Andrew Kelly wrote:
<snip for brevity>
Except that what you call Linux software isn't actually for Linux.
Have you ever heard of Nexenta (GNU/kOpenSolaris), Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD, and even UnixWare?
If you take *GNU* libc, rebuild it to target a different kernel while
exporting the same ABI, and voila, you can drop Linux entirely from
what you call a Linux Operating System, and pretty much all
applications will still work just the same. Because they're not
applications for Linux. They're applications for GNU libc. They
couldn't care less that they're running on top of the kernel Linux.
For them, the kernel is irrelevant.
Next frequently raised fallacious objections?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "the sound of a shoe dropping".
[applause]
That was a fabulous exchange, very well stated, very well explained.
Alexandre, very impressed with your ability to avoid vitriolic and
abusive tone. Very impressed.
Except that he didn't go quite far enough with that explanation. Not
only is Linux just one implementation of the more or less standard
Unix/Posix system call interface that predates it, but so is GNU libc
just another implementation of the pre-existing standard c library
specification and sensibly written programs have no dependencies on any
specific implementations of these standards. From his description you
might think that it would make sense to say GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail
when in fact, like most such programs there is no such relationship and
they run just fine when built on *bsd or commercial unix C libraries -
as they were before glib existed.
It would make more sense to describe a lot of things as the "GNU
re-implementation of..." rather than to imply that they were created as
original designs or are the only versions that exist.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
