Talk:Unix-like/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unix-like. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040622001238/http://www.grokline.net:80/ to http://grokline.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed to use {{wayback}}, but otherwise OK. Guy Harris (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

unix

apple run on operating system UNIX,IT CANT run on java... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manitoshku (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying "Unix-like" is a no-no

In the early 1980's, when Un*x-like systems were starting to proliferate, Ma Bell's lawyers sent out a memo telling us just what we were and were not allowed to say. The gist of it was that "Unix-like" was ganz verboten, but "like Unix" was acceptable.

Does anyone have a copy of the memo? I was sysadmin at a grad school and clearly remember it (and the derision it evoked).

By the way, at the time it was always Un*x, not *nix .

BMJ-pdx (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Microware OS-9 supposed to be on the page?

It's an early Unix-Like Operating System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincrans (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Unix-like" has changed its meaning over time.

A long time ago (1980's/1990's), I saw "Unix-like" used to refer to OSes that were similar to Unix in some ways, but not necessarily compatible with it; that appear to be what OS-9 was.

These days, it seems largely to be used in the sense of "compatible with other Unixes, as long as you use neither this OS's unique features nor other Unixes' unique features, but not necessarily certified as a Unix(R) by virtue of passing the Single UNIX Specification test suite". As I remember, back in the day when "Unix-like" was used in the sense of "like Unix, but not compatible", "Unix-compatible" was used in the sense of "compatible with Unixes".

So Linux distributions and various *BSDs, for example, are "Unix-like" in the new sense - unless you use Linux-specific features or Linux-specific behaviors (such as the way the timeout is handled by select() - either traditional BSD behavior or Linux behavior are allowed by the Single UNIX Specification), or Solaris-specific features or behaviors, or AIX-specific features or behaviors, or HP-UX-specific features or behaviors, or pick-your-favorite-BSD-specific features or behaviors, or macOS-specific features or behaviors, you can move source code and shell scripts between those OSes without issues. Guy Harris (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Useful content"

Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Hummingbird Connectivity, Perl, and csh are not Unix-like compatibility layers. They do not belong on this article even if they are "useful". BluerJeans (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mustn't say "Unix-like"

In the 1980's when OS's similar to Un*x were starting to proliferate, Ma Bell's lawyers got very upset. They distributed a page-long memo that carefully enumerated just what terms one shall and shall not use when discussing the apparently unsavory topic.

Among those ganz verboten was the term "Unix-like". One could say an OS was "like Unix", but not that it was "Unix-like". There were many other do's and don't's. (And I believe this is when the use of "Un*x" started.)

This, of course, caused great mirth among the academic users of, uh, OS's that were like Unix. Unfortunately I don't seem to have kept a copy (it was, of course, widely circulated; perhaps also on Usenet).

Can any old-timers out there provide a copy?

BMJ-pdx (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What was wrong with Category:Unix(like) operating systems?

I just wonder why this category was deleted/removed? In my opining, it was/is a perfectly sensible category to have, since it covers both UNIX^TM proper and stuff like Linux and GNU Hurd, etc. There's no problem having a UNIX category as a subcat AND a 'side-cat' to Unix(like)(...). --Wernher 20:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it is better to have a separate page devoted to each of Unix and Unix-like operating systems. Plus, it is better to use a title as the term is actually used. I have seen unix-like but never unix(like). JMHO.

Minix = open source?

Unless Tanenbaum changed the license, Minix is 'public source' in a sense, because its source code was published in and alongside with a book on OS design. But it is not open source.

Yes, the license was changed. It's now under a BSD-like license - David Gerard 16:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)