Talk:IBM AIX

message: Anyone care to outline a introduction guide for persons already familiar with Unix?  Links?  Thanks, Gchriss 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix transition guide 

message: The article states that AIX 1.0 was based on SVR3, but according to UNIX System V the latter was released a year later. Qwertyus 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIX 1.0 and SVR3 

message: I changed the previous MVS/ESA section and replaced it with AIX on IBM Mainframes. AIX/370 and AIX/ESA information is very hard to come by because the operating system was not much of a success and didn't last long. I also removed the note about AIX/ESA being based off of OSF/1 because I could find no credible information saying such (and it seems unlikely). I found the introduction date on IBM's Year in Review website and based the release date off of Unix History (http://www.levenez.com/unix/). I also found some information on the MVS/ESA article. There are official IBM documents in BookManager format on AIX/370 available at this site (http://www.tavi.co.uk/ps2pages/aix.html). TimP 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if z/OS UNIX Services are directly related to AIX, and I'm not sure they are. Letdorf (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIX on IBM Mainframes 

message: Last line of the Text says:
"If you are on a text based terminal, running the smit program will invoke the text-based version."
Shouldn't it be:
"If you are on a text based terminal, running the smit program will invoke the GUI-based version."
Ignore the post if I am wrong, as I have no AIX experience. Just a curious reader and Linux/Unix enthusiast, who thought it is probably a mistake. Thanks. --202.63.114.107 09:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably a Silly-Mistake 

message: Actually AIX stands for "Advanced Interactive eXcutive" if memory serves me well.  I remember back in the version 1 days they used to print that phrase on the 8" floppies you used to build it, and that always stuck wtih me.
141.155.63.6 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AIX was the first to naitvely support a journalled FS. AIXv3 shipped in 1990 (and was working in-house years prior to that). When did Veritas start shipping thier product? linas 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the Veritas article states that it didn't ship until 1991, so it wasn't the "first", it was the "first commercial unbundled" FS, i.e. it ran on other unixes.  linas (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Correction 

message: does anyone else find the breathless enthusiasm for AIX and the RS/6000 a little POV?  i mean, just a bit?
Flagged appropiately. --SolarisBigot 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was POV at all; you can look up the numbers on the chipsets of the era, and compare them.  Dinner table discussions were about competitors being driven out of business. The competitors here were SGI, HP and Sun, to a lesser degree Apollo, Intergraph and a few others I can't remember (E&S Evans & Sutherland ??). (although I guess Apollo had already gone down by then). They were competitors because the were selling Unix workstations at similar price-points: in the $10K to $100K range, with roughly similar capabilities for graphics, RAM, disk storage, etc.  What IBM had done with the floating point unit had never been done before: the snobbery of the time was that "Unix computing was all about integer performance", that this was the only thing that counted.  You could see this in magazines like Unix Review (?) (or was it Unix Today (??)) that more-or-less pooh-pooh'ed the importance of floating point.  This was bizarre, to say the least, it seemed to completely miss the point that much/most of the market was scientific computing, and that actual customers were running numeric codes on these machines!  So when IBM came out with a floating point pipeline (an FPU) that was wired into the integer pipeline, instead of being a co-processor, that was a "game changer", as they used to say. The fact that the integer unit was equal or faster than anyone else's helped deliver the launch.  Of course, it turned out the workstation game was a game of "leapfrog":  it wasn't long (typically 6-12 months) before someone else announced a "the fastest" machine, with some gamesmanship of comparing apples to oranges.  Not at all unlike the smart-phone market today. Please note: cell-phone chipsets are designed by many of the same engineers who worked on these machines back in the 1980's & 1990's: you can walk the Qualcomm hallways and bump into the same engineers who worked at IBM, SGI, etc. back in the day... in some ways, cell-phones really aren't all that different, just 1000 times smaller, cheaper, and faster. linas (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to be that, even if the RS/6000 machines took the lead among their peers from other vendors, that's not the claim that's being disputed — the article claims that the POWER machines “outperformed all other machines in integer compute performance”, where “all” would include multiprocessors and supercomputers.  If the proper comparison is between machines with equal numbers of processors, comparable quantities of main memory, and similar list prices, then perhaps the overly-enthusiastic text would benefit from some of those qualifiers.   :)   206.205.52.162 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "but also beat the competition by a ''factor of 10'' in floating-point performance." 

message: smit.log contains the output and results from actions that are performed, but does not contain much that would be usable in writing scripts.  smit.script contains all the commands that are generated to execute an action, and is where one would get the commands to write their own script. -- Kel Byers, AIX Test Engineer
:I updated the article to reflect both files as you mentioned. --Unixguy 15:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info about SMIT command log 

message: SCO has not claimed (in court) that IBM misappropriated code from sysV and put it in AIX (or anywhere else), but rather IBM took code that IBM wrote for other operating systems, and ported that code into AIX, and then later on ported that same code into linux.  What SCO says to the media is sometimes different from what they say in court. 67.52.199.222 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCO lawsuit 

message: This assessment it is not true:
AIXv3 innovated in several ways on the software side. It was the first operating system to introduce the idea of a journalling file system, JFS, which allowed for fast boot times by avoiding the need to fsck the disks on every reboot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.14.109.238 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no idea what's true. We cannot replace something that might not be true with something else that might not be true either. At least I need some evidence before I change anything. Henriok 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the citation for the JFS claim.  The source is primary (IBM) but at least the assertion is documented. ChrisLS120 (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journaling 

message: How is AIX pronounced? I think the article should tell us: is it a single syllable "AYKS", or is it two syllables like "AY-iks"? The latter I thought was the case, to identify it as part of what we now call the *nix family of operating system - albeit without the "n" in this case.  Are there any sources that say one way or the other? Is it still lodged in the memories of those who worked with it? --Nigelj 22:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aye-Eye-Ecks" is the way I've heard from representatives from IBM. Listen to IBM's developerWorks podcast to hear for yourself. -- Henriok 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's an acronym, the proper name is to say the letters A-I-X aloud.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard it pronounced any other way, not even when joking around. linas (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard it pronounced as "A-I-X" I've only ever heard it pronounced "aches," I know IBM wants people to spell it out but it also came from their "pressed white shirts" cultural period. I've often heard sysadmins say something like, "You're not running aches are you?" Never heard anybody spell it out, or say "aiks" or "ay-iks". Also, the citation for the current pronunciation is a blog, one that also says that SCO is pronounced "ASS-holes NOT skoh" so this still needs fixing in 2019 71.63.160.210 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: :Image:Aix logo.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Aix logo.gif

message: I'm not entirely convinced by the cited website mentioning an IA-32 port of AIX 5L for the Bull (NEC) Express5800. Does anyone have any other references for the existence of this? Letdorf 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull sells rebranded IBM pSeries with AIX and is also involved in the development of AIX (on POWER) but that's the only link I'm aware of, so the claim of an IA32-port of AIX done by Bull is IMHO highly doubtable. --Kvedulv 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed per talk.  /Blaxthos 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIX on Bull Express5800 

message: Anyone please explain this to me: why the name of the article says "IBM AIX"? Looking at similar OS articles, such as IRIX and HP-UX, the developer company isn't mentioned in the title, so should not it be here. Or, otherwise, those articles aforementioned should be renamed to "SGI IRIX" and "HP HP-UX" (yes, double "HP" here, since "HP-UX" is itself a name/trademark) to meet the common sense consistency requirements. — 213.141.154.11 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IBM call it "IBM AIX" as per this page and many other sources. Not in prose but in headlines. As should we.-- Henriok (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Is it possible to run any version of AIX on PowerPC G4? — 213.141.154.11 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerPC G4? 

message: I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the discussion in the one place. It started in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multics family 

message: I added a screenshot of an AIX 5.3 login, but it was speedy deleted as a violation of IBM's copyright.
Thparkth (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added it back now
Thparkth (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: That latest stable release is almost 3 years old, which is a long time in computer language terms. Is there expected to be another major release?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.253.240 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AIX is a stable platform. They are betatesting 7.1 as we speak. Read about it here: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/v71/index.html -- Henriok (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is AIX still being developed? 

message: Does the SCO vs IBM really belong in the lead? I just read the article for the first time and, while interesting, I can't see that SCO vs IBM is really an important part of an article on AIX that would belong in the lead. Also, much of the material about the court case only appears in the lead, whereas the lead should summarise the article. Shall I move it? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, not really lead-worthy. Letdorf (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. -- Henriok (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCO vs IBM in the lead 

message: AIX uses the Korn shell as default, which is probably special enough to mention here.  Does anyone know since when this is the case? The Korn shell wasn't around in 1986. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since AIX 4 apparently. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korn shell 

message: I worked in the Danbury,CT, lab where AIX PS/2 was developed, and can offer some insight and possibly corrections to other sections here, and perhaps the Wiki itself. My initial role was as a member of architecture team where I was a *nix newbie but owned the Final Programming Functional Specification (FPFS). I was responsible for integrating the architecture team members' content, distributing the FPFS across the business and securing concurrence. I got that job because my previous project (VideoText/370) had been cancelled, I lived nearby (no relocation expense) and I knew ISIL (BookMaster).
In a nutshell, AIX PS/2 was to integrate SVID(TM) and BSD 4.3(TM), and add things like DBCS, X-Windows, a "DOS Compatibility box" (from Locus), etc. It was intended from the beginning to become the source base for implementations of AIX planned for the RS/6000 and System 370, so those organizations were stakeholders from the FPFS phase through General Availability (GA). Our GA was pegged to the PS/2 GA to ensure there was an "IBM" (i.e., non-Microsoft) OS available for that platform from day 1. Interestingly, our device drivers were based on work from a Boca lab that had taken over driver development for OS/2 when MS said "seeya!".
Subsequently I lead the comnmand port team (mostly contractors), mainly in normalizing interfaces, big- and little-endian issues and DBCS support. After that I led the LPP test team, and once we hit SVT I prepared materials for and ran the Release Manager's daily "must-fix" meeting, where stakeholders from Austin (RS/6000), Kingston (370), Palo Alto (X-windows), Santa Monica (Locus) and others regularly participated.
So much for bona fides.
My issue is with the characterization of Locus as the "developer" of AIX PS/2, and possibly, AIX/370. I can only speculate on the latter, but as for AIX PS/2 they contributed only the "DOS Compatibility box" which allowed DOS applications to run on a PS/2 under AIX. This was a technology they marketed separately for other *nix variants, and it worked pretty well - I spent a month there during functional test (all the servers were named after LOTR dragons). If I remember correctly, they released a new version shortly after AIX PS/2's release that contained a number of ennhancements absent from the version IBM had licensed. If anyone that was at Locus at the time can comment I'd be interested to hear what they have to say, but these are my recollections.
As for AIX/370, I know that Mike Schmidt (lead AIX PS/2 architect) went to work on that project in Kingston, and AFAIK the code base was our frozen code from AIX PS/2 R1. It is entirely possible that Locus contributed clustering support, but I have no direct knowledge of that.
We made GA, by the way, though the efforts of a lot of great people, with whom I've unfortunately lost contact - people like Mike, Tery McAuliffe, John Spannaus and Bill Jones, who I follwed to a new IBM gig in Tampa (and later another gig with a different comany; he has since retired). And especially my LPP team go-to, Lisa Wright, whose mottos were "Do it NOW" and "That's not good enough" (exclamation points would be redundant). May every team have a Lisa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.124.182 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for your comments. I think the mention of Locus in the article, in relation to AIX PS/2 and AIX/370, was based on the comments above by Dave Butterfield. If you can find some reliable sources that shed more light on the origins of AIX PS/2 or AIX/370 and could be cited in the article, that would be great. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Adding to previous, it seems AIX existed already before OSF/1 and was used as a base for OSF/1 Open Software Foundation#Products, which is opposite to some claims.. Ipr1 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM AIX PS/2 

message: what, in your opinion, is the added value of the image
:File:IBM AIX 53.PNG
given that we already have a picture of a login prompt for an older AIX, above? (Note that the other one uses green text, which makes it a bit more of an eyecatcher; I selected which one to remove on purely aesthetic grounds.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually four pictures showing the CLI in AIX, which is prudent when describing a UNIX operating system largely driven bli CLIs. Minute differences between versions are interesting and I'd actually would like to have more, showing more versions and platforms. Removing pictures that actually convey information based on aesthetics are not a valid reasen in my opinion. If you want to remove pictures, you should probably remove some (all?) of the three pictures showing hardware. This is an article about software, so removing images describing the software while keeping images that show something else is.. not the priorities I'd make. If it'd be up to me though, I'd keep all pictures and add more. Henriok (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IBM AIX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829033329/http://www.unigroup.org/unigroup-0404.html to http://www.unigroup.org/unigroup-0404.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223211403/http://www.icancompute.ca/aix/ to http://icancompute.ca/aix
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "IBM mainframes" section currently says:
:AIX/370 was IBM's fourth attempt to offer Unix-like functionality for their mainframe line, specifically the System/370 (the prior versions were a TSS/370-based Unix system developed jointly with AT&T c.1980,,  VM/IX a VM/370-based system developed jointly with Interactive Systems Corporation c.1984), and IX/370 a VM/370-based version of TSS/370 which upgraded to be be compatible with Unix System V).
Is IX/370 at all connected with the TSS/370-based system developed jointly with AT&T?
The article says earlier that
:It took until 1985 for IBM to offer its own Unix on the S/370 platform, IX/370, which was developed by Interactive Systems Corporation and intended by IBM to compete with Amdahl UTS.
So is IX/370 at all connected with VM/IX, if both were developed by ISC? Guy Harris (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between various pre-AIX mainframe UNIXes? 

message: There is no native implementation of AIX on the AS/400, but there is an AIX subsystem that runs under OS/400. Should the article list AS/400 or OS/400 as a platform running AIX? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From the early 2000s onwards, it was possible to run AIX LPARs on iSeries hardware. Perhaps referring to it as "AS/400" hardware is misleading, but the iSeries and System i were essentially just a rebranding for later editions of AS/400 hardware. This was distinct from PASE, the AIX subsystem you are referring to. Vt320 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but I was specically asking whether, because of PASE, OS/3\400 on AS/400 should be listed as a platform for AIX. That was available before IBM switched to the POWER platform. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIX subsystem of OS/400 

message: I have located some but not all of the AIX/370 and AIX/ESA announcement letters. Should I add the releases that I now of to the S/370 stub section, or only the releases for which I have dates? Should the dates be announcement or general availability? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIX on S/370