Robert Millan wrote:
I think 99% of people don't have a clue what a kernel is. I know I didn't before I started using GNU/Linux.The real problem comes when people who think "OS != kernel" (which are 99% of people) learn from the first group that the Hurd is an OS, which is completely wrong.
For that matter, 99% of people are never going to use the command line, compiler, or anything else that isn't one of their desktop's GUI apps.
I think Thomas is quite right in saying that the GNU project should have a consistent definition of "operating system" that it uses in all GNU products.
The GNU project has already a consistent definition of "operating system":"An operating system is not just a kernel; it also includes compilers, editors, text formatters, mail software, and many other things." (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html)
Good. I didn't mean to say that I didn't think such a definition existed.
From my Oxford Dictionary of Current English (I'll avoid Merriam-Webster since it has several "bugs" involving the spellings of words like "colour", "honour", "theatre", "centre", etc.):Saying there is such a thing as "wrong terminology" means that there is a central authority mandating what "correct terminology" is. I am aware of no such authority (although those in Great Britain and the Commonwealth may look to the Oxford English Dictionary, and Americans to Merriam-Webster... I don't think either of them specialize in technical definitions, though!).
1) search for "operating" and "system" in any dictionary, then put them together
operating system (n.) basic software that enables the running of a computer program.
This is close to the GNU definition, but doesn't include, for example, compilers and text formatters.
Well, if we're going to be proper, there is no such thing as "M$". However, there is a family of Microsoft Windows operating systems.2) a usable system is what 99% of people understand when you talk them about "operating system" (M$ windows is an operating system isn't it?).
Now,
A. Hasn't RMS said that anything that doesn't ship with a compiler isn't a real operating system.
B. Microsoft has gotten in trouble for shipping too much stuff as "part of the operating system" - ie. Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, etc.
so if you use the other definition, you're basicaly telling lies to that 99% of poeple.
I think *that's* going overboard.
Sure, anything I do for the GNU project, I should be damn sure I'm using the GNU/RMS definition. Otherwise, I'm not playing as part of the team. So if I wrote a piece of GNU software, or a GNU manual, that said "The Hurd is GNU's operating system", that would be a bug that I'd have to fix.3) the Unix system, which included a complete user environment (and was before BSD), was an "operating system" 4) ask RMS
But Linux isn't a GNU project. They don't have to use GNU's definitions. So that's a whole other can of worms.
Anyhow, back to that 99% of people... I'm sure they don't care what either of us say on the subject. :-)
--
_______________________________________________
/ |
/ Tom Hart |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\ "rmTFM - Build consistent interfaces." |
\_______________________________________________|
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
