> For instance, under your definition for the Linux "operating system",
the system could
> not communicate with the network
It is not necessary to have a NOS to have an OS. We had stand alone
mainframes
with OS's before lans were invented.
> /bin/sh--which isn't a part of the kernel
I don't have to use sh, I could and do use other alternatives. Are you
saying that
RedHat with a bash shell is a different operating system to RedHat wish
a ksh shell?
> init--which isn't part of the kernel--doesn't exist
Here we have a perfect example of an OS asking requiring user input.
> mount couldn't be invoked (so no mounted filesystems)
Disk drives are not necessary to have an OS.
If I boot msdos from rom and store my programs in ram, I still have an
OS.
> Without all of this, the system hasn't completely booted. Unless
you're
> going to redefine "bootstrapping", too.
Are you redefining bootstrapping? If I have a stand alone Linux with no
attached network, has it not finished "bootstrapping".
> You *are* aware that the kernel itself invokes /sbin/init, right?
> If the kernel *expects* and *requires* an external component, is not
> that external component a part of the operating system?
An OS (usually) expects and requires a user to input their requirements,
is the user part of the OS?
> When you can show me a computer with a Linux kernel--and
> only a Linux kernel--installed that can, will, or even *may* do
> something--anything--without the addition of external components
> (e.g. init), then I'll accept your definition.
Show me a Linux OS (your definition) that "can, will or *may* do
something-anything-without the addition of external components"
(e.g. something TO init) then I'll accept YOUR definition.
> But the kernel doesn't configure hardware without prompting from an
> external control.
If I have a peripheral that is unsupported in the DISTRIBUTED OS and add
appropriate drivers, is this now a completely new OS, or, as per you
definition
was the distributed product not in fact an OS until I added the drivers
(and can
I get my money back for false advertising).
> But, in fact, all you'll have is a hung system that is incapable of
doing anything.
Like a wordprocessor waiting for someone to type.
> Without tools to create and manage filesystems, there can *be* no
filesystems.
>Those tools are not part of the kernel.
As I said, we don't need filesystems to have an OS. Without a compiler I
cannot write
the tools to create and manage filesystems. Is NT not an OS because it
ships without
a compiler?
Greg
----------
From: Steve "Stevers!" Coile
To: Lane J. Bryson
Subject: Re: How is linux not an O/S Was: Re: Want to give back to
linux?
Date: Thursday, 26 March 1998 7:11AM
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Lane J. Bryson wrote:
[...]
>We each indicate three basic points:
>
>1. OS can be initiated and set up all these services itself.
>("bootstrapping." however, netware, for example, does this without
>bootstrapping per se.)
Your definition does not include a complete bootstrap. For instance,
under your defintion for the Linux "operating system", the system could
not communicate with the network because ifconfig--which isn't a part of
the kernel--cannot be invoked because /bin/sh--which isn't a part of the
kernel--cannot be invoked to run the start-up scripts that would employ
ifconfig because init--which isn't part of the kernel--doesn't exist.
Fsck coulndn't be invoked, mount couldn't be invoked (so no mounted
filesystems), /etc/fstab couldn't be used, etc., etc., etc., all because
they aren't part of the kernel. Without all of this, the system hasn't
completely booted. Unless you're going to redefine "bootstrapping",
too.
You *are* aware that the kernel itself invokes /sbin/init, right?
If the kernel *expects* and *requires* an external component, is not
that external component a part of the operating system?
A kernel without external components does not render a system operable.
A non-operating computer does not, by definition, have an "operating
system". When you can show me a computer with a Linux kernel--and
only a Linux kernel--installed that can, will, or even *may* do
something--anything--without the addition of external components
(e.g. init), then I'll accept your definition. But, in fact, all you'll
have is a hung system that is incapable of doing anything.
>2. Memory management (you include a filesystem)
Virtual memory is initialized via mount, not by the kernel. While the
kernel manages virtual memory, it does not initialize VM without
external
prompting and direction. Thus, without external components, portions
of your "operating system" are useless and unavailable.
>3. Peripheral management and I/O
But the kernel doesn't configure hardware without prompting from an
external control. Without external components, those peripherals are
useless and likely unavailable. For instance, without a filesystem,
/dev/modem or /dev/cua0 are unavailable to applications. Without tools
to create and manage filesystems, there can *be* no filesystems. Those
tools are not part of the kernel.
--
Steve Coile
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST
ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips
/mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
