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

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Yeah. His definition would make Apple DOS and Prodos "not operating 
> systems", because it was possible, in both, to talk directly to Apple 
> hardware

  You don't even know what "my" definition is (which isn't mine, as I have
said several times). You just assume from what Darren seems to assume.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > Yeah. His definition would make Apple DOS and Prodos "not operating
> > systems", because it was possible, in both, to talk directly to Apple
> > hardware
>
>   You don't even know what "my" definition is (which isn't mine, as I have
> said several times). You just assume from what Darren seems to assume.

Your definition is the Tanenbaum one, right?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Your definition is the Tanenbaum one, right?

  I tried to google material about that, but I couldn't find anything
relevant. Do you know of any page about that subject? I would be interested
(if for nothing else, to be able to answer your question).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

And to make it even more unclear, you can run bunch of these "piles"
simultaneously on that single physical machine. Just add virtualization
layer, such as Xen/HyperV/ESX :).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Your definition is the Tanenbaum one, right?
>
>   I tried to google material about that, but I couldn't find anything
> relevant. Do you know of any page about that subject? I would be interested
> (if for nothing else, to be able to answer your question).

Oh, please!  Andrew Tanenbaum!  You sure know the man!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Tanenbaum

Author of MINIX, many influential books on OS design:

http://www.prenhall.com/tanenbaum/

(I've read at least 2)

and a memorable flamewar with Linus Torvalds in the beginning of Linux over bad
design choices:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_thread/thread/c25870d7a41696d2/f447530d082cd95d?tvc=2

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> And to make it even more unclear, you can run bunch of these "piles"
> simultaneously on that single physical machine. Just add virtualization
> layer, such as Xen/HyperV/ESX :).

That's kind of what I was thinking in terms of BIOS vs OS.  Xen is an OS, 
because it can run multiple applications, even tho those applications are 
OSes. A BIOS isn't an OS, even tho it runs an application that's an OS, 
because it isn't helping share resources in any way.

-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
> and a memorable flamewar with Linus Torvalds in the beginning of Linux over bad
> design choices:

It's always fun to go back and read what influential people wrote a long 
time ago about the future of things that have lasted for a decade or two.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
>   You don't even know what "my" definition is (which isn't mine, as I have
> said several times). You just assume from what Darren seems to assume.

It would be lots easier to avoid assuming if you were less coy about what 
you meant. :-)  But I'm not assuming anything. I'm guessing and asking. And 
I thought you were tired of discussing it? ;-)

-- 
   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:
> 
> It's always fun to go back and read what influential people wrote a long
> time ago about the future of things that have lasted for a decade or two.
> 

Yep. The disgussion nemesis linked is very entertaining to read, thanks
of that for him :).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message