18 Feb
2017
18 Feb
'17
12:12 a.m.
Hi all, I think the current layout of the Unix Archive at
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/ is starting to show its limitations as we get
more systems and artifacts that are not specifically PDP-11 and Vax.
I'm after some suggestions on how to reorganise the archive. Obviously
there are many ways to do this. Just off the top of my head, top level:
- Applications: things which run at user level
- Systems: things which have a kernel
- Documentation
- Tools: tools which can be used to deal with systems and files
Under Applications, several directories which hold specific things. If
useful, perhaps directories that collect similar things.
Under Systems, a set of directories for specific organisations (e.g. Research,
USL, BSD, Sun, DEC etc.). In each of these, directories for each system.
Under Documentation, several directories which hold specific things. If
useful, perhaps directories that collect similar things.
Under Tools, subdirectories for Disk, Tape, Emulators etc., then subdirs
for the specific tools.
Does this sound OK? Any refinements or alternate suggestions?
Cheers, Warren
18 Feb
18 Feb
12:21 a.m.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:12:44AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
- Applications: things which run at user level
- Systems: things which have a kernel
- Documentation
- Tools: tools which can be used to deal with systems and files
Clarification. Systems would be whole systems like 7th Edition, 4.3BSD etc.
Applications would be things that were not distributed in a system, e.g.
C-News. Documentation would be also material not part of a whole system, e.g.
the AUUG newsletters.
Cheers, Warren
12:40 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
Under Systems, a set of directories for specific
organisations (e.g.
Research,
USL, BSD, Sun, DEC etc.). In each of these, directories for each system.
Sounds good, although I might offer one slight twist. I think
organizations should be the higher bit not systems, doc etc.... So you
have DEC, AT&T, UCB, MIT, USENIX, UI, OSF, *etc..*.. Under AT&T you will
have research and summit. Under UCB, you have CSRG, CAD, Ingress etc..
where you know things came from different teams. Same for MIT or the
like. BTW: the anal fixation / some of the arguments we have had, I also
feel that Year of Distribution probably needs to be in the name if possible
(certainly in metadata or at least an explanatory README). For things like
the USENIX tapes that's easier - because they were done by year.
Anyway - its only under these directories that then have the split of doc,
systems, *etc.*.
If there is cross linking, you certainly can do a little if that makes
sense. But I think that It will be easier keep each collection from where
and when it came to help cement the origin & time and make it easier for
people to find things.
Clem
1:09 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:40:16PM -0500, Clem Cole wrote:
Sounds good, although I might offer one slight
twist. I think
organizations should be the higher bit not systems, doc etc....
I'll disagree, mainly because of what we have currently in terms of
applications and documentation.
At present, in these categories we have:
- Circuit_Design Festoon Portable_CC Shoppa_Tapes Usenix_77
Early_C_Compilers Macro-11 README Software_Tools Algol68
Em_Editor OpenLook Ritter_Vi Spencer_Tapes
- AUUGN Books Emails OralHistory PUPS Papers TUHS Unix_Review
- various system setup docs
Except for the last category, all the existing applications and documentation
are not easily classifiable into <organisation>. So I think it would be
better to have a generic top-level Applications and Documentation directories.
We can move the system setup docs into specific system areas.
I don't mind having <organisation> top-level directories, but I fear that
in the long term there will be lots of them. So it's a question: do we clutter
up the top level with a heap of <organisation> directories, or do we
have a heap of Systems/<organisation> directories. I'd prefer the latter.
I also feel that Year of Distribution probably
needs to be in the
name if possible (certainly in metadata or at least an explanatory
README). For things like the USENIX tapes that's easier - because they
were done by year.
My preference is to keep date details in metadata and not in directory names.
There will be some things which are hard to date or whose date is in dispute,
and there may be things which are aggregates of work done over several years.
But I'll admit that there is not enough metadata and little consistency in
the metadata (e.g. Readme files) that are currently in the Archive.
Cheers & thanks for the feedback, Warren
5:17 p.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017, at 19:12, Warren Toomey wrote:
Under Tools, subdirectories for Disk, Tape, Emulators
etc., then subdirs
for the specific tools.
One thing that might be nice is a directory specifically for archive
extraction tools for modern systems. I've probably reinvented ar11 half
a dozen times.
3028
days inactive
3028
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Clem Cole -
Random832 -
Warren Toomey