File talk:Unix timeline.en.svg

Unnamed section

NetBSD was released prior to FreeBSD, as noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD: "NetBSD 0.8, was made in April, 1993"; "the first official release was FreeBSD 1.0, available via FTP on November 1, 1993"

An updated SVG is available here: http://www.netmeister.org/Unix_history.svg

Thanks for the correction. I'll update it soon. --Isacdaavid (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't use your version, because it exaggerates the time gap. As far as I understand each segment in the upper line represents a year. --Isacdaavid (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Solaris bar color

As noted when it was moved from the top group to the bottom one, Solaris is a Sys V descendent, yet the bar still has the same orange color as the BSDs. No good with editing svg files, else I'd fix it myself. Anyone up for changing it? Oknazevad (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

FreeBSD

I think FreeBSD is still in development, the latest version is 10.1 and not 9.1 as the graph shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaronSh (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 July 2015‎ (UTC) (UTC)

Surely it is, the whole diagram would need to be updated. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for forgetting the signature YaronSh (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate the Linux kernel

This image describes unix-like operating system families. Now I noticed that for 17 versions this chart used GNU/Linux to describe the w:GNU operating system together with the w:Linux kernel, and then User:Oknazevad started a version using only "Linux". I think that it's not a good thing to mix operating systems and kernels in the same chart, and I say this because it's well-known that many people think that Linux is itself a whole unix-like operating system, when instead it's a kernel for Unix-like operating systems. Hoping that the disambiguation should be a strong part in every encyclopedia, I've reverted to the old naming convention and I've also added the version of GNU with the w:Linux-libre kernel that exists since 2008. Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm uploading a new version with the w:GNU/kFreeBSD operating system family added. For disambiguation of the Linus Torvalds job, in this version the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux appear both. I've not written "GNU Linux-libre" because we don't mean the official name of the kernel itself (again, it's not a good idea to mix kernels and OSs) instead here we mean the operating system family that makes use of that kernel. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Please keep in mind that, on Wikipedia and in general, "Linux" stands for the operating system, while "Linux kernel" stands for the operating system kernel. Please see the w:MOS:LINUX guideline for further information. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Sorry if I re-uploaded another version with both, I have not seen you contribution. What I have to do? It's a scheme, there is not much place to disambiguate that work. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'd suggest that we revert this picture to its December 8, 2015 version. There is a huge controversy associated with the so-called GNU operating system, so it would be better not to take sides in that controversy. For example, depicting that "GNU/Linux" (which we don't use on Wikipedia) descends from the GNU system, simply doesn't make sense. Hope you'll agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to prey you to stop being pro-styling-guidelines, this is not simple as an article, this is a schema, and in a schema we have to being objective and simple: w:Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, w:Debian GNU/Hurd w:Debian GNU/Linux are in the same operating system family: they are unix-like operating system, or better, they are children of the GNU is not Unix project. I don't want to ask to you why you are doing so, probably you don't have tried them. I only suggest you to being objective: we should avoid the December 8, 2015 version because it says that GNU is death after "the discovered" of the kernel Linux: this is absolutely nonsense: both are different projects, both lives their own development cycles, etc. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictures illustrate articles, and everything needs to be consistent. I agree that the "death" of GNU, as depicted in the December 8, 2015 version, perhaps isn't the right way to go, but the current version isn't the way to resolve it either. IMHO, at least. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So how to do it? We definitely can't say that whatever in en.wiki is called "Linux" is not a leaf of GNU, because if we say that, we are using a POV-bomb that hides 7-8 years of GNU development before the Linux kernel and 33 years of development since today [1] [2] [3]. So, what do you think as a solution to disambiguate the Linux kernel *and* the operating systems with it? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you're proposed edit certainly isn't the solution, especially because you're going with the idea that Linux is simply a kernel, and that's entirely the wrong way to approach it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made a second attempt to settle this, as I still find the existing layout inadequate (the Linux kernel isn't always implemented in Unix-like systems, as Android demonstrates). The new layout features the 'Linux box' split in two, with the userland and kernel parts represented as separate evolving entities, which perform as a single entity when included in Linux distributions. Paspie (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

And it looks exceedingly awful (garish colors), plus still has the issue of making it look as though Linux systems require GNU, when they do not. Though most do use GNU parts, it's not required, and there's a lot more than GNU stuff running on the kernel. Let's not allow this image to be used to push the GNU POV, which is based wholly on the sour grapes that they never actually got a full Unix-like system working on their own. (And, I find the "just a small part argument to be ridiculous, by the way. Try running a Unix-like OS without a kernel.) Oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Now take on the side the "GNU POV". OK, people call all of this very long list of non kernel related stuff simply as their (absolutely) most used kernel. So? The Linux community provides a good kernel, the GNU one provides (kernel-indipendent) software. We can't mix in this schema both stuff. Both operating system families exist as well: one with a common penguin kernel, the other with common software (without talking about Hurd..). --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Length of the GNU variants family

The Debian operating system variants (Debian GNU/Linux ^#1, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD ^#2, Debian GNU/Hurd ^#3, ..) gives heavy helps to the GNU project since they exists, so why the GNU operating system family is dead here? I've "enlarged" his life and, only to be being neutral, I've leaved both the main GNU project and the version with the Linux kernel as full polygons. I don't know if it's enough to explain the concept of w:GNU variants in this chart (GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux-libre (added) and I hope that someone will add the GNU/kFreeBSD family etc), but I think that it's important to avoid to think that Linux is a fork of GNU when they have very different meaning. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that, as a longstanding consensus, we don't use "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia. See my post above for more details. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion about the length of the GNU is not Unix family ends here with an Already done and with your +1, whatever name we used in discussions to refer to Debian ports examples. We know en.wiki guidelines, consensus, MOS, etc. But this is a user discussion and I don't understand well if you are copy-pasting this phrase to avoid official names of the things also in a discussions, or if you are copy-pasting this phrase only to replicate the discussion above. For the first case, please don't destroy Wikipedia discussions; for the second please keep one problem in its discussion. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Using "Debian GNU/Linux" is fine because it refers to a specific Linux distribution, but using "GNU/Linux" to refer to Linux in general isn't. The trouble is that you used "GNU/Linux" when referring to Linux as a whole in the illustration. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Android

I think that Android AOSP is not a good example of unix-like distribution because it has only the Linux kernel and the OS is written from scratch in Java. So, what it should be done with it? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see Android anywhere in this picture, so we should be fine anyway. In general, Android isn't recognized as a Linux distribution, but it is recognized as a Linux variant. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean that I'm only wondering if it's right to leave it out of here or if we have to say that it's a sort of unix-like operating system child of the Linux kernel. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's finish other discussions before returning to this one. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Excerpt: (I don't understand why we should not discuss this in parallax.)

1. Android AOSP is a sort of w:unix-like operating system that fits in this schema? (If yes, we will insert Android as a leaf of the w:Kernel Linux)

 Disagree Android is only a leaf of the w:Linux kernel and I don't think that it fits the unix-like definition. (Or if we want to insert it as an "evolution"... I don't know.) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

1. (Only if the above) Android AOSP, that it's also built over a minimal w:GNU Core Utilities environment, is also a leaf of the GNU is not Unix operating system?

 Agree Obviously as a very small dashed leaf because we have to consider that Android AOSP it's built over some w:GNU stuff. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)!

Well, IMHO we should be solving issues one at a time, and discussing more of them in parallel would hardy be more efficient. That's just my opinion, of course. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenix belongs below (and should be extended)

Although the first version of Xenix was based directly on Research Unix v7, that was swapped in version 2 with AT&T System III. As such, it belongs in the lower half of the chart (With arrows pointing to it from both Research Unix and Commercial Unix), not the upper half where it currently is. Also, the arrow to it from BSD is unneeded and goves a false impression; it wasn't really a BSD derivative any more than any of the other Unicies of the day added bits coming out of Berkley to it.

It also should be extended, as it continued under SCO alone until 1991 when it was replaced by the System V Release 3-derived SCO Unix, which later became OpenServer, which may still exist. OpenServer 10 is based on FreeBSD, however, though it also seems to have been abandoned as there hasn't been a single update in five years, and the company's website is non-functional (ironically). Either way, Xenix, as a significant historical version, needs to be better placed and dated more accurately. oknazevad (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Minix

Can I know why the Minix is represented as a line and not as a box as Linux? Sarangem (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)