On 26 February 2017 at 07:46, Michael Kjörling <michael(a)kjorling.se> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2017 07:39 -0500, from jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa):
>> I was never happy with the size of EMACS, and it had nothing to do with the
>> amount of memory resources used. That big a binary implies a very large amount
>> of source, and the more lines of code, the more places for bugs...
>
> But remember; without Emacs, we might never have had _The Cuckoo's
> Egg_. Imagine the terror of that loss.
Hhhmmm.... I must dig my copy out of storage because I do not remember
emacs in there.
As for emac uses, my wife was on (non-CS) staff at a local college
affiliated with U of T. At the time, DOS boxes sat on staff desks and
email was via a telnet connection to an SGI box somewhere on campus.
A BATch file connected and ran pine but shelled out to an external
editor. What was the editor? Well, I saw her composing a message
once and ending the editor session by ^X^C.
N.
Wasn't the default FS type S51K? Limitations like 14 chars directory
names only. No symbolic link ?
>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:13:25 -0500
>From: Arthur Krewat <krewat(a)kilonet.net>
>To: Cory Smelosky <b4(a)gewt.net>, Jason Stevens
> <jsteve(a)superglobalmegacorp.com>, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO OpenDesktop 386 2.0.0
>Message-ID: <f5a1d513-3cc1-6a4d-64a3-669b49d7226f(a)kilonet.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
>What filesystem type does it use for root/boot/whatever?
>
>Install operating system "X" that supports that filesystem type in the
>virtual guest, create a new disk, newfs/mkfs it, arrange the bits from
>the tape, take the newly-assembled disk and move to another VM and try
>to boot it.
>
>Not remembering anything about how SVR3.2 boots (I think that's what
>Opendesktop is?) that's the end of my help on the subject :)
Hey,
Does anyone have any of the floppies for OpenDesktop 2.0.0? Mine got
damaged in a dehumidifier failure before they got to California. The
only survivor was of all things...the QIC-24 tape (which I have read
fine)
sco-tape> tar tf file0 | more
./tmp/_lbl/prd=odtps/typ=u386/rel=2.0.0a/vol=1
Anyone know a good starting point for attempting to install it in to a
VM? ;)
--
Cory Smelosky
b4(a)gewt.net
> On 26 Feb 2017 07:39 -0500, from jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa):>> I was never happy with the size of EMACS, and it had nothing to do with >> the amount of memory resources used. That big a binary implies a very >> large amount of source, and the more lines of code, the more places for >>bugs...GNU Emacs 26.0.50, GTK+ Version 3.22.8) of 2017-02-25 (Fedora25, Kernel: 4.9.11:Virtual: 794.6Resident: 36.8
> From: Joerg Schilling
> He is a person with a strong ego and this may have helped to spread
> Linux.
Well, I wasn't there, and I don't know much about the early Linux versus
UNIX-derivative contest, but from personal experience in a similar contest
(the TCP/IP versus ISO stack), I doubt such personal attributes had _that_
much weight in deciding the winner.
The maximum might have been that it enabled him to keep the Linux kernel
project unified and heading in one direction. Not inconsiderable, perhaps, if
there's confusion on the other side.,,
So there is a question here, though, and I'm curious to see what others who
were closer to the action think. Why _did_ Linux succeed, and not a Unix
derivative? (Is there any work which looks at this question? Some Linux
history? If not, there should be.)
It seems to me that they key battleground must have been the IMB PC-compatible
world - Linux is where it is now because of its success there. So why did
Linux succeed there?
Was is that it was open-source, and the competitor(s) all had licensing
issues? (I'm not saying they did, I just don't know.) Was it that Linux worked
better on that platform? (Again, don't know, only asking.) Perhaps there was
an early stage where it was the only good option for that platform, and that's
how it got going? Was is that there were too many Unix-derived alternatives,
so there was no clarity as to what the alternatives were?
Some combination of all of the above (perhaps with different ones playing a key
role at different points in time)?
Noel
All,
I'm dumping as much BSD/OS stuff as I can tonight. This includes: SPARC,
sources, and betas.
Unable to dump any floppies, however.
--
Cory Smelosky
b4(a)gewt.net
> Then one day a couple of them ‘fell off a truck’ and my Dad just happened to be there to pick them up and bring them home.
Wonderful story. It reminded me of the charming book, "five Finger Discount"
by Helene Stapinski, whose father brought home truckfall steaks.
Thanks for sharing the tale.
Doug
Is it worth putting a copy of this mailing list into the Unix Archive?
I don't want to dump the mbox in, as it has all our e-mail addresses:
spam etc. I could symlink in the monthly text archives, e.g.
http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2016-December.txt.gz
What do you think? Perhaps in Documentation/TUHS_Mail?
Warren
It’s embarrassing to mention this, but I thought I’d share.
I’ve always wondered what on earth a TAHOE was, as they disappeared just about as quickly as they came out. As we all know that they were instrumental from separating out the VAX code from 4.3BSD in the official CSRG source. I was looking through old usenet stuff when I typed in something wrong, and came across people looking for GCC for the Tahoe running BSD. (http://altavista.superglobalmegacorp.com/usenet/b128/comp/sys/tahoe/79.txt)
In article <2287(a)trantor.harris-atd.com>, bbadger@x102c (Badger BA 64810) writes:
`We have a Harris HCX-9 computer, also known as a Tahoe, and we'd like to
`get gcc and g++ up and running. I haven't seen anything refering to
`the HCX or any Tahoe machines in the gcc distribution. Anyone have it?
`Working on it? Pointers to who might? Know if Berkely cc/ld/asm is PD?
Turns out they were using Harris mini’s called the HCX-9. That’s when I went back to the source and saw this:
#
# GENERIC POWER 6/32 (HCX9)
#
machine tahoe
cpu "TAHOE"
ident GENERIC
So if anyone else is wondering what was a Tahoe, did it exist, was there actual sales, is their pictures of it, etc, the answer is yes, it was a real machine, yes it was sold, and there are even print ads in Computer world.
I thought it was interesting though.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Since the X86 discussions seem to have focused on BSD & Linux, I thought I
should offer another perspective.
TLDR: I worked on System V based UNIX on PCs from 1982 to 1993. IMO,
excessive royalties & the difficulty of providing support for diverse
hardware doomed (USL) UNIX on x86. It didn't help that SCO was entrenched in
the PC market and slow to adopt new UNIX versions.
Longer Summary:
>From 1975-82 at IBM Research and UT-Austin C.S. dept, I tried to get access
to UNIX but couldn't.
At IBM Austin from '82 to '89, I worked on AIX and was involved with IBM's
BSD for RT/PC.
Starting in '89, I was the executive responsible for Dell UNIX
(https://notes.technologists.com/notes/2008/01/10/a-brief-history-of-dell-un…)
for most of its existence.
The royalties Dell paid for SVR4 plus addons were hard to bear. Those
royalties were at least an order of magnitude greater than what we paid to
Microsoft.
We couldn't support all of the devices Dell supplied to customers, certainly
couldn't afford to support hardware only supplied by other PC vendors.
SCO had dominant marketplace success with Xenix and SVRx products, seemingly
primarily using PCs with multiport serial cards to enable traditional
timesharing applications. Many at Dell preferred that we emphasize SCO over
Dell SVR4.
When I joined my first Internet startup in 1996 and had to decide what OS to
use for hosting, I was pretty cognizant of all the options. I had no hands
on Linux experience but thought Linux the likely choice. A Linux advocate
friend recommended I choose between Debian and Red Hat. I chose Red Hat and
have mostly used Red Hat & Fedora for my *IX needs since then.
Today, Linux device support is comprehensive, but still not as complete as
with Windows. I installed Fedora 24 on some 9 and 15 year old machines last
week. The graphics hardware is nothing fancy, a low end NVIDIA card in the
older one, just what Intel supplied on their OEM circuit boards in the newer
one. Windows (XP/7/10) on those machines gets 1080p without downloading
extra drivers. (Without extra effort??) Fedora 24 won't do more than
1024x768 on one and 1280x1024 with the other.
Charlie
