[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 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
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
---
M
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 wa
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,
>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 Basi
> 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...
Can't be too ignorant I got yo
> > 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
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 serious
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 dist
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
> an
Brandt Kurowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 12:19:24AM -0500:
>
> 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?
>
X really is only an optional part of a Linux/GNU OS (
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
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.
"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 fi
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
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 he
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 unsubsc
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 pa
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
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 m
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? Accordin
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 (ev
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
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
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
> 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
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Brandt Kurowski wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Heh, anyone remember the very first CD distribution of linux? It
was called L
> 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 Son
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Derek Balling 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. :)
God, no. I have enough Linux distributions ly
> > 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
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 de
> "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 the distribution, at
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. :)
==
> "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 fl
> "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> othe
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 distributi
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 b
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Douglas F. Elznic wrote:
> 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 CPU, RAM, and
peripherals, and prov
39 matches
Mail list logo
