Apologies for once again posting an item for the groff list to tuhs,
re: "Any reason the removal/renaming of read-only registers should be
permitted?"
Doug
I think Clark was justified in deviating from Ossanna.
The prime rationale for allowing removal of read-only registers is
uniformity--a powerful argument. It simplifies documentation and
relieves a burden on users' understanding. It probably simplifies the
code, too.
This kind of special-casing is AI in the service of some perception
that "no one would want to do that.". If "that" is the clear meaning
of some specified action, then so be it. We are not dealing with
physical hazards here.
> even if they don't screw up the formatter internally,
> they will become unrecoverably useless for documents
> and macro packages,
The same argument could be made about \applying .rm to any standard
request, and I would disagree for the same reason as above. (A
disappointing experimental discovery in this regard: .de seems to be
immune to removal.)
A change that I *would* welcome is warning about writing into a
read-only register. (Also make .rm work on .de--a near reversal of the
original proposal.)
Doug
Hello.
Even in these rusty times (oh what complicated chemical processes
there are!) a question that i hope someone can answer.
In both Spinellis' UNIX history repo as well as the CSRG one (via
robohack/ucb-csrg-bsd.git) one can find two ways of writing Kurt
Shoen's name, and whereas i, who always refer to Mail and its
"usr.bin/mail/def.h" (aac48ec10b56f59b321fb033a36bca2114ef061b):
[ Author: Kurt Shoens <kas>
AuthorDate: 1980-10-08 08:53:34 -0800]
+ * Author: Kurt Shoens (UCB) March 25, 1978
one can find the name "Kurt Schoens" as early as 4.2 BSD (curses,
twinkle1), and then in a growing number of files, especially after
1993 when Keith Bostic and then Kirk McKusick did
admin/admin/contrib/address.list and
admin/admin/contrib/contrib and
share/man/man0/title.cdrom
But one can also see the commit
Author: Kurt A. Schoens <kas(a)ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
AuthorDate: 1980-10-09 02:48:47 -0800
and that is strange, as i presume all-automatic version control
conversions here? Schoens .. is a bug?
Thank you.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
|~~
|..and in spring, hear David Leonard sing..
|
|The black bear, The black bear,
|blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure
|beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure
|~~
|Farewell, dear collar bear
I've mentioned tangentially this a few times, but over the weekend I
finally got around to dusting off the code and getting it running:
https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64.git
rxv64 is a rewrite of MIT's xv6, which in turn, reimagines 6th Edition
as a purely pedagogical system, implemented in ISO C for 32-bit SMP
x86 machines.
Building on xv6, rxv64 is implemented in Rust and targets 64-bit
x86_64. It works well enough to boot up, run a shell, and run
commands, but it doesn't really have much of a userland at present.
I started this as a pedagogical tool, being something that one could
point working engineers at as an example of a "real" operating system
implemented on real hardware in Rust. The code could surely be made
safer and more comprehensible, but cycles are short at present, and
it's better to just get it out there.
Have fun.
- Dan C.
Hello!
For some time now I've had both this address, and my original address
which was on another service altogether subscribed to this list. And
starting some time earlier, it would not show a full thread, it would
show partial contents, the latest was the work by Dan Cross. In fact
With that being last, ah, straw I decided to do that.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8(a)gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
“soldering iron…”
i do remember the fun of changing the baud rate of an async line on the Honeywell level 66 mainframe at college. This required shutting the whole machine down, removing one of the cards, and the (very careful) use of a wire wrap tool.
-Steve
Good evening folks, I'm doing some research lately into the typesetting style apparent in the various UNIX System V guides I've scanned to archive.org. Their typesetting style is unlike that of the MM papers published with 3.0 and 4.0, but the contents seem to have continuity with the text in these collections.
Well, in my searches sometimes telecom documents from the Bell System come up too and in materials from the 70s and 80s I started noticing that familiar typesetting in telecom stuff such as that hosted here https://www.telephonecollectors.info/index.php/browse/bsps-bell-system/bsp-…
The earliest example I could find is 1969, so certainly at least a publication style that predates UNIX, but what I can't tell from my searches alone is if this style implies some non-UNIX typesetting system through and through or if there was a macro package dreamed up at some point between 1969 and 1982 that was in place by the time of the System V documentation.
Just to detail specifics of the publication style, the commonalities I've found are the use of specifically bold numbers for page numbers, having the doc title and call number in the outer upper corner of pages, and just the fonts themselves look very similar. As an added note, the fonts used in the telecom documents and System V guidance documentation also resemble those in the copyright statement pasted on the cover of the extant PDF of the fifth edition UNIX manual. There is also some resemblance to the visual style observable in USG Program Generic and adjacent documentation (for instance the 1976 kernel description of PG 2 or the MERT 0 documents). This typesetting style is not seen in known research, CB, nor PWB until 5.0. Was there some separate typesetting system used in the broader System that, say, WECo may have taken up when they took over documentation between 3.0 and SVR2?
- Matt G.
Hi folks, sharing another project that I've been tinkering on for a little bit since I like having a lot of irons in the fire: https://gitlab.com/segaloco/v2src
After the link is a repository which over time will be accumulating the results of disassembly and analysis of files found in the s2-bits.tar.gz file in the archive. Details of my process are contained in the repository's readme. The short of it is I'm disassembling the binaries one by one, and where possible am comparing them with known sources to massage these into a pretty close restoration of the original sources.
A few discoveries I've made in the process thus far:
- These binaries appear to represent a version between the first and second editions. The binaries themselves are a mix of "naked" binaries as well as V1 and V2 a.out formats. Where it matters, things are much closer in character to V2 than V1.
- All section 1 content that would be gone by V2 is removed here. Curiously, mount(1), type(1), and umount(1) which are in both V1 and V2 are absent from the s2-bits.
- The sources marked "V2" in the UNIX source tree may be a bit closer in character to V3. Notable examples are that, while string references to /etc/uids remain, all data references have been updated to /etc/passwd, and several mathematical operations in the disassembled binaries map to KE-11 Extended Arithemtic Element registers where in the sources labeled "V2" in the tree have instead shifted to doing these calculations differently, presumably as these sources target the 11/45, not the 11/20. Additionally, the cat.s in "V2" on the tree contains the '-' stdin option, which was first documented in V3. The most likely story is that they're somewhere between, just like the s2-bits are between V1 and V2, but all of these observed differences thus far have aligned the sources with their descriptions in the third edition manual.
Anywho, as usual, if anyone spots anything amiss or that could be done better, happy to accept contributions, or fork it and tinker away. Also, if anyone has already done this, speak up and tell me now so I don't double up on something so involved =P
- Matt G.
> From: Paul Ruizendaal
> something like a boot rom only became the norm in the late
> 70's. Before that, one keyed in two dozen words with a tiny program to
> load the first boot stage.
A little wrong on that date. Even the PDP-11/20 (the first -11) had a boot
ROM:
https://gunkies.org/wiki/BM792_ROM
which appreared in mid-1971 (about a year after the release of the /20). DEC
sold them pre-programmed, but one could 'program' one onself, if one wanted -
with a soldering iron! (Check out the image! I actually did that to one that
I was given, that had been eviscerated by someone.) From then on (follow the
category link), the rest used PROM chips.
> From: Warner Losh
> Oftentimes, the interrupt vector was in the lowest core addresses
It's worth remembering that in the early period, that restriction to low
addresses was built into the hardware (in an amusing way :-).
Take the DL11:
https://gunkies.org/wiki/DL11_asynchronous_serial_line_interface
which was sort of mandatory as the 'console' serial interface on most early
-11's (until the DL11-W appeared; more on its big improvement in a second).
It set the interrupt vector with _jumpers_. (You want to change the interrupt
vector? Dig out your soldering iron! :-) There were only 6 jumpers - one each
for address bits 3 through 8. So the largest vector you could set was 0770.
The DL11-W was a big step forward - it replaced the jumpers with a DIP
switch! :-) Still only six bits, though. :-)
Noel