I think that analogy is not quite accurate for the average users. For the type of person that would visit a board like this one it might apply loosely.

The average person knows which is the sharp end of a scalpel and will manage not to cut themselves. But in the computer world things are different, the average user is easily lost in the maze of software available and can very easily "cut" oneself on bad software because the user didn't even know she was downloading a scalpel. In software, the scalpel can easily look like a fluffy toy and fool one into a false sense of safety. Not until it is too late does the unfortunate user realise she has not only cut off her fingers, but also a major artery is leaking vital fluids at a rapid rate.

Then we can agree to disagree. I do not believe in any utopias, for example, one in which an os resides with no vulnerabilities. I much prefer a far simpler operating system, one susceptible to all kinds of dreadful attacks, but which can and will be reinstalled, effortlessly, fresh, anew, each day, for example. Will it be attacked? sure. So what. let them attack. While they are attacking one computer, I just push a button, and reinstall the same operating system (takes only three seconds, for a well written os to install, when written in asm.) on a different computer.
The more complicated the operating system, the more likely attacks will occur. This is somewhat similar to Moore's law....
My only disagreements with Dex, concern his preference for DOS compatibility, which I don't require, and his support for the (logical) method of going back and forth between real mode and protected mode to access hardware. To paraphrase the real estate folks:
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

@vid, revolution, Do not get me wrong, i for one am not saying that desktop OS should be designed this way.
My point is from a hobby OS design point of view, which should be designed to take advantage of the small number of user and special useage.
Too many hobby OS try and copy the desktop OS, coding stuff that not only gets in the way of the programmer and slow execution of programs, but will nether be tested, these extra layers take time to implement, which in the long term, you end up with lots of half finish hobby OS.

@tom tobias, I am not sure where you get the idea of me wanting Dos compatibility in my OS or design, as i have never included it into DexOS.
I have for MiniDos but then it a Dos clone.
Also going to and from real mode is just a simple method of fixing a problem that works, If there was a simple method that worked as good i would use it.
We as hobby OS Dev have to make choosers, eg: how to change video modes, do we:
1. Stay in the same mode ? (most people would like to change modes)
2. Write drivers for all the graphic cards? (most do not release spec's )
3. Implement a v86? ( i was planing on coding one, but 4. option work so well, i nether did )
4. Go to and from real mode? ( easy to implement and work great )

Dex: agree on hobby OSes, if they have some use, it's not in desktop OS area.

If someone comes in with a hammer then the "safest" most ultraparanoid crippled "desktop" OS possibly won't save you from buying a new PC

And, DexOS doesn't have any DOS compatibility, it just has DOS design

Great argument not to fix bugs. I bet you 'd be delighted if MS used same argument instead of bugfixing.

Dex: As I said, i meant this only for desktop OSes. I agree that for hobby OSes, switching to RM can be fine.

delted

> be delighted if MS used same argument instead of bugfixing.

YES.

> The funny thing is XP allowed it!

I still prefer to decide myself what OS'es I install, what files I download or what multimedia I play ... and to who I boast with it (instead of "background calling home feature").

Download now: DOS VESA (doesn't compile with FASM but works )