linux and GNU

GNU/Linux would be technically correct but i think it's just easier to call it Linux. i don't feel the need to follow everything RMS (rant machine supreme) says.

[TaeShadow]

And as for programming, I can write programs that interact only with the kernel. The only way to write a program that doesn't interact with it directly at all is to write a shell script (which technically isn't programming at all).

Why do you say that shell scripting is not programming?

What I meant by my previous statement was that YOU, the programmer, do not interact with the kernel when you write a program. Your program does, of course. But you never see it happening.

But it eventually goes back to the kernel anyway. It's like a car. Typically the frame and body make the core of the car. I could put a 305 Chevy engine in my Thunderbird (well I probably couldn't but follow along) but it will still be a Thunderbird. The Thunderbird part of it is most important.

My point exactly, but you have it reversed. In this case, Linux is the engine, and GNU is the frame and body.

[kenshi]

Why do you say that shell scripting is not programming?

Well it does have a lot of similar concepts, but all it is is a series of commands. It's not really a program. I think it's very similar and should be grouped with programming, but technically isn't.

What I meant by my previous statement was that YOU, the programmer, do not interact with the kernel when you write a program. *Your program does, of course. *But you never see it happening. *

Well yeah, I guess that's true. That's getting too technical though.

My point exactly, but you have it reversed. *In this case, Linux is the engine, and GNU is the frame and body.

That's why I said it was a bad example. In a car, the frame and body are usually considered the core. They're what define a car's individuality (to most people). With a person, it's the brain. If it was possible to put a person's brain into another body, it would still be the same person. With the hardware of a computer, I usually think the motherboard and processor are the core. Change them and it's basically a new computer. And with a protected-mode operating system, I have to say the kernel is the core more than anything. Change it and you change the identity of the operating system. Gnu is part of the operating system too but Linux is right in the middle of it. Without it or a substitute, Gnu could do absolutely nothing. Linux could still do something without Gnu, even if it's just print kernel panic on the screen. Comparing it to a car (Linux represents the frame and body), a car without an engine can still be pushed but a car without a frame and body is just a pile of parts with nothing to tie them together.

[Guitarlynn]

Simply put, most of the Unixes out there (loose term of Unix),
are mostly GNU with a kernel. If you called GNU an OS, you
would have Linux/distro style GNU, BSD/branch style GNU,
SystemV GNU, Solaris GNU, AIX GNU, etc.......

Naming these based off of the respective kernel gives a definate
point of reference to the difference between them and what to
expect. Kind of like a motor vehicle. This would include cars,
trucks, semi's, motorcycles, mopeds, airplanes, trains, motorized
skateboards, etc..... People like to be more specific and can
understand a more refined definition to better understand what
is being discussed.

What interfaces with the hardware is the kernel (linux/whatever),
what makes the common person able to do anything with it is
GNU.

~Guitarlynn

[kenshi]

I have a related question. If FreeBSD implements Gnu, then why are many of the commands different from Linux? They have a slightly different syntax. I can't think of any right now except the one Feztaa listed in the thread about how old Unix was when you were born. It works on his system apparently but is bad syntax on mine. Another is that ls doesn't support the --color option like in Linux. There are more but I can't think of anything else. Funk dat.

I have a related question. If FreeBSD implements Gnu, then why are many of the commands different from Linux? They have a slightly different syntax. I can't think of any right now except the one Feztaa listed in the thread about how old Unix was when you were born. It works on his system apparently but is bad syntax on mine. Another is that ls doesn't support the --color option like in Linux. There are more but I can't think of anything else. Funk dat.

Hum, what Guitarlynn said is completely wrong. Only GNU/Linux has GNU tools by default. The BSD's have the BSD tools, AIX has its own tools, and so on. BUT, you can install GNU tools on other Unices, and since they are technically superior, people on commercial Unix often use them. The BSD tools are reliable and have many features, but not as much as the GNU ones. But, since the GNU tools are under the GPL, it's not much a question of technical superiority, but a cultural preference. But if you look in /usr/ports/sysutils, you'll see sh-utils, fileutils, findutils, you'll find gtar under /usr/ports/archiver, etc. because some people (like me) prefer the GNU tools. And they don't have the same syntax for extra features. ls -l works on both GNU and BSD ls, because it's a standard option. But to color the output is not standard, it's an extra, so they are free to use the syntax they want.

[kenshi]

That makes sense. I didn't think Gnu tools were in the base of FreeBSD like they are in Linux. I haven't really seen enough different for me to install the Gnu stuff. I've gotten frustrated about certain things not working like they did in Linux, but eventually I learn how to do it the BSD way.

[Guitarlynn]

Hum, what Guitarlynn said is completely wrong. *Only GNU/Linux has GNU tools by default. *

I stand corrected, thx

I was off on a tangent, my direction was that you _could_ run
GNU/Whatever-*NIX. Or does GNU not compile correctly on
all Unixes?

I can't see a reason you couldn't run GNU/FreeBSD other than
the lack of iso's or simply going to the trouble of making it?
Not that anyone would actually do it.

Thanks for the correction, my bad!
~Guitarlynn

Yes of course you can run them, but not by default. Speaking of which, I was having a conversation with Kint yesturday and I was talking about a possibility: an option in /stand/sysinstall where you could select if you want to use the GNU or the BSD tools by default. Of course I am not going to suggest that to the FreeBSD developpement team, because I would most likely get flamed, but I still think it's not bad an idea: people who have aliases, scripts, etc which make use of the GNU tools with some paramaters proper to them could run them without modifying anything on FreeBSD. Of course, this is not likely to happen, but I still think it could be cool.

[Guitarlynn]

Yes of course you can run them, but not by default.

*Of course, this is not likely to happen, but I still think it could be cool.

That was my direction (sorry for not making a note of it).
I think that would be great, especially for people used to
the gnu syntax. However, I also agree that the developers
of any Unix would be quite flamed by the suggestion of
going Gnu. The licensing would also become real sticky
for most of them using their own licenses.

I was really just trying to show a blunt example of what Gnu
_can or does_ do in comparison to a kernel. Not exactly an
example of the real world use.

Thanks again,
~Guitarlynn