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.)
There's been a lot of discussion about early Unix on Intel, National
Semi, Motorola, and Sparc processors. I don't recall if Unix ran on
the Z8000, and if not, why not.
As I remember the Z8000 was going to be the great white hope that
would continue Zilog's success with the Z80 into modern times.
But, it obviously didn't happen.
>What's funny is that in doing the work to get 'se' running on Georgia
>Tech's Vax, I had to learn vi. By the time I was done, vi had become
>my main editor and had burned itself into my finger's ROMs.
I do ed/se occasionally for simple tasks, vim frequently , because it loads fast, and emacs for all bigger projects, beside liteide for golang.
On 1/17/20, Brantley Coile <brantley(a)coraid.com> wrote:
> what he said.
>> On Jan 17, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Rob Pike <robpike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Plan 9 is not a "single-system-image cluster".
I guess SSI isn't the right term for Plan 9 clustering since not
everything is shared, although I would still say it has some aspects
of SSI. I was talking about systems that try to make a cluster look
like a single machine in some way even if they don't share everything
(I'm not sure if there's a better term for such systems besides the
rather vague "distributed" which could mean anything from full SSI to
systems that allow transparent access to services/devices on other
machines without trying to make a cluster look like a single system).
Talking of editors...
Once I learned Wordstar in old CP/M (before that it was mostly line
editing), and then soon, other editors that supported the Wordstar key
combinations, I got hooked on those. Joe is, to date, one of my
On ancient UNIX, my editor of choice was 's' from Software Tools, its
main advantage being that it didn't require curses. Then we got VMS and
'eve' and that took over for a while (though I never took advantage of
all its power), mostly until I ported 's' and 'joe'.
Then came X, and when nedit was released, I was hooked on it. It has
been for decades almost the only one that could do block selection 'a
la' RAND editor.
I have been struggling to continue using it despite it lack of support
for UTF, trying various projects spun off nedit, until I recently
discovered xnedit, which is an update available on GitHub and is again
all I need, with support for UTF8, some minor UI improvements and
support for modern fonts.
Now, I still use 's' for ancient Unix emulators, 'joe' for the
command line and 'xnedit' for X.
Scientific Computing Service
Solving all your computer needs for Scientific
I’ve seen the archives of Atari System V Release 4 for the TT030, and the scanned user and developer manuals. Has anything else been preserved, e.g. the installation tapes and any other manuals?
Is there even a full accounting of what was in the box and what shipped afterwards (patches etc.)?
Is this issue online? I may have a copy buried in my boxes of books, and am
on the road. I'd like to read the article on portability and/or the one on
performance. One of those has a table of internal vs external release names
/ dates. archive.org and elsewhere only has through 83. I discovered I
might have it this morning 20 minutes before I had to leave for the airport
for another talk. :(
Thanks for any help you can provide....
> From: Warner Losh
> this predates everything except Whirlwind which I can't find a paper for.
Given the 'Whirlwind is a ringer' comment, I asssume this:
is what they mean.
Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with no
stack, subroutines are 'interesting'.
> From: Clem Cole
> So WD designs and builds a few LSI-11 as a sales demo of what you could
> he put it on the QBUS which DEC could not lock up because they did not
> create it as WD had.
Wow! WD created the QBUS? Fascinating. I wonder if DEC made any changes to the
QBUS between the original demo WD boards and the first DEC ones? Are there any
documents about the WD original still extant, do you know?
(FWIW, it seems that whoever did the QBUS interrupt cycle had heard about the
metastability issues when using a flop to do the grant-passing arbitrations;
see here for more:
DEC had previously bent themselves into knots trying to solve it on the UNIBUS:
so it would be interesting to know if it was WD or DEC who did the DIN thing to
get rid of it on the QBUS.)
> Always use '\&' (a non-printing, zero width character) to
> make it clear to the software, that the _function_ of the
> character next to it, is neither a sentence-terminating nor
> a control one.
It is unfortunate that such advice has to be given. One should
not have to defend against stupid AI. This is one of only two
really unfortunate design choices (in my opinion) in original
[nt]roff. (The other is beginning a new page when the vertical
position reaches--as distinct from definitively passing--the
bottom of a page.)
If AI is used, it should be optional. I happen not to like
double-width intersentence space, but it keeps getting foisted
on me essentially at random. Instead of fattening the manual
with annoying duties like that quoted above, I suggest fattening
it with a new request, "turn on/off doubling of spaces between
apparent sentences", or "put at least the specified space
between apparent sentences". One can still use \&, but then
it's for a chosen purpose, not just defense against gremlins.
Incidentally, "next to" in the quoted advice must be read with
care. Sometimes it means before, sometimes after.
In this old AI-induced trouble I see a cautionary lesson for
paragraph-based line breaking. fmt(1) is an existing program
that tries to do this. On unjustified text (i.e. all text
handled by fmt) it produces paragraphs of different "optimal"
widths, which can be even more distracting than unusually
ragged right margins.