On 11/11/10 02:04, Vic wrote:
>
>> And Apache converts Linux, GNU et al to a Web server.
>
> You're mixing apples and oranges there...
So you just use Linux and GNU then? An OS is more that, they are all
essential fruits.
>
> The OS is defined according to the POSIX spec. To create that OS, you need
> both the kernel (Linux) and the userland (GNU, typically).
>
> Apache et al are applications that run on top of the OS. They are not part
> of it.
Well I could have listed iptables or selinux.
>
>> It still doesn't
>> make GNU more important that Linux and its modules.
>
> GNU is not more important that Linux - but Linux is not an OS, and nor is
> GNU. Put the two together, and you've got an operating system. It is the
> fusion of the two parts - hence GNU/Linux.
But that infers GNU is more important, where as all the software that
runs on the kernel is important so you can't use just add one name
without omitting the others, hence why people use Linux the OS and
applications.
>
>> Look at Hurd, no one uses that
>
> I don't see the relevance of that.
The relevance is creating a Kernel and drivers is very difficult to do.
Hurd proved that. Linux is a huge achievement and hence its huge success.
>
>> and without a good OS, GNU wouldn't be known.
>
> GNU *is part of* the OS. The OS is not just the kernel.
>
>> It is offensive
>> and wrong to use the term in a FLOSS community.
>
> Absolutely not. It is the correct term, since it describes the OS created
> by joining the GNU userland to the Linux kernel.
>
I disagree. It incorrectly states GNU has some higher role in the OS.
The GNU OS relies on the non-GNU Linux kernel and drivers, therefore GNU
doesn't have an OS. It needs to tag on to others. The fact they came up
with the GNU/Linux name suggests they know Linux is more important and
influential in the world, and this was a poor attempt to cling on to the
idea they have a GNU OS and have some influence over Linux.
John.
