Well if Red Hat says then it must be true - They never lie. All hail our corporate overlords! PRAISE IBM.


Wait.... does Red Hat even still exist?

1 members found this post helpful.

Well, last I checked, Slackware is not Redhat based, and Slackware without the Linux kernel is arguably not Linux at all.
Also, Redhat engineers do know the difference between the kernel and the OS.
This has always been in plain sight, have you seen how they've conveniently used the term "OS kernel" in dbus-uuidgen manual?
Which, BTW, is very quick to offer online resources and declare directives, without providing any substantial information at all.
Seriously, "bad things happening" is not very specific, it's more like FUD designed to scare people.

When marav provided a link to the Two Ronnies skit, my initial guess was that he was linking to this classic Monty Python argument sketch. If you enjoyed the Two Ronnies one, this might appeal, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k

1 members found this post helpful.

Not just for you, but everyone... The Slackware Linux Project

You are confused:
If there was a problem with the definition, it would be corrected or there would be consequences. I use RedHad as organisation with more reach/impact than private person. Validity of this definition is confirmded by IBM.
The fact that IBM bought RedHat does not matter,this is still RedHat. I never heard about Fiat Wrangler even though Chrysler was bought up by Fiat.

Also did you hear about windows without windows kernel or OS X without kernel or BSD without kernel and so on.

From the link posted above (https://docs.slackware.com/slackware:slackware)
.
This just summs it up this absurd crusade about linux being kernel only. Unless you find exact definition given by Linus you are wrong.

You're not the first RHCE who tried to make Slackware compliant to RH cert by force.
It's futile because of how transparently it's developed. And not all Slackware users want to be subordinate to RHCE.

Also, you should start with google android, if you want to argue about Linux being the OS.

Even if the call it Slackware GNU/KDE/GNOME/REDHAT/MICROSOFT/HP/IBM/Linux they will not give a damn about reading the HOW-TO's and you know this is the truth.

2 members found this post helpful.

I wonder how did you reach your conclusion. I said one thing and you read something completely diffrerent. You talk complete nonsense.

Your hypocrisy is incredible, first you accuse others of being 'stuck in the past' and right after that you're talking about some supposed 'crusade'.
Not only that, but you recommend to "Call RedHat and explain that they are wrong", while the very existence of android proves them wrong without any doubt.
You're either trolling, or wasted. Possibly both.

Coming orderly to a obsolete thread/name/discussion:

I've read the Linux HOWTOs, before i used Slackware, and then once on Slackware, then some time over again...

I am quite thankful for the HOWTOs to be there, moreover i would even like the collection to continue growing.

Am I silly to expect some other more or less cultural sets become part of the collection too (the witty UNIX koans for instance)

Regarding the GNU/Linux controversy, there would likely be no OS without the (free to use) GNU tool chain, while there where distros before/without the Linus' kernel.

I will risk to say (well, write actually ) there will be distros after the Linus' kernel as well

2 members found this post helpful.

This is taken from https://docs.slackware.com/slackware:slackware
Exactly the same definition of linux as operating system, not kernel.
Can you please provide Linus quotation stating otherwise or you just take it from your a.. and think that this is correct linux definition?

It does not matter if this is RH or Slackware. Linux is OS.
Not sure why you are bringing here framework as an argument. Android is based on linux but is not linux

Call it a framework or whatever, I couldn't care any less about the "Linux OS" definition, because:
Android's still the most popular OS in the world today, even if you don't personally consider it an OS.
For the exact same reason, I don't consider Slackware a "Linux OS". It's an OS, currently shipped with a Linux kernel.
If you can't accept that, well, it's not my problem, and I don't have to provide a damn thing, according to the license.

That's (back when I was on her frequently) why the most common answer to the newbs was RTFM or STFW.

2 members found this post helpful.

Ok, Slackware is on that page described as a "Linux operating system". It is also a fact that Tesla is an electric car. Both these statements are probably a shorter form of "Linux powered operating system" and "electric powered car". Nobody would claim that electricity is a car.

From https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/.../RELNOTES-0.01

regards Henrik

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't really care what's your definition. Problem started with correcting statement that Linux is OS. Because, as you are admitting, this is personal point of view, therefore don't correct it because someone considers linux as OS or has different personal view than yours in general. Not sure where hipocrisy came to play.
I used RH as example of well known commercial company. If there was an issue with their linux description, RH would not risk controversial from marketing point definition otherwise it would risk some sort controversy.
Never happened (controversy that is).
Last time I used RH was in late 90'. However I find funny when people are dissing RH because RH is contributing a lot including kernel that everybody uses by the way.

In general I find so called purists annoying.