Re: When can we expect a version 1.0 of the GNU Operating System?

[Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro]

Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:46:22 +0000
Brandon Invergo <address@hidden> escreveu:

> Personally I disagree with Debian referring to itself as an operating
> system, since it's clearly a distribution of software that can
> comprise operating system, ("distro" being, of course, not an uncommon
> description of Debian).

Yeah, there is no operating system named "Debian".  There is a variant
of the GNU operating system being distributed by an organization
who calls itself "Debian". 


> In the case of, say, the BSDs, sure, I think it makes sense to
> describe them as operating systems because the core components are
> all developed and shipped together without interchangeability in
> mind.

Technically they are still distributions of their respective operating
systems.  We have here a one-to-one relation between operating system
and distribution, what makes the distinction of no practical importance.


> But something like what we have is entirely different, since
> everything is developed and distributed as individual building blocks
> that can be swapped in and out as pleased (and indeed, it was like
> this even in the beginning when they were being used to replace parts
> of Unix).

That's one of the reasons we have so many distributions of variants of
the GNU operating system.


> So in a sense, offering a download of "The GNU Operating
> System" is a bit misleading, since the system isn't some set of
> software but rather it's the interactions between a vast amount of
> interchangeable software.  It's like offering a download of the
> Internet: it's nonsensical.

I don't follow.  What I can say is that "The GNU Operating System" is a
strategically good way to say "The GNU project's distribution of the
GNU operating system".


> The very definition of a distro, of course, is a diverse collection
> of software distributed together to make installing and running the
> software easier, but nowadays it's become conflated with "operating
> system".

The concept of operating system by itself is rather theoretical in the
context of a singular distribution, thus, for practical matters, they
get conflated.  The concept of operating system, however, is relevant
when treating about several distributions of the same system.


> It's hard to argue that Debian is a distinct operating system from
> Parabola;

Neither Debian nor Parabola are operating systems.  Those are
organizations (of people) distributing particular variants of the GNU
operating system.


> it's more clear to a new person what it means to download an
> operating system than it is to download a software distribution.

It's impossible to download an operating system that is not a software
distribution.  The very act of downloading will morph any operating
system into a distribution.  For practical matters, however, we can
ignore the difference and call it either "operating system" or
"distribution".  As you have pointed, though, it's strategically better
to call it "operating system".


-- 
 ,= ,-_-. =.  Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
((_/)o o(\_)) There is no system but GNU;
 `-'(. .)`-'  GNU Linux-Libre is one of its official kernels;
     \_/      All software must be free as in freedom;