that old GNU/Linux argument

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 03:18 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> An operating system is a kernel plus a bunch of userland libraries and
> programs that users and other applications generally rely on.  Some
> examples of operating systems are GNU, BSD, UNIX, MS-Windows, VMS,
> DOS, OS/2, etc.
> 
> A kernel is the part of an operating system responsible for allocating
> machine resources.  Some examples of kernels are Linux, Hurd,
> KERNEL32.DLL, and the AFAIK nameless kernels of other operating
> systems and variants there of mentioned above.
> 
> 
> Now, it wouldn't make sense to say that Fedora is a kernel, or that
> GNU is a distribution, would it?  Why would it make sense that say
> that Linux is an operating system, when even its original author
> announced it as no more than a kernel that requires the GNU Operating
> System to do anything useful?

Although I really hesitate to get mixed up in this since I'm convinced
that it's a complete waste of time, I can't help but point out that your
definition of "operating system" does not include GNU, since GNU does
not have a kernel. It's a "bunch of userland libraries and programs that
users and other applications generally rely on".

poc