Talk:List of disk operating systems called DOS

Order of lists

Are the article's two long lists meant to be presented in any particular order? The second one is close to being in alphabetical order, but the first one seems random, and neither is labeled. I'm going to fix the alphabetical order of the second list and label it as such, so that editors to follow don't have to wonder. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the first list is family tree-wise mostly chronological. Mostly, because there have been some parallel developments. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today, there are more than two lists but the intent of the question remains. The first list, about IBM PC compatible DOS variants is not alphabetical for one or two reasons. The first list is chronological based on initial release date. Also, the first list has MS-DOS and IBM PC DOS first bc they are head and shoulders more popular than any other DOS in that or other lists. The chronological order allows these important guys to be first while also having some order for all the items in that list ... albeit that other lists are different (alphabetical). I agree that the inconsistency might be confusing to the lay reader. And the info should be enhance so that the ordering is not so confusing.

In general list articles are hard to structure since the info is often not flat in nature. Often there are various ways to organize the info bc there are multiple dimensions that are relevant that make a single, flat, alphabetized list less than a good option. This article splits the info into sections by target hardware. But that's only one way to organize; one dimension.

To some extent, a list article is a database of info. Representing the info as a single table with categorization columns is an efficient and accurate way to represent the multidimensional aspects and some list articles do this. But that format is relatively hard for humans to read. Therefore list articles use other, more consumable formats... that inherently lead to structural challenges... just like the one noted. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is so special about a DOS named with DOS?

Why do we have an article for 'disk operating systems called DOS'? Why not just have a List of disk operating systems? What is so special about ones named with "DOS"?

Thing is, DOS is a slippery concept. It does expand to disk operating system (which is some form or part of operating system or something). It also is a nickname for any software that used DOS (in the context of disk operating system) in its name. I guess it's the second meaning that this article is about. But... what's in a name? Does the name of something automatically put it into the category of things that the name implies? ... no, it doesn't. If someone called a tuna fish sandwich TunaDOS it would not be a disk operating system. Also, if CP/M is a disk operating system, then it's a DOS ... even though its name does not contain "DOS". My point is that organizing info by name is pretty low value. It's higher value to categorizing things by their true nature. If it quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck ... or at least duck-like in a notable way.

What makes a disk operating system a disk operating system? It's not its name. Consider, this article says it's a list of disk operating systems named DOS. IOW, it is not a list of all things with DOS in the name. Somehow, we have selected things that are disk operating systems regardless of name while also excluding things that don't have DOS in the name. Therefore, there is way to determine whether something is a disk operating system regardless of its name.

IMO, this article should be renamed (reverted?) to List of disk operating systems and notable DOS variants that do not have "DOS" in the name should be added. There could be a note stating that most DOS variants have DOS in the name ... but not all.

This change fills a notable hole: what are the DOS variants without "DOS" in the name. And it's more consistent with List of operating systems.

TBO the only one I know for sure that fits this description is CP/M. I find some info that these fit as well: GS/OS, AmigaOS, OS-9 and FLEX (operating system). Stevebroshar (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]