Re: "MIT/GNU/Linux"

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:28:50 +1100, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> writes:
>> First of all, there are other examples where "parts" have a different
>> name from the "whole".  Consider for example the fine difference
>> between "SunOS" and "The Solaris Operating Environment" :)
>
> Can you expand on this point?

"Solaris" is considered to be the "SunOS" operating system, plus a
graphical user environment, and a few other components.

> I'm asking as this seems to contradict what I was told by Sun and
> other sys admins and recall reading some years ago. My understanding
> is that sunOS was what Sun called the operating system they had prior
> to Solaris.

"SunOS" 4.X was BSD-based.  Sun replaced the BSD-based core of the
system with a System V derivative, creating SunOS release 5.0.  At the
same time, a new marketing name was introduced for SunOS 5.0 and it
accompanying set of components.  This name was "Solaris 2".

> When they brought out Solaris, they faced a bit of industry resistance
> and released SunOS (I can't remember, but think it might have been
> v4.5 or v5.4 or something like that), which was essentially the same
> as solaris (v2.3?).

There is a nice table of Solaris vs. SunOS versions here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_Operating_System

I can't verify the correctness of *all* these release versions, but it
may help a bit.

The *real* point, however, is that there is ample precedent for calling
parts of a system with a codename that is different from the whole.

> With respect to comments re kernel == OS, I don't agree. The kernel
> and the operating system are two different things, but somewhat
> dependent on each other. For example, you could run hurd instead of
> the Linux kernel.

Exactly :)

> I also gather from listening to RMS and from some reading that we
> should also avoid referring to GNU software as open source, but
> instead as "Free Software".

Also true.