Talk:Evolution of Operating Systems Designs/What is an Operating System?

An operating system: programming code specifically used as a base to provide basic functionality to electronic devices.

''Useless since you'll have to define "basic functionality" then and some idiot will claim that the kernel is the only operating system even though kernels have nothing to do with operating systems. And completely false since VM microcode will be the "operating system" of some embedded devices. Better luck next time.''

''And what exactly is your problem with the proposed definition anyways? The definition works best on well-designed operating systems like Smalltalk. The entirety of the Smalltalk system is the operating system and if anyone claimed that only a tiny subset of it (the part needed to get "basic functionality") were the OS, they would be dismissed.''

''Bringing the word "programming" into it was a good idea but you missed the mark completely. The operating system is the entirety of the (coherent) system that is programmatic in nature and so serves as a base for further programming. It has nothing to do with "functionality" nor with "basic" vs "advanced".''

=
=

November 11, 2005

“Define "basic functionality””. Since the hardware software needed to make a device useful varies from electronic device to electronic device; I would have to define basic functionality as the bare minimum needed to allow whatever hardware one device contains to function and be useful. The whole point of basic functionality would be that the Operating System would need to contain all that it is need for it to serve purpose it is designed for. Your point about the kernel or a fraction of any operating system is pointless as the most basic function of the operating system is to be useful for the propose it was designed for; the kernel or a fraction of any operating system by themselves will not allow electronic devices to function at a level that would be considered useful.

LOL

I do understand that a computer with nothing more than an operating system installed is to some degree useless. However, a computer in such a state that is up and running would be ready for additional software to be installed, thus allowing the computer and the operating system to go from a state of basic functionality to full or advanced functionality; depending on the total propose of the computer.

''My point about kernels is this. First of all they are kernels and not operating systems so calling them operating systems violates standard use of language. If a definition allows kernels to be considered operating systems then the definition is simply wrong.''

''Second, you can strip an operating system even lower than the kernel by stripping the kernel of functionality and still call it an operating system. But you can't do this logically, you can only do it physically. If you have an operating system on device A which is simply the kernel of the operating system on device B then both are operating systems. But if you talk about a fraction of the operating system on device B then that is NOT the operating system. The operating system is the entirety of the coherent system. And since Unix software *routinely* makes use of shell scripts, then all of these standard utilities that exist in a Unix system are part of Unix.''

''Note the point about the X Window system is thin. X Window is, I think, used programmatically by window managers. But of course, window managers are never used programmatically by end users. And in either case, none of them are programmed in a way remotely similar to everything else in Unix.''

.........

''And what exactly is your problem with the proposed definition anyways?”

I felt it was incomplete and lacking something. Wasn’t sure what it was so I added my 2 cents. Seems like the definition has changed… I like the new one as it makes it easier for someone that is not a programmer to understand. Furthermore, the whole point of defining something is to help people understand what is being defined. The previous definition really didn’t seem to state what an operating system is in plain English. For the most part it seemed to be a politician’s/lawyer’s answer to a question that he/she was unsure of and was explained in the most complex and broadest way possible in an attempt to make those that didn’t understand turn away and not say anything (As opposed to saying something and sounding stupid.) while still saying enough to allow someone that understands to agree that it is correct.

One more point, it is my understanding that the whole point to propose a definition is to generate feedback; unless this was suppose to be one of those rhetorical proposals?

''Ideally, and always with me, the whole point of a definition is to get it right. Useful feedback generally takes the form of "the definition applies to X which we all agree is not one of those things we want included" or "the definition doesn't apply to Y even though we all agree it's one of those things we want included". In your case, it would have been "using the definition, I can't even tell whether or not X and Y are included or excluded". Note that this is the form my feedback to your proposal took.''

''Now granted, I knew the definition I gave was deficient but the inspiration that fixed it was a stroke of dumb luck. Programmatic vs interactive use has been a sometimes recurring theme in my mind for years. I think it would have been more reasonable to attack the coherence criterion and demand that some kind of criterion be drawn up to draw the boundary between what's part of the OS and what isn't.''

---

=
=======

You can call it dumb luck; I call it inspiring people to be their best. (If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS, right?)

lol... I will admit I’m not always right, but when I give my 2 cents it tends to inspire people. I wasn't trying to redefine it; I was merely stating what I believed an OS to be. As stated on the main page "the software that comes on an operating system install CD” is not even close to what an OS is. I’m not educated, but I know enough to know that what is included on of those disks normally exceeds what an OS truly is. In the case of WinXP, screen savers, spider solitary, so on and so forth are not part of the OS. Basic functionality was a way to eliminate such items from what I believed the to be OS. Basically I think we were trying to answer or define two aspects of what an OS is.

I was thinking about the commodity aspect, what is bought and sold. Well basicly. Apparently you are defining what is deeper within the OS as in what an operating system does. So as far as my comments being X or Y, the answer is 42. ;-) This brings your point about the kernel or a fraction of any operating system into perspective. While there are components of an operating system that in many ways mimic the behavior and fit general concept OS, the components are not operating systems because they require the system as a whole to do thier function. I don’t know if I explained it correctly but I think I understand what you are trying to define. To be honest it sounds like you are defining what an OS does and/or what can be considered an OS based on what it dose and how it does it.

So one might confuse a kernel with an OS because the kernel is A set of principles and concepts and all of the components which obey these principles designed to provide system stability.(to make a long story short) However, because the kernel is dependant on all the other processes of the OS as a whole to be able to function, it can not be defined as an OS. There is a great deal of difference in what we were trying to define.

So you are defining what an OS can and can not be based on what it does, at the same time you are defining various components of an OS that have the same general concept of the OS, that can not be defined as an OS because they require the OS as a whole to function, and without the OS as a whole they have no function.

''I forgive a lot from people who are genuinely trying to help. As opposed to people who are simply trying my patience *cough* AlbertCahalan *cough* *cough*. If you see any other weaknesses, please bring them up and be as brutally forthright as you can. Just so long as you put in a genuine effort to understand.''

Next up is defining systems design, partly so I can exclude certain people who are trying my patience, but mostly because most people (and even more so for programmers) really don't know what it is. 24.200.176.92 02:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

=
= am I any closer to the subject this time?

''Heh, missed this first time through. Okay, your understanding of what OSes are seems very close but not quite on target. For certain kinds of users, very humdrum engineering types, an OS is something much reduced from what it is to most people. For them, an OS may be a kernel, a shell, a couple of utilities, a filesystem, various drivers, and that's pretty much it. And that would be the OS they use to develop on, as opposed to the OS they are targeting. The OS they are targeting could be even more stripped of function. It could have no utilities, fewer drivers, a rudimentary shell at best, a rudimentary filesystem, maybe even a stripped down kernel. This is the world of embedded systems.'' --

I assure you I’m not here solely to annoy you. I’m not sure how much more I can help you; however I do have a genuine interest in this subject. I have decided to do a little more research on the subject before add anything else so it might be a week or two before I get back with questions/comments.

To flesh this book out a bit, I rewrote information from Tanenbaum's Operating Systems design and Implementation sec ed. (1997) for a more comprehensive historical view of what an operating system is and has been.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Repaired what I am pretty sure was annonymous vandalism where Babbages name was replaced with Ajay Babbage is a historical figure, and Ajay, is probably someones first name.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

-

People who have had no technical introduction to Operating System design seem to fall victim to the Microsoft Marketing Mythos.

They seem to obtain some peculiar attitude towards the word "kernel". I suggest you all grab 4 or 5 good academic texts on operating system design and read the definition each one gives for what an operating system is.

Across the board, You'll find some very similar characteristics. And you'll find that in nearly every case, the word kernel and Operating system will have a 98% concordance. Not identical, but always nearly identical. 24.91.86.136 (discuss) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)