bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: uname -s and naming confusion


From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: uname -s and naming confusion
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:52:53 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 04:17:48PM -0600, Tom Hart wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> >For what i can see, the confusion consists in that many people think
> >the Hurd is an operating system whereas GNU is a collection of software
> >that just happens to work well on Un*x.
> 
> I don't think many people think the Hurd is an operating system in the 
> sense that GNU is an operating system. People who say that the Hurd is 
> an operating system are using the term 'operating system' the same way 
> the BSD people were when they made uname -s print out the name of the 
> 'operating system', meaning the name of the kernel.
> 
> So the issue isn't "people think the Hurd is an OS", the issue is "some 
> people refer to all kernels or kernel-like projects as operating systems".

ok, then let me rephrase myself: "most people who think of an OS in the sense
of a complete operating system think the Hurd is an operating system in that
sense of the words"

> The GNU project is free to say, "When we say 'operating system', we mean 
> a complete usable system, including ...". Others are free to say 
> 'operating system == kernel', and there is precendent for this use of 
> terminology.

Sure. I personaly wouldn't worry if people who think "OS = kernel" say that
the Hurd is an OS, because i know what they mean.

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.

> 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)

> 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
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?).
so if you use the other definition, you're basicaly telling lies to that
99% of poeple.
3) the Unix system, which included a complete user environment (and was
before BSD), was an "operating system"
4) ask RMS

> >This bug is specific to GNU/Linux. GNU prints "GNU", and GNU/FreeBSD, for
> >example, will print "GNU/FreeBSD" in the OS name. Do you think the GNU
> >system and the rest of its variants should be compatible with that bug or 
> >that
> >misuse of terminology?
> 
> What is GNU/FreeBSD?

the GNU system on top of a FreeBSD kernel.

-- 
Robert Millan

"5 years from now everyone will be running
free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5"

              Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 30 Jan 1992




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]