How meny of you
How meny of you
How meny of you have made a working OS and if so can you plaece link to them
-
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:11 am
- Location: Oberbayern
- Contact:
If any of us had a *fully* functional OS, we wouldn't be working on it anymore (by definition), and presumably we wouldn't be hanging around this joint very much -- unless we were altruistic martyrs.JamesM wrote:but I would consider it 'sort of' functional.
Last edited by bewing on Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- AndrewAPrice
- Member
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:00 pm
- Location: USA (and Australia)
Even a *fully* function OS is not perfect and still needs improvement.bewing wrote:If any of us had a *fully* functional OS, we wouldn't be working on it anymore (by definition), and presumably we wouldn't be hanging around this joint very much -- unless we were altruistic martyrs.
My OS is Perception.
- AndrewAPrice
- Member
- Posts: 2309
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:00 pm
- Location: USA (and Australia)
I can load ELF binaries, have a partially-ported newlib, and processes can send events/messages to one another. Is my OS counted as fully functional? What is *fully* functional?Combuster wrote:functional < complete < perfect
My OS is Perception.
- Combuster
- Member
- Posts: 9301
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:45 am
- Libera.chat IRC: [com]buster
- Location: On the balcony, where I can actually keep 1½m distance
- Contact:
What I meant to say that an OS does *not* require 1001 programs to qualify. Bewing's definition is plainly exxagerated and does not match the common definition of functional:
fully functional would then mean that *all* designed goals have been attained.
The standards you have set for yourself will determine wether you qualify or not. My kernel does not meet even one of the goals I had in mind, so in my case I can't consider it functional, even though I can run programs on it.
I thus leave it to everybody's subjectivity to decide wether to nominate your OS or not.
Given that most people primarily want their OS to be used by everybody, so my guess is that for those OSes, that requirement is satisfied when becoming self-hosted is only the next step.Dictionary.com wrote:func·tion·al
(...)
3. having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed
fully functional would then mean that *all* designed goals have been attained.
The standards you have set for yourself will determine wether you qualify or not. My kernel does not meet even one of the goals I had in mind, so in my case I can't consider it functional, even though I can run programs on it.
I thus leave it to everybody's subjectivity to decide wether to nominate your OS or not.
I was making a bit of a joke, I *did* use the words "fully functional", and I agree with your definition.Combuster wrote:Fully functional would then mean that *all* designed goals have been attained.
In a practical sense, IMO, an OS becomes fully functional when you end the beta testing phase. After that what you are doing is tweaking your code to provide extra functionality for users/developers, beyond your (possibly modified) design goals.
And usually, it is not the original OS developer programming that extra functionality, at that point, so I still say my original comment holds merit.
I have also not met any of my design goals yet, but I am very close to attaining 4 of them (out of maybe 40).