-- Gene Prescott (email)

It is indeed an elaborate chart, and entirely useless. There is no indication of what the various branching arrows mean (if they even mean the same thing each time), and there are even some insanely confusing arrows that curve back on themselves (Like in Feb 92). There is a suggestion in the design that the vertical axis contains some sort of information, but I have no idea what it signifies.

Starting with something I knew about (the mach/NeXt/MacOsX lineage) I was able to decipher somewhat what it meant, and that the thick colored lines weren't any different than the others except that they were significant to the designer. Making them a different weight makes it seem like they are parents to these other lines though, and that was a lot of my confusion.

Adding insult to injury, there is a multi-page version that breaks it down into completely uninterpretable segments, and the key to those segments is gratuitously included in the complete chart, with certain segments highlighted in red seemingly at random. I wouldn't dream of allowing anyone to see this chart if it was my work. I was going to highlight this here as one of the worst charts I have ever seen, but someone already started the thread.

-- Phelps (email)

This chart is also factually incorrect. SCO has re-written history in order to bolster their case in the lawsuit against IBM, and their chutzpah is truely astonishing.

It is basically just propoganda. I know I'm getting off-topic, but one of SCO's favorite tactics is to spread documents like this around, and hope that the assumptions in them are not questioned. Do a google news search on SCO if you are interested in knowing more.

-dp-

-- David Person (email)

I thought the chart made sense, I think, at least to a large extent. I am lost on some details. I am not certain of the value or usefulness of it, but then I am not immersed in UNIX these days.

However, I am most distressed that I do not understand why this chart was posted. Did the originator have a question? A point? A suggestion for improvement? A suggestion for generalization, so that the design could be borrowed, or stolen, for other applications?

cheers,

-- Kent Karnofski (email)

I posted the chart originally, I came across it within a slashdot discussion. I thought it was interesting, althought quite busy. It reminded me of the Rock and Roll history poster I've seen elsewhere, although not as elegant.The previous poster who commented that it is SCO propaganda and revisionist may be correct, I don't know. I thought it was worth posting to see what others thought of it.

-- Frank Miller (email)

I know I'm getting off track here, but here is a link to an earlier chart that was altered by SCO to enhance their claims, according to others on slashdot. Just as bad...

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

-- Frank Miller (email)

A fantastic example of all that is wrong with PowerPoint and what happens when you put it in the hands of skilled FUDmeisters like the current kings of misinformation, SCO, was their 2003 PPT presentation. For a detailed analysis of the presentation, see this link:

http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=20031002015401791

I realize that by making this contribution, I may be making a "denunciation of the foolishness of others", but I think there is quite a bit to learn here.

-- Reynold Dodson (email)

History Of Unix Compared to History of Linux

1969		1980		1985		1990		1995		1999		2001		2003		2004		2005		2006	2007	index

-- Niels Olson (email)

The main link for the broken images in Niels post above is:

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

It is a remarkable 22 page timeline which, while a little cluttered (and ugly) is quite clear and seems accurate. It can be downloaded in Postscript, PDF or plotter-suitable eps files.

I first blogged about it in 2003, but it is currently up to date for 2007, so the author (Eric Levenez) is obviously keeping it up to date.

-- Mark Aufflick (email)