On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Andrew Jorgensen wrote: > On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 08:39, Ross Werner wrote: > > I would submit to you that Debian and RedHat are "distributions", not > > Operating Systems. > > X is not part of the OS. I can have a working usable OS without it.
It seems you've missed my entire point. You can have a working, usable _computer_ without X. You can't have a working, usable _computer_ without bash, or libc, or init. You can't have a working, usable _computer_ without RAM, a CPU, and a motherboard. > In general take a look at the minimal install of several OSs. Some have > a more generous idea of minimal than others, but they all have some > components in common. It seems like your definition of an Operating System is "the minimum amount of software required to have a usable system". I disagree, and so do all the CS definitions I've seen. - Can you install Windows XP without a GUI? So is the GUI part of the Operating System? - If you have Linux running on an embedded device, and it just happens not to need or use in GNU tools, is that a different Operating System from the one that comes with Debian or Red Hat? - Is Windows 3.1 an Operating System? - ... is "command.com"? - ... is Darwin? > If you want to be real strict about it go build yourself whatever your > idea of minimal is and tell us what it includes (actually build it, > don't just dream it up). To be an OS the system must be able to operate. > The kernel is the kernel of the OS, not the OS itself. Again, I'm operating off an entirely different definition from you. Taken from, again, http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html: RMS term: OS kernel More accurate term: OS Safe term: OS kernel Meaning: the software which resides in primary memory to manage system resources RMS term: OS More accurate term: OS distribution Safe term: OS distribution Meaning: the whole package of basic software which is delivered to the user with the OS 'kernel', including compilers, editors, 'shells', and various utilities To recap: thought experiment time. Let's say I have a "minimal install", the minimum amount required to get my computer to run, consisting of the Linux kernel plus some GNU utilities. I call this "the Linux OS plus some GNU utilities". You call it, when being exactly correct, "the GNU/Linux OS". Let's say now I change the system to get rid of all GNU utilities, and use, say, some BSD utilities hacked together to perform the same function. Under your definition, now we have a _different_ operating system: "the BSD/Linux OS". In my opinion, it's still the same operating system--only the outer-level utilities have changed. Would you honestly term the latter a different operating system? ~ ross -- This sentence would be seven words long if it were six words shorter. ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
