I once asked Brian Kernighan about style and diction. His
response was rather uncomplimentary; it's net meaning was
"don't bother with them".
As I recall, wwb was style, diction, maybe one or two other
related programs, and the ditroff suite: troff, tbl, eqn, pic,
and various macro packages. For the troff stuff, you're
better off with groff, anyway.
Arnold
> From: "Steve Simon" <steve(a)quintile.net>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 06:44:52 0000
> To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone know the status of the writers workbench (WWB)
> which was a seperate package even in System III days
> I think.
>
> I know about style and diction which was shipped with BSD4.1
> which (again wooly memory) was an early subset of the
> whole wwb package.
>
> I was hoping to compile it up and use it to help me
> improve my written English!
>
> -Steve
Hi,
Anyone know the status of the writers workbench (WWB)
which was a seperate package even in System III days
I think.
I know about style and diction which was shipped with BSD4.1
which (again wooly memory) was an early subset of the
whole wwb package.
I was hoping to compile it up and use it to help me
improve my written English!
-Steve
Hi!
I would like to know which licence the files at
http://medialab.dyndns.org/~martin/tape/stuff/ditroff/
are under.
If it's http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
that would be nice, if not, is there any way to find
out whose (c) is on the files, and how to contact them?
Reason: I'm developer of a BSD offspring and already
integrated 4.4BSD-Alpha nroff, neqn, tbl etc. under the
Caldera licence above into our operating system in order
to get rid of the less free, written in C++, GNU groff.
With success. Now I'm lacking postscript output.
Thanks in advance,
//mirabile
"=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jos=E9?= R. Valverde" <jrvalverde(a)cnb.uam.es> wrote:
> While working at the Biomedical Research Institute (Madrid, Spain) I got a
> quote from DEC for access to Ultrix source code. As I remember it, it wasn't
> that expensive (~1000$ for an academic license) and I mused bout acquiring=
> =20
> it for some time. My na=EFvete at the time prevented me from ordering it (t=
> hat
> and the availability of BSD sources).
Ultrix-32 sources can be found on ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG in
/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32/sources available via anonymous FTP.
MS
Jose R. Valverde <jr(a)cnb.uam.es> wrote:
> But I understood the orioginal post to refer to other Ultrix sources.
> Ultrix had a long -and interesting- life after 32V. It was ported to
> MIPS machines,
By Ultrix-32 I didn't mean AT&T 32V, I just say Ultrix-32 to distinguish
it from Ultrix-11. Ultrix-32 was DEC's product for VAX and MIPS. On my
FTP site I have pirate sources for Ultrix-32 V2.00 and V4.20. The lalter
runs on all VAX models DEC ever supported Ultrix on and on MIPS.
MS
Hi, all!!!
Are there any old TCP/IP implementations like these to work on V7 or V6,
freely accessible in source form?
It could be very nice thing to learn from.
And possibly offtopic question - if I want ULTRIX (RISC) source license,
where should I get it from? (mostly interested in newest source) :)
All the best,
S.
Greg Lemis wondered,
> On page 182 of K&R 1st edition there's a reference to an
> implementation of C on the Honeywell 6000, with 9 bit bytes. There's
> no mention of whether it was running UNIX.
That one was a C implementation under GCOS. There
was another 9-bit one for the PDP-10 (not using Unix).
There was a 4x9 bit version of Unix for the Univac 1100
series, which ran Unix as a guest system over the
native EXEC OS.
The most exotic version was the BBN C-machine, which
had 20-bit words, 10-bit bytes.
Dennis
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] 6-bit, 7-bit and 9-bit byte UNIXes
> From: Norman Wilson <norman(a)nose.cs.utoronto.ca>
> To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:47:22 -0400
>
> The very first UNIX ran on the PDP-7, which had 18-bit words.
>
> I happen to have the assembly-language source code to parts
> of that system. Many programs contain error-handling code
> that does something like this:
>
> lac d1
> sys write; 1f; 1
> jmp somewhere
>
> 1: 077012
>
> ...
>
> d1: 1
>
> Evidently the system thought in words in those days
> (the second argument to sys write is presumably a word
> count), but the single word written is a strong clue
> that 9-bit bytes were used, and that a certain concise
> error message that people love to complain about was
> there from the beginning (and why not?).
?
I would say "the PDP7 computer was word-addressable". In this
context, characters seem to have been packed as 9-bit half-words
in a big-endian fashion. No 'bytes'.
Maybe tomorrow I will be near my DEC literature archives, and see
if I can find some clues about PDP7 instructions that might deal
with half-words. If it's anything like the PDP8 of similar vintage,
there aren't any. Late in its life the PDP8 got a BSW "byte swap"
instruction to swap the half-words in the AC register. 6 bits,
of course.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
The very first UNIX ran on the PDP-7, which had 18-bit words.
I happen to have the assembly-language source code to parts
of that system. Many programs contain error-handling code
that does something like this:
lac d1
sys write; 1f; 1
jmp somewhere
1: 077012
...
d1: 1
Evidently the system thought in words in those days
(the second argument to sys write is presumably a word
count), but the single word written is a strong clue
that 9-bit bytes were used, and that a certain concise
error message that people love to complain about was
there from the beginning (and why not?).
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
