Talk:Timeline of operating systems/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The Lisp Machine was a machine with a real operating system all its own. In fact, it was in many ways a very influential system, some of whose ideas have gone on to influence many other systems.

The earliest manual I have (the black "Chinual") is dated January 1979. I think the previous date given ('77) may be a bit too early - it is not exactly (albeit it is roughly) in accord with my memory, which is that the CADR came to life in '78 or so. (I was there the first time Moon tried to load the machine, and I only started hanging out at 545 Tech Sq in the fall of '77, and it wasn't right away that they got the CADR up.) Noel 15:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unreleased OSes

I already removed references to Windows Vista(listed under 2005!) once, 62.131.174.237 added it back, can we agree that we should not list unreleased systems(unles of historical interest maybe, but stuff that might(or might not) be released next year is hardly of historical interest... so I'm removing it again, if anyone disagrees please say why. Lost Goblin 02:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Releases and (Linux) Distributions

We really can't list linux distributions here, it would take more space than all the other OSes put together. The question is, how can we list Linux then? I think we should list the Linux Kernel instead, but then, that is not an OS.

Then there is the problem of what releases are major enough to warrant a new entry, point releases certainly don't deserve to be listed, but given the variety of release models, it's hard to set an standard. Anyone knows how it would be best to handle this? Lost Goblin 12:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Linux definatly also needs to be listed in a more notable way in there. Every version of Mac OS X is listed in there including minor version number changes. Either only place one version of each OS in there (so Mac OS only once in there just like Linux is now), or do it for every OS (so for example major kernel releases of Linux). Or make a graphical timeline where each OS has a bar over it's entire lifetime with release numbers in it.--Lodev 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Linux kernel is the OS. It is not a microkernel but a monolith kernel what is complete OS. It is just wrong public conclusion that linux is "just" a kernel and not OS. Read these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0130313580/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7158569-1619062#reader-link , http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf, You can even use your own basic logic with information what you can find on those links earlier with this http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.html . This says it all in simple way (what is borrowed from the first link): On top of the operating system is the rest of the system software. Here we find the command interpreter (shell), compilers, editors and similar application independent programs. It is important to realize that these programs are definitely not part of the operating system, even though they are typically supplied by the computer manufacturer. This is crucial, but subtle, point. The operating system is that portion of the software that runs in kernel mode or supervisor mode. Then it should be very clear to understand why the OS is called as Linux and not as GNU/Linux or Ubuntu or RedHat. We should include there all major Linux releases. Like 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. Untill next one 2.8 comes (or 3.0) 80.248.105.20 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Linux on its own timeline?

Maybe it's already in here, but that would be nice, it's just too damn hard to track down all the dates...

There is need to have the Linux (kernel) timeline. Because now the timeline is wrong when it includes RedHat and Ubuntu. There should be just the Linux (kernel) timeline because it is the operating system. And there is no need to have more specific dates than the date when it was started/published by Linus Torvalds, when 1.0, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 releases came out. Same thing is needed to do with Hurd, SunOS, XNU, NT, MS-DOS and many others, but Linux would be important to get correctly there and remove those Ubuntu and RH releases because the are not OS releases. 80.248.105.20 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Including mobile OSes?

I've noticed a number of missing systems, all of which could be considered influential: Newton OS (1993), EPOC (1989 for EPOC16/1997 for EPOC32) and symbian derivatives (starting 2000 for the first phone release, see the symbian os page for more dates), GEOS (1986 for the 8bit version), Windows CE and successors (Nov 1996 for v1.0).

All of these small (handheld) operating systems could be considered of growing importance as they take on more day to day functions for people in their phones.

As an aside, should the java platform (MIDP) be included? with the sophisticated applications available for it (eg. googlemaps, opera mini) over numerous appliances, it technically can't be considered an os as it doesn't run on bare metal (there are exceptions eg. kaffe on the OSkit), but in the eyes of most users it is indistinguishable from one as it is often the only way to extend the functionality of the device in question.

As an esoteric example, the POGO phone ran on a flash VM.

217.205.225.69 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows

Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.1 aren't operating systems and yes a graphical interfaces. It's run on MS-DOS operating system, it's application for DOS. Windows NT 3.1 and Windows 95 were the firsts de facto operating systems controlling hardware at low level. Microsoft Windows article itself confirms my sentence: Microsoft first introduced an operating environment named Windows in November 1985 as an add-on to MS-DOS in response to the growing interest in graphical user interfaces (GUIs). I'm removing those versions in the article right now. State here if you disagree. --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Kibbled bits (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that's splitting hairs. Is Linux (1991) a real operating system or is it just a kernel? Is GNU (1983) an operating system or is it just a compiler, a C library, some utilities and the bash shell? I'd say keep it as it is. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Is computer science and facts that what needs to be listened? If yes, then it is not splitting hairs, but just truth. http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.html 80.248.105.20 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.1 are not operating systems. --Marko75 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wither DrDOS/Caldera/OpenDOS

Entire thought contained in Title... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.61.66 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2000 onwards table.

Does anybody else feel that organising operating systems after 2000 into a table deviates from the layout of the rest of the article? My personal opinion is that it should be all tables, or no tables. --Wornwinter11 (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed should keep consitency also whats with the 2000-2005 or whatever should just mention the release year not the support period which in some cases is wrong too. --202.169.209.108 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Hat, Ubuntu, Linux, others

Why do Red Hat and Ubuntu get the special treatment and the rest of linuxes are in "others" section? BTW, I found only 2 collisions of Ubuntu and Red Hat to date. May be it would be better to switch to this instead:

Date Windows Mac BSD Linux Others
YYYY-MM Windows X Service Pack Y MacOS X 10.X OpenBSD X.Y Ubuntu X.YY
OpenSuSE XX.Y		 Haiku RX

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Linux distributions in the table

This topic was started previously several times and I want to start it again. Linux distributions are the distributions of the operating system called GNU/Linux, GNU+Linux or Linux. There are other Linux-based operating systems like Android, webOS and some more. As this timeline is about operating systems, the distributions of the same OS should not be here, IMHO. The remaining question is the versions of Linux (or GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux). I think the versions of Linux kernel will do. Any other opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Cleaned up the "Windows is a shell" garbage. I can start Linux from DOS using Loadlin, Linux isn't a shell. Netware starts from DOS, it is not a DOS shell. See "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew Schulman.

Issue of bootable and non-boot operating systems: Extended Firmware Interface (EFI) launching OS. ARC (Advanced Risc Computing) boot process for pre EFI systems uses System firmware interrupts as DOS does.

Missing some significant OS. Unix v6 was source documented by "Lion's Commentary" leading to Linux. Shjacks45 (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • While I disagree that Windows 1.0-3.11 are OSs (see GEM as another shell with exactly same properties including own executable formats), I think that this page must reflect positions of the corresponding articles, so I support Your edit.
  • What did You mean by "Issue of bootable and non-boot operating systems"? Do You consider EFI to be an OS?
  • Unix v6 is in the appropriate section (1970s, 1975, entry's name Sixth Edition Unix), as are Research Unixes v7, v8, v9 and v10...
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
1. Not included: UNIX System V release 4 was a major departure from Unix v7 and significant influence on future Unix versions such as Solaris. Unix v6 was important as the Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code, (the way I was taught), was the 'ancestor' of Linux. Unixes after v7, that is v8, v9 and v10 are relatively insignificant.
2. Not sure if you lack the computing background to understand my reference or the Wiki Shell (computing) article. "Undocumented DOS, 2nd edition," by Schulman, et al discusses DOS as a collection of software interrupts some from msdos.sys and most from system firmware. "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew Schulman discusses how these calls are redirected in Windows, FYI.
3. Some believe that non-bootable software cannot be an operating system. Windows cannot be an operating system because it is started in DOS. The Linux kernel therefore is also not an operating system because it must be started by DOS or another program like Grub.
4. I come from a time when the world had more than only one processor type. Simplifying, ARC was a method for non-x86 non-"real mode" CPUs (i476, MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha, AMD64) to boot in a real mode x86 environment using PC firmware interrupts (a la MS-DOS). This was slow for Itanium's 64bit only architecture, hence EFI. The Wiki Shell (computing) article lists EFI as a Shell.
5. Why 2 references to QNX?
6. Why a reference to "GNU"? All the rest of the entries are OS release dates; the GNU date refers to Stallman's plans for EMACS, a text word processing program he wrote.
7. Softlanding Linux System (SLS) (Vancouver, CA) predated Slackware and Debian
Shjacks45 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. Not sure that I get You right. Unix v6 is officially known as "Sixth Edition Unix" and is included. System N commercial releases of UNIX aren't included (except for SCO's and Microsoft's rebrandings).
  2. And so what? Do You understand the differences between Windows 3.11, Windows 95 and Windows NT 3.5? Are You sure that You actually know, what the shell is, and how it is different from OS?
  3. Again, are You sure You're familiar with the OS concept? All the modern OSs have a bootloader, be it ntldr for Windows NT series, grub, lilo, syslinux and many others for Linux and so on.
  4. And so what? This article is about operating systems, so regardless of the interpretation of EFI's role it's clearly out of scope here. Or may be You want to exclude MacOS X, Windows, Linux and BSDs because they can boot off EFI?
  5. Probably someone's mistake.
  6. The announcement of GNU operating system was posted on September 27, 1983.
  7. The question of whether Linux distributions should be mentioned here is discussed in section above.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Future(s)

Perhaps insert a link to VMs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines

Then fold in Vmware pre EMC and Post EMC and how ESX vs ESXi has changed the bootup OS so all follow on OS (Linux or Windows) is a guest going forward.

Hyper V is missing too, same note about boot up and shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.231.250 (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, especially with Vista, I agree that no up-and-coming oses should be allowed on here. Vista has been pushed back since what-it's original date of 2003? 217.205.225.69 (talk) 04:11, July 10, 2006‎ (UTC)

THE OS

Should THE OS be added? I'd say it is pretty significant. 64.213.223.99 talk 07:20, December 16, 2006‎ (UTC)

 Done. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates for missing operating systems?

Does anybody have dates (yy-mm) for these systems?

  • CDC
    • Chipewa Operating System (COS) (6600)
    • KRONOS (6x00)
    • MACE (6x00)
    • SOPE (6x00)
  • IBM
    • BPS/360
    • BOS/360
    • DOS/VSE
    • OS/VS1 Basic Programming Extension (OS/VS1 BPE)
    • VM/BSE (BSEPP)
    • VM/SE (SEPP)
    • VSE/AF
    • VSE/ESA
    • VSE/SP
    • z/OS
    • z/VM

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of operating systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we want all [portable] operating systems here? Looking for first (and last) non-C based one..

I just added PRIMOS as it's written in Fortran; that part (but not the assembly..) I guess could be portable.. [Do we want to include "Pr1mos" and/or "Pr1me" spellings?]

I found one (but not in Wikipedia), that explicitly says "portable" (not in the LiveCD-sense):

Thoth, a Portable Real-Time Operating System https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi08/cse221/papers/cheriton79.pdf

"This is a stack-oriented language derived from B [6], which is a descendant of BCPL [12]. As in BCPL" [I just scanned, interesting even if written in pre-C BCPL or B. Remember any others?]

I googled: portable operating systems -Linux -POSIX


lovelace-os – Ada based Unix like operating system.

Maybe Ada-based and/or non-C Unix are dime a dozen, but think not.. there is RedoxOS, where everything is an URL). Do we just add all (that I find notable) or draw the line at old ones and/or portable?

I would like to also have new[est] non-C operating system, if any with an interesting API (still in some use) exists, or C-based, just not "distros" of clones of the commons ones.

Does "Please do not add unreleased or "future" operating systems to this list even if the release date is confirmed by the developer." exclude OSes in development, that have some beta ("released"), or working open source code, e.g. Unix-compatible RedoxOS (while not still "bug compatible")? comp.arch (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

GEM

Why has GEM been removed from the timeline? It is at LEAST as important as Windows - can someone please re-add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.163.17 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Embedded

Hey, why smaller, "embedded" OSs are ignored? Maybe making a distinction between mainframe, desktop and embedded machines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.88.182 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Date for FORTRAN Monitor System (FMS)?

Does anybody know the date for FORTRAN Monitor System (FMS)? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't DESQview included in this?

Windows 1 to 3.11 all ran on top of DOS so why isn't DESQview included in this wiki??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.107.190 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Dates for CDC 6600 operating systems?

Does anybody have the dates for operating systems on the CDC 6600 and Cyber? 

  COS
  KRONOS
  MACE
  NOS
  NOS/BE
  NOS/VE
  SCOPE
  SIPROS Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Dates for CDC?

Does anybody have the dates for the Control Data 6600 operating systems:

  • SIPROS
  • COS
  • SCOPE
  • MACE
  • KRONOS
  • NOS

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Resource for IBM OS announcement information

IBM currently has announcements starting with 1981 at <https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/>. A lot of the important stuff is earlier than that, but it's a start. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Dates for 1410-PR-155 and 7040-PR-150?

Does anybody have the dates for 1410/7010 Operating System, 1410-PR-155, and IBM 7040/7044 Operating System (16/32K), 7040-PR-150? They should be sometime in the 1960s, later than IBSYS. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tle

G 2001:4451:185:4400:5DA7:BAAC:66B9:675D (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Burroughs MCP dates?

Does anybody have dates for the Burroughs Corporation Master Control Program (MCP) for the B5500, B5700 and the B6x00/B7x00 line? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_operating_systems/Archive_1&oldid=1221485611"