February 25, 2021, 09:21:02 am

OS-TAN THEORY 101

Started by Chocofreak13, December 22, 2010, 04:19:44 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chocofreak13

i agree with his guidelines, since the line between life and death is kind vague with the -tans, and that made things pretty clear.

NejinOniwa

Quote from: Life/Death Guidelines, by the Demon OverlordIn 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.


From glorious olde page 5 in this thread. Was some good debates there.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

Chocofreak13

too bad the debates fizzled. just because we reached an agreement on life/death, doesn't mean there aren't other things to talk about.

i still liked the discussion about 'classes' of os-tan society. :\

Aurora Borealis

I could use some help writing the life/death article, but it'd also be good to get back to classes debate. Did we reach a consensus for that yet?

Chocofreak13

May 26, 2011, 03:58:03 pm #169 Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 04:15:13 pm by Chocofreak13
yes and no; we were working our way through it, by starting with the vague stuff and getting more detailed from there. i'll take a minute and try to find what we had decided on.

EDIT: i believe we got as far as this before it derailed:

Quote from: Chocofreak13 on May 26, 2011, 03:58:03 pm
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)
i feel that's getting too 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.

NejinOniwa

Wouldn't it be much, much easier to just drop the whole question of "classes"? I mean - the existing systems of Factions and Lineages/Families pretty much sum all the necessary data up without making any unnecessary generalizations.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

Aurora Borealis

That part's fully agreed on, but I think she meant the differences in class between OSes, other software, hardware, and hybrid systems.

I worked on the life and death article a bit more, and included a link in it to a new article on the OS-tan Code Pool Theory.

Chocofreak13

when the topic came up, it was for 2 things:
1. to determine the different species of -tan (such as antivirus-tan, ram-tan, or mainframe-tan)
2. to give a loose guideline on the different social classes in the os-tan world (such as would they all be equal, or would some os-tans considered programs/hardware/etc 'beneath' them).

so....yeah. everyone cool with those classes/species of software? anything you feel should be amended?

NejinOniwa

Hmmmm
Amendments are needed. Not enough time. I needs to sleep now. Will write more tomorrow.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

Chocofreak13

kk. will wait for response.

Bella

A few days ago I found a piece of official DEC literature that outlines a history of early MIT systems that, if released, would turn our entire knowledge of MIT computer-tan history on its head. Or not. Probably not. Hint: it has to do with Whirlwind.

So, yes. Let us NEVER SPEAK OF IT AGAIN. Or at least until Stew comes back again, since we'll need his tacit knowledge of Whirlwindology to know what course of action to take concerning aforementioned nugget of info and whether said nugget should be made into a new OS-tan character. Oops, I've said too much. .__.;

Chocofreak13

bells, that's better suited to the "new ibm-tans" thread. :\

stewartsage

Whoa, we have a new IBM thread?


Bella

There is no new IBM-tan thread. It's the old thread, for new IBM-tans. .__.

Chocofreak13

why is this here? :\

i thought this thread died again. :\