This thread is permanently archived
Could you operate a computer with no OS
| I think you're confusing a CLI interface with a GUI interface. A computer without OS would be useless. As for the data on the disk, you'd have no means of accessing it, and even if you did, you'd have to have software to interpret the partitions and type of filesystem to even make sense of the files stored there. In essence, you'd have a useless hunk of metal.
| You mean like those old micro computers back in the 80s
| Yes, you can operate a computer with only the cli.
Linux users usually prefer cli over a gui.
| i alway wanted to make a pc like a commodore 64 but with 1TB of ram instead of 64k of ram
| Arch Linux.
| Stop making me feel like a grandpa
| >>103330 is right, but assuming you're talking about a cli only interface (still needs an OS) you can do that pretty ea
sily with linux. Personally, I would reccomend Ubuntu Server, and if you're serious about it, you might want to take a
look at this series by Bryan Lunduke: https://www.networkworld.com/article/3083268/linux/30-days-in-a-terminal-day-0-th
e-adventure-begins.html
| You can't, a computer without an OS is just a collection of metal parts. The OS is vital for the computer to "work".
| >>103322
the purpose of an operating system is to act as an abstraction layer from hardware, so that programs can run in a simplified virtual environment which provides a standard set of system calls (syscalls) through which that program can interact with the underlying hardware.
basically, if you take away the operating system, you can only run one program on your system at a time, and that program needs to manually operate every single device and peripheral that you might ever
| >>106506
plug into it (hard drives, mouse, sound card, graphics cards, network cards, everything).
basically, look at the amount of work that has gone into linux, the world's largest software project, with decades of work from thousands of people producing tens of millions of lines of C and asm (and a few other things).
to be able to run on the fleet of machines out there today, that same sort of linecount would be required for every single program...
| >>106516
that being said, there are still small embeded systems used all over the place which run without an operating system. that only works, though, because the chip is so simple and the set of peripherals is strictly controlled
| It is possible with microprocessors. But usually any code you start writing for it, is the first step of programming some kind of OS. You use „assembler” to di it, or if you're hardcore pure hex-coded instructions. Both are dependent on how the processor is constructed. But why not go further and build your own CPU using logical semiconductor-chips or even transistors?
Btw I also think OP confuses OS with GUI and OSlessness with CLI.
| You can use a UFEI shell, which is an OS embedded in most modern computers. Can't do much with it tho.
| First you need to know that OS is not command line or graphic interface, those just programs runs on OS. The job of os is to manage hardware resources and abstract basic operation like create process or I/O for people to write program easier. In another word, you can run program without OS, but those programs will be extreme hard to write cus you not only need to care about the program logic bit also other detailed, which is fastrated. Your calculator is a example of non-OS prog
| >>107708
for most people these days, "your calculator has no os" is false. ti, hp, and casio have all been producing calculators with operating systems for decades. they are still mostly single-programmed operating systems, but still very, very different from bare machines, providing all sorts of syscalls and fun interrupt things
| >>107751 Oh I didn't know that. I guess graphic calculator definitely need os, but is that necessary for those business one for fruit store owner?
| No OS, hardly and it would be quite useless too...
Without a modern gui, easily most server side work is done only via command line
| I installed Arch Linux last week and I was a bit confused because it was pretty much just a terminal, no desktop environment, no gui of any kind, etc.
You can eventually install all these things but it might be an interesting experience using only the terminal for a while... I'm too busy for that right now, tho
| A lot of older consoles (atari 2600, (S)NES, etc) didn't contain an OS, but that just ment that the games had to pick up that slack.
| Lol just program in machine code
| Modern game engines don't contain any assembly. However most games from the 70s to early 90s were programmed exclusively in asm.
| >>108954 then you wouldn't be operating it, and the code you made for it would be a sort of primitive OS
| >>109832
That'so wrong. There are still people using assembly to increase performance of the machine code (assembly is just a dictionary for hex values) that their c++ compiler produces. Even in „modern" game (graphics engine) development this is the case. That is one reason why pc-games can have much diffrent requirements while they offer similiar graphics/mechanics.
| You can use a computer without an OS with toggle panel or something. It hasn't been practical since like 70s (and that's for hobbyists, pros were using OSs in the 50s). With modern computers it's all but impossible, you'd need to make a custom piece of hardware and make it emulate a very slow disk or something. And even then the first thing you'd do after booting is basically write a barebones OS to interface with keyboard or something.
This thread is permanently archived
| Might be a stupid question but if you really wanted a barebones experience, are there enough command line prompts that would let you operate your computer
(Ex: can you still launch applications and games, or navigate your files without clicking on icons)