From: mutazilah@gmail.com
"Dan Cross" wrote in message
news:vqnrjl$4a9$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <20250310151114.000023e9@gmail.com>,
> John Ames wrote:
> >On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 20:20:02 -0000 (UTC)
> >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >
> >> But I do know a lot about operating systems, and the objections
> >> to categorizing things like MS-DOS as "a *real* OS" are not mere
> >> handwaving that boils down to "Because Reasons"; there are
> >> actual definitions in use across the field one can look to, and
> >> MS-DOS et al simply do not meet them. It's great that control
> >> software in the early PC era let people do useful work with
> >> those machines; that doesn't mean that software was good or fit
> >> reasonable definitions of what an "Operating System" is.
> >
> >So let's dig into that a bit. Merriam-Webster defines an "operating
> >system" thusly:
> >
> >> software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the
> >> processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and
> >> controlling input and output functions)
>
> Msrs. Merriam and Webster were not, to my knowledge, computer
> scientists.
I am. And I assume Tim Patterson and Bill Gates are too.
And I'm telling you that Merriam and Webster have the
correct definition.
Mothy - whoever he is - don't bother telling me - I don't
give a shit who he is - doesn't get to unilaterally dictate
the meaning of the term.
> >Wikipedia, being edited by Wikipedians, is a little more weird and
> >obtuse, but more or less in accord:
> >
> >> Software that is designed for controlling the allocation and the use
> >> of various hardware resources to tasks and remote terminals.
>
> Indeed obtuse. What about a system that does not use "remote
> terminals"?
>
> I already posted the definition I like to use, which came to me
> via Mothy Roscoe, at ETH, but I'll post it again:
>
> He defines the operating system as,
> That body of software that,
> 1. Multiplexes the machine's hardware resources
> 2. Abstracts the hardware platform
> 3. Protects software principles from each other
> (using the hardware)
>
> I further posted how I feel that MS-DOS dos not meet these
> criteria, and why.
>
> So arguing about a definiton from a mass-market English langauge
> dictionary and/or wikipedia is not, frankly, very compelling in
> comparison.
Arguing Mothy the alleged computer scientiest god who
dictates a very common English term - very very common -
is not compelling at all.
> >MS-DOS very definitely takes control of the computer - it does not
> >*hold onto it* very tightly, but there's no particular reason it should
> >have to.
>
> Given the above definition, there's a very good reason: how does
> it otherwise protect _itself_, as a software principle, from an
> errant, let alone malicious, program?
It doesn't.
Do you think there is one single person in this OPERATING SYSTEM
forum who doesn't know that MSDOS doesn't have protected memory?
Drop a name.
You don't have one.
We don't need a peanut like you to tell us again and again
that you have an operating system that has memory
protection while some of us dweebs don't.
Yeah - we get it. You're Dan the Man.
In fact I'm thinking of writing to Merrian-Webster to put
your name under the definition of "genius".
> Also, a boot loader takes control of the computer, albeit
> temporarily: is that also an operating system?
That's a specious argument. No-one here is claiming that
that is the sole definition of an operating system.
We all know already. We wouldn't be in this obscure
group if we didn't.
What we don't agree with is that Dan the Man gets to
define the English language, or who can post in this
group etc etc.
> DOS can't protect against that. So it fails criteria (3) of
> Roscoe's definition.
And you fail the first definition of "not being a moron".
The first definition being "not saying moronic things".
BFN. Paul.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
