 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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.
Err, no. MS-DOS is still around, supporting your application, once your
application is running. That's why main() can call exit() and you get a
prompt back.
> Bios is, in fact, a perfect example of "operating system" by this
> definition.
Early operating systems were very primitive.
>> 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.
Then stop accusing me of attempting to BS you. :-) If you're going to take
that statement personally, then so will I.
Seriously, if you'd answer the question I asked, it's pretty easy to have a
conversation. So far, you've done everything you can do to argue with me
that MS-DOS *isn't* an operating system without actually telling me *why*
you think that. *That* sounds like BS to me.
Given that the manufacturer and Wikipedia say that Xenix, MS-DOS, and MCP
are operating systems, I would think it's incumbent upon you if you disagree
to at least say why you disagree instead of saying they're all BSing.
> Funny that you don't even know which phone I have.
I'm guessing it probably has a camera and a contact list on it.
> 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?
Yes. Not in cell phones, mind, but in credit card terminals.
In addition, my wife programs cell phones, so I have a pretty good idea of
how the code is organized inside at least some of them, and how it's
distributed to the OEMs, and so on.
>>>> 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.
I'll notice that you've still managed to avoid answering the question. I
guess those batch processing monitors on the old mainframes weren't OSes
either, then.
But, since you'd prefer to argue on an insulting and emotionally-driven
level rather than actually discuss something that might lead to actually
giving someone something to think about (or heaven forbid changing someone's
opinion), I'll let it drop with a sad shake of the head.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Then bios is also an OS. I suppose that settles it.
> I'll notice that you've still managed to avoid answering the question. I
> guess those batch processing monitors on the old mainframes weren't OSes
> either, then.
> But, since you'd prefer to argue on an insulting and emotionally-driven
> level rather than actually discuss something that might lead to actually
> giving someone something to think about (or heaven forbid changing someone's
> opinion), I'll let it drop with a sad shake of the head.
As I said, that settles it. You made your point of view clear and there's
no misunderstanding. I don't agree with it, but continuing arguing about it
would be useless.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As I said, that settles it.
Actually, thinking on it, the BIOS isn't an operating system because it
doesn't actually manage any resources for the applications. It provides
device drivers somewhat more abstract than the hardware, but it doesn't
manage it in a way that makes it possible to share amongst independent
applications.
> I don't agree with it, but continuing arguing about it
> would be useless.
Probably. It might be nice to know what part you don't agree with, tho.
Rather than just saying "No it isn't!"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I don't agree with it, but continuing arguing about it
> > would be useless.
> Probably. It might be nice to know what part you don't agree with, tho.
> Rather than just saying "No it isn't!"
I remember we having this same conversation years ago. I remember
discussing it in more detail. We probably didn't agree back then either.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I remember we having this same conversation years ago.
Nice dodge! With the number of statements you've made disclaiming any need
to actually answer the question, you could have answered the question. That
said, I'm going to keep going, because I feel like it. You don't have to
believe that anything in this post is addressing you or anything you've
said. Feel free to also get annoyed if you think I'm lying about the
immediately preceding sentence also.
There's a logical falacy wherein you use argument ad absurdum, where one
says "If X, then Y, and Y is clearly not acceptable, so not X." Except for
that to work, one actually needs that logical implication there. It doesn't
work to say "If it were raining, then everyone would want to be dead, which
is clearly untrue, so it must not be raining." This flaw is usually pretty
obvious in religious arguments, as well, along the lines of "If there were
no God, then nobody would have a reason to be good or even want to live, so
obviously there must be a God." It does of course work in some places, like
the proof that every lossless compressor must increase the size of some
inputs. It also seems to work in some cases but fails due to implicit
assumptions, like Aristotle's proof that the universe is infinite, when what
he actually proved was that the universe is unbounded.
Getting back to operating systems, after thinking about it a bit (because
what else am I going to do while stairmastering?), I think the determinant
is whether the "OS" manages resources between different applications (either
concurrently or consecutively).
If there's only one possible application, and it runs without maintaining
any state between runs, then whatever it's on top of isn't an OS, but just a
library (or BIOS, which is a special case). Disregarding the built-in wall
clock, my microwave oven is back to the same state it shipped from the
factory every time it finishes cooking something. There's nothing carrying
over from "run" to "run", so it has one application, and that application
never interacts with anything else, including later executions of itself.
In this sense, neither GRUB nor a BIOS is an operating system. Every time
you run GRUB, it starts from scratch without regard for what happened
before, and it interacts with nothing except its own data (the OS it's
loading). The BIOS also doesn't share resources between applications - it
runs one application at a time (such as Windows or MS-DOS or Linux) and it
gives that OS complete control over the hardware without providing any
mechanisms for (for example) reserving space on a floppy for one boot and
not the other.
The partition tables on a HD are the very first step of turning a boot
loader into a "operating system". However, again, there's nothing "managed".
The BIOS doesn't use the partition table, nor does it create or enforce it.
The boot record stored on the hard disk uses the partition table, and the
operating systems by convention respect it, but those aren't part of the BIOS.
I also think it doesn't make sense to talk about an operating system
"managing resources for an application" if it's not around while the
application is running. Hence, things like GRUB, which are overwritten as
part of the boot process and are gone until you reset the machine, don't
count as operating systems.
If the "OS" is linked into every application, which is loaded into memory
and then overwritten when the next application is run, that may or may not
be an "operating system" depending on what it does, IMO. That is, of course,
more open to interpretation. I don't think FORTH counts as an operating
system, as there's no "application" outside the FORTH system that manages
the sharing of any resources - instead, there are conventions where one
manually notes which blocks of disk space belong to which files, for
example. This is about as close to an "operating system" as you can get
without actually being one, I think.
MS-DOS (and Classic Mac, Amiga OS, MS Xenix, CP/M, TRS-DOS, etc) would all
be operating systems because they manage the disk space for applications (if
nothing else). Two independent applications can have the space they used
managed without interference, even if they can't run at the same time.
Given that people are calling things "operating systems" in 1956 in the IBM
704, long before a computer was even capable of running two programs at
once, I think it's pretty obvious that most of the world (including those
who invented the term) think that "operating system" doesn't require
concurrent execution, preemptive scheduling, or support of multiple users.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have the more specialized terms "batch processing
OS", "multi-user OS", "timeshare OS", or "preemptive multitasking OS".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nice dodge!
Dude, you got even more dogmatic than me about this. And I'm not talking
about the "definition of OS" thing. I suppose I got a bit under your skin,
even though I didn't really do it purposefully.
Basically what I wanted to say is that I'm not fully agreeing with you,
but I'm tired of going again through all this conversation. If you want to
see it as irrational and stubborn behavior, then by all means. Maybe I am.
If you want to think that I ran out of rational arguments and that's why
I'm "dodging" your questions, then by all means. Maybe I am doing exactly
that. If you think I'm doing this because I know I'm wrong but too proud
to admit it, then so be it.
I just got tired of continuing this conversation, that's all.
This definition of "operating system" is not mine. It's what I was
taught. Did they teach me wrongly? Maybe. It didn't sound irrational
to me, though. I'm just not up to write an essay here about the subject.
I don't have the motivation nor all the facts memorized.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Basically what I wanted to say is that I'm not fully agreeing with you,
> but I'm tired of going again through all this conversation.
That's fine. I was just curious. I wasn't trying to change your mind about
anything. I was just wondering what part of the definition you were
contesting. :-)
I know there are a bunch of people who don't count something like MS-DOS as
a "real" operating system. I was just curious what feature it was missing
that you thought was necessary.
> I just got tired of continuing this conversation, that's all.
I have no problem with that. As I said, feel free not to follow up. I just
felt like rambling. Every once in a while, I try to structure a bunch of
thoughts and write them down, just to keep in practice.
> This definition of "operating system" is not mine. It's what I was
> taught. Did they teach me wrongly? Maybe. It didn't sound irrational
> to me, though. I'm just not up to write an essay here about the subject.
> I don't have the motivation nor all the facts memorized.
Again, that's fine. I was just looking at the definition on Wiki, and
stretching my brain. As I said, feel free not to follow up. I'm not arguing
with you. I'm just expressing opinions. Sometimes I get in the mood to talk
about something nobody else is interested in also. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Yeah. His definition would make Apple DOS and Prodos "not operating
systems", because it was possible, in both, to talk directly to Apple
hardware, and even take full control of the reads and writes from the
disk (like in copy programs, which used there "own" code to do that,
since it let them control timing and sector numbers, etc.)
For that matter, it wouldn't even be a valid argument to claim that an
OS needs to provide resources to "multiple" apps, which is a possible
argument, since while Microsoft abandoned further work on DOS when they
put out Windows, some companies, like one called Concurrent Systems,
made multiuser DOS implementations that supported normal DOS
applications, but used task switching methods to run them for multiple
users.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> This definition of "operating system" is not mine. It's what I was
> taught. Did they teach me wrongly? Maybe.
I think.. Bios "could be", but just having some way to get into it, so
you can change some things, but not truly "use" any of your hardware,
makes it "not one". Its not like there is a clear dividing line, except
that, if you want to make one, an OS would have to have these attributes:
1. It allows user interaction on some level.
2. Ability to remain in memory and run a new application, once the
current one terminates (bios can't do that, short of restarting the
entire machine).
3. It sits between applications and a lower level interface.
4. Its not a script engine.
#4 is there *solely* on the basis that while DOS is an OS, something
like DOSBOX isn't. Why? Because the later *pretends* to have access to a
lower level interface, while *pretending* to provide all the same
features of the OS it simulates. So, its one of the fuzzy ones. It is,
and it isn't. Now, if you ran something that simulated the hardware,
then you ran DOS *on top* of that simulated hardware, then it would be.
Same with script engines. What you are dealing with is not access to the
low level interfaces of the machine itself, but to a simulation of those
interfaces that are needed to allow the applications to run in it.
Point being. Its gotten damn blurry. Now you can have a physical
machine, running a simple OS, which runs an application that simulates a
second machine, running a complex OS, which is running a sim of a much
simpler machine, which is running a very simple OS, which is running
DOSBOX, which simulates "both" the machine *and* the OS. In theory, you
could then run Windows 3.1 on that, and run some ancient copy of DOSBOX
inside that, and... Its gets damn insane. Ten years ago, people could
have given you a clear and concise, "Yep, that is, and that isn't."
Now... Who the hell knows in some cases. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> made multiuser DOS implementations that supported normal DOS
> applications, but used task switching methods to run them for multiple
> users.
I even programmed a version of CP/M that supported multiple Z-80 CPUs and
would run one "session" on each CPU, back in the first half of the '80s or
so. That was truly weird.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
