El 22/11/15 a las 09:05, Ric Moore escribió:
On 11/21/2015 06:50 PM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió:
On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as
Linux, is
in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus
Linux.
Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
assumptions about the underlying hardware."
http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
"Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
and marketing purposes."
There ya go. Ric
There is a common false justification for calling the operating system
"Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is
an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel
must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X,
etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an
hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of
acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of
"operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word
for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel".
According to you. Not according to "The design of the unix operating
system", Maurice >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference.
Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer
literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric
I have enough of reference games in Wikipedia (I edit Wikipedia articles
in some technical topics). I am not going to play that game here, for I
reject its rules. Books are not the sole source of knowledge and always
treating them as such is a vice disguised as a intellectual virtue.
Using mainstream books as the sole ultimate provider of reliable
information means that we can't prove that there are, nor meaningfully
speak about systematic mistakes committed by most of the practitioners
of a field (like informatics in this case), because most books will by
definition, express those mistakes. Such is precisely the case here with
the name "GNU/Linux" and the meaning of "operating system" is similar
(but not identical): It is as if you asked me to prove that matter has
features much smaller than the wavelength of light by showing to you a
photograph of such features!. The constraints you intend to place on the
argument that refutes your posture preclude it. On the separate but
related "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" topic, you can find books that call
GNU/Linux "GNU/Linux" and not "Linux". A good list of titles is just a
web search away and I am not going to save you some clicks. Those are a
minority, though, because of the systematic mistake I just talked about.
It makes sense to play the references game for issues that are a matter
of simple observation or hard deduction that follows from logic or
experimentation (in other words, hard sciences). For example, we can
rely on chemistry books to learn what the periodic table is and how its
periodic nature is a consequence of the structure of electron orbitals,
since this is a matter of verification by experiments. That is not the
case here.
What "operating system" means is mostly a matter of convention since it
is mostly intrinsically meaningless: almost anything can be called a
"system", and it "operates" in some way. It is as meaningless by itself
as the term "content management system". Terms like these are only
meaningful because they are used as mere labels for concepts that can
not be described by a few words. If you have seriously studied
mathematics, you know what I am talking about: "ring", "field",
"topology", "group", "algebra" (the structure, not the field of
mathematics). We could just as easily use the words "Rifugs",
"Ydlendugs" and "Arbulumpas". However, mathematicians know this. On the
other hand, informatics practitioners rarely realize this, and they led
the intrinsic meaning of terms be a source of confusion. Mathematicians
also know that it is a matter of convention whether the topology of a
topological space, has, for any pair of 2 (different) points, 2 disjoint
open sets that each contain one such point (separation axiom).
Informatics practitioners endlessly argue over such convention, because
they attach some properties to these meaningless labels a-priori (not to
the meaning of the labels, but the labels themselves), and therefore
what the meaning of those labels are has many consequences, often
political, so they are not arguing over nothing.
In reality, not the ancient history described in a book from *3 decades
ago* is that "operating system" means a software suite that is developed
or at least packaged coherently and provide an environment with certain
features, such as a kernel and a C library. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
Windows, OS X and such are operating systems, so is GNU/Linux, and Linux
is no more an operating system than the kernel of {FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
NetBSD, Windows, OS X} is.
So in short: "operating system" is by its literal meaning, an almost
meaningless phrase. Its meaning in practices comes from convention. The
under the REAL and CURRENT convention, all of those software suites (and
not their kernels) already mentioned are operating systems.
If within any context, you want to _propose_ a convention where
"operating system" means kernel, be it because of your idea, of
something you have read in a book 3 decades old, then indeed by your
convention, "Linux" is an operating system and "GNU/Linux" is not,
neither is Debian an operating system distribution, and you are left
with no name for the real meaning of operating system; also consistency
and intellectual honesty compels you to tell people that UNDER YOUR
CONVENTION, neither Windows nor *BSD nor OS X are operating systems.
Your proposal will be rejected inasmuch as you elaborate on what changes
it entails on the ACTUALLY USED nomenclature
Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference.
Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer
literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric
That is an analogous game which professors who do not know better are
obsesses with, the "definitions" game. It is worthy of a book-length
essay of its own.
On the guilt you want to burden me with: An exam that asks for reciting
a textbook definition is flawed. An intelligent student either leaves
the class or knows that he must simply regard any such exam as an
exercise in social behavior (knowing what answer the teacher _wants to
hear/read_ and writing it) and must act correspondingly. Any student
that blindingly trust that the content of a mailing list discussion will
match what the teach wants to hear and fails the test has nobody to
blame but himself.
