home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!sun4nl!dutrun!donau!dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl!linstee
- From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
- Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
- Message-ID: <1992Nov06.095739.28476@donau.et.tudelft.nl>
- Sender: news@donau.et.tudelft.nl (UseNet News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl
- Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
- References: <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <7714@lib.tmc.edu> <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> <7725@lib.tmc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 09:57:39 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
-
- >In article <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
- >>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
- >>>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
- >>Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
- >>I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
- >>a modern OS.
-
- >Provide sources for both of those, please. In particular, concurrency: Nobody
-
- On the protection bit, Lister, Fundamentels of operating systems,
- though I do not have my copy handy so I can't give more details.
- I only said concurrency should be included, thereby implying it
- isn't (yet).
-
- >argued about whether or not OS/360 PCP, a single-tasking version of OS/360,
- >was an OS.
-
- See above
-
- >Protecting itself from an ill-behaved application is something a good OS
- >*should* have, but it's hardly a requirement.
-
- Well, maybe defenitions disagree on this then.
-
-
- --
- Erik van Linstee | Delft University of Technology | I'll be back ...
- ----
- We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
- in our holy brains... (Yello)
-