On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:05:44 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 06:50 PM, Mario Castelán Castro 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". > > According to you. Not according to "The design of the unix operating > system", Maurice >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4: > > Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference. > Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer > literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric You gave a very unconventional definition of operating system, defining it to mean the same thing as kernel. A kernel is still useless on its own. One cannot 'install' a kernel as such, whereas an operating system is a complete system within which programs can be developed and run. This is the commonly used and accepted usage of the phrase 'operating system', one which you too use (except, curiously enough, when it comes to GNU/Linux. Hmm...). The burden of proof is on you- citing one book which holds a rather strange view of operating systems and kernels (a definition which is used nearly nowhere in the modern world, except by you it would seem), as opposed to literally the way *everyone else* uses the world 'operating system'. Why don't you display some intellectual honesty and explain this discrepancy- you call GNU/Linux 'Linux', after its kernel (which you maintain is the entire operating system). Why do you not call Windows 'the Windows NT kernel' or FreeBSD 'the FreeBSD kernel' or OS X 'XNU with bits of GNU Mach and BSD'? As for my source I give you- the internet! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system There is a marked difference. The kernel is clearly defined to be a fundamental component of the operating system, not the operating system itself. Which source is the more trustworthy- two people with a niche view writing in 1986 (and not even then was that the commonly accepted definition) or the tens of thousands of Wikipedia contributors, reflecting the commonly used modern-day definitions of the terms? Your definitions are just as ideologically motivated as all the rest.
