Template talk:Infobox OS

"Available in" (language) link should probably go somewhere else

Currently it links to Natural language which is the neuropsych/linguistics term that basically just refers to human languages. That's a relatively niche article and it should probably link to either Language, or Internationalization and localization, or to nothing at all. Alpyne (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alpyne:  Done I have removed the link altogether, as it is an Easter Egg no matter what it links to, and should be re-labeled (see below). — HTGS (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Label name for "Available in"

I propose we rename this label "Languages" or "Languages supported". I don't think this particular field is that suitable for the infobox, but it should not be marketing jargon, even if we want to avoid the confusion between computer and human languages. I think "Languages" is fine, but if anyone's feeling particular, we could easily use "Human languages supported". — HTGS (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

(I say "I propose", but really I'm only looking for objections. If you see a problem with this idea, please say so, or I will just change it.) — HTGS (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Like you said, "language" in a software infobox implies a programming language; at the same time, "human language" sounds awkward and unnecessarily wordy. The current use of "available in" is consistent with other infoboxes such as {{Infobox software}} and {{Infobox website}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't introduce ambiguity; either keep as available in or change to natural language. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I’m a little surprised by both responses. The phrase “available in” is far more ambiguous than “language”. Worth remembering that both of these labels are in some sense meaningless without the parameter content, but the label doesn’t display without the content anyway. — HTGS (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Editors are expected to reference the template documentation before filling out the parameter, if they are unfamiliar with what is supposed to go in there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I am concerned with the reader, not the editor. — HTGS (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

"Platform" vs "Instruction Set Architecture"

The "Platform" field seems to be used more or less exclusively to refer to the supported instruction set architectures (ISAs). I think it would be more clear if the field was labeled "Architectures" or "ISAs", since "platforms" is a more ambiguous term - out of context, "what platform does [OS] run on" might get answers like "embedded and mobile" or "consoles and TVs" whereas "what ISAs does [OS] support" is very clear-cut. DeklinCaban (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There's "platform" as in "general type of device" ("embedded and mobile", "consoles and TVs", "tablets", "smartphones", "servers", "desktops/laptops" etc.), there's "platform" as in "system architecture" ("IBM-compatible PC", various attempts to duplicate that platform for non-x86 processors, etc.), and there's "interaction set architecture". The first one is already handled by "marketing target" and the second one may or may not apply. As such, renaming it to "Instruction set" or "Instruction set architecture", with "instruction sets" as the parameter name and "supported platforms" kept as an alias so we don't need to change all of them at once. Guy Harris (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Guy Harris Could you please confirm you haven’t added |instruction sets= or |instruction set= to any articles, and then remove those alternatives? The parameters should be snake case (|instruction_sets= or |instruction_set=), per MOS:Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes, and seeing as we shouldn’t need to cover for old use cases, it would be better not to offer the alternative now. — HTGS (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the OS family section making false claims?

Linux is a family of operating systems. Clearly says so in the article. Unix-like is a broad not-well-defined term that may or may not be applied to a set of operating sytems depending on context. If Windows and MacOS are families then clearly Linux and BSD are real families too. Unix-Like should be removed. The warning against entering Linux should be removed. Linux and BSD should be added for easy selection. ~2026-39560-86 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are correct regarding Linux, and I have fixed the page. You are not correct about BSD. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD could be called separate "families" but even that is wrong. Each is independent and unified.

If you insist on defining families the way Linux and Wndows do, you could say that FreeBSD, DragonFly BSD and GhostBSD are part of the FreeBSD family, OpnBSD and MirOS BSD are part of the OpenBSD family, and that NetBSD is a family of one.

But that would be technically wrong. Some operating systems (UNIX, BSD, FORTH, CP/M) were created before the concept of families of operating systems were a thing. The BSDs later opened up the licensing to make creating what we now know as a a "family" possible, but that was a later addition.

This is where common usage comes in. Technically correct or not, everybody understands "BSD family" to include all of the BSDs. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Erroneous correction, violates past consensus. Read the archives. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit in question:

Guy Macon's preferred version:

Family:

The name of the family of operating systems that this version is a part of.

Examples include 'Microsoft Windows', 'Linux' and 'Mac OS'; 'Windows 95', 'Slackware Linux' and 'Mac OS X' are not OS families

Suggested values: Microsoft Windows Linux Mac OS

Softwareperson1000's preferred version:

Family:

The name of the family of operating systems that this version is a part of.

Examples include 'Microsoft Windows', 'Unix-like' and 'Mac OS'; 'Linux' and 'Mac OS X' are not OS families

Suggested values: Microsoft Windows Unix-like Mac OS

Previous discussions:

• Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#OS Families
• Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#OS family in Linux distros
• Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#OS family - Android is missing.
• Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#OS family
• Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#OS family redux
• Talk:Unix-like/Archive 2#Unix versus Unix-like
• Talk:Unix/Archive 8#BSDs (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc.), z/OS UNIX, Huawei
• Talk:Debian/Archive 10#Why "OS Family" Unix-like and not Linux?
• Talk:Debian/Archive 10#Debian being a Unix-like operating system
• Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 13#OS family
• Talk:OpenSolaris#Unix or Unix-Like
• Talk:CentOS/Archive 1#OS Family
• Talk:OpenVMS#DEC OS Family links to a category that includes UNIX
• Talk:iOS/Archive 1#Is iOS it's own OS (family)? (Is the User Interface, part of the OS)?
• Talk:Linux#I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems

@Altanner1991, Aoidh, BBCWatcher, Comp.arch, Czarkoff, Dabenavidesd, Fences and windows, Guy Harris, MrOllie, Psypherium, Rezonansowy, SMcCandlish, Thumperward, Vt320, and Wtmitchell:

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I was pinged having commented in one discussion 15 years ago to say "I'm no expert". I'll just note here to check how the OS families are referred to in the preponderence of reliable sources - that always trumps personal analysis and preference. Fences&Windows 16:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• "The Linux family of operating systems is huge. There are currently over 300 actively developed Linux distributions" --DistroWatch
• "The Linux family of operating systems is UNIX-like, meaning that they function similarly to the UNIX operating system," --Kingsland University
• "denotes if the vulnerability applies to Linux family of operating systems" --Information Systems Frontiers
• "In Section 2.2.1, we introduce the Linux family of operating systems " --NOVA University Lisbon
• "Universities may do well to teach the general use and system administration of the Linux family of operating systems to computer science students" --The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning
• "the Linux family of operating systems" --Level 1 Techs
• "The Linux family of operating systems is one of the most popular platforms to deploy modern applications on." --Pluralsight
• "The Linux kernel is the operating system's kernel used by the Linux family of operating systems." --EmbLogic Research & Competency Development Labs
• "The Linux family of operating systems is UNIX-like, meaning that they function similarly to the UNIX operating system," --Kingsland University

Also note that the Free Software Foundation (which rejects the name "Linux" and insists on "GNU/Linux") consistently talks about the "GNU/Linux family of operating systems"

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, of the two options presented, Unix-like versus Linux, I prefer Unix-like over Linux. However my position is more nuanced; I hold that this entire concept of OS family, as it is used, is nonsense that was made up by Wikipedia editors. There was never actually a definitive source that was used which establishes what it means to have an operating system belong in a "family" to begin with. Having read in the archives, and especially this one is of note Template talk:Infobox OS/Archive 1#c-Codename Lisa-2014-07-10T01:58:00.000Z-Netoholic-2014-07-10T01:12:00.000Z The entire concept of having this entry is just entirely arbitrary. I propose a better option than choosing either of the two options presented above, is entirely remove the unnecessary OS family as it is not really a real thing. Also important to keep in mind that many operating systems don't meaningfully have any concept of a "family" as they are standalone projects. For those systems for which that term is used, it is often used entirely differently across different operating systems, as also has been pointed out in the archives. Furthermore the best category outright which is my actual preferred option is to have "GNU/Linux" as the family entry for those system distributions for which it is appropriate (note irrespective of whether the system should be called that), that leaves Linux as a valid family for systems that aren't GNU in any way. Best remove the OS family field as it is nonsense. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Here are sources I have gathered to support "GNU/Linux". Note that this warrants at least a significant minority position per Wikipedia's policy, even if in the context of the terminology it is used less often

Mageia distro identifies as a part of GNU/Linux family https://web.archive.org/web/20250608200628/https://sourceforge.net/software/product/Mageia/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20250530114640/https://slashdot.org/software/p/Mageia/

misc publications and things

https://web.archive.org/web/20260211154327/https://blog.dataumbrella.org/juan-luis-opensource-journey

https://web.archive.org/web/20260504185204/https://digerty.com/guides/free-libre-and-open-source-what-does-that-really-mean-no-really-really/

https://web.archive.org/web/20260606141529/https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2020/11/kubuntu-2004-lts-review-familiar-operating-system.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20260430095839/https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2021/04/download-fedora-34-full-editions.html (same writer)

https://web.archive.org/web/20260501155727/https://people.umass.edu/klement/

https://plusformacion.us/what-is-the-full-form-of-gnu/ (indirectly states GNU is a family trough comparison to Unix)

GNU explored as a concept in the context of a family tree https://web.archive.org/web/20260207013820/https://xtom.com/blog/what-is-gnu-open-source-software-and-linux/

below misc papers, showing real world use

https://web.archive.org/web/20260324193405/https://www.iitj.ac.in/PageImages/Gallery/03-2025/IITJ_AR_2022_2023_English.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20250801202349/https://www.ubishops.ca/wp-content/uploads/bucstr-2014-001.pdf

extra mention

https://web.archive.org/web/20250212133521/https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2000-01/open-source/people.htm Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I can give even more sources for the GNU/Linux naming if needed for further analysis. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

On assessing sources provided by User:Guy Macon. I took the liberty of providing archive.org versions of the links. Here are ones I disqualify to support "Linux" as a family:

https://web.archive.org/web/20260518161127/https://kingslanduniversity.com/best-linux-distros-cybersecurity says "The Linux family of operating systems is UNIX-like", Unix-like I say gets stronger precedent, that's just my opinion though, but I'll share it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260116044653/https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED628285.pdf "...the highly popular family of GNU/Linux (or shortly, Linux) operating system..." actually supports the argument that the technically accurate family is "GNU/Linux" meanwhile "Linux" is just a short

The other sources provided, are about similar sort of mismatch in quality of arbitrary instances of saying one is a family, as some of the sources I provided for "GNU/Linux" I think it seems like "GNU/Linux" is not only at least a significant minority, from the looks of these sources it seems to be roughly on par. I still have other sources catalogued where I can give source for the history of the operating systems also, which is important and necessary to establish the concept of families, as they deal with lineages over time. Softwareperson1000 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I am politely asking Softwareperson1000 to please stop talking about GNU/Linux vs Linux in a discussion that is about the OS Family parameter of Template:Infobox OS. I am also politely asking everyone else to not respond in any way to this or any further attempts by Softwareperson1000 to derail the discussion, including any claims that GNU/Linux vs Linux is somehow the same thing as the OS Family parameter of Template:Infobox OS. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Google books Engrams:

The engram viewer could not find any uses of "UNIX-like family", "Unix-like family", "UNIX like family", "Unix like family", "UNIXlike family" or "Unixlike family". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, "Unix-like" isn't a "family" in this sense (or any other I can think of); it's a description of UX design intent. And it would logically exclude any OSes that actually are Unix, like all the BSDs. Unripe pears have an apple-like texture; apples do not have an apple-like texture, since they are apples, not "like" apples. At any rate, the obvious solution, to me: have "Linux" as a "family" here (including all its derivatives unless, like Android perhaps, one or another rates its own entry), and have "Unix" as another. Various extant and former OSes are versions of Unix, and Linux is not among them. PS: I agree with "GNU/Linux" as a "credit where credit is due" branding sort of thing, for projects to use in describing themselves. But this is not how Linux flavors are generally referred to by anyone but a small subset of ultra-nerds, so is not encyclopedic language (not for an article of this sort, anyway; it might see use as a descriptor in an article on an OS project that specifically calls itself a "GNU/Linux" implementation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, "Unix-like" isn't a "family" in this sense (or any other I can think of); it's a description of UX design intent. In practice, it also reflects API design, as in "close enough to a superset of the POSIX API".

And it would logically exclude any OSes that actually Unix, like all the BSDs. Which raises the question of what is "actually Unix". See Unix-like § Categories Guy Harris (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I am just going to leave these diffs here: Note: There are many similar edits that I didn't bother listing. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Operating system family" isn't any sort of scientific classification, unlike with infoboxes on biological subjects (which also, contrary to articles on operating system distros, also frequently contain reliable sources from peer-reviewed publications, instead of just partisan forum and blog posts). It is there solely to give a reader a sort of clue as to where in the pantheon they're roughly situated. In some cases (older systems, systems with a very clear heritage, systems created from scratch by a single vendor) we can be more precise. But when it comes to free software, where the entry fee for creating a "new operating system" consists of registering a domain name, it is only sensible to use caution.

"Unix-like" was always a compromise on here to avoid the frankly Balkanesque edit wars that accompany any closer categorisation. On Wikipedia it basically doesn't mean anything other than "vaguely POSIX and from at least the latter half of the 80s onwards". Considering that various proprietary Unices from that era onwards can very much claim heritage from both BSD and SysV Unix, and that Linux distros (or "GNU/Linux distros", or "GNU+Linux distros", or "distributions of the GNU system featuring a kernel originally written by Linus Torvalds" or whatever the officially sanctioned term is this month) have very frequently cribbed from both too, and that the various *BSDs are as prone to generating holy wars as any of them too, this compromise is still sound.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I can live with that, even if I dislike it because "UNIX-like family" is pretty much only used by webpages that copied it from Wikipedia.

Perhaps the answer is to add this to the template documentation?

" 'UNIX-like' is any operating system that is loosely derived from or somewhat similar to the original 1969 AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX for the DEC PDP-8 PDP-7."

Would that help?

I still maintain that the term Linux family of operating systems exists and is in common use, that the template documentation should not say that Linux is not a family, and that there was and is no consensus for replacing "family = Linux" with "family = Linux kernel" on pretty much every Linux-related page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That's PDP-7; the PDP-5 and PDP-8 were very different machines.

I've seen "UNIX-like" off of wiki, but never "UNIX-like family". I haven't seen "Linux family", just "Linux". But that is a different question from whether to specify Linux for the parameter. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

At least in the corpus used for Google Ngram, "Unix-like" was around since the late 1970s, and the first of its many peaks was in 1984.

I have memories of it being used for systems that were "Unix-like but not Unix-compatible" back then; think "a lot of good ideas we could use for our OS, but system call XXX really should have been done this way, so that's how we're doing it, even if it's incompatible". But that was ~40 years ago, so memories may not be accurate. Google Ngram does not find "Unix-compatible" in its corpus; I remember it being around back in the day, but it may have been so rare that it didn't happen to show up.

"Unix-like family" also doesn't show up in Google Ngram. Guy Harris (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Unix-like family is not a common term" is not a problem with "unix-like" (a very large corpus of existing sources), but "family" (an invention of our infoboxes). This again is a fudge which uses the infamously flexible English language to co-opt a term with a specific meaning in biology to mean something vaguely analogous in computer science. If anyone can come up with a better concise term for "vague sphere of the OS pantheon in which this system belongs", then by all means suggest it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"Linux" should absolutely be a possibility for the OS family field. The majority of reliable sources call it that, as shown above. So I support Guy Macon's edit. Alternatively "GNU/Linux" could be an option. That one is more accurate but used less in sources. "unix-like" makes no sense as that wouldn't include the true UNIX OSes. Joe vom Titan (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

"unix-like" makes no sense as that wouldn't include the true UNIX OSes. Depends on how you define "Unix-like". It's hard to be much more like a Unix than a Single UNIX Specification-certified UNIX(R) is. Guy Harris (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I've made a (hopefully uncontroversial) change to the documentation here, because sources do describe Linux as a family but the concern is whether or not the infobox parameter uses it. I think Linux should be an option and would support changing the documentation to reflect how sources actually categorize Linux operating systems, but I wanted to fix the more immediate issue. - Aoidh (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)