how many operating systems exist?

A

ar09

Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
584
besides linux (and all editions), windows and the mac os. how many os'es do exist?
 
Probably more than what's on that list. There's people coming out with new variations of Linux all the time.

(Which IMO is why it never gains market share. Instead of focusing efforts on one big collaborated Linux distro, everyone just creates their own).
 
TechieSooner said:
(Which IMO is why it never gains market share. Instead of focusing efforts on one big collaborated Linux distro, everyone just creates their own).
Click to expand...

There are many collaborated efforts....but the people targeted by those efforts aren't typically in mass markets.
 
Most of those in that list are probably text based/command line and of those, probably embedded OSes into PoS hardware, etc.
 
thanks.

is windows 7 the most sophisticated os?

any os recommendation i can download and test in my laptop? linux or not.
 
Last edited:
/freebsd-custom.wikidot.com/. Cannot suggest it without suggesting
checking all my other posts containing "bsd" for missing informations
one would want to jot down before install.
I usually shrink-after-double-defrag the existing c:\ drive, backing it up
if it is important, installing a dual boot manager like GAG or BootIt.
 
TechieSooner said:
Probably more than what's on that list. There's people coming out with new variations of Linux all the time.

(Which IMO is why it never gains market share. Instead of focusing efforts on one big collaborated Linux distro, everyone just creates their own).
Click to expand...

Thats teh thing tho
Fundamentally they are all the same - esp since the kernel/glibc and a few other key packages went to faster incremental releases as opose to a year or so between releases a few years back. it was these two things that caused distro's to drift apart w.r.t. API and such, no longer the case

Practically there is only a few base distro's (RedHat,Slackware,Debian,Gentoo,LFS) and the actual difference between them is pretty much downto package manager, default installed packages and config files.

Everything else is just derived work and in short can be ignored.

Back in kernel-2.4.* and early 2.6.* days yes the behaviour of a 3rd party binary package might not work the same across different distro's but that changed a couple of years back - sure one distro may install a certain package and another might not BUT that is where packagekit comes in.
It really isn't as doom and gloom as you make out

Sure there are a million and one linux distro's but have you actually gone and examined why someone made a particular derived distro? each have a specific task (which you could get to from say... an Ubuntu install with some post-install configuration).

Binary program makers for linux either write their code proporly and list the core sys dep (min kernel version, min glibc version) or they target a specific distro like RedHat.

If an app works on one distro it will work on the others
ergo the fact that there are a million and one linux distro's out there is a moot point
 
Last edited:
Lepke said:
OS List
Click to expand...

all I did is coping one of them (Kylin ) to Google :(

China has developed its own operating system for cyber war with U.S.
Click to expand...

2s8fd5e.jpg
 
I challenge this list... they break out Windows 2000/2003 and 2008 but they just list "Windows NT" straight up. BAH!

heh and yeah never heard of much of the other ones aside from the usual.
 
Grimmda said:
I challenge this list... they break out Windows 2000/2003 and 2008 but they just list "Windows NT" straight up. BAH!

heh and yeah never heard of much of the other ones aside from the usual.
Click to expand...

Ummm... That's actually accurate.
NT
2000
2003
2008

The server lineup.
 
There was as big a difference between NT 3.5 and NT4 as there was between 2000 and 2003...

Thats all I'm saying
 
True, but I'd really just classify NT4 as the first real server OS that was worth a darn, and in a big way.
 
They also only have ONE MS-Dos on there... and as anyone over 25years of age knows, there were MANY versions of MS-Dos....

They are also missing Windows 3.11... the list sucks.
 
QwertyJuan said:
They also only have ONE MS-Dos on there... and as anyone over 25years of age knows, there were MANY versions of MS-Dos....

They are also missing Windows 3.11... the list sucks.
Click to expand...

:) Well, I think it'd come down to also drawing a line. Because how many builds of a distro get done? What would you consider one version and another?
 
TechieSooner said:
:) Well, I think it'd come down to also drawing a line. Because how many builds of a distro get done? What would you consider one version and another?
Click to expand...

So you consider 2k and XP different versions of Windows but MS-Dos 1.0 and 6.22 are not different versions of Dos??

P.S. Even from Dos 5.0 to 6.22 there were major differences....
 
ar09 said:
thanks.

is windows 7 the most sophisticated os?

any os recommendation i can download and test in my laptop? linux or not.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you would define as "sophisticated," but 7 is shaping up to be a very good OS.

Start with Ubuntu if you want to mess around with something free and different.
 
QwertyJuan said:
So you consider 2k and XP different versions of Windows but MS-Dos 1.0 and 6.22 are not different versions of Dos??

P.S. Even from Dos 5.0 to 6.22 there were major differences....
Click to expand...

Not at all.

However Ubuntu 6.10 to 6.20, or 6.0 to 7.0, what do you call "major" enough to go on the list?

My thoughts were Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.11, I wouldn't exactly lob that into separate categories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top