Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200209125224.5d533471>