🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.unix.questions Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net> <ruhl@4dv.net> wrote:
: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> writes:
:> 
:> : This is not quite correct.  You can start a single user program
:> : from the kernel command line with init=.  That could be enough for
:> : some systems.
:> 
:> Alright, then switching from programs to other files, would that
:> one userland process function very well without any of the 
:> libraries in /lib, without the ability to interface with with
:> system routines because the library to interface with the kernel
:> is not there?

: It could interface to the kernel directly...

How?  Remember, no compiler, no libraries, no linking because you
are talking about bare-bones here (and precompiling elsewhere
doesn't count because that just offloads some OS functionality to a
seperate machine.)  So it would have to be by memorizing the offsets
of where routines start and calling them by address.

:> I still maintain that there is a bit more to the core linux OS than
:> just a running kernel, given that the kernel on its own is entirely
:> useless without at least a filesystem to mount as '/'.

: Well, as has been pointed out you cna use a kernel in runlevel 0 as a
: workable firewall.  Which is neat.

And sidesteps the issue.  That simply proves that what was once a
userland app, a firewall, has been moved into the kernel.  That
proves my point more than yours.  Is firewalling a part of the
OS?  If no, then the kernel has some non-OS code in it now.  If
yes, then there was an OS function that used to not be in the kernel
once upon a time.  Either way it shows that saying ther kernel is
all there is to an OS is a bit wrong.

You also didn't answer the problem that "init=..." won't work
unless the executable you run is stored in a filesystem somewhere,
which means that the filesystem has to be part of the OS.