Talk:Unix architecture Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unix_architecture

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Does POSIX belong in this article?

I think so, but should it be part of a paragraph or just a one-sentence pointer to the POSIX article? I guess that's part of a larger question: how much description of what a UNIX architecture actually looks like belongs in this article? Tarheelcoxn Wed 14 Dec 18:09 (UTC)

Does Filesystem Hierarchy Standard belong here?

yes, but: do UNIX-branded systems universally adhere to the FHS? If no, the reference needs to be carefully qualified. I'm much more familiar with Linux and the LSB than anything else, and I know the LSB includes the FHS. Tarheelcoxn Wed 14 Dec 18:38 UTC

I just did some poking around The Open Group's website, and I can't find a mention of the FHS. How does the FHS relate to the SUS? Is the FHS an effort including only non-UNIX Unix-like architectures? Tarheelcoxn Wed 14 Dec 19:51 UTC

No, it does not. FHS is a feature of some UNIXes, not a fundamental component of the architecture of UNIX systems in general. If you can do it a completely different way and still call it UNIX then it's not part of the architecture. Georgewilliamherbert 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a Unix-like architecture if it doesn't adhere to the SUS, but it can't be a branded "UNIX" architecture without meeting the spec. If we want to rename the article "Unix architecture" then I think we can stick the word "likely" in there. Tarheelcoxn Thurs 15 Dec 05:37 UTC

This article has been a stub for a while and I really don't see why it can't be merged into the Unix article somehow. I've added a tag. Aubray1741 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two objections:

• making UNIX too crufty
• This stub has only been around for two days. Why not give it a week?

If it should be merged, I'll be happy to edit UNIX to make it flow better with that article, perhaps making it part of the "Standards" subsection. Tarheelcoxn Thurs 15 Dec 23:56 UTC

After posting and getting feedback on Unix, I feel like it would be better to expand and clean up here. They said a merger might be in order after some sprucing up and paring down in Unix. If anybody thinks there should still be a merger, please tell them there. Tarheelcoxn 23:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone still think this article should be merged into Unix?

There's still a merge notice on that article. Ideogram 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no merge notice on the article. I dont know if it should merge. -- Frap 09:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Unix architecture is an operating system architecture that embodies some certain operating system related virtues in the Unix philosophy, not all of the virtues in that philosophy. I would say, everything is a file is one of those virtues, while everything is an agglomerate of small components aren't necessarily included, since many Un*ces are somewhat monolitic. I would say the theory of the non-Unix GNU/Hurd would embody such a small components' pilosopy better. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least this is a weird explanation or comment for "Concurrency": ("many processes run concurrently to improve the performance of the system")

Obviously it can, and probably is the case, that "many processes run concurrently to improve the performance of the system" - however, it's still a pretty weird main case of concurrency.

A more reasonable approach would be to write something about those subsystems which handle concurrency and the basic model for handling concurrency in UNIX. Honymand (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's "multitasking" and there's "concurrency". One use to which multitasking can be put is to, for example, run background jobs by &ing them (or using the batch command in newer systems), so that those jobs can run and use otherwise idle CPU time, and another is a pipeline in which jobs in the pipeline can use otherwise idle CPU time, but that's not really a major part of the Unix architecture.

There's also multi-threading, but that's relatively new to Unixes. (Yes, pthreads have been around for quite a while, but it's an addition to the original Unix design.)

So I might be inclined to just remove "concurrency" from that list.

Then again, paged virtual memory was also not in the original Unix design, and the VFS mechanisms weren't in that design, either, so the entire Unix architecture § Kernel could disappear - that section, as a whole, best describes the SunOS 2.0 and later kernels, that being the SunOS release that introduced NFS and the VFS mechanism into which it plugged, and, being a 4BSD derivative, had demand-paged VM.

And none of them are unique to Unix-like systems - Windows NT is a multitasking OS that supports concurrency, it has a demand-paged VM system, and its VFS is called the Installable File System (IFS) mechanism. That mechanism dates back at least to OS/2.

And Unix architecture § Features not only lists a bunch of not-unique-to-Unix characteristics, but even lists not-originated-in-Unix characteristics, such as the hierarchical file system, which originated in Multics.

So this article probably needs to be "remodeled with a bulldozer". The "See also" section incudes Architecture of Windows NT, but that's different - Architecture of Windows NT discusses the internal design of a single operating system (albeit one that has had changes made to that architecture over time), while "Unix architecture" discusses the architecture of a number of different operating systems, both historically for OSes based on AT&T's Unix and diversely for OSes not based on AT&T's Unix, such as Linux distributions. Guy Harris (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]