V10/vol2/ADM/mbox
From sfgum!condry Tue May 23 12:06 EDT 1989
Would you mail a draft copy for the 10th edition
to me:
Michael COndry
SF G-226
attunix!condry
Thanks
From andrew
after a chat with doug, i propose the following
to deal with how to deal with the past publication of
papers in vol2; both within the paper and within references.
within the paper:
if there has been substantial work by a new author,
the paper gets that person as a new author.
there will be a footnote on the first page referring
to the last published version of the paper AND a comment
on who and how much revision was done. For example,
my editing of the lex paper would be 'reformatted by ANdrew Hume'
whereas the mk paper was significantly tweaked and thus
'revised' and if more work was done, 'substantially revised'.
references:
references to papers within vol2 have the vol2 paper as the primary
reference and an 'also in' pointer to the last published version.
let me know if you are happy or not with this.
From utzoo!utgpu!godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu!drb Thu Jul 20 23:50:03 1989
Received: from godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu by gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id 5285; Thu, 20 Jul 89 23:49:49 EDT
Received: by godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu id 2409; Thu, 20 Jul 89 23:49:14 EDT
From: "David R. Blythe" <drb@eecg.toronto.edu>
To: research!andrew@utzoo
Subject: reviewers
Message-Id: <89Jul20.234914edt.2409@godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 23:48:59 EDT
I would be happy to review it if you are allowing 2-3 weeks
for the review period.
David Blythe
From yquem!ber Thu Jul 20 18:41 EDT 1989
To: research!andrew
I'm game. When can you get it to me. Before I leave for
a week 8/6 would be good, then I could read it while on vacation.
ber
From arpa!geoff Thu Jul 20 18:28:02 EDT 1989
From: geoff@utstat.toronto.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 18:28:02 EDT
To: andrew@research.att.com
I'll read papers for the new edition. I have already
read the upas paper. How soon do you need comments?
From pipe!andrew Fri Jul 21 08:37:45 EDT 1989
proposed action for vol 2:
by approx aug 1, volume 2 will be more or less complete.
the only papers likely to be missing that i care about are the
UCDS paper and norman's config paper. accordingly, i will make
a couple of review copies to go to some reviewers (say like
redman) and get back feedback on selection/presentation/content.
by sept 1, i hope to have the above two missing papers
and have folded back in feedback from the aug 1 review. This
set i will send out for review by more people.
around oct 1, finish reviewing, do any editing and
last minute updates and be ready for publishing.
comments?
From honey Fri Jul 21 10:58:51 1989
From: Peter Honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
To: andrew@research.att.com
Date: 21 Jul 1989 10:57 EDT
i volunteer my services as well as those of my droids.
From acsnet!oz!su!cs!sarad!bob Fri Jul 21 05:44:17 1989
To: andrew@research.btl.usa
In-reply-to: Your message of 21 Jul 1989 17:03 (Friday).
Piers and I would be happy to review the new manual. Piers will be
dropping in to you next week so you can tell him he was volunteered!
From utzoo!henry Fri Jul 21 15:15:57 1989
To: research!andrew
Subject: manual
> we are producing a new edition of the manual,
> both volumes 1 and 2. we are looking for a couple of
> volunteers outside the center to review both volumes.
Definitely interested enough to review it, although if this is scheduled
to happen next week I can't make it :-) -- I'll be away until Aug 2.
Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From arpa!csri.toronto.edu!darwin Fri Jul 28 10:34:53 EDT 1989
Received: from darwin by lowther.csri.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA02305; Fri, 28 Jul 89 10:34:53 EDT
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 10:34:53 EDT
From: "Ian F. Darwin" <darwin@csri.toronto.edu>
Message-Id: <8907281434.AA02305@lowther.csri.toronto.edu>
To: andrew@research.att.com
Subject: new manual
Cc: darwin@lowther.csri.toronto.edu
I'd be willing to read volume 1 and some parts of vol2, tho I can't
promise to get all the way thru 2 (unless you are very patient).
Are you shipping the drafts in troff form or on paper?
Thanks
Ian Darwin
darwin@csri.toronto.edu (among other places)
From arpa!mtxinu.COM!ed Wed Aug 2 09:53:28 0700 1989
Received: by garcia.mtxinu.COM (5.61/1.29-emg890307)
id AA00521; Wed, 2 Aug 89 09:53:28 -0700
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 89 09:53:28 -0700
From: ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould)
Message-Id: <8908021653.AA00521@garcia.mtxinu.COM>
To: andrew@research.att.com
Subject: 10th Edition
Send it to me:
Ed Gould
mt Xinu
2560 Ninth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
What's in the various volumes? What kind of review do you want?
Ed
From utzoo!henry Tue Aug 29 17:59:14 1989
To: research!andrew
Subject: V10 manual
Cc: utstat!geoff
Having read most of the manual earlier in the month, I find I'm now pushed
for time when it comes to making a second pass for critical comments, so
this is going to be a bit sparser than I like...
Something I've kept forgetting to grump about is that page 23 of the Sam
paper and page 4 of the picture-format paper were blank in the copy I
got. (The latter I don't mind; the former was right in the middle of
the most interesting part! :-))
Is the Spin stuff really of sufficiently wide applicability to be in the
manual? Maybe I'm just not into protocol design the way your crew is...
Or was it included at least partly for the Promela manual? If so, the
blurb in the table of contents should mention that.
Dennis's paper on streams is certainly worth including, but it would sure
be nice if there were a companion paper with up-to-date details on the
programming nitty-gritty of writing a stream module. Even the V8 kernel
had a lot of fine points in the source that weren't written up anywhere,
and I imagine it's gotten worse.
I'm surprised to find a writeup on the Blit communications protocols but
none on writing Blit programs. Surely the latter are far more numerous,
and far more likely subjects for new programmers' creativity, than from-
scratch reimplementations of the former? And from what I know of it,
the in-Blit environment is different enough to need documenting.
Nobody's using "bc" any more?
The Monk paper is good on "how to type documents", but I miss seeing a
reference manual and/or innards manual for Monk.
From arpa!geoff Fri Sep 1 02:53:19 EDT 1989
From: geoff@utstat.toronto.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 02:53:19 EDT
To: research!andrew
Cc: utzoo!henry
Here are my comments on the draft V10 manual. I'm sorry that they are
arriving at the last moment; Henry only gave me the manual Tuesday
evening. These comments are a mix of stylistic, spelling and content
remarks.
First a few general comments. I would like to see
previously-unpublished papers and papers that will never be published
in the open literature included in volume 2. Your attempt to use a
two-column format has largely succeeded, but an uncomfortable number of
displays crowd the second column, and the vertical space between
paragraphs and displays is often jarringly large in the first column.
I have noted below pages with large vertical spaces. In a few places,
noted below, I noticed an assumption that laser printers all understand
PostScript; I was surprised by the unusually low level of discussion
and wonder whether this assumption is rooted in local circumstances,
wishful thinking or PostScript enthusiasm.
Table of Contents. It misspells obsolete as `obselete'. I'll second
Henry's comment on the lack of a bc manual, though perhaps you expect
people to see the V7 volume 2 for that. If so, why not omit the dc
manual too? Reference 28 looks incomplete. The tours of pdp-11 cc and
pcc have vanished; how about restoring the tour of pcc and adding tours
of cfront, cyntax and cemantics? If the latter three tours exist, I
don't believe they have been published, which makes them all the more
valuable. The tour of the i/o system by dmr vanished; is there a
current replacement? It too has not been published in the open
literature. I miss the old "UNIX Summary", brought up to date. I see
that UNIX Programming is gone. I know that it is reprinted wholesale
in The UNIX Programming Environment, but I think people are more likely
to read volume 2 than any book on UNIX and there is invaluable advice
in there, such as how to catch signals correctly, that far too many
people get wrong, out of ignorance. I see nothing on the V9 shell nor
m4. m4 is arguably covered by m4(1) but your shell is different enough
that I wonder if sh(1) really covers it. Should there be something on
Datakit? You should probably cite the "New S" book, not the "old S"
book.
-ms. The abstract says "the the UNIX\(rg" Are the old macros, such as
.TL, .AB, .AE and .AU, still recognised? There is a disagreement about
spelling: "in Palatino you would say
.FP palitano". The detailed discussion of lp and PostScript is jarring
and seems inappropriate to me.
eqn. Isn't saying "AT&T death-star \(bs" considered insubordination?
tbl. The table in section 7 is incomplete; at least u/U and z/Z are
missing.
dag. That's an interesting UNIX family tree(!) but it lacks "10th
edition". Is figure 4 a joke about "subrecursive hierarchies of
functions" theory?
prefer. Throughout, inter-paragraph distance is large and jarring.
cip. My cip does allow different sizes and fonts of text. The paper
refers to the 68000 in the blit.
ped. The first column of p. 4 is really spacey.
troff. It's up to date, and looks better in general (one could always
see what had been hard to typeset in the old one) but non-tabular
request descriptions aren't quite as pleasant as the old tabular ones.
In section 20, the .mc description is indented too much. p. 34 col. 1
is spacey!
troff tutorial. p. 2 col 1. is spacey. On p. 3 change "many laser
writers" to "many laser printers"? p. 7 sees two first column examples
run into the second column, luckily only into whitespace. p. 14 is
really badly spacey; can't this be fixed? In appendix A, the eqn paper
and the troff tutorial think death-star is spelled \(L1, but troff
thinks it's spelled \(bs. Who's right? Does appendix A belong in this
document at all, especially since it disagrees with p.36 of the troff
manual? In appendix B, "Laserwiter" is missing an "r".
monk. On p. 3, the letter at the bottom of the second column runs on
to the next page. In section 4.11, equation (1a) on p. 9 is utterly
empty and on p.10, eqn didn't process the in-line equation at the end
of the section. Shouldn't 4.13 be set in constant-width? On p.11,
section 4.14 figure 3 crashes into section 4.15! Also fig. 3 hasn't
been through pic and in section 4.14, figure 4 hasn't been through pic
nor eqn.
mk. p. 6 column 1 is spacey again. Ozan mentioned that you are about
to change the world; true? before or after the V10 manual? Change
"aboyt" to "about".
snocone. p. 12 is very spacey. Are people still using Snobol?
f77. p.1 is very spacey. Is f89/f9? coming? Why is there no ratfor
paper? No one writes bare Fortran. Again, you should probably include
or omit both papers.
pi case study. Both pi papers are great. In section 3, \\n appears
twice in the sample program; change to \n.
dc. p.1 column 1 is very spacey. You probably should include or omit
both dc and bc papers. Why is pic referrence 2? Does pic use dc now?
yacc. The characters are fuzzy and the whole appearance is unique; is
this tex output?
lex. Pages 7, 10 and 12 have spacey first columns.
sam. A great paper. p.22 column 1 is spacey.
spin. The mix of 2 column text and wide examples is disruptive and
confusing.
picture format. In p.3 section 3, troff has rendered the "fi" ligature
in "picfile.h" (which is CW) as a Roman ligature!
setting up. On p.2 change `# umask 2"' to `# umask 2'.
blit protocols. p.1 column 1 is spacey. It would be nice to have 5620
protocols documented too.
v9 netb. Change "ontaining" to "containing". Pages 8-10 first columns
are all very spacey!
v9 ipc. On p. 6, change "wait a connection" to "wait for a connection".
unix security. Change "anuary 16" to "January 16".
upas. I have already commented to ches.
uucp by honey, dan and ber. On p.7, example "READ=/usr/ber/..." runs
off the page. On p.8, both LOGNAME examples crash into the 2nd column;
the 2nd one is missing a "\" at the end of the first line. On p.12,
the second example plows into the second column. The first 3
appendices have headings on the pages preceding the starts of their
contents (i.e. move each heading to the next page). Appendix III has
``'' which should be "".
backups. Change UIMPS to UMIPS. p.8 is a mess of overprinting.
From arpa!mtxinu.COM!ed Mon Sep 18 11:07:59 0700 1989
Received: by garcia.mtxinu.COM (5.61/1.29-emg890307)
id AA01019; Mon, 18 Sep 89 11:07:59 -0700
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 11:07:59 -0700
From: ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould)
Message-Id: <8909181807.AA01019@garcia.mtxinu.COM>
To: andrew@research.att.com
Subject: Tenth Edition, Volume 2
Well, I finally have something for you. I hope it's not too late
to use. (I'll be sending the marked-up copy to you via Fed Ex
today as well.)
These are general comments about style. I agree that a two-column
format is generally easier to read, but for many of the papers
the price seems to be too high. In particular, many of the examples
(unfilled text) extend beyone the edge of the column; in some
cases (the Honey-DAN-BER UUCP paper comes to mind) the example
disappears off the right edge of the page or obliterates text in
the right-hand column. Vertical justification of the columns often
produces unpleasing amounts of space between paragraphs. It's
particularly bad in Koenig's "Snocone" paper. I seem to remember
seeing an orphaned section title, too. (That struck me as a bug
in the vertical-spacing stuff, not as a fundamental problem.)
A few of the titles seemed uncharacteristically uninformative.
Titles of the form "FooBar, a Language for Fools -- User's Manual"
are better than "FooBar Manual". The Spin and Pico papers
were the ones that particularly struck me.
Font usage is not uniform. For example, the "sam" paper uses
the CW font for the name of the program - even in the title -
where others use Italic. I think I saw one paper that used CW
for section titles (but I didn't write down which one, and I dont see it
now in a quick look); the Sethi YACC paper is typographically unique
(actually, I like much of it; I'm not, however, fond of mixing
sans-serif titles with serifed text).
Odds and ends are marked in red on the hard copy. I tried to make
them obvious enough to find by just glancing at the marked page,
but I didn't do anything to flag the marked pages.
Let me know *today* if the following is not the correct address
to which to send the hard copy:
Andrew Hume
Bell Laboratories
Room 2C-471
600 Mountain Ave.
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Ed
From arpa!mtxinu.COM!ed Thu Sep 21 11:24:16 0700 1989
Received: by garcia.mtxinu.COM (5.61/1.29-emg890307)
id AA00878; Thu, 21 Sep 89 11:24:16 -0700
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 11:24:16 -0700
From: ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould)
Message-Id: <8909211824.AA00878@garcia.mtxinu.COM>
To: andrew@research.att.com
I was the only reviewer here, but I'd love to get one for myself
as well as one for the company.
From norman Sat Sep 23 12:36:00 EDT 1989
Hayes,Donald L bl 614860 4289 CB 1L334 45256 cbusa!dlh
From arpa!geoff Fri Sep 1 02:53:19 EDT 1989
From: geoff@utstat.toronto.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 02:53:19 EDT
To: research!andrew
Cc: utzoo!henry
Here are my comments on the draft V10 manual. I'm sorry that they are
arriving at the last moment; Henry only gave me the manual Tuesday
evening. These comments are a mix of stylistic, spelling and content
remarks.
First a few general comments. I would like to see
previously-unpublished papers and papers that will never be published
in the open literature included in volume 2. Your attempt to use a
two-column format has largely succeeded, but an uncomfortable number of
displays crowd the second column, and the vertical space between
paragraphs and displays is often jarringly large in the first column.
I have noted below pages with large vertical spaces. In a few places,
noted below, I noticed an assumption that laser printers all understand
PostScript; I was surprised by the unusually low level of discussion
and wonder whether this assumption is rooted in local circumstances,
wishful thinking or PostScript enthusiasm.
Table of Contents. It misspells obsolete as `obselete'. I'll second
Henry's comment on the lack of a bc manual, though perhaps you expect
people to see the V7 volume 2 for that. If so, why not omit the dc
manual too? Reference 28 looks incomplete. The tours of pdp-11 cc and
pcc have vanished; how about restoring the tour of pcc and adding tours
of cfront, cyntax and cemantics? If the latter three tours exist, I
don't believe they have been published, which makes them all the more
valuable. The tour of the i/o system by dmr vanished; is there a
current replacement? It too has not been published in the open
literature. I miss the old "UNIX Summary", brought up to date. I see
that UNIX Programming is gone. I know that it is reprinted wholesale
in The UNIX Programming Environment, but I think people are more likely
to read volume 2 than any book on UNIX and there is invaluable advice
in there, such as how to catch signals correctly, that far too many
people get wrong, out of ignorance. I see nothing on the V9 shell nor
m4. m4 is arguably covered by m4(1) but your shell is different enough
that I wonder if sh(1) really covers it. Should there be something on
Datakit? You should probably cite the "New S" book, not the "old S"
book.
-ms. The abstract says "the the UNIX\(rg" Are the old macros, such as
.TL, .AB, .AE and .AU, still recognised? There is a disagreement about
spelling: "in Palatino you would say
.FP palitano". The detailed discussion of lp and PostScript is jarring
and seems inappropriate to me.
eqn. Isn't saying "AT&T death-star \(bs" considered insubordination?
tbl. The table in section 7 is incomplete; at least u/U and z/Z are
missing.
dag. That's an interesting UNIX family tree(!) but it lacks "10th
edition". Is figure 4 a joke about "subrecursive hierarchies of
functions" theory?
prefer. Throughout, inter-paragraph distance is large and jarring.
cip. My cip does allow different sizes and fonts of text. The paper
refers to the 68000 in the blit.
ped. The first column of p. 4 is really spacey.
troff. It's up to date, and looks better in general (one could always
see what had been hard to typeset in the old one) but non-tabular
request descriptions aren't quite as pleasant as the old tabular ones.
In section 20, the .mc description is indented too much. p. 34 col. 1
is spacey!
troff tutorial. p. 2 col 1. is spacey. On p. 3 change "many laser
writers" to "many laser printers"? p. 7 sees two first column examples
run into the second column, luckily only into whitespace. p. 14 is
really badly spacey; can't this be fixed? In appendix A, the eqn paper
and the troff tutorial think death-star is spelled \(L1, but troff
thinks it's spelled \(bs. Who's right? Does appendix A belong in this
document at all, especially since it disagrees with p.36 of the troff
manual? In appendix B, "Laserwiter" is missing an "r".
monk. On p. 3, the letter at the bottom of the second column runs on
to the next page. In section 4.11, equation (1a) on p. 9 is utterly
empty and on p.10, eqn didn't process the in-line equation at the end
of the section. Shouldn't 4.13 be set in constant-width? On p.11,
section 4.14 figure 3 crashes into section 4.15! Also fig. 3 hasn't
been through pic and in section 4.14, figure 4 hasn't been through pic
nor eqn.
mk. p. 6 column 1 is spacey again. Ozan mentioned that you are about
to change the world; true? before or after the V10 manual? Change
"aboyt" to "about".
snocone. p. 12 is very spacey. Are people still using Snobol?
f77. p.1 is very spacey. Is f89/f9? coming? Why is there no ratfor
paper? No one writes bare Fortran. Again, you should probably include
or omit both papers.
pi case study. Both pi papers are great. In section 3, \\n appears
twice in the sample program; change to \n.
dc. p.1 column 1 is very spacey. You probably should include or omit
both dc and bc papers. Why is pic referrence 2? Does pic use dc now?
yacc. The characters are fuzzy and the whole appearance is unique; is
this tex output?
lex. Pages 7, 10 and 12 have spacey first columns.
sam. A great paper. p.22 column 1 is spacey.
spin. The mix of 2 column text and wide examples is disruptive and
confusing.
picture format. In p.3 section 3, troff has rendered the "fi" ligature
in "picfile.h" (which is CW) as a Roman ligature!
setting up. On p.2 change `# umask 2"' to `# umask 2'.
blit protocols. p.1 column 1 is spacey. It would be nice to have 5620
protocols documented too.
v9 netb. Change "ontaining" to "containing". Pages 8-10 first columns
are all very spacey!
v9 ipc. On p. 6, change "wait a connection" to "wait for a connection".
unix security. Change "anuary 16" to "January 16".
upas. I have already commented to ches.
uucp by honey, dan and ber. On p.7, example "READ=/usr/ber/..." runs
off the page. On p.8, both LOGNAME examples crash into the 2nd column;
the 2nd one is missing a "\" at the end of the first line. On p.12,
the second example plows into the second column. The first 3
appendices have headings on the pages preceding the starts of their
contents (i.e. move each heading to the next page). Appendix III has
``'' which should be "".
backups. Change UIMPS to UMIPS. p.8 is a mess of overprinting.