TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

29 participants
6557 discussions

Re: Unix game origins - stories similar to Crowther's Adventure

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> segaloco wrote: > In the annals of UNIX gaming, have there ever been notable games that > have operated as multiple processes, perhaps using formal IPC or even > just pipes or shared files for communication between separate processes > (games with networking notwithstanding)? The machine of the DSSR/RTS group at MIT-LCS, Steve Ward's group (an -11/70 running roughly PWB1) had an implementation of a form of Perquackey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perquackey that was a multi-player game; I'm pretty sure there was a process per player, and they communicated, I'm pretty sure, through pipes, not files - there was certainly no IPC in that system. IIIRC, the way it worked was that there was a parent process, and it spawned a child process for each terminal that was playing, and the children could all communicate through pipes. (They had to communicate because in that version, all the players shared a single set of dice, and once one person had played a word, the other players couldn't play that word. So speed was important in playing; people got really addicted to it.) Alas, although their machine was very similar to CSR's (although ours was an -11/45 with an Able ENABLE and a lot of memory, making it a lot more like a /70), and we shared most code between the machines, and I have a full dump of the CSR machine, we apparently didn't have any of the games on the CSR machine, so I can't look at the source to confirm exactly how it worked. Noel

2 years, 6 months

yet another C discussion (YACD) and: Rust is not C++

by ron minnich

I did not want to disrupt the FD 2 discussion, but I could not really let this comment go unanswered: "Smells like C++ to me. Rust in essence is a re-implementation of C++ not C. It tries to pack as much features as it possibly can. " It's hard for me to see how you can say this if you have done any work in Rust and C++. But, short form: Rust is not C++. Full stop. I did not feel that comment should go unanswered, lest people believe it.

2 years, 6 months

Re: yet another C discussion (YACD)

by Warren Toomey

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 01:50:05AM +0000, segaloco via COFF wrote: > COFF'd Thanks Matt. Yes please, C vs. Rust should mv to the COFF list. Cheers, Warren

2 years, 6 months

FD 2

by ron minnich

I am trying to remember when fd 2 (aka stderr) became a thing. I have a vague memory that it was post-v6 but that may be way off.

2 years, 6 months

Earliest UNIX Workstations?

by Joseph Holsten

2 years, 6 months

Unix v6 chess source code?

by Mattis Lind

Hello! I saw someone playing chess on their pdp-11 and thought it could be an interesting project to run on my pdp-11. At this point the RK05s are not yet running so booting unix v6 is not possible. I then thought that if the source code could be found it might be possible to get it to run standalone with some modifications. After some googling I found the archive https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/UNSW/7/record0.tar.gz which contained a chess.lib file. It appeared that this archive contained source code for some kind of chess program. I have been told that it isn't the chess written by Ken Thompson so the question is who wrote it? There are not many comments in the code. Could be interesting to know more about this chess implementation. Just looking through the source files and the mk file show that it is missing a set of files. The mk file references a set of "b"-prefixed assembly files, bgen.s, bmove.s, bheur.s and bplay.s which are present in the archive. But it also references a set of files with "w"-prefix, wgen.s, wmove.s, wheur.s and wplay.s which are missing. I also recognise that there is an include file, "old.h" that is included from all c-modules that most likely is present in the overload.lib which seems to be an overlay loader. Anyone that has an idea how this thing was built once upon a time? /Mattis

2 years, 6 months

Job Control and other terminal fun

by Ron Natalie

A lot of this dates back from the old “tty” days (or at least crt terminals that were still alphanumeric). Even the concept of putting a job in the background with & is really a feature of trying to multiplex multiple tasks on the same dumb terminal. This is indeed less important with windowing things like the DMDs or modern windowing workstatiosn when you can just get another window. The Berkeley job control was an interesting hack. For us at BRL the problem was I absolutely detested the C shell syntax. The Korn shell hadn’t escaped from AT&T yet, so, I spent time figuring out how that really worked in the C shell (not really well documented), mostly by inspection, and then reimplemented it in the Bourne Shell (we were using the System V source code version for that). I still couldn’t get traction at BRL for using the Bourne shell because by that time, tcsh had come out with command line editing. So back to the shell sources I went. By this time, 5R2 had come out so I grabbed the shell source form that. I was very delighted to find that the macros that made C look sorta like Algol had been unwound and the thing was back to straight C. I reworked emacs-ish command line editing into the shell. Subsequently, I had a nice conversation with David Korn at USENIX, being probably at that point the two most familiar with Bourne shell job control internals. I also sat down with the guys writing either bash or the pdksh (can’t remember which) and explained all how this work. As a result my name ended up in the Linux manpages which was pretty much all I found for a while when I googled myself. Years later, I had left the BRL, spent three years as a Rutgers administrator and was working for a small startup in Virginia. There was a MIPS workstation there. I was slogging along using ed (my employees always were amazed that if there was no emacs on the system, I just used ed, having never learned vi). Not thinking about it, I attempted to retrieve a backgrounded job by typing “fg.” To my surprise the shell printed “Job control not enabled.” Hmm, I say. That sounds like my error message. “set -J” I type. “Job control enabled.” Hey! This is my shell. Turns out Doug Gwyn put my mods into his “System V on BSD” distribution tape and it had made its way into the Mach code base and so every Mach-derived system ended up with it. Certainly, I found it convenient. There have been other schemes other than job control to multiplex terminals. IBM in the AIX that ran on the 370/PS2/i860 had a device called the High Function Terminal that allowed you to swap screens on the console. When we implemented the i860 (which was an add in card for the micro channel), we called our console the Low Function Terminal. Then after spending some time on MIT’s ITS and TOPS20, I got intrigued by the fact on those systems you could have a “shell” that persisted across logins and could be detached and reattached on another device at another time. I set about making such an implementation. Not particularly efficient, it essentially grabbed one of the BSD ptys and spawned the shell there and then a small alternative login shell forwarded the real tty to that. You could then detach it leaving the shell running on the PTY and reattach it elsewhere. Much like ITS, on. login it reminded you that you had a detached shell running and offered to reattach it rather than spawning a new one (complete with the ITS-ish: space for yes, rubout for no). It never really caught on. Oh well, pardon my ramblings. -Ron

2 years, 6 months

Thread Drift

by Warren Toomey

All, w.r.t. FD 2, if your e-mail doesn't mention file descriptors, can you please change the subject line? And this, in general, for all TUHS discussions :-) Thanks! Warren

2 years, 6 months

Sun+Java article by Bradford Morgan White

by Rich Salz

Some folks here might be interested in this. I haven't read this (not gonna subscribe), I know nothing about the author (Bradford Morgan White), but I saw Steve Sinofsky tweet good things about it. The Network is the Computer The story of Sun Microsystems and the Java programming language https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-network-is-the-computer

2 years, 6 months

Re: Collecting notes for future “historians” was: Earliest UNIX Workstations?

by Douglas McIlroy

> * What do I really mean by workstation? Ex.gr. If an installation had a > PDP-11 with a single terminal and operator, is it not a workstation? Is it > the integration of display into the system that differentiates? Certainly integration is critical. The display should be integral to the terminal, not simply an available device. Without that stipulation Ken's original single-user PDP-7 system would count (unless, perhaps, the system had not yet been christened "Unix"). Doug

2 years, 6 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS