View text source at Wikipedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operating systems template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I don't understand this part of the template:
Kernel:
General: Microkernel · Nanokernel
Types: monolithic · hybrid · exokernel
What is "general"? General kernel designs are microkernel and monolithic kernel. A hybrid would then be one that possesses qualities of both. Exokernel is orthogonally different design, but it either fits in one or the other category. Nanokernel is a microkernel even more miniaturized. So there are two basic designs. Considering that, what does the above "general" and "types" mean? --Paxcoder (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Nanokernel has been redirecting to Microkernel since 2008. Why is Nanokernel still listed as an architecture subtype when it is apparently not notable enough to get its own article? The Nanokernel-part of the Microkernel article looks a lot like a disambiguation-page; if Nanokernel doesn't even have a proper definition why does it count as a subtype? I suggest removing Nanokernel from the Operating system template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.70.160.55 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe long mode is more than prevalent to warrant its addition into the cpu modes field. (It is one after all!) Edit: After I get to 10 edits :p Added by Jon Weldon II: (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, May I Edit This? Thank You.
Folofolo jljj (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of operating systems includes Oberon and a large collection of other OSes. I understand it may look awkward to have such a long list under the "list" section of the template. However, as is, it is confusing and inadequate. Despite there is already a link on the left field to "list", there should also be a more... link at the end of the pseudo-full list that points to the true full list as well. Luggerhead (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As GNU is a software project, and GNU Hurd is the operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.183.105 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The one-word title "List" is ambiguous, but "List of operating systems" would surely seem redundant.
Consider one of the following:
List of software suites
Operating system suites
Joad Marshal (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Operating system has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.222.22.43 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Operating system has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| group1 = Architectures | list1 =
41.225.145.198 (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Operating system has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Real-time_operating_systems. Possibly under "Process Management" > "Concepts". 5.146.223.200 (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I cannot fathom why ORVYL is listed and, say, ITS is not. What are the criteria for being promoted from List_of_operating_systems to the list in this template? MatthewWilcox (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Articles are generally titled singular; categories and navboxes are generally titled plural. I'd move it myself, but there's no "Move" button. I'm sure someone before me would have too; same problem. Someone locked down this page in 2010 with "[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)". So sysop please move this page (over redirect). - A876 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Just plain atrocious, to be honest. Redundant links to the same systems, horrible organization, impossible to read bloat. This template is a disaster that needs a total overhaul purely for usability purposes. I would take the time, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the subject beyond common knowledge to edit it confidently. But it's plainly a mess as any reader can see, and thereby fails at aiding in navigation, the purpose of a navbox. I think that readers would be better served by a single link to a better-organized list article myself. oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TempleOS missing from the list 93.34.82.178 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)