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?
| You can do anything in any programming language, therefore you 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 |
@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.
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.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| DeXecipher didn't say anything about "[making] a linux os in batch or a protocol in python" |
| "a protocol in python" doesn't make sense either because a protocol is a set of rules for computer communication. |
| 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).
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| 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). |
@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.
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.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.