Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Not only is Linux just one implementation of the more or less
standard Unix/Posix system call interface that predates it, but so
is GNU libc just another implementation of the pre-existing standard
c library specification and sensibly written programs have no
dependencies on any specific implementations of these standards.
You're talking API. I wrote ABI.
But that's just an artifact of where the program is compiled.
I'm talking of running the so-called Linux *binary* applications on
top of GNU libc on top of any other kernel GNU libc can target while
exporting the same ABI it exports when targeting the kernel Linux.
If they were compiled under cygwin/mingwin they could be windows
binaries. That doesn't justify changing their name.
From his description you might think that it would make sense to say
GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail
You could call the binaries Apache/GNU and sendmail/GNU, indeed,
because they're built for (and actually carry pieces of) the GNU
operating system. But no pieces of Linux whatsoever.
But that's like the water/beer argument mentioned earlier. You don't
name something after an ingredient that is generic and adds no character.
But yes, that's an unrelated point. It doesn't matter what other
applications you install on an operating system, that doesn't change
what the operating system is. You can install OOo, Ff, Cygwin, etc on
MS-Windows, and even distribute them all together, but the operating
system underneath is still MS-Windows. Why should a different
criterium be applied to GNU+Linux?
The 'operating system' is Linux. The other components are mostly not
operating system specific.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
