3 Feb
2019
3 Feb
'19
8:23 p.m.
Co-inventor of Unix, he was born on this day in 1943. Just think: without
those two, we'd all be running M$ Windoze and thinking that it's wonderful (I
know, it's an exaggeration, but think about it).
-- Dave
3 Feb
3 Feb
9:39 p.m.
On Monday, 4 February 2019 at 7:23:35 +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
Co-inventor of Unix, he was born on this day in 1943.
Just think: without
those two, we'd all be running M$ Windoze and thinking that it's wonderful (I
know, it's an exaggeration, but think about it).
Without Unix, Microsoft would not have created Microsoft "Windows".
Even it has roots in Unix.
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
10:07 p.m.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Without Unix, Microsoft would not have created
Microsoft "Windows".
I'd like to see some evidence for that; without Unix, what would we be
running now? I doubt whether it would've been Linux, there being no
inspiration for it...
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS -> Windows.
Even it has roots in Unix.
Only inasmuch as it has directories, users, and permissions (which any
semi-decent OS would have anyway)... Admittedly I have never compromised
my integrity by using/programming it, so I am willing to be corrected.
And yes, I know about POSIX compatibility, but so is Linux, and it's
different enough from Unix to be damned annoying.
-- Dave
10:33 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 5:08 PM Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS -> Windows.
"Windows" == Win95 -- which was a user Interface spec the kernel died
IBM CP-DOS -> OS/2 --\
\
---> NT OS-2 -> NT/WIN .......
Today's Windows
CMU Mach --\ /
---> Mica -/
DEC VMS --/
When Cutler did Mica and then NT OS-2 he did not care what the user
interface was. Mica was a pure uk and NT OS-2 was also, but by the time of
the product it became a hybrid. Putting a different user interface, be it
DOS, OS/2, Unix, VMS or Windows was in the kernel design.
Clem
ᐧ
4 Feb
4 Feb
2:03 a.m.
On 2/3/19, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
IBM CP-DOS -> OS/2 --\
\
---> NT OS-2 -> NT/WIN .......
Today's Windows
CMU Mach --\ /
---> Mica -/
DEC VMS --/
I think that bottom part should read:
CMU Mach --\
---> VAXeln --> Mica
DEC VMS --/
Cutler took the concept of a microkernel from CMU Mach and combined it
with design concepts he had used in VMS to create a real-time OS for
the VAX called VAXeln. DEC had several proposed machine architectures
for a RISC-based successor to VAX. The one from Cutler's DECwest was
called PRISM. Mica was the microkernel-based OS for PRISM. The
intent was to build VMS and UNIX personality layers on top of the Mica
microkernel. PRISM was cancelled in favor of Alpha, and that led to
Cutler's departure for Microsoft.
When Cutler did Mica and then NT OS-2 he did not care
what the user
interface was. Mica was a pure uk and NT OS-2 was also, but by the time of
the product it became a hybrid. Putting a different user interface, be it
DOS, OS/2, Unix, VMS or Windows was in the kernel design.
As with Mica the original design was for various personality modules
(DOS, OS/2, Unix, whatever) to be layered on top of the microkernel.
The NT microkernel internals looked very familiar to VMS weenies such
as I. Cutler was able to resist attempts to smear the layers by
putting hooks etc. in the microkernel, but over time the clean break
between the kernel and Windows has been muddied.
CMU Mach was the microkernel for Jobs's NeXT OS, and with BSD Unix
layered on top, was the basis for Apple's OS X. OS X still uses the
Mach object file format, MACH-O.
-Paul W.
3:57 a.m.
Indeed, without Unix there wouldn't have been the same rise of Mach, or the drive to
make a portable VMS, as there wouldn't be a C either.
Many of the leaked internal tools to build NT reflect that all the back office stuff was
on Xenix and VMS. Just as you can find mentions of emacs in the makefiles for NT, and how
their life would be in jeopardy for changing the tab indentions.
Unix had such an incredible impact on the market that without it everything would be
different.
Without Xenix micros would have continued to be snubbed by the high end crowd depriving
that critical jump from machines that cost more than a large house to personal space.
What would be the portable OS to rule them all? TripOS is the best I can imagine. BCPL
everywhere.
Get Outlook for Android
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:34 AM +0800, "Clem Cole" <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 5:08 PM Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS -> Windows.
"Windows" == Win95 -- which was a user Interface spec the kernel died
IBM CP-DOS -> OS/2 --\ \
---> NT OS-2 -> NT/WIN ....... Today's WindowsCMU Mach --\
/ ---> Mica -/DEC VMS --/
When Cutler did Mica and then NT OS-2 he did not care what the user interface was. Mica
was a pure uk and NT OS-2 was also, but by the time of the product it became a hybrid.
Putting a different user interface, be it DOS, OS/2, Unix, VMS or Windows was in the
kernel design.
Clemᐧ
6:25 a.m.
On 2019-Feb-03 15:58:39 -0500, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
Portability was designed as an >>import<<
idea, and they tried to keep you
from exporting by getting you to use 'value add.'
This is definitely the approach used by FSF/GNU - witness gcc and bash.
On 2019-Feb-04 09:07:52 +1100, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
And yes, I know about POSIX compatibility, but so is
Linux, and it's
different enough from Unix to be damned annoying.
IMO, POSIX wouldn't exist without Unix.
On 2019-Feb-04 03:57:40 +0000, Jason Stevens <jsteve(a)superglobalmegacorp.com>
wrote:
What would be the portable OS to rule them all? TripOS
is the best I can imagine. BCPL everywhere.
That was my thought as well, though TripOS started in 1976 so it's likely
that the development team were aware of Unix and make have taken some of its
ideas onboard.
That said, Unix was not portable to start with. I think that the important
parts were that the source was readily available within academia, it was
written in a high level language and it was small enough to be understood.
--
Peter Jeremy
7:59 a.m.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2019-Feb-03 15:58:39 -0500, Clem Cole
<clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
I think the term is "Embrace, Extend, Exterminate" <dalek.jpg>
-uso.
Portability was designed as an
>>import<< idea, and they tried to keep you
from exporting by getting you to use 'value add.'
This is definitely the approach used by FSF/GNU - witness gcc and bash.
3:04 p.m.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Steve Nickolas wrote:
I think the term is "Embrace, Extend,
Exterminate" <dalek.jpg>
I heard it as "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"; witness their attempt to take
over PPP (which eventually had to accommodate their "extensions"), and
Usenet before that, which thankfully failed, because they wanted a central
authority. How the hell do you think that Usenet flourished? It was an
utter anarchy, that's why! And the marketoid control-freaks hated it...
If you look carefully at PPP, you will see certain negotiations which ∆
simply don't belong at that level (DNS etc). Cough MS/CHAP cough...
If you want to talk PPP to an NT server, well, you'd better be prepared to
accommodate their "extensions".
And to those bods who think we're bashing M$, well, there might be a
damned good reason for it (some of us here go back a *long* time, so you
might have to brush up on your history, and grow out of your short pants).
-- Dave, who used to be known as "Fowler Ware" on aus.flame
3:39 p.m.
On 2019-02-04 2:59 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Never heard that one.
A Dalek would have a lot of trouble with the Embrace part.
On 2019-Feb-03 15:58:39 -0500, Clem Cole
<clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
I think the term is "Embrace, Extend, Exterminate" <dalek.jpg> Portability was designed as an
>>import<< idea, and they tried to
keep you
from exporting by getting you to use 'value add.'
This is definitely the approach used by FSF/GNU - witness gcc and bash.
-uso.
3 Feb
3 Feb
10:39 p.m.
On 4 Feb 2019 09:07 +1100, from dave(a)horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall):
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS
-> Windows.
CP/M is (was?) to MS-DOS roughly as UNIX is to Linux (the overall
system, not referring to just the kernel); a source of inspiration,
but not a direct ancestor. Then let's not get into the Windows / OS/2
/ Windows NT confusion, product line splits/merges and rebranding.
IIRC, at least until Windows 3.0 (1990), and possibly until Windows 95
when Microsoft did their best to hide the troubled history, Windows
applications were _expected_ to ultimately rely on the old-style
MS-DOS API for basic operating system services like file management,
and could choose to (or were expected to) call those APIs directly
instead of going through the Windows API. For a long time, Windows was
just a fancy (some would almost certainly say overrated) graphical
shell.
I, too, would like to see some reference or at least justification for
the claim that Microsoft would not have created Windows had it not
been for Unix. As I recall, Visi On did use some Unix as its
development platform; and Microsoft Windows was created in response to
Visi On; but that's the only obvious causal connection between Unix
and Windows that I can see, and it's a tenuous one at best.
--
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael(a)kjorling.se
“The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person
is to think you know what you’re doing.” (Bret Victor)
10:55 p.m.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
wrote:
Keep in mind that the MS-DOS 2 "handles" API for file access is based
*directly* on Xenix, and replaced the MS-DOS 1 "FCB" API borrowed from
CP/M.
-uso.
Without Unix, Microsoft would not have created
Microsoft "Windows".
I'd like to see some evidence for that; without Unix, what would we be
running now? I doubt whether it would've been Linux, there being no
inspiration for it...
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS -> Windows.
Even it has roots in Unix.
Only inasmuch as it has directories, users, and permissions (which any
semi-decent OS would have anyway)... Admittedly I have never compromised my
integrity by using/programming it, so I am willing to be corrected.
And yes, I know about POSIX compatibility, but so is Linux, and it's
different enough from Unix to be damned annoying.
-- Dave
11:37 p.m.
On Sunday, February 3, 2019, Steve Nickolas <usotsuki(a)buric.co> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
And also don't forget that Xenix had the largest UNIX installed base
measured by the number of machines it was installed on. People talking
about BSD and System V in the 80s, but it was Xenix that ruled on micros.
So at the time Microsoft offered both UNIX and MS-DOS.
--Andy
Without Unix, Microsoft would not have created Microsoft "Windows".
I'd like to see some evidence for that; without Unix, what would we be
running now? I doubt whether it would've been Linux, there being no
inspiration for it...
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS -> Windows.
Even it has roots in Unix.
Only inasmuch as it has directories, users, and permissions (which any
semi-decent OS would have anyway)... Admittedly I have never compromised
my integrity by using/programming it, so I am willing to be corrected.
And yes, I know about POSIX compatibility, but so is Linux, and it's
different enough from Unix to be damned annoying.
-- Dave
Keep in mind that the MS-DOS 2 "handles" API for file access is based
*directly* on Xenix, and replaced the MS-DOS 1 "FCB" API borrowed from CP/M.
4 Feb
4 Feb
12:32 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:07:52AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
It's what you are used to. I haven't tried it but apparently Microsoft
has implemented the Linux syscall layer that you can just drop a distro
on top of windows and the binaries work.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
wrote:
Yep.
Without Unix, Microsoft would not have created
Microsoft "Windows".
I'd like to see some evidence for that; without Unix, what would we be
running now? I doubt whether it would've been Linux, there being no
inspiration for it...
My vague (and rough) recollection is CP/M -> DOS -> Windows. Even it has
roots in Unix.
Only inasmuch as it has directories, users, and permissions (which any
semi-decent OS would have anyway)... Admittedly I have never compromised my
integrity by using/programming it, so I am willing to be corrected.
And yes, I know about POSIX compatibility, but so is Linux, and it's
different enough from Unix to be damned annoying.
1 a.m.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Larry McVoy wrote:
It's what you are used to. I haven't tried
it but apparently Microsoft
has implemented the Linux syscall layer that you can just drop a distro
on top of windows and the binaries work.
I've used it with Debian. Add an X server and PulseAudio server on the
Windows side and it's really not bad.
-uso.
9:43 a.m.
Ken invented *NIX(up to edition 3 he wrote 100% of the sources), ed(before regexp qed), b
(and therefore most of c).
Ken is one of the most underrated persons of all. I hope the day will come, humankind will
show respect !
At 3 Feb 2019 20:24:34 +0000 (+00:00) from Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org>rg>:
Co-inventor of Unix, he was born on this day in 1943.
Just think: without
those two, we'd all be running M$ Windoze and thinking that it's wonderful (I
know, it's an exaggeration, but think about it).
-- Dave
1919
days inactive
1920
days old
16 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Al Kossow -
Andy Kosela -
Clem Cole -
Dave Horsfall -
Donald ODona -
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
Jason Stevens -
Larry McVoy -
Michael Kjörling -
Paul Winalski -
Peter Jeremy -
Steve Nickolas -
Toby Thain