On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 19:43, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:50:05 -0600, Jan Depner <eviltwin69@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 15:15, lau@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:04:36PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > This is a gray area, but I think that you cannot just say that the gnu > > > tools are _not_ a part of the operating system. > > > > > > Would you say that the startup scripts are _not_ a part of the OS ? > > > All the startup scripts that I've seen rely are parts of gnu coreutils. > > > > > > I think that qualifies as being _part_ of the OS. > > > > Nope. A startup script is just a startup script. Grub is not part of > > the operating system either. The OS is, by definition, the kernel. An > > interesting thing to consider is RTLinux. Linux is *not* the OS in > > RTLinux. The RT microkernel is the OS. Linux is merely the idle > > process. I guess you could say it's part of the OS since it is in the > > inner loop so to speak. And, speaking of which, has anyone taken a look > > at Monta Vista's Open Source Real-Time Linux Project in relation to > > audio? It's using a lot of Ingo's patches. > > > > Jan > > It's an interesting topic and discussion. Probably my comments will be > from a little different direction. (what's new...?) I've served on a > number of standards committees (both IEEE like 1394 and closed/company > driven like PCI-X) so I'll add comments from that POV. > > What I haven't seen discussed much yet is 'standards' vs. 'open > standards' vs. 'closed standards'. > > Windows - closed standard - They apparently know what they are doing > with their architecture. Applications can be written by other > companies that don't have access to the source. Apps work within the > accepted norms of the Windows standard. (Hey - I Didn't say they had > 'high' standards...) ;-) > > Linux kernel - semi-open standard - The kernel is documented. The code > is open and available to most* people that want to look at it. Changes > are discussed in an open environment but final decisions are made by a > select few. > > Java - semi open standard - Much like the Linux kernel many changes > are discussed in the open, but final decisions are made by Sun. (Has > this changed yet?) > > IEEE standards (1394, 802.11) - open standard - Discussed in open. > Decisions made by vote of working group members through voting. > Committee rules prohibit 'loading' by individual companies. (At the > discretion of the committee chairman.) Working group participation > open to pretty much anyone willing to attend the meetings. > I'm definitely in favor of open standards. I don't understand why you think that the Linux kernel code is available only to *most* people. Also, final decisions on the main branch of Linux are made by a select few. Anyone can change the code and use, run, distribute it. It's almost like it's completely open but not completely standard (unless you stay with the main, blessed-by-Linus, branch). Monta Vista (and Ingo and others) are trying to sway that decision making process right now but, if they don't, I'm sure they'll keep going. Jan
