Talk:Comparison of operating systems/Archived talk 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No mention of IRIX?

Is this list working towards an authoritative comparison of all OSes or is it just a list of current, or nearly current ones? I see HP-UX is in the table, and I beleive that it is no longer for sale and support runs out on Dec 31st of this year. IRIX will probably be on life support for a few more years. Plus it's one of the grand old OSes from one of the (formerly) big UNIX system vendors. I'd like to see it included.

Perhaps the page should be divided between legacy OSes and current OSes? --RageX 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should, but, as far as I know, HP-UX isn't going away. HP says that they're adding new stuff to it. Guy Harris 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I read that HP was ending support of HP-UX on the support section of PTC.com. They link to this article on HP.com: here
It seemed to make sense, seeing that many UNIX companies are killing their own products and switching to Linux on some commodity hardware (AMD/Intel).--RageX 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
They're ending support for particular older versions of HP-UX; the article doesn't say they're ending support for HP-UX, just ening support for older versions. The note recommends upgrading to a newer version of HP-UX. Guy Harris 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What about listing GNU/Hurd? 66.90.182.183 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Cutting back

Someone half-added AIX, HP-UX and SunOS. Solaris is already here, so thats the latter out, HP-UX is abandoned really; as is AIX really.

Also, I don't think ReactOS deserves an entry, so I'm probably going to remove it to - minor Windows clone thats not yet anywhere really. --Kiand 17:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Windows ME and MacOS(classic) should probably go too, and I'm not sure Windows Server is worth keeping around, it's litle more than a repackaged XP... Lost Goblin 23:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree about Reactos. I'm not sure what windows ME's user base is, but I suspect its not that small yet? In principle I would agree that Server and XP are basically the same OS, but then you'd have to remove XP because Server 2003 is the newer version, and that wouldn't be good considering the large user base of XP. Anyway, the Windows entries at least have pretty complete information.
With AIX and HP-UX i'm not sure, how widely are they still used? In principle I'd actually be for having more of these classic Unices and other server OSes, to avoid worsening the "home user bias".
Maybe a general guideline as to what qualfies an OS to go into the list would be good. That would save us having to take them out again (or at least avoid too much discussion of every single case). --K. Sperling 00:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
After some removing and reverting i've decided to leave AIX in now, apparently IBM is still selling and supporting it. I've also removed Reactos, and added a list of removed OSes to the editors' notes at the top, so far those are AmigaOS, BeOS and Reactos. --K. Sperling 12:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
BeOS isn't gone, its just been renamed. SkyOS was also removed (negliable user base, not even publically available) in the distant past. Theres no data for AIX, I really think it should be removed if nothing can be added. --Kiand 12:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
(Minor point) BeOS being renamed -- that's not really accurate. There's both BeOS proper and Zeta; one was fully created by Be and one was not. Dysprosia 14:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Much as I hate having Zeta in that list (my views on the company and the product are on record), I don't think I'd get away with having BeOS in on its own anymore. However, with MacOS Classic, Plan9, AIX and OS/2 there, I think there could actually be some justification.... --Kiand 14:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Bot to update the bug count in the security table

I wrote small bot based on the pywikipedia package that can automatically update the bug count in the Security table. I put the request to run it on Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Permission to run SecuniBot, comments encouraged. --K. Sperling 18:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Out of box comments

The following was added by an anonymous editor and I have moved the comments here to discuss:

Some of their tests seem to not reflect "out of the box" status, that is, they enable all services in inetd as well as daemons that come with the base before executing the analysis software, when the "out of the box" state has them all disabled by default for several listed operating systems.

The out-of-the-box section does mention 'various configurations.' Does this not cover the issue? Uriah923 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure the out-of-the-box site should be mentioned in the article body at all. I think the a link in External Links (the one that is now in Reference) would be enough. --K. Sperling 12:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
The article does compare an important aspect of different operating systems. Why would it not be included in the article? Uriah923 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Network Appliance

What does "Network Appliance" mean in the "Target system type" and how it's different from embedded? maybe linking the various terms might be a good idea too so people can understand the implied meaning?

When the vendors talk about a network appliance, it usually refers to a system that performs some relatively-dedicated function (but isn't "embedded" within a larger piece of equipment). The function might be web serving, file serving, a database engine, a DNS server, etc., but it's usually pretty well-constrained as compared to a general-purpose PC (connected to a human) or "server" (that may be doing *MANY* back-end tasks). --Atlant 15:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of changing name and structure of this page

I propose to change this page and show in it only reference links to various comparison charts, because it fails to show (as stated in the title):

The table only includes systems that are widely used and currently available. Due to the large number and variety of available Linux distributions, all of these operating systems are grouped under a single entry in these tables.

It could have been called "Comparison table of OSes recent than 5 years", but it still presents MacOS and not only Mac OS X, that is the current selling version. (For example Windows'95 and windows'98 are both canceled from the table, and only Windows ME is shown. And it is correct. because both 9x versions are discontinued from market longer than 5 years.) OS/2 is discontinued, and IBM plans to release it Open Source, but it is still on the table. Linux OSes are shown apart. Their invoice is no longer (?) necessary. It lacks of OSes still on the market, such as AmigaOS, which recently started also 2 split versions, AROS and MorphOS (and also MorphOS it is currently on the market). (I wrote AmigaOS invoice in the table and I planned to insert MorphOS later). It lacks of very interesting OSes currently on the market such as RTOS (Real Time Operating Systems), which major representative is QNX. Also it could have been called "Comparison Table of Operating Systems with a million or larger userbase", but then, FreeBSD and Solaris are far from reaching this record of installed releases.

So I propose to create multiple pages of comparison charts, and this page pointing with respective links to each of them (Historical chart ones, OSes actually on the market, Linux Only, et cetera). But one chart amongst the others must be a very extensive comparison table showing all existing OSes, present and past ones, to be of reference for all readers, and mainly students and scholars. Criticisms and advices are welcome. Insert your Sign and say why, if you agree or refuse to change this page. --Raffaele_Megabyte 01:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the tables should list OSes that are widely used. However, use isn't the same as number of installed systems; that number just boosts desktop operating systems out of proportion. If, for example, a Solaris system runs an application server used by 100 users, that would really have to count as 100 users, not just one. A good measure might be how often an OS or services running on an OS are directly or indirectly used by how many users. Or to put it another way, the amount of "real work" done using that OS. (Of course this cannot really be measured, only estimated).
Basically I'm all for including OSes like QNX and similar systems, as right now the embedded operating systems are very under-represented. However, if we were to go down that road all the way, then we'd have to start including e.g. Symbian OS or Windows CE, too, and there isn't really much point in comparing e.g. Symbian OS to Solaris.
So if there was to be a split at all, I'd split it by target system type, i.e. server OSes, workstation/desktop OSes, embedded/realtime OSes. With that kind of split, many systems could be clearly assigned to one of the types, instead of having to maintain the same data multiple times. Also, splitting into multiple tables doesn't necessarily mean splitting into multiple articles. For example, it would be possible to simply have one section per target system type.
In either case, I'm very much against doing this kind of change in the "reorganize first, fix later" style, since a lot of changes tend to stop after the "reorganize" phase and never get around to actually filling in all the new content (E.g. I've seen a fair amount of people who insist that OS xyz has to be in the tables, but then can't actually be bothered to add more than a sketchy version of the "general information" data.)
Instead, I suggest you create the reorganized version as a page in your user namespace, and then post a link here for discussion. --K. Sperling (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Predecessor

Maybe we should clarify what we mean by predecessor. Is it necessary for the later to OS to be actually based on the code of the former, or is it enough if it shares a lot of concepts? For example I'd consider Unix to be a predecessor of Linux, even though the relevent field has recently been changed to "None". --K. Sperling (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Linux is the name of just the kernel. Your picture gets clearer when you know that the operating system is a GNU variant using Linux. And GNU's Not Unix. -- mms 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows 2003/XP?

It's pointless to put in both OSes. They should be merged into one Windows 2003/XP entry, IMHO. WinME and MacOS should stay, since they (or their OS lineage) both still have significant userbases. Thoughts?

I'd disagree. Even though they're fairly similar, the respective rows in the tables do actually differ. I don't see why we should ignore those differences just because they're theoretically almost the same OS. We might get rid of XP when Vista comes out, though. --K. Sperling (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that we could easily take care of the security vulns. thing by specifically stating "x for XP, z for 2000." The pricing, well, we already have seperate prices for the two editions, so why not go further? Vista is basically going to be a rename, since we aren't covering too many of the changed areas.
Generally I'd have thought it always makes sense to only list the latest version of any particular OS, but as these are both currently available products, I guess it makes sense to list them both.
I think WinME and (classic) MacOS should go. Or if not, then the heading needs to be renamed. Is this a history of popular OSs, or a list of those currently available? Mdwh 22:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Currently available and widely used, I believe. OS9 is still available and easily found, as are 98 and ME. MS may have dropped them from support, but it hardly means that they aren't available. -- original poster, 11 Dec 2005
Still available for sale? And yes, they are still used quite a lot, but I imagine DOS is still in use more than classic MacOS and that isn't mentioned. Mdwh 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AmigaOS

The AmigaOS is still widely in use in Europe, and serves as web servers and script servers in the U.S. Version 4 is currently being developed for the new PowerPC AmigaOne computers, and as such is a "Current OS" and should be included. Naidim 17:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A few thousand users is not "widely" used - along with RISC OS, AmigaOS is a seriously marginal OS used mainly in one country - Germany (RISC OS being English through and through and only really used there) --Kiand 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with including AmigaOS - AmigaOS 3.9 is also still available (last version dated March 2002, I believe). But I guess we need to clarify what this list is really about - admittedly AmigaOS is most well known in a historical context rather than it being currently available, as Kiand points out.
But then by this logic, classic Mac OS and Windows ME shouldn't be listed either.
Perhaps it would be better to have a similar separate list elsewhere for such OSs that are no longer widely available? Mdwh 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
As a further note - even if classic Mac OS and Windows ME are included on the basis of still being used, I also wonder about the inclusion of OS/2 and YellowTAB ZETA - are these widely used these days? Mdwh 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Amiga OS 4 is being finished with last stable realise Update 4 and Web sites online - for developers, applications being developed etc.. This cannot thus be considered as dead OS in terms of OS/2, GEOS or maybe Windows 95/98 (very little support and availiablity). Since this is a major, rewritten OS, which handles both upgraded OLD Amigas with PPC boards and new Amiga hardware (AmigaOne) I see no reason why it cannot be listed. At the end, its about OS and not how widely it is used. And AmigaOS pages links to this. If you don`t know much about AmigaOS 4 let people who know write it. --user:rastavox

OS X and BSD/POSIX as APIs

Should BSD and POSIX be listed as primary APIs, given that a lot of free software written to those APIs runs on OS X (and that much of the non-GUI parts of Carbon and Cocoa, such as the file system and networking APIs, are built atop the BSD/POSIX APIs)? Or should they be listed in a footnote or a parenthetical note, given that most commercial apps for OS X are written with Carbon or Cocoa? Guy Harris 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think they'd be considered first-class APIs just like Carbon and Cocoa. I mean, there's plenty of stuff on there that uses the BSD layer -- the entire command line userland comes from FreeBSD, for example, and X windows is getting to be pretty important as well. And I believe Firefox, to take one specific example, has an Aqua front end and a Unix backend. (Don't forget, not all important software is commercial anyway; I do believe there's a good amount of GUI stuff in Fink that requires X.) Haikupoet 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As a member of of the core team for Ethereal (which might well be as much used as any of the commercial network analyzers on OS X; it's the only one I use on OS X), I'm quite aware that not all important OS X software is commercial. :-) I think they should be listed as primary APIs, but I figured the only reason they weren't is that somebody figured they weren't as important, so I wanted to give them the chance to defend not marking them as primary APIs if they'd explicitly decided not to do so. Unless somebody can convincingly defend not listing them as primary, I'd list them as primary. Guy Harris 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Done and done, because I entirely agree with you. I think part of the problem is that there's a metric assload of people who really don't have a full grasp of what the Mac platform is all about (with today's news about the new Intel iMacs and the horribly named MacBook all the Mac ignorance is crawling out of the woodwork on the chat sites). Haikupoet 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

X11 as a primary API?

With X11 listed as one of the primary APIs for OS X, should it also be listed for the other UN*Xes, which also have an optional X11 - or which might install with X11 standard in desktop configurations, as they, unlike OS X, have only an X11-based GUI? Guy Harris 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection myself, though it occurs to me it should be listed as "optional" on the Linux entry. Haikupoet 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
On what UN*Xes would it not be optional? You can also install the BSDs without X11, I think; I don't know about Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc., and I forget whether I had to install X11 separately with Tiger on my PowerBook. Guy Harris 03:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A fair point. Hey, I can be wrong about things :-) In any case, virtually all Unix GUI software requires X except for the odd embedded system. Haikupoet 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd in fact remove it from the OS X row, since it's not exactly a primary API of OS X, or any other OS where an X server is an optional component. --K. Sperling (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Inferno

Vita Nuova made Inferno - Bell Labs made plan 9, Inferno is derived from plan 9. Much like HP-UX is derived from Unix SysV, that does not make AT&T the creator of HP-UX. For this reason I have put Vita Nuova back as the creator of Inferno. Janizary 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Vita Nuova obtained the rights to Inferno from Bell Labs. Bell Labs originally created Inferno. Some evidence: a paper on the design of Inferno's VM by Winterbottom and Pike from Bell Labs, a press release from Lucent stating that "The Inferno software was developed by researchers Rob Pike, Phil Winterbottom and Sean Dorward of the Bell Labs Computing Sciences Research Center". You may also want to use the Wayback Machine on http://inferno.bell-labs.com . Dysprosia 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
See also The design of the Inferno virtual machine, by Phil Winterbottom and Rob Pike; they're listed as being at "Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies", with Bell Labs e-mail addresses. Guy Harris 07:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the paper I quote above ;) Dysprosia 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you can go ahead and fix that then. Janizary 03:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Guy Harris 03:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)