TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

24 participants
6494 discussions

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: "Erik E. Fair" > before that, ARPANET was connected NOTE: "ARPANET" is _always_ (**ALWAYS**) used with the definite article ("the"). Don't take my word for it; check out, e.g. A History of the ARPANET: The First Decade https://walden-family.com/bbn/arpanet-completion-report.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA115440.pdf (There are a lot more contemporaneous documents - AFIPS conference papers, etc - if anyone is interested in them.) I was somewhat polite about it _this_ time. Noel

9 months

Other POSIX Candidates?

by segaloco

I'm paraphrasing here but I've read in a few places something to the effect that UNIX was "selected" as the basis on which to build a portable operating system standard, which of course we all know as POSIX. However, I got thinking on the implications of that phrasing, and have to ask, was there actually a "selection" made picking UNIX over some other candidate, or was it pretty much established from the outset of pursuing a standard that UNIX was going to get standardized? Another way to put it would be as a chicken and egg, which came first, desire for a portable base system definition that UNIX happened to fit nicely, or the ongoing need for UNIX standardization finding sponsorship by the working groups, IEEE, etc.? Did any other OS contend for this coveted honor? - Matt G.

9 months

Debate re optimization between Bill Harrison and Steve Johnson at POPL 8

by Dibyendu Majumdar

Hi I am looking for any write-up or recollection about the debate mentioned here: https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~reps/popl00/cfd00.html And also mentioned in an interview with Fran Allen (Coders at Work). Many thanks Regards Dibyendu

9 months, 1 week

SDF Beget's ICM - Interim Computer Museum

by Clem Cole

Please excuse the wide distribution, but I suspect this will have general interest in all of these communities due to the loss of the LCM+Labs. The good folks from SDF.org are trying to create the Interim Computer Museum: https://icm.museum/join.html As Lars pointed out in an earlier message to COFF there is a 1hr presentation on the plans for the ICM. https://toobnix.org/w/ozjGgBQ28iYsLTNbrczPVo FYI: The yearly (Bootstrap) subscription is $36 They need to money to try to keep some of these systems online and available. The good news is that it looks like many of the assets, such as Miss Piggy, the Multics work, the Toads, and others, from the old LCM are going to be headed to a new home. ᐧ

9 months, 1 week

Interesting history of Bell Labs

by Dan Cross

Steve Bellovin just posted this on Mastodon, I thought it might interest some folks here. It's more about Bell Labs than Unix, but of course Unix, as a product of Bell Labs, is related and is mentioned. - Dan C. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/what-would-it-take-to-recreate-bell

9 months, 2 weeks

Question regarding Limbo

by Dibyendu Majumdar

Hi, Apologies for the off topic question. I was curious who wrote the Limbo programing language that is part of Inferno. Regards Dibyendu

9 months, 2 weeks

UNIX Roff Manual

by segaloco

Just sharing a copy of the Roff Manual that I had forgotten I scanned a little while back: https://archive.org/details/roff_manual This appears to be the UNIX complement to the S/360 version of the paper backed up by Doug here: https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/roff71/roff71.pdf From the best I could tell, this predates both 1973's V3 and the 1971 S/360 version of the paper, putting it somewhere prior to 1971. For instance, it is missing the .ar, .hx, .ig, .ix, .ni, .nx, .ro, .ta, and .tc requests found in V3. The .ar and .ro, and .ta requests pop up in the S/360 paper, the rest are in the V3 manpage (prior manpages don't list the request summary). If anyone has some authoritative date information I can update the archive description accordingly. Finally, this very well could be missing the last page, the Page offset, Merge patterns, and Envoi sections of Doug's paper are not reflected here, although at the very least, the .mg request is not in this paper so the Merge patterns section probably wasn't there anyway. - Matt G.

9 months, 4 weeks

Re: UNIX Roff Manual

by Tom Lyon

I had meant to copy TUSH on this/ On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:41 PM Tom Lyon <pugs78(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I got excited by your mention of a S/360 version, but Doug's link talks > about the GECOS version (GE/Honeywell hardware). > > Princeton had a S/360 version at about that time, it was a re-write of a > version for the IBM 7094 done by Kernighan after spending a summer at MIT > with CTSS and RUNOFF. I'm very curious whether the Princeton S/360 version > spread to other locations. Found this article in the Daily Princetonian > about the joy and history of ROFF. > https://photos.app.goo.gl/zMWV1GRLZdNBUuP36 > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:51 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote: > >> Just sharing a copy of the Roff Manual that I had forgotten I scanned a >> little while back: >> >> https://archive.org/details/roff_manual >> >> This appears to be the UNIX complement to the S/360 version of the paper >> backed up by Doug here: >> https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/roff71/roff71.pdf >> >> From the best I could tell, this predates both 1973's V3 and the 1971 >> S/360 version of the paper, putting it somewhere prior to 1971. For >> instance, it is missing the .ar, .hx, .ig, .ix, .ni, .nx, .ro, .ta, and .tc >> requests found in V3. The .ar and .ro, and .ta requests pop up in the >> S/360 paper, the rest are in the V3 manpage (prior manpages don't list the >> request summary). >> >> If anyone has some authoritative date information I can update the >> archive description accordingly. >> >> Finally, this very well could be missing the last page, the Page offset, >> Merge patterns, and Envoi sections of Doug's paper are not reflected here, >> although at the very least, the .mg request is not in this paper so the >> Merge patterns section probably wasn't there anyway. >> >> - Matt G. >> >

9 months, 4 weeks

When did "man cal" lose the comment about 1752?

by Douglas McIlroy

> Yeah, but if you do that you have to treat the places > acquired in the Louisiana Purchase differently because > they switched in 1582. And Puerto Rico. Bleh. Then there are all the German city states. And the shifting borders of Poland. (cal -s country) is a mighty low-res "solution" to the Julian/Gregorian problem. Doug

9 months, 4 weeks

When did "man cal" lose the comment about 1752?

by Dave Horsfall

The manpage for "cal" used to have the comment "Try September 1752" (and yes, I know why); it's no longer there, so when did it disappear? The SysV fun police? I remember it in Ed5 and Ed6, but can't remember when I last saw it. Thanks. -- Dave

9 months, 4 weeks

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