that old GNU/Linux argument

[Aaron Konstam]

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:47 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > Speaking as someone who studied (at college) computing from the
> > component level, and has built systems from the chip level.  I mean
> > breadboarding CPUs, RAM, I/O, etc., not just putting together IBM
> > clones.  As well as studying programming at that level (hand compiling
> > the op-codes from mnemonics used to write the program).  I'm quite
> > astounded by the number of people who want to redefine what an OS is, to
> > something that it's not, just to suit their egos.  The OS simply is that
> > which lets software make use of the hardware, not what makes it
> > convenient for us to make use of it.
> >
> > So answer this:  Which bit of the software on this computer system is it
> > that actually does the OS functions, the *real* OS function?
> 
> With all that education you have, perhaps you can explain something I've been 
> wondering about: Why do we have both terms "kernel" and "operating system" if 
> they're both the same thing?
> 
> If people can't agree on what an operating system is, but do agree on what a 
> kernel is, maybe we should avoid the ambiguity of "operating system" and 
> simply call a kernel a kernel?
> 
> Björn Persson
> 
At the risk of violating my own prohibition I am forced to respond to
the above e-mail. The kernel and the operating system are certainly not
the same thing in the same sense that the engine and the car are not the
same thing.
--
=======================================================================
What's so funny?
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net