> /* (-s option: serial concatenation like old (127's) paste command */
>
> For that matter, what's the "old (127's) paste command" it refers to?
I can't remember 127 ever having a "paste" command. We did have "ov",
which overlaid adjacent pairs of formatted pages to make two-column
text. "Serial concatenation" would seem to be what was done by "pr"
or "cat".
"ov" figured in the flurry of demos on the day of pipes' birth.
nroff | ov | ov
made four-column output.
For that matter, what's the "old (127's) paste command" it refers to?
Every organization at AT&T had a number as well as a name.
In the early days of UNIX, the number for Computer Science
Research was 127. At some point a 1 was prepended, making
it 1127, but old-timers still used the three-digit code.
So it's a good guess that `127's paste command' means
one that came from, or had been modified in, Research.
I don't know when or where, though. I don't see a paste
command in V7. paste.c in V8 has exactly the same comment
at the top.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
>> I thought PWB (makers of "make") came from Harvard?
> PWB ... came straight out of Bell. Not sure about all the
> applications (well, SCCS came from Bell).
PWB did not create make; Stu Feldman did it in research.
PWB did make SCCS. I believe it also originated cico,
find and eval. Probably more, too, but I can't reliably
separate PWB's other contributions from USG's.
Doug
Hi,
i have an old Z8001 based SysIII variant and I would love to have
TCP/IP on it (SLIP first, later with a homebrew ethernet device).
I wonder if someone ever saw TCP/IP available on a System III?
I have lets say 90% of the kernel running on it as source
available and I started digging in the available 4.2 BSD sources.
It looks like there would be much to do to hack in TCP/IP on my
own (no IPC, no Net, no PTY, no....).
I got K5JB running (userland TCP/IP implementation) after I fixed
some C code because the C Compiler available on the system is.....
kinda limited.
telnetd is of course not working as there are no pseudo-teletypes
on this SYSIII. At least I got ping, echoping and ftpd up and
running via SLIP
(10.1.1.2 is my SysIII box:)
# ping -c3 10.1.1.2
PING 10.1.1.2 (10.1.1.2): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=254 time=316.317 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=297.328 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=296.369 ms
--- 10.1.1.2 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 296.369/303.338/316.317/9.186 ms
# ftp 10.1.1.2
Connected to 10.1.1.2.
220 FTP version K5JB.k37 ready at Tue Apr 30 22:25:47 1991
Name (10.1.1.2:root): test
331 Enter PASS command
Password:
230 Logged in
ftp> get sa.timer
local: sa.timer remote: sa.timer
500 Unknown command
500 Unknown command
200 Port command okay
150 Opening data connection for RETR sa.timer
2571 0.53 KB/s
226 File sent OK
2571 bytes received in 00:05 (0.48 KB/s)
ftp> get wega
local: wega remote: wega
200 Port command okay
150 Opening data connection for RETR wega
98723 0.51 KB/s
226 File sent OK
98723 bytes received in 03:05 (0.51 KB/s)
ftp> exit
221 Goodbye!
#
So I wonder if someone got anything SYSIII -> Net/TCP/IP related
which could help me in any way to get a SYSIII kernel capable of
TCP/IP and PTYs to get a telnetd up and running via SLIP is my
first goal.
Regards,
Oliver
I just got on this list today, and I see that Larry McVoy asks:
"I wish Marc was on this list, be fun to chat."
I'd be happy to chime in on SCCS or early PWB questions, to the extent I
remember anything.
I did see a thread about PWB contributions in which people are trying to
sort out what came from research and what from the PWB group (under Evan
Ivie). As I recall, PWB was always based on research. Dick Haight would
install the latest research system from time-to-time, and then the
so-called "PWB UNIX" was whatever he had taken from research plus stuff we
were developing, such as SCCS. Unlike, say, Columbus UNIX, our kernel
always matched research at the system call level, so there never was such a
thing as a PWB-kernel dependency.
(I think the USG system was run quite differently: They had their own
system, and would merge improvements from research into it. I could be
wrong about this, as I never worked in the USG group.)
--Marc
Anyone have some sun4c or hp300 gear they'd be persuaded to part with? Preferred in the SF Bay Area? It's getting a bit too difficult using broken emulators and broken cross compilers...
Sent from my iPhone
Hi Marc,
TUHS == The Unix Historical Society, it's a mailing list as well as a
repository of Unix source code (including yours). A lot of the Bell
Labs guys are on the list, it has weird topics like the current one of
how to get System III booting on a Zilog something that is 16 bits but
can address 8MB in segments.
There was a side discussion of PWB and SCCS came up and I started talking
about how cool SCCS was and how RCS gave it an undeserved bad rap. In
the process I said "I wish Marc was on this list" and John Cowan said
here is his email, go ask him.
I think you'd have fun on the list, it's old school unix. Lots of signal,
very little noise. I personally would love to have you there, SCCS was
brilliant. It would be fun to pick your brain about how that happened.
And for the record your advanced unix programming book has influenced
how I code. It error checks when there could be errors and passes when
there shouldn't be errors. I feel like that book threaded the needle -
error checking matters except when it doesn't. It taught me a lot and
I pass it on to anyone who will listen.
If you want to get on the list send an email to wkt(a)tuhs.org. Be good
to have your voice here.
--lm
> cpio, expr, xargs, yacc, and lex first appeared outside
> the Bell Labs boundary in the PWB release
This gently corrects a statement in my posting: the name
of one of the PWB-originated programs is expr, not eval.
Doug
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org>
> I thought PWB (makers of "make") came from Harvard?
PWB? As in "Programmer's Work Bench"? The OS part of that came straight out
of Bell - see pg. 266 in the first Unix BSTJ issue. Not sure about all the
applications (well, SCCS came from Bell).
Noel
Dan,
I wrote:
Quiz for the occasion: which major Unix utility adopted IPL's
unprecedented expression syntax?
You correctly responded:
troff.
I suppose, in a sense, that 'dc' also fits the bill but given that that is
inherent in it's stack based nature, I doubt that is what you meant.
The notion of precedence pertains specifically to infix notation, so
postfix dc is definitely not in the running.
Idle thought about my typo: Though APL is famously inscrutable, IPL
(specifically IPL-V) outshined it in that department.
Doug
