Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:33:24 +0100 From: Simon Barner <barner@in.tum.de> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane@laperouse.internatif.org> Cc: FreeBSD questions List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?! Message-ID: <20031211103324.GA1152@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> In-Reply-To: <20031210163945.GB800@fetiche.sources.org> References: <012701c3bde4$4acf2b30$019c9752@xp> <20031209013027.GC1099@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <03da01c3be90$032636f0$019c9752@xp> <20031210011904.GB2145@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20031210163945.GB800@fetiche.sources.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > You are comparing apples and oranges. Linux is a kernel, not an > operating system. "Distributions" is a specially ill-choosen word in > the Linux world. There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. Well, this is what I indendet to express. Besides that, I'd say that the various GNU/Linux flavours (let's put it that way ;-) have more in common than just the kernel: The GNUish userland (parts of which are used in FreeBSD, too). > Forget > the word "distributions" which seems to imply that an operating > system is defined by its kernel. I also dislike the term `distribution', I only used it for better comparability. Simon --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/2Ef0Ckn+/eutqCoRAqr6AKCpLUB3tW7F+Lk+oT3izeiqO4vbrACgikz+ Yss3yatWwNXKRWtT5LUuiQI= =AB7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031211103324.GA1152>