Re: uname -s and naming confusion

[Tom Hart]

Robert Millan wrote:
> 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 99% of people don't have a clue what a kernel is. I know I 
didn't before I started using GNU/Linux.

For that matter, 99% of people are never going to use the command line, 
compiler, or anything else that isn't one of their desktop's GUI apps.

> > 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)

Good.

I didn't mean to say that I didn't think such a definition existed.

> > 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

From my Oxford Dictionary of Current English (I'll avoid 
Merriam-Webster since it has several "bugs" involving the spellings of 
words like "colour", "honour", "theatre", "centre", etc.):

operating system (n.) basic software that enables the running of a 
computer program.

This is close to the GNU definition, but doesn't include, for example, 
compilers and text formatters.

> 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?).

Well, if we're going to be proper, there is no such thing as "M$". 
However, there is a family of Microsoft Windows operating systems.

Now,
A. Hasn't RMS said that anything that doesn't ship with a compiler isn't 
a real operating system.
B. Microsoft has gotten in trouble for shipping too much stuff as "part 
of the operating system" - ie. Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, 
Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, etc.

> so if you use the other definition, you're basicaly telling lies to that
> 99% of poeple.

I think *that's* going overboard.

> 3) the Unix system, which included a complete user environment (and was
> before BSD), was an "operating system"
> 4) ask RMS

Sure, anything I do for the GNU project, I should be damn sure I'm using 
the GNU/RMS definition. Otherwise, I'm not playing as part of the team. 
So if I wrote a piece of GNU software, or a GNU manual, that said "The 
Hurd is GNU's operating system", that would be a bug that I'd have to fix.

But Linux isn't a GNU project. They don't have to use GNU's definitions. 
So that's a whole other can of worms.

Anyhow, back to that 99% of people... I'm sure they don't care what 
either of us say on the subject. :-)

--
    _______________________________________________
   /                                               |
  /  Tom Hart                                      |
 |   hartte13@BrandonU.ca                          |
  \  "rmTFM - Build consistent interfaces."        |
   \_______________________________________________|