 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Being a JavaScript interpreter, it doesn't have too much choice than to
>> support FP, does it?-)
>
> If the FP code failed silently, and most javascript didn't use FP, then
> most javascript wouldn't fail. :-)
AFAIK, Javascript has no integers. An interpreter may use integers for
numbers when it can, and automatically switch to floats if they are needed;
but that'd be just an optimization.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> But maybe what you mean is trigonometric functions. These, indeed, may be
>> not so commonplace.
>
> Thunderbird seemed to at least use logarithms...
Wow, any idea what for?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.off-topic Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> >> But maybe what you mean is trigonometric functions. These, indeed, may be
> >> not so commonplace.
> >
> > Thunderbird seemed to at least use logarithms...
> Wow, any idea what for?
I didn't study it closely, and I already deleted the sources...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> From WikiPedia:
> """
> An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the infrastructure
> software component of a computer system; it is responsible for the
> management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the limited
> resources of the computer. The operating system acts as a host for
> applications that are run on the machine. As a host, one of the purposes of
> an operating system is to handle the details of the operation of the
> hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these
> details and makes it easier to write applications.
> """
> Sure sounds like MS-DOS to me.
MS-DOS sounds like "to handle the details of the operation of the
hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these
details and makes it easier to write applications." ?
Haha.
> Unless you don't count memory, serial and parallel ports, keyboard, disk
> space, and network connections as "limited resources".
Yeah, MS-DOS had great support for managing memory, network connections
and the like. In your dreams maybe.
MS-DOS was nothing but an application launcher, which kept some routines
in memory for the application to call if it wanted. After the application
launched, it had absolute control of the machine. Basically the application
became the de-facto "operating system", if we can call it that.
Calling MS-DOS an operating system is akin to calling grub an operating
system.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(Redirected from a discussion on povray.beta-test)
Warp wrote:
> MS-DOS sounds like "to handle the details of the operation of the
> hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these
> details and makes it easier to write applications." ?
ANSI.SYS
COM1:
LPT:
Floppy disks
Hard disks
ASCII keyboard input
HIMEM.SYS
TSR programs
NetBIOS
I could open files on floppies, hard drives, and CD-ROMs all with the same
API under MS-DOS. In what was isn't that handling the details of the
operation of that hardware?
> Yeah, MS-DOS had great support for managing memory, network connections
> and the like. In your dreams maybe.
I didn't say it had great support. It had support: TSR programs for managing
memory, NetBIOS for managing network connections.
> MS-DOS was nothing but an application launcher, which kept some routines
> in memory for the application to call if it wanted. After the application
> launched, it had absolute control of the machine.
So? That doesn't mean it didn't manage the hardware and share resources. 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.
Did *you* ever write an MS-DOS program that had to avoid accidentally
stomping on other people's files on the same hard drive?
Do you think that the applications in your cell phone don't have complete
control over the hardware? Do you think your cell phone doesn't have an OS
in it?
Do you think the AmgiaOS wasn't actually an OS?
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?
> Basically the application
> became the de-facto "operating system", if we can call it that.
You don't understand what an "operating system" is, I fear. Or, rather, your
definition is too narrow. There are all kinds of operating systems out there
that don't prevent you from crashing the device if you want.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I could open files on floppies, hard drives, and CD-ROMs all with the same
> API under MS-DOS. In what was isn't that handling the details of the
> operation of that hardware?
Grub can do that too. Heck, grub can even load a RAM disk image from a
disk (which uses basically any file system known to man), load it in memory
and boot from it. Grub also supports keyboards and mice.
I suppose that makes grub an OS as well.
> > MS-DOS was nothing but an application launcher, which kept some routines
> > in memory for the application to call if it wanted. After the application
> > launched, it had absolute control of the machine.
> So? That doesn't mean it didn't manage the hardware and share resources.
Then grub is an OS, and bios is an OS.
Ever been to the bios setup screen? Lots of support for hardware there.
And bios can launch programs too.
Too bad the "os" part of "bios" does not stand for "operating system",
but it could well do.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Do you think the AmgiaOS wasn't actually an OS?
I don't know the specifics of AmigaOS to tell.
> 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?
Your definition of "operating system" seems to be "if the author decided
to call it an operating system, it is one".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
BTW, Microsoft Xenix also ran on machines with no hardware protection, as
did early Macintoshes. If you want to say neither Xenix nor MacOS were
actual operating systems because they didn't keep you from crashing the
machine, then I'll be forced to conclude that C++ isn't an actual
programming language. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The fact that GRUB is no longer around once it has loaded the program
> means it's probably not actually an operating system.
Sound pretty much like MS-DOS to me.
If your definition of OS is a bunch of utility routines in memory a
program can call for diverse tasks (eg. accessing a disk), then I suppose
MS-DOS, is an OS, bios is an OS, and basically anything is an OS.
Bios is, in fact, a perfect example of "operating system" by this
definition.
> In my experience, when someone simply answers "That's BS and you know it",
> it often means "Good point, but shut up about it."
Now you are insulting me.
> >> 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?
Funny that you don't even know which phone I have.
Since you are talking in such an expert tone of voice about cellphone
applications, I assume you have written programs for Symbian and know
perfectly what you are talking about?
> >> 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.
Then bios is also an OS. I suppose that settles it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> MS-DOS sounds like "to handle the details of the operation of the
> hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these
> details and makes it easier to write applications." ?
>
> Haha.
> MS-DOS was nothing but an application launcher, which kept some routines
> in memory for the application to call if it wanted. After the application
> launched, it had absolute control of the machine. Basically the application
> became the de-facto "operating system", if we can call it that.
>
> Calling MS-DOS an operating system is akin to calling grub an operating
> system.
Indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
