Talk:Operating system advocacy

Baylink's edit problem

Clearly, the wiki engine and Konueror 3 have *major issues* with one another, and I can't see how to revert. If I don't figure it out before then, could someone kindly wipe my butt for me, here? --Baylink 01:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Solaris hardware

The following was removed from Solaris Anti:

Only runs on Sun hardware, which remains expensive for its performance.

\ Wrong. The Solaris™ Operating Environment runs on x86 hardware. --Damian Yerrick

Jeronimo

The only part of this article that could possibly be in an encyclopedia is the first section, but only if this indeed is a "popular pastime" (apparently...). The rest of the article is not useful at all. Just listing some (random) pros and cons of some operating systems. It would be better to compare the objective properties of these OSes against other on their individual pages. --Jeronimo

Agree, this page could turn users of different OS's against each other and hence become a flamewar between users. Since this is a Wiki, it would have to be _VERY_ accurate and up to date.

Next/Open Step

I guess no-one uses NeXTStep? --Liftarn

I use OPENSTEP...? --Dysprosia 11:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

":You don't know. Because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The OS exists, so there most certainly exists a user too. --Liftarn

Lack of references

I could accept the pro & cons section if references were supplied to verify that these opinions are held by people other than the author of this article. Also, it should be more explicitely stated that these are opinions held such-and-such subset of people. If these are opinions held by computer experts writing for wide-distribution magazines they are more relevant, if not more correct, than opinions held by random people ranting on personal websites. --Anonymous

I don't think this affects the thrust of your point, Anon Poster, but actually, there is little or no evidence to demonstrate that the opinion of "computer experts writing for wide-distribution magazines" is worth the paper it's written on. Most of the computer trade press is appalling, and the non-specialist press is worse. As a 25-year veteran of the computer industry, I have to cast my mind way back to recall the days when the English-language trade press was generally decent. I have long since stopped being shocked at the levels of ignorance and incompetence displayed in the computer press, let alone the sheer commercial bias that is imposed from on high as a matter of routine. There are trustworthy sources, most of them on-line, but they are very few and far between. --Tannin 00:42 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

The average geek who edits on Wikipedia would know more about computer technology than the average writer for the average computer magazine. Qualifications and employment positions don't count for much when it comes to competency in the computer industry. --Crusadeonilliteracy 06:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Praise

Very nice, succint views of the pro's and cons. While not referenced, these are about as mainstream as all the arguments I've come across one way or the other, and are nicely put without an emotional overtone. After reading this, I think I'll try to get an old 6115 to run Linux now, as soon as a final OS 9 legacy app is ported to OS X. --Kd4ttc 02:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Linux, wheel, root

There is no question that Linux is less secure than traditional Unices. Linux was deliberately designed so that anyone can su to root if they have the root password [1] (http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/coreutils_149.html). In traditional Unices, even *if* you have the root password, you can only su to root if you are in the wheel group. Unless you can convince Stallman to support a wheel group, Linux can never be as secure as a traditional Unix.

Darrien 19:07, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Ok, you have a good point, if in fact no linux distro has the wheel group implemented, and have now backed up the assertion with a source. I believe the above should be noted in the article, or else it is an unsubstantiated (in the article) and potentially very contentious argument.

I really don't see why it should be substantiated in the article, seeing as how nothing else in the article has been. If you want to add a link or write a short explanation, I can't stop you, this is a wiki after all.

But even to leave it the way it is, you need to be sure that no linux has the wheel group implemented or else your statement in the article is still unsupported, unless you have something else.

I have no intention of researching potentially thousands of Linux distributions. I have made my assertation and backed it up with a fact. If you still wish to find a fault with my statement, it is up to you to do so.

The difference is that your point violates NPOV (meaning difference between you needing to back up your point in the article and not)

Why is it that only my point violates the NPOV, while others in the article do not?

I didn't say others do not. But most of the others are at least phrased in the form of "many assert..." and variants of that, instead of claiming absolute fact on a contended point. There are many POV points in the article, and all need to be fixed.

unless the facts backing it up are stated with it.

They are stated here.

And need to be in the article or else the statement as it stands violates NPOV. Besides the lack of the wheel group is one relatively small issue, and using it to declare an entire operating system is less secure due to it is a tenuous argument.

How so?

If you have the root passwd, you can login as root whether you are in the wheel group or not.

In traditional Unices, you can completely disallow root logins, and only allow users to su to root. Is Linux incapable of this security feature too?

No, it's called /etc/securetty. I've added a # on each line with sed :)

And that makes su (and the wheel group) a non factor at that point. Therefore the absence of the wheel group is not the single largest security factor. It is certainly not large enough to make the lack of it cause an entire os to be less secure a priori, and all else being equal, which is what your statment without qualifiers means.

That is absurd. Less is less.

And that the facts you're using to back it up may not even be true.

You don't seem to understand how debates work. I presented a statement, you challenged the validity of my statement, I backed it up. If you still wish to challenge it, then it is up to you to do so. However, I will not accept my statement as invalid if the only evidence you can provide is an obscure Linux distribution. You must consider Linux as a whole, otherwise, I could remove several of the Microsoft points from the article, as they are no longer valid against the newer, NT based kernels. We must still take into account the numerous Windows 9x installations.

You're missing the point. its not about having a better debate, its about having an 'article' that moves closer to NPOV on a contentious topic. I repeat, as it stands in the article, it violates NPOV.

It does not violate the NPOV because it is true. It may or may not be a minor point, but less is less. For example: One pound of lead weighs less than any amount of lead greater than one pound. Whether or not it weighs less by one nanogram, one milligram, one gram, or one ton compared to another block of lead, is irrelevant.

That is what means you need to back it up or stop reverting it. --Taxman 03:11, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I already have, it is now up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

No, you did nothing to back it up in the article, which if NPOV is important, is the only place that it matters if it is backed up or not. --Taxman 05:26, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Very well, I have done so.

Darrien 07:51, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Darrien 04:55, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

AFAIK, RedHat Enterprise Server _does_ use a wheel group.

Also, I reallize I should have brought this up here first rather than reverting. Sorry. As a side note, what is Stallman thinking in that essay? Availability of the wheel group does not mean you have to use it. --Taxman 17:07, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Darrien 19:03, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

I've changed it to specifically say "GNU su", rather than "Linux" per se. --David Gerard 16:32, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is not at all a flaw in Linux, moreso a flaw of the system. Also, remember that systems that have extra security added (those with RSBAC or SELinux for example) can allow or deny the use of su, wheel group or not.

Am I missing something here? If the 'wheel group' is a list of people who can run 'su', then can't you achieve an identical result with 'chgrp wheel /bin/su', 'chmod g+x,o-x /bin/su'? --Wisq 16:09, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

report on OpenBSD scalability

Darrien, that the report was biased (and I agree) doesn't change that it was used in advocacy. As such, it needs to be listed. Reread NPOV until you get this.

I already have, perhapys you should tell me how I am violating the NPOV?

Deleting an example of advocacy you personally didn't like, rather than e.g. noting its inadequacies. Did you notice the name of the article you were doing this on? This article is not about the facts; it's about the advocacy.

You should also read original research - Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a primary one.

Please tell me how I am violating this as well.

The bit about how something being true isn't actually enough reason to include it - you need documentation as well.

You claim to have a current Rosegarden running on FreeBSD and insist on it therefore being mentioned. That's more than the developers have managed. --David Gerard 22:34, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Rosegarden article is acceptable to me as it is now. If you want to discuss it, please do so on its talk page.

(I am far from a Linux advocate. The thing pisses me off mightily (see Talk:XScreenSaver).

What is wrong there?

Please document what makes you think I'm a Linux advocate.) --David Gerard 09:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You remove any reference to "Unix-like" on the grounds that because the developers only support Linux, only Linux should be mentioned.

You are unwilling to compromise, reverting instead of attemping to provide something both of us can agree on.

You claim that because other Unix-like operating systems are less well known, they deserve no mention, even when it is more accurate to do so.

Darrien 22:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If something's developed for Linux and not for other platforms, then it's developed for Linux.

Which I'm keeping in the article.

If it can be cajoled into running on FreeBSD (this typically involves installing a pile of Red Hat RPMs)

I am not changing articles where the application can be emulated on FreeBSD, only when it will natively compile on FreeBSD.

that's nice for the user, but it's not the target platform,

I am not claiming that its target platform is different. I am adding the fact that it runs on platforms other than the one it is targeted to.

It's not a supported platform and to phrase it as if it were would be grossly misleading.

How is something like "It is developed for Linux, but also runs on other Unix-like platforms" misleading?

e.g. Oracle for Linux runs on FreeBSD,

Through emulation, not as a native application.

but listing FreeBSD as a platform would be grossly misleading as if you run it on that you can kiss meaningful support goodbye.

Running a product in emulation mode or on a compatibility layer is pretty much entirely at the user's risk; saying "it runs on" misleadingly implies a greater level of developer support than is the case (usually zero).

See above: I am not changing articles where the application can be emulated on FreeBSD, only when it will natively compile on FreeBSD.

I do not remove any reference to "Unix-like"; I do remove it when the damn software is developed for Linux and not supported by the developers elsewhere.

Why? You are removing relevant information from an encyclopedia.

"X is developed for Linux" does not mislead the reader,

Yes it does. X is not developed for Linux, it is developed for Unix. To say otherwise would be wrong. Linux didn't even exist when X was created.

and does not claim it cannot be run elsewhere.

If it were developed for Linux, what is wrong with noting that it will compile and run on other systems?

--David Gerard 22:34, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Darrien 22:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OS X

I removed this:

With OS X Apple effectively alienated and abandoned many long-time users, and advocates

What is the evidence? It's true that so far only 50% of Mac OS 9.x or earlier users have so far switched, or at least appear to have done, based on installed base numbers. However, to say they've been abandoned is untrue - Mac OS X can run older apps in a compatibility layer - if this had not been provided then yes they could have been said to be "abandoned". Also, who is to say that these users will not move to OS X in the future? Maybe they are waiting for the next hardware upgrade - there is substantial anecdotal evidence for this, especially when the relatively long lifetimes of Mac hardware is considered. The argument FOR this assertion would be if former Mac owners were switching to other OSes instead of OS X, but again there is no evidence for this at this stage. --Graham 02:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I could also have mentioned that most key apps from 9.x or earlier are now available in OS X versions, so there is no "abandonment" from that angle either. In fact, I really don't know what "abandon" could possibly mean in this context. Maybe the original author could explain? --Graham 02:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added the note that legacy application upgrade price was a factor for many users. I've run into this personally, often, especially for users of high-end software. Users don't seem to realize that software vendors depend on continuing upgrade fees to stay in business, and the OSX transition was another opportunity to charge an upgrade fee, regardless of the level of difficulty of porting the application; I'd also argue that with most of the GUI-intensive applications, porting was non-trivial and most likely worth the upgrade fee. On the other hand I've been buying high-priced Microsoft Office upgrades for years, and have rarely gotten much benefit from the new versions aside from continuing compatibility. --user:justfred 10:41 19 Mar 2005

And by the way, added the argument about stolen software. In real-life examples, this is often the reason I find that people choose Windows - more software available to steal from friends. People believe that they have to pay for the hardware but think that the software should be free. Which means they really should be using Linux and OSS but it's easier to just steal commercial software. And easy enough to get away with. --user:justfred

Non-Apple OS X

Mac OS X does NOT just run on Apples. There are alternatives, based on the PPC arch that will also run it just fine. Also, having less software written for OSX is not really a problem. All the nice apps that run on GNU/Linux distros also work with OSX. Actually, a lot of well-supported FLOSS apps run fine. There are even special repositories. Also, for businesses there's FileMaker Pro and others from the same firm of which I have yet to see a Windows version.

And moreover: you don't buy a mac to run Windows software on it. Just because you know a lot of Windows programs doesn't mean OSX equivalents don't exist.

There are still alternative PPC architectures that run OSX? Please show me which section at Fry's I can buy these. And for me, lack of software is a problem. I love my Mac, but most of the good mapping software doesn't run on it. Jeppeson (aviation charts) doesn't support the Mac. Garmin doesn't. So I can't use my iBook as a moving map in the plane, I have to use a Windows tablet. I blame this on the software companies not making databases that will can be used on other platforms (they don't support Linux either). As far as databases, that's what I do (to pay for flying). And despite how I hate M$ - Access is a damned good product, and a good introduction to "real" SQL. 4D was as well, but it was outrageously expensive. Filemaker is pretty and easy to use, but every time I've tried it it was lacking in SQL features "More filling, less great" so to speak. Of course now I use mysql on OSX so it's less of a problem. And I design my apps to run in a browser and be platform-agnostic (even PHP and mysql will run on Windows, I hear). --user:justfred (P.S. I'm now running WAMP for my development server and it's great.)

Mac pirated software

Someone else removed this:

"* Less availability of unauthorized software - more pirated software is available for Windows; this is often a consideration for users who intend to steal software from friends."

I still strongly believe that this is one of the "cons" for OSX - and one of the reasons people don't buy it. Many, many people know they have to buy hardware but think it's just fine to steal whatever software they need - Office, Photoshop, etc. etc. - and if they have a buddy with the software, they just saved several hundred dollars. (I would also argue that OSX users have more of a vested interest in having Mac software companies succeed, so tend to steal less because of that, but that's another issue; although conversely some rationalize stealing Microsoft products because they're evil anyhow, etc. etc.). But that said, I'm not going to put it back and get in a war over it since I don't know a reference to back me up. --user:justfred

I would just assume that is a natural consequence of having less software, so doesn't need mentioning. And really, how many people base their decision on solely pirated software? I find that rather difficult to believe- I'd think they'd base it on what they already know, what regular software is available, and what hardware will work with it. --maru 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Windows

In the cons section:

Feature limitations - what limitations? Specify exactly. There are some things Windows is better at, some it is worse at. All OSes are the same in this regard, therefore they all suffer "feature limitations" in some form or another.
Primary applications from Microsoft discourage third-party alternatives, either by their quality, their ability to create lock in, or both - I don't debate lock in, it may well be so, but how is it a con that Microsoft discourages third-party alternatives by creating quality software, as this clearly states?
Software may contain spyware, adware or similar, which are often referred to as malware, or "bad software". - Malware can target other OSes. Also, this "con" suggests that Windows is malware. --TPK 10:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should be more neutral. However, regarding malware, I think that's a legitimate con - malware COULD target other OSes, but in practice it invariably targets Windows. That makes Windows less attractive as a system; hence, it's a genuine con. --Graham 05:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

how is it a con that Microsoft discourages third-party alternatives by creating quality software, as this clearly states?

You have got to be kidding.

Feature limitations: Yes, Windows is not flexible at all. And they make sure of it in the EULA. Of the 1GB in a clean, fresh install of Windows XP, how many programs can you actually use? And how does it compare to a GNU or BSD system with the same amount of disk space used in a clean, fresh install? And why is it, that all the apps that are written for BSD / GNU need much more porting work for Windows? They all need cygwin, to implement things Windows doesn't have by itself.

And moreover, why is it that for instance users of SuSE, Mandrake or Debian don't need to install extra add-on software that doesnt come with the OS, while almost every single Windows user *needs* extra software that didn't come with the OS?

About primary applications: Everyone who used KDE knows that KMail and Konqueror integrate into their desktop better then Evolution and Epiphany. And vice versa, under Gnome, the latter two are a much better choice. And under Windows, it's basically the same thing. The only difference is that Microsoft is a huge corporate entity, and both Gnome and KDE are not.

Also, this "con" suggests that Windows is malware.

If it can deliberately fail to function with competitive programs (which it can), then yes, some people could classify it as malware, but that's not really the point. Actually, this falls under the consequences of bad security practices.

Contradiction?

How does Windows have vulnerabilities fixed faster but slower fixes for security risks? Is that contradictory or am I missing something? --64.219.252.195 12:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hopelessly NPOV

This article is a mess. I think the arguments should be deleted, they can't be NPOV, because people will constantly change the other sides arguments. --Anonymous

Appearances

I removed this:

Most software makes use of a fairly consistent user interface, easing the process of getting up to speed with a new program (although almost all OSes do this, this is helped by the ubiquity of the Windows OS).

On today's Windows desktop, almost all applications come with their own skinning support. Even MS-Office now has a skin of it's own. Not to mention the anti-spyware beta, MSN Messenger, MSN Explorer, System Recovery, Windows Media Player... And third party apps like Trillian, iTunes & Quicktime, RealPlayer, Norton * and * antivius, WinAmp, the list goes on and on.

As opposed to the major GNU/Linux distributions where they even managed to make KDE and Gnome apps look similar.

You're not serious. Gnome and KDE look very little alike, and are really easy to customize. Other window managers are even more divergent- try comparing blackbox with Enlightenment. --maru 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I *am* serious! Windows has only one shell, and even on Ubuntu, you can install many different desktops/window managers. Thats not fair now, is it? So you can't compare that way. It doesn't say much about the OS except that it's more modular and suitable for very specific needs.

Also, I removed this:

Largest range of hardware, though all hardware is not guaranteed to work with all other hardware.

Because today's version only run on x86 and some embedded devices. Like if there aren't any other architectures, c'mon! This would be true for NetBSD.

Longer operating lifetime?

Macintosh machines DO NOT have a longer operating lifetime than x86 boxen.

I've got a PowerMacintosh and a Thinkpad made in the same month. The TP is running XP pretty well, still usuable for web surfing, using OpenOffice, etc

The PowerMacintosh has System 8.6 on it, doesn't even run 9.2.x. No recent software, slow as muck

They have a SHORTER usable lifetime than Intel boxen. --Kiand 21:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which model Power Macintosh? --AlistairMcMillan 22:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very late model Power Macintosh 5400/180, AKA Performa 5400/180. The Thinkpad is an early TP600.

First of all from the get-go, I admit it... I'm an Apple apologist.

According to IBM, the TP 600 has either a 233, 266 or 300 mhz processor. That just scrapes under the minimum requirements for running XP, so I think "running XP pretty well" might be exaggerating a wee bit.

192MB of RAM, 266 processor - takes a while to start but when its going, it runs well. Runs BeOS excellently. --Kiand 10:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OS 9.2 will install on your 5400. It takes a wee bit of work: http://www.os9forever.com/os9helper.html. But then you must have lots of free time waiting for your Thinkpad to respond to mouse clicks or keyboard strikes. :) --AlistairMcMillan 00:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Anyway I think the longer lifetime comment is referring to Macs generally lasting longer before some critical hardware failure. You may not have anything interesting to run on them, but they do keep ticking. :) --AlistairMcMillan 00:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It also depends which machines you compare. My gf bought a Dell laptop the same time I bought an iBook in 2001. I still use my iBook daily and have no immediate plans to replace it, she had to get a new machine last year. However, these are only anecdotes, they are not "evidence". I think studies do show a generally longer lifetime for Macs, though I don't have a link to back that up right now. --Graham 01:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but the Dell probably cost a thousand dollars less? I'm comparing price-like with price-like on the 5400/TP600 - both cost around £2000 in Ireland at the time. --Kiand 10:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was cheaper for sure, but not that much cheaper. Specwise I believe they were broadly comparable. The iBook isn't a very expensive machine really (I paid about £1100 GBP IIRC) - maybe you thought I meant the Powerbook? I will admit though that one reason my iBook is still doing daily duty is that I upgraded the hard disk to a more useful capacity, and performed a handy mother board hack that boosted its bus and CPU speed to a point where it will run OS X without effort. Obviously most users would not have done this, and prior to the mod running OS X was a bit trying. --Graham 10:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe the evvidence is anecdotal. For my anecdote, I've used a x86 box for 5 years before upgrading (1998-2003) without trouble. Is there a study saying x86s have a shorter lifespan out there? I ask also because of all the reports of Microsoft having great difficulty in convincing business to upgrade software (and hardware) from Windows NT4, released in 1996 (see Microsoft Monitor (http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/005626.html).

I run OS9.2 on a lot less (166MHz, 64MB RAM)

Portability dispute noted

A recent edit by MatthewWilcox added a link that disputes the claim that NetBSD runs on the most architectures. The link is a bit spurious for a few reasons:

the link is to the "linux kernel monkey log" clearly a biased site and clearly not an independently verified, reliable one.
the claim it makes is not based on any count of the architectures
a quick count of the architectures on the linked pages with a very generous counting of the linux architectures gives Linux 46 while a straight count of the NetBSD site shows 55.
No attempt is made to reconcile the difficulty of counting the architectures. What is considered a different architecture? The count of 46 for linux above includes 11 for MIPS, one for every MIPS processor number listed while they would be difficult to be considered all different architectures. Many of the listed NetBSD ports support quite a number of different processor models also. Even then, it is possible that Linux does support more architectures under some definition of that word, but the linked article does only a very poor job of supporting that claim.

I didn't want to be rude and revert the edit, but unless we have a better source for the dispute, it should be taken out. --Taxman 21:14, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me a message about this. I started writing a web page (http://www.wil.cx/matthew/netbsd_vs_linux.html) about the dispute but got bogged down in other things. This prompted me to finish the first section (comparison by processor family).

I don't think the dispute is really discussed anywhere as it's not a terribly important reason to choose one OS over another. But the claim by NetBSD advocates that it's most portable is not clearly a fact. The page history shows someone reverting a note that Linux had outported NetBSD, so I decided to be neutral and merely note that it was disputed.

Do you think it's worth an article on Wikipedia in its own right? I'm perfectly happy to engage in a discussion about this here if you prefer. --MatthewWilcox 22:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it's worth a separate article in its own right on wikipedia, but possibly valuable on the linux or NetBSD pages themselves. Others may disagree of course. But I do strongly feel it should have a quality source or not be included. Then again almost everything on this page would be removed if we held that standard. Your page, now that I see it is much better than the one linked to, but (and no offense meant) is also far from an independently verified source. Have you had someone knowledgeable about NetBSD look over your page? From the little I know the claim NetBSD has is that is is much better organized towards portability. In other words it is easier to port to a new architecture. I could be wrong, but I understand it is much more work to port linux to a new architecture, because it is not organized to make that task easier. --Taxman 00:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Market share percentages

I think the Windows (90%) one is correct, but I think that MacOSX is at 10% is an overestimate, especially since I saw a reliable report recently that said by mid-2005 Linux would rise to over 5% and surpass Macs in marketshare, which wouldn't this mean that Macs are on the verge of dipping below 5%? And YES, I know I'm being picky and pouring salt on open sores but.... --naryathegreat 03:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

vfd

This article was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Operating system advocacy. --Joyous 18:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

And just to continue this discussion, I think this is a good opprotunity to try for NPOV anyhow. I know my platform biases; but I also know the arguments against them. I believe I can write from NPOV of the generally accepted advantages and disadvantages of systems that I know well (specifically in this case, Mac). But this is also why I tend to include comments explaining the edit/note if necessary. I don't like to fan flame wars but at the same time misinformation or lack of information bothers me more than admittedly biased information. --user:justfred

IBM XenixI, MS XenixII, SCO XenixIII, SCO Unix/Open server, AT&T Unix && Univel && Novell Unixware 1,2 && SCO Unixware 7

I am thinking about adding some content here over the next month.... suspect this (might be) kind of info is sensitive in light of SCO's dirt position in the market I should at least say hi to you guys before I start. For the record I use FC2 daily, but have some SCO Unixware kicking around. It's not bad for 1998 technology. Any hints before I start? I'll give a good read of all your posting to make sure I fit historical in with current, and posted in with unposted. Cheers... --user:NevilleDNZ

Well, consider whether they are still alive- I think it is a reasonable criterion to limit the list to only those OS's which are still viable. I'm afraid I've never heard of any of those, but your comment about 'not bad for 1998' makes me wonder whether the OS's are still being worked on. --maru 15:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Could be either" sections

I find the "Could be either" sections make the information less accessable compared to simple pro/con structure. They also seem poorly written: in "which Windows and Macintosh GUI users may find cumbersome", naming GUI users' OSs seems irrelevant, suggesting that they may have trouble on the basis of their previous OS seems to break NPOV. I propose that these two sections be split into: Pros: Text file and CLI application based configuration allow settings to be changed more easily and without requiring a GUI to be loaded. Cons: The primary means of configuration, text files and CLI applications, is unintuitive, although GUI configuration tools are often avaliable.

Im new to wiki, is it better that I open my proposal to discussion before editing a controversial topic like this, or is the perferred method to just edit now and justify it later if required?

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Operating_system_advocacy"