Linux isn't an operating system
Richard Stallman
while working at MIT, since before starting the GNU project. That is
why the GNU system is not the same as the GNU Hurd plus Mach.
I was surprised to learn that some people consider "operating system"
to be synonymous with "kernel". But they have quoted textbooks, so
this usage seems to be well established.
The other usage, which distinguishes the two terms, is also well
established. Here's what the Feb 1966 issue of Linux Journal says, on
page 7, in answer to the question "What is Linux?"
Linux itself is the kernel, the "core" of the operating system,
Most people use "Linux" to mean all of the software that goes along
with the kernel to make a usable operating system.
Many of the users of Linux have got their idea of the meaning of
"operating system" from there. That explanation distinguishes clearly
between the kernel and the whole collection of software you need to do
actual work, but it suggests calling them both "Linux".
So it appears that "operating system" is ambiguous. It can mean the
whole collection of system software, or it can mean just the kernel.
This ambiguity probably tends to encourage confusion between those two
different entities.
Most users who use Linux install whole collections of software, which
contain Linux. These collections include Slackware, Debian,
Plug-and-Play, RedHat, and so on. They are analogous to
non-Linux-based collections such as NetBSD, SunOS, HPUX, and Unix. We
can call such collections operating systems, or ready-to-use
self-sufficient software distributions, or some other term. Whatever
name we use, the difference between these collections and the kernel
is clear.
I call these collections "Linux-based GNU systems" to help promote
unity and cooperation in the whole community. I hope some of you will
join me in doing this.
Martin Oldfield
[ snip ]
Richard> I call these collections "Linux-based GNU systems" to
I think `Linux hosted GNU systems' reads slightly better but that
could easily be a personal thing. I'm sure that both alternatives are
much longer than `Linux' so I don't think either will supplant it.
I do sincerely thank all the people responsible for the profusion of
high-quality, free, software regardless of their allegiances.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oldfield. Work: 01223 464800 Home: 01223 426232
http://joanna.robinson.cam.ac.uk/mjo/
And they're breaking down the difference between right and wrong - Dylan
Theodore Ts'o
From: "David S. Miller" <da...@caip.rutgers.edu>
I think we are all missing Richard's point. The GNU system when
finalized will use the MIT X Window system for a graphical interface.
The GNU system will use some BSD programs if GNU equivalents are not
available yet and it is convenient to use the BSD ones.
This is why Linux is a GNU system because sans operating system kernel
Linux is close to if not exactly like what the final GNU system will
be like.
I for one find it a gross error not to acknowledge this fact when
discussing the Linux system on a whole.
Why? I find this "fact" (assuming the Hurd ever does hit prime time) to
be utterly irrelevant. What the FSF chooses or does not choose to do
vis-a-vis the Hurd is pretty irrelevant to the Linux community.
- Ted
G.W. Wettstein
} Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
> What we need is a short, catchy, name that encompasses all of the above...
>
> LIGNUX !
Catchy idea actually.
The question to ask is do we want to go through the debacle of
describing it's pronunciation.....
> 8-)
:-)
> Bill Powers
Greg
}-- End of excerpt from Bill Powers
As always,
Dr. G.W. Wettstein Oncology Research Div. Computing Facility
Roger Maris Cancer Center INTERNET: gr...@wind.rmcc.com
820 4th St. N.
Fargo, ND 58122
Phone: 701-234-7556
----------------------------------------------------------------------
`The truest mark of a man's wisdom is his ability to listen to other
men expound their wisdom.' -- GWW
G.W. Wettstein
post. This NEEDS to be taken to another venue and as such I will not
reply to any follow-ups other than through e-mail or a proposed
alternate forum.
I think that my comments need serious consideration by people from
both the Linux and the GNU camps. Be they separated or divided.
On Mar 7, 7:03pm, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You've proposed that we agree on the term "Linux system" for the
> complete systems based on Linux, and give credit to GNU developers "in
> the second breath". That is a reasonable way of giving credit, but it
> has two drawbacks:
>
> * It is what most people have been doing, and that is what has led to
> our present problems.
>
> * The real issue is not giving credit, but encouraging the cooperation
> that we all need.
After wading through 155 pieces of e-mail on the topic I can only
describe the effect of Richard's comments on collaborative interaction
between the Linux and GNU camps as staggering..... :-)
I would like to first publically acknowledge the contribution that the
FSF has made to everyone's dream of a 'free' operating environment. I
use the term 'operating environment' because I believe that it avoids
the semantic problems that have plagued this discussion. Without GCC
and a complete bed of utilities we would not have the high quality
Linux kernel that we are preparing to release. Anyone who denies this
does not have a firm grasp of software engineering fundamentals.
I firmly believe that the FSF needs credit in the very same breath as
Linus and the rest of the distributed development team. Whether that
breath needs to be the second or the first one is a topic that can be
debated endlessly and pointlessly, probably to the detriment of the
entire community that supports the development of a free operating
environment.
Linus could probably care less, I do believe that he would have strong
reservations about changing the name of the kernel to something like
Lignux. I thought the name was initialy catchy but after some
consideration I think that this would be a mistake. In any event
Linus is probably too busy laying down code and being productive to
even read any of these.
The last comment in the previous paragraph underscores something that
the entire community needs to consider very carefully. Anyone who is
a student of information technology realizes that we are at an
extremely critical moment in time. Decisions and actions that we make
in the next 8-16 months are going to determine whether or not our
dreams of alternatives to corporate software monoliths are ever going
to be realized. As a development community the actions that we must
take must be swift, decisive and carefully crafted.
I am carefully couching all the comments that I am making so that I do
not step on anyone's toes. My experiences in free software are
probably fundamentally different from many people. I believe that
they are very important experiences and I also believe that my
forthcoming comments may sting but are based on some very harsh realities.
Harsh realities that we must acknowledge if the goal of an open
operating environment is to be realized.
I have been a disciple of the INTERNET and of distributed computing
since long before it was in vogue. Despite these experiences I am
still staggered by the enormity of what is happened in the information
technology field. There has been a fortuitous collision between
hardware and software that has softened and made pliable the future.
The presence of Linux, FSF tools and other freely distributable
software may make possible the re-molding of the future.
Any MBA who suggested that a company would have rocketed to a 200+ P/E
(price/earnings) ratio by giving away one of its products would have
been laughed out of a room. The people who were laughing 10 years ago
would have been scrambling 5 months ago to buy Netscape stock.
The INTERNET and its open nature and open set of communications
standards and protocols have ushered in a new era of technology. An
era where technology itself is not as marketable as the application of
the technology. I firmly believe the future for free operating
environments lay in the arena of applying technology and solving
application problems.
Microsoft and some of the other software behemoths have (temporarily)
run into a classic information processing problem. The sheer weight
and complexity of their operating systems, application bases and
upwardly compatible requirements are making it difficult to deliver
ontime, bugfree products. The collision of this effect and the
open-standards of the INTERNET have worked to produce the window of
opportunity that I alluded to before.
It is interesting to watch technical editors and trade rags rally
around the battle cry of 'small is beautiful." The impact of the
world wide wab and java has been to resurrect the notion of 'small
sharp tools', the very premise that UNIX-like operating environments
were developed from 30 years ago.
We as proponents of open operating environment must seize the
opportunity to apply our tools to the information processing niches
that have been opened. Without a doubt we have clearly superior
tools, tools that were born from 30 years of experience in software
engineeing, distributing process and networking.
Corporations by and large are discovering that information is a
valuable commodity that must be exploited to remain competitive. The
INTERNET through its open-standards have demonstrated that it is
possible to develop and deploy information processing solutions
without the encumberment of proprietary hardware/software solutions.
The impact of this has been to generate a flurry of interest in the
development of intranets in an attempt to harness the tools of the
INTERNET to solve corporate and business related problems.
The real commodity in this environment is the solution. This set of
conditions has produced a unique environment where major software
houses put the same value as we do on their products, they give them
away. For a short period of time we in the freely distributable
software environment can present equivalent tools at equivalent costs.
Rest assured that millions are being spent to close this window very
rapidly.
The community as a whole must work quickly to demonstrate this to
corporations and to the public. We MUST work rapidly to present
ourselves as viable solutions to the vast number of information
sharing and distribution problems that are presenting themselves.
Thats the meat, now to the tough part of the nut.
If we are going to capitalize on this market we must market the open
operating environments that we have worked to create. These tools
must be marketed and promoted to people who have little concern about
technical elegance, moral imperatives or social goals. We need to
market our solutions to corporate and business types that look at the
bottom line. Individuals who make choices based on whether or not a
problem can be solved in such a fashion that it generates income to
the balance sheet or offers a strategic advantage to a business or
enterprise unit.
Richard talks about a division in our community. I am not sure it
exists but if it does it revolves around this issue. I understand
perfectly well what 'free' software means. The GPL fully supports
making money from the software, the concept of freeness lying in the
forced redistribution rights of the source. A concept that myself and
other business types that I have met fully and completely support.
I have probably been as successful as anyone at incorporating free
software into a commercial enterprise. Those of you who don't know me
can look at the conference proceedings that the FSF distributed from
the 1st Conference on Freely Distributable software. Free software
tools (GNU and otherwise) and Linux serve as the fundamental
underpinnings of our infrastructure. My reputation, an operation
grossing into 8 digits and the lives of thousands of people a year are
entrusted to this environment. I sleep very well at night.
This environment has fought its way into existence in the shadow of
well funded corporate efforts. Central to our success has been that
we solved problems. Efficiently, rapidly and with impact on the
bottom line.
I have learned to sell Linux and free software tools. The difficult
thing for me to say is that I can sell Linus and the philosophy of
many Linux developers far better than I can sell Richard and some of
the FSF philosophies.
Before I get burnt to a crisp let me say that I truely respect
everything that the FSF has accomplished. Please refer to my earlier
comments about the importantance of the FSF in the development of
Linux. The problem is that Richard doesn't effectively sell his goals
and ideals to the market that needs to be addressed.
Probably the clearest example of this was his keynote address at the
conference in Boston. In his opening remarks he took a decidedly
harsh stance toward Phil Hugues and the Linux Journal. My feeling was
that he was concerned that their magazine would offer advertisements
for 'non-free' software. One of his particular concerns were the
commercial X-servers.
An outsider listening to the talk would surely come away with the
impression that Richard/FSF feels that making money from commercial
software efforts is somehow wrong. This is a decidedly delicate area
but central to the 'division' that exists between the two camps.
Our group doesn't use a single line of proprietary software. That
being said I surely don't disparage anyone from making proprietary
software available which will take advantage of a freely distributable
operating environment. If anything I think that software houses need
to be encouraged to bring their products and applications into these
environments. Without tools, problems cannot be addressed, without
addressing problems there is no motivation for the environment we have
created beyond those of us with moral and technical imperatives.
This is real world 101 type stuff. We must deploy solutions and
convince people that we are genuine contenders for stratified and
niche information processing markets. People will spend $$'s for
solutions but these same people will be spooked off in a minute if
there is even the vaguest concern about legal ramifications or the
reliability of a product.
Richard is absolutely correct in his assertion that we must work
together. Everyone interested in having a high-quality open operating
environment must share resources and work towards a common development
goal. The caveat to this is that we must work quickly and in a manner
which doesn't spook off potential consumers of our product.
The development of the Hurd is a truely noble goal. My sense is that
the Hurd is a long ways from being in a form which can be pressed onto
100,000 CD-ROMS and unleashed on machines all over the world. I am
not saying that development should be stopped but the window of
opportunity we have is probably not wide enough to be exploited by the
Hurd. Both the Linux kernel and the FSF toolset are in that type of
shape, both need to be exploited aggresively.
I have now wasted most of an afternoon which would have been better
off writing a new object broker layer for Perceptions. I apologize
for wasting everyone's time. My intention was to provoke some thought
by everone in the opern operating environment development community.
Thanks much and have a pleasant remainder of the weekend.
Harvey Fishman
> Well, most people I've talked to think otherwise. First of all Linux
> is not Unix (just like GNU's not Unix ;-) and most certainly not
> UNIX(tm), and secondly in Unix and Unix-like OSes the kernel is not
> the OS, it's the kernel. The very word "kernel" implies that
> distinction! If the kernel is the kernel of the OS, then how can it
> also be the whole OS?
Because the term "kernel' is not really a Unixism at all. Most modern
operating systems are layered into at least three separable parts - the
kernel, the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS), and the device drivers. For
instance, that is the intent of the four security rings in the Intel
hardware model. Each layer of the O/S operates in its own ring with
increasing privilege and the kernel being the most trusted with the
greatest privilege. Application software operates in the outermost ring.
But Unix has never emerged from the primordial ooze, and remains just an
amorphous blob. If you try to apply modern terms to the dinosaur, you have
the kernel refer to the entire O/S as there is nothing else.
I first learned about operating systems in probably the same time frame as
Richard - mid '50s - and then the 'system' referred to the idea of a
planned way of carrying out the tasks rather than to a collection of
objects. Indeed, the operating system was the design rather than the code
to execute it.
Harvey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Fishman |
fis...@panix.com | Sum, ergo cogito.
718-258-7276 |
Bernd Eckenfels
> It's free, and you may get the source to fix the bugs for yourself;
> the idea counts. Compare this to commercial software!
BSD or MIT Copyrights are a lot different from GPL.
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- Bernd_E...@Wittumstrasse13.76646Bruchsal.de --
( .. ) ecki@lina.{inka.de,ka.sub.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +4972573817 *plush*
(O____O) If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy
Meir Litmanovich
I can't compile dosemu 0.60.4 under 1.3.71 .In fact it couldn't compile
the module emumodule.c and I think there are problems with parametres
(especcially second ) of request_irq function .
Any ideas ?
10x in advance .
...............................................................
. "Per Aspera Ad Astra " .
. Meir Litmanovich .
. Baal Shem Tov 14/2 .Ramat Gan.52300.Israel .
. Tel/Fax/Modem (972)-3-676-13-79 (Not at Saturday ) .
...............................................................
nel...@crynwr.com
> On Sat, 9 Mar 1996, Jared Roberts wrote:
> >
> > "Hello, this is Linux Torvalds and I pronounce LIGNUX as LIGNUX"... Hmm...
> ^^^^^ Linus calls him self Linus ....
> >
"Hello. My name is Inigo Torvalds. You pronounced Linus as Linux.
Prepare to die".
[ apologies to William Goldman's _The Princess Bride_ ]
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | If you would seek peace,
Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | first seek freedom
Andy Dustman
some recognition for GNU's influence on Linux. Referring to Linux as "the
Linux GNU-based system" or whatever is pushing it, though. On my
homepage, I have a line:
What's GNU in the world of Linux?
with appropriate links for "GNU" and "Linux". I'll shut up now.
Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design / UGA
===== For PGP public key: finger an...@neptune.chem.uga.edu | pgp -fka =====
Sure, the Telecomm Act will create jobs: 100,000 new thought-cops on the net
http://charon.chem.uga.edu/~andy mailto:an...@neptune.chem.uga.edu <}+++<
Alan Cox
Yes and yes
Johannes Stille
[...]
>> I beg to differ - It could have been done without GNU, without GCC (Minix
>> had non GNU 386 compilers before Linux). Richard created (well many might
[...]
>I found the Minix C compiler quite poor, I ended up cross-compiling
>Minix with aztec C...
>
>The point was, the Minix C compiler was not a "free tool", you needed to
>buy the amsterdam compiler kit for $1000... and Minix only become free
>recently.
[...]
The original author didn't refer to the minix C compiler (which only
produced 8086/80286 code), but to bcc.
bcc to the best of my knowledge stands for Bruce's C Compiler; I think
it was written by Bruce Evans who works on one of the *BSD projects now.
It came in a 8086 and a 80386 version, the latter was used for the
original Minix/386 efforts. It consisted of a complete compiler/assembler/
linker set, as opposed to Minix cc, which combined assembler and linker
into asld that produced binaries from .s files, thus assembling
libraries again for each program.
AFAIK, the as86 and ld86 programs used for the Linux/386 realmode
startup code are from bcc.
BTW, does the Linux/8086 project know about or use bcc?
Johannes