Talk:Unix

Template:Vital article

UNICS data inaccurate

The data on the origin of UNICS is inaccurate, unless you regard Brian Kernighan a liar, as he told a conference that it was a quip he made on the first maiden voyage of the system when Ritchie's login from a user console failed. (The system at that time was written in B.) All attempts to assign other credit to this acronym fail and are not better than sophomoric. Brian's still around - ask him. For the jibe was taken by ken and dmr as a friendly challenge: ken asked dmr to make B a compilable language (which he did). How Peter's supposed to factor into this pseudo-history is a mystery, but he's never mentioned in those early years at Bell and bwk never mentions him at all. So it's apocryphal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.20.188 (talk • contribs) 0:45, 24 August 2015‎

"Peter" as in "Peter H. Salus" or "Peter" as in "Peter G. Neumann"? In either case, Peter Neumann credited Kernighan for "Unics" in an interview, so I've updated the article. Guy Harris (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's still not the whole story, at least as BWK told us years back, although the story may change over the years. But he explained how and why the name was suggested. And yes, it was a friendly joke. By BWK himself, as he tells it.10:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

So what OS is the infobox for?

It's clearly not any of the operating systems distributed as "Unix" by AT&T, as it says its working state is "Current" but AT&T aren't in the business of selling Unix currently.

It's clearly not describing anything other than Research UNIX and descendants of that code base, as it says "Development started in 1969", and it might not even describe many of them - it says "English" as the language in which it's available, but did any of AT&T's System V releases come with any localization files for messages, for example?

So what operating systems does that leave? And are there enough to make the infobox worth having? Guy Harris (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! The sw infobox in general is a problem as it defaults to a view on software that assumes a single vendor and a single product with a specific name only.

This e.g. typically results in automated vendor specific advertizing for fields that have been left unspecified for a specific article. A typical example is to automatically add an URL for gmake in the make article.

Maybe it is a good idea to first check whether there is a way to make the template in question better. Schily (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

BSD and Darwin not really forks of Unix, Linux is an OS

@179.111.216.158: Thanks for working to improve the text rather than delete it wholesale. Please do not use edit summaries to discuss the details of what you think should be expressed; that's what the talk page is for, despite the recent lengthening of summaries. As far as I know, BSD code was completely rewritten in version 4.4 to replace all copyrighted AT&T code so it is not really a fork. macOS is POSIX and Unix certified which does not require having any original Unix source code. As the Linux article reflects, "Linux" is commonly used to refer to the kernel + GNU utils and it is an entirely religious or whatever agenda that wants to force the common usage to be different than what it is. Linux distributions at not referred to by anyone as GNU/Linux distributions. You also contradict yourself by apparently using "Linux" both to refer to the kernel and the OS while saying it can't be used to refer to both. Clearly it is relevant to the Unix article that a Unix-like operating system has become so popular. Please don't use Wikipedia to promote personal agendas. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:@DIYeditor You are mistaken on multiple levels, here are some:

1) BSD being rewritten doesn't change the fact the 4.4 code is still directly-DERIVED from Unix source, so it is a fork, even if traces eventually disappear. In fact, by your logic, very little, if even anything at all, is still retained from the original 1991 release of the Linux kernel in its latest release, yet that does not make it any less Linux than it ever was (obviously);

2) Mac OS X is still Unix not only because of the previous point, but also because Unix is also canonically a certification, not just an OS. So even if you weren't mistaken about BSD, Mac OS X (starting with Leopard) is still Unix by all means;

3) No personal agenda has been promoted by me, nor did I ever contradict myself and use the term Linux to refer to it as an OS: it was simply an oversight in your interpretation on what I wrote, as I unambiguously refered to it solely as a kernel in each instance. My edit summary is technically-grounded, and I even provided a reference to prove the point (did you even bother to check it?), something which the edited paragraph failed to (it makes reference-less statements).

4) GNU+Linux distributions are refered by an enormous amount of people as such, not sure how you could make such an amateurish mistake. The most influentional and forked GNU+Linux distro, Debian, is canonically, since the 90s, named "Debian GNU/Linux" to this day (), and that's just one instance. Check their pages. Also, another Wikipedia article can't be used as a serious argument to defend what you are when, as you put it, it contains entirely "religious or whatever agenda" all throughout it, the same as what your talk page entry demonstrates: "religious" argumentation versus tecnicality.

5) Linux mentioning (again, kernel, since you couldn't tell last time I was refering to it for what it is each time) is important for the Unix article, but not to the point it ought to be brought up within its introductory paragraphs, when it should be located on a later section (the "Impact" section. That's what it's there for) where it's most appropriate. But out of everything you discussed, this one is the only point that is more or less arbitrary.

Please be less quick to make irrational assumptions from now on, contact the editor first, conclude later.

179.111.216.158 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

@179.111.216.158: Ok thanks for explaining. You're right, I should not have assumed an agenda on your part. Please note WP:INDENT and {{reflist-talk}} for future reference, and it is adequate to respond just in one place and use {{ping}}. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Android a "Unix"?

In this edit, "As of 2014, the Unix version with the largest installed base is Apple's macOS." was changed to "As of 2014, the Unix version with the largest installed base are Google's Android and Apple's macOS."

That was subsequently reverted in this edit, with the comment "android isn't really unix, unlike macos".

Then the reversion was reverted. This appears to be a case of BOLD, revert, discuss, with the first change being bold, followed by a reversion, so the next step should be a discussion, not the beginnings of an edit war.

So:

macOS is a "trademark Unix", but Android isn't. If Unix means "trademark Unix", the Unix version with the largest installed base is macOS, unless one of the other trademark Unixes has managed to gain more market share. Note that the only Linux distribution that's a "trademark Unix" appears to be Inspur K-UX; Android (operating system) isn't one of them.

There's already a page for Unix-like systems; I think Android could be considered a "Unix-like system", as could iOS, so the top two Unix-like systems, in terms of market share, are probably Android and iOS. I don't know what the sum of the market shares of all "GNU/Linux" distributions (a category in which I don't include Android, given that it uses the Bionic C library rather than the GNU C library), so, if we count "GNU/Linux", as the collection of all Linux distributions using GNU software for a large chunk of their userlands, as a single OS, I don't know whether it's ahead of macOS in market share or not. Guy Harris (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)