No OS? No Problem!

[Psumi]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10448883-16.html?tag=mncol

if there's no OS, what does it become?

Windows 3.1 was just a DOS Shell that allowed a GUI interface to DOS... so what about removing DOS and just having the shell?

That's a big idea.

[Bachstelze]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10448883-16.html?tag=mncol

if there's no OS, what does it become?

Windows 3.1 was just a DOS Shell that allowed a GUI interface to DOS... so what about removing DOS and just having the shell?

That's a big idea.

Do you even know what an OS is in the first place?

[Psumi]

Do you even know what an OS is in the first place?

Nope.

[Bachstelze]

Nope.

Well, if there's no OS, there's a big problem: your computer will not work. ;) Sure, having an OS that stays away from the sight of the user so he (the user) only sees actual applications, is an idea worth discussing, but there is a big difference between that and "No OS™".

[audiomick]

Nope.
To put it another way (and split a few hairs...) the OS (operating system) is the thing that tells the computer it is a computer; in a way it is the computer. Any application that "does away with" the OS and runs the hardware itself becomes, by definition, the OS.

Keeping the OS out of sight of the user is all well and good, but some of the ideas expressed in the article that you linked to are exactly that which I do not want to happen, e.g. internet based applications.

I also don't really understand the point about file systems. My computer is for storing and administering information. How should that be possible without having to deal with the file system?

[Psumi]

Yeah, Internet based apps are not something I want to deal with mainstream and whatnot. I like my files, apps, etc. on my computer, not elsewhere.

[MicrosoftFan]

I'm not sure if this is what to OP was meaning but yeah it seems like wanting to go back to the pre-Win95 days.

[dragos240]

Well, you don't really need an OS to operate. You can just run applications compiled for your architecture. I however, need an OS.

[Ylon]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10448883-16.html?tag=mncol

if there's no OS, what does it become?

Windows 3.1 was just a DOS Shell that allowed a GUI interface to DOS... so what about removing DOS and just having the shell?

That's a big idea.

By sure OS is going to evolve.

Thanks to linux you can boot a whole OS (with driver and everything inside it) from a little usb flash disk (the kind you can plug in some videoplayer too!). So, start a whole OS with just the software(s) you need should be easy (and very fast) with a simple reboot!
IE: with a flash usb you can boot a videogame like in '90~'00 consoles (portable usb nowdays reach about 128GiB.. far more than actual blue ray disks!)
http://999sales.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Kingston-128GB-USB-Flash-Drive.268211208_std.jpg

Not to die.. but to evolve for OSes!

[The Real Dave]

Well, if there's no OS, there's a big problem: your computer will not work. ;) Sure, having an OS that stays away from the sight of the user so he (the user) only sees actual applications, is an idea worth discussing, but there is a big difference between that and "No OS™".

Wait, you mean they do something other than say "No Boot Device" and sit there whirring softly?....Here was me thinking they were for relaxation :) ;)

[bruno9779]

Basically you are saying that you'd rather have stand-alone apps instead that having them integrated in an OS?

The idea is not revolutionary, it is the definition of a CONSOLE.

intellevision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellivision) was already doing pretty much that in ... 1982.

PS: I felt so irritated reading that stuff:
An Apple guy telling the FOSS community to became just an Apple clone...

This guy is amazing, he has just described the only possible occurrence under which, I WOULD LEAVE LINUX AND GO BACK TO *******!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fatality_uk]

And it would work perfectly, right up until your application hung and then your have to reboot the machine!!

[Skripka]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10448883-16.html?tag=mncol

if there's no OS, what does it become?

Windows 3.1 was just a DOS Shell that allowed a GUI interface to DOS... so what about removing DOS and just having the shell?

That's a big idea.

Articles on Cnet are about as ridiculous as articles on Cnet.

[ramblinche81]

Articles on Cnet are about as ridiculous as articles on Cnet.

Skripka...don't you think the author of the article holds some provenance ? COO of Canonical ? He might be a person of interest to listen to ideas regarding how OS and devices will evolve in the future.

Exactly as the article described, some hard ware oriented people are hung up on the OS and can't even conceptualize an OS free device.

How many printer drivers, printer connections interfaces etc do I need to play a game ?

Do I need a matrix file system....when I create a spreadsheet, save the file inside the app as an object. When I create a document, save the object.

Windows/Apple and even recent modifications of Linux were meant to allow information to pass from application to application IF needed.

Can you see the forest for the trees ?

[Skripka]

Skripka...don't you think the author of the article holds some provenance ? COO of Canonical ? He might be a person of interest to listen to ideas regarding how OS and devices will evolve in the future.

Exactly as the article described, some hard ware oriented people are hung up on the OS and can't even conceptualize an OS free device.

How many printer drivers, printer connections interfaces etc do I need to play a game ?

Do I need a matrix file system....when I create a spreadsheet, save the file inside the app as an object. When I create a document, save the object.

Windows/Apple and even recent modifications of Linux were meant to allow information to pass from application to application IF needed.

Can you see the forest for the trees ?

I cared about, and took seriously, anything anyone affiliated with CNet said until they got bought out a few years ago by CBS. They rapidly went to the dogs. Then they became a bunch of hack writers, seldom informed on anything they write about-more interested in filling column inches than content.

I don't care if he recently became COO of Canonical. The fact that he has been, and still is a writer at CNet for a long time is a BIG blackmark in my eyes. IIRC, he has been writing "articles" for CNet since before Ubuntu was even on the map.

They preach about revolution this and revolution that...with NO regard for what is actually usable. Touchscreens, for example, are neat things. Yes. But they have very little practicle and professional use-apart from neat demos on NCIS:Miami. "Post-OS era" indeed. Same old same old CNet garbage.

[bruno9779]

...
Do I need a matrix file system....when I create a spreadsheet, save the file inside the app as an object. When I create a document, save the object...

I see your zen approach about this.

If you change all OS related words with general sounding ones, (eg. file > object) and deny the existence of that piece of software that deals with the machine,

then and only then you will have an "OS-free" evironment.

[ubunterooster]

it IS an os; they just change the idea somewhat and the name completely

[MasterNetra]

Hey I'm all for GUI OS>Kernal>Hardware instead of GUI>DOS>Kernal...assuming windows 95 and above even works like the latter. O.o Never did care enough before to investigate I suppose...

[ramblinche81]

Have to disagree on touch screens....very very useful in industrial or institutional settings for USERS.

Maybe not for programmers, but end users really benefit from a heads up connection to the system.

[wirepuller134]

Agreed on the touch screens, we use several Lenovo tablets in the field now, and install Red Lion and Allan Bradley touch screens on a daily basis.

[baddog144]

EDIT: Everything I just said was stupid.

[Khakilang]

DOS is an OS. It is also known as Disc Operating System.

[Quake]

DOS is an OS. It is also known as Disc Operating System.

Nah, Dos was formerly knows as QDOS, in other word "Quick and Dirty Operating System".

So there you go, Microsoft's empire came from that operating system. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/169706/MS-DOS

P.S. The link is from the respected Britannica encyclopaedia and not wikipedia.

[ramblinche81]

It is less about changing names of functions and making the OS nearly invisible to the user.

When you turn on a generic phone, how aware are you an OS is loading ?
When you turn on a smart phone, how aware are you an OS is loading ?

Is it possible for pc to function with no apparent OS ?

Do so called apps, really need an OS or can they load their own mini OS to fully function.

If you were a software developer, wouldn't you love the idea of breaking away from dependency on proprietary OS and being able to load your own OS inside the app ?

[cammin]

It is less about changing names of functions and making the OS nearly invisible to the user.

When you turn on a generic phone, how aware are you an OS is loading ?
When you turn on a smart phone, how aware are you an OS is loading ?
Aware in both cases, with the exception that the smart phone might tell me what OS it's using.


Is it possible for pc to function with no apparent OS ?
Yes, I lived through the 80's and experienced it firsthand.


Do so called apps, really need an OS or can they load their own mini OS to fully function.
Do so called apps really need to provide their own OS to fully function? Or should common functions not have to be constantly re-implemented.


If you were a software developer, wouldn't you love the idea of breaking away from dependency on proprietary OS and being able to load your own OS inside the app ?
If I were developing apps, I'd rather write apps, not operating systems. Or I could just develop a common environment for apps to run in and sell it to others to put their apps on top of. I heard of some guy making billions of dollars doing that.

[Spiritous]

DOS was an epic win :)

[YeOK]

He's not talking about removing the OS, he's just taking about hiding it away. An OS's major use is to exist as a layer between the hardware and your applications. Without it, it would become impossible to interact with all the hardware choices we now have.

[Skripka]

It is less about changing names of functions and making the OS nearly invisible to the user.

When you turn on a generic phone, how aware are you an OS is loading ?
When you turn on a smart phone, how aware are you an OS is loading ?

Is it possible for pc to function with no apparent OS ?

Do so called apps, really need an OS or can they load their own mini OS to fully function.

If you were a software developer, wouldn't you love the idea of breaking away from dependency on proprietary OS and being able to load your own OS inside the app ?

No. It would be utter chaos. A desktop tower or laptop and a smartphone are two completely different entities, with completely different purposes, with completely different capabilities.

Why should Gimp or Gwenview or OpenOffice each need to implement common functions-necessitating bulk and bloat? A phone's primary function is to make calls, and do a few other niche things (none of them particularly well normally) in order to help sell them. A computer's primary purpose is to get work done, surf the internet, and perhaps play games.

Smartphone OSes are GREAT if all you need is a GameBoy and a phone. For ACTUAL work they are clumsy and get in the way.


The only reason OSes aren't "invisible" to the user already, is because people are conditioned to the Windows and OSX way of doing things. You can have a very out of the way linux OS now-if you customize it how you want it.

[NovaAesa]

If you remove the OS, what will manage resources on the computer? What is going to deal out portions of memory, diskspace, network access, CPU time, etc? Programming applications without an underlying OS would be like murder... it's hard enough to program embedded systems, and those systems are usually very very simple compared to what can be achieved on a more conventional architecture.

[ramblinche81]

No. It would be utter chaos. A desktop tower or laptop and a smartphone are two completely different entities, with completely different purposes, with completely different capabilities.

Why should Gimp or Gwenview or OpenOffice each need to implement common functions-necessitating bulk and bloat? A phone's primary function is to make calls, and do a few other niche things (none of them particularly well normally) in order to help sell them. A computer's primary purpose is to get work done, surf the internet, and perhaps play games.

Smartphone OSes are GREAT if all you need is a GameBoy and a phone. For ACTUAL work they are clumsy and get in the way.


The only reason OSes aren't "invisible" to the user already, is because people are conditioned to the Windows and OSX way of doing things. You can have a very out of the way linux OS now-if you customize it how you want it.



I won't dive into some of the hardware details because that is well outside my day to day skillset. I do understand how IRQ and memory assignments must coordinate between CONFLICTING entities within a device. That's what DOS and even Apple's initial OS's began as ..system and resource allocation managers. I remember the day when IRQ were assigned manually when hardware was installed.

Now the OS has mini apps (firewall, user/profiles, hardware PnP capture, etc etc) built in. How much of Win XP/Vista/7 is true resource manager and how much is built in mini apps ?

Your comment a phone and PC are different is not quite accurate.

They are both tools. Both have voice/data capabilities, both have input systems and display screens with navigation needs. And both have underlying hardware technologies supporting the user applications.

Other than portability, their isn't a whole lot of end user functional difference...except a PC is easily modified to carry out alternative roles, functions etc. which the OS then has to manage hardware assignments. The more complexity added to the tool, the more complex the underlying architecture to support must be in place.

I go back to OP premise....is it possible to create a device and apps which don't rely on a end user visible or end user managed OS ? That is different question than is it a good idea for the marketplace.

[Bungo Pony]

And it would work perfectly, right up until your application hung and then your have to reboot the machine!!

That's fine, I did that on my C-64 which booted in about 4 seconds. Everytime a program would go screwy, just shut the computer off and turn it back on. Didn't have to worry about buggering up the file system because the OS was stored on a chip in the floppy drive.

[Frak]

And it would work perfectly, right up until your application hung and then your have to reboot the machine!!
Again, hide the OS. If an application crashed, it could be handled by the Application subsystem, like how Windows manages applications (load them into a W32 subsystem, and if an application crashes, unload the partition of memory it sits in).