From m at mbsks.franken.de Wed Jul 13 09:35:25 2011 From: m at mbsks.franken.de (Matthias Bruestle) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:35:25 +0200 Subject: [pups] Archive access Message-ID: <20110712233524.GP17669@mbsks.franken.de> Mahlzeit, some years after losing my MO drive and unable to access my PUPS copy I would like to redownload it before it perhaps vanishes. I have forgotten my access data. I believe it was with rsync. And with all the borken links on the website and the time going by I am not sure what the current status is. Is Warren still here? His last posting was from April last year. Mahlzeit, Matthias -- kitty mea felis duodeviginti annos nata requiescat in pace. laeta gaudiumque meum erat. desiderio eius angor. From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de Wed Jul 13 16:40:29 2011 From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:40:29 +0200 Subject: [pups] Archive access In-Reply-To: <20110712233524.GP17669@mbsks.franken.de> References: <20110712233524.GP17669@mbsks.franken.de> Message-ID: <20110713084029.43c87a31.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:35:25 +0200 Matthias Bruestle wrote: > Is Warren still here? His last posting was from April last year. There is an other more active mailing list: The Unix Heritage Society -- \end{Jochen} \ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/} From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Jul 13 16:55:27 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:55:27 +1000 Subject: [pups] Archive access In-Reply-To: <20110712233524.GP17669@mbsks.franken.de> References: <20110712233524.GP17669@mbsks.franken.de> Message-ID: <20110713065527.GA26503@minnie.tuhs.org> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 01:35:25AM +0200, Matthias Bruestle wrote: > Mahlzeit, > > some years after losing my MO drive and unable to access my > PUPS copy I would like to redownload it before it perhaps > vanishes. I have forgotten my access data. I believe it was > with rsync. And with all the borken links on the website and > the time going by I am not sure what the current status is. > Is Warren still here? His last posting was from April last year. I'm still here, but as mentioned we are now mainly over on the TUHS mailing list: https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs At the bottom of http://www.tuhs.org/wiki/Unix_Archive_Sites there is a description of how to rsync the entire archive. Cheers, Warren From tuhs at cuzuco.com Fri Jul 1 04:43:33 2011 From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] bob morris Message-ID: <201106301843.p5UIhXkM013393@cuzuco.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/technology/30morris.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss From jcapp at anteil.com Fri Jul 1 04:20:11 2011 From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] bob morris In-Reply-To: <201106301843.p5UIhXkM013393@cuzuco.com> Message-ID: <32265502.7780.1309458011194.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> Brian, Thanks for passing this news along. "Old programmers never die, they simply return to their outer-most calling function." Cheers, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian S Walden" To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:43:33 PM Subject: [TUHS] bob morris http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/technology/30morris.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss _______________________________________________ TUHS mailing list TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From new_zmkm at hotmail.com Fri Jul 1 17:45:13 2011 From: new_zmkm at hotmail.com (zmkm zmkm) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:45:13 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] bob morris In-Reply-To: <32265502.7780.1309458011194.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> References: <201106301843.p5UIhXkM013393@cuzuco.com>, <32265502.7780.1309458011194.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> Message-ID: It's indeed sad news , not only for us unix fans but for the entire computer industry and users alike around the world. > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:20:11 -0400 > From: jcapp at anteil.com > To: tuhs at cuzuco.com > CC: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: Re: [TUHS] bob morris > > Brian, > > Thanks for passing this news along. > > "Old programmers never die, they simply return to their outer-most calling function." > > Cheers, > > Jim > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian S Walden" > To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:43:33 PM > Subject: [TUHS] bob morris > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/technology/30morris.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From imp at bsdimp.com Sat Jul 2 14:03:13 2011 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 22:03:13 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] Ideas for a Unix paper I'm writing In-Reply-To: <32496006.7412.1309232177333.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> References: <32496006.7412.1309232177333.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> Message-ID: On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jim Capp wrote: > 2) uniform device handling - Rendering all I/O as a stream of bytes, without regard to content or record sizes, provided a universal foundation for data exchange among heterogenous devices. And before networking, universal name space. Systems prior to this required you have both a device (aka C: or SYS$HOME:) and a directory. Also, treating everything like a file meant you can open directories (which also wasn't possible except with special system calls on other systems). Warner From wkt at tuhs.org Tue Jul 5 10:46:01 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:46:01 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Audio of Maike Mahoney's oral history interviews? Message-ID: <20110705004601.GA17949@minnie.tuhs.org> All, several years back Mike Mahoney interviewed several of the original Unix players for a Unix oral history. The transcripts are at: http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/mike/transcripts/ At the time AT&T were going to release these in audio format, but it seems to have fizzled out. Does anybody know if the audio interviews ever got out? The transcripts are fine, but in places they show "(unclear)" when a word or name is used, and of course it's exactly that name you want to find out. Many thanks for any leads. Warren From aek at bitsavers.org Wed Jul 6 04:04:53 2011 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:04:53 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Audio of Maike Mahoney's oral history interviews? In-Reply-To: <20110705004601.GA17949@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20110705004601.GA17949@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <4E135245.1060801@bitsavers.org> On 7/4/11 5:46 PM, Warren Toomey wrote: > All, several years back Mike Mahoney interviewed several of the original > Unix players for a Unix oral history. The transcripts are at: > http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/mike/transcripts/ > I would track down "~hos" at Princeton to see if they have them. Mike's papers went to the Charles Babbage Institute at the University of Minnesota http://special.lib.umn.edu/findaid/xml/cbi00213.xml you could check there as well. I'll also forward this to the SIGCIS mailing list From aek at bitsavers.org Wed Jul 6 07:04:44 2011 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:04:44 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Audio of Maike Mahoney's oral history interviews? In-Reply-To: <4E135245.1060801@bitsavers.org> References: <20110705004601.GA17949@minnie.tuhs.org> <4E135245.1060801@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4E137C6C.1050301@bitsavers.org> On 7/5/11 11:04 AM, Al Kossow wrote: > On 7/4/11 5:46 PM, Warren Toomey wrote: >> All, several years back Mike Mahoney interviewed several of the original >> Unix players for a Unix oral history. The transcripts are at: >> http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/mike/transcripts/ >> msg I forwarded to Warren: Mike Mahoney originally did these interviews in collaboration with Bell Labs, and the AT&T Archives held the original cassette tapes. I recall seeing them back when I was at the AT&T Archives. But I don't believe that AT&T ever released the recordings. Sheldon Hochheiser, Ph.D. Archivist and Institutional Historian IEEE History Center Rutgers University 39 Union Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901 s.hochheiser at ieee.org +1 732 562-5449 http://www.ieee.org/history_center/. From ghisolfo.m at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 20:29:58 2011 From: ghisolfo.m at gmail.com (Michele Ghisolfo) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:29:58 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources Message-ID: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. It is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever read. It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel for Intel x86. Does anyone have that? From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 22:42:45 2011 From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:42:45 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: >  Hi, > >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever > read. > >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that? > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's from the same era and has many of the same abilities. Mike From sergioag at qmailhosting.net Mon Jul 11 22:50:26 2011 From: sergioag at qmailhosting.net (Sergio Aguayo) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <25cc2a0b-15ad-49c3-a75a-5b06352d442b@mail.qmailhosting.net> If you're reading the Lion's book, better get Unix V6 from the archive. SVR4 is quite different in many aspects. Best regards, Sergio Aguayo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michele Ghisolfo" To: TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:29:58 AM Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources Hi, I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. It is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever read. It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel for Intel x86. Does anyone have that? _______________________________________________ TUHS mailing list TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From jcapp at anteil.com Mon Jul 11 22:53:02 2011 From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19113151.8438.1310388782327.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> Michele, Some time ago, SCO made its source code available under an "Ancient UNIX" license. That is also very close to SVR4. I don't have the details at hand, but perhaps someone on this list does. Is there a reason you need to see the source code specifically for SVR4? Cheers, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kerpan" To: "Michele Ghisolfo" Cc: TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:42:45 AM Subject: Re: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: >  Hi, > >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever > read. > >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that? > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's from the same era and has many of the same abilities. Mike _______________________________________________ TUHS mailing list TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From sergioag at qmailhosting.net Tue Jul 12 00:09:14 2011 From: sergioag at qmailhosting.net (Sergio Aguayo) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310385759.2145.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: There is a somewhat modern port of V6 to the 286, which is in the archive (http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Other/V6on286/). There is also a modern x86 port of V7 available at http://www.nordier.com/v7x86/ This one is more interesting as it aims to run in modern machines and includes a bootable CD image. Best regards, Sergio Aguayo ----- Mensaje original ----- De: "Michele Ghisolfo" Para: "Sergio Aguayo" Enviados: Lunes, 11 de Julio 2011 7:02:37 Asunto: Re: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 08:50 -0400, Sergio Aguayo wrote: > If you're reading the Lion's book, better get Unix V6 from the archive. SVR4 is quite different in many aspects. > > Best regards, > > Sergio Aguayo I got them, but they work on PDP-11. I'd like to see an version of Unix working on Intel x86. As far as I know, SVR4 was the first Unix working on this architecture. If I recall correctly Unix V6 was only ported on Interdata 7/32 computers. I'd like to get the sources of a small Unix kernel working on x86. Has anyone ported Unix V6 on x86? Thanks for your replies, -- Michele From ghisolfo.m at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 05:50:13 2011 From: ghisolfo.m at gmail.com (Michele Ghisolfo) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:50:13 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> Message-ID: <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. It > > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever > > read. > > > > It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel > > for Intel x86. Does anyone have that? > > Hi, > > Try this : > > ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/ > > Regards, > > Cyrille Lefevre I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field. What I am doing wrong? From neozeed at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 07:56:38 2011 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:56:38 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting. Also google "john titor" .. There is a VERY interesting torrent out there. On Monday, July 11, 2011, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: >> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit : >> >   Hi, >> > >> >   I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It >> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever >> > read. >> > >> >   It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel >> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that? >> >> Hi, >> >> Try this : >> >> ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Cyrille Lefevre > > > I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named > "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule > client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field. > > What I am doing wrong? > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From ghisolfo.m at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 06:08:17 2011 From: ghisolfo.m at gmail.com (Michele Ghisolfo) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:17 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1310414901.16470.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 17:56 -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting. > > Also google "john titor" .. There is a VERY interesting torrent out there. You are right: I'm going off-topic. My apologies. Anyway I seem to recall that Usl (UNIX System Laboratories) was the ancestor of SysV... From wkt at tuhs.org Tue Jul 12 08:56:51 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310414901.16470.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310414901.16470.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20110711225651.GA2331@minnie.tuhs.org> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:08:17PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: > Anyway I seem to recall that USL (UNIX System Laboratories) was the > ancestor of SysV... USL was the organisation that developed the commercial versions of Unix, including System III and System V. Cheers, Warren From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Tue Jul 12 17:54:45 2011 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:54:45 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it. >From what I've read, people bought SVRx for the source code license, and then bought the 4.xBSD for the reliability and usability. And yes, it would be nice if the entire SysVRx source trees were released under a suitable FOSS license; but I think the usefulness of such a gesture would be in stymieing any future "The SCO Group" shenanigans, and I don't know that such acts of self-preservation are quite the flavour of the month with modern software companies. Wesley Parish Quoting Michael Kerpan : > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo > wrote: > >  Hi, > > > >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. >  It > > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever > > read. > > > >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 > kernel > > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is > still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a > whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is > available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix > implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's > from the same era and has many of the same abilities. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > TUH S mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press From downing.nick+tuhs at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 19:57:11 2011 From: downing.nick+tuhs at gmail.com (Nick Downing) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:57:11 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Wesley Parish wrote: > For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major > contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it. My understanding had been that BSD and SysV were quite distinct and that BSD forked off around the early research editions (V6 or V7?), if indeed 4.3BSD was a major contributor to SVR4 then it would have been in a few specific areas, e.g. the sockets code, because SysV had its own competing idea called STREAMS that I believe was later discarded (or not used much) when the BSD sockets API became the de facto standard. Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm this? cheers, Nick > From what I've read, people bought SVRx for the source code license, and then > bought the 4.xBSD for the reliability and usability. > > And yes, it would be nice if the entire SysVRx source trees were released under > a suitable FOSS license; but I think the usefulness of such a gesture would be > in stymieing any future "The SCO Group" shenanigans, and I don't know that such > acts of self-preservation are quite the flavour of the month with modern > software companies. > > Wesley Parish > > Quoting Michael Kerpan : > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo >> wrote: >> >  Hi, >> > >> >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. >>  It >> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever >> > read. >> > >> >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 >> kernel >> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > TUHS mailing list >> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs >> OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is >> still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a >> whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is >> available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix >> implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's >> from the same era and has many of the same abilities. >> >> Mike >> _______________________________________________ >> TUH S mailing list >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s >> > > > > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. > "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" > - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge > > "I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!" > I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the > other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From tfb at tfeb.org Tue Jul 12 21:22:46 2011 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:22:46 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: On 12 Jul 2011, at 10:57, Nick Downing wrote: > Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of > development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think > is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because > AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was > merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create > Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have > things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm > this? I think that's basically correct, although in some technical sense "SunOS" is still the name for the OS component of Solaris (or was until recently - Oracle have probably renamed it), so you probably mean "SunOS n" where n<=4. I think (though I am not sure) that a lot of the virtual memory and shared library stuff which originated in SunOS 4 moved wholesale into SunOS 5, as well. From downing.nick+tuhs at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 21:54:08 2011 From: downing.nick+tuhs at gmail.com (Nick Downing) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:54:08 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: Yes, but I think the SunOS 4 shared library stuff was based on a.out, I remember looking at the ld.so source code and thinking how simple and elegant it all was, until those SysV people got their hands on it and created ELF ;) What SysV release introduced ELF though? cheers, Nick On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 12 Jul 2011, at 10:57, Nick Downing wrote: > >> Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of >> development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think >> is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because >> AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was >> merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create >> Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have >> things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm >> this? > > I think that's basically correct, although in some technical sense "SunOS" is still the name for the OS component of Solaris (or was until recently - Oracle have probably renamed it), so you probably mean "SunOS n" where n<=4. > > I think (though I am not sure) that a lot of the virtual memory and shared library stuff which originated in SunOS 4 moved wholesale into SunOS 5, as well. From neozeed at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 23:07:16 2011 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:07:16 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <30F697DD-6095-4C3B-A07A-26BE05DB1528@uwlax.edu> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <30F697DD-6095-4C3B-A07A-26BE05DB1528@uwlax.edu> Message-ID: overplay.net? I donno, in the 1980's you'd have more to worry about then campus people if you had sysv source.... lol 2011/7/12 Milo Velimirović > > On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Jason Stevens wrote: > > > Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting. > > Is there another way to retrieve this content? My campus has draconian > limitations on P2P. > > Thx, Milo > > > > Also google "john titor" .. There is a VERY interesting torrent out > there. > > > > On Monday, July 11, 2011, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: > >> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > >>> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit : > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. > It > >>>> is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever > >>>> read. > >>>> > >>>> It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 > kernel > >>>> for Intel x86. Does anyone have that? > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Try this : > >>> > >>> > ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/ > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Cyrille Lefevre > >> > >> > >> I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named > >> "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule > >> client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field. > >> > >> What I am doing wrong? > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norman at oclsc.org Tue Jul 12 23:24:55 2011 From: norman at oclsc.org (Norman Wilson) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:24:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources Message-ID: <1310477112.18426.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here, SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun. The intent was to bring together the two different commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX). I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but well off to the side of the effort, in a research group where we tended (foolishly) to look down our noses a bit at the whole thing. I do know that there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there were similar feelings going the other way. On the other hand there were some pretty smart people involved at a technical level on all sides. Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms being injected into a USG system or vice versa. Norman Wilson Toronto ON From ghisolfo.m at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 01:11:15 2011 From: ghisolfo.m at gmail.com (Michele Ghisolfo) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:11:15 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources Message-ID: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> > Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here, > SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL > (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun. > The intent was to bring together the two different > commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred > to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX). > > I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but > well off to the side of the effort, in a research > group where we tended (foolishly) to look down > our noses a bit at the whole thing. I do know that > there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL > about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it > wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there > were similar feelings going the other way. On > the other hand there were some pretty smart > people involved at a technical level on all > sides. > > Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms > being injected into a USG system or vice versa. > > Norman Wilson > Toronto ON Thanks, Norman. This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV. I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly). The last Research Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix. Is the source code of releases 8, 9 and 10 available? Are there other commentaries of ancient Research Unixes, like Lions book? Thanks, --Michele P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion. I realized my mistake just after I sent the mail. I'm really sorry! From lm at bitmover.com Wed Jul 13 09:26:57 2011 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:26:57 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> "Joint project". Hmm, I was at Sun at the time, John Pope was across the hall from me, he did the SVR4 port to Sun/SPARC. To call this joint is complete nonsense. Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning. The story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD based SunOS and go to SVR4. Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: > > Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here, > > SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL > > (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun. > > The intent was to bring together the two different > > commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred > > to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX). > > > > I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but > > well off to the side of the effort, in a research > > group where we tended (foolishly) to look down > > our noses a bit at the whole thing. I do know that > > there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL > > about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it > > wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there > > were similar feelings going the other way. On > > the other hand there were some pretty smart > > people involved at a technical level on all > > sides. > > > > Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms > > being injected into a USG system or vice versa. > > > > Norman Wilson > > Toronto ON > > Thanks, Norman. This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV. > > I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all > UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly). The last Research > Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix. Is the source code of > releases 8, 9 and 10 available? Are there other commentaries of ancient > Research Unixes, like Lions book? > > > Thanks, > --Michele > > P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion. I realized my > mistake just after I sent the mail. I'm really sorry! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 13 10:23:41 2011 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:23:41 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> Message-ID: wow and I had thought companies paying eachother out to *NOT* do something was all the rage today... It'd make perfect sense, SUN have a loyal user base, so why on earth would they rock the boat with a religious change. And then there was that whole SYSV to the Commodore Amiga that SUN tried to piggy back on.... There had to be a lot more to that then meets the eye. Not to mention Commodore not letting SUN OEM the Amiga 3000/UX was their biggest mistake. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > "Joint project". Hmm, I was at Sun at the time, John Pope was across > the hall from me, he did the SVR4 port to Sun/SPARC. > > To call this joint is complete nonsense. Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T > wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning. The > story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun > stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD > based SunOS and go to SVR4. > > Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion. > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: > > > Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here, > > > SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL > > > (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun. > > > The intent was to bring together the two different > > > commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred > > > to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX). > > > > > > I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but > > > well off to the side of the effort, in a research > > > group where we tended (foolishly) to look down > > > our noses a bit at the whole thing. I do know that > > > there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL > > > about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it > > > wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there > > > were similar feelings going the other way. On > > > the other hand there were some pretty smart > > > people involved at a technical level on all > > > sides. > > > > > > Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms > > > being injected into a USG system or vice versa. > > > > > > Norman Wilson > > > Toronto ON > > > > Thanks, Norman. This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV. > > > > I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all > > UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly). The last Research > > Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix. Is the source code of > > releases 8, 9 and 10 available? Are there other commentaries of ancient > > Research Unixes, like Lions book? > > > > > > Thanks, > > --Michele > > > > P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion. I realized my > > mistake just after I sent the mail. I'm really sorry! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lm at bitmover.com Wed Jul 13 13:07:17 2011 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:07:17 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110713024844.GA13391@mercury.ccil.org> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> <20110713024844.GA13391@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <20110713030717.GA29210@bitmover.com> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:48:44PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Larry McVoy scripsit: > > > Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion. > > I think the competition for the position of "biggest Sun mistake" is > extremely stiff. As ex-Sun, someone who gave 7 years of his life there, along side of a bunch of people who did the same, while I may be wrong, I stand by the statement that that was the biggest mistake Sun made. They had the community loving them, they shit all over that. Big mistake. I've made it myself, big mistake. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From cowan at mercury.ccil.org Wed Jul 13 12:48:44 2011 From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:48:44 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20110713024844.GA13391@mercury.ccil.org> Larry McVoy scripsit: > Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion. I think the competition for the position of "biggest Sun mistake" is extremely stiff. -- Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901) cowan at ccil.org From arno.griffioen at ieee.org Wed Jul 13 23:25:04 2011 From: arno.griffioen at ieee.org (Arno Griffioen) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:25:04 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20110713132504.GY13454@attic.nerdnet.nl> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:23:41PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote: > And then there was that whole SYSV to the Commodore Amiga that SUN tried to > piggy back on.... There had to be a lot more to that then meets the eye. The SVR4 Amiga UNIX implementation was an interesting oddball in itself as CBM was of course 'cheap' and trying to save money on the project, so they licensed the code-base for the 3B2 instead of the original M68k codebase from AT&T.. The M68k codebase was much more expensive to license as I recall from my days working at CBM The result was that the 'port' was a real SVR4 and worked as such, but it lacked the SVR4 M68K ABI support in the kernel, which meant that nearly all available off-the-shelf applications for M68K SVR4 did NOT work on these. Which 'slightly' hampered the rollout and acceptance of these UNIX machine (understatement!). Pity they disbanded the CBM UNIX devel group before it really got started and an 68040 version was never officially released so the whole product fizzled out. I remember that the decision to axe the whole UNIX team inside CBM was really made without anyone knowing about it. Some of the guys were off on visits to CBM offices in other countries when they were told they were fired :( The previous (mostly un-released/internal) SVR3.2 port to the A2500UX'es for 68020+MMU or 68030 (of which I still have one, just no SVR3.2 media..) was AFAIK based on the real M68k codebase. > Not to mention Commodore not letting SUN OEM the Amiga 3000/UX was their > biggest mistake. CBM in their late days were very good at making bad decisions ;) Bye, Arno From aek at bitsavers.org Fri Jul 15 03:37:56 2011 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:37:56 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <4E1F2974.4020900@bitsavers.org> On 7/12/11 4:26 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > To call this joint is complete nonsense. Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T > wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning. The > story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun > stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD > based SunOS and go to SVR4. > > Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion. > And they ending up having to support 4.1.x for a VERY long time because major customers (like Valid) had absolutely no interest in dumping BSD. From aek at bitsavers.org Fri Jul 15 03:42:19 2011 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:42:19 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <19113151.8438.1310388782327.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> References: <19113151.8438.1310388782327.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> Message-ID: <4E1F2A7B.30403@bitsavers.org> > Some time ago, SCO made its source code available under an "Ancient UNIX" license. That is also very close to SVR4. Not really. The agreement does not cover any variant of System V. From neozeed at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 03:46:36 2011 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:46:36 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <4E1F2A7B.30403@bitsavers.org> References: <19113151.8438.1310388782327.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> <4E1F2A7B.30403@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: Yeah it went as far as SYSIII ... which on SIMH/VAX was... involved to get running. But that was the old "SCO Ancient License" thing I wonder how many were sold...? Mine was numbered around 1500 .... I guess I could try to put it online if there was even interest in that kind of thing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From random832 at fastmail.us Fri Jul 15 14:10:06 2011 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:10:06 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <19113151.8438.1310388782327.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> <4E1F2A7B.30403@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4E1FBD9E.6080107@fastmail.us> On 7/14/2011 1:46 PM, Jason Stevens wrote: > Yeah it went as far as SYSIII ... which on SIMH/VAX was... involved to > get running. > > But that was the old "SCO Ancient License" thing I wonder how many > were sold...? Mine was numbered around 1500 .... > > I guess I could try to put it online if there was even interest in > that kind of thing. I think the unix archive has SysIII for the PDP-11. (or is this unix trees page not actually part of the unix archive? since i can't see the corresponding tar) http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII I don't know what license it's made public under, since the Caldera License specifically excludes SysIII ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Caldera-license.pdf From cowan at mercury.ccil.org Fri Jul 15 14:22:23 2011 From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:22:23 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <4E1FBD9E.6080107@fastmail.us> References: <19113151.8438.1310388782327.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> <4E1F2A7B.30403@bitsavers.org> <4E1FBD9E.6080107@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <20110715042223.GB12581@mercury.ccil.org> Random832 scripsit: > I think the unix archive has SysIII for the PDP-11. (or is this unix > trees page not actually part of the unix archive? since i can't see the > corresponding tar) > > http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII > > I don't know what license it's made public under, Apparently it's bootleg; that page says it's "floating around the web". But I doubt whoever owns System III rights today will sue. -- Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML John Cowan Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker cowan at ccil.org saying "No information items inside". http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Eve Maler From wkt at tuhs.org Fri Jul 15 14:30:53 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:30:53 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20110715043053.GA17125@minnie.tuhs.org> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: > I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all > UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly). The last Research > Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix. Is the source code of > releases 8, 9 and 10 available? Are there other commentaries of ancient > Research Unixes, like Lions book? > --Michele Maurice Bach's book covers SysVR2 from a design point of view, but no code: http://www.amazon.com/Design-Operating-System-Prentice-Hall-Software/dp/0132017997 Goodheart & Cox's book covers SysVR4 from a design point of view, no code: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Garden-Explained-Berny-Goodheart/dp/0130981389 Vahalia's book covers various Unix systems around the mid-90s: http://www.amazon.com/UNIX-Internals-Frontiers-Uresh-Vahalia/dp/0131019082 and it's a great book! On the BSD side, there are books on 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Implementation-Operating-Addison-Wesley-computer-science/dp/0201061961 http://www.amazon.com/Design-Implementation-4-4-Operating-System/dp/0201549794 And there is a commentary on the 1st Edition of Unix, i.e. the one from 1971 available as a downloadable PDF: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v1/PreliminaryUnixImplementationDocument_Jun72.pdf Cheers, Warren From a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 11:05:30 2011 From: a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com (A. P. Garcia) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:05:30 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 83, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > To call this joint is complete nonsense.  Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T > wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning.  The > story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun > stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD > based SunOS and go to SVR4. > > Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion. "Sun has helped spark a major controversy within the UNIX community that may have split it into different directions. The controversy began to heat up in October 1987, when AT&T announced that it would license Sun's SPARC architecture as the basis for AT&T computer systems. Furthermore, said AT&T, it was going to collaborate with Sun to develop a UNIX "standard" that would eliminate deficiencies in the operating system--such as lack of features for commercial applications--and be compatible at the binary level across the entire SPARC architecture. Not surprisingly, other companies in the UNIX Community smelled incipient monopolistic practices that would give AT&T and Sun an unqualified advantage in the UNIX market. These moves would effectively make the Sun/AT&T-developed System V and SPARC proprietary standards controlled by the two companies. This perception was bolstered in January 1988, when AT&T announced that it had agreed to purchase 20 percent of Sun by buying shares, in amounts and at times determined by Sun, at 25 percent above current market value." [Sunburst: The Ascent of Sun Microsystems, p. 112-113] From downing.nick at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 19:53:46 2011 From: downing.nick at gmail.com (Nick Downing) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:53:46 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Wesley Parish wrote: > For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major > contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it. My understanding had been that BSD and SysV were quite distinct and that BSD forked off around the early research editions (V6 or V7?), if indeed 4.3BSD was a major contributor to SVR4 then it would have been in a few specific areas, e.g. the sockets code, because SysV had its own competing idea called STREAMS that I believe was later discarded (or not used much) when the BSD sockets API became the de facto standard. Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm this? cheers, Nick > From what I've read, people bought SVRx for the source code license, and then > bought the 4.xBSD for the reliability and usability. > > And yes, it would be nice if the entire SysVRx source trees were released under > a suitable FOSS license; but I think the usefulness of such a gesture would be > in stymieing any future "The SCO Group" shenanigans, and I don't know that such > acts of self-preservation are quite the flavour of the month with modern > software companies. > > Wesley Parish > > Quoting Michael Kerpan : > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo >> wrote: >> >  Hi, >> > >> >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. >>  It >> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever >> > read. >> > >> >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 >> kernel >> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > TUHS mailing list >> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs >> OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is >> still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a >> whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is >> available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix >> implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's >> from the same era and has many of the same abilities. >> >> Mike >> _______________________________________________ >> TUH S mailing list >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s >> > > > > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. > "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" > - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge > > "I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!" > I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the > other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From mvelimirovic at uwlax.edu Tue Jul 12 23:04:14 2011 From: mvelimirovic at uwlax.edu (=?utf-8?Q?Milo_Velimirovi=C4=87?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:04:14 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4E1B6A45.40607@laposte.net> <1310413815.15724.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <30F697DD-6095-4C3B-A07A-26BE05DB1528@uwlax.edu> On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Jason Stevens wrote: > Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting. Is there another way to retrieve this content? My campus has draconian limitations on P2P. Thx, Milo > > Also google "john titor" .. There is a VERY interesting torrent out there. > > On Monday, July 11, 2011, Michele Ghisolfo wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: >>> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit : >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six. It >>>> is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever >>>> read. >>>> >>>> It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel >>>> for Intel x86. Does anyone have that? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Try this : >>> >>> ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/ >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Cyrille Lefevre >> >> >> I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named >> "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule >> client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field. >> >> What I am doing wrong? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 merlyn at geeks.org Wed Jul 20 09:17:41 2011 From: merlyn at geeks.org (Doug McIntyre) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:17:41 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <20110719231741.GA67427@geeks.org> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 07:53:46PM +1000, Nick Downing wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Wesley Parish > wrote: > > For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major > > contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it. > > My understanding had been that BSD and SysV were quite distinct and > that BSD forked off around the early research editions (V6 or V7?), Prior to SVR4, there were the two camps, with SVR3 being "business" and BSD mostly being University/Research. With SVR4, things became alot less distinct, and it was really only the linux camp that really kept beating the drum that they were still so different. > if indeed 4.3BSD was a major contributor to SVR4 then it would have been > in a few specific areas, It was more Sun with 4BSD based SunOS that contributed into SVR4 than 4.3BSD proper. At the time, that was some University somewhere, not what was current in the Unix world. > e.g. the sockets code, because SysV had its > own competing idea called STREAMS that I believe was later discarded > (or not used much) when the BSD sockets API became the de facto > standard. There's both the STREAMS API (more properly XTI/TPI) and the STREAMS Kernel network processing paths. XTI/TPI have died by the wayside surplanted by the Sockets API, but the STREAMS kernel stuff is still very much part of Solaris. To me, it seemed like Sun never really gave all that it did for the streams kernel stuff back into SVR4, but alot of the networking code seemed to be an early draft of what Solaris did with it. Any SVR4 varients still ran with the streams networking kernel code. > Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of > development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think > is one example), Yes SunOS was definately 4.xBSD and had lots of research and innovation I think. The big Sun Whitepaper book of research papers is pretty interesting reading. > but was discarded as a political decision because > AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was > merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create > Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have > things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm > this? I didnt see AT&T driving new "business" aspects of any flavor of unix. They already had that perception going strong in the market. AT&T's goals were more of uniting the various paths of unix that were really already out. From the many BSD based systems with SysV influences (ie. SunOS, Ultrix), and the Sys III type systems, to the really strange one-off research type systems. All into one grand unified Unix to take over the market. Until the revolt for having AT&T be the overlord master overtook them and shattered it all again. Sun and AT&T were partners developing SVR4 to some extent. Some of Sun's tech went into SVR4 (based on their 4BSD based SunOS). To me, as an outsider, it seemed Sun kept alot of tech to itself and rolled it into Solaris. At the time, Sun's stated reason for creating Solaris was to move to multi-processor machines, and that the 4BSD based code had too many global-locks (something that FreeBSD had struggled with even relatively recently), and moving to the new architecture would be a lot easier for the future and would help them overcome those limitations. Of course, this migration probably took far far longer than they ever expected. But once Solaris actually became usable, it certainly did rock a lot more than SunOS on the hardware it was tweaked for. I didn't see Sun as not holding back on licensing SVR4. They seemed to get what they wanted out of the deal with AT&T, and created Solaris as their desired path out of the deficits they had with SunOS with the partners they had on hand. From lm at bitmover.com Wed Jul 20 10:42:26 2011 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:42:26 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110719231741.GA67427@geeks.org> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> <20110719231741.GA67427@geeks.org> Message-ID: <20110720004226.GA26439@bitmover.com> > There's both the STREAMS API (more properly XTI/TPI) and the STREAMS > Kernel network processing paths. XTI/TPI have died by the wayside > surplanted by the Sockets API, but the STREAMS kernel stuff is still > very much part of Solaris. To me, it seemed like Sun never really gave > all that it did for the streams kernel stuff back into SVR4, but alot > of the networking code seemed to be an early draft of what Solaris did > with it. Any SVR4 varients still ran with the streams networking kernel code. This is correct, I'm intimately familiar with that STREAMS networking stack, it came from Lachman and I ported it twice, to the ETA 10 and SCO. If anyone cares, http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/sw.shar is a "streams watch" package I wrote (and SCO shipped, at least for a while) that let you see the resources being used by the kernel for the networking stack. The Sun code was a purchase of Lachman's code. That didn't last long because of the terms of the purchase, then my memory is Sun did their own stuff and then eventually contracted a rewrite out to the Mentat folks. If anyone cares, I just went canoeing with one the main networking engineers at Sun at the time and I can get the exact details. The whole SVR4/STREAMS thing was a frigging mess, sockets were a much superior model and they eventually came back. > > Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of > > development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think > > is one example), > > Yes SunOS was definately 4.xBSD and had lots of research and > innovation I think. The big Sun Whitepaper book of research papers is > pretty interesting reading. Shared libaries, loadable modules, VFS, NFS, mmap all came from Sun. > > but was discarded as a political decision because > > AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was > > merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create > > Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have > > things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm > > this? This is wrong. Sun needed money and AT&T agreed to buy stock at over market but the terms of the deal was that Sun had to dump SunOS and use SVR4 instead. It was a horrible decision and one that I spent almost a year fighting full time. I took SunOS and removed all encumbered source from the kernel and had a kernel that booted and ran almost all applications (there were some tty drivers that didn't work for some 3rd party cards, stuff like that, but for 99% of the stuff you couldn't tell it wasn't the regular SunOS). I wrote up a paper about all this, trying to get Sun to give that kernel away as open source: http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html > Sun and AT&T were partners developing SVR4 to some extent. Some of > Sun's tech went into SVR4 (based on their 4BSD based SunOS). To me, as > an outsider, it seemed Sun kept alot of tech to itself and rolled it > into Solaris. Yup. > But once Solaris actually became usable, it certainly did > rock a lot more than SunOS on the hardware it was tweaked for. SunOS would have worked fine and was a much, much, MUCH better starting point. We had it working on multi processors and the underlying code would have been easier to make scale than that steaming pile of crap that was SVR4. If I had been successful getting SunOS out as open source, Linux wouldn't exist, we'd all be running SunOS. I tried. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From cowan at mercury.ccil.org Wed Jul 20 13:16:06 2011 From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:16:06 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110719231741.GA67427@geeks.org> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> <20110719231741.GA67427@geeks.org> Message-ID: <20110720031606.GA2160@mercury.ccil.org> Doug McIntyre scripsit: > Prior to SVR4, there were the two camps, with SVR3 being "business" > and BSD mostly being University/Research. With SVR4, things became > alot less distinct, and it was really only the linux camp that really > kept beating the drum that they were still so different. Eh? SVR4 was released in 1988. Linux didn't even exist until three years later, and there wasn't much of a Linux community for at least two years after that. -- As we all know, civil libertarians are not John Cowan the friskiest group around --comes from cowan at ccil.org forever being on the qui vive for the sound http://www.ccil.org/~cowan of jack-booted fascism coming down the pike. --Molly Ivins From imp at bsdimp.com Wed Jul 20 14:04:20 2011 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:04:20 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110720031606.GA2160@mercury.ccil.org> References: <1310380205.2145.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1310457285.4e1bfdc575d76@www.paradise.net.nz> <20110719231741.GA67427@geeks.org> <20110720031606.GA2160@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <7A3A493A-C030-4FD6-B1DB-683DCB3CEF02@bsdimp.com> On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:16 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Doug McIntyre scripsit: > >> Prior to SVR4, there were the two camps, with SVR3 being "business" >> and BSD mostly being University/Research. With SVR4, things became >> alot less distinct, and it was really only the linux camp that really >> kept beating the drum that they were still so different. > > Eh? SVR4 was released in 1988. Linux didn't even exist until three > years later, and there wasn't much of a Linux community for at least > two years after that. And once the Linux community developed, they tended to view BSD vs SYS V as being more different than they actually were... Warner From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Jul 27 08:53:30 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:53:30 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Has dmr's home page moved? Message-ID: <20110726225330.GA15845@minnie.tuhs.org> I went to Dennis' home page this morning to find something, and it seems to be gone. The URL I'm using is http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/ Does anybody know if it's moved or, if not, who to contact to fix it? I'm actually after the hi-res version of the photo with dmr and ken at the PDP-11/20 console. I think I have a copy cached away. If not, does anybody else have a copy? Cheers, Warren From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Jul 27 09:30:17 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:30:17 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Has dmr's home page moved? In-Reply-To: <1311721649.12622.29.camel@papa> References: <20110726225330.GA15845@minnie.tuhs.org> <1311721649.12622.29.camel@papa> Message-ID: <20110726233017.GA17150@minnie.tuhs.org> > On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 08:53 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote: > > I'm actually after the hi-res version of the photo with dmr and ken > > at the PDP-11/20 console. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 01:07:29AM +0200, Hellwig Geisse wrote: > I don't know if this is the resolution you are looking for: > http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/Images/ken-den.jpeg No, there's a huge one around, something like 4000x3000 pixels. Also, Dennis is the bearded one standing, and Ken is the beardless one sitting, to answer Jason's question. Cheers, Warren From norman at oclsc.org Wed Jul 27 10:17:34 2011 From: norman at oclsc.org (Norman Wilson) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] Has dmr's home page moved? Message-ID: <1311725909.1076.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> Warren: I went to Dennis' home page this morning to find something, and it seems to be gone. The URL I'm using is http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/ ======= Looks like there has been substantial reorganization of the company's web pages, doubtless to reflect reorganization of the company itself. I dug around to see where personal web pages seem to be now, and tried some obvious guesses, and still couldn't find Dennis's stuff. I've sent a query to someone on the inside; I'll report back if I find the answer. It might be worth trying the Wayback Machine in the mean time. Norman Wilson Toronto ON From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Thu Jul 28 07:51:41 2011 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:51:41 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Has dmr's home page moved? In-Reply-To: <20110726225330.GA15845@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20110726225330.GA15845@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20110727235141.01b8c337@cnb.csic.es> BTW, just tried it (the original home page) and it works, must have been some temporary glitch or other. j On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:53:30 +1000 Warren Toomey wrote: > I went to Dennis' home page this morning to find something, and it seems > to be gone. The URL I'm using is http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/ > > Does anybody know if it's moved or, if not, who to contact to fix it? > I'm actually after the hi-res version of the photo with dmr and ken > at the PDP-11/20 console. I think I have a copy cached away. If not, does > anybody else have a copy? > > Cheers, > Warren > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- EMBnet/CNB Scientific Computing Service Solving all your computer needs for Scientific Research. http://bioportal.cnb.csic.es http://www.es.embnet.org From wkt at tuhs.org Thu Jul 28 11:42:41 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:42:41 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Citation for Spencer quote? Message-ID: <20110728014241.GA577@minnie.tuhs.org> All, thanks for the help with that image of Ken and Dennis at the 11/20 console. Now I'm after a reference/citation to a great quote attributed to Henry Spencer: Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. Any ideas if/when Henry said this and where: date, first time it appeared in print etc. While we are at it, are there any other good Unix quotes that spring to mind? Thanks, Warren From cowan at mercury.ccil.org Thu Jul 28 12:27:43 2011 From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:27:43 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Citation for Spencer quote? In-Reply-To: <20110728014241.GA577@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20110728014241.GA577@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20110728022743.GB11481@mercury.ccil.org> Warren Toomey scripsit: > Any ideas if/when Henry said this and where: date, first time it appeared > in print etc. Searching at Google Groups (which is not a trivial undertaking; posts found by "Search by relevance" vanish when you search by date) finds http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.b/browse_thread/thread/64ca4e7650f22ac7/12af7af3e5bef5b9 , which is by Henry and dated November 12, 1987. So he definitely said it. However, it's in his .sig, which may mean that he was simply quoting someone else unnamed. > While we are at it, are there any other good Unix quotes that spring > to mind? http://www.linfo.org/q_unix.html has some classics including Henry's. http://nickelkid.net/docs/quotes/unix.html also has good ones once you scroll down past the Windows quotes. My former boss Len Silver said, back around 1983: "What you're saying is that Unix is a local minimum?" He was a physicist turned quant at a Wall Street firm. "Exactly," said I. -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan From lm at bitmover.com Thu Jul 28 13:28:02 2011 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:28:02 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Citation for Spencer quote? In-Reply-To: <20110728014241.GA577@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20110728014241.GA577@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20110728032802.GD2875@bitmover.com> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:42:41AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote: > All, thanks for the help with that image of Ken and Dennis at the 11/20 > console. Now I'm after a reference/citation to a great quote attributed to > Henry Spencer: > > Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > > Any ideas if/when Henry said this and where: date, first time it appeared > in print etc. Where is Henry, is he still with us? > While we are at it, are there any other good Unix quotes that spring to mind? His 10 commandments are classic. Rob Pike: If you think you need threads your processes are too fat. Me, same topic: Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You like salt, I like salt, we all like salt. But we eat more pasta Mike Padlipsky (he's got a million): Do you want protocols that look nice or protocols that work nice? Lynne Jolitz (wife of an unsung hero, Mr 386BSD: Bill Jolitz): The problem here is that there is parent and child but no adult. More at http://www.bitmover.com/lm/quotes.html - probably boring, haven't updated those in 15 years... -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From wkt at tuhs.org Thu Jul 28 21:31:09 2011 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:31:09 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] ken: # of children? Message-ID: <20110728113109.GA13578@minnie.tuhs.org> All, apologies for these seemingly random questions. How many children does Ken Thompson have? I want to use the phrase that Unix was "Ken's other child", but it would be inaccurate if he had several real children. Thanks, Warren From arnold at skeeve.com Fri Jul 29 04:26:20 2011 From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:26:20 +0300 Subject: [TUHS] ken: # of children? Message-ID: <201107281826.p6SIQKDA003381@localhost.localdomain> Hi Warren. Here's your answer. :-) Arnold > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:39:24 -0400 (EDT) > From: Brian Kernighan > To: Aharon Robbins > Subject: Re: can you help warren w/this? > > well, he only has one child; that i know for sure. can't vouch for > the quote, however; i have not heard it before. > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Aharon Robbins wrote: > > > Hi. Warren runs The Unix Historical Society and is working on a paper. > > Can you help him with this? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Arnold > > > >> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:31:09 +1000 > >> From: Warren Toomey > >> To: tuhs at tuhs.org > >> Subject: [TUHS] ken: # of children? > >> > >> All, apologies for these seemingly random questions. How many children does > >> Ken Thompson have? I want to use the phrase that Unix was "Ken's other child", > >> but it would be inaccurate if he had several real children. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Warren > >> _______________________________________________ > >> TUHS mailing list > >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Thu Jul 28 07:47:50 2011 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:47:50 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Has dmr's home page moved? In-Reply-To: <20110726225330.GA15845@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20110726225330.GA15845@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20110727234750.499a04cc@cnb.csic.es> Try http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/collate/index-ritchie.html The picture is attached to this e-mail. All hail Saint Google! On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:53:30 +1000 Warren Toomey wrote: > I went to Dennis' home page this morning to find something, and it seems > to be gone. The URL I'm using is http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/ > > Does anybody know if it's moved or, if not, who to contact to fix it? > I'm actually after the hi-res version of the photo with dmr and ken > at the PDP-11/20 console. I think I have a copy cached away. If not, does > anybody else have a copy? > > Cheers, > Warren > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- EMBnet/CNB Scientific Computing Service Solving all your computer needs for Scientific Research. http://bioportal.cnb.csic.es http://www.es.embnet.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ken-and-den.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2073643 bytes Desc: not available URL: