4 ms·

No, I am implying that those things aren't part of the OS. You can tell, because they aren't part of the OS, they are installed with the 3rd party package mana

No, I am implying that those things aren't part of the OS. You can tell, because they aren't part of the OS, they are installed with the 3rd party package management tools. In linux there is no base OS, everything is 3rd party packages. There is no difference between firefox and ls. In BSDs there is, ls is not 3rd party software packaged up to be installed, it is part of the OS, written by, maintained by, documented by the same people as the kernel, the standard library, etc.

rbanffy 14y ago
I would suspect GNU ls is more a part of a Debian install than, say, Gnome desktop. While not as clear-cut as in the BSD world, it's still the same idea. Except that GNU ls was not designed to run on top of the Linux kernel, which is, on my book, a feature rather than, as you imply, a bug.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  The only thing keeping ls on your debian system is other packages having a dependency on it. There is no distinction between operating system and 3rd party packages, all of it is 3rd party packages. I have no idea where you are getting this weird notion about ls and where it was designed to run being a bug. I simply corrected an erroneous statement about what makes up a BSD operating system.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    Why would it make a difference whether ls is part of the operating system or not? It works. And if, next week, I write a better ls, I can install it and use it.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      Would you mind simply reading the thread? You are inventing an argument that does not exist. I did not make a value judgement, I corrected an erroneous statement. Nothing more.
      - rbanffy 14y ago
        I did read it. I just think the "complete OS" think doesn't really make sense. Is it superior because of it? More elegant?
        papsosouid 14y ago
        I do not how to make this any clearer for you. You said the reason his freebsd system works is because a bunch of independent components happen to fit together. This is false, and that is what I said. That's it. If you said 1+1=3 and I said "actually, 1+1=2" would you then insist on a giant thread of trying to create an argument about whether or not two is a good number?

rbanffy 14y ago

I would suspect GNU ls is more a part of a Debian install than, say, Gnome desktop. While not as clear-cut as in the BSD world, it's still the same idea. Except that GNU ls was not designed to run on top of the Linux kernel, which is, on my book, a feature rather than, as you imply, a bug.

papsosouid 14y ago
The only thing keeping ls on your debian system is other packages having a dependency on it. There is no distinction between operating system and 3rd party packages, all of it is 3rd party packages. I have no idea where you are getting this weird notion about ls and where it was designed to run being a bug. I simply corrected an erroneous statement about what makes up a BSD operating system.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  Why would it make a difference whether ls is part of the operating system or not? It works. And if, next week, I write a better ls, I can install it and use it.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    Would you mind simply reading the thread? You are inventing an argument that does not exist. I did not make a value judgement, I corrected an erroneous statement. Nothing more.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      I did read it. I just think the "complete OS" think doesn't really make sense. Is it superior because of it? More elegant?
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        I do not how to make this any clearer for you. You said the reason his freebsd system works is because a bunch of independent components happen to fit together. This is false, and that is what I said. That's it. If you said 1+1=3 and I said "actually, 1+1=2" would you then insist on a giant thread of trying to create an argument about whether or not two is a good number?