Template talk:Operating systems

Kernel designs
I don't understand this part of the template:

Kernel: General: Microkernel · Nanokernel

Types: monolithic · hybrid · exokernel

What is "general"? General kernel designs are microkernel and monolithic kernel. A hybrid would then be one that possesses qualities of both. Exokernel is orthogonally different design, but it either fits in one or the other category. Nanokernel is a microkernel even more miniaturized. So there are two basic designs. Considering that, what does the above "general" and "types" mean? --Paxcoder (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Nanokernel' architecture subtype
Nanokernel has been redirecting to Microkernel since 2008. Why is Nanokernel still listed as an architecture subtype when it is apparently not notable enough to get its own article? The Nanokernel-part of the Microkernel article looks a lot like a disambiguation-page; if Nanokernel doesn't even have a proper definition why does it count as a subtype? I suggest removing Nanokernel from the Operating system template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.70.160.55 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding long mode to CPU modes
I believe long mode is more than prevalent to warrant its addition into the cpu modes field. (It is one after all!) Edit: After I get to 10 edits :p Added by Jon Weldon II: (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013
Hi, May I Edit This? Thank You.

Folofolo jljj (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a highly visable template. Please post your proposed changes here to get consensus before they are put in.  RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2013
The list of operating systems includes Oberon and a large collection of other OSes. I understand it may look awkward to have such a long list under the "list" section of the template. However, as is, it is confusing and inadequate. Despite there is already a link on the left field to "list", there should also be a more... link at the end of the pseudo-full list that points to the true full list as well. Luggerhead (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please edit GNU to GNU Hurd
As GNU is a software project, and GNU Hurd is the operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.183.105 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"List" (i.e., list1 and group6) should be more definitively named
The one-word title "List" is ambiguous, but "List of operating systems" would surely seem redundant.

Consider one of the following:

List of software suites

Operating system suites

Joad Marshal (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2015
41.222.22.43 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite the reason to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

 * group1 = Architectures
 * list1 =
 * Exokernel
 * Hybrid
 * Microkernel
 * Monolithic
 * Unikernel
 * Rump kernel

41.225.145.198 (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as well. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 06:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017
Include Real-time_operating_systems. Possibly under "Process Management" > "Concepts". 5.146.223.200 (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good call, good placement. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for being on the list
I cannot fathom why ORVYL is listed and, say, ITS is not. What are the criteria for being promoted from List_of_operating_systems to the list in this template? MatthewWilcox (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I added Incompatible Timesharing System to the list, but I agree that some criteria for adding OSes to the template should be created because as far as I can tell it is currently very arbitrary. Perhaps based on install base and historical significance? (I have no idea how you would objectively measure the latter.) - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 08:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please move this ("Template:Operating system") to "Template:Operating systems" over redirect and lock
Articles are generally titled singular; categories and navboxes are generally titled plural. I'd move it myself, but there's no "Move" button. I'm sure someone before me would have too; same problem. Someone locked down this page in 2010 with "‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)". So sysop please move this page (over redirect). - A876 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. But the idea is good! TheImaCow (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This thing looks awful
Just plain atrocious, to be honest. Redundant links to the same systems, horrible organization, impossible to read bloat. This template is a disaster that needs a total overhaul purely for usability purposes. I would take the time, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the subject beyond common knowledge to edit it confidently. But it's plainly a mess as any reader can see, and thereby fails at aiding in navigation, the purpose of a navbox. I think that readers would be better served by a single link to a better-organized list article myself. oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the existence of list of operating systems, is there a reason to even have a list of OSes in this template? Guy Harris (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An argument can be made that there's a benefit to linking major common OSes via a navbox. The problem is this template has become bloated with barely notable historical OSes under the supposed need for NPOV, but that ignores the reality that including short-lives historical curiosities actually undermines the neutrality by giving undue focus to things with almost long-term significance. I once tried to argue against the initial bloating some years back, but clearly I didn't carry consensus. Frankly, the time since has only made it worse, and the recent attempts to clean up the template have made it unnavigable. Which, for a navigation template, is really bass ackward. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020
TempleOS missing from the list 93.34.82.178 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. There are way too many in there already. I'm going to just axe the whole section. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I applaud the decision. This template failed to aid navigation, it's fundamental purpose. oknazevad (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't need a list of lots of operating systems here; list of operating systems suffices. Guy Harris (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)