| 1 |
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 00:27, Greg Corcoran wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 04:37, Kevyn Shortell wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Linux is an operating system, it is a collection of parts. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I thought Linux was a Kernel. Is this not correct? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Linux is a unix-like kernel |
| 9 |
The collection of software that RMS wants to see called GNU/Linux is an |
| 10 |
operating system. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
While the essence of an operating system is formed by it's kernel, the |
| 13 |
operating system could not exist without a standard ABI (Application Binary |
| 14 |
Interface - see gcc-3.x problems), a set of standard libraries (glibc, but |
| 15 |
multiple are allowed), agreed upon locations of certain critical files, A |
| 16 |
standard way to handle authentication (nsswitch/pam/yp). One can make an |
| 17 |
operating system as big as you want it. Microsoft thinks it is big as all the |
| 18 |
graphical user interface is seen as part of the operating system. In the unix |
| 19 |
world the graphical user interface is not seen as part of the operating |
| 20 |
system which allows for different kinds of GUI systems, while the most |
| 21 |
popular system is X. The question is where do you draw the line. Most people |
| 22 |
do agree though that a kernel alone cannot make an operating system, while it |
| 23 |
is certainly the most important part of it. That's why a lot of people just |
| 24 |
call the linux-and-gnu based operating system linux. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
ps. What's in a name? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 32 |
Junior Researcher |
| 33 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 34 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives