File talk:Unix history-simple.svg

irix

This unix history diagram is missing sgi's irix... quite a major chunk of unix history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.212.41 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2011

sth better to add..

I think it might be better to add OpenIndiana and Dragonfly BSD to the graph....as well as the year 2011 to it...C933103 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Phone OS's

Shouldn't Android and iOS be on this list? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Android is Linux and iOS is OS X, both of which are adequately represented. At best, iOS could be added as "/iOS" after OS X, but Android deserves no more of a mention architecturally than any other specialised Linux distribution or embedded system. Iain Dawson (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Graph update

2011 is nearing it's end. Could graph please be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.214.25 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Entry for Linux 3.x?

Will it be added within an existing square or another separate square? OnesimusUnbound (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend simply incrementing the 2.6 box, as the rest of the graph seems to follow a consistent scheme of architecture over numbering. Iain Dawson (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree to Iain because this is just a new numbering scheme. There are no architectural changes between Linux 2.6 and 3.x. Anyway since June there is an own box for Linux 3.x. Should it be reverted? 79.197.59.35 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

I try not to be a pendant in casual conversation, but in a diagram like this it is jarring not to see 'GNU' anywhere.

References to 'Linux' should be changed to 'GNU/Linux'. 142.68.19.127 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Though controversy exists, the less popular term GNU/Linux is more neutral and semantically adequate when referring to those systems mainly composed by GNU system tools and the Linux kernel. The GNU free operating system also arrived before Linux, and both have been used separately in some fully functional platforms (Actually GNU has its own underdeveloped kernel, it's called GNU Hurd). But I cannot stand the way people use the term "Linux" so ambiguously; that's why there are guys saying that Android is Linux but doesn't contain Linux, and other senseless statements like that. --Isacdaavid (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Using SVG format

The SVG format supports features intended to make editing diagrams like this much easier to maintain, but these features are not being used. Example functionality includes grouping of objects, so that when you move a node, the text will move with it, and joining nodes with automatic connectors that move with a node when you move the node, so you don't need to redraw lines.

Right now this chart is a mess of ungrouped objects and individual lines (as opposed to connectors) and grouping has been applied to the chart as a whole, apparently by someone who sees grouping as a locking mechanism. Not to mention duplicates of a node sitting on top of one another.

Is it asking too much for people to use the SVG format as it was intended? Why even bother using the format, if you are just going to use tools that manipulate it (such as inkscape) as if they were merely MacDraw clones! Mabloom (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Unix TSS and 32v License

Caldera, released the source code of 32-bit 32V UNIX and 16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 under a BSD-style license. So does that mean we can move them from mixed/shared source to open source. Can we change the color to green. If not can anyone specifically say why not.

See, the license letter by Caldera here. [1], [2].

And here is an article written by Ian Darwin. An account of why Caldera released the early Unix source code under a BSD license. Published on-line in linuxdevcenter.com in 2002. [3]

I would suggest these remain shown as closed source - they weren't opensourced until a very long time after they became irrelevant—they were closed source throughout their period of relevance. 81.187.162.109 (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also can some one add OpenIndiana as a successor to OpenSolaris, and also include SGI's IRIX into this tree. --Sithjedi (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

SVR3, SunOS4, SVR4, Solaris

The table doesn't show the relationship between these.
SVR4 is a merger between SVR3 and (much of) SunOS4 (partly done by Sun under contract from AT&T, and partly done by AT&T).
Solaris is then a merger between SunOS4 (the other parts) and (much of) SVR4.
81.187.162.109 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Linux and Minix should be connected in some way or removed

No lines connect Linus or Minix to anything else on the map. Either connect them or remove them - many, many applications and OSs are not related to Unix and they aren't shown here either.

Especially since the lack of line mapping them to anything on a (ironically) map is not explained, one can only guess what the message and insight is from this. Perhaps the message is that the code of Linux and Minix are perceived to be not legally related for the purposes of ownership or royalties, based on what was negotiated between parties in lawsuits. OK, but that's just a result of lawsuits and a settlement, which doesn't define reality. Or maybe it's part of a face-saving or pride-building culture with Linux/Minix that they've decided to promote the idea that they came up with Linux/Minix without any influences or knowledge of Unix. But reality makes it rather obvious that the writers of Linus and Minix were, at a minimum, heavily influenced and deeply knowledgeable of some version of Unix or related OS to Unix, and, at a minimum, were trying to duplicate, recreate, or improve on something they saw in some version of Unix or related OS. But we can only guess at what flavor of Unix influenced what flavor of Linux or Minix with the complete lack of lines connecting them to the rest of the map.

If the message is that Linux and Minix are generally thought to be influenced or similar to certain flavors of Unix but those relationships are not shown because legal views trumps the ability to communicate that, then state that somewhere on the map. If dotted lines could be used to communicate the insight without running afoul of perceived legal technicalities, please do so.

And if you reject all of my speculation and refuse to show any relationship between Linux and Minix to the rest of the Unix world, then remove them, or list all OSs ever developed that are also considered to not be related to Unix. That of course would be absurd, but so is the current map and the lack of any connections and insight.

• Understand this diagram shows how the original Unix source code was forked/merged by the various commercial Unix vendors. Linux and Minix do not contain any of the original licensed Unix source code, they are Unix-like but written from the ground up to mimic Unix. Even though they are not connected to Unix, they are in essence Unix from a user and functional standpoint. Minix was written as an educational operating system and inspired Linus Torvalds to write Linux. Its is a very common mistake for some people to call Linux or Minix "Unix" but they are not Unix, they are Unix-like. Their inclusion helps people understand this relationship. Thaddeusw (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Free/Net/Open BSD

This should show the open interchange between the modern BSD projects. Much of the time, when neat features are added in one, they get merged into the others. This interchange is openly documented, and widely encouraged by all.

Also, where is TrustedBSD? TrustedBSD is a DARPA initiated offshoot of FreeBSD, and fully qualified to be used in Top Secret SCI environments. 97.127.182.235 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)