Category talk:Operating Systems: Difference between revisions
→Unix-Like Subcategory?: only way to know for certain is to try.
(→Unix-Like Subcategory?: replies) |
(→Unix-Like Subcategory?: only way to know for certain is to try.) |
||
Line 16:
::''Probably'' this isn't worth doing as I first thought of it, but perhaps the various *nix pages could have some reference to their being Unix-like. (For example, the [[Linux]] page already says it's "similar to UNIX".)
::Or maybe I just didn't think this one all the way through... <nowiki>[shrug]</nowiki> -- [[User:Eriksiers|Eriksiers]] 03:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::: That's why requiring the rationale on-page is important. Given enough samples, the issue of what makes something "UNIX-like" in contributors' minds could be broken out into the individual or combinations of feature; A sort of iterative analysis that leads to better organization and categorization. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
:You would have to treat POSIX compliance carefully, as some versions of Windows [[wp:POSIX#POSIX_for_Windows|add POSIX features]], and the idea might be to separate Unix-like, from Windows. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Line 21 ⟶ 22:
::You can add POSIX features to any version of Windows you want, but I don't think ''anyone's'' gonna call Windows "Unix-like". ;-)
::If my suggestion is carried out -- and it might not be a Good Thing, dunno -- there would have to be some clarifying text explaining the diff between "Unix-like" and "POSIX-compliant". -- [[User:Eriksiers|Eriksiers]] 03:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::: And the difference between "POSIX-compliant" and "implements POSIX component X". A system might support rules related to filesystems, but not to threads, for example.
::: As for whether or not it's a good idea, the only way to know for certain is to try. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||