> The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
>blocks, includes any indirect blocks.
>However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
> struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses
> long
> nblock(size)
> long size;
> {
> return((size+511)>>9);
> }
>So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?
Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving
the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible
from the 7th edition stat. I'm not sure when (or by
whom) the st_blocks member was added.
> While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the
> list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default.
> When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files?
UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first).
Both tended to use more . files.
Dennis
Dennis Ritchie, on ls discarding all names beginning with .:
UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first).
Both tended to use more . files.
Judging by the manuals, Research did it first. In every manual from
1/e to 6/e, the entry for ls(I) has this description for the -a option:
list all entries; usually those beginning with "." are suppressed
I always thought this was just a quick-and-dirty way to skip the . and ..
entries; the sort of shortcut that was common in the good old days when
everything was written in assembly language.
That the USL system kept the old convention probably reflects its PWB
heritage; both the latter system and that of Berkeley had already invented
lots of configuration files clumsily hidden by putting . at the beginning--
more than ls had options at the time--and I guess they felt it was better
to let sleeping dots lie.
Incidentally, in 1/e ls(I) had a whopping five options: l, t, a, s, and d,
each with the same meaning as now (except that -s is described simply as
`give size in blocks for each entry' with nothing about accounting for
indirect blocks or other overhead). Who says we haven't made decadence,
er, progress over the years?
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
PS: I've lost track. Did the original Subject: line of this thread of
conversation get lost because it began with a dot?
Greetings all.
The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
blocks, includes any indirect blocks.
However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses
long
nblock(size)
long size;
{
return((size+511)>>9);
}
So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?
When did the struct stat acquire the st_blocks member?
While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the
list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default.
When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files?
Thanks,
Arnold Robbins
Reminds me of the old joke about the gnat buzzing around the elephant's nether end, with rape on its mind.... :-)
________________________________
From: tuhs-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org on behalf of Phil Garcia
Sent: Wed 5/21/2003 12:53 PM
To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Hi,
What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
Does it affect the archive in any way?
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
I asked Per Brinch Hansen recently about Solo and Concurrent Pascal, for use
on the PDP 11 simulators, et al, and I received a reply today.
This is it. I am wondering, does anyone have any clue as to where these
copies of the system might be squirrelled away? How many might've seen it at
their Universities?
Wesley Parish
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 00:17:33 -0400
From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh(a)pothos.syr.edu>
To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz>
Cc: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh(a)pothos.syr.edu>
Date: 18 May 2003
To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz>
From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh(a)pothos.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
On May 4, you wrote:
What I was wondering is, would it be worth asking you about
the possibility of your releasing the Concurrent Pascal, Solo
OS and several other such computer tools and programs, to PUPS
(the PDP Unix Preservation Society)?
At Caltech we prepared a distribution tape for the PDP 11/45
with the source text and portable code of the Solo system,
including the Concurrent and Sequential Pascal compiler. The
system reports were supplemented by implementation notes.
By the spring of 1976 we had distributed the system to 75
companies and 100 universities in 21 countries. Later, other
people moved the system to the Interdata 8/32, NCR 8250,
Modular 1, LSI 11, IBM 370/145 and many other computers.
Sad to say, I no longer have a copy of the system (and I
don't know who does).
Per Brinch Hansen
-------------------------------------------------------
--
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
Hi to all,
I stumbled on your mailing list and I thought this would be a good place to
pose my question. I was looking around for information about several little
known (to me) unix derived Oses.
AMIX (Amiga Unix)
RISCiX
ArchBSD
Lynx
Inferno
Helios
What I am looking for is basically what versions existed and when they were
released, and also from where did they originate. For instance I know that
RISCiX originated from BSD 4.4 but that is all I know.
I also know that inferno grew out of the research for plan 9, but what
version of plan 9 it evolved from I don¹t know.
Anyone know the above info? If not any idea where I can look for further
info?
Thanks :)