On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:50:07 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc...@yandex.com> wrote:
> El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió: > > On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote: > > > >> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as > >> Linux, is > >> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus > >> Linux. > > Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use: > > Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice > > J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4: > > > > The operating system interacts directly with the hardware, > > providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware > > idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating > > system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel, > > emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are > > independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between > > UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make > > assumptions about the underlying hardware." > > http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html > > "Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political > > and marketing purposes." > > > > There ya go. Ric > > There is a common false justification for calling the operating system > "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is > an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel > must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X, > etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an > hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of > acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of > "operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word > for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel". > > By the way, according to Debian, GNU/Linux is an OS and Linux is a > kernel. Look at the OS title ("Debian GNU/Linux") and package names. The fact that the 'open source' crowd aren't willing to call Windows 'the Windows NT kernel', FreeBSD 'the FreeBSD kernel' and Mac OS X 'the GNU Mach kernel/FreeBSD kernel' demonstrates the utter ridiculousness of the whole 'operating systems and kernels are the same' position. It also demonstrates just how ideologically motivated their reference to GNU/Linux as 'Linux' is- they simply wish to downplay the FSF and the GNU project (without which Linux would have been unusable as part of a free operating system, and without which Linux wouldn't even be free (thanks to the GPL and RMS' persuasive influence)) and promote Linus Torvalds and his 'free software as a development model' approach- open source.
