Talk:Operating system/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

History section moved

I'm moving the entire "history of operating systems" section to its own page. The entire (very large) subject of operating system concepts and research operating systems hasn't been mentioned. And that's just the current research OSes. If we include the past research OSes (ie, missed opportunities) the history section could get very big indeed....

Definition of OS

In a technical sense an operating system is the system software responsible for the direct control and management of the hardware that makes up a computer and basic system operations such as

• memory management
• process management
• file management
• input/output management

There's nothing "technical" about the definition of OS. Especially if you look at research OSes. There are good arguments for why graphics is a necessary part of the OS, for example.

Add: These are kernel functions only. While it could be argued that an OS may imply a kernel, many operating systems may run the same on top while having different kernels (for example unix flavors, a few run L4, then you have HURD and all the mach versions). An operating system more specifically provides an interface between the users, software, and hardware, and sometimes between multiple applications as well (OSX's high level IPC). The OS itself usually doesn't interact with the hardware directly, but instead through the kernel or core services in a microkernel. Most operating systems also provide a framework for user applications to be produced upon, supplying things like a standard GUI framework. For a more minimal definition, the simplest OS would provide a standard interface for accessing applications and files, possibly a command line, and applications would either use the same command line or provide their own GUI from scratch. Of course, when you get complex GUI systems like the Finder or windows explorer it gets more complicated since those interfaces can be replaced, but the OS would still generally supply the file/application data to those to display. An OS, however does NOT provide memory management, process management (at least not low level, but it might display process information to the user), or low level file management, although it may provide a high level file hierarchy and file navigation services. Input/output management depends, but its usage here is fairly ambiguous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.124.237 (talk • contribs) 23:11, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the article is inconsistent. Either "operating system" is the same as "software platform" and includes a user interface, standard library, and administrative tools OR Mac OS and Windows aren't operating systems. Mac OS uses a kernel called XNU, and the Microsoft Windows Kernel should be referred to as such if that's what's being discussed. Personally, I think that "operating system" is generally used as another term for "software platform". Chandon 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say inconsistent but the subject is complex. First, note that Kernighan & Pike titled their book The Unix Development Environment not "The Unix Operating System". If by "OS" we mean the software that automatically runs, there may be no user interface at all, as the system may have no human users, e.g. an FTP server monitored remotey, or a router device that is not monitored at all.

Imagine defining "human being" with a list of requirements, e.g., "a human has two legs, two arms, hands with opposable thumbs, and can talk". For each requirement there is someone lacking; an amputee, a mute, an infant who hasn't learned to talk yet, etc. An OS nowadays is just about as complex as that. No list of features would be satisfied by everything we want to call an OS.

The difference between "kernel" and "OS" is really a matter of emphasis. We think of the kernel as what must be run, and the OS as what we configure for our needs, but you can hack the kernel to suit your needs and there is stuff not in the kernel that you may always need for your types of applications (such as the C compiler). Generally the kernel has to be rebooted for a change, and the OS in general does not, but if you are wizardly you can hotswap parts of the kernel without reboot. It's just not simple. Pete St.John 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

File ownership and Superuser

Operating systems which distinguish more than one user also track such things as file ownership (I can't read (or erase or alter) your files unless you allow me to) and access to the machine (without properly identifying myself, the operating system will not let me run programs, including itself). These restrictions on users' privileges necessarily require creation of a kind of superuser who can tell the system about newly authorized users, revoke privileges for formerly authorized users, permit those who have forgotten their passwords access, install software, delete software, ...

I just removed this. If you interpret "file ownership" narrowly (ie, as what Unix does) then it's a blatant lie that multi-user systems require tracking of file ownership. If you interpret it broadly, then it's extremely deceptive because the broad definition is not what people will understand.

The "superuser" bit is also wrong. But this phrase pissed me off: necessarily require creation of a kind of superuser?? Who's the ignoramus who wrote this? Not only is it a blatant lie but it's a lie aimed at apologizing for Unix' bad design. Whoever wrote it must have a severe case of Dennis Ritchie worship. Unix's user model (with a single totalitarian superuser) is modeled on fascism and I really hate people who apologize for fascism. -- Ark

@Ark : fascism?? I do not believe the necessity of a superuser is in any way fascism. Required in most, if not all Operating Systems *including Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, as well as all UNIX-like systems* it is the duty of the superuser to maintain the integrity and security of the computer. The superuser's power, when implimented correctly and not abused, can limit what items certain users can access and prevent harm to the system. Because UNIX's file permissions are easily controlled on an individual basis, they allow more security that Windows just designating someone Administrator (superuser), or Standard User (which still has a great deal of power, by default. As for this being a design flaw in UNIX, please feel free to explain why to me. --166.66.32.55 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)freedomlinux

Stuff removed

Removed this recently added ... er ... stuff:

Operating Systems made so far The first real popular OS avaible for PC was DOS (Disk Operating System), made by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975. After that, the systems have developed into much more advanced programs that let you use your hardware in very many ways. Here is a list with the biggest operating systems from the start:

• MS-DOS - 1975
• Unix - 1983
• Microsoft Windows - 1985
• Microsoft Windows 2.0 - 1987
• Microsoft Windows 3.0 - 1990
• Linux - 1991
• Microsoft Windows NT - 1994
• Microsoft Windows 95 - 1995
• Microsoft Windows 98 - 1998
• Microsoft Windows 2000 - 2000
• Microsoft Windows ME - 2000
• Microsoft Windows XP - 2001
• Lindows - 2002

Several reasons for this: (i) it ignores mainframe and mini operating systems, from which microcomputer operating systems descend. (ii) it's way too short and selective - AppleDOS, CPM, Amiga, TRSDOS, etc., etc., etc. (iii) It dates MS-DOS to 1975 (6 years before the IBM PC!) and ignores the things it was cloned from. (iv) It lists one particular minor Linux distribution (Lindows) and ignores all others.

In short, it needs a lot of work - and the end result would simply be to duplicate material that is already covered in greater depth and with more accuracy elsewhere. Tannin 22:59 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that a user interface need not involve a monitor at all. The user interface can be as simple as a row of pushbuttons and an accompanying row of lights. Computers operated via push buttons, teletype terminals, etc... are increasingly rare, but they were once common. Let's not limit the 'pedia to strictly modern beliefs. Elde 09:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Common Core

This article isn't really up to scratch on this point, surprisingly, seeing that we are on the internet here and there should be enough programmers. Someone seems to be confusing functionalty of API and of OS. The objective of an OS is to provide an abstraction layer to the hardware of the system to make more different architectures somewhat compatible with each other. This may have been forgotten in the windows era, but see NetBSD and even lowly Linux . Hmmm. Kim Bruning 11:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

As I try to point out the original objective (circa 1960) is to change the accounting for computer usage from the wall clock to the computer's internal clock and to protect/secure those accounting records from malicious users (who would want to reduce the amount attributed to them). After the various attempts to do this came the realization that this new "layer" could transform the appearance of the hardware. The early operating systems made no effort to allow really different architectures, they were specifically written to exactly one definition of hardware (which could have been broad enough to include some significant variations). OS360 was written for the the line of IBM mainframes, the OS on CDC machines only ran on CDC machines, the OS on the Univacs only ran on the Univacs. I am most familiar with the operating systems on the DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) boxes and there the TOPS-10 OS only ran on PDP-6s, PDP-10s, and PDP-20's; RSTS, DOS-11, RT-11, RSX-11M, and RSX-11S only ran on PDP-11s; OS-8 only ran on PDP-8s; and while there were some common themes, similar utilities, etc, programs could not be moved from RSTS to RSX-11M let alone to an other DEC machine. Even though TOPS-10 did absolutely nothing to accomodate different architectures, its writers and users still found it useful to visualize the "virtual machine" that the OS presented to user programs.

And as for "lowly Linux" (it is spelled with one l) technically it towers over anything Microsoft has had since it sold off its UNIX business. 03 June 2004 Arthur Protin <protin@h-68-166-100-10.nycmny83.covad.net>

How do you pronounce OS?

I've always said OS as in the way you say GUI, but Apple pronounces it O-S (spells it out). I was just wondering which way was common. I thought I heard someone on tv say Mac OS X my way.--naryathegreat 23:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I pronounce it somewhat like "ahs," unless I am talking about OS X, in which case I spell it out because that is how Apple does it. Apparently, saying "ahs X" regarding OS X is almost as bad as calling it "OS 10," (that is, discouraged) among a few Apple fans I know. Mga 05:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. Are either of you computer science people? I've done a lot of programming over the years (my experience covers 12 languages although I stay proficient now only in 2) and all other programmers I know have always spelled out the letters out loud as O-S. Or at least that's the way everyone says it in California. --Coolcaesar 21:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, with 32 years in the business, I can think of only one instance where it was anything other than O-S: The "commercial operating system" that Digital Equipment Corporation sold for its PDP-8 family was called COS-300 (and later, COS-310); this was pronounced "Kawss-300" (and later "Kawss-310"). Other than that, I can't think of a single case where OS isn't spelled out as "O-S": OS/8, OS/360, OS-9, Mac OS X, Z/OS, and so on. Once in a while, the initialism RTOS is pronounced "R-toss" but it's much more often spoken as "R-T-O-S".

Atlant 00:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, in 32 years in the business, you never encountered DOS?--65.94.157.79 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt your speculations but there is an official pronunciation for Mac OS X. It is pronounced "mac - o - s - ten". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.0.58 (talk • contribs) .

I have always said O-S and so has everyone I know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.194.119 (talk • contribs) .

I wish OS X was pronouced ozix. Yes, Apple says O-S-ten. But "ozix" is the pronunciation for the rest of us ;-)--Ozga 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That would tend to collide with POSIX which is usually pronounced "Pozix".

Atlant 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. But perhaps some would not like the connection underscored. -Ozga 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Os-tan

IIRC there has been a VFD debate on Os-tan, with consensus to keep*, so all links should be kept too. Feel free to (re?)challenge Os-tan on vfd, but don't remove the links before a clear consensus to delete.

• IIRC, YMMV, wikipedia search tools turn out to be truely terrible, so I can't find a link back to the debate in question. :-/
  • No reference to os-tan in archived vfd pages? Could be. Darn! Still, first vfd os-tan page, only then delete links to it. Kim Bruning 13:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 12:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with OS-tan having its own page with links to whatever. However I don't see why the actual OS pages should link to OS-tan, I don't see what this contributes to the actual OS pages. Fair enough if it was an actual official or unofficial mascot like Tux or Hexley, but when it is just something a bunch of people made up to amuse themselves...

If someone out there has written Bill Gates/Steve Jobs slash fiction stories should we create links to them on the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates pages? AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Virtual Operating system

Hi Anybody knows that there can be Virtual Operating system . Virtual OS will be faster , manageable , controlable with the amazing speed.

Let us know your views.

Regards Yogsma

Yes, but only in the 9th dimension ;-) . --Hdante 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out Xen or VMware. — Jeremy | Talk 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Try the original and surviving incarnation in IBM's VM. Mvanner 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

QNX

The embedded OS section is rather of target. QNX Rt-Linux and NetBSD are all embedded and are Unixes. Watsonladd July 6, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Main OS's

I wanted to clarify the section about 'Today's operating systems', but it got all reverted. I didn't get it completely right, but it was meant as an incentive to others to clarify things. I suppose I should have started with asking here. So here goes. Some explaining would be in place here about the different types of computers and what they run. I probably won't get it completely right again this time but if I'm wrong could you correct the following. I know a bit about this and if I don't get the article then there must be something wrong with it. If I'm not mistaken, there are

• 80x86 computers, running
  • smaller Unix variants like Linux
  • msWindows
• Macs, running
  • Mac OS, which these days is a Unix variant
  • Linux
• mainframes, running
  • Unix variants
  • msWindows
  • a score of other OS's, mostly related to Unix
• Embedded systems, running Linux or limited versions of other OS's.

The first two could be grouped together under 'personal computer', which makes sense linguistically and makes it more understandable to relative laymen, although some would object to that. Anyway, it should be explained.

Mentioning specifically that Linux runs on (practically) all computers certainly seems worth mentioning. Also that it's the only one that does that. Or isn't it? And doesn't Linux run 'unaltered' on embedded systems? As I understand it, the kernel needs to be compiled, but that's the normal way to go. I'm also a bit confused about the Linux/GNU thing. And I don't know what BSD runs on. But, like I said, if even I don't get all that from this article, then there's something amiss.

Two more things that could do with some more explaining are the difference between console OS's like DOS and GUI's and the difference between applications and programs. If you exclude OS's from programs, I thought that was the same as an application. But the second paragraph in the 'Common core services' section suggests otherwise. DirkvdM 08:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Linux runs on practically all current computers, but it's not alone in that regard: the same could be said for NetBSD or OpenBSD ... although Linux runs on an S/390 mainframe and I don't think BSD does; but BSD will run on systems with no MMU whereas Linux won't.

It seems to me much more relevant, though, to note that the operating-systems market collapsed radically over the course of the 1990s. Whole classes of OS that were relevant ten or fifteen years ago are no longer -- in the "server" or "enterprise" world, consider VMS, Pick, NetWare; in the microcomputer world, AmigaDOS. Basically, operating systems have collapsed to Unixoids and Windoids; and the Unix market is in the process of collapsing to Linux distributions.

The reasons I reverted that edit, by the way, were as follows:

• "personal computers (the 80x86 family)" -- this is a double error: first, there are non-x86 personal computers; second, there are x86 systems which are not personal computers, such as servers.
• "On Apple Macintosh computers the main OS is Mac OS, with Linux again as an alternative." -- Mac OS X, not Mac OS, is the current OS on Macintosh computers. Very few Mac users run Linux (by comparison with the number of x86 users who do).
• "Linux is the only OS that will run on (almost) any computer." -- this is erroneous, since NetBSD runs on some systems that Linux doesn't.

I think it would be worthwhile to discuss more the differences between "operating systems" as computer scientists see them (kernels -- scheduling, virtual memory, real-time, and so on) and "operating systems" as marketers see them (libraries, GUIs, bundled applications). There is a real terminology gap there. --FOo 04:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I already got some of that. I'll leave the scientific viewpoint (which I would rather call the programmer's viewpoint) to you and others and have another go at the marketeers viewpoint (which I would rather call the consumer's viewpoint). I'll base it on the list above. Correct me where I'm wrong. By the way, I like the terms Unixoids and Windoids, but they don't seem encyclopedic enough :) . One thing I'm not sure about is the right term for a DOS-like OS. I've called it a console but linked it to Command line interface. DirkvdM 09:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. The console/GUI software can either be considered part of the OS, or not. For example, in Microsoft Windows, the GUI is considered part of the operating system, while in Unix, in general, it's considered an optional application. This is not clear in the article. It would be nice if you tried to rewrite the section here in the talk page so that you put it in less technical terms. Others will refine it and we can move it back to the main page. --Hdante 18:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Even from a programmer's viewpoint, most usages of "operating system" include more than the kernel. If you ask a programmer "is Unix an operating system?", most of them will say "yes", even though what makes something a "Unix" has very little to do with the kernel (POSIX is mostly a set of userland apps and library APIs). Yes, there is a narrow set of computer scientists and engineers studying kernel design that sometimes use "operating system" to mean mainly the kernel, but it would be a mistake to present this as a "more scientific" or "more correct" meaning among programmers—language is defined by usage, and here the overwhelming usage refers to more than just the kernel. —Steven G. Johnson 19:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How did OS/360 thru z/OS managed to be related to UNIX? Especially since OS/360 and it's predecessors pre-date UNIX by 5 years or more? Mvanner 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Classification and terminology section

This section divides the system into:

Hardware <-> Kernel <-> Shell <-> Applications 

This doesn't seem to reflect current terminology, however. For example, the "shell" on a Unix system refers to something like csh, bash, etcetera, and does not include all of the libraries etcetera that are required to run application software. Things like libc, X11 and GNOME, MacOS's Quartz etc. libraries, or the Win32 API and GUI are rarely if ever referred to as part of the "shell". (Googling for "Windows shell" yields usages for the command line, Explorer, and other filesystem interfaces.) —Steven G. Johnson 00:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

MS/Windows installation?

What are the TECHNICAL DETAILS of the windows installation process. Meaning what are all the small technical steps which are sequentially executed internally by Windows during its installation ? Somebody please list them out.

You're in the wrong place. You need to visit Wikipedia:Reference desk. Furthermore, you can probably find that information at the Microsoft Developer Network, msdn.microsoft.com, or in one of the numerous books on Windows published by Microsoft Press. --Coolcaesar 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Windows near monopoly?

Why does it say "Today Windows enjoys a near-monopoly of around 90%"? If we aren't going to just say "Windows enjoys a monopoly", could we change it to "Windows enjoys a debatable monopoly"? To me saying a near-monopoly is implying that it isn't a monopoly at all, and is close to becoming one, which isn't the case.

In the case The US vs. Microsoft, MS was accused of abusing its "monopoly power", you are either a monopoly or you are not. I think saying "near monopoly" is less useful to the reader, DaveRocks should have properly explained his reasoning here when he reverted my edit, instead he assumed he was right and went right ahead. The same case has been brought against MS in the EU, again for abusing its monopoly. They have become the sole supplier of operating systems which thier own software, unless you include WINE. Therefore I think it should be stated as a monopoly. -- Tompsci 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tompsci. We should say that Microsoft does have a monopoly in the operating system market as far as consumers are concerned. Only hard-core computer geeks actually go out of their way to compare and contrast features of Linux, MacOS and Windows when purchasing a new computer. The vast majority of consumers just use Windows by default because it's what the computer comes with or it's what they need to run their favorite applications. Of course, the situation is different in the corporate market, where corporations have armies of technicians to care for their Linux server farms. --Coolcaesar 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia must offer "politically neutral" texts. It is not a place for personal opinions. The position against Microsoft marketing strategies (being them good or bad, like the "borrowed from OpenVMS" citation) is evident, and are going fair away from the subject: Operating system. The "monopoly" attribution is quite a heavy and subjective adjective, very difficult to be proved (apart from a general sense of it... but passive as injury). Being it subjective, the conclusion (of monopoly) should be left to the reader and not "proposed" by the encyclopedia. So, probably the text should only make references to the participation of the Windows OSs in the market (maybe pointing to statistical resources) and nothing else. FredCK 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A monopoly is defined by various sources to be a sole supplier of a product or service, or have such market domination as to have price control over it. Microsoft is in the second category, and can legitimately be said to have a monopoly. Whether one thinks that MS has a monopoly or only a de facto monopoly depends on your definition of the term, so either one can be acceptable --Blainster 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been established in the US courts, by Department of Justice lawyers, that Microsoft has and abuses monopoly power. That power is so great that, even although it was also proven that Microsoft was "untrustworthy", the courts essentially could do nothing about it. Furthermore, the Department of Justice which brought the case, was so in thrall to its Microsoft-indoctrinated computer staff that the DoJ still uses Microsoft software, including the notoriously cracker-penetrable Microsoft Office. albert

Poor History

This page does a very poor job of discussion the history of operating systems. It is not the case that computers before UNIX didn't have an operating system, which is almost what is suggested by the opening comments. UNIX was a later-comer, and actually had very few new ideas in it (although it was elegantly simple in its early versions).

One should discuss IBM OS/360 and Fred Brook's _Mythical Man Month_, inspired by his experiences during its development. Other important industrial operating systems include:

UNIVAC - Exec, RTB Control Data - Scope, NOS Cray - NOS DEC - RT-11, VMS

Operating systems didn't begin with UNIX.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --FOo 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That said, this article is quite poor. Thank you for identifying its weaknesses. --Robert Merkel 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to fix it. First step is a potted history section. --Robert Merkel 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have created sub-sections for the history section.

# 2 History
   * 2.1 Mainframes
   * 2.2 Midrange systems
   * 2.3 Microcomputer era

--Unixguy 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unix-like systems

The last paragraph in the "Unix-like systems" section is very poorly written and it is not clear whether the statements are referring to plan 9 or inferno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.85.25 (talk)

Other operating systems

"Older operating systems which are still used in niche markets include the Windows-like OS/2 from IBM; Mac OS, the non-Unix precursor to Apple's Mac OS X; RISC OS, which is specifically designed to run on ARM processor architectures; and AmigaOS, the first graphical user interface (GUI) based operating system with advanced multimedia capabilities available to the general public."

I think it would be worthwhile to add BeOS to this list. It is still used extenisively in theater productions by sound designers and engineers. (I am a theatrical sound engineer, myself.) Disney, for example, still uses BeOS for almost every stage show they do, all over the world.

I've never edited a Wikipedia article before, but I'm imagining the proper thing to do is post this to the discussion page before making any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.68.50 (talk)

Ilustrations?

There are free ilustrations, Like http://www.webopedia.com/FIG/OPER-SYS.gif ??