Talk:A/UX

message: FYI, I have more-or-less complete manual sets for 1.0 and 2.0, should anybody need references to cite on specific points. Stan 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: manual

message: This could have been the next generation of the Mac OS. Since it can run most Mac applications this could. Since this this also could have saved the the System 7 and other classical Mac OS apps>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.71.106 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly may be true - but we need to have a primary source saying so. The article reports on what has been written on the topic by notable sources, not what we as editors think. MFNickster 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missed opportunity

message: wasn't this used by the government? i remember reading that they required Unix. I'll add it in.
-HuBmaN!!!! 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: Please write history section, who's idea to create (what year), why create, how much time used for develop this OS, who manage project, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.74.183.38 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have/had a paper copy but no online references. JSadler (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I disagree with the rationale behind this revert, that the discontinuation of one implementation implies that no other implemenations exist. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to confuse A/UX for anything recent, and I don't see any other reason to have this information in the lead. It seems like unnecessary trivia. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I disagree. "Implies" doesn't mean "proof", and since Apple has had this and now its current UNIX implementations, I see no harm in mentioning it. Otherwise people might read and think this was their last Unix (was for a long time). We would only save a few bytes for the few people that read this article by skipping.. comp.arch (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was anything implying it was their only Unix implementation, sure. Pretty sure there isn't. And it seems too off-topic for the lead; I'd say to put it under , except as far as I know it's completely unrelated to Copland and OS X/macOS. It is their only System V system, but that fact isn't even implied here either. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve added it to , at least. —67.14.236.50 (talk) (same user as above) 05:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Can we verify that it was their first attempt? Otherwise sounds good to me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you think of another one? I've never heard of any prior Apple Unix. MFNickster (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase: Is there a reliable source that explicitly describes this as Apple's first attempt at a Unix-based OS? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How about InfoWorld, "Apple's first foray into the Unix arena..." I'm sure there are more, but I don't see this point being highly contested. It can plainly be described as Apple's first Unix, unless someone points out an earlier attempt which we can document. MFNickster (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

text: This is not controversial at all. I think 67.14.236.50 was just generally nitpicking. Just put it in. In the unlikely event that someone finds reputable sources for an earlier attempt, they can feel free to edit the article accordingly. Toothswung (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn’t contesting it, just wanted to make sure we didn’t call something “the first” of anything and then wind up being wrong. Which is easy to do if the thing has never been identified as “the first.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Made the edit. Hope it reads well. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current implementation