different distributions == different "operating systems"?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: Re (3): HOW2 find which Desktop & console has pid: 1234
Next: NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 16 February 2010 Hack Fests: Perl Seminar and NYLUG Squeak
From: J G Miller on 16 Feb 2010 18:44 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:38:08 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote: > Oh, then your post was irrelevent to my question about distros. My post was in response to Ray, and its primary purpose was to indicate that GNU/Hurd is still alive.
From: Aragorn on 17 Feb 2010 02:00 On Tuesday 16 February 2010 19:15 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as Magnus Warker wrote... > Dear Aragorn, > > nice article! Glad you appreciated it. :-) > Aragorn wrote: > >> A kernel in itself is not of much use, so you need userspace software >> - which runs in the lowest privilege mode of the processor - to run >> on top of that. This userspace software consists of the userland of >> what is normally considered an operating system, added with >> application software. > > I think there exist different definitions of the term 'operating > system'. If you focus on the core functionalities like process and > memory management and things like that, you reduce it to the kernel > itself. In which case, Linux would be Linux. :-) > But even if you include the whole userland into the definition, I > cannot really see notable differences between the popular > distributions. The biggest differences may lie in the package > management system. That is correct, although some distributions may also place files in different locations of the directory hierarchy than are used by other distributions. And up until a few years ago - I haven't really followed up on that so I can't say whether this is still the case - SuSE traditionally used runlevel 4 for the GUI login, whereas in RedHat, Mandriva and other RPM-based distributions this would be runlevel 5 instead. Debian (and derivatives), Slackware and Gentoo also all use their own runlevel implementations. But still, this doesn't turn them into different operating systems. It simply means that they are configured differently, and given the transparency of the UNIX architecture - and GNU/Linux in particular - this is not such a strange phenomenon. > However, let me concretise the initial question and the context: > Consider a data center providing many services some of which are based > on linux systems, i. e. there is a set of services (applications) and > each service is built on top of a linux system. Now ask the question: > How many linux distributions are needed for the data center to work? Well, if they prefer consistency and ease of administration, they would opt for a single distribution for all servers. But that's just for ease of administration, of course. > Well, I think, if the answer is more than one, then the data center > has a problem. If you have applications designed for "linux", but you > need Debian for the first, SLES for the second and Ubuntu for the > next, and if you *really* need them, then the applications must be > either poorly designed or the vendor limits support to certain > operating systems. In any case you have a problem. Well, the main differences here are in the package management system, and where those packages "decide" that their contents should go once they are installed. Yet this does not make them into different operating systems. This is one of the reasons why there is the so-called LSB ("Linux Standard Base") initiative, aligning the distributions of the involved vendors so that packages designed for one of these distributions will also work on the other LSB-certified distributions. You basically had the same problem with different proprietary UNIX systems in the past, because software built for Solaris would for instance not even be binary compatible with software built for AIX. Yet at the source code level, and using the mechanisms of a ".configure" script or a Makefile, you could get the source code to build on each of those systems. They were all UNIX, but they were simply differently organized somehow. > This was just the point: Does this data center really need different > linux 'operating systems'? Or are we just talking about different > environments or configurations or just support conditions? Well, considering that any GNU/Linux operating system - or any other UNIX for that matter - is a highly versatile and powerful architecture, you could basically use it for any kind of deployment, regardless of what package management system the distribution of choice comes with. Inevitably, when it comes down to more specialized and "exotic" non-mainstream application software, building from sources would be required either way, and this is possible on all GNU/Linux (and other UNIX) platforms. So the bottom line is that you do not need any different distributions for a data center. One general purpose distribution ought to suffice. The more "specialized" distributions all have the same underlying operating system but have just been more tailored to - specifically - certain areas of desktop deployment. This is irrelevant for data centers. Personally, I would stick with one general purpose distribution, and perhaps, for the sake of software availability from the distribution's own repositories, Debian would be a good choice for a data center. Their repositories are probably the largest of all distributions, so the chances that you'd run into a need to build anything from sources becomes smaller. Hope this was helpful. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 17 Feb 2010 02:19 On Tuesday 16 February 2010 17:40 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as unruh wrote... > On 2010-02-16, jellybean stonerfish <stonerfish(a)geocities.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:40:08 +0100, Magnus Warker wrote: >> >>> I lately talked to a collegue who said that Debian, Ubuntu and SLES >>> are different "operating systems". I said that there is only one >>> linux (at www.kernel.org) and that these are just distributions with >>> different packages and package management solutions. But he insisted >>> that there are also different operating systems. >>> >>> Well, I know that SuSE makes changes to the kernel for some reasons. >>> Could it be that he meant such things that make a unique operating >>> system? What dou you think? >> >> I think that the different linux distros are different OSes. The >> [... > > It is like the definition of a species. If members from the different > groups can reliably mate (ie produce fertile children) it is the same > species. That's become a questionable criterion now, Bill, given that certain scientists have recently started combining human and cow DNA in order to produce stemcells for the growth of replacement organs. One of these days, we might actually see a Minotaur showing up somewhere at a cocktail party... :p > If you can run programs from the one on the other, they are > the same operating system. You can. On that I agree. And since most source code for UNIX application software can be made to build and install on GNU/Linux, I am inclined to corroborate Ken Thompson's statement that GNU/Linux is a de facto UNIX, Open Group SUS validation or not. ;-) >> ...] linux package is only the kernel of the system. If you look at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems you will see >> a different view, that linux is the OS and there are multiple >> distros. >> On the wiki page, GNU is also listed as an OS. The GNU OS does not >> need to use the linux kernel. It can also use the hurd kernel. Does >> using the linux kernel with a GNU OS make the OS a linux OS? > > Gnu is not an OS. It is a group of user programs. Shhh, don't let Richard Stallman hear that, Bill. :p GNU actually *is* an operating system - kernel plus userland - but it just so happens to be that most of the GNU implementations only make use of its userland component, because as good as this userland component is, the GNU-proper microkernel design still cannot be sufficiently trusted for use in a production environment, let alone mission-critical stuff. > Hurd is an OS. Well, by your definition this is not even true, then. Hurd is basically a UNIX services server set which runs on top of a microkernel design, and at the moment this microkernel is still Mach, but research has been made at supplanting that with any of the newer microkernels, such as L4. RMS has always stated that "choosing Mach was his biggest mistake". -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Aragorn on 17 Feb 2010 02:25 On Tuesday 16 February 2010 17:48 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as AZ Nomad wrote... > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:30:42 GMT, jellybean stonerfish > <stonerfish(a)geocities.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:40:08 +0100, Magnus Warker wrote: >> >>> I lately talked to a collegue who said that Debian, Ubuntu and SLES >>> are different "operating systems". I said that there is only one >>> linux (at www.kernel.org) and that these are just distributions with >>> different packages and package management solutions. But he insisted >>> that there are also different operating systems. >>> >>> Well, I know that SuSE makes changes to the kernel for some reasons. >>> Could it be that he meant such things that make a unique operating >>> system? What dou you think? > >> I think that the different linux distros are different OSes. The >> linux package is only the kernel of the system. If you look at >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems you will see >> a different view, that linux is the OS and there are multiple >> distros. >> On the wiki page, GNU is also listed as an OS. The GNU OS does not >> need to use the linux kernel. It can also use the hurd kernel. Does >> using the linux kernel with a GNU OS make the OS a linux OS? > > Can you name a single instance of a distro that is "gnu os" and > doesn't use the linux kernel? GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/kNetBSD, GNU/kOpenSolaris (aka "NexentaOS")... Need I go on? :-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: The Natural Philosopher on 17 Feb 2010 07:44
Aragorn wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 17:48 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody > identifying as AZ Nomad wrote... > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:30:42 GMT, jellybean stonerfish >> <stonerfish(a)geocities.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:40:08 +0100, Magnus Warker wrote: >>> >>>> I lately talked to a collegue who said that Debian, Ubuntu and SLES >>>> are different "operating systems". I said that there is only one >>>> linux (at www.kernel.org) and that these are just distributions with >>>> different packages and package management solutions. But he insisted >>>> that there are also different operating systems. >>>> >>>> Well, I know that SuSE makes changes to the kernel for some reasons. >>>> Could it be that he meant such things that make a unique operating >>>> system? What dou you think? >>> I think that the different linux distros are different OSes. The >>> linux package is only the kernel of the system. If you look at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems you will see >>> a different view, that linux is the OS and there are multiple >>> distros. >>> On the wiki page, GNU is also listed as an OS. The GNU OS does not >>> need to use the linux kernel. It can also use the hurd kernel. Does >>> using the linux kernel with a GNU OS make the OS a linux OS? >> Can you name a single instance of a distro that is "gnu os" and >> doesn't use the linux kernel? > > GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/kNetBSD, GNU/kOpenSolaris (aka "NexentaOS")... Need I > go on? :-) > Gosh all teh posts to basically do what I stated ealrleir 'define "different"' and of course, "define an operating system". |