From coff at tuhs.org Fri Sep 5 01:00:31 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Stuff Received via COFF) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:00:31 -0400 Subject: [COFF] The gallant font? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9beffcbc-e500-bcc8-852e-b0d97ce74e12@riddermarkfarm.ca> A question was asked on comp.sys.sun.hardware (reproduced below as I could not find a link for it). The OBP description (https://github.com/openbios/openboot/blob/master/obp/pkg/termemu/gallant.fth) says nothing about author -- not surprising as all copyright is invested in one's employer. Anyone here know? S. On 2025-08-27 15:33, Jens Schweikhardt wrote on comp.sys.sun.hardware: > hello, world\n > > I'm digging into the history of the gallant 12x22 font that was used > as the console font for many SUN products. Think "ok" prompt. I know > it from watching SPARCstations boot. > While it at some point made its way into BSD, as evidenced by NetBSD's > https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/sys/dev/wsfont/gallant12x22.h, > I asked Jef and he guesses it was designed by someone at Sun. > Any old Sun engineers around who can contribute a little bit of > history of the gallant font and associated files? > > Regards, > > Jens From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 6 01:04:14 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Clem Cole via COFF) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 11:04:14 -0400 Subject: [COFF] [ih] Confusion in the RFCs In-Reply-To: <4A3E1B0C-0AEB-458D-BFFC-7428DDCCC983@comcast.net> References: <30997E86-9BC4-496E-86CE-AC6AFAF3DC8F@comcast.net> <240F434C-AFF1-44F3-A072-66DC658B1B0F@comcast.net> <30A88A33-049B-456E-A51F-69EDD0D301D9@comcast.net> <4A3E1B0C-0AEB-458D-BFFC-7428DDCCC983@comcast.net> Message-ID: below.. [note this really belongs in COFF, as it's less Internet History and more reminiscent of us old guys] On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:44 AM John Day via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > It inspired everything we did. It was a revelation. That is why our PDP-11 > OS language was called PDP-11 Espol, their OS language. > Fascinating - did that survive? Could you tell us more? I did not know that someone had tried to make an ESPOL for the 11. Was it a cross compiler, and what was the native OS? I grew up on BLISS and C, of course, and knew about other system languages like BCPL and concurrent Pascal that targeted the 11, but I never knew about an implementation of ESPOL for it. > > I knew there was one around UCLA somewhere and at Stanford. Knuth wrote > the early Algol compiler for it. It was the first system to use a stack for > procedures, as well as arithmetic. Tagged architecture, descriptor based > memory. The system had a coherence I have never seen again. > No doubt, the B5000 was the first "high-level" system design, incorporating everything you describe, along with some interesting support for its multi-tasking concepts. [I remember trying to wrap my head around the idea of how a cactus stack worked]. One of my old colleagues at Tektronix was Bill Price, who was earlier one of the MCP's designers and implementors, and he took great pride in schooling us youngsters in those days. He pointed out to us that if Burroughs' management had had any real idea of what they were doing and how far out it was and different from anything else being done at IBM in White Plains or Remington Rand/Eckert-Mauchly in North Philly, he is pretty sure they would have shut it down. As Bill explained it to us (then UNIX guys in the late 1970s), the designers of the MCP were very rigorous in their design, but had a great sense of humor and used really marvelous names for some of the data structures and kernel tasks. The MCP was extremely well structured, but when they ended up with something that did not quite fit in their structured design, they gave the special case to Bill to deal with in his "Old Weird Harold" kernel task, which, among other things, maintained "the bed," which was a list of tasks awaiting actions. One of my favorite actions was when Bill shared the comments from some of the code he still had, which revealed that Old Weird Harold was responsible for "monitoring the bed for something to fork." Also, one minor correction, while I do believe that Burroughs had an LA-based team, I am under the impression that most of the work on both HS and SW for the B5000 and B6000 families was done in Philadelphia (well, Paoli to be more precise). > > Trivial example: 48-bit word. Floating point format was a 39-bit mantissa > (sign bit, 8-bit exponent) but the decimal point was at the right end of > the word. Integers were merely unnormalized floating point numbers. No > integer to real conversion. It just worked. Also, it was pointed out to me > recently that there was a hardware operator that convert an integer to BCD. > A 39-bit binary integer would convert within 48 bits. (The Burros 3500 was > a COBOL machine and all decimal including the addressing!) Burros was > architecture-agnostic. One could go on and on. > Yeah, they got it about language-driven architectures. My favorite Burroughs machine was their mid-range B1700, which they targeted at small businesses. This machine changed its microcode on the fly depending on the application (*i.e.,* it had Cobol microcode, Algol microcode, etc.). We studied this system in great detail in Dan Siewiorek's computer architecture class when I was an undergrad. It was a very cool machine that really learned a great deal about how microcoding could be used (and some of you have heard my story during my UCB grad qualifiers when I was asked a question about microcoding and used the B1700 to answer it). > > Why can’t we build systems like that any more. > Sadly, because often simpler is much less costly, and as I have said many times,* "Simple Economics always beats Sophisticated Architecture."* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 6 16:02:01 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (segaloco via COFF) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2025 06:02:01 +0000 Subject: [COFF] Early Bell Laboratories CPU Datasheets Message-ID: Just wanted to share a couple of datasheets that may interest folks here. This evening I scanned both the MAC-8 and MAC-4 preliminary datasheets from late 1978. While many details of the MAC-8 are currently known, the MAC-4 has been elusive in my study until I received these documents in a collection of MAC-8 materials. [https://archive.org/details/212-b-mac-8-data-sheet](https://archive.org/details/212-b-mac-8-data-sheet/) [https://archive.org/details/mac-4-specification-sheet](https://archive.org/details/mac-4-specification-sheet/) These are Bell Laboratories' 1970's 8-bit and 4-bit microprocessors which preceded their work on the WE32000. I have some hints on the typical development environment too. The BTL editions of the UNIX 5.0 and SVR2 manuals contain numerous references to MAC-8 and MAC-4 tools. I intend to preserve those pages too as part of a larger effort to illuminate the history of these two processors. I've provided much more info here: https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/western-electric-component-databooks.1250931/#post-1464263 - Matt G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coff at tuhs.org Sun Sep 7 11:25:43 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (segaloco via COFF) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 01:25:43 +0000 Subject: [COFF] Early Bell Laboratories CPU Datasheets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And now I've started a repository here: https://gitlab.com/segaloco/pwb5btl_man This will slowly accumulate reconstructions of the various manpages in the BTL edition of the Release 5.0 User's and Administrator's Manuals. I've started with the MAC-4 development utilities, and intend to tackle the pages for the MAC-8 and BASIC-16 environments next. I'll be adding various pages from these manuals over time, in the same spirit as my 4.1 3B20S project. I look forward to the opportunity to share these materials around Bell Labs's use of UNIX in their hardware design operations. Will probably start a more focused TUHS thread when the repository has more stuff in it, but a Bcc mention for now. - Matt G. On Friday, September 5th, 2025 at 23:02, segaloco via COFF wrote: > Just wanted to share a couple of datasheets that may interest folks here. This evening I scanned both the MAC-8 and MAC-4 preliminary datasheets from late 1978. While many details of the MAC-8 are currently known, the MAC-4 has been elusive in my study until I received these documents in a collection of MAC-8 materials. > > [https://archive.org/details/212-b-mac-8-data-sheet](https://archive.org/details/212-b-mac-8-data-sheet/) > > [https://archive.org/details/mac-4-specification-sheet](https://archive.org/details/mac-4-specification-sheet/) > > These are Bell Laboratories' 1970's 8-bit and 4-bit microprocessors which preceded their work on the WE32000. > > I have some hints on the typical development environment too. The BTL editions of the UNIX 5.0 and SVR2 manuals contain numerous references to MAC-8 and MAC-4 tools. I intend to preserve those pages too as part of a larger effort to illuminate the history of these two processors. > > I've provided much more info here: https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/western-electric-component-databooks.1250931/#post-1464263 > > - Matt G. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coff at tuhs.org Wed Sep 10 14:32:56 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via COFF) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:32:56 +1000 Subject: [COFF] A Potted Minnie History Message-ID: Over on TUHS we've been preserving the history of Unix for about thirty years. That makes my server, minnie, a bit historical herself :-) Being a bit vain (and a bit bored) I decided to write up a quick history of minnie. Here it is: https://minnie.tuhs.org/Blog/2025_09_10_Minnies_History.html Hope you find it somewhat interesting! Cheers, Warren From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 20 06:30:09 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Charles H Sauer (he/him) via COFF) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:30:09 -0500 Subject: [COFF] SOSP 1973 [was Multics<->Unix Re: [TUHS] Re: History of cal(1)? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [trying to broaden the discussion & transition to COFF] On 9/19/2025 2:57 PM, Dan Cross via TUHS wrote: > So I sort of wonder if the Multics folks also showed up to some of > those conferences: SOSP, for example. I imagine people like Fano and > Corby attended. And the Unix community coalesced quickly and became > quite strong (as we all know), I wonder about interaction with other > communities. Looking at the SOSP 1973 list of presentations at https://dblp.org/db/conf/sosp/sosp73.html, where Dennis & Ken presented Unix at IBM Yorktown, there's only one presentation obviously Multics related, by Saltzer, and no other presentations obviously associated with currently well known operating systems. In the (admittedly, insular) IBM environment, there seemed little interest in anything besides MVS for production and VM/370 for development. (From Popek/Goldberg SOSP 1973 Abstract: "Virtual machine systems have been implemented on a limited number of third generation computer systems, e.g. CP-67 on the IBM 360/67. From previous empirical studies, it is known that certain third generation computer systems, e.g. the DEC PDP-10, cannot support a virtual machine system.") As late as 1979 at UT-Austin, Unix was not available in the C.S. Dept -- TOPS-10 was gaining traction over the homegrown "UT-2D" environment for CDC 6400/6600 and the subsequent CDC machines that supplanted those. For various reasons, lack of commercial dominance, lack of source, ..., there didn't seem to be any specific OS that gained mind share in the O.S. community until Unix did. Well after 1985 in IBM, those of us advocating Unix were definitely in the minority. [https://notes.technologists.com/notes/2017/03/08/lets-start-at-the-very-beginning-801-romp-rtpc-aix-versions/] Charlie -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer at technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to: CharlesHSauer From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 20 07:49:20 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Noel Chiappa via COFF) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 17:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [COFF] SOSP 1973 [was Multics<->Unix Re: [TUHS] Re: History of cal(1)? Message-ID: <20250919214920.55FBF18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Charles H Sauer > For various reasons, lack of commercial dominance, lack of source, ..., > there didn't seem to be any specific OS that gained mind share in the > O.S. community until Unix did. Before UNIX, almost all OS's were written in assembler, tying them to one particular vendor's machines. (Multics, although in PL/I, was so specialized to the Heneywell architecture it was in the same boat.) UNIX was really the first portable OS (at least, that I know of - am I wrong?. I suspect thatwas a large factor too. Noel From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 20 07:59:36 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Charles H Sauer (he/him) via COFF) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:59:36 -0500 Subject: [COFF] SOSP 1973 [was Multics<->Unix Re: [TUHS] Re: History of cal(1)? In-Reply-To: <20250919214920.55FBF18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20250919214920.55FBF18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <076df8c1-1616-4224-88cc-85923f7d1735@technologists.com> On 9/19/2025 4:49 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Charles H Sauer > > > For various reasons, lack of commercial dominance, lack of source, ..., > > there didn't seem to be any specific OS that gained mind share in the > > O.S. community until Unix did. > > Before UNIX, almost all OS's were written in assembler, tying them to one > particular vendor's machines. (Multics, although in PL/I, was so specialized > to the Heneywell architecture it was in the same boat.) UNIX was really the > first portable OS (at least, that I know of - am I wrong?. I suspect thatwas > a large factor too. > > Noel Emphasis on "portable," since there seemed to be so many competing processor architectures. Charlie -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer at technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to: CharlesHSauer From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 20 08:45:57 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Dave Horsfall via COFF) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:45:57 +1000 (EST) Subject: [COFF] SOSP 1973 [was Multics<->Unix Re: [TUHS] Re: History of cal(1)? In-Reply-To: <20250919214920.55FBF18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20250919214920.55FBF18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Noel Chiappa via COFF wrote: > Before UNIX, almost all OS's were written in assembler, tying them to > one particular vendor's machines. (Multics, although in PL/I, was so > specialized to the Heneywell architecture it was in the same boat.) UNIX > was really the first portable OS (at least, that I know of - am I > wrong?. I suspect thatwas a large factor too. Burroughs' MCP (Master Control Program) was written in ALGOL, but again it was specific to the hardware (which basically was an ALGOL machine). (I used one once; I think it was a B-1500, but I've long since lost the manual) -- Dave From coff at tuhs.org Sat Sep 20 09:49:52 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Charles H. Sauer (he/him) via COFF) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 18:49:52 -0500 Subject: [COFF] SOSP 1973 [was Multics<->Unix Re: [TUHS] Re: History of cal(1)? In-Reply-To: References: <20250919214920.55FBF18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 9/19/2025 5:45 PM, Dave Horsfall via COFF wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2025, Noel Chiappa via COFF wrote: > >> Before UNIX, almost all OS's were written in assembler, tying them to >> one particular vendor's machines. (Multics, although in PL/I, was so >> specialized to the Heneywell architecture it was in the same boat.) UNIX >> was really the first portable OS (at least, that I know of - am I >> wrong?. I suspect thatwas a large factor too. > > Burroughs' MCP (Master Control Program) was written in ALGOL, but again it > was specific to the hardware (which basically was an ALGOL machine). > > (I used one once; I think it was a B-1500, but I've long since lost the > manual) > > -- Dave And there were Lisp machines... -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer at technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to: CharlesHSauer From coff at tuhs.org Mon Sep 22 23:03:53 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Lars Brinkhoff via COFF) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:03:53 +0000 Subject: [COFF] [TUHS] Re: forth on early unix In-Reply-To: <93dcc5eb-1152-468f-8c87-5715243b14a9@Julf.com> (Johan Helsingius via TUHS's message of "Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:02:31 +0200") References: <20250922031711.GB31455@mcvoy.com> <93dcc5eb-1152-468f-8c87-5715243b14a9@Julf.com> Message-ID: <7w7bxqfxl2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Johan Helsingius wrote: > I was trying to port forth to the PDP-10 and had to give up When was that? And why did you give up? I wrote a Forth for the PDP-8; based on that I would say one for the PDP-10 wouldn't be overly difficult. There's a Forth for the PDP-10 written in Maclisp, but perhaps that's a bit of a cheat. [Veering wildly off TUHS, redirected to COFF] From coff at tuhs.org Mon Sep 22 23:52:56 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Johan Helsingius via COFF) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:52:56 +0200 Subject: [COFF] [TUHS] Re: forth on early unix In-Reply-To: <7w7bxqfxl2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <20250922031711.GB31455@mcvoy.com> <93dcc5eb-1152-468f-8c87-5715243b14a9@Julf.com> <7w7bxqfxl2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: On 22/09/2025 15:03, Lars Brinkhoff via TUHS wrote: > When was that? And why did you give up? Early 1980's - gave up because just like C, forth is pretty byte-oriented, and the PDP-10 byte pointers (and half-words) were quite a hassle. In the end I just ran out of time and patience. Julf From coff at tuhs.org Tue Sep 23 00:00:09 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Ori Kuttner via COFF) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:00:09 +0300 Subject: [COFF] [TUHS] Re: forth on early unix In-Reply-To: References: <20250922031711.GB31455@mcvoy.com> <93dcc5eb-1152-468f-8c87-5715243b14a9@Julf.com> <7w7bxqfxl2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: FORTH is a Write Only Language, you write it and can't even read it yourself :-) I used to like FORTH, did some PostScript and now I just hate it. -- Ori Kuttner CEO Helicon Books http://www.heliconbooks.com On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 4:53 PM Johan Helsingius via COFF wrote: > On 22/09/2025 15:03, Lars Brinkhoff via TUHS wrote: > > When was that? And why did you give up? > > Early 1980's - gave up because just like C, forth is pretty > byte-oriented, and the PDP-10 byte pointers (and half-words) > were quite a hassle. In the end I just ran out of time and > patience. > > Julf > > > From coff at tuhs.org Tue Sep 23 00:53:42 2025 From: coff at tuhs.org (Dan Cross via COFF) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:53:42 -0400 Subject: [COFF] Perl (was Re: forth on early unix) In-Reply-To: References: <20250922031711.GB31455@mcvoy.com> <93dcc5eb-1152-468f-8c87-5715243b14a9@Julf.com> <7w7bxqfxl2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 10:19 AM Ori Kuttner via COFF wrote: > FORTH is a Write Only Language, you write it and can't even read it > yourself :-) > I used to like FORTH, did some PostScript and now I just hate it. I thought that was Perl? (*jumps for the exit*) - Dan C.