TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

40 participants
6499 discussions

by Warren Toomey

Hi all, I received an e-mail looking for the ksh-88 source code. A quick search for it on-line doesn't reveal it. Does anybody have a copy? Cheers, Warren Original e-mail: I recently built a PiDP11 and have been enjoying going back in time to 2.11BSD.. I was at UC Davis in the the early 1980's and we had a few PDP-11/70's running 2.8/2.9 BSD. Back then we reached out to David Korn and he sent us the source for KSH -- this would have been in 1985ish if I remember, and we compiled it for 2.9 & 4.1BSD, Xenix, and some other variants that used K&R C. It may have been what was later called ksh88. I wish I still had the files from then.. I was wondering if you might know if there's an older version like this or one that's been ported for 2.11BSD? Many thanks, Joe

3 years, 4 months

COFF subscription

by Clay Hickman

Hey Warren, First and foremost; Thank you so much for maintaining this mailing list, and for including me within the subscribers list. I find myself intrigued by some of the topics that transfer over to the “COFF” mailing list. Could you include me on that mailing list as well? Peace.

3 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

by norman＠oclsc.org

Thomas Paulsen: bash is clearly more advanced. ksh is retro computing. ==== Shell wars are, in the end, no more interesting than editor wars. I use bash on Linux systems because it's the least-poorly supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which bash is there by default. Ksh isn't. I use ksh on OpenBSD systems because it's the least-poorly supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which kh is there by default. Bash isn't. I don't actually care for most of the extra crap in either of those shells. I don't want my shell to do line editing or auto-completion, and I find the csh-derived history mechanisms more annoying than useful so I turn them off too. To my mind, the Research 10/e sh had it about right, including the simple way functions were exported and the whatis built-in that told you whether something was a variable or a shell function or an external executable, and printed the first two in forms easily edited on the screen and re-used. Terminal programs that don't let you easily edit input or output from the screen and re-send it, and programs that abet them by spouting gratuitous ANSI control sequences: now THAT's what I call retro-computing. Probably further discussion of any of this belongs in COFF. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

3 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

by norman＠oclsc.org

John Cowan: Unfortunately, approximately nobody except you has access to [the 10/e sh] man page. Can you post or email it? === I am happy to remind you that you're a few years out of date: https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V10/man/man1/sh.1 Norman Wilson Toronto ON

3 years, 4 months

Faces of Open Source (and NFTs)

by Dan Cross

So a number of Unix luminaries were photographed as part of the "Faces of Open Source" project. I have to admit, the photos themselves are quite good: https://www.facesofopensource.com/collect/ It seems that the photographer is now selling NFTs based on those photos, which is...a thing. - Dan C.

3 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] PDP 11/23 running UNIX version 6 at VCF Midwest!

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Paul Ruizendaal > Does anyone remember, was this a real life bug back in 6th edition The 'V6' at MIT (actually, PWB1) never had an issue, but then again, its TTY driver (here: http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/unix/mit/dmr/tty.c if anyone wants to see it) was heavily re-written. But from the below, it's almost certainlynothing to do with the TTY code... > From: Dave Plonka > one experiment we did was to redirection the bas(1)ic program's output > to a file and what we found was that (a) characters would still > sometimes be lost Good test. If you all want to chase this down (I can lend V6 expertise, if needed), I'd say the first step is to work out whether it's the application, or the system, losing the characters. To do that, I'd put a little bit of code in write() to store a copy of data sent through that in a circular buffer, along with tagging it with the writing process, etc. Once you figure out where it's getting lost, then you can move on to how/why. > From: Clem Cole > First Sixth Edition does not have support for either the 11/23 Yeah, but it's super-trivial to add /23 support to V6: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Running_UNIX_V6_on_an_-11/23 The only places where change is needed (no LKS register, no switch register, and support for more than 256KB of main memory - and that one one can get by without), it's hard to see how they could cause this problem. > One other thought, I'm pretty sure that Noel's V6+ system from MIT can > support a 23 No, we never ran than on a /23 BITD (no need, no mass storage); and I have yet to bring the V6+ system up (although I have all the bits, and intend to, at some point, to get its TCP/IP running). I've been using stock (well, hacked a bit, in a number of ways - e.g. 8-bit serial line output) V6. Noel

3 years, 4 months

32V with virtual memory

by Paul Ruizendaal

I am making some slow progress on the topic of Tom Reiser’s 32V with virtual memory. Two more names popped up of folks who worked with his virtual memory code base at Bell Labs / USG in the early 80’s: Robert (Bob) Baron and Jim McCormick. Bob Barron was later working on Mach at CMU. If anybody on this list has contact suggestions for these two folks, please send a private message. Paul

3 years, 4 months

PDP 11/23 running UNIX version 6 at VCF Midwest!

by Paul Ruizendaal

> While doing some end of year retrocomputing revisiting, I thought some > of you might enjoy this - there is hope for the next generation(s)! ;) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zyng5Ob-e8 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zyng5Ob-e8> Thanks for that video link! I noticed the bit at the end about V6 and the occasional dropped character and that this was not a serial line issue. I have the same issue in my V6 port to the TI-990 and always assumed that it was a bug I introduced myself when hacking the tty driver. Does anyone remember, was this a real life bug back in 6th edition back in the 1970’s? Maybe only showing at higher baud rates? Paul

3 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] {TUHS} efl

by Douglas McIlroy

> there was a commercial package called Spag i which claimed to un-spagatti-ify your code which i always wanted but, could never afford. You needed struct(1) in v7. It did precisely that, converting Fortran to Ratfor. Amazingly (to me, anyway) it embodied a theorem: a Fortran program has a canonical form. People found the converted code to be easier to understand--even when they had written the original code themselves. Doug

3 years, 4 months

efl

by Steve Simon

hi, having supported Pafec and then in a different job flow3d, i was most interested in anything that could make large fortran packages more manageable. there was a commercial package called Spag i which claimed to un-spagatti-ify your code which i always wanted but, could never afford. the best i managed was sed and awk scripts to split huge fortran files into one file per function and build a makefile. this at least made rebuilds quicker. i do not miss maintaining fortran code hacked by dozens of people over many decades. -Steve

3 years, 4 months

Jump to page:

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