TUHS June 2024

tuhs@tuhs.org

82 participants
40 discussions

Re: Origin of the name POSIX (was: ANSI (C) vs IEEE (POSIX) Standards Body Selection)

by John S Quarterman

Or like rms claimed Linux as part of GNU, he claimed POSIX and some people believed him. -jsq On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 9:38 AM Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 6:15 AM Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:12 AM John S Quarterman <jsqmobile(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I don't recall rms being involved, certainly not in the name. -jsq >> >> quip: Like childbirth, perhaps the unpleasant memory was simply blocked >> out? >> > > Is it possible that RMS suggested it as maybe an obvious quip to a > committee member who later credited him with that since that conversation > happened before that person heard it from others on the committee? Tricky > to know from this distance in time. > > Warner > > - Dan C. >> >

9 months

Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' • The Register

by Charles H Sauer (he/him)

https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/version_256_systemd/ I don't see the boast at https://github.com/systemd/systemd/releases/tag/v256, but ... Charlie -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter: CharlesHSauer

9 months

Re: Sad but not unexpected news about the LCM-L

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> <clemc(a)ccc.com> > In particular, I hope the PDP-7s and the CDC-6500 find new homes. Also, their collection of PDP-10's, which is absolutely unrivalled; they had a KA10 and a KI10; also the MIT-MC KL10. Also a Multics front panel; AFAIK, the ony one in the world other than the CHM's. Any idea where it's all being sold? I might enquire about the Multics panel. Noel

9 months

Fwd: [multicians] Dennis Ritchie's 1993 Usenet posting "BTL Leaves Multics"

by Dan Cross

FYI, Tom Van Vleck just passed this on the Multicians list; DMR's recollections of the end of Multics at BTL. I can't resist asking about the nugget buried in here about Ken writing a small kernel for the 645. Is that in the archives anywhere? - Dan C. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tom Van Vleck via groups.io <thvv=multicians.org(a)groups.io> Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:38 AM Subject: [multicians] Dennis Ritchie's 1993 Usenet posting "BTL Leaves Multics" To: <multicians(a)groups.io> in "alt.os.multics" about Unix, CTSS, Multics, BTL, qed, and mail https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.multics/c/1iHfrDJkyyE Comments by DMR, me, RMF, PAG, PAK, BSG, PWB, JJL, AE, MAP, EHR, DMW Covers many issues. (I feel like we should save this thread somehow. hard to trust Google any more. the posting ends with a heading of a response by JWG but no content.) _._,_._,_ ________________________________ Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5547) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic ________________________________ -- sent via multicians(a)groups.io -- more Multics info at https:://multicians.org/ ________________________________ Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [crossd(a)gmail.com] _._,_._,_

9 months

Thank you all for your civility

by Warren Toomey

All, recently I saw on Bruce Schneier "Cryptogram" blog that he has had to change the moderation policy due to toxic comments: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/06/new-blog-moderation-policy.h… So I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your civility and respect for others on the TUHS and COFF lists. The recent systemd and make discussions have highlighted significant differences between people's experiences and opinions. Nonetheless, apart from a few pointed comments, the discussions have been polite and informative. These lists have been in use for decades now and, thankfully, I've only had to unsubscribe a handful of people for offensive behaviour. That's a testament to the calibre of people who are on the lists. Cheers and thank you again, Warren P.S. I'm a happy Devuan (non-systemd) user for many years now.

9 months, 1 week

Re: autotools

by Steve Simon

my personal frustration with autotools was trying to port code to plan9. i wish autotools had an intermediate file format which described the packages requirements, that way i could have written my own backend to create my config.h and makefiles (or mkfiles) in the end i wrote my own tool which crudely parses a directory of C or F77 sourcecode and uses heuristics to create a config.h and a plan9 mkfile, it was named mkmk(1) it was almost _never_ completely correct, but usually got close enough that the files only needed a little manual hacking. it also took great pains to generate mkfiles that looked hand written; if you are going to auto generate files, make them look nice. -Steve

9 months, 1 week

Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register

by Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)

> This is The Way if you really care about portability. Autoconf, > once you get your head around what, why, and when it was created, > makes for nice Makefiles and projects that are easy to include in > the 100 Linux distributions with their own take on packaging the > world. This is outright claptrap and nonsense. In the latter half of the 90s I was responsible for writing installers and generating platform-native packages for about a dozen different commercial UNIX platforms (AIX, Solaris, Irix, HP/UX, OSF, BSD/OS, ...). Each of these package systems was as different as could be from the others. (HP/UX didn't even have one.) That entire process was driven by not very many lines of make recipes, with the assistance of some awk glue that read a template file from which it generated the native packages. And these were not trivial software distributions. We were shipping complex IMAP, X.400 and X.500 servers, along with a couple of MTAs. Our installers didn't just dump the files onto the system and point you at a README; we coded a lot of the site setup into the installers, so the end user mostly just had to edit a single config file to finish up. --lyndon

9 months, 1 week

Fwd: Anyone have Plexus docs/software squirreled away?

by Al Kossow

FYI, for people like me that care about 80s 68K Unix systemf There is a pretty serious multi-purpose preservation effort that started a few weeks ago around Plexus systems as a result of a series of YouTube videos https://youtu.be/iltZYXg5hZw https://github.com/misterblack1/plexus-p20/

9 months, 1 week

Be there a "remote diff" utility?

by Dave Horsfall

Every so often I want to compare files on remote machines, but all I can do is to fetch them first (usually into /tmp); I'd like to do something like: rdiff host1:file1 host2:file2 Breathes there such a beast? I see that Penguin/OS has already taken "rdiff" which doesn't seem to do what I want. Think of it as an extension to the Unix philosophy of "Everything looks like a file"... -- Dave

9 months, 1 week

Re: [COFF] Re: Supervisor mode on ye olde PDP-11

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Warner Losh > 2.11BSD used a mode between kernel and user for the TCP stack to get > more effective address space... Is there a document for 2.11 which explains in detail why they did that? I suspect it's actually a little more complicated than just "more address space". The thing is that PDP-11 Unix had been using overlays in the kernel for quite a while to provide more address space. I forget where they first came in (I suspect there were a number of local hacks, before everyone started using the BSD approach), but by 2.9 BSD they were a standard part of the system. (See: https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=2.9BSD/usr/src/sys/conf/Ovmak… for some clues about how this works. There is unfortunately no documentation that I know of which explains clearly how it works; if anyone knows of any, can you please let me know? Otherwise you'll have to read the sources.) I can think of two possible reasons they started using supervisor mode: i) There were a limited number of the 2.9-type overlays, and they were not large; trying to support all the networking code with the existing overlay system may have been too hard. ii) I think this one is unlikely, but I'll list it as a possibility. Switching overlays took a certain amount of overhead (since mapping registers had to be re-loaded); if all the networking code ran in supervisor mode, the supervisor mode mapping registers could be loaded with the right thing and just left. Noel

9 months, 1 week

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS June 2024