Quote:
By the way, you didn't answer to my question. So which one is more Linux to you: Slackware running on top of my non Linux kernel or AIX running on top of Linux kernel ? |
Quote:
Well I would have to try out AIX, I have not used it at all, so I don't know what makes it so speical. So I will say Slackware with no Linux kernel. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am interested to hear how you feel the Linux kernel was ever "used for Minix", and how GNU software and licenses were not a part of Linux development. It is quite obvious that Linus used GNU software to develop the Linux kernel on a Minix system and ran GNU software with the very first version of the Linux kernel. Linus in fact provided the kernel GNU lacked. |
Quote:
From your own source. http://www.abc.se/~m9339/linux/linux...uxnews03a.html "So somewhere around March-91, I had a 386 system running Minix-386, and I was able to install awb's gcc-1.37.1 port. After that, I was able to port bash to the resulting mess, and things looked a bit better. I also spent my time generally fooling around (porting gcc-1.40 and various other programs), and kept on learning about the 386 while doing so (writing small boot-disks that would set up a protected mode environment and print out various inane messages). I had noticed by that time that Minix wasn't enough even with the 386 patches (various troublesome problems: no job control, ugly memory management, no fpu support etc). So I slowly started to try to make something out of my protected mode trials, and the result is Linux." So as you can see the whole reason why Linus made Linux is the first place was because he didn't like the way MINIX did things and started to slowly apply patches until he desided to make his own, so essentially the patches are the work of Linux's is progress because those patches are were what made MINIX to his liking, but he wanted more.. so he begin writing a kernel with the features and functions able to support GNU software. So now that we have this fixed up stop ignoring the facts and replacing them with your own version. |
Quote:
Layers can be replaced provided the interfaces between them are known. What makes a (Gnu/)Linux distribution special isn't that much the hardware (a Linux distro is still the same one when running on virtualized H/W with VMware, Xen, ...) and is less the kernel than the userland layer, especially for end users. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me go further: which one will you choose as being "more Linux" ? - Slackware (or Ubuntu or whatever) running on a non Linux kernel - Windows userland running on top of a Linux kernel. Quote:
|
Quote:
What your forgetting is without Linux's ways of doing things you don't have an OS, without the interfaces to the hardware and the way Linux itself handles memory you aren't looking at Linux anymore it will be an entirely different breed, Linux does things the Linux way, the only way your going to get close to the same feel is by looking at the Linux code and rewriting it so it looks like you didn't copy and paste the code directly. For example Sun's OS feels nothing like the Linux kernel, it sure has a Unix like way and feel of doing things, but I can tell just by running stuff on it, this it's not a Linux kernel, especially 2.6.x series! The Linux kernel behaves like no other, it's unique in that way. It's features, and support are really untouchable when it comes to anything else, yes other kernels have better ways to do things, but look at how much the kernel supports, all the protocols, file systems, hardware, virtual hardware and interfaces... there is no other kernel that remotely has those features combined with the amount of support, not only does Linux almost run on anything but it runs gracefully on almost everything. The end users in this mean nothing, because end users don't care about what is what, all they care about is if it works or not. So they mean nothing they are totally erelvent to this convo. That being said even when VMware is in place or Xen, you still need a kernel, without it your pty's don't exist therefore you don't have a command prompt to work with and if you don't have that you can't execute any commands at all. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you flight in a Boeing or Airbus plane, do you care if the engines are Rolls-Royce or Pratt & Whitney or Snecma or whatever ? Yes the engines are extremely important but they are replaceable. A plane isn't named after it's engine brand. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most software can be compiled for *BSD as well. inserting a BSD kernel makes it *BSD. Software like blackbox and OO.o is available for Windows as well. Inserting a NT kernel makes it Windows. It might look the same for the end user but technically it's very different. So this is not my choice. About Windows userland apps... Are you talking about apps like Word and IE? That I can run on Linux allready through Wine and that doesn't make my Linux installment less Linux if you ask me. Running stuff like Explorer is in my opinion still Linux because: No DRM, same Linux drivers, same EXT*/ReiserFS filesystem, UNIX-like... If I really have to make a choice between the two, I have to choose Linux+Win userland apps over NT/*BSD+GNU. Have I awnsered your tricky question correctly? :P EDIT: typo |
Quote:
-- PS: i would say like this orignally --> YEAH, but STILL GNU make the kernel run. :) |
Quote:
Allthough the commandline is something that should be in every PC OS, it is mostly the GUI that makes the Linux+GNU setup alive. Can you imagine a PC without a word processor, graphical browser (LQ.org!), etc. in this age? EDIT: Technically your statement is incorrect but from a user perspective you're right. |
Quote:
when i want to use GUI or such a thing you have mentioned, i use winxp, BUT, winxp doesn't cover everything, all style is different, when i want such a style, i use lfs, plan9 and try to see the source of gcc, binutils, kernel, etc etc. It's mood. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
it is a kernel which anyone can work on, and works almost everywhere, you won't find another like it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, calm down!
Look, people are going to call it "linux" no matter what, because it's just so much easier to say "linux" than "GNU/Linux". It's not like people are conspiring to hide the existence of GNU and give all the credit to Linus Torvalds. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 PM. |