OS-TAN THEORY 101

[NejinOniwa]

It's just that, I don't see too much conflict with this "over-detailed" system with any of the works produced here, or even the old originals from Futaba. Might as well define everything that's being used, no? SCIENCE likes it that way.

And Emulation is the equivalent of necromancy; it provides a -tan, deceased or not, with code/life force from another entity. Thus, an OSXen in Windows Bootcamp supplies power to the Windows power pool; while an emulation of old, deceased OSes provide them with temporary life force. Depending on the scope of emulation (actual installation on a virtual space VS plain ISO-booting and whatnot) she may be able to keep some of that power and keep running in a low state even when emulation is not in progress; or be forced into a "standby" mode. The former alternative also gives for healthier-looking corpses.

True revival, however, needs the complete reconstruction of the original hardware or somehow else giving a -tan a code pool all of her own.

[Chocofreak13]

i completely agree with this.


but i say this is too specific because it conflicts with 'my' stories....which means that it might conflict with other people's stories too. i'd prefer to keep it super-basic, since someone (like myself) might have a different view on the OS-tans and they way they function. while the "code magic" thing is interesting, and a very good theory, that's not the way i laid it out in my comik, which leads me to worry that i or other artists in the future will have their work called "wrong" (as in, "you're doing it wrong!!") because they didn't follow the format we're laying out here.

oh, and, I THOUGHT WE WERE STARTING WITH OS-WORLD FIRST?? ;___;

[Aurora Borealis]

Don't worry about that too much. You can still keep your comic simple and not include or mention any more details than you need to, and these fanon ideas aren't actually set in stone anyways.

[Bella]

It's just that, I don't see too much conflict with this "over-detailed" system with any of the works produced here, or even the old originals from Futaba. Might as well define everything that's being used, no? SCIENCE likes it that way.

And Emulation is the equivalent of necromancy; it provides a -tan, deceased or not, with code/life force from another entity. Thus, an OSXen in Windows Bootcamp supplies power to the Windows power pool; while an emulation of old, deceased OSes provide them with temporary life force. Depending on the scope of emulation (actual installation on a virtual space VS plain ISO-booting and whatnot) she may be able to keep some of that power and keep running in a low state even when emulation is not in progress; or be forced into a "standby" mode. The former alternative also gives for healthier-looking corpses.

True revival, however, needs the complete reconstruction of the original hardware or somehow else giving a -tan a code pool all of her own.

I would argue that virtualization is no different from running an OS on its original hardware; after all, it's the same code (let's say Windows 1.0 for this argument) running on a physical machine (an iMac), it just happens to have a virtulization software acting as intermediary (VirtualBox).

NOW: I would make an exception for emulated systems that are gone and have been "rebuilt from scratch" so to speak -- say, an ENIAC or Univac emulator (both of which exist), but I'm increasingly considering that there's no such thing as death -- at least as we know it -- for OS-tans, since they exist as code and as long as that code exists, they can be brought back from the dead.

Make sense? D:

[Aurora Borealis]

I agree that deceased OS-tans aren't completely dead if they can be emulated (I see them as ghosts that normally can't be seen or heard until called upon, and barely have any power of their own), but would this take away from some of the potential drama in OS-tan stories, such as bringing a long-dead relative back for a brief family reunion if the deceased could be seen again more than just one time?

[NejinOniwa]

In my view of OS-tan death, there are 4 stages.
1: Operation death - there are no longer any pieces of hardware running the OS. This gives the -tan a few moments to say some last words (length dependent on the size of the final code pool and the maintenance/power level needed to sustain her equipment), whereafter she goes into a "dormant state" resembling a coma. This of course under the condition that any external power supplies have also kicked the bucket; a -tan with still-operative direct descendants, subordinates or a sizeable code pool available through other means (in possession of a family company, for example, that is willing to supply the -tan with power) will not cease operation until these link(s) are gone.

2: Hardware death - there are no longer any hardware in good enough condition to run the OS. This marks a deepening of the "dormant state", where only porting can give the -tan a true return to life.

3: Software death - there are no longer any pieces of the original installation mediums left, and the -tan starts to effectively decay into bits of code.

4: Code death - the final stage of the deceased, when all vital pieces of code (source or not) is gone from existence. This is effectively the final death of a -tan.

More later, for off to dinner nao.

[Aurora Borealis]

Great explanations! if I get to writing or rewriting the wiki article on deceased OS-tans, I will include that info.

It seems that most of the deceased-tans are in either stages 1 or 2, but some of the 40's and 50's mainframes are gone from existence.

The idea about being able to connect to relatives' code pools/life forces could also explain why some OS-tans that seem like they should be deceased are still alive (i.e: C65-tan, Mac System 3.4-tan, Lisa-tan?), and others died so prematurely because they were 'left to die' and shut off from other connections (i.e: Apple I-sama, presumably also Multics and CTSS when they died).

[Chocofreak13]

makes sense. and aurora, the article can't be written and rewritten at the same time, lol. xD

is there any record of the 40's/50's -tans? maybe like a picture in the BR or something?
(sorry, but it feels like i have nothing to contribute at this point).

[Aurora Borealis]

If you mean in-story, there are still people who know of and remember them, including historians and former colleagues. But there are pictures of some of the ancient OS-tans.

And I meant to say 'write or rewrite' since I couldn't remember if the article for deceased-tans had been started.

[Chocofreak13]

lol, ok.

to be honest, i wonder where the  "death of os-tans" notes would fit.....in the os-tan evolution section?

should i update the first post?

[Chocofreak13]

NECROPOST~~~~~


how about we move to a different topic? i found some family tree pictures when i was pictrolling, so has any work been made on windows/mac family trees?

and anyone think we should make a linux family tree? or would that be too complex?

[Aurora Borealis]

A Linux family tree is possible, but can get complicated because it has many more branches.

GNU/Linux is of course the mother or ancestor of all Linuces, but her oldest daughters have many descendants themselves. Most distros are derived from either: Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware; all of which are three of the oldest distros. Though there are some notable exceptions such as Yggdrasil being the oldest distro (or Linux's first daughter) but doesn't have any descendants of its own.

Both the Windows and Mac Family trees can get even more convoluted if you include the NT line's and the OSX line's biological ancestors into the mix, and MS-DOS's other biological relatives. @_@

[Krizonar]

NECROPOST~~~~~


how about we move to a different topic? i found some family tree pictures when i was pictrolling, so has any work been made on windows/mac family trees?

and anyone think we should make a linux family tree? or would that be too complex?

I've made a Mac family tree, and although it may not coinincide with everyone's ideas, some if its backstory got forwarded to the Annex project.

Linux family tree? How many thousands of branches? Xd

[stewartsage]

I once did a preliminary family tree of some 50's and 60's Mainframes/OS's.... it is horribly out dated now.

[Bella]

Protip: when it comes to Linux-tan's family tree, DO NOT THINK IN TERMS OF HUMAN FAMILIES. Or even other OS-tan families, besides the Unixen maybe (who have a similarly muddled family structure). Her "code" has been spread throughout hell and creation and modified at every step of the way -- severely blurring the line between children, grandchildren, clones, etc.