|
Sorry for the long post--
The definition on dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=operating%20system[^]
while not necessarily either accurate, complete, or good, is at least a starting point:
<operating system=""> (OS) The low-level software which handles
the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks,
allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the
user when no application program is running.
Key phrases here are "low level", "interface to hardware", "a default interface when no application program is running".
The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present
and various system programs which use facilities provided by
the kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often
acting as servers in a client-server relationship.
"kernel", "system programs" and "house keeping"
Some would include a graphical user interface and window
system as part of the OS, others would not. The operating
system loader, BIOS, or other firmware required at boot
time or when installing the operating system would generally
not be considered part of the operating system, though this
distinction is unclear in the case of a rommable operating
system such as RISC OS.
"...others would not" I fall into the this camp. Why is the UI/windowing system part of the OS? Performance? Security? Intimate coupling with the hardware layer?
The facilities an operating system provides and its general
design philosophy exert an extremely strong influence on
programming style and on the technical cultures that grow up
around the machines on which it runs.
Now there's the rub. What facilities does the OS provide that exert an influence over the design of the browser? Multi-threading and security are obvious choices (I think!), but what else? I like this last paragraph because it recognizes the holistic nature of the OS and application elements.
If you consider UI/windowing to be integral with the OS, and you want to implement your UI so that the features of a browser are seemlessly integrated with the UI (are we all going to be programming UI's using some common HTML-like derivative in the future? Is that where we're all heading?) then it seems to me that the "browser" would be integrated with the OS.
But I personally think that the core OS should have nothing to do with the UI. You should be able to attach to the OS whatever UI you want, constrained only by the services provided by the OS. Of course, this is the antithesis of trying to monopolize a market, even if it's the right solution from an engineering point of view.
Another consideration is the difference in hardware platforms. I think we'll see a continuing growth in hand-held devices, and hopefully growth in smart appliances (like refrigerators, ovens, toasters, houses, cars, etc.) What a PITA if each of these has a different OS and we're a company trying to write some system-wide intrahome (note first possible use of that term!) management software. I mean really different OS's, not just pared down from a common OS. Each of those devices/appliances pretty much demands a UI tailored to the functionality of the specific device. If you buy into the argument that the OS influences the programming style/technology, then the way each device interacts with us will be different. Subtely different, and therefore the more aggravating in its differences.
So you have two opposing forces--the OS influences the UI via the programming style/technology, and the use-model influences the UI. I don't see a need for my oven to have browser capability. What, you think my oven needs an RSS feed for recipes or my garbage can needs a BLOG for the latest in recycling? (Maybe you do).
Because these two opposing forces exist, the UI needs to be decoupled from the OS, and the browser should be built as a separate entity.
Marc
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"
|
|
|
|
|
I could not agree more with the points you make!
Marc Clifton wrote:
the core OS should have nothing to do with the UI
Although what you say is obvious and is in the dictionary, many people simply do not understand modularity.
As an example, think of an everyday office. If you said to the database guy 'please replace the Access database with MySQL', he would reply 'I cannot find the ui designer'. Madness  But this is the way people think unless they have some sort of formal training or have a lot of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
The hooks should be exposed so that different browsing components can be plugged in. An operating system shouldn't be a monolithic application, but a series of components that can be replaced by any developer.
It's a dream, I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this
Unix? Linux?
Alas, I fear the herd mentality precludes this event from ever transpiring.
Marc
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of an Object oriented OS. Unix and Linux don't really have that.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of an Object oriented OS. Unix and Linux don't really have that.
In the programming sense of "object oriented", you're right. But in a componentized sense - well, Unix and Linux *do* have that. Most pieces of the OS are fairly independent, and can be changed, modified, started and restopped without having to reboot the whole system, etc.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
What about HAL, PNP, UPNP
I remember in the olg good days that windows was famous in favor to its quasi unlimited number of recognized hardware. still right and more and more forgotten. ingratitude.
the problem is not only to activate and reboot is also to install and recognize. and i don't thing a lot of user like to compile the kernel
http://msntv.com
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
Most pieces of the OS are fairly independent, and can be changed, modified, started and restopped without having to reboot the whole system, etc.
Oh I wouldn't say that...most software packages for Linux say something like: "Requires XLib 1.5.2252.8956, MySQL 0.9.4452.6799, KDE 1.8.4092.6742, etc.." Yes, it's an exaggeration...but you get my point.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard rumours that the next os(longhorn) is highly componentized, but I think its from the OEM perspective rather than developer perspective.
I think this is already done for Win CE.
Kannan
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
The hooks should be exposed so that different browsing components can be plugged in. An operating system shouldn't be a monolithic application, but a series of components that can be replaced by any developer.
It's a dream, I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this.
They are building it[^]
Kant wrote:
Actually she replied back to me "You shouldn't fix the bug. You should kill it"
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
but a series of components that can be replaced by any developer.
Rumor has it Longhorn is going to be way more componentized than anything so far.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
It's a dream, I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this.
M$ back in '94 mentioned Cairo, "A true OO O/S" - it never happened with stuck with a mish-mash of NT/2000 and XP with a sub standard gui slapped on top, bits of DLL's, bits of COM and now version(s) of .net - what more could you ask for? 
To iterate is human, to recurse is devine.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what was exact the reason to make such deep integration between
IE and OS, but since they did it - it was some of them.
In the same time Internet became part of our routinely life - so why it could not be part of OS ????
|
|
|
|
|
notepad is os part too (i know well not so integrated) but i like to replace it by something more usable and surely not buy new os after something new in file format will appear
t!
|
|
|
|
|
Well one simple answer to that is choice.
IE is undoubtedly a very good browser, but I use Mozilla Firebird because it gives me something that IE doesn't, something that greatly enhances my browsing experience : Tabbed windows.
It's also slightly faster to load, even though IE uses tricks to try to speed itself up, and it's skinnable, extendable and it seems to me to render pages slightly faster.
|
|
|
|
|
In case of tabbed windows you can use Avanta or NetCaptor.
It is an IEs, but with improved user interface. Skinnable and all other
stuff ... Or even here you can find some IE-based browsers with extended
user interface.
|
|
|
|
|
OK Anton, there are solutions that I have never heard of, that use IE to do some of the features that I want. There are plenty of other features in other browsers that IE doesn't implement, too many to list.
I won't be drawn into a silly tit-for-tat discussion of individual features, point is IE itself is not the nirvana of browsers in the same way that notepad is not the best editor by far (another tool that I never use). I also don't use the windows calculator as I prefer the features of the one in my desk drawer, I don't use the windows clock as I use the one on my wall, and I don't use the MS-DOS based command prompt as I prefer to use Cygwin.
I have no problem with MS distributing a vanilla browser with the OS, but there is no other tool that they push you towards so much, with the explicit intention of destroying the competition. I would probably be happier if I thought IE was standards compliant, but as we all know Microsoft like to run rough-shod over standards and websites that use non-standard IE features are shutting the door on something like 40% of users.
|
|
|
|
|
AntonS wrote:
In the same time Internet became part of our routinely life - so why it could not be part of OS ????
I noticed you said the Internet became part of our routinely life, not Internet Explorer became part of of your routinely life.
Deep integration into the OS is bad because IE is not an Operating System. IE is a program that runs within an operating system
Matt Newman
|
|
|
|
|
I think the TechNet Chat discussion illustrates the problem of basing your app on the IE component. Your app can cease to function if Microsoft decide to change the behaviour in the next version of Windows and you have no control over that. That's seems to have happened... Windows 2003 has different security settings. There is a solution to this... if you just need HTML rendering use Mozilla, you can distribute your application as you wish, with no dependancy on anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is that mshtml.dll is very buggy. A lot of tags combination
crashes/hung it. At least in IE they put try-catch blocks, but in Outlook Express forgot  ( And millions exploits arise .......
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
