sigh I don't know if you're being disingenuous or just too young to remember/have encountered it:
The definition of operating system turns out to be pretty loose. The MS antitrust case had a huge side argument related to this topic (what counts as an operating system and what doesnt). Arguments range from some subset of kernel functionality all the way up to every application provided by the vendor. It is essentially one of those "how many grains of sand constitute a pile of sand" debates. Strong arguments can be made that an operating system is simply a kernel with a statically linked userland program launched at boot time (this is actually provided within linux).
The bigger question is: what does this pedantic nitpick have to do with the broader discussion? Does it change anything I said in a way that undermines the point?
The definition of operating system turns out to be pretty loose. The MS antitrust case had a huge side argument related to this topic (what counts as an operating system and what doesnt). Arguments range from some subset of kernel functionality all the way up to every application provided by the vendor. It is essentially one of those "how many grains of sand constitute a pile of sand" debates. Strong arguments can be made that an operating system is simply a kernel with a statically linked userland program launched at boot time (this is actually provided within linux).
The bigger question is: what does this pedantic nitpick have to do with the broader discussion? Does it change anything I said in a way that undermines the point?