The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / Atom feed
* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
@ 2020-01-22 18:42 Noel Chiappa
  2020-01-24 18:57 ` Paul Winalski
  2020-01-30  4:00 ` Dave Horsfall
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Noel Chiappa @ 2020-01-22 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs; +Cc: jnc

    > From: Warner Losh

    > this predates everything except Whirlwind which I can't find a paper for.

Given the 'Whirlwind is a ringer' comment, I asssume this:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlwind_I<

is what they mean.


Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with no
stack, subroutines are 'interesting'.


   Noel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 18:42 [TUHS] Unix quix Noel Chiappa
@ 2020-01-24 18:57 ` Paul Winalski
  2020-01-30  4:00 ` Dave Horsfall
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Paul Winalski @ 2020-01-24 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Noel Chiappa; +Cc: tuhs

On 1/22/20, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with no
> stack, subroutines are 'interesting'.

The IBM S/360/370 operating systems such as DOS/360 and DOS/VS didn't
use a stack, either, unless you were doing recursion.  When we got our
VAX, I was puzzled as to why they would throw away an entire register
just to point at a stack.

-Paul W.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 18:42 [TUHS] Unix quix Noel Chiappa
  2020-01-24 18:57 ` Paul Winalski
@ 2020-01-30  4:00 ` Dave Horsfall
  2020-01-30  6:32   ` Angelo Papenhoff
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2020-01-30  4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Noel Chiappa wrote:

[ Whirlwind ]

> Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with 
> no stack, subroutines are 'interesting'.

Not much worse than the PDP-8 :-)  Plant return address in first word and 
jump to the second word; to return, do an indirect jump to the first word.

Recursion was possible. but I think you had to emulate the stack.

-- Dave

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-30  4:00 ` Dave Horsfall
@ 2020-01-30  6:32   ` Angelo Papenhoff
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Angelo Papenhoff @ 2020-01-30  6:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Horsfall; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On 30/01/20, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 
> [ Whirlwind ]
> 
> > Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with 
> > no stack, subroutines are 'interesting'.
> 
> Not much worse than the PDP-8 :-)  Plant return address in first word and 
> jump to the second word; to return, do an indirect jump to the first word.
> 
> Recursion was possible. but I think you had to emulate the stack.

On the whirlwind the sp (subprogram) instruction puts the return address
in the A register. with ta (transfer A) you can put it into the address
part of an instruction, so a function call is as simple as

	...
	sp foo
	...

	foo:	ta foo0
		...
	foo0:	sp .

So it's pretty nice you can use sp for calls and jumps. cp (conditional
sp) works the same but only jumps if AC is negative.
The big difference between the WW and later machines is that there is no
indirection on the WW! You end up writing lots of addresses into
instructions. It's even weirder on the TX-0 with its (original) limited
instruction set where you don't even have instructions to just store an
address, only the full word.

aap

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-24 16:34         ` Jon Steinhart
@ 2020-01-26  0:03           ` Heinz Lycklama
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Heinz Lycklama @ 2020-01-26  0:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Jon, your dates are correct on MERT. I think UNIX v6 was introduced
in 1975. So we may have used v4 in 1973 and then upgraded to V6
later on in preparation to the general release of MERT 0. Clem, you may
be able to confirm this from the MERT 0 manual you borrowed from me.

Thanks.

Heinz

On 1/24/2020 8:34 AM, Jon Steinhart wrote:
> Clem Cole writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> MERT absolutely predates PWB 1.2. MERT has papers starting in 1975 while
>>> pwb 1.2  is 1978 or 1979.
>>>
>> I can not say, I have any knowledge so I would trust Rob's sources, but ...
>> I also what I would have thought MERT predates PWB.  Heinz, are you able to
>> illuminate any of these details?
>>
>>> MERT was V4 while releases of PWB were V6 based.
>>>
>> I can verify and agree with the later of PWB 1.x being 6th edition, but the
>> MERT tidbit is interesting/thought-provoking. I frankly would have
>> expected the MERT folks to have started with something closer to 5th and
>> then tracked any significant differences as possible.
> My very fuzzy memory would put MERT at v4 or v5.  I think that the department
> had an 11/40 running v3 back when it was in building 2.  I recall a much bigger
> machine, I think an 11/70, after the move to building 6.  I think that Heinz's
> office was across the hall from the room that had the 516 and the SS1, the 11/70
> was across the hall and left a couple of doors from Heinz's office.  I'm pretty
> sure that I used that machine to do the docs for the IC test system since the
> department that I was in then didn't have a UNIX system.  I do have a v6 manual
> from back then so that's where things were at the end of my time there.  Anyway,
> from a timing thing I'm guessing that MERT was v4 or v5.
>
> Jon


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-24 19:38 Nelson H. F. Beebe
@ 2020-01-24 20:05 ` Bakul Shah
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Bakul Shah @ 2020-01-24 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nelson H. F. Beebe; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]


On Jan 24, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Nelson H. F. Beebe <beebe@math.utah.edu> wrote:
> 
> That was fine for Fortran, which at the time had no concept of
> recursion.  However, Urs Ammann implemented a compiler for Niklaus
> Wirth's Pascal language on a CDC 6400 (or 6600) in Zurich, and he had
> to simulate a stack.  See
> 
>    On Code Generation in a PASCAL Compiler
>    Software --- Practice and Experience 7(3) 391--423 May/June 1977
>    https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380070311
> 
> I have read that article in the past, but don't have download access
> from our academic library to get a copy to refresh my memory.

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/68668/eth-3056-01.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1346 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
@ 2020-01-24 19:38 Nelson H. F. Beebe
  2020-01-24 20:05 ` Bakul Shah
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Nelson H. F. Beebe @ 2020-01-24 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On 1/22/20, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

> Pretty interesting machine, if you study its instruction set, BTW; with no
> stack, subroutines are 'interesting'.

Another machine family like that was the CDC 6x00 and 7x00 machines of
the late 1960s and early 1970s.  

I worked on a CDC 6400 for a few years.  A call was done by storing
the return address in the first word of the called routine, and
jumping to its second word.  The return was done with an indirect jump
through the first word.

That was fine for Fortran, which at the time had no concept of
recursion.  However, Urs Ammann implemented a compiler for Niklaus
Wirth's Pascal language on a CDC 6400 (or 6600) in Zurich, and he had
to simulate a stack.  See

	On Code Generation in a PASCAL Compiler
	Software --- Practice and Experience 7(3) 391--423 May/June 1977
	https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380070311

I have read that article in the past, but don't have download access
from our academic library to get a copy to refresh my memory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe                    Tel: +1 801 581 5254                  -
- University of Utah                    FAX: +1 801 581 4148                  -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB    Internet e-mail: beebe@math.utah.edu  -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233                       beebe@acm.org  beebe@computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA    URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-24 14:49       ` Clem Cole
  2020-01-24 16:34         ` Jon Steinhart
@ 2020-01-24 16:40         ` Warner Losh
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-01-24 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, Leah Neukirchen, Doug McIlroy

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1903 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:50 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>> MERT absolutely predates PWB 1.2. MERT has papers starting in 1975 while
>> pwb 1.2  is 1978 or 1979.
>>
> I can not say, I have any knowledge so I would trust Rob's sources, but
> ... I also what I would have thought MERT predates PWB.  Heinz, are you
> able to illuminate any of these details?
>

The group that created PWB may well have started before the MERT group, at
least from what I can find documented in early papers... However, the first
release we have of PWB is labeled 1.0 and it is 1977. The ACM MERT papers
are from 1975.


> MERT was V4 while releases of PWB were V6 based.
>>
> I can verify and agree with the later of PWB 1.x being 6th edition, but
> the MERT tidbit is interesting/thought-provoking. I frankly would have
> expected the MERT folks to have started with something closer to 5th and
> then tracked any significant differences as possible.
>

I believe that they did track releases. And this may be a case of rolling
release. I'm told, but can't find a good reference for it, that editions
were just a manual thing and that there wasn't a 'master tape' made of each
edition until late in the process (like maybe as late as the 7th edition
since I see references to different versions of the 6th edition, though
that may be nothing more than the '50 patches' tape). This makes some of
the traffic difficult. The Network Unix folks started with 5th editionish
release, but had frequent updates during their work as the 6th edition was
being prepped and then settled on the 6th edition to release their work
(since the tapes we have of it are of a lightly-modified 6th edition (at
least relative to dennis_v6). I'm also unsure of when the first "release"
of MERT was, which may be critical to answering that question...

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3220 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-24 14:49       ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-01-24 16:34         ` Jon Steinhart
  2020-01-26  0:03           ` Heinz Lycklama
  2020-01-24 16:40         ` Warner Losh
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Jon Steinhart @ 2020-01-24 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

Clem Cole writes:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
> > MERT absolutely predates PWB 1.2. MERT has papers starting in 1975 while
> > pwb 1.2  is 1978 or 1979.
> >
> I can not say, I have any knowledge so I would trust Rob's sources, but ...
> I also what I would have thought MERT predates PWB.  Heinz, are you able to
> illuminate any of these details?
>
> > MERT was V4 while releases of PWB were V6 based.
> >
> I can verify and agree with the later of PWB 1.x being 6th edition, but the
> MERT tidbit is interesting/thought-provoking. I frankly would have
> expected the MERT folks to have started with something closer to 5th and
> then tracked any significant differences as possible.

My very fuzzy memory would put MERT at v4 or v5.  I think that the department
had an 11/40 running v3 back when it was in building 2.  I recall a much bigger
machine, I think an 11/70, after the move to building 6.  I think that Heinz's
office was across the hall from the room that had the 516 and the SS1, the 11/70
was across the hall and left a couple of doors from Heinz's office.  I'm pretty
sure that I used that machine to do the docs for the IC test system since the
department that I was in then didn't have a UNIX system.  I do have a v6 manual
from back then so that's where things were at the end of my time there.  Anyway,
from a timing thing I'm guessing that MERT was v4 or v5.

Jon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-24  2:44     ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-01-24 14:49       ` Clem Cole
  2020-01-24 16:34         ` Jon Steinhart
  2020-01-24 16:40         ` Warner Losh
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-01-24 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, Leah Neukirchen, Doug McIlroy

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

> MERT absolutely predates PWB 1.2. MERT has papers starting in 1975 while
> pwb 1.2  is 1978 or 1979.
>
I can not say, I have any knowledge so I would trust Rob's sources, but ...
I also what I would have thought MERT predates PWB.  Heinz, are you able to
illuminate any of these details?



> MERT was V4 while releases of PWB were V6 based.
>
I can verify and agree with the later of PWB 1.x being 6th edition, but the
MERT tidbit is interesting/thought-provoking. I frankly would have
expected the MERT folks to have started with something closer to 5th and
then tracked any significant differences as possible.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1547 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-23 15:56   ` Leah Neukirchen
@ 2020-01-24  2:44     ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-24 14:49       ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-01-24  2:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Leah Neukirchen; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, Doug McIlroy

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 8:57 AM Leah Neukirchen <leah@vuxu.org> wrote:

> Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The answers to the quiz are the answers to the quiz. Whether they are
> > correct may be hard to verify, and cagbef is what my notes have so who
> > knows?
>
> The question is missing a part:
>
> 16. Sort the following into chronological order: a) PWB 1.2, b) V7, c)
> Whirlwind, e) System V, f) 4.2BSD, g)
>     MERT.
>              cagbef|c a g b e f
>
> From an file George Rosamond sent me in 2009:
> http://leahneukirchen.org/trivium/unixquiz-solution.txt
> I also collected some more sources:
> http://leahneukirchen.org/trivium/2009-01-18


MERT absolutely predates PWB 1.2. MERT has papers starting in 1975 while
pwb 1.2  is 1978 or 1979. By the time pwb 1.2 was coming out, it had
mutated to UNIX/RT... MERT was V4 while releases of PWB were V6 based. And
the link for the graph (which are often horribly sourced for the early
stuff) is dead.

Warner


> hth,
> --
> Leah Neukirchen  <leah@vuxu.org>  https://leahneukirchen.org/
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2149 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 23:06 ` Rob Pike
@ 2020-01-23 15:56   ` Leah Neukirchen
  2020-01-24  2:44     ` Warner Losh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Leah Neukirchen @ 2020-01-23 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rob Pike; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society, Doug McIlroy

Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> writes:

> The answers to the quiz are the answers to the quiz. Whether they are
> correct may be hard to verify, and cagbef is what my notes have so who
> knows?

The question is missing a part:

16. Sort the following into chronological order: a) PWB 1.2, b) V7, c)
Whirlwind, e) System V, f) 4.2BSD, g)
    MERT.
             cagbef|c a g b e f

From an file George Rosamond sent me in 2009:
http://leahneukirchen.org/trivium/unixquiz-solution.txt
I also collected some more sources:
http://leahneukirchen.org/trivium/2009-01-18

hth,
-- 
Leah Neukirchen  <leah@vuxu.org>  https://leahneukirchen.org/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 23:34             ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-01-22 23:42               ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-01-22 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

👍

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:35 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:42 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW: There is another hint in CAC 155/RFC 681.  The line on page 2 that
>> reads: "since the user is allowed only sixteen open files."   My memory
>> is V6 allowed more than 16, over 20 is my memory; but we would have to look
>> at the structure to see what it is defined as.
>>
>
> Looking at the source in the archives for V5, we see that param.h has "#define
> NOFILE  15" and for V6 we see "#define NOFILE 15 /* max open files per
> process */". V7 has "#define NOFILE 20 /* max open files per process */"
> though, so maybe you are thinking of V7 bumping the limit to 20? Or maybe
> it was a local change for MIT, since param.h could be edited... But in any
> event, I think this means that the CAC 155 reference to 16 files just means
> V6 or earlier.
>
> However, I just noticed there's more direct evidence for it being based on
> V5. On page 2 of CAC 155 we see
>
> "For further information concerning the different I/O calls the reader is
> directed to The UNIX Programmer's Manual, fifth edition, K. Thompson and D.
> M. Ritchie, June 1974."
>
> BTW, CAC 155 is the PDF we have linked from the early network page. I
> hadn't noticed before now, but seeing the missing page refreshes my
> recollection.
>
> Warner
>
-- 
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3199 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 20:42           ` Clem Cole
  2020-01-22 23:10             ` Rob Pike
@ 2020-01-22 23:34             ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-22 23:42               ` Clem Cole
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-01-22 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1251 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:42 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> BTW: There is another hint in CAC 155/RFC 681.  The line on page 2 that
> reads: "since the user is allowed only sixteen open files."   My memory
> is V6 allowed more than 16, over 20 is my memory; but we would have to look
> at the structure to see what it is defined as.
>

Looking at the source in the archives for V5, we see that param.h has "#define
NOFILE  15" and for V6 we see "#define NOFILE 15 /* max open files per
process */". V7 has "#define NOFILE 20 /* max open files per process */"
though, so maybe you are thinking of V7 bumping the limit to 20? Or maybe
it was a local change for MIT, since param.h could be edited... But in any
event, I think this means that the CAC 155 reference to 16 files just means
V6 or earlier.

However, I just noticed there's more direct evidence for it being based on
V5. On page 2 of CAC 155 we see

"For further information concerning the different I/O calls the reader is
directed to The UNIX Programmer's Manual, fifth edition, K. Thompson and D.
M. Ritchie, June 1974."

BTW, CAC 155 is the PDF we have linked from the early network page. I
hadn't noticed before now, but seeing the missing page refreshes my
recollection.

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2644 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 20:42           ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-01-22 23:10             ` Rob Pike
  2020-01-22 23:34             ` Warner Losh
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rob Pike @ 2020-01-22 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

I think the 'd' slipped in during some editing. I've removed it. cagbef it
is.

Don't confuse quiz answers with absolute truth. All history is fiction to
some extent.

-rob


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:43 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 2:42 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Berkeley's license was executed in January 74, so it might be on the
>> list, unless there was a big delay.
>>
> That makes sense.
>
>
>> In addition to the Nov 1975 CACM paper, there's CAC 155, published by the
>> University of Illinois on 3/15/75 which pre-dates the 6th edition by a few
>> months. You can read it here
>> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/32547/networkunixsyste155holm.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y if
>> you'd like.
>>
> Thanks, that tells us it was 5th (BTW the PDF is missing page 1 in the
> scan - although I suspect the missing info can be gleaned from RFC 681)
>
> BTW: There is another hint in CAC 155/RFC 681.  The line on page 2 that
> reads: "since the user is allowed only sixteen open files."   My memory
> is V6 allowed more than 16, over 20 is my memory; but we would have to look
> at the structure to see what it is defined as.
>
>
>
>>
>> RFC 681, dated March 18th, 1975, is another instance of an edited CAC 155
>> report  (it seems, I've not looked at them exactly, just a quick glance)
>> that talks about this work. It's the earliest mention of Unix in an RFC
>> (the next one isn't until 2 years later for an email address for Dave
>> Crocker DCrocker@Rand-Unix in RFC 724 in May 1977 after which it
>> explodes in references).
>>
> And that pretty much syncs with my memory of the time.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4665 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 20:49 Doug McIlroy
@ 2020-01-22 23:06 ` Rob Pike
  2020-01-23 15:56   ` Leah Neukirchen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rob Pike @ 2020-01-22 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Doug McIlroy; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]

The answers to the quiz are the answers to the quiz. Whether they are
correct may be hard to verify, and cagbef is what my notes have so who
knows?

I've added a word to eliminate the castigation of CAT's hygiene.

-rob


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:50 AM Doug McIlroy <doug@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> The first edition ran on pdp-11, not pdp-7.
>
> Tukey buttered parsnips at the labs, but Brits did
> so several centuries before.
>
> Contrary to urban legend, patent was not invoked to
> justify the Unix pdp-11; word-processing was. The
> quiz does not make this mistake.
>
> The phototypesetter did not smell. The chemicals
> for (externally) devoloping photo paper did.
>
> Shahpazian is Dick Shahpazian; Maranzano is Joe Maranzano.
>
> cagbef addresses out of bounds.
>
> I appreciate Rob's discretion about the Waterloo theft.
>
> Doug
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1272 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
@ 2020-01-22 20:49 Doug McIlroy
  2020-01-22 23:06 ` Rob Pike
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Doug McIlroy @ 2020-01-22 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

The first edition ran on pdp-11, not pdp-7.

Tukey buttered parsnips at the labs, but Brits did
so several centuries before.

Contrary to urban legend, patent was not invoked to
justify the Unix pdp-11; word-processing was. The
quiz does not make this mistake.

The phototypesetter did not smell. The chemicals
for (externally) devoloping photo paper did.

Shahpazian is Dick Shahpazian; Maranzano is Joe Maranzano.

cagbef addresses out of bounds.

I appreciate Rob's discretion about the Waterloo theft.

Doug

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 19:42         ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-01-22 20:42           ` Clem Cole
  2020-01-22 23:10             ` Rob Pike
  2020-01-22 23:34             ` Warner Losh
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-01-22 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 2:42 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
> Berkeley's license was executed in January 74, so it might be on the list,
> unless there was a big delay.
>
That makes sense.


> In addition to the Nov 1975 CACM paper, there's CAC 155, published by the
> University of Illinois on 3/15/75 which pre-dates the 6th edition by a few
> months. You can read it here
> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/32547/networkunixsyste155holm.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y if
> you'd like.
>
Thanks, that tells us it was 5th (BTW the PDF is missing page 1 in the scan
- although I suspect the missing info can be gleaned from RFC 681)

BTW: There is another hint in CAC 155/RFC 681.  The line on page 2 that
reads: "since the user is allowed only sixteen open files."   My memory is
V6 allowed more than 16, over 20 is my memory; but we would have to look at
the structure to see what it is defined as.



>
> RFC 681, dated March 18th, 1975, is another instance of an edited CAC 155
> report  (it seems, I've not looked at them exactly, just a quick glance)
> that talks about this work. It's the earliest mention of Unix in an RFC
> (the next one isn't until 2 years later for an email address for Dave
> Crocker DCrocker@Rand-Unix in RFC 724 in May 1977 after which it explodes
> in references).
>
And that pretty much syncs with my memory of the time.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4053 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 18:21       ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-01-22 19:42         ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-22 20:42           ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-01-22 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3202 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:21 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:55 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>> I  thought the answer was "ARPANET" since we had a NCP on 4th edition
>> Unix in late 1974 or early 1975 from the University of Illinois dating from
>> that time (the code in TUHS appears to be based on V6 + a number of
>> patches).
>>
> Because we can't ask Greg sadly, I think the Holmgren is the last around
> that would know definitively and I've personally lost track of him.
>

The publication date for the ACM paper is November 1975. I think I misspoke
and you are right. The 4th edition was Nov 73, and 5th Edition was June 74
(6th was June 75). In order to meet deadlines for ACM publication, it most
likely was 5th Edition, but there's also earlier references to it.

That said, I don't think UofI had anything earlier than 5th edition (I
> fairly sure that there were very few copies of 4th edition distributed
> outside of the Bell: i.e. Columbia, NYU and I thought Harvard; but I don't
> think too many more than that).  Lou Katz would be a better source than I,
> but I was always under the impression that the number 5th editions, the
> count was also a smaller 2 digit integer.  6th was where Unix began to
> 'spread' and by 7th, 'go viral.'
>

Berkeley's license was executed in January 74, so it might be on the list,
unless there was a big delay.

And to be honest, I personally thought that Steve and Greg did the ArpaNet
> NCP work on V6, but it might have been v5th I suppose.  I did not know
> about it until the 6th edition work.  But, they were fairly early.  BTW: I
> thought the Rand PIPE code was also developed on 6th, but those also might
> have been 5th.
>

The code we have is from the 6th edition (judging by diffs, though there's
some weird quirks between it and Dennis_v6, as well as a number of local
patches).

In addition to the Nov 1975 CACM paper, there's CAC 155, published by the
University of Illinois on 3/15/75 which pre-dates the 6th edition by a few
months. You can read it here
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/32547/networkunixsyste155holm.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
if
you'd like. There's also CAC 177, which covers the period of Jan 1, 1974 to
Dec 31, 1974 which references that Unix had been enhanced to add this after
the contract periopd. This this report may have been issued after CAC 155
and may not be proof of an earlier date (though the issue date in its
metadata in https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/34150 is 31 DEC
1974, it also reports activity through the end of the year so likely was
written later). There's also CAC 162 dated May 15, 1975 (
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/32293) that references UNIX
talking to the mulix machine via the ARPANET protocols.

RFC 681, dated March 18th, 1975, is another instance of an edited CAC 155
report  (it seems, I've not looked at them exactly, just a quick glance)
that talks about this work. It's the earliest mention of Unix in an RFC
(the next one isn't until 2 years later for an email address for Dave
Crocker DCrocker@Rand-Unix in RFC 724 in May 1977 after which it explodes
in references).

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5259 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 17:54     ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-22 18:01       ` Vincenzo Nicosia
  2020-01-22 18:21       ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-01-22 19:00       ` Warner Losh
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-01-22 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Cross; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3078 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:54 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:59 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Btw, the answer for #16 is `cagbef`: but `g` is not an option. I would
>> think the answer would be `cafbde`. Apparently in the original, option
>> '(d)' is missing; one imagines that was to trick the unwary who failed to
>> adequately read the question.
>>
>
> I think this is wrong:
> 16. Q:  Sort the following into chronological order: a) PWB 1.2, b) V7, c)
> Whirlwind, d) System V, e) 4.2BSD, f) MERT.
> A: cagbef
> Whirlwind is a ringer.
>
> So the MERT ACM paper is 1975. The BSTJ is July/Aug 1978 (received Feb
> 1978). Somewhere I read (don't have a handy reference for it) that MERT
> ported V4 as a supervisor process which puts it in 1974 or so. In any
> event, this predates everything except Whirlwind which I can't find a paper
> for.
> PWB 1.2 is based on V6 + stuff. PWB 1.0 was released 1977, but we don't
> have an extant 1.2 tape to verify dates with, but 1978 wouldn't be
> unreasonable.
> We know 7th Edition was released Jan 1979 (PWB 2.0 was released, 1980
> sometime)
> System V was released January 1983
> 4.2BSD was released September 1983 (4.1c was released in 1982 though :)
>
> So that would make the right answer c f a b d e
>
> Even DMERT for the 3B20 was released in January 1983 (or the IEEE paper
> for it was released then), so it can't be last.
>
> I also have questions about this:
>
> 81. Q:  What was the first Unix network?
> A: spider
> You thought it was Datakit, didn't you? But Sandy Fraser had an earlier
> project.
>
> When did Alexander G Fraser's spider cell network happen? For that matter,
> when did Datakit happen? I can't find references to either start date on
> line (nor anything on spider except for references to it in Dr Fraser's
> bio). I can find references to Datakit in 1978 or so.
>

Oopa, spoke one google search too soon. I found this:

"Sandy (A. G.) Fraser devised the Spider local-area ring (v6) and the
Datakit switch (v7) that have served in the lab for overadecade. Special
services on Spider included a central network file store, nfs, and a
communication package, ufs. Datakit, a ‘‘central office’’ for data
communication, gav e added impetus to research in distributed computing.
Fraser undertook the Unix Circuit Design System (see CDL in section 4.3) to
support his hardware projects"

in "A Research UNIX Reader: Annotated Excerpts from the Programmer’s
Manual, 1971-1986" by Doug Mcillroy.


> I  thought the answer was "ARPANET" since we had a NCP on 4th edition Unix
> in late 1974 or early 1975 from the University of Illinois dating from that
> time (the code in TUHS appears to be based on V6 + a number of patches).
>
> Warner
>
>
>>         - Dan C.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:32 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The answers are up:
>>>
>>> https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz-answers.html
>>>
>>> -rob
>>>
>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6212 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 17:54     ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-22 18:01       ` Vincenzo Nicosia
@ 2020-01-22 18:21       ` Clem Cole
  2020-01-22 19:42         ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-22 19:00       ` Warner Losh
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-01-22 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:55 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

> I  thought the answer was "ARPANET" since we had a NCP on 4th edition Unix
> in late 1974 or early 1975 from the University of Illinois dating from that
> time (the code in TUHS appears to be based on V6 + a number of patches).
>
Because we can't ask Greg sadly, I think the Holmgren is the last around
that would know definitively and I've personally lost track of him.

That said, I don't think UofI had anything earlier than 5th edition (I
fairly sure that there were very few copies of 4th edition distributed
outside of the Bell: i.e. Columbia, NYU and I thought Harvard; but I don't
think too many more than that).  Lou Katz would be a better source than I,
but I was always under the impression that the number 5th editions, the
count was also a smaller 2 digit integer.  6th was where Unix began to
'spread' and by 7th, 'go viral.'

And to be honest, I personally thought that Steve and Greg did the ArpaNet
NCP work on V6, but it might have been v5th I suppose.  I did not know
about it until the 6th edition work.  But, they were fairly early.  BTW: I
thought the Rand PIPE code was also developed on 6th, but those also might
have been 5th.

Clem

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2642 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 17:54     ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-01-22 18:01       ` Vincenzo Nicosia
  2020-01-22 18:21       ` Clem Cole
  2020-01-22 19:00       ` Warner Losh
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Vincenzo Nicosia @ 2020-01-22 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:54:08AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:59 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Btw, the answer for #16 is `cagbef`: but `g` is not an option. I would
> > think the answer would be `cafbde`. Apparently in the original, option
> > '(d)' is missing; one imagines that was to trick the unwary who failed to
> > adequately read the question.
> >
> 
> I think this is wrong:
> 16. Q:  Sort the following into chronological order: a) PWB 1.2, b) V7, c)
> Whirlwind, d) System V, e) 4.2BSD, f) MERT.
> A: cagbef
> Whirlwind is a ringer.
> 

If not anything else, at least because there is no option g... :)
But I might have missed a joke here?

HND

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22 14:57   ` Dan Cross
@ 2020-01-22 17:54     ` Warner Losh
  2020-01-22 18:01       ` Vincenzo Nicosia
                         ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-01-22 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Cross; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2191 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:59 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Btw, the answer for #16 is `cagbef`: but `g` is not an option. I would
> think the answer would be `cafbde`. Apparently in the original, option
> '(d)' is missing; one imagines that was to trick the unwary who failed to
> adequately read the question.
>

I think this is wrong:
16. Q:  Sort the following into chronological order: a) PWB 1.2, b) V7, c)
Whirlwind, d) System V, e) 4.2BSD, f) MERT.
A: cagbef
Whirlwind is a ringer.

So the MERT ACM paper is 1975. The BSTJ is July/Aug 1978 (received Feb
1978). Somewhere I read (don't have a handy reference for it) that MERT
ported V4 as a supervisor process which puts it in 1974 or so. In any
event, this predates everything except Whirlwind which I can't find a paper
for.
PWB 1.2 is based on V6 + stuff. PWB 1.0 was released 1977, but we don't
have an extant 1.2 tape to verify dates with, but 1978 wouldn't be
unreasonable.
We know 7th Edition was released Jan 1979 (PWB 2.0 was released, 1980
sometime)
System V was released January 1983
4.2BSD was released September 1983 (4.1c was released in 1982 though :)

So that would make the right answer c f a b d e

Even DMERT for the 3B20 was released in January 1983 (or the IEEE paper for
it was released then), so it can't be last.

I also have questions about this:

81. Q:  What was the first Unix network?
A: spider
You thought it was Datakit, didn't you? But Sandy Fraser had an earlier
project.

When did Alexander G Fraser's spider cell network happen? For that matter,
when did Datakit happen? I can't find references to either start date on
line (nor anything on spider except for references to it in Dr Fraser's
bio). I can find references to Datakit in 1978 or so.

I  thought the answer was "ARPANET" since we had a NCP on 4th edition Unix
in late 1974 or early 1975 from the University of Illinois dating from that
time (the code in TUHS appears to be based on V6 + a number of patches).

Warner


>         - Dan C.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:32 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The answers are up:
>>
>> https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz-answers.html
>>
>> -rob
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5010 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-22  9:31 ` Rob Pike
@ 2020-01-22 14:57   ` Dan Cross
  2020-01-22 17:54     ` Warner Losh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Dan Cross @ 2020-01-22 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rob Pike; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1162 bytes --]

The quiz and answers were also printed in the Australian Unix User's Group
Newsletter, volume 5, numbers 5 and 6, respectively. It looks like that
might also have been copied from ';login:'? It's unclear to me.

I appreciate the additional commentary, though. Obviously some of these are
very site-specific (Chesson's phone extension, for example).

The "Who wrote the Bourne shell?" question kind of reminds me of the old
Bugs Bunny bit where he'd be on some radio gameshow and the host would ask,
"Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" and no one would get it right. (Except
totally different because, of course, no one is buried in Grant's Tomb:
Grant and his wife are entombed in sarcophagi above ground, not buried
below.)

Btw, the answer for #16 is `cagbef`: but `g` is not an option. I would
think the answer would be `cafbde`. Apparently in the original, option
'(d)' is missing; one imagines that was to trick the unwary who failed to
adequately read the question.

        - Dan C.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:32 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:

> The answers are up:
>
> https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz-answers.html
>
> -rob
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1790 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-20 20:28 Rob Pike
  2020-01-20 21:06 ` Adam Thornton
@ 2020-01-22  9:31 ` Rob Pike
  2020-01-22 14:57   ` Dan Cross
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rob Pike @ 2020-01-22  9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 93 bytes --]

The answers are up:

https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz-answers.html

-rob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 262 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix quix
  2020-01-20 20:28 Rob Pike
@ 2020-01-20 21:06 ` Adam Thornton
  2020-01-22  9:31 ` Rob Pike
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Adam Thornton @ 2020-01-20 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

On Jan 20, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:
> I reposted the original Unix quiz, which disappeared when public Google Plus was turned off. Answers will reappear in a few days.
> 
> https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz.html <https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz.html>

I am slightly terrified that I can answer a non-trivial fraction (though by no means a majority!) of these without looking up answers.

The TSO one in particular I knew instantly and it’s still quite true.

I don’t know the story behind #23 but I certainly want to.

Adam


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1185 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Unix quix
@ 2020-01-20 20:28 Rob Pike
  2020-01-20 21:06 ` Adam Thornton
  2020-01-22  9:31 ` Rob Pike
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Rob Pike @ 2020-01-20 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 195 bytes --]

I reposted the original Unix quiz, which disappeared when public Google
Plus was turned off. Answers will reappear in a few days.

https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2020/01/unix-quiz.html

-rob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 356 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-01-22 18:42 [TUHS] Unix quix Noel Chiappa
2020-01-24 18:57 ` Paul Winalski
2020-01-30  4:00 ` Dave Horsfall
2020-01-30  6:32   ` Angelo Papenhoff
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-01-24 19:38 Nelson H. F. Beebe
2020-01-24 20:05 ` Bakul Shah
2020-01-22 20:49 Doug McIlroy
2020-01-22 23:06 ` Rob Pike
2020-01-23 15:56   ` Leah Neukirchen
2020-01-24  2:44     ` Warner Losh
2020-01-24 14:49       ` Clem Cole
2020-01-24 16:34         ` Jon Steinhart
2020-01-26  0:03           ` Heinz Lycklama
2020-01-24 16:40         ` Warner Losh
2020-01-20 20:28 Rob Pike
2020-01-20 21:06 ` Adam Thornton
2020-01-22  9:31 ` Rob Pike
2020-01-22 14:57   ` Dan Cross
2020-01-22 17:54     ` Warner Losh
2020-01-22 18:01       ` Vincenzo Nicosia
2020-01-22 18:21       ` Clem Cole
2020-01-22 19:42         ` Warner Losh
2020-01-22 20:42           ` Clem Cole
2020-01-22 23:10             ` Rob Pike
2020-01-22 23:34             ` Warner Losh
2020-01-22 23:42               ` Clem Cole
2020-01-22 19:00       ` Warner Losh

The Unix Heritage Society mailing list

Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/tuhs

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.tuhs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git