Jump to content

Talk:Operating system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GrammarAndShape (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 2 April 2018 (Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've incorporated (some of) your suggested changes in that lead sentence (which I've maintained as one sentence). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

IBM made an approach to Burroughs to licence MCP to run on the AS/400 hardware.

In the above sentence the accepted usage is license, as in the act of obtaining permission, rather than licence, a certifying document. 96.84.88.99 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience in the software industry, both terms are used in American English somewhat interchangeably. Please provide a WP:RS for the claim that the difference in spelling has a functional effect on licensing agreements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Despite Eggishorn's objection to the validity of the nominator's claim, I went ahead and made the change because Wikipedia Manual of Style requires spelling consistency and there were two other instances of "license" on the article already. That said, I did look at www.dictionary.com/browse/license and www.dictionary.com/browse/licence just to be sure there is no unforeseen circumstances. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Chrome OS section WP:UNDUE

I'd prefer not to modify that section myself, but I'm not sure how ChromeOS is notable enough to have a separate section on this page. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with you here, @Power~enwiki:. However, I do understand your reticence because I can envision a potential reversion on the grounds that it's a "sub-subsection" of a subsection (Linux). However, I am in agreement with you since ChromeOS and android are mere flavours of the linux kernel, and thus do not warrant any special attention because market share is not relevant to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.166.65 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My reticence is only because I was previously a Google employee and wish to avoid any appearance of WP:COI. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is. We could add links to Chromium OS and Chrome OS to the ever-growing list at the end of the Linux section. ~Kvng (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firmware functioning

I want to know that why firmware doesn't need os to function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.55.174 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the other way around - The computer requires the firmware (by which we're talking about BIOS, UEFI etc.) to run the OS. In effect the OS sits "on top" of the firmware.
Having said that, the sentence you are referring to (All computer programs, excluding firmware, require an operating system to function.) is at best misleading. Only programs that are written to run in an OS environment require an OS. That is the vast majority, of course, but excludes much embedded and specialised code. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence. There are a great many examples through history of computers that had no operating system, yet they seemed to be able to run programs just fine. Jeh (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to think of the best way to improve it, and I think you've found that! Thanks. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Decommission Wikipedia and you don't need to improve it anymore.
Also, search the history and find all the examples you want. There are trillions of apps that need an operating system.
On the other hand, computer programs that don't need an OS are firmware, bare-metal hypervisors, bootloaders (well, a bootloader is always part of an OS) and bootkits.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole much? Nobody is saying this is the last improvement that needs to be made. I'm used to much better from you than this, FC. Jeh (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeh: Really? Thanks. I take that as a complement. Nobody has ever said that he or she is used to "much better" from me. It is, however, safe to say that all application software and all mobile apps (which could either be application or utility, despite the word "app") need an OS. Supreme regards, FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's safe to say that at all. But I guess it depends on what you mean by an OS. Is a simple loader, one that provides no services to the program after it's been loaded, and which must be started from scratch in order to load the next program, an "OS"? I don't think so. I've used and written a lot of "application software" that depended only on a loader that was more or less hardwired into the machine. Jeh (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A simple loader is not an OS. But also, a computer program that does not require an OS is, by definition, neither application nor utility, bearing in mind that these two categories do not encompass all computer programs. But they do encompass all apps; because apps are either applications (mostly) or utility (rarely).
If what you make supervises hardware resources, then it is an OS. "Supervisor" is another name for operating system. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"a computer program that does not require an OS is, by definition, neither application nor utility". I don't know how you can believe that, other than that your experience in the industry must not include older machines. There was no "operating system" on the very successful IBM 1401, for example, but a great many shops ran business applications (payroll, billing/receivables, banking,general accounting, inventory, student management, etc., etc.) on them, as well as development for all of the above, plus utilities (in particular tape-to-printer and card-to-tape, in service to e.g. a 7090) on it. No job monitor, no OS "supervising hardware resources", etc. (What "supervised hardware resources" was the operations staff. ;) ) Jeh (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

Please change "This is achieved by time-sharing, dividing the available processor time between multiple processes that are each interrupted repeatedly in time slices by a task-scheduling subsystem of the operating system." to "This is achieved by time-sharing, where the available processor time is divided between multiple processes. These processes are each interrupted repeatedly in time slices by a task-scheduling subsystem of the operating system." The original sentence is hard to read because of the length so I propose breaking it down into two.

Please change "Unix-like operating systems, e.g., Solaris, Linux, as well as AmigaOS support preemptive multitasking." to "Unix-like operating systems, such as Solaris, Linux, and AmigaOS, support preemptive multitasking." GrammarAndShape (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC) I thought using the plain English "such as" will make for easier reading.[reply]