* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? @ 2016-06-26 10:14 Aharon Robbins 2016-06-26 16:30 ` Mary Ann Horton 2016-06-27 10:03 ` Joerg Schilling 0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Aharon Robbins @ 2016-06-26 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi. Can anyone give a definitive date for when Bill Joy's csh first got out of Berkeley? I suspect it's in the 1976 - 1977 time frame, but I don't know for sure. Thanks! Arnold ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 10:14 [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? Aharon Robbins @ 2016-06-26 16:30 ` Mary Ann Horton 2016-06-26 18:14 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-27 10:03 ` Joerg Schilling 1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Mary Ann Horton @ 2016-06-26 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw) 1BSD did not contain csh, and was officially released March 9 1978. It contained something called "a shell" which appears to be a predecessor to csh, but was still compiled as sh. The README on 1BSD from Bill Joy states: Wed Oct 19, 1977 This directory contains the source for a shell. It requires floating point to do the time command which is built-in so you will have to cc it -f on machines without floating point. It also requires a version 7 C compiler. Accurate documentation is in the file "sh.6" to be nroffed with /usr/man/man0/naa and a new "version 7" nroff. This shell requires the "htmp" data base also used by the editor "ex". If you do not set it up so that the "sethome" command is done by "login" then you should use the old "osethome" routine in ../s6 rather than "sethome" and reenable the execl of this sethome in the file "sh.c" (with the correct pathname). 2BSD did include csh and was first officially released May 1979. I'm sure there were informal advance copies of csh sent out sooner. I recall csh already being on the UCB systems when I arrived in September of 1978. I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of 1979. The folks at Bell Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell, and would never consider another conversion. csh was (mostly) upward compatible with the Mashey shell, unlike the Bourne shell. (This was in the Bell Labs Computer Center, where I was a summer employee, not Research or the PWB group, which I'm sure felt the same way.) Mary Ann On 06/26/2016 03:14 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote: > Hi. > > Can anyone give a definitive date for when Bill Joy's csh first got out > of Berkeley? I suspect it's in the 1976 - 1977 time frame, but I don't > know for sure. > > Thanks! > > Arnold -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160626/fbcbca4e/attachment.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 16:30 ` Mary Ann Horton @ 2016-06-26 18:14 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2016-06-26 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann Horton wrote: > I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of 1979. The folks at Bell > Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion > from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice. --lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 18:14 ` Larry McVoy @ 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-26 20:43 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck 2016-06-26 19:41 ` Clem Cole 2016-06-26 20:58 ` [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? Steve Nickolas 2 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-26 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --] I detested the CSH syntax. In order to beat back the CSH proponents at BRL, I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne Shell. Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH), so I added that. This shell went out as /bin/sh in the Doug Gwyn SV-on-BSD release so every once and a while over the years I trip across a “Ron shell” usually people who were running Mach-derived things that ran my shell as /bin/sh. > On Jun 26, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann Horton wrote: >> I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of 1979. The folks at Bell >> Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion >> from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell > > I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement > over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne > shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice. > > --lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-26 20:43 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 0:59 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck 1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: John Cowan @ 2016-06-26 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Natalie scripsit: > I detested the CSH syntax. Tom Christiansen's 1994 flame "csh Programming Considered Harmful" can be found at <http://www.perl.com/doc/FMTEYEWTK/versus/csh.whynot>. Current csh releases have undoubtedly fixed many of the complaints, but as TC notes, many cannot be fixed. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 20:43 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 0:59 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-27 1:11 ` John Cowan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2016-06-27 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 04:43:26PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Ronald Natalie scripsit: > > > I detested the CSH syntax. > > Tom Christiansen's 1994 flame "csh Programming Considered Harmful" > can be found at <http://www.perl.com/doc/FMTEYEWTK/versus/csh.whynot>. > Current csh releases have undoubtedly fixed many of the complaints, > but as TC notes, many cannot be fixed. Tom and I went to undergrad together, we were both in the UW-Madison CS department. Sad to say, I've lost touch with him and googling is not finding him (other than wikipedia). Anyone know what he is doing these days? --lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 0:59 ` Larry McVoy @ 2016-06-27 1:11 ` John Cowan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 1:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry McVoy scripsit: > Tom and I went to undergrad together, we were both in the UW-Madison CS > department. Sad to say, I've lost touch with him and googling is not > finding him (other than wikipedia). Anyone know what he is doing these > days? Googling with the date filter set to "last year" gives us a lot of other Tom Christiansens, but also http://stackoverflow.com/users/471272/tchrist, updated last August. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-26 20:43 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck 2016-06-27 12:47 ` Steve Nickolas ` (5 more replies) 1 sibling, 6 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Sven Mascheck @ 2016-06-27 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote: > I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne Shell. > Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH), > so I added that. How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about in-depth informations :-) I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. I found two interesting references about this: - Ash announcement, "A reimplementation of the System V shell": "I conclude by listing a few features that I have omitted intentionally. 3. History. It seems to me that the csh history mechanism is mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O. Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you still want history." - From an article from D. Korn, "ksh - An Extensible High Level Language": "Originally the idea of adding command line editing to ksh was rejected in the hope that line editing would move into the terminal driver. However, when it became clear that this was not likely to happen soon, both line editing modes were integrated into ksh and made optional so that they could be disabled on systems that provided editing as part of the terminal interface." I believe it's a real pity that it hasn't been implemented in terminal drivers in general. Or do I overlook possible disadvantages? What could be downsides, apart from possibly inconsistent behaviour across systems? Sven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck @ 2016-06-27 12:47 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 14:58 ` Joerg Schilling ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Sven Mascheck wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote: >> I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne Shell. >> Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH), >> so I added that. > > How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about > in-depth informations :-) > > > I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and > Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. There are a couple variants of the Almquist shell (an old one called "cash", and one I think FreeBSD uses) which have readline-like history. -uso. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck 2016-06-27 12:47 ` Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 14:58 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 15:29 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 16:22 ` John Cowan ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --] Sven Mascheck <mascheck at in-ulm.de> wrote: > "Originally the idea of adding command line editing to ksh was > rejected in the hope that line editing would move into the terminal > driver. However, when it became clear that this was not likely to > happen soon, both line editing modes were integrated into ksh and > made optional so that they could be disabled on systems that provided > editing as part of the terminal interface." > > I believe it's a real pity that it hasn't been implemented in terminal > drivers in general. > > Or do I overlook possible disadvantages? What could be downsides, > apart from possibly inconsistent behaviour across systems? It was in the terminal driver from VMS ;-) In Summer 1984, I noticed that this feature worked in a similar way as my test implementation from 1982 and then worked on an integrated implementation for "bsh" at H. Berthold AG. The person that helped me in 1984 was Peter Teuchert. Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 14:58 ` Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 15:29 ` Ronald Natalie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 295 bytes --] > > It was in the terminal driver from VMS ;-) The T in TCSH was TENEX, which indeed had such editing as part of the COMND (command) JSYS (essentially an OS call). This propagated forward into TOPS-20. It isn’t really the terminal driver, but more of a command line processor call. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck 2016-06-27 12:47 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 14:58 ` Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 16:22 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 16:35 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 20:00 ` Dave Horsfall ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Sven Mascheck scripsit: > 3. History. It seems to me that the csh history mechanism is > mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O. > Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am > posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you > still want history." I personally could not live without !!, ^foo^bar, !foo, etc. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer. --Peter da Silva ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 16:22 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 16:35 ` Steve Nickolas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, John Cowan wrote: > Sven Mascheck scripsit: > >> 3. History. It seems to me that the csh history mechanism is >> mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O. >> Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am >> posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you >> still want history." > > I personally could not live without !!, ^foo^bar, !foo, etc. Same. That's a big reason why I still use bash even though ksh is faster and lighter and otherwise works just as well. -uso. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2016-06-27 16:22 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 20:00 ` Dave Horsfall 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-28 14:47 ` Tony Finch 5 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Dave Horsfall @ 2016-06-27 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Sven Mascheck wrote: > I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and > Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. I hated CSH, and only used it when forced to; I used a utility called "screen" for my job-switching needs, and was really happy when KSH came along (then ZSH). -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2016-06-27 20:00 ` Dave Horsfall @ 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 20:44 ` Clem Cole ` (3 more replies) 2016-06-28 14:47 ` Tony Finch 5 siblings, 4 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --] > On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Sven Mascheck <mascheck at in-ulm.de> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote: >> I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne Shell. >> Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH), >> so I added that. > > How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about > in-depth informations :-) > Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I remember. The one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or something. When the SVR2 shell came out, someone (not Bourne obviously) had undone all those in favor of the native C++ if/else/while blocking. > > I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and > Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. Command line editing might have been implemented in the driver as enhanced editing in “cooked” mode, but the history is a bit more context specific. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 20:44 ` Clem Cole 2016-06-27 21:02 ` Steve Nickolas ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Clem Cole @ 2016-06-27 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 438 bytes --] On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Ronald Natalie <ron at ronnatalie.com> wrote: > written in these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or > something. Famously called "Bournegol" -- Steve was a member of the Algol68 definition group IIRC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160627/a2b31909/attachment-0001.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 20:44 ` Clem Cole @ 2016-06-27 21:02 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 21:15 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 21:20 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 21:29 ` Random832 3 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1426 bytes --] On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Ronald Natalie wrote: > >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Sven Mascheck <mascheck at in-ulm.de> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote: >>> I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne Shell. >>> Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH), >>> so I added that. >> >> How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about >> in-depth informations :-) >> > > Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I remember. The > one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in these > horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or something. That was inherited from the original V7 Bourne shell. And "horrendous" doesn't even begin to describe that disaster of coding. > When the SVR2 shell came out, someone (not Bourne obviously) had undone > all those in favor of the native C++ if/else/while blocking. >> >> I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and >> Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. > > Command line editing might have been implemented in the driver as > enhanced editing in “cooked” mode, but the history is a bit more context > specific. I kind-of like the MS-DOS 5 approach of having a separate tool that the shell can optionally link to that provides those capabilities. *ducks and runs* -uso. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 21:02 ` Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 21:15 ` Ronald Natalie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) > > I kind-of like the MS-DOS 5 approach of having a separate tool that the shell can optionally link to that provides those capabilities. > > *ducks and runs* Not unique to MSDOS. As pointed out the COMND JSYS in Tenex/TOPS-20 provided such a feature. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 20:44 ` Clem Cole 2016-06-27 21:02 ` Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 21:20 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 21:28 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 21:29 ` Random832 3 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --] Ronald Natalie scripsit: > Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I remember. > The one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in > these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or > something. I've always wondered what would have happened if Algol 68 (brought back from England by Bourne) had out-competed C at Bell Labs, and had become the dominant programming language of Unix. Probably the commercial world would have standardized on Pascal, something that almost happened (the x86 chip is optimized for Pascal in several ways). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org "But I am the real Strider, fortunately," he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can save you, I will." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 21:20 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 21:28 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 21:45 ` John Cowan 2016-06-28 6:49 ` Peter Jeremy 0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1367 bytes --] Hard to believe the 8086 chip was “optimized” for anything. The instruction set was designed for programming terminals. The iapx32 was designed to run higher level languages (Ada) but despite how “nicely” it implemented this, it couldn’t counter the fact that it was molasses slow doing anything. It was easier to build craftier compilers than trying to burn the smarts into silicon. > On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:20 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > > Ronald Natalie scripsit: > >> Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I remember. >> The one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in >> these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or >> something. > > I've always wondered what would have happened if Algol 68 (brought back > from England by Bourne) had out-competed C at Bell Labs, and had become > the dominant programming language of Unix. Probably the commercial > world would have standardized on Pascal, something that almost happened > (the x86 chip is optimized for Pascal in several ways). > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org > "But I am the real Strider, fortunately," he said, looking down at them > with his face softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, > and if by life or death I can save you, I will." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 21:28 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 21:45 ` John Cowan 2016-06-28 6:49 ` Peter Jeremy 1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --] Ronald Natalie scripsit: > Hard to believe the 8086 chip was “optimized” for anything. > The instruction set was designed for programming terminals. Well, yes. But the four separate address spaces work fine for Pascal, where it is always statically known whether a pointer is to code, global data, the stack (internal only), or the heap. For C they were nothing but a nuisance: C can handle separate I & D space, but that's all. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org What asininity could I have uttered that they applaud me thus? --Phocion, Greek orator ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 21:28 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 21:45 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-28 6:49 ` Peter Jeremy 2016-06-28 7:51 ` arnold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Peter Jeremy @ 2016-06-28 6:49 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --] On 2016-Jun-27 16:28:14 -0500, Ronald Natalie <ron at ronnatalie.com> wrote: >Hard to believe the 8086 chip was “optimized” for anything. The instruction set was designed for programming terminals. I think "designed" is being generous. The closest to "designed" would have been for a calculation but then the 4004 grew warts and the warts grew warts. >The iapx32 was designed to run higher level languages (Ada) That was the iapx432. No relationship to the x86. And, whilst we're dealing with what-if's, what if the M68K had taken off, rather than the 8086. IBM had a M68K box in the same timeframe as the PC. -- Peter Jeremy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 949 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160628/1aa071da/attachment.sig> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-28 6:49 ` Peter Jeremy @ 2016-06-28 7:51 ` arnold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: arnold @ 2016-06-28 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks everyone for the answers, esp. to Mary Ann for the definitive dates. My story is similar to most everyone else's. I was exposed to csh on 4.1 BSD but was so horrified by the syntax that I preferred to do without job control and use the Bourne shell. Later on when I was at Georgia Tech we got the BRL dist and I used Ron's job control shell. I wrote a csh-style history mechanism for it and backported that and the job control to the V7 sh and posted diffs to USENET so that people without a SV license could benefit. From there I went to ksh for many years, and thence to Bash. I abandoned the csh-history-for-sh stuff as soon as I got ksh with vi editing mode and have never looked back. Circa 1990 I banged on the bash/readline code to make its vi mode more like ksh's. How well I remember Bournegol and how happy I was when I saw that SVR2 had gotten rid of it. With respect to history in the terminal, the Bell Labs guys did that by making the terminal smarter, with the Blit. I had one but the load it put on our poor vax 11/780 was awesome. Arnold ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2016-06-27 21:20 ` John Cowan @ 2016-06-27 21:29 ` Random832 3 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Random832 @ 2016-06-27 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --] On Mon, Jun 27, 2016, at 16:33, Ronald Natalie wrote: > Command line editing might have been implemented in the driver as > enhanced editing in “cooked” mode, but the history > is a bit more context specific. MS Windows does a kind of halfway decent job of this by having a separate history per program, which I don't think requires any information the terminal driver doesn't have access to (the process that is trying to read from the terminal, and the binary running in that process) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-28 14:47 ` Tony Finch 5 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Tony Finch @ 2016-06-28 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Sven Mascheck <mascheck at in-ulm.de> wrote: > > I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and > Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. The Almquist shell had history support added for (I think) 4.4BSD https://svnweb.freebsd.org/csrg/bin/sh/histedit.c?view=log It's a required feature for POSIX sh, though I don't know how far back that requirement goes... Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Fair Isle, Faeroes, Southeast Iceland: Southwesterly backing easterly or southeasterly, 4 or 5 increasing 6 at times. Moderate, occasionally rough for a time. Rain or showers. Good, occasionally poor. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 18:14 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-26 19:41 ` Clem Cole 2016-06-27 10:31 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-26 20:58 ` [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? Steve Nickolas 2 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Clem Cole @ 2016-06-26 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Interesting... Horton's timing sounds right because I'm pretty sure we had some sort of Berkeley shell @ before CMU had 2BSD on the v6++ systems in 1978 - (I have to ask him, Klone must have been the one that brought it over to Mellon Institute ). I state that because I remember trying to play with it as well as another hacked shell V6 (I think from Harvard) around that time. I was fascinated by the idea of being able to change the default command system, which no other OS I was using I could do same (TOPS*, VMS, TSS, Exec/8). But I remember I didn't like some of choices of the Berkeley shell's syntax and tended to avoid it/could not figure it out. Within a year or so V7 showed up there after with Bourne shell and I was happy with that. A few years later, I did switch to typing to the csh when I got to UCB, but that was not until after the MIT job control stuff had been spliced into the BSD kernel (Horton & Kleckner were probably the ones that convinced me to learn it). With job control I became a fan, but never warmed up to the programming syntax. I picked up the mantra that I still consider wise -- "type to Joy and program to Bourne." This is comfortable for the ROMS in the muscles of my fingers, but my scripts are portable. Clem PS To this day (like about a month ago), if I need to hack on my .login script when I move sites (I have some site specific stuff in .login and .profiles), I have to grab the cshell man page so I don't screw up the syntax. On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann Horton wrote: > > I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of 1979. The folks at > Bell > > Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion > > from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell > > I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement > over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne > shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice. > > --lm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160626/9273e2dc/attachment.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 19:41 ` Clem Cole @ 2016-06-27 10:31 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 13:01 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 13:39 ` [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh Warren Toomey 0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1330 bytes --] Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote: > A few years later, I did switch to typing to the csh when I got to UCB, but > that was not until after the MIT job control stuff had been spliced into > the BSD kernel (Horton & Kleckner were probably the ones that convinced me > to learn it). With job control I became a fan, but never warmed up to the > programming syntax. I picked up the mantra that I still consider wise -- > "type to Joy and program to Bourne." This is comfortable for the ROMS in > the muscles of my fingers, but my scripts are portable. Job control of course was an important improvement. I took the idea and implemented in my bsh in 1985. Now looking back, it is interesting, that there are just four shells that implement support for vfork(): - csh - the first - bsh since 1985 - ksh vfork() probably since 1984, jobcontrol apparently since 1982. - bosh (my recent Bourne Shell) since 2014 But on a decent OS, vfork() helps a lot to speed up the shell. On Solaris, fork() is copy-on-write based but still 3x slower than vfork(). Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 10:31 ` Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 13:01 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 13:15 ` Steffen Nurpmeso 2016-06-27 15:17 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 13:39 ` [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh Warren Toomey 1 sibling, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 166 bytes --] vfork() is of use on non-paged (and poorly implemented paging) systems. If you implemented the copy-on-write fork() behavior, you’d not need the vfork KLUDGE. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 13:01 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 13:15 ` Steffen Nurpmeso 2016-06-27 15:17 ` Joerg Schilling 1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Steffen Nurpmeso @ 2016-06-27 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --] Ronald Natalie <ron at ronnatalie.com> wrote: |vfork() is of use on non-paged (and poorly implemented paging) system\ |s. If you implemented the copy-on-write fork() behavior, you’d not\ | need the vfork KLUDGE. I think there is currently going on some (i haven't really a glue) virtually mapped stack in Linux (thread around [1]), and it seems vfork() there doesn't even copy the page table. So that seems to be a measurable difference. [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/06/21/10 --steffen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-27 13:01 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 13:15 ` Steffen Nurpmeso @ 2016-06-27 15:17 ` Joerg Schilling 1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --] Ronald Natalie <ron at ronnatalie.com> wrote: > vfork() is of use on non-paged (and poorly implemented paging) systems. If you implemented the copy-on-write fork() behavior, you???d not need the vfork KLUDGE. This is what the Linux people believe. As a result, they have a vfork() implementation that collects all pitfalls from fork() and vfork() ;-) The basic difference is: - With a copy-on-write fork, you copy an address space description and need to set up a set of new MMU PTEs. - With vfork, you borrow the address space descrition and the MMU PTEs from the parent. Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh 2016-06-27 10:31 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 13:01 ` Ronald Natalie @ 2016-06-27 13:39 ` Warren Toomey 2016-06-27 15:00 ` Steve Nickolas 1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Warren Toomey @ 2016-06-27 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) I wrote a shell quite a while ago, based on a friend's shell and also the shell in Marc Rochkind's book. It was portable across a lot of systems but small enough to fit on Minix. I used ptrace() to implement job control on Minix. See ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/pub/Wish/wish_internals.pdf Cheers, Warren -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160627/8468cc94/attachment.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh 2016-06-27 13:39 ` [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh Warren Toomey @ 2016-06-27 15:00 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 15:13 ` Joerg Schilling 0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Warren Toomey wrote: > I wrote a shell quite a while ago, based on a friend's shell and also the shell in Marc Rochkind's book. It was portable across a lot of systems but small enough to fit on Minix. > I used ptrace() to implement job control on Minix. See ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/pub/Wish/wish_internals.pdf > > Cheers, Warren > I tried a couple times to figure out how to implement a Bourne shell, and just couldn't figure it out. But then, I was never much of a programmer. -uso. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh 2016-06-27 15:00 ` Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 15:13 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 15:23 ` Steve Nickolas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread From: Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --] Steve Nickolas <usotsuki at buric.co> wrote: > I tried a couple times to figure out how to implement a Bourne shell, and > just couldn't figure it out. But then, I was never much of a programmer. It is hard and you cannot do it from just reading the POSIX standard. This is because the POSIX standard tries to write descriptions in an abstract notation that missleads people that did never see a working implementation before. After a few years of maintaining the Bourne Shell, I would know how to do it but I am not interested to do it from scratch. Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh 2016-06-27 15:13 ` Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 15:23 ` Steve Nickolas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-27 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 942 bytes --] On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Steve Nickolas <usotsuki at buric.co> wrote: > >> I tried a couple times to figure out how to implement a Bourne shell, and >> just couldn't figure it out. But then, I was never much of a programmer. > > It is hard and you cannot do it from just reading the POSIX standard. > > This is because the POSIX standard tries to write descriptions in an abstract > notation that missleads people that did never see a working implementation > before. > > After a few years of maintaining the Bourne Shell, I would know how to do it but > I am not interested to do it from scratch. > > Jörg > > Eh. I had a specific reason for doing it that most people would find idiotic - I was using OSes (DOS - mainly on a Tandy 1000, which in no way could ever hope to handle DJGPP - and Win32) that weren't remotely POSIX and I wanted to make them feel more Unixy without outright *emulating Unix*. -uso. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 18:14 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-26 19:41 ` Clem Cole @ 2016-06-26 20:58 ` Steve Nickolas 2 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Steve Nickolas @ 2016-06-26 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann Horton wrote: >> I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of 1979. The folks at Bell >> Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion >> from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell > > I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement > over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne > shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice. > > --lm For some daft reason my first foray onto the Unix command line was tcsh, and later I switched to bash, which is still my primary choice - though I don't mind using any other Korn-type shell, long as I got my "emacs editing" mode (although the real ksh's tab completion is clunkier than bash's). Using a Bourne shell that doesn't have a line editor is a pain in the keester, but if I must, I can deal. I have no idea how to use csh, and if I'm set up with csh as my default shell the first thing I'll do is try to switch it to bash or ksh! -uso. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? 2016-06-26 10:14 [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? Aharon Robbins 2016-06-26 16:30 ` Mary Ann Horton @ 2016-06-27 10:03 ` Joerg Schilling 1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: Joerg Schilling @ 2016-06-27 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4013 bytes --] Aharon Robbins <arnold at skeeve.com> wrote: > Can anyone give a definitive date for when Bill Joy's csh first got out > of Berkeley? I suspect it's in the 1976 - 1977 time frame, but I don't > know for sure. In 1977 (published November 23), there was "ashell" with this "READ_ME": /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ Wed Oct 19, 1977 This directory contains the source for a shell. It requires floating point to do the time command which is built-in so you will have to cc it -f on machines without floating point. It also requires a version 7 C compiler. Accurate documentation is in the file "sh.6" to be nroffed with /usr/man/man0/naa and a new "version 7" nroff. This shell requires the "htmp" data base also used by the editor "ex". If you do not set it up so that the "sethome" command is done by "login" then you should use the old "osethome" routine in ../s6 rather than "sethome" and reenable the execl of this sethome in the file "sh.c" (with the correct pathname). Bill Joy CS Division Department of EE and CS UC Berkeley Berkeley, California 94704 (415) 524-4510 [HOME] (415) 642-4948 [SCHOOL] /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ Given that ashell/sh.c contains: /* * Shell * * Modified by Bill Joy * UC Berkeley 1976/1977 * it was most likely based on the Thompson shell. Here is the start of the man page: /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ SH(VI) 9/15/77 SH(VI) NAME sh - a shell (command interpreter) SYNOPSIS sh [ -V ] [ -v ] [ -t ] [ -c ] [ -i ] [ name [ arg ... ] ] DESCRIPTION Sh is a command interpreter. It arranges and interprets command lines and the contents of command files. It is a modification of the standard shell sh (I), and almost com- pletely upward compatible therewith. The intent, in working on a new shell, is to provide an environment which is more easily tailored to the wishes of each individual user. Most new features of this shell, especially the alias feature, are toward this end. Later versions of this shell may include improvements to the command language of the shell and allow more easy repetition of commands. The intent here is to make the command language more resemble a high-level language - C being the natural choice for UNIX, and to pro- vide some means of repeating modified commands without retyping, perhaps akin to the INTERLISP redo feature. The eventual goal is a C-shell, csh (or ``seashell'' if you prefer.) /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ BTW: csh was an improvement for most shells from that time, but it lacks a decent history editor. In 1982, I wrote my first experimental history editor that supports cursor keys but called the commands via system() and in 1984, I integrated this concept into a shell called "bsh" that we had at H. Berthold AG on an OS called "VBERTOS" that was based on "UNOS" - the first UNIX clone. A csh port for UNOS was available around 1982, but with the availability of a shell with integrated history editor, other shells seemed to be of no real interest. So around September 1984, people at H.Berthold AG stopped using csh even though bsh had similar problems in the shell command language as seen with csh. Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-28 14:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-06-26 10:14 [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? Aharon Robbins 2016-06-26 16:30 ` Mary Ann Horton 2016-06-26 18:14 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-26 18:32 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-26 20:43 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 0:59 ` Larry McVoy 2016-06-27 1:11 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 11:27 ` Sven Mascheck 2016-06-27 12:47 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 14:58 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 15:29 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 16:22 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 16:35 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 20:00 ` Dave Horsfall 2016-06-27 20:33 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 20:44 ` Clem Cole 2016-06-27 21:02 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 21:15 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 21:20 ` John Cowan 2016-06-27 21:28 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 21:45 ` John Cowan 2016-06-28 6:49 ` Peter Jeremy 2016-06-28 7:51 ` arnold 2016-06-27 21:29 ` Random832 2016-06-28 14:47 ` Tony Finch 2016-06-26 19:41 ` Clem Cole 2016-06-27 10:31 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 13:01 ` Ronald Natalie 2016-06-27 13:15 ` Steffen Nurpmeso 2016-06-27 15:17 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 13:39 ` [TUHS] Bizarre job control, was csh Warren Toomey 2016-06-27 15:00 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 15:13 ` Joerg Schilling 2016-06-27 15:23 ` Steve Nickolas 2016-06-26 20:58 ` [TUHS] Origin year of BSD csh? Steve Nickolas 2016-06-27 10:03 ` Joerg Schilling
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).