Could interest a few OFs here... I've used the -8 and of course the -11,
but not the -10 so I may as well start now.
-- Dave
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: A fellow geek
To: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org>
Subject: PiDP-10 — The MagPi magazine
RasPi is now masquerading as a PDP-10…
https://magpi.raspberrypi.com/articles/pidp-10
Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free
without a subscription.
C. Gordon Bell, Creator of a Personal Computer Prototype, Dies at 89
It cost $18,000 when it was introduced in 1965, but it bridged the world
between room-size mainframes and the modern desktop.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/technology/c-gordon-bell-dead.html?unloc…
ᐧ
Good evening, I recently came into possession of a "Draft Proposed American National Standard for BASIC" circa September 15, 1980, 6 years prior to the publication of the Full BASIC standard.
I did some brief searching around, checked bitsavers, archive.org, but I don't happen to see this archived anywhere. Is anyone aware of such a scan? If not, I'll be sure to add it to my scan docket...which is a bit slow these days due to a beautiful spring and much gardening...but not forgotten!
Flipping through this makes me wonder how things might have been different if this dropped in 1980 rather than 1986.
- Matt G.
The Newcastle Connection, aka Unix United, was an early experiment in
transparent networking: see <
https://web.archive.org/web/20160816184205/http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/research…>
for a high-level description. A name of the form "/../host/path"
represented a file or device on a remote host in a fully transparent way.
This was layered on V7 at the libc level, so that the kernel did not need
to be modified (though the shell did, since it was not libc-based at the
time). MUNIX was an implementation of the same idea using System V as the
underlying system.
This appears to be a VHS vs. Betamax battle: NFS was not transparent, but
Sun had far more marketing clout. However, the Manchester Connection
required a single uid space (as far as I can tell), which may also have
been a (perceived) institutional barrier.
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 3:34 AM Ralph Corderoy <ralph(a)inputplus.co.uk>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've set ‘mail-followup-to: coff(a)tuhs.xn--org-to0a.
>
> > > Every so often I want to compare files on remote machines, but all
> > > I can do is to fetch them first (usually into /tmp); I'd like to do
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > rdiff host1:file1 host2:file2
> > >
> > > Breathes there such a beast?
>
> No, nor should there. It would be slain less it beget rcmp, rcomm,
> rpaste, ...
>
> > > Think of it as an extension to the Unix philosophy of "Everything
> > > looks like a file"...
>
> Then make remote files look local as far as their access is concerned.
> Ideally at the system-call level. Less ideal, at libc.a.
>
> > Maybe
> >
> > diff -u <(ssh host1 cat file1) <(ssh host2 cat file2)
>
> This is annoyingly noisy if the remote SSH server has sshd_config(5)'s
> ‘Banner’ set which spews the contents of a file before authentication,
> e.g. the pointless
>
> This computer system is the property of ...
>
> Disconnect NOW if you have not been expressly authorised to use this
> system. Unauthorised use is a criminal offence under the Computer
> Misuse Act 1990.
>
> Communications on or through ...uk's computer systems may be
> monitored or recorded to secure effective system operation and for
> other lawful purposes.
>
> It appears on stderr so doesn't upset the diff but does clutter.
> And discarding stderr is too sloppy.
>
> --
> Cheers, Ralph.
>
While the idea of small tools that do one job well is the core tenant of
what I think of as the UNIX philosophy, this goes a bit beyond UNIX, so I
have moved this discussion to COFF and BCCing TUHS for now.
The key is that not all "bloat" is the same (really)—or maybe one person's
bloat is another person's preference. That said, NIH leads to pure bloat
with little to recommend it, while multiple offerings are a choice. Maybe
the difference between the two may be one person's view over another.
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 6:08 AM Rob Pike <robpike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't recognize the command, looked it up. Sigh.
>
Like Rob -- this was a new one for me, too.
I looked, and it is on the SYS3 tape; see:
https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/man/man1/nl.1
> pr -tn <file>
>
> seems sufficient for me, but then that raises the question of your
> question.
>
Agreed, that has been burned into the ROMs in my fingers since the
mid-1970s 😀
BTW: SYS3 has pr(1) with both switches too (more in a minute)
> I've been developing a theory about how the existence of something leads
> to things being added to it that you didn't need at all and only thought of
> when the original thing was created.
>
That is a good point, and I generally agree with you.
> Bloat by example, if you will. I suspect it will not be a popular theory,
> however accurately it may describe the technological world.
>
Of course, sometimes the new features >>are<< easier (more natural *for
some people*). And herein lies the core problem. The bloat is often
repetitive, and I suggest that it is often implemented in the wrong place -
and usually for the wrong reasons.
Bloat comes about because somebody thinks they need some feature and
probably doesn't understand that it is already there or how they can use
it. But they do know about it, their tool must be set up to exploit it - so
they do not need to reinvent it. GUI-based tools are notorious for this
failure. Everyone seems to have a built-in (unique) editor, or a private
way to set up configuration options et al. But ... that walled garden is
comfortable for many users and >>can be<< useful sometimes.
Long ago, UNIX programmers learned that looking for $EDITOR in the
environment was way better than creating one. Configuration was as ASCII
text, stored in /etc for system-wide and dot files in the home for users.
But it also means the >>output<< of each tool needs to be usable by each
other [*i.e.*, docx or xlx files are a no-no).
For example, for many things on my Mac, I do use the GUI-based tools --
there is no doubt they are better integrated with the core Mac system >>for
some tasks.<< But only if I obey a set of rules Apple decrees. For
instance, this email read is easier much of the time than MH (or the HM
front end, for that matter), which I used for probably 25-30 years. But on
my Mac, I always have 4 or 5 iterm2(1) open running zsh(1) these days. And,
much of my typing (and everything I do as a programmer) is done in the shell
(including a simple text editor, not an 'IDE'). People who love IDEs swear
by them -- I'm just not impressed - there is nothing they do for me that
makes it easier, and I have learned yet another scheme.
That said, sadly, Apple is forcing me to learn yet another debugger since
none of the traditional UNIX-based ones still work on the M1-based systems.
But at least LLDB is in the same key as sdb/dbx/gdb *et al*., so it is a
PITA but not a huge thing as, in the end, LLDB is still based on the UNIX
idea of a single well-designed and specific to the task tool, to do each
job and can work with each other.
FWIW: I was recently a tad gob-smacked by the core idea of UNIX and its
tools, which I have taken for a fact since the 1970s.
It turns out that I've been helping with the PiDP-10 users (all of the
PiDPs are cool, BTW). Before I saw UNIX, I was paid to program a PDP-10. In
fact, my first UNIX job was helping move programs from the 10 to the UNIX.
Thus ... I had been thinking that doing a little PDP-10 hacking shouldn't
be too hard to dust off some of that old knowledge. While some of it has,
of course, come back. But daily, I am discovering small things that are so
natural with a few simple tools can be hard on those systems.
I am realizing (rediscovering) that the "build it into my tool" was the
norm in those days. So instead of a pr(1) command, there was a tool that
created output to the lineprinter. You give it a file, and it is its job to
figure out what to do with it, so it has its set of features (switches) -
so "bloat" is that each tool (like many current GUI tools) has private ways
of doing things. If the maker of tool X decided to support some idea, they
would do it like tool Y. The problem, of course, was that tools X and Y
had to 'know about' each type of file (in IBM terms, use its "access
method"). Yes, the engineers at DEC, in their wisdom, tried to
"standardize" those access methods/switches/features >>if you implemented
them<< -- but they are not all there.
This leads me back to the question Rob raises. Years ago, I got into an
argument with Dave Cutler RE: UNIX *vs.* VMS. Dave's #1 complaint about
UNIX in those days was that it was not "standardized." Every program was
different, and more to Dave's point, there was no attempt to make switches
or errors the same [getopt(3) had been introduced but was not being used by
most applications). He hated that tar/tp used "keys" and tools like cpio
used switches. Dave hated that I/O was so simple - in his world all user
programs should use his RMS access method of course [1]. VMS, TOPS, *etc.*,
tried to maintain a system-wide error scheme, and users could look things
like errors up in a system DB by error number, *etc*. Simply put, VMS is
very "top-down."
My point with Dave was that by being "bottom-up," the best ideas in UNIX
were able to rise. And yes, it did mean some rough edges and repeated
implementations of the same idea. But UNIX offered a choice, and while Rob
and I like and find: pr -tn perfectly acceptable thank you, clearly someone
else desired the features that nl provides. The folks that put together
System 3 offer both solutions and let the user choose.
This, of course, comes as bloat, but maybe that is a type of bloat so bad?
My own thinking is this - get things down to the basics and simplest
privatives and then build back up. It's okay to offer choices, as long as
the foundation is simple and clean. To me, bloat becomes an issue when you
do the same thing over and over again, particularly because you can not
utilize what is there already, the worst example is NIH - which happens way
more than it should.
I think the kind of bloat that GUI tools and TOPS et al. created forces
recreation, not reuse. But offering choice and the expense of multiple
tools that do the same things strikes me as reasonable/probably a good
thing.
1.] BTW: One of my favorite DEC stories WRT to VMS engineering has to do
with the RMS I/O system. Supporting C using VMS was a bit of PITA.
Eventually, the VMS engineers added Stream I/O - which simplified the C
runtime, but it was also made available for all technical languages.
Fairly soon after it was released, the DEC Marketing folks discovered
almost all new programs, regardless of language, had started to use Stream
I/O and many older programs were being rewritten by customers to use it. In
fact, inside of DEC itself, the languages group eventually rewrote things
like the FTN runtime to use streams, making it much smaller/easier to
maintain. My line in the old days: "It's not so bad that ever I/O has
offer 1000 options, it's that Dave to check each one for every I/O. It's a
classic example of how you can easily build RMS I/O out of stream-based
I/O, but the other way around is much harder. My point here is to *use
the right primitives*. RMS may have made it easier to build RDB, but it
impeded everything else.
