Talk:Comparison of operating systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Comparison of operating systems has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Integrated GUI

So what makes a GUI "integrated"? If an "integrated GUI" means the system can't function without a GUI, I suspect Solaris doesn't count, just as OpenBSD doesn't count. If it means the GUI is bundled with the OS distribution, that'd mean most if not all of the systems listed have an "integrated GUI", but the footnote for "integrated GUI environment" says "Operating systems where the GUI is not integrated into the core OS are often bundled with an implementation of the X Window System. However, installing X is usually optional.", which seems to imply that you need more than bundling to make a GUI "integrated".

Hmm. I'll have to see if I can tweak Mac OS X to boot without the WindowServer and without loginwindow on /dev/console (probably doable); if so, perhaps that means OS X's GUI isn't integrated, either. Microsoft Windows might be a bit more of a stretch, although there was a boot mode for Windows 2000 that, as I remember, just put up a console window. Guy Harris 09:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the interpretation is that if the graphics primitives are in the kernel, then the GUI is "integrated". But I suppose a looser interpretation could consist of whether the system is still as usable without using the GUI -- this isn't the case for Mac OS X, but of course the 'nix variants are as usable without a GUI as without. Yet then we have the subjective interpretation of usability. Dysprosia 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What does "graphics primitives" mean here? In OS X, there are low-level graphics drivers, but a lot of the graphic work is done by the WindowServer and libraries, so most of the graphics work is done outside the kernel.
As for usability, yes, it's probably a matter of opinion of whether Unix-like systems other than OS X are as usable without a GUI as without; I suspect those who would find a Linux PC as usable via a remote login in a terminal window or on a raw console as it is in some X11-based GUI might well find OS X as usable via a remote login in a terminal window or on a raw console. People who find the UN*X CLI difficult to use would probably find it difficult to use regardless of whether uname -s says "Darwin", "Linux", "FreeBSD", "SunOS", or whatever. Guy Harris 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Since we're talking about UI things here, these graphics primitives would be window compositing and drawing software, etc. So, it is true, with the mentioned definition, that OS X does not have an "integrated GUI", but then that's a real stretch in some senses, because the amount of effort to separate X from 'nix is not really comparable to separating the WindowServer from OS X, plus Mac OS X wasn't exactly designed to be run without the GUI subsystem in any case. I guess the issue is a more complex one than was first thought... Dysprosia 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comparing GNU/Linux to Windows or OS X in this regard is probably not ideal. I think that's where the confusion comes from — we're comparing kernels to complete OS's. Warrens 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're comparing GNU/Linux with Windows or OS X, you're comparing complete OS's to complete OS's, at least as I understand what Stallman means by "GNU/Linux" - it's not just the Linux kernel, it's the Linux kernel plus all the additional GNU software running atop it. It doesn't necessarily include GUI code, however. Guy Harris 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Defining "integrated GUI" as "cannot be used without a GUI" is misleading, if the latter is what the column means, that is what the column heading should say. To me, "integrated GUI" means it is a part of the base OS, not a additional package with other third-party software. This means that Windows, OS X and OpenBSD are in (in the same way OpenBSD has integrated Apache) and FreeBSD and NetBSD are out (Xorg is on ports/pkgsrc). NicM 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
It would also mean that many of the commercial UN*Xes are also in, as they come bundled with X and, often, a desktop environment. Guy Harris 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably. Is it part of the full basic OS install? Then I think it is integrated. Is it a package of third-party software? Not integrated. I do have a nasty feeling there is a huge gaping flaw in my definition that I can't see though :-) NicM 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
In Solaris, the X server and basic X libraries, and CDE, are definitely not a package of third-party software; they're "third-party software" in the sense that a lot of it comes from X11, but Sun maintain and develop them, and ship them as part of the OS. I think the Java Desktop System is more than just a package of GNOME, etc..
The GUI stuff is probably an optional install, as a Solaris box might be a server, but if you can say "install everything", then, as far as I know, it'll install the GUI stuff.
I suspect at least some of the other commercial UN*Xes are similar to Solaris in this regard. Guy Harris 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That is my point. OpenBSD uses Xorg, the bulk of which is third party, but it is maintained as a seperate version in the OpenBSD CVS repository with a number of OpenBSD-specific modifications, and is shipped as part of the base system, not as a package in the ports system where external software resides. Does that not count as integrated? You can omit X by not installing the sets, but I don't think that means anything: you can omit gcc (and some other bits) too if you leave out the compiler sets, but one wouldn't say it wasn't integrated. NicM 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
If that's the definition of "integrated" for this table, then Solaris has an integrated GUI, as do at least some other commercial UN*Xes - and so do, for example, FreeBSD "distributions" such as PC-BSD DesktopBSD in the Comparison of BSD operating systems, and so do a number of Linux distributions (depending on what you consider "integrated" vs. "third-party" in Linux distributions). That's fine with me - as long as the pages using "integrated GUI" have a note saying what it means, and as long as more than just OpenBSD gets flagged as having an integrated GUI (OpenBSD isn't any different from, say, Solaris here). Guy Harris 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is what I think, I don't know if anyone else agrees :-). I agree that whatever is decided it should be applied consistently. NicM 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
To me, "integrated GUI" means it is installed and turned on by default. This is, I think, largely consistent with what is already in the table of this article. By that definition, OpenBSD does not qualify, as it's installation is not even "recommended", and if you do install it, it does not automatically start up. Nevertheless, footnotes should explain about this. Armedblowfish 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a terrible definition. Apache, OpenNTPD and many other things are integrated into OpenBSD but not turned on by default. As far as I am concerned, your criteria are fine for a yes/no in the column, but the heading should not be "Integrated GUI", it should be "GUI by default" or similar. NicM 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
That would be far less ambiguous. Changed. Armedblowfish 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You should probably change the footnote for the column title here, and in Comparison of BSD operating systems, as well - the current footnote applies to "Integrated GUI", in the sense of "the GUI code is part of the core OS installation by default", not to "GUI is installed and enabled by default". Guy Harris 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There. meep. Armedblowfish 21:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Does this segment really show any real information though? On a Windows server for example, 99% of applications ran on the server for clients to connect to would be ran as services, and would not even be visiable. On a server, no one is logged in locally, it just sits there with log in prompt. I'm sure people are thinking this information may be good for performance, but there just are not any graphic calls taking place on most server applications in most cases. The only time a lot of servers in a windows enviroment even use the GDI is when you remote in to change settings, and most of the time that isn't even needed. And now with 2008 you have Core Server (Beta currently), it'll make this even more confusing. 4.189.118.85 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of name "GNU/Linux"

To put it bluntly, everything discussed in this page is a kernel feature (everything non-kernel is deferred to Comparison of Linux distributions), so I feel that we should simply call it "Linux" here; the GNU portions that are usually distributed with Linux are not involved in this comparison. JulesH 13:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

linux is just a kenrel...GNU are just the basic uttilities so one without the other is useless...
sometimes the linux kenrel isn't associated with the GNU uttillities but it's for embedded linux distributions

Just call it "linux". Pushing the "Gnu" on it is just self-glorification for RMS. If Gnu's contributions were truly free, then the name wouldn't be such an issue. Nobody says "GNU/Linux" in a conversation (or almost nobody), and we should go with common practical usage. 00 tux(my point of views(for npov), howto customise a signature) | talk 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Linux is a kernel. I say GNU/Linux or just GNU if I am lazy. Linux was released 1991, GNU/Linux 1992. See History of Linux#_note-1 and GNU#Design_and_implementation. -- mms 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No info about Minix

This article has no mention of Minix. --Starnessonny 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No info about eComStation

There is no mention of eComStation (eCS), the successor to OS/2, in this list. OS/2 development ceased some time ago, as is mentioned in the chart, but eComStation development continues today. I would be glad to add it but I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia so I'll hold off so someone who won't likely mess things up can do it right. Thanks! -Mo 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which OSes can be included here?

Does this table include only multi-task OSes? How about DOS, RT-11 etc? How about other old OSes?--Dojarca 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a linux/win/os x/beos user, but think DragonFlyBSD has sufficiently different goals and principles from FreeBSD to warrant its own entry here. 212.3.160.65 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Windows?

Windows is not really an operating system, but a window manager. It should be compared to KDE or GNOME. Every other OS in this list does more than controlling access to the disks and relying on third-party software to do the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.10.33 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows IA-64 Support

I know that former versions of the consumer Windows operating system were ported to IA-64 (Itanium). However, that support was removed in Windows Vista. Since this article seems to deal with the most recent releases of operating systems, should that processor be removed from the list? (The most recent release of the Sevrer edition still has Itanium support, so the Windows Server entry wouldn't need to be changed.) 24.222.2.222 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. be bold and go ahead, and explain it in the edit summary. -- intgr 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of VMS

In Windows' Talk, VMS was mentioned as - principally - being a precursor (to Windows). There are already pages to OpenVMS and FreeVMS but I don't know enough of the subject to add it cojently... MonstaPro 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Windows Pricing

"Home $199-$239, Business $299, Ultimate $399" is a there supporing link for this statement? --Cwhii 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Normal consumers can not get a link to pricing for volume deals, you would need to talk directly to a sales person at microsoft. So the only ways to get pricing would be MSRP, a price that would be very misleading, or via links to places that sell it, and that isn't something we would want on Wiki. That said, http://mwave.com/mwave/skusearch.hmx?SCriteria=AA66730&CartID=done&nextloc= <This is a talk page, so I'm not worried about links> 32 bit home premium is $110. To get this price, you need to buy a whole 1 hardware item. And who buys an OS without ANY sort of hardware upgrade too? ;) Just having a price listed for OSs is kinda misleading, since IBM for example charges $400~$1200 for SuSE it sells on machines for 2-16 CPUs, and the price sky rockets up with 17+. So the question is, what price should be included, street price, MSRP, price for a maxed out 64-cpu beast? For people buying Ultimate for their home PC, it shouldn't cost more than 180~190. 4.189.118.85 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vista? XP? Pre-XP?

There seems to be lots of conflicting information for the Microsoft Windows row... How much distinction are we making? Firewall gets an "XP or later" tag and an "NT-Based systems" tag, but wouldn't those make sense to be cut being as you combined the rows? Also, security vulnerabilities points to an XP page, but pricing discusses Vista. I feel it should be either all Vista or add more lines for the different versions - presumably the reason for keeping XP around is how many people are running it, but isn't this meant to be a technical article? I changed the firewall and security link, but I don't know what else may need to be changed. EB0und 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costs of purchase of free software

OS/2 is proprietary so you are not allowed to sell copies of it. Most likely you don't even have the source an therefore the ability really copy it or to maintain it. The fact that you can download most free software at no additional costs doesn't mean, free software is gratis per definition. It can be sold at any price. Otherwise it would be proprietary. So {{free}} is just plainly false in this regard. It can only fit to proprietary products where the proprietator has set this price (zero). --mms 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I don't see that the article equates free software with zero-cost anywhere, or asserts that one implies the other, it simply lists the official price(s) of the software from the publisher/main supplier. The {{free}} and non-free coloring was unnecessary and POV. There are many different prices and sometimes the same product has different prices for different versions (some even have free limited editions, or are free for students, or other variations): why should zero-cost be singled out among these? NicM 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
There is no official price for published free software. Even if there is one creator, he cannot establish the »official« selling price after he sold (or gave away) the first copy. After there is one licensee, there can only be selling prices but no official price. The coloring of the boxes can't be a POV ─ it helped to get an overview. I suggest to step back to the templates and use {{any}} for free software and {{free}} for freeware. Even if I must deflect opposition in this regard I insist that one can't impute free software to cost zero. We can write »any« or similar expressions or we can leave this field empty for free software as this category doesn't fit to it. And BWT, if you want one example of an »official« price for free software which isn't zero, take a look at the online store of the Free Software Foundation. --mms 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Free software can be sold for any price or for multiple prices from different suppliers, but so can anything - Windows has different prices in different countries, and copies on ebay often go at prices different again. However, each of the operating systems listed, free software or otherwise, have a single primary publisher, and it is their official price which is listed. The exception to this is Linux, and it already points to a separate article covering the many distro publishers. NicM 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
Non-free software can't be resold. Almost ever you don't even have the source code. So you haven't really ownership in the first place. I think what you mean is to just resell your single binary copy. This isn't distribution at all and especially not commercial distribution. --mms 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not true, there are many people reselling commercial software, they are called resellers. Source code has absolutely nothing to do with it. NicM 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
In other words, just because I can take FreeBSD and resell it at $200, doesn't mean we should list its price as $200, or that the price column is meaningless. I could equally well come to an arrangement with Microsoft to sell Windows at $900 (and OEMs do come to agreements to sell Windows at lower prices with hardware). The official publishers are obvious - the FreeBSD project and Microsoft - and it is their direct prices that we list, not mine, not yours, not Dell's or anyone else's. You could make an argument for removing the price column entirely, but not for treating free software specially. NicM 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
FreeBSD is free software so the price could be any amount. The situation with FreeBSD may look more concise than with GNU/Linux but there are forks of FreeBSD, too. It is perfectly legal to sell thousands or millions of copies of FreeBSD at any price the market allows you. Your version wouldn't be less official than the one of the FreeBSD Project. It would be the same software with the same licence. This separates free software from proprietary software. --mms 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You are still missing the point. It is legal to resell FreeBSD at any price, but it can also be legal to resell any software—free software is not special in this regard, if I reach agreement with Microsoft I can resell Windows at a higher or lower price. The point is that you are a reseller, you are not the primary publisher of FreeBSD. If two organisations did produce versions of FreeBSD, both with significant use and both called FreeBSD with different prices, then we would have to note that or list them seperately (like we do with Linux), but that is not the case. NicM 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
To state it more clearly, if someone did decide to publish their own version of FreeBSD for $100 a pop, it would be a different FreeBSD and would either require it's own line in the table or be listed on a separate page (like Linux). Because the license means that someone can do this, does not make the FreeBSD Project's FreeBSD has "any" price, it means that when someone does, we need to list them if they are significant enough to appear. Note that PCBSD has its own line, and OpenBSD is separate from NetBSD. NicM 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
The important thing is the distinction between reselling and republishing (ie, publishing a customized version). Reselling is irrelevant for this. With republishing, my point is that just because free software allows publishing customized versions at any price, does not automatically mean that the price is any. The table refers specifically to FreeBSD as published by the FreeBSD project, it doesn't mean FreeBSD published by anybody at all. If anyone else published a customized version, that would be a different table entry. Do you see my point? NicM 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
Also note that free software is not special in this regard, other than that it makes forks easy. Just because in theory I could sign an agreement with Microsoft to take their source base and build NicM's Windows and sell it for $9000, it doesn't mean Windows has "any" price, it means that Microsoft Windows has Microsoft's price, and NicM's Windows has my price. Once I stop being a reseller and become a republisher, then a new line in the table is needed. NicM 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
Oh, and the colouring of boxes can be and was POV. Why are we only highlighting an overview of free/non-free? Lumping all the varying non-free costs together is POV - it isn't as simple as a non-free/free split, and why should free get special treatment? NicM 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
The different values of the costs can be grouped to zero, non-zero and any. The question whether it is free or proprietary software is a totally different and is answered in Preferred license. A color scheme would be helpfull for this column. Especially the entry of Mac OS X (Server) is misleading as it is now. --mms 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, "any" is not appropriate here, all of them can have any price. As I have already explained, lumping the dozens of prices and variations under "non-free" and highlighting "free" is POV and unnecessary. NicM 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Target system types

The target system types column is seems a little dodgy to me, certainly unreferenced and possibly OR. It should be removed, or cites should be found and added (which may be difficult). Any comments? NicM 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] change title to MODERN/ present-day operating systems?

The title of this article is somewhat misleading because there are many, many pre-PC operating systems from minicomputer/mainfraime days. PDP-11 alone had several OSes, there were LISP machine OS's like Genera, those for Xerox and LMI lisp machines, Oberon and other Pascal derived systems like UCSD p-System, just a quick look at List of Operating Systems give some hint as to the number and variety of OSes. So how about a change of title? Cuvtixo (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly makes an OS modern? How about Comparison of microcomputer operating sytems? Josh (talk | contribs) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There was a large number of home computer OSes in the early home computer era. Take for example BK Soviet home computer that had tens of operating systems (Russian Wikipedia has articles about 18 of them). Also NetBSD, HP-UX, IRIX listed here are not targeted to microcomputers. --Dojarca (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about user rights management

It seems, after installing and using basically every MS operating system since Windows 3.1, that Windows 2000 is the only MS operating system in which user rights can be flexibly defined, just as on any Linux system. I.e.: administrators can define for ALL directories on a machine which users have reading, writing and executing rights. This has been made much more "fool proof" (or "illiterate user resistant") since XP, but this has been achieved by eliminating all flexibility to give users for instance "read only" user rights for other users document root subdirectories. To me it is unclear why MS didn`t include comparable functionality at least in the "Pro" versions of XP and Vista. Thus keeping W2k still the only viable option for shared workstations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.7.77.249 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dos

Where is Dos?!?????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.117.95 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)