"Revolution OS" (The Movie).

[Derek Broughton]

Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:

> On Friday 29 December 2006 01:48, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>> Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
>> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 14:32, Derek Broughton
>> > <news at pointerstop.ca>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> Care to define "Operating System"?  By any definition I've
>> >> read, the kernel IS the operating system.  Everything else is just
>> >> bells
>> >> and whistles.  Credit _is_ given to those who wrote components of the
>> >> kernel that weren't in his original version.
>> >
>> > I don't know where you get your definitions from, but you'd be
>> > hard-pressed to do _anything_ with your computer with just a kernel. It
>> > may form a central component of an operating system, but most kernels
>> > aren't particularly viable on their own. Linux is no exception: it
>> > requires a userland (GNU or otherwise) in order to operate.
>>
>> From wikipedia: "An operating system (OS) is a computer program that
>> manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. At the
>> foundation of all system software, the OS performs basic tasks such as
>> controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests,
>> controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and
>> managing files. It also may provide a graphical user interface for higher
>> level functions."
>>
>> Essentially the same thing is said in my OS references. ALL of those
>> functions - excepting the optional GUI - are in the Linux kernel.
> 
> Linux (i.e. the kernel) provides the means for higher-level software (e.g.
> the GNU toolchain) to interface with the system, but it does not provide a
> means for a _user_ to use the system.
> 
> I am still not convinced that you could use a computer with just plain
> vanilla Linux.
 
I haven't claimed you could.  But by definition, the OS doesn't have to
provide those "higher level functions".  The kernel _is_ the OS, a
fully-functioning computer requires, at the very least, a UI.
-- 
derek