Template talk:Unix-like

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Old, often dead Unixes? 2 Grouping is a Bad Idea. 3 Large Cluster of Garbage 4 Possible additions 5 Name change? 6 GNU OS 7 3RR for DragonFly 8 hide? 9 Category:Unix 10 Plan 9 from Bell Labs and Inferno

[edit] Old, often dead Unixes?

What about Dynix, Unixware, System V, Venix, A/UX, etc? Include or ignore? NicM 08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

IMO ignore unless they have big historical significance like Xenix. The template must be a small and usable nav utility, not an extensive list; otherwise it will eventually turn into a Szablon:Systemy GUI-style moster. --tyomitch 09:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is wise. Leave 'em out unless they are vaguely recent or important. NicM 09:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

NEXTSTEP was removed because it's "not a current system." IMHO, it's at least as important historically as Xenix, because of its leading up to OS X. I'd like to put it back in. Qwertyus 16:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grouping is a Bad Idea.

When you start lumping the BSDs together, the next logical thing is to start lumping the SysV types together, the minixlike ones (linux, minix) together... and then you run into Mac OS X - which has the dual heritage of both Mach and the BSDs. It's far better just to have a list of OSes than to try and group them at all.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Plus I think the extra punctuation clutters up the thing. NicM 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Large Cluster of Garbage

Can we avoid making this template into one? I've seen some of the disgustingly large lists of operating systems on other wikipedia sites - avoiding it would be nice. There is no need for something so oudated and irrelevant as NextStep to be on this list, Mac OS X is already there and it is a direct descendant of the codebase - the only descendant of the codebase. There is also no need for BSD to be listed when it's so long deserted - we've listed the surviving children. 69.199.202.17 14:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

BSD has a great historical importance in the development of Unix, just like System V. IMO, we should remove OpenServer again, as it's quite a minor OS in terms of user base and it'll probably die out in time, leaving no significant stamp on the history of computing.

I think we need to decide on what we want to list: current Unices or important Unices. I opt for the latter, as this is an encyclopedia, not a software catalog. Qwertyus 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would vote to include most current or recently dead (within 10 years or so?), plus a selection of important historical Unix-likes, ie, pretty much what we have: BSD, System V, NEXTSTEP, Xenix.

If necessary, I'd agree to let all of DragonFly, LynxOS, and SCO go, all are fairly low userbase and not really significant at this time - although I think it's already hard enough to agree what "important" means with the historical ones, it's going to be even harder if we take out well-known Unix-likes that are still alive.

I don't really think the current number of entries is excessive and there aren't that many more that anyone could persuasively argue to include. It certainly doesn't seem to be getting out of hand so it probably isn't necessary to decide at this moment. NicM 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Despite my general loathing associated with SCO (I had to admin a few systems for a while), and there isn't anything interesting about the OS, per se - it was a pretty braindead, minimal flavor of Unix - it was the largest installed base of Unix OSes at one point. (I think that perhaps Xenix and SCO should be merged, but that's grist for another discussion.) --moof 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

SCO is either Xenix or System V, so, in a way, we've listed it implicitly :)

Shouldn't we list Unix, btw? Qwertyus 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unix-like links to Unix in the first sentence, so I don't think it's necessary. NicM 13:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Possible additions

Contrary to NicM's belief, I note that neither A/UX, RISC iX or any of their close relatives have been discussed here.

A/UX was Apple's original attempt to marry UNIX and the Mac OS, which unfortunately didn't survive into the PowerPC era. Some of its features, although not strongly emphasised in the current A/UX article, remain unique. In particular commando - better explained in the real article than I could manage here - is something unique for the user experience. Unlike the current OS X which can run an X server on top of its custom GUI, it runs the Mac Finder and apps on top of X, and can even be run with no trace of the Mac toolkit or application support whatsoever.

It is therefore notable for including the only implementation of X that can natively run Classic OS applications and the first platform that allowed the Mac toolkit to be used with a preemptive multitasking POSIX base.

RISC iX was Acorn's only UNIX and besides anything else possibly the only commercial UNIX developed in the United Kingdom (even if only as a branch from its BSD 4.3 base) and definitely the first UNIX for the ARM processor. It also has a few unique user interface features, but nothing major - just things like the retention of the two cursor terminal mode of Acorn's own earlier machines and the Amstrad CPC. It was bundled with machines for a while, so was definitely in practical use even if not widespread.

Even if RISC iX is a bit tenuous, I definitely think A/UX is worthy of a place on the template.

ThomasHarte 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I believed they specifically had been discussed. In any case, I think RISC iX was definitely not notable enough to be worth including. I'm neutral on A/UX, as far as I am concerned it can go in if nobody else objects. NicM 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Re: "I didn't say I believed they specifically had been discussed" - I was far too combative in my use of language and I apologise. With the "or any of their close relatives" clause I was attempting to apply what I distilled as the test implied by the discussions here rather than looking for a specific discussion, but I did go somewhat too much on the attack. Apologies.

Any idea what a good grace period for objections would be? I guess a week since that tallies with several of the formal wikipedia processes for things like article deletion. So that would mean inducting A/UX no earlier than the 15th, subject to objections. Is that reasonable? ThomasHarte 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. For time periods, I don't know if there are any official rules (AFDs and FACs are 5 days), I tend to just leave it until I get bored waiting: usually a few days unless a discussion starts up, or longer if there are a lot of people likely to take issue with it. Personally, since there hasn't exactly been a deluge of comments, I'd add it now and if anyone has any reasons to remove it again, they can bring it up here. I just think additions should be discussed to avoid too many steps on the road to cluster-of-garbagehood. NicM 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

A/UX should be added I think since it was quite notable but, while Risc iX is interesting, the current article is sorely lacking content which makes it hard to determine if it's notable enough to be on the list. - Dnewhall

[edit] Name change?

Given the general consensus illustrated here, wouldn't it be better if this template was headed somethig like "Notable Unix-like operating systems" or perhaps "Significant Unix-like operating systems" (although I prefer the former)? A Category can be created for bread & butter "Unix-like operating systems" so that the obscure and run of the mill are still flagged up as UNIX-like. ThomasHarte 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The current title does not imply it is exhaustive: they are still Unix-like operating systems, even if they happen to also be notable or significant. I think it is fine as it is, any inappropriate additions can be dealt with easily enough or discussed here. A category to incldue everything is a good idea though, then link the template to it per Template:Linux-distro NicM 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] GNU OS

GNU is a Unix-like operating system. Hurd is it's kernel, but because unix-like operating systems are component-based, other kernels built for Unix-like operating systems can be used with GNU. Some people use a variant of GNU which uses Linux as it's kernel, but that's not what GNU is, that's something else. GNU is the GNU operating system. Sorry for the verbosity, maybe this is redundant but someone has remove GNU from the list of Unix-like operating systems, so I thought I should note here before re-adding it. Gronky 20:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Unix-likes aren't really that component based. Linux is, but the bulk of most Unix-likes are developed as a unit—the BSDs, Solaris, and to my knowledge most of the other commercial ones. In any case, I thought they were calling their OS GNU/Hurd but I see that they're just calling GNU+Hurd plain old GNU, so I guess I don't really object to it staying—I reckon it's well known enough, if only for the 20-odd-year unfinished kernel saga. NicM 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 3RR for DragonFly

OK, I've seen DragonFly BSD added and removed more than three times now. Can we please discuss and try to get some consensus as to whether it should be there or not? If we were actually voting, I'd say it'd be a very weak delete - it simply hasn't been around long enough, nor with enough of a userbase, to be notable. (Its users certainly seem to be gung-ho about it, however.) --moof 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, DragonFly exists, which is more than can be said for GNU. 65.95.241.86 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A/UX, BSD, NEXTSTEP and Xenix don't exist (anymore) either, but they are historically significant. DragonFly still has to prove itself. Qwertyus 01:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite Gronky's opinion, GNU has never existed, at least Xenix really did get used once. NextStep had an actual userbase, which makes it significantly more important historically than GNU. As far as I'm concerned GNU shouldn't be listed and neither should Linux, neither are Unix-like operating systems, GNU/Linux can and should be listed. DragonFlyBSD actually exists, it's really there, it even has people running it, that makes it more proven than GNU at the very least. 65.95.241.86 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

GNU is historically very important in the development of Linux (which you call GNU/Linux), even though largely vaporware. Many other systems have a small userbase, like DFBSD; that alone is not enough to put them here. Qwertyus 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But GNU is not an operating system, it's never made a functional system, it's a userland. Linux isn't an operating system, there isn't enough of it to make one, it's a kernel. The two as one make an operating system and therefore make sense to list, but neither on their own work. Historically neither work on their own, together they've played an important roll in Unix-like operating systems, but neither are one. 65.95.241.86 20:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Linux is the name used for the entire OS on Wikipedia (as it is in the real world). I'm not going to have this discussion again. Qwertyus 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But isn't this supposed to be an Encyclopedia, aren't they supposed to do things right around here, not how they're popular elsewhere? 65.95.241.86 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, lose DFLY for now. NicM 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] hide?

Is there really a reason to make a template that sits at the bottom of the article hidable? It's like three lines tall, hardly a big thing to scroll past. 65.95.124.5 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Unix

Currently, this template causes pages that include it to fall into Category:Unix. However, some pages are already in subcats of Unix, such as BSD. IMHO, this causes clutter in cat:Unix. Qwertyus 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plan 9 from Bell Labs and Inferno

Both are considered by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie to be offical successors to UNIX. Where should they mentioned? eeemess 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But are they Unix? I don't know where the line is drawn, is it only things which partially comply with POSIX? At that point we'll end up with Windows listed. Janizary 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Ken Thompson etc. its Unix for a different type of computing or done over again for more modern computing. In terms of trademarks it isn't Unix - its consider to be its successors. I suggest you read [1]. eeemess 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's bullshit, plain and simple. It's either Unix or it's not, and if it's not it doesn't belong here. I could call Windows XP the successor to Unix and I'd at least be right, it is the thing that has succeeded Unix as the dominant operating system. Someone's opinion on if it is the successor or not is irrelevant, has Plan 9 succeeded anything anywhere outside of Bell Labs? Is anything about Plan 9 important to the evolution of Unix? Marketspeak does not a successor make. Janizary 22:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What market speak? The co-inventers of UNIX call Plan 9 the Unix for distributed computing. Much of Plan 9 has impacted current Unixes. Much of the evolution of UNIX is thanks to Plan 9. I think you should do some research and get a clue before calling bullshit. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Blindly calling Plan 9 Unix's successor is bullshit, and it's marketing speak. There is nothing quantitative about successor, was it simply the successor within Bell Lab's research division? Well, that hardly makes it noteworthy. Was it the successor to SysV as the basis for all Unixen? No? Well, that would have made it the successor. UTF-8 came from Plan 9, that's really about all that has propagated to any other operating systems, much less Unixen. I don't see where anything else has been integrated into Unix. Even the compiler, which is noted to be very good, isn't being used in other systems. Where's the impact? What has it done? Janizary 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to twist what I said. I said according to Ken and Dennis. Please drop the zealosness. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to twist the words, you're just using weak ones. What a man says does not become fact just because the man is influential - results; tangible, visible, calculable, verifiable results are what matter, that is how something is counted as being valid. Successor doesn't happen just because the guys who made it and what it is supposedly succeeding said so, it happens after it replaces what it is supposed to succeed. The Atari Jaguar was definately not the successor to the Atari 7800, the Nintendo Entertainment System was, it took the market, it replaced, and thus succeeded, the Atari system. So if anything, Microsoft's Windows NT series is Unix's successor. Is the Enterprise Audit Shell the successor to sudosh? Infact, there was a discussion about this when the man who made eash made an article about it, the result? Not until it succeeds it. Janizary 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why I very simplely used one line and said according to who. Now do you want to answer the question? Where should they be mentioned? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

btw, I answered your question "are they unix." ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you said the men who made Unix called Plan 9 the replacement to Unix, that is different from being Unix. If you can get some sort of a consensus you could list whichever or both as mob rule dictates. Probably only Plan 9, if that, will get any support. Janizary 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)