Omer Zak wrote:
>
> Translation for those who do not do it cunningly:
>
> Linux is a Buddha. It was created in Finland. The influence of the Gods
> of Finland upon Linux is obvious to anyone except for those who imprison
> birds and charge a fee for watching them. Since the original name of
>
Translation for those who do not do it cunningly:
Linux is a Buddha. It was created in Finland. The influence of the Gods
of Finland upon Linux is obvious to anyone except for those who imprison
birds and charge a fee for watching them. Since the original name of
Finland is pronounced with the
You lot are rotters.
Linux is not an operating system.
Linux is not a kernel.
Linux is not a distribution.
Linux is not an endeavor.
Linux is Ir. Ir, of course, is a form of hypereviscerated Reiyk.
Of course, having been at least incepted in Suomi, the influence
of Pohjola is obvious to any bu
On 13 Dec 2000, Oleg Goldshmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:46:53 +0200, Boaz Rymland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't join your terminology.
> IMO,
> * Linux is the Operating system brand,
What do you define as Operating System? Linux is the kernel. Nothing
more, nothing less.
> * RedHat,Debian are distributions, meaning
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:54:07PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Adi Stav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why aren't they? Unix, BSD and SysV are/were actual branded OSs that
> > were sold under that brand, no less than Red Hat or HP/UX are now.
>
> I suppose UNIX was a brand when it was con
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But even when UNIX was originally written things like troff were
> considered an integral part.
OK, let's get historical :). According to Dennis Ritchie,
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/notes.html
"The charter for the project [UNIX for PDP-11 -
Dear ppl!
I think that the core (oops...) of the question is very simple: There is a
difference between the Operating System as a Software to Hardware
interface, and the Operating System as a User to Software to Hardware
interface.
It is a fact though, that there are two major schools of operati
- Original Message -
From: "Adi Stav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But Linux is not a brand. 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
Adi Stav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why aren't they? Unix, BSD and SysV are/were actual branded OSs that
> were sold under that brand, no less than Red Hat or HP/UX are now.
I suppose UNIX was a brand when it was controlled by a single company
and was immediately associated with that company.
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Though the whole point of "Red Hat Linux" was to make the great unwashed
> brand aware of Linux and that brand was Red Hat.
Bob Young talked explicitly and eloquently about branding as a part of
RH strategy in "Open Sources". The expectation
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> 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?
Why aren't they? Unix, BSD and SysV are/were ac
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> 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?
Though the whole point of "Red Hat Linux" was to make the great unwashed
brand aware o
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 ha
Adi Stav wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Boaz Rymland wrote:
> > Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > With the current amount of differences between various linux distros,
> > > calling each of them "operting system" is more correct.
> >
> > I wouldn't join your terminology.
> >
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:46:53PM +0200, Boaz Rymland wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >
> > With the current amount of differences between various linux distros,
> > calling each of them "operting system" is more correct.
>
> I wouldn't join your terminology.
> IMO,
> * Linux is the Operating
- Original Message -
>
>
> I prefer to say that Linux is the operating system, RedHat is the
> distribution, 6.2 is the distribution version, and Kde or Gnome are the
> desktop environments. You should be able to use both Gnome and Kde, but
not
> concurrently, unless you have several moni
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Adi Stav wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:51:45AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
> > > > Now. let's see if I got it right:
> > > > RedHat is the operating system, and the
> > > > KDE, GNOME... are the envyroments -
> > > > Which means: I'll have the
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Adi Stav wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:51:45AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
> > > Now. let's see if I got it right:
> > > RedHat is the operating system, and the
> > > KDE, GNOME... are the envyroments -
> > > Which means: I'll have the Linux Redhat 6.2
> > > and will be ab
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:51:45AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
> > Now. let's see if I got it right:
> > RedHat is the operating system, and the
> > KDE, GNOME... are the envyroments -
> > Which means: I'll have the Linux Redhat 6.2
> > and will be able to function on several
> > envyroments.
> >
>
> Thanks 4 everything, man
> I have a lot to ask u, and I am wondering
> wether to email you my Qs, or to wait till
> I see you, or - at least talk to you -
> Which might take generations...
>
If you have a lot of questions, I suggest you post some of them and we will
see where are we getting
I recall I was once fscking my head off for half a day, till
I finally decided I can do without the option to boot the Windows
on the IDE disk. After physically disconnecting the IDE and then
running lilo to install again (have a Adaptec AHA-294X Ultra SCSI),
it worked perfectly.
Ben-Nes Michael
Omer Zak wrote:
> My opinion in the lecture subject debate is a "me too". I agree with
> Moran Cohen's suggestion.
>
> The knowledge about integrating Linux into a Windows World can (AFAIK)
> be summarized in the single word SAMBA (anyone cares to suggest a meaning
> to the prefix HA, so that w
23 matches
Mail list logo
