Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:07:25PM +0200, Henning Riedel wrote:
> >
> > Well, why should an OS definitely need a shell?
> > Thinking about embedded systems, what would a shell be needful except
> > laying around in the memory? Take a look at an RTOS, the
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:07:25PM +0200, Henning Riedel wrote:
>
> Well, why should an OS definitely need a shell?
> Thinking about embedded systems, what would a shell be needful except
> laying around in the memory? Take a look at an RTOS, they are called
> operating systems too, but most don'
commence Robert Millan quotation:
>
> GNU is shorter, anyway. when you're referring to a variant it's
> normal to use a longer name. if someone made a variant of windoze
> they wouldn't call it windoze but Bob's Windoze or something weird
> like that.
You know, every time you call Windows "Wind
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:16:11AM +0200, Niklas Höglund wrote:
> >
> > I like talking about GNU when I talk about GNU operating
> > systems. This way, there is no need to differentiate. However, if you
> > are referring specifically to the GNU system on the Linux kernel, then
> > GNU/Linux
Niklas Höglund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Noone says "Microsoft Windows" or "Microsoft Word", except in official texts
> and such. Windows and Word are the terms used -- one word terms.
Then I have to be a noone, as I use those terms.
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:33:32AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
> > colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
> > talking about them in the off
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:56:09PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:48:14PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
> > > A javaOS has been done. Oskit + Kaffe = JavaOS. So you don't always
> > > need
> > > a lower layer.
> >
> > Does javaOS have a shell? If it's just Oskit
--- Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:48:14PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
> >
> > --- Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On the other hand, some of the examples like GNU, GNU/Linux
> > > or Solaris are capable of doing some productive by themselves
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:48:14PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
>
> --- Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, some of the examples like GNU, GNU/Linux
> > or Solaris are capable of doing some productive by themselves
> > (where a productive task can be anything the user c
--- Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, some of the examples like GNU, GNU/Linux
> or Solaris are capable of doing some productive by themselves
> (where a productive task can be anything the user considers
> productive). Of course you can run a JVM, perl or Bash,
> but t
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:52:25PM +, THOMAS EDWARD HART wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but if everyone had a different concept of every
> > word there'd be no way to understand each other. This
> > is why languages are formalised. And there's a formal
> > definition of the word "operating". If you think
On 24-Jul-02 13:52:56 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AMS> Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's not what is meant; if it were so, it would indeed seem
>> redundant. There is no GNU version of Linux or the Hurd. GNU/X
>> refers to the operating system 'GNU' running on
> If Debian, Mandrake and RedHat are operating systems, then
Apache,
> OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc are all typical OS components.
I'm taking what they say from their web pages; for example:
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.
-- www.debian.org
Mandrake LinuxTM is a friendly L
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 06:32:48PM +, THOMAS EDWARD HART wrote:
> This naming issue seems to come up a lot. Isn't it due to
> ambiguity in the use of the term "operating system"?
>
> For example, from the point of view of operating system
> theory, I believe that one would say that Mach is an
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you do not agree, that is fine by me. I will continue to
> refer to a GNU/Linux system as a GNU system, because it merely
> substitutes one small part of the GNU system with another.
_a GNU system_, not _the_ GNU system. There is a difference.
>
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:52:56PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's not what is meant; if it were so, it would indeed seem redundant.
> > There is no GNU version of Linux or the Hurd. GNU/X refers to the
> > operating system 'GNU' runni
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:36:10PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I like talking about GNU when I talk about GNU operating
> > systems. This way, there is no need to differentiate. However, if you
> > are referring specifically to the GNU system on
Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not what is meant; if it were so, it would indeed seem redundant.
> There is no GNU version of Linux or the Hurd. GNU/X refers to the
> operating system 'GNU' running on top of/combined with X, X being Linux
> or the Hurd in most cases.
Maybe
Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
> colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
> talking about them in the official sense I would try to use GNU/Hurd, or
> GNU/Linux, but in conversations it seems aw
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:33:32AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
> > colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
> > talking about them in the official sense I would t
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:33:32AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
> colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
> talking about them in the official sense I would try to use GNU/Hurd, or
> GNU/Linux, but
This naming issue seems to come up a lot. Isn't it due to
ambiguity in the use of the term "operating system"?
For example, from the point of view of operating system
theory, I believe that one would say that Mach is an
operating system, and that the GNU Hurd is another operating
system layered on
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:33:32AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
> colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
> talking about them in the official sense I would try to use GNU/Hurd, or
> GNU/Linux, but in con
My long running theory about this is that people crave a shorter
colloquial(sp?) term for talking about both linux and hurd. If I were
talking about them in the official sense I would try to use GNU/Hurd, or
GNU/Linux, but in conversations it seems awkward. And how many non-GNU
versions of linux
Thank you for your kind answer.
It's very helpful.
> PS: The official name is "Debian GNU/Hurd". As so many people speak
> about "Debian/Hurd", I wonder where they did read that term, because a
> web page using this term should be corrected.
Sorry about the name. From now on, I use "Debian GNU/H
Choe, Hyun-ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [20020523 shapshot]
> I think this snapshot is converted to libio, is it correct ?
Yes, it is.
> There are three directories concerning Debian packages..."debian",
> "debian-libio", and "debian-stdio".
Use the "debian" directory. But I was told the lin
Since my hurd system broken, I reinstalled hurd from 20020523 shapshot.
I think this snapshot is converted to libio, is it correct ?
And I checked ftp.funet.fi for installing recent debian packages.
There are three directories concerning Debian packages..."debian",
"debian-libio", and "debian-st
27 matches
Mail list logo
