2 ms·

As the other respondent posted, the standard library is the only interface to the operating system on some platforms. For example, on Solaris and various *BSDs

As the other respondent posted, the standard library is the only interface to the operating system on some platforms. For example, on Solaris and various *BSDs, the syscall interface is private or unstable and is explicitly NOT an interface. So without the standard library, none of the applications could run. That sure sounds like part of the operating system to me, and fits various accepted definitions such as the one Wikipedia provides. And yes, I would consider the file explorer included with Windows part of the operating system, as most people I think would also. The confusion here seems to come from the Linux world, where components are mix and match; where you can pair the kernel with an entirely different base. That isn't true of many other operating systems; the base distributed set is designed to work together and provide the environment and platform for applications.

astrobe_ 10y ago
There's no confusion at all on my part. The operating system isn't even aware that your application has a heap to begin with. All it knows, is that your program may ask for more memory. But if you consider a file browser as being part of the OS, I can't help you. You want to adopt a view that profanes have in a technical discussion. That's worse than ignorance.
- binarycrusader 10y ago
  You are very confused and quite frankly very wrong. The original claim was the standard library is not part of the OS. However, the standard library is objectively part of the OS on many platforms and so the original claim is factually incorrect. My so-called "view" reflects the industry accepted definition of an OS, so perhaps you should review your suppositions.
  - astrobe_ 10y ago
    Ok so name a few of the "OS on many platforms" in which one absolutely can't replace the standard library.
    - binarycrusader 10y ago
      Solaris is one of them, unless you made significant changes to the kernel itself. Darwin, as shipped by Apple is another. There are a variety of embedded OS' that are the same. So yes, as shipped and delivered, you can't replace the standard library and the vendors both consider the standard library as part of the OS. And furthermore, existing application binaries for those platforms would not work without them.

astrobe_ 10y ago

There's no confusion at all on my part. The operating system isn't even aware that your application has a heap to begin with. All it knows, is that your program may ask for more memory. But if you consider a file browser as being part of the OS, I can't help you. You want to adopt a view that profanes have in a technical discussion. That's worse than ignorance.

binarycrusader 10y ago
You are very confused and quite frankly very wrong. The original claim was the standard library is not part of the OS. However, the standard library is objectively part of the OS on many platforms and so the original claim is factually incorrect. My so-called "view" reflects the industry accepted definition of an OS, so perhaps you should review your suppositions.
- astrobe_ 10y ago
  Ok so name a few of the "OS on many platforms" in which one absolutely can't replace the standard library.
  - binarycrusader 10y ago
    Solaris is one of them, unless you made significant changes to the kernel itself. Darwin, as shipped by Apple is another. There are a variety of embedded OS' that are the same. So yes, as shipped and delivered, you can't replace the standard library and the vendors both consider the standard library as part of the OS. And furthermore, existing application binaries for those platforms would not work without them.