From: mutazilah@gmail.com   
      
   "Dan Cross"  wrote in message   
   news:vqpvef$bpj$1@reader1.panix.com...   
      
   > >Well, DOS is close to best possible protection given the   
   > >hardware.  In modern times hardware protection gained   
   > >importance, but putting hardware protection as mandatory   
   > >part of operating system definition distorts history   
   > >quite a lot.   
   >   
   > By the time the IBM PC came along, we'd had systems where the   
   > OS was protected from errant programs for 20 years.  For example   
   > look up the Manchester Atlas system.   
      
   Irrelevant.   
      
   > >There is a lot of valid critique of DOS, but saying that it is   
   > >not an OS is just silly game of words.  You can pile adjectives   
   > >on OS, like "multitasking OS", "proteded OS" (or better   
   > >"OS using hardware protection") and DOS will be outside such   
   > >restricted classes of OS-es.  But is clearly an OS.   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   > Well, except perhaps it is not.   
      
   It is.   
      
   > At least not by a very   
   > reasonable definition that's widely accepted in the field.   
      
   Total nonsense. Only complete jackasses "in the field"   
   would say that MSDOS is a misnomer that doesn't meet   
   "the" technical definition of an OS.   
      
   Most people I have seen in the field - including the author   
   of QDOS - do not make that claim.   
      
   > I really don't see why people are so upset about this; it's not   
   > a huge deal.   
      
   If it's not a huge deal, then please stop insisting that   
   MSDOS isn't an OS, and instead just use the correct   
   adjective, such as "non-protected OS" to describe   
   MSDOS if you have some point you are trying to   
   make.   
      
   Hint - you have no point you are trying to make. You're   
   just being a jackass. You're not telling anyone here   
   anything they don't already know.   
      
   > DOS was ok for it's time and for what it enabled   
   > on the original IBM PC; the hardware was very limited, and so it   
   > wasn't nearly as capable as larger systems with "real" operating   
   > systems.  Why is it a priori a bad thing to acknowledge that?   
      
   Nobody is not acknowledging that MSDOS was less capable.   
   That's just your strawman.   
      
   All we're doing is saying is that the English words used in   
   Wikipedia are correct, the OS in MSDOS is not a misnomer,   
   and please stop insisting that the whole world is using the   
   English language incorrectly, because you and some of your   
   jackass friends are trying to change the language.   
      
   > It sure seems like some people are getting worked up about a   
   > very minor thing.   
      
   If it's a minor thing, then take your own advice and just admit   
   you were wrong according to the widespread use of the term   
   both inside and outside of computer science, and drop it.   
      
   Apparently it's not minor, and you are bluffing in an attempt   
   to delegitimize any OS that doesn't have specific features,   
   for ulterior motives.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)