Talk:UNIX System V

message: the new (last few days) release of Project Indiana is based on OpenSolaris, which is System V based (sun licenced it from Novell to replace sunos)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More accurately, Sun and AT&T jointly developed SVR4, before Novell's involvement with UNIX.  For example, SVR4's virtual memory system and shared library mechanism, for example, were based on the SunOS 4.x VM system and shared library mechanism. Guy Harris (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: system V

message: What was in System V "Release 1" that wasn't in UNIX 5.0?  (For that matter, what was in System III that wasn't in UNIX 3.0.1?) Guy Harris 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did SV differ from UNIX 5.0? 

message: Calling the operating system GNU/Linux is taking a POV in the GNU/Linux naming controversy.
:Giving it any name is taking a POV, then!
:Calling it anything other than an OSes based on the Linux kernel is very much taking a position on the matter as not all systems using Linux have any GNU code being used at all.  Use of Linux does not require use of GNU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.31.156 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you have it the wrong way around. I can think of systems using GNU that don't use Linux. GNU/hurd and GNU/Solaris come to mind. I cannot however think of any system that uses Linux that does not use GNU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.119.216 (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart is not NPOV 

message: I could provide some images of SCO System V/386 install media (3.5" floppies) and various manuals if it would be thought to contribute to the article. The diagram in the article is good, but I think that an actual image could contribute more to it (I just don't know of what though.) Any ideas?--Douglas Whitaker 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Is there any news to SVR5, or was it just something released for marketing purposes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frap (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was released as SCO UnixWare 7, but AFAIK never licensed to other distributors in the same way previous versions. I seem to remember a quote from someone at Sun saying they wouldn't licence it since the version number bump was just marketing, but haven't looked around to try finding it - we're talking ten years ago now.  CrispMuncher (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVR5 

message: GNU and/or Linux is a Unix-like system.  It could be described as *nix, if desired.  It has never undergone certification by the Open Group.  Calling it a Unix implementation is factually incorrect.  --ROM SPACEKNIGHT 02:14 2008-01-27  —Preceding comment was added at 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux is not Unix 

message: This article was submitted as an exhibit in the SCO v. Novell court case. , exhibit 2. --Reuben (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Court filings

message: Many places on the web (including WP before my recent edit) claim that SVR4.1 introduced "asynchronous I/O" but none of them give sources.  In fact no sources admit of the existence of SVR4.1 other than SVR4.1ES (Enhanced Security).  I think I've solved the mystery - In "UNIX Filesystems: Evolution, Design, and Implementation" by Steve D. Pate, ISBN: 978-0-471-16483-8 we find various erroneous statements "UnixWare was based on SVR4.0", and also "SVR4.1 included asynchronous I/O. SVR4.2 included access control lists" (page 10). HughesJohn (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The great SVR4.1 mystery 

message: I just noticed a recent category category change from discontinued software to discontinued operating systems.  I don't dispute the merits of that particular change but should it be categorized as discontinued at all.  System V is still shipping.  Sure, AT&T don't ship it anymore and it has changed ownership a few times but it is barely ten years since SVR5 was released, and that product is still being sold.  Even if we don't acknowledge that as a reference version, it still seems inappropriate to tag this software as discontinued when it is the foundation of most commercial Unixes. CrispMuncher (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Removing it from category discontinued since it isn't (yet).  citation: http://www.sco.com/products/unixware714/ and http://www.sco.com/products/openserver6/ HughesJohn (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued? 

message: Uh, i can't seem to find a suitable spot to mention the System V filesystem ; perhaps someone else could ? A few sources :
*file:///usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/sysv-fs.txt (if you're on a Linux system)
*http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Filesystems-HOWTO-9.html#ss9.26
--Jerome Potts (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the file system 

message: I distinctly remember that some of the features listed as introduced in SVR4 ware available in SVR3.2 based INTERACTIVE UNIX: TCP/IP stack, NFS, Sun RPC with XDR... (most were optional, though). Also, it would be nice if someone with handy reference material would mention the switch from simple getty to much more complex serial line terminal handling (details of which escape me at the moment :)).  --bonzi (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVR3 vs. SVR4 features 

message: The image in my computer doesn't see very well. The letters overlapped. --Solde9 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix history tree svg Image 

message: This article seems to be missing some info on the economic side, and I've been staring at the following claim with growing surprise:
:"System V was known for being the primary choice of manufacturers of large multiuser systems, in opposition to BSD's dominance of desktop workstations."
I'm sure SysV was popular for big systems (I remember UnixWare SVR4.2 running on ISP hosts, and AIX hosts serving networks of PCs), but wasn't IRIX a SysV variant for the desktop? Also, do PCs count as workstations? In that case, it's important to note that Xenix was the most popular Unix flavor of the 1980s, and that was a SysIII/SysV. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market share compared to BSD systems (and other OSs) 

message: I removed the ESR quote
from the article, because it doesn't really add anything but abuse. However, what is missing from the article at present, and what underlies the quote, is the gradual componentization of Unix by AT&T and others, where instead of getting the full system with sources like you got from BSD, you bought a "base system", then a "software construction system" (SCS, i.e. compiler + libraries + headers), a document processing system (troff + utilities), networking subsystem, etc., with prices obviously going up each time. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Componentization