From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 2f05c69a for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3D30C9C150; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:11:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98569C10B; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:11:18 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=planet.nl header.i=@planet.nl header.b="0m+2AsKw"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B5BC39C10B; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:11:15 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com [213.75.39.13]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB9F9C0FD for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:11:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cpsps-ews24.kpnxchange.com ([10.94.84.190]) by cpsmtpb-ews08.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:11:11 +0100 X-Brand: 7abm2Q== X-KPN-SpamVerdict: e1=0;e2=0;e3=0;e4=(e1=10;e3=10;e2=11;e4=10);EVW:Whi te;BM:NotScanned;FinalVerdict:Clean X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=YbfDGDZf c=1 sm=1 tr=0 cx=a_idp_e a=WB5lYbMG1jvHJ1f8o08CVQ==:117 a=soxbC+bCkqwFbqeW/W/r+Q==:17 a=x1i13A_MHe4A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Jdjhy38mL1oA:10 a=kc8w0O8MTaXLHQA4HRsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-CM-AcctID: kpn@feedback.cloudmark.com Received: from smtp.kpnmail.nl ([195.121.84.14]) by cpsps-ews24.kpnxchange.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:11:11 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=planet.nl; s=planet01; h=to:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type:from; bh=wueeY03L3Yy5+J499GKKxvUsO07RMqlLG824ly5LeU4=; b=0m+2AsKwi8WuRuLC9o074AL37WIKsgnu7JLf+B9IrcHQ24fU80Kw6LEZAA5Vvx77IsiBPFajlSR4S vOcAMIRX5jDQq4mqe6UOjuQV5pVFWfAAP63amepHwXsAyqsOm9tkTkZr19det253iU3f5l8SaIlrIS BgAf1k01KWVo6aek= X-KPN-VerifiedSender: Yes X-CMASSUN: 33|rIKGtM1qP+Xpq34UAIs3hoB14qCXl2zlkrBG3B3oDOY9RXswQRL1hHkthdAe++g u9az6kWijRsfcJvVAd9Go2Q== X-Originating-IP: 80.101.112.122 Received: from mba1.fritz.box (unknown [80.101.112.122]) by smtp.kpnmail.nl (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 9982b56e-3b08-11ea-876f-00505699d6e5; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:11:11 +0100 (CET) From: Paul Ruizendaal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Message-Id: <8573E48C-FC18-49D8-BA1A-75266EBF26CA@planet.nl> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:11:10 +0100 To: TUHS main list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2020 22:11:11.0255 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B6ED270:01D5CF15] X-RcptDomain: minnie.tuhs.org Subject: [TUHS] "What Unix cost us" and Unix in 1981 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: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" I thought Benno Rice=E2=80=99s argument a bit unorganized and ultimately = unconvincing, but I think the underlying point that we should from time = to time step back a bit and review fundamentals has some merit. = Unfortunately he does not distinguish much between a poor concept and a = poor implementation. For example, what does =E2=80=9Ceverything is a file=E2=80=9D mean in = Unix? - Devices and files are accessed through the same small API? - All I/O is through unstructured byte streams? - I/O is accessed via a single unified name space? etc. Once that is clear, how can the concept then best be applied to USB = devices? Or: is there a fundamental difference between windows-style completion = ports and completion signals? Many of the underlying questions have been considered in the past, with = carefully laid out arguments in various papers. In my view it is = worthwhile to go back to these papers and see how the arguments pro and = contra various approaches were weighed then and considering if the same = still holds true today. Interestingly, several points that Benno touches upon in his talk were = also the topic of debate when Unix was transitioning to a 32 bits = address space and incorporating networking in the early 80=E2=80=99s, as = the TR/4 and TR/3 papers show. Of course, the system that CSRG delivered = is different from the ambitions expressed in these papers and for sure = opinions on the best choices differed as much back then as they will now = - and that makes for an interesting discussion.