Template talk:Unix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Unix-like)
Jump to: navigation, search

AmigaOS ?[edit]

Why is AmigaOS included in this? I'm not intimately familliar with it but I never heard it's a UNIX system and the AmigaOS wikipedia page doesn't mention anything like that either. Jtsiomb (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I removed it. If User:Michaelm wants to put it back, he should provide some justification for doing so here. Guy Harris (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Old, often dead Unixes?[edit]

What about Dynix, Unixware, System V, Venix, A/UX, etc? Include or ignore? NicM 08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

IMO ignore unless they have big historical significance like Xenix. The template must be a small and usable nav utility, not an extensive list; otherwise it will eventually turn into a Szablon:Systemy GUI-style moster. --tyomitch 09:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I think this is wise. Leave 'em out unless they are vaguely recent or important. NicM 09:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC).
NEXTSTEP was removed because it's "not a current system." IMHO, it's at least as important historically as Xenix, because of its leading up to OS X. I'd like to put it back in. Qwertyus 16:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Grouping is a Bad Idea.[edit]

When you start lumping the BSDs together, the next logical thing is to start lumping the SysV types together, the minixlike ones (linux, minix) together... and then you run into Mac OS X - which has the dual heritage of both Mach and the BSDs. It's far better just to have a list of OSes than to try and group them at all.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Plus I think the extra punctuation clutters up the thing. NicM 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC).


Large Cluster of Garbage[edit]

Can we avoid making this template into one? I've seen some of the disgustingly large lists of operating systems on other wikipedia sites - avoiding it would be nice. There is no need for something so oudated and irrelevant as NextStep to be on this list, Mac OS X is already there and it is a direct descendant of the codebase - the only descendant of the codebase. There is also no need for BSD to be listed when it's so long deserted - we've listed the surviving children. 69.199.202.17 14:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

BSD has a great historical importance in the development of Unix, just like System V. IMO, we should remove OpenServer again, as it's quite a minor OS in terms of user base and it'll probably die out in time, leaving no significant stamp on the history of computing.
I think we need to decide on what we want to list: current Unices or important Unices. I opt for the latter, as this is an encyclopedia, not a software catalog. Qwertyus 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I would vote to include most current or recently dead (within 10 years or so?), plus a selection of important historical Unix-likes, ie, pretty much what we have: BSD, System V, NEXTSTEP, Xenix.
If necessary, I'd agree to let all of DragonFly, LynxOS, and SCO go, all are fairly low userbase and not really significant at this time - although I think it's already hard enough to agree what "important" means with the historical ones, it's going to be even harder if we take out well-known Unix-likes that are still alive.
I don't really think the current number of entries is excessive and there aren't that many more that anyone could persuasively argue to include. It certainly doesn't seem to be getting out of hand so it probably isn't necessary to decide at this moment. NicM 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC).
Despite my general loathing associated with SCO (I had to admin a few systems for a while), and there isn't anything interesting about the OS, per se - it was a pretty braindead, minimal flavor of Unix - it was the largest installed base of Unix OSes at one point. (I think that perhaps Xenix and SCO should be merged, but that's grist for another discussion.) --moof 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
SCO is either Xenix or System V, so, in a way, we've listed it implicitly :)
Shouldn't we list Unix, btw? Qwertyus 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Unix-like links to Unix in the first sentence, so I don't think it's necessary. NicM 13:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC).

Possible additions[edit]

Contrary to NicM's belief, I note that neither A/UX, RISC iX or any of their close relatives have been discussed here.

A/UX was Apple's original attempt to marry UNIX and the Mac OS, which unfortunately didn't survive into the PowerPC era. Some of its features, although not strongly emphasised in the current A/UX article, remain unique. In particular commando - better explained in the real article than I could manage here - is something unique for the user experience. Unlike the current OS X which can run an X server on top of its custom GUI, it runs the Mac Finder and apps on top of X, and can even be run with no trace of the Mac toolkit or application support whatsoever.

It is therefore notable for including the only implementation of X that can natively run Classic OS applications and the first platform that allowed the Mac toolkit to be used with a preemptive multitasking POSIX base.

RISC iX was Acorn's only UNIX and besides anything else possibly the only commercial UNIX developed in the United Kingdom (even if only as a branch from its BSD 4.3 base) and definitely the first UNIX for the ARM processor. It also has a few unique user interface features, but nothing major - just things like the retention of the two cursor terminal mode of Acorn's own earlier machines and the Amstrad CPC. It was bundled with machines for a while, so was definitely in practical use even if not widespread.

Even if RISC iX is a bit tenuous, I definitely think A/UX is worthy of a place on the template.

ThomasHarte 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I believed they specifically had been discussed. In any case, I think RISC iX was definitely not notable enough to be worth including. I'm neutral on A/UX, as far as I am concerned it can go in if nobody else objects. NicM 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
Re: "I didn't say I believed they specifically had been discussed" - I was far too combative in my use of language and I apologise. With the "or any of their close relatives" clause I was attempting to apply what I distilled as the test implied by the discussions here rather than looking for a specific discussion, but I did go somewhat too much on the attack. Apologies.
Any idea what a good grace period for objections would be? I guess a week since that tallies with several of the formal wikipedia processes for things like article deletion. So that would mean inducting A/UX no earlier than the 15th, subject to objections. Is that reasonable? ThomasHarte 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. For time periods, I don't know if there are any official rules (AFDs and FACs are 5 days), I tend to just leave it until I get bored waiting: usually a few days unless a discussion starts up, or longer if there are a lot of people likely to take issue with it. Personally, since there hasn't exactly been a deluge of comments, I'd add it now and if anyone has any reasons to remove it again, they can bring it up here. I just think additions should be discussed to avoid too many steps on the road to cluster-of-garbagehood. NicM 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
A/UX should be added I think since it was quite notable but, while Risc iX is interesting, the current article is sorely lacking content which makes it hard to determine if it's notable enough to be on the list. - Dnewhall

Name change?[edit]

Given the general consensus illustrated here, wouldn't it be better if this template was headed somethig like "Notable Unix-like operating systems" or perhaps "Significant Unix-like operating systems" (although I prefer the former)? A Category can be created for bread & butter "Unix-like operating systems" so that the obscure and run of the mill are still flagged up as UNIX-like. ThomasHarte 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The current title does not imply it is exhaustive: they are still Unix-like operating systems, even if they happen to also be notable or significant. I think it is fine as it is, any inappropriate additions can be dealt with easily enough or discussed here. A category to incldue everything is a good idea though, then link the template to it per Template:Linux-distro NicM 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

GNU OS[edit]

GNU is a Unix-like operating system. Hurd is it's kernel, but because unix-like operating systems are component-based, other kernels built for Unix-like operating systems can be used with GNU. Some people use a variant of GNU which uses Linux as it's kernel, but that's not what GNU is, that's something else. GNU is the GNU operating system. Sorry for the verbosity, maybe this is redundant but someone has remove GNU from the list of Unix-like operating systems, so I thought I should note here before re-adding it. Gronky 20:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Unix-likes aren't really that component based. Linux is, but the bulk of most Unix-likes are developed as a unit—the BSDs, Solaris, and to my knowledge most of the other commercial ones. In any case, I thought they were calling their OS GNU/Hurd but I see that they're just calling GNU+Hurd plain old GNU, so I guess I don't really object to it staying—I reckon it's well known enough, if only for the 20-odd-year unfinished kernel saga. NicM 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

3RR for DragonFly[edit]

OK, I've seen DragonFly BSD added and removed more than three times now. Can we please discuss and try to get some consensus as to whether it should be there or not? If we were actually voting, I'd say it'd be a very weak delete - it simply hasn't been around long enough, nor with enough of a userbase, to be notable. (Its users certainly seem to be gung-ho about it, however.) --moof 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, DragonFly exists, which is more than can be said for GNU. 65.95.241.86 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A/UX, BSD, NEXTSTEP and Xenix don't exist (anymore) either, but they are historically significant. DragonFly still has to prove itself. Qwertyus 01:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Despite Gronky's opinion, GNU has never existed, at least Xenix really did get used once. NextStep had an actual userbase, which makes it significantly more important historically than GNU. As far as I'm concerned GNU shouldn't be listed and neither should Linux, neither are Unix-like operating systems, GNU/Linux can and should be listed. DragonFlyBSD actually exists, it's really there, it even has people running it, that makes it more proven than GNU at the very least. 65.95.241.86 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
GNU is historically very important in the development of Linux (which you call GNU/Linux), even though largely vaporware. Many other systems have a small userbase, like DFBSD; that alone is not enough to put them here. Qwertyus 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
But GNU is not an operating system, it's never made a functional system, it's a userland. Linux isn't an operating system, there isn't enough of it to make one, it's a kernel. The two as one make an operating system and therefore make sense to list, but neither on their own work. Historically neither work on their own, together they've played an important roll in Unix-like operating systems, but neither are one. 65.95.241.86 20:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Linux is the name used for the entire OS on Wikipedia (as it is in the real world). I'm not going to have this discussion again. Qwertyus 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
But isn't this supposed to be an Encyclopedia, aren't they supposed to do things right around here, not how they're popular elsewhere? 65.95.241.86 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, GNU is not an operating system. Linux by itself is not. However, Linux combined with GNU is not an operating system either, as the actual academic definition of an operating system is software that controls and manages processes, resources, and hardware. Nothing in GNU for Linux does any of those things. The Linux kernel does, but it's only part of it. Anything that runs in kernel space that manages processes, resources, and hardware is actually part of the operating system. That means the kernel, drivers, and kernel modules. Nothing else. GNU makes a small, yet an arguably important, part of an operating environment (GNU is far from actually comprising the majority of an operating environment as it includes all libraries, daemons, and software NOT normally invoked by the user. GNU is far from even a large percentage of this, in fact.) GNU does have some bits in the shell layer and above, but it's all dependent almost entirely on non-GNU stuff in your typical linux installation: GNOME runs on X, and last I checked, there has yet to be an actual GNU implementation of X. I like to divide a computer system into 8 layers: Hardware, Operating System, Operating Environment, Shell, Application, Interface, Peripheral, User. Most of what GNU is lies in the Operating Environment. I divide those 8 layers into two systems, the Control System (Operating Environment and below.) and the User System (Shell and above, and entirely optional to the succeful operation of a computer system.). The Control System would result in a combination of Linux Operating System components and GNU Operating Environment components. But to get a full distribution (Both Control and User systems present and used.) it takes a lot more. This is part of the reason I believe RMS is misguided in thinking people should call Linux GNU/Linux, as GNU is neither critical nor needed for a Linux-based control system (One can indeed replace every last bit of the GNU toolchain with non-GNU tools.) or distribution (Very little in Shell and up is actually GNU! BASH and GNOME is pretty much the only thing GNU has in the User System. And those are readily replaced by things such as KDE, ZSH, XFCE, or CSH, for example. Linux does not actually need GNU. Torvalds used GNU purely out of convenience, not out of politics, despite Stallman's attempts at revisionism.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.97.210 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, lose DFLY for now. NicM 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

hide?[edit]

Is there really a reason to make a template that sits at the bottom of the article hidable? It's like three lines tall, hardly a big thing to scroll past. 65.95.124.5 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unix[edit]

Currently, this template causes pages that include it to fall into Category:Unix. However, some pages are already in subcats of Unix, such as BSD. IMHO, this causes clutter in cat:Unix. Qwertyus 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Plan 9 from Bell Labs and Inferno[edit]

Both are considered by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie to be offical successors to UNIX. Where should they mentioned? eeemess 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But are they Unix? I don't know where the line is drawn, is it only things which partially comply with POSIX? At that point we'll end up with Windows listed. Janizary 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Ken Thompson etc. its Unix for a different type of computing or done over again for more modern computing. In terms of trademarks it isn't Unix - its consider to be its successors. I suggest you read [1]. eeemess 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That's bullshit, plain and simple. It's either Unix or it's not, and if it's not it doesn't belong here. I could call Windows XP the successor to Unix and I'd at least be right, it is the thing that has succeeded Unix as the dominant operating system. Someone's opinion on if it is the successor or not is irrelevant, has Plan 9 succeeded anything anywhere outside of Bell Labs? Is anything about Plan 9 important to the evolution of Unix? Marketspeak does not a successor make. Janizary 22:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What market speak? The co-inventers of UNIX call Plan 9 the Unix for distributed computing. Much of Plan 9 has impacted current Unixes. Much of the evolution of UNIX is thanks to Plan 9. I think you should do some research and get a clue before calling bullshit. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 14:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Blindly calling Plan 9 Unix's successor is bullshit, and it's marketing speak. There is nothing quantitative about successor, was it simply the successor within Bell Lab's research division? Well, that hardly makes it noteworthy. Was it the successor to SysV as the basis for all Unixen? No? Well, that would have made it the successor. UTF-8 came from Plan 9, that's really about all that has propagated to any other operating systems, much less Unixen. I don't see where anything else has been integrated into Unix. Even the compiler, which is noted to be very good, isn't being used in other systems. Where's the impact? What has it done? Janizary 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop trying to twist what I said. I said according to Ken and Dennis. Please drop the zealosness. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to twist the words, you're just using weak ones. What a man says does not become fact just because the man is influential - results; tangible, visible, calculable, verifiable results are what matter, that is how something is counted as being valid. Successor doesn't happen just because the guys who made it and what it is supposedly succeeding said so, it happens after it replaces what it is supposed to succeed. The Atari Jaguar was definately not the successor to the Atari 7800, the Nintendo Entertainment System was, it took the market, it replaced, and thus succeeded, the Atari system. So if anything, Microsoft's Windows NT series is Unix's successor. Is the Enterprise Audit Shell the successor to sudosh? Infact, there was a discussion about this when the man who made eash made an article about it, the result? Not until it succeeds it. Janizary 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why I very simplely used one line and said according to who. Now do you want to answer the question? Where should they be mentioned? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

btw, I answered your question "are they unix." ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you said the men who made Unix called Plan 9 the replacement to Unix, that is different from being Unix. If you can get some sort of a consensus you could list whichever or both as mob rule dictates. Probably only Plan 9, if that, will get any support. Janizary 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "historic unices and unices with a userbase in the hundreds"[edit]

I'm not sure if it is correct to say that "historic unices and unices with a userbase in the hundreds don't belong here" (see edit history). I don't see why only Unix-like operating systems that currently are very popular should be listed in this navigational template. Unix/Unix-like OS have a long history and I think that historic and influencial ones are just as important as current ones. An OS does not need to have a very huge user base to be influencial and historically important. We should not hide all the old/minor ones behind the 'more' link. Instead, we need to find some better criteria for which OS to add and which to remove. Any suggestions? Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is designed as a quick navigational tool, not as a family tree or an article in itself. Links which people probably won't be needing to access don't belong here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Then tell me one thing. Why do you think anyone would only like to navigate to current Unix-like operating systems? I'm not saying we should extend this navbox into a family tree or an article. I seriously doubt that "people probably won't be needing to access" links to historically important Unix-like operating systems. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I too, think that the original list was way too messy. Moving all the old unix versions to the "more" article is the right thing to do. Raysonho (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Even if it was messy, I don't think messy warrants removing all but the most recent ones. There are for instance navbox groups which are designed just for this purpose (which btw. are extensively used in other navigation templates). So why not include some of the more important historic unices into a 'defunct' or 'historic' group (or sth. like that) and the important newer ones into a 'current' group? We should not drop the historically important ones from this navbox because you can't expect the reader to only navigate between current unices. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree there should be some historical aspect to this navbox, unless it's subject is explicitly "Current Unix-like OSs". Surely OSs such as Coherent (an early PC Unix), NeXTSTEP (notable in several ways), Ultrix (ran on three different DEC architectures), UNICOS (first supercomputer Unix?) and Xenix (Microsoft connection) are historically significant enough to be listed? Also, I'm a bit dubious about including POSIX-compliant RTOSs like LynxOS and VxWorks - would they be better categorized as RTOSs? Letdorf (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
If an OS is both, a notable RTOS and a notable Unix-like OS, it should probably be in both navboxes. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a good argument for {{historical Unices}} or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I still agree that we should split the content into two groups or navboxes to avoid "messiness" while showing a broad selection at the same time. However, I think it is also important that the template names make it very clear what should be included and what not. If we create a navbox containing only notable "Historical Unices" then we need to rename this template "Current Unices" or the like to void that an OS gets included in both navboxes. But when I think about it, most of the time we would probably end up including both templates anyway, so we could also just split them into two groups within one template. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we would use both that often - even right now, I don't think the overlap between users wanting to check out articles on Mac OS X / DragonflyBSD / Linux and Plan 9 is that great. And yes, a split would require a renaming to "Modern Unix-like systems" or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What system are "like Unix" (or not)?[edit]

Uniwersalista: "Yes, these systems are Unix-like, because they are like UNIX, have similar system utilities and so on. And iOS is Unix-like, because is based on OS X, which is UNIX". While I believe all of theis to be wrong, I will not revert this until fixed in target pages. See their talk pages and Talk:Unix-like#What constitutes Unix-like?. Please discuss general issue there and specific on the others. Not familiar with Blackberry, just assume same applies there. What "system utilities" are similar? I would say they would have to be the "same" that is be Unix programs, same source code. And in general it would not matter because Unix is not defined by running a few programs already installed but by running programs together including other Unix programs. Based on (some of) OS X, yes which is UNIX, but if you take enough out it not UNIX anymore. You can't even add those things back (without jailbreaking) and nobody has done that to my knowledge. comp.arch (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Unix-like is a very vague concept that means different things in different contexts. It's meant to be broader than the Unix branding by The Open Group, so Linux is included too. This template has always been a battleground for this reason. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand. Agree it's more than certified UNIX and includes Linux as in Linux distribution (most of the time). However doesn't include everything with Linux kernel (or XNU). Kernels only don't not make Operating systems. Can't boot into one and do anything with the Linux kernel only. If something that is added to a Linux kernel to make it a whole Unix-like OS, is then taken away it could, not be Unix-like anymore. Android might be an example, Firefox OS must be. comp.arch (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the intention is indeed to include full operating systems only. Compiling a list of Unix-like kernels is even harder (are Mach kernels included? what if they're used to emulate Unix kernels, like in Digital UNIX or OS X?). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Unix-like kernels" are very different inside, so the internal structure of the kernel doesn't govern whether it's Unix-like. Perhaps the system calls the kernel offers might indicate whether it's Unix-like, but I could see an OS where the only "core OS" API offered to developers is a Unix API but that's all implemented as routines atop a different system call API (Windows NT's system call API is the Native API; Microsoft didn't describe it at all until recently, and it's subject to incompatible changes from version to version. The Win32 API is implemented atop it, with some Win32 calls being thin wrappers and others being more complicated, perhaps using multiple system calls and perhaps sending messages to other processes that actually do most of the work.) Guy Harris (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As for "And in general it would not matter because Unix is not defined by running a few programs already installed but by running programs together including other Unix programs.", I consider, for example, the NT-based flavors of Windows Embedded to be Windows NT, even if, for example, the company buying Windows-based cash registers or ATMs only get to customize bits of the UI by asking the vendor to use different logos/colors/fonts/etc. Guy Harris (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but then Windows and Unix are quite different systems in terms of their history. Windows is defined by being Microsoft's proprietary product + the Win32 API; perhaps ReactOS would be Windows-like, but OS/2 would not. By contrast, the distinguishing feature of Unix is its philosophy of "tools and glue" more than the system call interface. In this sense, Plan 9 is a Unix-like, it has a Unix-style shell, most of the commands, pipes, resources-as-files, etc., even though it is not even (in its native mode) remotely compatible with POSIX APIs. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Distinguishing to whom? Users, script developers, or application/library developers? From my standpoint as a Wireshark developer, the APIs are at least as relevant than the command-line philosophy.
The underlying problem here is that Unix-like, in its first two paragraphs:
A Unix-like (sometimes referred to as UN*X or *nix) operating system is one that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system, while not necessarily conforming to or being certified to any version of the Single UNIX Specification.
There is no standard for defining the term, and some difference of opinion is possible as to the degree to which a given operating system is "Unix-like".
opens itself to original research - absent a predominance of reliable sources all using the term in the same way, the best you can do is support all the senses in which a significant number of reliable sources use it. Guy Harris (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right. Maybe we should restructure the template as follows:
  • one list of "genetic" Unices, i.e. operating systems by AT&T source code licensees
  • one list of trademark Unices, so SFU and IBM's offering
  • a "see also" listing Coherent, Linux, Minix, Plan 9, QNX.
We'll probably end up discussing where *BSD fit in, but at least we're no longer explicitly claiming something is Unix-like. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
See, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:Unix_internals. Could be used in iOS, Android, Blackberry (and Firefox OS?), after approval. I've created articles (and redirects) before but not templates. Seems not to be different really, just that there is an approval process now. Could be used as is after that as is, but even better would be to refactor out Template:Unix and reference that. Trying to figure out how. comp.arch (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think "Unix-like internals" suffers from the same problem. What are Unix-like internals? What is a Unix-like process model? Why is Plan 9 listed, when it changes just about every bit of Unix, except for the basic command line? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Note changes to that template to eg. "Unix APIs". I mean for it to include all what some people consider "Unix-like". Plan 9 is already in the other template. At least it has a shell so I do not object. Do not know enough about it, maybe it should be skipped from at least the "Unix-like" template. It has POSIX subsystem, but not by default? What OSes can we reasonably exclude from "Unix-like", to be put into another section or template? comp.arch (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war about Unix-like[edit]

Ok, Oknazevad: regarding this revert I object to. It seems I'm going to fast. I thought the discussion was over. See section above. It's clear as day to me that all these "mobile OSes" are similar and not very "Unix-like". They all had "Unix-like" in Infobox only, unsourced. But none have it anymore as I removed that as is ok, since it was unsourced (and untrue). The template should follow what the articles say. Please disagree there if need be. Android seems less clear-cut than iOS to me, but I'm just assuming BlackBerry doesn't have a shell and thus is not "Unix-like". Any best place to discuss this? The general issue if there is one? All these OSes are dissimilar (eg. the kernel), but seem similar in being "non-Unix-like", no shell (nor X Windows). Please revert when convinced. comp.arch (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(Note: having the X Window System is not necessary to be Unix-like or even trademarked Unix, and OpenVMS used X as its window system as well.) Guy Harris (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Well, when you make the change less than 24 hours after the previous reverted just made a comment on the talk page , but before that person has responded to your reversion, it's too fast. No harm in waiting a few days. Requested moves and deletion discussions last a week. Don't need to wait that long, necessarily, but when there's multiple people having reverted you, there's need for more discussion to arrive at consensus. + −

As for the actual edit, again, you seem focused on user interface or POSIX compliance, mentioning shells and X Windows. And again, there's multiple editors who think that's too one dimensional. As Guy noted, X Windows is not a requirement by any means; OS X does not use X by default, and yet it is UNIX certified out if the box. iOS still uses the entirety of Darwin, which is universally called Unix-like, so I cannot agree with removing it. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I shouldn't have mentioned X Windows, it's not a requirement, unlike the shell/command line processing, just one of the thing many would also associat with Unix bu now.. Sorry for confusing the issue. The point of operating systems is to run programs, so what type of compatible programs and how (the UI) is the key issue. iOS and Android are at least now os families. Either or both might be also Unix in a very restricted sense, restricted enough to be less than half-truth IMHO. comp.arch (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
[Repeating myself from other talkpages.] Regarding: "iOS still uses the entirety of Darwin, which is universally called Unix-like", Darwin seems to be crippled: "if your script takes 20 seconds to run, that's too long, and iOS will kill the app." [2]. iOS may include all of Darwins binaries, but if crippled in this way no longer follows POSIX.2. If locked down is ok and judging by what's inside ("internal structures"), I can add Tivo to Unix-like? If functioning shell (and/or compatibility in general) is not clear dividing line for inclusion, what is? Some fuzzy line at least would be helpful. If throwing iOS out is WP:NPOV, then so is including. More so I would say. comp.arch (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note my latest edit to the template. I didn't remove anything. Possibly should have used: "With Command-line interface" or "With Command-line interface"? Rename template? To Unix-something? Unix-like should redirect to it, but not be used on iOS and Android. comp.arch (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of running around in circles, may I suggest that we take to heart the usual Wikipedia rule of WP:42 for this template?


Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the subject.


s/Articles/Templates/g. Liberally interpreting this rule, I'd say that whenever a source can be found that credibly asserts Unix functionality and/or Unix heritage for an operating system or OS component, it may be listed, modulo notability and space considerations. Following WP:INHERIT's rule for notability, I suggest that sharing code with a Unix system does not itself imply Unix-likeness. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this an argument against (or for) including eg. Android? I've already included lots of sources establising Android as it's own "OS family" in that page (Infobox and text). [See also recent edits for iOS.] Lots of sources say Android is not "Linux". Looking for sources that say Android is Unix, can't find any credible and none saying that ever in Android's page. Unsourced material (that is "Unix-like") can be removed (not that it can't be both (a hybrid, sources indicate at least it's more "Android" than "Unix" and now a family with "clones"). Please provide any source in these article saying they are Unix (not true) or "Unix-like". Looking forward to it. Until then I would really want them deleted but trying to come up with a comprimize that was [[3] reverted]. comp.arch (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not speaking pro or against any particular OS for inclusion, but we should set up a separate reference list for this template. I'm not sure how to do that though, maybe a subpage Template:Unix/References? Or can we make references hidden?QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Change title to reflect inclusion of iOS and Android? (But not Tivo)[edit]

Unix-like now says:

Functional UNIX
Broadly, any Unix-like system that behaves in a manner roughly consistent with the UNIX specification, including having a "program which manages your login and command line sessions"[1] (unlike e.g. iOS)

Unix has from its start included a command line interpreter (CLI) for "command line sessions" (can it even be added to iOS"?). Reflecting my sourced CLI addition above and that the CLI is gone from iOS (and Android), the title would rightly say "Unix, Unix-like and Unix-unlike operating systems", making it completely meaningless (then should include eg. Windows). Is there a better alternative?

Unix, Unix-like and Unix-based operating systems (no good, Unix-like-based not either)
Unix, Unix-like and POSIX-based operating systems (POSIX.2 is in POSIX, making this not ideal)
Unix, Unix-like and Unix API-based operating systems

Any other good alternative?

And possibly, use my latest reverted change to template with "Without CLI"? comp.arch (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).