|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 25 lines --]
> 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!
I didn't ask who Andrew Tanenbaum is.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |