Thread

1. q8zd3 · 1785942286 · focus · HN ↗

   Why do people add "OS" to their product/project name when it is not an OS at all?

   1. reallyreason · 1785943214 · focus · HN ↗

      Indeed, at this point it's one of the most devalued terms in software. Every week I'm reading about some product calling itself "the Operating System for XYZ." It seems like it's what you do when "platform" just feels too modest. To me, if it's not bootable, calling your product an OS just reeks of marketing sleight of hand.
   2. spencerflem · 1785948421 · focus · HN ↗

      In some sense, it is. Sandstorm called itself an OS too. Arcan calls itself an Overlay-OS.

      I think for any platform for general purpose computing that provides an application model that programs are written to target, it's close enough I don't mind. Ie: it makes sense for some end-user software to have a target for Windows, Linux, Sandstorm, etc.

      & from the other side- what does Debian add that lets it call itself an OS? A set environment and package manager that software is specifically packaged for.

      1. q8zd3 · 1785973802 · focus · HN ↗

         I see a Linux distro as a "integration project", which delivers several software pieces glued together that work in harmony, which includes "OS pieces" such as the Linux kernel.
   3. palata · 1785960261 · focus · HN ↗

      Because "The Android of ..." is out of fashion?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.