From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:22:32 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec10.174416.6266@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.204300.2620@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Dec7.235603.10397@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>>What I mean by "General purpose computer" is one intended for a general
>>>audience.  A "General purpose automobile" is not useful to you or me
>>>unless it has a windshield... sure it doesn't _need_ a Windsheild, but
>>>then it wouldn't be targeted to a general audience.  Likewise, the Apple II,
>>>C64, etc. was targeted to a general market... and in order for the
>>>perceived end-user to be able to use the system, there must be an operating
>>>system for it.
>>
>>So now you're trying to tell us that whether or not a computer has an
>>operating system is strictly determined by the AUDIENCE IT'S INTENDED
>>FOR?  It has nothing to do with the capability of the thing you're
>>talking about, nothing to do with whether it manages hardware
>>resources, nothing to do with ANYTHING except the audience of the
>>computer? 
>>
>>BWWAAAAAHHHAAAahhhhaaaaaahahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW, I didn't say "computers"--I said "General Purpose Computer" (ie. meant
>>>>>for more than one application to run on a particular hardware architecture--
>>>>>for more than one user).  Programmers of real-time embedded applications
>>>>>do not need to worry about reuse--since they can view the job as a one-shot
>>>>>affair; however, some (like myself) DO write "operating systems" for such
>>>>>work--because we know that eventually someone will want to do the same
>>>>>thing all over again.
>>>>
>>>>Programmers of real-time embedded applications don't need to worry
>>>>about reuse SINCE WHEN?  And what does 'reuse' have to do with
>>>>'operating system'?  The two concepts are basically unrelated.
>>
>>>Read the previous statement again.  They do not _need_ to worry about
>>>reuse because the job may be a one-shot affair... I also said that some
>>>of them _do_ worry about reuse.
>>
>>I don't think you understand what reuse is.  It has nothing to do with
>>an operating system.
>>

>As I said before, you seem to take literal "in-vogue" interpretations of
>words.  I tend to use english.  I now realize that your idea of "reuse"
>is the idea of reuse libraries, black-boxing, i.e., the support for a
>reuse library...  when I say "reuse" I mean, "re-use" as in:
> 
>    re: a prefix indicating repetition
>    use: to employ for some purpose

So, for Joe, using a piece of software (say a word processor) more
than a single time is 'reuse', since he employed it repeatedly for
some purpose.  Oh, except, of course, that it isn't the same word
processor, since it isn't a word processor until it is RUNNING ON THE
MACHINE (Joe has Created Its Instance).  So there can't be reuse by
restarting a piece of software.  Or running the same software on two
different processors.  Or any of a number of other things.  This
divorces the JOE.BAT interpretation of 'reuse' even further from ANY
common usage.

>i.e., this is a post, not a computer science dissertation for software
>engineering weenies--I attempt to use english rather than techno-babble.

Joe, when I talk about software, I use the vocabulary of software.
When I talk about hardware, I use the vocabulary of hardware.  And so
on.  This is known as 'communication' and helps prevent
misunderstandings.  Of course, it also obviates attempts like yours to
play semantic obfuscatory games, which I guess explains why you don't
try it. 

>>>What does an operating system have to do with re-use?  If you were designing
>>>an embedded system that had the same general hardware architecture, but
>>>was flexible enough to use for multiple applications (such as an I/O
>>>controller), it is more convenient to write a general "operating system"
>>>to make it easier to bridge the software/hardware boundary; for example,
>>>provide a routine to schedule polling of a PIA, or a routine to charge
>>>a circuit to move a meter--instead of the programmer having to rewrite
>>>common routines for each application, a specialized OS could save
>>>vast amounts of development time.
>>
>>What you're describing either isn't an operating system or it isn't
>>reuse.

>Remember that historically operating system software was written so that
>the operator didn't have to do repetitious work--to use computers to
>automate the using of computers.  Today, one of the main goals of an
>operating system is exactly the same thing.  For example, OS/2 and Windows
>are superior operating systems (than DOS) because they provide calls that
>handle graphics modes.  It isn't that a DOS-programmer *can't* use
>graphics under DOS, but that in order to do so, much of what he needs
>to do, someone else has done before for another DOS application.

Historically there weren't computers.  BFD.

>Even things that you and I take for granted (i.e., routines to find a file
>by file name) were once in the domain of the application programmer.

Once again, BFD.  And what makes you think I get to take those things
for granted?

>In this context, then, an operating system allows a programmer to ignore
>common, often hardware-dependent tasks, and get to the meat of the problem...
>it allows an embedded systems programmer to "re-use" ie. "re-apply" ie.
>"re-implement" (just to avoid misinterpretation on your part) the hardware.
>In the context of your car analogy, some of those systems _may_ have
>operating systems, but specialized operating systems not intended for the
>end user (i.e., you).

And in the context of Betty Crocker, it's all meaningless.  So what?


>>It's difficult to tell which of those is the case, given your
>>description.  IF what you are talking about above is a layer that
>>provides all the services to the hardware, and you then write
>>applications to talk to it instead of the hardware, that is not reuse.

>But it simplifies reusability of hardware (in the context above).  If 
>companies didn't think so, they'd be spending time writing their own
>disk access routines instead of just calling INT 21H...

>As you can see, much of our argument comes over your "technical" 
>misinterpretation of a word.  I am not talking about "reusing" software
>like an Ada programmer may "reuse" a routine.  I am talking about
>"reusing" hardware in the english sense: using it again for some other
>purpose.

No, much of our argument comes over my correct technical interpreation
of the word as opposed to your JOE.BAT interpretations.

>>You have written something that runs other programs on that particular
>>I/O controller.  IF what you are talking about is relinking the common
>>routines with new applications, THAT is 'reuse'.

>Reuse in your context has only relatively recently been coined.  I tend to
>use english when I'm attempting to use english.

Well, that's probably a good idea when you're talking ABOUT English;
when you're talking in a technical field, you are much better served
to use the vocabulary and usage of the people in that field.

[Remaining non-germane and meanigless drivel from JOE.BAT deleted.]
 set up not to receive mail from you.
>The scope of this discussion has gone way out of hand, fred.EXE,  if you wish
>to continue your blathering, please do so in email.

No thanks, Joe.  We played that game already, remember?  You just get
pissed and start bouncing mail.  Since the last time you played that
game, I've set my account up to refuse to accept mail from you.  I
have no interest in your stupid little games.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy