OS-tans, Species, and Evolution

[NejinOniwa]

Imma go out on a limb and say you people who want categorization of programs for STORYLINE purposes, go ahead and do whatever you want with that. It does seem quite unnecessary to categorize them as a central effort, however, since it goes without saying that programs are one of the more obscure classes...aside from a VERY select few.

As for your question, choco, Websites are content displayed by an engine (software) run by a server OS; whereas the other three are merely possible subcategories of programs/apps/software/mcguffin, and thus go there anyway, subcategorization or not.

As for the subcategorization itself - I see it as counterproductive and a quite useless effort. Looking at the OS side for example, what categorization we have of them is in affiliation - which the apps don't have nearly as much of - and to some extent, heritage - which apps usually don't go by with, seeing as they normally evolve from themselves and merely version-up, or otherwise. A very good exception from this is the entire Mozilla family; their Gecko engine is derived off later Netscape (i think?), and FX, TB and Seamonkey all stem from Mozilla Suite; they also have distinct version changes, which could be used for certain storyline purposes.
The fact, however, is that this sort of easymode family tree is VERY uncommon from what I know in the apps cloud, and thus the easiest thing would be to skip the lesser classification altogether in cases where the family/heritage categorization can't be made - all in all, I say that's the sort of categorization system we should stick to over most classes.

[Bella]

Imma go out on a limb and say you people who want categorization of programs for STORYLINE purposes, go ahead and do whatever you want with that. It does seem quite unnecessary to categorize them as a central effort, however, since it goes without saying that programs are one of the more obscure classes...aside from a VERY select few.

...

As for the subcategorization itself - I see it as counterproductive and a quite useless effort. Looking at the OS side for example, what categorization we have of them is in affiliation - which the apps don't have nearly as much of - and to some extent, heritage - which apps usually don't go by with, seeing as they normally evolve from themselves and merely version-up, or otherwise. A very good exception from this is the entire Mozilla family; their Gecko engine is derived off later Netscape (i think?), and FX, TB and Seamonkey all stem from Mozilla Suite; they also have distinct version changes, which could be used for certain storyline purposes.
The fact, however, is that this sort of easymode family tree is VERY uncommon from what I know in the apps cloud, and thus the easiest thing would be to skip the lesser classification altogether in cases where the family/heritage categorization can't be made - all in all, I say that's the sort of categorization system we should stick to over most classes.

This.

The entire reason I even got to thinking about hardware-tan/OS-tan/software-tan classification was for my own story purposes... it's good to have some organisation, but let's not get bogged down in semantics so to speak. <.<

[NejinOniwa]

Well, there we have it. Can we take this one to the board?

[Chocofreak13]

god, i miss a lot when i'm lazy for days on end.
let's see,

OF COURSE this was for storyline purposes. if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a lick o sense ;____;

i was going to throw sites, programs, ect into their own catagory then start breaking it down after, like domain - kingdom - phylum - class - ect ect.
(sorry if my thoughts seem a little less-than-coherent. need to get my head back to ostan...)

[Kiso]

Wait wat..? CAn get please focus on this now? Wait... that's what we're trying to do right?

[Chocofreak13]

exactly. but if, let's say "virtual" was the domain/kingdom/whatever, we can't seem to agree on the next tier. (we've got the "OS" catagory so far, but we're stuck on "software" now, because we can't seem to agree on just what the hell that is.)

[Bella]

Slightly OT, but I've been trying to figure out how hardware/OS-tan relationships work in conjunction with OS-to-certain architecture relationships.

The Unices and Linuxes, for example, would probably be very democratic and open toward computer-tans of all varieties, since *nixes are very portable and used on tons of different processor architectures.

Whereas the DEC OS-tans (for example) might be more "xenophobic" toward hardware-tans outside of their own cultures... since DEC OSes could only run on DEC computers. Same goes for the Mac-tans, and any of the old-school OS-tans. (Since portability is a relatively modern idea.)

[/randomthoughts]

[Aurora Borealis]

That all sounds good. Likewise Windows and DOS would be open to many different brands of hardware, if not different architectures.

OSX Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard would be rule-breakers though among the Mac-tans, being able to run on other x86 hardware. Still can be done, although Apple has been cracking down on that with the newer Snow Leopard releases.

However, among the mainframes are some characters who represent OSes (i.e: SCOPE, NOS, MACE, etc.), plus some that represent only hardware (i.e: Harvard Mark Series, ENIAC, etc.), or those that represent both but mainly the hardware (i.e: Cray-1). I wonder if that would make for some interesting debates among the Mainframe Guild members.

[stewartsage]

When it comes to the CDCs at least, it's more of a matter whether SCOPE-sama likes you.  Hardware or OS.  

Since the interaction between hardware and OS-tans would have to be pretty close I can't imagine that outside of cultural differences (DEC, CDC, IBM, etc.), there would be much tension between the Guild members.  Though some of the older members might resent the upstart "Operating Systems".

[Chocofreak13]

i like the "xenophobic" idea on hardware-specific computers (which means windows most certianly does NOT fit in this catagory. ^^) this would also mean that the more recent macs would be some of the first to venture outside of the family line, since it is recently discovered that mac can indeed be installed on a windows computer (monopoly no more!)

the hardware-software relationship between older OSes can really be played upon, i just realized. business partners? married couple? twins? sounds interesting :3

[Bella]

@Aurora: the OSXen can now socialise with non-Apple hardware-tans, but it would probably still be against social mandates to do so.

Perhaps, but hardware or software the Mainframe-tans are still very powerful and would probably respect each other (at least to a point. ^^').

@Stew: If SCOPE ain't happy ain't nobody happy, huh? d:

@Kari: Yep, the Windows-tans are definitely sociable when it comes to hardware-tans (yet another Unix/Windows parallel... portability, portability, portability). The OSX-tans COULD venture outside of their Apple-centric society, but would have to do so in the utmost secrecy... just because it's possible, doesn't mean they'd necessarily WANT to do it.

This is something I've realised all along, since OSes work directly with hardware. I think it would vary depending on the character in question... some hardware-tan/OS-tan pairings would constitute friends, business partners and couples. But they definitely wouldn't be relatives of any sort... remember, hardwares and OSes are completely different species. While they look and act alike, they're biologically unrelated and incompatible and derive from completely different ancestries.

[Chocofreak13]

damn. no homeko/homeo. xD

[Bella]

Why not? :U

[Chocofreak13]

i know!

[MaccasWell]

I made an evolution tree!! Might explain what I was thinking later though... I have a headache that forces me to not think too much.

You should swap drivers and firmware around on the tree as firmware is more of a unitary software for self-contained units like mobile phones (cell phones for American, Japanese and most European countries) I-Pods/I-Pads and the like that (if you have the know-how to do) is usually done by repairmen for the units, so really firmware is actually a lower form of programming.