Talk:A Neutral Look at Operating Systems




 * For the old history from A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Proprietary OSs see /Archive 1
 * For the old history from Talk:A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Proprietary OSs see /Archive 2
 * For the old history from A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs see /Archive 3

Accuracy of the information provided
T''hanks for taking time to clarify this. The matter I raised was of technical accuracy and not politics. My comments are inline ..''

I would like to comment about the information on Linux operating system. I had created that section but it was edited and some of the information was edited. The edited form is inaccurate and full of mis-information.
 * There is no OS called Linux in this world, Linux is name of the kernel which is a small part of the OS (if you call the OS linux the you should call windows kernel.dll and OS X -> MAC-3, name of the respective kernels). Word linux for OS is a misnomer, It is a GNU OS with linux kernel. GNU OS also runs with BSD kernel and HURD kernel. I believe this needs to be clarified in the document. The OS is called GNU/Linux and not Linux.

I was in primary school then, but does that matter? It is traditional for the term "OS" and the name of any particular OS to refer both to the kernel and to the system in general. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is. When Linux&reg; was being formed, people like Theodore T'so and H. J. Lu went looking for userspace code. This is much like AT&amp;T and Sun did in grabbing BSD code, much like Richard Stallman planned to do, and of course the obvious thing that anybody would do. Some code, none of it being terribly special, came from the GNU project. Please note that a BSD C library existed, and the gcc compiler was not exactly a major undertaking. The code you see today exists primarily by the efforts of companies that consider themselves to be Linux&reg; vendors. The core Linux&reg; developers, to this very day, do not use the term "GNU/Linux". A good number of them seem to find it offensive. What you are seeing here is a political power grab. Richard Stallman has even changed some of the FSF software and licenses in an effort to force his views on the world. Even if the idea of cobbling together a full system from available parts was unique to Richard Stallman (hah!), he would still have no moral right to rename the efforts of others. The Hurd has swiped many parts (ext2 driver, hardware drivers, TCP/IP...) from Linux&reg;, yet Richard Stallman refuses to acknowledge this in the name of his OS. Apparantly he doesn't see the hypocracy. One final thing... the term "GNU/Linux" is a violation of the Linux&reg; trademark. You're not allowed to abuse a trademark like that. AlbertCahalan 06:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) ''I believe its your preference (and respect it), if you want to call the whole system Linux, but I would be nice if we clarify in the document the system known as Linux&reg has Linux kernel and other SW which comes from other sources. So that next time a Apache bug is published people do not think it as a Linux bug. May be GNU/Linux is violation of trademark (do not know legal issues).''
 * Being a Linux&reg; developer for a decade, I happen to know this is wrong. I was there; were you?


 * Linux is Open Source SW -> Linux Kernel and most of the SW comes under GPL hence its a Free SW and not Open Source. There is a subtle difference bw Free and Open Source but subtituting one for other leads to mis information. (SW like Mozilla, covered by MPL, BSD etc are open source but not Free).

''again from purely technical accuracy point of view shouldn't we tell that stuff like Kernel, gcc gnome etc are Free SW while mozilla etc are open source, and pointg the readers to definitions and difference between two. '' These are the major concerns that I have, I hope you would correct it as soon as possible so that it becomes more factual.
 * When using the term "operating system" to mean the whole system, Mozilla is included. It comes on the same CD-ROM as everything else and it gets installed along with everything else. There are other examples if you now suddenly wish to use a restrictive definition of "operating system". So it is correct to use the term "Open Source". AlbertCahalan 06:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's not perpetuate Orwellian newspeak, political correctness, and similar. Linux&reg; is an OS developed by Linus Torvalds and others. AlbertCahalan 06:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''Agreed may be these details are out of scope of the document but I believe they would add technical accuracy to it. Besides my intent has been to point out this rather than promoting any point of view.''

The notion of technical accuracy applied to political information like Free vs Open and Linux vs GNU / Linux is ludicrous. And who cares anyways?

The subject of OSes is more than large enough to deserve several books devoted to it. And those books have more merit that stay away from politics. There are a thousand websites where users can educate themselves about the politics of FLOSS and Linux, why should all that crud be reproduced here? It boggles the mind. A book on the politics of OSes has about as much educational value as The Book of Crime.

If you want to discuss the politics of OSes, move it to a more aptly named book, like The Politics Of Operating Systems, then at least people could stay away from the book since they'd know it had nothing of interest. Truth in advertising is a good idea!

"Red Hat GNU/Linux" vs. "Red Hat Linux"
Someone renamed all the Linux distributions: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=A_Neutral_Look_at_Operating_Systems&diff=0&oldid=137024

While I admire the w:Be Bold technique of *doing* something rather than whining about it on the talk page, I reverted those changes.

In my opinion, people that make stuff can call it whatever counter-intuitive, incorrect name they want. Does "mince meat pie" (Cookbook:Mincemeat Tart) actually have any meat in it ? No. But when a chef gives me tasty pastries, I let him call it whatever he wants to call it. [To go a little off topic, it's called Mincemeat because traditionally it was actually made with meat, and I don't just mean suet. Disgusting idea, I know]

This thing may, technically, be a "GNU/Linux" distribution from "Red Hat, Inc.". But if the people that make it give it the name "Red Hat Linux", then that is its name. They are, of course, free to change that name to something technically more accurate.

--DavidCary 07:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Worse than that: the whole "GNU/" thing is Stallman's personal and illegitimate effort to take credit for the efforts of others. He's had quite some success pushing the idea with people who don't know the history behind Linux, GNU, BSD, X11, TeX, and all the rest. AlbertCahalan 23:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Do List
''Hey... I thought I'd add a bit of direction to this before it really gets underway. Add a few ideas if you have them, and if they seem to be complete, remove them. Nothing worse than trying to start something that's already finished :P'' --Noogz 07:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Write information on various Linux distros. Debian is already here(writing something about Debian-based systems? Ubuntu, etc.), but I'd like to see the rest of the Big 6 (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo and Slackware) get some info; even add a few of the BSD's.  If this does happen, seperate the BSDs from the Linucies under the "Open Source" heading.
 * Write info on differences between versions of Windows (e.g. Why one should upgrade from 98 to XP).
 * Explain (dis)advantages of both proprietary and FLOSS OSes (IN GENERAL).
 * Identify strengths/weaknesses of each system (e.g. OS X is good for Multimedia; Windows is good for Gaming).


 * "Why one should upgrade from 98 to XP"
 * Was _THAT_ an _UP_grade?

Absolutely not. Nothing on that list should be in this book. Even proprietary vs FLOSS is a general software development issue and has nothing to do with operating systems. If you're going to write a book about operating systems and you're going to bother calling it "neutral", there shouldn't be any irrelevant political crap.

Structure
The strucure of your book is somewhat wrong, as the for-profit Linux distributions are still GNU/Linux operating systems, and Mac Os X is still a BSD operationg system based on an open source core. I propose the following structure instead:


 * 1) Windows-based OS
 * 2) MS WinXP/Win2003
 * 3) Unix-based OS
 * 4) Solaris
 * 5) BSD
 * 6) partly proprietary distributions
 * 7) Mac OS X
 * 8) free distributions
 * 9) FreeBSD
 * 10) NetBSD
 * 11) OpenBSD
 * 12) GNU/Linux
 * 13) partly proprietary distributions
 * 14) Red Hat and Fedora
 * 15) SUSE
 * 16) free distributions
 * 17) Debian
 * 18) Slackware
 * 19) Gentoo
 * 20) Mandrake
 * I see your point. I will soon make some changes that should resolve some of these issues. This kind of a book is kidna hard to categorize...--Hyperlink 21:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds better since Red Hat is not an OS, but a distribution. 24.56.22.70 03:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, when I first read the TOC, I immedatly thought that this needed to be done. How detailed should this be?  Should this book only cover modern operating systems, or should we add in obsolete ones?  (Windows 95 and Mac OS 9 come to mind) --Zeal17 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As of now, the structure is still a mess. The Open Source OSs module has an incomplete TOC. Someone editted the Linux module, and now the TOC links in A Neutral Look at Operating Systems to Linux distros are broken. I suggest the flattening of the structure to remove the useless Open Source OSs page, and an update of the table of contents. Kernigh 03:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed the TOC to become functional. There are no OSs missing in the main TOC, if I did this right, except for the Linux distros which are grouped into categories. I also gave a minimal fix to the A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs submodule. I like the unsigned structure presented above, but for now, I will not attempt to change the structure. Kernigh 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The structure of the book isn't "somewhat wrong", it is grossly and egregiously wrong. The notion that "for profit" and "open source" (political monikers) have anything at all to do with the nature of operating systems is contemptible. Whoever made the current structure demonstrated cynicism equal to the most corrupt politicians in history. This isn't an advocacy page for Linux goddamnit!

The list should be structured historically, with Unix under a single heading and including both Linux, BSD and Unix System V as subheadings. There should be absolutely no mentions of Redhat, Gentoo or other distributions. There should be a Unix-like category to have somewhere to put Plan 9. DOS falls into the category of CP/M derivatives and hence so do Windows and ReactOS. OS/2 should be put under CP/M-like. Mac should be in its own category, with OS X being shared between Mac and Unix.

As for Kernigh's claim that "there are no OSes missing", it's obvious that he knows nothing about operating systems. There's no mention of EROS, Plan 9, or QNX. And that's just modern OSes.


 * Oops... what I meant by "no OSes missing" was that there would be no OSes in the book that are not linked from the TOC. It is obvious that there are some OSes missing from the book. --Kernigh 20:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikibooks! It would improve this book if you contributed sections for EROS, Plan 9, QNX, and other systems. Also, the split between "proprietary" and "open source" in this book should leave. It does not work because "proprietary" Mac OS X contains some open source code while "open source" Linux distributions sometimes have proprietary code. Meanwhile, the Unix-likes are forced to split into two group. The Unix-likes should be together.


 * I have restored the old TOC to A Neutral Look at Operating Systems. I suggest that someone restructures the TOC to be better. Once the new TOC is finished, remove the old TOC. --Kernigh 20:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

New Structure, Redirects, and Red Links
I have rearranged the pages, abolishing the separation between "Proprietary OSs" and "Open Source OSs". Here is the list of redirects which I created when I moved the pages. --Kernigh 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * [/Archive 1|[A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Proprietary OSs]]
 * A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs
 * A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs/Berkeley Software Distribution
 * A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs/Linux
 * A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs/FreeDOS
 * A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Open Source OSs/ReactOS

I left some operating systems in the TOC as red links with Wikipedia articles (including ones from "Proprietary OSs" that were only Wikipedia links). If you have a better idea, then edit the page. --Kernigh 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
A neutral look on Operating Systems should start with a definition of an operation system and the mechanisms that are used by them. This is independent of the Operating System. Next, each Operating System could be discussed in function of these mechanisms. For example: task scheduling. There are many kinds of the (round robin, multiple priority round robin, etc.). Of course, these 'general' pages could be constructed while developing the specific ones.

''The notion that an operating system can be characterized by a long list of functions and mechanisms is ludicrous. These things are utterly trivial and nobody would learn anything of any significance from such a book. Are you writing a book about operating systems or an outdated technical spec that nobody will use? OSes are characterized by the concepts and principles they use.''

So for example, there are functional OSes, there are object oriented OSes, there are OSes with capabilities, there are stateless OSes and stateful OSes, there are uniform OSes and non-uniform OSes.


 * In theory, but not in practice. EROS and KeyKOS are going nowhere. I see that you wish this to be a book about failed OS experiments. Back in the real world though, we do have more than just UNIX and Windows. Look at embedded systems. We have ThreadX, VxWorks, Palm OS, Symbian OS, QNX, Cisco IOS, MC/OS, VRTX, and TRON. TRON is the world's most popular OS! AlbertCahalan 23:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

''The principle embodied by Plan 9 for example is that everything is a file(system). The previous sentence almost completely characterizes Plan 9, where a long dissertation of "mechanisms" would only serve to DISinform and UNeducate people.''

''As for the definition of an OS, which one should that be? Would that be the one made in the early early 70s that no longer applies? Or do you want to go the radical route and provide an actually useful, practical and informative definition? On the, frankly non-existent, chance that you want to be useful and informative, an Operating System is:''

A set of principles and concepts and all of the software which obeys these principles.

This definition explains why X Window is not part of Unix but 8 1/2 is part of Plan 9.


 * Well, it includes the web browser. I've read sworn testamony that attests to this. The practical answer is that the OS is whatever you get on that first set of CDs, no more and no less. AlbertCahalan 23:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not expect that we will find a perfect abstraction to describe operating systems. It would help Wikibooks if the anonymous user/users who posted this would contribute to A Neutral Look at Operating Systems by editing the pages or adding new ones. This unsigned comment was posted by Kernigh 20:27, 24 October 2005

What Distinguishes Two Operating Systems
Someone restored the obsolete TOC and justified it by writing "It contains some operating systems that are not yet moved to the new version."

This is factually wrong. We aren't interested in the various versions of BSD and they do not merit the appelation of different OSes. They're the same OS. So are all of the Linux distros. They're all the exact same OS just configured slightly differently. You might as well be talking about the differences between different patch versions to Windows 98.

The only distribution of Linux that you'd have even a half chance of arguing is a different OS is RtLinux, and you wouldn't have that chance with anyone that's studied OSes (as opposed to someone that's studied Unix - and how typically provincial of Unixers to think that they're the center of the universe!). None of the Unixes (System V, Solaris, Linux, BSD, even AIX while we're at it) are appreciably different from each other, they're all exactly the same OS.

The minimum distance between two branches of an OS tree that distinguishes different OSes is that between Unix and Plan 9. We should apply the same standards to OSes that we apply to biological species, whether they can interbreed. Since software for any Linux distribution is binary-compatible with any other Linux distribution, it is obviously the same species of OS. Since software for any Linux is source compatible with any other Unix, all Unixes are still the same OS.

You only start getting a different OS when you look at HURD, QNX, VSTa, or Plan 9, all of which are Unix derivatives. And these are different OSes because software for one requires porting to run on another.

There is vastly more difference between VisualWorks Smalltalk and Dolphin Smalltalk than there is between two clones of Unix, and all dialects of Smalltalk are still considered the same language. This is especially relevant since you can treat languages as operating systems and vice versa.

Proposal to Rename the Book
24.200.176.92 recently proposed the renaming of this book to A Political Look at Mainstream End-User Operating Systems. The proposal was made at User talk:Kernigh. I am currently opposing the rename because I think that it would limit contributions to this book. --Kernigh 03:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be so unhesitant to supply an audience for this rude user. The suggestion was not made in a serious and constructive manner. Turning the book into a list of failed OS experiments is no more useful than turning it into yet another Linux-versus-Windows, Linux-versus-BSD, or Linux-distribution-table. AlbertCahalan 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

''I was rude to Kernigh. To you I was merely brutally honest. You have contributed nothing of any interest to this book and this book as it is currently construed, and as you wish to preserve it, has nothing of interest to contribute to the world. So it's funny how I was rude to the guy who didn't complain and not rude to the ham-fisted lout that responded with force.'' 24.200.176.92 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This should be called A Look At Operating Systems for x86. You've left out the operating system that runs 99% of the world's financial transactions and most other commercial activity (z/OS).


 * I agree slightly. Wikibooks should already strive to be neutral. I believe the current title, "A Neutral Look at Operating Systems" is redundant. I agree with the anonymous person above except that to avoid confusion call it "An Overview of Operating Systems for PCs" or something like that. x86 architecture is not implied with all the OS's shown. However I believe this book seems to be mainly looking at personal computers. Correct me if I'm wrong- I haven't read the whole thing. --Evolutionist79 (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Other operating systems omitted include zVSE, TPF and zVM for mainframes, i(5) for the AS400 and OS/2. Perhaps their omission can be justified by the dirth of publications on the internal structure and logic of these widely used, proprietary operating systems.Ccalvin (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

merge
I suggest merging the Operating Systems Wikibook into A Neutral Look at Operating Systems. As far as I can tell, both books have the same topic and target audience. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)