Talk:Unix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unix article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, which aims to create a comprehensive computer science reference for Wikipedia. Visit the project page for more information and to join in on related discussions.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Unix is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Archives

/Archive 1: May 2003 - May 2006 /Archive 2: May 2006 - Oct 2006

Contents 1 What's In a Name? 2 Request for change of page title to UNIX 3 Unix electronics 4 "Unix was unique in its time" 5 microkernel 6 Trademark 7 Screen images 8 Partial list of systems licensed to use UNIX brand is unsourced 9 BSD TCP/IP stack claims 10 No more online manuals which waste Wiki resources 11 Careless use of the word "modern" 12 Article contradicts itself 13 Mac OS X 10.5 for Intel is now officially UNIX 14 Appearance of Linux in the article? 15 No GNU in the 80s? 16 Can UNIX really be credited for text-oriented protocols? 16.1 Original FTP implementation 17 Linux is not an operating system 18 Fair use rationale for Image:Solaris8-cde.png

[edit] What's In a Name?

With no reference to the section immediately below I'd like to point out that the article's bit about the evolution of the name 'Unix' is a bit hazy at best. Kernighan did in fact find the name as a joke - on Multics. The decision to rewrite Unix in C was prefixed by an interest in first creating C. This part did NOT take three years.

Kernighan has himself told the story of how they all watched ken and dmr at their 'grand opening': ken logged in to the console, everything was fine; then dmr tried to get into a terminal and the system just stood still. BWK broke the silence with his now famous quip. That 'Unics' has been backronymed here is I think a bit silly. That ken immediately after this 'fiasco' decided he and dmr needed a new language is also part of the official version. And after dmr had C they set about with rewriting the kernel.

And I've not read this account anywhere. It was told to me by BWK himself, face to face. If someone wants my identity - fine; but BWK is an amenable chap and I'm sure someone who wrote to him and asked him would receive a cordial and informative reply.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.203.237 (talk • contribs)

So write him. ¦ Reisio 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I too think that the etymology of 'Unix' is doubtful, and at least could be more complete, but I am not sure exactly how the article might be improved.

Back in 2002 I investigated a little and asked some of the people involved, as I had understood that there was the idea that Unix was a pun on 'castrated Multics'. Below are two responses on the subject:

From: "Peter G. Neumann"
Subject: Re: Origin of the name Unix
There is some confusion.
I indeed referred to an early version of the system as a "one-user castrated Multics" (UNICS). Ken's very first code did not support multiple users, although that changed rapidly.
As I recall, Peter Salus's book A Quarter-Century of Unix gives me credit for the name. But I think perhaps Brian Kernighan seems to deserve the credit for the system name (Unix) in which case I only gave it an interpretation. You might ask Brian what his recollection is.
Peter

So I did:

From: "Brian Kernighan" Date: Thu Feb 07, 2002 06:33:20 pm Europe/London
To: hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: re: Origin of the name Unix

my memory (of the same vintage as peter's, of course, and perhaps even more suspect) is that i coined the name "unics" but as a vaguely latin pun: multics was many (multi) of everything, while unics was at most one (uni-) of anything. that's not a bad characterization for the time. i do not know who improved the spelling. i could readily believe that peter supplied the castrated multics interpretation -- he has more of a way with words than i do.
good luck with the scholarship, though it will probably be hard to get further on this specific aspect.
brian k

So I am not sure where that leaves us - the people who were involved are not sure, but it is certainly unlikely that the acronym in the article is correct.

I would at least suggest deleting ", short for Uniplexed Information and Computing System, and could - eventually - support two simultaneous users", unless someone can show authority?

--Hugh.glaser 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How's UNIX pronounced, anyway? Do you actually say "eunuchs"? SuperGerbil 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. "YEW-nicks"; I'll leave the IPA to others.--NapoliRoma 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for change of page title to UNIX

In common with some others, I feel this should be referred to as UNIX, and not Unix. Arguments for this are:

1) It was originally called UNIX by the developers (my comment on the main page about Kerningham and Ritchie calling it UNIX in their C programming book has been removed, despite this clearly indicating it was called that originally. Someone has changed that to indicate upper case was a convention at the time, I accept is true. Either way, it was called UNIX when developed.

2) The operating system is trademarked at UNIX and not Unix. See the web site of the owners of the trademark.

http://www.unix.org/

See for example the trademark page.

http://www.unix.org/trademark.html

To quote from there:

The correct attribution is:

"UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group"

Given it was originally called UNIX and the current trademark owners refer to it as UNIX, any references to Unix or unix, which have occured in other publications should be treated as incorrect usage, and not as any authorative standard.

Although I'm not suggesting the following is in itself a good argument for the use of UNIX rather than Unix, a look at the manual pages (man pages) on a modern UNIX system (Sun's Solaris), clearly shows UNIX in the title of all the pages, except one, for 'brltty' which is a braille display driver - hardly very authoritave, since braile drivers are neither part of the UNIX specification nor developed by the original developers. In other words, that one is in error - all the sytem pages, produced by Sun, use UNIX and not Unix or unix.

Here are the UNIX related man pages on a modern UNIX system

teal /export/home/drkirkby % man -k unix
authunix_create rpc_soc (3nsl)  - obsolete library routines for RPC
authunix_create_default         rpc_soc (3nsl)  - obsolete library routines for RPC
crypt_unix      crypt_unix (5)  - traditional UNIX crypt algorithm
cu              cu (1c)         - call another UNIX system
dos2unix        dos2unix (1)    - convert text file from DOS format to ISO format
kernel          kernel (1m)     - UNIX system executable file containing basic operating system services
pam_unix_account                pam_unix_account (5)    - PAM account management module for UNIX
pam_unix_auth   pam_unix_auth (5)   - PAM authentication module for UNIX
pam_unix_cred   pam_unix_cred (5)   - PAM user credential authentication module for UNIX
pam_unix_session                pam_unix_session (5)    - session management PAM module for UNIX
un              un.h (3head)    - definitions for UNIX-domain sockets
un.h            un.h (3head)    - definitions for UNIX-domain sockets
unix2dos        unix2dos (1)    - convert text file from ISO format to DOS format
uucp            uucp (1c)       - UNIX-to-UNIX system copy
uuglist         uuglist (1c)    - print the list of service grades that are available on this UNIX system
uulog           uucp (1c)       - UNIX-to-UNIX system copy
uuname          uucp (1c)       - UNIX-to-UNIX system copy
uupick          uuto (1c)       - public UNIX-to-UNIX system file copy
uuto            uuto (1c)       - public UNIX-to-UNIX system file copy
uux             uux (1c)        - UNIX-to-UNIX system command execution
xdr_authunix_parms              rpc_soc (3nsl)  - obsolete library routines for RPC
brltty          brltty (1)      - refreshable braille display driver for Linux/Unix

I've not edited the above list in any way, so some are not too relavant. Neither have I removed the single page on the braile display driver which does use Unix.

Overall, despite the fact UNIX, Unix and unix can all be found in publications, the fact remains it was originally called UNIX and the current trademark owner calls it UNIX.

PS, I guess I should have signed, this, so will do now Drkirkby 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Nope, you're wrong.
2. Sure, but we don't name things based on trademarks; even if we did, "Unix" still would've existed before its trademark (and even longer before its all-caps trademark).

• Talk:Unix/Archive 1#.22UNIX.22_vs._.22Unix.22
• Talk:Unix/Archive 1#UNICS_vs_UNIX

¦ Reisio 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, given the first publications outside of Bell used UNIX, and its currently offically that, I find the attitude a little odd. I guess its like religion - you are most unlikly to convince anyone they are wrong and you are right!! I don't know if there are legal implications of not following a trademark, but that is for the Open Group to take up. It's good to see the Japanese, Russian and French Wikipedias use UNIX and not Unix. Perhaps those that feel it should be Unix rather than UNIX should learn Japanese, Russian and French and try to get those pages changed!! Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- Unix jaick 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you agree not to change it, given your user name, although that is not 100% clear. Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this is a history piece, not an article about a product. 'Unix' is prevalent today. The article may point out this dichotomy of course.

Citing the case in a book published four years after the year Ritchie's been quoted as saying it was accidentally capitalized doesn't mean much, IMO. ¦ Reisio 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This article doesn't deal exclusively with systems which have a right to use the UNIX trademark. Fix that first. Chris Cunningham 11:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

True, although even those pages that deal exclusively with UNIX certified systems are not consistant. I just checked the Solaris Operating System page, which is certified to use the trademark UNIX. The Wikipedia page says: It is certified as a version of Unix. It does seem wrong to me to use Unix and certified in the same sentence. (BTW Chris, did you work at MOC in Essex? If so, we have probably met.) Dr. David R. Kirkby Ph.D Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, but I do work for Sun :) I still think the uppercase version has rather slipped out of the vernacular by now, and the Wikipedia style guidelines indicate that the most common name be chosen for articles. It's not like it isn't mentioned or anything. Chris Cunningham 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. The article explains the distinction. The reason you see "UNIX" in the published documentation was that the corporate lawyers insisted on it for brand-name protection, to prevent the trademark from becoming a generic term. In fact many if not most of the original developers and users spelled it "Unix" in informal communications. (The Solaris reference should use "UNIX" since there is no certification for "a version of Unix".) — DAGwyn 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. "Overall, despite the fact UNIX, Unix and unix can all be found in publications, the fact remains it was originally called UNIX and the current trademark owner calls it UNIX." Indeed. Sshadow 07:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was originally "Unics", then most likely "Unix"; this article is about an operating system originally popularized as "Unix", not the trademark "UNIX". ¦ Reisio 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly insist. The fact is that the name is UNIX, the fact is that not only dinosaurs write it that way ;) My POV is that many people tend to forget that their POV is not the only POV. If I have to write a filename, username or hostname, it would be all-lowercase. But I personally am not writing Dec, Hp, Ibm or Ms-Dos, and for some weird reason am still writing it UNIX. Actually the introduction should also change to something like "UNIX (informaly written by many as 'Unix', or even 'unix') ...". -- Goldie (tell me) 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? DEC, HP, IBM and MS-DOS are all initialisms. Chris Cunningham 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  acronyms.

  IBM and HP are not acronyms. Jeez. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  They certainly originated as acronyms, for International Business Machines and Hewlett-Packard. DAGwyn 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  As the acronym and initialism page says, it's "a contentious point" whether an initialism that's not pronounced as a word (e.g., "IBM" pronounced as "eye bee em" as opposed to "ib 'em") is an acronym or not. I think this subdiscussion is an example of that contention. Guy Harris 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, seeing as DAGwyn actually corrected me for using "initialisms", I'm not really sure what it was. Chris Cunningham 09:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong! No, I am not kidding, joking or whatsoever. Thank you for asking anyway. You're teasing, right?

  For those who have not understood what I have written, I shall repeat: My POV is that many people tend to forget that their POV is not the only POV. If one desires so, (s)he can read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus - people outside U.S.A. do not bother what is behind the scenes, and tend to take some things as they are. A native English speaker might instantly recognize what is acronum and what is not. However I doubt that every native speaker will do so at first glance and am rather certain that almost all non-native speaker will not. After some time have passed the initially used form is carved in stone (or engraved on the one's forehead) and regardless whether it is right or wrong, the person uses that form. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Errr, except this hasn't actually happened in Unix's case. The title-case form is at least as common as the upper-case in the vernacular. You haven't yet bothered to explain why the article should be upper-case rather than simply insisting on it. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  And what exactly is that unknown "that" which haven't happened? Is at least as common where? Have ever bothered to read what is going on beyond the East Coast and/or West Coast (of U.S.A.).

  In my part of the world beginners are learning from official (name them formal) materials. Go to Google or Yahoo and search "site:ibm.com unix" or "site:hp.com unix", you might be surprised to see the complete absense of any other form than all-caps. And I've tried to explain that after people get accustomed to that writing they tend to stick to it.

  If you enjoy it, interpret it that way - it is your word ("I know it my way") against mine ("I know it my way"). Are you trying to suggest that I've been stupid and illiterate last decade or two, or what? -- Goldie (tell me) 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The article for PINE uses "Pine", the article for EMACS uses Emacs. Historically, these were in uppercase, too. --69.173.175.94 17:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no, "too". :p Again, there are actual sourced claims at /Archive 1#UNICS_vs_UNIX. ¦ Reisio 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: Since this article is focused primarily on UNIX rather than Unix-like, I agree it should be retitled UNIX. -- Steven Fisher 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lawyers called it UNIX, the developers and users called it Unix, except when publishing in a context controlled by the lawyers.--Per Abrahamsen 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Compromise: What about this? A template can be used to render the name Unix as Unix (which, on browsers that support the CSS standard, will render small-caps, while non-standards compliant browsers will merely render “Unix”). Using small caps means that the word “Unix” shows up in the source as a title-cased word, and browsers that support small-caps will see UNIX with NIX being smaller than the “U”. A special-case template (say {{unix}}) could be used, or a general template (e.g., {{smc|Unix}}) could be used. Presently, I have a template at User:Fd0man/Templates/sc that can be used to write Unix in a way that approaches a compromise on this issue. —Mike Trausch ^{Fd0man•Talk to me} 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But the common usage is "Unix", not small caps. The current article makes the distinction well enough, and agrees with general usage. No change is necessary. — DAGwyn 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Common usage is either “UNIX” or “Unix”—one can use Google to find more than enough references for both methods of writing it in all sorts of fields and formats, and one can consult the local library or the bookshelf of someone with many books on the subject for even more (I know that I have tons of books on Unix-like subject and they refer to it in a mixed fashion, as well). Thus, Unix is the logical compromise, and would very much so make it so that consistency were actually possible throughout the entire Wikipedia. The small caps is, as I said, a compromise, because it addresses both having smaller letters for “nix” as in typical English usage and the all-caps “NIX” to accomodate those who use it that way (including vendors, writers of published papers, and the founders of the system themselves). Also, the small-caps version “degrades” to plain “Unix” in browsers that do not support it. I would love to hear an argument against it, though.

The major arguments for Unix are that it is written that way now, by most people involved in things close to Unix-like development today. As much as I like these people and the work that they do, and might personally be biased towards it because it is just easier, it still is not a compromise like Unix is. As I recall, Wikipedia is not a place where popularity is the key factor, either, so what is popular is not always relevant. My point, all in all, is that there are two positions here: one for Unix and one for UNIX. Unix meets up somewhere in the middle of those two positions. Further commentary is of course welcome. —Mike Trausch ^{Fd0man•Talk to me} 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My point remains: the small-caps form is not common usage, and is not the approved form for the trademark (which is the main motivation for the upper-case form). It's a compromise that nobody would like (except perhaps those with deficient browsers). — DAGwyn 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a lesson in basic grammar is apparently due here. Whenever a word is written in all-caps, the implication is that it's an acronym. In other words, if you write "UNIX" in an encyclopedic article, readers will be left wondering what on earth it stands for ... is it "Universal Network Intralinked Xylophone" or what. Since Unix doesn't stand for anything at all, then it's properly written as "Unix"; that's just basic grammar. The fact that the people behind the software choose to write it as "UNIX" changes nothing; that's a common marketing ploy, intended to make the name standout, not unlike the marketers behind "GLOCK" and "REALTOR". Nolefan32 00:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unix electronics

I took out the link. Now will you quit deleting section. There is already an article on it. Unix electronics There should be a disambig at the top of the Unix article. Someone should make an article and a disambig notice. Deleting discussion sections is very rude. --Gbleem 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the Unix Electronics article is also very rude. --Gbleem 03:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP out guidelines on what makes a company notable enough to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. It is not rude to apply the rules that the community has agreed on. We do not tolerate spamming here. Thanks, Gwernol 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right it's not that big of a company. I only put the link on to show it was a real company. I was surprised when I arrived in Korean and saw Unix on hair driers and such. I'm surprised there hasn't been a lawsuit. I didn't get to read the article but I remember it was very short. --Gbleem 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It cracks me up everytime I see the commercial that says, "Unix is magic." --Gbleem 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unix was unique in its time"

Should the line be something like it was the first to have online documentation? Unix isn't dead is it? --Gbleem 01:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a little more specific, but I'm not knowledgable enough on this subject to comfortably fix it myself. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] microkernel

"The microkernel tried to reverse the growing size of kernels and return to a system in which most tasks would be completed by smaller utilities." Does this line go with the rest of the paragraph? It reads like the microkernel was the method for using mice and it didn't work maybe? --Gbleem 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole "Overview" needs revamping. I think it was trying to say that Unix has a microkernel architecture, but that's not right, at least not according to current usage of that term. I think the bit about mouse handling was trying to say that polling was awkward (note that many of us added some form of support for polling, now standard in the form of select()). That whole paragraph should be revisited taking into account experience with Plan 9 from Bell Labs. — DAGwyn 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark

Right, the article's pretty inconsistent about Unix and UNIX already, but if we're going to use UNIX anywhere it should be accompanied by the trademark. Can we get some solid ground rules for when and where the capitalisation (and trademark) should be used? Should pages which currently use the capitalisation be moved to include the trademark in the title? (is that even possible?) Chris Cunningham 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unless explicitly otherwise formatted, it is "Unix"
• Names of specific things (like those of books [The UNIX Programmer's Manual], websites [The UNIX Forums], formal names [UNIX System III], etc.) retain their original formatting.
• UNIX® and UNIX™ only if you're like being wicked explicit and referring specifically to the trademark alone
  • "UNIX" for casual reference to the trademark

¦ Reisio 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So the system itself shouldn't ever have the trademark next to it? Is that MoS policy? It seems a bit odd to bother with a trademark symbol at all if it's never going to be attached to the thing it labels... Chris Cunningham 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkout http://www.unix.org/ & Trademark#Terminology_and_symbols. ¦ Reisio 21:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Chris Cunningham 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Programmable logic controller has chosen to use asterisks to denote that PLC is a registered trademark of Allen-Bradley, and Unix has chosen to use the extended ASCII registered trademark character. I'll let you guys duke it out, but we really shouldn't have two standards.--Superluser 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Unix article is currently using the UTF-8 registered trademark symbol. It could use the XHTML entity reference, a footnote, or something else entirely, and be just fine. Given the power and ease of use of Unicode, however, I would be inclined to retain the UTF-8 symbol directly. —Mike Trausch ^{Fd0man•Talk to me} 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screen images

The green-on-black screen images are totally useless in my browser (Firefox on Solaris). Can they be redone, perhaps by converted to black-on-white via Photoshop? — DAGwyn 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Define "totally useless". Are you using a monochrome monitor? I didn't know they still made those.

The images are an attempt to capture the look and feel of Unix as it might have been seen back when it was usually accessed through green-on-black or amber-on-black VT-100 terminals, in contrast with today, when it is accessed through graphical, full-colour VGA displays, with the shell being something you only use occasionally through the small window of the (typically black-on-white) xterm program. As the author of the images in question, I'd be more likely to replace them with photographs of Unix as seen on VT-100 terminals (if I could get access to such systems) or hard-copy terminals (if I could get access to those, and no, xterm does not look like a hard-copy terminal) than to edit them so as to look more xterm-like. 216.23.105.16 14:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

VT100 was never green on black nor amber on black. (DEI did make a green-phosphor VT640 that was a modification of a VT100.) Actually I was talking about the thumbnails, which look almost totally black. They are viewable enough when clicked on to show them separately. — DAGwyn 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

that sounds like a screen gamma issue with your terminal. the thumbnails look like that on windows but they look fine at home on linux69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a gamma issue! Most likely it has to do with how the image is sampled to downsize it to a thumbnail. And if you acknowledge that the thumbnails look as I described on Windows then certainly there is a problem. Note that I reported the problem for Firefox on Solaris, so there are at least two problem environments. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partial list of systems licensed to use UNIX brand is unsourced

The list of systems licensed to use the UNIX brand appears to be unsourced, and rather dated as well (e.g. A/UX has been effectively dead for over a decade). The Open Group website contains a register of licensees, if anyone has time to update the article. However, that may not be the end of the story, if derived systems are allowed to use the name as well. For example, Microsoft licensed the UNIX SVR5 source code from the SCO Group, for the UNIX subsystem offered in some versions of Windows, and subsequently started using the 'UNIX' name for the resulting subsystem, in lieu of the former 'Interix' name. Does that mean Microsoft's UNIX subsystem for Windows is a properly licensed UNIX? I don't know, but apparently an earlier version Interix had been officially certified as UNIX (http://www.opengroup.org/press/15_oct98.htm), so I suppose that may still be valid. Shalineth 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSD TCP/IP stack claims

I don't see the source for the claim that most TCP/IP stacks today are descendants of the BSD TCP/IP stack. I've read that Microsoft licensed a BSD-derived stack for Windows NT 3.1 (and also Windows 95, I believe) from a company called 'Spider', but Microsoft claim to have put a 'completely rewritten' TCP/IP stack into Windows NT 3.5 (1994, I think): http://www.microsoft.com/technet/network/deploy/depovg/tcpip2k.mspx. There have also been various claims that Microsoft wrote yet another TCP/IP stack for Vista.

On the whole, any claim about 'most systems' is going to effectively mean whatever Microsoft are using, given the large market share of Microsoft Windows. As such, I'm inclined to remove this claim unless there's some supporting evidence from a reliable source (e.g. not a forum posting by a random individual). The network interfaces defined by BSD (BSD sockets) have unquestionably become the standard on most systems, but that does not imply the implementations are descendants of the BSD code itself. The limited evidence I've found seems to indicate, at least in the case of Microsoft Windows, the latter does not apply. Shalineth 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim was correct as of a few years ago; I don't know how accurate it is today. The number of TCP/IP stacks means the number of implementations (platforms), not the number of fielded units. Thus, Windows just counts as one, not as a zillion. -- DAGwyn 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the exact wording is, "almost all TCP/IP network code in use today", which I think can be read as referring to systems in use (and maybe also as the number of implementations). It could be clarified relatively easily, so maybe I'll do that, but it would still be ideal to have a solid source for the claim.

I've also seen the "Windows uses a BSD TCP/IP stack" claim for a long time in forums and such, but the only documented sources I've ever seen for the NT line have referred to Windows NT 3.1 specifically (which has a totally different TCP/IP stack to NT 3.5 and later). This has sometimes been confused because later version of Windows continued to include BSD TCP/IP tools such as ftp and telnet (which contained BSD copyright notices in the binaries, whereas the driver modules that implemented the TCP/IP stack did not). Shalineth 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't examined the Windows implementation, so the follwoing is just speculation, but it always seemed to me that in the early days Microsoft was hoping IP-based networking was a passing fancy, and when they were forced by market pressure into supporting it, the fastest way to do so was by porting the BSD TCP/IP stack. It wouldn't be surprising if they eventually replaced it by a home-grown implementation. — DAGwyn 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No more online manuals which waste Wiki resources

I found a page on "Stat-Unix" while doing a search for unix programming topics (3/4/07) I feel strongly that the resources of Wikipedia should not be wasted on recreating or mirroring another "d_mned" unix manual on the web. There are ample resources for programming and operating systems related concerns on the web and so while the "history of" would be alright for Wiki. It is wholly inappropriate as a mirror or summary of so much material already available on the web (last look +1 million hits and counting)... Wiki editors you need to put limits which prevent wiki from becoming a "web to itself". Like a good poem...Wiki will benefit from the constraints of common sense. 71.156.174.2 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the intent of that, perhaps there was some specific reason a "Stat (Unix)" article was created, such as to elaborate on what "stat" meant in some context where the elaboration would have been distracting. -- DAGwyn 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Careless use of the word "modern"

I'd suggest that in general, and for computer science articles in particular, the word "modern" be avoided where possible. Is Solaris 10 "modern" and for how long will that be?

In this case, I'd suggest that a year (for example) be used.

Information such as this is always in flux, but there's no need for planned obsolescence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.18.106.66 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Article contradicts itself

Beginning in the late 1980s, an open operating system standardization effort now known as POSIX provided a common baseline for all operating systems; IEEE based POSIX around the common structure of the major competing variants of the Unix system, publishing the first POSIX standard in 1988. At around the same time a separate but very similar standard, the Single UNIX Specification, was also produced by the Open Group. Starting in 1998 these two standards bodies began work on merging the two standards, and they are now identical.

Contradicts:

In 1996, X/Open merged with OSF, creating the Open Group. Various standards by the Open Group now define what is and what is not a "UNIX" operating system, notably the post-1998 Single UNIX Specification.

How could the Open Group have created the Single UNIX Specification "at around the same time" as 1988 if the Open Group didn't exist until 1996? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.23.105.16 (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The second section is correct; the SUS name came later. I just changed the Standards section to reflect this; what is not clear to me is whether the Open Group's use of the SUS name predates the efforts to sync the two standards; I believe it did, so the edit I just made may need a little refinement.--NapoliRoma 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X 10.5 for Intel is now officially UNIX

The 18th of May 2007 Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard for Intel was rewarded the UNIX'03 certificate. [1] -- Henriok 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible to add it to the UNIX genealogy graphic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.57.2.113 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The graphic on the Unix page is labeled as a "filiation of Unix and Unix-like systems", so the fact that it's now covered by the UNIX trademark is irrelevant; it's a significant enough Unix-like system (note that a licensed UNIX system is also a Unix-like system) that it arguably belongs in the graph, although if you add it you should probably add NEXTSTEP to get the full history. Guy Harris (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of Linux in the article?

Why is the History of Linux in the article after the discussion of SCO vs Linux? Anyone without any knowledge of Unix would not know what Linux is. --217.204.163.50 11:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly HP-UX, and AIX are both mentioned as doing well before any history of these versions.

So long as there are links to appropriate articles, the reader can easily find out. It would be inappropriate to insert history before mentions of the various OSes in the introductory section. — DAGwyn 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No GNU in the 80s?

In the 1980s, there's no mention at all of the 1983 launch of the GNU "Free Unix!" project. I don't know when I might get time to add this, but I thought I'd leave a comment here in the mean time in case anyone else has helpful comments or if someone wants to beat me to it. Gronky 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Free Unixen are not mentioned in the timeline at all; they've been split into their own section. If you want to try to combine these then go ahead; I'm not sure that separating them is necessary. Chris Cunningham 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure if I'll have time to try merging that section in, but for the short term, I'll add a few mentions soon, maybe with "see below"s. Even if the timeline is to be limited to official UNIX, the work on free Unices is still a part of their environment and history. Gronky 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

GNU never really produced an entire Unix system. The project probably deserves mention here but not much more. The GNU article should be linked to. — DAGwyn 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A GNU article should definitely be linked to. :P ¦ Reisio 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The "n" was a typo, fixed now. — DAGwyn 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can UNIX really be credited for text-oriented protocols?

The "Impact" section says:

... Over time, text-based applications have also proven popular in application areas, such as printing languages (PostScript), and at the application layer of the Internet Protocols, e.g. Telnet, FTP, SSH, SMTP, HTTP and SIP.

FTP's command channel was text-oriented at least as far back as RFC 354, in July 1972. Telnet dates back at least as far as RFC 318, from April 1972. The quoted sentence seems to be at least suggesting that the popularity of text-based applications stems from UNIX's text orientation, which is definitely not true of FTP or Telnet, and might not be true of the other protocols, either (SMTP, HTTP, SIP, RTSP, etc. are somewhat modeled after FTP, and SSH is a remote login protocol like Telnet, and the concept of remote login long antedates UNIX). Even if that's not what the sentence is saying, it does seem to suggest that the popularity of text-based applications at the application layer of Internet protocols came after the popularity of UNIX, which is also not the case. Guy Harris 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Unix certainly popularized the use of textual representations of data instead of binary formats. I don't know about those specific protocols. Are all of SSH's transmitted characters really confined to text characters? (SSH was a recent addition to that list, by the way.) There may have been some influence on PostScript. — DAGwyn 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, SSH's transmitted characters aren't confined to text characters; neither are RSH's. I'd say we should at least remove SSH from the list - and I'd be tempted to remove Telnet, too, as remote login commands tend to be text-based because humans typing at terminals tend to be text-based. :-) Guy Harris 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

yes we can justify this inference actually if you look at the history of 'tools' in unixworld. --Buridan 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We can? To which inference, and to which, tools are you referring? (In particular, if you're referring to the suggestion that the popularity of text-based protocols can be credited to UNIX, to which 1972-era UNIX FTP command are you referring? :-)). Guy Harris 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

which tools? or which unixen? ftp was developed on what system? unless you are making a differentiation between unixen and bsd... i have ftp as 4.2bsd, what do you have it first written in? one other point here is the bsd stack author and the bits he stripped out of the bbn stack. text and stream tools specifically pipe tools of unix helped popularize early internet ala the software tools book. you can probably actually cite that line from one of the history books. the inference that i am arguing for is that the popularity of text tools in unix encouraged the development of an internet that was textual. i think that inference is valid and i'm pretty sure there might be a citation for it. --Buridan 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant "which tools". FTP wasn't originally developed on any Unix system. If you look at RFC 354, you'll see references to PDP-10s (probably running either TENEX or TOPS-10), "360's" (meaning IBM System/360's, probably running one of various OSes, including OS/360), and Multics. You won't see any references to Unix, because, as of 1972, when that RFC was written, Unix had just been ported to the PDP-11 a year ago, had not been ported to the PDP-11/45 yet, and wasn't available outside AT&T, according to Dennis Ritchie's notes on a talk he gave in 1972. Nobody'd connected Unix systems to the ARPANET yet.

The Software Tools book had nothing to do with the Internet, or even the ARPANET. And as for the Internet being "textual", at most, one can say that some protocols were textual, e.g. FTP, but FTP with textual commands was created before Unix systems were on the ARPANET (and before the Internet existed). The data transferred by FTP could be textual or binary. The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol also used textual commands, but that was inherited from FTP. The mail message format was textual going back at least as far as RFC 733; there might have been Unix systems connected to the ARPANET at that time, but they hardly made up the majority of ARPANET systems at that time. Even in a world with no Unix systems, text had the advantage of being a simple format that multiple different operating systems could agree on as a transfer format, even if they stored the text files locally in different ways.

So I see no evidence to suggest that the inference that Unix somehow encouraged the use of text-oriented protocols and data formats on the Internet is valid; they were used before Unix was on the ARPANET, and were used when Unix was more than just one of many operating systems on the ARPANET and the Internet, and there were reasons other than "Unix uses text files" for using text-oriented protocols and text file formats. I'm pretty sure you either won't be able to find the citation you think you'll find, or will find a citation that's ignorant of ARPANET history. Guy Harris 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It mentions application layer, not the bits at the network layer. SSH and the others were created for text communication with a command line interface on a text terminal. They were, like many UNIX tools, generalized so they have many uses. SSH is "Secure SHell", a text command line interface, a secure replacement for telnet. (SEWilco 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

And what about the notion of text communication with a command line interface on a text terminal originated in UNIX? (Hint: the correct answer is "absolutely nothing".) Guy Harris 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The point the article was making, or should be making, is that Unix showed that using a universal human-readable, text-editable format for all kinds of file contents allowed a small set of simple tools (filters, etc.) to perform many needed file-content operations very well. Prior to Unix, it was rare for very many programs on a typical system to be able to process the contents of any particular file. Some OSes tried to address this by interposing a "record manager" to provide access to, and translation between, different known file formats. The Unix approach (make nearly every data file a text file, with only one record-level format) was very successful, and may have inspired some network protocols — but not all the ones listed in the article. As to the network protocols, if what is transmitted for the protocol itself (encapsulated in the IP packet) is all-text, such as HTTP is, that is "kind of" Unix-like, and allows use of TELNET to the port for testing, for example, but that model was in place (to some extent) in the ARPAnet before Unix was used there. So it's not correct, for some of those protocols, to attribute the design to inspiration from the Unix model. — DAGwyn 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original FTP implementation

"i have ftp as 4.2bsd, what do you have it first written in? --Buridan 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)"

Ahh, you kids and your fancy Unixes and tubes and trucks... . Read RFC 114:

The protocol described herein has been developed for immediate implementation on two hosts at MIT, the GE645/Multics and the PDP- 10/DM/CG-ITS (and possibly Harvard's PDP-10).

--NapoliRoma 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux is not an operating system

I see this all over Wikipedia, and this is what it says in the Overview section:

"...operating systems such as Linux..."

That sentence should be changed to a context where describing Linux as a kernel (which it is), would make sense. Or it should use the preferred term for the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel: GNU/Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afarnen (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for pedants, everybody refers to the combined package simply as "Linux". There certainly is not a "GNU operating system," although Stallman originally intended to create one eventually. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can call any operating system with a GNU userland and a GNU-compatible kernel a GNU operating system. You can also call any operating system with a Linux kernel a "Linux operating system". This is sometimes expressed by referring to the combined product, which is the most common use of the Linux kernel, as "GNU Linux", but again that's open to accusations of pedantry. "Operating systems such as Linux", when referring primarily to attributes of the Kernel, is fine. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point: When one buys "Debian Linux" or "Red Hat Linux", he doesn't receive just a kernel. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is "Debian GNU/Linux" and "Red Hat Enterprise Linux", just to be pedant (look at their home pages).--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Linux the operating system in a GNU/Linux system? The GNU applications run under the Linux OS. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Most people consider an OS to be more than a kernel, and most people who use the term "GNU/Linux" seem to want to tag the Linux bit as being "just the kernel", not an OS on its own.

Although I proudly let my pedant flag fly, in this case usage is way on the side of using the term "Linux" to describe the operating system, and I don't think there's any slighting of GNU intended in doing so. I think any reasonable Linux person (not an oxymoron, I hope) would be glad to agree that the GNU project is a major contributor to the thing called Linux. However, It's very clear that, just as one example, the number one commercial distro is "Red Hat Enterprise Linux," not "Red Hat Enterprise GNU/Linux." To attempt to impose the "GNU/Linux" styling within WP is not being encyclopedic, it's promoting a point of view.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Solaris8-cde.png

Image:Solaris8-cde.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)