Linux is a kernel.

Invite people to join
Join group
Activate message notification

Description:	I get pretty tired of seeing all this "Linux" propaganda, where the people obviously are talking about the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel, but are for some reason seeing Linux as the whole operating system. I would never use Linux as my main operating system, since Linux is a kernel :D I do however use the GNU OS extensively, with the Linux kernel. Please step up and stop reffering to Linux as something it is not!
Members:	46
Comments:	105

Created:	May 9 2008
Changed:	May 9 2008
Readability:	readable for everybody
Membership:	everybody can join

goto page:

1 2 3 4

GNU/Linux

by pawels133 on: May 21 2008

Score 50%

pawels133

>I get pretty tired of seeing all this "Linux" propaganda, where the people obviously are talking about the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel, but are for some reason seeing Linux as the whole operating system. I would never use Linux as my main operating system, since Linux is a kernel :D I do however use the GNU OS extensively, with the Linux kernel. Please step up and stop reffering to Linux as something it is not!

And I get pretty tired when I'm seeing all this GNU propaganda. What's GNU? Compiler, boot loader, some utilities. GNU is not an OS! Does GNU developed Linux, KDE, GNOME, X and many more stuff? No! So, stop referring to GNU as something it is not.

Re: GNU/Linux

by tw1ggz on: May 21 2008

Score 50%

tw1ggz
Sindustries. org IRC
Home

I can agree to that. Linux isnt an OS...nor is it unix....and gnu stands for GNU NOT UNIX. I find that funny. Richard Stallman and his flipflops can be entertaining at times I guess, but Ill stick with the BSDs, The only aspects I see linux better at (that dont matter to me anyway) is gaming, and flash. I use neither, there is enough garbage on the internet without flash being thrown in (although flash7 does work flawlessly in freebsd and i can youtube or use wine+windows ff+windows flash9 without much hassle at all). I get the latest nvidia drivers from ports earlier than most linux distributions do (unless they want to install the latest drivers from nvidia.com and see how apt likes that when your kernel or xorg gets upgraded :P) psh....

Re: Re: GNU/Linux

by pawels133 on: May 22 2008

Score 50%

pawels133

Linux is a kernel, but we call Linux distributions just Linux, because it has more marketing power ;). Do you know that there's GNU/FreeBSD (FreeBSD kernel + GNU utilities)? It seems that GNU wants to emerge every OS/OS kernel etc. ;).

Re: Re: Re: GNU/Linu

by tw1ggz on: May 22 2008

Score 50%

tw1ggz
Sindustries. org IRC
Home

Sure, I can use gnu utilities on FreeBSD, I do it all the time. But atleast my whole operating system doesnt depend on GNU to be functional. IE: FreeBSD does not use GNU ls or GNU mv, etc....the base install contains NO GNU crap at all, adding gnu crap to your system is left entirely up to the individual user, and is not required at all, whereas the "linux os" _needs_ GNU utilities.

Re: Re: Re: Re: GNU/Linu

by pawels133 on: May 22 2008

Score 50%

pawels133

In my opinion GNU utils are great. GCC is GNU compiler and *bsd are addicted to it :D.

Re: Re: Re: Re: GNU/Linu

by Tweenk on: Oct 1 2008

Score 50%

Tweenk
Gartoon Redux

I'm wondering how one mv or ls implementation can be better or worse than the other. Most of the time you use mv functionality specified by the Single UNIX Specification, so if the implementation conforms to it, it works the same as any other conforming implementation.

Re: Re: GNU/Linux

by Fri13 on: Sep 24 2008

Score 50%

Linux IS the operating system.

Operating System is between Hardware and Applications. And Applications needs the operating system and libraries and other applications etc.

Before you start believeing that Linux is just a kernel, you shoud know that kernel can be the operating system. But not all kernels are operating systems.

To be a Operating System, software must fill few technical demands.

Operating system what is based to:

Microkernel using operating system has microkernel in kernel mode and needed operating system services running as protected process in user mode. Together these makes the Operating System.

Monolith kernel using operating system has all the needed operating system services IN the monolith kernel, what runs alone in kernel mode and supervisor mode.

So called "Hybrid kernel" (does not exist) what is used on Windows NT, is in reality a microkernel what has few, if not all, operating system services running with it in kernel mode or user mode. If operating system services run in user mode, they are protected like on normal microkernel OS structure.

GNU project has tried to make its own operating system, they has not yet succeed. Currently they are developing a kernel, called Hurd. It is microkernel so it is not alone a operating system but needs operating system services what are running in user mode.

When you combine Linux + GNU, you dont get GNU/Linux operating system, you get get GNU/Linux development platform what includes the Linux operating system (monolith kernel) and GNU development tools.

In Computer science, computer is just a very small part of complete software system like Ubuntu, Mandriva or Fedora. When you install such software system, you get Operating system, libraries, applications etc. Mozilla Firefox is not part of Operating system and either is GCC or glibc. None of those are part of Linux.

When you install so called "GNU/Linux operating system" you actually install Linux operating system with GNU tools. When you install "GNU/Hurd operating system", then you install the GNU operating system.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

It is very simple and clear when you start learning about computer science and that operating system is just a software what runs in kernel mode or in supervisor mode. Nothing else is part of operating system.
But, if you design operating system by using microkernel, no one stops you to bundling applications or libraries to operating system services. Like Microsoft did by bundling the part of Internet Explorer libraries and executives to operating system services.

And one vital point is that kernel mode is not same as kernel. It is bretty complex stuff to learn first but after you read carefully those links, you start understand the computer science and Richard Stallman politics about "Operating System called GNU/Linux".

Problem for RMS was that Linux started to be more than just a Operating System. It started to be the face for free software what GNU was suppose to be. This made RMS angry and started the crusade against Linux.

So in simple mode, do not believe that Microkernel and Monolith kernel are just kernels and you need other stuff to get a operating system in both cases.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

non-free software

by deniseweird on: May 21 2008

Score 50%

Something I see as completely pointless is discussing how good a system is depending on what kind of proprietary software it offers. Neither flash, official nvidia drivers or the games you are talking about, wich are most likely non-free, can be modified or improved in any way, or get ported, by anyone other than the author(s). If we're going this route, then Windows must be the greatest OS ever, wich I think is far from the truth.

Re: non-free softwar

by tw1ggz on: May 22 2008

Score 50%

tw1ggz
Sindustries. org IRC
Home

nvidia drivers are freely downloadable from nvidia.com, duh. and i dont recall ever being asked to pay for adobe flash at any point either.

No cost

by deniseweird on: May 22 2008

Score 50%

If you pay or not has nothing to do with it. It can never be free if there is no source available. If you don't see the difference, you should have no problem using an OS where you can't get the source. In fact, you were propagating for the use of Windows, why don't you switch? There is a lot of "freeware" available, and you can get a pirate copy of Windows anyway. I care about the freedom though.

Re: No cost

by tw1ggz on: May 22 2008

Score 50%

tw1ggz
Sindustries. org IRC
Home

Someone who doesnt want to take the time to learn how to use the dbsd pkg manager or the many freebsd pkg tools cares about getting to see the source of something? LOLOLOLOL youre full of it. Are you married to Richard "Flip Flop" Stallman?

Re: No cost

by Malaz on: May 25 2008

Score 50%

Malaz

Please just ignore him. Any coherent argument against him is simply refuted by a personal insult. It has ceased being funny, and is now simply annoying. He spreads propaganda about the value of BSD, yet harasses the concept of open source (without which a modern BSD would not exist).

Re: No cost

by Fri13 on: May 26 2008

Score 50%

Thats why I like the GPL, because it more free than BSD license.

Coder > Company A > Company B > User

GPL: Coder license code under GPL, Companies can not relicense work, so user has those rights what original author has gaved!

BSD: Coder license code under BSD, Company A can relicense work and sell it to Company B what sells it to User. User does not have same rights to use code as coder. Coder does not get changes to itself what Company A or B (or user) has done.

GPL keeps code evolving faster and takes care that everyone has those rights what every other person has.

BSD does not evolve so fast and allows middle man (companies etc) to steal rights from end user and from original author.

GPL is better for coder and enduser. BSD is better for those who are selfish or dont care at all under what license they license their work

KDE is made for users by users....
What can you give back to others?
Reply to this

Re: Re: No cost

by fyarball on: Sep 30 2008

Score 50%

fyarball

The problems with the GPL are:

1. Version 2 and 3 conflict with each other, meaning you can't mix the source code of a GPL 2 program with the source code of a GPL 3 program unless the GPL 2 used has an exception saying a later version of the license may be used.

2. The GPL also conflicts with many other free licenses such as the Mozilla Public Licence.

Of course you can add an exception to the GPL license used in your software to let it be mixed with other licenses, but that's besides the point, and once a piece of software has a license only the copyright holder can change it or add exceptions.

Re: Re: Re: No cost

by Fri13 on: Oct 1 2008

Score 50%

GPL has it own problems with GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions. But the compatible problems with other licenses is not just GPL's. Like on your example 2) of Mozilla. It is on both.

Freedom is something what we get in first place. And once you give your own freedom away, it is very dificult to get back.

It apply to GPL too, it is impossible to get code back to closed source backwards once you have licensed it as GPL. But you can change your license if you are owner, to be something else after that point, but not backward.

GPL does good job in protecting freedom.
But it does it so well too, that it is more dificult to use in current business model as companies would want it to be used. It needs that old corrupted bisnes model gets changed to better style, so the clients and the whole world is the one who gets the benefits in future too, not just the company.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Okay...

by Fri13 on: May 26 2008

Score 50%

Now someone started it again.. endlends flamewar. Nice job from group maker!

Linux == Kernel by technical term
GNU == OS parts by technical term

GNU + Linux == GNU/Linux by technically and general
GNU + Linux == Linux by general (marketing and evolved!)
GNU + Linux == OS By techincal term

GNU + Linux + Other applications (KDE, GNOME, Mozilla, etc) == complete system
OS + Other applications + Support + Brand =! Operating system (It is incorrectly called as "Operating System").

You dont get working OS without kernel. That's why Linux is there.
You dont get working OS with only a kernel. That's why GNU is there.
And you dont do anything with computer if you only have Operating System (unless you are coder!). That's why there is lots of different applications to use.
And you dont do anything with browsers, music players, videoplayers etc, if you dont have Operating System to run them.

That's why we have different distributions what takes OS (Linux + GNU) and Applications, put them together and they offer complete system for normal users who dont know how to compile it self. They market it as "Operating System" like Microsoft does with own brand and support.

Language and global undestanding evols all the time. First there was GNU, then came Linux and was Linux vs GNU/Linux war. Normal users dont give a sht what it is, they know there is OS called "Linux" if they dont like Microsoft Windows NT (XP and Vista are just Windows NT new versions and those have own versions and editions) and they can choose what Distribution they want, what gives them the LINUX (GNU/Linux) OS.

We have 300 distributions from one OS and bunch of software, cant you just understand that if you guys fight about "Linux is just a kernel", NORMAL USERS DONT CARE!!! Normal users just wants to use their computer and get things done!

If you are technical guy, you undestand what is a) kernel b) OS c) System d) Marketing e) Support f) product. But seems to me that some users has big problems to undestand that Linux = Kernel + OS + Applications + Brand + Support + Community == Product what is sold as "Linux".

Do you want that the Linux (GNU/Linux) gets better support from HW manufactures or NOT? If not, start fighting, otherwise stop it right away! Yeah, Microsoft is very broud of you guys when you can attack against each other yelling "Linux is ja a kernel". And Microsoft gets their FUD free, because you all are working for it when you just referr "Linux is just a kernel"!

So what is a "Linux"?

---Product---->
----System---->
-----OS------->
Kernel (Linux) (Hurd isn't Linux!)
Libraries (Glibc etc)
interface (bash, zsh etc)
utilities (df, ls, free etc)
<-----OS-------
Libraries
Software platform (GTK+, Java, Qt etc)
Applications (CLI)
GUI (KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc)
Applications (GUI)
<----System----
Brand (Distributions; Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, OpenSUSE etc)
Support (Distributions or or not, Community, commercial etc)
Marketing (by distribution!)
<----Product---

That is "THE LINUX". Even the Linux itself is very small piece of software of whole product, the whole complete system is marketed under brand "Linux" because it has great story.

All distributions builders take same source of code and compile it for own product. So all those are same OS, but different systems.

And we have own wars between different distributions what spreads false information that Applications like videoplayer, musicplayer or webbrowser are part of OS, while they are not. Those applications just comes WITH the OS, preinstalled for getting better product to normal users. Those softwares are not needed to run other software. If Microsoft builds browser to be part of OS integrating it to kernel or OS parts, it does not make that firefox is part of any OS.

There is (good) reasons why the OS is called as Linux and it is because Linux itself includes almost everything* what is needed from OS to run applications, it does not have all, but almost all to be a OS itself.

Is it so damn hard to understand facts that for normal users, Linux is THE OS? If you are so damn smart, you understand it your self, then be quiet and dont harm the community by distributing rage among others!

And BSD users can go to self and be quiet if they feel they have better OS and they can gave better system to run!

I'm so tired to these trolls and flamers that starts yelling every * time when someone say "Linux OS is great"!!!

KDE is made for users by users....
What can you give back to others?
Reply to this

Re: Okay...

by deniseweird on: May 26 2008

Score 50%

This "normal users" talk also sounds pretty odd to me. It usually goes to the kind of level where we expect all users to be idiots. Maybe many people are, in a way, idiots though coming from an idiotic proprietary OS. But then they should be educated. A "normal user" by definition probably doesn't care about software freedom either in the first place, since they weren't educated to know such things.

Right is right. I use GNU/Linux now, I am not just using a kernel, wich is what Linux is. If me saying so confuses new users, it can't be helped. I think it was wrong calling it Linux in the first place, and it doesn't get better by ignoring it. And if this ruins Linux's publicity, then so be it. I didn't want Linux to get all credit from GNU/Linux anyway.

I also don't really care that much if GNU/Linux gets better hardware support from the vendors or not. I want FREE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. If the vendors port their drivers or not doesn't matter that much. The important thing is that they make their drivers free open source software. Then every system can benefit. Not just GNU/Linux. (I am in fact considering switching to Haiku when it's ready. If all drivers are free, there is no problem, since the OS authors can port them.) Just having the vendors port their lousy proprietary drivers doesn't mean that much to me. Why would I switch to a free OS, wanting proprietary drivers anyways? (Unless it was a completely practical decision.)

I will yell every time someone calls Linux (Wich is a kernel) an OS. And I will yell every time someone calls KDE a WINDOW MANAGER too! (It's a Desktop Environment.) Maybe there is something I am missing not being so business centric, but to me right should be right. Just like calling KDE a window manager, I think calling Linux an OS creates confusion in the long run.

Re: Re: Okay...

by marcaemus on: May 27 2008

Score 50%

These arguments are now just non-sensible. Go outside, enjoy life instead of obsessing over arcane semantics.

...when all the worlds collide.
Reply to this

Re: Re: Okay...

by Fri13 on: May 27 2008

Score 50%

"Why would I switch to a free OS, wanting proprietary drivers anyways?"

Did I say that HW drivers should be closed? NO! I said that we need those drivers, you dont do anything with your computer if you dont have drivers on it.

I want that all drivers would be under GPL or specs would be open, so community (and companies) can write own drivers for device, it's both intrest to get HW work on OS and give a computer user a system what allows them to use computer how they want.

Do I want GNU/Linux to be a OS with 90% market share? No! I dont want rise other OS next to other, because there always comes a own problems then, competition is always good, when it's about other OS's (Windows NT vs GNU/Linux vs MacOSX) or even different Distributions (Ubuntu vs Mandriva and FreeBSD vs OpenBSD).

"Wich is a kernel"

Yes, it is just kernel if you come outside and you look trought classes what shows everything 1 or 0. But it seems you have not understand that community made the choise to call GNU/Linux as just simply a "Linux" because it is much easier to market and talk. Language and meanings evolvs all the time. I think it is wrong, so I use GNU/Linux all the time, but you cant jump to other throat everytime normal user talks of whole system by refering it with "Linux".

People should understand that Linux is just a kernel, GNU is the OS part and GNU/Linux is THE OS. But they dont care so much, it is sad but it's the fact. They dont care to understand what part kernel is when they speak about OS or what part OS is when they talk the complete system (what includes DE, Browser, Music player etc). Normal user just wants their job done and that's it, they want enjoy their computer.

It's like a car, they dont like to know how it works and what part is doing what, under hood. They just want that car takes them from A to B and it is nice to drive.

Do you yell everytime to normal people if they dont know is their car's motor using a carburetor or syringe?

And normal user isn't idiot, dont EVER think that normal user is IDIOT!! Normal user can be much smarter than you are, they just dont care about details what they use, they just want to use it, keeping it simple.

It's not what GNOME is doing, because you cant tell to other person what is best for them, it's samekind problem what is currently on democracy, it just dont work! Because the people who has the power on democracy (there is not such thing as democracy!), thinks that the people, does not know what is best for them, so power keepers need to tell them and do things for them.

And it's always about information, how you and what you teach to users (people). You dont like them to know and understand everything, because then you are not needed.

But politics and computer technology is different, it's not away from coder or teacher if someone normal user knows more than he does. But politics is like computer sience, normal user dont care when 1 turns to 0 and opposite, they just buy computer, install system to it and they like to use it like they would use the car.

Personal opinion for me is that GNOME is doing things wrong because it is telling to users what is best to them. KDE is on right direction now, making default to be simple, but still allowing the user to do things like user itself wants, not forsing the user to use only one way or other.

Same thing is on GNU/Linux and Linux, let them to use word Linux meaning the whole system (not just a OS) and community, they will learn the facts when they are ready to understand it. Dont be a as**le and yell that they are stupid and idiots because they use "Linux" when it's just a kernel. You dont gain anything from it, just fame of bad person.

I dont like GNOME, but I use it daily, by my own free will. I suggest it to persons who I think gets better learning curve to GNU/Linux system but I give them just a idea that there is other kinds DE to use, what might be better for them. I dont force them to understand everything at once, it comes in time. First comers of GNU/Linux are like childs, you shouldn't ruin their enjoyment, you need to guide them.

It's like learning own language, first you need to teach (allow) child to use it so s/he isn't scared to explain him self, child makes errors but it's OK, then after long time, you start teaching them how they use correctly the langauge, after when they have got the feeling that they can express them self by using a langauge and they are not afraid to use it because they can get - mark or angry teacher telling them how they ain't learned such thing yet. The spirit to learn to understand and know the truth, comes later, if you start pickin up their mistakes from beginning, they dont never like to learn to do it right.

So let "childs" to play and use words what they like, later they will learn things and everyone is happy.

There is small difference on guidance and on note, and what bigger the subject is, your example is that what makes them to do understand the whole subject.

KDE is made for users by users....
What can you give back to others?
Reply to this

Re: Okay...

by Fri13 on: Sep 24 2008

Score 50%

Just to remind that I was wrong about this, I believed the RMS idealogy because I did not know differences about Microkernel and Monolith kernel.

So just ignore the whole post about GNU/Linux.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Missing the point

by mrkennie on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

While I'm past caring what people call it, the fact of the matter is Linux IS the kernel, couple it with GNU and you have GNU/Linux. Fact!

I do however find it annoying how people seem to get all uptight should anybody suggest calling it GNU/Linux especially when it really is. Ubuntu/Debian/Gentoo/whatever is basically GNU/Linux that happens to include X, some flavour of desktop environment and various other bits and bobs.

But like I said, I've been there and done that for a long time now and frankly I'm not bothered if someone should call it Linux, <insert_distro_name_here> or Linux sucks OS. GNU plays just as an important role as Linux does.

I wonder what people would do if GNU was coined instead of Linux?

There it is!
Reply to this

Re: Missing the point

by Fri13 on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

Then explain what goes wrong on those?

Few facts:

- Operating System is that part of software, what runs in kernel mode or in supervisor mode.

- Linux runs in kernel mode alone.
- Linux runs alone in supervisor mode
- Linux is a monolith kernel
- Linux is the Operating System.

- Microkernel runs in kernel mode alone
- Microkernel has OS services running in user mode as protected process.
- Together with Microkernel in kernel mode and protected OS services in user mode, makes the Operating System.

- the Kernel is not always same thing as Operating System.
- The Operating System is not always same thing as a Kernel.
- The applications what runs "top" of Operating System" is not part of Operating System.

And if you read those links what I gave in start of this post. You find only a fact that:

1) Linux (the kernel) is the Operating System. It does not need any code from GNU project to be such.

2) GNU/Linux is not the name of Operating System. It is name of sofware combination what includes Operating System and other system programs. It is called as Development Platform. What is not same as Operating System.

Emacs, vi, bash etc. All those applications _needs_ a Operating System so they can work.

There is one real GNU operating system existing, it is called as GNU/Hurd. Hurd is microkernel what needs other OS services what are running in user mode with other system programs and application programs. Hurd is not alone a Operating System because it is a Microkernel.

If you still have dificulties, read those links again and say what is wrong about them.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Re: Re: Missing the point

by Fri13 on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

And forgot to answer for this:

"the fact of the matter is Linux IS the kernel, couple it with GNU and you have GNU/Linux. Fact!"

Yes, Linux is the kernel but not microkernel like Hurd.

Linux + GNU is Linux+GNU but it is not GNU/Linux operating system.

Linux + Firefox is Linux+Firefox but it is not Linux/Firefox operating system.

Linux + Mplayer is Linux+Mplayer but it is not Linux/Mplayer operating system.

The "GNU/Linux is the Operating System, Linux is just a kernel" is not fact. It is RMS political propaganda to support GNU project what he founded and what FSF is supporting now.

"GNU/Linux is the Operating System" is against computer science and Logic.

If GNU/Linux is the operating system, same way we can say that Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Konqueror/Java/Calculator is the Operating System.
Or Intel/Linux or AMD/Linux would be the computer or Operating System.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

by mrkennie on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

I'm sorry, how is Linux alone an operating system? That also defies logic!

There it is!
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

by Fri13 on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

Read those links to understand.

In the history, operating systems did not exist. All applications what were executed, was accessing the hardware straight. Every application needed to know what kind hardware it was running and how to run it.

Then when there came more complex applications and more variations of machines for that. The programs could not anymore run on all machines because they were different.

So, the operating system came there to save software development.

Operating System is software what is between HARDWARE and between APPLICATIONS.

Operating System knows how the hardware is run. It controls the scheduling, memory management, networking, input/output, filesystems, system calls... and it offer hardware resources for other applications and libraries so they can exist in computer.

Do you know why there has be so big fights wich one is better, monolith kernel or microkernel? It is not just about kernel but it is about structure of operating system.

Microkernel includes only very basic things itself, while most important OS services is moved to outside of kernel so the OS is stable and more secure. Every OS service part can be swapped without affecting the whole software system. If driver crash, it does not bring down a operating system or whole system. Only that part is affected and it can be restarted or changed easily.

On monolith kernel, all the OS services are included kernel itself. Actually monolith kernel is not just a one file, it is bunch of files. And monolith kernel is modular too but all modules are so tight to kernel itself, that the separation is not even possible to know.
The monolith kernel is fast because there does not go any time for swapping commands between kernel mode and user mode but the whole OS runs in kernel mode alone so it can do everything fast way. But it has own bad sides, one driver or bug brings easily OS and the whole system down.

Read those links what I gave (and what are on my sig) and you will learn the fact that Linux (the kernel) is Operating System alone. It is not against logic or computer science, it just follows it exactly.

It is just misinformation that operating system needs a kernel ALWAYS. Those who dont know computer science does not know that it is not written to stone that kernel + something is always the operating system. You just need to read those four links what I gave and you have started your way to understand the computer science and the fact, Linux is the Operating System and there is no such Operating System as GNU/Linux but such Development Platform. Or then not if you dont understand what you read or you do not want to believe the reasons and facts what are needed to understand technical computer science.

In short way it goes
----------------
Other software
Operating System
Hardware
----------------

In very tight fact is:

Operating System is the software what is running in kernel mode or in supervisor mode.

It is just false believe that Linux is "just a kernel" and you need other stuff to get a operating system. If Linux would be a microkernel, then the case would be that... but is the Linux microkernel or is it a monolith kernel?

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

by mrkennie on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

OK point made, I'm wrong to suggest Linux is just a kernel, I'm man enough to admit that.

I think the more I read on this the more I agree with the comment Linus made on this issue.

"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous." - Linus Torvalds

and

"Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux"." - Linus Torvalds

Now you can't argue with the guy that created it in the first place.

There it is!
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

by mrkennie on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

OK point made, I'm wrong to suggest Linux is just a kernel, I'm man enough to admit that.

I think the more I read on this the more I agree with the comment Linus made on this issue.

"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous." - Linus Torvalds

and

"Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux"." - Linus Torvalds

Now you can't argue with the guy that created it in the first place.

There it is!
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

by Fri13 on: Sep 25 2008

Score 50%

Yes, credit goes for those is responsible for that.

Linus started own Operating System project, what growed fast and is now what it is.

Stallman started the GNU project before it. And it was great step towards freedom on software markets and in our typical live how we use technology.

Without GPL, Linux would not be so used. Without the idea of open source, we would not have such wide used operating system as Linux.

And even that it is correct to say that Linux is a kernel. Because it is. But it is not correct to say it is just a kernel and GNU is needed.

Debian can call their own distribution as GNU/Linux distribution if they want. Ubuntu can call them as GNU/Linux delivers... everything is fine and correct as long the GNU/Linux is understod to be a software platform. So giving the credit those who owns it in first place. For RMS and for Linus.

And as Linus has said, Linux is not just a synonym for kernel and operating system. It is already synonym for software systems and the open source effect. What has made RMS mad about it because he wanted that credit to go GNU project developers. But we cant stop it.
But there is just the small truth behind it, because Linux is the Operating System, most important part of the computer software system what you need.

And I am fine too as long the people understand the computer science and truth about Linux (being a operating system) and understand that Distribution is not same thing as operating system. Or that when you get a Ubuntu or any other distribution, Linux is the operating system on it and all other applications, like firefox, gnome etc, they makes software system with Linux.

Because who us want to get a new user in forums saying that their "operating system" crash and sucks because it. Has multiple malware etc. And after long conversation you just found that he speaks about browser and apache. This makes the understanding the technology so important. Because if we start calling something to be something else, we go right away in chaos because we dont know anymore what others are speaking when everyone is referring to own terms of things.

One thing why I dont like Ubuntu, is that it does not tell truth for its users. It does same things as Microsoft that it markets itself as very special OS, even comparing itself to other Linux-distributions. What is just totally wrong because, as we know, Ubuntu and Mandriva are both using same operating system. And only difference is that who is packaging the software, what versions of the software and what is the support lenght for the software system. So what kind product they builds from open source products etc.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48

ok

by deniseweird on: Oct 1 2008

Score 50%

I will lay down my resistance concerning the Linux name, for now. The reason is because I see arguments now that I can't either confirm or disprove because I simply am no programmer. GNU is more than a compiler though! They even made games, and started the GNOME project.