Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Schilling (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus can change and Wikipedia requires sources; truth is more of a happy accident. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Jörg Schilling
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-uploaded programmer CV, with big and ongoing COI problems:. PRODed and AfDed some years ago,this still fails to demonstrate notability. There is only one source that isn't an obvious fail for WP:RS and that is a lightweight promotional piece by the employer.

There is are two claims to notability: One, they invented cdrtools a CD burning program from some years back. That article has COI problems too.

Secondly, as claimed at Talk:Distributed_version_control Talk:Version control but not even mentioned in this article, they invented Distributed_version_control as part of SCCS. "Distributed version control" is an important innovation and could convey notability to its inventor, but I just don't believe that SCCS is "distributed version control" anyway, nor that the stream of product innovations listed at talk: are really that convincing as a notable influence.

Wikipedia has standards for WP:V and especially for BLPs. This is failing them. Self-promotion is one thing but the combination of self-promotion and lack of any other real independent sourcing is really bad. Viam Ferream (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see SchilliX, his self-named Unix distro. Another self-promotional article, based on himself as the source. Viam Ferream (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: No substantial coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. I tried looking for RS on Google and all I found was this passing mention on LWN.net. -- intgr [talk] 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * From the information you've posted, I'm all for deleting the mentioned articles, but I think you're going way overboard with your insinuations. Please remember WP:AGF. I skimmed over some edits made by user Schily to these articles, and while I agree they don't abide by WP:V and WP:COI, they are generally minor, nothing that seems to support your claim of "Self-uploaded programmer CV". Both of these articles were created by (apparently) independent editors in 2005-2006. Back then, the standards on Wikipedia were completely different and I think the editors can be excused for not following the 2016 Wikipedia standards. The difference is striking when you read the previous deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Jörg Schilling from 2006. -- intgr [talk] 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AGF? Then maybe Schily would like to start by not describing other editors as "non neutral" when they go to an article at AfD as "no sources", add some sources from pretty substantial places (IBM and Gnu) and then have them edit-warred to remove them. I'll take accusations of "advertizing" from some people (I'm strongly against it here too), but not from a guy who seems to confuse wikipedia with LinkedIn.Viam Ferream (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're going to go to LWN.net for a source and the problems Schily had/still has with GPL, can we use this as a source? "Form all I've heard and read, Jörg Schilling seems to be hard to work with. A couple of factors play a role, he seems to be quite arrogant and ignorant about the work and preferences of others."
 * Sources in the last Afd, a bunch of related Talk: pages and the User_talk: page do nothing to dispute this view! There also seems to be a theme here of "Jörg has a different opinion about this " in both the history of version control, and in the interpretation of software licences - the Slashdot link is largely, "Jörg tells Gnu that Gnu is wrong about interpreting the GPL and the CDDL" Viam Ferream (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is: If you nominate an article for deletion, please stick to arguments that are relevant to a deletion discussion. And if you make relevant claims (such as the COI allegations), then make sure to post sufficient evidence, e.g. links to edit diffs, so these claims can be easily verified by others reviewing your deletion nomination.
 * Right now, you're concentrating far more on insinuations about how bad of a person he is. Whether the person conducts himself appropriately in Wikipedia talk page discussions, and whether they're notable for an article on Wikipedia, are two totally unrelated questions. I am well aware that Schily is a very difficult person to communicate with, from the management of his open source projects to my personal exchanges with him here on Wikipedia. But I set all that aside when evaluating whether an article about him deserves to be kept or not. -- intgr [talk] 14:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that User:Viam Ferream seems to use this as a type of revenge because his biased edits at a different place have been reverted. He tried to add vendor specific documentation to Test (unix) at a very prominent place and as an apparent (but wrong) verification for unrelated text. Vendor specific documentation however is always worse than the official standard document, but the named user seems to have problems with unbiased WP articles. This is why his edit with vendor specific documentation was reverted and replaced by a link to the standard documentation. Schily (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "biased", "revenge" - and I'm the one called out for AGF? Viam Ferream (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The way you act does not create the impression that you are acting in good faith. BTW: I cannot see new arguments for the deletion and the previous attempt already has been objected because the article describes OpenSource activities since 1982. Schily (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep because Schilling is definitely a notable programmer. Between 1996 and 2004 cdrtools was the only open source software in that area. All forks of cdrtools have been abandonned, while the original is still maintained by Schilling almost 20 years after its creation. Such a piece of software is a must have for any general-purpose OS. If you know that on some hardware cdrecord is the only open source software that works correctly you understand why the author of cdrecord is a notable programmer. On many forums skilled users help novice users having problems with media burning caused by wodim and after those novice users follow the advice (of installing cdrtools) they come back with big thanks. Now, if Schilling's opinions about the licensing issue are not shared by the majority, this is a different problem. I think he is right but I don't care (as much as he does) if others don't share his views. BTW, I agree with everything intgr wrote in . I would add that the only problem with Schilling is the way he behaves sometimes when he reverts wrong claims instead of first convincing the other editors, or when he adds true facts without the required sourcing. Ekkt0r (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "definitely notable", notability inherited from cdrtools, "true facts". It's not the strongest case ever. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not present any facts that have not already been discussed with the first discussion that happened nearly 10 years ago. So what is your concern? Schily (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep public interest in Jörg Schilling exists due to the ubiquity of his software, his infamous conflict with the Debian project and lastly him being a core member of the POSIX standardization committee. --FUZxxl (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the available reliable sources would only support the second of your comments. The first is arguable (and needs sources which have not been provided as yet), and the last is a bit of a stretch, given the number of proposals which have been rejected.  Of course he's notable.  But not for the reason he wants to. TEDickey (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * TEDickey, Could you identify the claims you are talking about? I'm a lost as to what parts of my “keep” post you refer to. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to express with “given the number of proposals which have been rejected.” --FUZxxl (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In your comment, you made 3 statements (I'm assuming you know how to parse your sentences). I pointed out that the second of the three is the reason for notability.  The last one is not well-sourced (and given one datapoint, from 13 years ago, probably your edit should be toned down).  It doesn't contribute to notability (take a look at Austin Group and read the source you quoted).  This is probably not the place to explain to you how Austin review works, but you might consider subscribing and following it for a year or two. TEDickey (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up. I'm sorry that I only provided one datapoint from 2008. I can provide further datapoints to prove Schilling's continued participation in drafting POSIX if you request me to do so. I'm a bit surprised that you think that his work in drafting POSIX doesn't count as notability as per WP:BIO (“The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.” where POSIX is that enduring historical record and operating systems development is his specific field). For my first claim there is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence even from Debian mailing lists where Debian project members claim that cdrecord is the single most used program for CD burning on UNIX-like operating systems. I can try to find Debian's internal package installation statistics to demonstrate how often cdrecord has been installed but honestly I don't know where to find them. --FUZxxl (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * here are the Ubuntu numbers source: Packages cdrtools+cdrecord+cdrecord-prodvd+cdrecord-2.01 = 80589 installations (16 recently used) = about 8.6% installed. Package wodim: 907339 installations = about 96.8% installed (2198 recently used). So: 1. Ubuntu should stop preinstalling wodim - nobody uses CDs anymore! 2. wodim has easily 100x as many active users as cdrecord. 3. Despite a PPA being advertised in the Ubuntu Wiki, very few people install cdrecord. Wodim looks to work good enough for 99% of users 91.52.18.12 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have a look at the SuSE numbers since they ship cdrecord by default after their legal department had a lengthy conservation with the author and concluded that his license construct is legal. Most distributions sadly decided to follow Debian's FUD instead of doing their own research and ship wodim. Still, wodim is a fork of cdrecord and as such Jörg Schilling is an author of the software. That 96.8% of the users have installed his software (even though it's an abandoned fork) demonstrates how widespread it is. --FUZxxl (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cdrtools still has 5x ~ 10x more page views on WP than wodim and due to the fact that wodim is a fork from May 2004 that never added any useful new code and that is completely dead since May 2007, all Linux users that write CDs/DVDs/BluRays and use software from the cdrtools collection use cdrtools and not wodim, just because wodim is too expensive because it ruins every other CD. Note that cdrecord turns 20 tomorrow (if you start counting at the day of first publishing) and as Debian decoupled from OSS updates in Summer 2004, wodim only contains 40% of the code from cdrecord. Schily (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete This looks like an excuse to have an attack page on someone over an old argument. Theres not enough otherwise to make them notable. 108.171.128.174 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to clarify: This article was requested for deletion before and a clear consensus emerged that Jörg Schilling is notable. As per WP:N, notability does not expire. I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion. I haven't seen any new arguments so far either. --FUZxxl (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that "everything judged notable ten years ago is a guaranteed pass for judging it again today would have an awful lot of deleted articles reinstated. Even if notions of notability haven't shifted, the bar for proof certainly has. IMHO the notability standard perhaps has gone down a bit, but the standard of proof from sources is far higher. Let alone that this is a BLP and our BLP sourcing and notability policies have very obviously been changed since. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete I'm not seeing notability, then or now. He wrote a program. It was a program enough to be judged notable, but then so do many programmers!  Many of us work on famous programs, important programs, influential or widely used programs (someone out there wrote Minesweeper, but I doubt they have a WP article.) Many of us are part of standards groups or industry bodies.  None of that matters a jot unless someone writes adequate sourcing about that person, not their product.
 * His repeated claim to have invented distributed version control as part of SCCS is just untrue.
 * There is one aspect of Schilling's career that is covered in sources. It is not complimentary. WP is oddly strict on writing people out of the history of the development of shared licensing and copyright metadata when they did make large positive contributions. So why would we give someone an article here when they're best known for their fatuous and project-breaking arguments as to how the whole rest of the world is Doing It Wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe you can influence the results by writing personal attacks and false claims about SCCS? SCCS is maintained by Jörg Schilling since 9 years, but distributed version control is a result from development done by Sun Microsystems and by Larry McVoy in the SCCS area between 1986 and 2001. I recommend you to read the article distributed version control it is not that incorrect as your claims. Schily (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe that by writing about yourself in the third person, no-one will notice that the main contributor to your article is yourself? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide clear evidence (e.g. edit diffs) for the claim that he is the "main contributor to [the] article". I skimmed the edit history and I found his own edits to be relatively minor (though not in detail, so I could have missed something). -- intgr [talk] 10:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see him as the "main contributor" either, but he's happy to spin it in his favour  (and others) and those look dodgy against WP:COI Viam Ferream (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules for WP are: no biased or otherwise unproven claims. Do you have a problem with correcting such false claims? Mr. Wheeler first corrected himself and removed his false claims in the essay on his quoted web page that before contained unverified attacks against cdrtools and those anti-social people from Debian still fail to give any verification for their now 11 year old attacks. What Debian does is called libel and defamation and does not belong to WP because it is a crime. Schily (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability is not transitive. cdrtools is notable - it used to be the default cd writing software on Linux. But that does not make him notable (only "notorious", well said!). Schily-tar is not, Schily-SCSS is not, Schily-make is not, Schily-Bourne-Shell is not, SchilliX is not (in my personal opinion - you may of course disagree, and I know a user here who will disagree very vividly). Of course they are all teh fastest forks out there (according to, guess what, him), but they have exactly one single user, him (see e.g. the Schily SCCS development mailing list). Sorry. If you want a review of these projects, here is one (not by me, via Google Translate). The whole purpose of his efforts appears to be to "avoid" GNU software like the evil GNU tar, GNU make, GNU CVS, GNU Git, GNU bash and of course GNU Linux. Because they are not half as POSIX-compliant as he is (btw: what did he contribute to POSIX exactly? Write the specification for the dead pax command that nobody uses either?). All of them failed - no users, except for cdrecord. I mean, it is amazing how someone can maintain a software like s-tar for 30 years without having any users! Now, get your popcorn ready for his rebuttal below ... Chire (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain why GNU make has been written even though smake did exist 5 years before already? Please explain why GNU tar has been written even though star did exist 7 years before already? Your claims are useless and non-scientific as usual and you quote a person that is well known for being unable to make useful bugreports because he cannot use a debugger and who publishes own funny OSS projects that do not compile on certified POSIX platforms. Schily (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What did you contribute to POSIX? - that is still an unanswered question. All we have seen so far is your name on a long list of contributors. But now I understand why you are advocating POSIX everywhere on Wikipedia, it is another WP:COI of yours. --Chire (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pax dates back to 1989, which predates any published work in the area by Schilling. If he added anything to that in the written standards, clarification would help (e.g., a date and verifiable text for others to read).  He's only published code since the mid-1990s, so there is no issue of supporting users for 30 years. TEDickey (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you give no verification for your claim. There is published code since the mid 1980s and this can be verified via reading usenet articles from that time. BTW: You should be careful with claims from User Chire as he is known for writing repeated personal attacks that are fully based on his imagination. Schily (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the earliest published version of smake appeared in 1999, while GNU make 3.69 can be found from 1993 (with diff's going back to 3.55 in 1989). Keep in mind that we're only interested in verifiable sources. TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, smake was not under version control from the beginning, but it was published in the mid 1980s already and it is under version control since 1985, see the bottom from a sccs log output:

Fri Aug 23 12:04:43 1985 joerg * update.c 1.1 date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:43 by joerg Fri Aug 23 12:04:39 1985 joerg * readfile.c 1.1 * parse.c 1.1 date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:39 by joerg Fri Aug 23 12:04:35 1985 joerg * make.c 1.1 date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:35 by joerg Fri Aug 23 12:04:33 1985 joerg * make.h 1.1 date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:33 by joerg Fri Aug 23 12:04:26 1985 joerg * Makefile 1.1 date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:26 by joerg
 * Just because you cannot find a verification does not prove anything. Note that you are apparently unable to present me a gmake-1.0 tar archive either. BTW: There was a plan to let smake die in the 1990s, but in 1998 it turned out that gmake is unmaintained and that gmake does not work correctly on MS-WIN and does not work at all on OS/2 and VMS (the space handling from gmake is wrong on all platforms, the newline handling is wrong on all DOS like platforms and "include" ignores existing rules and writes error messages even though the makefiles are 100% correct. A related bug report was accepted in 1989 bit there is still no fix. So smake was enhanced in 1998 and newly distributed in 1998. Then after someone tried to compile cdrtools on OS/2 using gmake to no avail spending weeks for this attempt, it took a few hours to port smake to OS/2 and cdrtools finally compiled on OS/2. Schily (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * None of your changes to date on this page demonstrate a reliable source, and accordingly is not responsive. Accusing others of stupidity and ignorance demonstrates that you have nothing to say. TEDickey (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any usable source which demonstrates earlier publication. Your working notes are irrelevant in more than one way: (a) they are not usable as a reliable source, (b) failing that, they are unrelated to the topic at hand, and (c) there's nothing to demonstrate their relevance to the program mentioned. TEDickey (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the past, you repeatedly verified that you are missing experiences from the period before 1990 and for this reason, you don't seem to understand that you usually cannot retrieve all information from the network for this period. Just because you are unable to find the information, you probably like to see, does not verify anything.


 * BTW: the official reason for this discussion is to collect arguments against a WP article. This has not yet been done here. Instead, people are having a discussion about the missing quality of the article and thus arguments against the authors that wrote the current content. Schily (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So test (unix) (in every shell script, ever) gets blanked as failing WP:MANUAL, but we keep an article on pax! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pax is slightly more notable due to it being a compromise between the tar and cpio factions in the archiver wars (similar to the vi/emacs conflict, there has been a long standing conflict between tar and cpio users), which sadly has found little use. But we are going off topic. --FUZxxl (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether pax is notable is largely irrelevant in itself, since this discussion is not about specific programs, but notability of a person. We seem to be short of verifiable comments in this discussion. TEDickey (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I asked if you are interested in further sources some comments above and I didn't get an answer from you. Now you claim that there is a lack of sources. Could you make up your mind? If you want me to provide sources for my currently unsourced claims, please tell me which claims you'd like to have sourced and I shall gratefully provide sources. --FUZxxl (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You started off with a testimonial in lieu of reliable sources, and I pointed out that you are unlikely to find good sources for anything other than the basic reason for notability (the dispute), since other people have attempted to do this and found nothing worth mentioning TEDickey (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean with “testimonial?” How is an IEEE publication itself (IEEE 1003.1) not a reliable source? I can also point out that Jörg Schilling was awarded for his contributions to POSIX. Do you think they hand out these awards like free beer? And if you like, check the older standard as well, his name is in these, too. --FUZxxl (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I provided one reliable source (the participants list of POSIX.1 2008). I can provide further sources, but it seems like you are not interested in seeing them (otherwise you would have asked by now).--FUZxxl (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting (the image and text are found nowhere else, and the Schily's website says the file was put there 2 weeks ago, on the 26th). By the way, it's worthless for the purpose you intended, since there's no indication from The Open Group who got a plaque (hence, no selectivity whatsoever).  I've gotten similar plaques for simply being at a company for a year.  Perhaps you will, also. TEDickey (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I pointed out a problem with the source: it doesn't say what you said (and pointed out a problem with your viewpoint which you promptly validated, for our entertainment). TEDickey (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these history lessons are about programs, not people. What happened to WP:NOTINHERITED? Viam Ferream (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You still did not present a single new argument for a deletion. Schily (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page is not an autobiography, but its subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO either. I see one interview on opensolaris.org (not independent of the subject), a picture of a plaque (not independent) and a passing mention on LWN: a good source for the cdrtools article, but hardly enough to base a biography on. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The plaque was made by the Austin group. How is it not an independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUZxxl (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW: the text from does not follow WP:DEL that requires new arguments for a repeated attempt for deletion. Schily (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I only see a requirement for new arguments under Deletion reviews. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to be funny did not work.


 * Let me assume that people are interested in OSS specific information, let me give a small list of facts that could be verified in court:

This is not much and I may have missed important facts, but there are many other people with WP articles that have much less relevant information. Schily (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1982 star was written to unpack a Modula-2 source tape on UNOS. The archive format was retrieved by looking at the data.
 * 1982 a prototype for a LRU based history editor with cursor control was written, the shell was called via "system" at that time.
 * 1984 The first fully integrated shell (bsh) with the above history concept was written on UNOS. ksh at that time had to call the external program vi for editing the history and integrated a first own editor implementation in 1986.
 * 1984 working on the UNOS kernel (really VBERTOS, a variant that was enhanced to support the BSD virtual memory concepts) in special: a bus coupler driver, the debugging interface and file acceess.
 * 1984... smake/bsh/ved was in use by H.Berthold AG and the schily tools (bsh/ved, ...) have been on UNIX in high schools in Berlin since ~ 1985.
 * 1985 star introduced a private enhanced tar format that supports all file types and not only files, directories and symlinks.
 * Summer 1986 the first SCSI generic interface was designed and implemented on SunOS-3.0. Two years later, Adaptec came up with ASPI that reused most of the basic concepts of "scg".
 * 1987, first star experiments with a FIFO that permitted to keep QIC tape cartidges to stream.
 * Autumn 1988, after Bill Joy contributed the SunOS-4.0 sources for the diploma thesis, the "fbk" (File emulated block device) was designed and written as a finger exercise for the VFS interface. This idea later reappeared in 1993 as "loop driver" on Linux.
 * 1988-1991 design and implementation of the WOFS filesystem (published 23 May 1991 as diploma thesis). A Copy on write design that does not need a fsck program because it implements transactional stability via COW. It may not be the first COW at all, but it is the first implementation that does not need to rewrite all directories up to the root directory in case an arbitrary file is modified. Basic concepts like the method for fast retrieval of the most recent superblock location have been adopted by Netapp in WAFL in 1993 (Netapp aquired a patent for that idea in 1993 that is void because the idea was not new at that time) and by Sun Microsystems in ZFS in 2000. Sun also adopted parts of the "gnode" (generation nodes) concept in ZFS.
 * 1994 the FIFO code was fully integrated into star and is active by default.
 * 4 February 1996, cdrecord was first published in source form.
 * 1997, smake implements better portability than GNU make and is required to compile schily software on various platforms where GNU make fails.
 * 2000/2001 negotiation with SCO for opensourcing the Source Code Control System. Two weeks before the source should be handed out, Caldera Linux aquired SCO and had no interest in OpenSource.
 * 2001 start of OpenGroup collaboration
 * Autumn 2001, star is the first tar implementation that supports the POSIX tar extensions finally standardized in December 2001
 * September 2004, star includes working support for incremental backup and restore. GNU tar still fails to support a working incremental restore today as it chokes with some directory rename operations.
 * September 2004, a lengthy discussion with Jeff Bonwick from Sun about ZFS and backup technologies lead to the definition of the SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA interface for lseek to discover holes in sparse files from userland processes.
 * January 2005, SchilliX first boot.
 * February 2005 star is the first program that includes CDDLd code taken from the later OpenSolaris that was published at 14 June 2005.
 * May 2005, star supports the now ready SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA implementation on OpenSolaris and becomes always faster than ufsdump.
 * 17 June 2005 Schillix is the first published OpenSolaris based distro - before Sun published their next release.
 * 2006 The Bourne Shell was made basically portable and the history editor from "bsh" from 1984 was added.
 * 2006, enhanced the "hsfs" filesystem source code from OpenSolaris by support for ISO-9660-1999 and Joliet, added final support for avoiding kernel panics as a result from rotten filesystem meta-data
 * December 2006 negotiations with Sun regarding opensourcing SCCS, SunProMake and the SVr4 packet system have been successful and the programs have been published as OSS by Sun.
 * January 2006, the first portable SCCS source (derived from the Sun sources) was published.
 * September 2010, implemented and published a modern K&R cpp implementation based on the original code from "John F. Reiser". This implementation is needed for compiling dtrace in a OSS environment and replaces the closed source cpp from Sun on OpenSolaris
 * January 2016, the Bourne Shell now basically only lacks support for $((expr)) to be fully POSIX compliant.


 * Perhaps in 10% of that you might be able to find a reliable source to discuss here (forget the rest). I suggest you start with the part that could be of interest on this page. TEDickey (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.