> Huh? When does init ask for user input? How is the "OS" asking for
> input when dealing with init?
init INPUTS a SCRIPT file, /etc/init.tab containing instructions FROM
THE USER (root) on what to do.
Functionally this is the same as dos reading autoexec.bat.
> If you have a standalone Linux box that doesn't have access to
> a filesystem, doesn't have access to init, doesn't have access to
> a shell.
There is NOTHING to stop me replacing init with another PROGRAM of my
choice that reads a peripheral, say a tape, that loads a program that
does whatever
I want..
The particular peripherals I, the user, choose to load or not load are
irrelevant as to whether
or not I have an OS.
> A base system is responsive to external interaction.
The simple fact that a kernel 'hangs' without init is by definition, a
'reaction'.
> Hardly. A word processor would be able to respond were someone to
start typing.
A kernel is able to respond once it finds init, either the one supplied
or whatever you replace it with.
The word processor is UNABLE to respond without someone typing, it has
in fact HUNG.
Greg
----------
From: Steve "Stevers!" Coile
To: Bradley, Greg
Cc: 'Redhat_Post'
Subject: Re: FW: How is linux not an O/S Was: Re: Want to give back to
linux?
Date: Thursday, 26 March 1998 3:29PM
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Bradley, Greg wrote:
[...]
>>init--which isn't part of the kernel--doesn't exist
>
>Here we have a perfect example of an OS asking requiring user input.
Huh? When does init ask for user input? How is the "OS" asking for
input when dealing with init?
[...]
>>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".
If you have a standalone Linux box that doesn't have access to
a filesystem, doesn't have access to init, doesn't have access to
a shell. Frankly, unless you've patched the kernel, that box isn't
doing anything, period. While you may consider it "bootstrapped",
I consider it "useless".
>> 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.
Red Hat Linux, even a base install, will provide a set of services,
will monitor log files, will maintain the filesystem, will allow users
to access services and invoke additional programs. A base system is
responsive to external interaction. Users can take action with the
system. Peripherals can interact with the system and prompt action.
External, network-connected devices can interact with the system.
A kernel, without even init, can't do *anything*. It will panic and
halt.
At which point it becomes a NON-operating system.
>> 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.
Hardly. A word processor would be able to respond were someone to start
typing. A panicked kernel will not respond to anything short of a
reset.
--
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.
