[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Mar 26, 1998 at 09:59:34AM +0100:
If you power on an IBM-PC without a boot disk, it will eventually drop
into a Basic interpreter. I really don't know whether the BIOS of a
modern PC still have this functionality, or whether it has been stripped
out to save space.
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Oh, and, in case you hadn't noticed, Goodwin's Law has struck this
thread because Steve Coile mentioned the Nazis...
I'm glad *someone* finally noticed that! =)
--
Steve Coile
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips,
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Bradley, Greg wrote:
[...]
init--which isn't part of the kernel--doesn't exist
Here we have a perfect example of an OS asking requiring user input.
Huh? When does init ask for user input? How is the "OS" asking for
input when dealing with init?
[...]
Without all of this,
Um. How do you figure. Can you even use a Mac without talking to the
computer through a GUI?
I had a friend who used to use the command line interface on his Mac Plus
whenever he was feeling bored. The cli is buried quite deep, he's the only
person I've ever met that used it and he
Perhaps we can find something that is the most minimal OS that exists,
and what this provides, defines the mimimal requirement for
classification as an OS.
WOOOHOOO! We haven't had a thread like this for ages!
If you power on an IBM-PC without a boot disk, it will eventually drop
into a Basic
For instance, under your definition for the Linux "operating system",
the system could
not communicate with the network
It is not necessary to have a NOS to have an OS. We had stand alone
mainframes
with OS's before lans were invented.
/bin/sh--which isn't a part of the kernel
I don't have
Ulrich Czekalla wrote:
Your both somewhat right. The general definition of an OS is a system that
controls and coordinates the use of hardware among the various application
programs for the various users. ...
Apologies for diving into this thread late. However, I think something that
I was
How? The kernel starts init (
Before we can load the kernel, we need a bootstrap in the bios. Is this
part of the
operating system as well?
Huh?
The program, init, is a user input. Put a different program there called
init and something
different happens, according the the users input, ie the
This thread should die. I've noticed there is getting to be a lot of
*cruft* being posted these days. Lets try to keep things a bit more
technically related. I guess it is time to send the old S-RIP out
again. :)
Mike
---
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Paul Fontenot wrote:
Why not argue this point on the developers mailing list? The thing works
and that is all my feeble intellect cares about.
The next time you brag about your ignorance, try the windows-95 mailing
list...
--
Douglas F. Elznic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If
Huh? When does init ask for user input? How is the "OS" asking for
input when dealing with init?
init INPUTS a SCRIPT file, /etc/init.tab containing instructions FROM
THE USER (root) on what to do.
Functionally this is the same as dos reading autoexec.bat.
If you have a standalone Linux
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Steve "Stevers!" Coile wrote:
Huh? When does init ask for user input? How is the "OS" asking for
input when dealing with init?
Init accepts arguments these are inputs aren't they. I might not
understand init very well but I thought that you need to define for init
what
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Joe Klemmer wrote:
Heh, anyone remember the very first CD distribution of linux? It
was called LGX and later became Yggdrasil.
Want a copy? I still have a copy of that disc sitting on my bookshelf. :)
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, William T Wilson wrote:
[...]
It's a matter of which definition of OS you subscribe to. Some say that
the OS is responsible for mediating the interactions between CPU, RAM,
and peripherals, and providing a set of system calls for programs to
interact with them. Linux (even
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Lane J. Bryson wrote:
[...]
We're not talking about what I can do with it. We're talking about
what an OS is, which is internal. All that's really at issue is what
is happening inside the box.
Wrong.
Let's also consider your definition again. You argue that the kernel is
Paul Anderson wrote:
Lane J. Bryson wrote:
I did. Prove it wrong on its own merits:
"It just has to manage the memory, peripherals, and
hopefully do something useful to qualify under a strict definition,
which is all anyone can argue anyway."
What the hell kind of
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Lane J. Bryson wrote:
[...]
We each indicate three basic points:
1. OS can be initiated and set up all these services itself.
("bootstrapping." however, netware, for example, does this without
bootstrapping per se.)
Your definition does not include a complete bootstrap.
William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Mar 24, 1998 at 08:58:42PM -0500:
How is linux not an OS. I really need to rethink my ideas about
computers...
It's a matter of which definition of OS you subscribe to. Some say that
the OS is responsible for mediating the interactions between
Alan Shutko wrote:
"W" == William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
W Others say that the OS is supposed to include
W all kinds of other things (user interface, window system, applets,
W programming libraries, and so on, which are typically provided by
W the distribution under Linux).
"D" == Derek Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um... AmigaOS contained a window system, user interface, applets,
and system tools.
D No it didn't. My AmigaOS system booted fine and multi-tasked nicely
D without screwing around with the GUI. (Well, one of them did, the
D other I used the
"W" == William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
W Others say that the OS is supposed to include
W all kinds of other things (user interface, window system, applets,
W programming libraries, and so on, which are typically provided by
W the distribution under Linux).
W The second flavor is
Scott McDermott wrote:
Would Linux/GNU OS be more appropriate? Again, these are semantic
issues and calling Linux an OS colloquially wouldn't necessarily be
wrong.
Now that we're officially really-off-topic:
The GNU people seem to prefer GNU/Linux (of course, they would. I'm sure
kernel
Um... AmigaOS contained a window system, user interface, applets, and
system tools.
No it didn't. My AmigaOS system booted fine and multi-tasked nicely
without screwing around with the GUI. (Well, one of them did, the other I
used the GUI on). It was, therefore, not part of the OS, but an
Heh, anyone remember the very first CD distribution of linux? It
was called LGX and later became Yggdrasil.
Yeah, sure do. I remember getting 40-something floppies, and installing
on my trident 8900 with 512k. I then next time ordered it on CDROM, for
my single-speed proprietary
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Brandt Kurowski wrote:
aside type=dumb
If we wanted to be more like MS, we would have to squeeze X into the
name, which I'm suprised nobody has mentioned. GNU/Linux/Xfree?
X/GNU/Linux? LignuX?
/aside
Heh, anyone remember the very first CD distribution of linux?
That's _exactly_ what we're discussing here. I'm saying your
definition has absolutely no basis in reality. Please quote me
someone who says that the OS equals the kernel and nothing more.
Remember: "system"=="many programs".
Your both somewhat right. The general definition of an OS
Alan Shutko wrote:
"D" == Derek Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Amiga OS contained a UI. In fact, it contained more than one.
You were using the CLI. (Command Line Interface). That's a user
interface.
You were also using the GUI, but using it with one big window with text
Alan Shutko wrote:
"L" == Lane J Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
L I can only talk about MacOS, Linux, Irix, HP-UX, and AIX: the
L windowing system in most of these isn't part of the core OS-- It is
L an important part of the distribution, but not part of the OS.
The OS is most of
Agreed. I'll shut up now.
sorry for the bandwidth use.
Ulrich Czekalla wrote:
Your both somewhat right. The general definition of an OS is a system that
controls and coordinates the use of hardware among the various application
programs for the various users. So it acts as a resource
Lane J. Bryson wrote:
I did. Prove it wrong on its own merits:
"It just has to manage the memory, peripherals, and
hopefully do something useful to qualify under a strict definition,
which is all anyone can argue anyway."
What the hell kind of definition is that? According to
I hope that was the last message thread, this has gotten so out of hand I
am ready to have my mail server dump them before they get to me.
Just remember we all choose this wonderful life of computer engineering
and have to deal and be able to accept that there are no BLACK/WHITE
answers. All ya
I've only been following this one selectively, but has anybody pointed
out yet that the political implications here are pretty stiff? For
example, what if M$ *does* manage to convince not just their willing
dupes, but the entire world, and the JD along the way, that Internet
Explorer really is
Why not argue this point on the developers mailing list? The thing works
and that is all my feeble intellect cares about.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To
"Lane J. Bryson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 03:30:44PM +:
I can only talk about MacOS, Linux, Irix, HP-UX, and AIX: the windowing
system in most of these isn't part of the core OS-- It is an important
part of the distribution, but not part of the OS.
Um. How do you
Derek Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 09:34:58AM -0600:
Because by the definition of an operating system, that is what it is. You
may find that other applications (bash, login, getty, etc.) are useful for
your purposes, but they are not strictly required.
Sure they are.
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 10:45:19AM -0600:
I can also through some games in my Amiga at home which boot
themselves. Are they OSes? No, they're programs. Remember, the key
word is "system".
This implies, however, that no OS is running when you play said games.
Is
Brandt Kurowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 12:19:24AM -0500:
aside type=dumb
If we wanted to be more like MS, we would have to squeeze X into the
name, which I'm suprised nobody has mentioned. GNU/Linux/Xfree?
X/GNU/Linux? LignuX?
/aside
X really is only an optional part of a
Jeffrey Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 02:53:50PM -0400:
I hope that was the last message thread, this has gotten so out of hand I
am ready to have my mail server dump them before they get to me.
Just remember we all choose this wonderful life of computer engineering
and
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Scott McDermott wrote:
"Lane J. Bryson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 03:30:44PM +:
I can only talk about MacOS, Linux, Irix, HP-UX, and AIX: the windowing
system in most of these isn't part of the core OS-- It is an important
part of the
Blair Craft [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 03:17:21PM -0800:
I had a friend who used to use the command line interface on his Mac Plus
whenever he was feeling bored. The cli is buried quite deep, he's the only
person I've ever met that used it and he never really used it seriously
After you boot the kernel, you can run any number of PROGRAMS to provide
the functionality required,
getty, bash etc might be useful here. The act of running the program is
an acceptance of user input.
The kernel manages memory and autoboots, so it handles peripherals.
ergo, it is an operating
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Scott McDermott wrote:
To say it isn't an operating system may be construed as being wrong. It
provides the critical component for an operating system, does it not?
How is linux not an OS. I really need to rethink my ideas about
computers...
--
Douglas F. Elznic
[EMAIL
42 matches
Mail list logo
