Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Sep 2008 20:55 UTC, submitted by Punktyras
Google With all the recent hype surrounding Google's Chrome, it's refreshing to see someone taking a few steps back and looking at the bigger picture. Superlatives were abound about Chrome (I personally really like it), but some people really took it overboard - take TechCrunch for instance: "Chrome is nothing less than a full on desktop operating system that will compete head on with Windows." Seeing my nationality, I know a tulip mania when I see one. So does Ted Dziuba.
Thread beginning with comment 329800
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The fallacy of the OS
by egarland on Tue 9th Sep 2008 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The fallacy of the OS"
Member since:

No. I'm talking about game consoles. Nintendo, Playstation, Sega Genesis, etc. They bootstrap directly into the application. Sometimes there are common libraries used by the games and routines provided by the manufacturer but since they aren't common across all games and each game ships with its own possibly different version they can be considered part of the application, not an OS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kristalsoldier Member since:
2008-09-09 theoretically then it is possible to have computers without an OS. So, how practical would it be to have computers without an OS to do the kind of mundane tasks that we do everyday?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: The fallacy of the OS
by sorpigal on Tue 9th Sep 2008 20:04 in reply to "RE[4]: The fallacy of the OS"
sorpigal Member since:

In that case each game implements its own customized operating system.

If I take the Linux kernel and port it to my cell phone, then customize it to do just what I need, then add all of my phone functions as kernel modules, what do I have? Is it an application or an OS?

Same thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kristalsoldier Member since:

Hmmm...OK. I see I am wrong. It is indeed impossible for the computer to function without an OS. Now the question is whether this is only possible paradigm for conceiving computers. Have there been any attempts (albeit failed attempts) to design non-OS dependent computers? Or, is that a contradiction in terms in the sense that a computer by default implies the presence of an OS?

Thanks in advance for bearing with these possibly naive questions.

Reply Parent Score: 1