Is UNIX An OS? 269
gwernol writes: "David Every has an interesting article over at MacWeek that asks the question: is UNIX an OS? Before you jump off the deep end, read the article. It's actually a pretty good discussion of what components a modern OS needs beyond a kernel and a shell. It also discusses Mac OS X, the forthcoming 'UNIX++' from Apple." At the very least, it should inspire some decent conversation.
Re:I hate to say this..... (Score:3)
-
I would guess that the number of applications which require access to disk storage (or benefit from a file abstraction, a la sockets, FIFOs, unix "special files", etc) outnumber those which require a pixel addressable display by several orders of magnitude.
For the minute, accept the definition that an OS should provide an abstraction of the machine's hardware. Imagine I write an OS which is lacking a file system, and other groups pick up my (GPL) OS and start releasing their own OSes, all incompatible with each other. Arguably, what I have written is not a complete OS, but the foundations to write a OS on top of - as it does not provide an abstraction of the hardware.-
However, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend a GUI is a necessary component of an OS. Does a window manager, four xterms, and netscape count?
Yes.Okay, calm down, I just said that to freak you out. But seriously, uh... maybe. Is bash part of UNIX? Virtual terminals? What ls, cd, and rm? If we accept for a minute that the GUI is the appropriate abstraction of modern graphics hardware.... well I'm sure you can see where I'm going with window managers / virtual terminals. In a GUI based OS, the browser is increasingly taking over the jobs that ls/cd/rm performed.
-
I don't really want to have to waste precious disk space, memory and CPU time on useless stuff like file managers, desktop icons, and 50 different confusingly named "control panel" doohickies none of which provide any more than the most basic of configuration options, but I don't know what I'll do if I find out that my computer isn't running an OS anymore.
Sorry. It's a shame, isn't it-
[...and I'm already pulling my hair out over that previously very useful machine sitting in the corner with no keyboard or monitor attached. On the other hand, that it does all it does without the benefit of an OS is an absolute technological wonder.]
Bejesus, it's a miracle!Mmmmm, I did think about this one, and you can take it further, saying does a headless server need a gui, does a linux dedicate router, firewall, or X-terminal need a filesystem? So is a filesystem part of an OS?
But this is where I feel you get to the crux of the question {... and here it's going to get even more subjective, and I'll piss you off even more :-) ...} If you accept that an OS should provide an abstraction of the hardware, then you cannot simply a list of features an say 'an OS must contain these'. What constitutes an OS depends what hardware it is running on. That is why you can argue that UNIX once was a workstation/PC OS, but no longer is.
cheers,
G
Writers don't get to define technical terms (Score:1)
You might as well argue that an Indy race car isn't an automobile because it doesn't have a cup holder.
"Operating System" is a technical term in computer science. It has a precise definition. Like most technical terms, you can't arbitrarily decide to change the definition (if you plan to communicate effectively). It's especially ridiculous to try to do so as part of an argument that depends on drawing definitional lines.
Mac Baby .. Mac. (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but this just seems too Macish for me.
(OFFTOPIC) gates' so-called "charity" (Score:1)
gates' so-called "charity" was exposed as nothing more than another patheticly blatant PR scam LONG ago.
Leaked email exposes MS charity as PR exercise [theregister.co.uk]
(It's archived and the paragraph breaks are gone, but it's all there in black and white)
Not only were his true intentions exposed, it turns out that his so-called "charitable donations" are GROSSLY OVERVALUED!!!
If anyone actually BELEIVES this official propaganda that gates is just this warm, fuzzy, all around nice guy who would never harm a soul and wants nothing more than goodwill towards all men....
Well, I happen to own a couple of bridges in New York, some oceanfront kansas real estate, and a ton of Florida swampland.... er... vacation property that I'm sure you'd LOVE to buy!
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:Mac OS (Score:1)
Become your enemy.
Where does that leave "Applications?" (Score:1)
Why is parent modded down to 0? (Score:1)
There is a mandatory lockout period after any IPO, during which no one closely associated with the company can sell a single share.
And given that VA's stock price took a powerdive into the toilet since their IPO, I doubt that ESR will have much money to give away when he can sell anyway.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Another way to think of Unix (Score:1)
I can get FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux.
But, at least in the marketing perpective, there is no UNIX OS.
Are all of the above different operating systems? Or would you consider them different versions of UNIX
I know this is nitpicking but I am very interested in seeing your answers.
mackido (Score:1)
*Note: I had my own three-year love affair with the Mac until I realized the simple fact that PCs are simply better. And cheaper. So don't think this is because I'm a Mac basher or anything. I simply have always hated MacKiDo and its rabid brand of mac advocacy.
__________________________________________________ ___
Re:Unix _isn't_ an operating system . . . (Score:1)
I used to be a Mac user, and when I was a Mac user I felt the same way about what is part of the OS. I don't blame the author of this articls at all for his feelings, because that is entirely part of the Mac way of viewing the world. However, I would call what the author calls an OS an OS distribution or OS package. Unix is definitely not an OS distribution.
Long live the Unix Way!
Re:unix is NOT an operating system (Score:1)
CHEAP PC! ONLY $200*+!
*Monitor not included
+After $400 mail-in rebate with purchase of 3 years of internet service
Miguel said same thing (Score:1)
While Miguel probably has a more sophisticated understanding of the difference between an os and an operating environment, he did recommend dictating "policy" in the core of the os, its kernel and system libs. This might include such things as a component model (bonobo) and even integration of a graphics layer and gui system, something unix has deliberately avoided to date but which Mac OsX seems not to be avoding.
I am not familiar with OsX like I am with linux, but it will probably have a more highly abstracted graphics and gui layer that is considered part of the os and there will be no choice. You either use it or write your own from scratch, in which case you may as well use Linux, which allows choice of a number of higher level gui and graphics libraries. In exchange for giving up choice, there will be connsistency and "standards" everywhere.
Let Apple have its bland homogenization but do not mess with the freedom we now enjoy with linux and most other unices as well. With a commercial OS, of course there will be standards, so in this way OsX is fundamentally different from Linux even if both are based on unix.
As another post pointed out, the author missed the fundamental distinction between an OS and an operating environment. Unix in an embedded device and unix in a desktop computer use the same OS but offer very different operating environments. So, let us allow a number of fundamentally different operating environments for unix (which is really being absorbed almost totally by linux) while leaving the operating system itself free of any of them. In that way Linux is fundamentally different from a commercial spinoff like OsX, which is limited in its capacity to grow by standards for a (single) operating environment which stifle innovation and the ability for the entire system to adapt. Therefore in the long run, OsX cannot really compete with linux, though it will offer a "consistent" desktop experience like any other commercial os which may be attractive to some commercial developers for those reasons.
Miguel knows this, as do others calling for standardization of interfaces and component models. But he may think we don't know it. By reminding those who would deprive us of freedom of choice that we do know, perhaps they will be willing to consider that if there way becomes the only way, linux will die, or at the least will be no different from any commercial os. Well, you can look at the source code. Big deal if you do not have a whole team of developers and the money to fund what is needed to fork linux when that happens.
Re:Definitions and Motivations (Score:1)
The author is trying to be a Webster redefining CS terminology, and also to make an emotional appeal that OS-X is much more than Unix.
So what? Some people in the early '90's used to loudly argue that DOS was an OS and Win3.1 was an "operating environment". Who cares now? Last I heard an OS was all about providing/controlling access to hardware in some simplified fashion, but there are so many freakin' layers between applications and the basest kernel or libc routines that this comes down to which layers do you personally draw the line at between OS and app library.
Give a precise definition of operating system to your taste, and someone can tell you if a given piece of code falls under your definition or not. Is it all free software or not: that's a more interesting question.
Some education would help him... (Score:1)
He has basicly no idea what an OS is. Even how he starts to talk about shell being part of OS. You can clearly see that this is Mac zealot trying to propagate some new Mac product using few buzzwords.
Definition of an OS And the relation to Linux. (Score:1)
It seems, by this article's definition of an OS, that He would not consider Linux an OS, but Debian, RedHat, or any OTHER linux Distribution is an Operating system. Continuing along the lines of this thinking, RedHat/OS and Debian/OS and Slack/OS are all DIFFERENT operating systems that happen to be binary-compatible if the right parts are installed, Right?
Yeah. Suuuure. In reality, All of linux is linux, And therefore one OS. The only differences in the linux world are the init, packaging, and installation.
But how does this relate to Unix WITHOUT Linux factored in? After all, linux is only a Linux Clone, even if it IS a good one. The many Unices Become, via the article's definition of what an operating system is (ignoring the claim that unix ISN'T an OS), Different Operating Systems. When you get Unix now, you DO get more than just the kernel and a shell and some utilities. Unix wasn't designed for desktop use, so it doesn't necessarily NEED a GUI, no matter what Apple wants us to believe.
This Article DOES seem biased in a 'Gui, Gui Uber Alles' kind of Way, doesn't it?
The OS Includes a Shell? (Score:2)
But notice what the author does -- he included the shell and the libraries in the operating system, with the same breath he uses to include the drivers. (Since you can't have an operating system without drivers, and since the author mentions the drivers, the shell, and the libraries all in the same sentence, it simply follows that you can't have an operating system without a shell!)
Now the author has the perfect slippery straw man. Since he's included part of the environment in the operating system, he can include it all! Now, the entire environment can be part of the operating system -- the GUI, the text editor, the pretty little clicky-clicky thing you swear at when you're trying to set up a new printer -- everything you get on that installation CD! After all, Microsoft representatives have claimed, under oath, that the web browser is part of the operating system, so obviously the operating system is quite a bit more than just the kernel!
But it's a false argument. Apple is in the business of developing excellent user environments -- environments that many people argue are worth the money. Since the word "user environment" isn't marketable, most companies (Microsoft, Sun, Redhat, and Apple included) have developed the marketeer's new definition of "operating systems," which simply means "environment plus operating system" to most engineers. Hence, the confusion of terms that makes tripe like this article possible.
There are many ways the author could have made the distinction between the environment and the operating system clear, and there are many ways the author could have worked to convince us that the environment Apple is developing is going to be superior and worth paying for. But he chose not to, either out of ignorance, or marketing hype, or both. Instead, he confused the marketeers defintion of operation system with the engineers definition, and he hoped to slip difference by us in this awful article.
In any case, the author should do nothing in your mind to detract from what Apple is doing -- remember that what they're building is separate from what any wonk at Ziff-Davis might say.
By definition only Windows and MacOS are OSs! (Score:1)
Ok, then perhaps, I simply don't need an operating system
This Guy Doesn't Know What UNIX is! (Score:2)
But furthermore, MacOS X is NOT UNIX, since it does not include X, CDE, or Motif.
So sorry, David! Thanks for playing the Game of Semantics. Next time check the definitons of your terms before playing!
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:I hate to say this..... (Score:1)
Sorry, couldn't resist...
The world's best OS (Score:1)
Re:Unix and Linux are .... (Score:1)
Whatever turns you on I guess.
Re:UNIX as a programming environment (Score:1)
The UNIX admins at my office do everything from the console or telnet. A couple use the popular Win32 X client "Exceed", but only for the xterms. :) The NT admins use a GUI, but they don't have a choice in the matter. A GUI has never been necessary to properly admin a UNIX box, and that is a "plus". An NT server wastes countless megs on GUI crap which increases the hardware requirements and I've been told by NT admins that the integration of display code into the kernel in NT4 has reduced stability.
*Ahem*... IMHO usability does not define power; would you argue that MacOS is the most powerful OS in the world because it's supposedly so easy to use? Notepad does not even come close to the power of vi... it doesn't even have regexp search and replace. I'll stop there because we're venturing dangerously close to provoking an editor flamewar. :)
As for "checking my facts", that shouldn't be too difficult, seeing as how I'm posting this from NT5. (I may be a UNIX goon, but I proudly dual-boot. GNU/Linux is great for development, but not for games. :) Yep, Notepad is here. Yep, it still sucks. Anything you'd like verified? Such as the "My Computer" icon or color of the taskbar? :-)
I mean, no offense, but have you ever really used vi? I've never met anyone who knows how to use it that would ever even dare to compare it to frikkin' Notepad. I even have vi installed in NT, on the off-chance that I have to edit anything.
UNIX runs some of the most powerful computers in the world. The market for mainframes and supercomputers predates the PC market, and will still exist even if McNeally's wet dream comes true and we're all using JavaStation NCs in ten years. I feel that the high-end will gradually regain its position of "where the money really is". And no one who has ever priced a fully loaded E10k or RS/6000 machine will tell you that there's no money in that market.Regardless, I can't think of when UNIX has ever even been strongly marketed as a PC desktop OS before the current GNU/Linux buzz. And there's the upcoming MacOS X. Unix (after a fashion) is slowly becoming a viable desktop OS for "average" users.
It doesn't always get the money, and almost never the chicks---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:If all that stuff is OS.. (Score:1)
Of course, they end up having to care when they can't open someone's new Word format, or a website is unviewable in their browser, but this imposition seems arbitrary and annoying to them.
The point of the interface, at least from a Mac user's standpoint, is to enable the user and the software and get the hell out of the way. On Unix "enabling the user" has some odd requirements that sometimes require it to be in the way. They might swollow upgrading their word processor or changing their browser, but it's totally unfathomable and irrelevant to them why they would or should need to change their "window manager" or "shell", even though there might be some very good technical reasons.
Well? (Score:1)
Re:hmm. (Score:1)
I personally wonder when the user experience becomes so much of a factor that the operating systems ceases to be an operating system and is only a user interface. If we had linus and the open source community working on the operating system, jobs and woz working on the interface, and gates on the marketing... wouldnt that be interesting...
As RMS would say... (Score:1)
Re:Semantics only. (Score:1)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
disagree, but... (Score:1)
Still, even if you accept his definition of what an operating system is, don't most *nix distributions come with a GUI and a browser etc? All commercial Unices come with some form of CDE or something like it. All major prepackaged Linux distributions come with X and enough software to choke a horse. Just because they are not nailed to the kernel doesn't make *nix any less of an operating system by his definition.
The modularity found in *nices is a superior design. Who wants everything integrated. When one part fails it all fails. Any audiophile will tell you that a separate tuner/preamp/amp setup is better than a reciever. And don't get me started on integrated video chipsets on motherboards. Puh-leeeeze!
Re:Unix _isn't_ an operating system . . . (Score:1)
Himi is right... UNIX is a concept, not a product. You can't hop down to Frys and buy a box of "UNIX". You can go to Frys and buy Debian Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, Red Hat Linux, etc. (okay, so I know you can't buy Solaris and HP/UX at Frys, but I'm making a point here!) You can't get/buy/steal "UNIX". You can only get/buy/steal a flavor of UNIX.
That fact is what makes "UNIX" not an OS.
Re:The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is... (Score:1)
Like it or not, that X is usually only found on the OS CD, so in layman's terms "it's in the OS". A little packaging and marketing go along way towards how a user feels about an environment.
Re:It's ironic as hell that a Mac user said it. (Score:5)
What's really important in an OS depends on what you're using it for. Using the current Mac OS for a server would be just plain stupid (which is probably why my company is doing it), just like making an average user use Linux+fvwm would also be stupid. (Dodging rocks thrown by Gnome fanatics) Linux and Unix simply don't have a good GUI yet. The Mac OS does, and has for a very long time. Just as Unix has been refined and polished with time, so has the Mac UI. Understand and accept that, and you'll make the step from zealot to rational human being.
That being said, you missed the point of the article completely. The author is using the changes in the computer world's landscape (move towards personal computers from mainframes) to make what may appear to be a purely symmantic distinction. His real point is that there's now more to an OS than just a good kernel and some utilities.
GUI will make or break you for the average user. They don't care if their apps don't crash if they can't launch them in the first place. Apple understands this, and has filled Mac OS X with Ooey GUI Goodness (tm). For the rest of us (no, not them, us with the clue), OS X just happens to have a very solid foundation. They've also started an effort to clean up the mess of dissimilar config files that is
Re:Kernel vs. OS (Score:1)
hmm (Score:2)
Re:Kernel vs. OS (Score:2)
Re:I hate to say this..... (Score:2)
I would guess that the number of applications which require access to disk storage (or benefit from a file abstraction, a la sockets, FIFOs, unix "special files", etc) outnumber those which require a pixel addressable display by several orders of magnitude.
However, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend a GUI is a necessary component of an OS. Does a window manager, four xterms, and netscape count? I don't really want to have to waste precious disk space, memory and CPU time on useless stuff like file managers, desktop icons, and 50 different confusingly named "control panel" doohickies none of which provide any more than the most basic of configuration options, but I don't know what I'll do if I find out that my computer isn't running an OS anymore.
[...and I'm already pulling my hair out over that previously very useful machine sitting in the corner with no keyboard or monitor attached. On the other hand, that it does all it does without the benefit of an OS is an absolute technological wonder.]
Definition (Score:1)
Don't you just love it when authors make up new definitions to support their article :) not!
An operating system is the software that manages the resources (hardware?) of the computer. These resources include but are not limited to: RAM, CPU, Disk storage, Network access, and other peripheral devices.
That's all. It is that simple. Users may want more to be bundled with their purchased hardware, but just be cause Dell puts Microsoft Office on my computer when I buy it doesn't make it part of the operating system. Just because Microsoft puts Notepad in the Windows box, doesn't make it part of the operating system.
Hmmm... (Score:1)
I think he clouds the terms of operating system with that of an operating environment. Is a CLI part of the OS? My opinion is no. Its an application layer program that interacts with system services to make doing stuff a lot easier. The same thing takes place with a GUI.
As for his comments of, look at all the programs a modern user needs that a kernel and CLI don't provide. Well DUH!!! Why do you think Linux distro's like RedHat come with all sorts of additional software. Is that the OS though? No.
And I don't care what Brother Bill says, there is no point that I can see with merging the browser in the operating system. Merging it with the GUI is another aspect.
The only thing that makes some UNIX's obsolete is the fact that they are not at the microkernel stage. Then again, I don't know that anybody has successfully pulled the microkernel thing off yet. NT had a chance, but then they started breaking their own rules...
Then again, maybe I'm too much of a purist....
Here's the difference between an OS and its apps (Score:2)
--
Re:unix is NOT an operating system (Score:3)
This is what's called arguing from the particular to the general. It's not logically valid. By your argument, it there is some part of the kernel that's not used on someone's system, then it's not part of the OS. Is telnet part of the OS? You don't need to have it or networking at all for that matter. Just because you don't use it on your system doesn't mean it's not part of the OS.
I don't know about you... (Score:1)
On the other hand, Unix still does have the guts to be an 'OS,' in the same way that DOS 2.1 does. If that's all that's on your machine, then it will get you there. Most Unices have complete tools for text editing and printing even without the GUI, for example. If all I had was a Unix on my machine(like my zipslacked laptop for example)I could still get the job done, the way I did on DOS 2.1. It's not that the minimum requirements of an OS have changed. It's that a lot of other things have become 'necessary' to end-users. Most windroids and Mac abusers wouldn't even think of using a GUI-Less computer--that doesn't mean my X-less install of FreeBSD is any less an 'OS.' It's still packed with killer apps, that give at least as much functionality as winblows or Mac. Built-in Unix multitasking, IRC, screen...VI. But it's something that people want...and I want it too, sometimes, like on my workstation.
The definition of 'OS' is flexible these days, is what I'm getting at. I prefer to look at it as the user's method of operation, instead of the computer's. My 'OS' includes NT, and it also includes a cli-only unix machine that I use remotely. It seemed to me the best way to get what I wanted--windows as my 'window manager,' with a great Unix constantly available. If I did hardware installs, even if they included a bunch of computers, I might as well be calling it an 'OS.' So, basically, what I'm trying to say is 'whatever.' The whole article is just elucidating how Mac OS X looks at Unix...which is very accurate in their case. And let's face it--Unix alone won't be getting Mac abusers where they need to go.
Re:Here's the difference between an OS and its app (Score:2)
What I meant to say was:
Here's the difference between an OS and its apps: /bin; ls -lR /sbin) <(ls -lR /usr)
~$ diff <(ls -lR
--
Criminy, what did you expect? (Score:2)
Apple people love their Macs. Granted, it's in the way that a parent can be fiercely devoted to their severely retarded firstborn, but that's how it is. And a magazine that makes money by helping Apple sell more Macs isn't likely to print an article titled Doh! I Wish I Had a Commandline!
What's annoying here is that another clueless luser is appropriating a term with a long tradition and misusing it because, well, he's a boorish luser. If you got him alone, you'd have to start by explaining that the PC case is not a "CPU" or a "hard drive" long before you got around to defining an operating system. Ignore this crap.
--
Re:The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is... (Score:2)
Everything else is an application. Many applications affect the state and configuration of the OS, but that doesn't make them PART of the OS.
That's a pretty literal reading of the phrase, I suppose.
The print button in Word "operates" the printer more effectively than the printer setup in control panel (which only prints a test page) - does that make it a part of the OS? Not by the definition I presented - you can remove everything down to the printer driver and still have a technically functional printer. I can't wait for someone to sue MS for not including this essential component with Windows as a freebie.
This is not to say that notepad, emacs, Explorer, Netscape, etc. are not important, nor that they should not be bundled with the OS, but they are not fundamental. I think MS demonstrated that with their pathetic attempt to make Explorer an "inseparable component of the OS."
Re:Depends on the definition (Score:3)
In the early days, Macs didn't even have an operating system from the marketing perspective. It was just the Macintosh Hardware/Software System that happened to have System file 4.12 installed. The term "MacOS" wasn't official until the cloning era.
Apple takes great pride that they were the first people to see that "policy" in a mainstream OS is a value add for most users, and furthermore, they did it right. The users now have this expectation from other OSes.
The pre-monopoly Microsoft view was probably just a sheepish copy of Apple's attitude, and the current monopoly Microsoft is tied up with economic tying and legal reasoning, as you say.
Re:Interesting.... (Score:2)
Anyone else (and maybe they're just idiots who have been mindfucked by the ParcMacWin conspiracy) would agree with Every. To them Windows, MacOS, and the RedHat distro are OS's.
It's funny that we just had a discussion about computer historians, where many people took the attitude that they're either unnecessary or just store obsolete equipment (that's an archivist, not a historian!), when this thread is a perfect example of why we need computer historians.
Sadly, words and language is not a simple formal system, as the usage of it falls into the category of communal consensual reality.
Definitions evolve and competing definitions can coexist. It's fuzzy logic; there are no absolute truth values here. But I'm no semantician; there have been many people who have spent a lot more time and intelligence dealing with the issue than I.
It really does frustrate me how juvenile so much of the discussion is here; and I don't simply mean the "Mac Suxors" comments. I'm also referring to the sloppy rhetoric that people use, employing nearly every logical fallacy [nizkor.org] under the sun, and there are a lot of them.
The most frustrating thing is that everyone on Slashdot isn't a juvenile; if they were, the juvenile behavior would be not unreasonable.
How droll. (Score:2)
os = ui? (Score:2)
Author has no clue... (Score:2)
Nowhere do I see "browser", "graphical user interface". "media player", "control panel", "extension", etc in that definition.
The author enjoys making an analogy between cars and operating systems. So be it, lets run with that one shall we?
No, it'd be more like calling a plank of wood with wheels and a motor a car, and it would be. It may not be the nicest car, but it is still a car.
Listen you can buy an old used beat up chevette or a brand new jaguar. Right, the jaguar has a cd player, air conditioning, power locks/windows, electronic adjustable heating/massaging seats which bring you to orgasm on the interstate, the whole deal, but the chevette is still a car, and you can't say that just because the chevette doesn't have cruise control that it isn't.
Unix, with its kernel and shell, is still an operating system.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Definitions and Motivations (Score:3)
Many people did and do find a kernel and a shell productive witout the bundled utilities that make the OS more user friendly. That is what the various GUI's do, they abstract the OS to make the OS appealing to those who do not understand the underpinnings of the technology.
Perhaps OS could be defined as the "bare minimum" requirements for making a computer usable. This would support the author's ideology of OS, and still makes Unix an OS. To say that an OS isn't an OS without (God, now I'm laughing...) "Control Panels and Extensions" (tee hee, silly Mac boy) is simply lunacy. These abstractions simplify the user experience, but do not add a thing to the usability of a computer. (the OS, but not the computer itself) Indeed, monkeying around with the various "Control Panels" in the various OSes is an abstraction that can be quite dicey. These abstractions spare us the pain of handwriting Xconfigs, manually editing registrys to add hardware, etc..., but in no way do they benefit the computer itself. They are really nothing more that glorified text processors with very narrow usage abilities. The "Add New Hardware Wizard" is nothing more than an abstraction to regedit.
The purpose of an OS lies in storage and retrieval, input and output. Libraries add in math functions on a human readable level etc..., but the kernel is well capable of math before the libraries are included. The user is simply not capable of expressing that in computer terms.
The entire Idea of OS X is a Mac look and feel abstraction to *nix. As is XF86Setup, as is any installation program. The OS does not truly benefit from these abstractions, only the user does. Much as a web browser is a glorified "rcp" and a www.netscape.com is an abstraction of 207.200.83.93. (even that is an abstraction of a bunch of "0"'s and "1"'s.) (wich is an abstraction of... you get the point...) From a strictly OS point of view, all these abstractions do is waste precious (and copious) memory and clock cycles.
These abstractions can be layered on top of an OS much like voice recognition is an abstraction of keyboard input. Get voice input, translate to text, feed to shell. Our poor author cannot see the OS for the abstractions.
If he truly wanted to market OS X, he could simply say "The power of Unix with the ease of use of a Mac."
make xconfig ; #Now there's an OS! (Why won't it compile??)
~Hammy
Operating system? What Operating System? (Score:2)
For example, in a web-server, apache could be considered a part of the OS. See the Planet Tux Interview [slashdot.org] to see quite how close this can get these days...
If the system requires it to operate, it's part of the OS. For a Mac, the GUI is part of the OS. In UNIX it aint.
UNIX doesn't even need to have a login prompt, so login isn't part of the OS (For some applications)
The thing with modern computing is that different applications require different OS's. UNIX just happens to provide enough features that it satisfies the requirements of a LOT of different niche OS's.
It's kinda like the salad bar of OS's. Pick what you like and (IF you like security) ditch the rest... Build your own OS.
Re:Heck, I actually agree ... (Score:2)
You are quite correct, of course, saying that "Linux" is just the kernel. However, I suggest you change your definition, because the word "Linux" no longer means the kernel that Linus Torvalds wrote(at least, it doesn't mean that to the vast majority of people who've ever heard of "Linux").
I've had to change my definition of the word(altough, quite frankly, I use GNU/Linux when talking to people)..
Dave
Re:drawing the line, the Microsoft way (Score:2)
Two absurdities argued with this logic: (Score:2)
1. I have two cars. On the first, the windows don't move; they can not be raised or lowered. Since raising and lowering (or at least being able to raise and lower) the windows is an integral part of the experience associated with modern cars, this car is not a car. The second car has power windows, but the electrical systems aren't working properly, so the windows do not raise or lower. I'm not sure if this one is a car.
On my computer I have two operating systems. The first, Linux, doesn't have a GUI. Since that is an integral part of the experience associated with modern OS's, this is not an OS. The second is Windows 3.1. It has a GUI, but it is very broken. I'm not sure if it is an OS.
2. My web browser is an integral part of my modern user experience. I use it all the time, and many of the programs I run on my computer use its components or rely on it being there. Anything that does not come with a web browser built in is not an OS.
My word processor and my spreadsheet program are an integral parts of my modern user experience. I use them all the time, and many of the programs I run on my computer use their components or rely on them being there. Anything that does not come with a word processor and a spreadsheet program built in is not an OS.
My mouse is an integral part of my modern user experience. I use it all the time, and many of the programs I run on my computer use its components or rely on it being there. Anything that does not come with a mouse built in is not an OS.
Ok, so the mouse one was a low blow, since it's really easy to define around. But the point stands: a technical definition only when further information modifies the premises of the original definition. What was an OS is still an OS will be an OS. The set of software required to make a viable consumer computing platform will change, and if you want to define a word or phrase that refers to that set, or a snapshot of that set at a particular time, fine. But "operating sytem" is not that; OS is already taken.
Unix and Linux are .... (Score:2)
Re:hmm. (Score:2)
It is not well defined, what an operating system is or has to be. The most common definition could be an interface between the user(s) and the hardware. While we don't have to argue about the low level funktions provided by the kernel, there is much room to discuss wether the user level applications, packaged together with the kernel, are part of the os, too.
If you do this (and the original author does it), I don't see why you should differ between the "classic" Unix utilities and the graphical ones running under X11.
No OS is just the same as some years ago. Neither MacOS nor Windows had a browser included five years ago. Now they have. Browsers are included in almost any Unix software box, you can buy today. Why count with differend measures?
Unix is, in costrast to Windows or MacOS, much more modular and versatile. The core parts got some additional layers. X11 for example is such a layer and the foundation for graphical applications. Adding window management and an email client is the purpose of destop environments like Gnome.
Unix has also been a multiuser/multitasking OS for a very, very long time. So it has a strong position in the server market. There you don't need (primary) an web client, but a web server. (Linux, as a flavor of the Unix idea, is so versatile, it run's almost everywhere from a IBM mainframe to a wrist watch)
Unix has, and this is the main point, in which I could agree with the original author, a weak history on the desktop. The desktop environments and the applications are not as mature as they are for Windows or MacOS. But the topic was not about the quality of the Unix desktops, but about Unix not being a OS at all.
And I think, you need a pretty weird definition of an OS to declare Unix as being not being one.
Wrong definition (Score:2)
An operating system is the software that comes with a computer (or OS distribution) that programmers and users need to make themselves productive.
This is not a valid definition -- it's just some arbitrary opinion shaped as one, and the whole article is written around this. I, and probably a lot of other people, disagree with it and consider it to be just as ridiculous as a definition of lunch as a meal packed in a brown bag that one gets from relatives.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
OS vs distribution (Score:2)
Lets take servers. If I wanted a simple webserver that does cgi and maybe javaservelets, I can do this with a UNIX OS like Sun or AIX and then install a webserver and its componenets. There is no GUI there as none is needed, once it is installed.
I think he is pitching this so as to sell up there OS X. I think OS X is a great idea. I mentioned doing that over 2 years ago here on slashdot. (Combining the stability of UNIX with the ease of use of Mac). I was then told that had been done look at the Next OS. While Next was to expensive, as well it is not as easy as a Mac.
If Mac release a computer for under 1000 next year with OS X I may get one to play with. IF they release Mac OS X on a computer that retails for less than 500 I will get one. But lets see how it performs. Anything has got to be better than windows 95. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
hmm. (Score:5)
An OS is what lies closest to the hardware, and allows the programs themselves to deal with the "User Experience". However, this article being written by a Mac person (and I not saying this is bad), they assume that the interface and such must be part of the OS. I don't think it needs to be, and in fact, I don't think it SHOULD be. But that is just me.
Anyways: just because Unix doesn't assume everybody should be forced into the same "User Experience" doesn't make it somehow less of an OS.
But that is just my opinion.
Kernel vs. OS (Score:2)
The only real problem I have with the article is that he should be speaking of an operating environment. I use a web browser for at least an hour a day. But it shouldn't be in the OS. I use a GUI 90% of the day, but it shouldn't be in the OS. These are applications that have nothing to do with devices, memory, or i/o. Adding these applications results in buggy crash-prone operating systems like windows.
One way or another, Unix is a great OS, and a great foundation for building new tools for the developer, end user and network admin.
unix is NOT an operating system (Score:3)
a text based interface or access via telnet is not enough of an interface
a computer is NOT a computer without a monitor (i think servers are computers
basically just because people are used to flashier and more complex interfaces doesn't mean that a system which fundamentally works off of text interfaces (considering that CDE/KDE/Gnome/X11 are not part of the os) is not an os.
All of my servers run linux without X and without a monitor... am i running os less servers?
the term operating system must be redifined to deal with the context with which it is used, ie. are we discussing a desktop or server environment? will it be used for development or multimedia purposes...
Discussion?!?!?!?!?!!? (Score:2)
When was the last time there was discussion on slashdot? Any time the idea that Unix wasn't written by God himself and blessed with the lines "This is my OS," said from above while a doce descends onto Linus' head is raised, the Trolls come out in force and throw enough flaimbait around to frighten a Dragon.
Posting AC with the grim knowledge that this will be my first post in months that reaches +5...
Semantics only. (Score:5)
About the only solid opinion you'll find about what an OS is comes from the unix purists he comments on. They feel that the OS is the kernel, drivers, libraries, and that's it. Ask anyone else with some competancy and they'll draw the line anywhere from the kernel all the way out to whatever comes on a CD from the distributor.
Hey, if he feels that all the 'traditional' stuff, plus whatever new goodies people have come to expect, should be lumped together and considered an OS, then ducky for him. It's a totally relative distinction.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Re:The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is... (Score:2)
Actually, I think this definition of OS (which I like) does point out some tricky issues with talking about the OS. The problem is that once you go with the kind of definition that states the OS is the necessary environment needed for a program to execute, then you set up the distinct possibility that we could look at program A executing on OS Y, and then program B that executes on OS Y but also requires a service provided by A and decide that the "OS" for A is Y, but the "OS" for B is Y+A. That, of course, bothers some people a lot.
Another way to go, which is implied by what some have called the "purist" definition, is that the OS would be software that satisfies the greatest common requirements for all of the programs that are running; that would probably end up being the traditional kernel plus shell.
But the problem there is that you can (and Linux certainly has) stick a lot of stuff directly into the kernel that is not (strictly speaking) needed by all other programs. So in the Y+A situation above, if Linux kernel version 2.71828 now includes the service provided by A, we might argue that B now only depends on Y (the kernel), but then A has disappeared completely, so you might decide to carve up the kernel into "truly OS" and "not truly OS" parts and then...
I think you see the problem. Myself, I'm not that interested in arriving at "the" answer to this question, but this is Slashdot, so...
Network Filing System?? (Score:2)
Sadly, this author has the balls to ask the question "Is Unix an OS?", but he obviously lacks the brains to answer it. I don't think he quite understands the difference between a file cabinet and a computer.
Definitions and Motivations (Score:5)
This is a very interesting way to define operating system. I have always thought of an operating system as the fundamental set of software componants which mediate, support and enable the applications running on a system. I suppose one could make the football (soccer, for Americans) analogy: I would call the Field, Rules, and Officials the OS of football. By the definition used in the article, Windows would not be an operating system (for me, at least) without rendering software installed... otherwise I cannot be productive with it. That doesn't feel quite right, as definitions go.
Of course, reading through the rest of the article makes it clear why the whole question of what precisely constitutes an operating system becomes clear: Marketing OSX. (Yes, I know I should have guessed that just from the link, but hey, I'm an optimist).
The message there is about as clear as they come. Now, I'm not saying that the sentiment is actually wrong -- it may very well be that OS X is the greatest thing since gcc -- but I'm not really sure that I appreciate the way the point is being made. It almost seems to prey on the ignorance of consumers. There is bound to be a long and involved argument here on /. regarding what exactly an OS is, and I'm willing to bet that the average Mac & PC users in the world wouldn't even be able to follow most of it. So, essectialy, the author is using buzzwords (UNIX is becoming one even in the mainstream) and creative premises to make an almost unrelated point.
Journalism at it's finest.
--
Re:unix is NOT an operating system (Score:2)
now if we were discussing a desktop os i would use for development or game play, i would consider the windowing system to be quite integral to the os.
it's all semantics, people need to understand that there are different minimum requirements for os's based on different environments.
no matter what we agree on someone from another os background will bitch about how the new unix-X/windows/mac os definitions do not take into account certain capabilities VMS has or whatever....
The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is... (Score:3)
Unix is no longer an operating system. An operating system is the software that comes with a computer (or OS distribution) that programmers and users need to make themselves productive.
Anybody with a degree in CS (or anyone who's ever taken a college level intro to computing class) knows that this is not the definition of an OS. To put it simply an operating system is that is initially loaded when the computer is booted and manages the system resources as well as the other programs running on the computer.
The operating system's tasks include determining which applications should run, in what order and how much time should be allowed for each application before giving another application a turn, it also manages the sharing of internal memory among multiple applications, it handles input and output to and from attached hardware devices, such as hard disks, printers, and dial-up ports, it sends messages to the applications or the user about the status of operation and any errors that may have occurred.
Since Unix performs all these tasks it is an OS. Case closed
PS: Simply because Operating Systems now come with lots of applications bundled does not mean that the lack of a popularly bundled application (e.g. text editor) suddenly makes an operating system any less of an OS.
Hanlon's Razor
drawing the line (Score:2)
To me, this guy is playing with words, and not actually comming to any useful conclusions. Sure, by his standards, unix is not an OS... but what's the problem with an OS just being a kernel? What's the problem with calling an application an application, and the entire collection of apps and OS a computer system, or workstation? or something else?
Why shouldnt an engine, transmission, etc, on a chassis be called a car if it can drive somewhere? What if I dont want a body on my car? What if I dont need one (maybe for an indoor example of how a car's internals look?). If a car doesnt come with a CD player, it's still a car isnt it? To refute the author's point that a web browser will become part of the OS because other apps will depend on it - if I want to listen to CDs and the car doesnt come with a CD player, does that make it not a car? Come on.
Stop trying to redefine language when it already works. Besides, how long does someone run a unix box with absolutly nothing installed past the kernel and shell anyway? This article is a trolling waste of time.
Silly (Score:3)
I think that the author gets one big point but misses another. He is correct that today an operating system is generally considered to contain more than just a kernel and a shell. What he misses is that Unix has grown more expansive in exactly the way that he suggests. For instance, he comments that a real OS needs to have "hundreds of utilities". That's exactly what Unix provides; most people think of grep, sed, awk, find, ps, etc. as being essential parts of Unix even though they obviously aren't part of the shell or kernel. Similarly, X11R6 is a key part of Unix as it is now perceived.
This is, IMO, a big part of the reason that Mac OSX won't be Unix even though it's based on underlying Unix technology. It doesn't incorporate all of the other stuff that's really part of Unix as it is understood to be, so the use of a Unix kernel doesn't make it Unix.
Limited definition (Score:2)
A server doesn't necessarily need a web browser, media player or word processor. The admin might want these installed, but the lack of such doesn't mean there isn't an OS installed. In fact, programs that seem indispensable to home users might be detrimental to the smooth operation of a mission-critical server.
By the writer's definition, each Linux distro is an OS, but someone putting together a kernel, filesystem, shell, and a few specific tools from scratch isn't - even though the latter could easily make a far superior server-type environment than any prepackaged distribution.
I think the author forgot that computers have more uses than playing MP3s, browsing the web and typing articles for online tech mags. Just because an OS doesn't include tools and a GUI that a home user would find useful, doesn't mean it isn't a real OS.
Splitting hairs (Score:2)
The whole discussion is splitting hairs IMO. It all depends on your definition of an "OS".
Re:Author has no clue... (Score:2)
You could then go out on the street and get laughed at for suggesting that a plank, wheels and a motor make a car.
Essentially, the de facto definition of an OS has changed. It will still be a decade or two before the experts catch up.
Thats wrong. Experts are indeed experts, lay people are not. The car may not be a *GOOD* car, defined by social standards (which is why you're getting laughed at), however it is still a car.
The same applies with operating systems, an OS without, say, a printing subsystem may not be a *GOOD* operating system, but it indeed is still an operating system.
Darwinism at its finest, the "bad" operating systems get left by the wayside and the "good" ones thrive, however just because an OS doesn't have a graphical user interface doesn't make it any less of an OS, if so, my Commodore 64 ran without an operating system!
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Splitting hairs (Score:2)
If you have 10 options, you can choose any of them at will. You are not forced to do anything. In fact, if one of those options is that 1 that you were previously forced into, you still would have the ability to choose to stay with it. Either way, you have the choice.
He definately doesn't know what an OS is... (Score:2)
The line that really annoys me is "The OS is all the stuff that companies like Sun or Apple add to make a computer usable." when referring to things like web browsers and media players. He implies that, due to a lack of integrated GUI, media players, and web browser, Unix is unusable.
FUD?
Re:Silly (Score:2)
Mac OS X does come with ps, sed, awk, etc. Pretty much anything standard in BSD. There are at least two separate efforts (one, I believe, is John Carmack) to get X11 running well on Mac OS X as well.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Splitting hairs (Score:2)
Sure it is, it just isn't MacOS (Score:2)
Even if the yardstick were an MS/Apple-style GUI-oriented desktop, Linux with KDE or Gnome hardly has to fear comparison. Linux distributions are still more complete and have a much larger and much better integrated toolset than MacOS X is likely to have.
What Every is really saying is that he likes MacOS. To each their own. But to hide Macintosh advocacy behind "what is an operating system?" is silly. And given how stripped down MacOS is and continues to be, he's on the losing end of that argument anyway.
What's an Operating System, anyway? (Score:2)
So, what goes into the chunk we call "operating systems"?
Well, I doubt I would have passed my OS class if I'd used the definition the writer of this article chose. And, further, that definition seems very desktop-PC-centric. I mean, embedded systems have OSes, too, and they are just as much OSes as Mac OS X, even if they lack graphical interfaces, or even grep, for that matter.
People built OSes because they needed to regulate use of system resources and to give each program an environment that was richer than that provided by the hardware. A collection of software that does this, and that programs running on a machine have to use, is an Operating System. And Unix certainly qualifies.
Re:Splitting hairs (Score:2)
However, LiteStep isn't enough of a reason to stick with Windows. There are far more good reasons for me to stick with Linux, and LiteStep and Counter-Strike are about the only thing that can keep me in Windows for any period of time.
What is in an OS? (Score:2)
I don't know, personally I always believed that smaller, more compact OS's, that aren't jumbled with useless crap are better. Hence *nix operating systems in general. And isn't the definition of an operating system, what just allows your system to operate? Unix does all that without alot of crap. Why add stuff you don't need?
Aw damn I forgot, I might not see the pretty aqua shade of blue on my GUI...and I was so looking forward to it.
A good argument, misses the point (Score:4)
More stable? He clearly doesn't remember the bad old days of Sun's first attempts at NFS
The author does make a good argument for a change in semantics for the term OS. He derides the purist computer sci people who still claim the OS is nothing more than the kernel and a shell. He is taking a luser^H^H^H^Hconsumer oriented view of computers.
He is trying to change the semantics of a term with a long history. When refering to the unix world, the OS is just the kernel and a handful of required utilities. But did you ever stop and think what is the OS part of windoze NT or MacOS? On the Mac, it is the system file, the finder application (a shell), and the extensions which load at boot time (modules and drivers). Similarly, NT could be trimmed down to just a bare core of applications and drivers, but nobody ever does it.
When was the last time you put just a kernel and a shell on a machine? Didn't you also add dozens or hundreds of useful applications and utilities? With NT, tons of stuff gets loaded, you don't have a choice. The same with the Mac.
In the linux world, we use the term distribution to indicate our preference for a particular flavor of OS. We run redhat, debian, or slack, not just the 2.3 kernel with bash and a serial driver.
So maybe the author has a good point, the OS is now more than just the kernel. But changing the purists is a battle of similar proportions to changing the mass media's usage of hacker to include all infocriminals. A good fight, but in the end a futile one.
the AC
I hate to say this..... (Score:3)
- Unix is no longer an operating system. An operating system is the software that comes with a computer (or OS distribution) that programmers and users need to make themselves productive.
A vegetable is a small blue cube. Therefore a carrot is not a vegetable.My point is that if you redefine word as you wish, you can cheerfully prove that anything is, or is not, an OS.
Okay, so my books on OSes are a few thousand miles away at the minute, but as i recall, Andy Tannenbaum's definition of an operating system had 2 requirements:
- Resource Management: an OS should allow multiple user processes to share the processor(s), memory, network connection, etc.
- Extended machine: an OS should provide an richer abstraction of the underlying hardware, providing user programs with useful functionality & abstraction, eg. the ability to handle files, rather than blocks on the hard disk.
UNIX, and specificly POSIX OSes certainly still provide the first of these, but perharps not the second. A useful abstraction of the graphics card must today offer more than POSIX does (ie text mode only). To some extent, the fact that UNIX does not have a standard, built in, GUI means that it is no longer an OS.cheers,
G
Re:drawing the line (Score:2)
$ tail -n 15
* We try each of these until one succeeds.
*
* The Bourne shell can be used instead of init if we are
* trying to recover a really broken machine.
*/
if (execute_command)
execve(execute_command,argv_init,envp_init);
execve("/sbin/init",argv_init,envp_init);
execve("/etc/init",argv_init,envp_init);
execve("/bin/init",argv_init,envp_init);
execve("/bin/sh",argv_init,envp_init);
panic("No init found. Try passing init= option to kernel.");
}
$
Modify this to start, say, a GUI or something else, and you've got another
"totally different OS" by the standards of the article. Linux, by itself,
is an operating system by terms of low-level management of hardware etc.
The user interface (shell, etc...) is an add-on.
Unix _isn't_ an operating system . . . (Score:5)
Unix isn't a single piece of software, or single set of software components - it's a culture, and an ideology. That's why there are so many different versions of Unix - because it _isn't_ a single chunk of code, anyone who wants to can reimpliment their own version, and do things a little differently, or whatever.
Linux is part of the Unix culture. FreeBSD is part of the Unix culture. Solaris is part of the Unix culture. Irix, HP-UX, AIX, even A/UX, they're all part of this culture.
So yes, Unix isn't an Operating System. Any particular instantiaion of the Unix Ideal _is_ an operating system, even in the rather pointless sense that's used by this article, but that instantiation _is not Unix_ - it's merely one possible version.
And I'd hate to say it, but I suspect that Apple will become part of the Unix culture, too - Unix seems to be rather . . . contagious . . . Once you know it, once you become acculturated(sp?), it tends to subsume just about everything else . . .
himi
--
Re:If all that stuff is OS.. (Score:2)
I switched majors so I never got to find out how this guy delineated between applications and operating systems. I guess OSes would be defined as the operating environment for applications. I'm not sure what something like the Mach microkernel does to this world view.
Anyway. You can draw the line in the sand pretty much anywhere, but I think the food chain is something like atomic statements -> functions -> subroutines -> programs -> applications -> operating systems.
But are you ducking the question? (Score:2)
Well put - and I'm sure that you are right about the motivation behind this article. But just pointing out that this is biased marketing fluff does not address the question - it just avoids it.
I'm not flaming here. And if you are not interested in entering the debate one way or the other - fair enough.
But anyone reading this - don't just think: oh, he's right - the article is fluff, I can ignore it. Whatever the motivation, the article raises a serious question.
Ask yourself, does the POSIX spec really offer a useful abstraction of my Voodoo3? Is X really a part of the UNIX OS?
Jus' saying - don't just dismiss this article.
cheers,
G
Re:unix is NOT an operating system (Score:3)
Yup. It seems like the author has only been using computers for a few years. He sounds like a spoiled brat that's never had to go five minutes without on-line context sensitive help or pulldown menus.
He seems to forget that one of the first uses for Unix was for text processing. Real People(tm) like secretaries used Unix to write documents, store and organize them, and print them out. They were productive computer users waaay before GUI interfaces had even been invented yet.
Even in the Good Old Days(tm) of the Apple II and the original IBM PC, we had regular people (who were not computer hackers) learn how to use computers and be productive with them.
The author of the article also didn't study up on his history very well. Sun Microsystems started out on the Motorola 68000 line of microprocessors. They didn't move to RISC until much later.
Re:Overanalyzing the definition of "OS". (Score:2)
If you just load the kernal (ie: little unix) what will it do?
Will there be a prompt?
Will cpio work?
What is being argued is the little unix is not an OS. IT requires a shell to be UNIX, IT requires an app to be UNIX, IT requires a
That to me is point.
The author is wrong in his concludion, UNIX is a OS.
But still the base concept, "WHAT IS AN OS TODAY?" has deep meening.
I think that CPM or DOS maybe a more true OS then little unix. Little unix has more to offer the world though... so more "plugins" (cp tar
Here is question is JAVA a OS?
Is a Browser and JAVA a OS?
Unix an OS? No... (Score:2)
---
Semantics. (Score:2)
As for the insightful part, everybody already knows that computers need more software than just a kernel and shell to be usable/useful to the vast majority of users.
For instance, if you get really technical, Solaris 7 is an operating environment consisting of X/Motif/CDE implemented over the SunOS 5.7 operating system (kernel + base libraries).
Just because windows doesn't draw the same distinction (though it is possible to use a differnet shell) doesn't mean UNIX can't. This is especially important when considering that Linux, as an OS, can run a KDE, GNOME, or CDE (among others) environment. While varying greatly, they all still use the same OS underneath. Likewise, Those enviromnents may be implemented on other UNIX or possibly non-UNIX operating systems.
And where then does that leave the leigons of computers that have no need or use for a browser, a GUI, or even a shell? Just because joe-user can't type term papers on a cisco router doesn't mean that it isn't extremely important to him when he tries to email that paper to his professor.
Yes, just like the article, I am mincing words. It just annoys the hell out of me to see people redefining things just because they don't know the term they actually want to use. Especially when they (and they always do) then chastize people for using the correct and well established terms.
Heck, I actually agree ... (Score:2)
Dave
Ooooh... what he said! (Score:2)
DKE has a habit of saying outlandish things -- I like that part of him.
He does make a good point. A box with a kernel, ls, mv, cp, vi, and gcc may be a usable computer, but I sure wouldn't use it. I think it's safe to say that 99% of people wouldn't use it either.
To define an OS these days is pretty tricky. At what point does it stop being an OS and becomes an "environment" or a "platform"?
I think it stops being an OS and becomes a platform as soon as you can use it to view porn.
Re:The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is... (Score:2)
From the book "Operating System Concepts, 4th ed." by Silberschatz Galvin:
'The purpose of an operating system is to provide an environment in which a user can execute programs.'
So I would classify as an OS that minimum amount of code that is needed to execute a program. So, every thing that happens upto the point of running init is the UNIX OS, everything that gets started after this point, including init, are programs being ran by the OS, not the OS itself.
In fact, under UNIX the only program that is actually executed is init, every other program that is started on a UNIX system after this is started with a fork and execute.
The distinction is that programs are ran as processes under the control of the UNIX kernel, while the kernel itself manages the resources for the programs without running as a process itself.
Therefore, if something is running as a process, it is not part of the OS.
That was rationalization from the mac crowd. (Score:2)
Mr. Every is writing to that chest thumping Mac audience. And, rather than asking the Mac Community to accept they are just another version of Unix, with the potential of selling more copies of Unix than any SINGLE vendor, he makes the claim that:
An OS is what ships with a machine
Huh?
Notice how when the OS was called NeXTSTEP, no effort was made to seperate it from Unix. And, they even sold it without boxes and called it an OS. Mr. Every can barely mention NeXT, let alone BSD.
Its the same way a group of Linux users believe they are not a Unix, but 'something else'.
If mac users want to believe that they are not Unix, I guess they can. I hope they don't mind the snickering behind their backs. And the loudest snikering will come from the old Unix hacks who believe that portable Unix code is the best way to help ALL the Unixes.
Intel vs. Apple, this time in Unix space? (Score:2)
I get the impression that by trying to distinguish whatever Apple's doing with Unix ("much more than just Unix") from what everyone else is doing with Unix, he's trying to set the stage for the "conflicts" between Intel and Apple "unix" users.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing seemed to more about how great OSX's gonna be than anything else.
I disagree... (Score:3)
Of course, looking at his definition of an operating system, we can easily conclude that until OS X, the Macintosh never actually HAD an operating system... where is the basic stuff like pre-emptive multi-tasking? So what was all those pre-OS X Macs? Toys??? I doubt that any serious Mac user would agree with that.
Instead of putting down Unix as "not an entire operating system," why not just say that just an operating system in and of itself is probably not what the majority of most users want.
Looking at the corporate environment, a computer just isn't useful unless it has some of the things that were mentioned: An operating system (of course), a GUI, networking, a web browser, and APPLICATIONS, including Word Processing, and whatever else is needed in order to get work done.
If all this is provided by one vendor, then you have a "one stop shopping" solution that some corporate mindsets find attractive. This is one of the reasons that Microsoft has been successful in the PC market.
But as long as all of these things are available, then any environment -- Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, Tru64 Unix, and the others -- should serve the needs of most people.
But, of course, this doesn't say that OS X is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and so wouldn't be printed in such a forum. [shrug]
--
Depends on the definition (Score:2)
But that's Microsoft-speak. And Microsoft-speak aside, the traditionally-accepted definition of "operating system" is a set of software that allows programs to communicate with and use the computer's low-level resources (i.e., memory, disk space and other online storage, network, printers, modems, etc.) By this standard, the traditional UNIX kernel does qualify as an "operating system" by the virtue of the services that it provides to applications through applicable APIs (POSIX, ISO C, etc.)
In the end, I guess it depends on what definition you use. Personally, I've always thought it's a bit silly to suggest that a "media player" should be considered part of the OS proper. As another respondent to this post said, if you think that's part of the OS, then exactly what the hell constitutes an application?
--
Re:The Author Doesn't Know What An OS is... (Score:2)
I think this definition is correct, that what people are arguing about is whether or not "Operating System" has grown in definition to encompass all the libraries distributed with the system.
OS/App (Score:2)
It's true. Microsoft said so.