@Joerg: "Interesting.... does this mean that you did not do the rework that
defined the new ASCII based history file format?"
I'm sure it does, as I have no idea what that is/was. I stopped working on
SCCS around 1975 or 1976, about when the IEEE paper was presented.
--Marc
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Steve Johnson <scj(a)yaccman.com> wrote:
I can't speak for the dates, but Ken did a hack
to the OS to interface
with his Chess machine. Recall that all the I/O on the PDP-11 was memory
mapped, so as I recall he simply mapped a piece of kernel memory into user
space. Was never privvy to the details.
I do remember a conversation with Dennis about semaphores, though. He
mentioned that no less than five groups inside of Bell Labs had hacked
semaphores into the kernel. Each group did it differently. He thought
they were all a bad idea -- his argument was, "what do you do if a process
sets a semaphore and then dies? It's pretty clear that either releasing
the semaphore or leaving it set would be catastrophic in some cases."
(Of course there were other similar problems, such as a process closing
its files and dying, and then the kernel discovering that the disc was
full. Luckily, these days, the disc rarely gets full...)
Also, a comment from my own experience with AT&T marketing. When I was
responsible for the System V languages in Summit, I was told that a
marketing group was staffed and that there was a person in charge of
marketing the language products (at the time, C, Cfront (becoming C++),
Fortran, Pascal, and Ada). I set up a monthly meeting with this person.
The meetings went on for over a year, but *I never met with the same
person twice!* It seemed that the only thing the marketing group knew
how to do was reorganize the marketing group...
At the time, a lot of people buying VAXes were running VMS because its
FORTRAN was far better than UNIX F77 -- in particular, it had an
optimizer. I started a project to build an optimizer for FORTRAN, and
staffed it with several very good people. Every six weeks there would be
an attempt to kill the project. Each time I'd repeat the argument for
doing it, and it would be saved. We almost started to put these attempts
to kill it on the calendar. At no time did I get any feedback, positive or
negative, from AT&T marketing. When I left AT&T in early 1986, the
optimizer, by now almost complete, was immediately killed again. I was
later told by one of my former team members that it was revived several
months later and finally made it out. And that the next year it was the
best-selling add-on to System V.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From:
arnold(a)skeeve.com
To:
<schily(a)schily.net>, <clemc(a)ccc.com>
Cc:
<tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
Sent:
Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:33:05 -0700
Subject:
Re: [TUHS] shared memory on Unix
Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
Note that AT&T Marketing renames PWB 3.0 --
System III thinking that
"Programmer's Workbench" would be a bad name to sell against IBM, and
this
it the first non-research system for License
outside of the the labs. If
you look at the documentation set, et al - it all says PWB 3.0 on the
cover
and throughout Also, the BSD vs AT&T wars
basically start around this
time....
Roll the clock forward and here is an new problem the PWB 4.0 moniker was
used internally, but AT&T marketing want to get rid of the PWB term - so
the decree comes down the next release is to be called System V.
Sort of. I did some contract work for Southern Bell circa 1983. They
were still part of the Bell System then. I worked on a PDP-11 running
Unix 4.0. At the time, the policy was to release externally one version
behind what was being run internally, so System III was released to the
world while the Bell System was using Unix 4.0. I still have the manual;
I'm pretty sure "PWB" and "Programmer's Workbench" are not
on the cover,
it was just called "UNIX".
As UNIX 5.0 was approaching, someone decided that to be one release
behind on the outside was dumb, thus the jump from System III to System V.
The doc I have describes UNIX as an operating system for the PDP-11,
the VAX 11/780 *and* the IBM S/370 series of systems and the source
code directory had the machine dependent bits for the IBM. Too bad
that stuff never made it out.
It's too bad that all I have is just the paper, but that's all I
could get.
That was a fun job, I learned a lot. Over lunch every day I read a few
more pages of the manual, basically reading it from cover to cover
by the time I was done. What a great way to learn the system!
Arnold