Talk:THEOS

I am probably going to be touching on the Theo de Raadt versus Theos thing, where Theos tried to pressure de Raadt into giving up the theos.com domain. This is sorta a mix of self reminder and warning for others incase they want to contribute to the information for this, which will be covered a little under this article and a little under the Theo de Raadt article. Janizary 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Reads like a marketing brochure. Can anyone add some balance to this article?

I have removed the gross misleading figure of the number of users. Recent independent reports from CMP and VDC/EG3 paint a very different picture where THEOS is relatively unheard of. I suggest they may be referring to the number of devices rather than actual users and developers, typical marketing spin. I also have removed the multiple links to all Theos' websites, another typical marketing ruse - one is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ams001 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a THEOS employee and despite it sounds as a brochure, the information is accurate. The theos.com, happened in the 80's and actually has nothing to do with today's company. Any information you would like to ask please email me at andres[]theos.us I would like to see the information expanded. Thanks Andrestheos 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag
I'm doing NPOV tag cleanup. Whenever an NPOV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. Jjdon (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

THE OS
THEOS is also the acronym for the Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven Operating System, which used to run on Burroughs mainframe systems in the 1970's and was quite famous in scientific circles at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.118.46 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the distinguish hatnote so that the THEOS operating system is distinguished from THE OS, which is described at THE multiprogramming system. Klbrain (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge
OASIS operating system seems to be just an older name for THEOS and hence the 2016 proposal to merge the two pages seems reasonable to me. Klbrain (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

about the "agreement" between Microsoft and Altos
"That led to the agreement between Microsoft and Altos to make a commercial usable version of the only academically available operating system UNIX 7 from Bell Labs, which they called Xenix.[dubious – discuss]" I'm kinda surprised no one has actually commented about this. https://groups.google.com/g/net.news.newsite/c/-5ITnc4bxLg/m/cBVCOY4DONoJ is an announcement by Eric of Altos announcing Xenix for 8086 and "will have a M68000 UNIX system later this year" There seems to be nothing about an "academically available". Microsoft actually arranged for this system with Santa Cruz Operations(which went on to sue Linux for copyright infringement many years later). I found much at http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/Finland_period/xenix_microsoft_shortlived_love_affair_with_unix.shtml. Also https://landley.net/history/mirror/ms/microsoft.html At the birth of Xenix, AT&T was trying to make UNIX System V a commercial product, less an "academic" one, and colleges and universities switched to Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). That was happening at the same time as SCO, which consisted of only Larry Michels and his son Doug Michels at the time, was working on Xenix, and apparently the first target, or at least the first platform Xenix worked on was the "Altos 586". (I'm not going to cite all of these statements, too many dead links anyways... I leave that to a future editor of the article) https://web.archive.org/web/20140620173649/http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/pups/1997-October/000020.html "12/08/81   Microsoft and SCO signed a letter of intent for SCO to be a second-source of XENIX" I'm guessing all this got confused and merged together. MS made an agreement with "SCO" about Xenix. Altos was the first computer company to get Xenix (remember up until this point MicroSoft was mostly a seller of "Microsoft Basic" to very many computer platforms. They had no fear of MS as a monopolistic OS company. "System V" was not "academic", BSD would more accurately be described that way. I believe AT&T (not its subsidiary Bell Labs) suddenly started charging close to 10 times its previous licensing price. And this backfired quite badly, and schools especially switched to BSD, and this history would later be important and much quoted by the "Free Software Movement" and Linux (which would be more closely associated with the "Open Source" offshoot without Stallman's leadership.)