From newsham at lava.net Sat May 16 02:48:46 2009 From: newsham at lava.net (Tim Newsham) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:48:46 -1000 (HST) Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty Message-ID: So when do the official celebrations begin? What's a good estimate of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ From neozeed at gmail.com Sat May 16 03:27:50 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:27:50 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> I'd love to get as much of literature, ads, pdf's & stuff for all the research editions, and package them up to celebrate the 40th... I've been doing some limited stuff with v1 & the BSD stuff but it'd be fun to do something for 1/4/5/6/32v... Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? I know it was 'ok' by the fact it had been omitted by the opening memo that had stated that the 32bit versions of SYSIII & SYSV were not free... On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Tim Newsham wrote: > So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? > > Tim Newsham > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From aek at bitsavers.org Sat May 16 04:09:37 2009 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:09:37 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A0DAFE1.5090605@bitsavers.org> Jason Stevens wrote: > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? I was thinking about the software's status recently, and was wondering where people would go now if they wanted an ancient Unix license, or would like to have source access for non-commercial use. There is some software that the Computer History Museum has that we're trying to get licensed for non-commercial use, but some of the sources are encumbered by having some parts that were derived from Unix distributions. From rro at das.ufsc.br Tue May 19 12:20:03 2009 From: rro at das.ufsc.br (Rafael R Obelheiro) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:20:03 -0300 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090519022003.GC1849@das.ufsc.br> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > I'd love to get as much of literature, ads, pdf's & stuff for all the > research editions, and package them up to celebrate the 40th... On a related note, does anyone know if the 1978 and 1984 issues of the Bell System Technical Journal dedicated to UNIX have been made available online, or if this is even a possibility? AFAIK, a few papers have appeared here and there, but having the full collection would be another nice way of celebrating the 40 years... Best regards, Rafael > > I've been doing some limited stuff with v1 & the BSD stuff but it'd be > fun to do something for 1/4/5/6/32v... > > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? > I know it was 'ok' by the fact it had been omitted by the opening memo > that had stated that the 32bit versions of SYSIII & SYSV were not > free... > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Tim Newsham wrote: > > So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate > > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? > > > > Tim Newsham > > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From arnold at skeeve.com Tue May 19 14:42:43 2009 From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:42:43 +0300 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty Message-ID: <200905190442.n4J4ghna003859@skeeve.com> What a lovely thought! ISTR that many of the papers in the 1978 issue were from the V7 distribution, so the text is around, but not in that format. DMR could probably clarify more about those issues. (Please?) I own paper copies of both, although I'm not sure I could find them quickly if necessary. :-) I doubt that SysIII is free, even the 16 bit stuff; the userland is more interesting than the kernel land, and that stuff didn't really care (much) about 16 vs. 32 bit. Arnold > Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:20:03 -0300 > From: Rafael R Obelheiro > To: tuhs at tuhs.org > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > > I'd love to get as much of literature, ads, pdf's & stuff for all the > > research editions, and package them up to celebrate the 40th... > > On a related note, does anyone know if the 1978 and 1984 issues of the > Bell System Technical Journal dedicated to UNIX have been made > available online, or if this is even a possibility? AFAIK, a few > papers have appeared here and there, but having the full collection > would be another nice way of celebrating the 40 years... > > Best regards, > Rafael > > > > > I've been doing some limited stuff with v1 & the BSD stuff but it'd be > > fun to do something for 1/4/5/6/32v... > > > > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? > > I know it was 'ok' by the fact it had been omitted by the opening memo > > that had stated that the 32bit versions of SYSIII & SYSV were not > > free... > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Tim Newsham wrote: > > > So when do the official celebrations begin? �What's a good estimate > > > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? > > > > > > Tim Newsham > > > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > TUHS mailing list > > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From neozeed at gmail.com Tue May 19 16:13:13 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 02:13:13 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <200905190442.n4J4ghna003859@skeeve.com> References: <200905190442.n4J4ghna003859@skeeve.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe@mail.gmail.com> I kind of figured that's why the PDP-11 & z8000 sys3 stuff up & disappeared... Although I have to wonder, as someone who paid SCO (Old sco I think) the $100 for an ancient unix license, what did it cover again? It was sooooo long ago.. But I'm guessing it was research 1-7 & 32v...? Wait I see what it covered in here: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Seminars/Saving_Unix/ While i'd love to have some kind of sysv for a vax (even the 780 which simh can run...) I would suspect the license cost would simply be astronomical... lol it'd be probably more feasable to port Solaris 10 to the 11/780... (yes I'm kidding!). There is also a wealth of information on googles "groups" with information from the 1980's taken from usenet backup tapes, it would be 'neat' to have them online in some kind of NNTP server that tin or pine could actually read... So you could browse this massive 'database' of unix knowledge from an ancient unix (well one that has either local news with all the google groups, or a TCP enabled unix...) Anyways I can tell I'm rambling, and the cat is jumping on the keyboard so I'm off to bed. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote: > What a lovely thought! > > ISTR that many of the papers in the 1978 issue were from the V7 > distribution, so the text is around, but not in that format. > DMR could probably clarify more about those issues. (Please?) > > I own paper copies of both, although I'm not sure I could find them > quickly if necessary. :-) > > I doubt that SysIII is free, even the 16 bit stuff; the userland is > more interesting than the kernel land, and that stuff didn't really care > (much) about 16 vs. 32 bit. > > Arnold > >> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:20:03 -0300 >> From: Rafael R Obelheiro >> To: tuhs at tuhs.org >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: >> > I'd love to get as much of literature, ads, pdf's & stuff for all the >> > research editions, and package them up to celebrate the 40th... >> >> On a related note, does anyone know if the 1978 and 1984 issues of the >> Bell System Technical Journal dedicated to UNIX have been made >> available online, or if this is even a possibility? AFAIK, a few >> papers have appeared here and there, but having the full collection >> would be another nice way of celebrating the 40 years... >> >> Best regards, >> Rafael >> >> > >> > I've been doing some limited stuff with v1 & the BSD stuff but it'd be >> > fun to do something for 1/4/5/6/32v... >> > >> > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? >> > I know it was 'ok' by the fact it had been omitted by the opening memo >> > that had stated that the 32bit versions of SYSIII & SYSV were not >> > free... >> > >> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Tim Newsham wrote: >> > > So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate >> > > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? >> > > >> > > Tim Newsham >> > > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > TUHS mailing list >> > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > TUHS mailing list >> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs >> _______________________________________________ >> TUHS mailing list >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs >> > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > From imp at bsdimp.com Wed May 20 01:12:41 2009 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:12:41 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905190442.n4J4ghna003859@skeeve.com> <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090519.091241.-1470512288.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe at mail.gmail.com> Jason Stevens writes: : I kind of figured that's why the PDP-11 & z8000 sys3 stuff up & : disappeared... Although I have to wonder, as someone who paid SCO : (Old sco I think) the $100 for an ancient unix license, what did it : cover again? : : It was sooooo long ago.. But I'm guessing it was research 1-7 & 32v...? : : Wait I see what it covered in here: : : http://minnie.tuhs.org/Seminars/Saving_Unix/ : : While i'd love to have some kind of sysv for a vax (even the 780 which : simh can run...) I would suspect the license cost would simply be : astronomical... lol it'd be probably more feasable to port Solaris 10 : to the 11/780... (yes I'm kidding!). NetBSD should work on vax :) : There is also a wealth of information on googles "groups" with : information from the 1980's taken from usenet backup tapes, it would : be 'neat' to have them online in some kind of NNTP server that tin or : pine could actually read... So you could browse this massive : 'database' of unix knowledge from an ancient unix (well one that has : either local news with all the google groups, or a TCP enabled : unix...) Google kinda did this with dejanews. Some love it, most tolerate it... Warner : Anyways I can tell I'm rambling, and the cat is jumping on the : keyboard so I'm off to bed. : : On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote: : > What a lovely thought! : > : > ISTR that many of the papers in the 1978 issue were from the V7 : > distribution, so the text is around, but not in that format. : > DMR could probably clarify more about those issues. (Please?) : > : > I own paper copies of both, although I'm not sure I could find them : > quickly if necessary. :-) : > : > I doubt that SysIII is free, even the 16 bit stuff; the userland is : > more interesting than the kernel land, and that stuff didn't really care : > (much) about 16 vs. 32 bit. : > : > Arnold : > : >> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:20:03 -0300 : >> From: Rafael R Obelheiro : >> To: tuhs at tuhs.org : >> : >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: : >> > I'd love to get as much of literature, ads, pdf's & stuff for all the : >> > research editions, and package them up to celebrate the 40th... : >> : >> On a related note, does anyone know if the 1978 and 1984 issues of the : >> Bell System Technical Journal dedicated to UNIX have been made : >> available online, or if this is even a possibility? AFAIK, a few : >> papers have appeared here and there, but having the full collection : >> would be another nice way of celebrating the 40 years... : >> : >> Best regards, : >> Rafael : >> : >> > : >> > I've been doing some limited stuff with v1 & the BSD stuff but it'd be : >> > fun to do something for 1/4/5/6/32v... : >> > : >> > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? : >> > I know it was 'ok' by the fact it had been omitted by the opening memo : >> > that had stated that the 32bit versions of SYSIII & SYSV were not : >> > free... : >> > : >> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Tim Newsham wrote: : >> > > So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate : >> > > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? : >> > > : >> > > Tim Newsham : >> > > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ : >> > > _______________________________________________ : >> > > TUHS mailing list : >> > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : >> > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : >> > > : >> > _______________________________________________ : >> > TUHS mailing list : >> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : >> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : >> _______________________________________________ : >> TUHS mailing list : >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : >> : > : > _______________________________________________ : > TUHS mailing list : > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : > : > : _______________________________________________ : TUHS mailing list : TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : : From cowan at ccil.org Wed May 20 01:21:52 2009 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:21:52 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905190442.n4J4ghna003859@skeeve.com> <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090519152152.GB18575@mercury.ccil.org> Jason Stevens scripsit: > There is also a wealth of information on googles "groups" with > information from the 1980's taken from usenet backup tapes, it would > be 'neat' to have them online in some kind of NNTP server that tin or > pine could actually read... So you could browse this massive > 'database' of unix knowledge from an ancient unix (well one that has > either local news with all the google groups, or a TCP enabled > unix...) Client-server, as opposed to peer-to-peer, NNTP support is very expensive and painful at large scale, which is probably why Google doesn't provide it (disclaimer: I work for them, but not on Groups, and I don't know anything about Groups that isn't public knowledge). AFAIK no one has ever written an event-driven NNTP server that suppots NNTP reader mode; even innd spawns a separate process when contacted by a non-peer. -- You're a brave man! Go and break through the John Cowan lines, and remember while you're out there cowan at ccil.org risking life and limb through shot and shell, http://ccil.org/~cowan we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! --Rufus T. Firefly From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com Wed May 20 01:28:30 2009 From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:28:30 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <20090519.091241.-1470512288.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200905190442.n4J4ghna003859@skeeve.com> <46b366130905182313l1dc757cdr47449749da930efe@mail.gmail.com> <20090519.091241.-1470512288.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0905190828j6599477boe6a73efaa989688a@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > NetBSD should work on vax :) But it's not System V, now is it... For some, that may be an advantage, but if you want to run SysV for some reason, then BSD, be it of the 4.3 or the NET variety isn't really the answer. Maybe we can lean on Novell to update the Ancient Unix license and add Sys III and Sys V (or at least at the versions prior the SVR4), though. It couldn't hurt. Personally, though, I'd rather see V8-V10 of research Unix made available. It would be interesting to see firsthand how we got from Unix to Plan 9... From arnold at skeeve.com Wed May 20 04:51:52 2009 From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:51:52 +0300 Subject: [TUHS] Old paper copies of v2 - v5? Message-ID: <200905191851.n4JIpqBN003971@skeeve.com> I have a question about something in this link: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Seminars/Saving_Unix/ Where it says: Two other PUPS members, Norman Wilson and Robert D. Keys, have been OCR'ing the manuals from 1st Edition up to 5th Edition, so that they can be given to Dennis and added to the PUPS Archive. That was back in 1999. Did this ever happen? If not, any chance of getting it to happen? Thanks! Arnold From wkt at tuhs.org Wed May 20 07:27:46 2009 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 07:27:46 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Old paper copies of v2 - v5? In-Reply-To: <200905191851.n4JIpqBN003971@skeeve.com> References: <200905191851.n4JIpqBN003971@skeeve.com> Message-ID: <20090519212746.GA90814@minnie.tuhs.org> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 09:51:52PM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote: > I have a question about something in this link: > > http://minnie.tuhs.org/Seminars/Saving_Unix/ > > Where it says: > > Two other PUPS members, Norman Wilson and Robert D. Keys, have > been OCR'ing the manuals from 1st Edition up to 5th Edition, > so that they can be given to Dennis and added to the PUPS Archive. > > That was back in 1999. Did this ever happen? If not, any chance of > getting it to happen? Here's what we have: 1st Ed: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v1/1stEdman.html 2nd Ed: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v2/unix_2nd_edition_manual.pdf 3rd Ed: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v3/v3man.tar.gz 4th Ed: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v4/v4man.tar.gz but I haven't scanned in the 5th Ed manuals yet :-( Cheers, Warren From wkt at tuhs.org Wed May 20 07:31:49 2009 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 07:31:49 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090519213149.GB90814@minnie.tuhs.org> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? Unfortunately, no. The Ancient UNIX Hobbyist license does not cover it in any form: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf. But those who purchased the $100 OldSCO license have access to SysIII. Cheers, Warren From cowan at ccil.org Wed May 20 07:49:13 2009 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:49:13 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <20090519213149.GB90814@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> <20090519213149.GB90814@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20090519214913.GC30263@mercury.ccil.org> Warren Toomey scripsit: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > > Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? > > Unfortunately, no. The Ancient UNIX Hobbyist license does not cover it > in any form: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf. But those > who purchased the $100 OldSCO license have access to SysIII. Who is the successor in interest to OldSCO at this point? -- John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan Nobody expects the RESTifarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise ... surprise and tedium ... tedium and surprise .... Our two weapons are tedium and surprise ... and ruthless disregard for unpleasant facts.... Our three weapons are tedium, surprise, and ruthless disregard ... and an almost fanatical devotion to Roy Fielding.... From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 20 10:43:44 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:43:44 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <20090519213149.GB90814@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <46b366130905151027w66f611b9k92816cb2e4ba6a39@mail.gmail.com> <20090519213149.GB90814@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <46b366130905191743x22c9cb89l39cb8aa7edd7a7fe@mail.gmail.com> Oh cool, so as a buyer of the old sco $100 license I suppose I should contact you about getting SYSIII access ;) And on that note has anyone installed it on SIMH? On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Warren Toomey wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: >> Oh and now that Im thinking about it, is the 16bit SYSIII stuff free? > > Unfortunately, no. The Ancient UNIX Hobbyist license does not cover it > in any form: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf. But those > who purchased the $100 OldSCO license have access to SysIII. > > Cheers, >        Warren > From wkt at tuhs.org Wed May 20 12:26:07 2009 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:26:07 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Old paper copies of v2 - v5? In-Reply-To: <20090520005102.23A9040E8@lod.com> References: <20090519212746.GA90814@minnie.tuhs.org> <20090520005102.23A9040E8@lod.com> Message-ID: <20090520022607.GB94320@minnie.tuhs.org> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 05:51:01PM -0700, Corey Lindsly wrote: > > Greetings. > I am getting some broken links on the 1st Ed page. > > http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v1/1stEdman.html Oops. Looks like Dennis' site has changed and my copy of his HTML document is now outdated. Simply go to: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v1/ and browse the PDF files from there. Cheers, Warren From dpeschel at eskimo.com Wed May 20 14:56:10 2009 From: dpeschel at eskimo.com (Derek Peschel) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:56:10 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: ; from newsham@lava.net on Fri, May 15, 2009 at 06:48:46AM -1000 References: Message-ID: <20090519215610.A10612@eskimo.com> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 06:48:46AM -1000, Tim Newsham wrote: > So when do the official celebrations begin? What's a good estimate > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? Interesting question! And related questions -- When did the current start of the epoch get chosen? Were there any false starts or early changes? (I seem to recall reading about one change, moving forward by a year.) And were there ever any dates in the system that couldn't be correctly recorded, because the epoch started too late? The other question is what the official celebrations should celebrate. Personally, I'd chip in on a big cake with one candle for each year that a reasonable amount of UNIX source code was available. No way was UNIX ever open source in the modern sense, but it did set a precedent and things could have been much worse. When you consider the Bell System's normal attitude toward proprietary information, the UNIX sources look even more valuable. -- Derek From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 20 15:16:18 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:16:18 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <20090519215610.A10612@eskimo.com> References: <20090519215610.A10612@eskimo.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905192216h6ec2a0a6s64357feab5a58b95@mail.gmail.com> What more (well to me) is that interactive Unix was the first commercial unix.... I suspect all versions of it's PDP-11 & VAX stuff is lost forever? Does anyone know why Kodak would have bought them? I suspect they had some imaging stuff going....? On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Derek Peschel wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 06:48:46AM -1000, Tim Newsham wrote: >> So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate >> of the month and date in 1969 when it all began? > > Interesting question!  And related questions -- When did the current > start of the epoch get chosen?  Were there any false starts or early > changes?  (I seem to recall reading about one change, moving forward > by a year.)  And were there ever any dates in the system that couldn't > be correctly recorded, because the epoch started too late? > > The other question is what the official celebrations should celebrate. > Personally, I'd chip in on a big cake with one candle for each year > that a reasonable amount of UNIX source code was available.  No way was > UNIX ever open source in the modern sense, but it did set a precedent > and things could have been much worse.  When you consider the Bell > System's normal attitude toward proprietary information, the UNIX sources > look even more valuable. > > -- Derek > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From tfb at tfeb.org Wed May 20 18:21:34 2009 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:21:34 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <20090519215610.A10612@eskimo.com> References: <20090519215610.A10612@eskimo.com> Message-ID: <3B54F918-4B51-465A-B70D-94A6B72359B6@tfeb.org> On 20 May 2009, at 05:56, Derek Peschel wrote: > Interesting question! And related questions -- When did the current > start of the epoch get chosen? Were there any false starts or early > changes? (I seem to recall reading about one change, moving forward > by a year.) And were there ever any dates in the system that couldn't > be correctly recorded, because the epoch started too late? I'm not sure of the case in very early Unix, but I think in recent (4BSD and later is all I know well) history, time has always been a signed quantity, so you have as long before the epoch as you do after. My wife has an amusing (in retrospect) story about someone who decided it would be interesting to see what happened if you set the clock on a system (these would have been Suns (definitely) running SunOS 4.x (I think, might have been 3)) close to the end of time and see what happens when it wraps: the result was a lot of files with dates in the long distant past, and a lot of work to fix this (which she forced the perpetrator to undertake I think). However I have some memory that really early Unix (a) had a different epoch and (b) counted in different units related to some clock interrupt - 60ths of a second? - which gave a rather short wraparound. --tim From a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com Thu May 21 23:07:15 2009 From: a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com (A P Garcia) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:07:15 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] kodak Message-ID: > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:16:18 -0400 > From: Jason Stevens > Subject: Re: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty > To: tuhs at tuhs.org > Message-ID: >        <46b366130905192216h6ec2a0a6s64357feab5a58b95 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > What more (well to me) is that interactive Unix was the first > commercial unix.... I suspect all versions of it's PDP-11 & VAX stuff > is lost forever? > > Does anyone know why Kodak would have bought them?  I suspect they had > some imaging stuff going....? They did have microfiche printers running a custom X11 interface. From tuhs at cuzuco.com Fri May 22 06:39:27 2009 From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty Message-ID: <200905212039.n4LKdRWd011261@cuzuco.com> On 20 May 2009, at 05:56, Derek Peschel wrote: > Interesting question! And related questions -- When did the current > start of the epoch get chosen? Were there any false starts or early > changes? (I seem to recall reading about one change, moving forward > by a year.) And were there ever any dates in the system that couldn't > be correctly recorded, because the epoch started too late? The current epoch was choose for the 4th edition, the man page date is 8/5/73. The first edition's epoch was 00:00:00, Jan. 1, 1971. This can be obtained from the time(2) man page. Here they are parapharsed, I like that epoch changed from the second to thrid editions, but the man page date did not; and the "bugs" line from the 3rd edition is memorable. v1: DATE: 11/3/71 DESCRIPTION: time returns the time since 00:00:00, Jan. 1, 1971, measured in sixtieths of a second. BUGS: The chronological-minded user will note that 2**32 slxtieths of a seeond is only about 2.5 years. v2: DATE: 3/15/72 DESCRIPTION: time returns the time since 00:00:00, Jan. 1, 1971, measured in sixtieths of a second. BUGS: The chronological-minded user will note that 2**32 slxtieths of a seeond is only about 2.5 years. v3: DATE: 3/15/72 DESCRIPTION: time returns the time since 00:00:00, Jan. 1, 1972, measured in sixtieths of a second. BUGS: The time is stored in 32 bits. This guarantees a crisis every 2.26 years. v4: DATE: 8/5/73 DESCRIPTION: time returns the time since 00:00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970, measured in seconds. From neozeed at gmail.com Tue May 26 12:33:47 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:33:47 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... Message-ID: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> I don't know if it's worth mentioning... but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ At least there is the wayback machine ( http://web.archive.org/web/20070930200555/http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ ) but it just seems odd his page being lost in the void.... From lm at bitmover.com Tue May 26 13:35:36 2009 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:35:36 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090526033536.GS24802@bitmover.com> It seems like "http://www.cs.bell-labs.com" is down. Doesn't seem to be DMR specific. But it is cause to reflect on all that bell labs brought us. What a great place! When I was going through grad school, bell labs was _the_ place to be. I read their papers, watched what they did, and I knew I didn't have a chance in hell of getting in there (my Dad did physics and a lot of those guys did physics and while newtonian mechanics and I got along just fine, it all went south after that.) I can tell you that I really wanted to be there. I suspect there are many here who feel the same way. On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:33:47PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > I don't know if it's worth mentioning... > > but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... > > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ > > At least there is the wayback machine ( > http://web.archive.org/web/20070930200555/http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ > ) but it just seems odd his page being lost in the void.... > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From newsham at lava.net Tue May 26 17:08:48 2009 From: newsham at lava.net (Tim Newsham) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 21:08:48 -1000 (HST) Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ Some discussion on the plan9 mailing list suggests its because of a machine room reorg: http://9fans.net/archive/2009/05/148 Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ From helbig at lehre.ba-stuttgart.de Wed May 27 05:14:07 2009 From: helbig at lehre.ba-stuttgart.de (Wolfgang Helbig) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:14:07 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... Message-ID: <200905261927.n4QJR8fP000039@bsd.korb> Hi, >> but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... >> >> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ it is online again. Thanks to whoever put it back to live! Wolfgang Helbig From gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com Wed May 27 07:04:28 2009 From: gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com (Gregg Levine) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... In-Reply-To: <200905261927.n4QJR8fP000039@bsd.korb> References: <200905261927.n4QJR8fP000039@bsd.korb> Message-ID: <18d205ed0905261404s776c15bege19ad9a96549d4a9@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Wolfgang Helbig wrote: > Hi, > >>> but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... >>> >>> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ > > it is online again. Thanks to whoever put it back to live! > > Wolfgang Helbig > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > Hello! Actually the site is itself back online but the page or pages are not. We'll need to wait longer while it regenerates itself. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature was once found posting rude messages in English in the Moscow subway." From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 27 09:29:36 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:29:36 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... In-Reply-To: <18d205ed0905261404s776c15bege19ad9a96549d4a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905261927.n4QJR8fP000039@bsd.korb> <18d205ed0905261404s776c15bege19ad9a96549d4a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905261629r43396ddv9a5cdc4e33aaac5@mail.gmail.com> It looks like its all back online now!! If whomever fixed it is here, thanks! From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 27 09:45:19 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:45:19 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... Message-ID: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> I was wondering if anyone had access to any SYSV for the VAX and could say what levels support TCP/IP? I put in a request at http://www.novell.com/licensing/ntap/legal.html to see if they are even entertaining the sale of SYSV licenses... But I kind of figure they don't have the actual material itself.... I know A/UX a SYSVr2.2 had TCP/IP but I don't know if it was in the AT&T base, or if it was something that UniSoft had added... Anyways thanks for any/all responses.... Oh and FWIW I've gotten a super minimal SYSIII thing booting on SIMH! I've just have to work out some more disk formatting/restoring as the root partition sizes don't agree between 32v & SYSIII.... Jason From lm at bitmover.com Wed May 27 09:48:02 2009 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:48:02 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> I added TCP/IP to SCO which is some sort of sys v thing (I think, it's been a lot of years). I think Lachman (where I was working at the time) did a lot of streams based TCP/IP, they may have done one for the vax. But why would you want it? It was a steaming pile of sh*t. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 07:45:19PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > I was wondering if anyone had access to any SYSV for the VAX and could > say what levels support TCP/IP? > > I put in a request at http://www.novell.com/licensing/ntap/legal.html > to see if they are even entertaining the sale of SYSV licenses... But > I kind of figure they don't have the actual material itself.... > > I know A/UX a SYSVr2.2 had TCP/IP but I don't know if it was in the > AT&T base, or if it was something that UniSoft had added... > > Anyways thanks for any/all responses.... > > Oh and FWIW I've gotten a super minimal SYSIII thing booting on SIMH! > I've just have to work out some more disk formatting/restoring as the > root partition sizes don't agree between 32v & SYSIII.... > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 27 09:57:01 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:57:01 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > I added TCP/IP to SCO which is some sort of sys v thing (I think, it's > been a lot of years).  I think Lachman (where I was working at the > time) did a lot of streams based TCP/IP, they may have done one for > the vax. I've seen lots of sco stuff say it's SYSV... like Xenix 2.3.4 ... So I guess it's not outside of that realm. It's too bad SCO never did bundle the dev kit & networking or that Linux thing probably never would have gained commercial traction.. but then that's just my wild guess. > > But why would you want it?  It was a steaming pile of sh*t. > Morbid curiosity I guess... seeing as it's basically all but dead. I guess the SYSV stuff we ran on the 3B2's was more modern, and 'usable' just as SYSVr3 (AIX) certainly was/is. That and it's been cool slowly getting SYSIII to go so in a way I wanted to line up the last Bell UNIX, SYSV to be able to run it on SIMH... It certainly wouldn't be for anything 'production' grade, but I guess it was this, or spend more time with 386BSD on Bochs...... Anyways I just got my first callback from Novell, and they are forwarding it to the "linux team" for clarification on what on earth SYSV even is... From lm at bitmover.com Wed May 27 09:59:05 2009 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:59:05 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 07:57:01PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > > I added TCP/IP to SCO which is some sort of sys v thing (I think, it's > > been a lot of years).  I think Lachman (where I was working at the > > time) did a lot of streams based TCP/IP, they may have done one for > > the vax. > > I've seen lots of sco stuff say it's SYSV... like Xenix 2.3.4 ... So I > guess it's not outside of that realm. It's too bad SCO never did > bundle the dev kit & networking or that Linux thing probably never > would have gained commercial traction.. but then that's just my wild > guess. I doubt it - we (bitkeeper folks) still support sco and it sucks. It's like time stood still and nothing was added. > > But why would you want it?  It was a steaming pile of sh*t. > > Morbid curiosity I guess... seeing as it's basically all but dead. I > guess the SYSV stuff we ran on the 3B2's was more modern, and 'usable' > just as SYSVr3 (AIX) certainly was/is. The 3b2's were ok. I liked the ATT Unix PC, 3b1 (?). My roomate and I in college both bought those and did a lot of hacking on them. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 27 10:10:37 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:10:37 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905261710v65dda4cbr9a971b404716ecda@mail.gmail.com> > I doubt it - we (bitkeeper folks) still support sco and it sucks.  It's > like time stood still and nothing was added. > I guess so... then I was just looking on google, SYSVR4 was released in 1988. It's kind of sad to think NOTHING signifigant happened in the last 20 1/2 years, and that 1988 was the pinical of UNIX... It seems the last people pushing UNIX was SUN, but I still haven't heard what Oracle will do with Solaris 10... Then again, it's probably just as well it's been opened up as it may as well die.... Oh well I'll wait for Novell to say what they are going to say... I'm guessing either "its not for sale at any price", or "$1,000,000 per cpu".... and probably the not for sale option would be about right. >> > But why would you want it?  It was a steaming pile of sh*t. >> >> Morbid curiosity I guess... seeing as it's basically all but dead.  I >> guess the SYSV stuff we ran on the 3B2's was more modern, and 'usable' >> just as SYSVr3 (AIX) certainly was/is. > > The 3b2's were ok.  I liked the ATT Unix PC, 3b1 (?).  My roomate and > I in college both bought those and did a lot of hacking on them. I got to hack some STARLAN stuff with Windows for Workgroups then Windows 95 going back to 3B2's... I'm still kind of amazed they worked as well as they did... But the nameless college I was at said "no ethernet or tokenring"... so we had to do SOMETHING to have the joys of file/print sharing email etc... It's kind of funny to look back at now. But then I have to confess that I wanted a NeXT cube so bad, that I ended up running Linux until I could salvage myself a copy of NS around 2000... An almost interesting story in itself as a Lucent tech was dumping it... It was kind of the last place I'd have expected to get a copy. From lyndon at orthanc.ca Wed May 27 10:32:12 2009 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:32:12 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> Message-ID: > I liked the ATT Unix PC, 3b1 (?). Nice little machines. They were manufactured by Convergent Technologies. CTIX (Convergent's SVRx port) was a nice OS, and had a decent network stack. Their X.25 code was pretty horrid, though :-) From gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com Wed May 27 10:50:30 2009 From: gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com (Gregg Levine) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:50:30 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905261629r43396ddv9a5cdc4e33aaac5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905261927.n4QJR8fP000039@bsd.korb> <18d205ed0905261404s776c15bege19ad9a96549d4a9@mail.gmail.com> <46b366130905261629r43396ddv9a5cdc4e33aaac5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18d205ed0905261750o6f565fb6t8989a18a00b6b3db@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Jason Stevens wrote: > It looks like its all back online now!! > > If whomever fixed it is here, thanks! > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > Hello! No it is not. I just checked. I also refreshed the screen thinking that some off screen oracle was caching the pages, and it came up with the same legend. We might have to wait another day for this to happen. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature was once found posting rude messages in English in the Moscow subway." From lyndon at orthanc.ca Wed May 27 10:25:45 2009 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:25:45 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <3D000973-4335-4060-BE7E-84006251BB7B@orthanc.ca> >I think Lachman (where I was working at the > time) did a lot of streams based TCP/IP, they may have done one for > the vax. Pre-SVR4 it was pretty much Lachman and Wollongong addons for pure SYSV releases. > But why would you want it? It was a steaming pile of sh*t. Amen! It's a bloody miracle the Lachman code worked at all (on the 3B2 at least). The Wollongong code was better. But both faithfully reproduced all the original BSD libc bugs. From corey at lod.com Wed May 27 11:06:58 2009 From: corey at lod.com (Corey Lindsly) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20090527010659.A5BF4410A@lod.com> [..] > The 3b2's were ok. I liked the ATT Unix PC, 3b1 (?). My roomate and > I in college both bought those and did a lot of hacking on them. Yup. I used an AT&T 3b1/7300 all through college. No ethernet. Polled for mail using dialup/UUCP. I still have a couple 3b1 machines stored in the garage...strange to think that the L2 caches on the Xeon 5410 CPUs in my web server are larger than the entire hard drive in my old UNIXpc. Shouldn't computers be doing a whole lot more by now? Maybe of mild interest to some, here is a scan of a page from an old Byte article with benchmark data comparing the 3b1 to some of its peers at the time (TRS-80, VAX11/780, PC XT). Apologies for the quality of the image. Some day I'll dig out the originals and re-scan everything.. http://www.unixpc.org/bench1.gif ---corey From billcu1 at suddenlink.net Wed May 27 10:54:28 2009 From: billcu1 at suddenlink.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:54:28 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... References: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001101c9de65$b0e06950$0202a8c0@YOURBF563B5E7F> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Newsham" To: "Jason Stevens" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... >> but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... >> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ [snip] I tried this and it's a dead link. Bill From cowan at ccil.org Wed May 27 13:06:52 2009 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:06:52 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905261710v65dda4cbr9a971b404716ecda@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261710v65dda4cbr9a971b404716ecda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090527030652.GA29941@mercury.ccil.org> Jason Stevens scripsit: > I guess so... then I was just looking on google, SYSVR4 was released > in 1988. It's kind of sad to think NOTHING signifigant happened in > the last 20 1/2 years, and that 1988 was the pinical of UNIX... "UNIX" is no longer the name of a codebase. Technically, it is the name of a set of standards; in practice, it (usually written "Unix") is the name of an evolving design tradition. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too. Try hanging up and phoning in again.' --Beverly Erlebacher From neozeed at gmail.com Wed May 27 13:35:22 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:35:22 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090527030652.GA29941@mercury.ccil.org> References: <46b366130905261645u62d5fbc3qb75df6bcb20a2791@mail.gmail.com> <20090526234802.GD3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261657g4a82caf3s41cc5be2c8253d4c@mail.gmail.com> <20090526235905.GE3873@bitmover.com> <46b366130905261710v65dda4cbr9a971b404716ecda@mail.gmail.com> <20090527030652.GA29941@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <46b366130905262035i18855ba6pc22447fc1e4f4e42@mail.gmail.com> When did it go from UNIX to Unix? Then again the whole "The Open Group" makes less then no sense to me... I have to laugh when something that is clearly a UNIX (say 32v) can't be called UNIX because the rights were sold out from underneath it... But then I'm not a lawyer so the law makes little or no sense to me. Then again the whole 'standards' thing reminds me of iBCS2... nice idea, but too bad GNU didn't supported it worth a damn, besides Microsoft of all people.... Or maybe that's precisely why it died. Or if anyone can point me in a direction to build iBCS2 stuff with binutils/gcc I'm all ears. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:06 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Jason Stevens scripsit: > >> I guess so... then I was just looking on google, SYSVR4 was released >> in 1988.  It's kind of sad to think NOTHING signifigant happened in >> the last 20 1/2 years, and that 1988 was the pinical of UNIX... > > "UNIX" is no longer the name of a codebase.  Technically, it is the name > of a set of standards; in practice, it (usually written "Unix") is the > name of an evolving design tradition. > > -- > John Cowan     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big > thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script.  One of the geologists > came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too. > Try hanging up and phoning in again.'  --Beverly Erlebacher > From imp at bsdimp.com Wed May 27 14:05:34 2009 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:05:34 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905262035i18855ba6pc22447fc1e4f4e42@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905261710v65dda4cbr9a971b404716ecda@mail.gmail.com> <20090527030652.GA29941@mercury.ccil.org> <46b366130905262035i18855ba6pc22447fc1e4f4e42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090526.220534.1578536931.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <46b366130905262035i18855ba6pc22447fc1e4f4e42 at mail.gmail.com> Jason Stevens writes: : Microsoft of all people.... Or maybe that's precisely why it died. Or : if anyone can point me in a direction to build iBCS2 stuff with : binutils/gcc I'm all ears. I'd actually be interested in that as well... Warner From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net Wed May 27 14:36:38 2009 From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 00:36:38 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <20090527010659.A5BF4410A@lod.com> Message-ID: <0B46CBEE3EFB427D94DA899CCFC9D025@who8> Hello! Corey where are you based? I'd just love to spend at least an hour or two studying one of those old fellows. I actually investigated the weirdness behind yet another somewhat old fashioned OS on one of those old fellow's relatives. (An OS I am not going to mention unless someone wants to ask me off-list.) -- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net "The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi   > -----Original Message----- > From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf > Of Corey Lindsly > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:07 PM > To: Larry McVoy > Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: Re: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... > > > [..] > > > The 3b2's were ok. I liked the ATT Unix PC, 3b1 (?). My roomate and > > I in college both bought those and did a lot of hacking on them. > > Yup. I used an AT&T 3b1/7300 all through college. > No ethernet. Polled for mail using dialup/UUCP. > I still have a couple 3b1 machines stored in the > garage...strange to think that the L2 caches on > the Xeon 5410 CPUs in my web server are larger than > the entire hard drive in my old UNIXpc. Shouldn't > computers be doing a whole lot more by now? > > Maybe of mild interest to some, here is a scan of a > page from an old Byte article with benchmark data > comparing the 3b1 to some of its peers at the time > (TRS-80, VAX11/780, PC XT). Apologies for the quality > of the image. Some day I'll dig out the originals and > re-scan everything.. > > http://www.unixpc.org/bench1.gif > > ---corey > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From sethm at loomcom.com Wed May 27 14:25:59 2009 From: sethm at loomcom.com (Seth Morabito) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:25:59 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... In-Reply-To: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <46b366130905251933x1405f73rc56d6ab2b8b116e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Jason Stevens wrote: > I don't know if it's worth mentioning... > > but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... > > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ > > At least there is the wayback machine > http://web.archive.org/web/20070930200555/http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ Sadly, the Wayback Machine is now not serving up the page either: "We're sorry, access to http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt." Indeed, the host's robots.txt file has this entry in it toward the bottom: User-agent: * Disallow: / so I assume that the site has been re-scraped since coming back up, and is now no longer made available by the Internet Archive, according to their stated policy on robots.txt exclusions. Just an oversight, I'm sure, but it shows off the fragility of information on the web. You cannot trust the Internet Archive to make information publicly available forever. -Seth From angus at fairhaven.za.net Wed May 27 19:14:02 2009 From: angus at fairhaven.za.net (Angus Robinson) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:14:02 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] DMR's page offline... Message-ID: <200905271014.02261.angus@fairhaven.za.net> Hi (Sorry this was supposed to go out on my fairhaven account not my work email. I do apologies if it comes through twice, still learning kmail!!) Just out of curiosity, why not host some of the stuff on the tuhs website ? (i could be wrong and their might be some copy write stuff but if  dmr wont mind ? Regards, Angus On Wednesday 27 May 2009 05:25, Seth Morabito wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Jason Stevens wrote: > > I don't know if it's worth mentioning... > > > > but it looks like Dennis Ritchie's page is down.... > > > > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/ > > > > At least there is the wayback machine > > http://web.archive.org/web/20070930200555/http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who > >/dmr/ > > Sadly, the Wayback Machine is now not serving up the page either: > > "We're sorry, access to http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/  has been > blocked by the site owner via robots.txt." > > Indeed, the host's robots.txt file has this entry in it toward the bottom: > > User-agent: * > Disallow: / > > so I assume that the site has been re-scraped since coming back up, > and is now no longer made available by the Internet Archive, according > to their stated policy on robots.txt exclusions. > > Just an oversight, I'm sure, but it shows off the fragility of > information on the web.  You cannot trust the Internet Archive to make > information publicly available forever. > > -Seth > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From tuhs at cuzuco.com Thu May 28 03:39:19 2009 From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... Message-ID: <200905271739.n4RHdJOf019727@cuzuco.com> I seem to remember that for System V TCP/IP that you needed STREAMS first, so that was SVR3. It may have been back potred but I don't know. And after that, then you had a choice of Wollongong or Lachman implementations. Bell Labs had their own as well, but I believe that was only available internally. Amdahl UTS used Lachman (which I kind of remember might have been Convergent's code), but at Indian Hill it was removed and the home grown one put in. I don't know who did the kernel code, but the user land utilities were BSD ports done by Ralph Knag in Murray Hill. This was an interesting setup as it was System/370 hardware so it had a channel to ethernet device from Spartacus, probably a K200 since there was a "k200" command to fiddle with it. I largely ignored TCP/IP initially as on the first UTS release, just telneting out of it used a ton of system CPU, something would loop in the kernel instead of going to sleep. Besides we had Datakit for interactive connectivity, and NSC HyperChannel for intra-datacenter file transfer (which I remember being something like 50mbs in 1987) For the original SVR4, the official porting base was the 3b2 and that group from Summit (which was later spun off as Unix Systems Laboraties (USL)) used Lachman as well for it's TCP/IP. > I was wondering if anyone had access to any SYSV for the VAX and could > say what levels support TCP/IP? > > I put in a request at http://www.novell.com/licensing/ntap/legal.html > to see if they are even entertaining the sale of SYSV licenses... But > I kind of figure they don't have the actual material itself.... > > I know A/UX a SYSVr2.2 had TCP/IP but I don't know if it was in the > AT&T base, or if it was something that UniSoft had added... > > Anyways thanks for any/all responses.... > > Oh and FWIW I've gotten a super minimal SYSIII thing booting on SIMH! > I've just have to work out some more disk formatting/restoring as the > root partition sizes don't agree between 32v & SYSIII.... > > Jason From lm at bitmover.com Thu May 28 04:20:07 2009 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:20:07 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SYSV & TCP/IP on the VAX... In-Reply-To: <200905271739.n4RHdJOf019727@cuzuco.com> References: <200905271739.n4RHdJOf019727@cuzuco.com> Message-ID: <20090527182007.GE30091@bitmover.com> I can verify that the lachman stack came from convergent. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 01:39:19PM -0400, Brian S Walden wrote: > I seem to remember that for System V TCP/IP that you needed > STREAMS first, so that was SVR3. It may have been back potred > but I don't know. And after that, then you had a choice of > Wollongong or Lachman implementations. Bell Labs had their own as well, > but I believe that was only available internally. Amdahl UTS used > Lachman (which I kind of remember might have been Convergent's code), > but at Indian Hill it was removed and the home grown one put in. > I don't know who did the kernel code, but the user land utilities > were BSD ports done by Ralph Knag in Murray Hill. This was an > interesting setup as it was System/370 hardware so it had a > channel to ethernet device from Spartacus, probably a K200 since > there was a "k200" command to fiddle with it. I largely ignored > TCP/IP initially as on the first UTS release, just telneting out of it > used a ton of system CPU, something would loop in the kernel instead of > going to sleep. Besides we had Datakit for interactive connectivity, > and NSC HyperChannel for intra-datacenter file transfer > (which I remember being something like 50mbs in 1987) > > For the original SVR4, the official porting base was the 3b2 and that > group from Summit (which was later spun off as Unix Systems Laboraties > (USL)) used Lachman as well for it's TCP/IP. > > > I was wondering if anyone had access to any SYSV for the VAX and could > > say what levels support TCP/IP? > > > > I put in a request at http://www.novell.com/licensing/ntap/legal.html > > to see if they are even entertaining the sale of SYSV licenses... But > > I kind of figure they don't have the actual material itself.... > > > > I know A/UX a SYSVr2.2 had TCP/IP but I don't know if it was in the > > AT&T base, or if it was something that UniSoft had added... > > > > Anyways thanks for any/all responses.... > > > > Oh and FWIW I've gotten a super minimal SYSIII thing booting on SIMH! > > I've just have to work out some more disk formatting/restoring as the > > root partition sizes don't agree between 32v & SYSIII.... > > > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From mjkerpan at kerpan.com Fri May 29 03:00:35 2009 From: mjkerpan at kerpan.com (Michael Kerpan) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:00:35 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0905281000w3ed4b4fdtf3ac8eea439d6234@mail.gmail.com> As a long-time Linux user and a long time Unix history buff, I've been wanting to "play" with classic Unix variants for quite some time. Obviously, Research Unix up through V7 and the BSDs are readily available and I've at least mucked around with them, but post-V7 AT&T Unices have always been unavailable, at least at any price that I can afford on my college student budget. Solaris, however, at least started out as an implementation of SVR4 and is freely available. How much of System V still lurks inside Solaris 10 (the last version to include such traditional workstation elements as CDE and DPS in the X server) and how much has been removed in favor of a more GNU-ish userland experience? Is Solaris a good way to get a System V experience without breaking either the bank or copyright law, or is this a hopeless situation? Mike From lm at bitmover.com Fri May 29 03:40:23 2009 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:40:23 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0905281000w3ed4b4fdtf3ac8eea439d6234@mail.gmail.com> References: <8dd2d95c0905281000w3ed4b4fdtf3ac8eea439d6234@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090528174023.GC11928@bitmover.com> I don't think there is much similarity between solaris and the old system v. There is some in that sun was pedantic about command line / libc / syscall compat (to their detriment in my opinion) but much has been changed. Just start diffing. On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:00:35PM -0400, Michael Kerpan wrote: > As a long-time Linux user and a long time Unix history buff, I've been > wanting to "play" with classic Unix variants for quite some time. > Obviously, Research Unix up through V7 and the BSDs are readily > available and I've at least mucked around with them, but post-V7 AT&T > Unices have always been unavailable, at least at any price that I can > afford on my college student budget. Solaris, however, at least > started out as an implementation of SVR4 and is freely available. How > much of System V still lurks inside Solaris 10 (the last version to > include such traditional workstation elements as CDE and DPS in the X > server) and how much has been removed in favor of a more GNU-ish > userland experience? Is Solaris a good way to get a System V > experience without breaking either the bank or copyright law, or is > this a hopeless situation? > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From tfb at tfeb.org Fri May 29 18:34:49 2009 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:34:49 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0905281000w3ed4b4fdtf3ac8eea439d6234@mail.gmail.com> References: <8dd2d95c0905281000w3ed4b4fdtf3ac8eea439d6234@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <70DB8DDB-FA63-45E3-A91C-BA0FEA0231D9@tfeb.org> On 28 May 2009, at 18:00, Michael Kerpan wrote: > Solaris, however, at least > started out as an implementation of SVR4 and is freely available. How > much of System V still lurks inside Solaris 10 (the last version to > include such traditional workstation elements as CDE and DPS in the X > server) and how much has been removed in favor of a more GNU-ish > userland experience? Is Solaris a good way to get a System V > experience without breaking either the bank or copyright law, or is > this a hopeless situation? I never (other than transiently, and even then in various heavily bastardised versions such as Masscomps' RTU) used a Sys V Unix other than Solaris. However I did live through the SunOS 4 -> Solaris transition. My memory of that is that the early Solaris versions (2.2?) seemed extremely austere and unpleasant compared with BSD- derived systems. Solaris doesn't seem like that now, and in fact when I play with BSD derivatives they seem quite austere. So I would suspect that, no, Solaris is not any kind of good representative of what System V was once like. It's not a GNUoid userland (who knows what the next release will be like, if there is one? OpenSolaris seems to have drifted rapidly off into optimize-the- desktop neverland and I hope will not be representative of what the next Solaris looks like), but it's no more representative of what things were once like than any system still under development is representative of what its distant ancestore were like. (CDE is not a traditional workstation element in any real sense - it's pretty recent. I don't think it even existed in the early Solaris 2 releases.) --tim From a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com Fri May 29 22:12:12 2009 From: a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com (A P Garcia) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:12:12 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris Message-ID: > post-V7 AT&T > Unices have always been unavailable, at least at any price that I can > afford on my college student budget. Solaris, however, at least > started out as an implementation of SVR4 and is freely available. How > much of System V still lurks inside Solaris 10 (the last version to > include such traditional workstation elements as CDE and DPS in the X > server) and how much has been removed in favor of a more GNU-ish > userland experience? Is Solaris a good way to get a System V > experience without breaking either the bank or copyright law, or is > this a hopeless situation? I purchased a Solaris 8 source media kit from Sun for around $100 back when they offered it. A lot of files still have headers saying Proprietary Unpublished AT&T source code or some such. I don't know how different it is from System V, because I've never been able to procure a copy of that source. It sure looks like the Solaris 8 userland, at least, is almost pure System V. From tfb at tfeb.org Fri May 29 23:08:19 2009 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:08:19 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 May 2009, at 13:12, A P Garcia wrote: > It sure looks like the Solaris 8 > userland, at least, is almost pure System V. I don't think that follows from the copyright headers. Those can't be removed unless there is (essentially) *nothing* remaining of the original. Alternatively, you could say that, yes, it's a System V, but it's a late 90s System V (and Solaris 10 is a 2005 System V). So it depends on what you are after I guess: if you want to know what System V was like in 1980-something then Solaris won't tell you that, any more than OS X will tell you what 4.2 BSD was like. If you want to know what a *modern* System V or BSD is like then, sure, look at Solaris or OS X. --tim From brantley at coraid.com Fri May 29 23:32:12 2009 From: brantley at coraid.com (Brantley Coile) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:32:12 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <895A6F41-039C-405D-AF14-7F3A3457D11E@coraid.com> Solaris is not pure System V. I started working on the internals of System V in 1985 and I have purchased a number of Solaris boxes in the 1990's and 2000's and while Solaris is based on the System V kernel, it doesn't feel like System V. Brantley On May 29, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 29 May 2009, at 13:12, A P Garcia wrote: > >> It sure looks like the Solaris 8 >> userland, at least, is almost pure System V. > > I don't think that follows from the copyright headers. Those can't be > removed unless there is (essentially) *nothing* remaining of the > original. > > Alternatively, you could say that, yes, it's a System V, but it's a > late 90s System V (and Solaris 10 is a 2005 System V). So it depends > on what you are after I guess: if you want to know what System V was > like in 1980-something then Solaris won't tell you that, any more than > OS X will tell you what 4.2 BSD was like. If you want to know what a > *modern* System V or BSD is like then, sure, look at Solaris or OS X. > > --tim > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From mjkerpan at kerpan.com Sat May 30 10:20:14 2009 From: mjkerpan at kerpan.com (Michael Kerpan) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:20:14 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: <895A6F41-039C-405D-AF14-7F3A3457D11E@coraid.com> References: <895A6F41-039C-405D-AF14-7F3A3457D11E@coraid.com> Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0905291720q769c53acn66b0235b810bba28@mail.gmail.com> So far, it seems that the consensus is that Solaris isn't a good representative of System V... With that said, the second part of my question still remains: is there a way to pay with a classic System V environment that is both free/cheap AND legal or am I SOL? Mike From neozeed at gmail.com Sat May 30 11:51:54 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:51:54 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0905291720q769c53acn66b0235b810bba28@mail.gmail.com> References: <895A6F41-039C-405D-AF14-7F3A3457D11E@coraid.com> <8dd2d95c0905291720q769c53acn66b0235b810bba28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905291851j4d96b94dq1239ccfde890ad7e@mail.gmail.com> I'm trying to get something out of Novell on this... so far they keep on wanting to sell me Linux they seem perplexed about their ownership of any UNIX ip, even when I point them to their own pages proclaiming such....... On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Michael Kerpan wrote: > So far, it seems that the consensus is that Solaris isn't a good > representative of System V... With that said, the second part of my > question still remains: is there a way to pay with a classic System V > environment that is both free/cheap AND legal or am I SOL? > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From neozeed at gmail.com Sat May 30 12:15:32 2009 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:15:32 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0905291720q769c53acn66b0235b810bba28@mail.gmail.com> References: <895A6F41-039C-405D-AF14-7F3A3457D11E@coraid.com> <8dd2d95c0905291720q769c53acn66b0235b810bba28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46b366130905291915i49fe399ah75d255da0153962@mail.gmail.com> I don't think there ever was "free" unix, but there was Unixware/OpenServer... Sadly you've missed it by 13 years... ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/SCO/docs/Free-OpenServer.pdf I'd say troll craigslist New York & ebay... it turns up from time to time in the neighbourhood of $25-150 or so... I think I paid $100 for my 7.0.1 ... It seems that anyone who sold SYSV, except for SUN(Oracle) IBM is basically out of the market, even if they are still in business.. On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Michael Kerpan wrote: > So far, it seems that the consensus is that Solaris isn't a good > representative of System V... With that said, the second part of my > question still remains: is there a way to pay with a classic System V > environment that is both free/cheap AND legal or am I SOL? > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From grog at lemis.com Sat May 30 15:01:37 2009 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:01:37 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Modern BSD system? (was: How good a representative of System V is Solaris) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090530050137.GE58587@dereel.lemis.com> On Friday, 29 May 2009 at 14:08:19 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > If you want to know what a *modern* System V or BSD is like then, > sure, look at Solaris or OS X. I won't argue the Solaris comparison, though I'm sure people could, but certainly Mac OS X is not a good example of modern BSD. The kernel has very little BSD in it. Look at FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD for that. Greg -- Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Sat May 30 19:10:36 2009 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 21:10:36 +1200 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris In-Reply-To: <46b366130905291851j4d96b94dq1239ccfde890ad7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8dd2d95c0905291720q769c53acn66b0235b810bba28@mail.gmail.com> <46b366130905291851j4d96b94dq1239ccfde890ad7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200905302110.37375.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> FWIW, I did ask Novell a year or so ago about releasing OSF/1 from the SysVRx license requirement; I sent them a reminder, together with the request that they consider giving TUHS an SysVRx source/binary license. So far they haven't responded. Maybe I should get onto the local branch and ask them to take it up with headquarters ... :) Wesley Parish On Saturday 30 May 2009 13:51, Jason Stevens wrote: > I'm trying to get something out of Novell on this... so far they keep > on wanting to sell me Linux they seem perplexed about their ownership > of any UNIX ip, even when I point them to their own pages proclaiming > such....... > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Michael Kerpan wrote: > > So far, it seems that the consensus is that Solaris isn't a good > > representative of System V... With that said, the second part of my > > question still remains: is there a way to pay with a classic System V > > environment that is both free/cheap AND legal or am I SOL? > > > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Are couch potatoes good to eat? ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. From tfb at tfeb.org Sat May 30 19:29:54 2009 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:29:54 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] Modern BSD system? (was: How good a representative of System V is Solaris) In-Reply-To: <20090530050137.GE58587@dereel.lemis.com> References: <20090530050137.GE58587@dereel.lemis.com> Message-ID: <9A776ADB-D835-479C-AA18-A63BD573ECF5@tfeb.org> On 30 May 2009, at 06:01, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > I won't argue the Solaris comparison, though I'm sure people could, > but certainly Mac OS X is not a good example of modern BSD. The > kernel has very little BSD in it. Look at FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD > for that. I was really thinking in terms of userland (I don't spend much time poking around at kernels...). You could still argue that OS X is not a good example of a modern BSD userland of course - I don't spend enough time with *BSD to really know what they are like, other than that, for the most part, everything has been replaced by GNU versions of itself in all of these systems :-). i guess OS X is kind of like what I would have hoped a BSD might turn into in some sense. --tim From pepe at naleco.com Sat May 30 23:47:49 2009 From: pepe at naleco.com (Pepe) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:47:49 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] How good a representative of System V is Solaris Message-ID: <20090530134748.GA17733@d600.naleco.com> Tim Bradshaw wrote: > > On 28 May 2009, at 18:00, Michael Kerpan wrote: > > > Solaris, however, at least > > started out as an implementation of SVR4 and is freely available. > > How much of System V still lurks inside Solaris 10 (the last > > version to include such traditional workstation elements as CDE and > > DPS in the X server) and how much has been removed in favor of a > > more GNU-ish userland experience? Is Solaris a good way to get a > > System V experience without breaking either the bank or copyright > > law, or is this a hopeless situation? > > I never (other than transiently, and even then in various heavily > bastardised versions such as Masscomps' RTU) used a Sys V Unix other > than Solaris. However I did live through the SunOS 4 -> Solaris > transition. My memory of that is that the early Solaris versions > (2.2?) seemed extremely austere and unpleasant compared with BSD- > derived systems. Solaris doesn't seem like that now, and in fact when > I play with BSD derivatives they seem quite austere. > > So I would suspect that, no, Solaris is not any kind of good > representative of what System V was once like. It's not a GNUoid > userland (who knows what the next release will be like, if there is > one? OpenSolaris seems to have drifted rapidly off into optimize-the- > desktop neverland and I hope will not be representative of what the > next Solaris looks like), but it's no more representative of what > things were once like than any system still under development is > representative of what its distant ancestore were like. > > (CDE is not a traditional workstation element in any real sense - it's > pretty recent. I don't think it even existed in the early Solaris 2 > releases.) To my knowledge, System V is not quite a well defined concept: there were several releases and each had different features and capabilities. The closest you can get today to test the flavour of running an early System V (not a System V Release 4) native on real and affordable/common hardware, I think would be getting some old Xenix for the 386 (SVR3), which is floating around some P2P networks (in eMule I know it is). Legality of getting it this way for personal and non-commercial use? Depends on your local law, so beware. This Xenix which is on eMule lacks TCP/IP (it was an add-on package sold separately), lacks the Development Kit (compiler, headers, etc.; also sold separately), and obviously lacks the source code. So if you already know Unix, in two days of use maximum you should have seen all there is to it and be really bored about it. The Development and Streams/Tcpip kits for this Xenix are also "available" in some Internet "places", but I have not ventured to try them because Xenix is a real bitch to live with... If you want to inspect the source of a somewhat early System V Release 4, in eMule you also have a tar.bz2 file with the sources for Solaris 2.6 (beware, it won't unzip properly on Windows because some files names are incompatible with Windows filesystem, i.e. "con" filename, etc.). You won't be able to "run it", but you can inspect the source of a SVR4 which is only 8 years separated from the original SVR4 AT&T release. And don't forget OpenServer 5.x, which is a UNIX System V Release 3.2 with many custom add-ons. Version 5.0.7 is still supported by it's now bankrupt mother company, runs on modern Intel PCs, and has the really old and rusty taste of ancient UNIX. After trying all that, you would be thankfull for having the GNU userland and the Linux kernel. That was my bottom line, anyway. -- Pepe pepe at naleco.com From imp at bsdimp.com Sun May 31 03:01:47 2009 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:01:47 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] Modern BSD system? In-Reply-To: <20090530050137.GE58587@dereel.lemis.com> References: <20090530050137.GE58587@dereel.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20090530.110147.84361927.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <20090530050137.GE58587 at dereel.lemis.com> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" writes: : On Friday, 29 May 2009 at 14:08:19 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: : > If you want to know what a *modern* System V or BSD is like then, : > sure, look at Solaris or OS X. : : I won't argue the Solaris comparison, though I'm sure people could, : but certainly Mac OS X is not a good example of modern BSD. The : kernel has very little BSD in it. Look at FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD : for that. There's more BSD in the Mac OS X kernel than you might think, at least judging from the stream of patches that come back into FreeBSD. They use BSD networking, and FreeBSD's 802.11 stack, for example. Some of the file system code is also from BSD. Darwin is a classic example of what one can do when one doesn't care where one gets one's code from. This has both pluses and minuses... Warner