Perfect.dannybuntu wrote:Thanks everyone. I think I get the idea.
-There's the machine.
-There's the kernel.
-There's the OS.
-The kernel is a component of the OS.
-The kernel is like the traffic guy with orange neon.
-The applications, software, etc that is not the kernel - like for example the GIMP, are the cars or the pedestrians.
Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
How do you explain to your gramps what a kernel is?
Debian GNU/Linux Sid | Intel Celeron 2.2GHz | 224mb RAM | 27GB HD | 320GB Ext. HD | dwm
- FolkTheory
- Posts: 284
- Joined: 2008-05-18 23:02
edbarx wrote:The kernel is the operating system. In fact, a kernel plus a shell make a computer usable.
Not only the GNU people, but other sensible software engineers as well. A single binary does not an operating system make. The best description of an OS is the complete design paradigm, including, but not limited to, mechanisms implemented in a kernel program. The programs that are absolutely vital to generate a functioning GNU/Linux operating system, in order of importance, are as follows:FolkTheory wrote:OMG the GNU people will cut off your neck beard and burn you at the stake.
- The GNU C Libraries
- The GNU Compiler Collection (specifically the C compiler)
- The Linux Kernel
MS-DOS was an operating system and it was usable with a minimum of these files:
In the case of Linux, provided one avoids the complexity of init, a kernel plus a shell should be enough logically.
Here, I am assuming a barely minimalist system i.e. kernel + shell. That should in principle work, provided that at the end of the kernel's initialisation phase, a call is made to look for a shell and load it.
- msdos.sys
- io.sys
- command.com [the shell/interpreter]
In the case of Linux, provided one avoids the complexity of init, a kernel plus a shell should be enough logically.
Here, I am assuming a barely minimalist system i.e. kernel + shell. That should in principle work, provided that at the end of the kernel's initialisation phase, a call is made to look for a shell and load it.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
Not just in principle. You can pass "init=/bin/bash" to the kernel (at the LILO prompt or by editing GRUB) and avoid all runlevel scripts.edbarx wrote:That should in principle work, provided that at the end of the kernel's initialisation phase, a call is made to look for a shell and load it.
Offtopic: this technique provides access to the root account without requiring a password. If you wish to protect your system from this vulnerability, you should enable password protection in LILO or GRUB (whichever one you use).
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: 2007-10-19 10:37
- Location: Linköping, Sweden