PDA

View Full Version : Linux is a platform, not an OS



VitaLiNux
August 8th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Linux is a platform, not an OS
Written by Steve Lake (http://www.raiden.net/?mod=3&profile=1)
08.06.2008 at 07:04am
Section: Editorials @Raiden's Realm
(http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&sid=6) There is one thing that many people have yet failed to realize, and that is that Linux is a platform, not an OS. Now as bizarre as that may sound, if you truly think about it, you'll realize that I'm right. It's true that Linux does indeed describe an operating system, but that's only a minor part of the overall experience. The "operating system" itself in reality is simply a series of drivers and files that act as a control layer between the hardware and the graphical user interface (GUI), and the GUI is the interactive layer between the end user and the operating system.

These layers end up creating an entire platform in which all of your programs function. Because without software, an operating system is a useless tool to the end user. Same applies to an operating system without a GUI. And without programs, both the user interface (graphical or non) and the operating system are useless, which ultimately means that the hardware it's running on is useless. So these three items (hardware, OS, and UI) must be combined to create a platform on which you can do something productive or fun.

I've had to learn this the hard way over the past couple of months as I've been doing research on how to better market Linux. It's come to me that marketing Linux as just an OS is like selling a rock to someone in need of a boat. In other words, it's effectively useless to someone, unless it can be used as a platform onto which important applications they need can be run.

Microsoft, a staunch opponent of Linux, already understands this very vividly. They no longer see Windows as just an "operating system", but as an entire platform. They realize that the only way Windows has a prayer of surviving, especially in today's open source world, is if everything runs on Windows, including every FOSS program out there. They've even admitted that as much themselves, saying that they think that all open source should run on Windows.

And Apple is no different, nor Sun, nor IBM. They see their respective operating systems as platforms, not OS's. Sure, IBM supports Linux, but they also support IBM Unix, and in both cases they see their respective operating systems as platforms onto which they place lots of other software. So ultimately one of the biggest failings of Linux marketing is that people are working too hard to sell the operating system side of it, but failing to sell the platform aspects of it.

That hit home with me not too long back when I was trying to convert a prospective new user to Linux. The question he asked is "Why should I switch to Linux?" I gave him the normal sales pitch of "no viruses, open source, software freedom, no drm, etc." In other words, the same sales pitch most other people use when trying to push Linux. It bombed, because we ended up right back on the initial question of "Why should I use Linux?" To him, it wasn't the operating system that mattered, but what you could do with it.

Eventually I keyed into what he was talking about and began instead to sell some of the great applications that can be found on Linux, including Open Office, Firefox and more. To him, everything we hold dear about Linux was secondary. He was of the mindset of "What can Linux do for me?" That's something we need to learn to deal with. So when pushing Linux, don't just push the OS, and all the other great stuff we love about it. Treat Linux as a platform and get the person to realize that there's so much that they can do on Linux, and so much FOSS software that they can use and benefit from that is only available on Linux.

So if you remember that Linux is just a platform, and it's the applications that ultimately sell the OS to the end user, you should find that you will have an easier time convincing people to try Linux.

EDIT ( 08/08/2008 ): A slight clarification for those reading this and commenting about my only referencing the graphical user interface (gui) as a user interface (UI). The console is included as a UI, not just a GUI, and so is anything that interprets between the user and the OS. And yes, I do realize that the word "platform" does refer to the architecture on which the hardware runs, but it can also be used to refer to a "platform" on which something else runs. In this case, that would be software.

LaRoza
August 8th, 2008, 09:23 PM
No, I wouldn't say that. Linux is a kernel.

If it were a platform, like Java, every Linux would run programs, but that is not so. There is a separate binary release for each platform that Linux is on (PPC, x86, x64, Sparc, etc)

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 09:29 PM
If it were a platform, like Java, every Linux would run programs, but that is not so. There is a separate binary release for each platform that Linux is on (PPC, x86, x64, Sparc, etc)
The Java Virtual Machine also have different binary releases for different platforms, though the code for Java applications are same. So in your scope of definition even Java is not a platform.;)

EDIT: OK! I misunderstood. You meant seperate binary releases for applications for different platforms. You are right then.

andamaru
August 8th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Linux is just like Unix, no one runs Unix they run a flavor of unix (mac os x, freebsd, etc)

LaRoza
August 8th, 2008, 10:04 PM
Linux is just like Unix, no one runs Unix they run a flavor of unix (mac os x, freebsd, etc)

No it isn't. Linux is a kernel. It has a specific code base and is named. It isn't a type of anything like Unix.

sisco311
August 8th, 2008, 10:13 PM
...
The "operating system" itself in reality is simply a series of drivers and files that act as a control layer between the hardware and the graphical user interface (GUI), ...

then what is the kernel?
(because i think this is a naive definition of the kernel)

Mr. Picklesworth
August 8th, 2008, 10:27 PM
The software we surround Linux with, and I believe the Linux Standard Base, is a platform. And I agree both from the end user sense and the development sense. Lots of gadgets like Nokia's internet tablets, the Garmin and various cell phones are using Linux not as a rigid operating system but as a platform to build on. They can expect that, once they have a Linux kernel running the LSB, to then easily have access to a big library of open source software.

andamaru
August 8th, 2008, 10:33 PM
No it isn't. Linux is a kernel. It has a specific code base and is named. It isn't a type of anything like Unix.

Unofficially Linux has two meanings:

1) Meaning 1 - Linux = Linux the kernel
2) Meaning 2 - Linux = Linux/GNU

when I said Linux in my statement I meant the second meaning.

th00ht
August 8th, 2008, 11:16 PM
Linux = a UNIX kernel
GNU/Linux = an OS
GNOME or KDE = a desktop on top of an OS (GNU/Linux)
Ubuntu = one of many GNU/Linux distributions

Hope that clear things up a bit

voteforpedro36
August 9th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Linux = a UNIX kernel
GNU/Linux = an OS
GNOME or KDE = a desktop on top of an OS (GNU/Linux)
Ubuntu = one of many GNU/Linux distributions

Hope that clear things up a bit

Ubuntu is an OS, not GNU/Linux. GNU built a lot of tools that Linux uses, so they named the kernel GNU/Linux. And Linux, while being a kernel, is not UNIX. Linux Is Not unIX. It was based on Minix, but meant to be UNIX-like. Or at least that was always my impression.

ZylGadis
August 9th, 2008, 03:23 AM
voteforpedro, please educate yourself a bit. Almost every word you wrote in the previous post is incorrect. (Hint: GNU came first, and GNU is Not Unix; Linux is just a kernel, and is not an acronym). th00ht's post (and LaRoza's before that) is correct and clarifies things.

chris4585
August 9th, 2008, 03:43 AM
No, I wouldn't say that. Linux is a kernel.


No it isn't. Linux is a kernel. It has a specific code base and is named. It isn't a type of anything like Unix.

... what? can you explain a little :confused:

I understand that linux is a kernel and i agree that linux is more than a kernel... in a way you can relate to windows, not very many people say that windows is a kernel but it is isnt it? or it has a kernel, but not very many people realize it...

ryaxnb
August 9th, 2008, 04:30 AM
... what? can you explain a little :confused:

I understand that linux is a kernel and i agree that linux is more than a kernel... in a way you can relate to windows, not very many people say that windows is a kernel but it is isnt it? or it has a kernel, but not very many people realize it...


Technically, Linux is a kernel. GNU/Linux is a kernel with a set of command-line utilities, and when combined with third-party software (e.g. X.org), a complete GUI platform. Ubuntu Linux is a packaging of GNU/Linux and several third-party tools to make a pre-fab OS. You need not use a pre-fab OS like Ubuntu; you can make your own if you like, starting with GNU/Linux.
It's worth noting that GNU is not needed to make the Linux kernel work. The Intel Compiler works with Linux, and there are other libc's. You can use busybox or even the BSD utils if you want.
Generally however, Linux can mean anything from the LSB (a set of specs for how Linux distros behave) to a distro, like Red Hat or Ubuntu, to a generic word for the similarities between common GUI or even CLI distros (e.g. "2.5% of web browsing was with Linux" - what they're saying is that 2.5% of web browsing was with people who had set up a system using Linux as a base.)

Ioky
August 9th, 2008, 07:21 AM
Well. I don't know why this is so unclear to many of you. But Here is what I know. Prove me wrong if you get proves.

Linux = a (Unix like OS) That use the Linux Kernel.
GNU/Linux = an OS that use GNU software, that runs Linux Kernel

Yes, They are little bit difference.

Arch Linux, Ubuntu, and etc... = Distro and (THEY ARE GNU/LINUX) AS long they use GNU software, SO if you are one of those people use x.org. You are using GNU/LINUX

x.org = x windows system.

fluxbox, Openbox, awsome, and etc... = WM (windows manager)

compiz fustion, beryl ( I believe are also windows manager)

GNOME, KDE, and etc... = Desktop.(They are base on a windows manager, and come with a lot of software for daily use)

NOTE: NONE of the above are the same to each others. Yes, you can run Linux, without GUN software. (How much you can do with it, is a difference story) and UNIX-LIKE mean Like UNIX but NOT UNIX. They try to make themselve act like UNIX, but they are not BLOOD/DNA(code) related.

In term of a platform, all of the above can be a platform. (by the definition of platform) for example, Linux kernel give the framework for x.org(GNU software) can run, and x.org gives the framework, so WM can run. and WM give the framework for app to run.

So Yes, Linux is a platform, But it is an OS as well.

In term of Windows, There are always difference Kernel / platform There are the 90s Kernel use by windows 95,98, 98se, ME and the NT Kernel, which use by NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7

Windows is just come with everything from Kernel to a GUI. All OS really need is a system that can Operate the hardware, like take input, and give out put. (stand alone)

Ioky
August 9th, 2008, 07:35 AM
For the idea of the post itself. Marketing is one thing, the truth is something else. You just can't say IT IS NOT, because it is not good to promote the product. (well you can say it physically, but it would be st..p..d) and Here is one thing you miss understand (clearly). An OS doesn't have to has a UI doesn't matter it is CLI or GUI, OS simply doesn't have to have a UI. Why? Let me give a really clear example, if you are writing an OS for an AI. Then what is the point to have a UI? I mean if you can't really let the OS running on it's own, and have to control it some way, like putting input, Is it really an AI any more??? We tend to think OS have to have a UI, but really, that is only because we see that kind OS every day.

L815
August 9th, 2008, 07:48 AM
The way I think of it is:

Ubuntu is a package of the different little parts:
- Linux(kernel)
- Wm
- GUI
- FOSS

Windows is a package of different parts:
- DOS
- WM (Aero I guess in vistas case)
- WinAPI
- Applications

So, if I am remotely correct, I find them equally similar. You can change the terminology around, but it's still the same basic principle.

Ubuntu takes each part and makes them work in unison. This is what constructs an Operating System.

original_jamingrit
August 9th, 2008, 07:48 AM
A very well written article. It raises a lot of good points.

trevelyan
August 9th, 2008, 08:17 AM
good article indeed.
good points.
i don't get how so many of you missed the point. maybe you are trying too hard to sound smart. i mean.. are you telling me that you didn't get he was talking about distros like ubuntu? if you did why did you bring the definitions of linux up? to me it was obvious he was talking about the distros so your posts of linux= this GNU/linux= that, were totally unnecessary.

LaRoza
August 9th, 2008, 08:29 AM
good article indeed.
good points.
i don't get how so many of you missed the point. maybe you are trying too hard to sound smart. i mean.. are you telling me that you didn't get he was talking about distros like ubuntu?
No, I didn't get he was talking about distros. Why? Because he didn't say he was. I expect technical articles to be correct in their use of technical terms.



if you did why did you bring the definitions of linux up?
I didn't. The article did. It mistakenly calls it a "platform". It isn't. Linux runs on many platforms.



to me it was obvious he was talking about the distros so your posts of linux= this GNU/linux= that, were totally unnecessary.

Maybe your post is totally unnecessary?

trevelyan
August 9th, 2008, 08:41 AM
LaRoza... are you telling me you have no deductive capabilities? i think you are a smart person are you not? i mean the terms OS+linux+FLOSS != distro, to you?

the person who wrote the article is right. the new user doesn't care about all of that. all they wanna know is what can linux do for me? if and when they wanna know about GNU and all they'll just go to wikipedia or something.

koenn
August 9th, 2008, 08:42 AM
i don't get how so many of you missed the point. maybe you are trying too hard to sound smart. i mean.. are you telling me that you didn't get he was talking about distros like ubuntu? if you did why did you bring the definitions of linux up? to me it was obvious he was talking about the distros so your posts of linux= this GNU/linux= that, were totally unnecessary.

Looks like that was triggered by


No, I wouldn't say that. Linux is a kernel.


and I agree that discussion is irrelevant in the context of the OP / the article the OP refers to.

-----

I think there's indeed a good point in "selling" Linux as a platform. It makes sense form an end-user point of view : you need something to run applications on, or even, you want your computer to provide certain functionality (mail, web, text processing ....) and the OS is then hardly any more relevant than the CPU architecture or the make and model of the video chip.

LaRoza
August 9th, 2008, 08:48 AM
LaRoza... are you telling me you have no deductive capabilities? i think you are a smart person are you not? i mean the terms OS+linux+FLOSS != distro, to you?

I have many deductive capabilities, but when reading an article, I read the words.



the person who wrote the article is right. the new user doesn't care about all of that. all they wanna know is what can linux do for me? if and when they wanna know about GNU and all they'll just go to wikipedia or something.
I don't care about new users. I care about facts.

It is "Linux is a platform, not an OS" and that is false. Linux is an OS that runs on many platforms. It is recompiled for its target and it has a diverse range of targets ranging from super computers, to personal computers to NASA probes. Each one is binary incompatible with the others. Java, on the other hand, is a platform. If something works on Java, it works on Java no matter where Java is (assuming same version and requires libs). I can write a Java program on a laptop running Solaris, and run it on a PC with Windows.

Saint Angeles
August 9th, 2008, 08:50 AM
this is the dumbest article i've read in a long time.

so i guess theres no such thing as an operating system... just things that run on things... yadda yadda yadda.

and laroza is right... linux is a kernel. but Ubuntu is the operating system on my computer which consists of a lot of GNU "files and drivers" and the linux kernel.

i cant even decide what the author is trying to say. these arguments are ridiculous to read.

koenn
August 9th, 2008, 08:50 AM
... The article did. It mistakenly calls it a "platform". It isn't. Linux runs on many platforms.


The author defines his use of the term "platform" in his 2nd paragraph.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_(computing)

LaRoza
August 9th, 2008, 08:55 AM
this is the dumbest article i've read in a long time.

so i guess theres no such thing as an operating system... just things that run on things... yadda yadda yadda.

and laroza is right... linux is a kernel. but Ubuntu is the operating system on my computer which consists of a lot of GNU "files and drivers" and the linux kernel.

i cant even decide what the author is trying to say. these arguments are ridiculous to read.
+1

It just seems to be arguing that calling it a platform is fashionable.


The author defines his use of the term "platform" in his 2nd paragraph.


The author defines a kernel and OS poorly also.


The "operating system" itself in reality is simply a series of drivers and files that act as a control layer between the hardware and the graphical user interface (GUI), and the GUI is the interactive layer between the end user and the operating system.
The Operating System is more than that. It forms a control layer between everything. I don't even understand why he is mentioning GUI's. GUI's are not involved here.

The definitions are wrong and simplistic and the writer is either writing for the less mentally capable, or is uneducated on what he is writing.

The basic gist of the article is "Call it a platform to sell it, and forget technical terms". That is all fine and dandy for marketting people, but not everyone is interesting in "selling" things, but using them or making them.

trevelyan
August 9th, 2008, 09:03 AM
I don't care about new users. I care about facts.

i respect that you don't care... but whether you agree with it or not, that is what the article is about. New users.



Linux is an OS that runs on many platforms.


wait a minute. did you just contradict yourself?



No, I wouldn't say that. Linux is a kernel.

which is it? a kernel or an OS?
maybe you should read your words?

LaRoza
August 9th, 2008, 09:06 AM
wait a minute. did you just contradict yourself?




which is it? a kernel or an OS?
maybe you should read your words?
I do read my words, although the occasional typo slips through.

A kernel is the software that is the basic necessity for an OS. Some may say more is needed or can be included in the definition, but at the most basic level the kernel is the operating system.

Linux is an operating system and the kernel. It is typically used with various GNU software, and other free software, but not always.

koenn
August 9th, 2008, 09:18 AM
The basic gist of the article is "Call it a platform to sell it, and forget technical terms". That is all fine and dandy for marketting people, but not everyone is interesting in "selling" things, but using them or making them.

Well, apparently the article is about "selling" Linux


So if you remember that Linux is just a platform, and it's the applications that ultimately sell the OS to the end user, you should find that you will have an easier time convincing people to try Linux .

so I don't understand what all the fuzz is about.
I, too, know what an operating system is, and a kernel, ... yadda yadda yadda. That's just irrelevant here.

EdThaSlayer
August 9th, 2008, 09:28 AM
I think the author meant that Linux can work on many different types of hardware. So the Linux platforms means the "whole" Linux world. So everyone who has a GNU/Linux pc o.s, phone o.s, or some watch o.s(in the future) all are part of this Linux platform.

Lexicon101
August 9th, 2008, 10:04 AM
The quest for literacy is quite noble and all, but if you focus on some guy's misuse of terms instead of what he's saying, you're missing the point of language, and rendering you literacy pointless.
He had a clear meaning, he just didn't explain himself well. When explaining the benefits of a GNU/Linux based operating system, focus on the uses of that operating system, not simply that it runs itself well. Show them what you can do within that operating system, not just that it sits there, virus free.

I understand that you're irritated by some perceived idiocy, but take the page out of the microscope and see the big picture.

techmarks
August 9th, 2008, 10:44 AM
The author begins the article by telling us that he is redefining the meanings of OS and platform.

He makes some very good points even if the use of term such as platform, OS, etc is somewhat muddled.

Meanings of words can often change or be changed,and this was not so much a technical treatise.

Anyhow when you take into account the advances being made in virtualization technology, it's not so strictly defined anymore exactly what is the OS or platform.

But it's beside the point, technical superiority has yet to prove itself as a marketing point, ease of use, avalaibility of software, and solutions that bring benefit to the user are more important.

That's more what the author conveyed to me.

Fri13
August 28th, 2008, 04:50 PM
Actually it goes this way:

Linux is the operating system (monolith kernel)
Linux + GNU is development platform.
Linux + GNU + Applications (GUI, Browser, mediaplayers) is software system.

Operating System is software what shares computer hardware for software. It meaning to exist is that software developers can develop easier applications without knowing exactly how the hardware works. They dont need to understand how harddrive moves it heads and how network devices work and how processor is used.

Without Operating System, we would end up with very complex applications and all they would try to control same hardware as primary one. Operating system is to keep control of these applications so all them can work together.

Operating system does not include GUI or Shell if it is not coded to it. Linux does not have such. Microsoft did bundle the window manager to operating system. First Microsoft did have MS-DOS operating system. Then it developed a Window what was GUI top of operating system, like GNOME and KDE. On after Windows 3.11 on Windows 95, Microsoft moved operating system parts from MS-DOS to Windows, so Windows became the Operating System, not just a GUI. MS-DOS was still there down "broken".
On Windows 2000, Operating System included the Window manager, that is now removed from operating system on Windows Vista (NT6) as own subprocess.

The text what is under this, is not mine. It is written by Andrew S.Tanenbaum. The computer science professor who made Minix. What Linus Torvalds used as idea to start own operating system, Linux. The text is from book "Modern Operating Systems" (typos are mine ;)




"Without its software, a computer is basically a useless lump of metal. With its software, a computer can store, process, and retrieve information, find spelling errors in manuscripts, play adventure, and engage in many other valuable activities to earn its keep. Computer software can be roughly divided into two kinds: the system programs, which manage the operation of the computer itself, and the application programs, which solve problems for their users. The most fundamental of all the system programs is the operating system, which controls all the computer's resources and proviced the base upon which the application programs can be written.

A modern computer system consists of one of more processors, some main memory (often known as "core memory." even though magnetic cores have not been used in memories for a over a decade), clocks, terminals, disks, network interfaces, and other input/output devices. All in all, a complex system. Writing programs that keep track of all these components and use them correctly, let alone optimally, is an extremely difficult job. If every programmer had to be concerned with how disk drives work, and with all the dozens of things that could go wrong when reading a disk block, it is unlikely that many programs could be written at all.

Many ears ago it became abudantly clear that some way had to be found to shield programmers from the complexity of the hardware. The way that has gradually evolved is to put a layer of software on top of the bare hardware, to manage all parts of the system, and present the user with an interface or virtual machine that is easier to understand and program. This layer of software is the operating system, and forms the subject of this book.

The situation is shown in Fig. 1-1. At the bottom is the hardware, which in many cases is itself compised of two or more layers. The lowest layer contains physical devices, consisting of integrated circuit chips, wires, power supplies, cathode ray tubes, and similar physical devices. How these are constucted and how they work is the province of the electrical engineer.


(Check the attachment where the graph is located, or you can go end of the article where is link to Amazon service where is preview of the book.)


Fig. 1-1. A computer system consist of hardware, system programs, and application programs.

Next comes a layer of primitive software that directly controls these devices and provides a cleaner interface to the next layer. This software, called the microprogram, is usually located in read-only memory. It is actually an iterpreter, fetching the machine language instructions such as ADD, MOVE, and JUMP, and carrying them out as series of little steps. To carry out an ADD instcutions, for example, the microprogram must teremine where the numbers to be added are located, fetch them, add them, and store the result somwehere. The set of instructions that the microprogam interprets defines the machine language, which is not really part of the hard machine at all, but computer manufacturers always describe it in their manuals as such, so many people think of it as being the real "machine". On some machines the microprogram is implented in hardware, and is not really a distinct layer.

The machine language typically has between 50 and 300 instructions, mostly for moving data around the machine, doing arithemetic, and comparing values. In this layer, the input/output devices are controlled by loading values into special device registers. For example, a disk can be commanded to read by loading the values of the disk address, main memory address, byte count, and direction (READ or WRITE) in its registers. In practice, many more parameters are needed, and the status returned by the drive after an operation is highly complex. Furthemore, for many I/O devices, timing plays an important role in the programming.

A major function of the operating system is to hide all this complexity and give the programmer a more convenient set of instructions to work with. For example, READ BLOCK FROM FILE is conceptually simpler than having to worry about the details of moving disk heads, waiting for them to settle down, and so on.

On top of the operating system is the rest of the system software. Here we find the command interpreter (shell), compilers, editors and similar application-independent programs. It is important to realize that these programs are definitely not of the operating system, even thought they are typically supplied by the computer manufacturer. This is crucial, but subtle, point. The operating system is that portion of the software that runs in kernel mode or supervisor mode. It is protected from user tampering by the hardware (ignoring for the moment some of the older microprocessors that do not have hardware protection at all). Compilers and editors run in [b]user mode[b]. If a user does not like a particular compiler, he is free to write his own if he so chooses: he is not free to write his own disk interrupt handler, which is part of the operating system and is normally protected by hardware against attempts by user to modify it.

Finally, above the system programs come the application programs. These programs are written by the users to solve their particular problems, such as commercial data processing, engineering calcurations, or game playing.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0130313580/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7158569-1619062#reader-link
"
I really suggest that you get that book to your hands and you readed at least it's introduction. You can get other serious computer science books what are written about operating systems.

And then as last but not worst, what is the GNU/Linux.
http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

If you want to learn diffecenses of Operating Systems and how they work, you need to go to kernel level. You need to understand what is difference of Microkernel and Monolith kernel and the variations of these two operating system arcitechtures.

There is no such operating system as GNU/Linux or Ubuntu.
There is operating system called Linux (yes, it is the kernel too!) what is used to run applications on computer hardware.
Ubuntu is same operating system than Linux or any other Linux Distribution like Mandriva or OpenSuse. It is just slightly different by it's ideas. It has same applications but compiled with different way. The whole software system is by different way packaged, but the operating system is same. Thats why we cant call Ubuntu as different operating system than Mandriva because they both share same operating system. We cant call GNU/Linux as operating system because it is the development platform = Operating System + Develope softwares (+ softwares because GNOME is part of GNU too!).

When you start studying (coding) operating systems in computer science schools, you will only find out that Linux is THE operating system, not just a kernel.

The GNU/Linux = operating system is just a marketing, like Ubuntu = operating system is too. You need a operating system to your computer so you get it a live and you get applications running. When you install Ubuntu, you install operating system + libraries + applications and you get complete software system what to use. It is sold to you as operating system becase it includes it. Remove Linux and you dont have operating system. Remove everything else than Linux, and you have only a operating system.

The Operating System definition has not changed in last 25 years. Only thing what get changed is that operating systems does include today more features, like virtualisation, what makes them more complex, especially if Operating System is the Monolith Kernel. Normal user does not need to understand how operating system technically works, they only need to know the truth and reasons why it exist and what is it's purpose. Just like normal user does not need to know how to internet works, but they need to understand that browser is not the internet or internet is not just those HTML pages.