Hi.
> > Hi. Does anyone remember for sure if "new" awk shipped with System V
> > Release 3.1 or 3.2? I know it wasn't 3.0.
>
> Hi,
>
> http://www.levenez.com/lang/ says 1978 for oawk and 1985 for nawk.
New awk existed inside the Research group for some time before it
filtered out through System V. It was even available separately,
directly from them, to educational institutions. Circa 1986 I got
a copy that way when I worked at the Emory University computing center.
> regarding http://www.levenez.com/unix/, 1978 is between v6 and v7,
> and 1985 is between SVr2 and SVr3.0.
True but not relevant; new awk was released with System V at either
3.1 or 3.2; I'm leaning towards 3.1 since that is what I wrote way back
when in the gawk manual when I knew for sure. :-)
Unless anyone can check the actual sources, I think we should declare
this closed... Thanks to everyone for the feedback.
Arnold
Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> Officially it was written by Aho Weinberger Kernighan but
> I suspect Brian did most of the actual coding.
quote of Aho from an interview ---
"We [Aho and Kernighan] had created a grammatical specification for AWK but
hadn't yet created the full run-time environment. Weinberger came along
and said 'hey, this looks like a language I could use myself', and within
a week he created a working run time for AWK."
see http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/216844/a-z_programming_languages_aw…
I know for sure that in 1988's svr3.2 the "awk" command was the 1988 version
and the "oawk" command was the version from 1979.
In svr3.0 the "awk" command was the old and we'd get the new one
from Holmdel's unix tools distribution group (called USTOP) and
install it as "nawk"
I think you could get the new one in stock svr3.1 but cannot
remember it it was provide as "awk" or "nawk."
> Hi. Does anyone remember for sure if "new" awk shipped with System V
> Release 3.1 or 3.2? I know it wasn't 3.0.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Arnold Robbins
Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX. Similarly the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that Sun made it a de facto standard.
On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing wrote:
>I also looked up EDOTDOT and found reference to RFS but not much info about
>it. Why was it not used? Not reliable enough? I have often thought that
>the stateless, idempotent NFS protocol leaves a lot to be desired due to its
>inability to implement unix semantics (as discussed in the wikipedia stub
>article on RFS), has this been improved with NFS4? Should RFS be revived
>and used? Some of its features sounded quite attractive (location
>transparency, etc). It does appear to have the ability to execute a program
>remotely?? What happens with regard to PIDs, home directory etc in this
>case? Does anyone know?
>cheers, Nick
>
>On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson <
>michael_davidson(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832(a)fastmail.us>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
>> you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
>> through 76 in SVR1?
>>
>>
>> As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used
>> "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release
>> 3.
>>
>> As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers
>> in the 72 - 79 range probably came from.
>>
>> Michael Davidson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TUHS mailing list
>> TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>>
>>
Hi all,
PJ from groklaw.net has asked me to trace the origin of
the errno names and values in recent versions of Linux. Attached
is where I am up to. The columns are:
- errno name
- errno value in Linux, and its original value if different
- system which originally defined it
- release date of that system
There are a few errno names which I don't think I have the
correct original system:
EDOTDOT, ENOMEDIUM, EMEDIUMTYPE, ECANCELED,
ENOKEY, EKEYEXPIRED, EKEYREVOKED, EKEYREJECTED,
EOWNERDEAD, ENOTRECOVERABLE, ERFKILL
Can anybody shed some light on these ones, that would be
great, especially if they come from SysV or Unixware.
Also, if you can spot any other mistakes, let me know!
Many thanks in advance,
Warren
Hi all, best wishes for 2011. I had an e-mail from Sven Mascheck asking about
the history of #! interpretation in System V. I couldn't find any #!
code in the kernels before SysVR4. However, I thought I'd pass the
query onto the TUHS list, in case others can shed some light on the question.
Did SysV systems before r4 do #! interpretation, and if so where was it done:
kernel, library, shell? Any code references, e.g. function names etc.?
Many thanks,
Warren
My interest is tweeked, do you still have the source
for the paper on your editor and perhaps the plan9 source?
I never moved across to acme, I am still a sam addict, but
I am always interested in new ideas.
The Only editors I ever used on Edition-VII where vi and le,
and le I only brushed up against.
-Steve
Warren Toomey said:
> I first encountered Unix in 1982 at a summer school held by the University
> of Wollongong in Australia. They had an modeless text editor installed,
> and I have never been able to determine if this was a homegrown editor, or
> an editor which was more widely distributed.
The editor was homegrown in Wollongong in 1981, as a late addition to the
Interdata Unix port. I wrote it in response to an elegant and concise
formal mathematical specification of a "display-oriented text editor"
written by Bernard Sufrin of Oxford University's Programming Research
Group. Bernard's specification was essentially an abstract model of an
existing minimalist (and modeless) screen editor 'ded' developed by his
colleague Richard Bornat at Queen Mary College in London. I've never seen
'ded' itself, but I expect that if you tried both editors you would see a
close family resemblance.
The Wollongong editor was not widely disseminated. I don't think it got
into any official Unix distribution except perhaps for Edition VII - its
austere minimalism could not compete with the dazzling complexity of emacs
or vi. I did license it to Interdata (later aka Perkin-Elmer) for use on
their own OS/32 operating system, where it was called MEDIT. I carried on
for many years using it myself and porting it to various flavours of Unix,
Minix, even MS/DOS, and most recently Plan 9. It was only after giving up
Unix for Plan 9 that I finally switched to using Rob Pike's 'acme', which
is, in its way, even more elegantly minimal.
-- Richard Miller
