Further interesting reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_movement

also
The GNU/Linux naming controversy.

Good ole wikipedia.

I take no sides on this one!

The FSF/OSI thing is another story and I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't some vast ideological differences out there... As for the other...

To quote linus... Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".

I'm with linus, esp where this has gone on long enough. We all accept the vast and invaluable work that RMS and many many others have done (GNU and not GNU) and credit is given where it's due, but I'll continue to call it linux.

I just gave the links for those who might be interested in what we're actually talking about. The whole thing sounds childish on reading the history of the conflict in an impartial manner.

I humbly accept that anybody can call it what they like as long as it remains the same.

Good to see you've nearly got it. You obviously have a minimum definition for (the drink) tea. If you were given just the water or just the tea leaves you wouldn't have tea. They have to be combined to qualify as the drink. Then you can add milk or sugar as required. The same with the kernel and GNU tools. You need both. Then you can add what else you like.

If its new hardware you upgrade the kernel, not the OS as you helpfully said. And as for the kernel containing the important OS systems, or the core of the OS, that means it's not all of the OS, right?

As I said before, there is a simple test. If the computer can't be used you haven't got an OS. So the kernel doesn't qualify.

That was the disagreement with you, you said the kernel was the OS, I maintain that as you can't use a computer with just a kernel it's not the OS.

So to reiterate my original post on this subject as you seem to be getting sidetracked:-

Linux is the kernel.
GNU/Linux is the OS.
SuSE etc. are distributions of the OS.

It would be confusing to say:-

Linux is the kernel.
Linux is the OS.
SuSE etc. are distributions of the OS.

Although Linux is the popular term for GNU/Linux, there is a need at times to differentiate between the kernel and the OS, e.g. when explaining to someone how Linux has evolved, or how a distribution is put together. Maybe you can see this, maybe you can't.

That's a bit egocentric! It's not about what you did or do, it's a generalisation.

"As I said before, there is a simple test. If the computer can't be used you haven't got an OS. So the kernel doesn't qualify."

By that definition, in the real world, as in getting on a forum like this, then my OS is Mandrake. I can't do anything really useful with this PC these days without a full GUI OS...

In reality you can use a minimal linux kernel with no GNU tools (it IS done NOW in embedded systems) and so it's an OS. You can run linux with GNU tools and it's also an OS. You can run mandrake and to use a PC in the modern world THAT is also an OS...

It's all a point of view, but seriously, if you can use linux in an embedded system without gnu and glibc, then it's an 'OS' in it's minimal form. You can then have an expanded 'OS' with more tools - like mandrake.

Now you can argue that it's not a real OS unless you have glibc and such, but there are plenty that will also argue that it's not an OS til you have a gui. You choose where you draw the line.

You did not say WHICH parts YOU choose to call the OS BTW? ie bash, libc, vi, ls , mv? /bin stuff, etc...

So, as I've said for years, it's a futile argument as different people will see it differently and want to call linux something else like gnu/mit/bsd/linux. It matters not...

Say hi to Richard for me...

Not at all, my definition was if it can't be used you haven't got an OS, not if it doesn't do what you want you haven't got an OS. Please don't change my definitions to suit your purpose.

No one is arguing any such thing as far as I am aware, at least not in this thread. But if it passes the test that I use to satisfy myself that it is an OS, then I will happily agree it is an OS.

However, I think you will find that even embedded Linux needs more than just a kernel.

I will repeat, you said the kernel was the OS. It is my contention that it is not.

I have told you how I concluded the kernel is not an OS, that is my test, for me.

If I wanted to know what parts were required for Linux (can I say Linux? Do you know if I mean the kernel or the OS?) to become an OS I could start with the kernel and keep adding bits till it worked, or probably looking it up on the web would be easier. I've got no intention of doing so though. If you want to know, you do it.

You may have been saying that for years, but it is not relevent to your assertion that the kernel is the OS.

It is simply an affirmation of what we all seem to be agreed on anyway, that the popular term for Linux is Linux.

If only... Richard, Linus et al are ignorant of my existance.

Well, I agree to the first part, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware and the like are for more experienced users, while Mandrake, SuSe, Lindows (now Linspire) are for beginners.

But the second part is not possible for just anyone. I'd love to develop applications for Linux (and I'm currently working on a Knoppix remastering for writers), but not everyone can just say: "Hey, I want something new for Linux. I'll develop it!

The developers are doing what he says, 'doing it themselves'. They're developing software and helping open source.

What's that nonsense about Gentoo? He never claimed to be 'hot shit' for using Gentoo. I'm sick and tired of people thinking Gentoo users are all braggers, flamers and all think they're 'better' than people who use other distros. It's a stupid cliché and false.
If you use Gentoo, don't make the cliché stronger!

Linspire might not be for everyone, but it's helping many people convert to Linux. It's as easy as Windows, and doesn't deserve to be called dog-shit. I wouldn't use it, but I'm quite sure it's okay.

I know this is the common perception, but it still irks me.

I am *not* a noob. But I run Mandrake Linux. Why? Because it "just works". I have tried RedHat/Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc., but was never happy with them. Mandrake is a breeze to manage, which makes it good for newbies, but it also lets me tweak to my heart's content, just like any "advanced" distro. The best of both worlds.

(Just to keep the record straight, I was administering UNIX SVR2 systems long before Linus even started to the University.... )

"I have told you how I concluded the kernel is not an OS, that is my test, for me."

And I have told you how I concluded the kernel could be the OS, or the distro could be the OS, depending on the perception and purposes of the user. It's not just me or you, rather EVERYBODY, and everybody is going to see it differently. And the only common denominator in all those possibilities is the linux kernel - ie it's the only thing that is contained in the non-GNU emdedded systems and the lean basic gnu/bsd/mit/etc/linux systems and the full 'real world' gui distro OS systems. The BIT of the equation that does the actual opperating of the system is the kernel and the rest is a shell. I personally have a clearly defined area of what is the OS but also at the same time a completely open view of what is the OS. It's the only way you really can see it as defining an OS these days is impossible anyway. Linux (the kernel) is the OS. Mandrake (the distro) is the OS. It's just a matter of context.

To test this, answer the question. Is windows XP an OS?

"If I wanted to know what parts were required for Linux (can I say Linux? Do you know if I mean the kernel or the OS?) to become an OS I could start with the kernel and keep adding bits till it worked, or probably looking it up on the web would be easier. I've got no intention of doing so though. If you want to know, you do it."

So you don't know or care what the OS actually is, but you are still saying it's GNU/linux... and only GNU/linux. I don't think you can really define that the OS is GNU/linux and only GNU/linux without knowing what components are actually used or needed to have a working system as the parts to make up that undefined working system may include various components outside GNU and linux... or a system could be constructed without gnu or linux. It's my contention that without any gnu it is still linux but without linux it's not linux.

So I suppose in reality you need to work out exactly what you define as the OS before you can really be sure what to call the OS

I'll go with the context and say that the OS these days is best defined as the distro. Mandrake Linux (or debian or FS or slack) is the only thing I (or anyone) can compare to the windows XP OS. Base linux or gnu/linux or gnu/bsd/mit/linux just won't cut it any more... And it hasn't since win 3.1...

Can you now see why this is a useless old argument... (I'll answer that already and say no, but come on back with some more stuff I can disagree with)

Yes. I have also been arround a while and I also use Mandrake. You use what works for the situation, and mandrake, like most distros, can fill just about ANY role and does it easily. Easy to manage, but also easy to tweak and mold into any shape you want...

I also have many copies of other OS's... Liked the Suse install I did the other day, it is quite good, but it was missing a couple of things I like about mandrake...

No, you simply stated that for you the kernel is the OS. You have also stated it is the major part of the OS and the core of the OS. Well, I agree it is part of the OS.

If you want to stick with your original assertion that the kernel is the OS, it would be interesting to see you sell it as such. "I have an OS here, you can't actually run a computer with it, but I call it an OS so it is one."??

Another common denominator - apart from the only one - with all these systems is that they rely on other software besides the kernel. It makes no difference where it comes from. GNU, BusyBox, doesn't matter, they are combined to make an operating system.

You have it clearly defined, but take a completely open view? Thats a neat trick. Your not a politician, are you?

You are assuming I have some knowledge of XP. I don't. However, Microsoft call it an OS, and I can't afford the lawyers to argue the toss with them. Lets stick to common ground.

Does Linus call the kernel an operating system?

*Sigh*, do you actually read the posts?

One more time for the forgetful...

And the same goes for the OS and the distribution. Have you not seen posts asking for help with Linux? The first response is what distribution are you using. It would be helpful if they knew the difference.

Telling people the OS is whatever they want it to be does not help them, or the people trying to help them.

I didn't define it. Someone else came up with it. And as you well know, I used it to refer to a system that does run with Linux and GNU tools. So any other system is irrelevant.

And how does this quote match your assertion that the kernel is the OS? Is that all you need to have a working system?

Presumably with clarity and open mindedness?

How about this: An operating system is software that will allow you to operate a computer. Does the kernel do this on its own? Or do you need to add more tools?

Except the distros all use the same operating system, thats why the term distribution was adopted.

And whats happened to the kernel now? Is this an example of open minded clarity? The kernel is the OS, the distro is the OS.

I can only assume that the term OS has no definition for you, but is just a generic term for software.

It is a shame all you do is disagree, you have a chance to explain how a piece of software that you can't interact with can be an operating system. I'm still hoping you will. But my hope is fading fast, even though you've had 15 years to think of something.

"No, you simply stated that for you the kernel is the OS. You have also stated it is the major part of the OS and the core of the OS. Well, I agree it is part of the OS."

But then you take the view that the ONLY other part of the definition of any linux OS is GNU. I take the view that the core is linux - the interface and operating layer that does all the opperating system work, like control the memory and filesystems (remember that OS is derived from Disk Operating System) - and many things run in combination with that to form an OS. It's not just GNU, it's a lot of things. So you either call it linux or you call it gnu/mit/bsd/etc/linux. These days, tho I think the 'real OS parts' are in the kernel due to my days with cp/m and dos and earlier, I tend to say the OS is Mandrake etc as that is more on parity with the other OS's out there like windows or Mac. It's a lot more than 'GNU/linux'...

The point is also that there was no linux OS until the linux kernel. There were just tools. I suppose linus could have used some other tools. If I built linux using Visual C++, would I call the the OS Visual C++/linux? Borland?Linux maybe? ANSI/linux? That would better show the history of the OS.

As for selling the OS... It's hard to sell anything less than a distro as and OS these days, so I guess the distro is indeed the OS. Anything less is for specialist uses only, and even then they are always more than just GNU. So what's the point here? Why is it only RMS is is supposed to get recognition on top of linux? If he wanted to be the big name in the free nix world he should have made sure we had hurd to work with a long long long time ago... It's all water under the bridge now...

"You have it clearly defined, but take a completely open view? Thats a neat trick. Your not a politician, are you?"

It's the reality of the situation. You are choosing to not define what you call the OS. You won't even say what tools or libs are the essential OS. The reality is the OS can be defined in many ways. Saying that Mandrake (for example) is the OS is just as valid in the appropriate context - mostly the best real world definition now...

"And the same goes for the OS and the distribution. Have you not seen posts asking for help with Linux? The first response is what distribution are you using. It would be helpful if they knew the difference."

Be a little real here. I have spent many years and many thousands of posts helping people with linux on various lists and forums over the years. In that situation the OS, for all practical purposes, IS the distro. It's not 'GNU/Linux. But from other viewpoints, linux is various skins and you can peel those back as you like to find an OS of sorts beneath. It will depend on the situation what you call the OS.

It's pretty simple really. The core is linux and the real OS is much more than just GNU/Linux. So you and others choose to take the middle road and call it just GNU/linux and ignore all the other parts of the complete OS. Fine. Your choice. Others choose to just call the OS by the core name (linux, hurd, bsd) or the full distro name... It's like trying to work out exactly a bay becomes the ocean. Pointless and open to interpretation. The bit you use is more than gnu/linux and the bit that does all the real interface work is really just in the kernel...

"I didn't define it. Someone else came up with it. And as you well know, I used it to refer to a system that does run with Linux and GNU tools. So any other system is irrelevant."

Yes, RMS came up with it. The reality remains that a linux OS is more than GNU tools. So you either call it linux or the full name that includes all the tools that make up the OS - or you choose to have a limitted version of the OS that is just linux and GNU... Kinda weird really... And still a totally pointles argument and naming convention.

"You are assuming I have some knowledge of XP. I don't. However, Microsoft call it an OS, and I can't afford the lawyers to argue the toss with them. Lets stick to common ground."

That's a cop out. You know full well that windows XP is an OS. It compares to Mandrake as an OS. It's just more integrated. These days an OS is a bit more than what we saw with pre .99 version linux... If we called linux by it's 'full and propper' name we'd be here all day.

"Does Linus call the kernel an operating system?"

Already covered. He doesn't care what people call it. He calls linux, linux. He has also been around this roundabout a few times...

"*Sigh*, do you actually read the posts?
One more time for the forgetful..."

I might say the same. You are putting just another arbitrary name on linux. You won't even define which tools and libs make up the OS. How can you then state exactly what to call this OS by this 'propper' name that shows the 'full history' of the OS if you don't even know which tools it is using to get this basic minimal illdefined point of useability.

I don't try to draw a line in the ocean. I call the OS Linux or Mandrake or whatever as context requires and accept that the OS is a lot more or less than that depending on how you look at it. In the end it's still a pointless exersize just as it's always been a pointless exersize. Does it matter that your OS is called mandrake or suse or debian. Of course not. It's totally pointless. You will call it whatever you need to call it as needed at the time. Trying to call it just GNU/Linux is a silly attempt to limit the history to the RMS and linus contribution only or something. Linux is a lot more than that. I suppose I could claim that my name should be defined in the name of the OS somewhere... And a few million others.

"And whats happened to the kernel now? Is this an example of open minded clarity? The kernel is the OS, the distro is the OS.
I can only assume that the term OS has no definition for you, but is just a generic term for software."

The term distro is used to keep the peace and help stop pointless threads like this I suppose. It doesn't always work. Linux, the kernel, OS, distro, is a sum of many parts and not easily labelled like a windows OS (tho you might argue what parts of win are really OS) so the reality of the situation is that the OS depends on anyone's point of view. This is simplified by calling the OS by the core name (linux, hurd, bsd) or the distro name... Calling the OS GNU/linux doesn't really cover it either way as it's just a subset and superset of linux depending on how you look at it.

Again just a pointless naming convention either way. The GNU/LInux is from RMS and only comes about because he missed the boat with the kernel. If RMS had made the kernel around 1991 and we were using it now, he would not use the term gnu/hurd, you can guarentee that...

"It is a shame all you do is disagree, you have a chance to explain how a piece of software that you can't interact with can be an operating system. I'm still hoping you will. But my hope is fading fast, even though you've had 15 years to think of something."

I think I've covered it all several times okay. It makes no difference. That is why I yawned earlier in the thread. You have a chance also to explain and clearly define what the OS is, but you don't (it's not easy to do, huh). I don't clearly define it as I know very well that you can't really clearly define it. It's a matter of perception. I suppose I could say it's a shame all you do is disagree, but what the heck does that mean in a situation that is all about perception and opinion.

It remains a pointless battle over a name that no longer has any meaning. Nobody cares what the GNU tools are. Who cares who Andrew Morton is, or greg or alan... Or Richard... It's an OS not a history lesson. You can go to wiki for the history lesson.

No I don't. Thats something you made up.

So its not just the kernel?

If you built an OS you could call it what you like. I don't see the relevance.


Especially if it wont work.

So its definitely not the kernel...

The point is to be able to differentiate between the kernel, the OS and the distribution. It is sometimes useful to call Linux GNU/Linux to differntiate Linux the OS from Linux the kernel. It is you who is making a religious crusade out of it. But this has all been explained before, more than once. The name exists. Live with it.

And as a matter of interest, how does GNU spell RMS??

The reality is you cant have it clearly defined and still take a completely open view.

As for trying to get me to define programs required for an OS, its just a cheap trick. An operating system is defined by its function, not what programs are used to build it.

From the Mandrake web site:
- Mandrakelinux is a friendly Linux Operating System

From the Slackware web site:
- The Official Release of Slackware Linux by Patrick Volkerding is an advanced Linux operating system ... the Slackware Linux Project has aimed at producing the most "UNIX-like" Linux distribution

It seems they dont agree with you.

So now we know the OS is not the kernel, and its not the distribution.

This restriction exists only in your head, not in the real world. And we all know almost everyone calls it Linux, so whats your point? Saying the kernel is the OS is not a naming convention, its a statement.

Its not a cop out. I don't know the archtecture of XP. I don't use it. Is XP an OS or a product that includes an OS? I dont know. Theres certainly an OS in there somewhere. Is the browser still part of the OS? Or has it been removed, meaning XP is more than just an OS? I cant answer these questions, so I dont.

Only if you have trouble typing.

Now THATS a cop out. He doesn't call the kernel an OS, he calls it the kernel. Calling the OS Linux is not the same as saying the kernel is the OS.

Its not an arbitary name, its a well known and accepted name, even if some people disagree with it.

And why are you trying to change this into a discussion on naming conventions? Have you changed your mind as to what constitutes an OS? There is no disagreement on what Linux is called, only on what is the kernel, the OS, and the distribution.


It seems to work well for everyone else:

- Linus supplies the kernel.
- Combine with GNU tools to get an OS.
- Mandrake supply a distribution of the Linux OS.

At least, this is how Mandrake see it. And Slackware. And SuSE. And...

I cant believe you find it difficult. But if you do, no matter.

Actually, you haven't covered it at all. All you've said is you can call anything the OS, which renders the term OS meaningless.

If you use the term OS how are we meant to know whether you mean the kernel or Mandrake? Surely even someone who has had an entrenched position on this for 15 years can see it could cause confusion, especially to a newbie.

There you go, wandering of topic again. Its not about what things are called, its about what things are.

p.s. I care what GNU tools are.

Amosf, ahh...

Why don't you guys take this off the board, say msn, yahoo,
ICQ, somewhere on IRC (or into another thread)? This is not
about controversy between Linux and WIndows or comparison
of OSes or Linux simplicity, but only about your guys opinions
on what what should be called ;}


Cheers,
Tink

Sorry...