Warren:
I thought the BSTJ went into 1984, as I have some references to 1984 issues,
e,g, The Evolution of UNIX System Performance. Bell System Technical Journal,
63(8):1791b1814, October 1984.
=======
The journal's name changed at the end of 1983, from Bell System Technical
Journal to AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal, to reflect
divestiture.
There was indeed a late-1984 all-UNIX-papers issue of the BLTJ, but
technically (and journally) it was the BLTJ then, not the BSTJ.
I don't know whether there are issues of copyright-ownership or
the like over the post-divestiture journal (does it belong to
Bell Labs, now owned by Alcatel, or to AT&T, now owned by
Southern Bell?) that interfere with releasing the latter-day
journal.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
(actually passing through Davis CA on a train, but
who cares?)
A friend sent this to me. Both of these mailing lists are likely
to find this of interest. I have a paper copy of the 1978 BSTJ,
either the '82 or '83 issues, whichever one was devoted to Unix. :-)
Arnold
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:42:14 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" <beebe(a)math.utah.edu>
> To: fslc(a)fslc.usu.edu
> Cc: beebe(a)math.utah.edu
> Subject: [fslc] historical papers on Unix now online
>
> The Bell System Technical Journal from 1922 to 1983 is now online at
>
> http://bstj.bell-labs.com/
>
> with free downloadable PDFs of all articles.
>
> I've downloaded all of the HTML files, and found that just three of
> them contain mention of Unix:
>
> BSTJ.1978.5706-2.html
> BSTJ.1982.6109.html
> BSTJ.1983.6206.html
>
> Some of those important early articles that document the development
> of Unix have also been reprinted in these books:
>
> @String{pub-PH = "Pren{\-}tice-Hall"}
> @String{pub-PH:adr = "Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458, USA"}
>
> @Book{ATT:AUS86-1,
> author = "AT{\&T}",
> key = "ATT",
> title = "{AT}{\&T UNIX} System Readings and Applications",
> volume = "I",
> publisher = pub-PH,
> address = pub-PH:adr,
> pages = "xiv + 397",
> year = "1986",
> ISBN = "0-13-938532-0",
> ISBN-13 = "978-0-13-938532-2",
> LCCN = "QA76.76.O63 U553 1986",
> bibdate = "Sat Oct 28 08:25:56 2000",
> }
>
> @Book{ATT:AUS86-2,
> author = "AT{\&T}",
> key = "ATT",
> title = "{AT}{\&T UNIX} System Readings and Applications",
> volume = "II",
> publisher = pub-PH,
> address = pub-PH:adr,
> pages = "xii + 324",
> year = "1986",
> ISBN = "0-13-939845-7",
> ISBN-13 = "978-0-13-939845-2",
> LCCN = "QA76.76.O63 U553 1986",
> bibdate = "Sat Oct 28 08:25:58 2000",
> }
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
> - University of Utah FAX: +1 801 581 4148 -
> - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe(a)math.utah.edu -
> - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe(a)acm.org beebe(a)computer.org -
> - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I will be giving a lecture at NYCBSDCon on November 13 about my research
covering the history of Berkeley Unix and will highlight some of the
important events and key participants in BSD history.
http://www.nycbsdcon.org/2010/
I have done over 50 interviews with early participants, including during
the first Berkeley UNIX Software Tape, the Second Berkeley Software
Distribution, and vmunix period. (I still have many to do.)
On 10/20/10 04:00, Tim Newsham<newsham(a)lava.net> wrote:
> I'm playing with unix v6 right now. I don't see the "man"
> binary anywhere.. anyone know why?
>
> I have v6 installed from tape. The tape has images for three
> disks apparently, root, source and docs. The docs image has
> a man directory with the man pages in them. I don't see a
> man binary anywhere though, and I don't see the sources to
> man in the sources directory either.
>
> I checked the disk images available on the simh "kits" page.
> It has man pages in /mnt/man but no sources or binary.
> (by the way, this image is missing /usr/sys for some reason,
> which is why I am running an installation from tape).
>
> I also checked the
> PDP-11/Trees/V6 directory on TUHS and similarly dont see
> sources or binaries for man (though the man pages are present
> in /usr/man).
>
> There's even a /usr/man/man1/man.1, formatted online here:
> http://wwwlehre.dhbw-stuttgart.de/~helbig/os/v6/doc/I/man.html
>
> anyone know why the source and binary are missing from the
> distributions?
What "man" binary? You use cat... You have the man-pages, you have a
program (or several) to type files... Why would you need yet another
program to type files?
Johnny
I'm playing with unix v6 right now. I don't see the "man"
binary anywhere.. anyone know why?
I have v6 installed from tape. The tape has images for three
disks apparently, root, source and docs. The docs image has
a man directory with the man pages in them. I don't see a
man binary anywhere though, and I don't see the sources to
man in the sources directory either.
I checked the disk images available on the simh "kits" page.
It has man pages in /mnt/man but no sources or binary.
(by the way, this image is missing /usr/sys for some reason,
which is why I am running an installation from tape).
I also checked the
PDP-11/Trees/V6 directory on TUHS and similarly dont see
sources or binaries for man (though the man pages are present
in /usr/man).
There's even a /usr/man/man1/man.1, formatted online here:
http://wwwlehre.dhbw-stuttgart.de/~helbig/os/v6/doc/I/man.html
anyone know why the source and binary are missing from the
distributions?
Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com
hi everyone,
Just to let you all know that a few years ago I adapted the 2.11BSD
source so that it could be built on a modern system and transferred
across to the PDP-11. The changes are:
1. The PDP-11 assembler was written in assembler so made a
line-by-line translation into C code.
2. The C compiler required access to PDP-11 math e.g. for constant
folding, so I inserted some code from Bob Supnik's emulator in those
places.
3. Basically everything that runs from a makefile (e.g. "sh", "make",
"yacc", etc) has been upgraded to a more modern coding style with non
portable code fixed up, independence on type sizes, prototypes added,
etc, and the build system now generates two versions where
appropriate, one for running locally (compiled with gcc or whatever
your local compiler is) and one for inclusion in the distribution
(compiled with the PDP-11 cross toolchain).
4. I also fixed a number of "just plain bugs" that obviously had
remained undiscovered under PDP-11 conditions.
I used conditional compilation and macros where appropriate so as not
to break the PDP-11's ability to run the toolchain locally. I used a
binary comparison between the locally compiled build and the cross
compiled build to weed out bugs, and it did seem to be pretty robust
as I left it. The only reason I didn't make this work available
generally (apart from laziness), was that there's quite a few
experimental changes in addition to points 1-4, for example:
5. A reworking of the (existing) system that extracts strings and puts
them in the code segment (necessary to get the PDP-11 to run large
executables such as nethack). I can't really remember why I did this,
probably just to clean things up, but I don't think it's all that
essential so perhaps could be removed for the sake of minimal change.
6. Some changes to how "make" works, and to the Makefiles, intended to
clean things up, which in retrospect weren't essential and should be
removed (except for those changes necessary for point 3 above, need to
untangle it somehow). I didn't get around to converting all Makefiles
so there's probably a bit of inconsistency there. I might have broken
some things like "make tags" and "make depend", not sure.
7. Fortran stuff had to be disabled as the Fortran compiler is written
in assembly language (IIRC) and would probably be difficult to convert
into C (but I don't think this is a big deal).
If anybody volunteers to sift through the changes and sort out the
good from the dross then I will happily send the whole thing.
cheers, Nick
You've bested me there -- by a little. I only had the Sixth Edition on an 11/45. Now I could probably emulate that system on this iPhone, and it would run faster than the actual hardware.
Oh well, time to stop wallowing in nostalgia. ;-)
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
> And besides, I've used V5 on a /40 :-)
>
> -- Dave, turning 58 next month
I do indeed.
At 10:02 AM 9/29/2010 -0400, Bill Pechter wrote:
>Anyone else here remember fansi-console's ansi emulator.
>
>Works great instead of ansi.sys and is a pretty good screen driver for dos.
>
>On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Johnny Billquist
><<mailto:bqt@softjar.se>bqt(a)softjar.se> wrote:
>Mark Tuson wrote:
>Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list for
>the best part of three years :)
>
>Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M of
>core, and if the escapes will display properly, because
>[24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~
> ~[H
>
>is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source code.
>
>
>2.11BSD won't make a difference. You'll see the same result. This is a
>problem because you are running under DOS. It is the DOS screen handler
>that needs to understand whatever codes are output by the programs running
>inside simh. In this case, the program inside simh thinks it is connected
>to a VT100 (or xterm, or something similar), and sends escape codes based
>on that. I don't know why it thinks so, but I suspect you told the system
>by setting the TERM variable. Please set it to something that matches
>reality, or else fix reality. :-)
>
> Johnny
>
>
>
>Anyone else here remember fansi-console's ansi emulator.
>
>Works great instead of ansi.sys and is a pretty good screen driver for dos.
>
><http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11953307.html>http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11953307.html
>
>Bill
>
>--
> d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
> <http://pechter-at-gmail.com>pechter-at-gmail.com
>_______________________________________________
>PUPS mailing list
>PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
---
Jay R. Jaeger The Computer Collection
cube1(a)charter.net
> > There is close zero chance I'll ever use this stuff,
> > unless I retire
> > to teaching in which case I'll make people write
> > PDP-11 assembler.
>
> That seems a tad archaic. MIPS might be a better
> choice; it's 32-bit
> with 32 registers, and there are excellent simulators for
> it.
At my university there's a grad class that's ostensibly on reverse
engineering,but you can't really disassemble anything if you don't
learn assembler, so you learn it. The downside, I guess, is that
I've read a decent amount of x86 assembler, but written very little.
I don't think it's a bad way to learn, but of course, Larry was
talking about teaching a nice instruction set, and you
kind of lose that. But you get Windows DLL function calling
back as a booby prize.
John Finigan
Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list
for the best part of three years :)
I've a couple of [hopefully] simple questions about running Seventh
Edition UNIX on SIMH.
The first question is: how can I get the C compiler to work properly?
When I've tried to compile programs, I get 'cannot create temp' - here's
a full list of what's on the screen:
@boot
New Boot, known devices are hp ht rk rl rp tm vt
: rl(0,0)rl2unix
mem = 177856
# Thu Sep 22 07:50:47 EDT 1988
login: mark
$ ed
a
main() {
printf(" Hello.\n");
return; }
.
w a.c
46
q
$ cc a.c
cc: cannot create temp
$
Also, how can I get the backspace key to erase? I've done /stty erase
'^H'/ but I have to actually type <CTRL>+H to erase.
The other thing I want to ask about is: can I compile SIMH on DOS, so it
doesn't display any messages except those of the simulated software, and
so it ignores ^E?
I'm asking because I want v7 on an ancient laptop I've got lying around
- a 486 with 24M of core. v7x86 won't work on it, and I don't really
fancy putting Slack 3 back on it - if I'm going to go outdated, I might
as well go the whole hog and go /really/ outdated.
Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M
of core, and if the escapes will display properly, because
[24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~[H
is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source code.
Thanks very much. Mark Tuson.
