On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 01:23:23AM -0400, Dan Plassche wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>
> > PWB was an early external distribution with troff.
> >
> > Documents for the PWB/UNIX Time-Sharing System
> > https://datamuseum.dk/wiki/Bits:30007124
> > https://bitsavers.org/pdf/att/unix/PWB_UNIX/
> >
> > NROFF/TROFF User's Manual
> > October 11, 1976
> > datamuseum.dk, pp 325-357
> > bitsavers, pp 217-249
> >
> > Addendum to the NROFF/TROFF User's Manual
> > May 1977
> > datamuseum.dk, p 358
> > bitsavers, p 250
> >
> > fonts described in:
> > Administrative Advice for PWB/UNIX
> > 23. PHOTOTYPESETTING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
> > datamuseum.dk, p 647
>
> Thank you Jonathan. I was previously not sure where to place the
> PWB documentation in the timeline but a clearer picture is
> emerging.
>
> Based on the v6 "NROFF User's Manual" revised in 1974 and
> published in 1975, I can now see that the PWB documentation with
> the "NROFF/TROFF User's Manual" from 1976-77 has most of the
> content that later appears in v7. The major change immediately
> beforehand was the rewrite of troff into C.[1] Some clear
> differences are the combination of nroff and troff manpages and
> the addition of troff specific features like the special fonts
> into the user's manual.
>
> [1]. Apparently in 1976:
> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/USDL/unix_program_description-tr…
"It was rewritten in C around 1975"
Kernighan in CSTR 97, A Typesetter-independent TROFF
I've seen references to
"Documents for Use with the Phototypesetter (Version 7)"
which was likely distributed with the licensed phototypesetter tape in 1977.
What may have been the manual distributed with that tape is also close to v7.
https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Interdata732/usr/source/troff/dochttps://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Other/Interdata/
tuhs Applications/Spencer_Tapes/unsw3.tar.gz
usr/source/formatters/troff/doc/
The "man 1 iconv" page on both HP-UX 11i 11.23 (Aug 2003) and 11.31 (Feb
2007) remark that iconv was developed by HP.
Cheers,
uncle rubl
--
The more I learn the better I understand I know nothing.
So a project I'm working on recently includes a need to store UTF-8 Japanese kana text in source files for readability, but then process those source files through tools only guaranteed to support single-byte code points, with something mapping the UTF-8 code points to single-byte points in the destination execution environment. After a bit of futzing, I've landed on the definition of iconv(1) provided by the Single UNIX Specification to push this character mapping concern to the tip of my pipelines. It is working well thus far and insulates the utilities down-pipe from needing multi-byte support (I'm looking at you Apple).
I started thumbing through my old manuals and noted that iconv(1) is not a historic utility, rather, SUS picked it up from HP-UX along the way.
Was there any older utility or set of practices for converting files between character encodings besides the ASCII/EBCDIC stuff in dd(1)? As I understand it, iconv(1) is just recognizing sequences of bytes, mapping them to a symbolic name, then emitting them in the complementary series of bytes assigned to that symbolic name in a second charmap file. This sounds like a simple filter operation that could be done in a few other ways. I'm curious if any particular approach was relatively ubiquitous, or if this was an exercise largely left to the individual and so solutions were wide and varied? My tool chain doesn't need to work on historic UNIX, but it would be cool to understand how to make it work on the least common denominator.
- Matt G.
>>> malloc(0) isn't undefined behaviour but implementation defined.
>>
>> In modern C there is no difference between those two concepts.
> Can you explain more about your view
There certainly is a difference, but in this case the practical
implications are the same: avoid malloc(0). malloc(0) lies at the high end
of a range of severity of concerns about implementation-definedness. At the
low end are things like the size of ints, which only affects applications
that may confront very large numbers. In the middle is the default
signedness of chars, which generally may be mitigated by explicit type
declarations.
For the size of ints, C offers guardrails like INT_MAX. There is no test to
discern what an error return from malloc(0) means.
Is there any other C construct that implementation-definedness renders
useless?
Doug
Hello, all.
Have you an idea where one could find the sources of the various
versions of the ex/vi editor, besides those archived at TUHS:
1BSD/ex-1.1
2.11BSD/src/ucb/ex
2.9BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex/ex2
2.9BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex/ex3
2BSD/src/ex
3BSD/usr/src/cmd/ex
4.1cBSD/usr/src/ucb/ex
4.2BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex
4.3BSD-Reno/src/usr.bin/ex
4.3BSD-Tahoe/usr/src/ucb
4.3BSD-UWisc/src/ucb/ex
4.3BSD/usr/src/ucb/ex
4.4BSD/usr/src/usr.bin/ex
4BSD/usr/src/cmd/ex
OpenSolaris_b135/cmd/vi
There include vv. 1.1, 2.13, 3.2, 3.6, and many variants of 3.7. Has
anything else been preserved to your knowledge?
It happened in September, apparently, but is only now making the rounds.
Darl McBride, known for taking everybody and his brother to court over
stolen code, has passed away.
https://fossforce.com/2024/11/once-linuxs-biggest-enemy-darl-mcbride-dies-a…
I actually remember liking SCO back in the day, before the company
leadership went dark-side. These days, we get to play with ancient unix
cuz of their license. What a topsy turvy world.
Is there a concise summary of the SCO suits and fallout out there? I've
seen a lot on the AT&T side of things, but other than having lived
through it, I've not seen much on what eventually happened and why it
all sort of just dissappeared.
Will
> From: Warner Losh
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:14PM Larry McVoy wrote:
>> The bmap implementations I saw were bit for bit identical, same code,
>> same variables, same style, same indentation. I'm 100% sure they were
>> not independent.
> They are different in 4.3BSD. They are different in 4.2BSD (but less
> different). The underlying filesystems are different on disk, so they
> routines have to be different.
That last sentence points out something important that people need to remember
in this discussion: in between 4.1 and 4.2 (technically, in 4.1B), BSD
switched to the BSD Fast File System, so I very much doubt that the low-level
(i.e. logical file block to disk block) file system code in anything after
4.1A looks much like the AT+T low-level file system code. (I have no idea how
the BSD code compares to the Linux file system code, but that's between the
Linux people, and Berkeley.)
Noel