Gordon Messmer wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
But it is equally ridiculous either way, when 80+% is neither GNU nor
Linux code. Calling it an xwindow system would make more sense. Or
perhaps a firefox/thunderbird/openoffice.org system - with most of
the other parts interchangeable.
If you're talking about a distribution, then I suppose it's fine.
When you refer to the *operating system*, though, that's a different
story. GNU/Linux is an operating system. It implements a defined
operating system interface. Linux, by itself, is not an operating
system.
A typical O/S (GNU/Linux included) is like an onion - lots and lots of
layers, with each layer built / depending upon the previous layer. Some
examples (in no particular order):
o hardware drivers
o hardware abstraction layer
o file systems
o compiler suites
o libraries
o networking utilities
o shells
o GUIs
o security
o etc
Some, not all, are provide by FSF. What specifically causes "linux" to
be considered "GNU/Linux" ? I use alot of GNU utilities & libraries on
Solaris & AIX systems, does that make them GNU/Solaris or GNU/AIX
systems? I even use the GNU compiler suite on these systems, does
*that* make them GNU/AIX or GNU/Solaris? Is it the fact that the kernel
is compiled by GCC that makes it GNU/Linux ? What is the distinction
that makes people claim "GNU/Linux" and not GNU/AIX or GNU/Solaris. How
about BSD? wasn't BSD UNIX for big iron around before FSF got it's
start? Didn't BSD have a fairly complete system *before* GNU tools
started being widespread? What is the distinction that makes people
claim "GNU/BSD"?
Note: I'm not arguing here, I just want to know the specific
distinctions between GNU and non-GNU O/Ss...
John
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
