The "just a kernel" meme is stupid, a kernel is a complete OS...

no

It can be compiled by LLVM 9

>Ultimately, that makes Linux the userland as well as the kernel.
And?
I don't see how that supports his original position in any way: "So by YOUR standard, DOS should be called commad/io+msdos? Because the kernel of dos is in msdos.sys and io.sys, while the "userland" is in command.com?" Notice that he specifically said "your." Apparently, by MY standard -- the standard of the person who, to anyone who can read and didn't realize I actually don't care, would appear to be advocating for the name "Linux," NOT the name "GNU/Linux," IRRESPECTIVE of whether GNU or Linux is the userland -- "DOS should be called commad/io+msdos, because the kernel of dos is in msdos.sys and io.sys, while the "userland" is in command.com."

>All you're doing is sperging over a retarded meme and stooping to the level of those retards.
Again: And?
I have yet to see any argument that demonstrates that my sperging is the incorrect sperging. Only one argument that it's the CORRECT sperging, except said argument seems to think it's arguing for the opposite.

GNU is the operating system, the total sum of different parts (conceptual name definition)
GNU/Busybox/anything coreutils, DEs/WMs, X/Wayland and so on make up the userland
The kernel adopted is Linux, kFreeBSD, Hurd or linux-libre.
"the kernel is the OS, you just have to write utilities", as in, the kernel is the OS, you just have to write the OS for it? it's the reverse of what happened, gnu made the top level of the gnu system then adopted a kernel for it's OS
the OS is a really high level abstraction layer, you calling the lowest level part the OS is an insult to the kernel itself.

>He doesn't care to be called out for being retarded
breddy gud 5/5

You're just sperging out even when you're wrong. is where you belong.

Most linux programs don't even need gnushit other than glibc, even that has drop-in replacements. What the fuck up is with that gnu/linux meme?

>You're just sperging out even when you're wrong.
But no one has demonstrated I'm wrong. The only person who's bothered arguing with me has only argued that I'm right, while mistakenly believing he's arguing that I'm wrong because his reading comprehension is piss-poor.

See Just as you can drop command.com from IBM PC-DOSS into an MS-DOS system with the MS-DOS kernel and still have it working, you can do the exact same with the GNU core utils and any other non-Linux kernel like kFreeBSD or Hurd.

Plus that still doesn't do anything to change the userland.

>Being illiterate and retarded
Please stop posting. It's clear to everyone else that DOSfag proved you wrong and you're still too retarded to know it.

The kernel provides an abstraction over the hardware, it's a system that operates your system, ergo, it's the operating system

>Just as you can drop command.com from IBM PC-DOSS into an MS-DOS system with the MS-DOS kernel and still have it working, you can do the exact same with the GNU core utils and any other non-Linux kernel like kFreeBSD or Hurd.
Doesn't matter, that just proves the GNU coreutils are pretty adaptable. Linux itself is still the complete OS without them.

just a kernel

Attached: 1558921842974.jpg (853x1090, 347K)

>technically linux is an OS because if you write this external userspace program blah blah blah

op are you seriously this desperate for arguments?

Yeah. You're right

Everyone knows stallman is a retard, what's new?

>OP: "Linux is NOT just a kernel, it's an OS"
>DOSfag: "No, because if that were true, you'd have to call DOS [shell/kernel] instead of just DOS"
>implying this makes sense in any way and isn't obviously just a retard thinking I said the opposite of what I actually said

>Most linux programs don't even need gnushit other than glibc, even that has drop-in replacements.
most of the stuff is made with gnu in mind and barely works without it. use alpine and seethe trying to run normal stuff with it, try getting "linux tarballs" for packages.
The packages for these non-gnu distros gotta be heavily patched to be compatible without gnu, and that obviously doesn't count as "gnu doesn't make a difference". Don't even get me started with musl, that shit is unusable for anything too complicated. Even scripts written for GNU can work differently in non GNU systems, be it linux or something else (bash vs posix shells).
GNU can run windows programs with wine after it patches and translates stuff into stuff gnu and linux understand, doesn't mean that The windows libraries don't do anything special.

>Linux itself is still the complete OS without them.
Still being retarded as usual.

GNU coreutils are adaptable, but Linux, kFreeBSD and other kernels are needed so that the GNU coreutils can allow you to communicate with the computer on the hardware level. That's why together, the coreutils and Linux are both the operating system.

It's the same with DOS. You can't boot into DOS if you're missing the shell (command.com,) even if you have the kernel files (msdos.sys and io.sys) on your system because now, you're missing the key thing; the shell. Together, the shell/coreutils and the kernel make up the operating system.

>Linux, kFreeBSD and other kernels are needed so that the GNU coreutils can allow you to communicate with the computer on the hardware level.
See original post, you can do this a single non-GNU utility that would probably be less than 100loc.

no, retard. Linux can use alternatives to GNU COREUTILS (which IS NOT gnu, the concept of gnu includes way more than coreutils and libraries).
Using linux without gnu, busybox or anything is shit and no software will run on that, unless you write something from scratch. In this case, you are using your own retarded coreutils, so you are still having to write a small OS for your kernel.

>you need GNU's shell and utilities to actually utilize the Linux kernel
Someone should let AOSP know that they need to add GNU programs to make their OS work.

an operating system can't just be a minimal abstraction over hardware, it needs to abstract it until a user can actually do something.

What if the user is a kernel dev?

>In this case, you are using your own retarded coreutils, so you are still having to write a small OS for your kernel.
Not if all it does is take syscalls. Such a program would be too trivial to even warrant recognition as separate from Linux itself, and yet, combined with Linux, it would form a complete operating system. Hence why I say Linux itself is a complete operating system.

Why don't they name it Fagnix and get over it?
NAMING IS IRRELEVANT, MAKE SOFTWARE YOU LAZY COMMIE FREETARDS!

It does make sense. See The GNU coreutils include a shell. The shell is the key utility that lets the user interact with the kernel, which in turn interacts with the computer's hardware.

Then prove that you tried installing the kernel on a system without any coreutils at all (that's what your argument is, OP; that you don't even need core utilities or a shell to have the kernel boot up and make your computer useful to you).

They already ported the GNU coreutils to MS-DOS.

This

Then he also has to develop a shell to communicate with the kernel.

this, the Linux kernel talks to the hardware, the gnu userland talks to the user, and they both together are the GNU (or GNU/Linux) OS. Computers are for users to use, a kernel talking to hardware by itself is completely useless and doesn't do shit. A userland without a kernel can't get anything from the hardware. An os must do all of this so that the user doesn't have to care.

>another Jordan Peterson thread
What's up with that guy?

you are still insisting that the kernel is an OS because you can just write an external Userland for it. Ok, but that's not just the kernel, that's the kernel + your userland making up the OS, retard

>They already ported the GNU coreutils to MS-DOS.
I don't follow. Just because you can use the coreutils on DOS doesn't mean that you're required to use them on Linux. The vast majority of devices running the Linux kernel don't implement the GNU coreutils.

>if the kernel stops being just a kernel and has also an embedded userland it's an OS
yeah mr obvious, if you make an OS using a kernel you have an OS

This.

Even DOSfags, Winfags and Macfags (the retards of the computer world) know that a kernel isn't the entire OS.

You missed the point AGAIN, OP. The point is that the kernel NEEDS a shell in order for the user to make a computer useful. The shell AND the kernel are the OS. You're too retarded to understand this, though.

As for GNU coreutils being ported to DOS, this means you can use the DOS kernel with BASH as you shell to run GNU/DOS as the OS.

>Then he also has to develop a shell to communicate with the kernel.
You're missing the point, ultimately what controls your hardware is the kernel, what you're controlling as a user is just layers of abstraction and that's what GNU is

>The GNU coreutils include a shell. The shell is the key utility that lets the user interact with the kernel, which in turn interacts with the computer's hardware.
Yes, but the DOStard said that MY argument entails that DOS should be called [shell/kernel]. My argument was that a kernel is a complete OS. I understand you don't think a kernel is a complete OS, but surely you must understand that IF it were, then that would NOT make it any MORE necessary to call an installation [shell/kernel] than if a kernel were NOT an OS. On the contrary, it would make it LESS necessary.

>(that's what your argument is, OP; that you don't even need core utilities or a shell to have the kernel boot up and make your computer useful to you)
No, my argument is that you don't even need a shell *complex enough to be worth mentioning* to have your computer boot up and be *theoretically usable to you if you're willing to bang your head against the table for several weeks on end.* I'm not moving any goalposts in saying this; this has been my argument since the OP.

>When your kernel has nothing controlling it
That's the point of the shell; that's what makes the OS an OS. You need to control the kernel by telling it how to interact with what aspects of the computer. Otherwise, it'll just sit there, idle.

>uses GPL

>You missed the point AGAIN, OP. The point is that the kernel NEEDS a shell in order for the user to make a computer useful.
linux doesn't need a shell to be useful, see embedded usecases

If the userland is trivial enough, it's not worth considering separately from the kernel. If it can be so trivial and the computer can still be used (however painfully), then, in effect, the kernel itself is an OS.

>linux is not an OS, ultimately what controls your hardware is the CPU microcode, linux is just the CPU's optional userland

You seem fixated on this idea that a computer needs a human sitting in front of it to be useful, most computers are useful to us without anybody babysitting them

>i decide arbitrarily how complex the userland must be to be considered an userland

>Yes, but the DOStard said that MY argument entails that DOS should be called [shell/kernel]. My argument was that a kernel is a complete OS.
Yes; DOStard was pointing out how stupid your argument was from the start. He said that as satire because the kernel alone isn't the entire OS, as you have no means of directly influencing the kernel without the shell. And just as most Linux systems use BASH and the other coreutils to interact with the Linux kernel, so does DOS use command.com to interact with io.sys (to manipulate external peripherals) and msdos.sys (to manipulate drives and memory).

>Busybox doesn't carry a shell
Yes it does. Embedded usecases still use the concept of a shell communicating with a kernel, to form the operating system.

GNU(Linux)

>computers are independent and can work without prior human programming
even if the kernel has an embedded userland, that just means that there is an OS made up of the kernel and it's included userland. In this case, the kernel is an OS, because THE KERNEL ISN'T JUST THE KERNEL, it's the kernel and an userland.

>Still thinking that the kernel can make a computer work alone
The shell is still needed, even in automated cases, to make the kernel operate as it should because the initial setup of the OS still requires a technical user to deploy the script.

Yes, but he used the wrong satire. If his position was what you say it was, then what he said parodied his own position by implying it was mine.

this thread
>REEEE I DON'T CARE ABOUT FACTS AND LOGIC I JUST WANNA BE RIGHT THE KERNEL IS THE OS REEEEEEEE

Not really; his satire was quite fitting because your whole argument revolved entirely on the naming of Linux as just a kernel, when the meme exists because Linux actually is just a kernel.

>The shell is still needed
Not really, the only thing the kernel actually needs to be useful is an init

And the init itself is part of the shell, retard. The init is the shell.

Facts.

Now you're just bring retarded

REEEEEEEEEEE

>your whole argument revolved entirely on the naming of Linux as just a kernel,
Sure, accepting this premise for the purpose of argument, what name would I support for the whole OS in this case? The answer is Linux. As in [kernel]. And what name was he suggesting that BY MY LOGIC (even if you don't agree with said logic) I would support for DOS? The answer is [shell/kernel]. And what reasoning would I have to have to support such a name? The answer is that I'd have to believe a kernel is just a kernel and must be accompanied by at least a shell to constitute a full OS. And how does that relate to the reasoning I actually hold? It's the opposite of it. And how did he describe the condition under which I'd have to support the name [shell/kernel] for DOS? To reiterate, he specifically said "by your standard."

>Retard calling others retarded because he refuses to understand how operating systems work
See >Missing the point of satire
You've been proven time and time again that you're retarded and can't even read what others post. He was making fun of your logic by comparing it to those of the memers. You're arguing over a name of something, instead of just using it quietly.

hey guys, linux is the OS, i have no proof other than something that proves me wrong.
>no, retard. linux is a kernel and here is the proof
NO, BUT ASSUMING THAT MY RETARDED PREMISE IS RIGHT (which it isn't), I AM RIGHT

how can op be such a faggot? you are wrong, nobody is going to assume the premise that you are right just to make you feel better

i've been compiling my kernel with clang 8 for a while, with the clangbuiltlinux kernel patches for 4.19/5.1/5.2 and the rest of the lts kernels can be compiled without any patches.

>He was making fun of your logic by comparing it to the opposite logic.

Attached: 664.jpg (558x614, 18K)

>Linux actually is just a kernel.
Words can have multiple meanings

An init is not a shell, brainlet

>how can op be such a faggot
It's called being mentally ill, a NEET and his entire family abandoning him.

See and And how he doesn't understand satire or logic, instead preferring to cope from the damage he sustained from a pointless post he made.

Then it requires a shell for it to work. Come back when you've studied for your A+ certifications.

At this point i like calling it Linux just to spite GNU/Retards

>You missed the point AGAIN, OP. The point is that the kernel NEEDS a shell in order for the user to make a computer useful. The shell AND the kernel are the OS. You're too retarded to understand this, though.
I'm not OP, and you missed my point again. Non-GNU shells exist, and are even quite common. Unless you're going to start referring to BusyBox/Linux and AOSP/Linux systems, the GNU/Linux argument doesn't hold water.

No it doesn't, stay retarded

I don't use any GNU components on my system though, my shell utilities come from Busybox, my init system is OpenRC, my C library is musl Libc and my bootloader is syslinux. I'm also using Wayland for desktop.
Completely usable and fast development environment with %0 GNU shitware.

>"I believe P"
>"So by your logic Q since ~P => Q"
>"but I said I believe P, not ~P"
>"but P is wrong and ~P is the truth"
>"but you said 'by my logic' "
>"i was being sarcastic"

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>all it does is accept input strings
How?

key bored dry vair

(not op and i'm asking this unironically.)

if i were to build an system using gcc, muslc, busybox and nothing else and use the shell+init+coreutils+util-linux+editor+tty and rest of what busybox provides with nothing but gcc from the gnu project, what makes it still gnu/linux?

Forgot to add that I'm using LLVM/Clang as a compiler, therefore I don't have to use the GCC shitware as well.

We should make a kernel called Retards, that can be compatible with every coreutil and kernel available.

That wasn't even the point of the argument; the point of the argument was that OP retardedly argued that the kernel is the entire operating system and only component of an operating system. DOSfag pointed out that this was false because every conventional computer operating system's shell/coreutils are separate from the kernel itself.

Yes it does. Go read the A+ certification materials if you want to smarten up, or stay retarded.

>OP is still butthurt for being illiterate and retarded
Keep coping while you seethe.

you could still say you're using a GNU derivate tho, as it uses replacements for GNU stuff inside of a GNU system (which isn't just coreutils and shit, there are also third party packages etc etc).
not him, but you missed the point. Op is saying that linux is the OS. You can use an OS without anything GNU, and linux still won't be the OS. It would take the sum of a busybox+musl+whatever userland and the kernel to make the OS

>Keep coping while you seethe.
>doesn't even have a counterargument

Nothing. Alpine Linux is exactly what you described and it's not what the FSF morons call as a "GNU/Linux" distribution.

Clang implements GNU extensions though so you are still benefiting from the work put into the GNU project

Keep the tears coming, retard

What's the point in arguing with someone who's still too retarded to read and understand how he's wrong? I've argued with you long enough about how wrong you are, but you insist on being wrong. So stay retarded, but go back to .

Linux is released under the GNU General Public License

>you could still say you're using a GNU derivate tho, as it uses replacements for GNU stuff inside of a GNU system (which isn't just coreutils and shit, there are also third party packages etc etc).
>GNU derivate
>GNU system
Your arguments are retarded, you're simply making excuses to call something GNU/Linux even though it doesn't have any GNU components, by your logic, I can say that you are using BSD/GNU/Linux because BSD was there before Stallman was even known.
It has to *re*implement them because many morons use non-standard unofficial GNU extensions and their code wouldn't compile without them.
GNU != GPL

Thank god I wasn't born retarded enough to confuse an init with a shell

No; you were just born retarded enough to confuse a kernel with an operating system... And still seethe about being wrong and proven retarded by all.

>non-standard
GNU is a standard though, a useful one at that, so much so its competitors has to have the same features to stand toe to toe

The kernel is the operating system though, no matter what you say

I think you quoted the wrong guy, since I agree with you on your points which I never made an argument about.

>Still insisting on being retarded
>In spite of all the facts provided against your fallacy
See

>fallacy
Like saying an init is a shell?

>GNU is a standard
No it isn't. Full stop.
Why are you so desperately insistent on shilling GNU? What are you earning?

Yes, like saying that a kernel is an operating system in and of itself.

itt: samefag OP gets ass-raped for being retarded online, in public, as usual.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a standard, why would the Clang people bother otherwise?