> <clemc(a)ccc.com>
> In particular, I hope the PDP-7s and the CDC-6500 find new homes.
Also, their collection of PDP-10's, which is absolutely unrivalled; they
had a KA10 and a KI10; also the MIT-MC KL10.
Also a Multics front panel; AFAIK, the ony one in the world other than the
CHM's. Any idea where it's all being sold? I might enquire about the Multics
panel.
Noel
FYI, Tom Van Vleck just passed this on the Multicians list; DMR's
recollections of the end of Multics at BTL.
I can't resist asking about the nugget buried in here about Ken
writing a small kernel for the 645. Is that in the archives anywhere?
- Dan C.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tom Van Vleck via groups.io <thvv=multicians.org(a)groups.io>
Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:38 AM
Subject: [multicians] Dennis Ritchie's 1993 Usenet posting "BTL Leaves Multics"
To: <multicians(a)groups.io>
in "alt.os.multics"
about Unix, CTSS, Multics, BTL, qed, and mail
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.multics/c/1iHfrDJkyyE
Comments by DMR, me, RMF, PAG, PAK, BSG, PWB, JJL, AE, MAP, EHR, DMW
Covers many issues.
(I feel like we should save this thread somehow. hard to trust Google any more.
the posting ends with a heading of a response by JWG but no content.)
_._,_._,_
________________________________
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#5547) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute
This Topic | New Topic
________________________________
-- sent via multicians(a)groups.io -- more Multics info at
https:://multicians.org/
________________________________
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [crossd(a)gmail.com]
_._,_._,_
All, recently I saw on Bruce Schneier "Cryptogram" blog that he has had
to change the moderation policy due to toxic comments:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/06/new-blog-moderation-policy.h…
So I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your civility
and respect for others on the TUHS and COFF lists. The recent systemd
and make discussions have highlighted significant differences between
people's experiences and opinions. Nonetheless, apart from a few pointed
comments, the discussions have been polite and informative.
These lists have been in use for decades now and, thankfully, I've
only had to unsubscribe a handful of people for offensive behaviour.
That's a testament to the calibre of people who are on the lists.
Cheers and thank you again,
Warren
P.S. I'm a happy Devuan (non-systemd) user for many years now.
my personal frustration with autotools was trying to port code to plan9.
i wish autotools had an intermediate file format which described the packages requirements, that way i could have written my own backend to create my config.h and makefiles (or mkfiles)
in the end i wrote my own tool which crudely parses a directory of C or F77 sourcecode and uses heuristics to create a config.h and a plan9 mkfile, it was named mkmk(1)
it was almost _never_ completely correct, but usually got close enough that the files only needed a little manual hacking.
it also took great pains to generate mkfiles that looked hand written; if you are going to auto generate files, make them look nice.
-Steve
> This is The Way if you really care about portability. Autoconf,
> once you get your head around what, why, and when it was created,
> makes for nice Makefiles and projects that are easy to include in
> the 100 Linux distributions with their own take on packaging the
> world.
This is outright claptrap and nonsense. In the latter half of the
90s I was responsible for writing installers and generating
platform-native packages for about a dozen different commercial
UNIX platforms (AIX, Solaris, Irix, HP/UX, OSF, BSD/OS, ...). Each
of these package systems was as different as could be from the
others. (HP/UX didn't even have one.)
That entire process was driven by not very many lines of make
recipes, with the assistance of some awk glue that read a template
file from which it generated the native packages. And these were
not trivial software distributions. We were shipping complex IMAP,
X.400 and X.500 servers, along with a couple of MTAs. Our installers
didn't just dump the files onto the system and point you at a README;
we coded a lot of the site setup into the installers, so the end
user mostly just had to edit a single config file to finish up.
--lyndon
FYI, for people like me that care about 80s 68K Unix systemf
There is a pretty serious multi-purpose preservation effort that started a few weeks ago
around Plexus systems as a result of a series of YouTube videos
https://youtu.be/iltZYXg5hZwhttps://github.com/misterblack1/plexus-p20/
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? I see that Penguin/OS has already taken
"rdiff" which doesn't seem to do what I want.
Think of it as an extension to the Unix philosophy of "Everything looks
like a file"...
-- Dave
> From: Warner Losh
> 2.11BSD used a mode between kernel and user for the TCP stack to get
> more effective address space...
Is there a document for 2.11 which explains in detail why they did that? I
suspect it's actually a little more complicated than just "more address
space".
The thing is that PDP-11 Unix had been using overlays in the kernel for quite
a while to provide more address space. I forget where they first came in (I
suspect there were a number of local hacks, before everyone started using the
BSD approach), but by 2.9 BSD they were a standard part of the system. (See:
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=2.9BSD/usr/src/sys/conf/Ovmak…
for some clues about how this works. There is unfortunately no documentation
that I know of which explains clearly how it works; if anyone knows of any,
can you please let me know? Otherwise you'll have to read the sources.)
I can think of two possible reasons they started using supervisor mode: i)
There were a limited number of the 2.9-type overlays, and they were not
large; trying to support all the networking code with the existing overlay
system may have been too hard. ii) I think this one is unlikely, but I'll
list it as a possibility. Switching overlays took a certain amount of
overhead (since mapping registers had to be re-loaded); if all the networking
code ran in supervisor mode, the supervisor mode mapping registers could be
loaded with the right thing and just left.
Noel
> From: Clem Cole
> Frankly my major complaint with much of the modern world is that when we
> ignore the past
"There are two kinds of fools. One says, 'This is old, therefore it is good';
the other says, 'This is new, therefore it is better.'" -- Dean Inge, quoted
by John Brunner in "The Shockwave Rider".
Noel