Template talk:Unix

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unix template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 90 days

Unix System V

SCO Xenix 2.1.3 to Xenix/386 are all system V. Should it be edited to have SCO Xenix distinct from Xenix, or would it go in both ? Or should I just edit the article on Xenix to reflect what is going on?

158.51.81.86 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC) https://gunkies.org/wiki/User_talk:ForOldHack[reply]

My inclination would be to have Xenix System V as a defunct System V-based UN*X, distinct from Xenix as an "Other' (V7) UN*X. Were there versions of Xenix branded as "SCO Xenix" that weren't SV-based?

If you have improvements that should be made to Xenix, go ahead and make them as well. (It's not immediately obvious from the history section whether Microsoft or SCO or both of them together System V-ified Xenix, for example.) Guy Harris (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems: Microsoft has the information, and made a lot of mistakes, who gave it all to SCO, who made even more mistakes, and they tried to cover it all up, and it all happened during the Unix wars.

The lead time between, the product announcement, the final build, and the Release to Manufacturing, and shipping, was as long as 4 months, 2 in the case of SCO, 4 in the case of Microsoft, and 6~10 in the case of IBM, and completely unknown in the case of HCR. SCO Xenix was at first System III, Then SCO Xenix was System V, and then it was integrated into the formal ATT Unix tree, and became UNIX. ( and the definitive Unix tree has a bunch of errors ). I have been researching it for 4 years, and just yesterday uncovered more information. 158.51.81.86 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]