From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 31 15:44:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554F816A4E8 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:44:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bqt@softjar.se) Received: from GW.SoftJAR.SE (205.225.216.81.static.spa.vf.siwnet.net [81.216.225.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B37243D49 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:44:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bqt@softjar.se) Received: from [172.17.3.209] (brdr-gw2.lu.switchcore.com [212.209.176.2]) by GW.SoftJAR.SE (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EBB6275E; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:44:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44F703C0.30604@softjar.se> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:44:00 +0200 From: Johnny Billquist User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20060830232723.GU10101@multics.mit.edu> <98f5a8830608301731s2b0663e3g94b0bd32f8a06a78@mail.gmail.com> <950621ad0608310654h78ae0023g346abd108815ae72@mail.gmail.com> <20060831110112.J82634@hub.org> <78a2305a0608310830l923f83pbd03b2c89d417505@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <78a2305a0608310830l923f83pbd03b2c89d417505@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: miros-discuss@mirbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, netbsd-users@netbsd.org Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:44:06 -0000 Andy Ruhl wrote: > On 8/31/06, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >> BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel. > > Bingo. Good point. This point is lost sometimes. > > I believe NetBSD has the proper philosophy in regards to the entire OS > as well. I don't want apache built in, for instance. This is a silly definition (imho) which I first heard Stallman use, but seems to be spreading. Every book on operating systems that I own, or have read, defines an operating system as the kernel. Different applications, including even shells, are not the operating system. But that's just my opinion, of course. But most of all, I don't see the relevance of bringing the discussion down to a hair-splitting of what an operating system is. Johnny