Hacker News Reader

Comment by GuB-42 | Hacker News Reader

Yes, and it matches the definition of an "operating system".

Originally, an "operating system" is a system that takes the role of an operator. In the early days, operators were people who loaded programs, feed them data, fetched the results, etc... for the users. Matching the modern definition of an interface between the user and hardware.

Kubernetes allocate servers (hardware) to containers just like a typical OS allocate CPU and memory to processes. And it stands between the user (here, the sysadmin) and the hardware (the servers). "Operating system of the cloud" is, I think, a good description of Kubernetes.

View on HN

> Yes, and it matches the definition of an "operating system".

No, it does not. An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware, software resources, and provides common services for computer programs. [1][2]

You cannot just arbitrarily take long-established technical terms and redefine them to suit your needs or your rough intuition. If you look in the authoritative sources below, there are over 100+ mentions of Linux and Windows, as well as several mentions of esoteric and defunct OS like Haiku, BeOS and others. Not a single mention of Kubernetes.

This is because Kubernetes is not an operating system and it does not fit the technical definition of an OS. It is container orchestration software.

It is important to call things using their real names, otherwise, eventually, communication breaks down and no one knows what we're talking about.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/technology/operating-system

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

Asking what the word "operating system" means is like asking what money is. There isn't really a one true definition.

"Operating systems" in a much narrow sense were invented in the 1950s. I cannot tell you what people meant by the term back then. Then it seems that they accreted features. And then they accreted more features, like a gigantic snowball or avalanche. Ultimately, this all happened because people were lazy and didn't want to repeat themselves -- and there were lots of things to be lazy about. Also, branding and marketing became important. And now an operating system is defined by its user interface guidelines, the artwork in its GUI, what web browser it comes with, and what other software it does/does not ship with. Some people gerrymander the meaning of the word to justify the architectural choices of their favoured operating system.

By the way, being able to parrot the dictionary's definition of a term doesn't mean you know what it means. And knowing what something "means" (that is, knowing how to use it) does not mean you know its dictionary definition. The education system often forces people to remember these things and regurgitate them, which serves only to help you sound convincing in debates.

I feel like you ignored everything that I wrote, particularly the bit about it being important to call things using their correct names for the sake of effective communication. I.e., container orchestration software vs operating system.

As for the rest of your argument, I feel ambivalent on whether it is worth responding. But here's my two cents:

1) Random userland software bundled with the OS does not constitute part of the OS. And that's not just my opinion, that's the legal ruling in the 2001 United States v. Microsoft Corp case, where Microsoft tried that argument.

2) I think it is a bit disingenuous to try to present Kubernetes as some sort of a natural evolution of the term, when it is pretty clear the intent behind calling something "THE operating system of the cloud" is marketing and to try to drive up the hype.

As for the "being able to parrot" bit, please spare your personal attacks. They don't make your argument any stronger, they just make me think it is not worth talking to you.

> As for the "being able to parrot" bit, please spare your personal attacks. They don't make your argument any stronger, they just make me think it is not worth talking to you.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to attack you. But I can definitely see that it comes across that way, so I'll bear that in mind in the future. I might have been arguing for the sake of arguing too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com