Category talk:Operating Systems: Difference between revisions
(Could be useful.) |
(POSIX and Windows?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Unix-Like Subcategory?== |
|||
Might it be worthwhile to add a "Unix-like" subcategory? The majority of OSs in use today (counting the number of systems available, not the number actually in use) are Unix-like to some degree: |
Might it be worthwhile to add a "Unix-like" subcategory? The majority of OSs in use today (counting the number of systems available, not the number actually in use) are Unix-like to some degree: |
||
*[[Linux]] |
*[[Linux]] |
||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
: Not that big of a problem, really. First, categories aren't mutually exclusive. You could move all of the members into "Operating Systems/All" and then tag them with additional categories like "Operating Systems/UNIX-like", "Operating Systems/VMS-like", "Operating Systems/DOS-like" as desired. Though if you wanted to do that, I'd suggest a requirement that a rationale or explanation be included in-page for, e.g. [[Windows 95]]. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) |
: Not that big of a problem, really. First, categories aren't mutually exclusive. You could move all of the members into "Operating Systems/All" and then tag them with additional categories like "Operating Systems/UNIX-like", "Operating Systems/VMS-like", "Operating Systems/DOS-like" as desired. Though if you wanted to do that, I'd suggest a requirement that a rationale or explanation be included in-page for, e.g. [[Windows 95]]. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 01:19, 31 October 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) |
|||
Revision as of 04:36, 31 October 2009
Unix-Like Subcategory?
Might it be worthwhile to add a "Unix-like" subcategory? The majority of OSs in use today (counting the number of systems available, not the number actually in use) are Unix-like to some degree:
...while the non-*nix systems (notably Windows) are in the minority (though with a majority of users).
Such a subcategory could be either a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. One Good Thing could be more precise grouping, allowing readers to see that some systems are more similar than others. Some Bad Things would be increased complexity, the need to edit all *nix pages to reflect the new cat, and perhaps a general "WTF?" from people that are truly unfamiliar with *nix systems. (The fact that I thought of 3x more Bad Things than Good Things in ten seconds is one of the reasons why I hesitate.)
Alternately, perhaps just a "Unix-like" page that explains what it is to be Unix-like, with appropriate links here-n-there (i.e. some of the more common *nix systems, POSIX, a few wp links for seasoning...) -- Eriksiers 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not that big of a problem, really. First, categories aren't mutually exclusive. You could move all of the members into "Operating Systems/All" and then tag them with additional categories like "Operating Systems/UNIX-like", "Operating Systems/VMS-like", "Operating Systems/DOS-like" as desired. Though if you wanted to do that, I'd suggest a requirement that a rationale or explanation be included in-page for, e.g. Windows 95. --Michael Mol 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- You would have to treat POSIX compliance carefully, as some versions of Windows add POSIX features, and the idea might be to separate Unix-like, from Windows. --Paddy3118 04:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)