Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 12:52:24 +0100 From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re updating BIOS Message-ID: <20200209125224.5d533471@archlinux> In-Reply-To: <20200209111339.6e42f4b8.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <202002090809.01989xgi025440@sdf.org> <20200209084111.8d9764a128bab47ee1c19a86@sohara.org> <20200209111339.6e42f4b8.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 08:41:11 +0000, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >[MS/PC/DR/Free]DOS was a lot more like a mainframe batch >operating system than a multi-user multi-tasking operating system such >as Multics or unix, but hijacking the term operating system to mean >only the latterm, and that only with hardware supported isolation >mechanisms is revisionist. On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 11:13:39 +0100, Polytropon wrote: >Personally, I'd say that understanding DOS (for the PC) as an >operating system is valid, sure, with limited capabilities, >but seen in the context of the time it was developed and used, >it surely fulfilled the critera usually used in the microcomputer >and PC area. Hi, I still disagree with Scott. IMO Steve and Polytropon put it straight. Is a biological virus (not a computer virus) a form of life or a thing? It depends on the definition of living things and things, as well as the understanding of different kinds of viruses. To me the "importance" and the "impact" in a historical context are part of a definition. To me MS- and DR-DOS are operating systems and to me a biological virus is a life form, even while I'm aware, that a virus doesn't fit to almost all definitions of a life form. Regards, Ralf
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200209125224.5d533471>