Last Friday 09 July 2004 20:31, RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx was like: > ?I don't see anything wrong with asking. I don't think anyone should be > "pressuring" Then we are of one mind. The 'not pressuring' is the important point. Last Friday 09 July 2004 20:37, Chris Pickett was like: > I guess ... I guess I've stopped distinguishing between system and > application. ?Is Mozilla part of the system? ?Or is it definitely an > application? ?Do you define application by replaceable, non-essential > part? ?What's essential? ?Is X essential? ?How about bash? ?Is the linux > kernel even essential? ?Can't you run this software with a different > kernel? ?I basically view everything as a set of interoperating programs > -- including the music stuff -- although I might concede that the kernel > is perhaps the only "true" system component. Hmm, Zen mind ... Surely no application IS the system. All including the kernel can be seen as separate entities. There is a clear cut definition of which applications are essential parts of the system, but the system itself is more abstract than that, more like a protocol in some ways. Last Friday 09 July 2004 21:30, RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx was like: > ?In other words Photoshop is essential to a graphics system? Clearly not ;-). Cue timpani, horns and grand restatement of original themes ... cheers tim hall
