Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au!news.apana.org.au!cantor.edge.net.au!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!insync!uunet!in2.uu.net!142.77.1.4!news.uunet.ca!gts!lethe!telly!evan From: evan@bigbird.telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Organization: Sound Software Message-ID: <E5I2uL.M7t@bigbird.telly.org> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5dphhs$eoi@cynic.portal.ca> <E5G0z9.9Kz@bigbird.telly.org> <5dqmk2$oj2@cynic.portal.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:20:45 GMT Lines: 66 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:157922 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2471 In article <5dqmk2$oj2@cynic.portal.ca>, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.portal.ca> wrote: >You've taken two general terms, `kernel' and `OS,' and erased any >distinction between them. I think if you ask most people, they will >say a kernel and an OS are different. You've no generic term for >what I call an OS. SCO Unix and NetBSD are obviously something more >than operating systems by your definition; what are they? I consider MS-DOS, CP/M and TRSDOS operating systems. Each is more than a kernel, yet each lacks many things that SCO Unix and NetBSD contain; windowing systems, networking, administration tools, text formatters, deferred exceution tools such as cron, on-line documentation and other assorted non-essential stuff. Yet, all are referred to as "operating systems" (two of them even have "OS" in their names). Modern developments have (IMO deliberately) blurred the distinction between the OS and unrelated but increasingly-vital add-ons. But this does not change the fact that there exist operating systems without (for instance) GUIs or networking. Therefore, any OS with a bundled GUI and networking is indeed "something more than" an operating system. What do I call SCO Unix and NetBSD? Products. In Linux lingo, distributions. They (together with Linux and HP-UX and NT etc.) are all amalgams of operating systems, documentation, graphics networking, compilers, and assorted other flotsum. Caldera and Debian are products based on the same OS (Linux). Solaris and UnixWare are products based on the same OS (SVR4). SCO and Interactive are products based on the same OS (SVR3.2). In each case, the two groups have made different choices of what add-ons to bundle, from various sources or release levels, yet they share many fundamental base elements. Even when they have made modifications of their kernels, the pairs still share much at the operating system level. And indeed, in all cases the operating system means more than just the kernel. >As long as the rest of the world calls Microsoft Windows an `operating >system,' rather than an `operating system with a set of associated >utilities' You chose the worst possible example to make your point. Windows (as opposed to WindowsNT or Windows95) is not an operating system, and was never called that by MS or anyone else in the rest of the world. You cannot load Windows onto a box unless you've already loaded an operating system first. Even Windows95 has a DOS mode, which reminds people that there is an "operating system" underneath the GUI. NT blurs the distinction totally by bringing graphics in the kernel, but that still doesn't mean that GUI is a requirement of the definition of "operating system". Sure, FreeBSD is called an operating system for the sake of convenience. But so is CP/M. The differences between the two are add-ons that an OS doesn't require to be called an OS. The inclusion of such features, by definition, makes FreeBSD "obviously more than an operating system". -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario Supporting PC-based Unix since 1985 / Caldera & SCO authorized / www.telly.org Trains stop at train stations. Buses stop at bus stations. I use a workstation.