|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operating system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Operating system has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
- All methods require some level of hardware support, which doesn't exist in all computers.
- What we're trying to get at is that -- no matter which method of memory protection an operating-system programmer chooses when writing an operating system -- there will be some computers out there that can't run that operating system because they don't have the necessary hardware to support that particular method of memory protection.
- There are lots of different techniques that an operating system can implement memory protection.
- Each specific technique requires a specific kind of hardware support -- for example, paging requires a paging memory management unit. For example, memory segmentation requires segment registers. For example, efficient hardware virtualization can be implemented on hardware that supports the Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements.
- The entire point of the μClinux operating system is to support the many computers do not include a MMU, and so they cannot run standard Linux which uses a memory protection system that requires a paging MMU.
- If you choose any one of those 3 techniques, there are lots of computers that don't have the hardware support for it -- even though they may have hardware support for one or more other techniques.
- Is there some way of clarifying that section of the article without going into so much detail?
- --DavidCary (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Done - I've removed that sentence, as it contains too much detail and would be something else to maintain as new versions of OS X come out, if it were merely modified. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
New to wikipedia talk section so excuse any protocol breaks I make, but SteamOS is definitely based on Linux, so the header section really shouldn't list it as a separate UNIX based OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've put SteamOS inside the parenthesis after Linux, and near Debian, with which it's associated. The OS isn't mentioned later on, so we've got more detail in the lead than in the body, which shouldn't be the case. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- There`s far too much in the list in the lead. We don`t need to list every existing OS as an "example of [a] popular modern operating system". I think we should restrict it at this level to Windows, Linux distros (without listing them), Android and OS/X. Further explanation and expansion to follow in the body. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Change seven to six
In the fourth alinea it states that the first seven of above mentioned operating systems are unix based, with the recent edit of putting steamOS under the linux category this makes it now the first six. JJK96 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
List of "popular" operating systems
I want to simplify the last paragraph in the lead but I`m not entirely sure what to do. As it stands it is inaccurate and selective, but not selective enough - worse than useless I think. My preference is simply to delete it; I don`t think it adds anything to the article and left there it is an open invitation for everyone to add their own preferred OS and it just grows out of all proportion as it is now. The alternative might be to place a strict limit on it - something like "Examples of popular modern operating systems include Microsoft Windows, Apple OS/X and Linux variants including Android" would do as what I suppose it is trying to do is make clear what is meant by an OS. However, without some agreement here neither of these would hold. Does anyone have any views on this matter? Any other proposal? Bagunceiro (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd think about moving some of the detail further down, rather than just deleting. It might be of some use to place some of the more popular offshoots with their parent OSs. I don't like peremptory deletions, unless the material is of absolutely no value. Someone wanted to see that information placed, although I agree that mere laundry lists of OSs can grow and be hard to maintain. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I put real-time operating system (RTOS) in the list. They are also operating systems, and the article should reflect that, and I think recognize the most popular ones, even if the general public doesn't know them. Taking them out, that are more popular than say OS X (while leaving that in), seems biased to me. comp.arch (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't claim this list is exhaustive or even "popular" any more. It's just a short list of examples which a typical reader may have heard of.
- Actually I'd like to remove the list altogether - I don't think it achieves anything except to generate controversy since people get upset that their own favourite is missing. Suggest we delete this and leave it to the examples section (and add RTOSs, for example, to that). Bagunceiro (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I can live with you just dropping the list. At the time I just added the most popular RTOSes. The list was already there. I'm not sure it helps to list OSes in an example section, then you might just get controversy there.. [and the lead should summarize it/articles]. The list I left in included only popular (I expect you had issue with z/OS, that is most popular in its category if you define them narrowly, maybe it's not "modern" however..). It seems strange to list no examples [in the lead].. but then again Car doesn't.. Programming languages, name C and Perl. I'm ok with that. At least C. comp.arch (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Before I saw this discussion I re-added the short list of OSs as it existed on February 3, along with its accompanying hidden comment. I don't think that it hurts to exemplify in the lead the concept of an OS, using a short list of software people are likely to be acquainted with. The comment explains that the list isn't meant to be exhaustive. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
First PC to run Windows
The article claims that the first PC to run Windows was the PS/2. However, this was launched in 1987, two years after the first release of Windows. Suggest this needs clarifying or scrapping. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe someone was thinking of OS/2. That sentence can be scrapped. It would be hard to determine the first computer to "run" any operating system. Also the article says "Microsoft Windows originated in 1985...", which is probably better put as "first released in 1985". Dhtwiki (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Question in Arabic
هل يمكن للرواى الخاص باى جهاز ينطق باللغه العربيه ؟بدلا من الانجليزيه . اذا افترضنا جدلا ان دور الراوى لذوى الاحتياجات الخاصه من ضعف النظر والسمع اذا لماذا لايكون الراوى عربى ؟ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is your question why equal attention isn't paid to Arabic, as to vision and hearing impairment, with regard to accessibility? In my experience, operating systems come with considerable "locale" facilities, to change the prompts, error messages, etc., to the language of one's choice. This might be better addressed at Arabic Wikipedia, in any case, although their OS talk page hasn't shown activity since 2008. Is that why you're asking here? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Where is Unix?
I don't mean to be an "operating system chauvinist" but the History section seems to jump directly from mainframes to microcomputers, omitting minicomputer OSs, and particularly Unix, which most people would agree is a historically significant OS. The word "Unix" only occurs 4 times, in the context of the development of Linux. ChetvornoTALK 17:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see that there is little to no discussion of minicomputers per se in the History section. However, there is plenty of discussion of Unix, and Unix-derived systems, in the Examples section, more than on any other operating system, "Unix" being mentioned more than four times, I would say. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The statement on realtime OS that "A real-time operating system is an operating system that guarantees to process events or data within a certain short amount of time" is misleading. The realtime characteristic isn't so much about being fast as being predictable in its time characteristics and considering deadlines in its scheduling algorithm. Granted, realtime operating systems often are, in fact, very fast but speed alone isn't the defining characteristic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejs1985 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly change "within a certain short amount of time" to "by a specific moment in time". Dhtwiki (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
|Not doneSee Below The article is in draft space, and it looks pretty rough to me. Let's wait until the article is accepted before linking (although I see that you've been linking at other articles). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Really? Why not let a more experience editor who understands red links on Wikipedia better than you do, respond to this request. Thanks. --2601:285:101:A67A:88DB:4009:605E:A8E9 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even without an article the link is appropriate. "Looks rough" as an editorial comment has no value for rejection of a non-controversial link. --2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:99 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done You shall have your red link. I was in part reacting to the literal wording of the request, which implied an existing article (a "stub" is an article type in main space). The policy on red links is more about not removing those already placed. I think this is a questionable case, where you're requesting a protected edit to establish one and where one editor has systematically placed them on many other articles (where the lack of such links suggests that no need is felt by other editors). Dhtwiki (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"Prominent" operating systems?
Looks like Dhtwiki and I are entangled in a bit of dispute. I contend that "Linux" is neither popular nor prominent.
But the solution is simple: Wikipedia:Verifiability. I added source. Anyone contending that Linux is popular, please add one.
- This type of laundry list is always unhelpful. They do not have any useful content and simply provide a platform for squabbling around the editors' respective favourites. I still contend that we would be better off without it altogether. But as an attempt to bring an(other) end to the constant bickering here I've made making the statement more concrete. Perhaps this will at last put an end to it? Bagunceiro (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)