TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

63 participants
6514 discussions

by Warner Losh

So what's the origin of the name 'strategy' for the I/O routine in Unix that drivers provide? Everything I've found in the early papers just says that's what the routine is called. Is there a story behind why it was chosen? My own theory is that it's in the sense of 'coping strategy' when the driver needs to service more I/O for the upper layers, but that's just a WAG. Warner

6 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Origin of the name 'strategy'

by Dave Horsfall

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, Warner Losh wrote: > The name seems obvious because I've seen it for the last 30 years. But > I've not seen it used elsewhere, nor have I seen it documented except in > relationship to Unix. It could have been called blkio or bufio or bio or > even just work or morework and still been as meaningful. VMS uses the > FDT table to process the IRPs sent down. RT-11 has a series of entry > points that have boring names. Other systems have a start routine > (though more often that is a common routine used by both the queue me > and isr functions). There is a wide diversity here... I must admit that this is an interesting thread, just as long as it wasn't called XXoptimize() unless you wanted a backlash from British English speakers :-) In hindsight I suppose that XXstrategy() is obvious, but back then, as you ask? Dunno, but Ken might (if he's reading this thread). One of my favo[u]rites is sched(); some pronounce it as "shed" and others as "sked". Another American/British thing, I think... Wasn't it Mark Twain who said "Two nations divided by a common language"? I no longer have my Lions books on me, sadly enough (lost in a house move) but there certainly were some peculiar names in the kernel... ObGripe: Could anyone replying to the digest version please take the trouble to update the Subject: line accordingly? I've now put the original back as a courtesy to others, but I shouldn't have to; it's as bad as top-posting. -- Dave

6 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 38, Issue 10

by Steve Simon

re disk stagey i understood that this implemented the elevator algorithm, and possible rotational latency compensation. re non-gcc compilers there was a time in the early 2000s when some people tried release plan9’s (ken’s) c compiler for use in BSD bsd, sadly (for plan9) this didn't happen. pcc was reanimated instead.

6 years, 4 months

National Inventors Hall of Fame honors creators of Unix

by Warren Toomey

https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/08/national-inventors-hall-of-fame-class-o… The National Inventors Hall of Fame (NIHF) joined Engadget on stage today at CES to announce its 2019 class of inductees. [ including ] ... Dennis Ritchie (Posthumous) and Ken Thompson: UNIX Operating System ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thompson and Ritchie's creation of the UNIX operating system and the C programming language were pivotal developments in the progress of computer science. Today, 50 years after its beginnings, UNIX and UNIX-like systems continue to run machinery from supercomputers to smartphones. The UNIX operating system remains the basis of much of the world's computing infrastructure, and C language -- written to simplify the development of UNIX -- is one of the most widely used languages today. Cheers, Warren

6 years, 4 months

QED archive now available

by Arnold Robbins

Hi All. Back in October I started a discussion about QED sources. A number of people were kind enough to send me tarballs and zip files as well as pointers to other archives. I have finally cobbled it all together and made it available on GitHub: https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/qed-archive I have tried to acknowledge everyone who contributed. Thanks again to all who did send me stuff and email me. Enjoy, Arnold

6 years, 4 months

off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

by Dr Iain Maoileoin

Off topic, but looking for help and wisdom. If you visit https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/ <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/>saratov you will see some photos of work that I have started on the front panel of a Capatob2. I plan to get the switches and lights running on a blinkenbone board with a PDP8 emulation behind it. (I already have an PDP11/70 front-panel running on the same infrastructure) I have been struggling for over a year to get much info about this saratov computer (circuit diagrams etc). So I have started the reverse engineering on the panel. Does anybody know anything about this computer? online or offline it would be much appreciated. Iain

6 years, 4 months

Gentle reminder: TUHS is for Unix

by Warren Toomey

Hi all, back from a few days holiday. Just a reminder that the TUHS list is for things related to Unix. I don't mind a bit of topic drift, but if the topic goes completely away from Unix then the conversation should migrate to the COFF (Computer Old Farts Forum) list, coff(a)tuhs.org. I'll mark the "Isaacson" thread as closed on TUHS, but feel free to continue it over on COFF. Thanks, Warren

6 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Isaacson v Unix [really RMS bashing]

by Jon Steinhart

Been wanting to wade into this for a few days but needed to think about how. I think that we're all aware that RMS has atrocious personal habits. But I don't think that this mailing list is the place to discuss them unless it's somehow in the context of UNIX. Many seem to excuse RMS's revisionist view of the history of technology on the grounds that RMS claims that his memory isn't very good. I think that if he knows that he doesn't remember things then he should refrain from talking about them as if he does. As others have said, I don't conflate coding prowess with the ability to design. I've had many an argument with John Gilmore (one of the people who doesn't mind footing the cleaning and repair bill after allowing RMS to stay at his place) where he begins with "When I wrote GNU tar..." I've always responded by saying that writing tar is no big deal; the specification was the hard part. One place where I completely disagree with RMS that I think is in context for this list is his claim that Linux should be called GNU/Linux. I've written tons of software in my life, and I don't preface the name of each one with the parts list. Even if one believed that such an attribution scheme made sense, I would claim that it should be called internet/Linux. I would argue that Linux would not have happened without the internet making it possible for folks around the world to participate. And I think that there's a good chance that the tools would have been created anyway. Of course, I acknowledge that the GNU tools have been ported to Linux. Big deal. I haven't seen RMS arguing for GNU/Windows now that Microsoft has seen the light. Like many of you, Linux is not where I first started using GNU tools; I started using them on my Sun machines after Sun started charging extra for the compiler and included a licensing system that was broken and often interfered with getting work done. Jon

6 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Isaacson v Unix [really RMS bashing]

by Larry McVoy

I think the RMS stuff should go away. It's not because I love the guy, I don't. It's because we have people like Ken and Rob and other heavy hitters and my hunch is they have little patience for this sort of thing (they might correct me if I'm wrong). I'd love to call out RMS on his BS but this isn't the place. This is the place for people who actually did real work on Unix to share those stories. Or so I think, it's up to Warren, not me.

6 years, 4 months

Isaacson v Unix

by Doug McIlroy

I was given a copy of Walter Isaacson's "The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution". It devotes ten pages to Stallman and Gnu, Torvalds and Linux, even Tannebaum and Minix, but never mentions Thompson and Ritchie. Unix is identified only as a product from Bell Labs from which the others learned something--he doesn't say what. I have heard also that Isaacson's "Idea Factory" (about Bell Labs) barely mentions Unix. Is Isaacson blind, biased, or merely brainwashed? In the case of Steve Jobs, Isaacson tells not just that the Alto system from Xerox inspired him, but also who its star creators were: Lampson, Thacker and Kay. But then he stomps on them: "Once again, the greatest innovation would come not from the people who created the breakthroughs, but from the people who applied them usefully." While he very describes innovation as a continuum from invention through engineering to marketing, he seems to be more impressed by the later stages. Or maybe he just likes to tell stories, and didn't pick up all the good ones about Ken. Isaacson describes spacewar, arguably the first stage of computer-game innovation, at great length. At the same time, all he has to say about early-stage operating systems is a single sentence that credits John McCarthy with leading a time-sharing effort at MIT. (In my recollection, McCarthy proseletized; Corbato led.) He tells how ARPANET, which he says was mainly developed by BB&N, connected time-shared computers, but breathes not a word about Berkeley's work, without which ARPANET would have been an open circuit. "Innovators" won general critical praise. A couple of reviews predicted it would become the standard of the field. However, an evidently knowledgeable review in IEEE Annals of the History of Computing faulted it for peddling familiar potted legends without really digging for deeper insight. Regarding Thompson and Ritchie, it looks more like overt suppression. Doug

6 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