I've assembled some notes from old manuals and other sources
on the formats used for on-disk file systems through the
Seventh Edition:
http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~norman/old-unix/old-fs.html
Additional notes, comments on style, and whatnot are welcome.
(It may be sensible to send anything in the last two categories
directly to me, rather than to the whole list.)
> From: Jerry Peek <jpeek(a)jpeek.com>
> To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:50:21 -0700
> Subject: [TUHS] Mention TUHS in Linux Magazine (US)?
> Hi everyone. I'm a short-time UNIX user (I started in 1981 :)
> and also a columnist for Linux Magazine (in the US: not the UK
> flavour). I just came across TUHS while I was searching for a
> V7 cp(1) manpage. (I found it, BTW, via Warren Toomey's page
> http://mirror.cc.vt.edu/pub/projects/Ancient_Unix/Documentation/PUPS/manpag….)
>
> I'm writing a series of columns on "What's GNU in Old Utilities".
> It describes new features of GNU utilities like cat(1) and
> contrasts them to "how we used to do it." I'd like to mention
> TUHS in the third column, which should be out in August. It
> seems that TUHS is alive and well. If any of you have comments
> or complaints about that idea, though, would you please let me
> know before May 1 -- which is when the column is due? Thanks.
More power to you. Just keep a sharp eye out for things that
are touted as "new improved GNU features" that have been around
since the days of 6th Edition or 7th Edition Unix.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
Hi everyone. I'm a short-time UNIX user (I started in 1981 :)
and also a columnist for Linux Magazine (in the US: not the UK
flavour). I just came across TUHS while I was searching for a
V7 cp(1) manpage. (I found it, BTW, via Warren Toomey's page
http://mirror.cc.vt.edu/pub/projects/Ancient_Unix/Documentation/PUPS/manpag….)
I'm writing a series of columns on "What's GNU in Old Utilities".
It describes new features of GNU utilities like cat(1) and
contrasts them to "how we used to do it." I'd like to mention
TUHS in the third column, which should be out in August. It
seems that TUHS is alive and well. If any of you have comments
or complaints about that idea, though, would you please let me
know before May 1 -- which is when the column is due? Thanks.
Jerry
--
Jerry Peek, jpeek(a)jpeek.com, http://www.jpeek.com/
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:13:39PM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Where can we get "cat -v considered harmful" and do you want to start
> archiving such papers on the TUHS site too? There's lots by Henry Spencer
> and Geoff Collyer on C and Unix system from the 80s that would be worth
> having in an accessable place.
> Arnold
That's a good idea.
Warren
Jerry Peek wrote:
> I'm writing a series of columns on "What's GNU in Old Utilities".
> It describes new features of GNU utilities like cat(1) and
> contrasts them to "how we used to do it."
The most famous rant on this topic (actually BSD, not
GNU) was by Rob Pike, "UNIX Style: cat -v considered harmful"
I couldn't find the thing itself (it's from a Usenix conference
in 1983) but there's a .ps version of a contemporary paper
with most of the content under
http://gaul.org/files/cat_-v_considered_harmful.html
Dennis
Dear all,
I'm sitting here with a M7676 SBC11/21+ Falcon Plus card. It came with a
BA11-VA chassi and a custom A/D card (controlled over the parallel bus).
I have been scanning the Internet a number of times, but have had no luck in
finding much material related. It has the T11 (DC310) chip, a pair of DC 319
serial chips and some unknown chip called DC331 "FALCON". I've found a few
related hints about it in the Micronotes (about the 82S100 PLA chip among
other things). I've also done some reverse-engineering, so part of the
schematic is know to me. But, since I have no plans of reverse-engineering the
DC331 chip getting the hands on some hard documents would be much apprechiated.
I also have a DEQNA card that I got from a friend. I am missing out on the AUI
port, so any information (schematic would be great) beyond the user guide is
appreachiated.
Cheers,
Magnus
Hi,
I'm playing with simh and the 6th ed software pack (uv6swre
http://simh.trailing-edge.com/software.html).
It turns out that it didn't have /usr/sys, so I grabbed
sources from http://miffy.tom-yam.or.jp/2238/rl/ (they had
an RL image and a kernel patched with rl support).
Also strangely the kernel doesnt print the normal (c) when
booting. Is the unix kernel that comes with the software patch
hacked up?
Anyway, I'm now trying to build a kernel and having no success.
In /usr/sys running "sh run" works properly and it makes a
bunch of /*unix files. When I try to boot them though it
just hangs. I get no output. I've tried building rkunix with
and without the m45.s bits commented out.
Has anyone had luck with building the kernel? Any pointers?
Tim Newsham
http://www.lava.net/~newsham/
(Not receiving a reply back then, I'm going to ask again. My apologies for
any inconvenience.) wotthehell, I'm going to ask anyway.
Soemtime during the late 1980s, Clarkson U., came out with a GPLed MS-DOS word
processor package called Galahad, released under the Galahad Public License,
which is a rebadged GNU Emacs Public License. I've sent them the CS
Professor an email requesting the source.
I was wondering if anyone on this list might have the sources, because as yet
I've had no reply.
Thanks
Wesley Parish
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
Hi all,
we recently received this fantastic machine for our
computer museum.
We need some help because we can't find any documentation
about the "console cable", to connect a tty terminal
to it, and make it boot (or test the cpu, or whatever)
we think we have only a part of the manuals, so we can't
make progress booting it and we don't want to make
casual testing ...
can someone help?
some documentation images can be found here:
http://dyne.org/~asbesto/missionecompiuta1/http://dyne.org/~asbesto/missionecompiuta2/http://dyne.org/~asbesto/missionecompiuta3/
sorry for some crazy and funny images - we are really
crazy people :D
--
[ asbesto : IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry ]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbestohttp://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ http://www.emergelab.org :: NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LE ACCENTATE ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC, SPAM ]
Hi i joined this list as I found some intersting stuff in its archives
and I am working on my Phd in law concerning the logic and rhetoric of
FOSS and i thought maybe the list would be a good source of
knowledgable information.
I am currently proofing a draft thesis chapter I have put together on
the early history of Unix and have a question or two arising from text
of the early licences.
The 1974 licence to the Catholic University in Holland (I guess this
was to Andy Tanenbaum) has a confidentiality clause in it. I presume
this was a standard clause.
That is interesting from lots of perspectives - the myth of a unix
commons, which we both know is a myth in the GNUish sense although
people like Lessig still say it in their tomes; and from the
perspective that copyright or patents where not used to cover the code
but confidential inofrmation - this resonates with my work with
Aboriginal artists in Australia and their communal system of
knowledge production and with the notion of trust and equity which I
am building towards in this research.
But right now what interests me is a bit more in the context of
contemporary "licence fetishism" or the way licences and IP were
viewed back then. I am sort of trying to deal with the way that many
commentators (like Lessig, Wayner and even Raymond) credit changes in
unix and linux to legal command. I just don't buy that but position
them more in the context of the globalisation of production.
Anyway, the question - the licences prohibited dissemination of Unix
to third parties - eg in the case of universities the system could
only be given/shown to students and employees.
How then was the question of bugs, fixes and updates dealt with? Did
everything come back to Bell and then get dealt with from there. IE
the question of who controllled "R&D"? Did universities talk directly
to each other? And if so when did this become a problem for AT&T? If
at all? If they did was there any conception that they were breaking
the licence conditions?
I am also intrigued about Raymond's comment that Ken quietly shipped
out copies of the program with a note "love Ken". Is this based in
fact? was it a covert operation? And is it tied into the matter of
turning a blind eye to licence conditions eg the unis talking to each
other directly?
Is that clear? If the uni's were talking to each other and Ken was
sending out gift wrapped parcels ......... maybe there was a commons
but not one annointed by law.....
Thanks
Martin
