Says who? This might have entirely been a move to meet the market expectations for increase in profits in this quarter.
I agree with the GP. I actually see no reason netflix couldn't change their plans to phase out physical delivery. They just should have grandfathered in existing subscribers (or left them the choice to change, in case they only wanted streaming).
Even nasties like the phone and cable company grandfather your rates... at least until you want to make a change of any trivial sort.
"You've linked to Tanenbaum's textbook and claimed that it supported your definitions, but you didn't cite any of the content to support your claim."
I'm sorry but you might have to read said text, or at least the summary. The textbook outlines the design and implementation of the minix kernel and while minix includes other bits such as a cli the text clearly states they are included for no other reason than to provide a workable system, not because they are part of an operating system. As any programmer can tell you, the entire text (operating systems design and implementation) regards the design and implementation of a KERNEL. There is no need to reference specific lines, the entire work is by definition a reference that by its very existence supports my argument and as an added bonus is the basis for the design of a linux kernel/operating system. If you didn't know that Linus was inspired by this book to design his operating system, and that he did so, basing his work upon this reference. Perhaps you should leave this discussion to those who understood the reference.
"Except it can by linking in a different but compatible library."
Of course I could bottle up the entire api into function calls and call them all from the main loop, and then, according to you, my application is the main loop (which does nothing but call deps) but according to you, the deps are part of the OS and my main loop is the app despite containing no content. No programmer would be foolish enough to claim this point (i'd hope). Are you sure you want to?
"Legal and technical definitions are completely distinct."
Except that legally, GNU claims that technically, there is no distinction.
"Except it's not linked directly with your code, or even exclusively with your code, it's dynamically linked with every other program in a running system"
Maybe it is, maybe its not. Functionally it makes little difference.
"and is a necessary component for any fully portable application that can run on any platform the OS can run on"
On the contrary, Glibc offers no additional portability, across hardware platforms, that is not offered over writing your own functions via system calls to the linux kernel. The linux kernel provides an abstraction layer upon which glibc is entirely dependent and anything that targets said layer has the same potential strength as glibc including portability.
"The only platform-specific code are in the kernel"
Sure, that is part of what makes it an OS/Linux Kernel. Other apps CAN target the OS rather than the hardware.
"and in the supporting OS userland library"
There is nothing about a user land library that requires it target the platform rather than simply targeting the kernel.
In other words, no, unlike myself who has provided external references, you have none.
In fact, you prove yourself false by claiming EVERY internet indexed source supports you, since I have already provided sources supporting the contrary your claim is literally impossible.
Those memes are part of Slashdot culture and have been a hell of a lot longer than 4chan has been around.
If you don't like the culture of frick'n laser beams on their head, beowulf cluster jokes, soviet russia jokes, nazis the thread is over now, grammar nazis, anti-grammar nazis, Improper Occums razor references, and -1 natalie portman grits comments, maybe you should move along... That shit all started with Slashdot, IRC, NNTP, and/or mailing lists.
"We have standard terminology to make meaningful distinctions and if you're not willing to make distinctions, terminology is meaningless. These are standard terms."
"Except it's not. The standard C library is part of the operating system"
Lets assume for a moment that you are not some special and magical higher power whose word we take for this. What is the basis for your claim?
In addition to clear, direct, consistent, and self supporting logic I've provided references to solid third party computer science experts with particular specialty in operating system design and theory. Do you have anything new to add other than "nu uh?"
"Just because it's linked into the same address space does not mean it's somehow part of the application."
Solid argument. I mean why wouldn't my code become a magical and distinct construct immediately upon being put in a separate file. I mean sure, the application can't function without that code and that code would function in the same way if placed in the same source file as the rest of the application but... But wasn't it GNU who claimed that linked libraries ARE part of the application and therefore derivatives subject to the GPL?
"If you ship an alternate C library with Linux instead of glibc, it's no longer GNU/Linux, it's BusyBox/Linux"
I'd go with Bob Linux, or Linux + glib, etc but that should be up to the 'you' doing the shipping. In call cases it remains the Linux operating system plus some other stuff.
"Sorry that would be the logical assumption when it is phrased that way. Most people would not make the War on drugs the issue they were opposed to above all else."
And yet most people did... have you considered that it is you who is illogical and reality which is not?
"The Linux kernel defines hardware abstractions, and you have to invoke its services using system calls by placing certain values in hardware registers, and certain values on the stack, and executing an assembly instruction to transfer control to the kernel."
There is nothing preventing apps from doing this. The library is part of the userland application, along with every other library used by said app.
"The kernel itself is never standalone, and always comes with a userland library to interface with it"
What someone chooses to ship with the operating system is irrelevant and beside the point. Once you combine the OS with something else, like a library it becomes a distribution built on the Linux operating system and what that distribution is called you have to take up with those packaging and distributing it.
"Finally, we wouldn't invent separate terms in computing for "kernel" and "operating system" if they were synonyms."
Your post can pretty much be summarized as "your wrong and he's right, because I the great authority says so." However, to address this point, we have separate terms for kernel and operating system because a kernel is not ALWAYS a complete operating system. We were discussing a macro-kernel, and specifically discussing the Linux kernel. Unix is not an operating system, Unix is a trademark first and second a set of specifications used by similar yet distinct operating system distributions.
"Minix drivers are entirely outside the kernel for instance, so if the Minix kernel itself were a complete operating system, all you could do was boot to a blank screen. No console, no disk, no networking. Not much of an operating system."
On the contrary, it provides the facilities needed to load a console, disk, networking, and many other goodies. Everything you need to build a feature rich operating system distribution.
Holy reality check batman. I didn't say Win 3.11 would run at all let alone flawlessly. DOS 6.22 will NOT run at all, it won't even boot on anything newer than a P2. Also, the drivers would be for DOS 6.22 not windows 3.11 because windows 3.11 is a GUI not an operating system, it doesn't have drivers!
For extra fun you can try, and fail, to run Win95 (aka DOS 7) on a new system and crash and burn at the incompatible instruction set!
"or at least the parts that you need to rebuild the distribution"
The "system" would be the hardware platform. The kernel operates the hardware platform and therefore the system. Everything else operates via the kernel, even the low level libraries if they operate the hardware it is only as the kernel has exposed said hardware.
"Wouldn't you draw a distinction between self-hosted and externally-hosted operating systems?"
What difference does it make if the OS is loaded off a disk via a short path of copper or storage connected via a network link? Unless you mean browser based OS which really isn't an OS at all, it is an alternate gui being loaded on the same OS.
"Operating systems (OSes) provide a set of functions needed and used by most application programs on a computer, and the linkages needed to control and synchronize computer hardware. On the first computers, with no operating system, every program needed the full hardware specification to run correctly and perform standard tasks, and its own drivers for peripheral devices like printers and punched paper card readers. The growing complexity of hardware and application programs eventually made operating systems a necessity."
Yes, the control program you referred to, what might also be called an operating program or kernel, was indeed the operating system.
"So I would say that until we started getting into time-sharing and such complexities, the idea of a kernel wasn't really relevant - there was little or nothing resident in the computer's memory. I think I could safely say that is primarily what a kernel does in a modern multitasking system - provides the environment by which tasks can move safely and efficiently through the system"
Actually I think you quoted a better description in there.
"The kernel's responsibilities include managing the system's resources (the communication between hardware and software components).[SIC][1] Usually as a basic component of an operating system, a kernel can provide the lowest-level abstraction layer for the resources (especially processors and I/O devices) that application software must control to perform its function."
The operating system aka kernel is the piece of operating software that provides an abstraction layer over the hardware (you know, the system) in order to allow applications to focus more on logic and less on controlling hardware.
"And the operating system includes all those non-kernel tasks, such as accounting, access control, logging, the many utilities required to provide everything from I/O to temperature control."
All of which are useful things and will be included in an operating system distribution but none of them are required for the system to operate and therefore are not part of the operating system. It is perfectly plausible to write an application that rides atop the linux operating system and includes none of those things.
Clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. But really, you need to stop pointing at Wikipedia like its a reference.
A Wikipedia quote doesn't put a stamp on anything, it isn't any better than a random Slashdot post. In fact, I could edit a Wikipedia article and post it right now as a counter-point.
As it happens, the MINIX operating system... err kernel, was used as the basis for the book. Once upon a time, Linus Torvalds set out to write an operating system and used this material as reference.
The same author wrote another book, "A History of Operating Systems". You need the history to understand. In the early days all computer operators were programmers and the operating system provided an abstraction between manually controlling the individual hardware components with directly input binary. The drivers, boot system, and memory management were clearly part of that abstraction but since programs weren't even stored but were input one off there was no such thing as a userland program being part of the operating system!
Later storage became more common and some operating systems included some additional helpful applications to make writing your programs easier and later yet pre-written programs began to spread. In some cases like the later dos and apple systems the operating system wasn't even available separately so it became common to refer to the entire operating system distribution as an operating system for short. Many less informed (which ultimately was most) users didn't even realize it was a shortened term.
Sounds great for your highly specialized application in which you could control all the variables. But what does that have to do with service providers and thousands of assorted streaming video implementations written by random scatterings of programmers?
"You actually think people made marijuana and the war on drugs their #1 issue"
I find it odd that you assume... without any indication in my comment to that effect... that the people making it their number 1 issue were anti-marijuana and pro war-on-drugs. Actually people made it their number 1 issue and like you, were by and large opposed to the war on drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Says who? This might have entirely been a move to meet the market expectations for increase in profits in this quarter.
I agree with the GP. I actually see no reason netflix couldn't change their plans to phase out physical delivery. They just should have grandfathered in existing subscribers (or left them the choice to change, in case they only wanted streaming).
Even nasties like the phone and cable company grandfather your rates... at least until you want to make a change of any trivial sort.
"You've linked to Tanenbaum's textbook and claimed that it supported your definitions, but you didn't cite any of the content to support your claim."
I'm sorry but you might have to read said text, or at least the summary. The textbook outlines the design and implementation of the minix kernel and while minix includes other bits such as a cli the text clearly states they are included for no other reason than to provide a workable system, not because they are part of an operating system. As any programmer can tell you, the entire text (operating systems design and implementation) regards the design and implementation of a KERNEL. There is no need to reference specific lines, the entire work is by definition a reference that by its very existence supports my argument and as an added bonus is the basis for the design of a linux kernel/operating system. If you didn't know that Linus was inspired by this book to design his operating system, and that he did so, basing his work upon this reference. Perhaps you should leave this discussion to those who understood the reference.
"Except it can by linking in a different but compatible library."
Of course I could bottle up the entire api into function calls and call them all from the main loop, and then, according to you, my application is the main loop (which does nothing but call deps) but according to you, the deps are part of the OS and my main loop is the app despite containing no content. No programmer would be foolish enough to claim this point (i'd hope). Are you sure you want to?
"Legal and technical definitions are completely distinct."
Except that legally, GNU claims that technically, there is no distinction.
"Except it's not linked directly with your code, or even exclusively with your code, it's dynamically linked with every other program in a running system"
Maybe it is, maybe its not. Functionally it makes little difference.
"and is a necessary component for any fully portable application that can run on any platform the OS can run on"
On the contrary, Glibc offers no additional portability, across hardware platforms, that is not offered over writing your own functions via system calls to the linux kernel. The linux kernel provides an abstraction layer upon which glibc is entirely dependent and anything that targets said layer has the same potential strength as glibc including portability.
"The only platform-specific code are in the kernel"
Sure, that is part of what makes it an OS/Linux Kernel. Other apps CAN target the OS rather than the hardware.
"and in the supporting OS userland library"
There is nothing about a user land library that requires it target the platform rather than simply targeting the kernel.
In other words, no, unlike myself who has provided external references, you have none.
In fact, you prove yourself false by claiming EVERY internet indexed source supports you, since I have already provided sources supporting the contrary your claim is literally impossible.
Those memes are part of Slashdot culture and have been a hell of a lot longer than 4chan has been around.
If you don't like the culture of frick'n laser beams on their head, beowulf cluster jokes, soviet russia jokes, nazis the thread is over now, grammar nazis, anti-grammar nazis, Improper Occums razor references, and -1 natalie portman grits comments, maybe you should move along... That shit all started with Slashdot, IRC, NNTP, and/or mailing lists.
Now take your 4chan and get off our lawn!
In soviet russia sharks meme you!
pzzz buzz off
But what do the sharks think of the frick'n things?
"We have standard terminology to make meaningful distinctions and if you're not willing to make distinctions, terminology is meaningless. These are standard terms."
Terms which you are using incorrectly.
"Except it's not. The standard C library is part of the operating system"
Lets assume for a moment that you are not some special and magical higher power whose word we take for this. What is the basis for your claim?
In addition to clear, direct, consistent, and self supporting logic I've provided references to solid third party computer science experts with particular specialty in operating system design and theory. Do you have anything new to add other than "nu uh?"
"Just because it's linked into the same address space does not mean it's somehow part of the application."
Solid argument. I mean why wouldn't my code become a magical and distinct construct immediately upon being put in a separate file. I mean sure, the application can't function without that code and that code would function in the same way if placed in the same source file as the rest of the application but... But wasn't it GNU who claimed that linked libraries ARE part of the application and therefore derivatives subject to the GPL?
"If you ship an alternate C library with Linux instead of glibc, it's no longer GNU/Linux, it's BusyBox/Linux"
I'd go with Bob Linux, or Linux + glib, etc but that should be up to the 'you' doing the shipping. In call cases it remains the Linux operating system plus some other stuff.
Did you have some content to add to the discussion?
"Sorry that would be the logical assumption when it is phrased that way. Most people would not make the War on drugs the issue they were opposed to above all else."
And yet most people did... have you considered that it is you who is illogical and reality which is not?
Thank you for making my point?
"The Linux kernel defines hardware abstractions, and you have to invoke its services using system calls by placing certain values in hardware registers, and certain values on the stack, and executing an assembly instruction to transfer control to the kernel."
There is nothing preventing apps from doing this. The library is part of the userland application, along with every other library used by said app.
"The kernel itself is never standalone, and always comes with a userland library to interface with it"
What someone chooses to ship with the operating system is irrelevant and beside the point. Once you combine the OS with something else, like a library it becomes a distribution built on the Linux operating system and what that distribution is called you have to take up with those packaging and distributing it.
"Finally, we wouldn't invent separate terms in computing for "kernel" and "operating system" if they were synonyms."
Your post can pretty much be summarized as "your wrong and he's right, because I the great authority says so." However, to address this point, we have separate terms for kernel and operating system because a kernel is not ALWAYS a complete operating system. We were discussing a macro-kernel, and specifically discussing the Linux kernel. Unix is not an operating system, Unix is a trademark first and second a set of specifications used by similar yet distinct operating system distributions.
"Minix drivers are entirely outside the kernel for instance, so if the Minix kernel itself were a complete operating system, all you could do was boot to a blank screen. No console, no disk, no networking. Not much of an operating system."
On the contrary, it provides the facilities needed to load a console, disk, networking, and many other goodies. Everything you need to build a feature rich operating system distribution.
Holy reality check batman. I didn't say Win 3.11 would run at all let alone flawlessly. DOS 6.22 will NOT run at all, it won't even boot on anything newer than a P2. Also, the drivers would be for DOS 6.22 not windows 3.11 because windows 3.11 is a GUI not an operating system, it doesn't have drivers!
For extra fun you can try, and fail, to run Win95 (aka DOS 7) on a new system and crash and burn at the incompatible instruction set!
"or at least the parts that you need to rebuild the distribution"
The "system" would be the hardware platform. The kernel operates the hardware platform and therefore the system. Everything else operates via the kernel, even the low level libraries if they operate the hardware it is only as the kernel has exposed said hardware.
"Wouldn't you draw a distinction between self-hosted and externally-hosted operating systems?"
What difference does it make if the OS is loaded off a disk via a short path of copper or storage connected via a network link? Unless you mean browser based OS which really isn't an OS at all, it is an alternate gui being loaded on the same OS.
Lets give it a true stamp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_operating_systems
"Operating systems (OSes) provide a set of functions needed and used by most application programs on a computer, and the linkages needed to control and synchronize computer hardware. On the first computers, with no operating system, every program needed the full hardware specification to run correctly and perform standard tasks, and its own drivers for peripheral devices like printers and punched paper card readers. The growing complexity of hardware and application programs eventually made operating systems a necessity."
Yes, the control program you referred to, what might also be called an operating program or kernel, was indeed the operating system.
"So I would say that until we started getting into time-sharing and such complexities, the idea of a kernel wasn't really relevant - there was little or nothing resident in the computer's memory. I think I could safely say that is primarily what a kernel does in a modern multitasking system - provides the environment by which tasks can move safely and efficiently through the system"
Actually I think you quoted a better description in there.
"The kernel's responsibilities include managing the system's resources (the communication between hardware and software components).[SIC][1] Usually as a basic component of an operating system, a kernel can provide the lowest-level abstraction layer for the resources (especially processors and I/O devices) that application software must control to perform its function."
The operating system aka kernel is the piece of operating software that provides an abstraction layer over the hardware (you know, the system) in order to allow applications to focus more on logic and less on controlling hardware.
"And the operating system includes all those non-kernel tasks, such as accounting, access control, logging, the many utilities required to provide everything from I/O to temperature control."
All of which are useful things and will be included in an operating system distribution but none of them are required for the system to operate and therefore are not part of the operating system. It is perfectly plausible to write an application that rides atop the linux operating system and includes none of those things.
Pretty sure that's what I said?
Clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. But really, you need to stop pointing at Wikipedia like its a reference.
A Wikipedia quote doesn't put a stamp on anything, it isn't any better than a random Slashdot post. In fact, I could edit a Wikipedia article and post it right now as a counter-point.
"I will add that I've used many operating systems over the years, and the 'OS' has always referred to the complete package"
I wouldn't dare to suggest that computer science and not user perception is the best place to define an operating system.
Feel free to peruse this gem http://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Design-Implementation-Second/dp/0136386776 . It is computer science coursework that explains how to write an operating system... err kernel as you say.
As it happens, the MINIX operating system... err kernel, was used as the basis for the book. Once upon a time, Linus Torvalds set out to write an operating system and used this material as reference.
The same author wrote another book, "A History of Operating Systems". You need the history to understand. In the early days all computer operators were programmers and the operating system provided an abstraction between manually controlling the individual hardware components with directly input binary. The drivers, boot system, and memory management were clearly part of that abstraction but since programs weren't even stored but were input one off there was no such thing as a userland program being part of the operating system!
Later storage became more common and some operating systems included some additional helpful applications to make writing your programs easier and later yet pre-written programs began to spread. In some cases like the later dos and apple systems the operating system wasn't even available separately so it became common to refer to the entire operating system distribution as an operating system for short. Many less informed (which ultimately was most) users didn't even realize it was a shortened term.
Sounds great for your highly specialized application in which you could control all the variables. But what does that have to do with service providers and thousands of assorted streaming video implementations written by random scatterings of programmers?
Additionally, while the people were against the war on drugs, Obama made it clear he does not support the legalization of marijuana in response.
"You actually think people made marijuana and the war on drugs their #1 issue"
I find it odd that you assume... without any indication in my comment to that effect... that the people making it their number 1 issue were anti-marijuana and pro war-on-drugs. Actually people made it their number 1 issue and like you, were by and large opposed to the war on drugs.
If you want to throttle on a one off basis for individual services...
Totally, every single time a system call that returns the version string is run it will load faster, use less memory, and execute more quickly!