> From: Arthur Krewat
>> The PDP-6 (of which the PDP-10 was a clone)
> Um. More like a natural progression.
> Like 8086->80186->80286->80386->80486->...
No, the PDP-6 and PDP-10 have identical instruction sets, and in general, a
program that will run on one, will run on the other. See "decsystem10 System
Reference Manual" (DEC-10-XSRMA-A=D", pg. 2-72., which provides a 7-instruction
code fragment which allows a program to work out if it's running on a PDP-6, a
KA10, or a KI10.
The KA10 is a re-implementation (using mostly B-series Flip Chips) of the
PDP-6 (which was built out of System Modules - the predecessor to Flip Chips).
Noel
Nudging the thread back twoard Unix history:
> I really
> like how blindingly obvious a lot of the original Unix code was. Not saying
> it was all that way, but a ton of it was sort of what you would imagine it
> to be before you saw it. Which means I understood it and could bugfix it.
That's an important aspect of Thompson's genius--code so clean and right
that, having seen it, one cannot imagine it otherwise. But the odds are
that the same program from another hand would not have the same ring of
inevitability. As Erdos was wont to say of an elegant proof, "It comes
> like how blindingly obvious a lot of the original Unix code was
> ... sort of what you would imagine it to be before you saw it.
That's a facet of Thompson's genius--code so clean and right that,
having seen it, one cannot imagine it otherwise. Odds are, though,
that the same program from another hand would not have the same
aura of inevitability. As Erdos would say of a particularly elegant
proof, "It comes from the Book," i.e. had divine inspiration.
Doug
OT, but of interest to a few people here :-)
The venerable PDP-8 was introduced in 1965 today (or tomorrow if you're on
the wrong side of the date line). It was the first computer I ever
used, back around 1970 (I think I'd just left school and was checking out
the local University's computer department, with a view to majoring in
Computer Science (which I did)).
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
I think Noel put it very well, when I saw the read()/write() vs
recvfrom()/sendto() stuff mentioned earlier I was going to say that part of
the contract of read()/write() is that they are stream oriented thus things
like short reads and writes should behave in a predictable way and have the
expected recovery semantics. So having it be boundary preserving or having
a header on the data would in my view make it not read()/write() even if
the new call can be overlaid on read()/write() at the ABI level. I think
the contract of a syscall is an important part of its semantics even if it
may be an "unwritten rule". However, Noel said it better: If it's not
file-like then a file-like interface may not be appropriate.
Having said that, Kurt raises an equally valid point which is that the
"every file is on a fast locally attached harddisk" traditional unix
approach has serious problems. Not that I mind the simplicity: contemporary
systems had seriously arcane file abstractions that made file I/O useless
to all but the most experienced developer. I come from a microcomputer
background and I am thinking of Apple II DOS 3.3, CP/M 2.2 and its FCB
based interface and MSDOS 1.x (same). When MSDOS 2.x came along with its
Xenix-subset file API it was seriously a revelation to me and others.
Microcomputers aside, my understanding is IBM 360/370 and contemporary DEC
OS's were also complicated to use, with record based I/O etc.
So it's hard to criticize unix's model, but on the other hand the lack of
any nonblocking file I/O and the contract against short reads/writes (but
only for actual files) and the lack of proper error reporting or recovery
due to the ASSUMPTION of a write back cache, whether or not one is actually
used in practice... makes the system seriously unscaleable, in particular
as Kurt points out, the system is forced to try to hide the network
socket-like characteristics of files that are either on slow DMA or
PIO/interrupt based devices (think about a harddisk attached by serial
port, something that I actually encountered on a certain cash register
model and had to develop for back in the day), or an NFS based file, or
maybe a file on a SAN accessed by iSCSI, etc.
Luckily I think there is an easy fix, have the OS export a more socket-like
interface to files and provide a userspace compatibility library to do
things like detecting short reads/writes and retrying them, and/or blocking
while a slow read or write executes. It woukd be slightly tricky getting
the EINTR semantics correct if the second or subsequent call of a multipart
read or write was interrupted, but I think possible.
On the other hand I would not want to change the sockets API one bit, it is
perfect. (Controversial I know, I discussed this in detail in a recent
post).
Nick
On Mar 26, 2017 12:46 PM, "Kurt H Maier" <khm(a)sciops.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:35:20PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> For instance, files, as far as I know, generally don't have timeout
> semantics. Can the average application that deals with a file, deal
reasonably
> with the fact that sometimes one gets half-way through the 'file' - and
things
> stop working? And that's a _simple_ one.
The unwillingness to even attempt to solve problems like these in a
generalized and consistent manner is a source of constant annoyance to
me. Of course it's easier to pretend that never happens on a "real"
file, since disks never, ever break.
Of course, there are parts of the world that don't make these
assumptions, and that's where I've put my career, but the wider IT
industry still likes to pretend that storage and networking are
unrelated concepts. I've never understood why.
khm
Hi all, I don't mind a bit of topic drift but getting into generic OS
design is a bit too far off-topic for a list based on Unix Heritage.
So, back on topic please!
Cheers, Warren
> From: Ron Minnich
> There was no shortage of people at the time who were struggling to find
> a way to make the Unix model work for networking ... It didn't quite
> work out
For good reason.
It's only useful to have a file-name _name_ for a thing if... the thing acts
like a file - i.e. you can plug that file-name into other places you might use
a file-name (e.g. '> {foo}' or 'ed <foo>', etc, etc).
There is very little in the world of networking that acts like a file. Yes,
you can go all hammer-nail, and use read() and write() to get data back and
forth, and think that makes it a file - but it's not.
For instance, files, as far as I know, generally don't have timeout
semantics. Can the average application that deals with a file, deal reasonably
with the fact that sometimes one gets half-way through the 'file' - and things
stop working? And that's a _simple_ one. How does a file abstraction match
to a multi-cast lossy (i.e. packets may be lost) datagram group?
For another major point (and the list goes on, I just can't be bothered to go
through it all), there's usually all sorts of other higher-level protocol in
there, so only specialized applications can make use of it anyway. Look at
HTTP: there's specialized syntax one has to spit out to say what file you
want, and the HTML files you get back from that can generally only be usefully
used in a browser.
Etc, etc.
Noel
Maybe of interest, here is something spacewarish..
|I was at Berkeley until July 1981.
I had to face a radio program which purported that..
Alles, was die digitale Kultur dominiert, haben wir den Hippies
zu verdanken.
Anything which dominates the digital culture is owed to the
Hippies
This "We owe it all to the Hippies" as well as "The real legacy of
the 60s generation is the Computer Revolution" actually in English
on [1] (talking about the beginning of the actual broadcast), the
rest in German. But it also lead(s) (me) to an article of the
Rolling Stone, December 1972, on "Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death
Among the Computer Bums"[2].
[1] http://www.swr.de/swr2/programm/sendungen/essay/swr2-essay-flowerpowerdaten…
[2] http://www.wheels.org/spacewar/stone/rolling_stone.html
That makes me quite jealous of your long hair, i see manes
streaming in the warm wind of a golden Californian sunset.
I don't think the assessment is right, though, i rather think it
is a continous progress of science and knowledge, then maybe also
pushed by on-all-fronts efforts like "bringing a moon to the moon
by the end of the decade", and, sigh, SDI, massive engineer and
science power concentration, etc. And crumbs thereof approaching
the general public, because of increased knowledge in the
industry. (E.g., the director of the new experimental German
fusion reactor that finally sprang into existence claimed
something like "next time it will not be that expensive due to
what everybody has learned".) And hunger for money, of course,
already in the 70s we had game consoles en masse in Italy, for
example, with Pacman, Donkey Kong and later then with Dragons Lair
or what its name was ("beautiful cool graphics!" i recall, though
on the street there were Italian peacocks, and meaning the
birds!).
--steffen
