TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

34 participants
6418 discussions

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> So, I looked at the code, and the bug is not obvious. Because there _was_ no bug!!! :-) It was saying December 12 was a Monday because the _year_ was still set to _2016_, and in 2016, December 12 _was_ a Monday! {Smacks forehead!} Noel

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] Date madness

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> Guess the date code is probably missing the '400 year' exception. So, I looked at the code, and the bug is not obvious. (The routine for detecting leap years in V6's ctime.c is so minimalistic it actually works for 2000!) The version I'm currently running had been worked on some, to have a hack fix for the overflow of the number of 8-hour periods since the epoch ("hack" since the 'fixed' version will break in 2029 or so), and I was worried that 'fix' was wrong and caused the week-day problem, but I don't think so. Noel

7 years, 1 month

The French SOL Project

by Clem Cole

In the early 1980s, a bunch of French researchers set out to build a clone of UNIX/V7 in Pascal (using a ukernel IIRC). The project was the SOL project [Gien, 1983]. I believe it eventually begat the Chorus system (which was C++); which UI was going to use for System V/R5 before it all blew up. 1) Does anyone know what happen to SOL? Was it finished, deployed, used for anything? 2.) Did the sources and doc survive (and who owns the IP)? I think those should be in the TUHS archives, as I think this was the first attempt at a rewrite of UNIX in something other than C (or assembler). 3.) On a similar thought, did the Chorus code survive and who owns the IP? Clem [Gien, 1983]*“The SOL Operating System*”, Michel Gien, USENIX Association, 1983, Proceedings of the Summer ’83 USENIX Conference, Toronto, On, Canada, July, 1983, Pages 75-78

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] Early Clones

by Rudi Blom

actually not an early clone but a late(r), Philips MPX (Multi-processor UNIX) based on SystemV running on Moterola CPUs. Mostly sold in the (Retail) Banking Industry as branch server. The "M" was more related to having various boards running their own UNIX. That would be an Ethernet board and one Networking board for SDLC and X.25. These boards run their own copy of unix to 'offload' the main CPU. I've worked with this UNIX but more a system tester, interface to National Sales Organisations. No idea where the source is, but guess it would be IP of Philips (or DEC, or Compaq, or HP, or HPE) if anyone still remembers that is. For a (very) short while there was also an Intel CPU based version, but dropped in favour of SCO UNIX when DEC bought Philips Computer division. A very little bit in this 1987 article. https://www.cbronline.com/news/better_late_philips_enters_the_uk_unix_marke… Cheers, uncle rubl

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] Date madness

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Warner Losh > So at some point you had to hack things in to make 20xx work, no? I had a number of date issues with V6; more here: http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/V6Unix.html#Issues That one was the easiest to fix! (Although this one will probably also be pretty easy, too.) Noel

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Clem Cole > IP and datagrams were very much built on no central control Well, yes and no. One can easily have a centrally controlled datagram network (q.v. the ARPANET) - although it's true that its path-selection algorithms, etc were not centrally controlled - but other aspects of the network were. (Interestingly, after various routing disasters the Internet caused by improper configuration, some aspects of path selection in _parts_ of it are now effectively centrally controlled; but I digress.) The IP Internet was designed with no _overall_ central control, but as a collection of autonomous entities. > In the end, it was MetCalfe's law (which was formulated on observations > about the phone system) that caused IP to win Over any and all comers, including other decentralized datagram networks like CLNP. MetCalfe's law doesn't talk about decentralized, it's just about 'first to field'. > all want to see the net neutrality go away This whole 'net neutrality' campaign drives me completely crazy. If all people wanted was a rule saying 'ISPs can't give third parties _worse_ service, or - more importantly - deny service altogether, unless those parties pay up' (i.e. what would amount to targeted extortion), I'd be _all for_ a rule like that. But the 'net neutrality' aficionados (most of whom, I'm fairly sure, are not aware of/thinking about these details) are all signing up for a much more expansive rule, one that says 'no ISP can offer anyone _better_ service for paying more money' - which is quite different. My problems with this latter form are two-fold. First, what's wrong with that anyway? Do we have a rule saying you can't get better road service if you pay? Absolutely not - restricted toll lanes are becoming more and more common. So there's clearly no societal agreement on this principle. (I suspect this 'net netrality' campaign has as a goal some sort of 'forced equality' thing - unless the people behind it simply don't even understand the difference.) Second, that rule is, with a little extra work on the ISPs' part, ineffective anyway. All they have to do is build _two_ networks, one better provisioned than the other - and priced accordingly. You want better service? Sign up for the second network; you'll pay more, but it's your choice. Noel

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: George Michaelson > I didn't mean to disrespect the people who did the models or the > protocol or standards work btw. Oh, I personally have no problem with you saying hard things about this work, as long as it's what you really think. One never finds the truth unless one is willing to look hard, neh? And I'm pretty sure Dave Clark (who was a leading light in IntServ) would be OK with you doing so too (I worked very closely with him for years, to the point where I deputized for him at meetings). I honestly don't remember exactly what my take was on IntServ and RSVP; I'd have to go look. I recollect seeing the case that _if resources were limited_, certain classes of application (I guess we called them 'inelastic') would need reservations to work properly. So I was probably susceptible to the argument that 'if we've got bandwidth to light our <insert flammable objects> with, we don't need resource reservation'. And I remember being not _thrilled_ with RSVP, but I don't recall exactly why. But, as, you said, wrong list. Maybe internet-history: http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history if you did want to delve into it. Noel

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] MERT?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Jon Steinhart > Probably the best person to ask is Heinz Lycklama. I checked my email log for my previous MERT enquiries, and that's the exact same advice I got from Brian Kernighan when I asked him (a couple of years back) if he had any suggestions for tracking it down. I guess I need to finally get a 'round tuit'... unless there's someone else here who knows him well, and wants to give it a go. Noel

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: George Michaelson > I don't think this list is the right place to conduct that particular > debate. Not disagreeing; my message was a very short gloss on a very complicated situation, and I wasn't trying to push any particular position, just pointing out that work (whether the right direction, or not, I didn't opine) had been done. > Its true RSVP didn't get traction, but the economics which underpin it > are pretty bad, for the current Internet model of settlement Yes, but would _any_ resource reservation system, even one that _was_ 'perfect', have caught on? Because: > it would not surprise me if there is ... more dropped packets than > strictly speaking the glass expects. This is related to something I didn't mention; if there is a lot more bandwidth (in the loose sense, not the exact original meaning) than demand, then resource reservation mechanisms buy you nothing, and are a lot of complexity. While there were bandwidth shortages in the 90s, later on they pretty much went away. So I think the perception (truth?) that there was a lot of headroom (and thus no need for resource reservation, to do applications like voice) played a really big role in the lack of interest (or so people argued at the time, in saying IntServ wasn't needed). Noel

7 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Steve Johnson > Recently I've been attempting to Skype on a group call with 5 people in > Europe. I would LOVE to have a guaranteed bandwidth for my call. The Internet engineering community did quite a bit of work on resource guarantees. (Google 'IntServ' and 'RSVP' - the latter is the control protocol.) Unfortunately, there was never much interest in it. People started doing voice with just plain 'best effort' service, and I guess it worked 'well enough' that nobody was interested in IntServ/RSVP. Noel

7 years, 1 month

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