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.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.191.213.61!ott.istar!istar.net!n3ott.istar!infoshare!whome!telly!evan From: evan@bigbird.telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Organization: Sound Software Message-ID: <E5G0z9.9Kz@bigbird.telly.org> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5dg6qg$fkr@cynic.portal.ca> <5dncoa$op@josie.abo.fi> <5dphhs$eoi@cynic.portal.ca> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:45:08 GMT Lines: 64 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:158499 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2502 In article <5dphhs$eoi@cynic.portal.ca>, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.portal.ca> wrote: >>>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.... >Well, spend a bit of time selling systems and programming, and >you'll discover that there's really no hope, in most cases, of >someone stating clearly what they want to accomplish or do. Therein lies the difference between the good VAR/consultant and the bad one. The good one *is* capable of translating technobabble into English and vice versa, and is able to discover the client's needs (even if the client doesn't know them all) and turn them into a working specification. In this sense, the whole GNU/Linux naming issue is just so dumb. When I install Unix or Linux at customers' sites, it's not just an OS, *nor* an OS with associated utilities, it's an OS with all the tools necessary to do the job. Some components are Linux, some are GNU, some have Berkeley copyrights, and some are commercial. No two sites have the exact same needs. When I install systems, they're Linux-based or SCO-based or something-else based; the total end-result is a collection of software I've put together (from various sources) to perform tasks. If Hurd ever sees the light of day, maybe one day I'll say I use GNU-based systems. But it ain't happened yet. >Regardless, I'd be curious as to why you think that the term `OS' >should mean the same as the term `kernel,' Because that's the distinction that's clearest in most people's minds. >that there should >be no easy term for a kernel along with the standard package of >utilities that is generally expected to come with it. I (and many others) have a term for a kernel (in this case Linux), and one specific package of tools. I call that Caldera, the name of the packager. There is another package based on that same kernel, but has a slightly different set of utilities for different needs. I call that Red Hat. Yet another I call Debian. When I use those terms in the Linux community, people know *excatly* what I'm talking about. When I refer to all those systems collectively, I refer to them as "Linux distributions", or sometimes "Linux" for brevity. Most people with whom I use this term understand what it means; the context of the sentence indicates whether the word Linux means "Linux distributions" or "the Linux kernel". Adding the word GNU in the mix does not increase our ability to communicate one shred. The terms you ask for already exist. The GNU/Linux debate is not an matter of language clarification, but an attempt to inhibit communications by adding arbitrary, politically-driven terms. -- 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.