Talk:Unix/Archive 2

message: Isn't darwin based on a freebsd core?  I thought nextstep's influence was mainly in the UI.  Ideogram 12:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NeXTSTEP begat OPENSTEP, OPENSTEP begat Rhapsody (OS), Rhapsody (OS) begat Mac OS X. None of these operating systems included a "pure" version of FreeBSD, but there are some elements of BSD in all, especially in Rhapsody, if my memory serves me correctly. Dysprosia 07:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OS X has had a frequent exchange of components with the modern BSDs, with Apple donating code to FreeBSD directly IIRC as well as using code from FreeBSD and OpenBSD. This is utility and library code, not kernel code. --FOo 09:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a big hunk of NetBSD code in there too, so I'm told, evident if you run strings on the various binaries. --moof 09:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, the whole family tree thing is a little confusing.  Are we talking about the kernel, the libraries, the tools, or the UI?  When I first saw the tree, I assumed it was describing kernel evolution, in which case CMU's Mach was conspiciously absent from the OS X history. Branciforte3241 05:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Unix family tree is indeed somewhat complicated, especially once the different development branches started adopting pieces from each other.  Rather than add complication, it might be best to leave it as it stands. — DAGwyn 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nextstep, openstep, mac os x, freebsd 

message: Strictly speaking DEC and DG died before the dotcom crash, didn't they?  Ideogram 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. — DAGwyn 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dot-com crash and DEC and DG 

message: Not to drag this in here, but there's a reasonably well-established consensus on its own article that this OS should be referred to as "Linux" generally and "GNU/Linux" on those occasions where the FSF or Debian are being discussed. This article currently reverses this and rather labours over the topic anyway. In the process of cleaning it up I'm changing the default reference to "Linux" in line with the operating system article. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The old GNU / Linux debate 

message: On the other hand, a Unix-based system in a restaurant may calculate your check based on the cost of a meal in 1970 dollars-a pleasant thought, although an unlikely result.
Vandalism? 155.247.166.28 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2038 

message: This article mentions nothing about the USL v. BSDi lawsuit. That lawsuit basically allowed for a free Unix, namely BSD, and paved the way for Linux to fill the void during those years of uncertainty over BSD. Anybody willing to add a blurb about that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That (and the text in the article) is misleading; the lawsuit was not concerned with whether a Unix look-alike could be made freely available in general, but rather with whether IP rights had been infringed by one particular product. I don't think that the spread of Linux was much due to concern over the status of BSD, although that may have been a factor in Linus's decision to roll his own version. — DAGwyn 09:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BSD lawsuit in the 90's. 

message: This paragraph is in a section about the history of Unix. It does not belong there, since the 2038 problem isn't a part of the Unix history, it's a problem that will appear in the future. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2038 

message: Is it just me, or is the choice of illustrations a bit slanted?  Three Unix command line screenshots, and then, hey wow, Linux is all graphical and stuff!
Shouldn't there be at least one Unix GUI illustration? After all, Unix GUIs predate the existence of the Linux kernel by maybe a decade, and (oddly enough) the same GUIs available today for Linux are also available for Unix. --NapoliRoma 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to supplement those images with work of your own! --FOo 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV in illustrations? 

message: When I stumbled across the Unix article, I was struck by several errors and omissions, and also by awkward wording in a few places. As a major participant in Unix history through the 1980s (e.g. member of the original POSIX committee), I am able to correct much of this, and so I did.  I tried to maintain a neutral POV and not step on anybody's toes.  Feel free to add more tweaks, but if I changed an assertion somewhere it was because I have first-hand information about it. — DAGwyn 09:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  general clean-up 

message: I didn't mean that the adjectives were ridiculous, I meant that sixty links in a row was ridiculous. I say we take off and nuke the whole section from orbit. Chris Cunningham 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit