David Fedor wrote:
> >What do people think of this off-the-cuff statement?
> >
> >The Palm OS is an operating environment that sits on top of an operating
> >system much in the same way that Windows 3.1 was as it sat on top of
> >DOS. The distinction is important for the truly anal retentive. The
> >Palm OS itself defers basic operating system services to the Kadak RTOS
> >which it runs on top of much in the same way that Windows 3.1 deferred
> >basic services to DOS.
>
> I'd disagree, unless you're saying the same thing about any OS that has a
> kernel, or any OS that is written in a modular fashion. Are you perhaps
> drawing the distinction because it wasn't us that wrote the kernel?
>
> I think just about any decently-written OS has a layer that deals with task
> switching, and other parts of the OS don't go mucking around in the task
> manager's stuff. Ditto for anything else that you might consider basic
> operating system services... higher layers call the APIs exposed by lower
> ones. Exactly where to draw the line between what's OS and what's an
> operating environment "sitting on top" seems to me like either flame bait
> or a philosophical discussion.
>
> FWIW, I'm not trying to get into an anal retentive argument here :-) But
> saying Palm OS is cobbled on top of a "real" OS seems like a strange way to
> describe what I'd consider normal modularity combined with a healthy lack
> of a "not invented here" mentality. And being likened to win 3.1 would
> offend anyone, I'd think!
>
> Well stated......
>
> Pete
> -David Fedor
> Palm Developer Support
