Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> One of the big problems is that they move files all over the place as BSD
> developed and CVS doen't work too elegantly with those kind of changes.
Yes, neither SCCS nor RCS nor CVS tracks file moves, and for this single reason
an SCCS/RCS/CVS tree is not sufficient by itself to act as a complete BSD
history tree. See this page for an idea of what I had to go through:
http://ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG/Quasijarus/sccs.html
MS
I'm seeking info about the SVR4-MP ps options
-z and -Z, as used for mandatory access control.
This is so that they can be implemented for Linux.
Alternately, are there more-common ways to handle
this security data or more-common usage of the
-z and -Z options?
I could use some example output.
All "trusted" high-security systems are of interest.
I <tuhs(a)cuzuco.com> wrote:
> I resurrected the Lions' source code for the commentary I made some
> 15 years back -- line numbers at all. It had been lost for some time
> and it took a bit, but I finally found it on some obsolete media.
> In making it I didn't have v6 source so it was reverted from v7.
>
> See http://v6.cuzuco.com/
Sorry to bother again, but I just noticed that the PostScript versions
I uploaded were the portrait mode ones, not landscape. I have put the
right ones in now, so if you downloaded them before this message, you'll need
to get them again. Both PDFs however were and are correct.
-B
On Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:40 AM, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
> >>I will give you all three guesses as to who Leo was. Hint: he lives
> >>in Australia.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:18:45AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >That would rule out John since he no longer lives in Australia.
>
> True. The person is alive and well and living on the Gold Coast in
> Queensland where he works for a small private university. He is
> also semi-active in the arena of Unix history. He has a beard. He
> regrets never admitting to the copying of the commentary to John
> Lions personally, because John would probably have commended the
> act.
Hmmm, try Googling for /interests "unix history" australia latex/ :-)
You wouldn't know, off-hand, whether 'Leo' actually rekeyed the content ?
--
Roger
I have that source tarball for v6. It's very nice. The only trouble is
it will not compile that's for sure and I don't have enough experience with
assembly to even look at the labels and mnemonics. It's nice to look at and
think this once worked.
Bill
I can cite a third edition that existed inside Bell Labs
at one point: white covers, with the latter-day AT&T Bell
Laboratories name and deathstar logo; AT&T BELL LABORATORIES
PROPRIETARY (RESTRICTED) printed across the bottom of every
page. The title page also says Use pursuant to G.E.I. 2.2.
Instead of `this document may contain information covered by
one or more licenses,' there is a paragraph declaring that
`This document is restricted to authorized AT&T employees who
have a job-related need to know, and holders of a license for
the UNIX* Operating System, Level Six, from AT&T Technologies,
Inc., subject to the restrictions stated in such license.'
And of course the footnote credits the trademark to AT&T Bell
Laboratories.
The use of the deathstar and the modern company name suggest
these were printed post-divestiture, i.e. no earlier than 1984.
Andrew Hume came across a few copies of this edition sametime in
the late 1980s. I think they came from a load of stuff about to
be thrown out by Judy Macor, who used to be the person who handled
license paperwork and sent out tapes.
For some reason my copy has a paper clip on the page where
`You are not expected to understand this' appears.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
> > I have no doubt that the commentary was produced with the V6 nroff.
> > It has the look of machine-formatted text about it, although it was
> > clearly printed on a constant-width line printer of the time.
> >
> > Now, were anyone so truly perverse, they might take the latex and
> > convert it into nroff/troff. :-)
>
> Thus returning to the original form in which it was prepared. There's
> an appealing circularity and feeling of having come full circle to
> that...
Doing so would be a major Waste Of Time. This fact, in combination with
the "appealing circularity" just mentioned makes it highly likely that
it *will* be done by a Graduate Student somewhere .... :-)
Arnold
Bibliographic notes: It appears that the version of
the commentary that appeared on Usenet and has
been transformed variously is just the notes.
So far as I can tell, it's an accurate rendition of them.
There were ~2 original versions of the two-volume
work (the source and the commentary). The two
versions are--
Those produced at UNSW: the one I have are in red
(source) and orange (commentary) covers. There
might have been more than one printing of this.
The commentary was probably done on some nice terminal
like the Diablo daisy-wheel. The source was rendered on
a dot-matrix terminal.
The second version was done within AT&T/WECo for internal
use, and could also be ordered by licensees--perhaps it was even
included with a tape. Salus says these were no longer available by 1978.
These have pale blue covers. The contents
were, I believe, a photocopy of one of the UNSW renditions.
The Peer-to-Peer edition (1996) is probably a photocopy of
an AT&T version; it contains various labels that doubtless would
have been in them. But they could have been stripped in
from tape labels or somewhere. Perhaps Berny Goodheart
would know about this part of the production process.
The UNSW version I have has, on its title page for the source
book, a paragraph that says "This document may contain
information covered by one or more licenses...." and is noted
by Lions as issued in June, 1977.
The PtoP version of this page is in a different font, and has a splash label
in printer font "This information is proprietary and is the
property of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc...."
It's noted by Lions as of November 1977, and marked
"second printing."
It would be nice to cajole PtoP into reprinting, although
the combination of the TUHS V6 sources and the various
renditions of the commentary contain most of the
information (though without the heartfelt encomia).
Dennis
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 08:06:43PM -0400, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>>> Latex source to the Lions book was posted to alt.folklore.computers
>>> circa 1994. I'm guessing that the poster (a "Leo") typed it in by hand.
On 2004-Apr-15 07:58:45 +1000, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
>>I will give you all three guesses as to who Leo was. Hint: he lives
>>in Australia.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:18:45AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>That would rule out John since he no longer lives in Australia.
True. The person is alive and well and living on the Gold Coast in
Queensland where he works for a small private university. He is
also semi-active in the arena of Unix history. He has a beard. He
regrets never admitting to the copying of the commentary to John
Lions personally, because John would probably have commended the
act.
Warren
Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
....
> >>> [Lions book]
> >>>> Wow. Time to start Xeroxing it again... :)
> >>>
> >>> Latex source to the book was posted to alt.folklore.computers circa
> >>> 1994. I'm guessing that the poster (a "Leo") typed it in by hand
> >>> given the comments that came with the readme.
> >>
>
> Yes, I've found it now and put it up in multiple formats at
> http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/Lions/. Enjoy!
>
> Greg
I resurrected the Lions' source code for the commentary I made some
15 years back -- line numbers at all. It had been lost for some time
and it took a bit, but I finally found it on some obsolete media.
In making it I didn't have v6 source so it was reverted from v7.
See http://v6.cuzuco.com/
-B
