TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

29 participants
6557 discussions

Start a nNew thread

(no subject)

by Doug McIlroy

9 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Etymology of shell

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: John Cowan > Rather than starting another process, the Multics shell mapped the > executable program the user requested into its own space .. then jumped > into it. The equivalent of exit() simply jumped back to the shell code. This is from memory, so apply the proverbial grain, but ISTR that the original concept for the Multics shell was just like that for Unix - i.e. each command would be a separte child process. This was given up when Multics processes turned out to be so computationally expensive, and they went to commands being subroutines that were dynamically linked in (very easy with Multics, where dynamic linking was a fundamental system capability) and called from the shell. Noel

9 years, 7 months

Etymology of shell

by Warren Toomey

So what is the etymology of "shell", then? I see that Multics has a shell. Was the CTSS user interface also called a shell? Cheers, Warren -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

9 years, 7 months

Etymology of "shell"?

by Warren Toomey

So what is the etymology of the word "shell"? I see that Multics has a shell. What the user interface in CTSS also called a shell? Cheers, Warren

9 years, 7 months

Mirror of Mike Mahoney's oral history of Unix

by Warren Toomey

All, Doug McIlroy sent me an e-mail about the late Mike Mahoney's project to create an oral history of Unix. His documents are at http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/Mahoney/unixhistory I've taken the liberty to mirror them into the Unix Archive and they are now also at http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/OralHistory/ Cheers, Warren

9 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] etymology of cron

by norman＠oclsc.org

John Cowan: Wikipedia is by nature a *summary of the published literature*. If you want to get some folklore, like what "cron" stands for, into Wikipedia, then publish a folklore article in a journal, book, or similar reputable publication. Random uncontrolled mailing lists simply do not count. ====== That sounds fair enough on the surface. But if you follow the references cited to support the cron acronyms, you find that random unsupported assertions in conference papers do count. That's not a lot better. I'd like to see a published, citable reference for the true origin of `cron'. Even better, better published material for a lot of the charming minutiae of the early days of UNIX. (Anyone feel up to interviewing Doug and Ken and Brian and whoever else is left, and writing it up for publication in ;login:?) But I'd be satisfied if we could somehow stamp out the use of spurious references to support spurious claims. If I had the time and energy I'd look into how to challenge the cron acronyms on those grounds. Any volunteers? Norman Wilson Toronto ON

9 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Does anybody recall how the TU10 bootstrap code actually operates?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Will Senn > 000777 HALT That's actually "BR ."; the difference is important, since the CPU (IIRC) doesn't honour DMA requests when it is halted, and DMA needs to be working for the controller to read that first block (a secondary tape bootstrap) into memory. > This seems like gobbledegook to me. :-) > It moves the MTCMA (Magtape Current Memory Address) into R0, then it > moves the MTCMA into the MTBRC (Magtape Byte Record Count) "The address of the MTCMA into", etc. Looking quickly at the programming spec for the TM11 controllers, it wants a negative of the byte count to transfer in this register; the address of the MTCMA just happens to also be a large enough negative number to be usable as the (negative) size of the transfer request. (The first record is probably shorter than that, but that doesn't matter.) Note that this code could probably also have been written: MOV #172524, R0 MOV R0,@R0 and been equally functional. > then it moves 60003 into the MTC (Magtape control register), which > causes a read operation with 800BPI 9 Channel density. I'm too lazy to look at the programming spec for the details, but that sounds right. > Am I misinterpreting the byte codes or is this some idiosyncratic way to > get the Magnetic tape to rewind or something (the TM11 has a control > function to rewind, so it seems unlikely that this is the case No, it's just the shortest possible program to read the first block off the tape. It depends on i) the operator having manually set the tape to the right point (the start of the tape), so that it's the first block that gets read, and ii) the fact that the reset performed by hitting the 'Start' key on the CPU clears the TM11 registers, including the Current Memory Address register, so the block that's read is read into memory location zero. Hence the direction to 'once the tape has stopped moving, re-start the CPU at 0'. Noel

9 years, 8 months

(no subject)

by scj＠yaccman.com

Actually, I could easily see Usenix doing this kind of thing on a regular basis. Add my vote as another ex president...

9 years, 8 months

(no subject)

by scj＠yaccman.com

Actually, I could easily see Usenix doing this kind of thing on a regular basis. Add my vote as another ex president...

9 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Does anybody recall how the TU10 bootstrap code actually operates?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> Thank you for responding so carefully. The devil is in the details... > I have been reading the PDP-11/40 handbook, much too much :) I'm not sure that's possible! :-) Yes, yes, I know, the architecture is deader than a doornail for serious use, but I liken it to sailing vessels: nobody uses them for serious cargo haul any more, but they are still much beloved (and for good reasons, IMO). The PDP-11 is an incredibly elegant architecture, perhaps the best ever (IMO), which remains one of the very best examples ever of how to get 30 pounds into the proverbial ten-pount sack - like early UNIX (more below). > this is really elegant code. The guys who thought this up were amazing. Nah, it's just a clever hack (small-scale). What is really, almost un-approachably, brilliant about early UNIX is the amount of functionality they got into such a small machine. It's hard to really appreciate, now, the impact UNIX had when it first appeared on the scene: just as it's impossible for people who didn't themselves actually experience the pre-Internet world to _really_ appreciate what it was like (even turning off all one's computers for a day only approximates it). I think only people who lived with prior 'small computer OS's' could really grasp what a giant leap it was, compared to what came before. I remember first being shown it in circa 1975 or so, and just being utterly blown away: the ability to trivially add arbitrary commands, I/O redirection, invisibly mountable sections of the directory tree - the list just goes on and on. Heck, it was better than all but a few 'big machine' OS's! > Thanks again for your help. Eh, de nada. Noel

9 years, 8 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