Talk:Comparison of operating systems

From TheBestLinks.com

Archived talk:

Talk:Comparison_of_operating_systems/Archived_talk_1

Table of contents

1 Missing info including Linux, RTOS

2 Further ideas to expand the table

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] (http://www.eros-os.org/); Palm OS; 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)

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)

Linux licenses

The Fedora Core project is released under the GPL license. [2] (http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/). Same for SUSE. [3] (http://www.suse.com/us/private/support/licenses/) 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? -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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? -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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] (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/contrib/gcc/COPYING?rev=1.1.1.4&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup). Saucepan 23:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See also GPL "mere aggregation"[5] (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation) and the acceptable licenses listed at [6] (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributing/article.html#AEN201). 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</sup>	Windows Explorer	Windows Explorer	Macintosh Finder	Macintosh Finder	?	?	?	?	?
Default desktop environment	Standard Windows	Standard Windows	Standard Mac OS X	Standard Mac OS	GNOME	KDE	N/A	N/A	CDE or GNOME
Default window manager	?	?	WindowServer	?	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. -- �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason (http://www.thebestlinks.com/User_talk__3A__�var_Arnfj�r�_Bjarmason-bp-action-v-edit-ep--bp-section-v-new-ep-.html) 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)

Discussion

Last posted 0 of 0 messages

[no messages posted yet]

>> post message >>

Watch

You can add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.

Retrieved from "http://www.thebestlinks.com/Talk__3A__Comparison_of_operating_systems.html"