Hacksaw <hacksaw@hacksaw.org> writes:
> >The "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" argument is a political one, not a practical
> >one, don't try to disguise it.
>
> I used to agree with this, and as far as politics, I do. However, a
> practical reason to call it GNU/Linux just occurred to me: the ABI.
>
> Linux is a kernel. It runs on a variety of platforms. You certainly
> must differentiate between a program for Linux on StrongARM and one
> for Linux on x86. To use a kernel one makes calls into it via a
> system call mechanism. In the case of the vast majority of Linux
> installations, that is done via glibc. Not for kicks is that 'g'
> there.
>
> A system with a linux kernel using a different API will likely have a
> different ABI for it's programs.
The functions in glibc that you are referring to are specified by
ANSI/ISO C and POSIX standards. If a system doesn't comply to these
it's broken. Yes, I consider systems like MSWindows broken. Well,
there's VMS, of course. I'll don't know what standards it follows.
-- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:23 EST