Talk:Operating system

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

"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)

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.

 Done. Slightly modified the second change because AmigaOS isn't a Unix-like. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

In Examples section, macOS is not a BSD descendant. Can you please fix that? 192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

72.2.76.227 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

175.157.98.45 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Jeh (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

136.228.174.6 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not done No request--BoothSift 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Say your thoughts about this, and whether or not this should be added to the article:

An operating system/kernel manages the computer's resources and distributes them among the apps that need those resources.

Windows NT is an operating system, but it's not a kernel because windows nt's kernel can't work alone, as it's not monolithic.

Linux is a kernel and an operating system because Linux can work alone, because linux is a monolithic kernel.

Windows and Ubuntu are distributions (distros), as they are a ready to use environment, as they include an operating system and pre-installed apps, as well as a graphical user interface.

Problem is, there's only one Windows NT distro, windows, but there are hundreds of linux distros. so, should windows be called a distro or not?

What's the difference between kernel and operating system?

"An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs." "The kernel is a computer program that is the core of a computer's operating system.... The kernel's primary function is to mediate access to the computer's resources.... The kernel has full access to the system's memory and must allow processes to safely access this memory as they require it.... " btw take a look at the spanish language wikipedia articles for linux, sistema operativo, and microsoft windows. Pancho507 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What means “Linux can work alone” – without any user-space process? It could act as a network router, for example, but generally it is not used in this way. What means “windows nt's kernel can't work alone”? Surely the sole ntoskrnl.exe image is insufficient for anything, but the file contains only a part of Windows kernel. One has to load several files to obtain a viable NT kernel in the primary memory, but otherwise it functions no different from Linux in principle. There is a lot of confusion in the Pancho507’s posting above. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2019

The Linux subsection (section 3.2.1) should be on the same level as macOS or Microsoft Windows (i.e. should be section 3.3 in the current document structure). Linux does not evolve from MacOS and in fact predates it, so there is no justification for it being under its subsection. 153.98.68.196 (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Linux is Unix-Like, so I moved it to that section. RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made some further adjustments, putting the macOS subsection ahead of the Linux one because the former began as NextStep OS in 1988, although not becoming the underpinnings of macOS until ten years later, while Linux started in 1991. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

First OS written in a high-level language

Both Burroughs MCP (1961) and Unix (1973) are claimed to be the first operating system written in a high-level language. One or both of those claims should probably be qualified. It's certainly true that Unix portability owed much to being written in C, but MCP definitely predates Unix. Nukeqler (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)