Item — HN Reader

You've not read the article at all and it explains full well what constitutes an OS.

The Linux kernel is NOT an OS.

Any given Linux distro which is not compatible with any other Linux distro or even its own earlier or later versions couldn't be called an OS. It's a software compilation for a certain time period.

An OS implies everyone runs it, anyone can compile software for it and have it run on all devices with this OS. This is impossible with Linux outside of Snap/FlatPak/AppImage which themselves are lightweight virtualization solutions.

This is what Windows, MacOS, iOS and Android are. Linux is not.

Also, please don't throw FUD around without explaining yourself. You probably don't even know/remember what it means any more.

1 comments

I read the article. It did correctly say that Linux is not an OS and that the distribution is the OS. Then it said Linux is an OS. The article author and you are the ones spreading FUD here. Much of what the two of you say is factually incorrect.

Linux is not an OS and that's an indisputable fact.

An OS must have:

    * Stable API/ABIs including for the kernel  

    * Wide software compatibility  

    * Decent QA/QC  

    * Can be used with any hardware it's meant to support

Linux on desktop has none of that.

E.g. the open source AMD driver, amdgpu, has a gazillion of regressions and issues for any kernel: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues

If it works for you, that's called "anecdotal evidence". That doesn't mean suddenly Linux has become an OS.

None of that fits the definition of an OS. As per Wikipedia, “An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources, and provides common services for computer programs.”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

The reason Linux is not an operating system is because it is just the kernel and you need more than a kernel to fit that definition.

The only thing you said that is correct is that amdgpu has issues. Everything else you just wrote is wrong.

Oh god.

1. Is Wikipedia _page_ an authority?

2. Does Wikipedia page buy operating systems and software for them? No? That's what I thought. Where's native commercial applications for Linux aside from very few specialized ones? Where's native Linux for Linux? Oh, wait, even Indie developers have abandoned Linux because why if there's Wine + DXVK.

3. Who cares about obscure something that pretends to provide APIs? How is it relevant for adoption and usage? Oh, wait, it's not. We've had dozens of dead wanna-be OSes that provide APIs. All dead. Linux on desktop is one of them as well.

Yeah, "I'm wrong".

Linux desktop market share proves it beyond reasonable doubt. LMAO.

The fact that absolute most people shy away from Linux is another proof that it's a "great OS" and "better than Windows".

Keep on living in your fantasy world. Sadly people around you don't share your ideals. They want shit to be done. They install Windows, use it for a decade without any issues, buy a new device. All good.

You response has almost nothing to do with the comment to which you replied. There is no sense in trying to address the moving target that are your replies since you are unable to stay on topic. I will however address the one on topic thing that you said. Wikipedia’s definition of an operating system is roughly what was taught in my university when I got my CS degree and I am in full agreement with it, so regardless of whether Wikipedia is an authority, the definition Wikipedia provides is correct.