winuxtosh - the universal os

correct me if im wrong, but it seems like more and more every day diffrent os are slowly becoming similar. things such as wine, cygwin, virtual box, any browser on any os, dual booting and file sharing make me feel like i can do anything on any os
You can do anything in any programming language, therefore you can do anything on any OS. However rock's law will eventually stop this, in 2020 we are projected to enter a halt on computer power because of the cost to manufacture a microchip that takes x time in y operations. Quantum computing anyone?
i disagree with that. make a linux os in batch. or a protocol in python
Those two things you suggested don't make any sense.
You can do anything in any programming language, therefore you can do anything on any OS.
Wow. Talk about a leap of logic.

You can do anything in any programming language, therefore you can do anything on any OS. However rock's law will eventually stop this
So the end of Moore's Law implies the end of Turing-completeness?
@chrisname: of course they dont make sense. according to dex i should be able to do that
Well batch is less of a programming language and more of automation script. Well, less of a programming language than shell scripting in my opinion.
@Aramil,
DeXecipher didn't say anything about "[making] a linux os in batch or a protocol in python". You can't "make a linux os" with a scripting language, a Linux OS is just an OS that uses the Linux kernel (unless your intention is to reimplement the entire GNU system in batch, in which case, good luck, especially since the Linux kernel doesn't include a batch interpreter) and "a protocol in python" doesn't make sense either because a protocol is a set of rules for computer communication.
chrisname wrote:
DeXecipher didn't say anything about "[making] a linux os in batch or a protocol in python"
no but he did say "You can do anything in any programming language", Aramil is disagreeing with this statement and giving two example of why it is erroneous. Is that really that hard to see?

"a protocol in python" doesn't make sense either because a protocol is a set of rules for computer communication.
and how exactly is the protocol implemented if not with a programming language?
Grey Wolf wrote:
Aramil is disagreeing with this statement and giving two example of why it is erroneous. Is that really that hard to see?

Apparently, yes. My mistake, sorry.

Grey Wolf wrote:
"a protocol in python" doesn't make sense either because a protocol is a set of rules for computer communication.
and how exactly is the protocol implemented if not with a programming language?

You implement it with a programming language, you don't create the protocol with one (otherwise, the protocol would be tied to the original implementation language).
chrisname wrote:
You implement it with a programming language, you don't create the protocol with one (otherwise, the protocol would be tied to the original implementation language).
Hmmm, I could split hairs more and say that you would could specify the protocol in a non-programming language but you create the protocol with a programming language as creating it is bringing it into existence, but I wouldn't do that...would i?
Quantum computing anyone

I have an article about this :D
@Grey Wolf,
That's a fair point, it depends whether you define "creating" the protocol as defining or implementing it. But I guess it doesn't matter in the end because I misinterpreted the situation anyways.
thank you greywolf thats exactly what i was getting at
Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.