Talk:List of operating systems

If you think an OS should be listed here, list it
NOTE: if you think an OS should be listed here, list it. Guy Harris (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * yes I know wiki markup code. seriously, where is: debian wheezy, debian Jessie, Linux, etc.?32.216.68.61 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is "List of operating systems", not "list of operating system versions", so neither Wheezy nor Jessie (nor Xenial Xerus nor Yakkety Yak nor El Camino nor Sierra nor Windows 8.1 nor Windows 10 nor...) belong here. Linux is there, under "Non-proprietary", with a link to List of Linux distributions for the benefit of those who want to see all the distributions; at most, this page could list the major distributions, but, frankly, I think the link to List of Linux distributions suffices. Guy Harris (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to including some Linux distributions, since Linux is just the kernel you need the base user space components (libc, shell and utilities, system daemons, etc) to actually constitute an OS – the same kernel with a radically different user space is basically two different operating systems (compare Ubuntu to Android for example). However, there are far too many Linux distributions to list all of them so probably this page should only mention (i) the major ones (ii) any particularly distinctive ones. As far as Windows versions go, there is a historical progression from Windows 1.0 to Windows Me and from Windows NT 3.1 to Windows 10 (and those two lines have a lot of borrowing and cross-pollination between them) – the difference between any two successive versions in either line is often not that large but the near and far ends of each line are far enough apart to be better viewed as different operating systems instead of just different versions of the same OS. So I think Windows is a hard case. (We list individual generations of IBM mainframe separately too – OS/360, MFT, MVT, OS/VS1, OS/VS2, SVS, MVS, OS/390, z/OS are successive version of the same OS but they are different enough from each other in many cases to be considered as separate operating systems – well, even more strictly speaking MFT and MVT were originally just different conditional assembly variants of OS/360, but they evolved into separate OSes as OS/VS1 and OS/VS2.) SJK (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mania Windes" is not an operating system
It is a program from DOS / windows 9x that creates a GUI. Their website is here if you want to read it for yourself. http://www.maniasoft.com/en/windesxf/minimum.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.147.212 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Old comments without section heading
I've been correcting links to Arthur" by disambiguating them as "Arthur (movie)" and "Arthur (album)". But there is a link to "Arthur" on this page which I don't get. The page is a big complicated list, and not explained very well. Can someone make it a bit clearer, please? -- Oliver P. 15:31 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

What's so complex. Arthur was the OS of the Acorn Archimedes. which also has mention of it. Clearly he intended for it to link to that, probebly presuming it was going to be a sub-page, tho I am not sure. Anyway, I don't see a page for it, but I'll fix it. User:Rboatright 15:53 2002.02.16


 * Thanks for the explanation, and for fixing it. To someone who doesn't know all that much about all the different operating systems of the world, the page looks terribly scary. It's not clear which names are names of computers, which are names of companies, and which are names of the actual operating systems. It needs a few sentences of good old-fashioned English prose to clarify such things, and to explain the layout of the list, and so on. -- Oliver P. 16:05 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

"203.109.254.40 (reversed vandalism)". Not wanting to be rude but I think someone here has a wrong notion of vandalism! When I edited the article I only tried to organize it and not to vandalize anything. Anyway, I'll not bother changing it again even if I disagree with the way it is organized. If anyone thinks my version was more usefull and legible then post i again, I won't do it myself! -- hybrid-2k

The BeOS Clones?
I wanted to put Zeta, OpenBeOS, and BlueEyed OS on the list. Were should they go?

iHoshie 23:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Zeta isn't a clone of BeOS, it's BeOS under development by a different company Crusadeonilliteracy 04:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot that Zeta was the BeOS codebase done by a different company. It's on the list now. The other two are iffy stil. iHoshie 16:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On 12th Jan, Pcollison, with the comment (Shouldn't the name given by the author count for more than the name given by someone on the sideline?) changed the entry for GNU/Linux to Linux. This put the alphabetisiation out of order, and gave 2 entries for Linux, with none for the (referenced) GNU/Linux.

Reverted that edit, on the basis that both the term 'Linux' and GNU/Linux are valid entries.

Changed the parenthetical remarks to make Linux primary entry, on the basis that that is how the page for Linux is. I belive that the talk page for Linux is the correct forum to decide which is primary, thus this page should folllow that.Syntax 02:45, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the Hobby OS section. Where do you draw the line? Does Linux count as a hobby OS? *BSD? Plan9? Crusadeonilliteracy 12:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may suggest another name, instead hobby. About Linux, BSD: I mean hobby - in more narrow use, when usage of this systems is hobby too (IMHO). Linux and BSD are voluntary free projects, that are used in many professional applications from Internet servers to embedded. It is not hobby. I've introduced 'Hobby OS' section to devide very long list of 'others' OS. Kenny sh 10:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- Should the PDA and Smartphone be moved out of the Proprietory Heading? Also, I'd like to add a router heading, IOS by Cisco Jondel

Reorganization?
I'm really glad a page like this exists, but I have to look hard to find systems I know exist, and I'm unsure where to add some systems, like L4. I would like to suggest reorganizing the list in order to make it more useful.

In particular, it is difficult to find very similar OS'es because they are arranged by things like Proprietary and Non-Proprietary at the top level. Ideally, similar OS'es would we listed near one another at lower levels. IMHO, I'd prefer to see a breakdown that grouped the top levels by architecture or eras, and maybe give some indication of the hardware that the OS runs on. I like the "application" categories that currently exist, but would like to add desktop usage as a special case, possibly as a separate page, and change the naming to something less ambiguous, like "roles".

Dataphile 20:39, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright, lets do it together. I suggest a breakdown by architecture and then sub-divided by similarity. This will mean dual listing for most operating systems but it will be for the best. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  13:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to see it done by architecture and then architecture independent but also if it is still supported/actively developed. 68.226.125.194 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OS historical vision
This is an important list and set of articles. My advice is that it is heavily-oriented toward latter-day systems of the late 70s onward. As an ex-mainframe OS developer of the early 70s, my wish is to supplement this article with stubs of the "seven dwarves" of the period. This is necessary to collect valuable OS history in wiki. Comments/denunciations?

i like the idea for purpose of topic completeness (clutzy grammar, sorry), though at first these "forgotten" oses could appear in timeline page and other category links. Might soon need to split the page. In cases of other topics, the page becomes long, then gets split. (i think I've seen top40 hits of each year given their own page, but that's extreme example?) disclaimer: i did not check whether those pre70's oses already appear on this or the linked wp pages.2z2z (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing on the list:
UNICOS (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), UNICOS/mp (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), UNICOS/lc (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), SUPER-UX (a Unix-like OS on NEC SX-series vector processor supercomputers -> Earth Simulator ;-), CONVEX OS (a Unix-like OS on Convex vector processor supercomputers), LDOS (a TRS-80 disk OS regarded as better than TRS-DOS)

Sortix (a Unix-like OS that is self-hosting, and under active development)

..hope that helps ;-) Otherwise.. Great page! Keep up the good work!

ReactOS
I moved the ReactOS link out of the "hobby OS" and into non-proprietary non-unix-like. Though it's still in early development stages, it has been developing fairly rapidly of late, and has moved beyond the "hobby" designation IMO. --Blackcats 09:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Full of hoaxes
According to our favorite vandal, Willy on Wheels, this list is full of hoaxes, and nobody has bothered to do anything about it. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2005-12-6 06:24
 * I saw that post on /. and I'm wondering what should be done about this. I looked through the list and only saw a few that I even recognize.  Maybe we need to go through the list, one-by-one, on this talk page, and verify each independently.  It would take a looong time.  Or have someone go through the edit history and flag as suspect any addition by anonymous users or users with small numbers of contributions or other vandalisms.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed ZnubuOS, as the only trace of it I can find through Web search engines is copies of this Wikipedia page and *one* "help wanted" forum post that got deleted by its author; the only trace of ZnubuOS is in the title of the thread/topic. Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, who put "GLaDOS (Generic Lifeform and Disk Operating System) (Made to control the Aperture Science computer aided enrichment center)" under Disk Operating Systems? This is a fictional OS from the Valve game Portal - Deleting...Darkpoet (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up!

 * FYI, traffic/changes to this page could be up sharply due to a frontpage Digg. -- MrDolomite | Talk 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing O/S's
You need to add the several O/S's from Data General: RTOS (Real-time operating system, ran on Nova minicomputers), RDOS (Real-time Disk Operating System, ran on Nova and Eclipse minicomputers), and AOS/VS (32-bit operating system with virtual memory, ran on MV series) 192.35.44.24 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

NACHOS and Pintos are also missing. Meneth 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

HeliOS from Perihelion 81.101.133.103 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Page seriously needs reorganization
It would be much more helpful of this page listed OSes by each of the following odering:
 * 1)  by computing era in chronological order (additional notes on specific major innovations would help (i.e., only major innovations like 'First OS with Virtual Memory')
 * 2) b) by manufacturer
 * 3)  by parent or by roots/influcences (e.g., unix derivatives, CP/M derivatives, MS Windows derivatives
 * 4) By platform type (mainframe, microcomptuer, embedded systtem) and machine word size
 * 5)  By number of concurrent tasks (e.g., single tasking MSDOS vs a multi-user OS under Vax VMS)
 * 6) OS complexity (e.g., primitve machines with a bootstrap to run a single program, to single user machines, to multi-user machines, to multi-OS hosted on a single parent OS (e.g., Z Series linux)

The general problem is that this page is just a large disorganized list which does not quite help anyone to see the progression of an individual OS or the progression from older OS to the newer operating systems.

Lastly, this page should be tied somewhat to a similar computer hardware page since most OS innovations were facilitated by better hardware.


 * 1) In the Digital Equipment (DEC) list should be added FOCAL 68 which ran on the PDP8x series computers.  This was my first OS/development environment and stood for FormulaCalculator.  It was similar to Basic and Fortran in logic structures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.255.64 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More Missing O/S's with links

 * 1) Mini-UNIX by H. Lycklama, 1977 - cut-down UNIX v6 for PDP-11s without memory management
 * 2) GNOSIS developed by Tymshare Inc. to run on 370 architecture
 * 3) KeyKOS: Persisent, pure capability system developed by Key Logic, Inc.
 * 4) EROS: The Extremely Reliable Operating System - another capability based OS
 * 5) Coyotos Secure Operating System - microkernel design with capabilities based on EROS.
 * 6) PERQ Operating systems written mostly in Pascal: POS, MPOS, Accent, PNX and FLEX.
 * 7) MONADS Operating System : Monash University capability-based research operating system
 * 8) PETROS: Written in Object Pascal, designed to be compatible with MS-DOS and Windows 95.
 * 9) House: Haskell User's Operating System and Environment, an operating system implemented using the Haskell functional programming language, based on hOp.
 * 10) V-System: research microkernel operating system that was developed by faculty and students in the Distributed Systems Group at Stanford University in the 1980s. Other OSes by the same investigator include Thoth and Verax.

Proposal for Slight Correction
Be, Inc. only made BeOS and BeIA (hence the "Be" in their names). The final retail version of BeOS was R5, and then there's the leak that happened on 15 Nov 2001, which included BeOS Exp/Dano 5.1d0 (which would have been R6), and BeIA (I don't know the latest versions off-hand) which was used in some of Compaq's embedded kiosk systems.

I'd like to point out that the worthless POS known as Zeta may be in the BeOS family, which also has Haiku (formerly OpenBeOS), CosmoOS, and BlueEyedOS (there's also many others). However, Zeta was not made by Be, Inc., in fact, it was released after the downfall of Be, Inc. Zeta is maintained and sold by yellowTab.

I think it would be better if Zeta were put into its own heading, or a sub-heading of the "BeOS" group, titled "yellowTab". (Yes, I hate Zeta, but at least have some sort of accuracy around it) (Lady Serena 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Hactar?
Do you think Hactar is significant enough to be included? --81.231.123.38 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

is spoken of in past tense here: written by Crembo on Mar 07, 2004 20:20 Though you have to keep in mind, I also thought Hactar was uber-intuitive, so take of it what you will. written by Cryoburner on Aug 07, 2005 04:25 I suggested it to Alex a while back after the Hactar home page's title screenshot *cough* mysteriously vanished. Found via 6 month google2z2z (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored Burroughs Section
I restored the Burroughs section that was deleted by 59.177.23.184 on 8/23/06. Someone might wish to examine whether the Atari ST section which was deleted at the same time by the same IP Address should be restored as well. --JeffW 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

about lindows
lindows is missing

-- yes it is: is was renamed to Linspire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.78.50 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Operating systems for БК Soviet personal computer
Here you can find the additional information about all the OSes: ru:Операционные системы БК-0010/11--Planemo 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Univac
I have personally worked on the Univac, Apollo and HP O/S starting in 1970. --Sprezzatura 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

new or pre-historc
Can someone who has the time check all of these O.S.'s and add next to each one whether it is up to date and the newest in it's line, and just add genraly if it is recent, might be the last one they made but it was 20 years ago--it's historic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.138.169 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

x86 Operating Systems
Would it be beneficial to create a new category for x86-compatible OS's? I just came here randomly because I'm building some x86 computers and wanted to experiment with some different operating systems. The only problem is that based just on the huge list on the OS page, I don't know which ones run on an x86 without reading about each one individually, and that takes too much effort and time. --207.75.37.89 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea if it were sorted by platforms rather than proprietary and non-proprietary. --Android Mouse 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have same motivation as OP in this comment (experimenting on single core pcs). Some (Haiku, Syllable, ArOS,,,,) seem qualified as "security thru obscurity" OSes, in that they aren't posix/unix.bsd. etc. And they are true desktops with basic apps, so therefore should be *usable* by "civilians and innocent bystanders". However some OSes could be multiplatform (builds), so the chart on OS comparison page seems best wp page for platforms/hardware/cpu-architecture info.2z2z (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fictional operating systems
How about a section for operating systems that feature in films etc.

For example,

Helios-9 (possibly a development of the real-life HeliOS 1.3.1?) was used to control the US power grid in the weather disaster movie Category 6: Day of Destruction

There are a lot of very windows-like non Microsoft OS's that appear in movies. One of my favourite features of fictional Operating s Systems (or it could be the applications they run) are the money transfer protocols that transfer millions of dollars/pounds etc. across the world, one unit at a time! Regards Lynbarn 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a fictional section, but I removed it because it contained a lot of spam, obscure references and uncitable information. If you'd like to clean it up feel free to add it back. The diff that I removed it: --Android Mouse 00:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened to the fictional oses idea, but i think it should be in scifi/entertainment/culture part of wp. (a link from this wp page is great, though). My reason: "not quite familiar looking" imitation computers are so common in films, etc, that the topic is bigger than one page. eg, 1960's star trek consoles in "the bridge" filmset. eg, various "teen saves the world from nuclear suicide by hacking into mil systems" movies in the 1980's. eg, crime forensics lab uses tweeting (beep beep!) software to graphically explore wounds in many current TV series.2z2z (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nokia Series 40+Motorola+Samsung
What about Nokia Series 40 OS, Motorola OS, and the Samsung OS? Nowhere mentioned? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IBM line
There's some problems with the IBM 'DOS and successors' lists.

BOS and TOS were predecessors to DOS circa 1968 or so, not successors, as was BDOS which isn't mentioned. Other than a few SVCs they shared with DOS and to a lesser degree OS/MFT, they should be listed separately.

Also, following the advent of DOS/VS, a number of 3rd party DOS-like operating systems emerged, such as TCSC's EDOS. It's unclear at the moment how those should be listed.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Argante
I am trying to de-orphan this article some more and am sure it fits in here but I'm not sure where exactly because I don't know much about computer stuff. Munci (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

online operating system
how actually online operating system works ,its principles advantages and disadvantages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.165.24 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmos
Cosmos is a larger project than it is given credit for. I typed in "Cosmo" into google and the first reasult I got was "Cosmos OS" Could you at least add a part about Cosmos? Or how about add one of the Cosmos based operating systems instead? for example: Dud3 and AEOS? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.29.100 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with WebOS section
In the Web Operating Systems section (List_of_operating_systems), I'm confused with the Chrome OS entry. Yes, Chrome OS stores everything on the net, but is anyway a desktop os, cause web os are operating systems that run from the web, not from a computer. Same applies to Jolicloud. --Marcsances (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Lists are required to have inclusion criteria and are subject to the same sourcing requirements as other articles. All entries in this list should be notable, as shown by having significant coverage or reviews in at least one reliable source. Entries without such notability should be removed. Entries which have an existing well-cited Wikipedia article need not have an additional citation here, though, to reduce clutter. Yworo (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there were no objections to this, I've gone ahead and trimmed the list based on the criteria in the lead. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

over broad definition of Operating System?
GEM is included in the list. GEM is not an operating system. GEM is not able to run without an OS. GEM performs none of the functions of an OS. Inclusion of GEM (which is just a GUI over an OS, usually one of the MS or PC DOSes) means you need to include things like "Norton Commander" (a text shell over DOS) or "Norton Desktop" (a graphical shell over dos). This does have the problematic effect of making some of the MS Windows versions not includable, which is probably going to be controversial and edit-warry. --87.113.161.104 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

8 bit OSes
I think there should be a section for 8 bit OSes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rricci428 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

CirrOS
I'd like to add CirrOS, a custom GNU-Linux distribution used for a record breaking benchmark by the SeaMicro system. However, I need some help to figure out which section it belongs to. Any gurus around to offer assistance? :) Twillisjr (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

VisOpSys
VisOpSys is a free GUI based OS that is under current development. I'm also not sure how to list it. I believe it merits an entry, it is mature and has been in development since 1997. It has a few mentions around the internet. http://visopsys.org/ Rgb9000 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What Linux distributions, if any, should be listed here?
The "Non-proprietary" section's "Unix or Unix-like" subsection has "Linux", with a "(see also List of Linux distributions)" parenthetical note, rather than having separate entries for various Linux distributions...

...with two exceptions; it lists Android, which is sufficiently different from most Linux distributions (different libc, for example) that I'd be willing to let it be listed separately, and also lists the Cray Linux Environment, which is an environment for Cray supercomputers in which "service elements" run SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and "compute elements" run Compute Node Linux, based on a customized Linux kernel.

However, the "Embedded" section has a long list of "Embedded Linux" distributions (including, again, Android), and the "Routers" section has the OpenWRT distribution, and various spinoffs/forks of it, as well as the Zeroshell distribution.

So should this page list at least the major desktop and server distributions in the the "Non-proprietary" section's "Unix or Unix-like" subsection, or should the "Embedded" section just list Embedded Linux or Linux for mobile devices, and should the "Routers" section just list Embedded Linux? Guy Harris (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid listing Linux distros unless they are somehow distinctive/exceptional. Android obviously counts both because of its enormous importance and also its very distinctive userland. I'm not convinced any of the others deserve mention. SJK (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Some more Operating Systems?
Digital Equipment Corporation:

EDUsystem-5, EDUsystem-15. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102760877

EDUsystem-5, EDUsystem-15. Refer to:- https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WnhyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=EDUsystem+DEC&source=bl&ots=RTEKvP2cZe&sig=ACfU3U0zj9frhFYeOiaUKI-N72DFZElT_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir-s_Et5PhAhWHfX0KHamRAOMQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=EDUsystem%20DEC&f=false MUMPS-11. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

RSX-11M. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

RSX-11S. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

IAS. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

CAPS-11. CAPS-11 User Guide

CAPS-11. Refer to PDP-11

TSS-8. Refer to:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSS-8

Missing from this list are a large number of PDP operating systems. Refer:- PDP-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdp11.caps11 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add them if you want to. Guy Harris (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of page needed
In my opinion, this page needs a complete rewrite and reorganization. I think this page should be sorted by defining characteristics (like the page List of Linux distributions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

I also think many "operating systems" listed here do not meet the requirements, and are better off listed in the page of Linux distributions (Which many of them are, it is very inconsistent).

Take for example Chromium OS / Chrome OS. This operating system is based on Gentoo, however Gentoo itself is not listed here. Chrome OS is of course also mentioned on the list of Linux Distributions.

In my opinion, any Linux based OS should be taken off of this list, since they already are in the page of Linux distributions. In addition to that I think "Operating systems" like Remix OS and LineageOS need their own page, something like a "List of Android distributions", since these are often incredibly similar, and would if filled with the many that are out there will clutter the main page of Linux distributions, when they are different enough from most of the operating systems mentioned there to warrant a separate page.

I also believe different versions of operating systems do not warrant their own entry on the list, but rather should just include a link to the page which lists the version history. Instead of listing all Windows versions, it could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history

Lastly, I believe there are several operating systems listed which either are not operating systems at all or seem like self promotion. For example the mentioned Kostya OS with it's URL just seems like an online site, not an operating system at all.

If I find the time to, I might take it upon myself to rewrite this page. Input would be appreciated.

Diademiemi (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This Article Needs a complete rewrite from the start. I have actually done this myself, but from my own iniative refuse to submit it ordinarily because I believe that I am too biased.
Hello, I am posting here since I think that the internet effectively lacks an inclusive article listing all reasonably viable user client operating systems with modern usability in mind. The fact that somebody (I know it's not a single person) thought "Oh Linux Distributions - too many - too much clutter - They should have their own page!" (Creating a very unintuitive mess in my honest opinion), but then said "Oh yes, here's Temple OS, that is useful, that makes sense to include!". Because in reality, it couldn't possibly be more far from that. To put it out quickly and untediously, no person seriously looking for a nice OS should be bothered with these systems, like TempleOS, Tails, Red Star OS, and many others, because they are simply too immoral. Very immoral.

I'm going to speak from my own painful experience. I am simply way too much fed up by the everpresent prevalence of Microsoft Windows. I am an artist, I've tried many mediums. But that is not why I'm here. The reason is that I have simply had way too many complications because of the bloated design of Windows NT 10. That started all the way back in 2019, and pretty much never really stopped. I went from focusing on art all my time, to focusing on Unix all my time. Because I simply had no other choice, If I wanted to solve my problems and get productive at digital art, I had to learn Unix and hardware management. And that's by no means it, It's so complicated, that I could novel-size essays out of this, it's that toxic to me. I really don't even know where to start. After all the exhaustion, I said to myself, that I need to stop focusing on the runcoms of this and that, and the System V kernels of this and that, and all of those Curls, WebKits, NetSurfs, AmigaOS's, RISC's, arm64's, Intel this, AMD that, and actually start choosing my main operating system from a clear-view perspective, a subjective and with a larger focus on consistency above everything else, instead of notability. And I basically found out, that the thing I call "Wikipedia Says: macOS is on the left, Windows in the middle, and Linux on the right!" with pretty much no mentions of any systems other than these, some even claiming that "that's pretty much it". The operating systems space for professionals, like for consumers is pretty much homogenous. This problem is way deeper that just that. But I shortened it a lot, trust me, it's long and tedious of a social problem. I had an awful experience, so painful that it negatively affected my mental state (and by A LOT!!!). Who could have guessed that this all happens just when you decide to choose an operating system. Something fundamentally important to someone like me. In a sane world, this doesn't happen. We evidently don't live in a sane normal world. My dream was just to come to a computer store and see filled with ten different major operating systems and multiple compatible CPU architectures by different vendors. So I decided to stop listening to the clunk, and decided to make a private snapshot of this page on my iPad (My device of choice and now my only computer), and decided to make a private version of this page and rewrote it from scratch, with goal to serve usability, and make a neutral description of modern and important useful systems. I have initially made it just for myself, in the hopes of making a directory of operating systems, promoting such diversity, one day. But I recently decided, to share it back to the community, since I want no more people to have the same painful experience that I had. "Remove clutter" is a minor problem compared to "Remove Hateful Menaces that take the from of an unusable operating system". I know that. And I'm a person that dislikes clutter heavily. "No Radicalism Above All" should be a policy worth more than that of "removing clutter". Maybe you think that these many Linux Distributions are going to confuse novice people. But how the heck is TempleOS serving that?! That goes not beyond empathy, and all sense, but also all appliable logic that I know of. Yes, I also don't think it's good to list all distributions on here, but the major distros, are major Systems in general (And the same goes for BSD's and RTOSes and many more.), and therefore should be listed, whereas many systems listed here are only causing harm, and no good. Yes, I know, it's important to list non-major practically unusable systems with big influence on computing (Like CP/M, IBM OS/2, many early Unixes, RISC OS), but this should not apply to systems that are not only objectively useless, but hateful and controversional in their nature, which I find often unrepresented on Wikipedia, perhaps because nobody's interested to change it for good, due to how "geeky" and "nerdish" these things "are" I suppose. They have a large impact on our unaware society, and so they proper care and protection to prevent abuse by qeustionable people. There is a lack of consistency, that's gone unpassable, especially when the articles are about Unix related topics, sometimes the articles are full of inaccuracies and self contradictions, and since this is Wikipedia, the it is dangerous. I've been making this comment way longer than I expected myself, so I'll just to the main subject.

With Regards, Jaiden Länfurfs jaidenlovesnewsletters@gmail.com Apologies to any unintended violations of any terms of Wikipedia

I am sending a Google Drive Link, that contains the files of interest. I licence it under the original licence - CC-BY-SA Version 3.0, if I'm not mistaken. Note that I wrote this over the course of 4 months If I remember correctly. Nothing but the files I explicitely referenced here are licenced under any copyleft licence, my other projects are licenced permissively, under a heavily modified version of the BSD licence. I also have no interest in spamming Wikipedia, please be nice when responding, or otherwise I'm going to ignore it. This for me is very unusual. Please also note, that is still not-yet-finished and needs to be more polished, and becuase of what it is, it is full of formatting errors.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sFIjdrP09HXzZqS1jauzzn7597y_F1GR/view?usp=sharing

Some common systems like ARM-MBED, aren't even in this article! How is this all possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalbangladesh (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Granularity

 * 1) Disk operating systems (DOS) only covers operating systems related to CP/M, but shows Main article: Disk operating system, which is generic. It is even missing disk operating systems that run on PCs, e.g., Xenix. I'm not sure whether it is more appropriate to re-title it or to expand it. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And why isn't DOS/360 listed there? :-) "Disk operating system" appears more to be a marketing term than a technical one. Guy Harris (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IBM used the name Disk Operating System to distinguish disk-resident and tape-resident versions of the same code base, long before the PC. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should # On S/360, S/370, and successor mainframes include
 * OS/360 65MP
 * DPPX/370
 * VM/BSE
 * VM/SE
 * VM/SP
 * Should VM/XA be broken down into VM/XA MA, VM/XA SF and VM/XA SP? Should MVS/ESA be broken down into MVS/SP V3, MVS/ESA SP V4 and MVS/ESA SP V5? Should MVS.ESA SP V4R3 MVS OpenEdition and later be listed under Unix-like? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

L4 is NOT a research kernel and other thoughts
The L4 microkernel is under research yet it has been used in billions of devices because of its usage in network devices like baseband processors. Minix is not despite the fact early versions were clearly made for teaching purposes, it is only by accident that it has found widespread usage in the Intel Management Engine. This is inconsistent. In my opinion attempting to classify systems by usage is always going to fail because systems tend to be used more flexibly than intended. For example Android is for phones right? Yes but there is an x86 port that can be used on desktops. The proprietary and non-proprietary distinction makes the most sense. Operating systems should be listed by whether they are developed commercially or by a community, and we should be very careful on the inclusion of standalone kernels that cannot provide a sustained system without a userland (I would rather list Linux by its largest distributors such as Google, Debian, and Red Hat).

Bsdrevise (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CDC operating systems
I believe that NOS/BE is derived from SCOPE, not from Kronos. I believe that SIPROS is unrelated to COS or to any other CDC operating system. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC) -- revised 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple hats?
Should a system that has its own API but that also has a Unix subsystem and has been certified as Unix, e.g., z/OS, z/VM, be listed both under proprietary and under Unix-like? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rendering names with weird capitalization?
Some projects have adopted names that begin with lower case letters, e.g., ooRexx, z/OS. Should such names be capitalized, left as is or wrapped in not a typo? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd leave them as is. The only problem I've seen is that "OpenBSD", which did not adopt a name that begins with a lower-case letter, was written as "openbsd", in a sentence that also wrote "Japanese" as "japanese", and an edit to that sentence fixed the miscapitalization of "BSD" but not the miscapitalization of "Open", so I fixed the latter.  I've not seen a problem with miscapitalization of the names of projects that begin with lower-case letters. Guy Harris (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

TempleOS
Is TempleOS an OS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XsoftOFFICIAL (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please!
do not delete Xsoft OS. I will do everything! Follow your social media, everything! Just do not delete it :( 2A02:2F0E:D91C:D700:AD83:9977:D458:ACDB (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I advise you to do three things to correct the bad impression you've left
 * Cite a RS for the OS
 * Be CIVIL; your choice of section title will drive away many who might otherwise be willing to help.
 * Register an ACCOUNT; that's be no means required, but it helps to lend credibility.
 * There is a Wikipedia Manual of style that is a good starting point for learning your way around here. Don't be intimidated by the Alphabet soup ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)