what is not a popular desktop operating system?

Question

e.mccormick · Answer

Well, if you know some that are, then what would not be on that list?  Any ideas?

dumbsearch2 · Answer

Elementary is a great, relatively unknown operating system. It's an Ubuntu derivative.

anonymous · Answer

Debian, Fedora, openSuse, Arch, Gentoo, Slackware

e.mccormick · Answer

Ah, but not one of those is an operating system.  All of them are simply distributions of an operating system.  When you add together all those distributions, it actually may qualify as popular.

anonymous · Answer

@e.mccormick, what are you talking about?! All of them a operating systems and distribution is an operating system! (Debian, Gentoo, Arch, Slackware are independent based systems). And the questions was "*not* popular system"! Read to what you reply and get your facts.

e.mccormick · Answer

@zlatandebian The operating system is the kernel.  What kernel do all of those share?  The fact that they are all the same kernel means they are all the same operating system.  This is why they are called distributions.

There are plenty of ones that re not popular. BSD, BeOS, FreeDOS, OpenVMS and so on.

A few try to blur the lines, such as the Android distribution, which is heavily optimized for ARM CPUs.  However, people have made an i86 build of that and shown that it is just a distribution, not an OS.

anonymous · Answer

@e.mccormick those that I mention are all Linux-based (Debian has also BSD kernel, Hurd kernel) operating systems so not calling them operating systems is not correct. Distributions are operating systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution so please read before you just post. And kernel is part of operating system, not operating system itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computing) and http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/K/kernel.html. Cheers

e.mccormick · Answer

1) Yes, it is more than a kernel.  I was oversimplifying there.  It is a kernel and basic interface, which usually means a CLI or GUI, but can mean as little as a terminal interface that run over remote.

2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Talk to someone with a PhD in computer science instead.  Show them my point of view on what an OS is and you will probably get a huge shock.  It is a valid definition of an OS.  Not necessarily the only definition, but it is valid.

3) Ask Linus Torvalds about it.  His argument would be on how far they have forked the kernel and whether or not that makes them a unique version of LINUX.  He probably would support your viewpoint in several of the larger forks.  That is the nature of debate.

The meaning of things is regularly argued.  For example, many people think that an Ethernet jack is an RJ-45 jack.  It is not.  The Registered Jack number 45 is an 8P8C telephony jack with a bridging resistor.  It was, long ago, defined by laws that called for the registration of all devices hooked to telephone networks.  Those laws are now defunct, but the terms stay behind.

Also, remember the Code of Conduct.  "Be Nice - I will stay positive, be friendly, and not mean."  Telling people they need to read dubious references before posting is not being nice.  Think about that before being snarky in posts.

anonymous · Answer

@e.mccormick The question was obvious from newbie in this category so your points are not going to be very helpful at this point. General definition of operating systems is enough to say that Debian is operating systemd (read on http://www.debian.org/), that Fedora is operating system ( http://fedoraproject.org/), that Slackware is operating system ( http://www.slackware.com/info/) etc. Sorry if my posts are "snarky" to you, but your aren't too much helpful for one moderator and if most of people (really good hackers) developing this distros called it operating system (which is very valid by most definitions) then your opinion with corner cases are not helping someone who just start learning about computing.

e.mccormick · Answer

It sounds like you are arguing that it is better for someone to get a bad or singular definition first and that clarifying that there are really multiples is something that should happen later. I have found that from a pedagogical standpoint, it is always better to get the facts out there first, then you are better able to understand the differences and issues between definitions. The fact is, the term operating system is abused. There is a baseline definition and other things have been added over time. If you go back to CP/M, ROM based systems running Z80 chips, older reel to reel system, and so on, you begin to find the origin of the term and what an OS really is. Mark Burgess ( http://markburgess.org/ ) once wrote: An operating system is a layer of software which takes care of technical aspects of a computer's operation. It shields the user of the machine from the low-level details of the machine's operation and provides frequently needed facilities. There is no universal definition of what an operating system consists of. You can think of it as being the software which is already installed on a machine, before you add anything of your own. Normally the operating system has a number of key elements: (i) a technical layer of software for driving the hardware of the computer, like disk drives, the keyboard and the screen; (ii) a filesystem which provides a way of organizing files logically, and (iii) a simple command language which enables users to run their own programs and to manipulate their files in a simple way. Some operating systems also provide text editors, compilers, debuggers and a variety of other tools. Since the operating system (OS) is in charge of a computer, all requests to use its resources and devices need to go through the OS. An OS therefore provides (iv) legal entry points into its code for performing basic operations like writing to devices. "You can think of it as being the software which is already installed on a machine, before you add anything of your own." is the point of view many take that leads them to feel that these things are operating systems. They see it as what comes with the computer or was installed, and call it an OS. What they are ignoring is if you strip it down to the basics. The "An operating system is a layer of software which takes care of technical aspects of a computer's operation. It shields the user of the machine from the low-level details of the machine's operation and provides frequently needed facilities." part. When you take everything off of Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, etc. that is in the packages and get down to just that, just the i, ii, and iii that is listed in thee above, they are essentially the same. Everything else that is added are tools and not really a part of the OS. This is the difference between an OS and a distribution. An OS is the aspects that take care of the basics, like LINUX, and all the tools you add on top to make it easier form distributions. As for the snarky part, it was your assumption that I had not read references on this topic and insisting that I read what academia agrees is one of the worst references as a starting point. And just because a hacker is claiming to have made an operating system does not mean they have.