"Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer." http://www.debian.com/
Note the name is Ubuntu, not "Ubuntu OS." Debian and not "Debian OS."
I wouldn't have problem if the product is just named "Elementary" and described as a Linux based OS distribution, once they have a release policy (before it's just a Linux based release). Having OS in the name means a new OS, and it simply and plainly isn't.
This sort of "elementary is not an OS but a desktop environment based on the Ubuntu distribution based on the GNU/Linux kernel..." nonsense that is so prevalent in the Linux community is probably part of the reason why elementary exists in the first place.
I could be said that "Windows", "OSX", "GNU/Linux" are not really "Operating Systems", intended as software products that you can install on a machine.
Windows XP, OSX Mountain Lion, Ubuntu 13.04 and yes, Elementary, are.
You don't download a specific "GNU/Linux" OS, you download an OS (intended as a software product made up of kernel+file system+desktop environment) that is based on that technology. The word "distribution" is something that was created for Linux given its specific nature.
Yes, if we stick to the classic CS definition of OS maybe you are right, but I believe that Ubuntu, Debian and Elementary can rightfully call themselves "OS"s without issue.
Elementary isn't, too. It is not even a distro until it has clear release and update policies.
Otherwise you'd consider any skinned ISO of any existing OS a new OS, and that's just wrong. "Hello all, I'm making one new OS in my basement every week!"
> a distribution is most simply described as a particular assortment of applications installed on top of a set of libraries married with a version of the kernel, such that its "out-of-the-box" capabilities meet most of the needs of its particular end-user base.
It seems you're just making up random criteria that elementary OS doesn't meet so you can dismiss it for what it is: an operating system.
This is the wrong thread to kick up a fuss about this. If these guys are using "OS" the same way that Ubuntu and Debian do, that's just fine for a new project. It also means that your complaint has nothing to do with this new project in particular and is thus off topic. This matters because threads about new projects are the heart of HN and deserve special care.
Elementary "OS" guys use it like OSX and iOS which both conform to the real view: Note "OSX Lion" or just Lion and definitely not "Lion OS."
Clarity is important.
How dare they try to advertise themselves as operating systems.
And will we find a note on the Web site one day saying 'Luna is closed now, we are working on Selene (or whatever)'?
Jupiter worked well on my Netbook. Luna works OKish (bit heavy). The UI is refreshing, and I appreciate the work going into this. But as acqq says, a roadmap might be important for wider adoption.
Exactly, it isn't. Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, they are all distros. The real OSes are Unix, VMS, Plan 9, BeOS, Minix, Windows, GNU/Linux, BSD, OSX and Android.
Making some user space applications or libraries don't make you OS authors. And I don't understand why you guys are hurt when I say that. And why you are not open about what you're actually doing.
Maintaining a distro is not a small thing though, so I'd like to see how serious you are in that aspects. What are your upstreams? What are your release policies and schedules? Update schedules? Verifications? Quality assurance? How many people do you have in charge of all that?
I see you've had one release which you call yourself "Ubuntu 10.10 remaster," and now you prepare for second based on... what? I see you make your own patches of Nautilus. Once you accept you're a distribution you can be realistically compared to others.