4 ms·

I think most people colloquially consider "linux" to mean the whole system, and "linux kernel" to mean git.kernel.org. A distribution is a "linux" with a packag

I think most people colloquially consider "linux" to mean the whole system, and "linux kernel" to mean git.kernel.org. A distribution is a "linux" with a package manager that you can install on a system, so I would not say Android is a "linux distribution", although of course it distributes the Linux kernel. Debian is clearly a "linux distribution", so you can have fun things where you replace the Linux kernel with GNU Herd (I'm not sure how viable that is, but there is a project), and you get a "linux distribution but without Linux".

jmillikin 5y ago
For a long time there was only one or two of each core component in the "hobbyist free-software" space. One kernel (Linux), one libc (GNU libc), one compiler toolchain (GNU GCC + binutils). Something similar to the "singleton" problem happened, where too many 1:1 layers caused folks to get confused about what each one was. Does an "operating system" mean the kernel? The kernel and libc? Doesn't matter, there's only one of each. Then the options started expanding. More libc implementations were written for Linux. The GNU libc was ported to FreeBSD's kernel, so now Debian was simultaneously a Linux distribution and a sort of GNU overlay for FreeBSD. It's time to start using clearer terminology, or we'll never be able to communicate about the actual state of the world. The current state of things seems to be: * Linux is a kernel, and also an operating system, in and of itself. * FreeBSD is an operating system, consisting of the FreeBSD kernel, libc, and userland. The FreeBSD project considers the FreeBSD libc to be part of the OS. * GNU Hurd is (will be?) an operating system, consisting of the Hurd kernel, GNU libc, and GNU userland. I think you could make an argument that "Linux operating system" and "GNU/Linux operating system" should be distinct, but it's not clear that this would be good for GNU, because that would mean GNU/Linux has ~0.01% of the installed base of Linux.
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
> most people colloquially consider "linux" to mean the whole system anyone outside Tech says to me: "hey what is this software you have on your computer. It doesn't look anything like windows or mac". Guess what my answer is? Hint: It's never "that's GNU/Linux" because that answer would be over their heads. If I say "that's Linux" most people without any idea will at least have heard the term. And for discussions with a Tech crowd it is silly to state the obvious. Why waste people's time to point out that my OS has also gnu tools installed as if they don't already know that. It almost looks like virtue signalling because there literally is no other point. Also extra typing that I could dedicate to more useful adjectives to color out my point.

jmillikin 5y ago

For a long time there was only one or two of each core component in the "hobbyist free-software" space. One kernel (Linux), one libc (GNU libc), one compiler toolchain (GNU GCC + binutils). Something similar to the "singleton" problem happened, where too many 1:1 layers caused folks to get confused about what each one was. Does an "operating system" mean the kernel? The kernel and libc? Doesn't matter, there's only one of each. Then the options started expanding. More libc implementations were written for Linux. The GNU libc was ported to FreeBSD's kernel, so now Debian was simultaneously a Linux distribution and a sort of GNU overlay for FreeBSD. It's time to start using clearer terminology, or we'll never be able to communicate about the actual state of the world. The current state of things seems to be: * Linux is a kernel, and also an operating system, in and of itself. * FreeBSD is an operating system, consisting of the FreeBSD kernel, libc, and userland. The FreeBSD project considers the FreeBSD libc to be part of the OS. * GNU Hurd is (will be?) an operating system, consisting of the Hurd kernel, GNU libc, and GNU userland. I think you could make an argument that "Linux operating system" and "GNU/Linux operating system" should be distinct, but it's not clear that this would be good for GNU, because that would mean GNU/Linux has ~0.01% of the installed base of Linux.

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

> most people colloquially consider "linux" to mean the whole system anyone outside Tech says to me: "hey what is this software you have on your computer. It doesn't look anything like windows or mac". Guess what my answer is? Hint: It's never "that's GNU/Linux" because that answer would be over their heads. If I say "that's Linux" most people without any idea will at least have heard the term. And for discussions with a Tech crowd it is silly to state the obvious. Why waste people's time to point out that my OS has also gnu tools installed as if they don't already know that. It almost looks like virtue signalling because there literally is no other point. Also extra typing that I could dedicate to more useful adjectives to color out my point.