Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Feb 2008 21:29 UTC
Permalink for comment 302629
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-15
>Just how exactly is that any different from your own examples then? Replacing a Unix-like kernel with another Unix-like kernel, that's the example you gave in your previous post. So why not replace Unix-like userland with another Unix-like userland then?
Because your example only works if you change two almost equal userlands (e.g. BSD and GNU).
And my example also works if you change some complete different kernel. You can put whatever kernel you want into a GNU, BSD, MacOS, Windows,... system and the user will still have his GNU, BSD, MacOS, Windows,... system.
>Do you have any idea what's wrong behind that reasoning? Well, it's the fact that the kernel isn't even supposed to be visible to the users
Yes, you are right. The kernel is (a) not visible to the user and (b) only one program of an operating system. That's why almost no operating system in named like the kernel (most kernel don't have a name at all) and why Apple hasn't rename his OS after they have changed the kernel and why no MacOS user cares which kernel they use they would also like their MacOS if it would use an Linux kernel and they would probably not call it Linux because of the kernel.