From tuhs at tuhs.org Mon May 1 12:59:54 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 02:59:54 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX Usage for Bell Telecom Typesetting Message-ID: Good evening folks, I'm doing some research lately into the typesetting style apparent in the various UNIX System V guides I've scanned to archive.org. Their typesetting style is unlike that of the MM papers published with 3.0 and 4.0, but the contents seem to have continuity with the text in these collections. Well, in my searches sometimes telecom documents from the Bell System come up too and in materials from the 70s and 80s I started noticing that familiar typesetting in telecom stuff such as that hosted here https://www.telephonecollectors.info/index.php/browse/bsps-bell-system/bsp-handbooks The earliest example I could find is 1969, so certainly at least a publication style that predates UNIX, but what I can't tell from my searches alone is if this style implies some non-UNIX typesetting system through and through or if there was a macro package dreamed up at some point between 1969 and 1982 that was in place by the time of the System V documentation. Just to detail specifics of the publication style, the commonalities I've found are the use of specifically bold numbers for page numbers, having the doc title and call number in the outer upper corner of pages, and just the fonts themselves look very similar. As an added note, the fonts used in the telecom documents and System V guidance documentation also resemble those in the copyright statement pasted on the cover of the extant PDF of the fifth edition UNIX manual. There is also some resemblance to the visual style observable in USG Program Generic and adjacent documentation (for instance the 1976 kernel description of PG 2 or the MERT 0 documents). This typesetting style is not seen in known research, CB, nor PWB until 5.0. Was there some separate typesetting system used in the broader System that, say, WECo may have taken up when they took over documentation between 3.0 and SVR2? - Matt G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at quintile.net Tue May 2 04:11:31 2023 From: steve at quintile.net (Steve Simon) Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 19:11:31 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX "Machine Layer" Message-ID: “soldering iron…” i do remember the fun of changing the baud rate of an async line on the Honeywell level 66 mainframe at college. This required shutting the whole machine down, removing one of the cards, and the (very careful) use of a wire wrap tool. -Steve From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue May 2 11:15:48 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Roderick Bartlett via TUHS) Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 21:15:48 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX "Machine Layer" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B6C7969-FF99-4693-A3E8-22813E6ECF41@mac.com> I believe the async lines were connected to I/O boards in the Front End Processor, AKA the Datanet 66xx. I don't recall having to change baud rates that way but we did have to do periodic FCOs (field change orders) which required wiring changes and occasional chip changes to correct bugs. I've still got my hand wire wrap tool somewhere but it hasn't been used in at least 30 years. - Rod > On May 1, 2023, at 2:12 PM, Steve Simon wrote: > >  > “soldering iron…” > > i do remember the fun of changing the baud rate of an async line on the Honeywell level 66 mainframe at college. This required shutting the whole machine down, removing one of the cards, and the (very careful) use of a wire wrap tool. > > -Steve > From crossd at gmail.com Tue May 2 11:48:55 2023 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 21:48:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Revisiting 6th Edition: rxv64 Message-ID: I've mentioned tangentially this a few times, but over the weekend I finally got around to dusting off the code and getting it running: https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64.git rxv64 is a rewrite of MIT's xv6, which in turn, reimagines 6th Edition as a purely pedagogical system, implemented in ISO C for 32-bit SMP x86 machines. Building on xv6, rxv64 is implemented in Rust and targets 64-bit x86_64. It works well enough to boot up, run a shell, and run commands, but it doesn't really have much of a userland at present. I started this as a pedagogical tool, being something that one could point working engineers at as an example of a "real" operating system implemented on real hardware in Rust. The code could surely be made safer and more comprehensible, but cycles are short at present, and it's better to just get it out there. Have fun. - Dan C. From clemc at ccc.com Tue May 2 11:55:26 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 21:55:26 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Revisiting 6th Edition: rxv64 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very cool On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:49 PM Dan Cross wrote: > I've mentioned tangentially this a few times, but over the weekend I > finally got around to dusting off the code and getting it running: > https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64.git > > rxv64 is a rewrite of MIT's xv6, which in turn, reimagines 6th Edition > as a purely pedagogical system, implemented in ISO C for 32-bit SMP > x86 machines. > > Building on xv6, rxv64 is implemented in Rust and targets 64-bit > x86_64. It works well enough to boot up, run a shell, and run > commands, but it doesn't really have much of a userland at present. > > I started this as a pedagogical tool, being something that one could > point working engineers at as an example of a "real" operating system > implemented on real hardware in Rust. The code could surely be made > safer and more comprehensible, but cycles are short at present, and > it's better to just get it out there. > > Have fun. > > - Dan C. > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lm at mcvoy.com Tue May 2 12:34:51 2023 From: lm at mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 19:34:51 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Revisiting 6th Edition: rxv64 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20230502023451.GK29744@mcvoy.com> I have to say I'm impressed. This is way beyond what I could do at my age. I think it is awesome that younger people are picking up what Unix meant and redoing it. On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: > Very cool > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:49 PM Dan Cross wrote: > > > I've mentioned tangentially this a few times, but over the weekend I > > finally got around to dusting off the code and getting it running: > > https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64.git > > > > rxv64 is a rewrite of MIT's xv6, which in turn, reimagines 6th Edition > > as a purely pedagogical system, implemented in ISO C for 32-bit SMP > > x86 machines. > > > > Building on xv6, rxv64 is implemented in Rust and targets 64-bit > > x86_64. It works well enough to boot up, run a shell, and run > > commands, but it doesn't really have much of a userland at present. > > > > I started this as a pedagogical tool, being something that one could > > point working engineers at as an example of a "real" operating system > > implemented on real hardware in Rust. The code could surely be made > > safer and more comprehensible, but cycles are short at present, and > > it's better to just get it out there. > > > > Have fun. > > > > - Dan C. > > > -- > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual -- --- Larry McVoy Retired to fishing http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat From jbowen at infinitecactus.com Tue May 2 13:05:22 2023 From: jbowen at infinitecactus.com (Jason Bowen) Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 22:05:22 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Revisiting 6th Edition: rxv64 In-Reply-To: <20230502023451.GK29744@mcvoy.com> References: <20230502023451.GK29744@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: Love the comment above main() > /// Starting an operating system is inherently unsafe. https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64/blob/c19418398de24e55f9cc818bda21ce2d0e402cf3/kernel/src/main.rs#L83 -- jbowen From gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com Tue May 2 21:37:40 2023 From: gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com (Gregg Levine) Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 07:37:40 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] I have unsubscribed my original address from the list Message-ID: Hello! For some time now I've had both this address, and my original address which was on another service altogether subscribed to this list. And starting some time earlier, it would not show a full thread, it would show partial contents, the latest was the work by Dan Cross. In fact With that being last, ah, straw I decided to do that. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." From crossd at gmail.com Tue May 2 22:19:58 2023 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 08:19:58 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Revisiting 6th Edition: rxv64 In-Reply-To: <20230502023451.GK29744@mcvoy.com> References: <20230502023451.GK29744@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:34 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > I have to say I'm impressed. This is way beyond what I could do at my > age. I think it is awesome that younger people are picking up what > Unix meant and redoing it. Thank you, Larry! I must say, though, that without starting from the framework of xv6, and of course 6th Edition itself, it would have been much harder to get this going. Indeed, this exercise gave me a much greater appreciation for the towering work done in early Unix: I had the luxury of working with an emulator that I could restart with abandon, and I could also attach a debugger to it, trivially inspect machine state (including registers and physical memory) from the monitor, etc. Moreover, I had a very comfortable development environment, a very mature compiler, and I could run e.g. unit tests directly in the kernel. All of this makes development of kernel-level code dramatically easier. I have a hard time imagining just how much more difficult it would be to do this kind of thing on bare hardware, let alone something like a PDP-11 with a teletype for a terminal. Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. - Dan C. > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: > > Very cool > > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:49 PM Dan Cross wrote: > > > > > I've mentioned tangentially this a few times, but over the weekend I > > > finally got around to dusting off the code and getting it running: > > > https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64.git > > > > > > rxv64 is a rewrite of MIT's xv6, which in turn, reimagines 6th Edition > > > as a purely pedagogical system, implemented in ISO C for 32-bit SMP > > > x86 machines. > > > > > > Building on xv6, rxv64 is implemented in Rust and targets 64-bit > > > x86_64. It works well enough to boot up, run a shell, and run > > > commands, but it doesn't really have much of a userland at present. > > > > > > I started this as a pedagogical tool, being something that one could > > > point working engineers at as an example of a "real" operating system > > > implemented on real hardware in Rust. The code could surely be made > > > safer and more comprehensible, but cycles are short at present, and > > > it's better to just get it out there. > > > > > > Have fun. > > > > > > - Dan C. > > > > > -- > > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual > > -- > --- > Larry McVoy Retired to fishing http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed May 3 07:31:10 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 23:31:10 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] BSD question: Kurt Shoens, or Kurt Schoens? Message-ID: <20230502213110.BlWXR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Hello. Even in these rusty times (oh what complicated chemical processes there are!) a question that i hope someone can answer. In both Spinellis' UNIX history repo as well as the CSRG one (via robohack/ucb-csrg-bsd.git) one can find two ways of writing Kurt Shoen's name, and whereas i, who always refer to Mail and its "usr.bin/mail/def.h" (aac48ec10b56f59b321fb033a36bca2114ef061b): [ Author: Kurt Shoens AuthorDate: 1980-10-08 08:53:34 -0800] + * Author: Kurt Shoens (UCB) March 25, 1978 one can find the name "Kurt Schoens" as early as 4.2 BSD (curses, twinkle1), and then in a growing number of files, especially after 1993 when Keith Bostic and then Kirk McKusick did admin/admin/contrib/address.list and admin/admin/contrib/contrib and share/man/man0/title.cdrom But one can also see the commit Author: Kurt A. Schoens AuthorDate: 1980-10-09 02:48:47 -0800 and that is strange, as i presume all-automatic version control conversions here? Schoens .. is a bug? Thank you. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) |~~ |..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing.. | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure |~~ |Farewell, dear collar bear From reed at reedmedia.net Wed May 3 07:43:10 2023 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 21:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [TUHS] BSD question: Kurt Shoens, or Kurt Schoens? In-Reply-To: <20230502213110.BlWXR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <20230502213110.BlWXR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <15c15b6d-cc6d-1fcc-5feb-4749111fb050@reedmedia.net> His wife's email told me "shoens". From beebe at math.utah.edu Wed May 3 07:50:36 2023 From: beebe at math.utah.edu (Nelson H. F. Beebe) Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 15:50:36 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] BSD question: Kurt Shoens, or Kurt Schoens? In-Reply-To: <20230502213110.BlWXR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: I did a lookup in the American Mathematical Society database for Schoens and Shoens; only the latter is found, in this article Data sufficiency for queries on cache Oded Shmueli and Kurt Shoens Information Processing Letters 65(4) 209--216, 27 February 1998 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0190(97)00205-6 The PDF file has "Shoens" as well. In Diomidis Spinellis A repository of {Unix} history and evolution Empirical Software Engineering 22(3) 1372--1404 June 2017 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9445-5 the article body also has "Shoens". In the TeX User Group bibliography archives, I find 7 entries with the spelling "Shoens", and none with "Schoens". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 - - University of Utah - - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe at math.utah.edu - - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe at acm.org beebe at computer.org - - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed May 3 07:58:50 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 23:58:50 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] BSD question: Kurt Shoens, or Kurt Schoens? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20230502215850.2Aj1v%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote in : |I did a lookup in the American Mathematical Society database for |Schoens and Shoens; only the latter is found, in this article | | Data sufficiency for queries on cache | Oded Shmueli and Kurt Shoens | Information Processing Letters 65(4) 209--216, 27 February 1998 | https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0190(97)00205-6 | |The PDF file has "Shoens" as well. | |In | | Diomidis Spinellis | A repository of {Unix} history and evolution | Empirical Software Engineering 22(3) 1372--1404 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9445-5 | |the article body also has "Shoens". | |In the TeX User Group bibliography archives, I find 7 entries |with the spelling "Shoens", and none with "Schoens". Thank you very much for your effort, Mr. Beebe. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) |~~ |..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing.. | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure |~~ |Farewell, dear collar bear From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed May 3 08:47:30 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 00:47:30 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] BSD question: Kurt Shoens, or Kurt Schoens? In-Reply-To: <15c15b6d-cc6d-1fcc-5feb-4749111fb050@reedmedia.net> References: <20230502213110.BlWXR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <15c15b6d-cc6d-1fcc-5feb-4749111fb050@reedmedia.net> Message-ID: <20230502224730.zVU7r%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Jeremy C. Reed wrote in <15c15b6d-cc6d-1fcc-5feb-4749111fb050 at reedmedia.net>: |His wife's email told me "shoens". --End of <15c15b6d-cc6d-1fcc-5feb-4749111fb050 at reedmedia.net> Thank you, a Polly (reiterating Kirk McKusicks enthusiastic commit of 1993 that i have seen several times in the last hours) is naturally always fully trustworthy. git filter-branch and .mailmap could do a bit i think. And NetBSD has five files to fix, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly (still alive) are all fine out. (Personally coming in via Polly Jean Harvey, a British woman, on battered books and fog rolling down behind the mountains.) Ciao from Germany!! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) |~~ |..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing.. | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure |~~ |Farewell, dear collar bear From douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu Wed May 3 23:07:03 2023 From: douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy) Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 09:07:03 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Any reason the removal/renaming of read-only registers should be permitted? Message-ID: I think Clark was justified in deviating from Ossanna. The prime rationale for allowing removal of read-only registers is uniformity--a powerful argument. It simplifies documentation and relieves a burden on users' understanding. It probably simplifies the code, too. This kind of special-casing is AI in the service of some perception that "no one would want to do that.". If "that" is the clear meaning of some specified action, then so be it. We are not dealing with physical hazards here. > even if they don't screw up the formatter internally, > they will become unrecoverably useless for documents > and macro packages, The same argument could be made about \applying .rm to any standard request, and I would disagree for the same reason as above. (A disappointing experimental discovery in this regard: .de seems to be immune to removal.) A change that I *would* welcome is warning about writing into a read-only register. (Also make .rm work on .de--a near reversal of the original proposal.) Doug From g.branden.robinson at gmail.com Thu May 4 00:29:13 2023 From: g.branden.robinson at gmail.com (G. Branden Robinson) Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 09:29:13 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Any reason the removal/renaming of read-only registers should be permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20230503142913.bmgfic4yeafvqebb@illithid> [adding groff to CC list since this is a reply to a message I posted there] Hi Doug, Thank you for your considered response. At 2023-05-03T09:07:03-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote: > I think Clark was justified in deviating from Ossanna. > > The prime rationale for allowing removal of read-only registers is > uniformity--a powerful argument. Fair, and this occurred to me too. > It simplifies documentation This, I would quibble with. I feel morally compelled to document this as one of many differences from AT&T troff. On the bright side, in groff documentation, those considerations are for the most part confined to dedicated sections that the newcomer or other user without mastery of the AT&T troff dialect easily can pass over. (And a good thing, as those portions of the documentation have grown measurably since I started contributing, mainly to document differences that have been in place for many years.[1]) > and relieves a burden on users' understanding. True, except for the grumbling grognards we're familiar with who fixed their understanding in place many years ago and resist developing it. > It probably simplifies the code, too. Assuredly that. In reviewing the class hierarchy for registers in groff, I see that I would at the very least need to add a virtual member function `locked` to an abstract base class. Or possibly reorganize the class hierarchy to add a new layer. I had not decided upon a course yet, because I found some logically prior cleanups that I wanted to do first. > This kind of special-casing is AI in the service of some perception > that "no one would want to do that.". If "that" is the clear meaning > of some specified action, then so be it. We are not dealing with > physical hazards here. I would agree that if someone can screw up the formatter's state by deleting a read-only register, then that bit of state was improperly shielded from the *roff language interface in the first place. And to be fair, I haven't yet found any evidence of such. To take an easily understood example, you can blow macro packages and documents to holy hell by removing the `.l` register if they blithely assume they can get the truth from it, but the formatter still knows what the line length is. $ cat EXPERIMENTS/remove-.l-register.roff .de XX foo bar baz qux .br .. .ll 8n .tm .l=\n(.l .XX .rr .l .tm .l=\n(.l .XX .ll +2n .XX .ll -2n .XX .pl \n(nlu $ cat out foo bar baz qux foo bar baz qux foo bar baz qux foo bar baz qux $ cat err .l=192 .l=troff: backtrace: file 'EXPERIMENTS/remove-.l-register.roff':9 troff:EXPERIMENTS/remove-.l-register.roff:9: warning: register '.l' not defined 0 DWB 3.3 nroff stdout is the same. > > even if they don't screw up the formatter internally, > > they will become unrecoverably useless for documents > > and macro packages, > > The same argument could be made about \applying .rm to any standard > request, and I would disagree for the same reason as above. (A > disappointing experimental discovery in this regard: .de seems to be > immune to removal.) I have good news for you! Removing `de` seems to work just fine for me in groff 1.22.4 and Git. $ nl EXPERIMENTS/remove-de-request.roff 1 .de A 2 foo 3 .. 4 .rm de 5 .de B 6 bar 7 .. 8 .B 9 .pl \n(nlu $ nroff -ww EXPERIMENTS/remove-de-request.roff troff: EXPERIMENTS/remove-de-request.roff:5: warning: macro 'de' not defined troff: EXPERIMENTS/remove-de-request.roff:7: warning: macro '.' not defined troff: EXPERIMENTS/remove-de-request.roff:8: warning: macro 'B' not defined bar > A change that I *would* welcome is warning about writing into a > read-only register. Already done, and since I didn't add it, probably extant in groff for a long time. $ echo '.nr .l 80n' | nroff troff: :1: can't write read-only register This bit of tomfoolery was not overlooked, either: $ echo '.af .l I' | nroff troff: :1: can't alter format of read-only register > (Also make .rm work on .de--a near reversal of the original proposal.) groff might conform to your expectations better than you thought it did. I observe that no one seems to have ever complained about, or even noted, this GNU troff difference from AT&T. I do think groff's documentation could benefit from a warning to the callow that destruction of predefined requests, registers, and (one) string is an irreversible process. I will shelve this reactionary idea for the indefinite future, then. As an anti-reactionary by temperament, that suits me down to the ground. ;) Regards, Branden [1] The exception being the change, forthcoming in groff 1.23.0,[2] to to the interpretation of `\s11`, `\s24`, `\s36`, and similar. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS?h=1.23.0.rc4#n35 [2] Now at release candidate 4! Try it today! https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2023-04/msg00135.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu Thu May 4 01:02:45 2023 From: douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy) Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 11:02:45 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Senior moment Message-ID: Apologies for once again posting an item for the groff list to tuhs, re: "Any reason the removal/renaming of read-only registers should be permitted?" Doug From tuhs at tuhs.org Thu May 4 09:46:51 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via TUHS) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 09:46:51 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! Message-ID: All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or Outlook. I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some MTA/ISP experience who might be able to help diagnose the problem? Thanks, Warren From jcapp at anteil.com Thu May 4 10:33:47 2023 From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp) Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 20:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4802099.2951.1683160427888.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> I've had this issue before. Problem was resolved for me by setting up SPF records in DNS. In any case, the key to resolution is to inspect the bounce back messages. Forward to me directly if you like. J From: "Warren Toomey via TUHS" To: tuhs at tuhs.org Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 7:46:51 PM Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or Outlook. I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some MTA/ISP experience who might be able to help diagnose the problem? Thanks, Warren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com Thu May 4 10:54:18 2023 From: gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com (Gregg Levine) Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 20:54:18 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello! Warren that was the same problem sending stuff from the list to my originally subscribed address hansolofalcon at att.net originally everything arrived, then there were a few dropped messages. Finally the discussion that Dan Cross got started on his project was largely not sent at all in the beginning, and that's what did it. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 7:47 PM Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > > All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or Outlook. > I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some MTA/ISP experience > who might be able to help diagnose the problem? > > Thanks, Warren From grog at lemis.com Thu May 4 11:35:54 2023 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 11:35:54 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: <4802099.2951.1683160427888.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> References: <4802099.2951.1683160427888.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> Message-ID: <20230504013554.GI24312@eureka.lemis.com> On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 20:33:47 -0400, Jim Capp wrote: > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 7:46:51 PM, Warren Toomey wrote: > >> All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or >> Outlook. I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some >> MTA/ISP experience who might be able to help diagnose the problem? > > I've had this issue before. Problem was resolved for me by setting > up SPF records in DNS. That's only part of it. SPF can be a problem with mailing lists. For example, tuhs.org doesn't appear in the SPF record for anteil.com. There's also DMARC to worry about, but so far I haven't found anything that satisfies all these Big Businesses. > In any case, the key to resolution is to inspect the bounce back > messages. Many are too polite to tell you the errors of your ways. From memory, outlook.com does, but Telstra BigPond doesn't. Another thing I've been trying is changing the sending MTA from my own (mail.lemis.com) to my ISP's MTA. I don't know for sure if it makes any difference. My own server gives me the "delivered" messages, but the ISP server just says "delivered to spam check service" or some such. I fear that we oldtimers no longer fit in the Internet of the 2020s, and to communicate with modern people we'll have to use Gmail or some such. O brave new world! Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 163 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brad at anduin.eldar.org Thu May 4 13:38:30 2023 From: brad at anduin.eldar.org (Brad Spencer) Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 23:38:30 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: (message from Warren Toomey via TUHS on Thu, 4 May 2023 09:46:51 +1000) Message-ID: Warren Toomey via TUHS writes: > All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or Outlook. > I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some MTA/ISP experience > who might be able to help diagnose the problem? > > Thanks, Warren There is a lot that could be and without more information it will be next to impossible to determine what the problem or problems may be. The first question is are you getting bounces, or is the message just getting black holed?? From the TUHS sending server, can you send an email from the command line (for example) outside of the list management software to a known address that could not receive email from the list itself?? If this direct message (just to give it a name) does not make it, then it could indicate that the receiver has blocked the TUHS server (for a ton of possible reasons). If this direct message does make it, but email from the list management software does not, then it is likely that something about how the message is processed (i.e. altered) is triggering the block. A few others have mentioned DMARC, but DKIM may be involved. More or less, if the original sender uses any of the signed email techniques that exist and the TUHS server alters any part of the message it will likely cause the message to fail the signature check. This may include altering the Subject and the From if these bits of the header were covered by the signature. I am by no means an expert here, but am on a number of email lists and this problem comes up from time to time and there has been debate on how or if the list management software should mess with the message. Of course, I would also check to make sure that the message actually made it off of the TUHS server itself. That is, the message isn't sitting in the local queue having failed to contact the destination email server?? Other stranger stuff.. from my logs of incoming TUHS email it looks like you can send via IPv4 and IPv6... is it only one of those sending addresses that fail?? (This may be hard to determine, I realize, but it may be the case that the receiver can't receive one of the addresses families correctly, probably IPv6 if there is a problem). It doesn't look like you are using TLS as a email client sending back out. Is it possible for you to do that?? It might help. I know that some of the stuff I use to keep SPAM out gives a greater credibility to clients that come in via TLS and have a valid certificate where the cert chain validates completely. (I won't debate whether or not this is a good idea or even useful given how simple it is to get Let's Encrypt certs for free, just mostly mentioning that it happens). I am not at all an expert on this topic, but have had my own email domain since 1993 and have seen a whole lot of really strange stuff. -- Brad Spencer - brad at anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org From tuhs at tuhs.org Thu May 4 13:51:26 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 03:51:26 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" Message-ID: In the midst of my documentation research, I've done a little analysis on the life and times of this whimsical little phrase which first appeared in the "HOW TO GET STARTED" or basinf section of the Third Edition manual (a derivative of the original login(VII) page): "When you type to UNIX, a gnome deep in the system is gathering your characters and saving them in a secret place." Aside from the wonderful imagery of the terminal interrupt driver as a little gnome, I've found that this line has some implications regarding UNIX documentation lineages. This exact verbiage survives in the research line through the Sixth Edition, and is slightly edited prior to the Seventh: "When you type characters, a gnome deep in the system gathers your characters and saves them in a secret place." The latter of the two changes holds with a trend over time of using progressive rather than continuous language. That aside, simple change of "to UNIX" to "characters". Seems simple enough, reduce redundancy and make it more clear what is happening. In this same breath, basinf was merged into intro. Checking the Tenth Edition manpage sources on the source tree, this version then seems to persist for the rest of the research lifetime. Peering across into BSD-land, I had to pull a paper copy for this one because I can't find the intro document in the tree, but it likewise has the same exact text, so this version also persisted through the remainder of the UCB development period. When you start to look into other Bell lineages, things get a little more interesting. Let's start with MERT Release 0. This manual was produced in October, 1977, and has a "gnome" message identical to that in the Sixth Edition manual, so presumably by this time, the old text could very well have still been up in research. Unfortunately we only have scans of this manual, so I can't say whether the merge from intro and basinf to just intro has happened yet. Additionally, this may not reflect the case with USG Program Generic 3 (or any of those) as the intro is one of the sections marked as modified from the USG manual. Next let's check the situation with PWB 1.0. To start, the intro and basinf documents have been merged into a document titled "introduction", which may very well indicate that this manual page at least was produced after the merge in the research line, and given this was July 1977, that's a case for the MERT 0 page likewise probably being a merged page. However, the text reads: "When you type to UNIX, a gnome deep in the system is gathering your characters and saving them." So a different modification of the Sixth Edition text, we still have "to UNIX" and the continuous "is gathering...and saving". What does change is we no longer know where the gnome is saving those characters. We've now lost the secret place, research and BSD carry on knowing the real story, and MERT 0 kept this intact as well. Taking a look further afield, in the System III manuals, originally produced in 1980, we see the same as PWB, a merged intro document (now just named intro again), and the same text, the Sixth Edition text minus the secret place commentary. So whatever merges of documentation took place between PWB 1.0 and 3.0, it seems the updated text from the Seventh Edition was never picked up, and the modified line persisted through to this point. Checking forward, this text persists into the release of PWB 5.0. The first release of System V only changes "UNIX" to "the UNIX System", consistent with nomenclature changes throughout documentation in the PWB 5.0->System V transition. Taking a little peek aside into yet another lineage, the CB-UNIX 2.3 manuals circa 1981 likewise carry this same text, with the "secret place" removed. Unfortunately we don't have any other versions of CB-UNIX manuals to compare with, but the specific page in question actually lists CB-UNIX 2.1 in the footer with a date of November 1979, so the PWB-ish text in that lineage dates to at least that point. There are a few different variations circa SVR2, with the 1983 BTL version and 1984 DEC processors versions of the manual changing the first bit to "When you type to UNIX system", whereas the 1986 HRW tradebook manuals state "When you type to the UNIX system." So the "the" is dropped, "system" is lower-cased, but then the "the" is added back between 1984 and 1986. Finally, there is one more variation on this line, the saddest one of all, that appears circa System V Release 3 material in 1987: "When you type to the UNIX system, your individual characters are being gathered and temporarily saved." "Pay no attention to the gnome behind the curtain," says AT&T, removing all whimsy from the equation. This persists into SVR4. Can't say what happens in SVR4.2, I don't have one of those user's manuals, but in any case, it's probably save to assume Novell didn't resurrect the gnome. So just to review the strange and wonderful journey our little gnome has been on: - Introduced in Third Edition - intro and basinf documents merged between Sixth and Seventh Edition - MERT 0 takes the old text - PWB line takes the old text and drops the reference to a "secret place" - Seventh Edition adjusts the text to drop UNIX redundancy and use progressive language - PWB line keeps rolling with their modified text, CB-UNIX takes it up (or vice versa? can't conclude anything there) - PWB to System V process converts most references of "UNIX" to "the UNIX System" - Along the way, the "System" is ultimately lowercased, the "the" gets lost for a while and comes back - AT&T finally removes the gnome reference in SVR3/1987 - Research and BSD keep the Seventh Edition text to the end Granted, this is a very trivial detail, but one that does demonstrate some flow of documentation revisions and what sorts of changes different groups were making to their documents, what with research making changes to the grammatical style while the PWB-then-commercial line grew more sterile in this presentation over time. This then shows at least one instance of a lack of merging of aspects of the Seventh Edition documentation back into the PWB line after the split of 1.0. Eventually I hope to illuminate many more such areas through the diffing and historical analysis I'm performing. By the way, I believe a few list members had indicated at some point or another being in possession of some USG Program Generic manuals. If you happen to catch this, and have the time, I'd be ever so curious which of the above, if any, variations on the text they contain. This particular line is immediately following the "How to communicate through your terminal" heading the "HOW TO GET STARTED" section. Anywho, I hope this was an entertaining diversion. While most of the analysis I'm performing concerns software details and version differences, it's also nice to take a closer look at some of the other sorts of changes that have happened in the lifetime of the system's growth and diversification. - Matt G. From tuhs at tuhs.org Thu May 4 14:49:16 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Mehdi Sadeghi via TUHS) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 06:49:16 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E0FC483-362B-414E-A47F-CC30650CE3E9@mehdix.org> There is also https://sender.office.com/ for delisting IP addresses for office 365 and https://www.mail-tester.com/ for testing the mail server score (by sending one email to a unique address). Hope it helps. Mehdi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Thu May 4 18:58:56 2023 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 09:58:56 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] OT: Nostr Protocol. (Was: OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help!) In-Reply-To: <20230504013554.GI24312@eureka.lemis.com> References: <4802099.2951.1683160427888.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> <20230504013554.GI24312@eureka.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20230504085856.4AE7D22175@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Hi, Greg wrote: > I fear that we oldtimers no longer fit in the Internet of the 2020s, > and to communicate with modern people we'll have to use Gmail or some > such. O brave new world! SMTP email originally had dumb servers and smart clients. The servers had to know enough to route, but much was left to the client allowing experimentation, tailoring, etc. The Facebook, Twitter, ... silos are smart servers and dumb clients. The power shifted. There's a new simple protocol, Nostr. A client is smart and creates ‘events’ which are pushed to its choice of relays. A note is signed using a cryptographic key pair. The public key is the user's identity. Or rather one of them. A relay is very dumb. It just stores the note and gives it to any client who comes asking. Different types of events are being standardised. Clients can gain ever more smarts for dealing with different kinds of events. Nostr isn't tied to a particular company; it's a protocol. It's gaining traction, e.g. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has been using it for a while. You'll see public keys in bios, e.g. the npub... in https://twitter.com/jack/ https://nostr.com is one rabbit hole. I suggest any further chat about Nostr moves to coff at tuhs.org. -- Cheers, Ralph. From ama at ugr.es Thu May 4 20:10:40 2023 From: ama at ugr.es (Angel M Alganza) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 12:10:40 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] OT: Nostr Protocol. In-Reply-To: <20230504085856.4AE7D22175@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <4802099.2951.1683160427888.JavaMail.root@zimbraanteil> <20230504013554.GI24312@eureka.lemis.com> <20230504085856.4AE7D22175@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <15f5292f0042c9666997725dc28d88a1@ugr.es> On 2023-05-04 10:58, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has been using it for a while. Not only has he been using it for a while already, but he's also contributing code and funding the developers of some projects (clients and relays) with 14 BTC through fiatjaf, Nostr creator. > I suggest any further chat about Nostr moves to coff at tuhs.org. CC'd. Cheers. Ángel From reed at reedmedia.net Fri May 5 04:49:59 2023 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 18:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 3 May 2023, Brad Spencer wrote: > Other stranger stuff.. from my logs of incoming TUHS email it looks > like you can send via IPv4 and IPv6... is it only one of those sending > addresses that fail?? (This may be hard to determine, I realize, but it Maybe the TXT SPF needs to add ip6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1 From tuhs at tuhs.org Fri May 5 05:39:00 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via TUHS) Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 05:39:00 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:46:51AM +1000, Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or Outlook. > I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some MTA/ISP experience > who might be able to help diagnose the problem? All, thanks for the on- and off-list responses. I'm off to a horse competition this weekend with my wife (I stay on the ground), so I won't be able to get back to you with details until Sunday/Monday. Cheers, Warren From tuhs at tuhs.org Fri May 5 06:31:02 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via TUHS) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 22:31:02 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: (Jeremy C. Reed's message of "Thu, 4 May 2023 18:49:59 +0000 (UTC)") References: Message-ID: "Jeremy C. Reed" writes: > Maybe the TXT SPF needs to add > > ip6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1 No, the 'a' covers that. I can't see anything wrong with the way mail is sent from the list. -tih -- Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance of Lisp. Lisp is the most important idea in computer science. --Alan Kay From steffen at sdaoden.eu Fri May 5 06:44:04 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 22:44:04 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20230504204404.WrmTa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote in : |"Jeremy C. Reed" writes: |> Maybe the TXT SPF needs to add |> |> ip6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1 | |No, the 'a' covers that. | |I can't see anything wrong with the way mail is sent from the list. minnie.tuhs.org. 21600 IN AAAA 2600:3c01:e000:146::1 minnie.tuhs.org. 21600 IN A 50.116.15.146 minnie.tuhs.org. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ip4:45.79.103.53 ~all" minnie.tuhs.org. 21600 IN MX 10 minnie.tuhs.org. The IPv4 45.79.103.53 is linode whatever; i would add the same 50.116.15.146 like is done for tuhs.org itself: tuhs.org. 21600 IN AAAA 2600:3c01:e000:146::1 tuhs.org. 21600 IN A 50.116.15.146 tuhs.org. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx a ip4:50.116.15.146 ip4:45.79.103.53 ip6:2600:3c01::f03c:93ff:fee0:947f ip6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe61:7ef8 ~all" tuhs.org. 21600 IN SOA ns1.linode.com. hostmaster.tuhs.org. 2021000024 14400 14400 1209600 86400 tuhs.org. 21600 IN NS ns3.linode.com. tuhs.org. 21600 IN NS ns5.linode.com. tuhs.org. 21600 IN NS ns1.linode.com. tuhs.org. 21600 IN NS ns2.linode.com. tuhs.org. 21600 IN NS ns4.linode.com. tuhs.org. 21600 IN MX 10 minnie.tuhs.org. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) |~~ |..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing.. | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure |~~ |Farewell, dear collar bear From rich.salz at gmail.com Fri May 5 07:59:19 2023 From: rich.salz at gmail.com (Rich Salz) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 17:59:19 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead Message-ID: https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/fernando-corby-corbato-1926-2019. He invented time-sharing, passwords, and ran Project MAC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rich.salz at gmail.com Fri May 5 08:41:36 2023 From: rich.salz at gmail.com (Rich Salz) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 18:41:36 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Never mind. Oops On Thu, May 4, 2023, 5:59 PM Rich Salz wrote: > https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/fernando-corby-corbato-1926-2019. He > invented time-sharing, passwords, and ran Project MAC. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu Tue May 9 00:18:47 2023 From: douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 10:18:47 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead Message-ID: Although it dates from four years ago, MIT's obituary for Corbató was still interesting to reread. It couldn't bring itself to mention Unix--only the latecomer Linux. It also peddled some mythology about Whirlwind from the decade before timesharing. "Whirlwind was ... a rather clunky machine. Researchers often had trouble getting much work done on it, since they had to take turns using it for half-hour chunks of time. (Corbató said that it had a habit of crashing every 20 minutes or so.)" "Clunky" perhaps refers to Whirlwind's physical size. It occupied two stories of the Barta Building, not counting the rotating AC/DC motor-generators in the basement. But it was not ponderous; its clean architecture prefigured "RISC" by two decades. Only a few favored people got "chunks" of (night) time on Whirlwind for interactive use. In normal business hours it was run by dedicated operators, who fed it user-submitted code on punched paper tape. Turnaround time was often as short as an hour--including the development of microfilm, the main output medium. Hardware crashes were rare--much rarer than experience with vacuum-tube radios would lead one to expect--thanks to "marginal testing", in which voltages were ramped up and down once a day to smoke out failing tubes before they could affect real computing. My recollection is that crashes happened on a time scale of days, not minutes. "Clunky" would better describe the interface of the IBM 704, which displaced Whirlwind in about 1956. How backward the 60-year-old uppercase-only Hollerith card technology seemed, after the humane full Flexowriter font we had enjoyed on Whirlwind. But the 704 had the enormous advantages of native floating-point (almost all computing was floating-point in those days) and FORTRAN. (Damn those capital letters!) Doug From rminnich at gmail.com Tue May 9 02:11:42 2023 From: rminnich at gmail.com (ron minnich) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 09:11:42 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ah, the flexowriter, for those who never saw it, was literally a typewriter with solenoids at the bottom. I owned one, it was a miracle to behold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friden_Flexowriter#/media/File:Flexowriter_2201_Programatic.jpg On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:19 AM Douglas McIlroy < douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu> wrote: > Although it dates from four years ago, MIT's obituary for Corbató was > still interesting to reread. It couldn't bring itself to mention > Unix--only the latecomer Linux. It also peddled some mythology about > Whirlwind from the decade before timesharing. > > "Whirlwind was ... a rather clunky machine. Researchers often had > trouble getting much work done on it, since they had to take turns > using it for half-hour chunks of time. (Corbató said that it had a > habit of crashing every 20 minutes or so.)" > > "Clunky" perhaps refers to Whirlwind's physical size. It occupied two > stories of the Barta Building, not counting the rotating AC/DC > motor-generators in the basement. But it was not ponderous; its clean > architecture prefigured "RISC" by two decades. > > Only a few favored people got "chunks" of (night) time on Whirlwind > for interactive use. In normal business hours it was run by dedicated > operators, who fed it user-submitted code on punched paper tape. > Turnaround time was often as short as an hour--including the > development of microfilm, the main output medium. Hardware crashes > were rare--much rarer than experience with vacuum-tube radios would > lead one to expect--thanks to "marginal testing", in which voltages > were ramped up and down once a day to smoke out failing tubes before > they could affect real computing. My recollection is that crashes > happened on a time scale of days, not minutes. > > "Clunky" would better describe the interface of the IBM 704, which > displaced Whirlwind in about 1956. How backward the 60-year-old > uppercase-only Hollerith card technology seemed, after the humane full > Flexowriter font we had enjoyed on Whirlwind. But the 704 had the > enormous advantages of native floating-point (almost all computing was > floating-point in those days) and FORTRAN. (Damn those capital > letters!) > > Doug > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Tue May 9 04:46:35 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 14:46:35 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Indeed -- and the sounds it made were distinct. Different from ASRxx or 2741's For the younger crew, this made the light and >>so much quieter<< TI Silent 700 of 10 years later such a marvel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_700 ᐧ On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 12:12 PM ron minnich wrote: > ah, the flexowriter, for those who never saw it, was literally a > typewriter with solenoids at the bottom. I owned one, it was a miracle to > behold. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friden_Flexowriter#/media/File:Flexowriter_2201_Programatic.jpg > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:19 AM Douglas McIlroy < > douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu> wrote: > >> Although it dates from four years ago, MIT's obituary for Corbató was >> still interesting to reread. It couldn't bring itself to mention >> Unix--only the latecomer Linux. It also peddled some mythology about >> Whirlwind from the decade before timesharing. >> >> "Whirlwind was ... a rather clunky machine. Researchers often had >> trouble getting much work done on it, since they had to take turns >> using it for half-hour chunks of time. (Corbató said that it had a >> habit of crashing every 20 minutes or so.)" >> >> "Clunky" perhaps refers to Whirlwind's physical size. It occupied two >> stories of the Barta Building, not counting the rotating AC/DC >> motor-generators in the basement. But it was not ponderous; its clean >> architecture prefigured "RISC" by two decades. >> >> Only a few favored people got "chunks" of (night) time on Whirlwind >> for interactive use. In normal business hours it was run by dedicated >> operators, who fed it user-submitted code on punched paper tape. >> Turnaround time was often as short as an hour--including the >> development of microfilm, the main output medium. Hardware crashes >> were rare--much rarer than experience with vacuum-tube radios would >> lead one to expect--thanks to "marginal testing", in which voltages >> were ramped up and down once a day to smoke out failing tubes before >> they could affect real computing. My recollection is that crashes >> happened on a time scale of days, not minutes. >> >> "Clunky" would better describe the interface of the IBM 704, which >> displaced Whirlwind in about 1956. How backward the 60-year-old >> uppercase-only Hollerith card technology seemed, after the humane full >> Flexowriter font we had enjoyed on Whirlwind. But the 704 had the >> enormous advantages of native floating-point (almost all computing was >> floating-point in those days) and FORTRAN. (Damn those capital >> letters!) >> >> Doug >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rich.salz at gmail.com Tue May 9 08:06:41 2023 From: rich.salz at gmail.com (Rich Salz) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 18:06:41 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was basically a selectric on top of a box with little hooks. It pulled each key right? On Mon, May 8, 2023, 2:47 PM Clem Cole wrote: > Indeed -- and the sounds it made were distinct. Different from ASRxx or > 2741's > > For the younger crew, this made the light and >>so much quieter<< TI > Silent 700 of 10 years later such a marvel: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_700 > ᐧ > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 12:12 PM ron minnich wrote: > >> ah, the flexowriter, for those who never saw it, was literally a >> typewriter with solenoids at the bottom. I owned one, it was a miracle to >> behold. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friden_Flexowriter#/media/File:Flexowriter_2201_Programatic.jpg >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:19 AM Douglas McIlroy < >> douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu> wrote: >> >>> Although it dates from four years ago, MIT's obituary for Corbató was >>> still interesting to reread. It couldn't bring itself to mention >>> Unix--only the latecomer Linux. It also peddled some mythology about >>> Whirlwind from the decade before timesharing. >>> >>> "Whirlwind was ... a rather clunky machine. Researchers often had >>> trouble getting much work done on it, since they had to take turns >>> using it for half-hour chunks of time. (Corbató said that it had a >>> habit of crashing every 20 minutes or so.)" >>> >>> "Clunky" perhaps refers to Whirlwind's physical size. It occupied two >>> stories of the Barta Building, not counting the rotating AC/DC >>> motor-generators in the basement. But it was not ponderous; its clean >>> architecture prefigured "RISC" by two decades. >>> >>> Only a few favored people got "chunks" of (night) time on Whirlwind >>> for interactive use. In normal business hours it was run by dedicated >>> operators, who fed it user-submitted code on punched paper tape. >>> Turnaround time was often as short as an hour--including the >>> development of microfilm, the main output medium. Hardware crashes >>> were rare--much rarer than experience with vacuum-tube radios would >>> lead one to expect--thanks to "marginal testing", in which voltages >>> were ramped up and down once a day to smoke out failing tubes before >>> they could affect real computing. My recollection is that crashes >>> happened on a time scale of days, not minutes. >>> >>> "Clunky" would better describe the interface of the IBM 704, which >>> displaced Whirlwind in about 1956. How backward the 60-year-old >>> uppercase-only Hollerith card technology seemed, after the humane full >>> Flexowriter font we had enjoyed on Whirlwind. But the 704 had the >>> enormous advantages of native floating-point (almost all computing was >>> floating-point in those days) and FORTRAN. (Damn those capital >>> letters!) >>> >>> Doug >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at fourwinds.com Tue May 9 08:11:18 2023 From: jon at fourwinds.com (Jon Steinhart) Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 15:11:18 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202305082211.348MBLVu299837@darkstar.fourwinds.com> On Mon, May 8, 2023, 2:47 PM Clem Cole wrote: Indeed -- and the sounds it made were distinct.   Different from ASRxx or 2741's For the younger crew, this made the light and >>so much quieter<< TI Silent 700 of 10 years later such a marvel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Silent_700 And let's not forget the Execuport, a bit noisier than the Silent 700 but better contrast and didn't turn into invisible ink if you left the paper near the radiator. From phil at ultimate.com Tue May 9 08:33:53 2023 From: phil at ultimate.com (Phil Budne) Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 18:33:53 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202305082233.348MXrVC057305@ultimate.com> segaloco wrote: > In the midst of my documentation research, I've done a little analysis on the life and times of this whimsical little phrase which first appeared in the "HOW TO GET STARTED" or basinf section of the Third Edition manual (a derivative of the original login(VII) page): > "When you type to UNIX, a gnome deep in the system is gathering your characters and saving them in a secret place." No sign of a login(VII) page in my "Program Generic PG-1C300 Issue 2" manual (no page, no entry in table of context, or permuted index). From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue May 9 13:32:17 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 03:32:17 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" In-Reply-To: <202305082233.348MXrVC057305@ultimate.com> References: <202305082233.348MXrVC057305@ultimate.com> Message-ID: > > In the midst of my documentation research, I've done a little analysis on the life and times of this whimsical little phrase which first appeared in the "HOW TO GET STARTED" or basinf section of the Third Edition manual (a derivative of the original login(VII) page): > > > "When you type to UNIX, a gnome deep in the system is gathering your characters and saving them in a secret place." > > > No sign of a login(VII) page in my "Program Generic PG-1C300 Issue 2" > manual (no page, no entry in table of context, or permuted index). By that point the quoted section was likely in the intro preceding the TOC and permuted index. The login(VII) page only survived the first two editions, but portions of it were augmented into the secondary part of the introduction starting with the Third Edition manual. https://gitlab.com/segaloco/v2man/-/blob/master/man7/login.7 vs https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V3/man/man0/basinf This basinf file persisted until somewhere between V6 and V7 when it was merged with intro. - Matt G. From imp at bsdimp.com Tue May 9 14:23:49 2023 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 22:23:49 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" In-Reply-To: References: <202305082233.348MXrVC057305@ultimate.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 8, 2023, 9:32 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > > In the midst of my documentation research, I've done a little analysis > on the life and times of this whimsical little phrase which first appeared > in the "HOW TO GET STARTED" or basinf section of the Third Edition manual > (a derivative of the original login(VII) page): > > > > > "When you type to UNIX, a gnome deep in the system is gathering your > characters and saving them in a secret place." > > > > > > No sign of a login(VII) page in my "Program Generic PG-1C300 Issue 2" > > manual (no page, no entry in table of context, or permuted index). > > By that point the quoted section was likely in the intro preceding the TOC > and permuted index. The login(VII) page only survived the first two > editions, but portions of it were augmented into the secondary part of the > introduction starting with the Third Edition manual. > > https://gitlab.com/segaloco/v2man/-/blob/master/man7/login.7 > > vs > > https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V3/man/man0/basinf > > This basinf file persisted until somewhere between V6 and V7 when it was > merged with intro. > I wonder if this is why the default root password on Venix is gnomes? Warner > - Matt G. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phil at ultimate.com Tue May 9 14:36:51 2023 From: phil at ultimate.com (Phil Budne) Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 00:36:51 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" In-Reply-To: References: <202305082233.348MXrVC057305@ultimate.com> Message-ID: <202305090436.3494apT4064909@ultimate.com> segaloco wrote: > ... the quoted section was likely in the intro preceding the TOC and permuted index ... > https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V3/man/man0/basinf > > This basinf file persisted until somewhere between V6 and V7 when it was merged with intro. Ah. Under HOW TO GET STARTED on page 7: _How to communicate through your terminal._ When you type to UNIX, the characters are collected and saved by the system. The characters will not be given to the program until you type a return (or new-line), as described above in _Logging in._ So it seems that bit of whimsy was excised early on. At least the pages still have BUGS sections, which I seem to recall DEC found necessary to expunge at some point! From rminnich at gmail.com Tue May 9 14:53:47 2023 From: rminnich at gmail.com (ron minnich) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 21:53:47 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: oh no, it was literally a typewriter, old school, no selectric ball. https://youtu.be/4HfaveA_NE0?t=365 On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:06 PM Rich Salz wrote: > It was basically a selectric on top of a box with little hooks. It pulled > each key right? > > On Mon, May 8, 2023, 2:47 PM Clem Cole wrote: > >> Indeed -- and the sounds it made were distinct. Different from ASRxx or >> 2741's >> >> For the younger crew, this made the light and >>so much quieter<< TI >> Silent 700 of 10 years later such a marvel: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_700 >> ᐧ >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 12:12 PM ron minnich wrote: >> >>> ah, the flexowriter, for those who never saw it, was literally a >>> typewriter with solenoids at the bottom. I owned one, it was a miracle to >>> behold. >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friden_Flexowriter#/media/File:Flexowriter_2201_Programatic.jpg >>> >>> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:19 AM Douglas McIlroy < >>> douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Although it dates from four years ago, MIT's obituary for Corbató was >>>> still interesting to reread. It couldn't bring itself to mention >>>> Unix--only the latecomer Linux. It also peddled some mythology about >>>> Whirlwind from the decade before timesharing. >>>> >>>> "Whirlwind was ... a rather clunky machine. Researchers often had >>>> trouble getting much work done on it, since they had to take turns >>>> using it for half-hour chunks of time. (Corbató said that it had a >>>> habit of crashing every 20 minutes or so.)" >>>> >>>> "Clunky" perhaps refers to Whirlwind's physical size. It occupied two >>>> stories of the Barta Building, not counting the rotating AC/DC >>>> motor-generators in the basement. But it was not ponderous; its clean >>>> architecture prefigured "RISC" by two decades. >>>> >>>> Only a few favored people got "chunks" of (night) time on Whirlwind >>>> for interactive use. In normal business hours it was run by dedicated >>>> operators, who fed it user-submitted code on punched paper tape. >>>> Turnaround time was often as short as an hour--including the >>>> development of microfilm, the main output medium. Hardware crashes >>>> were rare--much rarer than experience with vacuum-tube radios would >>>> lead one to expect--thanks to "marginal testing", in which voltages >>>> were ramped up and down once a day to smoke out failing tubes before >>>> they could affect real computing. My recollection is that crashes >>>> happened on a time scale of days, not minutes. >>>> >>>> "Clunky" would better describe the interface of the IBM 704, which >>>> displaced Whirlwind in about 1956. How backward the 60-year-old >>>> uppercase-only Hollerith card technology seemed, after the humane full >>>> Flexowriter font we had enjoyed on Whirlwind. But the 704 had the >>>> enormous advantages of native floating-point (almost all computing was >>>> floating-point in those days) and FORTRAN. (Damn those capital >>>> letters!) >>>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue May 9 15:09:42 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 05:09:42 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" In-Reply-To: <202305090436.3494apT4064909@ultimate.com> References: <202305082233.348MXrVC057305@ultimate.com> <202305090436.3494apT4064909@ultimate.com> Message-ID: > When you type to UNIX, the characters are collected and saved by the system. Program Generic indeed... Well thanks Phil for adding a link in the chain. I'm glad you happen to have that manual on hand! This is a different wording than the later System V stuff and also indicates likelihood of the MERT pages of the PG 3 overlay sampling research verbiage instead. - Matt G. From jaapna at xs4all.nl Tue May 9 18:41:46 2023 From: jaapna at xs4all.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 10:41:46 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Corbato dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On 9 May 2023, at 06:53, ron minnich wrote: > > oh no, it was literally a typewriter, old school, no selectric ball. https://youtu.be/4HfaveA_NE0?t=365 I have used a Friden Flexowriter to drive the algol-60 copiler for the electrologica X1. The model that is described here . According to wikipedia there have been different models. jaap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 267 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com Tue May 9 23:31:52 2023 From: a.phillip.garcia at gmail.com (A. P. Garcia) Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 09:31:52 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] The Gnome and Its "Secret Place" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 11:51 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > > "When you type to UNIX, a gnome deep in the system is gathering your characters and saving them in a secret place." > I love whimsical things like this. Reminds me of an odd story I heard about Seymour Cray: Asked what were the secrets of his success, Cray said "Well, we have elves here, and they help me". Cray subsequently showed his visitor a tunnel he had built under his house, explaining that when he reached an impasse in his computer design, he would retire to the tunnel to dig. "While I'm digging in the tunnel, the elves will often come to me with solutions to my problem", he said. [http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/PCW/cray.htm] From tuhs at tuhs.org Wed May 10 10:13:52 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via TUHS) Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 10:13:52 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] OT: TUHS mails not going to Outlook & Hotmail. Help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:46:51AM +1000, Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > All, e-mails from the TUHS server are not making it to Hotmail or Outlook. > I've not changed anything. Is there anybody with some MTA/ISP experience > who might be able to help diagnose the problem? All, sorry for not responding to your on- and off-list e-mails in the last week. It's been busy. Thank you for all your suggestions. Surprisingly, e-mail to both Hotmail and Outlook are now working again; I've not touched anything in the interim. So I'll tentatively say 'case closed', but I'll look at your suggestions and see if I can improve the MTA and list configuration on the server. Cheers, Warren From tuhs at tuhs.org Fri May 12 03:25:54 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 17:25:54 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation Message-ID: Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the fact. In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even meaning to... - Matt G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From imp at bsdimp.com Fri May 12 03:37:52 2023 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 11:37:52 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:26 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note > about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: > https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 > > What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of > that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text > goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. > > Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on > auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just > tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad > scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: > https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg > > $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the > uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ > issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered > in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to > believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the > fact. > > In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust > stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they > were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I > paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet > only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a > burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I > may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even > meaning to... > I bought mine in the couple of years for like $20. I think $3k is delusional. They range from $25-$250 in the last year for 'offered' price, mostly in the < $100 range for the ones that sell... Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henry.r.bent at gmail.com Fri May 12 03:49:45 2023 From: henry.r.bent at gmail.com (Henry Bent) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 13:49:45 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:38, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:26 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note >> about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: >> https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 >> >> What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time >> of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The >> text goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly >> $1.50. >> >> Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on >> auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just >> tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad >> scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg >> >> $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the >> uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ >> issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered >> in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to >> believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the >> fact. >> >> In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust >> stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they >> were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I >> paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet >> only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a >> burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I >> may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even >> meaning to... >> > > I bought mine in the couple of years for like $20. I think $3k is > delusional. They range from $25-$250 in the last year for 'offered' price, > mostly in the < $100 range for the ones that sell... > Indeed, something is only worth what someone will pay for it. That auction could sit on eBay for a long time and until it sells it's worth nothing; the site is packed to the brim with delusional pricing. -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Fri May 12 04:01:53 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:01:53 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9vPCMAA5xkI7HFdmIwhB38BmcGSRjpvnLrFQwvYbJJOYUhdCIZ-tYu6zZUBuNiAbCsFOqjnAIezM4BdiZJb-250xqwC8PQWkCVOZ_agCZ3I=@protonmail.com> One thing I will say is the pricing I see on some of this stuff on eBay, Biblio, etc. implies to me the fact that much of this old documentation is available as PDFs in various corners of the internet has not really phased the pricing on the collectors market. I'm glad I haven't run into the same problems I used to encounter in video game prototype research. There've been pretty nasty flame wars in those communities over the years regarding preservation diminishing the value of unique video game artifacts sitting collecting dust in someone's closet. Sometimes you'd get in a bidding war with someone that literally derives from their desire to specifically see the item in question kept as obscured from public knowledge as possible, just so they can claim the superiority of owning it or bank on selling it later. Shockingly, a singular, unique physical item is still going to be sought even if the data or information it contains is known. But I digress, I must appreciate the cordiality of folks with regards to this research stuff. I can't say I've had anyone come complaining to me that something I documented tanked their cartridge-based retirement fund... - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, May 11th, 2023 at 10:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:26 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 >> >> What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. >> >> Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg >> >> $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the fact. >> >> In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even meaning to... > > I bought mine in the couple of years for like $20. I think $3k is delusional. They range from $25-$250 in the last year for 'offered' price, mostly in the < $100 range for the ones that sell... > > Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Fri May 12 04:45:41 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:45:41 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matt, this was not unusual in those days. Many of us have a few shelves full of the "Handbooks" that DEC used to give out at trade shows for free starting in the 1960s [my PDP-6 was damaged in a flood, but I still have my white PDP-10 "phone book". The microprocessor companies followed suit in the mid/late 1970s, too. My wife hates it, but I have a few shelves of these from DEC, IBM, TI, Moto, and Intel. Interestingly, they often were updated and/or split, and the newer edition might have been "prettier" from a marketing standpoint, but older editions sometimes (often) had better details. For instance, the 1976 PDP-11 version of the peripheral's handbook is the best doc for the interfaces for a classic PDP-11. The 1978s edition is missing a number of the classic peripherals and I almost have never used to look something up. Of course, the earlier edition does not have documentation for the later peripherals from the 80s and early 90s. But, if you are trying to run a SIMH 11/70 instance of Unix Research 7, it's almost a must-have (a number of us that haunt the simh and pidp mailing lists recommend people get a copy and read before asking some of their questions). The point is that we all had copies back in the day, and when we got stuff -- needed to figure something out -- read the source and look at the DEC handbook [and my is sitting next to me, and as I was hacking on my PiDPD-11 earlier today and I needed to look something up]. IIRC, Gorden & Steely Dan's infamous architecture course at CMU required you to buy one of two of them for a nominal fee at the bookstore. The back of my 11/70 Processor Handbook has an old CMU bookstore sticker on it, but I can not read the price almost 50 years later (I'm sure it was under $5 even in 1975 money). Fortunately, Al Kossow has scans of many of them (including the aforementioned edition of the Peripherals' Handbook) as scanned PDF files. Still, it is not quite as nice [much to my wife's belief that they are clutter]. ᐧ On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:26 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note > about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: > https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 > > What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of > that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text > goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. > > Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on > auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just > tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad > scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: > https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg > > $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the > uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ > issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered > in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to > believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the > fact. > > In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust > stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they > were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I > paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet > only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a > burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I > may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even > meaning to... > > - Matt G. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu Fri May 12 04:51:54 2023 From: douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:51:54 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the BSTJ ever was distributed in a slip box, it was only to people above my pay grade. The gray spine must have been specially printed, for the BSTJ was always blue, as seen in the slip-box window. Doug On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:38 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:26 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: >> >> Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 >> >> What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. >> >> Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg >> >> $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the fact. >> >> In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even meaning to... > > > I bought mine in the couple of years for like $20. I think $3k is delusional. They range from $25-$250 in the last year for 'offered' price, mostly in the < $100 range for the ones that sell... > > Warner From arnold at skeeve.com Fri May 12 04:58:32 2023 From: arnold at skeeve.com (arnold at skeeve.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 12:58:32 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202305111858.34BIwWPO023008@freefriends.org> IIRC I bought mine in 1980 or 1981 by mailing a check to whatever address was printed in it; my professor had one. Doug, I think the grey spine in the picture is simply age discoloration. Arnold Douglas McIlroy wrote: > If the BSTJ ever was distributed in a slip box, it was only to people > above my pay grade. The gray spine must have been specially printed, > for the BSTJ was always blue, as seen in the slip-box window. > > Doug > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:38 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:26 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> > >> Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 > >> > >> What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. > >> > >> Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg > >> > >> $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the fact. > >> > >> In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even meaning to... > > > > > > I bought mine in the couple of years for like $20. I think $3k is delusional. They range from $25-$250 in the last year for 'offered' price, mostly in the < $100 range for the ones that sell... > > > > Warner From crossd at gmail.com Fri May 12 05:14:29 2023 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:14:29 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 2:46 PM Clem Cole wrote: > [snip] > IIRC, Gorden & Steely Dan's infamous architecture course at CMU .... "Steely Dan"? Tell me that's a double entendre.... - Dan C. From clemc at ccc.com Fri May 12 05:38:58 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:38:58 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dan Siewiorek and Gordon Bell authors with Allen Newell of "Computer Structures: Principles and Examples" (a.k.a. SBN) - until Hennesy and Patterson wrote their book, was popularly used by the schools that taught computer architecture. [You can download a PDF from Gordon web site if you search for it] The book has copies of some of the most famous papers on computer architecture, among other things. Gordon was still on CMU's faculty part-time when he was at DEC when I was a student. I'm one of the many legacies of the over 50 years of teaching by Dan Siewiorek -- remember in the 1970s there was an infamous band (named after an interesting object BTW). His students sometimes referred to him as Steely Dan as a term of endearment. I think he has been emeritus for a number of years, but he still comes (walks) to work most days and still is part of the grad systems seminar. In fact, the last time I saw him, he had asked me to come to be a guest lecturer. Funny, I rarely get nervous before a talk, and I have had some interesting and infamous people in my audience asking questions. But doing a talk for someone who had been my undergrad advisor and I so revered did make me so. I wanted to do right for him. Clem ᐧ On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:15 PM Dan Cross wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 2:46 PM Clem Cole wrote: > > [snip] > > IIRC, Gorden & Steely Dan's infamous architecture course at CMU .... > > "Steely Dan"? Tell me that's a double entendre.... > > - Dan C. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au Fri May 12 19:38:37 2023 From: sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au (steve jenkin) Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 19:38:37 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F4CF948-5FD9-4A93-ACE2-D64B3B74A012@canb.auug.org.au> Clem, Thanks for the recommendation. Gordon Bell has put copies of his publications, including books, on his website. [ Books at end of page ] The 1971 and 1982 ‘Computer Structures’ books are there. However, they aren’t in PDF or .doc format but a series of single-page HTML, at least they’re linked + ‘Contents’. The images are scans from the book - not always straight or highly legible. The effort that went into creating these online works and providing them for free (in perpetuity?) is to be appreciated & applauded. I found a PDF of a scanned & searchable version elsewhere. Quite different from the Patterson/Hennessy book. The field & its understanding of itself visibly progressed. regards steve j > On 12 May 2023, at 05:38, Clem Cole wrote: > > Dan Siewiorek and Gordon Bell authors with Allen Newell of "Computer Structures: Principles and Examples" (a.k.a. SBN) - until Hennesy and Patterson wrote their book, was popularly used by the schools that taught computer architecture. [You can download a PDF from Gordon web site if you search for it] The book has copies of some of the most famous papers on computer architecture, among other things. Gordon was still on CMU's faculty part-time when he was at DEC when I was a student. > > I'm one of the many legacies of the over 50 years of teaching by Dan Siewiorek -- remember in the 1970s there was an infamous band (named after an interesting object BTW). His students sometimes referred to him as Steely Dan as a term of endearment. I think he has been emeritus for a number of years, but he still comes (walks) to work most days and still is part of the grad systems seminar. In fact, the last time I saw him, he had asked me to come to be a guest lecturer. Funny, I rarely get nervous before a talk, and I have had some interesting and infamous people in my audience asking questions. But doing a talk for someone who had been my undergrad advisor and I so revered did make me so. I wanted to do right for him. > > Clem -- Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design 0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915) PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA mailto:sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin From henry at henare.com Sun May 14 07:14:42 2023 From: henry at henare.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 17:14:42 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18816f73dd0.2952.27ce34798ec5af9926fa49424fa0531c@henare.com> note that this seller has a tiny reputation on ebay. anyone who would give this seller that much money for anything is just not. thinking carefully. - Henry On May 11, 2023 13:26:27 segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a note about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 > > What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the time of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of charge. The text goes on to indicate additional copies can be purchased for a measly $1.50. > > Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on auction for less than $100. Still, amazing how something was being just tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, it's a mad scramble to find the same. Then there's this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg > > $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on the uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those with a BSTJ issue before. Was that some sort of packaging the issues were delivered in? It has the Bell Logo in the little window on either side, so I want to believe it's original and not something someone threw together after the fact. > > In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell anti-trust stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on documentation once they were legally able to. In any case, I'm always shocked to see how much I paid for something in my archival efforts and then I find a price sheet only to find out someone bought a book back in the day for the cost of a burger and fries. While I'm pursuing documents for research purposes...I may be inadvertently building myself quite the value store without even meaning to... > > - Matt G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sauer at technologists.com Sun May 14 07:52:13 2023 From: sauer at technologists.com (Charles H Sauer (he/him)) Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 16:52:13 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] BSTJ 1978 UNIX Issue Price Appreciation In-Reply-To: <18816f73dd0.2952.27ce34798ec5af9926fa49424fa0531c@henare.com> References: <18816f73dd0.2952.27ce34798ec5af9926fa49424fa0531c@henare.com> Message-ID: note, also, https://www.amazon.com/Unix-Time-Sharing-System-Technical-Journal/dp/B004BHP0TE. Charlie On 5/13/2023 4:14 PM, Henry Mensch wrote: > note that this seller has a tiny reputation on ebay. anyone who would > give this seller that much money for anything is just not. thinking > carefully. > > - Henry > > On May 11, 2023 13:26:27 segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Howdy folks, I was perusing old copies of ;login: and came across a >> note about the BSTJ UNIX issue in the August 1978 newsletter: >> https://archive.org/details/login_august-1978 >> >> >> What I find particularly amusing is that all UNIX licensees at the >> time of that publication allegedly were provided a copy free of >> charge.  The text goes on to indicate additional copies can be >> purchased for a measly $1.50. >> >> Fast forward to today and I typically don't see this copy pop up on >> auction for less than $100.  Still, amazing how something was being >> just tossed out to anyone who wanted one and now here 45 years later, >> it's a mad scramble to find the same.  Then there's this listing: >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/134212722284?hash=item1f3fb39e6c:g:9VEAAOSw8HtjCp2H&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IPDo14%2B7%2BCT30D5MvU1f9BJm77l1XWLxt2ojhau503DpckIGbEgDyGAtPFQgj8m5y9CebRCho1Y9INzCsMX72UaQy96ent8gqtgFWH5MY3kpSNzkYBKgrjnVDMiom2HOuqHiy5H%2FzRjvpdv0BE7tKJ7tJv4BRuCeSEPoqd2U%2FdfuKVuvOTdG%2B28JSWuPcN764AWcg3EbpeU7LUiGEELwjxL0FTsCQ%2F2wK5AuuwK8E9E7WFVuZzsm07jesQcjq75A7t5fM0ggrRX2Mn9cO9%2BHRAP7KcOYhGJ1BqIYz1P1FzL%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_bFmL2BYg >> >> $3000 dollars...quite shocking, although perhaps they're banking on >> the uniqueness of that little sleeve, I've never seen one of those >> with a BSTJ issue before.  Was that some sort of packaging the issues >> were delivered in?  It has the Bell Logo in the little window on >> either side, so I want to believe it's original and not something >> someone threw together after the fact. >> >> In any case, I suspect part of the low pricing is due to Bell >> anti-trust stuff, as they really moved on nickle and diming on >> documentation once they were legally able to.  In any case, I'm always >> shocked to see how much I paid for something in my archival efforts >> and then I find a price sheet only to find out someone bought a book >> back in the day for the cost of a burger and fries.  While I'm >> pursuing documents for research purposes...I may be inadvertently >> building myself quite the value store without even meaning to... >> >> - Matt G. > -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer at technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter: CharlesHSauer From tuhs at tuhs.org Mon May 15 04:17:03 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 18:17:03 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog Message-ID: Hello, I've just today secured purchase of an original 4BSD manual and papers set and a copy of what I believe is the V6 papers set as well.  Of note amongst the tabs I could read from the pictures of the Berkeley binder was a section of fonts that I don't think I've seen before named the Berkeley Font Catalog.  I did a bit of searching around and didn't find anything matching that on first inspection re: scanned and source-available BSD doc collections.  Anyone got the scoop on this? Either way, once these arrive in the mail in I'll try and see what the delta might be between these and the current sources in V6 and 4BSD stuff on the archive.  They're from the collection of an emeritus professor on the east coast, and I'm not sure if they represent unmodified docs shipped from Bell and Berkeley or have local modifications. In any case, his son said they'll be going through more material soon and are liable to turn up more UNIX stuff, so I'll keep folks posted if I come into possession of anything else particularly spiffy. - Matt G. From clemc at ccc.com Mon May 15 05:11:25 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 15:11:25 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Hello, I've just today secured purchase of an original 4BSD manual and > papers set and a copy of what I believe is the V6 papers set as well. Of > note amongst the tabs I could read from the pictures of the Berkeley binder > was a section of fonts that I don't think I've seen before named the > Berkeley Font Catalog. I did a bit of searching around and didn't find > anything matching that on first inspection re: scanned and source-available > BSD doc collections. Anyone got the scoop on this? > Sure The Berkeley Font Catalog was a collection of 200 bpi fonts that could be used with vcat - the virtual CAT/4 typesetter and old tools like some of the original EE cad editors like Ken Keller's and another from Tom Ferrin at UCSF. The bulk of them was a copy of the Hershey Fonts [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey_fonts] and a number of fonts specialty fonts, such as a set for typing chess, that had been developed originally for the XGP at CMU, MIT, and Stanford. Between the 3 ARPAnet sites, there was a lot of mixing and matching. Note: I should have a Xerox copy of them from one of the UCB docs in my files. They are on a BSD tape, I would look in the contributed area, but I don't remember. There is likely troff input to print the catalog (using vcat), but again I am trying to remember where any of that was in the distribution kits. FWIW: a few months back, Rob has corrected the history that the original vcat(1) was Canadian in origin. I thought that Ferrin had his hand in an early version that came to UCB (This is likely an example of the side comment sometimes used, that joy peed on it to make things smell like UCB, as Tom was across the bay). I also thought Tom had collected much of the catalog originally; and while I could be smoking something here -- I seem to remember that he also had some sort of Stanford connection with some of his graphics work [the UCSF and Stanford medical schools - were doing 3D graphics for medical diags at some point]. Tom was a graphics guy, and I know he was mixed up in some of that so it would have made sense for him to be somehow involved. It was not for a few years later, when Barskey showed up at UCB that there was any serious graphics work being done -- before that, only ECAD tools like's Ken and later Oster's. Clem ᐧ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Mon May 15 05:16:59 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 15:16:59 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PS I should probably add a small PS on the timeline. I got the vcat stuff from Ferin when I was still at Tektronix [where we had the two other members of the three 'Graphics Killer-Bs' -- Kelly Booth and the late John Beatty working with us in TekLabs during sabbaticals]. This was 2 years before I headed down to UCB myself. ᐧ On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 3:11 PM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Hello, I've just today secured purchase of an original 4BSD manual and >> papers set and a copy of what I believe is the V6 papers set as well. Of >> note amongst the tabs I could read from the pictures of the Berkeley binder >> was a section of fonts that I don't think I've seen before named the >> Berkeley Font Catalog. I did a bit of searching around and didn't find >> anything matching that on first inspection re: scanned and source-available >> BSD doc collections. Anyone got the scoop on this? >> > Sure > > The Berkeley Font Catalog was a collection of 200 bpi fonts that could be > used with vcat - the virtual CAT/4 typesetter and old tools like some of > the original EE cad editors like Ken Keller's and another from Tom Ferrin > at UCSF. The bulk of them was a copy of the Hershey Fonts [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey_fonts] and a number of fonts > specialty fonts, such as a set for typing chess, that had been developed > originally for the XGP at CMU, MIT, and Stanford. Between the 3 ARPAnet > sites, there was a lot of mixing and matching. Note: I should have a Xerox > copy of them from one of the UCB docs in my files. They are on a BSD tape, > I would look in the contributed area, but I don't remember. There is > likely troff input to print the catalog (using vcat), but again I am trying > to remember where any of that was in the distribution kits. > > FWIW: a few months back, Rob has corrected the history that the original > vcat(1) was Canadian in origin. I thought that Ferrin had his hand in an > early version that came to UCB (This is likely an example of the side > comment sometimes used, that joy peed on it to make things smell like UCB, > as Tom was across the bay). I also thought Tom had collected much of the > catalog originally; and while I could be smoking something here -- I seem > to remember that he also had some sort of Stanford connection with some of > his graphics work [the UCSF and Stanford medical schools - were doing 3D > graphics for medical diags at some point]. Tom was a graphics guy, and I > know he was mixed up in some of that so it would have made sense for him to > be somehow involved. It was not for a few years later, when Barskey showed > up at UCB that there was any serious graphics work being done -- before > that, only ECAD tools like's Ken and later Oster's. > > Clem > ᐧ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rich.salz at gmail.com Mon May 15 05:42:58 2023 From: rich.salz at gmail.com (Rich Salz) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 15:42:58 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You might also find this interesting, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/41034. Or search around for XTP font catalog. I vaguely remember a document from Stanford the compared it to Joule theft, you had to know where to look. But I can't find it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars at nocrew.org Mon May 15 06:05:23 2023 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 20:05:23 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: (Rich Salz's message of "Sun, 14 May 2023 15:42:58 -0400") References: Message-ID: <7wilcufzlo.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Rich Salz wrote: > You might also find this interesting, > https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/41034 Or this: https://www.saildart.org/allow/pdf/SAILON/74/find-a-font.pdf XGP fonts have been preserved on MIT and Stanford backup tapes. From jsg at jsg.id.au Mon May 15 10:58:41 2023 From: jsg at jsg.id.au (Jonathan Gray) Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 10:58:41 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 06:17:03PM +0000, segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Hello, I've just today secured purchase of an original 4BSD manual > and papers set and a copy of what I believe is the V6 papers set > as well.  Of note amongst the tabs I could read from the pictures > of the Berkeley binder was a section of fonts that I don't think > I've seen before named the Berkeley Font Catalog.  I did a bit of > searching around and didn't find anything matching that on first > inspection re: scanned and source-available BSD doc collections.  > Anyone got the scoop on this? The Berkeley Font Catalog appears in existing scans. https://bitsavers.org/pdf/mtXinu/MT_XINU_Vol_0.pdf pg 154 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_mtXinuMTXI_21123781/page/n153/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/h42_PCS_MUNIX_Programmers_Manual_Volume_2C/page/n107/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/h42_PCS_MUNIX_Volume_III/page/n575/mode/2up https://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/vax/ultrix-32/3.0/AA-MF06A-TE_ULTRIX-32_3.0_Supplementary_Documents_Vol.1_General_User_1988.pdf pg 520 6-27 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_decvaxultrRIX323.0SupplementaryDocumentsVol.1Gener_33726499/page/n519/mode/2up "A copy of volume 2C of the 4.1BSD or 4.2BSD manual includes the Berkeley Font Catalog" https://archive.org/details/login_sept92/page/n29/mode/2up From tuhs at tuhs.org Mon May 15 14:27:42 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 04:27:42 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] A Census of /etc and /sys Prior to V4 Message-ID: I've just completed the Fourth Edition pass of commits in my manual history repository here: https://gitlab.com/segaloco/mandiff Something I've kept a particular eye on is what the landscape looked like on the filesystems over the early years of development. Here are some of those observations with a few areas perhaps requiring further illumination: In the first two editions, there was a file, /etc/uids, which mapped simply a username to a uid. The reason was presumably due to the plaintext passwords in /etc/passwd at the time. The arrival of crypt(III) and related functionality rendered this moot by the time of V3. Additional GECOS information is first spotted in /etc/ident in V2 but by V3 has also found home in /etc/passwd in the GECOS field today used often for a user's full name. The s1-bits source codes refer to /etc/passwd where disassembled s2-bits binaries refer to /etc/uids still, dating both sets of code. References to /etc/motd first appear in the V2 manual from what I could find, so that may not have been around in V1. Additionally, after V1 many files are moved from /etc to locations under /usr such as ascii and kbd moving to /usr/pub and roff's suftab moving to /usr/lib. It seems in the First Edition, manual section VII mapped to /etc itself it seems, with etc and misc in the manual being synonymous. So all in all it seems, in terms of support files anyhow, /etc wound up smaller by the advent of the C system, at which point init beings using /etc/rc and the directory begins to expand again. Another directory of interest is /sys for a few reasons. First, this directory serves different purposes depending on your kernel these days, with BSD systems storing system source code here whereas Linux provides a kernel interface filesystem. I'm not sure what other contemporary systems may use this for, but from V3 and back, this was another RK disk mounted in addition to /usr. This /sys directory appeared to contain the manuals, source code to system components including the commands, kernel, bootloader, and languages, and a copy of the kernel image referenced down in the source tree. In total I've identified the following directories: c, fort, lang, man, mdec, source, sys. Most names should be obvious from later releases, with lang being a parent directory that contained bdir and mdir B and m6 languages respectively. My guess is that when RP support was made workable in V4, there was no longer a need to segregate data amongst RKs like this so /sys was merged into /usr, leading to the later structure we see in V4-V6. Of note, this structure is implied in CB-UNIX still in the path names of the source code available on the archive. The kernel is found at /tsys/sys/ much like the kernel in V1-V3 living at /sys/sys. One thing I haven't been able to glean in the process is precisely how the command and library source code was stored in these very early versions. The kernel in T.R. Bashkow's analysis is implied to be stored in files u[0-9x].s, and command source files at least exist somewhere as the command followed by .s. As of V5, the command, syscall wrapper, and library source codes are split up amongst a number of directories with names such as s1, s2, s3, etc. under source. By V7, this has taken on the cmd/lib/sys structure of later releases. Finally, just a general curiosity the version study involved has raised. Given the movement of UNIX to the 11/45 and then to C, does the Third Edition represent a version of UNIX for the 11/45 with protection but written in assembly, not C? I've seen one handwritten document that makes mention of some of this, but is there any other information such as documents, code, etc. concerning the 11/45 assembly version? Was work completed on the 11/45 kernel changes in the context of this version and then simply "ported" to the C version or were there concepts that were cropping up in one or the other and varying amounts of transportation back and forth as 11/45 and C aspects were implemented? As always, thanks for keeping up, hopefully I can get this repository up to V6 soon, then the real branching fun begins. The V3 to V4 changes are hopefully the last time the commit diffs have major noise, what with the conversion from roff to nroff. I suspect transitions to macro packages later won't be as bad. - Matt G. From clemc at ccc.com Mon May 15 22:19:55 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 08:19:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] A Census of /etc and /sys Prior to V4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matt, This is wonderful work. Thank you. Clem On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:28 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > I've just completed the Fourth Edition pass of commits in my manual > history repository here: https://gitlab.com/segaloco/mandiff > > Something I've kept a particular eye on is what the landscape looked like > on the filesystems over the early years of development. Here are some of > those observations with a few areas perhaps requiring further illumination: > > In the first two editions, there was a file, /etc/uids, which mapped > simply a username to a uid. The reason was presumably due to the plaintext > passwords in /etc/passwd at the time. The arrival of crypt(III) and > related functionality rendered this moot by the time of V3. Additional > GECOS information is first spotted in /etc/ident in V2 but by V3 has also > found home in /etc/passwd in the GECOS field today used often for a user's > full name. The s1-bits source codes refer to /etc/passwd where > disassembled s2-bits binaries refer to /etc/uids still, dating both sets of > code. > > References to /etc/motd first appear in the V2 manual from what I could > find, so that may not have been around in V1. Additionally, after V1 many > files are moved from /etc to locations under /usr such as ascii and kbd > moving to /usr/pub and roff's suftab moving to /usr/lib. It seems in the > First Edition, manual section VII mapped to /etc itself it seems, with etc > and misc in the manual being synonymous. > > So all in all it seems, in terms of support files anyhow, /etc wound up > smaller by the advent of the C system, at which point init beings using > /etc/rc and the directory begins to expand again. > > Another directory of interest is /sys for a few reasons. First, this > directory serves different purposes depending on your kernel these days, > with BSD systems storing system source code here whereas Linux provides a > kernel interface filesystem. I'm not sure what other contemporary systems > may use this for, but from V3 and back, this was another RK disk mounted in > addition to /usr. This /sys directory appeared to contain the manuals, > source code to system components including the commands, kernel, > bootloader, and languages, and a copy of the kernel image referenced down > in the source tree. > > In total I've identified the following directories: c, fort, lang, man, > mdec, source, sys. Most names should be obvious from later releases, with > lang being a parent directory that contained bdir and mdir B and m6 > languages respectively. My guess is that when RP support was made workable > in V4, there was no longer a need to segregate data amongst RKs like this > so /sys was merged into /usr, leading to the later structure we see in > V4-V6. Of note, this structure is implied in CB-UNIX still in the path > names of the source code available on the archive. The kernel is found at > /tsys/sys/ much like the kernel in V1-V3 living at /sys/sys. > > One thing I haven't been able to glean in the process is precisely how the > command and library source code was stored in these very early versions. > The kernel in T.R. Bashkow's analysis is implied to be stored in files > u[0-9x].s, and command source files at least exist somewhere as the command > followed by .s. As of V5, the command, syscall wrapper, and library source > codes are split up amongst a number of directories with names such as s1, > s2, s3, etc. under source. By V7, this has taken on the cmd/lib/sys > structure of later releases. > > Finally, just a general curiosity the version study involved has raised. > Given the movement of UNIX to the 11/45 and then to C, does the Third > Edition represent a version of UNIX for the 11/45 with protection but > written in assembly, not C? I've seen one handwritten document that makes > mention of some of this, but is there any other information such as > documents, code, etc. concerning the 11/45 assembly version? Was work > completed on the 11/45 kernel changes in the context of this version and > then simply "ported" to the C version or were there concepts that were > cropping up in one or the other and varying amounts of transportation back > and forth as 11/45 and C aspects were implemented? > > As always, thanks for keeping up, hopefully I can get this repository up > to V6 soon, then the real branching fun begins. The V3 to V4 changes are > hopefully the last time the commit diffs have major noise, what with the > conversion from roff to nroff. I suspect transitions to macro packages > later won't be as bad. > > - Matt G. > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at humeweb.com Tue May 16 07:13:33 2023 From: andrew at humeweb.com (Andrew Hume) Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 14:13:33 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] older book Message-ID: for some reason, i have a copy of “computer programming and autocodes” by burnett-hall, dresel and samet (1964). it covers pegasus-sirius autocode, elliot 803 autocode, mercury autocode and algol. it is a hardcover duplicate from the library of congress. anyone want this? otherwise, it gets recycled thru my local library. From jcapp at anteil.com Tue May 16 07:40:20 2023 From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp) Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 17:40:20 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] older book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrew, I’d be happy to give that book a good home. Please contact me off list and I’ll send you a shipping label. Cheers, Jim > On May 15, 2023, at 5:14 PM, Andrew Hume wrote: > > for some reason, i have a copy of > “computer programming and autocodes” > by > burnett-hall, dresel and samet (1964). > > it covers pegasus-sirius autocode, elliot 803 autocode, > mercury autocode and algol. > > it is a hardcover duplicate from the library of congress. > anyone want this? > otherwise, it gets recycled thru my local library. > From tuhs at tuhs.org Thu May 18 12:31:01 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 02:31:01 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-F51UxsbTdMuh2QqeEmoxatmn9f_hx0YJETxe6qUgc0RNHaA7xmHie-sQDPDcP4SHmjuv-zx-lm4WsFtRRbJ-Fjf9tLENEHEOICJKlhDinM=@protonmail.com> Alright, following up as I've received what is hopefully only the first shipment of documents. Sadly the specific binder in the eBay pictures was not in the box...so I've reached out to the seller to figure out where that one might have gone to, the 4BSD one was what I was interested in from their auction. That said, what they did send me is also pretty interesting. Lots of info here, so grep for your subject of interest if so desired. I received nearly complete copies of the V6 and V7 manuals, including the paper sets. The V6 manual itself appears to be complete, but the papers set is missing: Setting Up UNIX, UNIX Assembler Reference Manual, A Tutorial Introduction to the ED Text Editor UNIX for Beginners, On the Security of UNIX, A System For Typesetting Mathematics DC - An Interactive Desk Calculator, and BC - An Arbitrary Precision Desk Calculator Worth mentioning, the TMG and M6 documents don't appear to be in the same typesetting as the others, rather, they look more ROFF-ish than TROFF-ish. As for the V7 manual, that one is a tad bit more interesting in that it does appear to be a modified version. From the best I can tell this is a V7 with a bunch of ARPA stuff thrown in, so it has stuff like ftp and telnet as well. The full list of non-standard pages is here: https://pastebin.com/S38c9rtX In this situation, non-standard meaning visibly different typesetting, as some of those pages do represent stuff that was in V7, but the pages in this copy are noticeably not the original Bell typeset versions. The V7 paper set is complete as far as Bell components, but then also includes (two copies between a couple binders) a number of extra "sections". These are: - DATACOPY - Has programs for handling waveform and seismic data, I saw several USGS references in disparate papers shuffled in with the non manual stuff (which I'll mention a little further down) - SEISMIC - Documentation for C and Fortran "Seismic" libraries, looks like seismic data interpretation stuff. - "Mod 1" - On MIT Lincoln Laboratory letterhead, Manual Updates from Dan Bach to "Mod 1 Team" indicating manual updates for the "second release of Mod 1." - SDP - Signal Display Package, these are analysis programs for visualizing waveform and seismic data - GRAPHICS - Quote, "This document describes our UNIX graphics system." Perusing a few pages, I can't find anywhere that "our" is qualified, so can't really say whose this is, but I think all of these are part of the same package, their typesetting is all comparable. So that's the manual stuff, with the most interesting thing amongst the manuals being the USGS stuff, there's some sort of MIT involvement there, and there's some sort of RAND involvement as well as one of the added manpages, ned(I), is a text editor from RAND with quite a detailed manpage. On to the "rest". In addition to some binders of UNIX manuals, the seller also threw in a plastic wrapped bundle of miscellaneous stuff. There are a few emails concerning VMS/UNIX performance comparisons on the VAX, with one paper coming from Bill Joy, another from "Quam at SRI-KL", forwarded around a bit, ultimately landing in the BBN-UNIX group at the forwarding of "Nemeth". The original text dates to Feb 6th, 1980. Looks like the original author was David L. Kashtan at SRI International. What's really cool is it looks like the benchmark code is present here too. There's also a second email tacked on to the end from Steve Shafer at CMU discussing ongoing preference for UNIX and some thoughts on how to deal with the shortcomings. There is a conference report from a "Software Tools and UNIX Users Group" conference at the University of Toronto, dated June 26 1979 and authored by a David M. Phillips. The report goes on to note the various topics discussed which include UNIX V7, much language development at Berkeley. Included are a few promotions for T-shirts, among them the famous artwork with a PDP-11 being attended to by a series of little daemons getting into all sorts of mischief. At the time the shirts could be purchased for $6.50 plus $0.50 shipping from "TRI-J Color Print Co" in Arlington Heights, IL. A little further on, there's also "Adventure" T-shirts for sale, presumably pertinent to the famous game. Described as "Has picture of dragon and related stuff. Says something about computer gaming". Not sure if that was how it was actually described or someone was getting tired by the end of transcription. There are a few license agreements with Berkeley, an older one only listing a need for a 32V license and a couple later ones with text pertinent to having a V7, System III, or System V license. The earlier license, issued June 20th, 1980, appears to be for 3BSD for a single VAX 11/780 at MIT at a "duplication charge" of $200. Among these various materials is also a letter from WECos Patent Licensing Director E.G. Baldwin to Lincoln Laboratory at MIT concerning their adding a new PDP-11 to their fleet. The letter is dated July 31, 1980, and indicates the cost to add this single "DESIGNATED CPU" as it is termed is $9,400. Included too is the packing slip indicating the shipment of a magnetic tape of UNIX/32V and 3 volumes of documentation. Not on the packing slip but mentioned in an attached letter is mention of the BSTJ 1978 volume as well, aligning with the ;login: bit I read a little while back about them shipping these out with UNIX copies. There are also some papers paperclipped together suggesting whoever originally held these was working on getting a 2.9BSD license, as there is a copy of the release summary, an order form, checklist, and two copies of the license agreement, likewise $200 dollars but this time implying the need for a V7, System III, or System V license, not just 32V, presumably since this is PDP not VAX. These documents are dated June 1983 at the earliest. There is a "Guide to the UNIX Fortran System" by J.N. Rottman of Princeton, dated September 1975. Doesn't look related to Bell Fortran efforts but I'll admit to being a bit green on anything Fortran related. There's also a paper ROFF manual, which is pretty cool. I wasn't aware one was actually produced, I thought the documentation just amounted to the request summary present in the man pages. There's a Mitre Corporation memo on a UNIX User's Group meeting October 1-3, 1976 at Harvard including a summary of discussed topics and a PWB Synopsis of Facilities. There is also a printout of "The tmac.l Text Macro Library" along with typesetter source to the same document and what I believe is a printout of the macro package itself. There is a "UNIX Command Reference" that looks similar to the content presented in both the "Command Reference" section 9 of the trade book versions of the UNIX Programmer's Manual Seventh Edition as well as the "UNIX Reference Guide" here https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/Manuals/Unix_4.0/UNIX_Reference_Guide.pdf Finally there are a few non-UNIX items the seller included as well, among them is a big stack of Motorola technical and marketing materials concerning the 68000 and some embedded systems and the VMC 68/2 Microcomputer. There are a couple of slides that appear to be from an iAPX 286 marketing demonstration. There is an article on "Tiny Hi" by Martin Buchanan which appeared in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calistheincs & Orthodontia, October 1976. Finally, there is a single amusing page amongst the lot labeled "Newest DEC Opcodes" with opcodes such as "EIO - Execute Invalid Opcode, LTS - Loop Til Smokes, RTP - Reduce Throughput". Seems to be the same paper being described here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.folklore.computers/c/kH0eKq2LRd8 Whew, marathon typing over. Lots of goodies here, if you feel a particular item warrants a discussion thread, feel free to snip it as a quote to start a new message, otherwise email just me if you have questions about anything in particular. Otherwise, I'm going to be going over this all with a finer toothed comb once I get the other shipment (which as I was typing this novel I did get confirmation is also on the way, they didn't ship both the same day.) - Matt G. P.S. Sorry if the later bits are less descriptive, found out 3/4th of the way through I have somewhere to be pretty soon. ------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, May 14th, 2023 at 11:17 AM, segaloco wrote: > Hello, I've just today secured purchase of an original 4BSD manual and papers set and a copy of what I believe is the V6 papers set as well. Of note amongst the tabs I could read from the pictures of the Berkeley binder was a section of fonts that I don't think I've seen before named the Berkeley Font Catalog. I did a bit of searching around and didn't find anything matching that on first inspection re: scanned and source-available BSD doc collections. Anyone got the scoop on this? > > Either way, once these arrive in the mail in I'll try and see what the delta might be between these and the current sources in V6 and 4BSD stuff on the archive. They're from the collection of an emeritus professor on the east coast, and I'm not sure if they represent unmodified docs shipped from Bell and Berkeley or have local modifications. In any case, his son said they'll be going through more material soon and are liable to turn up more UNIX stuff, so I'll keep folks posted if I come into possession of anything else particularly spiffy. > > - Matt G. From mah at mhorton.net Fri May 19 07:51:10 2023 From: mah at mhorton.net (Mary Ann Horton) Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 14:51:10 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Berkeley Font Catalog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d02dfba-f9c8-0606-3717-3a979afd4f71@mhorton.net> As I fuzzily recall, I put together the original Berkeley Font Catalog from various sources (such as Stanford's more complete catalog) to show what we had available on the 36" Versatec at Berkeley. Looking at what's in 4.1BSD vol 2C, I suspect somebody polished it up. Most of my effort went into fed, a font editor that worked on Berkeley's flakey HP 2648 graphics terminal, and editing the Hershey fonts, which were seriously mangled, into a semi-presentable typeface. I could only dream of having Times Roman available. Thanks, /Mary Ann Horton/ (she/her/ma'am) maryannhorton.com “This is a great book about an amazing journey of a woman who went through hell to become the person she is today.” * - Monica Helms, creator of the transgender flag* "Brave and Important - Don’t miss this wonderful book!" * - Laura L. Engel, Intl. Memoir Writers Assn.*       Available on Amazon and bn.com. Audiobook on Google Play. On 5/14/23 12:11, Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > Hello, I've just today secured purchase of an original 4BSD manual > and papers set and a copy of what I believe is the V6 papers set > as well. Of note amongst the tabs I could read from the pictures > of the Berkeley binder was a section of fonts that I don't think > I've seen before named the Berkeley Font Catalog.  I did a bit of > searching around and didn't find anything matching that on first > inspection re: scanned and source-available BSD doc collections.  > Anyone got the scoop on this? > > Sure > > The Berkeley Font Catalog was a collection of 200 bpi fonts that could > be used with vcat - the virtual CAT/4 typesetter and old tools like > some of the original EE cad editors like Ken Keller's and another from > Tom Ferrin at UCSF. The bulk of them was a copy of the Hershey Fonts > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey_fonts] and a number of fonts > specialty fonts, such as a set for typing chess, that had been > developed originally for the XGP at CMU, MIT, and Stanford.  Between > the 3 ARPAnet sites, there was a lot of mixing and matching.  Note: I > should have a Xerox copy of them from one of the UCB docs in my files. > They are on a BSD tape, I would look in the contributed area, but I > don't remember.   There is likely troff input to print the catalog > (using vcat), but again I am trying to remember where any of that was > in the distribution kits. > > FWIW: a few months back, Rob has corrected the history that the > original vcat(1) was Canadian in origin.  I thought that Ferrin had > his hand in an early version that came to UCB (This is likely an > example of the side comment sometimes used, that joy peed on it to > make things smell like UCB, as Tom was across the bay).  I also > thought Tom had collected much of the catalog originally; and while I > could be smoking something here -- I seem to remember that he also had > some sort of Stanford connection with some of his graphics work [the > UCSF and Stanford medical schools - were doing 3D graphics for medical > diags at some point].  Tom was a graphics guy, and I know he was mixed > up in some of that so it would have made sense for him to be somehow > involved.  It was not for a few years later, when Barskey showed up at > UCB that there was any serious graphics work being done -- before > that, only ECAD tools like's Ken and later Oster's. > > Clem > ᐧ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat May 20 00:36:18 2023 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 10:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] A Census of /etc and /sys Prior to V4 Message-ID: <20230519143618.11F6918C074@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Matt G. > Given the movement of UNIX to the 11/45 and then to C, does the Third > Edition represent a version of UNIX for the 11/45 with protection but > written in assembly, not C? I think so (evidence detailed below). The support may not have been _quite_ identical to that in V4 (e.g. there was no support for pure texts in V3 - below), though. > is there any other information such as documents, code, etc. concerning > the 11/45 assembly version? This is the real problem, of course; all we have for V3 is some man pages. (And in relying on them, we have to hope that they were updated to match the then-current system - which is not guaranteed, but in general at this point in time, man pages do seem to match whats's in the code.) > Was work completed on the 11/45 kernel changes in the context of this > version and then simply "ported" to the C version or were there > concepts that were cropping up in one or the other and varying amounts > of transportation back and forth as 11/45 and C aspects were > implemented? Without a lot more information, which is now almost certainly lost, we are unlikely to be able to tell. But let me start by laying out what we _do_ know. To start with, it's important to realize that support for protection (and relocation - i.e. memory that looks, to user code, like it's at 0, is actually at, say, 060000 in physical terms) in PDP-11 UNIX _pre-dates_ the -11/45. DEC had a rare, and now almost forgotten "Memory Protect & Relocate" option for the -11/20, the KS11: https://gunkies.org/wiki/KS11_Memory_Protection_and_Relocation_option What exactly it did, and how, is now uncertain (no documentation, or code that used it, appeats to have survived - all we have are a couple of vague recollections), but it is certain that that the UNIX group's -11/20 had it: https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/odd.html and Ken has said that he wrote the code to use it. It's also important to remember that not all the machines running UNIX would have had their hardware updated simultaneously: e.g. the patent group's -11/20 would not have needed the KS11 as much, since it was runnng mature applications. So UNIX was probably conditionalized to run with and without the KS11. As late as V3, there were apparently still UNIX machines without relocation hardware: "The purpose of this command is to simplify the preparation of object programs for systems which have no relocation hardware.": http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man1/reloc When the support for the KS11 appeared is uncertain. It's not in the extant V1 code; but V2 seems to have had it: "the current system, which has relocation and protection hardware": http://squoze.net/UNIX/v2man/man5/core V2 also seems to have started looking forward to the -11/45 - "a trap is simulated by the floating point simulator" (ditto); "if they correspond to 11/45 floating point instructions": http://squoze.net/UNIX/v2man/man3/fptrap It is possible that they already had the -11/45 at this point, but I would tend to doubt it: "immediate mode ((pc)+) is not supported, since the PDP-11/45 handbook is not clear on what to do about it." (If they had it, a simple experiment would have produced the answer.) And "Double precision results are probably less correct than the hardware will be" (note tense). (All from v2man/man3/fptrap.) V3 seems to have the -11/45: "it depends on what hardware is present (EAE, floating-point option)": http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man5/core The "floating-point option" would only have been on the -11/45. (And again we see that V3 still ran on -11/20's; the -11/45 would not have had an EAE: https://gunkies.org/wiki/KE11-A_Extended_Arithmetic_Element since all the EAE operations - except normalization, but that's only needed for floating-point - were in the basic -11/45.) Probably the protection and relocation provided to UNIX processes on the 11/45 was very similar to that provided with the KS11. Do note that thememory management was not exactly the same as V4's: "In the future the text segment will be write-protected and shared.": http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man5/a.out However, it was keeping multiple processes in main memory at the same time: "only processes whose core images are on disk have visible names": http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man8/ps So we can actually tell a fair amount about the evolution through V2 and V3 from the few scraps that are left to us. I do live in hope that a V2 or V3 listing will turn up one day; the system changed a lot in that period, and many questions aren't answered definitively by the man pages. (One big one is details of how the process' address space was laid out - ld(III) and exec(II) simply say nothing at all. I assume it started at 0 - but who knows? In V1, it must have started at a higher address - as on MINI-UNIX: https://gunkies.org/wiki/MINI-UNIX#Implementation_details which I am fairly familiar with - but again, neither V1's ld(III) or exec(II) mentions this detail. I suppose I could work it out from the V1 source, but I'm not _that_ interested... :-)) It is possible that the evolution started with just protection (if the KS11 could do that), and relocation was added later. It seems clear that the step from the KS11 to the -11/45 was probably not large. If anyone has a V2 or V3 listing, please sing up! That would be an _incredibly_ valuable thing to add to the historical record. Noel From ken.unix.guy at gmail.com Sat May 20 01:06:39 2023 From: ken.unix.guy at gmail.com (KenUnix) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 11:06:39 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter Message-ID: Hi. Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter that was on System-V? Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. Thanks Ken -- WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Sat May 20 01:15:58 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 15:15:58 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] A Census of /etc and /sys Prior to V4 In-Reply-To: <20230519143618.11F6918C074@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230519143618.11F6918C074@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <2Lh60xGsGY4H5cQmH1na_kaiIZkg5u9qMh4SiyaMA-l1WwW-Ag1tuw9Xs7M61ebLWwKEvjqwteLcZ0B9aOMIoTDb90Vwz78xUkt-tTYvdzc=@protonmail.com> There are the s2-bits binaries that I'm slowly disassembling. I don't think there is a kernel image down in there though. That said, there is a "core" file included, I wonder if kernel text is swept up in that. In any case, if there are other binaries floating around, disassembly is one of my oldest techie hobbies, so happy to go mining for information. Also, I've mentioned it a few times but in busier emails: The s1-bits source code fragments appear to be later than the s2-bits binaries, evidenced both by /etc/passwd subbed for /etc/uids in the former and likewise ac and mq EAE registers are still in use in s2-bits binaries but have been replaced by s1-bits. All in all that pegs the s1-bits fragments as being closer in character to V3 while the binaries are closer in character to V2. As my V2 disassembly progresses I'll try and put together a more detailed list of differences between these two bits of code as well as the Bashkow init and sh sources, with V5 as a later reference. - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 7:36 AM, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: > > From: Matt G. > > > > Given the movement of UNIX to the 11/45 and then to C, does the Third > > > Edition represent a version of UNIX for the 11/45 with protection but > > > written in assembly, not C? > > > I think so (evidence detailed below). The support may not have been quite > identical to that in V4 (e.g. there was no support for pure texts in V3 - > below), though. > > > is there any other information such as documents, code, etc. concerning > > > the 11/45 assembly version? > > > This is the real problem, of course; all we have for V3 is some man pages. > (And in relying on them, we have to hope that they were updated to match the > then-current system - which is not guaranteed, but in general at this point > in time, man pages do seem to match whats's in the code.) > > > Was work completed on the 11/45 kernel changes in the context of this > > > version and then simply "ported" to the C version or were there > > > concepts that were cropping up in one or the other and varying amounts > > > of transportation back and forth as 11/45 and C aspects were > > > implemented? > > > Without a lot more information, which is now almost certainly lost, we are > unlikely to be able to tell. But let me start by laying out what we do know. > > > To start with, it's important to realize that support for protection (and > relocation - i.e. memory that looks, to user code, like it's at 0, > is actually at, say, 060000 in physical terms) in PDP-11 UNIX pre-dates the > -11/45. DEC had a rare, and now almost forgotten "Memory Protect & Relocate" > option for the -11/20, the KS11: > > https://gunkies.org/wiki/KS11_Memory_Protection_and_Relocation_option > > What exactly it did, and how, is now uncertain (no documentation, or code > that used it, appeats to have survived - all we have are a couple of vague > recollections), but it is certain that that the UNIX group's -11/20 had it: > > https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/odd.html > > and Ken has said that he wrote the code to use it. > > It's also important to remember that not all the machines running UNIX would > have had their hardware updated simultaneously: e.g. the patent group's > -11/20 would not have needed the KS11 as much, since it was runnng mature > applications. So UNIX was probably conditionalized to run with and without > the KS11. As late as V3, there were apparently still UNIX machines without > relocation hardware: "The purpose of this command is to simplify the > preparation of object programs for systems which have no relocation > hardware.": > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man1/reloc > > When the support for the KS11 appeared is uncertain. It's not in the extant > V1 code; but V2 seems to have had it: "the current system, which has > relocation and protection hardware": > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v2man/man5/core > > V2 also seems to have started looking forward to the -11/45 - "a trap is > simulated by the floating point simulator" (ditto); "if they correspond to > 11/45 floating point instructions": > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v2man/man3/fptrap > > It is possible that they already had the -11/45 at this point, but I would > tend to doubt it: "immediate mode ((pc)+) is not supported, since the > PDP-11/45 handbook is not clear on what to do about it." (If they had it, a > simple experiment would have produced the answer.) And "Double precision > results are probably less correct than the hardware will be" (note tense). > (All from v2man/man3/fptrap.) > > > V3 seems to have the -11/45: "it depends on what hardware is present (EAE, > floating-point option)": > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man5/core > > The "floating-point option" would only have been on the -11/45. (And again we > see that V3 still ran on -11/20's; the -11/45 would not have had an EAE: > > https://gunkies.org/wiki/KE11-A_Extended_Arithmetic_Element > > since all the EAE operations - except normalization, but that's only needed > for floating-point - were in the basic -11/45.) > > Probably the protection and relocation provided to UNIX processes on the > 11/45 was very similar to that provided with the KS11. Do note that thememory > management was not exactly the same as V4's: "In the future the text segment > will be write-protected and shared.": > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man5/a.out > > However, it was keeping multiple processes in main memory at the same time: > "only processes whose core images are on disk have visible names": > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man8/ps > > > So we can actually tell a fair amount about the evolution through V2 and V3 > from the few scraps that are left to us. I do live in hope that a V2 or V3 > listing will turn up one day; the system changed a lot in that period, and > many questions aren't answered definitively by the man pages. > > (One big one is details of how the process' address space was laid out - > ld(III) and exec(II) simply say nothing at all. I assume it started at 0 - > but who knows? In V1, it must have started at a higher address - as on > MINI-UNIX: > > https://gunkies.org/wiki/MINI-UNIX#Implementation_details > > which I am fairly familiar with - but again, neither V1's ld(III) or exec(II) > mentions this detail. I suppose I could work it out from the V1 source, but > I'm not that interested... :-)) > > It is possible that the evolution started with just protection (if the KS11 > could do that), and relocation was added later. It seems clear that the > step from the KS11 to the -11/45 was probably not large. > > > If anyone has a V2 or V3 listing, please sing up! That would be an > incredibly valuable thing to add to the historical record. > > Noel From joshnatis0 at gmail.com Sat May 20 05:46:30 2023 From: joshnatis0 at gmail.com (josh) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 15:46:30 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Friday, May 19, 2023, KenUnix wrote: > > Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter > that was on System-V? > Not exactly what you’re asking for but you’ll probably find these videos interesting / relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LZUMNZTUJos&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ELICIa3L22o&feature=youtu.be Dave (the creator of the videos) shared these on TUHS some time ago. Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Sat May 20 06:15:04 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 16:15:04 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure the sources and a man page or two exists. Ken Thompson wrote bas(1) and bs(1) was Dick Haight - which IIRC correctly, was ~78/79. Haight's program which would go out as part of System V --- was first distributed outside of the labs in System III. I would have expected man pages in either source distribution. I don't have those online to check and I don't tend to bother with System V as its historically less interesting. That said, one thing I do remember is that the primary version of bs from the PWB family (certainly the one we had at UCB) was a little different from the version I saw in a couple of the BTL sites later. My >>memory<< here (which could be flawed) was the CB Unix folks added a few features -- like a set of plotting function that Whippany picked up etc. I only remember this because we were working with a number of different places (from different AT&T labs to IBM, Intel, NS, HP, Tek, etc.) when we developed the UCB CAD tools. I remember and an incident where one of the Bell folks we had at UCB had brought some thing with him that relied on the strange bs dialec -- i.e. did not run on the UCB CAD systems - which had the version of PWB. It was close, but made calls to some extra stuff (plot and the like IIRC). My suggestion, as always start in the TUHS archives and look there -- that will be the most complete of what was released. That said, Disk4 of Kirk's set will have all the stuff we had in /usr/local (like cpio etc..) on the UCB systems. FWIW: I'm fairly sure the sources and the man pages will be with Kirk's trove. But I don't believe BSD ever released it, as it was not part of V7, so you will not find it in a formal BSD distribution tape. ᐧ On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:07 AM KenUnix wrote: > Hi. > > Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter > that was on System-V? > > Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. > > Thanks > Ken > > > -- > WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Sat May 20 06:17:13 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 16:17:13 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: s/which had the version of PWB/which had the version of bs(1) from PWB running on 4.xBSD/ ᐧ On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 4:15 PM Clem Cole wrote: > Sure the sources and a man page or two exists. Ken Thompson wrote bas(1) > and bs(1) was Dick Haight - which IIRC correctly, was ~78/79. Haight's > program which would go out as part of System V --- was first distributed > outside of the labs in System III. I would have expected man pages in > either source distribution. I don't have those online to check and I don't > tend to bother with System V as its historically less interesting. > > That said, one thing I do remember is that the primary version of bs from > the PWB family (certainly the one we had at UCB) was a little different > from the version I saw in a couple of the BTL sites later. My >>memory<< > here (which could be flawed) was the CB Unix folks added a few features -- > like a set of plotting function that Whippany picked up etc. I only > remember this because we were working with a number of different places > (from different AT&T labs to IBM, Intel, NS, HP, Tek, etc.) when we > developed the UCB CAD tools. I remember and an incident where one of the > Bell folks we had at UCB had brought some thing with him that relied on the > strange bs dialec -- i.e. did not run on the UCB CAD systems - which had > the version of PWB. It was close, but made calls to some extra stuff (plot > and the like IIRC). > > My suggestion, as always start in the TUHS archives and look there -- that > will be the most complete of what was released. That said, Disk4 of Kirk's > set will have all the stuff we had in /usr/local (like cpio etc..) on the > UCB systems. FWIW: I'm fairly sure the sources and the man pages will be > with Kirk's trove. But I don't believe BSD ever released it, as it was > not part of V7, so you will not find it in a formal BSD distribution tape. > > ᐧ > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:07 AM KenUnix wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter >> that was on System-V? >> >> Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. >> >> Thanks >> Ken >> >> >> -- >> WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Sat May 20 06:19:02 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 20:19:02 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The earliest documentation I can spot is the bs(1) man page dated November, 1979 in the CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual (although the page itself is tagged CB-UNIX 2.1.) This appears to be the same lineage as what we see in the commercial PWB releases, however, the earliest backstop I have on that is June, 1980 with 3.0. PWB 1.0 contains no such page, and unfortunately the situation right around 1979 is still a bit fuzzy re: PWB 2.0 and UNIX/TS. That said, the preface to the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual (which is also a 2.1 page from 1979) pays no credit to the UNIX/TS 1.1 nor PWB 2.0 manuals the way the PWB 3.0 preface does, so perhaps bs(1) started in CB? Looking forward, this utility persists up til SVR2, but is gone as of the SVR3 globe-with-UNIX-lines manual series. Curiously, it was also omitted from the 3B20 PWB 4.1 manual, but the 5.0 and subsequent System V 1 and 2 manuals don't have a hardware-exclusivity masthead mark, so this was likely made portable/ported to 3B20 sometime around '81. In any case, none of the man pages in any of these manuals indicate any memoranda or other papers in the SEE ALSO. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but points to the likelihood that the manpage is really all you get documentation-wise. Even the BTL versions don't mention any papers. In any case, that's what I could turn up, there is a bs(1) manpage in the following versions: - 1979 - CB-UNIX 2.1 - 1980 - PWB 3.0/System III - 1981 - PWB 4.x (Non 3B20) - 1981 - CB-UNIX 2.3 (unmodified from 2.1) - 1982 - PWB 5.0 - 1983 - System V - 1984 - System V Release 2 Hope that helps. All of these save the 4.x version should be in various places around. I don't remember seeing anything outrageously different between 3.0 and 5.0, so it very well may be that the 4.x manpage could be easily synthesized with a diff, but I don't have a physical page to prove anything. - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 8:06 AM, KenUnix wrote: > Hi. > > Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter > that was on System-V? > > Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. > > Thanks > Ken > > -- > > WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ken.unix.guy at gmail.com Sat May 20 09:26:41 2023 From: ken.unix.guy at gmail.com (KenUnix) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 19:26:41 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to all for the input! Ken On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 4:19 PM segaloco wrote: > The earliest documentation I can spot is the bs(1) man page dated > November, 1979 in the CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual (although the page itself is > tagged CB-UNIX 2.1.) > > This appears to be the same lineage as what we see in the commercial PWB > releases, however, the earliest backstop I have on that is June, 1980 with > 3.0. PWB 1.0 contains no such page, and unfortunately the situation right > around 1979 is still a bit fuzzy re: PWB 2.0 and UNIX/TS. That said, the > preface to the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual (which is also a 2.1 page from 1979) pays > no credit to the UNIX/TS 1.1 nor PWB 2.0 manuals the way the PWB 3.0 > preface does, so perhaps bs(1) started in CB? > > Looking forward, this utility persists up til SVR2, but is gone as of the > SVR3 globe-with-UNIX-lines manual series. Curiously, it was also omitted > from the 3B20 PWB 4.1 manual, but the 5.0 and subsequent System V 1 and 2 > manuals don't have a hardware-exclusivity masthead mark, so this was likely > made portable/ported to 3B20 sometime around '81. In any case, none of the > man pages in any of these manuals indicate any memoranda or other papers in > the SEE ALSO. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but points to the likelihood > that the manpage is really all you get documentation-wise. Even the BTL > versions don't mention any papers. > > In any case, that's what I could turn up, there is a bs(1) manpage in the > following versions: > > - 1979 - CB-UNIX 2.1 > - 1980 - PWB 3.0/System III > - 1981 - PWB 4.x (Non 3B20) > - 1981 - CB-UNIX 2.3 (unmodified from 2.1) > - 1982 - PWB 5.0 > - 1983 - System V > - 1984 - System V Release 2 > > Hope that helps. All of these save the 4.x version should be in various > places around. I don't remember seeing anything outrageously different > between 3.0 and 5.0, so it very well may be that the 4.x manpage could be > easily synthesized with a diff, but I don't have a physical page to prove > anything. > > - Matt G. > ------- Original Message ------- > On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 8:06 AM, KenUnix > wrote: > > Hi. > > Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter > that was on System-V? > > Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. > > Thanks > Ken > > > -- > WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss > > > > -- End of line JOB TERMINATED Okey Dokey OK Boss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Sat May 20 10:31:09 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 20:31:09 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matt. Does the CB man page match the PWB 3 version? I may be mixing something up in my memory so I ask because I seem to remember there were some differences between some scripts that came from different places ( We did a lot with graphics in the cad group and when we had tools that came from other places it was often graphics that bit us which is why I think that sticks in my mind). I’ll have to try looking at the version we had at UCB in a bit. As for doc the only thing I remember was a man page for the tool. Clem On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 4:19 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > The earliest documentation I can spot is the bs(1) man page dated > November, 1979 in the CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual (although the page itself is > tagged CB-UNIX 2.1.) > > This appears to be the same lineage as what we see in the commercial PWB > releases, however, the earliest backstop I have on that is June, 1980 with > 3.0. PWB 1.0 contains no such page, and unfortunately the situation right > around 1979 is still a bit fuzzy re: PWB 2.0 and UNIX/TS. That said, the > preface to the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual (which is also a 2.1 page from 1979) pays > no credit to the UNIX/TS 1.1 nor PWB 2.0 manuals the way the PWB 3.0 > preface does, so perhaps bs(1) started in CB? > > Looking forward, this utility persists up til SVR2, but is gone as of the > SVR3 globe-with-UNIX-lines manual series. Curiously, it was also omitted > from the 3B20 PWB 4.1 manual, but the 5.0 and subsequent System V 1 and 2 > manuals don't have a hardware-exclusivity masthead mark, so this was likely > made portable/ported to 3B20 sometime around '81. In any case, none of the > man pages in any of these manuals indicate any memoranda or other papers in > the SEE ALSO. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but points to the likelihood > that the manpage is really all you get documentation-wise. Even the BTL > versions don't mention any papers. > > In any case, that's what I could turn up, there is a bs(1) manpage in the > following versions: > > - 1979 - CB-UNIX 2.1 > - 1980 - PWB 3.0/System III > - 1981 - PWB 4.x (Non 3B20) > - 1981 - CB-UNIX 2.3 (unmodified from 2.1) > - 1982 - PWB 5.0 > - 1983 - System V > - 1984 - System V Release 2 > > Hope that helps. All of these save the 4.x version should be in various > places around. I don't remember seeing anything outrageously different > between 3.0 and 5.0, so it very well may be that the 4.x manpage could be > easily synthesized with a diff, but I don't have a physical page to prove > anything. > > - Matt G. > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 8:06 AM, KenUnix > wrote: > > Hi. > > Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter > that was on System-V? > > Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. > > Thanks > Ken > > > -- > WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss > > > > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat May 20 12:04:57 2023 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 22:04:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [TUHS] A Census of /etc and /sys Prior to V4 Message-ID: <20230520020457.BA28718C074@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Matt G. > there is a "core" file included, I wonder if kernel text is swept up in > that. My _guess_ is perhaps not; the disks were really small (the UNIX people started with an RF11, which the first DEC machine I used - a RSTS system - also had; that was _really small - 512KB :-). Probably it did whatever V1 did. I was not up for going to look, since I wasn't familiar with the V1 code - but then I decided to break down and look at it, and also create a minimal index to say what's in each module. (Here: https://gunkies.org/wiki/UNIX_First_Edition#Source_index if anyone is interested. Made easier because the code is very well commented; it's very easy to read.) The code to take core dumps is in u1, at 'badsys:'. It dumps the user's entire possible memory space (i.e. not just up to the 'break'), and then (separately) the 'user' area. The system is not included. I doubt V2/V3 are different. > ac and mq EAE registers are still in use in s2-bits binaries Interesting. How did you work that out, BTW? Also, V1 seems to mandate use of a KE11-A (use is made of it throughout the kernel). > but have been replaced by s1-bits. Interesting; how did you work that out? V3's core (V): http://squoze.net/UNIX/v3man/man5/core doesn't give the format, just says "The actual format of the information is complicated because it depends on what hardware is present (EAE, floating-point option)". Do you have C3's db(I) source? Oh, wait, TUHS has what claims to be V2's db source: https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V2/cmd/db1.s but it actually seems to be later; it's conditionalized for having the FPP. So it must be for a machine running the -11/45 - which we seem to have decided is V3? The header for TUHS' V2 says: "The files in cmd/ are recreated from the text fragments found on the file s1-bits.gz." Which agrees with your take: > All in all that pegs the s1-bits fragments as being closer in character > to V3 That's all for the moment... Noel From tuhs at tuhs.org Sat May 20 14:13:12 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 04:13:12 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] A Census of /etc and /sys Prior to V4 In-Reply-To: <20230520020457.BA28718C074@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230520020457.BA28718C074@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <9aOA0GH7FSvgFIs5EWZeEQqoCTKik2hOJYH0P14ddgDPiUUAqSe0MmATyey9D7Tqm6XTfvlsCxJNvZn-kukgp18V8EentRXWTs9jgLJRyIk=@protonmail.com> > > ac and mq EAE registers are still in use in s2-bits binaries > > but have been replaced by s1-bits. > > Interesting. How did you work that out, BTW? Regarding the EAE registers, in as19.s[1], there is this set of mappings: 012717;000000;01;177570 /csw 015176;000000;01;177300 /div 003270;000000;01;177302 /ac 051750;000000;01;177304 /mq 052224;000000;01;177306 /mul 073470;000000;01;177310 /sc 074620;000000;01;177311 /sr 054752;000000;01;177312 /nor 047000;000000;01;177314 /lsh 004500;000000;01;177316 /ash Among others, here we have the mappings for ac, mq, mul, and div. In the disassembled source of df(I) from s2-bits[2], at the second 9 label, ac, mq, div, and mul are used to perform a division by 10 (I think, my PDP-11-fu isn't *that* strong yet): 9: clr ac mov $10.,div mov ac,-(sp) tst mq beq 2f jsr pc,9b In the disassembler output (I used pdp11dasm[3]) these values were all the same addresses as the above table from as(I). In the source df.s under the V2/cmd section[4], this is instead replaced by use of the dvd opcode: 9: clr r2 dvd $10.,r2 mov r3,-(sp) mov r2,r3 beq 2f jsr pc,9b I've seen this sort of thing consistently as I comb through files in s2-bits, using stuff from s1-bits and V5 as references. [1] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V2/cmd/as19.s [2] - https://gitlab.com/segaloco/v2src/-/raw/master/cmd/df.s [3] - https://github.com/caldwell/pdp11dasm [4] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V2/cmd/df.s - Matt G. From tuhs at tuhs.org Sat May 20 14:28:56 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 04:28:56 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here are raw[1] and nroff-d[2] restorations of the CB-UNIX 2.1 stamped page: [1] - https://pastebin.com/EAjMyvSn [2] - https://pastebin.com/Dgh1g5q8 According to a diff with the 3.0 manpage in the tree[3], these are some changes of note from CB 2.1 to PWB 3.0: - Added ibase, obase - Added elif and using a single fi to end an if elif else chain - Added return for returning from function calls - Added support for tables (arrays based on key-value pairs) - The plot(11) routine swaps the corners about the y axis - A bug is removed indicating a limit of 250 lines, 250 variables, and artificial truncation of names to six characters. Unfortunately the CB 2.1 page on the archive[4] doesn't indicate anything of particular note that wasn't pretty much the same in PWB 3.0. [3] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/man/man1/bs.1 [4] - https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/USDL/CB_Unix/cbunix_man1_01.pdf (Page 32-39) - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 5:31 PM, Clem Cole wrote: > Matt. > > Does the CB man page match the PWB 3 version? I may be mixing something up in my memory so I ask because I seem to remember there were some differences between some scripts that came from different places ( We did a lot with graphics in the cad group and when we had tools that came from other places it was often graphics that bit us which is why I think that sticks in my mind). I’ll have to try looking at the version we had at UCB in a bit. > > As for doc the only thing I remember was a man page for the tool. > > Clem > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 4:19 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> The earliest documentation I can spot is the bs(1) man page dated November, 1979 in the CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual (although the page itself is tagged CB-UNIX 2.1.) >> >> This appears to be the same lineage as what we see in the commercial PWB releases, however, the earliest backstop I have on that is June, 1980 with 3.0. PWB 1.0 contains no such page, and unfortunately the situation right around 1979 is still a bit fuzzy re: PWB 2.0 and UNIX/TS. That said, the preface to the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual (which is also a 2.1 page from 1979) pays no credit to the UNIX/TS 1.1 nor PWB 2.0 manuals the way the PWB 3.0 preface does, so perhaps bs(1) started in CB? >> >> Looking forward, this utility persists up til SVR2, but is gone as of the SVR3 globe-with-UNIX-lines manual series. Curiously, it was also omitted from the 3B20 PWB 4.1 manual, but the 5.0 and subsequent System V 1 and 2 manuals don't have a hardware-exclusivity masthead mark, so this was likely made portable/ported to 3B20 sometime around '81. In any case, none of the man pages in any of these manuals indicate any memoranda or other papers in the SEE ALSO. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but points to the likelihood that the manpage is really all you get documentation-wise. Even the BTL versions don't mention any papers. >> >> In any case, that's what I could turn up, there is a bs(1) manpage in the following versions: >> >> - 1979 - CB-UNIX 2.1 >> - 1980 - PWB 3.0/System III >> - 1981 - PWB 4.x (Non 3B20) >> - 1981 - CB-UNIX 2.3 (unmodified from 2.1) >> - 1982 - PWB 5.0 >> - 1983 - System V >> - 1984 - System V Release 2 >> >> Hope that helps. All of these save the 4.x version should be in various places around. I don't remember seeing anything outrageously different between 3.0 and 5.0, so it very well may be that the 4.x manpage could be easily synthesized with a diff, but I don't have a physical page to prove anything. >> >> - Matt G. >> ------- Original Message ------- >> >> On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 8:06 AM, KenUnix wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter >>> that was on System-V? >>> >>> Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Ken >>> >>> -- >>> >>> WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss > > -- > > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Sat May 20 23:43:26 2023 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 09:43:26 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Matt - again, thank you. I just did a diff between the man pages from the System III version on TUHS and the version I have from Kirk's CD set [which was what we had a UCB]. The System III version looks different from the UCB man page (*e.g*., no plot() functions and a few other things). So, I did a little checking last night and wrote a couple of emails to some folks. The evidence I have found does seem to me that Dick Haight wrote the original bs(1) command. Note that Dolotta, Haight, Piskorik, and Mashey were the original PWB 1.0 core team, as it were. But ... looking at my printed PWB 1.0 manual, there does not seem to be a bs(1) man page. However, we know that while PWB was never released officially outside of the Bell System - although parts of PWB 'leaked' to MIT, CMU, and UCB [probably via the OYOC's -- Noel's MIT system is clearly influenced by PWB 1.0 and I know the CMU system we had was also thanks to folks like tjk and Phil Karn]. The point is that many/most of the commands from PWB [with SCCS being the most important], if not the full kernel itself, arrived in those places. So a semi-educated >>WAG<< ... with the evidence being that 1. Haight's bs(1) was different from Ken's bas(1) which was in V7, 2. bs(1) is on Kirk's CD (disk4), 3. we know parts of PWB leaked from Bell, 4. I personally remember having it at UCB; Kirk's version at UCB predated the System III/V one you have, and it is likely an either Haight version from PWB 1.0 somehow. We know a Dale and their team in Columbus not only wrote their own enhancements, but they also took the source from all over: Research, PWB, and some of the universities. The CB/UNIX folks likely updated bs(1), and later, when some of the CB UNIX enhancement made it back to Summit and in PWB 2, 3, and the like - that's where the updated version appeared. Clem ᐧ On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:29 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Here are raw[1] and nroff-d[2] restorations of the CB-UNIX 2.1 stamped > page: > > [1] - https://pastebin.com/EAjMyvSn > [2] - https://pastebin.com/Dgh1g5q8 > > According to a diff with the 3.0 manpage in the tree[3], these are some > changes of note from CB 2.1 to PWB 3.0: > > - Added ibase, obase > - Added elif and using a single fi to end an if elif else chain > - Added return for returning from function calls > - Added support for tables (arrays based on key-value pairs) > - The plot(11) routine swaps the corners about the y axis > - A bug is removed indicating a limit of 250 lines, 250 variables, and > artificial truncation of names to six characters. > > Unfortunately the CB 2.1 page on the archive[4] doesn't indicate anything > of particular note that wasn't pretty much the same in PWB 3.0. > > [3] - > https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/man/man1/bs.1 > [4] - > https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/USDL/CB_Unix/cbunix_man1_01.pdf > (Page 32-39) > > - Matt G. > ------- Original Message ------- > On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 5:31 PM, Clem Cole wrote: > > Matt. > > Does the CB man page match the PWB 3 version? I may be mixing something up > in my memory so I ask because I seem to remember there were some > differences between some scripts that came from different places ( We did a > lot with graphics in the cad group and when we had tools that came from > other places it was often graphics that bit us which is why I think that > sticks in my mind). I’ll have to try looking at the version we had at UCB > in a bit. > > As for doc the only thing I remember was a man page for the tool. > > Clem > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 4:19 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> The earliest documentation I can spot is the bs(1) man page dated >> November, 1979 in the CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual (although the page itself is >> tagged CB-UNIX 2.1.) >> >> This appears to be the same lineage as what we see in the commercial PWB >> releases, however, the earliest backstop I have on that is June, 1980 with >> 3.0. PWB 1.0 contains no such page, and unfortunately the situation right >> around 1979 is still a bit fuzzy re: PWB 2.0 and UNIX/TS. That said, the >> preface to the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual (which is also a 2.1 page from 1979) pays >> no credit to the UNIX/TS 1.1 nor PWB 2.0 manuals the way the PWB 3.0 >> preface does, so perhaps bs(1) started in CB? >> >> Looking forward, this utility persists up til SVR2, but is gone as of the >> SVR3 globe-with-UNIX-lines manual series. Curiously, it was also omitted >> from the 3B20 PWB 4.1 manual, but the 5.0 and subsequent System V 1 and 2 >> manuals don't have a hardware-exclusivity masthead mark, so this was likely >> made portable/ported to 3B20 sometime around '81. In any case, none of the >> man pages in any of these manuals indicate any memoranda or other papers in >> the SEE ALSO. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but points to the likelihood >> that the manpage is really all you get documentation-wise. Even the BTL >> versions don't mention any papers. >> >> In any case, that's what I could turn up, there is a bs(1) manpage in the >> following versions: >> >> - 1979 - CB-UNIX 2.1 >> - 1980 - PWB 3.0/System III >> - 1981 - PWB 4.x (Non 3B20) >> - 1981 - CB-UNIX 2.3 (unmodified from 2.1) >> - 1982 - PWB 5.0 >> - 1983 - System V >> - 1984 - System V Release 2 >> >> Hope that helps. All of these save the 4.x version should be in various >> places around. I don't remember seeing anything outrageously different >> between 3.0 and 5.0, so it very well may be that the 4.x manpage could be >> easily synthesized with a diff, but I don't have a physical page to prove >> anything. >> >> - Matt G. >> ------- Original Message ------- >> >> On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 8:06 AM, KenUnix >> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter >> that was on System-V? >> >> Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. >> >> Thanks >> Ken >> >> >> -- >> WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss >> >> >> >> -- > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ken.unix.guy at gmail.com Sun May 21 00:16:50 2023 From: ken.unix.guy at gmail.com (KenUnix) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Again, thanks for the help. It is appreciated. Ken On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 9:44 AM Clem Cole wrote: > Matt - again, thank you. I just did a diff between the man pages from > the System III version on TUHS and the version I have from Kirk's CD set > [which was what we had a UCB]. The System III version looks different from > the UCB man page (*e.g*., no plot() functions and a few other things). > So, I did a little checking last night and wrote a couple of emails to > some folks. The evidence I have found does seem to me that Dick Haight wrote > the original bs(1) command. Note that Dolotta, Haight, Piskorik, and > Mashey were the original PWB 1.0 core team, as it were. But ... looking > at my printed PWB 1.0 manual, there does not seem to be a bs(1) man page. > However, we know that while PWB was never released officially outside of > the Bell System - although parts of PWB 'leaked' to MIT, CMU, and UCB > [probably via the OYOC's -- Noel's MIT system is clearly influenced by PWB > 1.0 and I know the CMU system we had was also thanks to folks like tjk and > Phil Karn]. The point is that many/most of the commands from PWB [with > SCCS being the most important], if not the full kernel itself, arrived in > those places. > > So a semi-educated >>WAG<< ... with the evidence being that > > 1. Haight's bs(1) was different from Ken's bas(1) which was in V7, > 2. bs(1) is on Kirk's CD (disk4), > 3. we know parts of PWB leaked from Bell, > 4. I personally remember having it at UCB; > > Kirk's version at UCB predated the System III/V one you have, and it is > likely an either Haight version from PWB 1.0 somehow. We know a Dale and > their team in Columbus not only wrote their own enhancements, but they > also took the source from all over: Research, PWB, and some of the > universities. The CB/UNIX folks likely updated bs(1), and later, when > some of the CB UNIX enhancement made it back to Summit and in PWB 2, 3, and > the like - that's where the updated version appeared. > > Clem > ᐧ > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:29 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Here are raw[1] and nroff-d[2] restorations of the CB-UNIX 2.1 stamped >> page: >> >> [1] - https://pastebin.com/EAjMyvSn >> [2] - https://pastebin.com/Dgh1g5q8 >> >> According to a diff with the 3.0 manpage in the tree[3], these are some >> changes of note from CB 2.1 to PWB 3.0: >> >> - Added ibase, obase >> - Added elif and using a single fi to end an if elif else chain >> - Added return for returning from function calls >> - Added support for tables (arrays based on key-value pairs) >> - The plot(11) routine swaps the corners about the y axis >> - A bug is removed indicating a limit of 250 lines, 250 variables, and >> artificial truncation of names to six characters. >> >> Unfortunately the CB 2.1 page on the archive[4] doesn't indicate anything >> of particular note that wasn't pretty much the same in PWB 3.0. >> >> [3] - >> https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/man/man1/bs.1 >> [4] - >> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/USDL/CB_Unix/cbunix_man1_01.pdf >> (Page 32-39) >> >> - Matt G. >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 5:31 PM, Clem Cole wrote: >> >> Matt. >> >> Does the CB man page match the PWB 3 version? I may be mixing something >> up in my memory so I ask because I seem to remember there were some >> differences between some scripts that came from different places ( We did a >> lot with graphics in the cad group and when we had tools that came from >> other places it was often graphics that bit us which is why I think that >> sticks in my mind). I’ll have to try looking at the version we had at UCB >> in a bit. >> >> As for doc the only thing I remember was a man page for the tool. >> >> Clem >> >> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 4:19 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: >> >>> The earliest documentation I can spot is the bs(1) man page dated >>> November, 1979 in the CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual (although the page itself is >>> tagged CB-UNIX 2.1.) >>> >>> This appears to be the same lineage as what we see in the commercial PWB >>> releases, however, the earliest backstop I have on that is June, 1980 with >>> 3.0. PWB 1.0 contains no such page, and unfortunately the situation right >>> around 1979 is still a bit fuzzy re: PWB 2.0 and UNIX/TS. That said, the >>> preface to the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual (which is also a 2.1 page from 1979) pays >>> no credit to the UNIX/TS 1.1 nor PWB 2.0 manuals the way the PWB 3.0 >>> preface does, so perhaps bs(1) started in CB? >>> >>> Looking forward, this utility persists up til SVR2, but is gone as of >>> the SVR3 globe-with-UNIX-lines manual series. Curiously, it was also >>> omitted from the 3B20 PWB 4.1 manual, but the 5.0 and subsequent System V 1 >>> and 2 manuals don't have a hardware-exclusivity masthead mark, so this was >>> likely made portable/ported to 3B20 sometime around '81. In any case, none >>> of the man pages in any of these manuals indicate any memoranda or other >>> papers in the SEE ALSO. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but points to the >>> likelihood that the manpage is really all you get documentation-wise. Even >>> the BTL versions don't mention any papers. >>> >>> In any case, that's what I could turn up, there is a bs(1) manpage in >>> the following versions: >>> >>> - 1979 - CB-UNIX 2.1 >>> - 1980 - PWB 3.0/System III >>> - 1981 - PWB 4.x (Non 3B20) >>> - 1981 - CB-UNIX 2.3 (unmodified from 2.1) >>> - 1982 - PWB 5.0 >>> - 1983 - System V >>> - 1984 - System V Release 2 >>> >>> Hope that helps. All of these save the 4.x version should be in various >>> places around. I don't remember seeing anything outrageously different >>> between 3.0 and 5.0, so it very well may be that the 4.x manpage could be >>> easily synthesized with a diff, but I don't have a physical page to prove >>> anything. >>> >>> - Matt G. >>> ------- Original Message ------- >>> >>> On Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 8:06 AM, KenUnix >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> Was any documentation ever done for the basic interpreter >>> that was on System-V? >>> >>> Things like allowed keywords or special keywords. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WWL 📚 Okey Dokey OK Boss >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual >> >> >> -- End of line JOB TERMINATED Okey Dokey OK Boss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nobozo at gmail.com Sun May 21 02:05:33 2023 From: nobozo at gmail.com (Jon Forrest) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 09:05:33 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6950b3d6-483b-cd7b-2ebf-78fa289e6271@gmail.com> On 5/20/2023 6:43 AM, Clem Cole wrote: > However, we know that while PWB was never > released officially outside of the Bell System I've mentioned this before. We had PWB at Ford Aerospace in the late 1970s. This was in the group that Mike Padlipsky and John Nagle were part of. Jon From tom.perrine+tuhs at gmail.com Sun May 21 04:13:27 2023 From: tom.perrine+tuhs at gmail.com (Tom Perrine) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 11:13:27 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: <6950b3d6-483b-cd7b-2ebf-78fa289e6271@gmail.com> References: <6950b3d6-483b-cd7b-2ebf-78fa289e6271@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was at Logicon - we inherited some of that - including the PWB install - when we continued their KSOS work. That would have been around 1982-1983; when I got there the KSOS work (hosted on PWB) was already underway. If I could find that darned Modula compiler - I've got the original KSOS source code for PDP-11. Tom On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 9:05 AM Jon Forrest wrote: > > > On 5/20/2023 6:43 AM, Clem Cole wrote: > > However, we know that while PWB was never > > released officially outside of the Bell System > > I've mentioned this before. We had PWB at Ford Aerospace in > the late 1970s. This was in the group that Mike Padlipsky and > John Nagle were part of. > > Jon > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Sun May 21 05:53:32 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 19:53:32 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Likely Late-73/Early-74 C Reference Manual (And NROFF Doc and Summary Changes) Message-ID: <9k4gakjHZhxD8X2pNY10aTuqpDltn-MK_62EoYrL-XWZVJt5fAe3YUuwt95hu45WX4rwshIGfb4Gptkk9rKBQ3NH8SO92X-dJF48zHrrimQ=@protonmail.com> Came across something interesting by chance in the Sixth Edition document set I recently received. I took the binder to the park for a little light reading and found myself perusing the C reference manual. As an aside, I will always appreciate the style of the manual, and I still pick up something new or see something differently every time I flip the pages. The introduction includes these paragraphs: > Most of the software for the UNIX time-sharing system is written in C, as is the operating system itself. C is also available on the HIS 6070 computer at Murray Hill, using a compiler written by A. Snyder and currently maintained by S. C. Johnson. A compiler for the IBM System/360/370 series is under construction. > > This is a manual only for the C language itself as implemented on the PDP-11. Hints are given occasionally in the text of implementation-dependent features, and an appendix summarizes the differences between the Honeywell and DEC implementations; it also contains some known bugs in each. I didn't think too much of this initially, but then I found myself looking through some other old documents yesterday evening and found myself reading the memorandum version of the manual that Dennis linked to on his Bell Labs usr page: https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cman74.pdf In this version, the paragraphs have been altered and merged: > Most of the software for the UNIX time-sharing system is written in C, as is the operating system itself. C is also available on the HIS 6070 computer at Murray Hill and and on the IBM System/370 at Holmdel. This paper is a manual only for the C language itself as implemented on the PDP-11. However, hints are given occasionally in the text of implementation-dependent features. So between the two, the print document I have here indicates the compiler for IBM mainframes is still in the works, but by the January 15, 1974 document, it is noted as complete and in use in Holmdel. Additionally, this print document mentions an appendix detailing DEC vs. Honeywell differences and some other bug notes. Unfortunately this appendix doesn't actually appear to be in the binder, so either it wasn't done yet or was tossed by a previous owner some time ago. Luckily, this appendix, despite the reference being dropped, *is* on the cman74 version. In any case, upon discovering this, I then spot checked the rest of the contents of the two by seeing if any paragraphs had strange offsets from each other or there were noticeable changes in the visual flow. I didn't read each and every line, instead opting to see if paragraphs still had the same number of lines, the same "outline" (i.e. lines seem to start, end, and break pretty much the same), and that pages started and ended the same, and everything pretty much matched. There may be punctuation changes or other minor edits, but I didn't see anything indicating major changes in the language. The only other thing noticeably different is the references list, with Dennis's cman74 copy containing two extra references mine does not: "A User's Guide to the C Language on the IBM 370." by T.G. Peterson and M.E. Lesk, 1974, and "Programming in C- A Tutorial." by B.W. Kernighan, 1974. The latter is listed as unpublished in cman74. In my copy, aside from the two omitted references, the reference to the CACM paper does not have a date, instead just saying "To appear in C. ACM." and "The GCOS C Library" is listed as an unpublished memorandum with a speculative year of 1974. So all in all, this appears to be a C Reference Manual most likely from late 1973, or however unlikely, one that was very rapidly published in the first few weeks of 1974 before the mentioned changes on January 15th of that year. Are there any known copies of the manual that predate this which I can compare back with, or in any case is this particular revision known and captured somewhere? If not, it should be trivial to take the sources from V6 and produce a facsimile copy until it bubbles up in my scanning list (much ahead of it, got the ROFF manual scanned the other day, hoping to hit TMG and m6 in the next few.) There is also an NROFF manual here that I see referenced in the TOC of the V6 document set in the source, but don't actually see in files. It is dated 9/11/74 and is only labeled "NROFF Users' Manual", no TROFF in the title. It is also noted as the "Second Edition" in the header. This document makes reference to the "TROFF User's Manual", dated April 1974, also by Ossanna. Of note too is a "Quick NROFF Addendum" dated 5/19/75 that is included at the end. Finally, a slightly later version of the UNIX summary appears, dated August, 1975 instead of May, 1975, the date of the one in the V6 sources. It has minor chnages, most noticeably that the last few pages regarding NROFF and TROFF stuff have been split into two sections, one with more NROFF-y stuff and one with more more TROFF-y stuff. Anywho, nothing earth shattering here, but at the very least, a couple of document variants vs. what is currently on the archive. - Matt G. From ken.unix.guy at gmail.com Sun May 21 07:53:24 2023 From: ken.unix.guy at gmail.com (KenUnix) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 17:53:24 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Likely Late-73/Early-74 C Reference Manual (And NROFF Doc and Summary Changes) In-Reply-To: <9k4gakjHZhxD8X2pNY10aTuqpDltn-MK_62EoYrL-XWZVJt5fAe3YUuwt95hu45WX4rwshIGfb4Gptkk9rKBQ3NH8SO92X-dJF48zHrrimQ=@protonmail.com> References: <9k4gakjHZhxD8X2pNY10aTuqpDltn-MK_62EoYrL-XWZVJt5fAe3YUuwt95hu45WX4rwshIGfb4Gptkk9rKBQ3NH8SO92X-dJF48zHrrimQ=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: Awesome! On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:53 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Came across something interesting by chance in the Sixth Edition document > set I recently received. I took the binder to the park for a little light > reading and found myself perusing the C reference manual. As an aside, I > will always appreciate the style of the manual, and I still pick up > something new or see something differently every time I flip the pages. > The introduction includes these paragraphs: > > > Most of the software for the UNIX time-sharing system is written in C, > as is the operating system itself. C is also available on the HIS 6070 > computer at Murray Hill, using a compiler written by A. Snyder and > currently maintained by S. C. Johnson. A compiler for the IBM > System/360/370 series is under construction. > > > > This is a manual only for the C language itself as implemented on the > PDP-11. Hints are given occasionally in the text of > implementation-dependent features, and an appendix summarizes the > differences between the Honeywell and DEC implementations; it also contains > some known bugs in each. > > I didn't think too much of this initially, but then I found myself looking > through some other old documents yesterday evening and found myself reading > the memorandum version of the manual that Dennis linked to on his Bell Labs > usr page: https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cman74.pdf > > In this version, the paragraphs have been altered and merged: > > > Most of the software for the UNIX time-sharing system is written in C, > as is the operating system itself. C is also available on the HIS 6070 > computer at Murray Hill and and on the IBM System/370 at Holmdel. This > paper is a manual only for the C language itself as implemented on the > PDP-11. However, hints are given occasionally in the text of > implementation-dependent features. > > So between the two, the print document I have here indicates the compiler > for IBM mainframes is still in the works, but by the January 15, 1974 > document, it is noted as complete and in use in Holmdel. Additionally, > this print document mentions an appendix detailing DEC vs. Honeywell > differences and some other bug notes. Unfortunately this appendix doesn't > actually appear to be in the binder, so either it wasn't done yet or was > tossed by a previous owner some time ago. Luckily, this appendix, despite > the reference being dropped, *is* on the cman74 version. > > In any case, upon discovering this, I then spot checked the rest of the > contents of the two by seeing if any paragraphs had strange offsets from > each other or there were noticeable changes in the visual flow. I didn't > read each and every line, instead opting to see if paragraphs still had the > same number of lines, the same "outline" (i.e. lines seem to start, end, > and break pretty much the same), and that pages started and ended the same, > and everything pretty much matched. There may be punctuation changes or > other minor edits, but I didn't see anything indicating major changes in > the language. The only other thing noticeably different is the references > list, with Dennis's cman74 copy containing two extra references mine does > not: "A User's Guide to the C Language on the IBM 370." by T.G. Peterson > and M.E. Lesk, 1974, and "Programming in C- A Tutorial." by B.W. Kernighan, > 1974. The latter is listed as unpublished in cman74. In my copy, aside > from the two omitted references, the reference to the CACM paper does not > have a date, instead just saying "To appear in C. ACM." and "The GCOS C > Library" is listed as an unpublished memorandum with a speculative year of > 1974. > > So all in all, this appears to be a C Reference Manual most likely from > late 1973, or however unlikely, one that was very rapidly published in the > first few weeks of 1974 before the mentioned changes on January 15th of > that year. > > Are there any known copies of the manual that predate this which I can > compare back with, or in any case is this particular revision known and > captured somewhere? If not, it should be trivial to take the sources from > V6 and produce a facsimile copy until it bubbles up in my scanning list > (much ahead of it, got the ROFF manual scanned the other day, hoping to hit > TMG and m6 in the next few.) > > There is also an NROFF manual here that I see referenced in the TOC of the > V6 document set in the source, but don't actually see in files. It is > dated 9/11/74 and is only labeled "NROFF Users' Manual", no TROFF in the > title. It is also noted as the "Second Edition" in the header. This > document makes reference to the "TROFF User's Manual", dated April 1974, > also by Ossanna. Of note too is a "Quick NROFF Addendum" dated 5/19/75 > that is included at the end. > > Finally, a slightly later version of the UNIX summary appears, dated > August, 1975 instead of May, 1975, the date of the one in the V6 sources. > It has minor chnages, most noticeably that the last few pages regarding > NROFF and TROFF stuff have been split into two sections, one with more > NROFF-y stuff and one with more more TROFF-y stuff. > > Anywho, nothing earth shattering here, but at the very least, a couple of > document variants vs. what is currently on the archive. > > - Matt G. > -- End of line JOB TERMINATED Okey Dokey OK Boss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom.perrine+tuhs at gmail.com Sun May 21 09:39:16 2023 From: tom.perrine+tuhs at gmail.com (Tom Perrine) Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 16:39:16 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Documentation for Sys-V basic interpreter In-Reply-To: References: <6950b3d6-483b-cd7b-2ebf-78fa289e6271@gmail.com> <89eeadc5-271a-c984-e55e-662cfeb23f6b@gmail.com> Message-ID: KSOS and related work was sponsored by several DoD activities, at least the part that I worked on - after 1983. We've wandered a bit afar for TUHS(?), but, the PWB and other software wasn't pirated, it was supplied as "government furnished equipment" as part of each contract. PWB and other software we got via the NSA's Tycho site, etc. NRL (and then others) funded later KSOS work, including the Advanced Command and Control Testbed (ACCAT) and various multi-level secure "Guard" systems, for the Navy, Air Force, USAFE, etc. All of which ran on PDP-11s, using the KSOS kernel and userspace, almost all built by using PWB as the build platform. On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:09 PM Clem Cole wrote: > I don't think it was pirated. I'm think it was a special license Ford Aero > got due to the work with the USG. I sort of remember KSOS and if I'm > correct that was a DoD funded effort for the Orange Book. So it would make > absolute sense that Ford Aero might have used the USG connections to > convince AT&T to release it to them. As I said, Al was very skittish about > anything that might be misinterpreted by the Justice dept. But if DoD was > asking for it, Al could show the Jusitce -- "hey -- your people asked for > it -- we were not selling it." > ᐧ > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 3:03 PM Jon Forrest wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/20/2023 11:50 AM, Clem Cole wrote: >> > Taking this off list. >> > >> > I've always wondered about that. Thank you bad word choice -- but it >> > was not officially released outside the Bell System. Since Ford Aero >> > had it, it must have been a very special license. >> >> It was already there when I arrived so I don't know how it got there. >> I doubt it was pirated. >> >> > Was Ford Aero doing something on a Gvt bid when you were using it? >> >> Yes. It was creating KSOS which Tom Ferrine has also mentioned on the >> TUHS list. This was a "provably" secure version of Unix. >> >> You might want to ask John Nagle. His email is probably >> nagle at sitetruth.com, and his GitHub is https://github.com/John-Nagle. >> He was there when I arrived and he was a key developer of KSOS. >> If he doesn't know the answer then he might be able to refer you to >> someone who does. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue May 23 09:59:30 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 23:59:30 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Early UNIX Explor Support? Message-ID: Good day, something I've come across in my documentation study that I finally got around to researching a bit is a reference to the language Explor in the V2 ld(I) page: 'There are libraries for Fortran (x="f"), C (x="c"), Explor (x="e") and B (x="b").' The manual has no corresponding mention of any Explor environment, not even a section VI page. The only other UNIX Explor reference I can easily find is on the mailing list here indicating that there is a version of Explor for UNIX on a 1977 tape here (in the 1/explor+dl directory): https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Usenix_77/ug091377.tar.gz Does anyone know if there is continuity here or if the V2 reference and the code on the tape are only related in that they're both for Explor? - Matt G. From kenbob at gmail.com Tue May 23 10:07:17 2023 From: kenbob at gmail.com (Ken Thompson) Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 17:07:17 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Early UNIX Explor Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: explor is (was) a graphical language by ken knowlton. it ran offline on the mainframe and produced a mag tape to be run on a machine called tapex. the tapex machine exposed micro-film that had to be developed and printed. not the quickest turnaround. anyway, i wrote a unix version of explor that printed directly on a tek display terminal. it was never really used for anything. somewhere, i have polaroids of pictures of explor output on the tek. On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:00 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Good day, something I've come across in my documentation study that I > finally got around to researching a bit is a reference to the language > Explor in the V2 ld(I) page: > > 'There are libraries for Fortran (x="f"), C (x="c"), Explor (x="e") and B > (x="b").' > > The manual has no corresponding mention of any Explor environment, not > even a section VI page. The only other UNIX Explor reference I can easily > find is on the mailing list here indicating that there is a version of > Explor for UNIX on a 1977 tape here (in the 1/explor+dl directory): > https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Usenix_77/ug091377.tar.gz > > Does anyone know if there is continuity here or if the V2 reference and > the code on the tape are only related in that they're both for Explor? > > - Matt G. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue May 23 12:54:33 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 02:54:33 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Early UNIX Explor Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for the background Ken! I did see in the '77 tape correspondence with Ken Knowlton regarding Explor and a few other informational files sprinkled in. Glad this tape is backed up in a few places. - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, May 22nd, 2023 at 5:07 PM, Ken Thompson wrote: > explor is (was) a graphical language by ken knowlton. > it ran offline on the mainframe and produced a mag tape > to be run on a machine called tapex. the tapex machine > exposed micro-film that had to be developed and printed. > > not the quickest turnaround. > > anyway, i wrote a unix version of explor that printed directly > on a tek display terminal. it was never really used for > anything. somewhere, i have polaroids of pictures of > explor output on the tek. > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 5:00 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Good day, something I've come across in my documentation study that I finally got around to researching a bit is a reference to the language Explor in the V2 ld(I) page: >> >> 'There are libraries for Fortran (x="f"), C (x="c"), Explor (x="e") and B (x="b").' >> >> The manual has no corresponding mention of any Explor environment, not even a section VI page. The only other UNIX Explor reference I can easily find is on the mailing list here indicating that there is a version of Explor for UNIX on a 1977 tape here (in the 1/explor+dl directory): https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Usenix_77/ug091377.tar.gz >> >> Does anyone know if there is continuity here or if the V2 reference and the code on the tape are only related in that they're both for Explor? >> >> - Matt G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Mon May 29 06:16:38 2023 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 20:16:38 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] CB-UNIX 2.3 Manual Split Message-ID: Hello, I'm just emailing to notify that I've managed to split up the CB-UNIX 2.3 manual in the archive[1] into individual items. I've moved the original contents of this directory into the "raw" directory, and now the split PDFs of the manual live under "man". I intend to do the same with the source code scans, breaking them up into individual files, which will eventually go in an accompanying "sys" folder. As for my process, decided to throw together a little something to facilitate splitting up PDFs from a simple table. I've created two scripts[2], pdfslice and pdfbutcher. The former is an interface on top of Ghostscript to take a particular page-bound slice out of a PDF on stdin and drop it on stdout. The latter then reads a tab-delimited list of slices out of a table, butchering the PDFs down into their various cuts. The format is dirt simple: the source PDF name, the start page, the end page, and the destination file prefix to which .pdf is appended on output. This isn't by any means a formal or robust solution, just something that came together easy and works for my application. I'm sure this could be made much more efficient; it just operates on one slice at a time, including all the opening and closing for each slice, but gets the job done. Feel free to use it for whatever just don't complain to me when it eats your favorite file or scribbles all over your disk. Also, an example input file for the curious is included[3]. As for the CB-UNIX pages, my hunch is that whoever owned this manual had a CB-UNIX 2.1 manual originally and "upgraded" it with supplied pages for 2.3, as was conventional with documentation updates. For this reason, there are a few random blank pages and several locally printed pages strewn throughout. In any case a blank page was encountered, it was retained in the document for the manpage it followed. In other words, if there is a blank page between a.1 and b.1, it is appended to a.1. The likely reason for blank pages on the back of 2.1 pages was that new copies of the same 2.1 pages were provided with the replacements to keep the page spacing correct with respect to the pages not being replaced. That's my hunch anyway. There are also pages here and there missing a page, or more likely that were supposed to be removed in the 2.1->2.3 update and simply weren't. Plus, there are a few instances of more than one copy of a non-local version of a page present (in other words, situations where the original 2.1 page wasn't removed but a 2.3 or other newer page was also added). In all these circumstances, the 2.1 page is the one with the normal name and the 2.3 page has been affixed .1l instead of .1, despite not being in the "local pages" PDFs. I'm open to suggestions but my reasoning was that if the 2.1 was the original page for that actual binder, and wasn't replaced by 2.3 but rather that was added, then the 2.3 page for all intents and purposes is a local addition. When in doubt, [4] should be a reasonably complete list of which non-l-suffixed pages aren't from 2.1. Anything else non-local should originate from the previous manual. Also, where there were duplicates on pages that otherwise couldn't be solved this way, the older of the two pages is marked with a .o in the path before the manual section, keeping with the CB-UNIX convention of doing this for old versions of pages. As usual, please let me know if anything seems amiss. I'll admit after a few spot checks I didn't check each and every page my script popped out for accuracy, but everything I've checked had the right pages. If you do find something off and want to try and slice it right, the scripts above include manpages that should give you a good idea on how to use them if simply reading the scripts isn't clear. - Matt G. [1] - https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/USDL/CB_Unix/ [2] - https://gitlab.com/segaloco/misc/-/tree/master/scripts [3] - https://pastebin.com/9s2ene9g [4] - https://pastebin.com/jHw7JeDc P.S. Wholly unrelated but just out of curiosity, if anyone knows the 16650 UART well and has some time, can you please email me privately? It's tangential to a UNIX-y project but I'll spare the details here. From alanglasser at gmail.com Tue May 30 06:40:15 2023 From: alanglasser at gmail.com (Alan Glasser) Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 16:40:15 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Likely Late-73/Early-74 C Reference Manual (And NROFF Doc and Summary Changes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: