1. Processor Manager
2. Memory Manager
3. Device Manager
4. File Manager
and finally,
5. User Command Interface

So as long as all, and I mean every one, of these aspects are identical in two systems, they would for both technical and end-user purposes be considered one operating system.

Keep in mind, as almost every engineer knows, especially software engineers, there is usually a very tight bufferzone when we define the word “identical”. If a process instructions is just but one bit off, the entire system would probably more times than not immediately crash or worse. Accordingly, we can’t be too forgiving when deciding if two systems are considered to be using two operating systems. So for this issue, I would say that even if the differences are only 30 percent of the time (and that is probably being a little lenient), then they would considered two distinct operating systems.

Here is a quick summary how Linux flavors would compare in this context:

1. Processor Management
Processor Management covers all processing areas, such as process schedulers, process states, and features such as forking. So far for most issues, I would consider all flavors of Linux to be using very similar systems for process management.
1 point for stating they are identical.

2. Memory Manager
Keep in mind that this area covers both primary and secondary (ie hard drive) memory. For most Linux distributions, the memory manager would be consider basically the same. However, there is one crucial difference that arises and that is secondary memory management. There are many - many - differences as to where pieces of code and data are kept on the hard disk. While the basic structure of /etc /dev /usr /root /mnt etc. is the same for all variants, I would say it ends there. For example, one flavor could keep its library files in /lib, others could keep it in /usr/lib, and others may still keep it in /usr/local/lib. The same goes for binary files, is it in /bin, /usr/bin, or /usr/local/bin? Are scripts in /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d? /opt/ or /usr/share/?

Although this issue seems fairly minor and trivial, in my experience, it can get quite annoying when the need to deal with a file comes up.

So for memory management, I would give 1 point to the say that different flavors are different operating systems.

3. Device Manager
Again, although for the most part, all Linux flavors share the same device management there are very contrasting differences. For example, while I would say most flavors are using Alsa, are they implementing KDE’s artsd, or how about the Jack project? These difference change very much how the user and other parts of the operating system deal with the sound architecture. The same goes for device files. Is it /dev/sda1 or /dev/hda1? /dev/media (as in Ubuntu) or /dev/mnt?

For this area of an operating system, I would tend to say there are more different that similar. This may sound drastic, but differences stand out much more in our context. To be fair for this area, I will stay neutral.

4. File Manager
Whether you are using Ext2, Ext3, or Reiser file system, for all Linux flavors, the file manager is identical. Unlike Windows, you can mount all of these file systems and use them with all the standard features and structure, such as permissions, linking, etc.

So 1 point for being similar.

5. User Command interface
This area probably differentiates different flavors the most. While the CLI and X Server is standardized, it really stops there.

One flavor relies more on CLI while others use the GUIs. And the ones who use GUIs, is it Gnome, KDE, or XFCE?

This area stands out the most as being different between the many flavors of Linux. Hence, one point goes to the side that says they should be considered two different operating systems (because this is such a crucial area that deals both with other areas of the operating system and the end-user, I should probably give two points to whoever wins this area, but I’ll stay fair).

The standing is:
1. Process Manager. Same: 1 Different: 0
2. Memory Manager. Same: 0 Different: 1
3. Device Manager. Same: 0 Different: 0
4. File Manager. Same 1 Different: 0
5. User Interface. Same 0 Different 1.

Final Score: Same: 2 Different: 2

So being different for at least 2 of the 5 areas of an operating system, which constitutes for 40 percent, I would fully agree with the author of this article that different flavors should definitely be considered distinct operating systems.

Comparing this to a look at Windows XP versus Vista, I would say that the major difference is just the user interface, so it would be only 1 out of 5 difference between XP and Vista.

Thanks for the comment. I actually got in total more than 200 of them, so I just came to yours sorry for the delay.

So, first thing first - I have chosen Operating System (linux-based I mean) a long time ago, and that is being Gentoo Linux. I use it on all my computers, and I”m pretty happy with it.

Second - I don’t hate Ubuntu Linux. In fact, I like it. And all the point I was trying to make, was just misusing the terms and meanings they bear.

In addition, that was just personal opinion, nothing more. I wasn’t trying to make a web tremble ( though it did ) ….

An most of all, I just want to be clear: I really want Linux (or whatever you want to call it) to succeed, and I don’t mind if it happens through the efforts of Ubuntu (or Canonical).

That’s about it. I think now that whole the argument was speculative and just all about the spelling and naming. And that’s stupid, of course.

But hey, at least it brought some visits to my blog.

Thanks again and I’ll keep watching your blog.

- What was Debian before Linux came along? Just a couple of youngsters (DEBra & IAN) having something better to do than burning disks and testing software. You can only start a distribution when a complete system is there, not before.

- What was Canonical before Debian? Nothing. They didn’t have anything to build a system on. I think they could have used Slackware as well, but they didn’t. It was Debian. And they turned it into Ubuntu.

So, everything put together it is a historical injustice to “rename” Linux into Ubuntu. It’s like saying that Microsoft invented the PC, so why not call every PC a “Windows”? Even if it is running Linux!

Hans Bezemer

And that’s about it. For these minor distinctions, you want to say Ubuntu is a *different operating system* than Debian? Come on.

Given these facts I’d say that Linux in fact *IS* an operating system, and Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL, Fedora, Mandriva, Slackware and a multitude of other well-known brands *ARE STILL* in fact Linux distributions.

I too know that the current end-user view of an OS is that it consists of the bunch of software, a whole stack, that is present inside the computer after installation. The old adage that Linux is a “just a kernel” only blurs the water. And the GNU project doesn’t make it any simpler, their programs can be recompiled to work atop many kernels, be it *BSD, OpenSolaris, UNIX variants or even NT kernel (ever heard of Cygwin?). And even the goal for GNU is “to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system”.

The impression that Windows NT / Windows 95 brought is that the software has to provide the graphical interface and include lots of programs to be called an operating system. Are you sure this impression has not infuenced your opinion in a way?

Fast forward to 2007 and some milksop wants to slap a GUI on it before they call it an OS! Poppycock, I say!

So is Linux an OS? Of course it is; it operates daily in mobile and other embedded devices without so much as a console. Is Linux, alone, a desktop operating environment? Not by any modern definition.

And this seems to be the crux of the issue: understanding the difference between an OS and a computing environment. Linux is an OS. GNU adds function, from low-level utilities to high-end graphics, to that OS. In that composition lies the art of the distribution, the distilled essence of the operating environment.

What is truly amazing is we have 65,536 different operating systems based on the same core software, and that generally are binary compatible with one another. I type this on an Ubuntu based machine, it’s come along way since I loaded an early Slackware onto a 386 with 5.25″ floppies.

One interesting example is the Bourne Shell developed from work done by Stephen Bourne for Unix and called sh, other examples being the Korn Shell or ksh and the C Shell or csh (reference to the C programming language and a play on words as if seashell). Well, continuing the word play the shell used in GNU/Linux is the Bo(u)rn(e) again shell or bash!

Quick aside that you’ll find amusing if you haven’t heard it already: Arrogant and young Microsoft speaker is addressing programming professionals on features of their Unix environment, and when he got to the discussion about their use of a modified Korn Shell, or ksh, questions from the audience were typically blown away. After a couple of condescending dismissals of one questioner’s queries and comments another frustrated and impatient audience member stood up and loudly suggested that before the presenter make a further fool of himself, he should understand that the guy he repeatedly dismissed was David Korn! A biological impossibility occurred whereby the presenter immediately shrunk to half his original height, along with spontaneously acquiring, ahh…humility.

Finally, GNOME stands for GNU Network Object Model Environment, so it is indeed another fruit off the GNU tree, about which you should not say Linux + GNU + GNOME.

Along with all this minutiae and lacunae comes the admonition to pronounce GNU as guh-new, and GNOME as guh-nome, and to meticulously observe the letter’s case. If you want to sound snotty and Finnish, be sure to pronounce Linux as lee-nucks after lee-nuss Torvalds.

On next week’s show, we’ll be discussing the X Window System. That’s right…it’s not X Windows, although the job of windows managers is to support each and every X Window.

Damn…I feel all…unclean - like some prissy librarian or something…

Frabnk