that old GNU/Linux argument
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Wed Jul 16 01:45:38 UTC 2008
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> Not only is Linux just one implementation of the more or less
>> standard Unix/Posix system call interface that predates it, but so
>> is GNU libc just another implementation of the pre-existing standard
>> c library specification and sensibly written programs have no
>> dependencies on any specific implementations of these standards.
>
> You're talking API. I wrote ABI.
But that's just an artifact of where the program is compiled.
> I'm talking of running the so-called Linux *binary* applications on
> top of GNU libc on top of any other kernel GNU libc can target while
> exporting the same ABI it exports when targeting the kernel Linux.
If they were compiled under cygwin/mingwin they could be windows
binaries. That doesn't justify changing their name.
>> From his description you might think that it would make sense to say
>> GNU/apache or GNU/sendmail
>
> You could call the binaries Apache/GNU and sendmail/GNU, indeed,
> because they're built for (and actually carry pieces of) the GNU
> operating system. But no pieces of Linux whatsoever.
But that's like the water/beer argument mentioned earlier. You don't
name something after an ingredient that is generic and adds no character.
> But yes, that's an unrelated point. It doesn't matter what other
> applications you install on an operating system, that doesn't change
> what the operating system is. You can install OOo, Ff, Cygwin, etc on
> MS-Windows, and even distribute them all together, but the operating
> system underneath is still MS-Windows. Why should a different
> criterium be applied to GNU+Linux?
The 'operating system' is Linux. The other components are mostly not
operating system specific.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the users
mailing list