[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Warren Toomey]

All,
	I've had two papers about early UNIX accepted. One is a paper about our
1st Edition UNIX restoration for the IEEE Journal of the History of Computing,
and the second is a paper about several early UNIX restorations including 1st
Ed for the Usenix 2009 technical conference.

This means that I'll be attending the Usenix conference in San Diego in
June, so if anybody else is attending I'd love to catch up with you guys.

Cheers all and again thanks for all the hard work and the fantastic results!

	Warren Toomey

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[John Cowan]

Warren Toomey scripsit:

> 	I've had two papers about early UNIX accepted. One is a paper about our
> 1st Edition UNIX restoration for the IEEE Journal of the History of Computing,
> and the second is a paper about several early UNIX restorations including 1st
> Ed for the Usenix 2009 technical conference.

Will you be able to put preprints on your own site or somewhere, so we can
read 'em without having to worry about the paywall?

-- 
If you understand,                      John Cowan
   things are just as they are;         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
if you do not understand,               cowan at ccil.org
   things are just as they are.

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20090409132154.GC4909 at mercury.ccil.org>
            John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:
: Warren Toomey scripsit:
: 
: > 	I've had two papers about early UNIX accepted. One is a paper about our
: > 1st Edition UNIX restoration for the IEEE Journal of the History of Computing,
: > and the second is a paper about several early UNIX restorations including 1st
: > Ed for the Usenix 2009 technical conference.
: 
: Will you be able to put preprints on your own site or somewhere, so we can
: read 'em without having to worry about the paywall?

Clearly we'd make good reviewers for the papers :)

Warner

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Warren Toomey]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:47:21AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : Will you be able to put preprints on your own site or somewhere, so we can
> : read 'em without having to worry about the paywall?
> 
> Clearly we'd make good reviewers for the papers :)

Here is a very early draft: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Z/usendraft.pdf.
Lots of typos etc.

Please don't distribute this. Read, and eat the bits afterwards. I will
remove the document in a day or so.

Cheers,
	Warren

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[John Cowan]

Warren Toomey scripsit:

> Here is a very early draft: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Z/usendraft.pdf.
> Lots of typos etc.

Thanks; fascinating!

Do the Net-2-derived BSDs (including Darwin) really count as Unix-derived?
I thought they were fairly free of AT&T code now, other than headers and
the like.  Conceptually, of course, they are Unix-derived, but then so
is Linux.

It would be snazzy to restore the classical typography of Unix as
U<small>NIX</small> in your paper.

-- 
John Cowan      cowan at ccil.org         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions.
Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about
to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20090410162319.GB12970 at mercury.ccil.org>
            John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:
: Warren Toomey scripsit:
: 
: > Here is a very early draft: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Z/usendraft.pdf.
: > Lots of typos etc.
: 
: Thanks; fascinating!
: 
: Do the Net-2-derived BSDs (including Darwin) really count as Unix-derived?

Yes.

: I thought they were fairly free of AT&T code now, other than headers and
: the like.  Conceptually, of course, they are Unix-derived, but then so
: is Linux.

There's 24 files that have AT&T copyright notice on them that are
still present in the code.  And there's dozens of files in SYS V that
are bsd-derived that now have the proper UCB copyright notice.  The
link to Unix is direct and explicit in the 4.4-lite derived BSDs,
unlike Linux, which has no AT&T code to speak of in it.  Also,
technically speaking, all the BSDs (including Darwin) are 4.4-lite
derived these days, not net-2 derived, since all the projects switched
to 4.4-lite as apart of the ucb/at&t settlement.

See for example from FreeBSD:

 * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993
 *      The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
 * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
 * All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed
 * to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph
 * Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with
 * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
 *

is found in: init_main.c kern_acct.c kern_clock.c kern_descrip.c
kern_exit.c kern_fork.c kern_prot.c kern_resource.c kern_shutdown.c
kern_sig.c kern_subr.c kern_synch.c kern_timeout.c sched_4bsd.c
subr_param.c subr_prf.c sys_generic.c tty_info.c vfs_export.c
vfs_lookup.c vfs_mount.c vfs_subr.c vfs_syscalls.c vfs_vnops.c

All these files are explicitly OK based on the settlement of the UCB
AT&T lawsuit.

: It would be snazzy to restore the classical typography of Unix as
: U<small>NIX</small> in your paper.

That would be cool.

Warner

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Brad Parker]

Nice job. I enjoyed reading it.

John Cowan wrote:
>
>Do the Net-2-derived BSDs (including Darwin) really count as Unix-derived?

I would agree with this.  I think "Mach people" would bristle a little
at that.  They tend to think of unix as a bag they are forced to carry
around.

after reading the paper I wish I had an 11/20 to try and run v1 :-)

A fun paper to read.  I'm sure it will be well received.

-brad

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[lyricalnanoha]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Brad Parker wrote:

>
> Nice job. I enjoyed reading it.
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>>
>> Do the Net-2-derived BSDs (including Darwin) really count as Unix-derived?
>
> I would agree with this.  I think "Mach people" would bristle a little
> at that.  They tend to think of unix as a bag they are forced to carry
> around.
>
> after reading the paper I wish I had an 11/20 to try and run v1 :-)

Heh, yeah, certainly it wouldn't be very easy to get it up on something 
more familiar to *me*, like...an x86 :/

-uso.

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Warren Toomey]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 04:38:51PM -0400, lyricalnanoha wrote:
> > after reading the paper I wish I had an 11/20 to try and run v1 :-)
> 
> Heh, yeah, certainly it wouldn't be very easy to get it up on something 
> more familiar to *me*, like...an x86 :/

It should be relatively easy, as the Ersatz-11 emulator runs in DOS mode,
so you could boot up MS-DOS or OpenDOS, run Ersatz-11 and then V1 on top!

Or do you mean a native port :-)
	Warren

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[lyricalnanoha]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009, Warren Toomey wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 04:38:51PM -0400, lyricalnanoha wrote:
>>> after reading the paper I wish I had an 11/20 to try and run v1 :-)
>>
>> Heh, yeah, certainly it wouldn't be very easy to get it up on something
>> more familiar to *me*, like...an x86 :/
>
> It should be relatively easy, as the Ersatz-11 emulator runs in DOS mode,
> so you could boot up MS-DOS or OpenDOS, run Ersatz-11 and then V1 on top!
>
> Or do you mean a native port :-)

Naturally, I mean native.  Though perhaps, still on top of PC DOS.

-uso.

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Warren Toomey]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:23:19PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Do the Net-2-derived BSDs (including Darwin) really count as Unix-derived?
> I thought they were fairly free of AT&T code now, other than headers and
> the like.  Conceptually, of course, they are Unix-derived, but then so
> is Linux.

I count "derived" as meaning that I can trace a continuous code lineage from one
to the other. So V7 -> 32V -> 3BSD -> 4.xBSD -> 4.4BSD-Lite -> Open Src BSDs.

But Linux isn't derived, in this sense.
 
> It would be snazzy to restore the classical typography of Unix as
> U<small>NIX</small> in your paper.

I'm following the official trademark. I must admit that I dithered in each
direction, but then decided to stick to the official, blessed version of
the typography.

Glad you guys liked the paper.
	Warren

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[John Cowan]

Warren Toomey scripsit:

[Sorry for the double reply; I zapped this part and sent.]

> Please don't distribute this. Read, and eat the bits afterwards. I will
> remove the document in a day or so.

You do realize, I suppose, that due to the "packrat nature of computer
enthusiasts", there will be plenty of copies of this early explication
of the Classical School of Unix reclamation for software archaeologists
to find ca. 2050?

-- 
He played King Lear as though           John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
someone had played the ace.             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Eugene Field

[Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix

[Doug Merritt]

>	I've had two papers about early UNIX accepted. One is a paper about our
>1st Edition UNIX restoration for the IEEE Journal of the History of Computing,
>and the second is a paper about several early UNIX restorations including 1st
>Ed for the Usenix 2009 technical conference.

Excellent, congrats! I've been meaning to ask you what was up
with your papers.

>This means that I'll be attending the Usenix conference in San Diego in
>June, so if anybody else is attending I'd love to catch up with you guys.

I haven't done Usenix in perhaps 20 years, but maybe I should
just for this.

>Cheers all and again thanks for all the hard work and the fantastic results!

Indeed, thanks to one and all!
	Doug
--
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary        Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow