Why are some people ridiculing the fact that Linux is not a "complete OS"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dendros

The question is in the title. I know that Linux is just a kernel, not an OS and Linux distributions like Debian, Ubuntu are the real OSes that run on top of it but I never understood why some are basically making fun of that.

I'm not an expert by any means, just an user but I have read some books about OSes and from what I understand, the kernel is the core of an OS to such an extent that it is basically the OS itself, just without any user interface. All other, "external" programs that runs on top of the kernel are there to provide an interface with it.

By this metric, Linux is an OS since it's a complete kernel, just a bare one.

Personally, I see the fact that Linux is just a kernel, a bare OS, as an advantage not a disadvantage because you can run pretty much anything on top of it. The fact that it runs GNU utilities and programs does not detract this flexibility since, theoretically, you can build a completely different environment around the kernel - see Android. I like this kind of modularity.

Am I wrong? I would like a civilised debate.
 
Because the concept of a “base system” existed before Linux and GNU. Neither of the two meet that definition, but the uninformed keep saying otherwise. Since Research UNIX; a “base system” has always consisted of a kernel/userland that works in tandem, and is developed with each other.

Seriously, what’s with all of these “FreeBSD vs Linux“-like threads infiltrating this forum?

Dendros said:
Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Note 1,
Hier Linux,
/usr/local : This is where programs which are local to the site typically go.
Versus,
Hier Freebsd,
/usr/local/
local executables, libraries, etc. Also used as
the default destination for the ports(7) framework.
Within local/, the general layout sketched out by
hier for /usr should be used. Exceptions are the
man directory (directly under local/ rather than
under local/share/), ports documentation (in
share/doc/_port_/), and /usr/local/etc (mimics
/etc).

This has nothing with the kernel.

Note 2,
Linux distro and freebsd distro have a different development cycle
 
Dendros said:
The question is in the title. I know that Linux is just a kernel, not an OS and Linux distributions like Debian, Ubuntu are the real OSes that run on top of it but I never understood why some are basically making fun of that.

I'm not an expert by any means, just an user but I have read some books about OSes and from what I understand, the kernel is the core of an OS to such an extent that it is basically the OS itself, just without any user interface. All other, "external" programs that runs on top of the kernel are there to provide an interface with it.

By this metric, Linux is an OS since it's a complete kernel, just a bare one.

Personally, I see the fact that Linux is just a kernel, a bare OS, as an advantage not a disadvantage because you can run pretty much anything on top of it. The fact that it runs GNU utilities and programs does not detract this flexibility since, theoretically, you can build a completely different environment around the kernel - see Android. I like this kind of modularity.

Am I wrong? I would like a civilised debate.
Click to expand...
No amount of re-definition by yourself can make Linux an OS. It simply isn't. It is useless without the so-called userland binaries. Those userland binaries are useless without a kernel. Together they make an OS.

You don't see Microsoft releasing just their kernel and saying, "there you go, it's a complete kernel therefore it's an OS", do you?

Oh, and as to your title, loaded as it is, I haven't seen people ridiculing it, unless pointing out a fact is ridicule?

It is also pointless debating this issue. Linux is a kernel, FreeBSD is an OS. You can even ask Torvalds if you don't believe me.
 
Dendros said:
the kernel is the core of an OS to such an extent that it is basically the OS itself
Click to expand...
The kernel is a core but not an operating system. The kernel is just one component of an operating system.
It's like saying you have a heart or a brain and, therefore, you are a human. No. You aren't a human till you have all the other necessary parts that make a human.
 
Thanks for the civilised replies. This is not a Linux vs FreeBSD debate, just a question that crossed my mind.

OK, a kernel is not an OS by itself but I don't understand why some seem to think that Linux being just a kernel is a great disadvantage, because it does not seem like so to me.

It seems more flexible (compared to a complete OS, such as Windows, OS X, etc) since in this way it can be paired with any userland, not only GNU - I gave Android as an example. Is that a disadvantage?
 
It is a "disadvantage" because it's useless on its own.

So, because a Linux kernel can be in Android makes it flexible? You mentioned another, OS X (now MacOS), which has a kernel of FreeBSD and Mach. Is that not flexibility?

I am not sure, as a user, I care about flexibility in this regard. If I took the Linux kernel and compiled it, it might be flexible but it's totally useless.
 
Dendros said:
I don't understand why some seem to think that Linux being just a kernel is a great disadvantage
Click to expand...
Without seeing the context of what these people are saying, it's hard to have a (civilised!) counter-argument.

I think sometimes in the BSD world, it's touted as an advantage that BSDs are complete OSs - in that each BSD is a coherent "whole". Built, tested, and shipped as one thing - kernel + userland + (to a degree) ports.

A Linux distribution can be "incoherent" in that it's a kernel (Linux) + whatever the distribution authors chose to bundle it up with. So sometimes they can seem to be a bit "cobbled together", but usually they are very polished, certainly these days.

Not sure if that's the argument you mean, or exactly how much merit it has. :-/
 
  • Like
Reactions: a6h
The advantage with the Linux kernel being separated from the userland is that i can easily switch distributions.
For examples i really loved Debian but with the adoption of systemd i have to switch to another distribution (not Devuan).

But the kernel (OS) would be the same. (Which is good, because Linux is a very good kernel)

If FreeBSD would adopt systemd i had to leave it also, but there is no alternative with the FreeBSD kernel (besides Debians kfreebsd, lol).
So i had to abandon the kernel of FreeBSD altogether.
 
Dendros said:
Thanks for the civilised replies. This is not a Linux vs FreeBSD debate, just a question that crossed my mind.
Click to expand...
To be fair and balance, I take the position of uncivilised edition of replies: Why I ridicule [...] ?
I do, because I can and that's the short version of it.
 
richardtoohey2 said:
Without seeing the context of what these people are saying, it's hard to have a (civilised!) counter-argument.

I think sometimes in the BSD world, it's touted as an advantage that BSDs are complete OSs - in that each BSD is a coherent "whole". Built, tested, and shipped as one thing - kernel + userland + (to a degree) ports.

A Linux distribution can be "incoherent" in that it's a kernel (Linux) + whatever the distribution authors chose to bundle it up with. So sometimes they can seem to be a bit "cobbled together", but usually they are very polished, certainly these days.

Not sure if that's the argument you mean, or exactly how much merit it has. :-/
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I was thinking at. I have seen some users on this forum that seem to make fun of Linux because of it being just a kernel. Not that explicit but their tone does seem to suggest it. And I don't understand why.

Just a thought: if Linus decides to create his own userland around his kernel (an init system+a shell+some utilities) and calls it "the Linux OS", could this be called a "real" OS? In other words, if Linus decides to develop his own userland in the same source tree as the kernel and in sync with kernel's development cycle, would this be an OS?
 
Dendros said:
[...] from what I understand, the kernel is the core of an OS to such an extent that it is basically the OS itself, just without any user interface. All other, "external" programs that runs on top of the kernel are there to provide an interface with it.
Click to expand...
No. Many of those in /sbin & /usr/sbin do, but the others go further. It's the other way around: the kernel supplies the facilities & interfaces to run services, services provide facilities & interfaces to run userland applications. A kernel itself is useless, an OS itself is useless, the hardware supplies the engine, the network supplies the roads & the kernel is the driver to run userland applications.
Personally, I see the fact that Linux is just a kernel, a bare OS, as an advantage not a disadvantage because you can run pretty much anything on top of it. The fact that it runs GNU utilities and programs does not detract this flexibility since, theoretically, you can build a completely different environment around the kernel - see Android. I like this kind of modularity.
Click to expand...
There's Debian/kFreeBSD. You can strip down the native FreeBSD with pico/nano/tinyBSD or spin. So you can build a highly customized or (nearly) completely different environment around the FreeBSD kernel. Some vendors use this facility to build their products, so there's modularity, too.
 
Dendros said:
Yes, that is what I was thinking at. I have seen some users on this forum that seem to make fun of Linux because of it being just a kernel. Not that explicit but their tone does seem to suggest it. And I don't understand why.

Just a thought: if Linus decides to create his own userland around his kernel (an init system+a shell+some utilities) and calls it "the Linux OS", could this be called a "real" OS? In other words, if Linus decides to develop his own userland in the same source tree as the kernel and in sync with kernel's development cycle, would this be an OS?
Click to expand...

You've got your answer. Time to let this "yet another Linux thread on a FreeBSD forum" die.
 
unitrunker said:
This blog explains the consequences of separate base and kernel.

Click to expand...

So true. I've grown up ifconfiging my interfaces and while using Linux it always bugged me to know i was using deprecated technology but i never knew why they had deprecated it and when i read that post a while back it literally took a couple seconds before my brain would accept what it had just been told. Such a silly reason to replace a perfectly good piece of software. It's ridiculous.
 
Dendros said:
The question is in the title.
Click to expand...
The answer is: There are lots of clueless people around, who want to feel good about themselves. Since they can't point to their own accomplishments, they instead dump on others. In this particular case, people who use FreeBSD try to berate Linux for making themselves feel superior.

And please not that this berating of Linux does not come from the people who actually are knowledgable about FreeBSD. Do you see Kirk McK or George N-N or Keith/Mike/John/Sam posting this kind of stuff? No. I've talked to a few of these folks, and they have a lot of respect for other people who write open source software.
 
Calling Linux an operating system is a category error. Comparing FreeBSD and Linux is false equivalency. Defending a position by dropping word like, uncivilised, to shutdown any further conversation from start, is a type of ad hominem. Why I'm not surprised.
 
You've perfectly well depicted the situation.
Moreover, there's no real knowledge to compensate the lack of accomplishments - not only in IT, but also in linguistics, which is a pity.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid those behaviors affect a much wider share of the community than would be safe for FreeBSD itself. :(

ralphbsz said:
The answer is: There are lots of clueless people around, who want to feel good about themselves. Since they can't point to their own accomplishments, they instead dump on others. In this particular case, people who use FreeBSD try to berate Linux for making themselves feel superior.

And please not that this berating of Linux does not come from the people who actually are knowledgable about FreeBSD. Do you see Kirk McK or George N-N or Keith/Mike/John/Sam posting this kind of stuff? No. I've talked to a few of these folks, and they have a lot of respect for other people who write open source software.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: a6h
OMG. This thread's still going? Pointless arguments about a pointless 'issue'.
Nuke this thread, please, moderators before any more 'enlightened' supporters jump on board.
You linux fan boys ought take the superiority complex to a more receptive audience, seriously.
 
mark_j said:
Nuke this thread, please, moderators before anymore 'enlightened' supporters jump on board.
Click to expand...

I agree with mark_j however have a small request. Can we merge them into one big mega thread but with the posts rendered in a completely random order each time you refresh the page? This way we can simply point future Linux scouts towards its ever changing madness (that they crave). Almost like a honey pot but for Linux users :)
 
I run archlinux, and only run freebsd in a virtual machine. Archlinux usually has richer hardware support, faster software update speed, such as gnome3.36.5, and is as solid as a rock. If it is not an operating system, what is it, so The game is over
 
malaizhichun said:
I run archlinux, and only run freebsd in a virtual machine. Archlinux usually has richer hardware support, faster software update speed, such as gnome3.36.5, and is as solid as a rock. If it is not an operating system, what is it, so The game is over
Click to expand...
After reading this thread, this is what you've come up with? Seriously?

Moderators, can this thread please be closed, nuked, burned then buried? Please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top