> From: Lars Brinkhoff
> Emacs is very much divorced from the Unix philosopy. However, it's
> perfectly in synch with how things are done in ITS.
Hmm. It is complicated, but... the vast majority of my keystrokes are typed
into Epsilon (a wonderful, small, fast EMACS-type editor for Windows, etc
which one can customize in C) - especially since I started, very early on (V6)
to run my shell in an EMACS window, so I could edit commands, and thus I was
pretty much always typing to EMACS. So, it makes sense to me to have it be
powerful - albeit potentially a bit complex.
I say 'potentially' because one could after all restrict oneself to the 4
basic motion commands, and 'delete character'; you don't have to learn what
> Stallman .. developing GNU Emacs (from Gosling's version)
Err, I'm not sure how much influence Gosling's was. He had, after all, done
the original EMACS on ITS; I got the impression he just set off on his own
path to do GNU Emacs. (Why else would it be implemented in LISP? :-).
Recommend a few c language to write on the computer that do not have a network, best can compile to run with GCC. This will kill my time. I like to play with greedy snake written in c language, which is really interesting. Thank you very much!
Nov 17, 2018
> From: Clem Cole
> Actually I blame the VAX and larger address spaces for much of that and
> no enough real teaching of what I refer to as 'good taste.' When you
> had to think about keeping it small and decomposable, you did. ...
> Truth is, it is a tough call, learning when 'good enough' is all you
> need. ... The argument of course is - "well look how well it works and I
> can do this X" -- sorry not good enough.
Exactly; the bloat in the later Unix versions killed what I feel was the
_single best thing_ about early Unix - which was its awesome, un-matched
_That_ is what made me such a huge fan of Unix, even though as an operating
system person, I was, and remain, a big fan of Multics (maybe the only person
in the world who really likes both :-), which I still think was a better
long-term path for OSes (long discussion of why elided to keep this short).
I mean, as an operating system, I don't find Unix that memorable; it's (until
recently) a monolithic kernel, with all that entails. Doing networking work on
it was a total PITA! When I looked across as what Dave Clark was able to do on
Multics, with its single-level memory, and layered OS, doing TCP/IP, I was
sky-blue pink with envy.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Warren Toomey wrote:
>> Hell, I wish I still had that "CSU Tape"; it was Edition 6 with as much
>> of Edition 7 (and AUSAM) that I could shoe-horn in, such as XON/XOFF
>> for the TTY driver. I was known as "Mr Unix 6-1/2" at the time...
> Definitely look at the UNSW tapes I have:
> and https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/UNSW/
> in case any of these are what you are looking for.
I think I did before, but I confess I didn't spend much time on it. My
pride and joy was certainly the rewritten ei.c driver (implementing the
200-UT batch protocol), and the clever workaround to an egregious KRONOS
bug where it would get stuck in a POLL/REJECT loop (I merely sent a dummy
command viz "Q,I" -- discarding the response -- because KRONOS was
expecting a command instead of the correct REJECT being nothing to send
from the batch emulator).
At the time, Unix got blamed because the smaller non-Unix /40s (running a
standalone program) worked fine for some reason; my guess is that it
implemented the broken protocol somehow.
I rewrote cat to use just read and write, as
nature intended. I don't recall if my version is in any of v8 v9 v10 ...
It is. It was /bin/cat when I arrived at Murray Hill in 1984.
I remember being delighted with the elegant way to get rid of
a flag I had never really liked either.
I never knew Dennis had dragged his heels at it. It was (to me)
so obviously the right answer that I never asked!
really appreciate videos of talks like this as someone who wasn't lucky
enough to be around to experience this in person but benefits from the
things your generation built for us: