I've assembled some notes from old manuals and other sources
on the formats used for on-disk file systems through the
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.)
----- Forwarded message from meljmel-unix(a)yahoo.com -----
Thanks for your help. To my amazement in one day I received
8 requests for the documents you posted on the TUHS mailing
list for me. If you think it's appropriate you can post that
everything has been claimed. I will be mailing the Unix TMs
and other papers to Robert Swierczek <rmswierczek(a)gmail.com>
who said he will scan any one-of-a-kind items and make them
available to you and TUHS. The manuals/books will be going
to someone else who very much wanted them.
----- End forwarded message -----
[Cross-posted from the 3B2 mailing list]
I'm in search of source code for AT&T's System V Release 3.2.1, 3.2.2,
and/or 3.2.3 for the 3B2. Does this exist? Has anyone ever seen it?
Note that I'm not looking for the System V Release 3.2 Source Code
Provision for the 3B2 /310 and /400 -- I already have that. It was
absolutely invaluable when I was writing my 3B2/400 emulator.
The reason I'm so keen on getting access is that I have ROM images from
a 3B2/1000, and I'd like to add support for it to my 3B2 emulator. The
system board memory map seems a bit different than the /300, /310, and
/400. These max out at SVR 3.2.
I can't imagine trying to add 3B2/1000 support without the 3.2.x source
I imagine there's some tape image somewhere that's a delta of files that
take you from 3.2 to 3.2.1, 3.2.2 or 3.2.3?
Poulsbo, WA, USA
On 1/16/19, Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling(a)kev009.com> wrote:
> I’ve heard and personally seen a lot of technical arrogance and
> incompetence out of the Masshole area. Was DEC inflicted? In
> “Showstopper” Cutler fled to the west coast to get away from this kind of
Having worked at DEC from February 1980 until after the Compaq
takeover, I would say that DEC may have exhibited technical arrogance
from time to time, but certainly never technical incompetence. DEC's
downfall was a total lack of skill at marketing. Ken Olsen believed
firmly in a "build it and they will come" philosophy. Contrast this
with AT&T's brilliant "Unix - consider it a standard" ad campaign.
DEC also suffered from organizational paralysis. KO believed in
decisions by consensus. This is fine if you can reach a consensus,
but if you can't it leads to perpetually revisiting decisions and to
obstructionist behavior. There was a saying in DEC engineering that
any decision worth making was worth making 10 times. As opposed to
the "lead, follow, or get out of the way" philosophy at Sun. Or
Intel's concept of disagree and commit. DEC did move towards a
"designated responsible individual" approach where a single person got
to make the ultimate decision, but the old consensus approach never
Dave Cutler was the epitome of arrogance. On the technical side, he
got away with it because his way (which he considered to be the only
way) was usually at least good enough for Version 1, if not the best
design. Cutler excelled in getting V1 of something out the door. He
never stayed around for V2 of anything. He had a tendency to leave
messes behind him. A Cutler product reminded me of the intro to "The
Peabodys" segment of Rocky & Bullwinkle. A big elaborate procession,
followed by someone cleaning up the mess with a broom.
Cutler believed in a "my way or the highway" approach to software
design. His move to the west coast was to place himself far enough
away that those who wanted to revisit all his decisions would have a
tough time doing so.
On the personal side, he went out of his way to be nasty to people, as
pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Although he was admired
technically, nobody liked him.
I had a bad commit message in the qed-archive I mentioned here a few weeks
ago. I fixed it with a 'git push --force' (even though that's not
recommended) since I expect it to be a read-only archive going forward,
and I wanted it to be right.
In short, if you cloned it, please remove your copy and reclone.
Time for a new thread :-)
As today is Knuth's birthday (posted over in COFF), I was wondering (in
the cesspool that is my mind) how much of Unix would have been influenced
by Knuth? We have qsort() of course (which Hoare actually wrote, based on
one of Knuth's algorithms), but I'm guessing that Ken and Dennis would
have been familiar with his work?
Or am I spreading fake news again? :-) Look, I love being corrected if I
make a mistake on a technical mailing list, so fire at will if need be...
I've been on a Data General Aviion restoration binge lately and
re-familiarizing myself with DG/UX. In my case 5.4R3.1 running on a
MC88100 based AV/300 and MC88110 dual core AV/5500. The more I
experience, the more I am impressed. There are a few things about the
system that seem impressive.
- Despite coming from a System V core, there is a lot of BSD influx -
especially on the networking side. This is a personal taste issue as
other ports have tried to mix the best of both worlds. But after a
prior month-long Sun/Solaris restoration binge of similar era hardware
(Super/Hyper/Ultra SPARC) and software (SunOS 4 through Solaris 9),
DG/UX is a welcome and refreshing change! Especially out of the box.
- It has a system of file security that seems unique for that era - at
least in my experience - of explicit and implicit directory tags with
inheritance. There is even a high security extended version of the OS.
- It has a built-in logical volume manager supporting multiple virtual
to physical disk mappings, striping, mirroring, and even archiving -
something several entire sub-industries were created for in other ports.
I am guessing this contributed to EMC's purchase of Data General for
the Clariion disk storage product lines.
- It leveraged open-source tools early. The default m88k compiler
installed with the system is GNU C 2.xx.
- It was among the earliest of operating systems to support NUMA aware
affinity on MP versions of the MC88110. (IRIX, Solaris, BSD, Linux, and
Windows support all came much later).
- Many others.
It does have it's quirks. However I get the overall impression the
folks working at DG were on their game and were a leader in the industry
in many areas. It is unfortunate a) the fate of the Motorola 88K was
tied to Data General's place in the UNIX world, and b) by the time they
migrated to IA86, enterprise business was more interested in Microsoft
NT & SQL server or Linux than an expensive vendor's UNIX port.
That being said, I don't see DG/UX mentioned much in UNIX history. In
fact, I am researching an exhibit I'm putting together for the Vintage
Computer Festival Southeast 7.0, and DG/UX isn't mentioned on any of the
'UNIX Family Tree' diagrams I can find so far. It doesn't even make
Wikipedia's 'UNIX Variants' page. It's own Wikipedia page is also
rather sparse. Like John Snow in season 1, there is a junk of missing
and plot impacting history here - centered around the people involved.
To a lesser degree, IRIX is also a red-headed step-child. It's omitted
from half the lists I can find. It just seems the importance, even if
it's an importance by being the 'first' rather than # of users, of these
ports are pretty significant.
Just curious of others' thoughts. And I wondering if anyone has
first-hand knowledge of Data General's efforts or knows of others that
can illuminate the shadows of what I'm discovering is a pretty exciting
corner of the UNIX world.