Adi Stav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But Linux is not a brand.
No, it isn't. Neither is UNIX. Nor are BSD or SysV. Red Hat is. HP/UX
is. What has it got to do with OS?
> Most of the Linux-based distributions include the Linux kernel as it
> is, or with relatively negligible changes. Linus has neither the
> power nor the desire to influence "userland" applications. It is Red
> Hat, Debian etc who brand the complete systems. So I would not say
> Linux is a single operating system, but a family of operating
> systems, because there's no OS you can point at and say "this is the
> original Linux", unlike Unix or BSD.
I suggest that you guys agree on the definitions of "OS", "Desktop
Environment", "Application" etc. It seems to me that the layman's (no
Adi, I don't mean you, don't jump :) understanding of the term OS is
stroingly influenced by the notion of a "Windows Operating System"
that includes the whole preinstalled package. Many components of that
package (and of Linux distros) rightfully belong to the "Applications"
category, I believe. From a more professional/CS point of view, in the
"Operating Systems" course students study Linux the Kernel, I imagine
(those who took an OS course please correct me if I am wrong :).
My personal bias is that not only KDE or GNOME, but X, emacs, even ed
or find are not parts of UNIX or Linux. Call them environments,
applications, utilities, tools as appropriate. To support this point
of view here's http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/o.html#operating_system
;-)
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | Comgates Ltd. | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... We work by wit, and not by witchcraft;
And wit depends on dilatory time."
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
