Hacker News Reader

Comment by donuteaters | Hacker News Reader

Once upon a time, before RMS re-defined the term for his benefit, the phrase "Operating System" meant what we now call the kernel. You can see the legacy of this in Computer Science departments around the country where they teach an "Operating Systems" course which covers implementing schedulers, file systems, device drivers, etc... Maybe if the GNU folks could have made a usable kernel, they wouldn't have had to stoop to the petty tactic of trying to take credit for the Linux "Operating System" with all that GNU/Linux nonsense.

However, clearly the RMS propaganda machine has worked, and now the phrase has a new meaning to the new generation... So feel free to not read anything that might contradict with your point of view.

View on HN

To be fair to RMS, commercial entities selling "Operating Systems" have usually used the label, even before RMS and the Free Software movement were widely noticed by outsiders, to refer to not only the kernel, but the whole package of software and tools sold as a package with it.

Who knows. I see ads all the time for the "Xfinity Entertainment Operating System" which as far as I can tell is just television service.

What about Unix, CP/M, DOS..? None of those are kernels yet they were said to be operating systems and before GNU was announced.

My question is has Linus ever considered Linux to be the operating system rather than just the name of the kernel?

Actually, all of those have something strongly resembling a kernel, and DOS in particular makes a nice distinction between the basic services (BIOS) and whatever userland you choose to install on top of it. I think you're making my point - "Operating System" used to mean the "kernel" before RMS wanted to ride on Linux's coat tails and Microsoft wanted to bundle their browser anti-competitively - both of which are distasteful.

Depends... if the conversation is a short coming in any part of Linux that isn't the kernel, then Linux means the kernel. If it's something positive, then Linux is the kernel, boot code, userland, and anything else that can be fit under the umbrella.

This narrative is incorrect.

As evidence, take the POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) standard, which included portions of the user-space C library in the POSIX.1 (Core Services) published in 1988. While the name "POSIX" was suggested by RMS, the notion that it might have been part of an agenda to claim credit for Linux violates causality (the very first version of Linux was released in 1991).

POSIX.2 is "Shell And Utilities", and was published in 1992.

Clearly, the notion that the operating system extended beyond the kernel was not a fringe one.

Ritchie's ghost tells you to get off his digital lawn

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie

Reply on news.ycombinator.com