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
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
> 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
[ 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.Â
> Â 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). Â
Yet another reason why DEC went under, I guess...
-- Dave
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
> 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
> 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
> 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