Talk:List of operating systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Old comments without section heading

I've been correcting links to Arthur" by disambiguating them as "Arthur (movie)" and "Arthur (album)". But there is a link to "Arthur" on this page which I don't get. The page is a big complicated list, and not explained very well. Can someone make it a bit clearer, please? -- Oliver P. 15:31 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

What's so complex. Arthur was the OS of the Acorn Archimedes. which also has mention of it. Clearly he intended for it to link to that, probebly presuming it was going to be a sub-page, tho I am not sure. Anyway, I don't see a page for it, but I'll fix it. User:Rboatright 15:53 2002.02.16

Thanks for the explanation, and for fixing it. To someone who doesn't know all that much about all the different operating systems of the world, the page looks terribly scary. It's not clear which names are names of computers, which are names of companies, and which are names of the actual operating systems. It needs a few sentences of good old-fashioned English prose to clarify such things, and to explain the layout of the list, and so on. -- Oliver P. 16:05 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

"203.109.254.40 (reversed vandalism)". Not wanting to be rude but I think someone here has a wrong notion of vandalism! When I edited the article I only tried to organize it and not to vandalize anything. Anyway, I'll not bother changing it again even if I disagree with the way it is organized. If anyone thinks my version was more usefull and legible then post i again, I won't do it myself! -- hybrid-2k

[edit] The BeOS Clones?

I wanted to put Zeta, OpenBeOS, and BlueEyed OS on the list. Were should they go?

iHoshie 23:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zeta isn't a clone of BeOS, it's BeOS under development by a different company Crusadeonilliteracy 04:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot that Zeta was the BeOS codebase done by a different company. It's on the list now. The other two are iffy stil. iHoshie 16:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On 12th Jan, Pcollison, with the comment (Shouldn't the name given by the author count for more than the name given by someone on the sideline?) changed the entry for GNU/Linux to Linux. This put the alphabetisiation out of order, and gave 2 entries for Linux, with none for the (referenced) GNU/Linux.

Reverted that edit, on the basis that both the term 'Linux' and GNU/Linux are valid entries.

Changed the parenthetical remarks to make Linux primary entry, on the basis that that is how the page for Linux is. I belive that the talk page for Linux is the correct forum to decide which is primary, thus this page should folllow that.Syntax 02:45, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the Hobby OS section. Where do you draw the line? Does Linux count as a hobby OS? *BSD? Plan9? Crusadeonilliteracy 12:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may suggest another name, instead hobby. About Linux, BSD: I mean hobby - in more narrow use, when usage of this systems is hobby too (IMHO). Linux and BSD are voluntary free projects, that are used in many professional applications from Internet servers to embedded. It is not hobby. I've introduced 'Hobby OS' section to devide very long list of 'others' OS. Kenny sh 10:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should the PDA and Smartphone be moved out of the Proprietory Heading? Also, I'd like to add a router heading , IOS by Cisco Jondel

[edit] Reorganization?

I'm really glad a page like this exists, but I have to look hard to find systems I know exist, and I'm unsure where to add some systems, like L4. I would like to suggest reorganizing the list in order to make it more useful.

In particular, it is difficult to find very similar OS'es because they are arranged by things like Proprietary and Non-Proprietary at the top level. Ideally, similar OS'es would we listed near one another at lower levels. IMHO, I'd prefer to see a breakdown that grouped the top levels by architecture or eras, and maybe give some indication of the hardware that the OS runs on. I like the "application" categories that currently exist, but would like to add desktop usage as a special case, possibly as a separate page, and change the naming to something less ambiguous, like "roles".

Dataphile 20:39, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, lets do it together. I suggest a breakdown by architecture and then sub-divided by similarity. This will mean dual listing for most operating systems but it will be for the best. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 13:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] OS historical vision

This is an important list and set of articles. My advice is that it is heavily-oriented toward latter-day systems of the late 70s onward. As an ex-mainframe OS developer of the early 70s, my wish is to supplement this article with stubs of the "seven dwarves" of the period. This is necessary to collect valuable OS history in wiki. Comments/denunciations?


[edit] Missing on the list:

UNICOS (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), UNICOS/mp (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), UNICOS/lc (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), SUPER-UX (a Unix-like OS on NEC SX-series vector processor supercomputers -> Earth Simulator ;-), CONVEX OS (a Unix-like OS on Convex vector processor supercomputers), LDOS (a TRS-80 disk OS regarded as better than TRS-DOS)

..hope that helps ;-) Otherwise.. Great page! Keep up the good work!


[edit] ReactOS

I moved the ReactOS link out of the "hobby OS" and into non-proprietary non-unix-like. Though it's still in early development stages, it has been developing fairly rapidly of late, and has moved beyond the "hobby" designation IMO. --Blackcats 09:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Full of hoaxes

According to our favorite vandal, Willy on Wheels, this list is full of hoaxes, and nobody has bothered to do anything about it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 06:24

  • I saw that post on /. and I'm wondering what should be done about this. I looked through the list and only saw a few that I even recognize. Maybe we need to go through the list, one-by-one, on this talk page, and verify each independently. It would take a looong time. Or have someone go through the edit history and flag as suspect any addition by anonymous users or users with small numbers of contributions or other vandalisms. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up!

[edit] Missing O/S's

You need to add the several O/S's from Data General: RTOS (Real-time operating system, ran on Nova minicomputers), RDOS (Real-time Disk Operating System, ran on Nova and Eclipse minicomputers), and AOS/VS (32-bit operating system with virtual memory, ran on MV series) 192.35.44.24 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

NACHOS and Pintos are also missing. Meneth 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page seriously needs reorganization

It would be much more helpful of this page listed OSes by each of the following odering:

  1. by computing era in chronological order (additional notes on specific major innovations would help (i.e., only major innovations like 'First OS with Virtual Memory')
  2. b) by manufacturer
  3. by parent or by roots/influcences (e.g., unix derivatives, CP/M derivatives, MS Windows derivatives
  4. By platform type (mainframe, microcomptuer, embedded systtem) and machine word size
  5. By number of concurrent tasks (e.g., single tasking MSDOS vs a multi-user OS under Vax VMS)
  6. OS complexity (e.g., primitve machines with a bootstrap to run a single program, to single user machines, to multi-user machines, to multi-OS hosted on a single parent OS (e.g., Z Series linux)

The general problem is that this page is just a large disorganized list which does not quite help anyone to see the progression of an individual OS or the progression from older OS to the newer operating systems.

Lastly, this page should be tied somewhat to a similar computer hardware page since most OS innovations were facilitated by better hardware.

[edit] More Missing O/S's with links

  1. [1]Mini-UNIX by H. Lycklama, 1977 - cut-down UNIX v6 for PDP-11s without memory management
  2. [2]GNOSIS developed by Tymshare Inc. to run on 370 architecture
  3. [3]KeyKOS: Persisent, pure capability system developed by Key Logic, Inc.
  4. [4]EROS: The Extremely Reliable Operating System - another capability based OS
  5. [5]Coyotos Secure Operating System - microkernel design with capabilities based on EROS.
  6. [6]PERQ Operating systems written mostly in Pascal: POS, MPOS, Accent, PNX and FLEX.
  7. [7]MONADS Operating System : Monash University capability-based research operating system
  8. [8]PETROS: Written in Object Pascal, designed to be compatible with MS-DOS and Windows 95.
  9. [9] House: Haskell User's Operating System and Environment, an operating system implemented using the Haskell functional programming language ([10]), based on hOp.
  10. [11] V-System: research microkernel operating system that was developed by faculty and students in the Distributed Systems Group at Stanford University in the 1980s. Other OSes by the same investigator include Thoth and Verax.

[edit] is petros an os?

[12]

[edit] Proposal for Slight Correction

Be, Inc. only made BeOS and BeIA (hence the "Be" in their names). The final retail version of BeOS was R5, and then there's the leak that happened on 15 Nov 2001, which included BeOS Exp/Dano 5.1d0 (which would have been R6), and BeIA (I don't know the latest versions off-hand) which was used in some of Compaq's embedded kiosk systems.

I'd like to point out that the worthless POS known as Zeta may be in the BeOS family, which also has Haiku (formerly OpenBeOS), CosmoOS, and BlueEyedOS (there's also many others). However, Zeta was not made by Be, Inc., in fact, it was released after the downfall of Be, Inc. Zeta is maintained and sold by yellowTab.

I think it would be better if Zeta were put into its own heading, or a sub-heading of the "BeOS" group, titled "yellowTab". (Yes, I hate Zeta, but at least have some sort of accuracy around it) (Lady Serena 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Hactar?

Do you think Hactar is significant enough to be included? --81.231.123.38 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Burroughs Section

I restored the Burroughs section that was deleted by 59.177.23.184 on 8/23/06. Someone might wish to examine whether the Atari ST section which was deleted at the same time by the same IP Address should be restored as well. --JeffW 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about lindows

lindows is missing

[edit] Operating systems for БК Soviet personal computer

Here you can find the additional information about all the OSes: ru:Операционные системы БК-0010/11--Planemo 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_operating_systems_ad41.html"