I would love it if people could suggest things that I've left out, or criticize the choices I've made here. I wanted something to help give a map for explanations of what operating systems are, and how there's more than one, and there's a relationship between OS's hardware, and processors.
The diagram I have has served its original purpose, but I have no doubt the HN community will be aghast at some of the omissions.
I am not optimistic about the task because there is no intrinsic relationship between an operating system and an architecture...Windows 10 runs on ARM (and before it Windows Phone 7/8 and Windows RT) and before that Windows CE and Windows Embedded on various architectures.
To put it another way, a diagram reflects a decision to leave out some details and emphasize others in order to make a particular point. To be a bit early Wittgensteinian, the world is all the facts, a diagram is a picture of the logical structure of the world, and the problem is that the relationship between operating systems and architectures has no logical structure. Knowing that OSX runs on x86 is not evidence for or against it running on MIPS. I can only use the fact in syllogism. And even then unconvincingly because OSX runs on some x86 systems and not others.
I'm not entirely convinced I understand what you're saying here. The diagram is intended just to give an overview to someone completely unversed in the area of computing, to say that "These are operating systems, these are 'boxes', and these are the things that might be inside those boxes."
Certainly this type of diagram can't be complete, and can't be used to predict anything about what might happen, or what currently happens in dark corners. The fact that there is no logical structure simply makes a simplistic diagram like this even more useful to understand the relationships between 90% of stuff that's out there.
I was unaware of Windows 10 running on ARM based hardware - what hardware was it?
And I'm really not going to go down the rabbit hole of a gazillion versions of Windows, CE, ME, NT, server, etc. For an overview that seems counter-indicated.
And having said all that, I can only assume from the lack of feedback (apart from yours, which is useful - thank you) that either people haven't looked, don't care, or that I got it close enough.
1. A diagram can display the logical structure of the world. But the relationship between operating systems and CPU architectures has no logical structure. A relationship between an operating system and a CPU architecture does not imply any edges from the operating system to another CPU architecture nor edges from the CPU architecture to an operating system.
2. If the diagram explains what it is meant to explain to the intended audience, then it has done its job. If it is meant to be 'canonical' then it cannot succeed unless the audience agrees with the premises for inclusion and exclusion.
3. Why isn't Windows IOT [1] listed for the Rpi? Because it is not relevant to the purpose of the diagram, while RiscOS is. Caricaturizing Windows is a premise of the diagram at a high level. While deep details regarding MacOS point to Motorola and IBM CPU's from decades ago. Maybe this suggests too much detail in the diagram. Maybe it suggests a way in which the diagram could be misleading...or incomplete...or suitable to some tasks and not others.
I suppose my reaction is partially around the implication that a post to HN is some level of claim that the diagram is 'canonical' since it is not just a one off. And in part my reaction is that it portrays the world in a Mac centric way and I don't think that such portrayals make people well informed...and admittedly this is a long standing hot button of mine.
The diagram I have has served its original purpose, but I have no doubt the HN community will be aghast at some of the omissions.
Please, help me enhance this.