Sorry about the double link. The link should have been to the "Lisp Machine" article.
Well, if we are to take your POV, that because disassemblers take binary
code and convert that into a more easily understood language they don't qualify
as an OS, then every Os fails your test. Or perhaps I'm not following your point
with that unusual and erroneous comment source. As pretty much most binary code
is represented as hexadecimal not octal. In fact, every OS does not run it's
native instruction set, not even assembler.
Computers only understand
binary, but the binary instruction set is not the OS. The OS is the interface
between the instruction set and hardware and user land programs. The OS may be
composed of a kernel and drivers, and low level communications, and other
features. I'm not going to go into deep detail on OS design and composition.
Something which you apparently aren't up to speed on. You can disagree
and say Wikipedia is not authoritative. But if you are going to dispute the
evidence please provide links of your own which refute it. Prove your point.
Talking about disassemblers which are used to translate binary/bytecode into a
human readable form says nothing about whether something is or is not an OS.
Find me an article, at least as authoritative as Wikipedia, that says that the
OS on a LISP Machine is not a LISP OS, does not run a LISP OS and/ or there is
no such thing as a LISP OS. In other words, I've shown you my proof. Where's
Please stop offering personal opinion as fact.
Bare metal LISP OS
agree with you that just because a language is used to make an OS, does not make
a language an OS. However, it is the common terminology to refer to OSes written
in LISP designed to run LISP as a LISP OS. Hence my initial use of the term the
"LISP OS". LISP is a language, but a LISP OS is a LISP OS, it has no other
commonly accepted industry name. LISP OSes go back decades before Apple started
the Taligent OS project, But if you must insist on denying the "LISP OS" it's
rightful place as an early multitasking OO OS, then I submit the NeXTSTEP OS
(1988), as proof that Apple's claim of a patent for a multitaksing OO OS is
basless. Although it was a latecomer (yet beautiful design), and everyone was
working on the next great multitasking OO OS, at the time. From which both OS X
and iOS descend.
My point being and still is "Apple didn't invent squat
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]