Talk:Operating system

Adding AppLogic As An Operating System

I am seeking an editor who is interesting in writing about AppLogic http://www.3tera.com/AppLogic/ and or www.3tera.com.

I am a consultant for the company, so I cannot create the content for them, but 3tera is a leader utility computing and has created a ground breaking operating system that creates a grid computer out of commodity servers and then runs complex web applications as virtualized entities. Here are a couple of media references to 3tera.com:

Linux Magazine named them one of the top 20 companies to watch in 2008 (Applogic runs programs written in Centos and Debian as virtual appliances: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4766/2/

Here is the news section from 3tera.com: http://www.3tera.com/News/Articles.php

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah Stein (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Security

I made an edit to paragraph 6 of the security section ("While users generally find regular user accounts on Linux..."). This was to break it up into shorter sentences and make it easier to read. I tried to keep the content the same, while being more specific as to what the paragraph was referring to. I left in the reference to Vista, but I'm not sure if it works with the aims of neutrality. It might be useful in the Wikipedia page about Vista under controversy, but is it necessary to this document?

Also I feel that this section should be subtitled and divided up into internal/external security. It seems a bit unfocused as well.

Trevjs (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Boot-strapping" and "Disk access and file systems" sections are too PC-centric

The "Boot-strapping" and "Disk access/file systems" sections seem, to me at least, to be described from an overly "PC architecture" point-of-view. (In my mind, this also includes such architectures based around SPARC and DEC Alpha processors.)

The "Disk access/file systems" section does not discuss any of the database-like, record-based file systems used with various midrange and mainframe operating systems like VM/ESA, OS/400, etc.

And the "Boot-strapping" section does not discuss any midrange or mainframe IPL processes, such as the loading of CPU microcode and registers from an external source (usually via a "processor console") that is often required before such a machine has enough "brains" to boot the actual OS and get itself running.

Adams kevin 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute: MS Windows Security

I do not agree with the following statements:

"Microsoft Windows has been heavily criticized for many years for Window's almost total inability to protect one running program from another, however since Windows isn't generally used as a server it has been considered less of a problem."

First of all, the phrase:

"... Window's almost total inability to protect one running program from another"

does not read like a neutral statement. Granted, Windows has had many well-publicized issues, but because Windows has such a large market share on the desktop, any reported lapses in Windows' security model receives much more "front-and-center" attention from the public-at-large. All operating systems, including those based on UNIX, have had their fair share of security holes. I believe the criticism stems more from flaws in the quality of Microsoft's code, and less from flaws in the methods used. Since Windows NT, Microsoft Windows has been designed with strong process isolation in mind. The fact that most of the security holes in Windows revolve around buffer overflow exploitation indicates that Microsoft's problems are more a quality issue, and less a design issue.

And secondly, the phrase:

"... since Windows isn't generally used as a server ..."

is not accurate by any stretch. The server "flavours" of Microsoft Windows are very widely distributed and hold considerable market share. Adams kevin 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the Windows part of the security section appears to be complete nonsense. E.g. "Microsoft Windows has been heavily criticized for many years for Window's inability to protect one running program from another. To remedy this, Microsoft has added limited user accounts and more secure logins in recent years" -- just doesn't make sense: An inability to protect one running program from another is an issue with memory protection, not whether or not you have user accounts. I might have a go at rewriting that whole section. -- simxp (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! I've moved both the Windows & Linux case studies to the bottom of the section and put them under their own headers, and completely updated and rewritten the Windows section (it now has three seperate paragraphs for Windows 9x, NT pre-Vista, and Vista). Much better, no?-- simxp (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Market Share Diagram

I have no doubt that this diagram is very likely incorrect, and probably should be removed. I have removed it once citing a source which contradicts it and it was added back into the page, by someone undoing my edit.

For one, I've never heard of Desktop OS and when I search google, nothing pops up right away. (although it does seem like an overly general thing to search for.) This Desktop OS actually has a pie slice on the diagram, which is even more confusing.

Also, more importantly, market share has little or nothing to do with the purpose of this article...the popularity of operating systems has very little (or nothing) to do with how they work.

So I think the image should go...but I also want to make my reasoning clear as to why. Andy16666 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Even more to the point is that the data on which this diagram is based is false. The company which produced this data is a Windows networking organization supporting in-house web servers. Naturally, most of the connections to in-house IIS servers is from similarly based Windows users. Extending this to the web in general is silly. Using Windows web servers to represent the web is worse than silly. Developing false statistics from this analysis is statistics abuse. Garlovel (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Basic computer operation

I believe the first sentence should be tightened up; use of terms is not totally correct. I am thinking in terms of muli-purpose versus single purpose computers. "An operating system is the software component of a computer system that is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer." Sharing? That sentence should reflect what is true of the most basic, cheapest single purpose computer. That is the bottomline. In a single purpose operating system, such as IBM 360 PCP had in the 1970s, sharing was not an issue. Basically, the operator hung tapes, booted the system, and let it roll. It was only running one application. It used to be done with plug boards. 140.32.122.60 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Roger12

guoey?

Ok, I am able to pronounce GUI as a word, but guoey - no chance. Whose idea was that anyway? :arny (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be renamed to "operating system (personal computer)" of something similar?

My view is operating system is a very loose term, and this page looks highly biased towards modern PC operating systems. Please look at the list of operating systems on Wikipedia and consider if the definition on this page is really correct. For example I consider MS-DOS to be an operating system, just because it doesn't have every feature of unix doesn't mean it's not an operating system, whereas this page describes it as 'having some of the features an operating system has'. What else do you call software that implements drivers for hardware, memory management, device drivers, filesystems etc?

Please consider how the term operating system was commonly used in the 80s, for example Acorn's "Machine Operating System". I don't think operating system implies multitasking or multiuser. If I put a microcontroller on a PCB with various hardware peripherals, those hardware peripherals need code to operate them. If you end up with code to write to a display, to handle and buffer serial and network communications, to debounce push button presses, to have timers capable of both keeping track of time and periodic execution of code, to reprogram flash memory etc... then I would say at some point it ceases to be just a bunch of library functions and becomes an operating system. Maybe not a typical operating system like what 99% of people imagine, but still an operating system. Just because an amoeba doesn't do everything a mammal can do, doesn't mean it's not a living organism.

Also, if you take Linux as an example, what do you actually class as the operating system? You have the kernel, the dynamic libraries, and the GNU utilities such as /bin/sh or /bin/ls. I think the answer is "operating system is a loose term". 92.237.44.248 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

reference, please?

Could the author, please, give the reference to the text Windows XP, the most widespread operating system on desktop computing today (underneath the first figure)?

Sincer thanks, Anete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savegnosis (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Operating System Definition

Operating System (OS) is one of the main components in today's device world. Every digital electronic device requires an OS to operate, control and manage the resources. These resources could be in the form of Hardware like Processor, Memory, keyboard, mouse, and printer or could be in the form of Software like Browser, Spreadsheets and databases. An OS is required for using mobile phone, super computer, PC, Laptop or even a car's board computer. The main function for every OS is same and that is managing resources. There are four main types of resources an OS have to control. They are components use for Processing, storage, Input and output of information. I would like to suggest a more generalize form of definition of OS instead pointing it to only Computers.Nsaquib (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all devices need a OS to run, it can be just a small program stored to ROM what controles the whole device, like microwave-machines or analg cameras. OS is required when the hardware beneath can change, actions what hardware does are needed to change or other applications can change top of operating system, so the software what acts as host for these both sides, it is the operating system. But if hardware does not change and it does always just few small things same way. And software does not change or it does not do anykind specific changes it self, why it exist, the software system might not include operating system. Example, I can modify mozilla firefox so it "speaks" directly to hardware so I dont need any other software to run it on the x86 computer, it is not operating system, even that it does run widgets or other web applications. Only devices what are getting changes or they need to do different task by upgrading or adding other things to them, usually needs operating system. It is not easy to understand what is operating system and what is not, if not studying it or actually finding out what software needs to do until it can be called as operating system. Thats' why it is science. It is "easy" to build circuit board and get it to do something, but when demans from this machine grows, the software or hardware might be needed to come more complex and it is easier to do software more complex than trying to do hardware what works in every situation what usage demands. And this was then reason to make a operating system what allows easy working environment for harware makers and for software makers, because they didn't need to work together to solve every problem and situation in both sides, but the middle software part was taking care for both sides. It is possible to use operating system to do simple task, what could be done just with simple firmware, but it is impossible to use simple firmware to do same task as operating system makes possible. So just that device blinks lights and has a LCD screen showing some information, does not mean it has operating system Golftheman (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

History and MS-DOS

Isn't MS-DOS mentioned a bit early (and totally out of context)? 87.59.232.179 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

features of operating systems as personal level,work group ,enterprise

discuss about fetures of O.S. at diffrent levels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.195.213 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Gnome (Ubuntu) Screenshot on "Unix and Unix-like Operating Systems" part

You have not had a Linux screenshot on that article, only a screenshot of software system what runs because the Linux operating system. Screenshot of a Gnome or any other desktop environment/window manager is not screenshot of the Linux operating system. That part of article is about a Unix and Unix-variants Operating Systems, not about a Linux distributions or their promotion. Those informations place is on the Linux article, or distribution specific articles if it's the information like Ubuntu screenshots. Not to a article what is only about a different Operating Systems, not for complete software systems. Answers for ten (10) questions.

1. Is Gnome or any other Desktop Environment/Window Manager part of Linux?
2. Is a screenshot of the Ubuntu default desktop a screenshot of Linux or a screenshot of Gnome what has a Canonical's made theme and wallpaper applied on it?
3. Is Ubuntu different Operating System than Linux?
4. Is market selling information, like Dell selling Ubuntu with it's computers, a important information when finding out about what kind different Unix and Unix-like Operating Systems exists?
5. What would you do if someone would add a screenshot of Mozilla Firefox with Microsoft site opened on it while Firefox is on full screen mode to Ubuntu article, saying it is screenshot of Ubuntu. And everytime someone removes it by reason that it does not show the Ubuntu at all but just a Mozilla Firefox with page opened, it gets added back there by reason Firefox is running on Ubuntu and because it comes with Ubuntu and so on is part of Ubuntu, it shows what kind Ubuntu is?
6. If you really want to have a screenshot on Unix and Unix-like operating system, why the screenshot is from Ubuntu and not from a default Gnome or KDE desktop environment, those what can be run on many of Unix or Unix-like operating systems, why the reason to have _ubuntu_ there?
7. If keeping that article with information what does not belong there, why that information must be biased for Ubuntu?
8. Because the wrong (!= false) information there is liked to keep, it is so biased against all other corporations, communities of distributions because it does not include information (what I have added now btw) about them, it leads that same kind information should be added there everytime when corporation takes one of Linux distribution to their collection. Why those informations should not be added to article and make it even bigger?
9. Why not help cleaning up the article, by removing the screenshots of only the applications/software systems what are running because the Operating System is making it possible beneath them. Removing the wrong information from article what gives same reason to others to add more wrong information to the article what does not belong there, because there already exist ones?
10. Is the meaning of "Operting Systems" article to tell about Operating Systems, or is it's meaning to tell Operating Systems and all kind software systems what are build top of them and all variants of those with information of those marketing and market share. So in the end we have information from dozens of articles in this single one, where those doesn't belong?

Golftheman (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

> "Screenshot of a Gnome or any other desktop environment/window manager is not screenshot of the Linux operating system"

And what would you say qualifies for a screenshot of "the Linux operating system"? Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. You can't have a screenshot of a kernel. It's a contradiction in terms. The best you can do is have a screenshot of an operating system which uses Linux as its kernel. Ubuntu qualifies perfectly well.

> "That part of article is about a Unix and Unix-variants Operating Systems, not about Linux distributions"

Linux distributions are examples of Unix-varient operating systems.

-- simxp (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Linux is THE operating system. Do not believe that Linux is microkernel and not a monolith kernel. There is difference. Kernel can be a operating system alone if it includes all operating system services alone, what monolith kernels does. That is the current problem that people hear that "Operating system needs a kernel" so it fits to every kernel, it is not matter is it monolith or microkernel. This "Linux is just a kernel not an operating system" is biggest problem on whole operating system science because those who believe it, does not understand what is difference of kernel arcitechtures. Other question for you (you should answer for all 10 btw), if Gnome needs Operating System to work, how it can be a part of Operating System? A Operating System can not need a Operating System to work. The Gnome is not part of any operating system, especially a Linux, unless it is embedded to it! What if I remove Gnome from Ubuntu, dont I have anymore a Operating System but just a kernel and punch of libraries? That I'm running Gnome, is same as I'm running World of Warcraft on Windows Vista. It makes new software GUI for computer, and without people knowing it is a game, they would believe it is new Operating System. I repeat, Linux is the operating system kernel, not a kernel of the operating system. When you study computer science, you learn from operating system lessons that Linux is alone a operating system, and it is the reason why Linux is so big success. It would not be if it would be just a microkernel. Golftheman (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Linus Torvalds himself is happy to refer to a computer running the Linux kernel + a bunch of graphical stuff as "Linux", this isn't as clear-cut as you're making out. The point is that the term "operating system" simply isn't as definitive as it was twenty years ago, and that a screenshot of GNOME on Ubuntu is a perfectly acceptable "screenshot of Linux" to most people, computer scientists or otherwise. To refrain from referring to it as such is misdirected pedantry, and it's not going to happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ain't you using a Linux when you use Gnome or any other application? I dont know about you but I am. When I use Ubuntu, I use Linux operating system, not Ubuntu operating system. I use software system what includes operating system called Linux. The screenshot of Gnome desktop with Ubuntu theme, is just operating system running Xorg what allows Gnome to run etc. Is it truth if 80% US citizens does believe Mombasa is in Australia, so there is reason to edit to be so on wikipedia article about Mombasa or about Australia? Currently that Unix and Unix-like operatins systems article part is biased with false information towards Ubuntu. I tought this article was about computer science but it seems it full of Ubuntu users who believe what marketing tells them, ignoring the science and praising the Ubuntu as operating system. The operating system term is still the same as 17 years ago, it has not changed, only thing has changed that software systems what comes on CD's when you install a Ubuntu, includes lots of other softwares than just a operating system. No one does anything just with the operating system, user needs applications to get work done, but they need operating system to run those applications. As long you cant proof that Linux is not a monolith kernel and computer science does not apply to it, that chapter of article is very abused in current state with Ubuntu screenshot. 213.130.236.207 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)