> From: Will Senn
> it finally clicked that it is just one (of many) bit buckets out there
> with the moniker v6. ... I am coming from a world where OS version
> floppy/cd/dvd images are copies of a single master ... These tape things
> could be snapshots of the systems they originate from at very different
> times and with different software/sources etc.
Well, sort of. Do remember that everyone with V6 had to have a license, which
at that point you could _only_ get from Western Electric. So every
_institution_ (which is not the same as every _machine_) had had to have had
dealings with them. However, once your institution was 'in the club', stuff
just got passed around.
E.g. the BBN V6 system with TCP/IP:
https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=BBN-V6
I got that by driving over to BBN, and talking to Jack Haverty, and he gave us
a tape (or maybe a pack, I don't recall exactly). But we had a V6 license, so
we could do that.
But my particular machine, it worked just the way you described: we got our V6
from the other V6 machine in the Tech Sq building (RTS/DSSR), including not
only Bell post-V6 'leakage' like adb, but their local hacks (e.g. their TTY
driver, and the ttymod() system call to get to its extended features; the
ability to suspend selected applications; yadda, yadda). We never saw a V6
tape.
Noel
> From: Will Senn
> I don't think adb was in v6, where the fcreat function and buf struct
> are used... Were Maranzano and Bourne using some kind of hybrid 6+ system?
In addition to the point about skew between the released and internal development,
it's worth remembering just how long it was between the V6 and V7 releases, and
how much ground was covered technically during that period.
A lot of that stuff leaked out: we've talked about the upgraded 'Typesetter C'
(and compilers), which a lot of people had, and the V6+ system at MIT
(partially sort of PWB1) had both 'adb' and the stdio library. The latter also
made its way to lots of places; in my 'improved V6 page':
http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/ImprovingV6.html
it talks about finding the standard I/O stuff in several later V6 repositories,
including a UNSW tape. But it and typsetter C, also on the Shoppa pack, were
clearly quite widespread.
Noel
I've done research on this, but I'm confused and would appreciate some
help to understand what's going on. In the 7th edition manual, vol 2,
there's an ADB tutorial (pp. 323-336). In the tutorial, the authors,
Maranzano and Bourne, walk the reader through a debugging session. The
first example is predicated on a buffer overflow bug and the code includes:
struct buf {
int fildes;
int nleft;
char *nextp; char buff[512]; }bb;
struct buf *obuf;
...
if((fcreat(argv[1],obuf)) < 0){
...
Well, this isn't v7 code. As discussed in the v7 manual vol 1 (p. VII):
Standard I/O. The old fopen, getc, putc complex and the old –lp package
are both dead, and even getchar has changed. All have been replaced by
the clean, highly efficient, stdio(3) package. The first things to know
are that getchar(3) returns the integer EOF (–1), which is not a
possible byte value, on end of file, that 518-byte buffers are out, and
that there is a defined FILE data type.
The buffers are out, fcreat is gone, etc. So, what's up with this? I
don't think adb was in v6, where the fcreat function and buf struct are
used... Were Maranzano and Bourne using some kind of hybrid 6+ system?
Thanks,
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
OK. I'm plowing through a lot of issues with the putative 2.11BSD
reconstructions I've done to date. I keep finding things dated too new to
be right.
And it turns out that a few patches "snuck in" when the patch 80 catch up
was done. I've outlined the ones I've found so far at
https://bsdimp.blogspot.com/2020/08/missing-211bsd-patches.html but I'm
sure there's at least one more. There was much ambiguity over /usr/new and
/usr/local that lead to some of these, but others look like they were in
the master tree, but never formally published that have all the hallmarks
of legit bug fixes...
I've also detailed the issues in going backwards. 2.11BSDpl195 had a
different .o format than 2.11BSDpl0. And to make matters worse, its
assembler couldn't assemble the assembler from the initial release, so I
had to get creative (using apout, thanks to all who contributed to that!).
I've also blogged about how to walk back a binary change when the old
programs no longer build on the new system. I think I got lucky that it was
possible at all :).
https://bsdimp.blogspot.com/2020/08/bootstrapping-211bsd-no-patches-from.ht…
has the blow by blow. There are a lot of steps to building even a normal
system... Let alone walking through the minefield of errors that you need
to do when stepping back...
And neither of these even begin to get into the issues with the build
system itself requiring workarounds for that...
But anyway, I keep making "ur2.11BSD" tapes, installing them and fixing the
issues I find... While much information was destroyed in the process,
there's a surprising amount of redundancy that one can use to 'test'
putative tapes.
Warner
P.S. ur2.11BSD is from urFOO in linguisting, meaning the original FOO
that's been lost and which some amount of reconstruction / speculation is
offered about it. Still looking for a good name for the reconstructed
2.11BSD release....
Probably same as others do, when I'm implementing some 'trace'
messages in a new program or one just 'under investigation' I try to
make sure the message has a nice format to be able to process a few
megabyte of logfile easily.
Cheers,
uncle rubl
John Gilmore:
Yes -- but [Bell Labs'] administration was anything but egalitarian or
meritocratic. I know someone who had immense trouble getting inside the
door at the Labs because "all" he had was a bachelor's degree. Let
their character be judged by how they treated a stranger.
Sign me proud to have succeeded in life with no degrees at all,
====
That was where local management came in.
I have no degrees at all. I haven't been nearly as
successful in many ways as John, but I was recruited
and hired by 1127. That I had no degree meant I was
initially hired as a `special technical assistant'
rather than a `member of technical staff,' but my
department head and director and executive director
(the last was the legendary Vic Vyssotsky) worked
tirelessly on my behalf, without my pushing them at
all, to get me upgraded, and succeeded after I'd been
there about a year. It was only later that I realized
just how much work they'd done on my behalf.
The upgrade gave me a big raise in pay, but I was
young enough and nerdy enough not to notice.
Within the 1127 culture there was no perceptible
difference; it was very much an egalitarian culture.
I felt respected as an equal from the start (really
from the day and a half I spent interviewing there).
Not every part of the Labs, let alone AT&T, was like
that, especially outside of the Research area. I
didn't realize it initially but that was one of the
ways I benefited from the success of UNIX (that 1127's
and 112's management could push past such bureaucratic
barriers).
After all, Ken never had more than an MS.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
The Computer History Museum has an interesting blog post about
Dennis Ritchie's lost dissertation:
https://computerhistory.org/blog/discovering-dennis-ritchies-lost-dissertat…
Interesting fact is that Dennis never received his PhD because he failed
to provide a bound copy of his dissertation to the Harvard library.
Kirk McKusick
> The use of honorifics was subtly discouraged at the Labs. I never saw a
policy statement, but nobody I knew used "Dr" (except those in the medical
department)
With the sole exception of the president's office, secretaries were
instructed not to say "Dr so-and-so's office" when they picked up an
unanswered phone call. (When that happened you could be sure that
the party you were calling was genuinely unavailable. Part of the
AT&T ethos--now abandoned--was that everybody, right up to the
president, answered their own phones.)
Doug
On another front. I know I've asked this before in v6, and possibly
related to v7, but I can't find the notes anywhere. vi doesn't come with
v7. So, has anybody put it on v7 in simh? I saw a thread sometime back
where vi on v7 wasn't the main topic, where Warren? I think it was, said
he'd done it and it was "easy." I don't suppose there are any notes
laying around telling how this might be accomplished?
I do see vi in 2bsd.tar, I don't suppose there is a 'how to install
2bsd on v7" note around either?
Thanks,
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
Is there full bsdi git repo anywhere?
I've vague recollections parts were merged into FreeBSD in the early
2000s so I assume it was open sourced?
There is a tarball of bsdi 2 on venus wetware but that's the best I
can do with searching.
--
Steve Mynott <steve.mynott(a)gmail.com>
cv25519/ECF8B611205B447E091246AF959E3D6197190DD5
> From: Will Senn
> I don't really understand how they work.
> ...
> maybe the way to understand the unix regex lies in a careful
> investigation into how it is implemented
I'm not sure what I did, but it wasn't the latter, since I have no idea how
they are done!
I just mentally break the regex search string up into substrings (I use them
most in Epsilon, which has syntax to do substrings of search strings, which
helps a lot); past that, I think it's just using them and getting used to
them.
> an IBM 7094 (whatever that is)
IBM's last 36-bit scientific mainframe before the System/360's. CTSS (which
DMR held out as the ancestor of Unix) ran on 7094's.
Noel
> "My graduate school experience convinced me that I was not smart enough to
> be an expert in the theory of algorithms and also that I liked procedural
> languages better than functional ones."
>
> Amen to that. Me too, I tried functional languages and my head hurt. C
> seems so natural to me.
Dennis made quite a generalization from a sample of one--Lisp,
the only functional language that existed when he was in grad
school. I'm sure he'd agree today that functional languages
shine for spplications rooted in algebraic domains. I
immodestly point to www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/powser.html,
which has nothing to do with Unix, but certainly would have
appealed to Dennis.
Doug
> From: Angelo Papenhoff
> I believe 11/20 UNIX also needs the EAE.
Some applications might have used it (the story about the KS11 bug with the
KW11-A confirms they did use it on that machine), but I found no trace of use
of it in a quick scan of the entire Version 1 source (the one which is
extant).
Also, the first file in the OS source:
https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V1/u0.s
lists the addresses of all device registers, and the KE11-A isn't there.
If the KE11 is needed to run some application on the -11/04, there are
KE11-B's (program compatible, but a single hex card) available, ISTR. For
emulation, something (SIMH?) supports it, since the TV -11 on ITS (now running
in emulation,I'm pretty sure) uses it.
Noel
> From: Will Senn
> can I run Unix on a PDP 11/04?
No, it doesn't have memory management, so not any of the well-known 'stock'
versions (V5/V6/etc).
Two choices, though:
- If you get the V1 that ran on an -11/20 (which is mostly compatible with
the /04 and /05), it should run on an /04. (Not sure what you'd use for mass
storage, on a physical /04, though.) I'm not sure when they dropped the /20 -
I think V4 n(at the latest)? But V2 and V3 are lost.
- There's a 'Unix' for the LSI-11, and with minor changes (the LSI-11 isn't
100% compatible with other MMU-less 11's, but the changes are minor, e.g.
MOS, written in MACRO-11, was conditionalized to run on both the LSI-11
and the -11/20) it should run on an /04.
Noel
> From: Clem Cole
> And if you could find a KS-11 MMU that Ken and Dennis had for the 11/20
> ... we can't even find documentation about it (Ken's surviving code is
> the best doc we have).
Where is that code? The Version 1 at TUHS appears to pre-date it.
It would be great to have a look at it, we might be able to partially document
the KS11 using it. (Ken had only vague memories of the KS11.)
> From: Ronald Natalie
> There's always MiniUnix.
Ah; I didn't realize that was something different from LSX (the LSI-11
system).
Noel
The question is can I run Unix on a PDP 11/04? I've dug around and it's
unclear to me, so I'm asking y'all.
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
I'm trying to get 2bsd.tar extracted into v7. Does anyone have any
recollection how to do this. Here's what I'm seeing:
in simh:
simh> att tm0 -V -F TAR 2bsd.tar
Tape Image '2bsd.tar' scanned as TAR format.
contains 4935680 bytes of tape data (482 records, 1 tapemarks)
c
and in v7:
tar xv0
tar: bin/ - cannot create
directory checksum error
# ls
bin
What gives - it says it can't create the dir, but it does, it's there...
Thanks,
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
> There was quite some communication between Peter Nilson (npn, known
> for picasso) and bwk.
In the interest of accuracy npn's full name is Nils-Peter Nelson.
He honchoed the Bell Labs Cray and originated <string.h>.
Doug
Hi folks,
I used thack to typeset my dissertation on v7 circa 1988. It converts C/A/T codes to postscript. i have no idea if it will cope with eqn or pic but it was enough for nicely formatted text as i remember.
this is the patch/bugfix with a link to the original package.
https://www.tuhs.org/Usenet/comp.sources.misc/1989-July/001073.html
-Steve
Nemu Nusquam:
When was dpost born?
=====
CSTR 97, A Typesetter-Independent TROFF by Brian W Kernighan
was issued in 1981 and revised the next year. So that's the
earliest possible date.
I vaguely remember the existence of Postscript support in
general, including at least one Apple Laserwriter kicking
around somewhere, starting at some point during my time at
1127 in the latter 1980s. There was even a Postscript
display engine that ran on 5620 terminals under mux, though
it wasn't normally used for troff previewing because the
troff-specific proofer was faster (mainly, I think, it
didn't send nearly as much data down the serial line to
the terminal).
My personal snapshot of V10, and the TUHS archive copy,
include dpost; see src/cmd/postscript/dpost. Everything
in the postscript directory came from USG, who had
packaged everything troff into a separately-licensed
Documenter's Workbench package. That may have made us
exclude it from the officially-distributed V8 tape and
V9 snapshots. In any case, the only V9 snapshot I know
of offhand (which is in Warren's archive) has no dpost.
Both my copy of V10 and the TUHS copy show dpost's
source files with dates in 1991, but it was certainly
there earlier if I used it in New Jersey (I left in
mid-1990). Dpost is documented in man8/postscript.8;
my copy of that file is dated October 1989.
Digging around in documents available on the web,
I found a bundle of DWB 2.0 docs:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/att/unix/Documentors_Workbench_1989/UNIX_Syste…
It's a scanned-image PDF so I can't search it by
machine, but it includes such things as listings of
the source-code directory and manifests of various
binary distributions, and dpost doesn't appear anywhere
I can see. As the URL implies, the docs seem to
be dated 1989. So maybe dpost wasn't part of the
product until DWB 3.0; but maybe we in Research got
an early copy of the postscript stuff (I think bwk
was in regular communication with the USG-troff
folks), perhaps in 1989.
I confess I've lost track of the original question
that spawned this thread, but if it is whether
dpost is easily back-ported to PDP-11 UNIX, I don't
think that's likely without a good bit of work.
It would very likely require a post-1980-type C
compiler, since it was written in the late 1980s.
It might or might not fit on a PDP-11; I don't
remember whether USG's system still officially
ran there by the late 1980s.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
> From: Paul Riley
> I'm struggling however with how C processes the IO. It seems that when I
> type at the console, my typing is immediately echoed to my terminal
> window. ... nothing appears on the terminal until I press enter, when
> the system displays the whole line of input ... How
> can I suppress the original C/Unix echo, and get my output to appear
> immediately?
This is not a C issue; it's the Unix I/O system (and specifically, terminal I/O).
Normally, Unix terminal input is done line-at-a-time: i.e. the read() call to
the OS (whether for 1 character, or a large number) doesn't return until an
enire line has been typed, and [Retrurn] has been hit; then the entire line is
available. While it's being buffered by the OS, echoing is done, and rubout
processing is also performed.
One can suppress all this; there's a mode call 'raw' (the normal mode is
sometime labelled 'cooked') which suppresses all that, and just gives one the
characters actually typed, as they are typed. The stty() system call can be
used to turn this on.
See the V6 tty(IV) manual entry for more. stty() is in stty(II).
Noel
> From: Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com>
> another old V6 trick is the use file redirection from the different
> terminal to unlock a hosed tty.
'stty {mumble} > /dev/ttyX', in case that wasn't clear.
Note that this only works if you have a working shell on _another_ terminal,
so if you're e.g. working with an emulation which has only one working
terminal, and your raw-mode program on it has gone berserk, 'See Figure 1'.
It really is advised to have another working terminal if you want to play
with raw-mode programs.
Noel
I got a diff for adding actual backspace and delete to v7, linked off of
gunkies... Anyhow, I can manually edit the referenced files and rebuild,
but I would rather do it canonically. I don't see patch anywhere, so did
v7 users use diffs to patch source and if so what's the magic?
Thanks,
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
Echoing other answers, I regularly use groff in Cygwin.
If you're into Unix/Linux, Cygwin is a great tool with a
remarkably clean installation process. I use default
PostScript output by choice, because I can tinker with
PostScript but not with PDF. ps2pdf (available from
Cygwin) has always worked when I need PDF.
I must admit, tough, that this approach will be pretty
onerous if you do not want Cygwin for any other
reason. And I should add that PoscScript requires a
special viewer; I use gsview.
Doug
