decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You are mistaken | 101 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You are mistaken
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT

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 yours? Please stop offering personal opinion as fact.

Lisp OS
Bare metal LISP OS

I 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 here".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )