Ok... so I got vi to work full screen in a telnet session to the DZ port in V8. BTW TERM=vt132 seems to be the best option given the existing termcap. Yay. Now I'm a happy camper with my v8 instance and I'm reading Rochkind's book and learning lots more about everything from unix error codes to system programming etc. V8 is much more familiar ground to me than earlier versions (mostly vi) at this point.
Anyway, my first question of the day is this - is vt132 the best that I can do terminalwise?
I'm not totally up to speed on terminals in ancient (or modern) unices, but I've been reading, and it seems that if I can match a termcap entry to my emulated terminal with a majority of available capabilities, that I would reach screen nirvana in my instance. Now, it also seems like my mac will emulate different terminals and defaults to something like xterm-256. I don't expect color to be supported, but I don't really know. This leads to a second question, if I take an xterm termcap entry and put it in my termcap file, will it work better than the vt entries?
Is my logic correct, or am I thinking incorrectly about this?
Sidenote: now that I'm in v8 and having used v6 and v7 - McIlroy's reader actually is much, much more interesting and handy! Thanks, Doug!
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
What should I set TERM to on V8 to get the best results on my Mac
Terminal. If I set it to vt52, vt100, or vt132, only 8 lines appear at
the bottom of the terminal window (of about 24 lines):
---
root::0:4:m0130,m322:/:
daemon:x:1:1:m0000,m000:/:
sys:sorry:2:1:m0130,m322:/usr/sys:no-login
bin:sorry:3:4:m0130,m322:/bin:
ken:sorry:6:1:m0130,m322:/usr/ken:
dmr:sorry:7:4:mh1092,m069:/usr/dmr:
nuucp::238:1:mh2019,m285,uucp:/usr/spool/uucppublic:/usr/lib/uucp/uucico
uucp::48:1:mh2019,m285,nowitz:/usr/lib/uucp:
"passwd" 20 lines, 770 characters
----
The 8 line window works about like I'd expect - the arrow keys move up
and down until the screen needs to scroll, then B's and A's show up. I'm
used to that on BSD. Using the j and k keys work better and when I
scroll down enough lines, the lines move up to fill the whole terminal
window and the file can be edited in the full window. Is there a better
TERM setting that will get 24 lines to show up on file open?
Thanks,
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
As has been explained, void came from Algol 68 via Steve Bourne.
As no object could be declared void, void* was a useless
construct. A kind of variable that could point to any object
was required to state the type of useful functions like qsort.
To avoid proliferation of keywords, the useless void* was
pressed into service. I do not remember who suggested that.
Doug
> From: Clem Cole
> typing hard started to become more important in the kernel.
I can imagine! The V6 kernel had all sorts of, ah, 'unusual' typing - as I
learned to my cost when I did that hack version of 'splice()' (to allow a
process in a pipline to drop out, and join the two pipes together directly),
which I did in V6 (my familiar kernel haunt).
Since a lot of code does pointer math to generate wait 'channel' numbers,
e.g.:
sleep(ip+2, PPIPE);
when I naively (out of habit) tried to declare my pointers to be the correct
type, the math didn't work any more! ('ip', in this particular case, was
declared to be an 'int *'.)
No doubt part of this was inherited from older versions (of the system, and
C); the code was working, and there was no call to tweak it. The lack of
casts/coercion in the V6 C compiler may have been an issue, too - I had to do
some equally odd things to make my splice() code work!
Noel
This caught my attention. Did early C really have min and max? Were they used for anything? In those days I was a BCPL user, which IIRC, did not have such things.
-Larry
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Leo Broukhis <leob(a)mailcom.com>
> Subject: [Simh] An abandoned piece of K&R C
> Date: 2017, November 3 at 1:14:42 AM EDT
> To: "simh(a)trailing-edge.com" <simh(a)trailing-edge.com>
>
> https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/4965/4025 <https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/4965/4025>
>
> In the UNIX V7 version of the C language, there were the /\ (min) and the \/ (max) operators. In the source of the scanner part of the compiler,
>
> case BSLASH:
> if (subseq('/', 0, 1))
> return(MAX);
> goto unkn;
>
> case DIVIDE:
> if (subseq('\\', 0, 1))
> return(MIN);
> ...
>
> However, attempting to use them reveals that the corresponding part in the code generator is missing. Trying to compile
>
> foo(a, b) { return a \/ b; }
>
> results in
>
> 1: No code table for op: \/
>
> The scanner piece survived in the copies of the compiler for various systems for several years. I tried to look for copies of the code generator table which would contain an implementation, but failed. Has anyone ever seen a working MIN/MAX operator in K&R C?
>
> Thanks,Leo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simh mailing list
> Simh(a)trailing-edge.com
> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Am I the only one having trouble? I mirror the site, and I'm now seeing:
aneurin# tuhs
+ rsync -avz minnie.tuhs.org::UA_Root .
rsync: failed to connect to minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53): Operation timed out (60)
rsync error: error in socket IO (code 10) at clientserver.c(125) [Receiver=3.1.2]
+ rsync -avz minnie.tuhs.org::UA_Applications Applications
rsync: failed to connect to minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53): Operation timed out (60)
rsync error: error in socket IO (code 10) at clientserver.c(125) [Receiver=3.1.2]
Etc.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20
1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch) -- Andy Tannenbaum.
(Yeah, an American billion, not the old British one.)
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 89 13:37 CDT
From: Chris Garrigues <7thSon(a)slcs.slb.com>
Subject: A quote from Interop '89
To: unix-haters(a)ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: 7thSon(a)slcs.slb.com
"We all know that the Internet is Unix. We proved that last
November."
- David Mills, October 2, 1989
> From: Arnold Skeeve
> I suspect that he was also still young and fired up about things. :-)
> ...
> (In other words, he too probably deserves to be cut some slack.)
Much as RTM was cut some slack?
The thing is there's a key difference. RTM didn't _intend_ to melt down the
network, whereas Gene presumbly - hopefully - thought about it for a while
before he made his call to inflict severe punishment.
Did RTM do something wrong? Absolutely. Did he deserve some punishment?
Definitely. But years in jail? Yes, it caused a lot of disruption - but to any
one person, not an overwhelming amount.
Luckily, the judge was wise enough, and brave enough, to put the sentencing
guidelines (and the DoJ recommendation, IIRC) to one side.
However, that too was not without a cost; it was one more stone added to what
is admittedlyalready a mountain of precedent that judges can ignore the
legislature's recommendations - and once one does it, another will feel more
free to do so. And so we pass from a government of laws to a government of
men.
But I don't give Gene the lion's share of the blame: that has to go to Rasch,
and his superiors at the DoJ, who were apparently (as best I can understand
their motives) willing to crush a young man under a bus to make a point. The
power to prosecute and punish is an awesome one, and should be wielded
carefully and with judgement, and it was their failure to do so that really
was the root cause.
Noel
