From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:19:36 GMT

In <1992Nov18.184602.13761@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.105730.27496@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>

The following was apparently originally aimed at me, but I didn't get
the original post.

>>>Gee, stop your idiotic blabbing--you are very quick to say that I make up
>>>my own definitions, yet you never post what yours are.  OK, Mr. Wizard,
>>>what is an Operating System?  What is a Computer System? What is
>>>a System?  Answer or shut up (I'm tired of these uneducated, closed-minded
>>>posts).  BTW.  Before you even try to blast me about what I mean by
>>>"operating SYSTEM" <--- same emphasis as my previous post...
>>
>>>System  (sis-tem), n.  1.  An assemblage or combination of things or parts
>>>forming a complex or unitary whole.
>>
>>>		       Random House College Dictionary.
>>
>>>Okay, Spassky, your move.

Let me get this straight.  You're using HALF the phrase FROM A
DICTIONARY DEFINITION to arrive at you obviously incorrect definition
of 'operating system' and you categorize what *I* say as "idiotic
blabbing"?   BWwwwaaahhaaaahaaaaahaaaa!

In case you haven't figured it out yet, Joe, you can't use a college
dictionary to get definitive definitions of technical phrases.

>>
>>Well, I'm not Spassky, but I'll move anyway. If you were to change the
>>phrase "operating system" into "computer system" you're right. Cause

>No, actually if you consider that no matter which textbook you reference--an
>operating system is *software* that accomplishes x,y,z functions--then an
>OS, being a "system" can be thought of as an assemblage of *software* that
>forms a "complex or unitary whole" (implied: to perform the functions of
>an OS).  Therefore an "operating system" only includes software (the drivers,
>the APIs, etc.) whereas a "computer system" includes both hardware and 
>software.

Semi-true so far.  However, not all software is part of the operating
system.  Certain low-level hardware specific things most definitely
are NOT part of the operating system -- they are part of the hardware
architecture the COMPUTER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.

>As I said, for DOS, the BIOS is definitely part of the "operating system."

Well, you said that, but that doesn't make it true.  And it isn't.
The microcode in the CPU is software -- is it part of the operating
system?  Not hardly.

>Is it a part of OS/2?  Only to boot--unless it is used for something else,
>such as a DOS VM window (which I am not certain it is).  Is the BIOS software?



>As I stated before, lots of people argue if firmware is hardware or software.
>If it is hardware, then the BIOS is NOT part of the operating system (but
>part of the "computer system")--if it's software, then the BIOS can be 
>considered part of DOS.  

It could also be considered part of a moose, wehther it's software or
not.  However, considering it such doesn't make it a fact.

>I, being more a code slinger than a solder
>shooter, consider the BIOS software, and therefore part of the OS.

Sorry, no cigar.  The BIOS is specific to the ARCHITECTURE, not the
operating system.  What do you consider the microcode inside the CPU?
Are we to believe that that is part of DOIS as well?

>>that's what you appear to be referencing here. You seem to argue that
>>the components that make the system work are part of that system. Well,
>>that depends on what system you're considering. You say that the operating
>>system is the collection of parts that let the apps use the hardware.

>I say that an operating SYSTEM is a collection of *software* parts that let
>the apps use the hardware (I am not trying to change the textbook definition
>of an OS, all of which agree that an OS is software)....

Generally true, but FIRMWARE is not considered part of the operating
system (unless the whole operating system is blown into a PROM or
something. 

>>If so, you would have to include the hardware in that. Dos uses the
>>BIOS and that makes it part of DOS you say, now I ask you, where does
>>the D in DOS stand for? 

>... so therefore I cannot include "hardware" in that--since THAT would
>change the definition of an operating system.

So what about the microcode?  [Are you tired of hearing that yet?]

>>Or, early IBM machines had the Basic interpreter
>>included in the BIOS, does that make Basic part of DOS? If it does,
>>I have a deficient DOS cause I never had Basic on it. And what about

>And if you were using those DOS utilities (BASIC and BASICA), yes you would
>have a deficient DOS.  Now, of course, DOS doesn't depend on the BASIC
>ROMs, so therefore the BASIC ROMs are no longer a part of DOS... as it's
>running.

Ok, now BASIC is part of DOS (actually, it's an application that runs
using DOS).

>>the BIOS on the video card, or the harddisk controler? Are they all
>>part of DOS. Clearly not. DOS uses them because they are there, as

>Are drivers a part of OS/2?  The BIOS on a video card functions identically
>to a software driver loaded from disk.

Drivers are 'software' -- even so, they aren't 'part' of the operating
system, per se -- they are device drivers FOR the operating system for
a specific piece of hardware.

>>it uses the microcode on the CPU. The Operating System nucleus is the
>>first layer above the architecture it is built on (generally the hardware)

>And again, we reach a semantical issue: is the BIOS software or hardware?

The BIOS is software, but it is NOT part of the operating system.

>>and the architecture DOS was built on is the IBM PC, a machine
>>consisting of a 8086 CPU, several parts for the interrupt mechanism,
>>an io controler, a data bus and a BIOS to provide an interface to the
>>hardware then available.
>>That is the architecture.

>Then why does DOS work on AT&T BIOSless machines?  But the DOS applications that
>rely on techniques taught in the Waite Group's Programming MS-DOS book
>break on such systems?

>>DOS is a piece of software to be loaded from disk to provide an
>>abstraction from the hardware so users can load applications, manipulate
>>files and use the harware to their avail.
>>That is the operating system called DOS.

>Correct.  A good OS should insulate the programmer from the lower software 
>layers.  But is it not still valid to design an OS that doesn't perform
>such insulation--in other words, to make the BIOS API an inherent part of
>DOS?

No.  DOS can be written TO the BIOS, but that doesn't make the BIOS
part of DOS.

>>To seperate pieces, combined together being a useful computer system.

>Or the software parts into an Operating System.  Semantics:  Is the BIOS
>software or hardware?

All 'software parts' aren't in the operating system.  The BIOS is
software, and not a part of the operating system.

>>
>>To say it once again, the BIOS is not part of DOS, is not part of OS2,
>>is not part of Xenix, is not part of Linux, is not part of BSD386,
>>is not part of ...

>This is only true, again, if you do not consider the BIOS a piece of software.

Nonesense.  Your contention is only true if you say that any software
that has to do with hardware is part of the operating system.  So, if
I write a game under DOS that bypasses DOS and the BIOS and goes
directly to the hardware for video output, is that game now part of
DOS (or is DOS now part of the game)?  In no case is that game an
'operating system', even though it bypasses one portion of the
operating system. 

>>It is part of the PC architecture.
>>
>>

>So is DOS, so is OS/2, so is Windows.  

NONSENSE!  Installable software, whether it is an operating system or
not, is NOT part of a hardware platform architecture.

>I believe (as I said before in a 
>previous post) that the issue of the BIOS being a part of OS/2 is not
>quite clear since OS/2 "uses" the BIOS only to boot (and I am uncertain if
>OS/2 depends on the BIOS to perform DOS windows).  But the BIOS is 
>definitely part of the DOS architecture--which is why DOS software breaks
>if the BIOS is not very close to 100% PC compliant.

The phrase 'DOS architecture' is semantically null.  Software doesn't
have an 'architecture' -- it RUNS on one.

>>>>
>>>>Yes, the BIOS *IS* the same, but by your definitions, one of DOS and
>>>>OS/2 must be 'better' because you can make more money with it.
>>>>Therefore, using your 'bent' definitions of 'best', the one you can
>>>>make the most money with must have the 'best' BIOS, even though they
>>>>are in fact identical.
>>
>>>I have never said that one BIOS is better than another (gawd, do you need to
>>>take reading lessons too? :)  I simply said that they are a foundation (or
>>>at least in use by) standard PC operating systems; DOS uses the BIOS
>>>extensively, OS/2 uses it to boot.  The argument hasn't been which OS has the
>>>"best" BIOS--but rather, whether the BIOS can be thought of as part of an
>>>operating system.  You must be thinking of another thread (or not thinking
>>>at all)...  :-)

Certainly.  Since your definition of 'best' devolves to financial
advantage for Joe Discar, surely the decision that OS/2 or Windows is
'best' also says that the BIOS (which you claim is part of them) must
also be 'best'.

>Right.  But as I said, since OS/2 only uses the BIOS to boot, the 
>classification isn't clear.  However, if it depends on the BIOS after it
>boots, then the BIOS is part of OS/2.  There is a simple test for this,
>of course, simply disable the select line on the BIOS ROM after OS/2
>has booted--and if it still runs without fail, and OS/2 applications
>don't break, then the BIOS is NOT part of OS/2.

Gee, simply rip the microcode out of the CPU and see what runs.  That
microcode must then be part of the operating system.  Except, of
course, that it isn't.

Another question for you, just to see if we can get you to think about
this issue.  Suppose I implement a clone of the 80386 CPU entirely
using PALs.  Now EVERYTHING is 'software'.  Is the computer now part
of the operating system?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.