TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

17 participants
6470 discussions

Re: [TUHS] Were cron and at done at the same time? Or one before the other?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Niklas Karlsson > Just consider Multics, or IBM's "Future System". Here's a nice irony for you: one of the key people in killing off FS was reported to me (by someone who should have known) to be Jerry Saltzer (of Multics fame). That wasn't the only time he did something like thst, either; when MIT leaned on him to take over Athena, the first thing he did was to take a lot of their ambitious system plans, and ditch them; they fell back to mostly 'off the shelf' stuff: pretty much vanilla 4.2, etc. Multics itself has an interesting story, quite different from the popular image among those who know little (or nothing) of it. The system, as it was when Honeywell pulled the plug on further generations of new hardware (in the mid-80's) was very different from the system as originally envisaged by MIT (in the mid-60's); it had undergone a massive amount 'experience-based evolution' during those 20 years. For instance, the original concept was to have a process per command (like Unix), but that was dropped early on (because Multics processes were too 'expensive'); they wound up going with doing commands with inter-segment procedure calls. (Which has the nice benefit that when a command faults, you can get dropped right into the debugger, with the failed instance there to look at.) If you read the Organick book on Multics, it describes a much different system: e.g. in Organick there's a 'linkage segment' (used for inter-segment pointers, in pure-code segments) per code segment, but in reality Multics, as distributed, used a single 'combined linkage segment' (which also contained the stack, also unlike the original design, where the stack was a separate segment). There were also numerous places where major sub-systems were re-implemeneted from scratch, with major changes (often great simplifications): one major re-do was the New Storage System, but that one had major new features (based on operationally-shown needs, like the 4.1/.2 Fast File System), so it's not a 'simplification' case. There's one I read about which was much simpler the second time it was implemented, I think it was IPC? Noel

4 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Were cron and at done at the same time? Or one before the other?

by John Foust

At 09:40 AM 12/9/2020, Clem Cole wrote: >My own take on this is what I call "Cole's Law"Â Â Simple economics always beats sophisticated architecture. I thought that was finely sliced cabbage with a tart salad dressing. - John

4 years, 4 months

Were cron and at done at the same time? Or one before the other?

by ron minnich

When I got into Unix in 1976 cron and at were both there. I got to wondering for no particular reason which came first -- I had always assumed cron, but ...? Anyone know?

4 years, 4 months

The origin of Goto considered harmful?

by Bakul Shah

Last night I stumbled upon this speech by Doug McIlroy at Dijkstra's retirement banquet @ UT Austin where he tells the story of his first encounter with EWD and the origins of programming without goto.... Given that we recently had a discussion on "Goto considered harmful", you all may enjoy it. Make sure you watch the start of part 10 as well as that is where the story ends. https://youtu.be/5OUPBwrufKA?list=PL328C7EFFC1F41674&t=326

4 years, 4 months

Command name of the B compiler; One letter command names

by markus schnalke

Hoi, I'm wondering what the name of the B compiler was. Doug's ``Unix Reader'' lists: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 + + + . . . . . . b compile b program . . . . . + + + + bc arbitrary-precision arithmetic language Via Wikipedia I found a scan of the ``Users' Reference to B'', a technical memorandum by Ken, dated 1972-01-07 (which is between the releases of the 1st and 2nd Edition). https://web.archive.org/web/20150317033259/https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dm… There on page 25: 10.0 Usage Currently on UNIX, there is no B command. The B compiler phases must be executed piecemeal. The first phase turns a B source program into an intermediate language. /etc/bc source interm The next phase turns the intermediate language into assembler source, at which time the intermediate language can be removed. /etc/ba interm asource rm interm The next phase assembles the assembler source into the object tile a.out. After this the a.out file can be renamed and the assembler source file can be removed. as asource mv a.out object rm asource The last phase loads the various object files with the necessary libraries in the desired order. ld object /etc/brtl -lb /etc/bilib /etc/brt2 Now a.out contains the completely bound and loaded program and can be executed. a.out A canned sequence of shell commands exists invoked as follows: sh /usr/b/rc x It will compile, convert, assemble and load the file x.b into the executable file a.out. It lists /etc/bc, as a command to convert into the intermediate language, and /etc/ba, to convert the intermediate language into assembler source, but lists no `b' command. The wrapper script is /usr/b/rc. Can someone clarify? I came to this question because I was looking for one letter commands. I always thought them to be a reserved namespace for the user ... Any background on that topic is appreciated as well. ;-) meillo

4 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] The UNIX Command Language (1976)

by M Douglas McIlroy

There's a back story. The paper appears in the proceedings of a conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for which I take the blame). References to eqn (v5), bc (v6), and ratfor (v7) obviously postdate the London conference. Ken must have edited--or re-created--the transcript for the proceedings sometime after v6 (May, 1975). Bibliographic citations are missing. Can they be resurrected? Reference 137, about Unix itself, probably refers to a presentation by Ken and Dennis at SOSP in January1973. Alas, only an abstract of the talk appears in the conference proceedings. But the abstract does contain the potent and often-repeated sentence, "It offers a number of features seldom found even in larger operating systems, including ... inter-process IO ..." The talk--in Yorktown Heights--was memorable, and so was a ride to the same place in Ken's 'vette. (I can't recall whether the two happened on the same occasion.) Given that the talk at SOSP preceded the talk in London, and that the Unix manual was widely distributed by (1976) when the revised London talk was printed, the claim that "The Unix command language" was the first publication of Unix seems hyperbolic. In no way, though, does this detract from the inherent interest of the paper. Doug

4 years, 4 months

Apple IIe Unix?

by Will Senn

Hi All, So, I'm about to get my very own Apple IIe and while it's an incredibly versatile machine for assembly language and hardware hackery, I'm not aware of any Unices that run on the machine, natively. Does anybody know of any from back in the day? It's got a 65c02 processor and somewhere around 128k of RAM, but it's also pretty expandable w/7 slots and a huge amount of literature about how to do stuff w/those slots. Thanks, Will -- GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF

4 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] The UNIX Command Language (1976)

by norman＠oclsc.org

I'm also forwarding this message that arrived in my mailbox. Is this **THE** Ken Thompson? Yes, that's the real Ken. Those who have communicated with him in the past (and didn't get a direct note as some of us did) should notice the new e-mail address, kenbob(a)gmail.com. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

4 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Apple IIe Unix?

by Jose R. Valverde

Somewhat late to the discussion, but GeckOS may be another curious contender. You can find more information in http://6502.org http://www.6502.org/users/andre/index.html j -- Scientific Computing Service Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, CSIC. c/Darwin, 3. 28049 Madrid +34 91 585 45 05 +34 659 978 577

4 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] The UNIX Command Language (1976)

by Joachim

I'm also forwarding this message that arrived in my mailbox. Is this **THE** Ken Thompson? Joachim -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [TUHS] The UNIX Command Language (1976) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:47:16 -0800 From: Ken Thompson <kenbob(a)gmail.com> To: Joachim <j(a)tllds.com> yes. the unix manual was published before that, but i dont think it was released that early. it had a manual page on the shell. this paper might be the first paper ever released outside bell labs. On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 7:18 PM Joachim via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>> wrote: Apologies if this has already been linked here. "The UNIX Command Languageis the first-ever paper published on the Unix shell. It was written by Ken Thompson in 1976." https://github.com/susam/tucl Joachim

4 years, 4 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