Warp wrote:
>   I suppose that makes grub an OS as well.

I suppose if you consider GRUB an OS for loading Linux, that might be the 
case. The fact that GRUB is no longer around once it has loaded the program 
means it's probably not actually an operating system. You can't take one 
thing an OS does and say "my program does that too, hence I'm an OS." Basic 
logic, ya know.  Not all men are Socrates.

>> So? That doesn't mean it didn't manage the hardware and share resources.
>   Then grub is an OS, and bios is an OS.

Grub doesn't manage hardware for an application, nor does it share resources 
for an application. GRUB isn't even around in memory (AFAIK) by the time 
Linux is finished booting, so I can't imagine how you think it's managing 
resources for its application.

>   Ever been to the bios setup screen? Lots of support for hardware there.
> And bios can launch programs too.

The BIOS can certainly be seen as a form of OS. Even more primitive than 
DOS. But it certainly shares some of the same attributes.

>> It 
>> just means there was no protection to keep you from bypassing the OS. No, 
>> sorry, a machine without an OS is one where you dial in the codes on the 
>> front panel switches to load your application off paper tape and then branch 
>> to it.
> 
>   That's BS, and you know it.

I don't follow. An OS that isn't there once the application program starts 
isn't an OS. I'm not sure why you think it's BS that a machine without an OS 
needs all the device drivers loaded into each application. Maybe you've just 
never worked on a machine without an OS.

In my experience, when someone simply answers "That's BS and you know it", 
it often means "Good point, but shut up about it."

>> Did *you* ever write an MS-DOS program that had to avoid accidentally 
>> stomping on other people's files on the same hard drive?
> 
>   I have written a MS-DOS application which accidentally made the HD
> inaccessible because of a bug. It almost caused me tons of trouble too.

Yes. So? Again, just because the OS doesn't protect you from accessing the 
hardware directly doesn't mean it isn't an OS. If that's what you're 
disagreeing with, then say so, and we can end this discussion.

>> Do you think that the applications in your cell phone don't have complete 
>> control over the hardware?
> 
>   Actually I do. The apps in my phone are extremely restricted on what they
> can do.

The ones written outside the phone, yes. I'm talking about the apps that 
come with the phone. You know, like the address book and such? Response to 
voice recognition? The bit that lets you pick which image from the camera to 
send via MMS?

>> Do you think your cell phone doesn't have an OS in it?
> 
>   It does, which is precisely why those apps don't have free access to
> everything.

Sorry. *your* apps might not have free access. Certainly most of the 
supplied apps (including the interpreter) has access.

>> Do you think the AmgiaOS wasn't actually an OS?
>   I don't know the specifics of AmigaOS to tell.

It ran on a 68000, which means no memory protection and no protected mode 
opcodes. Does that make it "not an OS"?

How about a B5000, which also ran on a machine with no hardware memory 
protection and no hardware protected mode, but which nevertheless was a 
multiuser system with restrictions to keep people from stomping on other 
peoples memory? (Not unlike your phone apps, most likely.)

How about BREW, the cell-phone 3rd-party app library that runs raw C code in 
the phone, but for which there's an administrative human review to make sure 
your code is safe to run? Is it an OS if the protections are enforced by 
human beings?

>> Other than scoffing, what do you think, specifically, an OS has to do that 
>> MS-DOS doesn't do at least in a primitive way?
> 
>   Maybe I could answer with a question: If grub is not an OS and MS-DOS is,
> then where exactly is the line?

MS-DOS is still around after your application finishes running. It's 
providing services to multiple (sometimes even concurrent) applications. It 
manages resource allocations between different applications.

I'd still like you to answer the question I'm asking. Because it sounds like 
you're saying that any OS where you can bypass the OS and talk straight to 
hardware isn't an OS, and I suspect you'll find that the expression 
"operating system" was coined before machines had protected modes.

>   Your definition of "operating system" seems to be "if the author decided
> to call it an operating system, it is one".

Firstly, no, it's wikipedia's definition. Secondly, it seems pretty clear to 
me that if the "OS" isn't around and providing services while the 
application is running, then it isn't an OS.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message