Talk:ARX (operating system)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Move to Arcon ARX (operating system) [sic]
[edit]I undid the move, primarily because 'Acorn' was misspelt. I'm not convinced in any case that the current title is too "vague" and that any modification is needed, unless there's another operating system called ARX? Anyway, the name of this OS is not "Acorn ARX" (or "Acron ARX"), so I would have thought ARX (Acorn operating system), or similar, would be more appropriate if a move is necessary. -- Springy Waterbuffalo 09:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject RISC OS
[edit]| WikiProject RISC OS topic coordination | We're attempting to coordinate a few pages together, including RISC OS and ARX (operating system). Feel free to discuss this at Talk:RISC OS. |
--trevj (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
OS family
[edit]I'm reverting from Mach-like to Unix-like. This is because:
- Mach-like is not an article in its own right
- {{Infobox OS}} states Family - This is the operating system family, examples include Microsoft Windows, Unix, and Unix-like. Linux is not a family, but rather a kernel. All Linux distributions are part of the Unix-like family. As the current parameter refers to a kernel, it should be replaced by the family instead.
--Trevj (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the Kernel type should be changed from 'Microkernel' to 'Hybrid based on the Mach microkernel' or similar. I don't have enough knowledge in this area to confidently make the change myself. --Trevj (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The OS family, Unix-like is not well categorized, because currently many OSes are alike say Android operating system) is not Unix but Unix-like, even Microsoft Windows could be considered a Mach-like OS, just that it belongs to a different family, that said, Mach is a different OS of Unix but not of Unix-like it's a conceptual error to think so, so I don't think is good to confuse that fact using Unix-like description, is just too superfluous, and is more important the fact is Mach-like, and as said, anything can be considered in some degree of the same "family". My purpose is to illustrate that the parent family is Mach-like not Unix-like, I tell you even more ARX was designed with not Unix in mind compability but just was afterthought feature, so originally this is the historic fact. I can quote the source that comes from an engineering team member. In conclusion historically is a Mach-like OS though it can be remembered easily by its name ARX Acorn Risc UniX, I will add this in the article to reflect the fact that it was not a Unix-like more than Mach-like OS --User:Dabenavidesd (talk) The concept may be wrong from GNU times, the same time of ARX (operating system), OS family which was GNU is Not Unix so Unix-like fits better but ended being not as first thought a Mach-like OS with Unix-like characteristics but more a Unix-like OS only, though Gnu Hurd original project exists is not a finished project at all, the same case is with ARX (operating system), it was thought from the beginning as Unix-like compatible but just afterthought real Unix compatibility but is a Mach-like OS, even if it's name to suggests counter wise. At the end you might be right. --Dabenavidesd (talk)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.188.110 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Take care with the Unix-like according to head of Linux foundation is not legal to say Unix-like of Gnu/Linux: [1] Dabenavidesd (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Dabenavidesd