OS-tan Collections

Let's continue the discussion here! :)

Quote from: "Aurora"BTW, I edited my post and went more in-depth about it, but I agree, Bella.

Still wanting to know about the Mac 'mafia', I don't think the Mac-tans are in it by choice, and they have to follow orders, or at least the OSX-tans do, since the 'protection' doesn't apply as much --or at all-- to the Classic Mac-tans. Speaking of which, I think the Classic Mac-tans have stayed in the House of Mac out of loyalty for the OSX-tans, and the OSX-tans are grateful but have not experienced any other upbringing aside from the 'protection' they live under so they have to comply with executive orders.

I read your edited post and would have to agree with you on all points. :)

At least when I envision this Mac Mafia scenario, it's not exactly like the typical idea of organized crime-- not even criminal at all, of course. But I imagine the Macs are a group that have a VERY high regard for family, honour and tradition, and have a lot of gratitude and reverence for their leader-- don, so to speak-- Jobs. ^^'

They know they can never seize political power and regain their lost territory (the home computer market) but this doesn't faze them very much because they're comfortable in their own niche market-- or racket, if you will. They're generally good-willed and friendly, too, but they can go a bit overboard when it comes to proving a point to their competition.

Ah, okay! I agree with that! I was afraid that the whole Mac Mafia thing would imply that the Mac-tans had to be criminals, can't be diplomatic nor interact with outsiders! ^^;

Even though they can't seem to regain their home computer territory, or much of it, their marketshare has increased considerably over the past 5 years, having become even more prominent in the design and editing departments. So they're successful for a niche system.

i never invisioned the Macs as criminals. I see it from a Katekyo Hitman Reborn standpoint, that they're Mafia, but not EVIL, outright. Just close knit and distrusting of outsiders.

aurora-sama, you beat me to the punch of creating a thread for this! ;P

well, i'll just have to do you one better and copy-pasta everything that has been said over here. xD

Quote from: "Bella"
...Also, I had a thought (all this talk of OS/hardware/software relationships gave me the idea)-- d'ye suppose that hardware, software and OS-tans are distinctly different species? I mean, they're all alike in that they're humanoid, but that they're essentially unrelated?

-(Computer) hardware-tans would almost always be mortal and age. Not nearly as quickly as humans, but they wouldn't be ageless like OS-tans either (since hardware is physical and prone to physical damage). Hardware-tans would have the most affinity with OS-tans (since hardware and OS directly communicate) and very rarely work with software-tans.

They were the first of the three groups to be created by humans, and have an existence spanning many decades (although earliest ancestors may have been created hundreds-- even thousands-- of years ago, depending on what you consider "computer hardware" to be).

-OS-tans can be mortal or immortal and are almost always ageless. As a species, they're more conducive to magic (sourcery if you will) because software tends to be more mailable than hardware (existing only as data-- information-- instead of being physical like hardware*). Equally cooperative with hardware and software.

They were created after hardware-tans, to do things (maybe that aforementioned magic?) that hardwares are incapable of.

-Software-tans are related to OS-tans, but still distant enough to be their own species. The same comments regarding mortality, aging and magic-conductivity that apply to OS-tans apply to software-tans. Typically regarded as a lower caste in the computer-tan universe, software-tans are generally dependent upon OS-tans for employment, companionship and ultimately survival (since you can't use a program w/o an OS to run it on). They have very little contact with hardware-tans.

The last species, Firmware-tans, would be something akin to a cross of hardware and program-tan or OS-tan; they'd probably be the lowest class, but one of the largest, since firmware is used in almost EVERYTHING electronic. They usually play a support role for or intermediary between hardware and OS-tan.

I also imagine that only members of a certain species would be able to have children-- meaning that two OS-tans could, in theory, beget a lil' OS-tan, but that a software and OS-tan couldn't. (For instance, there have been rare cases when two OSes have been merged to create a third OS-- but since software, hardware and OS are so different, you could never cross any of the three and make a new product). Then again, there are some instances (typically historical) of hardware and OS being so closely connected that the result is a hybrid of the two-- but these were more likely the result of human creation than natural crossbreeding between species.

I've thoroughly read through all this and will comment in-depth, but I'd like to add something: I decided to split these -tans into different groups exactly so I COULD avoid the problem of the evolution of OS-tans. Aside from evolution in social customs and outward appearances (clothing, etc), I'd rather not think about hardware/software/OS-tans evolving because I've always assumed that they were created by humans and are not some sort of natural phenomena within the OS-tan universe.

As for OS-tan deaths, death is usually caused by a diminished userbase-- OSes with the largest userbases are the healthiest, while those with very small or nonexistent userbases are dead. There are exceptions to this rule, of course-- Multics and SAGE-sama, for instance, should by all means be dead, but are considered alive for story purposes. Xenix-tan, on the other hand, could arguably be considered alive (since Xenix can be, and is, emulated) but she's dead for the sake of story purposes.

Also, when I speak of hardware-tans, I don't mean drones of nameless, random pieces of computer hardware-- I mean one -tan for each distinct computer system. Like there would be a first-gen iMac-tan (or -kun), an IBM PC-kun, a PDP-10-kun-- not a character for every single computer ever made, because that would result in bedlam rather quickly.

@ Aurora: microcomputer-tans would be what I described as "hybrids" of OS/software and hardware-tan. Since the OS/BASIC interpreter and hardware are SO closely connected (at least from a user viewpoint) to be almost inseparable. This will also come up a lot with very old OSes and computer-tans, from the days when there was only a thin line of distinction between the hardware and the software controlling the hardware.

If you want to look at it from an evolution POV, I see them as the transitional species between hardware and OS-tan. The difference from being that evolution implies a transformation from simpler to more complex lifeforms, I don't think hardware-tans are less developed than OS-tans-- they look and act alike and have the same intelligence, it's just that OS-tans can manipulate "energy" or "magic" in ways that hardwares can't.

@ Choco: the evolution of Unix to Linux is more like a... bloodline... if you ask me. It's like talking about the evolution of yourself from your great-grandmother. (BTW, the Unix-tans and Linux-tans are supposed to be related; they're supposed to be roughly from the same "race" or culture, sort of like two people sharing the same country and customs being considered related).

I wouldn't dismiss armies of random hardware-tan masses for storyline purposes, but then again, there's not a lot I would dismiss for storyline purposes. It's not my place to tell people what they can and can't do for a story, just because it doesn't precisely match up with my vision of the OS-tan universe-- short of someone inventing new characters to replace existing ones, or radically re-writing established backgrounds for the characters, that is.

I like the Mac "mafia" idea, as for the Linuxes being like Commies... I actually think that they'd be quite the opposite. Sure, they ARE strongly socialistic, but they're also a very open, transparent culture and attach a lot of stigma to secrecy and shady dealings. If anything, the old school Unices would have have been more Communistic, not really philosophically but politically-- at least in their rapid takeover of vast amounts of "territory" through rather... underhanded... means. >.>

Sorry for that TL;DR: but I've always loved inventing new species and races and stuff. This was fun. ^^

Quote from: "Aurora Borealis"
Those ideas all sounds very good, even the part about the Mac-tans being forbidden from interacting with non-Apple hardware-tans.

But many of the vintage home computer-tans blur the line between hardware and software, representing not just the computer but the OS/BASIC it runs. So would they be considered both at the same time? Though I think they'd be more in line with the OS-tans, since these characters would also be cooperative with the software-tans.

Hope that doesn't interfere with that the Mac-tans (especially the Classic ones) are known to visit the vintage-tans from time to time! ^^;

I agree that hardware-tans would have widely varying lifespans, with time not just taking a physical toll but also an emotional toll for those old hardware-tans that were touted as the NEXT BIG THING when they were new.

But I don't see the Mac-tans as supremacists themselves, in fact they're very friendly with most others and have friends from different factions, but it's the security enforced by the executives that is, and forces them to be shut-ins for the most part.

When you're referring to the Classic-tans, are you referring to them being less (or not) 'protected' by the security --and giving them the freedom to be with others, though at the cost of protection from danger-- or the rest of the family, since I see the Mac-tans being a close-knit family despite major generation gaps. (This referencing the considerably large userbase of vintage Mac hobbyists who use both the Classic Mac OS and OSX in the present day)

I can certainly see Tiger-tan and Leopard-tan being the rebellious types though, and interact with 'unapproved' outsiders to challenge the the security guards.

As for OSes that can run on multiple architectures, I see it as an OS-tan being multi-lingual.

I like the forbidden love idea between ME-tan and Mac OS9-kun. While the more laid-back Mac-tans and Windows-tans may approve, there'd be fierce opposition from 95-tan and OSX-tan.

The Windows Family is laid back, with the younger Windows-tans having grown up in peace and prosperity their whole lives. They'd be accepting towards various software-tans --though too accepting at times, to the point of risking their own safety--, but there a lot of secrets are being kept from them.

Their security, enforced by their executives are historical revisionists who have erased records of the family history before the OS Wars, so the Windows-tans know nothing of 1.0-tan, 2.0-tan, PC-DOS-tan, Xenix-tan, and OS/2-tan being a part of the family instead of an enemy. Poor MS DOS-tan, who is still part of the Windows Family, and remembers all of the family's history but is not allowed to speak of it!

I'm still iffy on the idea of the Mac-tan mafia since almost all of them are way too friendly for that (an exception maybe being the gun-toting System 7.5-tan), but do you think may be that way against their will?

The Linux-tans vary a lot. Some of them affiliate with the hard-lined 'elite' Unices, while others are eager to interact with anyone and don't care for stealth tactics, and some of them live as hermits and wanderers. The Unices as a whole are similarly diverse. But there are conflicts between the more elite, and more free Linux-tans.

I think the Vintage-tans would be in a class of their own, but as equals to the OS-tans.

The lifespan for an OS-tan is characterized by the OS's popularity when it was current, how much it continues to be used (if at all), and how well remembered it is.

In the case of Apple I-tan, she represents a fairly well-known computer that had an extremely limited run, but lives on in emulators and Apple I replicas being made currently.

Another case is Xenix-tan, an obscure Unix version from Microsoft. Wasn't widely used or remembered. She died in obscurity.

Even though the Commodore 64 is long-discontinued, C64-tan will live for a long time with all the emulators out there, including a fully licensed one for the iPhone!

However, some life/death cases aren't so clear-cut, or decided for story reasons. Like with Apple III-tan, representing a system that sold very poorly with a high percentage of defective units 30 years ago, and she's still alive!


EDIT: On the OS-tan wiki front page, I created a section for OS-tan theories and conjectures, and will add the evolutions and species theories. :)

I see the each of them as distinct but equally important species, with the vintage computer-tans being in a class of their own. Many of them had not just their own proprietary hardware, but also their own OS/BASIC, file formats, and ROM/firmware in one package.

There was some of that divergence in the 80's, with the DOS-tans and the Mac OS-tans, but it wasn't until the 90's that this became the norm and not the exception.

It was mainly due to MS DOS and the different Windows versions running on various hardware brands. The other major competitor was of course the Mac OS and its distinct hardware. This sacrifice of hardware+OS integration has the advantage of flexibility and adaptability, mainly for OSes that run on x86 architecture.

Sure, the Mac OS has always been confined to Apple hardware, but not just one particular model.

BTW, I edited my post and went more in-depth about it, but I agree, Bella.

Still wanting to know about the Mac 'mafia', I don't think the Mac-tans are in it by choice, and they have to follow orders, or at least the OSX-tans do, since the 'protection' doesn't apply as much --or at all-- to the Classic Mac-tans. Speaking of which, I think the Classic Mac-tans have stayed in the House of Mac out of loyalty for the OSX-tans (even though most of the Classic-tans would actually be better suited as Vintage Federation members), and the OSX-tans are grateful but have not experienced any other upbringing aside from the 'protection' they live under so they have to comply with executive orders. :(

Quote from: "Nejin Oniwa"
If there's one thing one needs when producing any sort of material, it's order. Chaos plays a big role as well, but things need sorting out a lot more than they need shuffling around.

The hardware mortality is a good idea - especially since in the day of the now, not only do they suffer physical damage and degradation but all the more they become outdated. Thus recent hardware-tans will have to exist in extreme abundance, while very select few have actually aged well and remained "alive" and in use - although the hardware itself might not physically age very quickly, they mature and become obsolete very fast, and don't tend to live very long and/or break down at a young age. Easy fodder for TRAGEDY TRAGEDY TRAGEDY, the transience of hardware is.

OS-tans are wide in kind and number, and differ alot from each other - as natured by the difference in their code and usage of file systems, file types, etc. While software-tans are way more abundant, they always have to order themselves by family of end-user OSes; the caste system idea is a good idea indeed, and I would also like to lobby for conflicts over license usage (GPL vs closed source etc) among the families themselves. The Mac-tans as a supremacist familia of somewhat shut-in ladies and gents protected by Tiger SPs is an idea I endorse here, and only select families of software AND hardware -tans allowed to visit "the mansion"; the classics would most likely be less protected or even uncared for in the older cases, and the younger sisters may be rebellious from case to case - I don't know the Macs that well, though, so maybe leaving it to Aurora/Bella is a good idea in this case.

As for Firmware-tans, I don't know if they are entirely necessary - that'd mean that a classic iPod, for example, would have two -tans: the Hardware part, and the Firmware/OS part (which is the same, afaik) - and the same goes for your everyday gfx card as well. This seems highly redundant to me.

The Vintage-tans are a special case, both in -tan "biology" and capability - they were, after all, the origins, the Homo Erectus of computers, if you will - and and thus they are several of the things at once. It's not blurring the lines, since the lines were pretty much not invented at that time. Their evolution WAS the drawing of lines, so to speak. So rather than the HW-tans being "created" after the OS-tans, they would rather have been distinguished as of a different class than the OS-tans somewhere in the middle of the Vintage-tan evolution from computer-tan to multiple species, and since diverged further.

Some interesting events make for crossroading questions. For example, OS architecture porting (OpenVMS VAX to Alpha and Alpha to Itanium, for example) poses an interesting question. How is this to be considered in the element of the evolution of the OS itself? What is the difference, if any, between XP Pro and XP x64, or Mac OSX PPC and Intel? Is it constant among the differently platformed OSes?


As I'm writing this TL;DR, I realize I should REALLY start working on some OS-Tan fiction as soon as I get my stuff done and ready. Hope for a thread to be revived/rebooted somewhere during the summer, if all goes well. WRITERS READY UP~

Data does not age (kinda). Thus the only two deaths OS-tans (and vintages as well) are susceptible to would be death by complete extinction of all copies, OR the death of all supporting HW-tans (although emulation adds in an idea of possible OS NECROMANCY in this case).

Emulator-tans...now THAT'S a SW-tan class with some pretty big power, there. Necromancers/Spirit mediums much? -w-

Standardization and clarification is needed much here -w-;

At least, if one is aiming for some sort of canon continuity. Some might not. -w-

I meant, if OUR canon is to have some sort of continuity within itself, and not just be a strange assortment of buttcheeks and waffle iron.

Internal Apple Familia oppression...I CAN SMELL THE PLOT. Z:3

Linux-commie idea seems a bit meh to me as well. If for nothing else then the fact that Linux/Torvalds TEH CREATOR is from Finland, one of the few countries in the area to actually manage escaping Sovietification back in the day (and well managing to kick quite a heap of ruski ass in the Winter War), I'd say it'd make for a good attitude against that sort of stuff.

Vintage class of its own is pretty much what I've been thinking but more on that later as this demon has SHITLOADS OF WERK.

Also it'd be more appropriate to continue the OS-volution etc discussion and stuff not related to this IBM topic in Aurora's new thread:[/size]
http://ostan-collections.net/viewtopic.php?t=1238

Thanks for porting the rest of the major discussion over here too! :)

I'm still also trying to work on the Annex Project stuff, and think it'd be easier for me to port all the new stuff from my remake thread into the original which is better-organized, and more prominently displayed but has a lot of obsolete stuff that needs updating.

EDIT: If all the evolution stuff has been ported to this thread, I can delete the original posts in the other thread for cleanup.

Quote from: "I"
wow, i actually had to take notes on this. oh lawls.

let's see...

--the apple forbidden from mating with other -tans lends itself a romeo x juliet air in the case of emuii-tan and kyourou-kun, due to the fact that from fandom (and the comic i transcribed myself) has kyourou hopelessly in love with emuii-tan, and emuii returning his feelings to some extent. this makes for a very interesting story, no? :3 (although the only one i would think would be truely angry in the windows sect would be 95-tan; as for the mac side i figure the only ones NOT angry with this pairing would be sonata, apple II, apple I (may she rest in peace), and maybe system1-tan.)

--hardware morality makes sense. it also lends itself to that idea i had about the IBM army--lots of strapping young hardware-kuns charging off to battle with the other hardware types, thus ending their lifespan, leading to only a few straggling survivors in their old age.
-tragedy may be a good motif for this, although WE'D have to make up the parings, as there aren't exactly alot of canon hardware-tans/kuns.
-technically they are the oldest, as TECHNICALLY the first computer was created by ada lovelace, which was pure hardware. we could consider them "the original race", or something. they should at least garner some respect.
-i was going to consider firmware part of the limited "magics" held by the hardware species, but i like your idea MUCH better.

--the os-tans may be the most complex of the species to plan, as most of it is already planned out for us. this SEEMS simpler, but in reality this actually binds us to the set given.
-nej, i like your idea about the mac "famigilia". this (http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=28) is pretty much how i've thought of the macs, so only "elite" software seems to fit this image. i also like the idea of the youngsters being "rebellious", though OSX-tan would probably be a little more traditional than OSX-kun or the OS9 set. (the italian flair also goes with the romeo/juliet thing i mentioned earlier ;D )
-i am wondering what sort of "magics" you meant, considering the software are a class in themselves. explain?
-the windows seem like they would be more laid-back, as with the usual setting for the windows houses, relaxed, japanese, and cozy. they would welcome even unlicenced software with open arms, though vista would ask permission first. xD
-the linux, considering they are rather scattered, seem like they'd be more like an underground group, having secret meetings, like communists in the 1950's. xD they would probably cater to mainly open-source/unlicenced software, and be a bit more stealthy in their dealings. they probably would not get along with other clans, if they got along with themselves.
-OSes are not immortal, if i remember right. i once read that apple 1 died, as did a few others. they might have impressive longevity, maybe even not able to succumb to natural causes (what IS "natural" for an OS??), but they CAN die.

--i like the idea of firmware-tans. i have an art book that reminds me of something that bella said about them:

Quote from: "Bella"ITS CRAZY :V WE SHOULD HAVE A PICNIC AT LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE SOMETIME OR SOMETHING. :V

no, not that, though we should. xD

Quote from: "Bella"they'd probably be the lowest class, but one of the largest, since firmware is used in almost EVERYTHING electronic.

the art book is called "Manga Matrix" (i reccomend it, $25), one of it's purposes is to help people plan stories. one of the samples i really took a shine to (actually helped inspire a potential comic of mine) and i think it would fit here.
the pages are here (http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/boundarysky1.jpg), here (http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/boundarysky2.jpg), and here (http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/boundarysky3.jpg) (the third one is just the unreadable text on #2.). I think the stateless people from the story would describe the firmware-tans quite well. (on another note, like the statless people, they are connected with the upper-class whether they like it or not [in this case the hardware-tans].)

--software-tans would most likely be of a lower class than the rest (but not as low as firmware). They are dependent upon OSes for work and purpose, for without OSes, they (technically) do not exist (though with disk-burning, this is subject to speculation). There would likely be 3 classes: Licenced, Unlicenced, and Freeware. (i suppose piracy could come into play as a 4th class, but me thinks they would fall under "unlicenced".) I'm thinking that Certian OSes would only hire certian Software; i'm thinking Mac would mainly hire Licenced (and very few at that), Windows would be equal-oppertunity, and Linux would cater mostly to Freeware.
-Software reminds me of a sort of assistant to OSes, like a boss and secratary (in certian cases).
-Applications and gadgets should fall under this catagory.
-Would malware fall under this catagory?

--I like the evolution theory for Vintage-tans, although this is slightly degrading in addition to being true; if we compare them to evolution, then as the "modern" OSes represent the evolutionary stage of today, Vintage would be farther down on the chain, as early homo sapiens, or perhaps even closer to our primate cousins.

--I vote we start a seperate species for Filetypes, as they are not software, not OS, and not anything else. i can't figure out where to place them, unless we start counting them as the "cells" of the OS, as they make up the OS itself.

also, i made a prototype hierarchy chart based on the one in the book.
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/oshierarchy.jpg)

hmm, i think i'm done with my arguements.

very cool, thanks aurora-sama. ^^

given that the mac familt sports lisa, OSX, AND 7.5-tan, not to mention a brigade of overprotective catboys and close-minded office execs, the mafioso idea doesn't seem TOO far off.....

considering the vintages are OSes, they would probablyfall under that catagory. but there needs to be some explanations...
1. time warp
2. immortality
3. evolutionary
4. clones
5. suspended animation
6. ????
7. profit

bella: i suppose you're right about the hardware-tans, although for certian computers (and storyline purposes) having an army of clone-puters would be pretty cool.
as for os-volution, there must be SOME hints of it, whether it's a family line or OSes coming from other computers. unix to linux could be considered an os-volution.
i wonder if, for storyline purposes, viruses and malware could "kill" an OS-tan.
(ps. dost thou live in plymouth? :3)

nej: since when is this canon? WE keep the -tans alive now. which means WE make the canon stuff now.

hmm, indeed, there has to be SOME organization. i think that may be what sparked this philosophical conversation of philosophy and os-tan
(or "On the OS-tan of Species").

yes, orginization is needed. but first we need to agree on what is being organized. we have os-tans, software, and hardware as separate species; we all agree on that it seems. i like the idea of firmware and filetypes as separate species as well. does everyone agree? and what to do about vintage-tans?

after that, there's the OS-volution debate. then we could probably start some organizing, cause then we'll know what we're dealing with.

the "hybrids" from long ago could result from a time when OSes were not limited to whom they could reproduce with. An OS could have mated with a Hardware, producing the hybrid. as time moved on, it was considered "forbidden" to mate an OS and a piece of hardware. hybrids should also perhaps (for storyline purposes) be a different class, or maybe treated as outcasts in certian ways, since they are a fusion of what should (by modern standards) not be fused.

(ps. the last paragraph i just wrote, so even if you skip the pre-said stuff you should read that.)

np aurora-san.  and update away.

this project is getting big and exciting. ^^ it's making me feel better. ^^

so, people, on the creation of species,  i was going to move for the creation of certian catagories, but i need a question answered first:
are we considering the vintage OSes their own species or just a class of OS?

Quote from: "Chocofreak13"
are we considering the vintage OSes their own species or just a class of OS?

Depends of the Vintage-tan in question. Some are purely hardware, some are OS-tan, others (like the micros) are hybrid of the two.

ok, so the species are still OS, Hardware, Software, Firmware, Hybrid, and Filetype? (no one has disputed me on filetypes so i'm putting it in).

i move for the creation of the following categories of species:
Hardware
Software
Firmware
Operating System
Hybrids
Filetypes

seconded?
all in favor?

Hybrid isn't exactly a species. It's a class composed of those with elements of multiple other species. Or what?

i think it deserves it's own species, since it can't fall into either "hardware" or "os".

well? yay or nay? :\

It's a fusion of two (or possibly more?) different species... just like a mule isn't considered its own species, but a cross of horse and donkey. So they're both hardware and OS-tan or program-tan.

But I guess you could say it's its own species for the sake of organisation...

I suppose file type should be a kind of -tan. Hardwares, of course, could be split us further into different sub-categories: actual computers, peripherals, storage devices, etc. but I'd rather not do that now.

File types is one thing I'm hesitant to - it just seems like one thing to many in the bottle...

@Nejin: logically, firmware could fall under the same assumption. but it adds an interesting element to the storyline, and to be honest, if you could find a species for them to fall under, be my guest, cause i just can't. =\

@Bella: i was proposing that we set down the basic species now, then we can start working on genus, phyus, ect.

Besides, file type -tans have been created. Just look in the Gallery.

Would this be a bad time to bring up my previous idea of calculator -tans as mercenaries?

this is more about species than -tan types.

that's like making Mac-tans and Windows-tans seperate species. they're both OSes.

this is a rare moment when i'm speaking not of the fandom.

seriously you guys, you guys, seriously. yay or nay? =\

Each 'class' of OS-tan should still be the same species, just of different cultures. Still support the idea of calculator-tans as mercenaries.

i like the idea. sounds cool for storyline purposes.

guess i proposed a vote prematurely, forget it for now then. (sorry if i seem a little bitchy, combo of bad mood + it seems like my message ain't gettin across. =\ )

Hmm... I read through the whole first page... and the post above. I clearly understand that you people are trying to define clear categories for '-tans. So I have the following question to make:

Why is "firmware" set apart from anything?

To me (and judging by the Wikipedia article)... it would just be the software form of hardware. So it would fall under "OS" or "Software".

Hmmm... this got me thinking too much and brought me right into taxonomy. But yeah, you can use basic taxonomy to separate most of the species and evolutions through the different taxonomic ranks/categories. At least that will allow for Firmware to exist somewhere... or not... lol

Yeah, that sort of thinking is what has me doubting as well.

because the OS-tans are a double-edged sword: in addition to the technical aspect, we also have the storyline to think about.

firmware is both hardware and software. this means it could fall under the hybrid category, but for STORYLINE purposes, it makes it interesting to have firmware as a category.

it feels too generalized to have it just be hardware, software, and OS as the species.

we could expand it further, but by my count, we currently have:
Hardware
Software
Firmware
OS
Hybrid
Filetype

if this still bothers you, we COULD move firmware to the hybrid folder, and just have them be a lower class than the rest (or something).

Well, I don't know about you guys - but my experience as a writer is that generalizing tends to be the better option instead of specifying (and that's despite me doing a LOT of specifying in my works) at most times. I'm just doubting whether it'll come to use at all if we do branch it off; then again, we're multiple writers so one might use what another might not...gah, so annoying. -_-;

that's the benefit of having multiple writers, one person = one species or the like.

i'm a comic artist. and from my experience, details can make all the difference. i try not to generalize (except for crowd scenes, like the barfight i drew the other day), so that each thing sparkles in its own right. sure, it takes a little while, but the results are worth it.

I suppose that's very true for comics; The reverse rules for literature, since you just can't take it all in in one glance like you do with an image.

If anything... I have done both and can agree with both. But then... hybrids of anything can exist and firm ware can just be it's own kingdom in between hardware and software... at least there it could better represent itself.

Hmm... I think I feel the need to create an evolution tree to represent what I have thought up so far.

i made a small chart, but it's mainly for class purposes....

(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/osspecies.jpg)

threw this together. up for debate since we haven't taken a vote yet.

and The Hobbit had plenty of detail. What's your excuse?

I think the hybrids should still be equals to the OSes, at least for storyline purposes.

With class, are you referring to purely a social/caste one, or a social/economic one?

social/caste, however this tends to effect economic status as well.

i was a little iffy on the hybrids, i figure that's better left to a case-by-case basis.

Economic status can vary a lot between the OS-tans too. Windows 1.0-tan and 2.0-tan are OS-tans, but as part of the Vintage Federation, they're by no means wealthy.

And there's the OS-tans of the Anti$oft Coalition, with their constant financial problems!

not to mention the variation of the wander sect and the linuxes. :3


anyway, we're a little OT i think.

now people, before we let our ideas loose, we need somewhre fr them to go. nej is right that we need a little organization or else we end up with little moar than random assortment of buttcheeks and waffle iron.

who's cool with the species?

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.

[attachment deleted by admin]

=\

nice? it's a little confusing since i thought we agreed that applications were falling under the same catagory as software. drivers, technically, might as well, or maybe under filetypes.

all of the hardware related stuff (processors, chips, ect.) would probably fall under hardware as a catch-all.

Over-detailed.

TOO CONFUSING!! *splode*

We're overthinking things, guys! :V

As least in the case of hardware, software and OSes and class system, that's a fluid thing. At the dawn of computer-tans, all that existed were hardware-tans. Somewhere along the line, softwarish/OS elements were incorporated into hardwares, but it wasn't until the 1950s that OS-tans split away from hardwares and a separate species and not until the late 50s/early 60s that they jumped slightly ahead of hardwares on the social class scale. Software/App-tans are a bit difficult to judge: they're vital to OS-tans in support roles and some become just as powerful and popular (and even richer) than some of their OS-tan counterparts (Photoshop-tan, for example) but they still have a lot of strange customs that prevent them from full participation in the computer community (like being restricted to certain OS social circles... in the case of a Mac only or Windows only program).

And also, like Aurora pointed out, social status does not necessarily equal economic status. There are plenty of OS-tans who are poor and software and hardware-tans who are wildly rich: the difference being, namely, how they interact with each other (in other words, no amount of riches could buy a Linux-only app-tan the power to socialize with Windows OS-tans).

I also agree that hybrid OS-and-hardware-two-in-one -tans should be considered on par with OS-tans.

As for processors being their own -tans, I don't wanna trample on anyone elses' designs or views of the OS-tan universe (and I have seen some nice processor/HDD/etc -tans), but in the computer hardware-tan designs I create it'll be assumed that those are a part of the computer-tan himself/herself. (IE, the processor is the brain, the HDD is the memory centre, the mobo is the spine/centre of the nervous system... and so on and so forth).

ect.

but no one wants to just shu'up and start nailing some stuff down. we can worry about putting in details later. for now let's lay some groundwork, people!

Seconding -v-

And just how the hell are we supposed to do this?

EDIT: Also, bear in mind that I don't want to freak people out by telling them "this is the way things are". Everyone seems to have his or her own vision on the OS-tan universe (seeing as the fandom is "fanon" and not "canon"), and I don't want to be intolerant of other ideas...

i'm moving for the creation of basic species. from there we will move to create different types, ect.

the motion has been seconded. all in favor?

I'll vote yea.

ok, so 3 yeas as far as i know. kiso and aurora were involved too, so waiting on their votes. :3

If basic species mean the division we were at in the beginning, then Big O lays his vote for this as well.

I'll vote yea, despite only following and not contributing.  Am I eligible to vote?

Quote from: "NejinOniwa"If basic species mean the division we were at in the beginning, then Big O lays his vote for this as well.

You're voting "yes" for non-consensus? Just like you to do such thing. lol

Anyways...

@Chocofreak13: f by making basic species you mean an evolution tree, I guess we will all differ in views.... just the way it is. But I guess I can vote "yes" if that means that we are going to agree on what is what. Then again, it may never be like that... unless we're talking about hardware. But when it comes to zeroes and ones... we're pretty much stuck.

I call "software" anything that's not physically tangible (OSes, Apps, Filetypes, Firmware, etc.) that is directly related to computer hardware... and you refer to software when you speak of apps/programs. Bella said that she views the different hardware parts as parts of a computer-tan's body. I share Bella's view, however, I also can view them as separate entities themselves... mainly because I've seen the illustrations on each hardware part already.

I don't know if it's just me, but if we want to move forwards with this. We actually need to agree on the really basic stuff. Then again... we could all end up arguing and just go back to drawing. I'd kinda' feel bad if something like the latter happened though.

EDIT: @stewartsage: You can vote if you want... you just need to know what we're talking about. You should also contribute... the more people that do, the more fun and random this might end up being. :D

EDIT: delete double post (Whatever happened to the code that just added stuff to your last post if you double-posted?)

stew: well, you're a contributing member of society, i don'[t see why you shouldn't have a say.

kiso: we are moving for the basic creation of the catagories i mentioned earlier, not evolution.

in case anyone forgot, they were:
hardware
software
firmware
OS
hybrid
filetype


so far that's 5 yays, 0 nays. aurora has yet to vote.

I vote yea too.

Seems as if we've reached the consensus, then.

What was the stance on vintages, by the way? Classification in the basics may not be the best with the ways we've used them storyline-wise, so just "unclassified" or "Vintage Class" might be to prefer.

Some of the vintage-tans are OS-tans, though many of them are hybrids.

@Chocofreak: Uhm... yeah... I forgot that I needed to write the alternative to all that I wrote there... which basically amounts to... "yes". lol

Anyways... all of those categories do exist... I still view them differently, but yes... they exist already.

@Nejin: Ditto on what Aurora said.

i believe we clarified that vintage will be a catagory of OS (or hybrid, depending on the circumstance).

alright. so we've established that the following species exist:
Hardware
Sfotware
Firmware
OS
Hybrid
Filetype


shall we move on to classes? :3

Move along. -w-

alrighty. so for OSes, we have:

Mac
Windows
Vintage
Linux
Other

any others?

Don't forget the Unixes and the mainframes.

The vintage class has some overlap with Mac and Windows. And Yggdrasil might count as a vintage Linux OS.

The DOSes are listed as their own class in the wiki and Annex Project.

Vintage is partly a subclass, since OSes can be both Vintage and another class - the old OLD Apple OSes and the like.

Mac
Linux
Unix
Windows
DOS

I'm not exactly feeling the vintage class, since it's so broad... it could refer to anything from a mainframe to a micro. I'd further the divisions to include various non-Unix:
-Minicomputer OSes (the DEC-tans and DG-tans for example)
-Microcomputers (OS/hardware hybrids like the Commodores, Ataris, early Apples)
-Mainframe-tans (the IBM-tans, CDC-tans, Multics, etc)
-Others

As for the Hardware-tans, it would seem Wikipedia has already laid out different classifications for us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_computers).

good, good. ^^
i'm liking bella's sub-species of OSes, any other OS types anyone would like to add in? (of course we could debate for years over the numerous OSes in existance and whether or not to put them in.)

i'd like to add "others" to the OS list to cover any loose ends. :\ anyone opposed?

Well... for further expansion we'd have to look into the roots of all OSes, since many are simply versions of what currently exists. That would take reaaaally long though, and likely it will be too much of a job for few people to handle. Well... at least not without dedication.

Anyways... under Windows, should there be sub-classes for DOS and NT or not? The same could be said about the Mac-tans.

Man... this is actually the time to start making relationship/family trees... it would only make jobs easier.

Family trees are one of the most hellish things ever to construct, as a matter of fact. -_-

As for DOS/NT they're both the same class of OS-tan - just different lineage (what with the NTs being diverged off VMS to NT and onward whilst the DOSes are descended from MS-DOS and whatever came before that) to base things off. No class diff, same thing with the macs. Unless you start talking about classes as actual lineage, which would make things overly complicated and start dividing things for no reason, that is. I suggest we simply link "class" with affiliation for the sake of ezmodo.

that's pretty much what i was getting at; "class" actually being "family house", so we have macs, windows, ect.

and yeah, family trees are better left to later; right now everything is strewn all over like a 4-yr-old had a tantrum in our office.

Demon Overlord seal o' approval granted.

alright. :3 anyone have anything else to say on OS classes? or are we good with:
Windows
Mac
Linux
Unix
DOS
Others

?
:3

If by "Other" you mean "we'll add more classes as they come up"... then yes.

yees. :3

Agreed.

Also agreeing with Nej on the lineage v. family thing-- two people can be of the same tribe, culture, family, even if they don't have the same bloodline.

like adoption, or blood brothers. :3

so are people good on OS classes?

Quote
Also agreeing with Nej on the lineage v. family thing-- two people can be of the same tribe, culture, family, even if they don't have the same bloodline.

The Clan does, however, only accept new members through the old-fashioned ways of marriage, birth and superior awesomeness, so we won't be getting our first new official member for a while until next year...
Ufufufufufufufu. -∀-

OS Classes seem fine. And speaking of the Windows family, it's an awful lot like what happened to the Swedish royal family back in the 1800's...what with the Vasas dying out and the Bernadottes taking their place, and such. Good riddance. -w-;

I agree with the classes, and the family vs. lineage thing, but it's a little stranger than that...

The Windows Family and the Mac House both have two united lineages.

With the whole extended Apple Family, make that at least three lineages with the Classic Apple-tans (Apple I/II/IIGS/III), or four with the iPod-tans. Or five if Newton-tan is considered a lineage of her own.

While those are families (and their own factions) of united lineages, the Unix lineage is divided into different families and factions!

The obvious question:
WHO ARE THE CAPULETS, AND WHO ARE THE MONTAGUES?

The OS Wars arc involving the Windows and Macs reminded me of the Montagues and Capulets respectively in the anime adaptation "Romeo x Juliet". :)

Hmm... I think we just got derailed somewhat. What were we getting at again? Please guide us Chocofreak!!

RxJ is loev. <3

Speaking of which, my usual gamer nick is [NeoN]Lord Romeo Capulet...
Wishing for a happy ending somehow ;_;

./////////.; i'm not gonna say a word.

ANYHOO, PEOPLES. WE BE OT. PER KISO'S REQUEST I WILL HAUL THIS TRAIN BACK ON ITS TRACKS WITH JUST MY TWO HANDS~~~SUPAAAAHHHHH~~

lesee, people, we are only worrying about the BASICS(and not the vintage BASIC-tan) right now.

are people cool w/ the following catagories for OS classes?
Windows
Mac
Linux
Unix
DOS
Others


ps. if there was ever an OS romeo x juliet it would be kyourou x emuii. ^^

I agree with the classes.

alright, so that's seconded. all in favor?

Virginia says aye.

3/6. everyone else?

New Hampsha says aye!

4/6.

We need to be looking out a few steps ahead into the road to make sure everyone comes ready to voice their opinion.

Am I right or am I wrong on this suggestion? *is only following where OP leads... but doesn't know where to...*

Demon says Yarr.

5/6. and kiso, to address your concerns, we are thinking only of the groundwork right now, no storyline, no "where does this -tan fall" ect ect.
just the BASICS, though everyone seems to be going off on random tirades.

so, do you vote yay or nay?

Actually, I think this kind of categorization makes sense, so I believe we can go on with that. I have no objections.

6/7. :3

@Chocofreak: I did say "yes" already? Well... let me make sure I do now then... yes! :D

IT IS DONE.

OS-CLASSES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
WINDOWS
MAC
DOS
LINUX
UNIX
OTHERS

MOVING ON, NEXT TOPIC:
SOFTWARE CLASSES.

Application
Website
Program
Antivirus (could fall under program, so this one's up for debate)
Other (sidebar gadgets, ect)

Instead of using "Software" as the group class... I'd suggest using "Applications/Programs". Why? Well... "software" is too redundant for it's general group word and may as well include OSes and all that. On the other hand, "application" and/or "program" are a bit more specific in that it basically asks "what does it do?"

Anyways, the above suggestion aside... I propose the following classes:

Web - More general for both browsers (Firefox, Safari, IE, etc.), engines (Trident, WebKit, Gecko, etc.) and actual pages and their internal widgets (since these are viewed/used through the browsers). ((Programs that can access or require a web connection, but do not actually browse/render the web, should probably not be in here.))

Office - We all know this one should include stuff like MS Office, OpenOffice.org and stuff related to them.

Security - This is for malware security suites such as Norton, AVG, Security Essentials and the like.

Creative/Design - Any suite/app that allows you to create/edit images, websites, magazines, and other stuff in 2D, 3D and audio. Adobe Creative Suite, Autodesk Maya and Vocaloid (yay MikuLuka!) would be great examples of this section.

Messaging/Chat - This is where all of those programs should be, you don't view the web through them you just communicate with other people. I guess this should include both text, audio and video.

Performance/Optimization - Tools that help a computer stay in tip-top shape.

Multimedia - Media consumption applications that allow you to just view, watch and/or listen to your stuff. Windows Media Player, iTunes, Winamp, Zune player, Windows Media Center (not the actual OS, mind you), Preview (that's from Mac OS), etc.)

Hmm... I guess that should about cover all of the things that are in my folder.

I support Kiso's version, as it provides a more diverse classification of programs. I wonder what group would contain stuff like cd burning software, Daemon Tools and similar, as they don't seem to fit anywhere on the list. Otherwise, I like this concept.

Wow... I managed to forget about something... the things that I least use by the way. I guess...

Data Management - For burning disc images or creating backups. Nero  would fall under this. And I guess Daemon Tools would fall under here as well since it's able to read disc images and you can emulate drives and stuff. Drive encryption also falls under this category, as well as data recovery tools. So yeah...

With this new addition, I believe your classification feels complete. And considering the massive number of programs, it's not hard to miss a few by accident, and mistakes like that can be corrected. ^^

Those software classifications sound correct.

nothing to add here.

i feel that's getting ttoo specific too quickly. i use "software" as the term because 1. it matches ^^ and 2. it's an umbrella term so we cover anything we might have missed.

the reason i am so general is so that we can gradually get more and more specific.

and i don't believe OS falls under software, due to the fact that it can run on it's own. software cannot run w/o an OS.

An OS is software in that it's not hardware - it's code, data, information stored on some sort of hardware medium. Thus, it is software.

Not to say that I refer to OSes as software anywhere else than in technical references - I'm well off with either, although "software" is a smoother term, despite the wider spectrum.

but in this case they are their own catagory. they can survive without software; not too well, but they can, but software cannot technically "exist" without an OS to run it.

Think like this: OSes are humans, and Apps/Programs are zoo animals. Both kinds are animals, but the zoo animals can't survive all that well without the humans' services (well, I dunno, but probably not all of them, at least) to promote their way of life. In turn, the humans are provided various services (entertainment and in some cases knowledge from studies, in this example) from the animals.
The same trip goes for OSes vs Apps/Programs. Both are software, but one is rather dependent on the other for an environment they can survive in as well as provide their services to the other.

METAPHORS YAY.

EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING.

and i prefer software so cover all. so we don't miss any and end up with OVER 9000 catagories.

Actually, I have a different opinion about this question. I can see your problem with having too many categories. On the other hand, I do believe that even the more diverse list doesn't have uncontrollably high amount of classes. I feel that having too few categories can be just as problematic, as there would be a chance that we would end up with classes clogged up with way too many elements, which makes it harder to check through it.

Looks confusing and hard to understand at first glance. (read about everything on page 1) I would agree that OS-tan's are immortal and that hardware isn't but were douse programs fit in? Do they die or no?

There are deceased OS-tans, and if OS-tans can die, programs probably can too.

Quote from: "Chocofreak13"EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING.

and i prefer software so cover all. so we don't miss any and end up with OVER 9000 catagories.

Uuuhh... but software is just the definition of all non-tangible assets in the technology/computer sector. I'm not going to say "change eeet nao!!11!1!!", but I did want to make the point known that using "application/programs" was more of a valid term to define these new groups (if only for a mere technicality). But like I said, I won't force change on something like that based on my personal scientific thoughts.

Now... let's carry on with the topic. And by the way, you forgot to agree/disagree with my proposed classes for the "software" group. Well... that, or I missed something on your part. ^^;

cause i wanted to get the TITLE of the catagory set first. >:\

i don't like the "applications/programs" title because it raises the question, where do websites, malware, antiviruses, sidebar apps, ect.fall?

meh. i respect your input but i don't agree with it personally. giving specific types of programs (creative, office, ect) their own catagories defeats the purpose of having a "programs" catagory. too fluffy for my taste. and having the title tailor made to application snd programs kind of throws out having websites in there, since they fall under neither description.

is any one else going to debate on this?

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.

Quote from: "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 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. <.<

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

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...)

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

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.)

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]

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.

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".

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

@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.

damn. no homeko/homeo. xD

Why not? :U

i know!

Quote from: "Kiso"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.

firmware is an essential part of the computing process--! don't treat it like a lower-class component--!

and necropost much--!?