From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org Sat Jun 4 18:26:48 2005 From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 18:26:48 +1000 (EST) Subject: [pups] Hardware Upgrade to Minnie Message-ID: <20050604082648.EA68D424@minnie.tuhs.org> All, sometime around noon localtime on Tuesday 7th June, I will be upgrading the hardware which is minnie.tuhs.org from a 500MHz P3 to a 2.4GHz P4. This will include an operating system upgrade (FreeBSD 4.8 to FreebSD 5.3) and upgrades to the major subsystems (web, e-mail, mailing lists, twiki etc.). Although I have had the new system running standalone for a few weeks, I expect that there will be some breakages once it takes over from the old system. Therefore, please be patient while I resolve any issues. If you do notice some problems with the new system, then e-mail me at wkt at tuhs.org. Thanks, Warren From dave at horsfall.org Sat Jun 4 19:06:04 2005 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:06:04 +1000 (EST) Subject: [pups] Hardware Upgrade to Minnie In-Reply-To: <20050604082648.EA68D424@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20050604082648.EA68D424@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Warren Toomey wrote: > All, sometime around noon localtime on Tuesday 7th June, I will be upgrading > the hardware which is minnie.tuhs.org from a 500MHz P3 to a 2.4GHz P4. And if you were true to the faith, it would've been something like an upgrade from a /40 to a /70 :-) -- Dave From Robertdkeys at aol.com Fri Jun 10 09:56:51 2005 From: Robertdkeys at aol.com (Robertdkeys at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:56:51 EDT Subject: [pups] Hardware Upgrade to Minnie Message-ID: <1d7.3e3a8e33.2fda3143@aol.com> Although a /70 might be fun, or even a /93, but.... nay, an update to a VAX would be fun.....(:+}}..... Call her MinnieVAX at tuhs.org.....(:+}}..... gasp! (Sorry Warren) Bob Keys From agrier at poofygoof.com Sun Jun 12 18:38:06 2005 From: agrier at poofygoof.com (Aaron J. Grier) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:38:06 -0700 Subject: [pups] Re: Looking for PDP-11 Newsweek ad circa 1981 In-Reply-To: <20050530154456.48975.qmail@web50201.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050530154456.48975.qmail@web50201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050612083806.GN1335@arwen.poofy.goof.com> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:44:56AM -0700, Ryan Doherty wrote: > I am looking for a copy (electronic or paper) of the digital PDP-11 > advertisement that appeared in Newsweek in the early 1980s. a public library? -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agrier at poofygoof.com From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org Sat Jun 4 18:26:48 2005 From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 18:26:48 +1000 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] Hardware Upgrade to Minnie Message-ID: <20050604082648.A51DF42C@minnie.tuhs.org> All, sometime around noon localtime on Tuesday 7th June, I will be upgrading the hardware which is minnie.tuhs.org from a 500MHz P3 to a 2.4GHz P4. This will include an operating system upgrade (FreeBSD 4.8 to FreebSD 5.3) and upgrades to the major subsystems (web, e-mail, mailing lists, twiki etc.). Although I have had the new system running standalone for a few weeks, I expect that there will be some breakages once it takes over from the old system. Therefore, please be patient while I resolve any issues. If you do notice some problems with the new system, then e-mail me at wkt at tuhs.org. Thanks, Warren From james at peacemax.org Thu Jun 9 15:07:34 2005 From: james at peacemax.org (James Falknor) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:07:34 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] Re: Sad news from IBM... Message-ID: <42A7CE96.7040808@peacemax.org> > > >I was reading Groklaw yesterday night when I came across this. It is a >very sad thought to know that possibly tons of old/ancient code is being >dumped in the trash bin. > >More so now since the advent of software patents: it may become very >difficult to avoid a patent on a re-invention of the wheel if previous >knowledge has been dumped. > >OK, the quote. It is from "the Todd Shaughnessy affidavit [PDF] from IBM >that Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells requested they file when they turned >over all the code and paperwork to SCO": > > 28. As I have noted above, IBM does not maintain revision control > information for AIX source code pre-dating 1991. To the extent that > any code for the AIX operating system (that did not duplicate the > code already being produced in CMVC) was found during the search > described in Paragraph 26-27 above, it was produced. Paragraphs > 29-31 below describe additional search efforts IBM undertook to > locate pre-1991 versions of AIX code. No versions of AIX pre-dating > 1991 were found. > > 29. In the 1980s and early 1990s, IBM prepared vital records backups > of AIX source code and transferred them to a remote storage location. > At some point in the 1990s, the AIX vital records tapes were transferred > to Austin, Texas. In late 2000, the tapes were determined to be obsolete, > and were not retained. > > 30. The AIX development organization contacted other IBM employees who > were known or believed to have been involved with the development or > product release of AIX versions prior to 1991. In addition, IBM > managers and attorneys asked current members of the AIX development > organization whether they were aware of the location of pre-1991 > releases of AIX source code. No one asked was aware of any remaining > copies of pre-1991 AIX source code. > >Perhaps we should do something to raise awareness about the relevance of >legacy (not only UNIX) source code. And in any case, it is a pity that all >that historical information had been lost forever. > >I have always complained about this, and consider it the biggest drawback of >closed proprietary source code: it is OK that law protects developer interests >with the goal of promoting innovation and the public benefit at large. But it >is a lose for everybody whenever any such "protected" code is dumped into the >bin banning anyone else from further benefitting from or exploiting it, and >opening the road for opportunists to claim they "newly invented" it. > >Sic. Sigh. > j > All may not be lost. As it appears to me, TUHS has connections with Universities / Colleges and other types schools, as well as programmers, software engineers and the like. All we need to do is put the word out that TUHS is seeking pre-1991 AIX source code and it's bound to surface. If all else fails, I'm sure someone has a pre-1991 AIX binary distribution that could be disassembled (that is if a binary distribution can be disassembled back to a rough source code). To all TUHS members, As a part of the heritage of Unix, please search any and all your archives for pre-1991 AIX Source Code. Maybe, just maybe, a pre-1991 AIX Binary Distribution will suffice. Help IBM, TUHS, and in the end, the heritage of Unix. Thank you, James Falknor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From peter.jeremy at alcatel.com.au Thu Jun 9 15:30:43 2005 From: peter.jeremy at alcatel.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 15:30:43 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Re: Sad news from IBM... In-Reply-To: <42A7CE96.7040808@peacemax.org> References: <42A7CE96.7040808@peacemax.org> Message-ID: <20050609053043.GB91934@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> On 2005-Jun-08 23:07:34 -0600, James Falknor wrote: >All we need to do is put the word out that TUHS is seeking pre-1991 AIX >source code and it's bound to surface. It depends how widely spread the source code was and how may people still have readable 15 year old backups. I know I tend to delete old code after a while and many of my old QIC-150 tapes are no longer readable. > If all else fails, I'm sure >someone has a pre-1991 AIX binary distribution that could be >disassembled (that is if a binary distribution can be disassembled back >to a rough source code). I'd be very surprised if this produces anything useful. The code will have been compiled with a reasonable degree of optimisation and won't have any debugging symbols in it. It would be reasonably trivial to turn it into something that a C compiler could understand but making it look anything like the original is a major undertaking. -- Peter Jeremy This email may contain privileged/confidential information. You may not copy or disclose this email to anyone without the written permission of the sender. If you have received this email in error please kindly delete this message and notify the sender. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily the opinions of the employer. This email and any attached files should be scanned to detect viruses. No liability will be accepted by the employer for loss or damage (whether caused by negligence or not) as a result of email transmission. From grog at lemis.com Tue Jun 7 11:46:28 2005 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:16:28 +0930 Subject: [TUHS] Re: Re: Plan 9 port license (was: licence of ditroff?) Message-ID: <20050607014628.GT64194@wantadilla.lemis.com> Somehow this message got stuck at the wrong end of my inbox. It relates to a thread on this list a few months back. The content speaks for itself, so I'll just forward it here. Greg ----- Forwarded message from Russ Cox ----- > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:33:17 -0500 > From: Russ Cox > Reply-To: Russ Cox > To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey > Subject: Re: Plan 9 port license (was: licence of ditroff?) > > [Feel free to forward this response to the appropriate lists.] > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:39:32 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> As you can see, there's a certain amount of confusion about the >> license of this software. I took a cursory look and couldn't find >> anything. In this day of predatory companies, it would be good to >> have clarity. Could you please clarify, both to the list and on the >> web site? > > The license is the Lucent Public License. There are some exceptions > with MIT-like licensing, but troff is not one of them. This is made clear > if you look in the tar file -- there is a LICENSE file in the root that > explains the situation. I've added a link to this file on the web site > next to the download link. > > I hate haggling over licensing so I try to draw as little attention as > possible to such issues. I do appreciate their importance. > > The Lucent Public License is the IBM Public License made optionally non-viral. > If you want to contribute changes back to the Plan 9 project, then > those changes must be made available under the LPL. But (and > this is where the difference is) if you don't want to contribute your > changes back, then you don't have to. > >>>> Instead of starting with 27 year old code, you'd be better >>>> off taking the troff from http://www.swtch.com/plan9port. >>> >>> Thanks, that's a nice idea, but from what I experienced, >>> the portability of recent AT&T/Bell/Lucent/whatever code >>> is worse than the bugs in old code (eg. I could not get >>> ksh93 to compile, something in there just dumped core; >>> but then that's Unix, not Plan 9). > > Confusing Plan 9 with ksh is sure to offend both sets of authors. > > Plan9port builds and runs fine on Linux, FreeBSD, SunOS, and Mac OS X, > and I'm sure it would be easy to get running on other Unix-like systems, > but I haven't had the need and no one has mailed me diffs. > >>>> This is a port of many Plan 9 utilities to Unix. The troff there >>>> (a) has an explicit license that will probably do for the BSD people >>> >>> If it's the same licence as for 8c, then no, unfortunately. > > It's the LucentPL as mentioned earlier. I'm sure the BSD guys > won't love it (it's not the BSD license), but at least it's not viral. > > Russ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- The virus contained in this message was not detected. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From james at peacemax.org Sat Jun 18 15:36:52 2005 From: james at peacemax.org (James Falknor) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:36:52 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code Message-ID: <42B3B2F4.4070503@peacemax.org> To all the Unix Officiando's, Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10 source code known as OpenSolaris? What are your thoughts on the subject? Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4? Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or Version 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage? Thank you, James Falknor From vasco at icpnet.pl Sun Jun 19 02:39:24 2005 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:39:24 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <42B3B2F4.4070503@peacemax.org> References: <42B3B2F4.4070503@peacemax.org> Message-ID: <42B44E3C.1060107@icpnet.pl> Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?: > To all the Unix Officiando's, > > Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10 > source code known as OpenSolaris? > > What are your thoughts on the subject? > > Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4? > > Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or Version > 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage? > > Thank you, > James Falknor > > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it. As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us consider such idea . For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support for DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that at least drivers could be in some way portable . Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative. Andrzej From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net Sun Jun 19 05:52:35 2005 From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:52:35 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <42B44E3C.1060107@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <000401c5743f$4bce4c60$6401a8c0@who7> Hello from Gregg C Levine However, it happens that I spent some time talking with the folks at the company in question, during the boot camp sessions that launched Sol 10. It happens that the code is one hundred percent theirs. Now there might be some lingering strangeness that follows from the BSD evolved forms of Sol leading up to 10, that is all there will be. Although I suspect a good hacker would be able to sort out the differences and dummy up a working kit to support the assertions of yours James Falknor, I myself do not have those talents. However, Andrzej Popielewicz, I welcome your efforts. ---- 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 Andrzej Popielewicz > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:39 PM > To: James Falknor > Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code > > Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?: > > > To all the Unix Officiando's, > > > > Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10 > > source code known as OpenSolaris? > > > > What are your thoughts on the subject? > > > > Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4? > > > > Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or Version > > 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage? > > > > Thank you, > > James Falknor > > > <<>> > I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many > Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it. > As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us > consider such idea . > For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support for > DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris > drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that at > least drivers could be in some way portable . > Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative. > > Andrzej From jpetts at operamail.com Sun Jun 19 06:08:02 2005 From: jpetts at operamail.com (James) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:08:02 +0000 GMT Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code Message-ID: <2054168344-1119125315-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-22130-@engine93> Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of the 'openness' of this code... -----Original Message----- From: "Gregg C Levine" Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:52:35 To: Subject: RE: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code Hello from Gregg C Levine However, it happens that I spent some time talking with the folks at the company in question, during the boot camp sessions that launched Sol 10. It happens that the code is one hundred percent theirs. Now there might be some lingering strangeness that follows from the BSD evolved forms of Sol leading up to 10, that is all there will be. Although I suspect a good hacker would be able to sort out the differences and dummy up a working kit to support the assertions of yours James Falknor, I myself do not have those talents. However, Andrzej Popielewicz, I welcome your efforts. ---- 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 Andrzej Popielewicz > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:39 PM > To: James Falknor > Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code > > Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?: > > > To all the Unix Officiando's, > > > > Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10 > > source code known as OpenSolaris? > > > > What are your thoughts on the subject? > > > > Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4? > > > > Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or Version > > 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage? > > > > Thank you, > > James Falknor > > > <<>> > I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many > Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it. > As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us > consider such idea . > For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support for > DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris > drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that at > least drivers could be in some way portable . > Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative. > > Andrzej _______________________________________________ TUHS mailing list TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. From bmc at zion.eng.sun.com Sun Jun 19 08:35:05 2005 From: bmc at zion.eng.sun.com (Bryan Cantrill) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <2054168344-1119125315-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-22130-@engine93> from James at "Jun 18, 2005 08:08:02 pm" Message-ID: <200506182235.j5IMZ5HW028548@zion.eng.sun.com> > Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of the 'openness' of this code... Can we please restrict this kind of dogmatic assertion to Groklaw? CDDL (the license for OpenSolaris) is an OSI-approved license; it is just as open as the BSD license or the MPL or any other OSI-approved license. As for Unix history, you can definitely see the Sixth Edition roots of Solaris. Look, for example, at the comment above exit(): http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/usr/src/uts/common/os/exit.c#exit Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years... - Bryan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc From grog at lemis.com Sun Jun 19 11:07:38 2005 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:37:38 +0930 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <200506182235.j5IMZ5HW028548@zion.eng.sun.com> References: <2054168344-1119125315-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-22130-@engine93> <200506182235.j5IMZ5HW028548@zion.eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20050619010738.GA65015@wantadilla.lemis.com> On Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 15:35:05 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > >> Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of >> the 'openness' of this code... > > Can we please restrict this kind of dogmatic assertion to Groklaw? And if it has to be discussed here at all, correct URLs would be useful. There's no mention of the strings "Solaris" or "CDDL" on the page specified above. > CDDL (the license for OpenSolaris) is an OSI-approved license; it is > just as open as the BSD license or the MPL or any other OSI-approved > license. > > As for Unix history, you can definitely see the Sixth Edition roots > of Solaris. Look, for example, at the comment above exit(): > > http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/usr/src/uts/common/os/exit.c#exit Thanks. That's very interesting. > Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years... It would seem that it's the exception. I'm surprised how little resemblance I find between this code and FreeBSD. Greg -- The virus contained in this message was not detected. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net Sun Jun 19 12:10:05 2005 From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:10:05 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <200506182235.j5IMZ5HW028548@zion.eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <001201c57474$060a64e0$6401a8c0@who7> Hello from Gregg C Levine Bryan, nice to see someone here, I might have met. Were you present at any of the boot camp gatherings since the official release? According to Ambreesh at the one in March, there isn't any further BSD based things inside Solaris. Mind you we didn't discuss anything from original UNIX at that gathering, but it did come up during later discussions. Now I'll grant you that exit just may be something that all of you have not gotten around to constructing a replacement for, but that's all. Incidentally this is the one issue that Groklaw has definitely Charlie Foxed themselves out. --- 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 Bryan Cantrill > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 6:35 PM > To: James > Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code > > > > Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of the > 'openness' of this code... > > Can we please restrict this kind of dogmatic assertion to Groklaw? CDDL > (the license for OpenSolaris) is an OSI-approved license; it is just as > open as the BSD license or the MPL or any other OSI-approved license. > > As for Unix history, you can definitely see the Sixth Edition roots > of Solaris. Look, for example, at the comment above exit(): > > http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/usr/src/uts/common/os/exit.c#ex it > > Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years... > > - Bryan > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From grog at lemis.com Mon Jun 20 07:24:17 2005 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:54:17 +0930 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <42b57082.vD3Ev7xNdTPge2A4%Gunnar.Ritter@pluto.uni-freiburg.de> References: <2054168344-1119125315-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-22130-@engine93> <200506182235.j5IMZ5HW028548@zion.eng.sun.com> <20050619010738.GA65015@wantadilla.lemis.com> <42b57082.vD3Ev7xNdTPge2A4%Gunnar.Ritter@pluto.uni-freiburg.de> Message-ID: <20050619212417.GB65015@wantadilla.lemis.com> On Sunday, 19 June 2005 at 15:17:54 +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >> On Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 15:35:05 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > >> I'm surprised how little resemblance I find between this code and >> FreeBSD. > > I am not that surprised given the fact that BSD was forced to drop > the AT&T code more than ten years ago in order to become free. I was looking in the ufs code, which was derived from BSD. Greg -- The virus contained in this message was not detected. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Gunnar.Ritter at pluto.uni-freiburg.de Sun Jun 19 23:17:54 2005 From: Gunnar.Ritter at pluto.uni-freiburg.de (Gunnar Ritter) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:17:54 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code In-Reply-To: <20050619010738.GA65015@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <2054168344-1119125315-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-22130-@engine93> <200506182235.j5IMZ5HW028548@zion.eng.sun.com> <20050619010738.GA65015@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: <42b57082.vD3Ev7xNdTPge2A4%Gunnar.Ritter@pluto.uni-freiburg.de> Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Saturday, 18 June 2005 at 15:35:05 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > > Pretty amazing that this comment hasn't changed in 30+ years... > It would seem that it's the exception. There are more such cases in the utilities collection. For example, most of the essential code of OpenSolaris bc, dc, diff, fgrep, ed, and egrep is the same as in v7. (Most comments are new indeed.) I have created a portable version of the OpenSolaris Bourne shell at . In the future, utilities from OpenSolaris will also be included in the Heirloom Toolchest. This particularly applies to System V utilities that were not in v7 and have not yet been rewritten by me for this purpose. Many OpenSolaris utilities still contain line length limits, though, and their multibyte code often exits when it encounters illegal byte sequences in its input. > I'm surprised how little resemblance I find between this code and > FreeBSD. I am not that surprised given the fact that BSD was forced to drop the AT&T code more than ten years ago in order to become free. Gunnar From james at peacemax.org Tue Jun 21 10:52:33 2005 From: james at peacemax.org (James Falknor) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:52:33 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] Unix Tenth Edition ownership? Message-ID: <42B764D1.8030201@peacemax.org> To all Unix Officiando's, Who has ownership of Unix Tenth Edition? Has anybody tried contacting the current owner for it's release under an OSI approved license? Thank you, James Falknor From wkt at tuhs.org Tue Jun 21 11:06:16 2005 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:06:16 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Unix Tenth Edition ownership? In-Reply-To: <42B764D1.8030201@peacemax.org> References: <42B764D1.8030201@peacemax.org> Message-ID: <20050621010616.GA50835@minnie.tuhs.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 06:52:33PM -0600, James Falknor wrote: > To all Unix Officiando's, > Who has ownership of Unix Tenth Edition? > Has anybody tried contacting the current owner for it's release > under an OSI approved license? Norman Wilson is the custodian of Tenth Edition. He would like to donate a copy to the archives, but 10e contains quite a lot of material gathered from many places, and the task of tracking down all the copyright owners and getting permission would be an arduous task. Norman reads the list, so he may respond with a more detailed comment. Warren From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Tue Jun 21 19:41:17 2005 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:41:17 +1200 Subject: [TUHS] Unix Tenth Edition ownership? In-Reply-To: <20050621010616.GA50835@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <42B764D1.8030201@peacemax.org> <20050621010616.GA50835@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <200506212141.17127.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:06, Warren Toomey wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 06:52:33PM -0600, James Falknor wrote: > > To all Unix Officiando's, > > Who has ownership of Unix Tenth Edition? > > Has anybody tried contacting the current owner for it's release > > under an OSI approved license? > > Norman Wilson is the custodian of Tenth Edition. He would like to donate > a copy to the archives, but 10e contains quite a lot of material gathered > from many places, and the task of tracking down all the copyright owners > and getting permission would be an arduous task. Norman reads the list, so > he may respond with a more detailed comment. > > Warren With all due respect, may I suggest that this list is precisely the sort of resource necessary for tracking down copyright ownerships? After all, we do have a good number of subscribers who were there at the ealry stages of Unix(R)(T[F]M). (I wasn't - I was a high-schoold student at Deakin High, Canberra at the time Prof Lions was writing his Commentary, and the nearest _we_ got to computers was an Apple II we got in 1978 - and it was mostly used for games. ;) Sad but true. ;^) I'm sure we're up to it. Just ask us. Wesley Parish > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- 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 cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu Wed Jun 22 02:32:20 2005 From: cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu (Carl Lowenstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals Message-ID: <200506211632.j5LGWKQ01623@opihi.ucsd.edu> While preparing to move out of the office that I have occupied for the past couple of decades, I came across an unused set of V7M-11 manuals. Three large binders, DEC Orange (Chinese Red?). Is this something that should be archived somewhere? Scanned and put on line? I don't have the resources to do that, but could ship them somewhere. Labels on the binders are: V7M-11 Volume 1 Programmer's Manual V7M-11 Volume 2A and 2B Programmer's Manual V7M-11 System Management and Operation Manuals carl -- carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego clowenst at ucsd.edu From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Jun 22 07:11:43 2005 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:11:43 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals In-Reply-To: <200506211632.j5LGWKQ01623@opihi.ucsd.edu> References: <200506211632.j5LGWKQ01623@opihi.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <20050621211143.GA10981@minnie.tuhs.org> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Carl Lowenstein wrote: > While preparing to move out of the office that I have occupied for the > past couple of decades, I came across an unused set of V7M-11 manuals. > Three large binders, DEC Orange (Chinese Red?). Is this something that > should be archived somewhere? Scanned and put on line? I don't have > the resources to do that, but could ship them somewhere. > > Labels on the binders are: > V7M-11 Volume 1 Programmer's Manual > V7M-11 Volume 2A and 2B Programmer's Manual > V7M-11 System Management and Operation Manuals Carl, we have v7m source + binaries in the Unix Archive, but I'm not sure if this also includes the documentation that you have unearthed. I will go through what's in the archive here and see if it corresponds with what you have, and get back to you. Warren From cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu Wed Jun 22 07:46:43 2005 From: cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu (Carl Lowenstein) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals Message-ID: <200506212146.j5LLkhk02766@opihi.ucsd.edu> > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:11:43 +1000 > From: Warren Toomey > To: Carl Lowenstein > Subject: Re: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Carl Lowenstein wrote: > > While preparing to move out of the office that I have occupied for the > > past couple of decades, I came across an unused set of V7M-11 manuals. > > Three large binders, DEC Orange (Chinese Red?). Is this something that > > should be archived somewhere? Scanned and put on line? I don't have > > the resources to do that, but could ship them somewhere. > > > > Labels on the binders are: > > V7M-11 Volume 1 Programmer's Manual > > V7M-11 Volume 2A and 2B Programmer's Manual > > V7M-11 System Management and Operation Manuals > > Carl, we have v7m source + binaries in the Unix Archive, but I'm not sure > if this also includes the documentation that you have unearthed. I will > go through what's in the archive here and see if it corresponds with what > you have, and get back to you. > > Warren Fine. I didn't mention that I also came across a V7M-11 distribution tape, because I was pretty sure you already had that. I will be away for about three weeks starting Monday 27 June, so we might not connect until I get back. On the other hand, these books have been sitting around for a few years, another month won't hurt them. carl From wb at freebie.xs4all.nl Wed Jun 22 08:23:58 2005 From: wb at freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:23:58 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals In-Reply-To: <200506212146.j5LLkhk02766@opihi.ucsd.edu> References: <200506212146.j5LLkhk02766@opihi.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <20050621222358.GC63033@freebie.xs4all.nl> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:46:43PM -0700, Carl Lowenstein wrote.. > > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:11:43 +1000 > > From: Warren Toomey > > To: Carl Lowenstein > > Subject: Re: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Carl Lowenstein wrote: > > > While preparing to move out of the office that I have occupied for the > > > past couple of decades, I came across an unused set of V7M-11 manuals. > > > Three large binders, DEC Orange (Chinese Red?). Is this something that > > > should be archived somewhere? Scanned and put on line? I don't have > > > the resources to do that, but could ship them somewhere. > > > > > > Labels on the binders are: > > > V7M-11 Volume 1 Programmer's Manual > > > V7M-11 Volume 2A and 2B Programmer's Manual > > > V7M-11 System Management and Operation Manuals > > > > Carl, we have v7m source + binaries in the Unix Archive, but I'm not sure > > if this also includes the documentation that you have unearthed. I will > > go through what's in the archive here and see if it corresponds with what > > you have, and get back to you. > > > > Warren > > Fine. I didn't mention that I also came across a V7M-11 distribution > tape, because I was pretty sure you already had that. Oh... a real one.. Don't throw that one away right? ;-) -- Wilko wilko at FreeBSD.org