Talk:Network operating system

Computing: Networking / Software Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

NOS in the 1980/1990

I do miss some historical information about NOS in the 1980/1990. Back then there was a cathegory of highly monolithic network software which allowed even very small computers to participate in an advanced network. Best known example is JNOS which required MSDOS 2, 64kByte of memory, one floppy drive to access features like AX.25, TCP/IP, telnet, irc, email and many more. Similiar NOS-Implementations were AmigaNOS for Amiga, C64NOS for the C64 (which strangely was also available for VIC20 and even PET with at least 16kByte of RAM, sitting in a 16kByte ROM), CPMNOS for CP/M and many more... up to the late 1990ths this was usually the easyand reliable way for connecting small computers to networks, even with Windows, BSD and Linux around. Some of these programs are used and updated until today and I guess by numbers these were the most used programms using the term NOS by several magnitudes. In 1992 I was ablle to connect to more than 3000 systems through amateuer radio alone. Technically speaking the software contiki for 8Bit/16Bit computers is a very late descendant from these software. Crass Spektakel (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradiction is bad

This article is self-contradictory. In the second paragraph, it disclaims the idea that Windows XP is a "network operating system", then soon thereafter goes on to assert that Windows NT and 2000 are. Since the three systems have basically the same architecture, this is inconsistent.

As far as I can tell, the term "network operating system" was usually used several years ago to describe Novell Netware, and specifically the idea of using a different OS on the server and exerting a greater portion of control over the clients (usually running MS-DOS). That is to say, it was basically used as a marketing term, not a real-world distinction.

Naturally, a use that includes Windows 2000, Red Hat Linux, and Solaris would be a simpler meaning: any operating system with networking capability built in, perhaps? Or any that can run LAN services? --FOo 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the above: You overlooked this part of the definition: An NOS is an OS that has been specifically written to keep networks running at optimal performance.

XP wasn't dedicated to this goal. The primary goal was making a better interface...

The original poster is correct. The term NOS was originally used to describe NetWare, an operating system designed for a file server, as opposed to a general purpose operating system. The term was then also applied to software designed to add file server capabilities to DOS, such as LANtastic. Windows for Workgroups was also considered a NOS, because it was considered a special extended version of Windows and a competitor to existing NOS. The use of the term began to fade with when file server capabilities became a standard part of Windows and other general purpose operating systems. One could argue that the server versions of Windows and Linux would qualify as NOS, but I don't see the term applied there. Perhaps that is because the network capabilities exist in the general version of the OS, and are merely enhanced or optimized in the server versions -- Seitz 05:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney again!

I was running a Network Operating System before Netware every existed! The First Network Operating System! --CyberSongs 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but incorrect

Epistemological Clarity First

An Operating System enables software to abstractly access devices and hardware on a common basis of *device independence*. Admittedly I took that definition from my personal memory of a time before operating systems existed. I don't mind appearing simple minded. I'm a big believer in the K.I.S.S. myself -- That's only because I no longer believe smoke and mirrors.

To me ... an operating system is/does nothing more (and no less) than a ...

Present a consistent & stable interface to platform capabilities
Maintains a stable consistent abstract machine to higher-level applications.
Presents persistent and consistent communication interface(s) between the platform and the outside world.
Offers a basic environment for user programs to execute.
Provides a stable (basic) interface between humans and the underlying machine

That's is the simple side of things. I'm being deliberately post-modern (I might have said asinine ... Don't you think post-modern seem more obsfucationsl n'est pas? Add one further item.

While a base operating system provides stable interface(s) for provision of a "'user interface'":
- Command Shell Interface (Shell)
- Command Line Interface (CLI)
- Graphical User Interface (GUI)
Some ways to ask an Operating System to pass-on instructions or requests for the machine to DO stuff. In that light, your sewing machine, television, VCR, mobile, TVIO, etc have an Operating System-s.

In 2008; perhaps 1950-s thinking seems ancient, backward thought. Honestly in my humble opinion there hasn't been a networking operating system since the AmigaDOS. That software is 1950-s technology from the Cambridge Ring project. After that .. people have networked individual PC-s and hubs and platforms and machines.

To me an network Operating System packages the five(5) base aspects above over a collection of heterogeneous machines like ... hair-dryer, PC, laptop, macAir, iPod, PSP (ad museum).

Recommendation for: more science in computer science. (Yes I fully accept this diatribe will be deleted. At least ONE person will it first.) William (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Comment / Vitrol / stuff

Actually, the NOS NOS™ Network Operating Systems™ precedes any of these claims.

Before Unix or Aix there was the Master Control Program [MCP], the first Network Operating System, and the one upon which all of the after-runners were based, including Unix.

Principally the product, once again, of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, their colleques and employees, both Bell and IBM used their designs as the basis for their attempts at Network Operating Sytems, as they had with Cobol and other compiler languages.

The MCP, moreover, was a NCOS full Network Compiler Operating System™

The MCP was based in Espol and Algol, the preceptive languages for both Cobol and C.

The term Network Operating System was coined by me under my company NSC N S C ™Network Software Company ™

As were many other terms often accredited to latter users of the such.

Regardless of wikipedia's treatises, Truth Will Out! ([williamAquarius]] ... Sounds like rubbish. I've seen the MCP's code there is NO network in the O/s definition. There are OTHER hosts, on Other machines. That is NOT (to me) an "networking" or "network" operating system.

Terry James

CyberSongs

The term "Network Operating System" is meaningless in todays context. It meant someting in the 80's when you got DOS and then bought networking software to transfer data between computers.

Today, the networking functionality is built into the operating system such as Windowx XP or LINUX. I am not aware of anyone who has bought Windows and then went and bought a "Network Operating System".

Theo Tsourdalakis Engineer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.196.169 (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article needs rewriting: NOS is a term with several connotations

When I first read this article, I found myself arguing with it's content even before I reached the end. The problem is that the term of Network Operating System (NOS) has been redefined several times throughout the history of operating systems with network access. In the most simplified interpretation, NOS can connote any operating system that has capability to connect over a network with another computer. The myriad extrapolations from this point extend to very different understandings of what an NOS entails. I refer by example to two pages with divergent explanations of NOS: IT Architect - Network Operating Systems and Answers.com NOS definition

I think the article should present a complete picture of the term NOS and its various interpretations; in its current state, the article presents a very narrow view of the subject matter and only serves to misinform.

I suggest that this "redefined several times throughout the history of operating systems with network access" suggests strongly that the term is chiefly a marketing buzzword and not a technical distinction at all.

What, if anything, would you suggest is the difference between a "network operating system" and any other operating system with support for networked applications and facilities? --FOo 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the proposed deletions

I'd be astonished if there weren't an article for Network operating system. In the PC world, for example, first there were just individual PCs with no resources for file sharing, network management, etc. Then network operating systems were developed that sat on top of the computers' own OSes: Novell Netware, LanManager, Vines, etc. And that's what they were called: "network operating systems".

Now, operating systems come with networking built in, so there isn't much point in calling them NOSes, but neither the term nor its notability disappear on that account.

Therefore, I'm removing the PROD template. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe the article should be changed to stress more the fact that it's a historical term? -- intgr [talk] 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Honestly, I can't believe this article wasn't created and polished long ago. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wipe, Reboot

In response to the many, completely justified, criticisms of this poor quality article, I've stripped it down and removed all the confusion. Could contributors take a look at formatting now?CecilWard (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One good step, but the article is still needs quite a bit of help. As mentioned above, it needs to be clearly stated that the term has several meanings. Long ago it generally was similar to distributed operating system I would say, but now (mostly due to Cisco Systems it refers to the OS running in a switch. That claim that it is known as "Dialoguer" of course is just wrong. One paper used the name Dialoguer to refer to a user interface to one specific thing called a Network Operating System (not sure of which meaning since it is not online?). . W Nowicki (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split

It needs splitting into two articles. I've gone part way by splitting the current content. Snori (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

The external links for this page are outdated and need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legbody (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]