Why did GNU choose UNIX?

Or rather, why did rms et al dislike UNIX? It seems to come up a lot that they basically settled for a UNIX clone since it was widespread. They certainly didn't care for the philosophy.

>>40
Nope. To quote the book I mentioned,
The operating system interacts directly with the hardware, providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel, emphasizing its isolation from user programs.
This is followed by a nice diagram showing this model.

I'm pretty sure Tanenbaum defined an operating system as the program that manages resources or something like that, but I can't find that definition anywhere (can anyone help me out here?).

Instead, here's a quote from Operating System Essentials (after mentioning the ``operating system = kernel + application programs'' definition):
A more common definition, and the one that we usually follow, is that the operating system is the one program running at all times on the computer—usually called the kernel. (Along with the kernel, there are two other types of programs: systems programs, which are associated with the operating system but are not part of the kernel, and application programs, which include all programs not associated with the operation of the system.)
Of course, I'm happy to accept that words change over time. I'm not a prescriptivist, and I'm okay with ``operating system'' meaning what Richard Stallman thinks it means in the same way I'm okay with ``hacker'' meaning computer criminal. Semantic change, and all that.

>>41
In addition to being a fucking idiot, you're also a condescending toolbag and wrong. Kernel-as-operating-system is literally only used by the dimmer parts of the Linux community. It's not a meaningful definition, it's not a useful definition, and it's not a correct one.

FACT:
C is faster than Lisp.

>>43
Lisp can be just as fast on a system with tagged memory.

>>44
No it can't.

>>45
That's true, it's faster.

>>46
Nope.

I fucking love fucking loving things.

>>37
There used to be some name for an operating system with additional user programs, but I forget what it was.

Software distribution, as in Berkeley.

Also, just to muddy the waters of this awful thread even further:

The Linux kernel in its most commonly deployed configuration cannot even bootstrap itself fully without the assistance of user programs (init and udev). On any Unix like kernel, death of the init process will induce a kernel panic because a root process must always exist.

If you define "operating system" to mean only that software which is always running and required for all other programs to function, does this definition not necessarily include "user programs" like init? Do combinations of the same kernel with an alternative init daemon then constitute different operating systems?

>>39
Andriod, _real_ _gnu approved_ _operating system_, incompatible with the next version
NetBSD, compatible every version.

I think you meant Minix. That way the learn how to compile their programs from scratch.

>>41
thanks

>>42
Chillax. We are *nix adults, we created the first names, and we understand languages changes over time. Let see what Oxford has to say:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/operating%2Bsystem?q=operating+system

and yes, the kernel is the kernel:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/kernel?q=kernel

But what we are arguing is that at the point GNU adopted what many call the the linux kernel, it as a full fledge operating system like Minix, capable of writing asm and C into disk, making TCP connections, et cetera.


>>43,45,47
Depends on the application and architecture. The best way to find out is to test them both, in all optimizations you can apply. On my enterprise level apps, that require LOTS of abstracts between multiple server, Scheme executes much faster than C pointers.

>>49,50
thanks. At the end of the day, GNU adopted anything it could to sell RMS' propaganda, to the point of using hearsay trust to make _recommendations_, than investigating like scholars and _defenders of freedom_. Study the history, it's on their own damn website and logs.

I need some sleep.

>>42
It has nothing to do with Linux. Linux didn't exist when The Design of the UNIX Operating System was published, and GNU was nowhere near release yet.

You have things a little backwards--it wasn't until recently that the distinction mattered. Older operating systems were definitely one complete ``kernel'', which was the operating system. Here's First Edition Unix, for example:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V1

Again, I'm happy to accept that things have changed. If you want Linux to be the ``kernel'' and some other set of programs combined with Linux to be the whole ``operating system'', then that's fine. Words change meaning, especially in computer technology. All I ask is that people play fair--if you have the right to name your system ``GNU/Linux'' and consider it an ``operating system'' (and you certainly have that right), then I should equally have the right to use a more traditional definition and call ``Linux'' my ``operating system'' (I don't even use GNU, besides gcc and its dependencies).

Why did the gnu choose Unix?
Because gnus are smarter than most humans.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA