OSDev.org

Seriously, what is an Operating System?

Do OS-es to run on raw hardware? Do they need kernels?

Are Windows x.x, 9x Operating Systems, or are they just shells?

Are the so-called "Web OS"-es Operating Systems?

Does FORTH count as an Operating System?

Are exokernel OS-es OS-es?

What is your Definition of an OS?

Just Wondering...

Why don't you get back to the roots and look at the term: Operating + System more literally?

A kernel is just a kernel..
A shell is just a shell..

But together they form a system which allows you to operate your system.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Here's my answers to all but one of these questions:
1. yes
2. no
3. they're shells
4. nope
5. nope
6. nope
7. no
8. this is the question I wont answer

P.S. MessiahAndrw, do you really want your 1000th post made on a thread created by a lunatic?

cr2 wrote:P.S. MessiahAndrw, do you really want your 1000th post made on a thread created by a lunatic?

Oh, hey! I didn't realise when I was posting; and only a few days before I was thinking to myself "what should I do to mark my 1000th post"?

cr2 wrote:Do OS-es to run on raw hardware?

Not necessarily. Sometimes they run only inside VMs. I think there's an argument to be made that an OS should at least be capable of running on raw hardware though.

Do they need kernels?

No, not really. DOS didn't really have a kernel per se.

Are Windows x.x, 9x Operating Systems, or are they just shells?

Yes, they are OSes. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about Windows out there. Here's my big long rant on the subject. Here's another one.

Are the so-called "Web OS"-es Operating Systems?

I don't think so...

Does FORTH count as an Operating System?

Maybe, if you're talking about a completely self-contained system (like a Lisp machine, but using Forth instead of Lisp).

Are Linux Distributions Operating Systems?

Yes. Why wouldn't they be?

Are exokernel OS-es OS-es?

Yes.

What is your Definition of an OS?

An OS is a software system that runs programs and manages the hardware resources used by those programs.

This thread was meant for opinions, as the definition of an Operating System is pretty variable.

Colonel Kernel wrote:

cr2 wrote:Do OS-es to run on raw hardware?

Not necessarily. Sometimes they run only inside VMs. I think there's an argument to be made that an OS should at least be capable of running on raw hardware though.

by "VM" do you mean "emulator"? I'd say that an OS running on an emulator is basically running on raw hardware.

Colonel Kernel wrote:

cr2 wrote: Are exokernel OS-es OS-es?

Yes.

hmmm.........
One could say differently. Exokernels don't provide any abstraction (this could push the borders of some definitions).

By VM, I meant running under virtualization like on modern x86 machines or old school IBM mainframes.

An exokernel by itself is not an OS (no kernel by itself is). In an exokernel-based system, the libOSes provide abstractions. My definition doesn't require abstraction though.

An operating system is there to:

a.) referee between different programs all vying for control of the same hardware
b.) share out processor time between programs all vying for control of the same processor
c.) provide services to application programs so that they don't have to do all the donkey work themselves
d.) if you include the shell in your definition of operating system, to allow users to perform basic tasks such as rename files, or load and run other programs