Talk:HP-UX

Claims on HP-UX

The following claim in the article references the HP website instead of an independent source: HP-UX 11i is currently credited with leadership in integrated mission-critical virtualization[1] , observed performance, high availability and manageability.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janivz (talk • contribs) 10:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No Oracle executive would agree with this opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.211.124 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@Janivz: Well, this was finally removed after seven years. What people failed to notice was that it was also from an hp.com IP block. In the future, please remove stuff like this when you find it (WP:Be bold, etc.). Thanks for pointing it out, though. Risc64 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comparison

The comparison of operating systems is currently missing HP-UX. — RJH 04:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

HP-UX has been added in October 2005 193.8.177.17 12:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning somewhere Scott McNealy's open letter to HP proposing a merger of HP-UX and Solaris. — rjamorim 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Early history

I've added a chunk of stuff written by Frank McConnell, with his permission. He's a rich source of info and a high quality reference when it comes to HP-UX, and I encourage others to add more - David Gerard 09:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The early history of HP-UX has a lot of holes... for example I remember an HP-UX 2 laptop around 1984 which was basically years ahead of the competition and very fluent to work with. I think it had 128kByte RAM, most of its OS on ROM and a 1MB floppy drive and was a shining example how far ahead over the wintel-world unix was back then. Crass Spektakel 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe what you are referring to was the Tadpole-RDI PrecisionBook --Ruleke (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If 1984 the HP Museum: Integral 512kB Max 2.5MB RAM, 68k, follow the Documentation link off above link for more information. PA machines are from the 90s. RDBrown (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

11.31

The source in the paragraph doesn't mention anywhere that the internal name for 11iv3 will be 11.31 and I can't find anything anywhere else on HP's website. Does anyone have a source for this? Usonophile 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite Steve Ciullo and Doug Grumann's performance white paper:

http://h21007.www2.hp.com/portal/download/files/unprot/devresource/Docs/TechPapers/UXPerfCookBook.pdf

which humorously mentions the internal versioning and later discusses 11.31 as it relates to "11i v3". — RJH (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright license

Is there is still copyrighted code originally produced by AT&T in HP-UX? What sort of license was obtained from AT&T, and are royalties still paid to Novell or SCO? -- Beland (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Versions

LVM was definitely introduced in 9.00, although for s800 only (probably s600 too) - we still have a box running 9.00 and it has lvm!

Some years for various versions are somewhat misleading, in reality they overlapped more: e.g., 9.10 was only introduced in 1998 or 1999, with the purpose of providing Y2K-compatibility for s300/s400. Also, I seem to recall running 6.x already in 1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanit (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations for information like this would be good. As it is, most of the information on this page is unsourced and hence of lower reliability. We can't just rely on human memory.—RJH (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I came across an old manual for hp-ux 6.5 and it's printing history gives some dates for some releases (2.0, 3.x, 5.x, 6.x), I added it to references at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanit (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Was there really version 2.x for series 200? In any case the 6.5 manual refers to "Series 800 Release 2.0" and mentions the manual's April 1988 version covers it along with 6.2, just like Dec '88 version covers "Series 800 Release 3.0/3.1" along with 6.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanit (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

HP-UX and the US Navy

I'm not if it is important or even relevant, but at one point, the US Navy used a significant number of HP-UX run computers on it's ships. I'm not sure if they still do or not though.--Rockfang (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Properly sourced, that would be an interesting addition. 68.116.112.204 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Starbase graphics

HP-UX had its own graphics and windowing system called "Starbase graphics", about which something probably ought to be said. (I don't see anything about it elsewhere on Wikipedia either.) I used this system in 1987 and 1988. It didn't use an event loop like X but was interrupt-based. As I recall X was not available for HP-UX until 1989, at least, that's when I remember switching to it. The graphical part of Starbase seemed to correspond pretty closely to GPIB. I have only a few memories and no documentation so I can't write about this but perhaps somebody out there can.Bill (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. At least a short description of this graphics library should be included. A search on Google Books turns up some references 75.142.26.186 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Multics family

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X

 – Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in the one place. It started in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is hilarious that someone actually made such a ridiculous suggestion! --194.98.58.121 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Supported hardware platforms

I think we should add HP-UX supported hardware platforms such as RX,RP, HP 9000 and Superdome servers here. The article will not be completed without this list. Anybody have suggestions? Abhilashkrishn (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point in an exhaustive list. If you want to make one, fine, but please do it as a separate article, and keep in mind that there's already a list of Hewlett-Packard products. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My intention was to explore this particular area as HP-UX OS itself runs on specified HP servers rather than the counter parts of other OSes. Also not all HP hardwares cannot run this OS. They are hardware specified either to be PA-RISC and Integrity architecture. The same type of list can be see for the OS, IBM AIX here in wikipedia as they also hardware specific. So what is your cent? Abhilashkrishn (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Historically HP-UX has run on 68k, HP Focus, then PA-RISC and then Itanium. AIX has run on RT, i486, RS/6000 (RIOS/1), S370 and the various Power levels.

If you want to say that current HP-UX runs only on current PA-RISC 2.0 or Itanium machines from HP with an appropriate reference that would make some sense. Giving the version at which support for the 32-bit PA-RISCs ended (if it has) may be useful. What are you wanting to accomplish? Saying that hardware vendors Unix version will only run on their machines is what you'd expect. The only exception I can think of is Solaris X86. RDBrown (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was searching for supported hardwares of these OSes in wiki: HP-UX, IBM-AIX and Sun Solaris. I have found IBM_AIX Supported hardware platforms for AIX and a similar Solaris Supported architectures for Solaris. But I cannot find a similar section for HP-UX in wiki even though these three are mainstream UNIX operating systems. So I would like to see a similar section for HP-UX because that will enrich the wikipedia with numerous unexplored areas in this section. Could somebody help with small advices? Abhilashkrishn (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

{{autobiography}} template and bias review

See the section on my user page.

This article generally seems biased, and there have been HP employees editing it from unregistered IP addresses at least in 2008-2014. It's understandable that they edit, but because some of their additions are heavily biased (and, less so, because they didn't declare) the article needs to be reviewed. Risc64 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Future developments

I'm about to remove this from the article. It probably contains valuable information, but that information should be offered rather than the link. Risc64 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HP-UX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024031028/http://h20338.www2.hp.com/hpux11i/downloads/HP-UX_Binary_Compatibility.pdf to http://h20338.www2.hp.com/hpux11i/downloads/HP-UX_Binary_Compatibility.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)