[email protected] wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:25:35 +0200, Gadi Evron said: >> der Mouse wrote: >>>>>> "An operating system" in general may or may not be [split into >>>>>> core, GUI, and CLI]; indeed, plenty of operating systems do not >>>>>> have anything at all that could reasonably be called a GUI, much >>>>>> less structure like what you sketch. >>>> 1) Either convince me that Cisco's IOS and Juniper's JunOS are in >>>> fact *not* operating systems, or point out to me how they're split >>>> into a core, a CLI, and a GUI. >>> You don't need to go even that far. Just consider NetBSD (or Linux, or >>> whatever) on hardware without a GUI-capable framebuffer - or, if that's >>> not enough, on hardware which can't be given one (I've got a board from >>> Mesanet on which it would be difficult-to-impossible to add GUI-capable >>> hardware). >> We're talking about Mac here, right? > > No, the original quote was "an operating system is build of...", not > "OSX is built of".
Whatever the core looks like in an OS, and whether it has GUI or not, does not make it any less true as used for the comparison. I could describe it another way but it's the best suited description to compare to mac with. Not so? So some systems have no GUI, big deal. If we were comparing to Linux I'd called the core the kernel and differentiate the applications from it. GUI, while not necessarily a part of the OS, would still be relevant. And this is still nit-picking unless you can shed some light on similarities/differences, or show me how I'm wrong. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
