Talk:Operating system/Archive 1

message: :Operating systems which distinguish more than one user also track such things as file ownership (I can't read (or erase or alter) your files unless you allow me to) and access to the machine (without properly identifying myself, the operating system will not let me run programs, including itself). These restrictions on users' privileges necessarily require creation of a kind of superuser who can tell the system about newly authorized users, revoke privileges for formerly authorized users, permit those who have forgotten their passwords access, install software, delete software, ...  
I just removed this. If you interpret "file ownership" narrowly (ie, as what Unix does) then it's a blatant lie that multi-user systems require tracking of file ownership. If you interpret it broadly, then it's extremely deceptive because the broad definition is not what people will understand.
The "superuser" bit is also wrong. But this phrase pissed me off: necessarily require creation of a kind of superuser?? Who's the ignoramus who wrote this? Not only is it a blatant lie but it's a lie aimed at apologizing for Unix' bad design. Whoever wrote it must have a severe case of Dennis Ritchie worship. Unix's user model (with a single totalitarian superuser) is modeled on fascism and I really hate people who apologize for fascism. -- Ark
@Ark : fascism?? I do not believe the necessity of a superuser is in any way fascism. Required in most, if not all Operating Systems *including Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, as well as all UNIX-like systems* it is the duty of the superuser to maintain the integrity and security of the computer. The superuser's power, when implimented correctly and not abused, can limit what items certain users can access and prevent harm to the system. Because UNIX's file permissions are easily controlled on an individual basis, they allow more security that Windows just designating someone Administrator (superuser), or Standard User (which still has a great deal of power, by default.
As for this being a design flaw in UNIX, please feel free to explain why to me. --166.66.32.55 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: File ownership and Superuser

message: Removed this recently added ... er ... stuff:
Operating Systems made so far
The first real popular OS avaible for PC was DOS (Disk Operating System), made by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975. After that, the systems have developed into much more advanced programs that let you use your hardware in very many ways. Here is a list with the biggest operating systems from the start:
* MS-DOS                  - 1975
* Unix                    - 1983
* Microsoft Windows       - 1985
* Microsoft Windows 2.0   - 1987
* Microsoft Windows 3.0   - 1990
* Linux                   - 1991
* Microsoft Windows NT    - 1994
* Microsoft Windows 95    - 1995
* Microsoft Windows 98    - 1998
* Microsoft Windows 2000  - 2000
* Microsoft Windows ME    - 2000
* Microsoft Windows XP    - 2001
* Lindows                 - 2002
Several reasons for this: (i) it ignores mainframe and mini operating systems, from which microcomputer operating systems descend. (ii) it's way too short and selective - AppleDOS, CPM, Amiga, TRSDOS, etc., etc., etc. (iii) It dates MS-DOS to 1975 (6 years before the IBM PC!) and ignores the things it was cloned from. (iv) It lists one particular minor Linux distribution (Lindows) and ignores all others. 
In short, it needs a lot of work - and the end result would simply be to duplicate material that is already covered in greater depth and with more accuracy elsewhere. Tannin 22:59 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that a user interface need not involve a monitor at all.  The user interface can be as simple as a row of pushbuttons and an accompanying row of lights.  Computers operated via push buttons, teletype terminals, etc... are increasingly rare, but they were once common.  Let's not limit the 'pedia to strictly modern beliefs. Elde 09:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff removed

message: This article isn't really up to scratch on this point, surprisingly, seeing that we are on the internet here and there should be enough programmers. Someone seems to be confusing functionalty of API and of OS. The objective of an OS is to provide an abstraction layer to the hardware of the system to make more different architectures somewhat compatible with each other. This may have been forgotten in the windows era, but see NetBSD and even lowly Linux . Hmmm. Kim Bruning 11:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Core

message: Hi 
Anybody knows that there can be Virtual Operating system . Virtual OS will be faster , manageable , controlable with the amazing speed.
Let us know your views.
Regards
Yogsma
:Yes, but only in the 9th dimension ;-) . --Hdante 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Xen or VMware. — Jeremy | Talk 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Try the original and surviving incarnation in IBM's VM. Mvanner 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Operating system 

message: This section divides the system into:
 Hardware <-> Kernel <-> Shell <-> Applications 
This doesn't seem to reflect current terminology, however.  For example, the "shell" on a Unix system refers to something like csh, bash, etcetera, and does not include all of the libraries etcetera that are required to run application software.  Things like libc, X11 and GNOME, MacOS's Quartz etc. libraries, or the Win32 API and GUI are rarely if ever referred to as part of the "shell".  (Googling for "Windows shell" yields usages for the command line, Explorer, and other filesystem interfaces.)  —Steven G. Johnson 00:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification and terminology section 

message: What are the TECHNICAL DETAILS of the windows installation process.  Meaning what are all the small technical steps which are sequentially executed internally by Windows during its installation ? Somebody please list them out.
:You're in the wrong place.  You need to visit Wikipedia:Reference desk. Furthermore, you can probably find that information at the Microsoft Developer Network, msdn.microsoft.com, or in one of the numerous books on Windows published by Microsoft Press.  --Coolcaesar 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS/Windows installation? 

message: Why does it say "Today Windows enjoys a near-monopoly of around 90%"? If we aren't going to just say "Windows enjoys a monopoly", could we change it to "Windows enjoys a debatable monopoly"? To me saying a near-monopoly is implying that it isn't a monopoly at all, and is close to becoming one, which isn't the case.
:In the case The US vs. Microsoft, MS was accused of abusing its "monopoly power", you are either a monopoly or you are not. I think saying "near monopoly" is less useful to the reader, DaveRocks should have properly explained his reasoning here when he reverted my edit, instead he assumed he was right and went right ahead. The same case has been brought against MS in the EU, again for abusing its monopoly. They have become the sole supplier of operating systems which thier own software, unless you include WINE. Therefore I think it should be stated as a monopoly. -- Tompsci 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Tompsci.  We should say that Microsoft does have a monopoly in the operating system market as far as consumers are concerned.  Only hard-core computer geeks actually go out of their way to compare and contrast features of Linux, MacOS and Windows when purchasing a new computer.  The vast majority of consumers just use Windows by default because it's what the computer comes with or it's what they need to run their favorite applications.  Of course, the situation is different in the corporate market, where corporations have armies of technicians to care for their Linux server farms. --Coolcaesar 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia must offer "politically neutral" texts. It is not a place for personal opinions. The position against Microsoft marketing strategies (being them good or bad, like the "borrowed from OpenVMS" citation) is evident, and are going fair away from the subject: Operating system. The "monopoly" attribution is quite a heavy and subjective adjective, very difficult to be proved (apart from a general sense of it... but passive as injury). Being it subjective, the conclusion (of monopoly) should be left to the reader and not "proposed" by the encyclopedia. So, probably the text should only make references to the participation of the Windows OSs in the market (maybe pointing to statistical resources) and nothing else. FredCK 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A monopoly is defined by various sources to be a sole supplier of a product or service, or have such market domination as to have price control over it.  Microsoft is in the second category, and can legitimately be said to have a monopoly.  Whether one thinks that MS has a monopoly or only a de facto monopoly depends on your definition of the term, so either one can be acceptable --Blainster 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows near monopoly?