@a1batross @freemo @georgia @r @yolo Linux is to Android like Windows NT is to Windows 10, or Darwin to macOS

Most people dont differntiate between userland and kernel.

@miup

I disagree, most **windows** users dont differentiate, this is mostly because its compiled as one monolithic beast with little ability to swap out parts.

Us linux users, however, recognize for us the line in the sand isnt so clear. When we do not wish to differentiate between userland and kernel we use the name of the distrobution. When we do wish to make the distinction we say "Linux" if the userland isnt important to the context.

@yolo @a1batross @r @georgia

@freemo @yolo @a1batross @r @georgia
Well, please don't speak for all of us. I for my self say Linux-based, or just Unixoid, because that's what it is.
I hate it if someone calls a Linux Distro just "Linux" (like RMS), because sure, it contains a Linux Kernel, but it's the userland that's relevant to most. So you can just call it by the Name of the distro.
I mean, BSD isn't Unix, its a (Berkeley Software) Distribution of it, and almost nobody calls a BSD just Unix.

But anyhow, I also don't like the term GNU/Linux, because nowdays, most userland software isn't GNU anymore.

@miup

I am not speaking for everyone, I am only speaking for people who say "I run linux", such as myself. If you use additional qualifiers then you are not part of the group I describe obviously.

My point is that "GNU" is not descriptive of the userland. It only describes one organization that contributes to the userland out of many other non-gnu userland components...

As such linux refers to the kernel, the distro refers to the kernel + userland.

When you say "linux based" all you are saying is the same as me with more words "I have a linux kernel and some other unspecified software that runs on top of it"

@yolo @a1batross @r @georgia

@freemo

Sure thing, but there are just to much people outthere who just say *something* runs Linux. Which is technically correct, but that's not with what they interact if they open a Browser, or run a Program.

Because if I would code a Kernel that has mostly the same Hardware support and the same syscalls, I could just change the Linux Kernel, and they would even notice.
(that is btw the one and only rule by Torvalds: Linux devs don't break Userland)

@miup

Whether they notice it or see it doesnt change what it is.

Point is saying GNU/Linux is rather pointless.. it would be like saying "I run Chrome/Linux" as a way of suggesting you run chrome for your web browser just because most of what you see when you sit behind a computer is your web browser.

Yes you could replace the linux kernel and your system would look exactly the same. Despite appearences however you'd no longer have a linux system.

@freemo
Well, I for my self use mostly other programs than a webbrowser (at work I mostly use my Terminal emulator )

You are right, it wouldn't be a linux system, but it would be a unixoid system, just like macOS/OSX and all the BSDs (and minix ^^)

@miup Right we have a term for that though: *nix

@freemo It has the exact same meaning than Unixoid, but it's just the abbreviation of it.

@miup Same meaning yes, more commonly used though.

@freemo I don't see it as much than unixoid tho.

@miup @freemo @georgia @r @yolo +1.

Actually, even BSD don't have such problem. When you say BSD, you mean class of operating systems, although they are incompatible with each other. If you want to talk about FreeBSD, you just say FreeBSD.

Probably, it's a popularity problem. Linux is everywhere and everyone using it(as Android), while BSD unfortunately is only in restricted gaming consoles and legacy servers?

@a1batross @miup @freemo @georgia @yolo
>BSD unfortunately is only in legacy servers
My instance, freesoftwareextremist.com, is hosted on an OpenBSD server

@r
Oh wow! And how it is in maintenance compared to Linux?
@freemo @georgia @miup @yolo

@a1batross @freemo @georgia @miup @yolo Compared to GNU/Lunix, it's much better as a server operating system. It comes with an http server, an SMTP server, an acme client, a very good firewall pf and many other tools. The main benefit of it is that all these tools just work. They all are pretty simple to configure and manage. Aside from that, the package manager is quite simple and straight forward to use, service daemon scripts are just shell scripts, similar to sysv init scripts but better in some ways. Overall, it's a pretty stable system with good defaults. It gets updates every 6 months.

@freemo @miup @yolo @a1batross @georgia It's just these Lunix people making big fuss about their kernel. UNIX did not differentiate between OS and kernel and the whole thing was just called UNIX. Same with original BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GNU, Solaris, Plan9, Windows, MacOS and some other lesser known operating system such as Haiku, ReactOS, Redox etc.

@r

Making the distinction of OS is certainly a fine thing. But on linux that distinction is far more fuzzy than on windows due to its modular nature and the fact that there is no hard line between what is built in or not.

Thats exactly why if i have any wish to refer to my OS as a whole then I reference my distro, its the only sure way to make sure the entire grey area is included.

The very idea of there being an "OS" seems outdated to me on linux. All you have is a kernel and a huge array of userland that sits on top, collectively making the distro, that is all.

@yolo @a1batross @miup @georgia

@miup @freemo @georgia @r @yolo it's more term problem. Because we were careless and called Linux everything that runs on Linux kernel, we don't know anymore what Linux should mean. No one knows is Linux a kernel or an operating system without a bit of context.

No one calls any Windows version WinNT. If somebody says WinNT, they probably mean the class of OSes made by Microsoft.

And so with the MacOS or iOS. No one calls them Darwin because it's a different term.