Talk:Comparison of operating systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why is Android listed as open source?[edit]

I'm fairly certain Android is not open source. I know Google claims they are but that does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

-- "Open Source" is a practical marketing term. I think that you and they are thinking of "Free Software" ("Not to be confused with freeware, open-source software, Free and open source software, or free software license.") Android is not Libre Software, Open Source is not "Libre Software". Open Source is little more than proprietary code generously shared at the moment for the purpose sole benefit of the party that created it. Any other benefit to anyone else is purely coincidental.

Almost all open source software is free (libre/as in freedom) software. Those terms are 2 somewhat different approaches covering almost the same set of software projects, though I would rather advocate to the free software ideology. Read this by Stallman, father of free software, regarding open source. Having said that, the very core of Android is released under the Apache license and that makes it both free/libre and open source; however phone manufacturers usually put proprietary drivers and non-free stuff on top of Android. There are some freer alternatives based on Android, like Cyanogenmod or Replicant. See [1] for more information. --Isacdaavid (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Android IS open source. The source is available here: (at time of writing). (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What is a "Predecessor"?[edit]

The "Predecessor" column in the "General information" table seems to be used for several different purposes:

  • For AIX, HP-UX, and IRIX, the "Predecessor" is the AT&T UNIX release from which the OS is derived;
  • For Android, it's the kernel it uses;
  • For various BSDs, it's the BSD from which it forked off;
  • For IBM i, it's the name of the OS before it was changed to "IBM i" (i.e., OS/400 isn't an earlier OS, it's an earlier name for the OS)
  • For MVS, it's the OS from which it took a lot of its code and APIs, although its immediate predecessor was OS/VS2 (SVS), which was a descendant of OS/360 MVT;
  • For OS/390, z/OS, z/VSE, and z/VM, it's again the name of the OS before it was changed;
  • For OS/2, it's the OSes from which it took some ideas;
  • For Windows NT, it's 1) the OS from which it spun off (NT was originally going to be a New Technology version of OS/2), 2) an OS that came out after the first version of Windows NT but that contributed to NT 4.0 (Windows 95 came out 2 years after Windows NT 3.1), and 3) an OS that I guess represents the roots of classic Windows;
  • For ReactOS, it's the OS that it's trying to clone;
  • For HP NonStop it's, I guess, what the OS was called before the "OSS personality" was added;

so what exactly is it supposed to be? Guy Harris (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed! And how exactly is Windows 3.x supposed to be a predecessor of OS/2? Did it fall through a time-warp? It was actually based on MS-DOS if any one thing, and VMS if you want to see where the ideas came from. Windows 1.0 could arguably have been based OS/2 Presentation manager. I was there. (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What decides whether an OS is worthy of being on this list?[edit]

There are plenty of major and very significant operating systems missing from this list, certainly from an historical perspective. I'm guessing that a lot of it was compiled by someone relatively young, which is fair enough. I think it's a worthy endeavor and would probably extend this list myself, but what goes on it?

For an OS to be distinct, it needs to be really distinct. For an example every should understand, take Microsoft Windows. There have been two versions; one was a GUI running on top of MS-DOS (up to and including Windows ME), and the other is Windows NT, which was a re-write (from 3.5 IIRC, up to the current 6.3 and 10) - Microsoft's commercial names aren't relevant.

To be noteworthy, you can't decide it based on peak installations or whether its current. For example OS/360 had a major impact on computing, but has been defunct for many years and as it only ran on mainframes (realistically) the installed based must have been in the thousands.

Of the top of my head, some major operating systems missing include CP/M, Multics, VMS, Wang VS, MVS, VM. Others would include AppleDOS, TRS-DOS, OS-65, OS/9, Mirage.

I'm only counting systems that are independent of the hardware and run on more than one manufacturer's kit. This is a pretty arbitrary distinction. I've also not added any major RTOS families (e.g. OSEK/VDX). And then there are problems like Digital Research's GEM. This GUI/Application environment ran on top of DOS in the same way as pre-WindowsNT Windows did, so how can you call one an OS and not the other? And where does X-Window fit in (the same sort of thing running on top of *NIX)? And Android is just a GUI running over Linux.

If I was to spend any time expanding this, a consensus on what counts as an OS is needed first! (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Windows MTP[edit]

Windows 7 (at least) supports MTP (TC) 09:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:802:1100:1C2D:9220:DB96:30FD (talk)

Note errors[edit]

Note 8 in the Technical information table is wrong. It says that the Computer architectures supported for PC-BSD, X86, is "only i686 CPU". The article for PC-BSD says it is x86-64, no longer x86. Note 4 in the Security table doesn't make sense. (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

By "Note 4 in the Security table" do you mean "Support for the in 1997 withdrawn POSIX ACL draft is included in Linux 2.6, but requires a file system able to store them (such as ext3, XFS or ReiserFS)."? If so, what about it doesn't make sense? Guy Harris (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Note 4 in the Security table doesn't make sense, grammatically. Is it supposed to mean, "Support for the POSIX ACL draft (withdrawn in 1997) is included in Linux 2.6, ..."? Also, since in the article, the current version of Linux is 4.5, was support for the draft first added in ver. 2.6 or last in ver. 2.6? (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of operating systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New URLs have been found for both. Guy Harris (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)