> From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org>
> there is next to no commenting in the early code bases.
By 'early' you must mean the first 'C' PDP-11 Unixes, because certainly
starting with V6, it is reasonably well commented (to the point where I like
to say that I learned how to comment by reading the V6 code), e.g.:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/usr/sys/ken/slp.chttp://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/usr/sys/dmr/bio.c
to pick examples from each author; and there are _some_ comments in the
assembler systems (both PDP-7 and PDP-11).
> Given that the comments never made it into the compiled code, there was
> no space reason to omit comments. There must have been another reason.
I was going to say 'the early disks were really small', but that hypothesis
fails because the very earliest versions (in assembler) do have some comments.
Although assembler is often so cryptic, the habit of putting a comment on each
instruction isn't so unreasonable.
So maybe the sort of comments one sees in assembler code (line-by-line
descriptions of what's happening; for subroutines, which arguments are in
which registers; etc) aren't needed in C code, and it took a while for them to
work out what sort of commenting _was_ appropriate/useful for C code?
The sudden appearance in V6 does make it seem as if there was a deliberate
decision to comment the code, and they went through it and added them in a
deliberate campaign.
> From: Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com>
> "Practice of Programming" by Rob Pike and Brian Kernighan.
> ...
> They also state: "Comments ... do not help by saying things the code
> already plainly says ... The best comments aid ... by briefly pointing
> out salient details or by providing a larger-scale view of the
> proceedings."
Exactly.
Noel
Revision 1.1, Sun Mar 21 09:45:37 1993 UTC (25 years ago) by cgd
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sbin/init/init.c?rev=1.1&content-ty…
Today is commonly considered the birthday of NetBSD.
Theo told me (seven years ago) that he, cgd, and glass (and one other
person) planned it within 30 minutes after discussing with the CSRG and
BSDI guys in the hot tub at the Town & Country Resort in San Diego at
the January 25-29 1993 USENIX conference. (Does anyone have more to
share about this discussion?) Soon, cgd had setup a CVS repository
(forked 386BSD with many patchkits) which was re-rolled a few times (due
to corrupted CVS). (So maybe March 21 is later than the real birthday.)
As far as I know, it is the oldest continuously-maintained complete
open source operating system. (It predates Slackware Linux, FreeBSD,
and Debian Linux by some months.)
"NetBSD" wasn't mentioned by name in the April 19. 1993 release files
(but was named in the announcement).
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/release/NetBSD/NetBSD-0.8
On April 28, the kernel was renamed to /netbsd, the boot loader
identified it as NetBSD, and various references of 386BSD were changed
to NetBSD.
https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/a477732ff85d5557eef2808b5cbf221f3c7455…https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/446115f2d63299e52f34977fb4a88c289dcae9…
On 2018-03-21 14:48, Paul Winalski<paul.winalski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/20/18, Clem Cole<clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
>> Paul can correct me, but I don't think DEC even developed a Pascal for TOPS
>> originally - IIRC the one I used came from the universities. I think the
>> first Pascal sold was targeted for the VAX. Also, RT11 and RSX were
>> 'laboratory' systems and those systems were dominated by Fortran back in
>> the day - so DEC marketing thought in those terms.
>>
> DEC did do a Pascal for RSX. I don't remember if it supported RT11 or
> RSTS. DEC did a BASIC compiler for RSTS and RSX. RSX and especially
> RT were designed mainly for real-time process control in laboratories.
DEC did both COBOL, DIBOL, PASCAL, FORTRAN (-IV, -IV-PLUS, -77), C as
well as Datatrieve for RSX and RSTS/E. Some of these were also available
for RT-11. Admittedly, the C compiler was very late to the game.
> A lot of the programming was in assembler for efficiency reasons
> (both time and space).
Yes. And MACRO-11 is pretty nice.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Let's see how much this thread can drift...
The venerable PDP-8 was introduced in 1965 today (or tomorrow if you're on
the wrong side of the date line). It was the first computer I ever used,
back around 1970 (I think I'd just left school and was checking out the
local University's computer department, and played with BASIC and FOCAL).
And (hopefully) coincidentally the Pentium first shipped in 1993; the
infamous FDIV defect was discovered a year later (and it turned out that
Intel was made aware of it by a post-grad student a bit earlier), and what
followed next was an utter farce, with some dealers refusing to accept the
results of a widely-distributed program as evidence of a faulty FPU.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
> From: "Steve Johnson"
So, I have this persistent memory that I read, in some early Multics (possibly
CTSS, but ISTR it was Multics) document, a footnote explaining the origin of
the term 'daemon'. I went looking for it, but couldn't find it in a 'quick'
scan.
I did find this, though, which is of some interest: R. A. Freiburghouse, "The
Multics PL/1 Compiler" (available online here:
http://multicians.org/pl1-raf.html
if anyone is interested).
> There was a group that was pushing the adoption of PL/1, being used to
> code Multics, but the compiler was late and not very good and it never
> really caught on.
So, in that I read:
The entire compiler and the Multics operating system were written in EPL, a
large subset of PL/1 ... The EPL compiler was built by a team headed by
M. D. McIlroy and R. Morris ... Several members of the Multics PL/1 project
modified the original EPL compiler to improve its object code performance,
and utilized the knowledge acquired from this experience in the design of
the Multics PL/1 compiler.
The EPL compiler was written when the _original_ PL/1 compiler (supposedly
being produced by a consulting company, Digitek) blew up. More detail is
available here:
http://multicians.org/pl1.html
I assume it's the Digitek compiler you were thinking of above?
Noel
We lost computer pioneer John Backus on this day in 2007; amongst other
things he gave us FORTRAN (yuck!) and BNF, which is ironic, really,
because FORTRAN has no syntax to speak of.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
I've put online at https://dspinellis.github.io/unix-history-man/ nine
timelines detailing the evolution of 15,596 unique documented facilities
(commands, system calls, library functions, device drivers, etc.) across
93 major Unix releases tracked by the Unix history repository.
For each facility you get a timeline starting from the release it first
appeared. Clicking on the timeline opens up the manual page for the
corresponding release. (Sadly, the formatting is often messed up,
because more work is needed on the JavaScript troff renderer I'm using.)
The associated scripts and the raw data are all available on GitHub.
Diomidis
A while ago someone was asking about the mt Xinu Unix manuals. I have a
found a complete set, currently owned by Vance Vaughan, one of the mt
Xinu founders. He is willing to donate them to Warren's Unix archive.
However, they are too expensive to ship to Australia.
Would anyone be willing to scan them in for the archive? Ah, there are
a lot of them (8? volumes). If so, I might be able to ship them to
somewhere in the US.
Let me know.
Thanks.
Deborah
Peter Guthrie Tait (1831--1901) seems to have recorded the oldest
mention of the thermodynamic demon of James {Clerk Maxwell} in the
page 213 image from Tait's book ``Sketch of Thermodynamics'' at
https://archive.org/stream/lifescientificwo00knotuoft#page/212/mode/2up
that was posted to this list by Bakul Shah <bakul(a)bitblocks.com> on
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:10:37 -0700.
I've been working on a bibliography (still unreleased) of Clerk
Maxwell, and the oldest reference that I had so far found to Maxwell's
demon is from an address by Sir William Thomson (later raised to Lord
Kelvin) entitled
The sorting demon of Maxwell: [Abstract of a Friday evening
Lecture before the Royal Institution of Great Britain,
February 28, 1879]
Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 9,
113--114 (1882)
However, I've not been able to find that volume online. Hathi Trust
has only volumes 30--71, with numerous holes, and often, it will not
show page contents at all. The journal issue is old enough that few
university libraries are likely to have it, but it is probably
available through the Interlibrary Loan service.
I had also recorded
Harold Whiting
Maxwell's demons
Science (new series) 6(130), 83, July 1885
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns-6.130.83
and
W. Ehrenberg
Maxwell's demon
Scientific American 217(5) 103--110, November 1967
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1167-103
plus numerous later papers and books.
I also went through a score of books on my shelf about physics or
thermodynamics, and finally found a brief mention of Maxwell's demon
in G. N. Lewis & M. Randall's famous text ``Thermodynamics'', first
published in 1923 (I have a 1961 reprint). The other books that I
checked remain strangely silent on that topic.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online has this definition and
etymology:
>> ...
>> Maxwell's demon n. (also Maxwell demon) an entity imagined by Maxwell
>> as allowing only fast-moving molecules to pass through a hole in one
>> direction and only slow-moving ones in the other direction, so that if
>> the hole is in a partition dividing a gas-filled vessel, one side
>> becomes warmer and the other cooler, in contradiction of the second
>> law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> 1879 W. Thomson in Proc. Royal Inst. 9 113 Clerk Maxwell's `demon' is
>> a creature of imagination.., invented to help us to understand the
>> `Dissipation of Energy' in nature.
>>
>> 1885 Science 31 July 83/1 (heading) Maxwell's demons.
>>
>> 1956 E. H. Hutten Lang. Mod. Physics iv. 152 It would require a
>> Maxwell demon..to select the rapidly moving molecules according to
>> their velocity and concentrate them in one corner of the vessel.
>>
>> 1971 Sci. Amer. Sept. 182/2 Maxwell's demon became an intellectual
>> thorn in the side of thermodynamicists for almost a century. The
>> challenge to the second law of thermodynamics was this: Is the
>> principle of the increase of entropy in all spontaneous processes
>> invalid where intelligence intervenes?
>>
>> 1988 Nature 27 Oct. 779/2 Questions about the energy needed in
>> measurement began with Maxwell's demon.
>> ...
For the word `daemon', the OED has this:
>> ...
>> Etymology: Probably an extended use of demon ....
>>
>> A program (or part of a program), esp. within a Unix system, which
>> runs in the background without intervention by the user, either
>> continuously or only when automatically activated by a particular
>> event or condition. A distinction is sometimes made between the form
>> daemon, referring to a program on an operating system, and demon,
>> referring to a portion of a program, but the forms seem generally to
>> be used interchangeably, daemon being more usual.
>>
>> 1971 A. Bhushan Request for Comments (Network Working Group)
>> (Electronic text) No. 114. 2 The cooperating processes may be
>> `daemon' processes which `listen' to agreed-upon sockets, and
>> follow the initial connection protocol.
>>
>> 1983 E. S. Raymond Hacker's Dict. 53 The printer daemon is just a
>> program that is always running; it checks the special directory
>> periodically, and whenever it finds a file there it prints it
>> and then deletes it.
>>
>> 1989 DesignCenter ii. 41/3 The file server runs a standard set of
>> HP-UX system and network daemons.
>>
>> 1992 New Scientist 18 Jan. 35/2 These programs, which could recognise
>> simple patterns, were made up of several independent
>> information-processing units, or `demons', and a `master
>> demon'.
>>
>> 2002 N.Y. Times 7 Mar. d4/5 A mailer daemon installed on an e-mail
>> system can respond to a piece of incorrectly addressed e-mail
>> by generating an automated message to the sender that the
>> message was undeliverable.
>> ...
----------------------------------------
>From The Hacker's Dictionary (1983), reproduced in the Emacs info node
Jargon, I find another `explanation' of daemon:
>> ...
>> :daemon: /day'mn/ or /dee'mn/ /n./ [from the mythological
>> meaning, later rationalized as the acronym `Disk And Execution
>> MONitor'] A program that is not invoked explicitly, but lies
>> dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. The idea is that
>> the perpetrator of the condition need not be aware that a daemon is
>> lurking (though often a program will commit an action only because
>> it knows that it will implicitly invoke a daemon). For example,
>> under {{ITS}} writing a file on the {LPT} spooler's directory
>> would invoke the spooling daemon, which would then print the file.
>> The advantage is that programs wanting (in this example) files
>> printed need neither compete for access to nor understand any
>> idiosyncrasies of the {LPT}. They simply enter their implicit
>> requests and let the daemon decide what to do with them. Daemons
>> are usually spawned automatically by the system, and may either
>> live forever or be regenerated at intervals.
>>
>> Daemon and {demon} are often used interchangeably, but seem to
>> have distinct connotations. The term `daemon' was introduced to
>> computing by {CTSS} people (who pronounced it /dee'mon/) and
>> used it to refer to what ITS called a {dragon}. Although the
>> meaning and the pronunciation have drifted, we think this glossary
>> reflects current (1996) usage.
>> ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
- University of Utah FAX: +1 801 581 4148 -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe(a)math.utah.edu -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe(a)acm.org beebe(a)computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'll have to redo my kludgy fix to gmtime() ... I guess I'll have to fix
> it for real, instead of my kludgy fix (which extended it to work for
> 16-bit results). :-)
> ...
> And on the -11/23:
> Note that the returned 'quotient' is simply the high part of the dividend.
Heh. I had decided that the easiest clean and long-lived fix was to just to do
it right, using the long division routine used in the V7 C compiler runtime:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/libc/crt/ldiv.s
and I vaguely recalled reading a DMR story that talked about that, so just for
amusement I decided to re-read it, and looked it up:
https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/odd.html
(the section "Comments I do feel guilty about"), and it's lucky I did, because
I found this:
Addendum 18 Oct 1998
Amos Shapir of nSOF (and of long memory!) just blackened (or widened) the
spot a bit more in a mail message, to wit:
'I gather the "almost" here is because this trick almost worked... It has a
nasty bug which I had to find the hard way!
The "clever part" relies on the fact that if the "bvc 1f" is not taken, it
means that the result could not fit in 16 bits; in that case the long value
in r0,r1 is left unchanged. The bug is that this behavior is not documented;
in later models (I found this on an 11/34) when the result does fit in 16
bits but not in 15 bits ... which makes this routine provide very strange
results!'
So this code won't work on an 11/23 either (which bashes the low register of
the pair; above). I'd have been groveling in buggy math, again...
Caveat Haquur (if you're trying to run stock V7 on a /23 or /34)!
Noel
So, I have discovered, to my astonishment, that the double-word version of the
DIV instruction on the PDP-11 won't do a divide if the result won't fit into
15 bits. OK, I can understand it bitching if the quotient wouldn't fit into 16
bits - but what's the problem with returning an unsigned quotient?
And, just for grins, the results left in the registers which hold the quotient
and remainer is different in the -11/23 (KDF11-A) and the -11/73 (KDJ11-A).
(Although, to be fair, the PDP-11 Architecture Manual says 'register contents
are unpredictable if there's an overflow'.)
Oh well, guess I'll have to redo my kludgy fix to gmtime() (the distributed
version of which in V6 qhas a problem when the number of 8-hour periods since
the epoch overflows 15 bits)! I guess I'll have to fix it for real, instead of
my kludgy fix (which extended it to work for 16-bit results). :-)
I discovered this when I plugged in an -11/73 to make sure the prototype QSIC
(our RK11/etc emulator for the QBUS) worked with the -11/73 as well as the
-11/23 (which is what we'd mostly been using - when we first started working
on the DMA and interrupts, we did try them both). I noticed that with the
-11/73, the date printed incorrectly:
Sun Mar 10 93:71:92 EST 1991
After a certain amount of poking and prodding, I discovered the issue - and
on further reading, discovered the limitation to 15-bit results.
For those who are interested in the details, here's a little test program that
displays the problem:
r = ldiv(a, b, d);
m = ldivr;
printf("a: 0%o %d. b: 0%o %d. d: 0%o %d.\n", a, a, b, b, d, d);
printf("q: 0%o %d. r: 0%o %d.\n", r, r, m, m);
and, for those who don't have V6 source at hand, here's ldiv():
mov 2(sp),r0
mov 4(sp),r1
div 6(sp),r0
mov r1,_ldivr
rts pc
So here are the results, first from a simulator:
tld 055256 0145510 070200
a: 055256 23214. b: 0145510 -13496. d: 070200 28800.
q: 0147132 -12710. r: 037110 15944.
This is _mathematically_ correct: 055256,0145510 = 1521404744., 070200 =
28800., and 1521404744./28800. = 0147132.
And on the -11/23:
a: 055256 23214. b: 0145510 -13496. d: 070200 28800.
q: 055256 23214. r: 037110 15944.
Note that the returned 'quotient' is simply the high part of the dividend.
And on the -11/73:
a: 055256 23214. b: 0145510 -13496. d: 070200 28800.
q: 055256 23214. r: 037110 15944.
Note that in addition to the quotient behaviour, as with the /23, the
'remainder' is the low part of the dividend.
Noel
> From: Paul McJones <paul(a)mcjones.org>
> I suspect the CPU architect (Gene Amdahl -- not exactly a dullard)
> intended programmers store array elements at increasing memory
> addresses, and reference an array element relative to the address of the
> last element plus one. This would allow a single index register (and
> there were only three) to be used as the index and the (decreasing)
> count.
I suspect the younger members of the list, who've only ever lived in a world
in which one lights ones cigars with mega-gates, so to speak, may be missing
the implication here.
Back when the 704 (a _tube_ machine) was built, a register meant a whole row
of tubes. That's why early machines had few/one register(s).
So being able to double up on what a register did like this was _HYYUUGE_.
Noel
On 3/17/2018 8:54 AM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
> ... Was it the 704, or the 709? I recall that the
> array indexing order mapped directly into its index register or something
> ...
It first ran on the IBM 704, whose index registers subtracted (as did
the follow-on 709, 7090, etc), so array indexing went from higher memory
addresses to lower.
> The bookshelf: I had most of those books once; what's the one on the
> bottom right? It has a "paperback" look about it, but I can't quite make
> it out because of the reflection on the spine.
I'm not sure, and things have shifted since then on the shelves, but I
sent the original photo to your email address.
On 3/17/2018 12:22 PM, Steve Simon <steve(a)quintile.net> wrote:
> on the subject of fortran’s language, i remember hearing tell of a French version. anyone ever meet any?
Yes: here is the French version of the original Fortran manual, with
keywords in French (via
http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/)
Anonymous. FORTRAN Programmation Automatique de L'Ordinateur IBM 704 :
Manuel du Programmeur. IBM France, Institut de Calcul Scientifique,
Paris. No date, 51 pages. Given to Paul McJones by John Backus.
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Fortran/102663111.05.01.a…
Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
> We lost computer pioneer John Backus on this day in 2007; amongst other
> things he gave us FORTRAN (yuck!) and BNF, which is ironic, really,
> because FORTRAN has no syntax to speak of.
I think of FORTRAN as having established the very idea of high-level programming languages. For example, John McCarthy’s first idea for what became LISP was to extend FORTRAN with function subroutines written in assembly language for list-manipulation. (He had to give up on this idea when he realized a conditional expression operator wouldn’t work correctly since both the then-expression and the else-expression would be evaluated before the condition was tested.) The original FORTRAN compiler pioneered code optimization, generating code good enough for the users at the physics labs and aerospace companies. For more on this compiler, see:
http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/
Disclosure: I worked with John in the 1970s (on functional programming) — see:
http://www.mcjones.org/dustydecks/archives/2007/04/01/60/ .
Paul McJones
The first Internet domain, symbolics.com, was registered in 1985 at 0500Z
("Zulu" time, i.e. UTC).
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
> So what are its origins? Where did it first appear?
It was a direct copy from CTSS, which already had it
n 1965 when we BTL folk began to use it.
The greatest MOTD story of all time happened at CTSS.
To set the stage, the CTSS editor made a temp file,
always of the same name, in one's home directory.
The MOTD was posted by the administrator account.
The password file was plain text, maintained by
editing it.
And multiple people had access to the administrator
account.
It happened one day that one administrator was
working on the password file at the same time
another was posting MOTD. The result: the password
file (probably the most secret file on the system)
got posted as the MOTD (the most public).
Upon seeing the password file type out before him,
an alert user shut the machine down by writing
and running one line of assembly code:
HERE TRA *HERE
(The star is for indirect addressing, and indirection
was transitive.)
Doug
One of the things that's always fascinated me about Unix is the community
aspect; in particular, I imagine that in the early days when machines were
multiplexed among many simultaneous users, I wonder whether there was a
greater sense of knowing what others were up to, working on, or generally
doing.
I think of the /etc/motd file as being a part of this. It is, in some very
real sense, a way to announce things to the entire user community.
So what are its origins? Where did it first appear? I haven't dug into
this, but I imagine it was at Berkeley. What was it used for early on at
individual sites?
- Dan C.
> From: Dave Horsfall
> he would've been the registraNT, no?
Symbolics was the registrant.
I may have spoken too soon, Postel/ISI might not have been the registrar when
".com" was set up, so maybe it was someone at SRI/NIC. (The memory is dim.) I
don't remember how "MIT.EDU" got registered - I'm not sure if I did it. It
was definitely Jon handing out addresses, not SRI - I do recall us going to
Jon to get 128.30 & 31.
Noel
> From: Michael Kjörling
> the DNS RFCs (initially 1034, 1035) were only published in 1987...
Ah, those were later versions; the originals were:
0882 Domain names: Concepts and facilities. P.V. Mockapetris. November
1983.
0883 Domain names: Implementation specification. P.V. Mockapetris.
November 1983.
Both were updated by RFC0973 before being replaced by 1034/1035.
You might also want to look at:
0881 Domain names plan and schedule. J. Postel. November 1983.
0897 Domain name system implementation schedule. J. Postel. February 1984.
0921 Domain name system implementation schedule - revised. J. Postel. October 1984.
Note that ".com" didn't exist in the early revs.
Noel
> From: Lars Brinkhoff
> Is this "Network Unix" available?
??? This was announced here not long ago:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SRI-NOSC
It's called 'NOSC' because that's where it came from, but it has the Illinois
NCP code in it.
Noel
hi,
im looking for Unix/Unix-like/Linux friendly hardware(desks,laps,phones,etc) free of proprietary software or compatible with free software(OS,BIOS firmware,etc) something that is easy to replace stock or something that cames with free software preinstalled and that i can replace them if i want to.
i've seen some lists that contain vendors that are Unix/Linux friendly and also the hardware endorsed by FSF which seem to be Lenovo thinkpads,etc the thing is it seems most of hardware require external flashing to replace BIOS,etc and makes the task harder..
my question are,
what are the bests Unix/Unix-like/Linux friendly hardware manufacturers?
which hardware is the best to make a computer 100% free (free BIOS and OS) and that is optimized and behave better under Unix/Unix-like/Linux based OS's?
Thank you.
--
PHACT Phreakers / Hackers / Anarchists / Cyberpunks / Technologists