Talk:UniSoft

Notability

If all the company had done is what is does today then it would not be notable. However it is notable for what it did in the early days of Unix development and no history of Unix is complete without it. Outside AT&T, BSD UNIX tended to dominate in the early years of workstations and small servers. Unisoft was unusual because they ported AT&T UNIX for commercial release. Without them SYS V. would probably not have become a player in UNIX operating systems.

@user:Lordtobi I am interested to hear why you put the banner asking about notability at the top of the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Notability—at least for me—is what normally goes hand-in-hand with significant coverage. Aside from mentions, such as in the one secondary source we have in the article (where "UniSoft" is mentioned only once), which would prevent Unreferenced, One source, and Refimprove templates, significant coverage would aim at articles that discuss actions or details about the company itself, and not just mention one small detail on the side. I hung up the Notability template because I found so far no article that in-detail discusses UniSoft, wether it is about its origin, a report, or news about it. As long as it does not fulfill SIGCOV and as such the general notability guideline, I consider the company not notable (let aside that I never even heard about it). On top comes that Batreeqah [jokingly/misunderstandingly?] moved the article to "UniSoft Infotech Corporation"—a company that does not exist, which's name is likely a mixup of this "UniSoft Corporation" and the Indian "Unisoft Infotech Private Limited"—in 2015, and nobody noticed until my CSD request a few days ago. So yeah. Lordtobi (✉) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a stub so maintenance template like Refimprove are not warranted. The notability one is slightly different which is why I did not remove it.

A search of goolge books turns up lots of mentions. One in the first 10 caught my eye:

• Computerworld - 2 Mar 1987 - Page 94 "Apple brackets Unix, Ethernet": "Along with the new Macintoshes (see story page1), Apple will unveil bothe Ethernet and UNIX networking products. Unisoft Coprp. has incorporated advanced connectivity features into the A/UX operating system, a Unix implementation developed for Apple by Unisoft".

So Unisoft give Sun access to its first Unix OS and it also did the same for Apple. In the "over 225 Unix ports to numerous platforms" there will be many more firsts of companies that went on to be household names. However IMHO in the history of computing the ports to Sun and Apple platforms would be enough to warrant notability. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"IMHO in the history of computing the ports to Sun and Apple platforms would be enough to warrant notability."——That's a conflic of interest probably, and it comes down to each one's interpretation of notability. I'm fin if you wish to take down the Notability notice, but if it does not develop into achieving SIGCOV as an article, I will most likely take it to AfD after some time. Lordtobi (✉) 11:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to use short-cut links to make points please link them like this WP:SIGCOV as it is inconvenient for others to have to put them into a search box, when they can be a click-able link. How can it be a conflict of interest? surly it is no more a conflict of interest than you bracketed comment "(let aside that I never even heard about it)" which in IMHO is not a conflict of interest at all. Perhaps were are using different interpretations of conflict of interest. When you use the phrase do you mean as it is defined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or something different? Before you put up the template did you do a Google book search? If so did yo look through them before making your assessment on notability? If you put it up for AfD then please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

India connection

The snippet view in

• President, United States. (1990), Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Federal Register Division, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, p. 607

Is available in full online:

• George Bush: "White House Statement on the Proposed Foreign Acquisition of UniSoft Group Limited," May 2, 1990. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

It sates that: "UniSoft Group Ltd. (UGL), a British computer software firm with a subsidiary in the United States" and that an Indian firm CMC owned by the Indian Government wished to purchase it. It also states that UniSoft Corp. was a subsidiary of the British company, and that there were no U.S. national interests stopping in the Indian company acquiring the U.S. company through a purchase of the British company.

Later that same year (October 1990) a company was created in India Unisoft Computers Private Limited whether that ties into either the acquisition of the British UniSoft Group Limited, or either of these two Indian companies Unisoft India Pvt Ltd or Unisoft Infotech Private Limited is not immediately clear.

-- PBS (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems like there was no company by the name "UniSoft Group" registered in the UK; there were a couple other UniSoft-s, but none founded 1990 or earlier, the erarliest being 1994. I'm not quite sure if or how far these UniSofts are tied together, "UniSoft" is seemingly only a registered trademark in the US, so the name could have easily been copied over by other companies (an indication there might be the misspelling of Unisoft with lower-case s, but who am I to judge?). Then again, how far does this plunge into original research? Lordtobi (✉)

Uni[x]soft is bound to be a popular name as it was a fashion at the time to create names like that (eg microsoft).

The question of sources is an interesting one: "The President has decided against intervening in the possible acquisition by CMC Limited, a firm owned by the Government of India, of UniSoft Group Ltd. (UGL), a British computer software firm with a subsidiary in the United States." Clearly at that time the US government believed that there was a British company with that name. As to your question it does not plunge in to OR. Not at all. Following and summarising sources is precisely what is meant to be done "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking through corporate sites to compare names with UniSoft regardless of lack of written evidence, and waging its their connection to this UniSoft is indeed OR. Even though we can, due to the source, safely say that UniSoft Corporation is/was a subsidiary of UniSoft Group Limited (even if that might have just been a dba name rather than the actual legal name). Lordtobi (✉) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)