name" would be "A Linux based system".
The only reason to use the term "GNU/Linux" is in order that the GNU project be acknowledged, which you may personally consider a worthwhile end, but is NOT a basis to enforce the use of this term by others.

How about checking with all the major distros? Do they use Gnu in their naming?

Red Hat Gnu Linux <- Nope
OpenSuSE Gnu Linux <- Nope
Ubuntu Gnu Linux <- Nope
Mandriva Gnu Linux <- Nope
Arch Gnu Linux <- Nope
Debian Gnu Linux <- Yes it does!
LinuNA <- snigger

 

[mali]

Someone please port WinCE to Pandora.

 

[crade]

Someone please port WinCE to Pandora.

Yeah I'll get right on that for you.

 

[VRAndy]

How about checking with all the major distros? Do they use Gnu in their naming?

Red Hat Gnu Linux <- Nope
OpenSuSE Gnu Linux <- Nope
Ubuntu Gnu Linux <- Nope
Mandriva Gnu Linux <- Nope
Arch Gnu Linux <- Nope
Debian Gnu Linux <- Yes it does!
LinuNA <- snigger

Also :

Gentoo GNU Linux <-- Nope
Xandros GNU Linux <-- Nope
Fedora GNU Linux <-- Nope

Angstrom seems to sidestep this problem by not having "Linux" in the full name of the distribution.

 

[paddy]

Thought i better put my penny worth in ,i call my non microsoft windows OS ,GNU-Linux Ubuntu as it is a part of the GNU,in everyday life i call it, Linux as most of my friends and family don't even know what linux is ,yes they don't shock horror ,so i keep it basic for them ,if they ever take anymore interest i would tell them more ,needless to say i would also use the distro name in general ,Ubuntu or what ever distro i be using at that time.

 

[moxie]

RMS isn't a hindrance for FOSS adoption. people have brain don't they?

Nope. The people who needs to be convinced for FOSS adoption to happen on a larger scale doesn't. Not in the way you and I would reckon, anyway.

tell me one thing, u choise a car for it's name, or for what you see the car has and is capable of?
same with foss, you don't use foss just because it's foss, u use it because it more convenient for you.

Yes, if you can get as far as to actually demonstrate that it is more convenient. We, being techie types, read, try, compare and choose, no matter whether it is cars, OSes or gadgets. However, those that must be convinced of the advantages of open software are Ordinary People(tm). Middle-aged ordinary people of the kinda sorta accountant-y type at that.

How many people of that group do you know who say things like "I've always driven a Ford. There is no need to waste time on other cars when I know this works" or "I have this BMW. Sure it cost a lot of money, but money means quality"?

using both FOSS and OSS, you give 1 and recieve 10. Using propietary software you pay 100 and recieve half. RMS only says that if we want to respect our own freedom we must use foss because if we don't we are giving away our freedom to big software companies (or the software developer)

Yes, and he says it in such a way that he gets applause and adulation from his crowd of believers, who consider him to be radical and hardline and upstanding for The One Right Thing. However, outside that crowd, the same way of expressing things is revolting in its fanaticism. Remember: The techies are not the problem here. The problem are the people who sit on the monies. And that people are balding, middle age, upper middle class accountants and department bosses, who are conservative, slightly afraid of change, deathly afraid of making a decision that will jeopardise their careers. And they believe that money equals quality.

It is the same people that IBM targeted a long time ago with the line "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" or how it was formulated. Stability, security, not rocking the boat.

Now, RMS is not stupid. He knows these things as well. If he had wanted, truly wanted, to promote the acceptance of free software, he could have taken this in account and targeted the same kind of people. He could have toned down the elitism and the virality and the absolute dedication, and pointed at things like the similarity of the OSS development model to the academic peer review model (and its association with carefulness and proper process) or that the openness of the code means that anybody anywhere can work at supporting said code - No more risk if the (commercial) developer goes inte liquidation or drops support or whatever.

But he choose fan adulation over FOSS acceptance.

I've gone head to head with some proprietary solution sellers and they play hard ball.

They do actually use quotes from FSF to convince the upper management that they will get locked into a viral situation where all their products must be made opened or given away for free.

Techies might be able to differentiate between bollocks and truth, but the upper management who hold the purse strings get distracted by words such as platinum support from x blue chip company and of course the dreaded "discount".

^^this.