Linux: Kernel or OS?

[SunnyRabbiera]

I think I want some opinions on this, I think I got a good debate on why I personally I think Linux is a OS and not just a kernel.
Now yes by definition linux itself is just a kernel, alone the linux kernel does not have a lot that calls out that it is a full OS.
But I think Linux in itself can be considered a OS on its own for one reason:
Versatility
Linux is so versatile and robust I think on its own one can consider linux a OS.

I mean linux can do so much on its own even without all the components that go into it later when you use a linux variant like Ubuntu or OpenSuse or whatever.
Linux is pretty amazing

[Greg]

As an Archer, I voted Tacos.

Linux is a kernel- that's non-negotiable. Linux is not an OS. Rather, Linux is a class of OS's. An OS is a definable collection of workable software that you boot off of. I suppose if you use the Linux kernel alone, it can be considered an OS. But the term has come to be a heading under which things like Gentoo, Ubuntu, Fedora, and others fall.

[Whiffle]

The Linux kernel is one part of many that work together to form an Operating System.

I don't really care what you call it though, just don't call me Shirley.

[Mornedhel]

It's the kernel.

Why is there even a discussion on this ?

Whether it's a good idea to call the OS "GNU/Linux" or not is another issue. Maybe it should be "Linux-based OS", since that's what Linux seems to be short for nowadays, and not everything is GNU.

[SunnyRabbiera]

It's the kernel.

Why is there even a discussion on this ?

Whether it's a good idea to call the OS "GNU/Linux" or not is another issue. Maybe it should be "Linux-based OS", since that's what Linux seems to be short for nowadays, and not everything is GNU.

Well the discussion is do you feel on its own Linux is versatile enough to be called a OS, granted yes it is a kernel but I also feel linux is so diverse that it can constitute as a OS.

[collinp]

Linux is a kernel on which everything else goes on top of. That "everything else" is the operating system.

[Mornedhel]

Well the discussion is do you feel on its own Linux is versatile enough to be called a OS, granted yes it is a kernel but I also feel linux is so diverse that it can constitute as a OS.

I don't really get what you're saying, could you provide examples of what the kernel can do by itself, and that you feel qualifies it as an OS ? I *think* you got the wrong idea as to what a kernel is.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Linux is a kernel on which everything else goes on top of. That "everything else" is the operating system.

Thats the technical answer, I am not denying it mind you as I know the technicalities of the definition of a Kernel and a OS.
I am not making this topic because I am misinformed, my argument is that even if we take linux the kernel by itself it can do many things a regular OS can.
It certainly could go toe to toe with windows without the GUI, or components, or anything.
I doubt you can say the same about the Windows kernels, both the DOS and NT kernels, I have seen how powerful linux is without it being classified as a OS.


I *think* you got the wrong idea as to what a kernel is.

No I get what the difference between what a OS is and what Kernel is, my debate is that the sheer power of linux as a kernel almost nullifies the debate of OS vs Kernel.

[Bodsda]

As far as I see it, an operating system is the layer between the kernel and the user. The user tells the operating system to do something, the OS then breaks that down and tells the kernel to do it which then filters down again etc etc.

A kernel runs programs and deals with extremely low level abstraction. A BASH shell is a program, if a kernel had just a BASH shell then the shell would be the operating system. You 'cannot' operate your system without some sort of a shell.

If you take Ubuntu and run it on a monolithic kernel, you are running the Ubuntu Operating System. If you run Ubuntu on a microkernel you are still running the Ubuntu Operating System.


my argument is that even if we take linux the kernel by itself it can do many things a regular OS can.


An OS does not do things, it takes instructions and passes them down the stack until the action is performed, it then takes information back up from the stack and informs the user. The OS does not play movies, it pass's information about the code down the stack. It all works hand in hand, an OS is worth nothing without the kernel, but the Kernel is worth almost nothing without a shell.

[Mornedhel]

No I get what the difference between what a OS is and what Kernel is, my debate is that the sheer power of linux as a kernel almost nullifies the debate of OS vs Kernel.

OK. I'm still interested in what features in particular you're talking about, because I for one like being able to use niceties like cp.

Maybe that's only me though.

[starcannon]

I almost voted tacos; I really like tacos. It's a kernel though.

[ibuclaw]

Even Linus regards Linux as an Operating System.

I think you are confusing the OS with the application userspace/environment that runs ontop of it.
To my knowledge (or opinion), the Kernel and OS are the exact same thing.

Even Wikipedia seems to agree with me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computing)


Note the diagrams on the right hand side and their similarity. (OK, it does say that the OS is the H/W, S/W interface and the kernel is the centrepiece of the OS).
But I'm still not budging :)

[Bodsda]

I almost voted tacos; I really like tacos. It's a kernel though.

If he had put cookies on that list there would have been no doubt in my mind which one I'd pick.

[Bodsda]

Even Linus regards Linux as an Operating System.

I think you are confusing the OS with the userspace/environment that runs ontop of it.
To my knowledge (or opinion), the Kernel and OS are the exact same thing.

I suppose the logical thing to do in this situation is to carefully deliberate on the definition of 'operating system' and 'kernel', until we can come to a unanimous decisoin about that then this is a rather pointless debate.

It would be like me debating with an american about what Jelly is... I know that they are wrong but they think they are right.

[Whiffle]

If he had put cookies on that list there would have been no doubt in my mind which one I'd pick.

I picked Bacon. It isn't on the list, but I picked it anyway.




Bacon.

[Mornedhel]

To my knowledge (or opinion), the Kernel and OS are the exact same thing.

Well yeah, but the usual question regarding Linux and whether it's a kernel or not usually is "the kernel only" vs "userspace+kernel+drivers".

If you take OS in the correct sense (ie. an interface between a program and the hardware, ie. a kernel), the discussion is over : Linux is a kernel and an operating system since both are the same.

If you take OS as userspace and all, then we can have a discussion, ad-hominem attacks notwithstanding.

Edit: Damn, bacon. Now I'm hungry.

[SunnyRabbiera]

OK. I'm still interested in what features in particular you're talking about, because I for one like being able to use niceties like cp.

Maybe that's only me though.

Well like Hellow said, linux is the kernel and the user interface and other stuff is the OS.
But considering linux can be built from the ground up and within a short time can be fully functional with what you throw at it.
I admit I am not the most technical minded person in the world, but even when I did try to build linux from the ground up about a year ago I was shocked on how much it could do.
This whole debate goes down to personal opinion, yes we can go by definition and call linux a kernel and what goes around it the OS but when I compiled my first linux kernel I was surprised on how much functionality i got from the kernel alone.

[starcannon]

I picked Bacon. It isn't on the list, but I picked it anyway.




Bacon.

Oh! Oh!, I love bacon!
I change my mind, I pick bacon too!

[Mornedhel]

Well like Hellow said, linux is the kernel and the user interface and other stuff is the OS.
But considering linux can be built from the ground up and within a short time can be fully functional with what you throw at it.
I admit I am not the most technical minded person in the world, but even when I did try to build linux from the ground up about a year ago I was shocked on how much it could do.
This whole debate goes down to personal opinion, yes we can go by definition and call linux a kernel and what goes around it the OS but when I compiled my first linux kernel I was surprised on how much functionality i got from the kernel alone.

I'm curious, are you purposefully avoiding my question ?

"What features in Linux (the kernel) are you talking about ?"

[SunnyRabbiera]

I'm curious, are you purposefully avoiding my question ?

"What features in Linux (the kernel) are you talking about ?"

No I am not avoiding the question I am giving you some of my experiences so far on building linux from the ground up, as for the features the linux kernel has... well lots, compiling is the main thing in the linux kernel but I wa able to get networking ready, get the kernel to give me basic functionality like the shell, all were within easy reach.
its only time that made me stop my experiment.
The features the linux kernel has are:
fast compiling
fast setup
and fast access to basic functions such as terminal.
If I had more time I could have got that linux setup I had to near Ubuntu functionality.
But that Ability to come so far in about a few hours is why i think Linux is more of a OS then a Kernel.

[ibuclaw]

I'm curious, are you purposefully avoiding my question ?

"What features in Linux (the kernel) are you talking about ?"

The "kernel" doesn't really have features as such. Infact, you aren't supposed to know that the kernel even exists! The job of the kernel is to run transparently whilst you go off and do your everyday tasks.


If you meant features as in hardware support ... there is plenty to talk about ...

My favourite kernel update was when ASPM (http://lwn.net/Articles/266585/) got included into the stable tree. For those who are not in the know, ASPM is a kernel feature that can put PCIE devices into a low power mode. And save a lot of power.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The "kernel" doesn't really have features as such. Infact, you aren't supposed to know that the kernel even exists! The job of the kernel is to run transparently whilst you go off and do your everyday tasks.

And i was nearly able to do as such in my experiment.

[DeadSuperHero]

Well the discussion is do you feel on its own Linux is versatile enough to be called a OS, granted yes it is a kernel but I also feel linux is so diverse that it can constitute as a OS.

No, Linux has only ever been developed as a kernel. Linux is a research kernel, and is not versatile enough to be an operating system without a userspace, filesystem, libraries, etc.

I'd say a Linux Distribution is an operating system usually based on community desktop environments with Free Software libraries, GNU tools, etc. It's a linux-based system, but it itself is not "Just Linux".

[Jimleko211]

"An operating system (commonly abbreviated to either OS or O/S) is an interface between hardware and user; an OS is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer."

"In computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing), the kernel is the central component of most computer operating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system). Its responsibilities include managing the system's resources (the communication between hardware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware) and software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software) components)."

The way I see it, the kernel is the operating system. People don't seem to share that belief, but an operating system is there to manage resources...and the kernel is there to manage resources.

However, that aside, I read a little about the original Linux operating system. Basically, of course, it was the Linux kernel with a bunch of GNU tools. It was called Linux. Therefore, Linux is both a kernel and an operating system. The operating systems we run now only feature the kernel (strictly speaking, if you believe that the kernel is NOT the OS), but Linux is also the name of the first OS to use the Linux Kernel.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computing))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html

[NovaAesa]

Yeah, I don't get it. Voting can't decide if Linux is an OS or not... it's already a fact that it's a kernel. Democracy doesn't work with things like this.

[speedwell68]

It's the kernel.

Why is there even a discussion on this ?

Whether it's a good idea to call the OS "GNU/Linux" or not is another issue. Maybe it should be "Linux-based OS", since that's what Linux seems to be short for nowadays, and not everything is GNU.

Linux based OS is the term I tend to use when talking about 'Linux'. If someone asked me what OS I use I don't say 'Ubuntu GNU/Linux'. I would say 'I use Ubuntu, it is a Linux based OS'.

[Sublime Porte]

Linux is so versatile and robust I think on its own one can consider linux a OS.

I mean linux can do so much on its own even without all the components that go into it later when you use a linux variant like Ubuntu or OpenSuse or whatever.
Linux is pretty amazing

Linux is _NOT_ versatile at all on it's own. In fact you can't even boot it on it's own. So actually it can't do anything without the other core components that make up the OS.

[Sublime Porte]

The way I see it, the kernel is the operating system. People don't seem to share that belief, but an operating system is there to manage resources...and the kernel is there to manage resources.An OS does a lot more than just manage the resources. Today it encompasses so much more. Also the fact that Linux cannot run on it's own indicates it is not an OS.

Do you consider ntoskrnl.exe to be Windows? Sure it's the central resource management component of Windows, but if I bunged it on a disk and said "here's Windows", I doubt you'd agree.


Basically, of course, it was the Linux kernel with a bunch of GNU toolsActually it went a little more like this. The GNU project had built a complete operating system, but were still working on the kernel when Linus wrote his kernel. So people slotted his kernel into the GNU OS and voila we have GNU/Linux distributions. The GNU team had been working for many years to complete the OS before Linux was just slotted into it.

Also consider the fact that the BSD team completely wrote their own new kernel, yet BSD is still considered Unix...

It's true the lines can become blurred. Opensolaris uses mostly GNU OS, but it's still called a variety of Solaris. In this case the kernel is considered the key piece.

For anyone who doesn't wanna recognise the central role of GNU in Open Source OS's, I'd suggest you try just running "Linux" without any GNU components, and see how far you get, whereas kernels, there are a few different Open Source ones to choose from. Better get started on compiling busybox :)

[Skripka]

As an Archer, I voted Tacos.

Ditto. Easy Choice.

[Jimleko211]

An OS does a lot more than just manage the resources. Today it encompasses so much more. Also the fact that Linux cannot run on it's own indicates it is not an OS.

Do you consider ntoskrnl.exe to be Windows? Sure it's the central resource management component of Windows, but if I bunged it on a disk and said "here's Windows", I doubt you'd agree.

Actually it went a little more like this. The GNU project had built a complete operating system, but were still working on the kernel when Linus wrote his kernel. So people slotted his kernel into the GNU OS and voila we have GNU/Linux distributions. The GNU team had been working for many years to complete the OS before Linux was just slotted into it.

Also consider the fact that the BSD team completely wrote their own new kernel, yet BSD is still considered Unix...

It's true the lines can become blurred. Opensolaris uses mostly GNU OS, but it's still called a variety of Solaris. In this case the kernel is considered the key piece.

For anyone who doesn't wanna recognise the central role of GNU in Open Source OS's, I'd suggest you try just running "Linux" without any GNU components, and see how far you get, whereas kernels, there are a few different Open Source ones to choose from. Better get started on compiling busybox :)

You make a good point there, I realize I was wrong. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Sublime Porte]

Well not entirely wrong. Back in the early days of computing, the OS was pretty much just the kernel, and perhaps a few helper programs, but today it has changed a lot as an OS is expected to do a lot more. And also as the OpenSolaris example demonstrates, sometimes the line is blurred.

[Regenweald]

Yeah, I don't get it. Voting can't decide if Linux is an OS or not... it's already a fact that it's a kernel. Democracy doesn't work with things like this.

I must concur. I could add more, but this discussion ends with common sense.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I must concur. I could add more, but this discussion ends with common sense.

Hey I just wanted a small debate on the matter, to me the linux kernel alone is pretty amazing tech as it has the ability to do things that most other systems cant.
But the definitions of what a OS is and what a Kernel is have blurred.
I think it all goes down to personal opinion rather then facts, to think outside of the box I think is the best experience Linux offers.

[the8thstar]

I voted for the third choice. And yes SunnyRabbiera, I agree with you that Linux is pretty amazing.

[schauerlich]

Linux is a kernel. Simple.

Now, the term "Linux", that's a bit different. "Linux" is a synecdoche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche) which refers to a spectrum of Unix-like operating systems which use the Linux kernel. "Linux" is a group of OS's, but Linux is a kernel.

[phrostbyte]

Linux itself a kernel. But you can use the word, Linux, in speech to refer to the class of operating systems which utilize Linux as it's kernel.

[raronson]

Yeah, I don't get it. Voting can't decide if Linux is an OS or not... it's already a fact that it's a kernel. Democracy doesn't work with things like this.

No it doesn't, because there are some absolutes out there. Saying that the Linux kernel is an operating system is kind of like saying that an engine is an automobile.

The OP is attributing the slew of packages which comprise a bare-minimal GNU/Linux environment with the kernel itself--which is just another package in that bare minimal system.

The term "Linux" as popularly used to talk about operating system is just slang. If you read the Debian website's history, they make it a central point that the system should be called "GNU/Linux." I agree with that, but I'm not slavish to it. It's regrettable that GNU doesn't get more mindshare, but I realize that words change to take on new meanings over time. Hell, someday the word "your" may also engulf the contraction "you're" as one of its definitions.

[Giant Speck]

Considering the flexibility of language, Linux can be either strictly used to refer to the kernel itself or can loosely be used as an all-inclusive collective noun for all Linux-based operating systems.

[gormac]

Kernel itself is not an operating system, but it is an integral part of an OS. You cannot "operate a system" with just a kernel any more than you can operate one without it.

And regardless of your views on the bounds of an OS (and there aren't absolute truths on the subject, only different opinions), it's absolutely fine to say you're "using linux" if you use an operating system that includes the linux kernel.

I would have chosen the option (if there were one): "OS is the kernel and the necessary software parts to interact with the kernel to operate the machine"

[Dullstar]

lol

Something messed up on the poll!

According to the bars, ~20 > ~38!

[Mornedhel]

The term "Linux" as popularly used to talk about operating system is just slang. If you read the Debian website's history, they make it a central point that the system should be called "GNU/Linux." I agree with that, but I'm not slavish to it. It's regrettable that GNU doesn't get more mindshare, but I realize that words change to take on new meanings over time. Hell, someday the word "your" may also engulf the contraction "you're" as one of its definitions.

I'm of the opinion that Linux is the kernel only, and that the OS (let's assume that OS means userspace+kernel as I can't find another word, and that was the meaning the OP lent to it) should be called something else. But in this day and age it's as ridiculous to call it GNU/Linux as just Linux.

Originally it was called GNU/Linux because the entire thing was the GNU coreutils, a few GNU applications, and the Linux kernel, and it was just supposed to be temporary until the Hurd came out (which it hasn't yet). Nowadays it's much more : not every application has been developed by the GNU people -- not every application is even GNU-licensed. If you want to call it something to remind users of the contributors, you'd have to call it GNU/<Gnome|KDE|XFCE|whatever>/BSD/Mozilla/ALotOfOtherPeople/Linux.

Or, as I said earlier in this thread, "Linux-based OS".

[praveesh]

Linux alone means no bash. Without bash, what can you do?

[koenn]

I'll go with "linux is an operating system - it's the name we use for the class of operating systems that use a linux kernel."

a kernel may be the core of the operating system, but you're going to need more than that : a filesystem most likely. And a way to interact with the kernel and the filesystem : something that lets you open and close files, and launch and stop programs. So you can argue that some sort of command interpreter is an essential part of the OS. And so on. One could say that the Linux operating system is characterized by the kernel, and a selection of essential programs without which the kernel would be useless.

This does not extend to end user applications such as web browsers and media players, one does define an OS by the bittorrent client or spreadsheet program you run on it. In the case of Unix/linux, window managers and desktop environments are end-user applications. A statement such as "you'd have to call it GNU/<Gnome|KDE|XFCE|whatever>/BSD/Mozilla/ALotOfOtherPeople/Linux." is therefore nonse, imo.

[Mornedhel]

This does not extend to end user applications such as web browsers and media players, one does define an OS by the bittorrent client or spreadsheet program you run on it. In the case of Unix/linux, window managers and desktop environments are end-user applications. A statement such as "you'd have to call it GNU/<Gnome|KDE|XFCE|whatever>/BSD/Mozilla/ALotOfOtherPeople/Linux." is therefore nonse, imo.

I did say I considered Linux to be the kernel. In the above statement, I was including userspace and referring to the GNU/Linux naming controversy.

[doas777]

how about both?
yes to us techies, it is a kernel. imagine a normal persons eyes glazing over as you attempt to describe the difference.

now what would we call our OS if we didn't call it linux? Ga-Nuu ? yeah, right.
Unix/Minnix is an OS, so either the linux Kernel is misnamed, or Linux is a good name for an OS too. it's the FSF that needs to work on compelling OS Naming.

Xeroxing does not mean using a xerox machine.
if you give me a Kleenex brand facial tissue, I would question your taste, even though i asked for a clean-ex.

when people are talking about a kernel, it;s clear. they always say "the linux kernel". the only time this discussion is important, is when discussing the history of computing, a topic that is only interesting to us.

to everyone else, Linux is just that thing that the really geeky guy in IT uses.

[raronson]

... If you want to call it something to remind users of the contributors, you'd have to call it GNU/<Gnome|KDE|XFCE|whatever>/BSD/Mozilla/ALotOfOtherPeople/Linux.

Or, as I said earlier in this thread, "Linux-based OS".

That's a sensible convention, it's just that the GNU contributions comprise much more than any of the others you mentioned. The GNU file utilities, shell utilities, text utilities, C Library, and C complier immediately spring to mind. I'm not necessarily arguing though.

Maybe the best description comes from Wikipedia's article on UNIX:



Under Unix, the "operating system" consists of many of these utilities along with the master control program, the kernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29). The kernel provides services to start and stop programs, handles the file system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_system) and other common "low level" tasks that most programs share, and, perhaps most importantly, schedules access to hardware to avoid conflicts if two programs try to access the same resource or device simultaneously. To mediate such access, the kernel was given special rights on the system, leading to the division between user-space and kernel-space


Check the "kernel" link in that quote as well.

There are absolutes, it's just that they're absolutely confusing.

[doas777]

That's a sensible convention, it's just that the GNU contributions comprise much more than any of the others you mentioned. The GNU file utilities, shell utilities, text utilities, C Library, and C complier immediately spring to mind. I'm not necessarily arguing though.

I agree. that is why the FSF needs to come up with some decent names. gnu isn't one of them.

[raronson]

I kinda like that though :)

There's something to be said for a piecemeal system whose elements have whimsical, meaningless, and counter-intuitive names.

I posted a week ago or so that Gnome should change the project name to "Genome" to coincide with the release of Gnome 3 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1214808&highlight=genome+gnome), since GNU Network Object Model Environment (the acronym) or Gnome (the noun) no longer conveyed anything meaningful. Also that the 'big foot' should be changed to a double-helix. It was not a well received idea. I even joined the Gnome dev's mailing list and laid out the proposal--which received absolute silence. Not a single reply :)

I walked away thinking, meh, maybe there's sense in nothing making sense...

[Diabolis]

linux is a kernel on which everything else goes on top of. That "everything else" is the operating system.

+1

[Mornedhel]

What's wrong with "Gnome" ?

I like Gnome.

Sounds better than any concurrent DE.

[DeadSuperHero]

I agree. that is why the FSF needs to come up with some decent names. gnu isn't one of them.

And I'm sure that such names as Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, Haiku, ReactOS, AROS, E/OS, KDE, Gnome, and so on are all prime examples that people can "come up with decent names"

Decent is what you make of it.

[doorknob60]

Tacos, It's lunchtime and I'm pretty freakin hungry right now :-P I see it as the kernel and the OS. If someone says "What OS do you use?" I say "Linux". SO yeah, that means it's an OS in my mind. Not that it isn't the kernel as well.

[doas777]

What's wrong with "Gnome" ?

I like Gnome.

Sounds better than any concurrent DE.


but gnome is just a desktop environment, not an OS, just as linux is just a kernel, not an OS.

so what have we come up with? that our OS has no name, just a named kernel, a named DE, and some named middleware.

put it all together and whattdoya get? no one knows.

[Mornedhel]

doas777: Sorry, I was referring to another post above.


I posted a week ago or so that Gnome should change the project name to "Genome" to coincide with the release of Gnome 3 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1214808&highlight=genome+gnome), since GNU Network Object Model Environment (the acronym) or Gnome (the noun) no longer conveyed anything meaningful. Also that the 'big foot' should be changed to a double-helix. It was not a well received idea. I even joined the Gnome dev's mailing list and laid out the proposal--which received absolute silence. Not a single reply :)

[koenn]

I was [...] referring to the GNU/Linux naming controversy.
I know.

I find GNU/Linux a reasonable name for an operating system build out of a linux kernel and the GNU Operating system minus a kernel. Operating system as defined by my previous post.

I also find it reasonable to use the word 'Linux' for "the class of operating systems that use a linux kernel." - again, see my previous post.

I find it rather ridiculous to propose a name such as GNU/<Gnome|KDE|XFCE|whatever>/BSD/Mozilla/ALotOfOtherPeople/Linux just because you might run totem music player on that OS - again, I thought my previous post had made clear why.


When people propose this, it's usually a lame attempt to diminish the role of GNU, or an indication that they don't understand the difference between an end-user application and an operating system.

[doas777]

And I'm sure that such names as Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, Haiku, ReactOS, AROS, E/OS, KDE, Gnome, and so on are all prime examples that people can "come up with decent names"

Decent is what you make of it.

most marketing and communication types would disagree. a name is everything.

[raronson]

What's wrong with "Gnome" ?

I like Gnome.

Sounds better than any concurrent DE.

Yeah, yeah. I get the feeling that I'm very bad person for having the audacity to suggest something that actually makes sense. You'd have to read the original post to get the full gist of it though.

[DeadSuperHero]

most marketing and communication types would disagree. a name is everything.

Well, none of us really aim for the corporate naming scheme lifestyle of doing things...at most, these are hobbyist projects. In my mind, an operating system name is the least of my worries.

[koenn]

most marketing and communication types would disagree. a name is everything.
or they would take a name, any name, and make it a brand. Isn't that what marketing is for ? If I say Apple, do you think fruit, or computers ?

[DeadSuperHero]

or they would take a name, any name, and make it a brand. Isn't that what marketing is for ? If I say Apple, do you think fruit, or computers ?

I think of fruits using computers.

*Bad pun, I sowwy*

[koenn]

I think of fruits using computers.

*Bad pun, I sowwy*

Lol'd anyway.

[doas777]

or they would take a name, any name, and make it a brand. Isn't that what marketing is for ? If I say Apple, do you think fruit, or computers ?

actually when you say 'Mac' I think of computers, but not apple. it always surprises me when I remember that Macs are made by Apple, unless the context is loud.

[dragos240]

Linux itself is a kernel. But when mixed with GNU it becomes an OS.

[DeadSuperHero]

Linux itself is a kernel. But when mixed with GNU it becomes an OS.

And when you print out the kernel source code sheet by sheet, and blend it up, you get wood pulp!

Is there anything technology can't do? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.)

[ibuclaw]

Came across this video earlier, thought it might shed some like on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTWCPoUt8w


Is there anything technology can't do? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.)
/me finds it hard to resist temptation to give lecture on "turing complete programming languages" after that quote.

[koenn]

actually when you say 'Mac' I think of computers, but not apple. it always surprises me when I remember that Macs are made by Apple, unless the context is loud.

ah, I"m getting old. Yeah, today it's probabbly more 'Mac' then 'Apple' - but my point stands : it's a pretty meaningless word (probably derived from Mac, a nickname for the Apple Macintosh log time ago) - it's the marketing that gave it a meaning.

[dragos240]

And when you print out the kernel source code sheet by sheet, and blend it up, you get wood pulp!

Is there anything technology can't do? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.)


They can't compute in hexadecimal. Only in binary.

[nmaster]

No I get what the difference between what a OS is and what Kernel is, my debate is that the sheer power of linux as a kernel almost nullifies the debate of OS vs Kernel.

What debate is there? Linux is a kernel. End of story. A powerful kernel? Yes. But there should not be a "OS vs. Kernel" debate. I can't believe that people are voting to say that its an operating system.

I agree that conversationally some people will refer to Linux as an OS, I do that too sometimes, but we all know that technically that is an untrue statement.

[koenn]

Came across this video earlier, thought it might shed some like on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTWCPoUt8w

1.5 hrs ?!
is the the new approach to a thread cool-down ?
:)

[bodhi.zazen]

It is perfectly acceptable to use Linux to refer to either the Kernel or the OS. It is all also acceptable to use terms such as GNU Linux or FSF or what ever you like.

I mean really, get over it =)

[ibuclaw]

1.5 hrs ?!
is the the new approach to a thread cool-down ?
:)

Oh noes, my master plan was foiled. :)

But still, it is 1.5 hours of pure information about Linux development and just what is Linux (as of 2001, that is).
Just one example is the bit about SMP and how Linus wants to avoid it until at least 5 years later.

Of course, that didn't happen. It was implemented much sooner, and now almost all Linux Desktop PCs are SMP enabled :)

[lukeiamyourfather]

There's a lot of information out there about the history of Linux that would be good to know. Linux is a kernel and virtually useless by itself without applications. GNU Linux is what people should probably say instead of just Linux since GNU Linux refers to the applications like GCC and other fundamental software in combination with the Linux kernel.

In other words the Linux kernel by itself is not an operating system but rather a combination of the Linux kernel with other open source applications that makes up GNU Linux distributions like Ubuntu. Cheers!

EDIT: This covers a lot of it on a single page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

[Mornedhel]

I find GNU/Linux a reasonable name for an operating system build out of a linux kernel and the GNU Operating system minus a kernel. Operating system as defined by my previous post.

I guess we should open another thread regarding the definition of "operating system". My own definition includes things such as the scheduler and the drivers, but not the command line, which you seem to include. But in this thread, I have taken "operating system" to include userspace, since that seemed to be the OP's meaning, although I was less sure what he meant after.


I also find it reasonable to use the word 'Linux' for "the class of operating systems that use a linux kernel." - again, see my previous post.

Agreed.


I find it rather ridiculous to propose a name such as GNU/<Gnome|KDE|XFCE|whatever>/BSD/Mozilla/ALotOfOtherPeople/Linux just because you might run totem music player on that OS - again, I thought my previous post had made clear why.

I can't seem to convey sarcasm correctly on these forums... Although if you were using your own definition of "operating system", it *would* sound ridiculous.


When people propose this, it's usually a lame attempt to diminish the role of GNU, or an indication that they don't understand the difference between an end-user application and an operating system.

Sorry, I'm not trying to diminish the role of GNU or the FSF -- I use their software daily, after all, and I practically live in Emacs.

If all else fails, I propose that the definition of Linux is "everything that's managed in the git repository at www.kernel.org", but I'm fine with anybody calling "Linux" a Linux-based environment.

[koenn]

I guess we should open another thread regarding the definition of "operating system".
or we can hijack this one, seeing that to distinguish between kernel and operating system requires us to investigate what we mean by operating system ...


My own definition includes things such as the scheduler and the drivers, but not the command line, which you seem to include. [
If an OS is meant to be used interactively, it needs to offer a way for the user to interact with it. On unix-like systems, it appears to be a tradition to implement this as a separate program, so the line is a bit blurred, and I can go both ways : 'a shell' is the part of the OS that allows the user to pass commands to the system or launch other programs, or: a program called "bash" (or "sh" or "csh", ...) is just another program that the user runs ...