Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Linux and Standards
From: Mark Knecht (markknecht_AT_gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 02 2004 - 03:43:15 EET
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:50:05 -0600, Jan Depner <eviltwin69_AT_cableone.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 15:15, lau_AT_lupulin.net wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:04:36PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> > > No disrespect intended to Richard Stallman and the GNU crowd. The OS
> > > wouldn't exist without those tools but the tools are not part of the
> > > OS. They are merely applications that are bundled in with the
> > > distribution.
> > >
> > > Given the more widely accepted definition of an operating system I think
> > > it is perfectly acceptable to speak of Linux as a standard.
> >
> > This is a gray area, but I think that you cannot just say that the gnu
> > tools are _not_ a part of the operating system.
> >
> > Would you say that the startup scripts are _not_ a part of the OS ?
> > All the startup scripts that I've seen rely are parts of gnu coreutils.
> >
> > I think that qualifies as being _part_ of the OS.
>
> Nope. A startup script is just a startup script. Grub is not part of
> the operating system either. The OS is, by definition, the kernel. An
> interesting thing to consider is RTLinux. Linux is *not* the OS in
> RTLinux. The RT microkernel is the OS. Linux is merely the idle
> process. I guess you could say it's part of the OS since it is in the
> inner loop so to speak. And, speaking of which, has anyone taken a look
> at Monta Vista's Open Source Real-Time Linux Project in relation to
> audio? It's using a lot of Ingo's patches.
>
> Jan
It's an interesting topic and discussion. Probably my comments will be
from a little different direction. (what's new...?) I've served on a
number of standards committees (both IEEE like 1394 and closed/company
driven like PCI-X) so I'll add comments from that POV.
What I haven't seen discussed much yet is 'standards' vs. 'open
standards' vs. 'closed standards'.
Windows - closed standard - They apparently know what they are doing
with their architecture. Applications can be written by other
companies that don't have access to the source. Apps work within the
accepted norms of the Windows standard. (Hey - I Didn't say they had
'high' standards...) ;-)
Linux kernel - semi-open standard - The kernel is documented. The code
is open and available to most* people that want to look at it. Changes
are discussed in an open environment but final decisions are made by a
select few.
Java - semi open standard - Much like the Linux kernel many changes
are discussed in the open, but final decisions are made by Sun. (Has
this changed yet?)
IEEE standards (1394, 802.11) - open standard - Discussed in open.
Decisions made by vote of working group members through voting.
Committee rules prohibit 'loading' by individual companies. (At the
discretion of the committee chairman.) Working group participation
open to pretty much anyone willing to attend the meetings.
Just a different view of what makes a standard...
Thanks,
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 02 2004 - 03:51:51 EET