TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

2 participants
6532 discussions

by David

(somewhat long story) After reading all the stories about how Unix source was protected and hard to access to I’ve got to say that my experience was a little different. I was at UCSD from 76-80 when UCSD got a VAX and I think it was running 32V at the time. Well being a CS student didn’t get you access to that machine, it was for the grad students and others doing all the real work. I became friends with the admin of the system (sdcsvax) and he mentioned one day that the thing he wanted more than anything else was more disks. He had a bunch of the removable disk packs and wanted a couple more to swap out to do things like change the OS quickly etc. My dad worked for CDC at the time, and he was making removable media of the same type that the VAX was using. My luck. I asked him about getting a disk pack, or two. He said that these things cost thousands and he couldn’t just pick them up and bring them home. 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. You know, so the kids could see what he did for a job. I took them into the lab and gave them to the admin who looked the disks, then at me, and asked what I wanted in exchange. I asked for a seat at the VAX, with full access. Since then I’ve had a ucsd email account, and been a dyed in the wool Unix guy. David

8 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] A Couple of Early Networking Unix System

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Lars Brinkhoff > Yes, please do add some kind of IMP to SIMH! BTDT: http://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf Noel

8 years, 4 months

A Couple of Early Networking Unix System

by Warren Toomey

All, thanks to the hard effort of Noel Chiappa and Paul Ruizendaal, we now have a couple of early Unix systems with networking modifications. They can be found in: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Early_Networking/ I'll get them added to the Unix Tree soon. Cheers, Warren

8 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Why Linux not another PC/UNIX [was Mach for i386 ...]

by Clem Cole

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Steve Nickolas <usotsuki(a)buric.co> wrote: > I started screwing around with Linux in the late 90s, and it would be many > years before any sort of real Unix (of the AT&T variety), in any form, was > readily available to me - that being Solaris when Sun started offering it > for free download. See my comment to Dan. I fear you may not have known where to look, or whom to ask. As I asked Dan, were you not at an university at time? Or where you running a Sun or the like -- i.e. working with real UNIX but working for someone with binary license, not sources from AT&T (and UCB)? I really am curious because I have heard this comment before and never really understood it because the sources really were pretty much available to anyone that asked. Most professionals and almost any/all university students had did have source access if they ask for it. That is part of why AT&T lost the case. The trade secret was out, by definition. The required by the 1956 consent decree to make the trade secrets available. A couple of my European university folks have answer that the schools kept the sources really locked down. I believe you, I never saw that at places like Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburg, Darmstad or other places I visited in those days in Europe. Same was true of CMU, MIT, UCB et al where I had been in the USA, so I my experience was different. The key that by definition, UNIX was available and there were already versions from AT&T or not "in the wild." You just need to know where to look and whom to ask. The truth is that the UCB/BSDi version of UNIX - was based on the AT&T trade secret, as was Linux, Minix, Coherent and all of the other "clones" -- aka look-a-likes and man of those sources were pretty available too (just as Minix was to Linus and 386BSD was to him also but he did not know to where/whom to ask). So a few years later when the judge said, these N files might be tain'ted by AT&T IP, but can't claim anything more. The game was over. The problem was when the case started, techies (like me, and I'm guessing Larry, Ron and other ex BSD hackers that "switched") went to Linux and started to making it better because we thought we going to lose BSD. That fact is if we had lost BSD, legally would have lost Linux too; but we did not know that until after the dust settled. But by that time, many hackers had said, its good enough and made it work for everyone. As you and Dan have pointed out, many non-hackers did know that UNIX really was available so they went with *Linux because they thought that had no other choice, *when if fact, you actually did and that to me was the sad part of the AT&T case. A whole generation never knew and by the time they did have a choice but a few religion began and new wars could be fought. Anyway - that's my thinking/answer to Noel's original question. Of why Linux over the over the PC/UNIX strains... I think we all agree that one of the PC/UNIX was going to be the winner, the question really is why did Linux and not a BSD flavor?

8 years, 4 months

Any BSDi interest?

by Cory Smelosky

Hi, Forgot I'm sitting on a lot of BSDi sources/binaries. Is there any interest in this aside from me? ;) -- Cory Smelosky b4(a)gewt.net

8 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Mushi and Bagu

by Rudi Blom

Tonal languages are real fun. I'm living and working in Bangkok, Thailand and slightly tone deaf am still struggling. Which reminds me, regarding binary there are 10 types of people, those who understand and those who don't :-) Cheers, rudi

8 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Another odd comment in V6

by Norman Wilson

Noel: Instead, you have to modify the arguments so that the re-tried call takes up where it left off - in the example above, tries to read 5 characters, starting 5 bytes into the buffer). The hard part is that the return value (of the number of characters actually read) has to count the 5 already read! Without the proper design of the system call interface, this can be hard - how does the system distinguish between the _first_ attempt at a system call (in which the 'already done' count is 0), and a _later_ attempt? If the user passes in the 'already done' count, it's pretty straightforward - otherwise, not so much! ==== Sometime in the latter days of the Research system (somewhere between when the 9/e and 10/e manuals were published), I had an inspiration about that, and changed things as follows: When a system call like read is interrupted by a signal: -- If no characters have been copied into the user's buffer yet, return -1 and set errno to EINTR (as would always have been done in Heritage UNIX). -- If some data has already been copied out, return the number of characters copied. So no data would be lost. Programs that wanted to keep reading into the same buffer (presumably until a certain terminator character is encountered or the buffer is full or EOF) would have to loop, but a program that didn't loop in that case was broken anyway: it probably wouldn't work right were its input coming from a pipe or a network connection. I don't remember any programs breaking when I made that change, but since it's approaching 30 years since I did it, I don't know whether I can trust my memory. Others on this list may have clearer memories. All this was a reaction to the messy (both in semantics and in implementation) compromise that had come from BSD, to have separate `restart the system call' and `interrupt the system call' states. I could see why they did it, but was never satisfied with the result. If only I'd had my inspiration some years earlier, when there was a chance of it getting out into the real world and influencing POSIX and so on. Oh, well. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

8 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other

by Rudi Blom

>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:08:33 -0800 Cory Smelosky wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 21, 2017, at 17:22, Rudi Blom wrote: >> Probably my (misplaced?) sense of humour, but I can't help it. >> >> After reading all comment I feel I have to mention I had a look at >> freeDOS :-). >> >> Cheers, >> rudi > >Do I need to pull out TOPS-10 filesystem code now, too? ;) In 1967 I was 12 and probably had barely discovered ScienceFiction novel and computers. Just quickly downloaded a TOPS-10 OS Commands Manual (from 1988) but no mention of the Level-D filesystem

8 years, 4 months

Re: [TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other

by Rudi Blom

Probably my (misplaced?) sense of humour, but I can't help it. After reading all comment I feel I have to mention I had a look at freeDOS :-) Cheers, rudi

8 years, 4 months

OK, the archive has been reorganised

by Warren Toomey

All, after getting your feedback, I've reorganised the Unix Archive at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/ I'm sure there will be some rough edges, let me know if there is anything glaringly obvious. I'd certainly like a few helpers to take over responsibility for specific sections, e.g. UCB, DEC. Cheers all, Warren P.S It will take a while for the mirrors to pick this up.

8 years, 4 months

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