From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 31956 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2021 22:20:34 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 9 Jul 2021 22:20:34 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BF5499448A; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:20:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D785A93D7A; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:19:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7DC6E93D7A; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:19:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mailout7.ceti.pl (mailout7.ceti.pl [62.121.128.47]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AF7C93D3C for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:19:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from tau1.ceti.pl (tau.ceti.pl [62.121.128.11]) by mailout7.ceti.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B413537811AE; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 00:19:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tau1.ceti.pl (Postfix, from userid 3727) id 7F64C960DDD; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 00:19:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 00:19:24 +0200 From: Tomasz Rola To: Clem Cole Message-ID: <20210709221924.GA17181@tau1.ceti.pl> References: <20210702213648.GW817@mcvoy.com> <396911b232bae5938068a14fe0f7181e@firemail.de> <20210704004757.GB24671@tau1.ceti.pl> <20210705071450.GA12885@tau1.ceti.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [TUHS] [tuhs] The Unix shell: a 50-year view X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 12:05:04PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: [...] > Ouch!!! This is so much important that you have missed in this statement, > as this is a great example of not seeing the forest because of all the > trees. You are right that C and UNIX's success was intertwined but I think > you are missing the drivers for that. They were successful because of > other things and because they were successful, we have them today. [...] Clem, thanks a lot for writing this. I think I have connected few dots now. Like, I was long aware that there were various groups of computer users, but never before I had the thought about how this "divide" contributed so much to creation and adoption of Unix. I suppose I like Unix even more now. [...] > The idea of lots of little programs that cooperate with each other is not > what IBM and the like wanted/was providing. They were selling closed > 'solutions' complete SW systems ("walled gardens" controlled by them or > their programming minions) and yes needed the big iron they sold. Note > the IBM 'solutions were not sold to engineers, their products were sold on > the golf course to the 'managers' of what we know call IT shops. Ahem. I do not see myself selling or buying during golf course... Especially if it has to do with computers... [...] > The important thing is that the latter group (not enterprise) did not have > as much money but was a completely different population. UNIX is 100% a > 'Christiansen style Disruption' ( read his book completely if you have > not, please). I will see if I can have my hand on it. > It's a 'lessor technology,' running on smaller equipment, > targeting a new and different consumer who does not care that it is 'not as > good' as the established products. If you compare UNIX to IBM's OS or VMS > for that matter, UNIX does not have the 'features' that are valued by the > 'enterprise market.' > > Ken/Dennis, *et al*, clearly do not care -- they were building something > they (the engineers) needed and wanted (thankfully). And yes it had to run > on modest hardware because that is what they could afford and had access > to. But because since the HW was modest, that forces a mindset of what are > we really doing on the SW? How can we do it effectively. The designers > are asking an important research question? *Maybe some of these other > schemes are not necessary*. I definitely like this attitude. > You are correct the C grew because of UNIX, but you kind of have it > backward. I'm a perfect example of what happened. These new > microprocessors from Intel/Zilog/Moto/MOS Tech became available to us > (engineers mind you). Hey, I was at CMU in the mid-1970s, I even had > access to the BLISS sources, but most people did not. A BLISS cross > compiler binary cost $5K per CPU!!! Yikes. Five kilodollars, what a deal. When I learned C, in middle/late 80-ties, it was my third language after Basic and Pascal. I did not have computer at that time and I wrote short programs in a notebook. I wonder if I could locate the notebook and if any of this code would run. But, compared to the first two, C had something fresh in it. Nowadays, however, this freshness is a little bit trapped under a ton of supporting libraries. Back at the time, the fact there was a C compiler on every computer I heard about, and standard library gave it a bit of unified look, and I could write C oneliners on less paper, more idiomatic (saves time! all those begin/end words replaced by mere curly braces, very nice) - all of this made C very interesting to me. [...] > The key point is that UNIX was inexpensive and worked on modest hardware. > Yes C came with it and that is why I think we use it not BLISS, BCPL, or > some flavor of PLx today. I hope C would have been invented even without Unix. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com **