PC/IX was developed for IBM by INTERACTIVE Systems. It was based on UNIX System III. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Systems_Corporation Heinz On 5/10/2022 9:08 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022, 9:32 AM Mary Ann Horton wrote: > > I recall having an IBM PC port of UNIX in the 1980s on floppy with > a black 6x9 box and Charlie Chaplin with the red rose. I thought > it was called AIX. I installed it, and recall it being very > different from UNIX for sysadmin (different logs, different admin > commands) but similar for users. I thought it was based on System > III or thereabouts. > > I can't find any evidence of this. It appears AIX 1.0 wasn't for > the original PC. > > Does anyone else recall this distribution and what it was called > or based on? > > > The first 8086 port was inside of Bell Labs, but was for a system with > a custom MMU. The first commercial one was Venix released in 1983 > based on Version 7 with some Berkeley improvements using the MIT > compilers of the time, but it had a blue label with a boring stylized > V on it. IBM released PC/IX a year later (1984) and marketed heavily. > It was a companion to its other unix offerings, and wasn't AIX. That > port was based on System III. If anything had the clever Charlie > Chaplin marketing materials, it was sure to be PC/IX. Microsoft's > Xenix was also in this time frame, but wasn't marketed by IBM (and its > earliest version in 1982 predate Venix, but were only for Intel's > System 86 machines, and may have required an Intel MMU board (the > quick research I did was unclear on this point, other than it was > supported). SCO/Microsoft released in late 1983 and early 1984 > versions for the commercially available PC and other variants at the > time before the IBM-PC became the standardized x86 platform. > > So my money is on PC/IX. > > Warner > > Thanks, > >     Mary Ann > > On 5/1/22 19:08, Kenneth Goodwin wrote: >> My understanding of AIX was that IBM licensed the System V source >> code and then proceeded to "make it their own". I had a days >> experience with it on a POS cash register fixing a client issue. >> The shocker - they changed all the error messages to error codes >> with a look at the manual requirement. >> >> Not sure if this is true in its entirety or not. >> But that's what I recall, thst it was not a from scratch rewrite >> but more along the lines of other vendor UNIX clones of the time. >> License the source, change the name and then beat it to death. >> >> On Sun, May 1, 2022, 2:08 PM ron minnich wrote: >> >> in terms of rewrites from manuals, while it was not the >> first, as I >> understand it, AIX was an example of "read the manual, write the >> code." >> >> Unlike Coherent, it had lots of cases of things not done >> quite right. >> One standout in my mind was mkdir -p, which would return an >> error if >> the full path existed. oops. >> >> But it was pointed out to me that Condor had all kinds of code to >> handle AIX being different from just about everything else. >> >>