need advice about linux

[zeusy]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Actually, GNU is an operating system. You're probably talking about GNU Coreutils or GNU Binutils if you're thinking "set of tools".

Dude, in my book an OS includes a kernel.
There's no GNU kernel.
Hurd is dead, and was dead from the very beginning.
Linux is not part of GNU.

Many *tools* are part of the GNU project, this includes GNU Nano, Coreutils, Binutils... Which I define as a *set of tools*.

We can therefore refer to GNU/Linux which is a combination of the GNU *set of tools* and the Linux kernel.

Here is a diagram from Wikipedia:

Linux is blue, the GNUs are green, get it?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Dude, in my book an OS includes a kernel.
There's no GNU kernel.
Hurd is dead, and was dead from the very beginning.
Linux is not part of GNU.

Many *tools* are part of the GNU project, this includes GNU Nano, Coreutils, Binutils... Which I define as a *set of tools*.

We can therefore refer to GNU/Linux which is a combination of the GNU *set of tools* and the Linux kernel.

Here is a diagram from Wikipedia:

Linux is blue, the GNUs are green, get it?

HURD is not dead. It still sees development and Apache runs on it. There are two distributions (Gentoo/HURD and Debian/HURD) of it.

However, many people use the GNU OS with the kernel Linux. Hence GNU/Linux. Portraying the "GNU" part of that as "a set of tools" is belittling the contributions of the GNU Project. The majority of the system is GNU, not just "a set of tools".

[coroner]

Bullshit.
An Operating System requires a kernel. GNU tools by themselves are not an operating system. In fact, I can run a machine without bash.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by coroner

Bullshit.
An Operating System requires a kernel. GNU tools by themselves are not an operating system. In fact, I can run a machine without bash.

If you can run a machine using the Linux kernel with zero parts of the GNU operating system, go ahead. I would like to see that.

When you say "GNU tools", I presume you are talking about GNU Coreutils and GNU Binutils. They are not an operating system. They are part of the GNU operating system. So is the GNU Bourne-Again Shell. So are the many other official GNU packages. There are also parts of the GNU operating system which are not official GNU packages, such as TeX and the X Window System. I would predict that it is impossible to use the kernel Linux with none of these parts.

[coroner]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

If you can run a machine using the Linux kernel with zero parts of the GNU operating system, go ahead. I would like to see that.

I would love to show you however I think your head is too soft.

I would predict that it is impossible to use the kernel Linux with none of these parts.

As long as my kernel takes control from the BIOS for simple IO to and from devices, I CAN ABSOLUTELY USE THE KERNEL WITHOUT ANY "PARTS" OF GNU.

[zeusy]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

HURD is not dead. It still sees development and Apache runs on it. There are two distributions (Gentoo/HURD and Debian/HURD) of it.

However, many people use the GNU OS with the kernel Linux. Hence GNU/Linux. Portraying the "GNU" part of that as "a set of tools" is belittling the contributions of the GNU Project. The majority of the system is GNU, not just "a set of tools".

GNU did not contribute SHIT to Linux.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

GNU did not contribute SHIT to Linux.

Yes, that's quite right. However, whatever you call what it is you're using, or what it is I'm using, or cornorer's using, the GNU Project contributed significantly to that. Which is another reason why it's proper to call it GNU/Linux.

This is also another downside of the ambiguity of calling an operating system "Linux" and a kernel "Linux". What are you talking about here? I assume the kernel, as they did in fact contribute to the GNU/Linux or "Linux" operating system. But do you see how confusing it is?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by coroner

I would love to show you however I think your head is too soft.

Hello, cop-out!

Originally Posted by coroner

As long as my kernel takes control from the BIOS for simple IO to and from devices, I CAN ABSOLUTELY USE THE KERNEL WITHOUT ANY "PARTS" OF GNU.

I should have said "It is impossible for an operating system to use the kernel Linux with none of these parts". In any event, as you have it, the kernel may be running, but how are you using it?

[ataraxia]

http://shii.org/knows/GNU
AND I QUOTE:

The naming controversy around GNU/Linux is somewhat absurd. GNU can work without Linux, but not very well (GNU/Hurd). Linux can work without GNU (μClinux), but there's no reason to do that on your desktop or server. One can easily run a Unixlike operating system (FreeBSD) with other "core" components like X11 and Apache without GNU or Linux. One can easily run GNU/Linux without X11 or Apache. But both GNU and Linux are essential to running a GNU/Linux operating system on your computer.

For the record, GNU can also work without Linux (and significantly better than Hurd) using L4-linux.

[zeusy]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Yes, that's quite right. However, whatever you call what it is you're using, or what it is I'm using, or cornorer's using, the GNU Project contributed significantly to that. Which is another reason why it's proper to call it GNU/Linux.

This is also another downside of the ambiguity of calling an operating system "Linux" and a kernel "Linux". What are you talking about here? I assume the kernel, as they did in fact contribute to the GNU/Linux or "Linux" operating system. But do you see how confusing it is?

You agree there is no GNU kernel, that GNU did not contribute to to the Linux project, if there is no GNU kernel, GNU is not an Operating System.

Some GNUs* are a glue between the system and the user and/or a glue between the kernel and other applications.
But the System can still *run* without any applications (applications, as the green in the diagram) running.

Therefore, GNU is not an Operating System and is not part of an Operating System.

Deductive reasoning for the win.