On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 05:16, tim hall wrote: > Semantic point: I don't think we should really be talking of Linux as a > 'Standard'. Wouldn't it be more correct to talk about a subset of GNU > standards used by multimedia applications based on Linux? OK, I know that's a > bit of a mouthful. Linux is not an OS. I think we need to ground a > standardised term here. > Linux *is* an operating system. In the same manner that UNIX is an operating system, and VMS, VOS, OS-360, Exec-8, and others were operating systems. What you are talking about are distributions of software. Look up operating system in any encyclopedia and you will find that the related software (all of the GNU stuff) is not part of the operating system. As the webopedia says: "Operating systems provide a software platform on top of which other programs, called application programs, can run." No disrespect intended to Richard Stallman and the GNU crowd. The OS wouldn't exist without those tools but the tools are not part of the OS. They are merely applications that are bundled in with the distribution. Given the more widely accepted definition of an operating system I think it is perfectly acceptable to speak of Linux as a standard. Jan
