Talk:Comparison of operating systems

Archived talk:

• Talk:Comparison_of_operating_systems/Archived_talk_1

Missing info including Linux, RTOS

By the way, Linux should be here. Also, what about the various popular RTOS and embedded OS that are very widely used (but not necessarily very visible). I'm wondering if this page is likely to have much value within WP, this info might be better obtained elsewhere. Graham 09:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assume this will be expanded significantly in the future... this appears to be a very depressing comparison (you might as well put it under "file-systems of 5 select operating systems" since that's pretty much the only significant info it has). --Ctachme 20:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it isn't expanded significantly in a couple of months, you can put it on vfd as "non-encyclopedic and not likely to expand in the future".

It is encyclopedic, it's a table of facts like in other print encyclopedias they have tables of numbers and things... there already had been a simlar comparison article which was VFD, but after work on it... I prove all the opposition all all (at time of writting). Before making such comments, gets your facts right... squash 05:24, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Further ideas to expand the table

Possible new columns: Windows Me; GNU Hurd; VxWorks; QNX; Minix; NetWare; EROS[1]; Palm OS; Symbian; IOS; ProDOS

Possible new rows:

• theme support (yes / no / optional);
• virtual memory support;
• Integral "start" button (yes / no / optional / nonstandard position or behavior);
• filesystem metadata updates (sync / ascync / soft updates / journaled / log-based / not applicable);
• persistence (application-managed / continuous-automatic);
• TCP fingerprint;
• command line completion (yes / no / not applicable);
• stackable virtual filesystems (yes / no / not applicable);
• concurrency models (none / process / thread / co-op / state machine);
• thread models (user / kernel / hybrid / not applicable);
• accessibility features (left-handed mouse / screen reader);
• kernel isolation (none / monolithic kernel / modular kernel / unprotected microkernel / protected microkernel);
• default desktop background has clouds on it (yes / no);
• Major ABIs supported (MS-DOS / Win16 / Win32 / Linux / iBCS2 / Mac OS / other) (integral vs. optional, level of support);
• Major APIs supported (Win32 / POSIX / GNOME / Carbon / other); Integral web browser;
• capabilities-based
• source code availability (included / extra charge / NDA / freely redistributable)
• security (hardening / code audits / services running by default / firewall support / event auditing)
• networking (protocols supported / benchmark performance / features like T/TCP)

..and lots more, but I'm getting sleepy. To be honest I'm a bit skeptical that a single overview article will ever be able to provide much in the way of useful comparison info. The topic is just too broad, and I expect the result would be like a single chart comparing motor vehicles with vastly differing requirements, from scooters to tanker trucks. Restricting the comparison to "viable" or "mainstream" desktop OSes would inevitably invite argument from partisans about how unfair it is to exclude OS/2 or CoCo OS-9 or whatever.

But I do like the idea of a table comparing obscure technical features from an eclectic variety of OSes, if for no other reason than it would be a great jumping-off point for people interested in exploring the subject. Heck, it would be glorious for the sheer geekery alone! Anyone else want to brainstorm? -- Saucepan 08:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with much of this. As it stands the article has limited merit, but it could become useful. One thing that is offputting is the table editing though, not that I can think of any better way to do it. It's very easy to lose track of which row/column you're editing and with these extra OSes added it would become even harder. So I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but that I'm a tad reluctant because of the work involved! Another row we need if these others are added are its general application area - RTOS/embedded/desktop/palmtop/server, etc.. otherwise it will be too easy to start comparing apples and oranges.Graham 00:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice work, Saucepan... squash 23:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've added Symbian OS to the list, as it's comparable in signficance to Palm OS and definitely more widely used than, say, Minix or EROS. I'd include a couple of the commercial Unices, OS/2, BeOS/Zeta/Haiku, RiscOS, and AmigaOS ahead of those two as well, since they each have both noticeable installed bases and ongoing development of some sort. If we're going to include ProDOS, we should include MS-DOS and other obsolete OSes (which is to say: "Forget ProDOS").

The list of possible new rows is definitely over-ambitious. Command-line completion, for example, isn't even an OS feature; it's a command-shell feature. And frankly, not very signficant. Likewise, accessibility features has little to do with the OS itself. Source code availability is implicit in the licensing. And desktop has clouds demonstrates how silly most of those suggestions are.

I have some ideas for operating systems:

• Add info for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and merge Fedora Core and RHEL into a single column (differences between the two would be contained within one column)
• Add Windows Me or another Windows 9x OS to show differences between it and the Windows NT line (Mac OS Classic is there, why not windows 9x?)
• Possibly add MS-DOS and/or FreeDOS
• Info on Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and other mobile operating systems
• Mandrake may or may not be worthy of being added

That's all I can think of right now. --Evice 05:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

NetBSD

Should NetBSD be included on the list? OpenBSD is listed, and NetBSD is derived from OpenBSD. ElBenevolente 08:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that a particular OS deserves a place in the table then by all means add it. But just keep in mind that there are about 200 other OSes in List of operating systems (including 4 BSDs and a dozen versions of Windows, and not including the hundreds of Linux distros), and that each new column that gets added to the comparison makes it harder to argue against adding in the next one. Saucepan 08:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks like this will ultimately come down to as issue about which operating systems to include. I only brought this up because OpenBSD forked from NetBSD, and NetBSD is a large product that is compatible with dozens of architectures.

In the long run, I see the possibility that this page will have far too many columns. ElBenevolente 09:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, things could get ugly indeed if the current approach is continued forever. Hopefully before then meta:Wikidata will be online and we'll be able to move this kind of info there, and generate product comparison charts dynamically showing whatever columns one wants. Saucepan 09:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mac ignorance

I've corrected a number of Mac OS errors. First, Carbon is the preferred API for mac OS 9, because by adopting it you get to run on OS X too, which is what Apple really want. Carbon is supported back to, I believe, OS 8.6. Carbon is derived from the classic APIs that existed on the Mac since 1984, though significantly extended over the years. Carbon itself adds a few new things, but essentially it's the Mac OS classic API. It's fully supported on OS X, and is NOT deprecated in favour of Cocoa - they sit in slightly different areas of the system and represent two different programming paradigms - carbon is mostly a flat "traditional" API (though with newer parts adopting object oriented structures), whereas Cocoa is higher level, fully OO. While I'm sure Apple would, in an ideal world, prefer to have dropped Carbon in favour of Cocoa only, it isn't going to happen because of the very large power wielded by certain corporations. Having put Carbon into OS X, it's become very entrenched, and could not be removed without a significant redesign of the OS. Cocoa now relies on it for much of its lower levels. Installer - Mac OS 9 and earlier does have an official installer, Apple Installer. It's been around since the System 6 days at least. I never saw that much software use it apart from Apple's own, possibly because setting it up was a very difficult job. Most third party software that needs an installer uses Installer VISE from Aladdin.Graham 03:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it called Carbon in OS 9 and before, however? Dysprosia 03:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the OS 8.6 -> 9.2.2 implementation resides in a library called CarbonLib. Programmers have called it Carbon since it was first announced. The pre-carbon APIs however, do not have a name that I know of - just "Mac toolbox" or somesuch. Again this goes back to whether the classic Mac OS column is referring to the specific version - 9.2, or to the whole line going back to the beginning. However, since Carbon largely embodies the original APIs, even referring to the whole line's APIs as "carbon" is not as wrong as it might seem! Graham 03:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry bout the mixup. Dysprosia 03:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could someone point me to the discussion that ends with OS X deriving from OPENSTEP rather than FreeBSD? Somegeek 09:20, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Well, I would if I could... except that OS X is not derived from one OR the other, but from both. FreeBSD is the basis for the kernel at the heart of the system, and is codenamed Darwin. This is an open-source kernel/OS. OPENSTEP is the thing that sits on top of that to provide the application programming interfaces, I/O driver layer, Quartz and so forth. OS X as a whole is a marriage of the two - you can't have one without the other. You could boot a Mac or other hardware using the Darwin kernel alone, but you wouldn't have OS X, you'd have Unix, basically. Graham 22:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that jives with what I have since learned. I'd like to add FreeBSD as "a" predesessor to OS X. I notice that FreeBSD's /usr/share/misc/bsd-family-tree claims that pre-10.0 Darwin Mac OS X included code from FreeBSD 3.2, Rhapsody, and NetBSD 1.4, but I guess NetBSD will have to wait for the next fanboy to come along.  ;-)

Linux licenses

The Fedora Core project is released under the GPL license. [2]. Same for SUSE. [3] Some specific components (for example the xorg fork of XFree86) are released under the BSD license. AlistairMcMillan 11:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about changing it to "GPL and compatible", but what about, for example, binary drivers that may be shipped with Linux distributions and not be GPL'd? Is this the case for Fedora or Suse? Dysprosia 12:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just change the row to "Primary license," IMO. Lots of free distros include bundled software (I remember when even some of the most idealistic of the GPL-based Linux distros bundled the still-closed-source Netscape Navigator since at the time that was all there was), but it's a judgement call whether you want to consider this bundled stuff part of the OS. Saucepan 14:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to be that obsessive about it, then we better include the BSD license under Windows XP and Windows 2000. I say keep it as it is, the vast majority of a Linux operating system (kernel, libraries, compiler etc) is under the GPL library. The largest component that comes to mind that isn't is whichever version of XFree86 which is under the XFree license (doh, just realised I put BSD by mistake on the page). AlistairMcMillan 15:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you're doing is highly confusing, the fedora project uses the GPL for its own stuff, while bundling vairious other software in its distribution. However fedora is primeraly a distribution so most of the stuff they distribute is not made by them save for some system management shellscripts and other distribution related stuff.

Saying that Fedora Core is under the GPL is a wrong statement of extreme inaccuracy, it is under various other licences including the apache licence, x11, gpl, lgpl, ...

Furthermore what do you mean by BSD and compatable [Free/Open]BSD? have you even looked at the BSD licence (almost) everything is compatable with it so this statement is too vague to be of any use.

You may be right that it is better to change it to something like Primary licence - then you'll be faced with another problem however: what do you define as primary?

As the page stands now i'm changing it back.

And what BSD licenced software in windows? There is no BSD licenced software in windows, what software exactly are you referring to? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:24, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Run strings against "ftp.exe" in Windows XP. You'll get a bunch of stuff, but the second last string is "@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California." Same for nslookup.exe except different dates. As I understand it a bunch of the little network related command line utilities are derived from BSD. AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So? it is still not under the BSD licence, it _used_ to be BSD licenced, since the BSD licence is not viral Microsoft can use BSD code, however that does not mean that it's still BSD licenced. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Sorry but that isn't how the license works. You can take the code and do whatever you want with it, but you cannot just decide to take the license off. As you can see because the license is still there in the code. When people say the license is "not viral" they mean putting BSD code inside another application does not mean the application as a whole is now under the BSD license, which is what happens with the GPL. Which is why they created the LGPL. AlistairMcMillan 17:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Granted. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Anyway my point was that the GPL covered code makes up the VAST majority of any Linux distribution, not ALL but most. So although it is a generalisation we should just say GPL. If we are going to obsess about every single license, then we may as well just put "various" under every operating system, since even Microsoft uses open source code (however minor that use may be). AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See above, they dont. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

See above, they do. AlistairMcMillan 17:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW Did you read the two sites I linked above. From Fedora...

Fedora™ consists of hundreds of software modules, some developed by Red Hat and many developed by other members of the open source community. Those authors hold the copyrights in the modules or code they developed. At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Fedora™ is a collective work which has been organized by the Fedora™ Project, and the Fedora Project holds the copyright in that collective work. The Fedora Project then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective work. To grant this permission the Fedora Project usually uses the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 and the Fedora Project's own End User License Agreement. AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See above, they use the GPL for _their own stuff_, just how much is that? The translation of the installer? Some management shellscripts? Certanly nothing more than 1% of the software. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Read what they are saying. "Fedora is a collective work" "Fedora Project then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective work" "To grant this permission the Fedora Project usually uses the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 and the Fedora Project's own End User License Agreement." They are talking about "the collective work" not just their work. AlistairMcMillan 17:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From SUSE...

The Linux kernel and the major part of all Linux applications are subject to the "GPL", a license that guarantees free availability and the disclosure of the source code.

AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SuSE is overgeneralizing, just because they make wrong statements doesnt mean that we should. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

I agree they are overgeneralising. That doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority of a Linux distribution is covered by the GPL. Not Apache. Not XFree. Not the binary-only drivers that you mentioned. But the vast majority.

Look at the Cost part of the table. You can undoubtedly get Windows or MacOS cheaper elsewhere on Amazon, or from some special offer on Apple's site or wherever. But we have the price that people pay the majority of the time. Not ALL the time but the majority of the time. We don't have to be absolutely 100% specific with the licenses either, because we'd either end up with a massive unwieldy table or just "various" under each OS. Just enter the license that the majority of the OS comes under. AlistairMcMillan 17:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never disputed that the majority was, even if just one line of code was under another licence it would still be wrong to say that it is under Licence Foo while some of it is under licence Bar.

People will assume that the price in dollars is an approximation, however they will not assume that the licence information is an approximation especially if you write GPL & X11 which relays the false information that they only use those two.

I belive the best thing is to write "Various free software licences" for fedora and "Various free software licences as well as proprietery licences" for SuSE. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Re "BSD and compatible", BSD distributions can't package with it GPL software because that breaks the BSD and GPL licenses, which is why BSD has to be released with a BSD license and only BSD licensed or compatible licensed software can be released with the main distribution. It doesn't restrict users from installing/downloading GPL licensed software themselves, but we are talking about the baseline distribution. So it's not quite accurate to say "preferred" license for the BSDs... Dysprosia 22:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is just plain wrong, you can package them togather just not link from the BSD code to the GPL code, you may however link from GPL code to BSD code. How else would you explain these operating systems being packaged with GCC for instance? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:05, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

I must be thinking of the kernel. Dysprosia 02:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no special case for kernels in either licence, they just talk of linking in general. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:15, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

There's been a contrib/ directory in the BSD source tree since possibly the 4.4BSD days (I remember it was in BSD/OS from the start, and it's present in FreeBSD today). It contains software with various licenses, including the GPL[4]. Saucepan 23:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See also GPL "mere aggregation"[5] and the acceptable licenses listed at [6]. Saucepan 23:25, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Features Section

The current features section is confusing, and doesn't work at all for Mac OS X and Mac OS. For one, it implies that the Finder is a Desktop Environment, when it reality it is just a filesystem browser application. Also, why are the default theme category and the window manager category the same thing? I would edit the page directly, but frankly, I know so little about the technical details I couldn't do a decent job. Here is what I'm suggesting for now:

Operating System:	Windows XP	Windows 2000	Mac OS X	Mac OS	Fedora Core (Linux)	SUSE Linux	FreeBSD	OpenBSD	Solaris
Graphics software and capabilites3	Kernel based	Kernel based	Quartz (based on PDF)	Kernel based	User program: X Window System	User program: X Window System	User program: X Window System	User program: X Window System	User program: X Window System
Default Filesystem Browser	Windows Explorer	Windows Explorer	Macintosh Finder	Macintosh Finder	Nautilus	Konqueror	N/A	N/A	CDE file manager or Nautilus
Default desktop environment	Windows Explorer	Windows Explorer	Macintosh Finder & Dock	Macintosh Finder	GNOME	KDE	N/A	N/A	CDE or GNOME
Default window manager	Integrated (win32k.sys)	Integrated (win32k.sys)	Quartz Compositor	?	Metacity	kwin	twm (not installing GNOME/KDE at install)	fvwm	dtwm (for CDE), Metacity for GNOME
GUI style	Luna-styled interface	Classic-styled interface	Aqua	Platinum	Bluecurve theme	plastik theme	?	?	?

On the subject of Windows Explorer and Finder, they are a wee bit more than just file browsers. They maintain the desktop (which okay is itself just a directory/folder with files in it), but the Windows Explorer also maintains the Start Menu. Basically on Windows the whole interface you are presented with is basically maintained by Windows Explorer, on the Mac it is slightly different with the Dock being a separate application and the menu at the top of the screen (as far as I understand) being maintained by some combination of the WindowServer and whichever application currently has focus.

I agree with you on the Window Manager/Theme split though. AlistairMcMillan 21:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The current one is also wrong, the desktop enviroment in OSX is finder+dock+aqua+graphic api's ( cocoa,carbon ) and probably something more. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:55, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

That is taking things a little far. (1) It's a bad idea to put Aqua in because Aqua is an idea or design or set of guidelines (or whatever you want to call it) that is implemented by the WindowServer (which we already mention). There is no specific piece of software called Aqua. (2) Cocoa and Carbon are sets of APIs (which we already mention), they are not actual programs that display windows or icons or whatever?

Going from the Desktop environment page, the Windows are draw by WindowServer, the Icons are draw by the Finder, the Menus are drawn by a combination of the WindowServer and whichever program holds focus and the Pointer is drawn (I think) by the WindowServer. Also the Dock is a separate program called Dock. Drag and drop is performed by the Finder. Toolbars are drawn by the WindowServer. I think we have everything covered. AlistairMcMillan 20:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On Finder and Windows Explorer, they are still file browsers, even though they do other things. That's like saying that Safari shouldn't be listed under a Web Browser column because it is a RSS reader too. On OS X's Desktop environment, that's why i said Standard Mac OS X, because it DOES include all those things. --Ctachme 21:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't have them down as file browsers. I was saying that we should ALSO have them down under the "Desktop Environment" bit as well. Instead of just saying "Standard Windows" or "Standard Mac OS X", because that doesn't really tell anyone anything.

I've amended your table, with what I was trying to suggest. AlistairMcMillan 02:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quartz

Quartz is the graphics layer that sits on top of the Darwin core of Mac OS X, (see Quartz (graphics layer))

suggests Quartz is a layer that is not in the kernel, and is thus a user-level program. Dysprosia 02:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the way it is now is pretty good, don't you? --Ctachme 02:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Desktop Enviornments

I've been thinking and I don't really think it is appropriate to call the Desktop Environment of Mac OS X Finder and Dock. I could quit the finder and dock, and everything still works fine. The dock is nothing more than an application switcher and the finder is just a file browser. I've always thought that the DE is more than just the application switcher and file browser. That's why I said "Standard Mac OS X" in my original table, because there are so many aspects to the DE, it isn't just the finder and dock. --Ctachme 02:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a machine running Mac OS X handy? Try quitting the Finder and see what happens. No more desktop. The Finder is more than just a file browser.

If you want to change DE that much, then go ahead. Just please (I'm begging) don't just put "Standard Mac OS X" because that doesn't tell anyone anything. Since we are supposed to be comparing the standard components in a default install we could put "Standard Windows" or "Standard Mac OS X" or "Standard FreeBSD" or "Standard X" under every component of every operating system. If we are going to go to the trouble of building this table we have to be more explicit than saying the standard filesystem in FreeBSD is "Standard FreeBSD filesystem" or the standard desktop environment in Mac OS X is "Standard desktop environment used by Mac OS X". AlistairMcMillan 03:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Split tables

I just noticed that Ctachme has split and rotated the table. I didn't like it when this happened on the Comparison of web browsers page and I don't like it here. I think it makes the page more confusing for readers not less. It may appear simpler to editors who see this page regularly, but I think people who come here simply to read the content would find a single table (even if it does spill out of a browser window and require scrolling) easier to read. AlistairMcMillan 04:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ctachme also removed the helper comments, which is very annoying. I don't mind the split, but the rotation is confusing also. I'd also like them rotated back in the logical fashion, with the helper comments back. Dysprosia 08:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I rotated the tables was because otherwise they would not fit onto the screen. As per wikipedia guidelines, content should be geared, when possible, to fit within a reasonable screen width. If the tables were re-rotated, they would certainly be too wide to fit on a screen (and my screen is 1024 wide... the most popular screen width). Additionally, it really isn't any more confusing this way than it was the other way, except you read across instead of reading down (which actually, now that I think about it, is probably better this way since most english speakers read from left to right, not top to down). The reason I removed helper comments is because the name of the OS is right there are the top of what you are seeing. You *do* have to glance up a couple of lines, but it really isn't all that inconvenient. And, like I said, this method is no more or less "logical" than the other method. --Ctachme 00:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do we need more than one Linux distro?

People have added very incomplete Debian and Gentoo streams to the table. Linux is Linux is Linux - the kernel supports the same filesystems on all distros; X is X; they nearly all have GTK+ and QT for graphical API's, and so forth. Theres no need to have more than one distro listed. Kiand 15:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Distributions aren't the same according to their defaults. NTFS and MP3 aren't supported on Red Hat distributions because of patent issues. Some distributions come with GNOME, some with KDE, and are therefore built around gdm or kdm. And so on. [ alerante | “” 23:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) ]

I've happened to notice this too and fixed the Debian entries now. It should be fairly obvious that there is sufficient variety contributed by the existence of that particular entry. --Joy [shallot] 08:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We now have FIVE Linux distros. This is way, way too many for the same OS. I think the example set by Windows should be kept, with two, and no more. Kiand 12:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that this is after UltimaGuy's addition of Slackware. Gentoo's entry is existent but sub-stub... --Joy [shallot] 18:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fork of Linux distributions to Comparison of Linux distributions

Nowadays, there can never be a day where a comparison of operating systems will not be influenced by Linux supporters. It is also a burden for editors to edit an article that is largely dominated by Linux distributions. I know that much information can be added about these distributions but are kept due to the reason of not bloating this comparison of operating systems article. For the future of this series of articles, I forked the Linux distributions article to Comparison of Linux distributions. I hope you will understand this decision. Squash 03:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense, but - writing as someone who just saw the article for the first time - I have to say that it looks a bit odd for the tables to contain NO information about Linux, even for those aspects (like the kernel type) that really don't vary between distros. Might it be worth including some "typical" Linux data in these tables for basic comparison purposes, with N/As for the really varied stuff like update tools and default file browsers?

Netware

I have gone ahead and created an entry for Netware. It is based on the published specs that are out there and personal experience. The analysis of the Netware kernel cited in the reference field that led me to call it a Microkernel/Monolithic hybrid is by one of the software architects responsible for Netware. It is somewhat dated, referring to Netware 4.0, but my understanding is that it has not changed sufficiently for this information to be completely outdated. Thanks MARQUIS111, Feb 3, 2005 12:00 EST

Including Linux's most common traits, leaving others open

I think it's bad for the article to not have Linux in the tables at all. Could we not include the most common things (like kernel structure, file systems etc.) leave out those disputed, with a link to hte Linux article? I think it could look like this:

	Kernel type	Default file system	Other major file systems supported	Architectural support (first, primary platform)	Default online OS update tool	Default package management/ software installation tool	Main API and language for GUI applications	Main API and language for textual/CLI applications
Linux	Microkernel/ Monolithic hybrid	Several	ext2, ext3, reiserFS, FAT, NTFS, UDF, ISO 9660, HFS	x86	Several	Several	Several	Several

What do you say?

Solaris license

I've changed the Solaris license from the CDDL to Proprietary because specifying the CDDL is technically incorrect. OpenSolaris will be licensed under the CDDL, but commercial Solaris uses a proprietary license, the Solaris OE Software License Agreement. --ndc 04:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

68.161.176.231 reverted my changes with no explanation. I believe the text and link above show that listing the CDDL as Solaris' license is inappropriate. To --K. Sperling June 28, 2005 15:40 (UTC)clarify, claiming that Solaris and OpenSolaris are the same (and hence share licenses) would be the same as claiming Mac OS X and Darwin the same OS. Note that the OS X entry lists both a proprietary license (for OS X) and the ASPL (for Darwin), so perhaps doing the same for Solaris is suitable. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If not, I'll change it shortly. --ndc 01:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, perhaps we need to start (another) new discussion about how that column works. Fedora has it's own RTU-ish license1 similar to Solaris'. It relies on the GPL but is not itself the GPL. Does the license column refer to the license which the released (e.g. distribution format, be it CD, DVD, disk images, slack disk sets...) version is shipped as? In this respect, even Fedora has a proprietary license. Unfortunately, you're talking about 2 different things here - the distributed version of the OS and the source code that makes up the OS. In the case of Solaris, the source is under the CDDL license, but the compiled, packaged, and distributed OS is under the proprietary license. Does anyone else have any interest in this topic? --ndc 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe saying "proprietary (source CDDL)" would make sense then, if the source released under the CDDL actually contains the source to everything included in the binary release. Expanding the footnote to explain the realse vs. source license issue would probably be good, too.

"Target Audience"

For AmigaOS I would say that "Enthusiast" is whay more correct than "Home Desktop, Media creators"(at least for the last 10 years). For WinXP, how it can be targeted for "software development" when it dosn't even include a compiler? (and yes, I know you can download compilers for free, but that is not the point, you can get compilers for any OS)

I made those two corrections, if someone disagrees please coment here. Lost Goblin 09:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

XP target audience is 'Creative professionals, Scientists, Business/Home Desktop' instead of 'Home and Business Desktop'? uh? If no one objects I will revert that.

Windows OTT-ness

If theres no objections, I'm going to kill the Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT4 and 2000 entries - it is completely over the top to have them, especially as they're all in the same series as ones listed there. --Kiand 17:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for NT desktop, NT server, and 9x. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 13:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is what I've done - XP, 2K3 and ME. --Kiand 14:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good, although I'd like to see those as the actual row headings, and XP/2003/Me under the version. Objections? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 14:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A number of changes

I think the article needed a number of changes, which I made just (bold editing and all that). However, I wanted to provide a number of comments on the edits:

• Target Audience: This is a quite fuzzy column, it listed people as well as system types. Especially "enthusiast" doesn't really give any information at all; there are enthusiasts for any operating system. "Scientists" is very vague, too. What OS a scientist uses would obviously depend on what kind of software she needs, which of course depends on the science in question. All things considered, I think it's much better to give a broad indication of what type of system the OS is designed for (server / workstation / home desktop / embedded), and leave any more detailed elaborations to the individual articles (and the companies' marketing departments).
• Version numbers: It really doesn't make sense to specify the version number down to the patch level here. It's not like one could buy or even download a specific patch level of most OSes. If somebody is interested in the exact latest version of an OS down to the patch level, they'll use the OS's website. The major (and maybe minor) version is the relevant level of detail here.
• Cost: This column is meant to give a general idea of how much the operating system costs, there is no need to list a large number of options.
• Removal of AmigaOS: Much as I like Amigas, I don't think AmigaOS belongs in this table, as it is only of historical interest. If you include AmigaOS, dozens of other OSes would also have to be included.
• Removal of BeOS: BeOS doesn't exist as a product anymore. There are some efforts underway to reimplement a BeOS-like system as open source, but these projects are nowhere near the state that would warrant an inclusion in this table.
• Linux (GNU/Linux): These systems have quite a lot in common, so its not necessary to leave every column empty. Since we're really talking about the whole OS here and not just the kernel, I think GNU/Linux is the more accurate name here. Or maybe "GNU/Linux based systems", but thats a bit lengthy.
• Lots of the technical features information was wildly inaccurate or even plain wrong. Just to give a few examples
  • VT100 is not an API, its a protocol for character-based terminals
  • While mosts OSes specify their APIs for C, that doesn't mean they can only be used with that language. In the end, the actual APIs are binary and usable with many languages.
  • MFC and .NET aren't system APIs.
  • x64-64 aka AMD64 and IA-64 aren't the same thing. And just because AMD64 is x86-compatible doesn't mean any OS that runs on x86 automatically has AMD64 support (in the sense that it can actually use the 64bit features).
• Default and other file systems can easily go into one column, by just putting the default file systems first. It is not necessary to list ALL file systems supported by an OS, just the major ones. E.g. NTFS support in the free unices is quite limited, due to the fact that its not publicly documented.

• The Features table: I dont think this table conveyed much useful information.
  • All OSes that have integrated GUIs have some sort of desktop/file browser; what name the particular vendor chooses to call it isn't really the type of information you need a table for. For example, the file systems column is useful. You can use it forwards, to see which FSes an OS supports, but you can also use it backwards, to see which OSes support e.g. UFS. On the other hand, asking "Which OSes use Windows Explorer?" doesn't make much sense, since obviously the answer is Windows.
  • All OSes running X can run lots of different window managers and desktop environments. Which one is installed by default doesn't have much more significance than what background color the desktop is set to by default.

This should summarize most of the changes I've made and the reasons for them. I'm of course open to discussion on all of these points, so please consider posting here or fixing the specific problems instead of just hitting "revert" :-) --K. Sperling 18:40, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I'm putting BeOS back in. Main reason - yellowTAB. Its a BeOS. Its commercial. Its a v1.0 level. Its on sale. Its still a product. Its still in use. --Kiand 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under the 'its not a product' logic, if you deny BeOS, take OS/2 out also. Its not being maintained by IBM, but by Serenity. --Kiand 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was actually wondering about OS/2 and Plan 9, too. Maybe calling it yellowTAB BeOS or something like that would be more appropriate, though? --K. Sperling 18:46, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I've put it in as yellowTAB Zeta, much as I hate calling it anything other than BeOS, as that is nothing but a tradename on top of BeOS R5.1. Same as Serenity Systems eComStation is OS/2 4.5 rebadged. --Kiand 18:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to me reinstating AmigaOS? It is still under active development (not just "historical") and while obviously its not exactly popular, compared to Windows etc it's probably as (in)significant as Zeta.--Alex Whittaker

I've no objections, but theres no way that AmigaOS is as commonly used or as commercially viable as Zeta at the moment - yT are shifting about 2,000 copies a week; whereas eyetech might sell 2,000 AmigaOne's a month if they're extremely lucky. --Kiand 21:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some of your changes and disagree with some of your changes:

• Target Audience to Target System type was good
• Version numbers... what? Detail is good, the more the better. I say keep as much in as possible--within reason. For example, saying 10.4.1 "Tiger" is >> than saying 10.4 "Tiger" because it is more accurate, plain and simple.
• Cost: good change
• Removal of rare systems is a good idea
• Linux... whatever
• Fixing technical information is good :)
• I disagree with combining the default and supported filesystems because it is not clear at all that the first is the default, it was much better with two separate columns
• I also disagree with your removal of the features table. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you didn't find it very facinating, other people might and there's no harm having additional information. The names of file browsers, for example, are useful because that offers links to articles on those specific file browsers.
• I would support a column on the default color of the background, yes... or even better... thumbnails of the default background images! As always the more info the better. --Ctachme 04:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More information is only good if it's also accurate. "10.4.1" vs "10.4" I don't really care much about, at least it's still a release number. Adding build number/patch level is plain nonsense. This table gives a broad overview over the listed operating systems, and in thus necessarily a bit coarse in places. E.g. "Target System Type", "Cost", "Predecessor" (and probably most other columns) are obviously simplified, too. And if I'd really need to know the version of an OS down to the latest build number, I'd not trust the table to be up to date anyway, since they change quite often.

The problem with the features table (and tables in general) is this: A table only provides very limited space in each cell, so the columns have to be chosen so that it's actually possible to represent that piece of information about the OS in question somewhat accurately in that little space. I.e. the columns have be applicable to at at least most (better all) of the OSes being compared. The question "what's the default file browser" may be (somewhat) sensible for a desktop OS, but is not really applicable for a server OS, because the GUI is usually an optional part there, and a file browser doubly so. You'd have to write something like "If you install a GUI, then the default FB is ...". And even the "default" doesn't really make much sense there: If there are multiple options that are equally easily installable, then the question which of those is the default is fairly meaningless. If you go the other way and instead write "n/a" in the "default file browser" column for an OS, that sounds like the OS doesn't ship with a file browser at all, which is probably not the case.

Let me try to put it differently: If you put the information I about operating system O into a column C of a table T, then the statement "in the context T, I is the C of O" (e.g. "speaking of OS features, the default background color of NetBSD is orange") should be

1. True and reasonably accurate
2. Relevant to a description of O in the context T

If (1) is not the case, then the table is inaccurate and needs to be fixed. If it's not possible to give a reasonably accurate answer in the space available in a table cell, then that's probably a case of (2). And if (2) is not true for all but a very few items in a column, then the table, while not necessarily wrong, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

About "default filesystem": First, it's actually inaccurate to say that e.g. NTFS is the default FS for Windows XP, because for floppies the default is FAT and for CDs it's ISO 9660. And in general, the default chosen by the installer could easily be different according to harddisk size, selected system type (workstation vs. server) etc., making it impossible to accurately represent in the table.

I generally question the usefulness of most "default ..." columns. It's not clear wether it means that the default choice is somehow better supported than the optional ones, or if it's really just a default in the sense that using any of the other options requires an additional click or two. In the first case, it would probably better be called "primary ...", and in the latter case it's a trivial bit of information not worth wasting an extra column for, though displaying the default item in a list of "supported ..." in bold may make sense in some cases.

I hope I have managed to clarify my problems with some of the columns in these tables general, and the features table in particular. If you really want a features table, then I suggest having a separate table for different target system types, e.g. "Server OS Features" "Home Desktop OS Features" or something like that, and only put those OSes into these table where these are applicable. --K. Sperling 10:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Security Table?

Is that really useful? Not even considering the fact that it lists a rather different set of OSes than the main tables, I doubt the usefulness of manually mirroring changing data that is readily available on the web in a wikipedia article. Information like that is only useful if it's current. Is whoever added it actually willing to update it every day to ensure it stays up to date? Probably not. So why not just link to the relevant sites; anyone interested gets the same information just as quickly (and can actually be sure that is IS in fact up to date).

Sometimes it helps to keep in mind that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and not a repository of everything. That's the Web ;-) --K. Sperling 10:57, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Dump it. We only have "Linux" as a general concept anyway, most distros are usually carrying so much software than the combined vunerabilites would outweigh Windows, and I know the entire point of that table was someone trying to make Windows look bad. We don't have specific distros, it'll be hell to update, Secunia, etc don't cover OS/2\BeOS\whatever vunerabilities anyway. --Kiand 11:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Is that really useful?" This topic (and related) was discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_operating_systems_%28security%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Comparison_of_web_browsers_%28security%29

• There are general consensus that "statistics are human knowledge, encyclopedic", "This is a lovely, concise and useful article", useful source of information that belongs in an encyclopedia and so on.
• "Information like that is only useful if it's current. Is whoever added it actually willing to update it every day to ensure it stays up to date?. ... " Trends and general comparison are mostly same for a long time. This can provide general idea about care for customers/users security of each monitored systems. Microsoft release vulnerability fixes continually every second Tuesday at month, and other systems with steadily low number of unpatched vulnerabilities are easily updated.
• "So why not just link to the relevant sites; anyone interested gets the same information just as quickly (and can actually be sure that is IS in fact up to date). ... I doubt the usefulness of manually mirroring changing data that is readily available on the web in a wikipedia article." You are wrong. The problem is that this security sources don't contain well arranged data about various operating systems, nobody has a chance to quickly compare various products. This comparison also have direct relation with topic such as operating systems, security or critism of Microsoft for security of products. They are based on facts and reports from renowned and highly regarded security firm - Secunia and SecurityFocus and can bee anytime monitored and easily updated.
• "We only have "Linux" as a general concept anyway" Yes, I understand that is hard to add all linux distributions between other systems. But purpose of this comparison is comparise main, most-used operating systems and distributions.
• "most distros are usually carrying so much software than the combined vunerabilites would outweigh Windows" This is big FUD as you can see at comparison. Most distributions have much less known unpatched vulnerabilities (including all distributed packages and programs) than Microsoft Windows with Notepad, Calc and several other primitive programs.
• "I know the entire point of that table was someone trying to make Windows look bad." I, You or somebody else normal user don't take responsibility for creator ability to fix known public vulnerabilities as soon as possible. Many users people want to have as secure experience as it is possible for them. This comparison based on vulnerability reports by two independent, renowned and highly regarded security firms give visitors basic data. I can't for that Microsoft made worse quality software, while other creators can better respond to security vulnerabilities, as anyone can see in that comparison.
• "Secunia, etc don't cover OS/2\BeOS\whatever vunerabilities anyway" 1. BeOS doesn't exists now (see table please). 2. OS/2 is continually monitoring by SecurityFocus. But we should primarily orient to most popular and most used systems (Win,Mac,Lin,FreeBsd) and then for something else.
• So I think this type of comparison should stay on Wikipedia, becouse they are interesting and important for many users. I blow a hole in every your argument. Either anybody should present another argument or somebody should revert comparison table in article. Thank you.

--Ptomes 17:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in a hurry and may go over this again later, but Zeta is to all intents and purposes BeOS. Do Secunia carry vun's for it? Nope. No need to be pedantic to prove a point. --Kiand 17:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, You are right here. But how many people use it? Newest Mandrake version isn't there too. Do you want table with every-operating-system-on-the-world-which-ever-existed? No, it belong to complete list of operating systems, not in comparison. Look at the main tables of this pages. Do you really think that there is what should be there? I think 99% of visitors never heard about most operating systems in table and you certainly know it too. Why do you complicate that tables? It loose point now. I still think that small comparison of most used and most known operating system with vulnerabilities info is acceptable, reasonable, interesting and clear. And even maybe inspirating to another tables on that page. --Ptomes 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its selling extremely well at the moment, and apparently has some pretty major market share in Germany. Its also still sold, unlike Windows ME, and its actively maintained (rather than passively), unlike Plan 9 and OS/2. Remove those three first before you start going after an actively sold, actively maintained, widely used OS.

Another thing to remember is that during the paranoid overhyped "This is the year of Linux on the desktop" period from 1998-2001, BeOS was the only non-Windows OS that x86 system vendors would touch... it was extremely important in getting Microsoft to target NT at the home desktop rather than milk a bit longer out of 9x, because companies like AST, Compaq and Hitachi were selling machines with a workstation OS to the home market... --Kiand 18:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank for interetsing details, I don't know it. Maybe we should start some general discuss about further direction Comparison of operating systems, but I think, security at least minimal scope are important here. --Ptomes 18:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The security table at the very least should go into a separated article. Lost Goblin 13:13, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

This has been already well discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_operating_systems_%28security%29 and related topic has been discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Comparison_of_web_browsers_%28security%29 Most people agree that this comparison should be in this article. --Ptomes 13:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ptomes: "Most people agree that this comparison should be in this article." I see no such consensus in the discussions you link to. The discussion at Comparison of operating systems (security) has exactly one person speaking up for the table, namely you yourself. And incidentally, you're also the person who created that article/table in the first place. The other people merely stated that it should be merged. The browser discussion is about a completely different table.

It's clear you are wrong here because related discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Comparison_of_web_browsers_%28security%29 and this is related topic and so direct analogy. --Ptomes 28 June 2005 10:26 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against security related information in the tables, if it were possible to give some condensed overview in an NPOV way. Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. Security is very hard to quantify, and just giving some "unfixed bugs" number is misleading at best. The security of a system running a certain OS depends on a lot of factors, and the OS itself is just one of them.

I agree with you that security is very hard and depends on many factors, but it is main purpose of table show number of unfixed bugs. It is reliable data based on security reports two independent and respected security agencies. In future we could add some columns there, for example integrated firewall and so on. --Ptomes 28 June 2005 10:26 (UTC)

And even if we agreed to include a table, it should list the same operating systems as the main table, in the same order (and not according to some questionable security rank). And it should provide a few well-condensed figures, not a large number of individually irrelevant information (e.g. non-critical bugs probably don't say much about the general security of an OS).

Why questionable security rank??? You have false argument. It's ranked for number of bugs and old of public that bugs. Yes, I agree that non-critical bugs probably don't say much about the general security of an OS, but there are rather for fullness. --Ptomes 28 June 2005 10:26 (UTC)

"Questionable" because the number of bugs isn't a good metric for over-all OS security. But see my full reply below, especially regarding completeness. --K. Sperling June 28, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

In your post above, you have stated yourself that your motivation for this table is showing "that Microsoft made worse quality software". That's blatant POV (and while I would agree that MS doesn't have the best approach to OS security, this article is not the place for opinions like that). Unprofessional MS bashing just makes Wikipedia look bad. Why don't you take your table over to Operating system advocacy. All things considered, I'm removing the table again. Please don't just re-add it without addressing any of the criticisms (as you did the last time).

Please be carefull about your statement. My motivation for this table isn't showing bad results of particular systems, but showing really results on well aranged form. And this is what this table is about. I have ***no responsibility*** about ability some vendors fixes vulnerabilities quickly and on time. It's their issue or problem. So I can't that Microsoft products are in the end of table.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm asking you to take responsibility for any vendors' problems, I'm not. Nor am I trying to make Microsoft look better than they are. But I'm also not trying to make them look worse than they are, or make Linux/BSD look better than they are. If there is to be a security table, I want it to cover the breadth of OS security related information in a concise and fair manner. --K. Sperling June 28, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

It is logic, important and well aranged component of this topic and this article (see related disscusionabout security of web browsers). It has particulary relation with critism of Microsoft article (and can be used as a basis for it). It is based on two independent and respected sources. It provide some general idea about responsibility and ability of creator to fix security vulnerabilities and so about disposition for security risks. That table shouldn't be removed only because some little used and marginal systems haven't been monitored for vulnerabilities by that sources. So please reconsider your verdict about delete table, if you want maintain neutral point of view about operating systems security (or more precisely one important component of it, maybe most important one). See computer security for more details about the importance of unpatched known flaws and Comparison of web browsers - Security for related topic with related table as this would be. --Ptomes 28 June 2005 10:28 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the fact that some OSes are not monitored, for those the corresponding box could simply be left blank. I just don't see why OSes that aren't in the main tables should be listed in the security tables (e.g. Win2k and the Linux distrubutions (those can go into Comparison of Linux distributions)) --K. Sperling June 28, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

And about the general direction of this article: In my opinion, it already has a bit of a bias towards popular desktop OSes, and could do with quite a bit more information about server operating systems (e.g. Z/OS, HP-UX, ...). Maybe also embedded or handheld/phone OSes... Though while adding them would be nice, it also makes it harder again to do meaningful comparisons. --K. Sperling 19:12, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

How about this: We add a "Security" table that lists the same OSes in the same order (i.e. alphabetically) as the other tables, and make "Number of unfixed critical bugs" (e.g. moderately critical and above) one column of it, and maybe also the date of the oldest of those bugs. Other columns could be "integrated firewall", "encrypted filesystems", "stack execution prevention", "isolation of subsystems" (needs a better name I guess, I'm thinking of things like BSD jail or POSIX chroot here (though chroot provides only partial isolation)), and probaby some others.

I agree with that, but I think others editors should help with it. It seems good. I complain about add that table, but now we can only edit it. --Ptomes 4 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Ordering by bug number or any other contrived metric is bad, because listing any OS as number 1 is equivalent to saying "OS XYZ is the most secure OS". However, there is no such thing as "the most secure OS", just as there is not "the fastest OS" or "the OS with the nicest GUI". It all depends on how and in what contexts you measure security/speed/...

This article provides is a high-level overview, it is neither necessary nor desirable to include every bit of detail information about every OS. What's important is breadth of coverage, not depth. Just as the "Technical Information" table (hopefully) covers the most important technical aspects of an operating system, a "Security" table has to reasonably cover the subject of OS security. A mere bug count doesn't even come close to covering the subject of operating system security.

BTW, I'd also like to know some other editors' opionions about these issues! --K. Sperling June 28, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Seeing as you've just reinstated the table, and again without any modifications, and without even responding here, i'm posting this on Wikipedia:RfC. --K. Sperling July 1, 2005 10:50 (UTC)

From RfC

After reading through the security table discussion and perusing the artcile, I concur with Sperling's position. Specifically, I agree with his idea of focusing on security features rather than number of bugs.

In its current state, the security table isn't as informative as it could be. There's far too many cells without data and the rankings aren't very helpful. OS security is an extremely complex subject and can't realistically be quantified or ranked. I'm interested in reading more opinions, but I'd recommend removing the table or modifying it to focus on security features. Carbonite | Talk 1 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)

"BTW, I'd also like to know some other editors' opinions about these issues!"

Are you really sure that you want to know? :-)

IMNSHO, this entire article is one of "those" articles. You know the ones I mean: Nuclear power, George W. Bush, Abortion, and the like where there are far too many partisans on all the sides of the issue for the article to ever converge into something even remotely truthful and usable by a naive reader. If it were up to me, we'd have a Wiki template that we'd apply to articles of this nature that said something like:

"Caution: Nearly EVERYTHING in this article is just someone's Point-of-View, and if you re-read it two minutes from now, it will just be someone else's Point-of-View (unless the entire content of the article has been temporarily replaced by "Xyzzy is Gay!"). Why not skip this article and go read about ((random page inserted here)) instead?"

Atlant 1 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, I would have to agree this article is (or at least has a strong disposition to be) one of "those". But since it's here and VfD-ing it would probably fail, one might as well try to provide some basic information in a half-way truthful manner :) --K. Sperling July 4, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Relative Distributions

While I also concede this is one of "those" articles, what about providing an estimated installed user base for each OS? Is there even a reliable source of this information? Jeff schiller 17:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be interesting in principle, but I think in practice it will be impossible to get reliable data. For a fair comparison, the data would have to cover not only the PC / workstation market, but also servers and ideally embedded systems. --K. Sperling 09:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cutting back

Someone half-added AIX, HP-UX and SunOS. Solaris is already here, so thats the latter out, HP-UX is abandoned really; as is AIX really.

Also, I don't think ReactOS deserves an entry, so I'm probably going to remove it to - minor Windows clone thats not yet anywhere really.

--Kiand 17:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Windows ME should probably go too, and I'm not sure Windows Server is worth keeping around, it's litle more than a repackaged XP... Lost Goblin