Gnu say "LInux is just a kernel"
Grover Cleveland
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system
(18k characters) every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn
of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is more often
known as ``Linux'', and many users are not aware of the extent of its
connection with the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is
not the operating system. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by
itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating
system. Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating
system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its
kernel.
Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the kernel,
which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call ``Linux''. The
ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding. These users often
think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991,
with a bit of help.
Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they have
generally heard the whole system called ``Linux'' as well, they often
envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system after the
kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished
writing Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software
to go with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most everything
necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available.
Craig Barkhouse
"Grover Cleveland" <19...@century.presidents> wrote in message
news:73bacd28e83ec6d8...@news.teranews.com...
>
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
>
<snip>
So... you posted all of that, and aren't making any sort of comment
yourself? I just don't understand the point you are trying to make.
washer of kegs
>
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
>
> Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system
> (18k characters) every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn
> of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is more often
> known as ``Linux'', and many users are not aware of transcends of its
> connection with the GNU Project.
>
If we wanted to stand on protocol, it we would say we run a POSIX compliant
Unix like operating system with a kernel called Linux, system tools by gnu
and windowing system supplied by Xfree86. I think I will stick to telling
people I run Linux, rolls of the tongue easier.
gnu is not an OS either but an user environment. Thanks to Cygwin I can do
almost anything on a windows box that I can on a Linux box.
To initiate a flame fest...
The only thing you can do with Linux (the kernel) is to use it to run linux
(the OS). The gnu tools on the other hand run on just about every OS
created to date (making some almost useable). You could say that Gnu
transcends the OS.
Praise be to Saint Ignucius.
Linønut
> gnu is not an OS either but an user environment. Thanks to Cygwin I can do
> almost anything on a windows box that I can on a Linux box.
>
> To initiate a flame fest...
> The only thing you can do with Linux (the kernel) is to use it to run linux
> (the OS). The gnu tools on the other hand run on just about every OS
> created to date (making some almost useable). You could say that Gnu
> transcends the OS.
>
> Praise be to Saint Ignucius.
Amen.
In fact, at work, I run GNU/Windows XP.
Now if I can only find the Windows source code. I need to make some
modifications.
--
Free as in freedom
Hamilcar Barca
-0500), Linųnutlinųnut wrote:
> In fact, at work, I run GNU/Windows XP.
>
> Now if I can only find the Windows source code. I need to make some
> modifications.
I think it's best not to tease the Software Gestapo, lest one provoke a
visit from the BSA!
Geoff Lane
> I think it's best not to tease the Software Gestapo, lest one provoke a
> visit from the BSA!
Those Boy Scouts can be rough!!
--
Geoff Lane
The identity card is not the man
Linønut
I have nothing to fear from the BSA. I make minimal use of Windows at home --
it's the lesser-used partition of my laptop, and I boot to it only when I want
to debug some work code, or when I have to sign my time sheet from home.
As for getting the Windows source code, I sure would be curious to see it, but
it ain't worth the effort.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
06/10/2004
at 05:33 PM, Grover Cleveland <19...@century.presidents> said:
>Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system (18k
>characters) every day, without realizing it.
No. They run a bunch of GNU utilities; they do not run the HURD, and
therefor it is disingenuous to claim that they are running "he GNU
system".
>The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless
>by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete
>operating system.
Untrue; the Linux kernel can be and has been used without all of the
GNU cruft, much less a complete operating system.
>Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating
>system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as
>its kernel.
ROTF,LMAO! Every Linux distribution that I've used has had more
software from non-FSF sources than from FSF. This is just another
self-promotion by RMS.
>Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the
>kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call
>``Linux''.
Well, it would appear that the author is not aware of the distinction,
since he doesn't seem to understand the relation between GNU and HURD.
I don't know what you mean by "whole system", but users call Linux
distributions Linux distributions because they are Linux
distributions. It may be that they don't understand that most of the
distribution is not Linux, but some evidence to that effect might have
been nice.
>Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they
>have generally heard the whole system called ``Linux'' as well, they
>often envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system
>after the kernel.
An interesting article of faith. Probably untrue, and certainly
unproven, but still interesting.
>For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished writing
>Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software
>to go with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most
>everything necessary to make a Unix-like system was already
>available.
You mean such GNU software as X, GNOME and KDE? Perhaps you mean Perl
and TeX? Yep, it all came from FSF. NOT!
Now, admittedly a lot of useful stuff in the typical Linux
distribution comes from FSF. But a lot more does not. And that's not
new; it was true back in the days when Ygdrassil was taking on
SlacWare.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do
not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org