On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 04:17:48PM -0600, Tom Hart wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > > >For what i can see, the confusion consists in that many people think > >the Hurd is an operating system whereas GNU is a collection of software > >that just happens to work well on Un*x. > > I don't think many people think the Hurd is an operating system in the > sense that GNU is an operating system. People who say that the Hurd is > an operating system are using the term 'operating system' the same way > the BSD people were when they made uname -s print out the name of the > 'operating system', meaning the name of the kernel. > > So the issue isn't "people think the Hurd is an OS", the issue is "some > people refer to all kernels or kernel-like projects as operating systems".
ok, then let me rephrase myself: "most people who think of an OS in the sense of a complete operating system think the Hurd is an operating system in that sense of the words" > The GNU project is free to say, "When we say 'operating system', we mean > a complete usable system, including ...". Others are free to say > 'operating system == kernel', and there is precendent for this use of > terminology. Sure. I personaly wouldn't worry if people who think "OS = kernel" say that the Hurd is an OS, because i know what they mean. The real problem comes when people who think "OS != kernel" (which are 99% of people) learn from the first group that the Hurd is an OS, which is completely wrong. > I think Thomas is quite right in saying that the GNU project should have > a consistent definition of "operating system" that it uses in all GNU > products. The GNU project has already a consistent definition of "operating system": "An operating system is not just a kernel; it also includes compilers, editors, text formatters, mail software, and many other things." (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html) > Saying there is such a thing as "wrong terminology" means that there is > a central authority mandating what "correct terminology" is. I am aware > of no such authority (although those in Great Britain and the > Commonwealth may look to the Oxford English Dictionary, and Americans to > Merriam-Webster... I don't think either of them specialize in technical > definitions, though!). 1) search for "operating" and "system" in any dictionary, then put them together 2) a usable system is what 99% of people understand when you talk them about "operating system" (M$ windows is an operating system isn't it?). so if you use the other definition, you're basicaly telling lies to that 99% of poeple. 3) the Unix system, which included a complete user environment (and was before BSD), was an "operating system" 4) ask RMS > >This bug is specific to GNU/Linux. GNU prints "GNU", and GNU/FreeBSD, for > >example, will print "GNU/FreeBSD" in the OS name. Do you think the GNU > >system and the rest of its variants should be compatible with that bug or > >that > >misuse of terminology? > > What is GNU/FreeBSD? the GNU system on top of a FreeBSD kernel. -- Robert Millan "5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5" Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 30 Jan 1992 _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd