Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H)
The H takes
a look at the proliferation of Linux based devices. "Take Google's Android ; at its core, yes, there is a Linux kernel and a whole host of other familiar bits of software. But if you are a developer, you don't get to see any of that because on top of the Linux kernel is the Dalvik virtual machine and Android's own set of APIs for accessing the underlying device. Even if the developer makes use of the Android native development kit (NDK), they are still relatively boxed in and the NDK only works in conjunction with a Dalvik based application. So is Android a Linux device or is it different operating system with a Linux kernel?"
(Log in to post comments)
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 29, 2010 21:09 UTC (Fri) by BeS (subscriber, #43108) [Link]
>So is Android a Linux device or is it different operating system with a Linux kernel?
I think this sentence is correct. Android is a different operating system (you could call it Android or Android/Linux) with a Linux kernel.
Android is not a GNU system. That's why most GNU/Linux user will feel a difference. Android vs GNU/Linux or BSD vs MacOS are good examples why an operating system is more than a kernel.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 29, 2010 21:24 UTC (Fri) by blitzkrieg3 (subscriber, #57873) [Link]
It's technically correct, but still misleading. Vendors (other than Debian) still refer to their distros as "Linux" (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server or Red Hat Enterprise Linux). I think newer distros such as Ubuntu and Android try to distance themselves from Linux, probably for that reason. But to the public, Linux based and Linux OS (as RH and SuSE term it) is the same thing.
I guess RMS was right all along, now we're all confused...
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 29, 2010 23:11 UTC (Fri) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
Replace 'GNU system' with 'LSB compliant distributions' and your post would be more accurate (GNU/Linux doesn't describe an API, it's an 'advocacy/political' naming)
Android vs LSB compliant distributions
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 29, 2010 23:57 UTC (Fri) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
Where do you think the LSB got their "standards" from? GNU, of course.
GNU itself was emulating Unix (GNU's not Unix!) but the particular feel of the LSB was set by packaging choices made by distros on top of GNU. It goes beyond merely Posix.
As for naming, of course it's political. But politics isn't merely advocacy -- it's also
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 0:32 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
LSB gets far more of it's standards from the single unix standars (SUS) and POSIX, it then layers some file location and library standards on top of those
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 0:56 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Now maybe I'm wrong, but I always understood the GNU/Linux to mean that it's the Linux Kernel with the GNU toolchain underneath. Linux is nothing more than the Kernel. The GNU system is GCC, GLIB, ELF, BASH, etc. The rest of the Distribution composes non GNU tools like X. Without the GNU toolchain Linux isn't interesting or really even usuable (you need GCC to compile it after all). RMS was right when he said that Linux wouldn't exist if he and his supporters hadn't spent years creating the GNU system that Linux runs on top of. The one part RMS never finished was the kernel to use the toolchain, but he put in place the toolchain to make the development possible and HURD died on the vine when Linux appeared.
Sure over time things have changed and some of the original GNU toolchain programs have been forked and are no longer part of the groups RMS set up but the fact remains, Linux doesn't exist without the GNU underneath. Even Android with it's segmented operating environment and security is still GNU/Linux underneath. I'd say it's probably GNU/Linux/Andriod/*whatever* in order of importance.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:14 UTC (Sat) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] This whole discussion, from Lignux onwards, is bikesheding of the worst type --- not just what colour is the bikeshed, but who gets named on the plaque. Yeah, Android is interesting in its hiding of Linux. Because the Google developers have so obviously tried to allow its replacement with Vxworks or some other alternative should running Linux underneath their API not work out. In that sense, Android is not really a Linux phone. Using Linux is merely a business decision, a decision that Google have carefully coded to be altered if circumstances demand.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:25 UTC (Sat) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link]
By that logic, isn't Maemo not a Linux distribution, as the applications are programmed using a cross-platform toolkit (GTK or Qt) (mostly)? It might not be to the same extent, but it seems like the same arguments could be made.
And really, on a consumer level device like a netbook, phone (especially phone), tablet, or what have you, the only *interesting* piece (to the user) is the UI, not what's running underneath.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:52 UTC (Sat) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
"the only *interesting* piece" ?
Sure, the only interesting piece is the uI -- and how it may grow. That demands
We call such mammals sheep.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 2:19 UTC (Sat) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link]
> Sure, the only interesting piece is the uI -- and how it may grow.
I don't particularly see how "how it may grow" is really related to the conversation. The closest I can fathom is that you're implying that because Android is less free (either because of its development model, or because it can be locked down), we should be more critical of it in ways we wouldn't have otherwise cared, though that's mostly just a wild guess.
> We call such mammals sheep.
Everyones a sheep when it comes to something. It's simply impossible to give a damn about everything that matters in life (doubly so if you want to accomplish anything), so we pick our battles. I don't see how not being all that concerned about the license of your software makes one worthy of being called names.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 3:39 UTC (Sat) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
You are arguing either with a Markov chain or with an MBA; either way it's pointless, even if its sheep-related fantasies are somewhat fascinating.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 5:42 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
I think this may be the best response I have ever seen.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 5:41 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
>This whole discussion, from Lignux onwards, is bikesheding of the worst type --- not just what colour is the bikeshed, but who gets named on the plaque.
So, if someone were to take the BSD userland, port it to run over the Linux kernel, and call the result "Linux", anyone from the BSD projects who complained would just be bikeshedding?
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 30, 2010 10:48 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I suppose I agree.
BSD userland on Linux would be just as much 'Linux' as Android or Debian.
Calling everything Linux was such a horrible idea anyways. Linux software,
It's like Smurfs using the word Smurf for everything. Sure if your a smurf
Sure GNU/Linux is awkward and is either too-'PC' or un-'PC' depending on
Right now I see three major variants of Linux out there. There is
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Feb 1, 2010 21:08 UTC (Mon) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link] Sure over time things have changed and some of the original GNU toolchain programs have been forked and are no longer part of the groups RMS set up but the fact remains, Linux doesn't exist without the GNU underneath. Even Android with it's segmented operating environment and security is still GNU/Linux underneath. I'd say it's probably GNU/Linux/Andriod/*whatever* in order of importance.This is not correct. Android doesn't have GNU code in it's core system at all. Many other embedded systems also omit GNU software. Linux (the kernel), does not have "GNU underneath", and exists just fine without GNU.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 31, 2010 11:29 UTC (Sun) by Felix_the_Mac (guest, #32242) [Link]
From the Liux Foundation response by Zemlin:
"The reality here is that aside from Apple, RIM, and Microsoft, almost nobody is building client computing devices with anything but Linux"
Until your grandmother understands this fact then it is worth saying it's Linux!
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:21 UTC (Sun) by Tara_Li (subscriber, #26706) [Link]
A lot of this seems to come down to a very blurry line between "application" and "operating system". At one point, the OS was what directly affected the hardware - controlled access to memory, hardware, etc. Then came shells and what MS-DOS called "external commands". Things that were little more than wrappers around OS calls, presenting them in easy to use fashion. And these got glued on, and called part of the OS. Now, we bitch and complain about MS calling "Internet Explorer" part of the OS, while including three different browsers, three different office suites, and dozens of games, graphics utilities, and other applications as all part of the Linux OS.
I say we go back to the real thing. If it touches the hardware directly, it's the OS - the kernel plus drivers. Add anything else, and it's a distro - Windows XP distro coming in a half-dozen flavors, Windows Vista distro, Windows 7 distro, Fedora, Redhat, BSD distro, etc. bash is *NOT* a part of the OS - it's a command shell *APPLICATION*. gcc - a compiler *APPLICATION*. They're not part of the OS - they can all be replaced, and it's still the same OS. Android? It's an *application* on top of Linux, with other applications on top of it!
If we don't draw a line somewhere, eventually there will be no applications - just a few insanely bloated Operating Systems in huge numbers of permutations - but all legitimately calling themselves "operating systems"
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Feb 1, 2010 1:32 UTC (Mon) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Yes but a kernel != operating system.
Sure, the kernel manages resources and provides a nice abstraction and interface to those resources, but so does a "third party" GUI toolit, or external library, or shell. Just because something runs in user mode doesn't mean it isn't part of an operating system. I mean, any interactive system needs some tools that can actually make use of the kernel. Hence why we have the actual distinction between a kernel, which we can say provides access to and manages a machine's resources, and the actual software that allows us to "operate" and utilise the system. Making a blanket claim that binutils or coreutils or indeed bash are not part of the operating because they are merely wrappers to system calls or plain applications doesn't make much sense because linux as it's used in 99% of instances would not be very useful or operable without these out-of-kernel applications. Of course, for my mp3 player, it makes a lot of sense to suggest that the operating system is what is directly managing the hardware.
I also don't really understand the panic around this particular naming convention anyway. I hardly see kernel devs or gnu-chain devs adding bloat just because they are confused as to what the "official" definition of an operating system is.
When is it worth saying it's Linux? (The H) Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:05 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
All I can say is: "This debate again?"
Everyone knows what a kernel is but no one can decide what an operating system is. Some people like to say "kernel == OS" because it's so much simpler than trying to get agreement on anything else. Everyone can agree that the kernel is part of the OS, but beyond that you get a debate with lines drawn up every which way.
There will never be an end to it and there will never be a single accepted definition of OS. Can we agree on that and work on something constructive? We need a way to discuss these things--and refer to them in documentation and marketing material--without a lot of ambiguity. Can we agree that OS--however *you* want to define it--is a bad term for this?
That, at least, would be progress.
|
|||||||||||||