Linux is an operating system :confused: ?

[commodore]

I opened up the Edubuntu installation guide (not for installing) and it says Linux is an operating system. Wasn't Linux the kernel and GNU/Linux the operating system? I know that it's complicated for beginners. I read a book about learning. In the part about thinking it said that definitions have to be completely declared and they have to be always used with the same meaning otherwise the base for thinking is messed up. Now if some people like in Ubuntu or Linspire say Linux is an operating system people will hear the lie and it will be harder for them to understand what Linux truly is.

[mcduck]

Ubuntu is the operating system, and Linux is the kernel :)

But people often use name 'Linux' when they mean 'all different linux-based operating systems' (linux distributions) And some people like to replace that with GNU/Linux.

[arctic]

Umm.. things should not made overly complicated to newcomers. If they hear that Linux is an operating system, then this is okay imho. Basically, Linux is only the kernel, but it is the base for all Linux distros, thus it is the base of the operating systems. Calling Linux the operating system is the logical way for normal users in order to make complicated things more simple and understandable. For the geek, the difference between Linux and GNU/Linux will still be there.

[Jucato]

Well, historically and technically speaking, Linux is just the kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS (kernel+compiler+basic apps), and Ubuntu is a distribution of the OS.

However, some people have chosen just to call the whole OS as Linux to make it simple. While others have insisted that it be called GNU/Linux.

[commodore]

I don't think we should help newcomers to be stupid.

[stoeptegel]

Second that. When readers decide to think otherwise that's fine, but they should be told how it really is.

[Jucato]

It's one thing not to confuse new users, and another thing to help them become stupid. :D
Calling Linux an operating system is not a lie, IMHO (and Linus Torvalds and Co. would agree). As long as you remember and give credit that Linux wouldn't be an OS without GNU, there's no problem there. Of course, Richard Stallman would not agree and would insist on calling it GNU/Linux, but that's normal since he fathered GNU. You're free to choose how you call it. As long as you know why you call it that way.

The thing is, to immediately bombard new comers with these info (not to mention the debates that these would entail) is not very "newbie-friendly". But that doesn't mean you'll keep them in the dark forever. They'll eventually find out anyway, especially if they're using GNOME.

[engla]

Well, the linux kernel is an operating system in it self, depending on where you draw the line.

[SeanTater]

I draw the line of "technically an OS" as being able to compile its own source code and allow for editing of that source code. It's rather thin and featureless at that point though. I personally will not use it until it gets a GUI.

[Jucato]

I draw the line of "technically an OS" as being able to compile its own source code and allow for editing of that source code. It's rather thin and featureless at that point though. I personally will not use it until it gets a GUI.

Then the Linux kernel would fail that criteria, AFAIK. It has not compiler (or text editor for that matter) and relies on GNU's gcc, if I remember correctly.

[Brunellus]

I don't think we should help newcomers to be stupid.
Nor should a newcomer be buried in irrelevant levels of technical detail unless he should seek it out.

Few people know musical theory, even if almost everybody sings in the shower. Intricate knowledge of the former is an aid to the latter; but the latter is not necessarily impossible without the former. Just as in singing, so in desktop Linux: a thorough grounding in the hows and whys of GNU and Linux are an aid to using a desktop OS; they are not, however, logically necessary to that same use.

[SoggyCornflake]

One thing a newbie will learn learn fairlly quickly is that anything with Linux in it's name is loaded with lots of options. Looking around here, calling it one thing or another is just another extension of options IMHO.

Personally I call it Linux, but belive the reasons why GNU was started is vital to undestanding why Linux grew.

Had Torvalds released his Kernel/OS in a manner similar to BEOS we wouldn't be debating whether it's an OS or just part of an OS. It would have merely slid off the OS radar screens.

[int]

I opened up the Edubuntu installation guide (not for installing) and it says Linux is an operating system. Wasn't Linux the kernel and GNU/Linux the operating system? I know that it's complicated for beginners. I read a book about learning. In the part about thinking it said that definitions have to be completely declared and they have to be always used with the same meaning otherwise the base for thinking is messed up. Now if some people like in Ubuntu or Linspire say Linux is an operating system people will hear the lie and it will be harder for them to understand what Linux truly is.

Says that Linux Is Operating system, are usually about "Ubuntu Linux", Distros Linux.. And not kernel linux...

Linux are used for Distro Linux
Kernel Linux are used for kernel.

What OS you are using? I am using linux, Ubuntu Linux...

[mstlyevil]

I don't think we should help newcomers to be stupid.

They are not being stupid. They call it all Linux to keep it simple. Only geeks get upset when they see the operating system being called Linux. The rest of the world just does not care and has more important issues to worry about than getting the technical terms absolutely correct. It is a non issue in the larger scheme of things.

[briancurtin]

this is a place where simplicity should be the goal, rather than correctness. while i would say an incredibly large percentage of overall linux users are pretty technical, are we going to bring the non-techies and brand new computer users in and say "look, linux is the kernel, ubuntu is the operating system, got it? the sky is blue, etc"? grandma does not care about gcc. little 9 year old sandeep does not care about kernel modules. i think we should just leave it as acceptable for people to call it "linux" and get away with it for a while.

even if a user does call this "linux" and thinks his/her operating system is linux; if they one day decide to get more into computers and dig into a distro, their head will not explode when they find out that linux is just the kernel and that there is more to it.

[aysiu]

There's really only one reason I insist people make a distinction between the kernel (Linux) and the operating system (Ubuntu)--I don't want people to equate Linux with Ubuntu and vice versa.

If newcomers have a bad experience with Ubuntu, oftentimes, they write off all of Linux for the "faults" of Ubuntu when another Linux distro could probably better suit their needs.

[commodore]

Maybe the Linux kernel should have a new name? :D

And Fenix, to join the church of emacs you have to say: "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." I think Stallman thinks GNU/Linux is the OS and Linux is one of it's kernels.

[mstlyevil]

There's really only one reason I insist people make a distinction between the kernel (Linux) and the operating system (Ubuntu)--I don't want people to equate Linux with Ubuntu and vice versa.

If newcomers have a bad experience with Ubuntu, oftentimes, they write off all of Linux for the "faults" of Ubuntu when another Linux distro could probably better suit their needs.

That is a reasoned and logical way to view the issue. I do tell people that Linux is the kernel and that there are numerous operating systems based on that kernel. I am not going to freak out if someone just refers to Ubuntu as Linux as long as they understand it is just one of many operating systems based on the Linux kernel.

[Brunellus]

GNU is the OS. Linux is the kernel. RMS tolerates Linux because it's presently the only Free Software complete OS that fulfills the initial goals of the GNU project.

RMS would prefer GNU/HURD, and many people have interpreted all the GNU/Linux pedantry as frustration/petulance that the HURD has never gotten off the ground.

[nickle]

Well there we go, you learn something new every day. For years I have been calling Linux an OS and using it as an OS... or at least I thought SO...

[K.Mandla]

The real crime is calling Windows an operating system. :rolleyes:

Sorry, sorry. Just joking. :oops: I couldn't help myself. ...

[Parkotron]

I really have to question whether the term "operating system" can even be used accurately in the *nix world any more.

[Linux] is the kernel.
[GNU] is the tools.
[Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora etc.] is the distribution.
[Gnome, KDE, Xfce etc.] is the desktop environment.

Operating systems used to be simple and still are outside of *nix. Windows XP is an operating system, but that's easy to say because the kernel, tools, distribution, and desktop environment are inseparable. Same can be said for MacOSX. Back in the day, this was essentially the same for commercial Unices. But where does one draw the line between operating systems and programs in Linux.

Are Ubuntu and FreeBSD different operating systems? They're both POSIX compliant.
Are Ubuntu and Gentoo different operating systems? They're both GNU/Linux.
Are Ubuntu and Kubuntu different operating systems? They're both subsets of the Ubuntu distribution.
Are Ubuntu and Ubuntu-Live different operating systems? They're essentially the same software.

Personally, I tend to think of the operating system as being GNU/Linux, the combination of the GNU tools and Linux kernel. But I'm sure others would disagree.

Really I think we need a new term for describing the complete package of kernel, tools, distribution, and desktop environment. Maybe something like "computing environment". I think that would make it easier to explain (or to not explain) this complex structure to new users. For example:

"Kubuntu is just a computing environment."
or
"Kubuntu is a computing environment. It is made up of the Linux kernel, the GNU toolkit, the KDE desktop environment, and a great number of software packages managed by Ubuntu"

[barthel]

The real crime is calling Windows an operating system. :rolleyes:

Sorry, sorry. Just joking. :oops: I couldn't help myself. ...

Well, technically, the MS-DOS core is still one of the first components loaded during an MS-Windows boot sequence. So, although it's obscured from the casual user, it wouldn't be entirely wrong to say that MS-Windows is only the GUI (Graphical User Interface) to the low-level operating system, MS-DOS.

Not that it's marketed that way, but it's still there if you look for it. Now they just call it "booting to the command line"....

[kadymae]

The real crime is calling Windows an operating system.

~splorfle's hot tea on the keyboard~

(I have a tolerance/hate relationship with this XP Pro box here at work.)

---

But for the point of the OP, does that particular point of software trivia really make a *big* difference what the end user of any *buntu is going to see/do?

I mean, to me, this is like knowing the differences between VVT, Vanos, and V-Tec -- something that's really only of interest to auto enthusiasts and mechanical engineers.

The average user knows that their car has something called variable valve timing ... and probably still have no idea what variable valve timing means or what it does, so long as they can get in, sit down, turn the car on and drive to their destinations.

[mips]

I really have to question whether the term "operating system" can even be used accurately in the *nix world any more.

[Linux] is the kernel.
[GNU] is the tools.
[Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora etc.] is the distribution.
[Gnome, KDE, Xfce etc.] is the desktop environment.

Operating systems used to be simple and still are outside of *nix. Windows XP is an operating system, but that's easy to say because the kernel, tools, distribution, and desktop environment are inseparable. Same can be said for MacOSX. Back in the day, this was essentially the same for commercial Unices. But where does one draw the line between operating systems and programs in Linux.

Are Ubuntu and FreeBSD different operating systems? They're both POSIX compliant.
Are Ubuntu and Gentoo different operating systems? They're both GNU/Linux.
Are Ubuntu and Kubuntu different operating systems? They're both subsets of the Ubuntu distribution.
Are Ubuntu and Ubuntu-Live different operating systems? They're essentially the same software.

Personally, I tend to think of the operating system as being GNU/Linux, the combination of the GNU tools and Linux kernel. But I'm sure others would disagree.

Really I think we need a new term for describing the complete package of kernel, tools, distribution, and desktop environment. Maybe something like "computing environment". I think that would make it easier to explain (or to not explain) this complex structure to new users. For example:

"Kubuntu is just a computing environment."
or
"Kubuntu is a computing environment. It is made up of the Linux kernel, the GNU toolkit, the KDE desktop environment, and a great number of software packages managed by Ubuntu"

The BSD variants can all be classified as an OS. The development of the kernal & everything that plugs into it is handled by the same people/team/etc and distributed as a single package. So it will fall into the same group as Win/OSX & most commercial versions of unix.

[barthel]

I draw the line of "technically an OS" as being able to compile its own source code and allow for editing of that source code. It's rather thin and featureless at that point though. I personally will not use it until it gets a GUI.

That's an interesting viewpoint.

If an operating system must include the ability to comile it's own source code, then most of the systems I've worked on through the years were not operating systems because they didn't include a compiler (or worse, didn't have a native compiler but were cross-compiled in a different environment first).

I respectfully suggest that an "OS" be measured by what is required to operate the system. This would include such things as:

managing input from and output to physical devices
allocating memory space for different tasks
starting and stopping individual tasks according to priority or interrupts


If a system must include a compiler to be an OS, there are an awful lot of systems out there running without an operating system.

It would also mean Ubuntu is not an OS, since the compiler is only installed if explicitly added by the system administrator.

I think it's safe to say that editing and compiling the operating system are completely separate from actually running the operating system.

[Gadren]

I can never understand why people get up in arms about technical terminology instead of getting productive and useful things done with software. Endlessly being finicky about terms like GNU/* or "it's just a kernel!" aren't that helpful to OSS as a whole. Pedant semantics is no substitute for productivity and good software.

[barthel]

I can never understand why people get up in arms about technical terminology instead of getting productive and useful things done with software.

To a certain extent, if we don't get clarity on technical terminology then we really can't communicate.

I've worked in many different disciplines over the years. Learning the jargon was always the first step to understanding because the same words have very different denotations and connotations.

For example, in computing, the verb "to enable" is a usually a good thing: to enable support for a digital camera. But in psychiatry, "to enable" is usually a bad thing: to enable a family member's alcohol abuse.

But once it reaches the point of bickering, I agree that such discussions are no longer productive.

[Brunellus]

To a certain extent, if we don't get clarity on technical terminology then we really can't communicate.

I've worked in many different disciplines over the years. Learning the jargon was always the first step to understanding because the same words have very different denotations and connotations.

For example, in computing, the verb "to enable" is a usually a good thing: to enable support for a digital camera. But in psychiatry, "to enable" is usually a bad thing: to enable a family member's alcohol abuse.

But once it reaches the point of bickering, I agree that such discussions are no longer productive.
It is burdensome and onerous for new users to be expected to learn all the jargon of active developers simply to be able to communicate!

Frankly, I am of the position that most of the pedantry is about ego. After all, without ego, FOSS is impossible: what other incentive is there to "scratch your own itch" but ego?

[Virogenesis]

Linux is the OS it might just be considerred ajust a kernel by many but if you look at embedded devices running linux so gthe gcc compiliers are needed to compile sourcecode but what happens if you do not need to compile then 8iiisn't the gcc compiliers useless.

By defination the operation system is the program that first boots it controls memory and devices as Linus once said you do not see an poerating system so you can infact say you use Linux and get away with it . so as can see Linux is the OS

[BWF89]

Linux is an operating system in the same way that Native Americans are Indains.

[Virogenesis]

BWF89 give your defination to what a OS is

[YuHoo]

I guess you learn something new every day. I never fully grasped the layering of what the name Linux implies. But I also think that Linux is used (as I usually use it as well) to be the whole of everything that goes to the roots of GNU/Linux. It's a generic term that encompasses everything down to the tools, or even kernel. As for the base of reasoning requires a good base of definitions that is true, but only for abstract purposes. Philosophical debates like this require a strong definition and also require that you break it down into the different layers. But for installing and using it, there does is no need for definitions as the meaning does not impact back to how you are currently using it.

For really good language critiques read Francis Bacon's 4 Idols. Brilliant work about the fundamental base of human knowledge. David Hume also wrote on this as well as Michael Foucault. All impact it the same way of needing a firm ground for true knowledge, but working knowledge does not directly draw from the theory but only what it needs.

[newbie2]

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/56910/index.html
:p :p :p ](*,)

[mstlyevil]

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/56910/index.html
:p :p :p ](*,)

I have relatives in Tuttle. I am going to forward this link to them so they can see what a moron their city manager is. I have not laughed this hard in several days.

[Virogenesis]

LMAO that link has made my day and only been up 10 mins i really want to to meet that guy he sounds amusing i've been using computers for 22 years......bla bla bla.....did he turn it and then shut it down for 22 years bloody idiot I can just imagine the FBI ******* themselves laughing over this because it is highly amusing.

[commodore]

It's impossibly funny. That guy is really stupid. I mean couldn't he read the text or something?

[mips]

If I was Mr. Taylor I would go outside and hope to be hit by an asteroid or something...

[endersshadow]

The best part is that if he just took the time to read the page that was up on his site, he would've been able to handle it quickly, and without any correspondence to the CentOS team....

[tomski]

just a little off subject question but:

what with the latest version of bell labs unix 'Plan9' on the horizon, if this has the ability to nativly run gnome or any other window manager as well as other GNU tools/apps would you consider (excuse the pun) going back to source and installing it & run it as a primary/desktop OS or would you rather stay with the latest *nix derived ubuntu ??