Subj : Re: Copy to file or directory? Help? Calling MS-Dos? To : E.S.Fabian From : meirman Date : Mon Feb 04 2002 01:23 am From: meirman@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (meirman) Subject: Re: Copy to file or directory? Help? Calling MS-Dos? From: meirman In comp.os.msdos.4dos on Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:59:11 GMT "E.S.Fabian" posted: >"Outsider" wrote in message news:3C5D6116.8FE5E03C@yahoo.com... >> E. S. (Steve) Fabian wrote: >> > >> > nonvalid_email@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > >> > > Just because you can replace part of the OS does not mean the replaced >> > > part is not a part of the OS. This is illogical. Replace command.com >> > > with 4DOS and it is no longer MSDOS, but 4DOS. No software producer >> > > will support an altered version of thir product. All guarantees, if >> > > any, will be null and void. >> > > >> > > It seems many 4DOS users see it otherwise. I suggest you an experiment >> > > as in the example above and decide for yourself. There is no room for >> > > discussion in this group on this particular topic. Just form your own >> > > opinion. >> > >> > This cowardly author, who uses varying psedonyms, including those of >> > famous personalities, but refuses to provide his or her own name, >> >> So you think there is only one person in the world called Bruce >> Springsteen?? >> >> >> > refuses to accept what a freshmen of Computer Science and of Software >> > Egnioneering are taught, and is also published by Microsoft Press, the >> > "Microsoft MS-DOS PROGRAMMER'S REFERENCE The Official Technical >> > Reference to MS-DOS", quoted below (thanks to scannner and OCR): >> ...snipped >> >> > I hope that this direct quotation from Microsoft's own documentation >> > will put to bed the issue of what is and what is not part of the MS-DOS >> > operating system. Note also that eraly IBM PCs could be started without >> > any operating system, running ROM-based BASIC, and were able to access >> > all peripherals, including getting a disk directory. I don't see how it said one way or the other. >> No. It proves you are either not an adult or not a very mature person. > >How about a straw vote: who thinks Microsoft's own documentation as quoted in my earlier correspondence correctly excludes command >processors from being part of the Operating System proper, and who thinks that Outsider's contrary opinion is correct, i.e., if it >is included in the distribution, such as GORILLA.BAS, NIBBLES.BAS, it is part of the OS? Outsider didn't say that! Even if the rest of your case were strong, you could ruin it with this line alone. R.A.G, you fell for what Steve *said* outsider's opinion was. You shouldn't do that any more than one should believe what one politician says other politician says. Regarding a previous comment by someone: >I suggest you an experiment >as in the example above and decide for yourself. There is no room for >discussion in this group on this particular topic. Just form your own >opinion. If I can form my own opinion aobut this, there certainly is room for discussion here. In fact that's all the more reason. If it bores or annoys you, don't read it. Including the next paragraph. __________ I would want to review a list of functions, but without doing that, my opinion is the operating system is the code which handles loading of programs, connecting the programs to the i/o (or the bios), and execution of commands. If this is in command.com, at the very least, that part of command.com is part of the operating system, and for most purposes, the whole of command.com would be. The other two files are pretty short and I'm not convinced they can do all the specifically operating-system-functions. Yes to whoever said it, the fact that it can be replaced doesn't mean it is not the operating system. The fact that some command.com's will not work with the two-files designed for a specific other command.com, but 4dos.com will work with multiple sets of the two-files, doesn't change anything. If the part that converts the English language commands to machine code is part of the Operating System, I don't know. Maybe there is an accepted definition that covers this, and other such questions. I don't know that either. But until someone shows or at least claims that the other stuff I mention is in the two-files, I think command.com is part of the OS. meirman@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter. -- |Fidonet: meirman 1:342/3 | | Origin: The Cereal Port BBS (603)899-3335 199.125.78.133 (1:132/152) --- # Origin: (1:132/152.4) * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903) .