Warp wrote:
>   Especially page 5 seems interesting.

Considering it's named "modern operating systems", and I wouldn't exactly 
count MS-DOS as a "modern operating system," I'm not surprised :-)  The 
contention of this paper (on page 5 at least) seems to be that no machine 
running unsafe code without hardware protection can possibly be running an 
operating system, nor can a machine like the Palm Pilot be running an OS, 
since only one program runs at a time. I find this counter-intuitive, given 
the existence of terms like "single-user operating system", "batch operating 
system", and so on.

So, if the *compiler* enforces the protection (like Singularity or the 
B5000) and not the hardware, does the code that regulates the sharing of 
resources and runs threads outside the address space of any particular 
applications count as an operating system? :-)

Page 22 seems to also contradict page 5, listing "handheld operating 
systems" and "smart card operating systems", for example, neither of which 
would seem to be allowing multiple programs to run at the same time, manage 
or protect memory, or multiple resources in space.

I just think claiming that stuff like MS-DOS or WinCE isn't an operating 
system, or that AppleDOS wasn't an OS, is going to confuse whoever one tries 
to talk to. Again, it's like claiming C isn't a real programming language 
because there are undefined programs that will compile and run.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message