TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

31 participants
6541 discussions

by Warren Toomey

https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/early_unix/ The video of Warner Losh's FOSDEM presentation "The Hidden Early History of Unix" is now available. Cheers, Warren -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 51, Issue 18

by Steve Simon

maybe if interest, i have a copy of an article by sandy fraser, “early experiments with time division networks” from ieee networks, jan 1993, pp12-26. this is a high level paper and describes spider, datakit, incon. it may have little new but i felt it had a lot of good background and a useful references list. i am wary of scanning it as its the ieee... -Steve > On 15 Feb 2020, at 2:00 am, tuhs-request(a)minnie.tuhs.org wrote: > > Send TUHS mailing list submissions to > tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tuhs-request(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tuhs-owner(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of TUHS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Datakit early end-to-end protocol(s) (Paul Ruizendaal) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:22:37 +0100 > From: Paul Ruizendaal <pnr(a)planet.nl> > To: TUHS main list <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> > Subject: [TUHS] Datakit early end-to-end protocol(s) > Message-ID: <7128AB08-C99E-490E-BD81-7D62503FF676(a)planet.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > I’m looking for the end-to-end datakit network protocol as it existed in 7th Edition. > > Context is as follows: > > - The Spider network guaranteed reliable, in-order delivery of packets at the TIU interface. There does not seem to have been a standard host end-to-end protocol, although applications did of course contain sanity checks (see for instance the ‘nfs’ source here: http://chiselapp.com/user/pnr/repository/Spider/tree?ci=tip) > > - Datakit dropped the reliable delivery part (although it did retain the in-order guarantee) and moved this responsibility to the host. It is the (early) evolution of the related protocol that I’m trying to dig up. > > - 7th Edition appears to have had a (serial line based) Datakit connection. Datakit drivers are not in the distributed files, but its tty.h file has defines for several Datakit related constants. Also, as the first Datakit switches became operational at Murray Hill in ’78 or ’79, it seems a reasonable assumption that the Research code base included drivers & protocols for it around that time. > > - After that the trail continues with the 8th edition which has a stream filter (dkp.c) for the “New Datakit Protocol”: http://chiselapp.com/user/pnr/repository/v8unix/artifact/01b4f6f05733aba5 This suggests that there was an “Old Datakit Protocol” as well - if so, this may have been the protocol in use at the time of 7th Edition. > > The “New Datakit Protocol” appears to be (more or less) the same as what was later called URP (Universal Receiver Protocol). At the time of Plan9 its IL/IP protocol appears to have been designed as an equivalent for URP/Datakit. The early protocols where apparently (co-)designed by Greg Chesson and maybe also stood at the base of his later XTP protocol work. > > Any recollections about the early history and evolution of this Datakit protocol are much appreciated. Also, if the source to the 7th Edition Datakit network stack survived I’d love to hear. > > Paul > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > ------------------------------ > > End of TUHS Digest, Vol 51, Issue 18 > ************************************

5 years, 5 months

Datakit early end-to-end protocol(s)

by Paul Ruizendaal

I’m looking for the end-to-end datakit network protocol as it existed in 7th Edition. Context is as follows: - The Spider network guaranteed reliable, in-order delivery of packets at the TIU interface. There does not seem to have been a standard host end-to-end protocol, although applications did of course contain sanity checks (see for instance the ‘nfs’ source here: http://chiselapp.com/user/pnr/repository/Spider/tree?ci=tip) - Datakit dropped the reliable delivery part (although it did retain the in-order guarantee) and moved this responsibility to the host. It is the (early) evolution of the related protocol that I’m trying to dig up. - 7th Edition appears to have had a (serial line based) Datakit connection. Datakit drivers are not in the distributed files, but its tty.h file has defines for several Datakit related constants. Also, as the first Datakit switches became operational at Murray Hill in ’78 or ’79, it seems a reasonable assumption that the Research code base included drivers & protocols for it around that time. - After that the trail continues with the 8th edition which has a stream filter (dkp.c) for the “New Datakit Protocol”: http://chiselapp.com/user/pnr/repository/v8unix/artifact/01b4f6f05733aba5 This suggests that there was an “Old Datakit Protocol” as well - if so, this may have been the protocol in use at the time of 7th Edition. The “New Datakit Protocol” appears to be (more or less) the same as what was later called URP (Universal Receiver Protocol). At the time of Plan9 its IL/IP protocol appears to have been designed as an equivalent for URP/Datakit. The early protocols where apparently (co-)designed by Greg Chesson and maybe also stood at the base of his later XTP protocol work. Any recollections about the early history and evolution of this Datakit protocol are much appreciated. Also, if the source to the 7th Edition Datakit network stack survived I’d love to hear. Paul

5 years, 5 months

Also, a video service

by Warren Toomey

All, I've also set this up to try out for the video chats: https://meet.tuhs.org/COFF Password to join is "unix" at the moment. I just want to test it to confirm that it works; I'll be heading out the door to go to the shops soon. Cheers, Warren

5 years, 5 months

Unix50.org

by Paul Ruizendaal

I rather enjoyed having the “unix50.org” website around: very handy to test out bits and pieces of Unix history. It seems to have been taken down. Would it make sense to have this resource available permanently?

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] V9 shell [was Re: Warner's Early Unix Presentation]

by Doug McIlroy

> What i like is the autocorrect feature in v8: > > $ cd /usr/blot > /usr/blit > $ pwd > /usr/blit Here I am, editor of the v8 manual and unaware of the feature. We now know that silent correction is a terrible idea. Postel's principle: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" was doctrine in early HTML specs, and led to disastrous disagreement among browsers' interpretation of web pages. Sadly, the "principle" lives on despite its having been expunged from the HTML spec. Today's "langsec" movement grew out of bitter experience with malicious inputs exploiting "liberal" interpretation of nonconforming data. Today's NYT has an article about fake knockoffs of George Orwell for sale on Amazon. It cites an edition of "Animal Farm" apparently pirated by lowgrade OCR autocorrected and never proofread. One of the many gaffes is that every instance of "iv" beame ChapterIV, as in "prChapterIVacy". I didn't like some Lisp systems' DWIM (do what I mean) when I first heard about the feature, and I like it even less 40-some years on. I would probably have remonstrated with Rob had I realized the shell was doing it. Doug

5 years, 5 months

compiling v9sh

by arnold＠skeeve.com

For anyone who's interested, here is what it took to compile Geoff Collyer's v9sh on Ubuntu 18.04. Arnold ---------------------------------- diff -ur v9sh/error.c v9sh-new/error.c --- v9sh/error.c 2017-07-29 11:45:07.000000000 +0300 +++ v9sh-new/error.c 2020-02-10 17:31:33.275920947 +0200 @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ } if (per) { prs(colon); - prs(errno < 0 || errno >= sys_nerr? "Bad errno": sys_errlist[errno]); + prs(strerror(errno)); } newline(); exitsh(ERROR); diff -ur v9sh/pathserv.c v9sh-new/pathserv.c --- v9sh/pathserv.c 2017-07-29 12:06:25.000000000 +0300 +++ v9sh-new/pathserv.c 2020-02-10 17:29:43.666971083 +0200 @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ { struct stat buf; - if (stat(name, &buf) == 0 && (buf.st_mode&S_IFMT) == S_IFREG && + if (stat(name, &buf) == 0 && S_ISREG(buf.st_mode) && access(name, EXECUTE) == 0) return 0; else diff -ur v9sh/xec.c v9sh-new/xec.c --- v9sh/xec.c 2017-07-29 12:27:02.000000000 +0300 +++ v9sh-new/xec.c 2020-02-10 17:29:50.607030967 +0200 @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ if (flags&ttyflg && (dir1 = spname(tempdir, &score)) && stat(dir1, &sb) == 0 && - (sb.st_mode&S_IFMT) == S_IFDIR && + S_ISDIR(sb.st_mode) && access(dir1, EXECUTE) == 0) { /* dir1 is a searchable directory. */ if (score < bestscore) {

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] screen editors

by Thomas Paulsen

>What's funny is that in doing the work to get 'se' running on Georgia >Tech's Vax, I had to learn vi. By the time I was done, vi had become >my main editor and had burned itself into my finger's ROMs. I do ed/se occasionally for simple tasks, vim frequently , because it loads fast, and emacs for all bigger projects, beside liteide for golang.

5 years, 5 months

keyboards and command names

by Rich Morin

I have always suspected that the brevity of the Unix command names was strongly influenced by the clunky keyboards on the teletypes that were being used. Can anyone confirm, deny, and/or comment on this? -r

5 years, 5 months

Discord channels for COFF/TUHS

by Warren Toomey

All, Silent700 has graciously set up channels underneath the ClassicCMP Discord server for COFF and TUHS: COFF: https://discordapp.com/channels/642419539946110997/675860587355308049 TUHS: https://discordapp.com/channels/642419539946110997/675860622738718775 I thought it made sense to have the channels on a server where there was already old computer people (old for either or both :-). Cheers, Warren

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Distributed systems, was: On the origins of Linux - "an academic question"

by Andrew Warkentin

On 1/17/20, Brantley Coile <brantley(a)coraid.com> wrote: > what he said. > >> On Jan 17, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Rob Pike <robpike(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Plan 9 is not a "single-system-image cluster". >> >> -rob >> > > I guess SSI isn't the right term for Plan 9 clustering since not everything is shared, although I would still say it has some aspects of SSI. I was talking about systems that try to make a cluster look like a single machine in some way even if they don't share everything (I'm not sure if there's a better term for such systems besides the rather vague "distributed" which could mean anything from full SSI to systems that allow transparent access to services/devices on other machines without trying to make a cluster look like a single system).

5 years, 5 months

Idea: a regular video chat

by Warren Toomey

[x-posting to COFF] Idea: anybody interested in a regular video chat? I was thinking of one that progresses(*) through three different timezones (Asia/Aus/NZ, then the Americas, then Europe/Africa) so that everybody should be able to get to two of the three timezones. (* like a progressive dinner) 30-60 minutes each one, general old computing. Perhaps a guest speaker now and then with a short presentation. Perhaps a theme now and then. Perhaps just chew the fat, shoot the breeze as well. Platform: Zoom or I'd be happy to set up a private Jitsi instance. Something else? How often: perhaps weekly or fortnightly through the three timezones, so it would cycle back every three or six weeks. Comments, suggestions?! Cheers, Warren

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] UNIBUS issues (Was: Spacewar at Bell Labs)

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> > [ Getting into COFF territory, I think ] I'm sending this reply to TUHS since the message I'm replying to has some errors, and I'd like for the corrections to be in the record close by. > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020, Clem Cole wrote: >> They way they tried to control it was to license the bus interface chips >> (made privately by Western Digital for them IIRC but were not available >> on the open market). Although DEC did have some custom chips for QBUS interfacing, they didn't always use them (below). And for the UNIBUS, the chips were always, AFAIK, open market (and the earliest ones may have predated the UNIBUS). E.g. the M105 Address Selector, a single-width FLIP CHIP, used in the earliest PDP-11's when devices such as the RK11-C, RP11 and TM11 were made out of a mass of small FLIP CHIPS, used SP380A's for its bus receivers and 8881's for transmitters. On the QBUS, the KDF11-A and KDJ11-A CPU cards used AMD 2908's as bus transceivers, even though DEC had its own custom chips. The KDF11-A also used DS8640's and DS8641's (transmitters and receivers), and also an 8881! (The UNIBUS and QBUS were effectively identical at the analog level, which is why a chip that historical was still in use.) >> If I recall it was the analog characteristics that were tricky with >> something like the BUS acquisition for DMA and Memory timing, but I >> admit I've forgotten the details. One _possibility_ for what he was talking about was that it took DEC a while to get a race/metastability issue with daisy-chained bus grant lines under control. (The issue is explained in some detail here: https://gunkies.org/wiki/Bus_Arbitration_on_the_Unibus_and_QBUS and linked pages.) This can been seen in the myriad of etch revisions for the M782 and related 'bus grant' FLIP CHIPs: https://gunkies.org/wiki/M782_Interrupt_Control By comparison, the M105 only had 3 through it's whole life! It wasn't until the M7821 etch D revision, which came out in 1977, almost a decade after the first PDP-11's appeared, that they seemed to have absorbed that the only 'solution' to the race/metastability issue involved adding delays. In all fairness, the entire field didn't really appreciate the metastability issue until the LINC guys at WUSTL did a big investigation of it, and then started a big campaign to educate everyone about it - it wasn't DEC being particularly clueless. > Hey, if the DEC marketoids didn't want 3rd-party UNIBUS implementations > then why was it published? Well, exactly - but it's useful to remember the differening situation for DEC from 1970 (first PDP-11's) and later. In 1970 DEC was mostly selling to scientists/engineers, who wanted to hook up to some lab equipment they'd built, and OEM's, who often wanted to use a mini to control some value-added gear of their own devising. An open bus was really necessary for those markets. Which is why the 1970 PDP-11/20 manual goes into a lot of detail on how to interface to the PDP-11's UNIBUS. Later, of course, they were in a different business model. Noel

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Screen editors

by Jose R. Valverde

Talking of editors... Once I learned Wordstar in old CP/M (before that it was mostly line editing), and then soon, other editors that supported the Wordstar key combinations, I got hooked on those. Joe is, to date, one of my favorites. On ancient UNIX, my editor of choice was 's' from Software Tools, its main advantage being that it didn't require curses. Then we got VMS and 'eve' and that took over for a while (though I never took advantage of all its power), mostly until I ported 's' and 'joe'. Then came X, and when nedit was released, I was hooked on it. It has been for decades almost the only one that could do block selection 'a la' RAND editor. I have been struggling to continue using it despite it lack of support for UTF, trying various projects spun off nedit, until I recently discovered xnedit, which is an update available on GitHub and is again all I need, with support for UTF8, some minor UI improvements and support for modern fonts. Now, I still use 's' for ancient Unix emulators, 'joe' for the command line and 'xnedit' for X. j -- Scientific Computing Service Solving all your computer needs for Scientific Research. http://bioportal.cnb.csic.es

5 years, 5 months

Presotto paper

by Paul Ruizendaal

On the Nokia / Bell labs site I came across this publication: https://www.bell-labs.com/our-research/publications/234131/ <https://www.bell-labs.com/our-research/publications/234131/> Presotto D.: TCP/IP and Datakit - Two Views of Networking I’m not having much luck with finding out more about it. Does anybody recall this paper and where/when it might have been published?

5 years, 5 months

Atari System V media and books?

by Chris Hanson

I’ve seen the archives of Atari System V Release 4 for the TT030, and the scanned user and developer manuals. Has anything else been preserved, e.g. the installation tapes and any other manuals? Is there even a full accounting of what was in the box and what shipped afterwards (patches etc.)? -- Chris

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] System Call History

by Doug McIlroy

> Does anybody have or know of a list of system calls that describes > when and what version of UNIX (and descendents) they were added? Hardly a week goes by in which I don't refer to the attached condensed listing of all the man pages in v1-v9, taken from my "Research Unix Reader". It casts a much narrower net than Diomedes Spinelli's repository. but it takes no clicking to look thing up--just a quick grep. Doug

5 years, 5 months

System Call History

by Jon Steinhart

Does anybody have or know of a list of system calls that describes when and what version of UNIX (and descendents) they were added? Thanks, Jon

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Spacewar at Bell Labs [ really paper tape readers and tangentially related things ]

by Dave Horsfall

[ Getting into COFF territory, I think ] On Thu, 30 Jan 2020, Clem Cole wrote: > BTW: Dave story is fun, but I think a tad apocryphal. He's right that > DEC marketing was not happy about people using it, but it was well > spec'ed if you had CPU schematics. They way they tried to control it > was to license the bus interface chips (made privately by Western > Digital for them IIRC but were not available on the open market). IIRC > if you did not use DEC's chips, you could have issues if you >>similar<< > function chips from National Semi. I remember Ken O'Munhundro giving a > talk at a USENIX (while he was CEO of Able) talking about 'be careful > with foreign UNIBUS implementations.' If I recall it was the analog > characteristics that were tricky with something like the BUS acquisition > for DMA and Memory timing, but I admit I've forgotten the details. Ah; the chips could explain it. I can't remember where I heard the story, but it was likely in ";login:" or some place. Hey, if the DEC marketoids didn't want 3rd-party UNIBUS implementations then why was it published? > I think you are confusing VAX's SBI with UNIBUS. With the Vax, unlike > PDP-11, the systems did not come with complete schematics for all > boards. So to design for the SBI you had to reverse engineer the CPU > and Memory boards. DEC having successfully won the CalData suit, went > after Systems Industries who was the first to build SBI controllers. > DEC lost, but the truth was that because they had work had been reverse > engineering, SI was close but not 100% right and they had a number of > issues when the boards first hit the street, particularly with UNIX > which did a better job of overlapped I/O than VMS did. At UCB we had a > logic analyzer in one of the 780s at all times, and the phone number of > the SI engineers. We eventually helped them put out a couple ECO's > that make the original boards work in practice much better. No; it was definitely UNIBUS (I wasn't aware of the SBI at the time). As for overlapped seeks, when they were implemented in Unix it broke the RK-11 controller, and DEC pointed the finger at Unix (of course) since their own gear worked. To cut a long story short, they were forced to use some fancy diagnostic (DECEX?) which hammered everything at the same time, and the problem showed up. Turned out that their simpler diagnostics did not test for overlapped seeks, because they knew that it didn't work; out same the FE to modify the controller... > BTW: My friend Dave Cane lead the BI at DEC after finishing up the > VAX/750 project (he had designed the SBI for 780 before that). In > fact, the BI was >>supposed<< to be 'open' like Multibus and VME and all > chips were supposed to be from the merchant market. But at the last > minute, DEC marketing refused and locked down the specs/stopped shipping > schematics with the new systems destined to use BI. Dave was so pissed, > he left DEC to found Masscomp and design the MC500 (using the > Multibus). Yet another reason why DEC went under, I guess... -- Dave

5 years, 5 months

1984 AT&T Bell Labs Unix Edition

by Warner Losh

Greetings, Is this issue online? I may have a copy buried in my boxes of books, and am on the road. I'd like to read the article on portability and/or the one on performance. One of those has a table of internal vs external release names / dates. archive.org and elsewhere only has through 83. I discovered I might have it this morning 20 minutes before I had to leave for the airport for another talk. :( Thanks for any help you can provide.... Warner

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Unix quix

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Warner Losh > this predates everything except Whirlwind which I can't find a paper for. Given the 'Whirlwind is a ringer' comment, I asssume this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlwind_I< is what they mean. Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with no stack, subroutines are 'interesting'. Noel

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] Spacewar at Bell Labs [ really paper tape readers and tangentially related things ]

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Clem Cole > So WD designs and builds a few LSI-11 as a sales demo of what you could > do > ... > he put it on the QBUS which DEC could not lock up because they did not > create it as WD had. Wow! WD created the QBUS? Fascinating. I wonder if DEC made any changes to the QBUS between the original demo WD boards and the first DEC ones? Are there any documents about the WD original still extant, do you know? (FWIW, it seems that whoever did the QBUS interrupt cycle had heard about the metastability issues when using a flop to do the grant-passing arbitrations; see here for more: https://gunkies.org/wiki/Bus_Arbitration_on_the_Unibus_and_QBUS#QBUS_Interr… DEC had previously bent themselves into knots trying to solve it on the UNIBUS: https://gunkies.org/wiki/M782_Interrupt_Control#Revisions so it would be interesting to know if it was WD or DEC who did the DIN thing to get rid of it on the QBUS.) Noel

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] man pages, defensive programming, and bibliographic

by Doug McIlroy

> Always use '\&' (a non-printing, zero width character) to > make it clear to the software, that the _function_ of the > character next to it, is neither a sentence-terminating nor > a control one. It is unfortunate that such advice has to be given. One should not have to defend against stupid AI. This is one of only two really unfortunate design choices (in my opinion) in original [nt]roff. (The other is beginning a new page when the vertical position reaches--as distinct from definitively passing--the bottom of a page.) If AI is used, it should be optional. I happen not to like double-width intersentence space, but it keeps getting foisted on me essentially at random. Instead of fattening the manual with annoying duties like that quoted above, I suggest fattening it with a new request, "turn on/off doubling of spaces between apparent sentences", or "put at least the specified space between apparent sentences". One can still use \&, but then it's for a chosen purpose, not just defense against gremlins. Incidentally, "next to" in the quoted advice must be read with care. Sometimes it means before, sometimes after. ------------------------------------------------------------ In this old AI-induced trouble I see a cautionary lesson for paragraph-based line breaking. fmt(1) is an existing program that tries to do this. On unjustified text (i.e. all text handled by fmt) it produces paragraphs of different "optimal" widths, which can be even more distracting than unusually ragged right margins. Doug

5 years, 5 months

Fwd request: Text of Caldera's free licenses for UnixWare/OpenServer

by Warren Toomey

All, I was asked by Max to pass this query on to the TUHS list. Can you e-mail back to Max directly. Thanks, Warren ----- Forwarded message from Maximilian Lorlacks <maxlorlax(a)protonmail.com> ----- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 19:46:38 +0000 From: Maximilian Lorlacks <maxlorlax(a)protonmail.com> To: "wkt(a)tuhs.org" <wkt(a)tuhs.org> Subject: Fwd request: Text of Caldera's free licenses for UnixWare/OpenServer Hi Warren, Could you please forward this to the TUHS list? I'm not a subscriber to the list, but I perhaps someone there might know something about this. In 2001 and early 2002 (I can't believe it's already been almost two decades), Caldera Systems, Inc. offered non-commercial licenses at no cost for OpenServer 5.0.6, UnixWare 7.1(.1?) and Open UNIX 8. However, the web archive could not to capture the actual agreement hidden behind the entrypoint form. I failed to get a license during that time since I wasn't really interested in UNIX at that point, but in the interest of historical preservation, I'm interested if anyone got those licenses from back then and if so, if they've saved the actual license agreement text. I'm interested in what it reads. I'm also curious about whether the license keys from back then still work with Xinuos's new registration platform, but it's probably too much to ask for people to test that. Please note that I am *not* trying to revive the trainwreck that is the issue of the validity and scope of the Ancient UNIX license. The only way to properly resolve that would be a letter signed from Micro Focus's legal department, but they've made it exceedingly clear that they will persistently ignore any and all attempts to elicit any kind of response regarding Ancient UNIX. Cheers, Max ----- End forwarded message -----

5 years, 5 months

Re: [TUHS] [TUHS} More Spider

by Doug McIlroy

> It might be worth mentioning that the Cambridge Ring (in the UK) used a very > similar idea: a head end circulated empty frames which stations could fill in. I'm quite sure the similarity is not accidental. Fraser began the Spider project almost immediately upon moving from Cambridge to Bell Labs. Doug

5 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS