Talk:UNIX System V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pronounciation and System V history tree

Is it pronounced "System Vee" or "System Five"? Dismas 03:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is pronounced System 5. System 4, 3, 2, and 1 were earlier versions. Also, I'd like to point out that IRIX (A SVR4 with BSD extensions) is not mentioned in the article and is not present in the graphics of the UNIX tree.--RageX 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there were no Systems 2 and 1, AFAIK. This is interesting though: does anyone know where the name System III came from? I have System III source code (available here), and it's documentation refers to it as UNIX Edition 3.0.
IRIX isn't in the tree because it isn't important enough. But maybe it should be mentioned in the article, in a list of System V derivatives? Qwertyus 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
IRIX is not important enough yet MINIX some how makes it in? How about a more accurate and large tree like so http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html --RageX 08:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
IRIX, based on AT&T code, isn't important enough, but MINIX, which has no AT&T code, is? Methinks the original creator of the graph (it ain't a tree - it's not even connected, as there's a completely unconnected subgraph for, wait for it, MINIX) needs a visit from Mr. Cluebat. Guy Harris 08:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
HP-UX is more important than both and is not mentioned at all. to tell the truth, the article mentions SCO's products as being among the most used SYSV Unixes when they're actually irrelevant today with all the SCO's worries. is my opinion that the article should be edited to remove SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer from that paragraph and include HP-UX instead.CovardeAnonimo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. The problem, I think, is that this is actually a Unix history graph, rather than a System V tree; it isn't about "The many divergents of System V". If someone were to make a new, SysV-specific tree, then that should include IRIX. (Volunteers? :) Qwertyus 23:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think "System I" would have been "UNIX/TS 1.0", which, I think, was an AT&T-internal mixture of a V7 predecessor and some parts of PWB/UNIX. ("TS" was for "Time-Sharing"; there was also a "UNIX/RT" which was built atop a MERT base.). "System II" was probably PWB/UNIX 2.0, which added the rest of PWB/UNIX to UNIX/TS. "UNIX 3.0" was the result of merging that with "Columbus UNIX" (extensions developed by Bell Labs in Columbus, Ohio) a/k/a "CB UNIX" to make a somewhat unified UNIX. 3.0.1 added support for the PDP-11/44, and that was released outside of AT&T as "System III", rather than "UNIX 3.0.1", for some reason. Later 4.x releases weren't generally released outside of AT&T, but UNIX 5.0 was released as "System V". Guy Harris 08:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The 1984 Bell Labs Technical Journal on UNIX, on pg. 1794, has a table of UNIX System versions with external equivalents which were used in the article for performance testing. Listed are: PG 1C-300 (1977 on PDP11) (no external release); UNIX 3.0 (1980 on PDP-11, VAX) (System III); UNIX 4.0 (1981 on PDP-11, VAX) (no external release); UNIX 4.1.1 (1981 on AT&T 3B20S) (no external release); UNIX 4.2 (1981 on PDP-11, VAX, 3B20S) (no external release); UNIX 5.0 (1982 on PDP-11, VAX, 3B20S) (System V). PG1C-300 refers to the internal release from the USG within Bell Labs (a footnote says 'The UNIX Support Group Generic 3 system is a derivative of AT&T Bell Labs Research Version 6'). That article is the only reference I've found with any slightly substantive information on UNIX 4. --Agarvin 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] system V

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)

[edit] How did SV differ from UNIX 5.0?

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)

[edit] Chart is not NPOV

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)
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)

[edit] Change title to Unix System V?

I propose to change the title of this article to "Unix System V", as that is the capitalization used in this article, most of the Wikipedia, and the main articles Unix and Unix-like. OTOH, one could argue that SysV vendors have always (to my knowledge) called it UNIX (with the exception of Novell/SCO in the case of UnixWare), so I've decided to discuss the matter here first. Opinions, anyone? Qwertyus 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of renaming it to "Unix System V" because the lowercase version is what is used in the main Unix article. It just seems more natural and accepted to use the lowercase, though that is just mho. --Douglas Whitaker 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
According to X/Open's Trademark Usage Guide the proper usage is all-caps. When System V was published, all the brand names and literature used 'UNIX'. In Peter Salus's A Quarter Century of UNIX he discusses the capitalization controversy a bit and states his reasons for prefering Unix over UNIX; however, when discussing actual brands like System V, he still uses the all-caps version.

[edit] Images

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)

[edit] SVR5

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)

[edit] Linux is not Unix

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)

[edit] Court filings

This article was submitted as an exhibit in the SCO v. Novell court case. [1], exhibit 2. --Reuben (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)