Talk:Comparison of real-time operating systems

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

expansion ideas

More columns for

royalties and fees
open source or closed source
approximate deployment numbers
initial date of development

—EncMstr (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. What about these? (see also: Template:Infobox OS)

Company/Developer
Programmed in
Notes/Comments

Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about:

Latest release
Latest release date

This should help to sort out active projects from old/dead projects or systems interesting only as historical reference.

N'SallaNuto (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release number often creates a quagmire of updates. Anyway, the status column is intended to reflect whether it is still supported and under development. —EncMstr (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

external links from original article

This hive of external links used to be in the original article before the split; they should be incorporated into the appropriate entries in this article.

—EncMstr (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are WindowsCE and SymbianOS really RTOS ?

I am not sure those can be classified as "RTOS", possible targets are embedded devices but this alone does not give them real time capabilities. Probably we should put them among the general purpose operating systems.N'SallaNuto (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, operating systems that target embedded devices are often incorrectly described as "RTOS".

However:

The SymbianOS article says "Later OS iterations ... notably the introduction of a real-time kernel" and "Symbian OS EKA2 supports ... real-time response".

The Windows CE article says "Windows CE conforms to the definition of a real-time operating system".

I think an OS whose latest version is real-time should be listed here as a real-time operating system, even though the earliest versions were not real-time.

If you have some evidence that these OSes are *not* real-time, please put it in those articles and specifically state " ... is not a real-time OS ...". But as long as the article for an OS claims it is "real-time", it needs to stay on this list.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with anon IP. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the web for some info regarding WinCE RT capabilities, I found some documentation and it seems that since version 3 it supports priority inversion avoidance mechanisms and other features required for a RTOS. Probably a note about this (version 3 or above) should be added to the article and/or the list. N'SallaNuto (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSEK

OSEK is a standard for a certain type of operating systems, not an actual implementation... (compare with POSIX for traditional operating systems) TERdON (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another entry in the table like that too, though I don't immediately see it. However, I've taken the liberty of filling in the table appropriately. Comments? —EncMstr (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTOS: duplicate names, different operating systems

Some operating systems are entirely different but use the same name. For example "ARTOS" is used by Locamation, and by Mike Fowler for their respective OSes, (and I believe a third company as well). But these OSes are as different as Windows CE and Symbian OS.

At the moment these two differnt OSes are merged to the same line. In my opinion these should be on separate lines. Andrec79 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If you know enough about them, please generate unique names for them and divide the entry into multiple lines accordingly. Something like ARTOS (mfg name) and ARTOS (whatever). —EncMstr (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux RT patch

Where is the "Linux RT patch" (PREEMPT_RT) by Ingo Molnar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.31.5 (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable entries

There seems to be a slow edit war involving removing/reinstating RTOS entries in bulk, apparent on notability grounds. While the notability policy applies to articles, it does not apply to individual entries in an article. For example, many athletic sport articles which do not list yearly winners would be considered incomplete even if each winner and competition was not notable. —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly as it relates to non article entries, this is guideline applies to lists, The Purpose of Lists in wikipedia is used for internal navigation and "...lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space. ". Wikipedia has 7,007,848 and is optimized for readers over editors, redlinks and non article entries are unhelpful to readers. Non-article entries do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia. Please Write the Article First. Additionaly, "Lists" are subject to Wikipedia's other policies such as WP:NOTDIR and WP:SPAM. Equally, Wikipedia is not a guide nor a repository to any/every real-time operating system in existence. --Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, your repeated bulk deletions and the attempt to completely redefine the established purpose of this article over the past months without seeking any consensus despite being reverted many times by other editors made it increasingly difficult to still assume good faith. Therefore I hope, we can find a working consensus now.

This article was and is a list of real-time operating systems, not a list of particularly notable (by WP's definition) real-time operating systems. Since there never was nor is a requirement for individual entries in an article to be notable by itself, and a list is nothing but an article, it is okay to list operating systems, for which we don't have articles. I too would like to see more entries with articles, but Rome was not built in a day, so give it time. And even if some entries will remain without article forever, this is still okay by our standards, it still serves the purpose of the article.

While this article may also serve as a navigational aid, its main purpose is to give an informational overview and make quick comparisons possible, hence its table format. There is no guideline which would define that all articles containing lists must be for navigational purposes only (to the contrary) or contain only blue-links to existing articles. You are reading something into our guidelines and policies, which simply isn't stated there.

I am not going to defend every single entry in the list (I would not even mind to delete a few of them and add others, but other editors might not agree), but you even deleted entries, for which we do have articles, or which are otherwise well-known and in widespread use in the industry, thereby contradicting your own ruleset above.

While notability never was a criterium for individual entries in an article, stated facts should still be either obvious or verifiable, ideally by providing a reliable reference of some kind. So, I would agree to put a "more references needed" tag on this article in order to improve the quality of the various entries over time, but not to mass delete them.

There are some ten-thousand RTOSes in the wild. Therefore, the list in its current form and length does in no way risk to become a listing of every possible RTOS under the sun. There are still many more RTOS which would belong into here...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are needed to meet "The Purpose of Lists" Guideline, which is community agreed upon consensus and is considered a standard that all users should follow. I fail to see how it would be difficult to assume good faith when following the actual established purpose of Lists. Any editor would find attempts to bring this list up to community standards reasonable. The established purpose, is demonstrated in the following;

Per the Guideline WP:LISTPURP; "Navigation ...serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia... to assist in navigating their subjects,"
Per the Guideline WP:LISTPURP; "Development ...lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space."
Per the Guideline WP:RED; "...editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."
Per the Policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY;"...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. "

This list, over the past four years has steadily degraded due to lack of maintenance, became a repository for any indiscriminate items, un-navigable and unhelpful for readers. Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. I've attempted multiple times make the proper improvements, however it seems there is a case of WP:OWN by its creator imposing his own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, I've seen no such reasonable or policy-compliant argument for these Non notable non-article entries to remain within this article. --Hu12 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are overlooking the very first purpose in the guideline you mention, Purposes of lists, says: "Lists have three main purposes: 1. The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists."

This is the first and best purpose, and exactly describes what this article is. You have now asserted (twice) that the second purpose, "2. Navigation: Lists contain internally linked terms... serve(s) as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia..." and have altered the article to fit that description. And now you have added the third (and inferior) purpose from the guideline, an article development list.

This article serves multiple purposes and has worked well:

Comprehensively mention all significant RTOSs
Provide a summary and comparison of significant attributes of these products
Provide a means to find out more about each RTOS, and
Effectively deflect would-be spammers into providing structured, useful information as a resource to all who are interested in RTOSs. This article steadily averages 204 reads per day.

You may not be aware of the significant loads of spam (as WP:ELs) that the RTOS articles were receiving before I created this article four and a half years ago. Especially real-time operating system which was being hit at around ten times per week. At the time, it was an experiment for WP:WikiProject Spam, which I notice you are quite active in. (I was not active for long.) The experiment was wildly successful: it immediately decreased spam (of related articles) by at least 90%, (down to once or twice a month) and the edit rate here initially correlated to a deflection rate of 25–40%. That is, at least a quarter of would be spammers were improving this article.

Furthermore, the more apropos guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists which states:

“

Common selection criteria: ...[second item] Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.

”

This is a community recognized guideline which states that every item in a list can be non-notable. Usefully collecting, organizing, and summarizing related information is encyclopedic per the Five Pillars. —EncMstr (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]