Talk:Operating system

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)

I´d agree with the principle of that, except that I think it is already there. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought that wasn't the case, but see that it is. So, simplifying the lead, as you suggest, especially reducing the too-long parenthetical after Linux, is OK, without worrying about losing information (I'd not heard of SteamOS before). Dhtwiki (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, well with the lack of further input I'm going to make the change. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:49, 16 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)

I don't have any quarrel with any of them per se. What I object to is a long and complicated sentence which just boils down to a list of names for people to fight over - it adds nothing. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:06, 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)

Agreed, provided it stays that way. We shall see. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (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 156.202.219.99 (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. Chetvorno^TALK 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)

Incorrect statement

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

Please link Virtual machine image to the stub article I just created. Thank you. --2601:285:101:A67A:88DB:4009:605E:A8E9 (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 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?

Hi

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.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Change ReactOS classification

ReactOS in its' current state is by no means a "hobbyist operating system": It's being developed as a full operating system by a dedicated team, whose developing it based on funds and donations. To top it all, the ReactOS team releases new versions from time to time whilst improving the operation system. Please change this. --ArmyMan007 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Add Link to Artificial Intelligence Operating System

If you could add a link in the text to the topic of Artificial Intelligence Operating System, for this new class of OS, it would be appreciated. (i.e. - "Other specialized classes of operating systems, such as embedded, real-time systems, and artificial intelligence, exist for many applications...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aios3837 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017: Grammar and clarity edit for third paragraph

I am proposing grammar and clarity edits to the unwieldy third paragraph in the introduction. This paragraph is a point of contention in the talk page, but I am not proposing any substantial edits to rectify its relevancy issues, only clarity and grammar.

The sentence which reads: "In the mobile (smartphone and tablet combined) sector, based on Strategy Analytics Q3 2016 data, Android by Google is dominant with 87.5 percent or growth by 10.3 percent in one year and iOS by Apple is placed second with 12.1 percent or decrease by 5.2 percent in one year, while other operating systems amount to just 0.3 percent.[4]" Should read: "In the mobile (smartphone and tablet combined) sector, according to third quarter 2016 data, Android by Google is dominant with 87.5 percent of the market and a growth rate of 10.3 percent per year. iOS by Apple follows with 12.1 percent of the market and a per year decrease in market share of 5.2 percent.[4]" Base0x10 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)