Talk:Operating system

COS/360

COS/360 (Compatabililty Operating System) was recently added to the list of "other operating systems used on IBM S/360 series mainframes included systems developed by IBM" in the mainframe section of this article. Is COS/360 a true operating system? I'm not familiar with it, but found this description in the paper "System/370 integrated emulation under OS and DOS", by Gary R. Allred, International Business Machines Corporation, afips, pp.163, Proceedings of the Spring Joint Computer Conference, 1971:

Two programs, Compatibility Operating System (COS)/30 and COS/40 were developed by IBM which integrated the 1401 emulator on System/ 360 Models 30 and 40 under DOS. At first considered to be interim programs, these programs, because of their wide acceptance and usage, were subsequently upgraded through hardware and software refinements and renamed Compatibility System (CS)/30 and CS/40. For the first time, 1401 jobs and System/360 native-mode jobs could be run concurrently in a limited multiprogramming environment. (Limited multiprogramming in the sense that there were certain restrictions on the Foreground/Background allocation of jobs under DOS.) Single job stream input was also possible. Overall system throughput was significantly improved by eliminating the need to reload the system between emulator and System/360 jobs.

At a minimum we need to fix the spelling of compatibility in the article. Jeff Ogden (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Books or resources

Can somebody add resources, reading materials list, or list of books and where to buy about operating systems? This will be very helpful. Perhaps free downloadable pdf files so we can just download and print. It will save the readers' money and it is easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talaga87 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar (a little pedantic)

A recent edit to Types/Real-time (early in the article) seems at face value to be a good one but I think it could do with re-evaluation. Replacing "Objective" with "Value" would seem to make greater sense if the statement is otherwise left as it is. But perhaps I have the wrong idea about what the statement should say. If "Objective" is the most appropriate word then perhaps the statement needs to say something along the lines of "The main objective of real-time operating systems is to react quickly...". I would have simply edited but saw no harm in discussing the course of action first. Hardly the end of the world if the statement stays as it is though. -- FG/^T|C 05:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"its successors making Microsoft."

Not sure what the intended meaning of this is, but it doesn't make too much sense in its current form... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Two Non-free files on this article

I've removed the following non-free files from this article:

• File:AmigaOS 4.1 Update 2.png
• File:Windows 7.png

My reasons for doing so are this:

• Both images are used in a decorative fashion. It might be appropriate to include both images on an article with sourced discussion regarding differences in these two operating systems, but here that is not happening.
• In no case are the images described in the prose of the article. This is a failure of WP:NFCC #8. With or without the images, the article reads the same and no understanding is lost.
• Both images are used elsewhere. If a reader must learn more of the look and feel of a given operating system, they can go to that operating system's main article page.
• The purposes in rationales are weak and/or copy/paste jobs. This fails WP:NFCC #10c.

Non-free content must be strongly justified. We can't just slap a rationale on it, and say it's ok to use it. There has to be a strong reason why we must use it in order to be encyclopedic. That is clearly not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How much has the Foundation spent on defending itself from copyright suits? Can you imagine the media stink that would arise if Microsoft sued Wikimedia? And Amiga is a dead issue, so there's no party that would be interested in suing in the first place. Is there a (real) lawyer in the house? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The issue has nothing to do with whether the Wikimedia Foundation will get sued. Sorry. This isn't a matter of law. It's a matter of our m:Mission, and our policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Partially proprietary?

This is a meaningless phrase. Either the whole item is generically available from multiple sources, or else you have to get it from one vendor. The "Darwin" article is confusing (as usual for Wikipedia computer articles) as it isn't clear (to me, anyway) that I can take a blank hard drive in a Macintosh, a Darwin disribution and expect to run Mac OS X applications on it. Certainly if you upload a complete Mac OX X distribution to your friendly local FTP server, Apple will quite firmly instruct you to take it down as soon as they find out about it; this indicates a proprietary interest, to me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, something is either proprietary or it isn't. Mac OS is owned by Apple and is a licensed product, thus it is proprietary. Mine may be a simplistic view but it is ridiculous to use (as Wtshymanski has already said) the phrase "partially proprietary" as this is (as I see it) simply not possible. There may be licencing and/or sourcing concerns that make Mac OS available without paying for it but that certainly doesn't make it free or any less proprietary. -- fg^TC 17:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The underlying BSD Unix portion of OS X is free and open source software. Apple does not own and cannot restrict the copying or use of that portion of the OS. OS X will not operate without this underlying open source component. All the other portions of OS X are Apple-proprietory, but the whole OS is not, being a combination of open source components with proprietary components. "Partially proprietary" is a perfectly good phrase to describe this situation. You can take and sell parts of OS X without transgressing Apple's copyrights on the other parts. Yworo (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ducking out on the ground I can see how both sides are correct. "Partially proprietary" does sound twisted however true it may be. -- fg^TC 23:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you take and sell enough of OS X that the parts are a complete operating system? Doubt it. Can you sell something called "OS X" and not run afoul of Apple's proprietary interests? Also doubtful. Why is the murky distinction "partially proprietary" useful? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can. It's called Darwin (operating system)! --Cybercobra (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a different product, though? Anyway, "open core" is a better description and not so absurd on the face. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MVS in history

MVS introduced some important concepts, but transparrent data caching wasn't one of them. Both Multics and IBM Time Sharing System (TSS/360) were there first.

I believe that I can provide references for compatibility from OS/360 through z/OS. Howeveer, there are some edge cases that are not compatible. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Market share changes; the alphabet doesn't

Although I can see why it is tempting to reorder the examples of OS's to suit our view (or the view of the market), the market and our cultural view changes over time. In this case another editor will want to swap the list around to suit and then another and another. To see examples of this behaviour we need only look at the article history. I set the list in alphabetical order some time ago (and at the time added a note hinting as to why). I strongly suggest that the article features lists that will be reordered (time and time again for various and often pointless reasons) to be ordered alphabetically and left that way. fg^t_c 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was the editor who recently changed the order to reflect market share. I did it because I saw another re-ordering get reverted and thought "oh, the ordering seems to be chosen at random, so I'll order it in a less arbitrary way." If you prefer to order it alphabetically, I have no specific objection, so please proceed. SocratesJedi | Talk 03:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No particular order matters which is actually the problem. Everyone has their own view of which way around they should be so the order gets shifted around for all kinds of reasons (I think typically it comes down to favouritism). The only order that has no connotations seems to me to be alphanumerical. Unless we are enslaved and indoctrinated by 12 fingered telepathic aliens, I think there is little chance the order will get out of date. I added a note a while back reading that the list was not exhaustive and was alphabetical in order to try to avoid this constant flux but the note was thought to be un-encyclopaedic. Alphabetical or alphanumerical lists are however very encyclopaedic so I really think that would be best. Thanks for your input. fg^t_c 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree it should go alphabeticaly. As you say it will never change. --JetBlast (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

me too; go the alphabet Steev (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Linux is not an operating system

Linux is just the kernel of several operating systems. Operating systems provide the interface between applications and the hardware device handling program. The kernel handles the hardware devices. The operating systems that use the kernel Linux are GNU, BSD, Unix and others. So the article should replace the term "Linux" with "GNU, Unix and BSD". Quiliro (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much water under that bridge to turn back now. Even if strictly correct, "Linux" is known to be an operating system. fredgandt 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't entertain the GNU/Linux naming controversy here. The Wikipedia manual of style specifies that we use the most commonly used names for things. Thus the article about Linux is titled Linux, not GNU/Linux and there is a separate article on the Linux kernel. (As a caution, editors who edit war over this generally earn blocks for violating this policy.) Yworo (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically Linux kernel is the operating system, and it is not wrong to call Linux kernel only as Linux because it is its name after all. It is just plain wrong to call anything else than Linux kernel (bundle of different software) as Linux. And Linux is not used by any other OS because it is technically impossible. Linux is a monolithic operating system, like original Unix and BSD's are. While HURD is server-client operating system. Golftheman (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)