I have a directory, t:
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ ls -li
total 0
23801442 -rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 a
23801443 -rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 b
23801443 -rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 c
note that b and c are the same inode.
let's make a cpio.
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ cpio -o >../t.cpio
a
b
c
^D
1 block
what's in it?
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ cpio -ivt < ../t.cpio
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 b
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 c link to b
"c link to b"? wtf? Who thought that was a good idea? because ...
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ touch 'c link to b'
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 b
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 c
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:22 c link to b
and
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ cpio -o >../t.cpio
a
b
c
c link to b
^D
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ cpio -ivt < ../t.cpio
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 b
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 c link to b
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:22 c link to b
so ... it looks like a file is there twice, because somebody thought it was
a good idea to confuse a file name and file metadata. And, anyway, it's
just as accurate to have it say
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 b link to c
-rw-r--r-- 2 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:21 c link to b
-rw-r--r-- 1 rminnich wheel 0 Jun 26 20:22 c link to b
Right? :-)
From the same people who brought you this:
ronsexcllentmbp:t rminnich$ bc
>>>
Somebody needs to get the osx folks a unix manual set :-)
> From: Aron <aki(a)insinga.com>
> Now if only his family would take those wishes of his into account and
> tell the lawyers to finish the job.
I suspect that was his real mistake; he trusted that his family would do what
he wanted (perhaps so that instead of putting the final bow on this, he could
pay attention to something else that was more important to him) after he was
gone - and they decided not to.
My suspicion is that there is something else that is more important to his
sister (probably political), and she decided that the pittance she'd get from
flushing the LCM would be better put towards her project(s).
I've just been re-reading Thucydides' extraordinarily outstanding meditation
on the revolution on Corcyra (which is really a meditation on the death of
the Greek polei - and is a pre-epitaph on the death of many democracies
since), and if my pupposition is correct, it applies to this too
I wonder what'll happen to all the less-valuable stuff that was given to the
LCM? A PDP-10 will fetch 10K's of $, but a lot of the rest is worth pennies.
I hope they don't scrap it for pennies, or throw it in the trash. I'm sure
that someone who would ignore her brother's wishes about important pieces
of history that meant a lot to him would have no qualms about doing either.
Noel
Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on the rationale behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication of UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards. C was published via the ANSI route as X3.159, whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1. Was there every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through ANSI instead? Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the difference in publishers? In any case, both saw subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so the track to an international standard seems to lead to the same organizations.
- Matt G.
This announcement just arrived on the ACM Bulletins list:
>> ...
>> Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Vrije Universiteit, receives the ACM Software
>> System Award (http://awards.acm.org/software-system) for MINIX, which
>> influenced the teaching of Operating Systems principles to multiple
>> generations of students and contributed to the design of widely used
>> operating systems, including Linux.
>> ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
- University of Utah -
- 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/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or like rms claimed Linux as part of GNU, he claimed POSIX and some people
believed him. -jsq
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 9:38 AM Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 6:15 AM Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:12 AM John S Quarterman <jsqmobile(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I don't recall rms being involved, certainly not in the name. -jsq
>>
>> quip: Like childbirth, perhaps the unpleasant memory was simply blocked
>> out?
>>
>
> Is it possible that RMS suggested it as maybe an obvious quip to a
> committee member who later credited him with that since that conversation
> happened before that person heard it from others on the committee? Tricky
> to know from this distance in time.
>
> Warner
>
> - Dan C.
>>
>
> <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