Return to BSD News archive
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.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!192.89.123.24!nntp.inet.fi!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Date: 10 Feb 1997 14:52:58 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 40
Distribution: comp
Message-ID: <5dncoa$op@josie.abo.fi>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5dacro$r0@josie.abo.fi> <5dd9d7$li1@cynic.portal.ca> <5deu64$8tk@josie.abo.fi> <5dg6qg$fkr@cynic.portal.ca>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: fa.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:157380 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2428
Curt Sampson, in <5dg6qg$fkr@cynic.portal.ca>:
>In article <5deu64$8tk@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote:
>>>You'll note that when I refer to `Linux' I am referring to the
>>>Linux kernel, which is not a complete OS. When I refer to `GNU/Linux,'
>>>I am referring to a complete OS.
>>that would be using your and Stallman's definition of what comprises
>>an OS. i disagree with it, and will not use it.
>So in other words, you don't then recommend an `OS' to people, but
>an `OS with an associated package of utilities.'
i don't recommend anything even that simple. the conventional wisdom
has been, and remains, that one state clearly what one wants to
accomplish - what work one wishes to do - with the to-be-acquired
computer system, then get the software/system software/hardware to
perform that task.
i might talk about operating environments or somesuch if i need to; if
i use the term "OS" to refer to something like that, i'm misstating
myself. do feel free to correct me on those occasions.
>Or do you recommend that people run Linux without such handy
>utilities such as init and ls?
no. if they can manage without init, they're probably doing something
like an embedded application, in which case Linux (the OS) is very
likely overkill.
>At any rate, the argument is simply enough resolved. Every time
>you see me say `OS,' just translate that into `OS with an associated
>package of utilities.'
no. because this is a holy war; and because you're the one using the
Wrong Definition(tm). when did you ever see a definitional jihad
resolved through agreeing to disagree?
--
"...it's all wrong
but it's alright..." -- Clapton