These tables provide a comparison of operating systems, of computer devices, as listing general and technical information for a number of widely used and currently available PC or handheld (including smartphone and tablet computer) operating systems. The article "Usage share of operating systems" provides a broader, and more general, comparison of operating systems that includes servers, mainframes and supercomputers. Because of the large number and variety of available Linux distributions, they are all grouped under a single entry; see comparison of Linux distributions for a detailed comparison. There is also a variety of BSD and DOS operating systems, covered in comparison of BSD operating systems and comparison of DOS operating systems. == Nomenclature == The nomenclature for operating systems varies among providers and sometimes within providers. For purposes of this article the terms used are; kernel In some operating systems, the OS is split into a low level region called the kernel and higher level code that relies on the kernel. Typically the kernel implements processes but its code does not run as part of a process. hybrid kernel monolithic kernel Nucleus In some operating systems there is OS code permanently present in a contiguous region of memory addressable by unprivileged code; in IBM systems this is typically referred to as the nucleus. The nucleus typically contains both code that requires special privileges and code that can run in an unprivileged state. Typically some code in the nucleus runs in the context of a dispatching unit, e.g., address space, process, task, thread, while other code runs independent of any dispatching unit. In contemporary operating systems unprivileged applications cannot alter the nucleus. License and pricing policies vary widely among different systems. Among others, the tables below use the following terms: BSD BSD licenses are a family of permissive free software licenses, imposing minimal restrictions on the use and distribution of covered software. bundled The fee is included in the price of the hardware == General information == == Technical information == == Security == == Commands == For POSIX compliant (or partly compliant) systems like FreeBSD, Linux, macOS or Solaris, the basic commands are the same because they are standardized. NOTE: Linux systems may vary by distribution which specific program, or even 'command' is called, via the POSIX alias function. For example, if you wanted to use the DOS dir to give you a directory listing with one detailed file listing per line you could use alias dir='ls -lahF' (e.g. in a session configuration file).
Sahara Net
Sahara Net is an information and communications technology provider (ICT) serving the Saudi market, the company has rapidly grown since 1989 to offer various complementary services such as connectivity, internet, hosting, cloud, optimization, cyber security, and managed services. == History == Sahara Net is a Saudi Joint Stock Company (JSC) and its history goes back to 1989 when Sahara Net established the 1st Saudi Bulletin Board Service (BBS) in the Kingdom. During this period, it operated as a hub for email exchange in the FidoNet network. And in 1994 Sahara Net started offering Internet connectivity and other related services like internet email, web design, web hosting, and Domain name registry services. These services made the first ISP in Saudi Arabia before the official licensing in 1998, when the Saudi Internet market was regulated and Sahara Net received Internet Service Provider (ISP) license and was appointed as the official Local Internet Registry (LIR) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. == Today == The company grew over these years to become one of the main ICTs in the Saudi Arabian market, extending network coverage to all major cities in Saudi Arabia, and offering various connectivity options to business as well as home users. In 2009, the company was partially acquired by Telindus (the ICT investment arm of Belgacom), the famous telecom operator in Belgium and Europe. Then, in 2014, the company was fully acquired by its original founders. Recently, Sahara Net was converted from an LLC to a JSC with over 1200 shareholders by a capital raise (original founders still control 70% of the shares).
Cost-sensitive machine learning
Cost-sensitive machine learning is an approach within machine learning that considers varying costs associated with different types of errors. This method diverges from traditional approaches by introducing a cost matrix, explicitly specifying the penalties or benefits for each type of prediction error. The inherent difficulty which cost-sensitive machine learning tackles is that minimizing different kinds of classification errors is a multi-objective optimization problem. == Overview == Cost-sensitive machine learning optimizes models based on the specific consequences of misclassifications, making it a valuable tool in various applications. It is especially useful in problems with a high imbalance in class distribution and a high imbalance in associated costs Cost-sensitive machine learning introduces a scalar cost function in order to find one (of multiple) Pareto optimal points in this multi-objective optimization problem (similar to the Weighted sum model) == Cost Matrix == The cost matrix is a crucial element within cost-sensitive modeling, explicitly defining the costs or benefits associated with different prediction errors in classification tasks. Represented as a table, the matrix aligns true and predicted classes, assigning a cost value to each combination. For instance, in binary classification, it may distinguish costs for false positives and false negatives. The utility of the cost matrix lies in its application to calculate the expected cost or loss. The formula, expressed as a double summation, utilizes joint probabilities: Expected Loss = ∑ i ∑ j P ( Actual i , Predicted j ) ⋅ Cost Actual i , Predicted j {\displaystyle {\text{Expected Loss}}=\sum _{i}\sum _{j}P({\text{Actual}}_{i},{\text{Predicted}}_{j})\cdot {\text{Cost}}_{{\text{Actual}}_{i},{\text{Predicted}}_{j}}} Here, P ( Actual i , Predicted j ) {\displaystyle P({\text{Actual}}_{i},{\text{Predicted}}_{j})} denotes the joint probability of actual class i {\displaystyle i} and predicted class j {\displaystyle j} , providing a nuanced measure that considers both the probabilities and associated costs. This approach allows practitioners to fine-tune models based on the specific consequences of misclassifications, adapting to scenarios where the impact of prediction errors varies across classes. == Applications == === Fraud Detection === In the realm of data science, particularly in finance, cost-sensitive machine learning is applied to fraud detection. By assigning different costs to false positives and false negatives, models can be fine-tuned to minimize the overall financial impact of misclassifications. === Medical Diagnostics === In healthcare, cost-sensitive machine learning plays a role in medical diagnostics. The approach allows for customization of models based on the potential harm associated with misdiagnoses, ensuring a more patient-centric application of machine learning algorithms. == Challenges == A typical challenge in cost-sensitive machine learning is the reliable determination of the cost matrix which may evolve over time. == Literature == Cost-Sensitive Machine Learning. USA, CRC Press, 2011. ISBN 9781439839287 Abhishek, K., Abdelaziz, D. M. (2023). Machine Learning for Imbalanced Data: Tackle Imbalanced Datasets Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques. (n.p.): Packt Publishing. ISBN 9781801070881
Pythia (machine learning)
Pythia is an ancient text restoration model that recovers missing characters from damaged text input using deep neural networks. It was created by Yannis Assael, Thea Sommerschield, and Jonathan Prag, researchers from Google DeepMind and the University of Oxford. To study the society and the history of ancient civilisations, ancient history relies on disciplines such as epigraphy, the study of ancient inscribed texts. Hundreds of thousands of these texts, known as inscriptions, have survived to our day, but are often damaged over the centuries. Illegible parts of the text must then be restored by specialists, called epigraphists, in order to extract meaningful information from the text and use it to expand our knowledge of the context in which the text was written. Pythia takes as input the damaged text, and is trained to return hypothesised restorations of ancient Greek inscriptions, working as an assistive aid for ancient historians. Its neural network architecture works at both the character- and word-level, thereby effectively handling long-term context information, and dealing efficiently with incomplete word representations. Pythia is applicable to any discipline dealing with ancient texts (philology, papyrology, codicology) and can work in any language (ancient or modern).
Artificial Inventor Project
The Artificial Inventor Project (AIP) is a global legal initiative headed by Professor Ryan Abbott dedicated to pursuing intellectual property (IP) rights for inventions and creative works generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) systems without traditional human inventorship or authorship. The project coordinates a series of pro bono test cases worldwide, aiming to prompt law reform and public debate on how IP law should accommodate non-human creators. == History == In 2019, AIP filed patent applications in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Patent Office, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa, naming the AI system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), created by Stephen Thaler, as the inventor. The aim was to challenge legal norms that require inventors to be natural persons and highlight pressing policy questions about AI-generated innovation and IP regimes. == Legal proceedings by jurisdiction == === Australia === In July 2021, a Federal Court of Australia judge (Beach J) ruled that AI can be considered an inventor under the Patents Act 1990, ordering IP Australia to reinstate the relevant patent. However, the full court then overturned this ruling on appeal and denied further review. === European Patent Office === The EPO Board of Appeal determined in 2022 that only a human inventor may be named, rendering DABUS‑based applications unacceptable. === South Africa === In 2021, a patent was granted listing DABUS as the inventor. As South Africa’s procedural system does not involve substantive inventorship review, the grant proceeded on formal grounds alone. === Switzerland === On 26 June 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), affirming that only natural persons may be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. === United Kingdom === In December 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that AI systems cannot be legally recognized as inventors, affirming that "an inventor must be a person" under current British law. === United States === In Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021), a U.S. federal court agreed with the USPTO that inventors must be natural persons, rejecting the DABUS application and setting a precedent consistent with existing statute and administrative policy. == Criticism and impact == The project has fueled substantial discourse. Critics caution that allowing AI inventorship may complicate notions of accountability and ownership. Proponents argue that legal recognition must evolve to avoid disincentivizing innovation produced by AI and to maintain honesty about the true source of invention.
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
List of artificial intelligence journals
This is a list of notable peer-reviewed academic journals that publish research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), including areas such as machine learning, computer vision, natural language processing, robotics, and intelligent systems. == General artificial intelligence == Artificial Intelligence (journal) – Elsevier Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) – AI Access Foundation Knowledge-Based Systems – Elsevier == Machine learning == Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery – Springer Machine Learning (journal) – Springer Journal of Machine Learning Research – Microtome Pattern Recognition (journal) – Elsevier Neural Networks (journal) – Elsevier Neural Computation (journal) – MIT Press Neurocomputing (journal) - Elsevier == Deep learning and neural computation == IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation – IEEE IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems – IEEE Nature Machine Intelligence – Springer Nature == Computer vision == International Journal of Computer Vision – Springer IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence – IEEE Machine Vision and Applications – Springer == Natural language processing == Computational Linguistics (journal) – MIT Press Natural Language Processing Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics – ACL == Robotics and intelligent systems == IEEE Transactions on Robotics – IEEE Autonomous Robots – Springer Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems – Springer == Interdisciplinary and ethics in AI == AI & Society – Springer Artificial Life – MIT Press Philosophy & Technology – Springer Minds and Machines – Springer