Talk:Unix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/Archive 1: May 2003 - May 2006 /Archive 2: May 2006 - Oct 2006
Contents |
[edit] Request for change of page title to UNIX
In common with some others, I feel this should be referred to as UNIX, and not Unix. Arguments for this are:
1) It was originally called UNIX by the developers (my comment on the main page about Kerningham and Ritchie calling it UNIX in their C programming book has been removed, despite this clearly indicating it was called that originally. Someone has changed that to indicate upper case was a convention at the time, I accept is true. Either way, it was called UNIX when developed.
2) The operating system is trademarked at UNIX and not Unix. See the web site of the owners of the trademark.
See for example the trademark page.
http://www.unix.org/trademark.html
To quote from there:
The correct attribution is:
"UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group"
Given it was originally called UNIX and the current trademark owners refer to it as UNIX, any references to Unix or unix, which have occured in other publications should be treated as incorrect usage, and not as any authorative standard.
Although I'm not suggesting the following is in itself a good argument for the use of UNIX rather than Unix, a look at the manual pages (man pages) on a modern UNIX system (Sun's Solaris), clearly shows UNIX in the title of all the pages, except one, for 'brltty' which is a braille display driver - hardly very authoritave, since braile drivers are neither part of the UNIX specification nor developed by the original developers. In other words, that one is in error - all the sytem pages, produced by Sun, use UNIX and not Unix or unix.
Here are the UNIX related man pages on a modern UNIX system
teal /export/home/drkirkby % man -k unix authunix_create rpc_soc (3nsl) - obsolete library routines for RPC authunix_create_default rpc_soc (3nsl) - obsolete library routines for RPC crypt_unix crypt_unix (5) - traditional UNIX crypt algorithm cu cu (1c) - call another UNIX system dos2unix dos2unix (1) - convert text file from DOS format to ISO format kernel kernel (1m) - UNIX system executable file containing basic operating system services pam_unix_account pam_unix_account (5) - PAM account management module for UNIX pam_unix_auth pam_unix_auth (5) - PAM authentication module for UNIX pam_unix_cred pam_unix_cred (5) - PAM user credential authentication module for UNIX pam_unix_session pam_unix_session (5) - session management PAM module for UNIX un un.h (3head) - definitions for UNIX-domain sockets un.h un.h (3head) - definitions for UNIX-domain sockets unix2dos unix2dos (1) - convert text file from ISO format to DOS format uucp uucp (1c) - UNIX-to-UNIX system copy uuglist uuglist (1c) - print the list of service grades that are available on this UNIX system uulog uucp (1c) - UNIX-to-UNIX system copy uuname uucp (1c) - UNIX-to-UNIX system copy uupick uuto (1c) - public UNIX-to-UNIX system file copy uuto uuto (1c) - public UNIX-to-UNIX system file copy uux uux (1c) - UNIX-to-UNIX system command execution xdr_authunix_parms rpc_soc (3nsl) - obsolete library routines for RPC brltty brltty (1) - refreshable braille display driver for Linux/Unix
I've not edited the above list in any way, so some are not too relavant. Neither have I removed the single page on the braile display driver which does use Unix.
Overall, despite the fact UNIX, Unix and unix can all be found in publications, the fact remains it was originally called UNIX and the current trademark owner calls it UNIX.
PS, I guess I should have signed, this, so will do now Drkirkby 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, you're wrong.
- Sure, but we don't name things based on trademarks; even if we did, "Unix" still would've existed before its trademark (and even longer before its all-caps trademark).
- ¦ Reisio 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, given the first publications outside of Bell used UNIX, and its currently offically that, I find the attitude a little odd. I guess its like religion - you are most unlikly to convince anyone they are wrong and you are right!! I don't know if there are legal implications of not following a trademark, but that is for the Open Group to take up. It's good to see the Japanese, Russian and French Wikipedias use UNIX and not Unix. Perhaps those that feel it should be Unix rather than UNIX should learn Japanese, Russian and French and try to get those pages changed!! Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- Unix jaick 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I assume you agree not to change it, given your user name, although that is not 100% clear. Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Citing the case in a book published four years after the year Ritchie's been quoted as saying it was accidentally capitalized doesn't mean much, IMO. ¦ Reisio 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oppose. This article doesn't deal exclusively with systems which have a right to use the UNIX trademark. Fix that first. Chris Cunningham 11:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- True, although even those pages that deal exclusively with UNIX certified systems are not consistant. I just checked the Solaris Operating System page, which is certified to use the trademark UNIX. The Wikipedia page says: It is certified as a version of Unix. It does seem wrong to me to use Unix and certified in the same sentence. (BTW Chris, did you work at MOC in Essex? If so, we have probably met.) Dr. David R. Kirkby Ph.D Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't, but I do work for Sun :) I still think the uppercase version has rather slipped out of the vernacular by now, and the Wikipedia style guidelines indicate that the most common name be chosen for articles. It's not like it isn't mentioned or anything. Chris Cunningham 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- True, although even those pages that deal exclusively with UNIX certified systems are not consistant. I just checked the Solaris Operating System page, which is certified to use the trademark UNIX. The Wikipedia page says: It is certified as a version of Unix. It does seem wrong to me to use Unix and certified in the same sentence. (BTW Chris, did you work at MOC in Essex? If so, we have probably met.) Dr. David R. Kirkby Ph.D Drkirkby 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose. The article explains the distinction. The reason you see "UNIX" in the published documentation was that the corporate lawyers insisted on it for brand-name protection, to prevent the trademark from becoming a generic term. In fact many if not most of the original developers and users spelled it "Unix" in informal communications. (The Solaris reference should use "UNIX" since there is no certification for "a version of Unix".) — DAGwyn 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. "Overall, despite the fact UNIX, Unix and unix can all be found in publications, the fact remains it was originally called UNIX and the current trademark owner calls it UNIX." Indeed. Sshadow 07:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- It was originally "Unics", then most likely "Unix"; this article is about an operating system originally popularized as "Unix", not the trademark "UNIX". ¦ Reisio 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly insist. The fact is that the name is UNIX, the fact is that not only dinosaurs write it that way ;) My POV is that many people tend to forget that their POV is not the only POV. If I have to write a filename, username or hostname, it would be all-lowercase. But I personally am not writing Dec, Hp, Ibm or Ms-Dos, and for some weird reason am still writing it UNIX. Actually the introduction should also change to something like "UNIX (informaly written by many as 'Unix', or even 'unix') ...". -- Goldie (tell me) 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? DEC, HP, IBM and MS-DOS are all initialisms. Chris Cunningham 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- acronyms.
- IBM and HP are not acronyms. Jeez. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- They certainly originated as acronyms, for International Business Machines and Hewlett-Packard. DAGwyn 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- As the acronym and initialism page says, it's "a contentious point" whether an initialism that's not pronounced as a word (e.g., "IBM" pronounced as "eye bee em" as opposed to "ib 'em") is an acronym or not. I think this subdiscussion is an example of that contention. Guy Harris 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, seeing as DAGwyn actually corrected me for using "initialisms", I'm not really sure what it was. Chris Cunningham 09:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- As the acronym and initialism page says, it's "a contentious point" whether an initialism that's not pronounced as a word (e.g., "IBM" pronounced as "eye bee em" as opposed to "ib 'em") is an acronym or not. I think this subdiscussion is an example of that contention. Guy Harris 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- They certainly originated as acronyms, for International Business Machines and Hewlett-Packard. DAGwyn 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- IBM and HP are not acronyms. Jeez. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- acronyms.
- Wrong! No, I am not kidding, joking or whatsoever. Thank you for asking anyway. You're teasing, right?
- For those who have not understood what I have written, I shall repeat: My POV is that many people tend to forget that their POV is not the only POV. If one desires so, (s)he can read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus - people outside U.S.A. do not bother what is behind the scenes, and tend to take some things as they are. A native English speaker might instantly recognize what is acronum and what is not. However I doubt that every native speaker will do so at first glance and am rather certain that almost all non-native speaker will not. After some time have passed the initially used form is carved in stone (or engraved on the one's forehead) and regardless whether it is right or wrong, the person uses that form. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Errr, except this hasn't actually happened in Unix's case. The title-case form is at least as common as the upper-case in the vernacular. You haven't yet bothered to explain why the article should be upper-case rather than simply insisting on it. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- And what exactly is that unknown "that" which haven't happened? Is at least as common where? Have ever bothered to read what is going on beyond the East Coast and/or West Coast (of U.S.A.).
- In my part of the world beginners are learning from official (name them formal) materials. Go to Google or Yahoo and search "site:ibm.com unix" or "site:hp.com unix", you might be surprised to see the complete absense of any other form than all-caps. And I've tried to explain that after people get accustomed to that writing they tend to stick to it.
- If you enjoy it, interpret it that way - it is your word ("I know it my way") against mine ("I know it my way"). Are you trying to suggest that I've been stupid and illiterate last decade or two, or what? -- Goldie (tell me) 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? DEC, HP, IBM and MS-DOS are all initialisms. Chris Cunningham 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The article for PINE uses "Pine", the article for EMACS uses Emacs. Historically, these were in uppercase, too. --69.173.175.94 17:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no, "too". :p Again, there are actual sourced claims at /Archive 1#UNICS_vs_UNIX. ¦ Reisio 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree: Since this article is focused primarily on UNIX rather than Unix-like, I agree it should be retitled UNIX. -- Steven Fisher 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: The lawyers called it UNIX, the developers and users called it Unix, except when publishing in a context controlled by the lawyers.--Per Abrahamsen 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unix electronics
I took out the link. Now will you quit deleting section. There is already an article on it. Unix electronics There should be a disambig at the top of the Unix article. Someone should make an article and a disambig notice. Deleting discussion sections is very rude. --Gbleem 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleting the Unix Electronics article is also very rude. --Gbleem 03:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CORP out guidelines on what makes a company notable enough to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. It is not rude to apply the rules that the community has agreed on. We do not tolerate spamming here. Thanks, Gwernol 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are right it's not that big of a company. I only put the link on to show it was a real company. I was surprised when I arrived in Korean and saw Unix on hair driers and such. I'm surprised there hasn't been a lawsuit. I didn't get to read the article but I remember it was very short. --Gbleem 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It cracks me up everytime I see the commercial that says, "Unix is magic." --Gbleem 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are right it's not that big of a company. I only put the link on to show it was a real company. I was surprised when I arrived in Korean and saw Unix on hair driers and such. I'm surprised there hasn't been a lawsuit. I didn't get to read the article but I remember it was very short. --Gbleem 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CORP out guidelines on what makes a company notable enough to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. It is not rude to apply the rules that the community has agreed on. We do not tolerate spamming here. Thanks, Gwernol 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Unix was unique in its time"
Should the line be something like it was the first to have online documentation? Unix isn't dead is it? --Gbleem 01:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be a little more specific, but I'm not knowledgable enough on this subject to comfortably fix it myself. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] microkernel
"The microkernel tried to reverse the growing size of kernels and return to a system in which most tasks would be completed by smaller utilities." Does this line go with the rest of the paragraph? It reads like the microkernel was the method for using mice and it didn't work maybe? --Gbleem 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The whole "Overview" needs revamping. I think it was trying to say that Unix has a microkernel architecture, but that's not right, at least not according to current usage of that term. I think the bit about mouse handling was trying to say that polling was awkward (note that many of us added some form of support for polling, now standard in the form of select()). That whole paragraph should be revisited taking into account experience with Plan 9 from Bell Labs. — DAGwyn 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)