An operating system is how a computer works. So one might be tempted to speak of an “operating system” for a segment of the community (e.g. the legal world) or for an individual (e.g. what makes someone “tick”).
But such metaphors are not just shallow, but misleading. Comparing astrology with statistics does an injustice to how poetic omens are, and also how logical, rigorous, counter-intuitive, and surprising statistics often is.
The same goes for comparing the study of law with the study of logic: while lawyers rely on plausible arguments consistent with common sense, the academic study of logic is precisely about how such arguments can be wrong and how convoluted and implausible arguments can be right.
Why does it matter whether or how these metaphor mislead?
The answer is that putting one’s finger on exactly where metaphors mislead emphasises the difference between the computer science and the common-sense way of thinking. This helps us appreciate what “operating system” means in its proper context, and avoid applying this in inappropriate contexts.
First, in computer science, “operating systems” generally refers to the study of how a single self-standing machine works. Communications between different machines are generally studied under different headings (e.g. “distributed systems” or “networking”).
Thus, it is misleading to compare a community of people, each of whom can function on their own, to an operating system. If anything, a community is closer to a distributed system/network.
Secondly, operating systems were designed deliberately by humans. Every feature we see was the result of conscious human decisions that were made, refined, and written down in very detailed specifications: from machine language to assembly language to programming languages (e.g. C).
Nothing comparable exists when we think about a community or an individual. Our own memories and self-understanding are subjective and uncertain. There are no detailed specifications that we can find all the answers on how everything was designed and “meant” to work.
There is a broad sense in which we are living under the constraints of custom and history, but these are not crisply stated as they would inevitably be by the people who designed an operating system. Operating systems are invented by people, but people aren’t.
Finally, and most importantly, comparing a computer’s operating system with the workings of a community or an individual puts to spotlight on the wrong place.
Operating systems, and computers in general, did not come to have an impact on us in a vacuum. Their impact can only understood in the wider intellectual, economic and political context that begun in 20th century America:
- The funding of the massive machines for code-breaking and weapon-making;
- The emergence of the first “hackers” obsessed with Mainframes on university campuses;
- The invention of APRANET (precursor to the internet) as a military experiment;
- The invention of UNIX, the first operating systems that is portable between different machines;
- The copyright issues and “UNIX wars” that led to Stallman’s free software movement;
- The invention of Linux by Linus Torvalds and the spread of the open-source movement enabling tens and thousands of businesses to break free of the grip of Microsoft.
- The invention of the world-wide web in CERN; of popular browsers Netscape, Internet Explorer, Firefox and Google Chrome.
- In the background of all this, the rise of California as a startup hub, first of chip companies (Intel), then of Microsoft, then of Venture Capital funds (Y combinators) which go on to spawn more and more companies that take the world by storm (Open AI).
No one person or one master design was responsible for the emergence of operating systems. Tens of thousands of people contributed to this common project in fundamental research, engineering, business, politics and changing social norms about privacy and ownership in order to bring them about. To leave all this aside and to compare people with operating systems serves only to mislead.