15:1215:12, 15 May 2021diffhist+31
OSF/1
→Background: you're guessing right? otherwise you should cite a reference. Here's how you can phrase your guess so people know it's a guess.
15:1015:10, 15 May 2021diffhist0
OSF/1
→OSFMK: hyphen to distinguish built-in collaboration from built in-collaboration or any other way of putting the words together
15:0915:09, 15 May 2021diffhist+1
OSF/1
→OSF/1 AD: even though it's hard to anticipate when a wikipedia page might be read, I think it safe to assume this was written long after the products mentioned became defunct, let alone when they were created, so please use past tense consistently except when (if) mentioning some present use of such a thing
13:5813:58, 15 May 2021diffhist−9
Null-terminated string
→History: tense consistency, encyclopedic facts are not posited at some distant time in the past, with other later facts yet to occur as if written by a time traveler, they are all either in the past, or 'at time of writing' considered present tense or future tense. I think this tense was used to soften the obvious conflict of opinions. If people's opinions collide, this is just a dry fact, softening such facts represents PoV, antithetical to encyclopedic factuality & wiki neutrality
10:5510:55, 14 May 2021diffhist+14
A Commentary on the UNIX Operating System
is it safe to assume the 1996 printing was the most recent? how can this be asserted in a wikipedia-compliant way? I will just say it because it seems correct, people can check for theselves and fix it if they find a more recent printing
15:1215:12, 15 May 2021diffhist+31
OSF/1
→Background: you're guessing right? otherwise you should cite a reference. Here's how you can phrase your guess so people know it's a guess.
15:1015:10, 15 May 2021diffhist0
OSF/1
→OSFMK: hyphen to distinguish built-in collaboration from built in-collaboration or any other way of putting the words together
15:0915:09, 15 May 2021diffhist+1
OSF/1
→OSF/1 AD: even though it's hard to anticipate when a wikipedia page might be read, I think it safe to assume this was written long after the products mentioned became defunct, let alone when they were created, so please use past tense consistently except when (if) mentioning some present use of such a thing
13:5813:58, 15 May 2021diffhist−9
Null-terminated string
→History: tense consistency, encyclopedic facts are not posited at some distant time in the past, with other later facts yet to occur as if written by a time traveler, they are all either in the past, or 'at time of writing' considered present tense or future tense. I think this tense was used to soften the obvious conflict of opinions. If people's opinions collide, this is just a dry fact, softening such facts represents PoV, antithetical to encyclopedic factuality & wiki neutrality
10:5510:55, 14 May 2021diffhist+14
A Commentary on the UNIX Operating System
is it safe to assume the 1996 printing was the most recent? how can this be asserted in a wikipedia-compliant way? I will just say it because it seems correct, people can check for theselves and fix it if they find a more recent printing