On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:47 +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Tim wrote: > > Speaking as someone who studied (at college) computing from the > > component level, and has built systems from the chip level. I mean > > breadboarding CPUs, RAM, I/O, etc., not just putting together IBM > > clones. As well as studying programming at that level (hand compiling > > the op-codes from mnemonics used to write the program). I'm quite > > astounded by the number of people who want to redefine what an OS is, to > > something that it's not, just to suit their egos. The OS simply is that > > which lets software make use of the hardware, not what makes it > > convenient for us to make use of it. > > > > So answer this: Which bit of the software on this computer system is it > > that actually does the OS functions, the *real* OS function? > > With all that education you have, perhaps you can explain something I've been > wondering about: Why do we have both terms "kernel" and "operating system" if > they're both the same thing? > > If people can't agree on what an operating system is, but do agree on what a > kernel is, maybe we should avoid the ambiguity of "operating system" and > simply call a kernel a kernel? > > Björn Persson > At the risk of violating my own prohibition I am forced to respond to the above e-mail. The kernel and the operating system are certainly not the same thing in the same sense that the engine and the car are not the same thing. -- ======================================================================= What's so funny? ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
