Category talk:Operating Systems: Difference between revisions

(POSIX and Windows?)
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)
 
::The thing is, "Unix-like" covers a pretty wide variety of systems, many (most?) of which don't actually call themselves *nix systems (e.g. I don't remember Be Inc. ever actually referring to BeOS as Unix-like), while, for example, with DOS, there's not really such a thing as "DOS-like" -- if it's ''like'' DOS, it generally ''is'' DOS. (FreeDOS doesn't call itself "DOS-like", it's just another DOS.)
::''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)
 
: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)
 
::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)
1,150

edits