Timeline for Would an executable need an OS kernel to run?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2018 at 12:32 | audit | First posts | |||
| Aug 25, 2018 at 12:33 | |||||
| S Aug 17, 2018 at 3:34 | history | suggested | Pang | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Synced the quotations (which were updated) from the question. Corrected spelling (compliers > compilers).
|
| Aug 17, 2018 at 2:54 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 17, 2018 at 3:34 | |||||
| Aug 10, 2018 at 21:53 | audit | First posts | |||
| Aug 10, 2018 at 21:53 | |||||
| Aug 1, 2018 at 11:27 | history | edited | Lightness Races in Orbit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Code is non-countable in this context
|
| Aug 1, 2018 at 7:28 | comment | added | ChatterOne |
I'm not sure, I think most of it depends on how you define an OS. For instance, if you write a bootloader, is that just a program or are you actually writing the OS itself? In the end, even the BIOS is a program, but it's actually also an operating system in itself.
|
|
| Jul 31, 2018 at 9:34 | audit | First posts | |||
| Jul 31, 2018 at 9:34 | |||||
| Jul 30, 2018 at 18:47 | comment | added | jaskij | @PeterCordes "standalone" is the term used in the C standard which IMO can be considered somewhat authoritative. Alternatively a good term is also "non-hosted" (as in hosted by the OS) | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 16:51 | comment | added | psmears | @sawdust: I'm not sure it's really fair to judge a choice of word based on some crappy thesaurus entry? "Freestanding" and "amid" are not antonyms in any meaningful sense (they're not even the same part of speech), and similarly for many of the other entries on that page. | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 13:16 | audit | First posts | |||
| Jul 30, 2018 at 13:50 | |||||
| Jul 30, 2018 at 5:04 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | I find "standalone executable" sounds like it could apply to something that doesn't rely on libraries or other programs (e.g. a static binary, or simply putting a function of a larger program into an executable by itself). It doesn't necessarily imply that it doesn't rely on OS system calls, unless surrounding context or definition tells you that. I guess freestanding could have the same problem, though. I'm not claiming that "freestanding" is more correct or widely used, but I like it. It's a less common word, so it doesn't have as many existing uses in computing. To each their own! | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 5:04 | comment | added | sawdust | @PeterCordes -- That's interesting info on GCC, but I don't share your enthusiasm for that terminology. Since the connotation of a word includes what it does not imply, consider the antonyms of each word, this list versus this list. The (what is or is not) "standalone" adjective/noun seems far more concise than "freestanding". | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 4:37 | comment | added | sawdust | @EricTowers -- Why list archaic, single-task runtime environments, when every OS that does not utilize a MMU (e.g. uClinux aka "Linux without MMU") cannot protect the system from a rogue program? But the OP clearly has in mind a secure OS that uses protected CPU modes and MMU, so your digression is pedantic. | |
| Jul 29, 2018 at 17:07 | comment | added | Peter Cordes |
I like GCC's "freestanding" terminology. The English word has all the right connotations for code that runs without an OS, maybe even better than "standalone". e.g. you can compile gcc -O2 -ffreestanding my_kernel.c special_sauce.S to make an executable that doesn't assume any of the normal libraries or OS stuff will be there. (Of course you would normally need a linker script to get it to usefully link into a file format that a bootloader will want to load!)
|
|
| Jul 29, 2018 at 1:22 | comment | added | Eric Towers | ... or ProDOS or PC-DOS or DR-DOS or CBM DOS or TRS DOS or FLEX ... | |
| Jul 29, 2018 at 1:08 | comment | added | sawdust | @EricTowers -- By "DOS" presumably you mean MS-DOS (since I've used DOSes not related to MS or Intel)? You're citing an "OS" that doesn't even match the criteria of my 1970's college textbooks on OS concepts and design. The origins of MS-DOS trace back (through Seattle Computer Products) to CP/M, which is explicitly not called an OS by its author Gary Kildall. FWIW an OS that allows a program to take over the system has failed in its basic function of managing the system resources. "There are many examples of OSs that support standalone programs" -- "Support" or unable to prevent? | |
| Jul 28, 2018 at 21:27 | comment | added | Eric Towers | "If you expect to execute a standalone program (i.e. without an OS), then you must not boot the computer to run the OS." is not entirely correct. Many DOS programs were loaded after DOS and then completely ignored DOS services (by directly bit-banging or perhaps calling BIOS directly). Win3.x is an excellent example that (except in some interesting corner cases) ignored that DOS was present. Win95/98/Me did this as well. There are many examples of OSs that support standalone programs, many from the 8-/16-bit era. | |
| Jul 28, 2018 at 17:34 | vote | accept | GRANZER | ||
| Jul 27, 2018 at 20:53 | history | edited | sawdust | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Jul 27, 2018 at 20:40 | history | edited | sawdust | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Jul 27, 2018 at 20:32 | history | answered | sawdust | CC BY-SA 4.0 |