Can anybody point to a man page or specification that defines the Universal Naming Convention (UNC)? I'm looking for the original source of the idea
An early mention of UNC is in US patent 5363487 (bottom of column 29, an fig. 9), filed in 1989 by Microsoft (thanks to John Summerfield for the reference). A later patent, US 5341499 (by IBM), affirms that “the Universal Naming Convention was jointly invented by IBM and Microsoft for use in their jointly developed Local Area Network (LAN) software products”. This is very likely to mean LAN Manager.
There is a smidgen of Unix inspiration in the UNC, in that it removes the need for drive letters, allowing network drives to be referenced directly instead of having to first assign a drive letter (and make sure not to have a conflict, with only 26 or 32 drive letters). But Unix used a more flexible mount point system from almost day 1, where a network drive can be attached at any point in the directory hierarchy and not at the top.
Unix acknowledges the UNC in that it allows
Note that the rationale mentions “other systems”, not “historical usage”. This strongly implies that
Extending local file systems to be part of a larger network via '//hostname/directory/filename' notation dates back to at least Apollo/DomainOS (1981), though it wasn't called UNC at the time. Apollo/DomainOS could be used with SysV and BSD Unix environments.
See chapter 1 in http://www.typewritten.org/Articles/Apollo/005488-02.pdf
As I remember it (and Wikipedia concurs), UNC is a term that originates from Microsoft Windows.
In fact, I don't think I've ever heard before that it originated in UNIX.
Furthermore, I can't find any references to UNC in either POSIX or any RFC. Every reference I have found elsewhere is in relation to Windows. And the singular reference you cite referring to UNIX as the origin also cites Windows as the origin.
There's a game they play on Sesame Street...
This lack of reference is the best evidence I can find that leads to the conclusion that the term did not originate in UNIX. Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it seems more probable that there's an error in PC Mag's definition than that there's a gaping omission in the POSIX specification and that in all this time there was never an RFC defining UNC, much less even mentioning it.
But I'll gladly down vote my own post if I'm wrong.