iEntry 10th Anniversary
LinuxHaxor
WH
MHLinux is a kernel, Now STFU
Ok. How many times did it happen to you that whenever you say “Linux” referring to Linux Distro or Linux as an OS in general, some righteous-grammar nazi pops out of nowhere only to correct you by pointing out the obvious and the annoying fact that “Linux is actually a kernel”; no really your family will die and rot in hell if you don’t take the effort and specifically mention linux as a kernel.
So we can’t use one word to describe two things? It’s not like we are using the word “Intelligent” to describe both “Obama” and “Bush” - that would be totally wrong! Is using the word Linux in a loose reference to describe “Linux Kernel based OS”, so out of place?
If we can’t use one word to describe two things, then we shouldn’t use “kernel” to describe “Linux Kernel”; when clearly “corn kernel” came before Linux kernel and we shouldn’t use the word “kernel” to describe two things.
Let’s see what the reference guides have to say about the word “Linux”:
Linux (commonly pronounced IPA: /?l?n?ks/ in English; variants exist[1]) is a generic term commonly used to refer to Unix-like computer operating systems which use the Linux kernel.
1. (computing, uncountable) A free Unix-like operating system kernel created by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU General Public License.
2. (countable) One of any number of systems that uses Linux as its kernel.
A trademark for an open-source version of the UNIX operating system.
A trademark for a computer operating system that is a free implementation of the UNIX operating system.
– encarta
An open-source version of the UNIX operating system.
Pronounced lee-nucks or lih-nucks. A freely-distributable open source operating system that runs on a number of hardware platforms. The Linux kernel was developed mainly by Linus Torvalds and it is based on Unix. Because it’s free, and because it runs on many platforms, including PCs and Macintoshes, Linux has become an extremely popular alternative to proprietary operating systems.
A freeware implementation of UNIX originally written from scratch with no proprietary code by Linus Torvalds, which can be used with many different operating systems.
Linux is an operating system that was initially created as a hobby by a young student, Linus Torvalds, at the University of Helsinki in Finland. Linus had an interest in Minix, a small UNIX system, and decided to develop a system that exceeded the Minix standards.
Depending on the context, the word “Linux” describes a couple of things. Most accurately, the word “Linux” describes an operating system kernel — that is, the low-level part of an operating system that does all the hard work of talking to the computer’s hardware, managing memory and devices, and generally doing the grunt work. Unless you are an advanced user, or you run into some sort of hardware or software problem, you’ll almost never interact or even need to think about the kernel itself.
While it’s a very important part of the system, it’s not something that users interact with directly. Instead, you’ll be working with what are referred to as “user-space” programs — so called because users actually work with the programs directly. When a vendor or project bundles the Linux kernel and a bunch of user-space programs together in a way that’s useful to end users, that’s called a Linux distribution, often just “Linux” for short — because Linux is at the heart of the whole thing to begin with, and saying “Linux distribution” every time is a bit long winded. Generally speaking, when people say something like “I use Linux,” or “have you tried Linux?” they’re not just talking about the kernel, they’re talking about a Linux distribution.
Next up. We should call it Linux or GNU/Linux?
Loading ...
Linux is not a kernel.
I usually correct the open sources terminology nazis that Linux is more correctly described a collection of GPL projects. Any other description that draws clear lines is inherently wrong. Even the Kernel itself is not one open-source project, and indeed any kernel is a collection of code from all over the place. It’s difficult to draw any clear lines with such a cloud of software projects with very fuzzy edges. Many projects overlap, forks and then merge.
I got the point!
Actually, no one has ever called me out on that… ever.
Tim:
Linux is a kernel. That’s what Linus Torvalds named the kernel. Period.
I have no problem saying that the term has evolved to encompass the software distributions that accompany the kernel… but yes, Linux is a kernel.
And OS X is so much better.
(oh, I’m sorry … but if we’re going to argue about silly things, I figured let’s just go all the way)
Well said…. enough with the individuals that have no purpose in life other than correct other people over that stupidity!
I must be fortunate. Here in the South, where grammar is not of the utmost importance, I have never been corrected about that.
That said, we do use the term Coke generically to mean any fizzy non-alcoholic drink… My Yank friends are often puzzled to be asked “What kind?” after ordering a Coke…
Linux is a kernel, as well as a set of interfaces, guidelines, and standards that are both literal, such as the LSB, or are implicit parts of many open source projects: for example, in KDE, you’ll find specific code for integrating with “the BSDs” and “Linux”, and they’re not talking about kernels here, nor simply GNU/BSD userlands. If that were the case, KDE could integrate with GNU/Hurd just as easily as GNU/Linux.
I would say there is such as thing as the Linux OS, but you can’t say that the OS carves out distinct territory projectwise, as that code gets used to build many different OSes, Linux being among one of them.
Well, since Linux is the name of the kernel for Linux OSes, the problem comes when people start confusing the two.
Yes, I’ve called people out on that, and no, I’m not an RMS follower (though I think he’s pretty cool).
Recently on Slashdot, there was an article about Linux driver developers. That means kernel developers. People came out of the woodwork talking about printers and scanners. Printers aren’t handled by kernel drivers — that’s CUPS. Scanners are covered by SANE. The Linux kernel has nothing to do with these drivers. I tried to point this out and received a bashing about how it doesn’t matter … from these idiots who, honestly, sound a lot like you here.
Then there was the Freedesktop.org mailing list (was that you?) where someone was proposing to create a method for generic application naming (which already exists on Debian, BTW), he ended up doing a lot of discussion about “Linux.” I tried to point out that FD.o does specs for more than just Linux-based OSes, meaning it could cover OS X if that project wanted to use the specs. Solaris is covered. I further suggested looking by distro/OS or desktop environment instead of trying to say “Linux” and encompass eight thousand possibilities. I was called an RMS-ite.
My point is … there are times when discerning whether we’re talking about a kernel or an OS is important to keeping the discussion on-track and useful. Linux distros are individual OSes. Lumping them all together under “Linux” is sometimes counter productive. In these cases, we need to think clearly and define exactly what we are talking about. Sometimes that means using “Linux” to mean the kernel (since there’s no other name) and choosing one of the other options for an OS or distro.
Well I for one am tired of you people slamming Obama Like you have. Just because he is a liberal communist does not make him less Intelligent. Hitler was evil but was very Intelligent. Obama may be a communist, but you should not judge him because his Intelligence level is that of the rest of you liberals.
Zardoz: did you just compare Linux (kernel) with OS X (operating system)??? *gasp*
Correcting people saying “Linux” when they’re referring to the operating system is of course retarded. That being said, sometimes the lines get very fuzzy when you start referring to GNU/Linux simply as Linux. Take Debian for example, it’s Linux, right? Wrong. It can be running on top of the Linux kernel, and usually is (Debian GNU/Linux). However, it can run on top of other Unix-like kernels as well, like the Debian GNU/NetBSD project (http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/). There is also the Nexenta project, which basically is Ubuntu GNU/OpenSolaris.
I don’t really see the reason for mentioning Linux at all anymore. Most major distributions have grown so far apart that information regarding one probably doesn’t apply to another.
As an Ubuntu-user I have about as little/much in common with someone running FreeBSD as I do with someone running Fedora.
Is someone asks me what operating system I run I simply answer “Ubuntu”.
If someone ask you what OS you run and you say Linux, then you haven’t answered the question.
1. James, what exactly is a “Mac Fag”? Also, just out of curiosity how long have you actually used Unix-based operating systems? Also, are you from the mid-west?
2. “Linux” is the name of the kernel developed by Linus Torvalds. Considering the trademark belongs to Linus himself, and he has defined it as nothing more than a kernel, I would say that the evidence is self explanatory. Just because some guy with a blog wants it to refer to something else, that doesn’t change the facts.
3. “GNU/Linux” is the proper name of most modern Linux-based operating systems.
For some weird reason, you are so so right! I never thought of it that way till you brought it up.
By the way, doesn’t the English language have words that have several meanings depending how you use it in a sentence?
Yes, a language should and will always evolve to accommodate common usage, and this is obviously a good thing if it makes the language more useful overall. However, when the people that should (or rather, do) know better about a certain topic but are lazy in their treatment of it, we have a problem — the language can quickly evolve into something *less* useful as laymen copy their misuse.
Yes, we have a lot of homonyms, and it doesn’t normally cause a huge problem. But the “linux kernel / corn kernel” argument doesn’t make sense — in fact it supports the *opposite* of what the poster(s) intended. Calling the core component of an operating system a “kernel” is useful, because the term contains a metaphor to something *in a different field* which can help with understanding, especially if the term is new to someone — the (fairly obvious) etymology of the word explains the meaning of the word. So yes, in this case, the homonym helps.
However, since linux and a whole collection of linux-based operating systems are extremely similar concepts, using the one term to describe them both does not help in the same way. Given the context in which they occur, it is much more likely to cause confusion.
That said, I don’t see any problem with referring to a “family of linux[-based] operating systems” — it’s a lot less ambiguous than simply labeling that concept “linux”, and the arguments around that phrasing tend to be more concerned with politics than utility of the language.
In summary, yes, you should consider this important — conflating these concepts makes it harder to communicate ideas about them.
poor GNU gets no love.
GNU is NOT UNIX!
bsd on the other hand is considered the whole o/s but no one says it?
I think the definition offered by linux.com (the last one) is the most appropriate.
To commenters DaeBong, Fred and Jeff Parsons, nice comments.
Just look at the argument we had on the Ubuntu Wikipedia article on this very topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ubuntu#Linux_distro_or_an_independent_operating_system.3F
I’m “altonbr”.
It’s a kernel AND a salad dressing!
The whole “GNU/Linux” name is absolutely impotent from a marketing point of view. You simply don’t put confusing abbreviations into product names. That’s not nice, it confuses the users and creates the impression that the OS is more complicated that it really is. Yes, it’s more correct, but using this name is harmful.
One of the coolest things about free software is that it doesn’t have owners. Most of the time you can call the software whatever you wish, since when you get a copy of the source, the license carries with it the freedom for you to do just that. But, we tend not to do that. Most often, we just use the name given to it by one maintainer or distributor or another. With larger projects that are compilations of smaller projects, it often makes sense to give credit to some of the original visionaries or the largest contributing sub-projects. On the basis of core contributions and number of lines of essential code, then the GNU project should probably get the most credit. But, that being said, Linux is vital to allow for GNU and other libraries and programs to run on more hardware than any other operating system on earth. But, Linux is also dependent upon GNU. So, perhaps it makes sense to call the system both? But, if I had to choose between the two, I would probably be choose GNU, since the vision of the GNU Project from the beginning was a for a complete, free software operating system, and they also provided us with the GNU GPL (FDL, LGPL, etc), as well as the free software definition, calls for free documentation, the seeds to projects like GNUPedia (which merged into wikipedia), and much more. I think when you say GNU, you are making a stronger reference to the history and the philosophy that permeate most distributions of GNU/Linux.
If somebody asked me what OS i used.. what do i say? Ubuntu?
What do Mac users say? OS X? Leopard? What do Windows users say? Windows XP? Vista?
Yeah, you should probably say “Ubuntu” or “Hardy” or “8.04.”
I tell most of the general public (Windows point and click users)that I use Linux, when asked. Of course I get “What’s a linux?” Would that change if I say “Kubuntu”?
Of course not. Then ( try) explaining what a kernel is. Then what a distro is. No need to bring up Debian to them. or GNU.
Funny stuff.
funny that so many take a point of view on such a trivial matter..
really, who cares?
to be technical, Linux is a kernel.
the kernel does not necessarily include the drivers folder.
or the machine folder
there is a kernel directory, and its contains the logic to drive a computer system.
each driver can be considered a program but in reality it is most likely a series of functions and there really is no top down execution without the kernel to call into it.
so see? there is no point to what I am saying.
windows has a kernel too! but no one talks about it?
I don’t know why, the source for it you can find but many have read it and don’t want it hmm funny how that works.
Lets just rest assured that when people ask me what I run on my computer I tell them, vi.
then they are confused and I leave it at that. it’s perfect.
so next time someone tells you “Linux is actually just the kernel”
say to them, yes and the kernel has drivers and drivers are like programs but, they essentially have no program flow but are still programs.
you can also mention that other programs talk to the drivers if you like.
Have fun
I’ve never been called out on this, however I have been called out on saying Linux.
“Linux” dosen’t exist, either as an O.S or as a Kernel however “GNU/Linux” does and
“Linux” wouldn’t be anything with out “GNU”.
However, we speak English, end of story if you can create meaning there isn’t much point
on being pedantic.
lool
its not Linux only
its GNU/Linux
now you STFU xD
I totally agree with you. I’m tired of these smartasses saying “Linux isn’t an OS” blah blah.
@Lord Banshie: ““Linux” dosen’t exist, either as an O.S or as a Kernel however “GNU/Linux” does and…”
Interesting. It seems that I’m using a non-existing OS on my computer :-)
Linus doesn’t promote the kernel/system/whatever as GNU/Linux…
That’s just a RMS push…
It’s alright to use the word Linux refering to a Linux based operating system. But saying that it IS, by definition, an operating system is wrong. Saying that the “Linux is an operating system that was initially created as a hobby by a young student, Linus Torvalds” is completely misleading.
I did a video (in italian) to explain what is “Linux”
http://grigio.org/linuxcast_ep03_il_sistema_operativo_linux
The truth is that GNU/Linux/X/Gtk/Gnome/Qt/Kde/freedesktop/… it’s too long as operating system. So “Linux” can group approximatly all these indipendent projects.