Calling this an OS is like calling Gmail an OS.
It doesn’t make any sense.
But since OSes are notoriously difficult to define [1], half of America added AI slop to diets that were already repulsive to begin with, regurgitates the chyme, and passionately feeds it to their peers, you may even get away with it nowadays.
[1] https://os.ecci.ucr.ac.cr/slides/Andrew-S.-Tanenbaum-Modern-...
It absolutely does.
> doesn’t deal with physical memory,
Well it sort of does. It allocates sandboxes and schedules apps in them. It handles loading code from storage and turning it into running programs with state.
> it doesn’t initialize hardware or interface with it on a low level.
Instead of devices it manages interfacing with external services (Gatekeepers are like drivers).
I didn't choose the name but I do think there's a fair analogy here even on a technical level.
This required stretching the terminology so much that now, by your definition, any software that interfaces with anything else in a restricted/controlled manner is OS-like because that's just like interfacing with hardware.
I get why they chose the word - this is marketing, they want to make it appear foundational, as a cornerstone of every interaction you do. But I don't think it's a fair comparison - the OS is the lowest level layer of any computer (barring firmware and the likes) and it manages nearly everything that happens between the user and the computer, the OS is mandatory to use the computer and it runs basically everything. This is just an app - a very sophisticated app that manages other things, but still just a layer over existing systems. If they get to call this an OS, then maybe Microsoft could call the bundle of their Office suite and all the enterprise software an OS too, I'm sure there's enough functionality, depth, features and app-driven oversight over data for it to qualify.
Or "COSIOS": CloudflareOS Is Not an OS.
Sent from my Gmail OS