Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:08:28 -0500 (EST) From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> To: dincht@securenym.net (C. Ulrich) Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane@laperouse.internatif.org> Subject: Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?! Message-ID: <200312111908.hBBJ8Tc23203@clunix.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200312111839.hBBIdAH06137@anon.securenym.net> from "C. Ulrich" at Dec 11, 2003 02:37:51 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I don't wish to get into a shouting match, but I don't think I > completely agree with some of the things you say here. > OK. Well, just toddle on over to the advocacy list where this can more appropriately be hashed out. ////jerry > On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 11:39, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > 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. > > I don't see why. I think "distribution" is a perfectly fine term for > what it describes. My comments below explain why. > > > There are several operating systems, Debian, RedHat, > > Mandrake, which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. > > This is incorrect. All relevant Linux distributions are not only based > on the same kernel, but almost almost all of the same userland software > as well. (Specifically, GNU software, much of which is a core part of > FreeBSD as well.) The main areas where they differ are the configuration
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200312111908.hBBJ8Tc23203>