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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 52b2c68b for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8EA6294BF9; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:42:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6548B94BEA; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:42:21 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="mQdQM31n"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9621894BEA; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:42:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DDCD94BE9 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:42:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id t6so2091wrw.7 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:42:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6c5sKCB0j+tJ/v61Q592Lre+XSQF8uTzRts9w9vUUjQ=; b=mQdQM31nIA7NWB7ZDDuwQ5Et5sf7yqW+sw59EKYuOyTqb6E9AEtFzNYH6aP/HzKtmD mBIcbjiOQkKSTH0xan9jKQEoGZFOJYMUFetkfpH0o0ttSK1g2rq9iae2tb4KCuGBfvfd l5kdVPqLFE3HCtcetrZqmrzRbUtdP1sHIMsNA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6c5sKCB0j+tJ/v61Q592Lre+XSQF8uTzRts9w9vUUjQ=; b=CPdqv2Rq0u25kClI5sedRtsI8z7snqj2+F3JvFnnRgDyJ0LIqT2A7qXGFnMSbK7RAs CU2vo4RvnH2NEYf62qc8bE83WHXh6kM6jflxJ322/cA1LzJaqKgze7L4R3wiH4pfqcXm v4V/Y31u6/OiME24uv2ZcT97looP2v2gCl6/MN42IC9Xbg/1Abz9Afq+CYA9uZuNobE8 cR1PK/Zw5Y0cXW4QNruDZkmIhG9Ggv7qxauyvB2xrBmKBrxQmPjZFPNHuLA39R/1yVg7 xxUTPR/NKIbPm91sgKlvA/PqmZwI7FHBIzxvwtacm8xxxMJgO9WfFMalhWGtc6yi4y9K a8Vg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUDDpISzB6W/gscliF4iYDShpTLzbvzfzsvTQV8mRRqckUr7iYO yccabUw95vHeKhHjZ2mqqhiCnHetnN7Agb4vV1mZ7kkiwdhi0Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx0Tl/I/+HXfhztw6QbNwgAdM9fQ9OzJW/UlWms+refoYJzYgBiL959ehzcIhAE1zDtjTmsuWhps+Z1KcSSPCo= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e552:: with SMTP id z18mr7707141wrm.198.1552329737878; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:42:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <201903100731.x2A7VZJF033832@ducky.net> <7wpnqzj7tr.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <201903102253.x2AMrks8039290@ducky.net> <201903111728.x2BHSNqG045196@ducky.net> <20190311173845.GU31834@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20190311173845.GU31834@mcvoy.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:41:50 -0400 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099d2930583d5eef8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] a possible source for 4.1BSD tapes 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: The Unix Heritage Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000099d2930583d5eef8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think I have a true 4.1 tape in my archives but ... I'm not sure it's on 3M (Scotch media). Those are in sealed 3M tape boxes in the basement 10 tapes to a box, and difficult to get too. They have been kept reasonable dry and mostly stable climate, which is why I keep them there not the attic. So far every tape, I have pulled from there we have succeeded in reading .. but I have not tried in a while because my triple density drive has load issues which I have not had the time to chase. I also do not have a tape oven [@Alan K . - I assume you made one. I'd love to hear your experiences with it]. As for BSD 4.1 kernel really was 4.0 plus a ton of small changes #ifdef FASTVAX [4.5 stuff is a little different than was reported the other day -- close but not quite]. This was the work wnj did to demonstrate that UNIX was within epsilon of VMS from a performance standpoint (i.e. the beginning of the UCB/Stanford war of what was going to be the supported system for Arpa). I'm 99.999% sure that the user level APIs are the same, the difference is he dropped into assembler in places, rewrote a number of internal routines etc. Basically, it tuned the c**p out of the 4.0 release to prove to DARPA that UNIX was just as fast or faster than VMS. Note that the userspace code between the two released were different because time had marched on and more and more stuff was available and had been placed in /usr/ucb; plus more and more of the original v7 commands had been hacked/expanded. There really was not a lot of control of the userspace at this point and CSRG did not yet exist. As a for instance, the compilers and libraries had been hacked a great deal by a lot different people so even if the foo.c was the same chances are the /bin/foo was different binaries between the two systems [hey I wasn't a compiler person and I had hacked on libc to fix a stdio bug was causing my thesis to go in the toilet]. That said, 4.1BSD was the first really stable Vax code base and what a lot of people ran. It was formal release a lot of people outside of BSD had it both universities and commercial. There were copies at MIT, CMU, Standford, Harvard, much less some of the big public school likes Michigan, Wisconson, and Purdue. For instance, this is the kernel George Goble hacked on to create the Purdue Dual processor Vax. We had it a Tektronix, I know HP and IBM had it, and the original Marx brothers machines at AT&T Whippany ran it. Dale's folks in Columbus had and I think ihnp4 [Indian Hill New Products group] was a BSD 4.1 system. Plus, of course by the time I was at Masscomp, that was what they had had. [Sun did too, but I don't think they ever shipped anything with 4.1 BSD base. The original Sun OS was done for them by Asa Romberger's folks and was based on V7/System III. Joy had not come there yet]. As was reported the follow on to 4.1 BSD was to be supposed to 5.0 etc.... the naming stuff was described correctly in earlier email here. But all of that was >>post<< 4.1BSD. Post 4.1BSD shipping, CSRG had been formalized and now a project from the DARPA to support UNIX on new Vax hardware and to add extensions. As was described they ended up using a different naming scheme. Remember until that time, there was no formal CSRG project. It was like ever other University, a group of people hacking and swapping code changes with the reset of the Unix community. So when the became a project and started to release things for DARPA is when formal tracking started. CSRG's Alpha's [or release candidates in today's terms] for these were called 4.1A, 4.1B, and 4.1C. 4.1A was pretty stable, but IIRC was not quite as radical is 4.1B (their's were signals got hacked and a number of new system calls added). 4.1B was not particularly stable and as Larry suggested 4.1C actually was usable and did not crash every day. IIRC The actual 4.2 BSD release took about a 9-12 months after 4.1C before Sam finally pushed it out the door [and I think wnj had left for Sun by then]. As Larry's comments about Masscomp, the original RTU 1.0 used a 4.1BSD kernel with a bunch of System III as the base (which really was an Alpha release for MSCP). It shipped to a handful of customers, but it was easy to crash (But we got it out the door and people loved it actually). The first version that actually was fairly stable was RTU 1.0A which was a mash-up of the earlier work using 4.1 plus tjt and I applying a lot of 4.1C to it (as I had brought 4.1C with me from UCB). RTU 1.1 or maybe 1.2 was when 4.2BSD was finally added. I created conditional symbolic links before that because we used them to create the Universe stuff and I've forgotten when that shipped. Clem =E1=90=A7 On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:39 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > Other than for history's sake, I don't see the value of 4.1, it wasn't > a great release (even though Masscomp did their changes to 4.1c if I > remember correctly. Clem?). 4.2 was the first release that I remember > being pretty solid and 4.3 improved on that. > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:28:23AM -0700, Mike Haertel wrote: > > I contacted Kirk. He was surprised to learn that the copy of 4.1 in > > his CSRG archive is not, in fact, 4.1. > > > > Also he says that the contents of the existing CSRG archive disks > > are all he has; apparently the dumps of old distribution tapes to > > disk were hastily done on the way out the door as CSRG was being > > shut down. > > > > He suggested I inquire with TUHS for a copy, so evidently he does not > > read this list. His other suggestion was to reconstruct from SCCS file= s. > > > > I think at this point the preservation community has essentially all > > the bits from tape 1 of the 7/10/81 release (in somewhat scattered > > form needing to be reassembled into a usable distribution tape image). > > > > The contents of tape 2 seem to be altogether lost (unless someone is > > able to recover it from surviving media). > > -- > --- > Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com > http://www.mcvoy.com/lm > --00000000000099d2930583d5eef8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think I have a true 4.1 tape in my archives but ... I= 'm not sure it's on 3M (Scotch media).=C2=A0 =C2=A0Those are in sea= led 3M tape boxes in the basement 10 tapes to a box, and difficult to get t= oo.=C2=A0 =C2=A0They have been kept reasonable dry and mostly stable climat= e, which is why I keep them there not the attic.=C2=A0 =C2=A0So far every t= ape, I have pulled from there we have succeeded in reading .. but I have no= t tried in a while because my triple density=C2=A0drive has load issues whi= ch I have not had the time to chase.=C2=A0 I also do not have a tape oven [= @Alan K . - I assume you made one.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I'd love to hear your ex= periences with it].

As for BSD 4.1 kernel really was 4= .0 plus a ton of small changes #ifdef FASTVAX=C2=A0 =C2=A0[4.5 stuff is a l= ittle different than was reported the other day -- close but not quite].=C2= =A0 =C2=A0This was the work wnj did to demonstrate that UNIX was within eps= ilon of VMS from a performance standpoint (i.e. the beginning of the UCB/St= anford war of what was going to be the supported system for Arpa).=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 I'm 99.999% sure that the user level APIs are the same, the diff= erence is he dropped into assembler in places, rewrote a number of internal= routines etc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Basically, it tuned the c**p out of the 4.0 rel= ease to prove to DARPA that UNIX was just as fast or faster than VMS.=C2=A0=

Note that the userspace code between the two released= were different because time had marched on and more and more stuff was ava= ilable and had been placed in /usr/ucb; plus more and more of the original = v7 commands had been hacked/expanded.=C2=A0 There really was not a lot of c= ontrol of the userspace at this point and CSRG did not yet exist.=C2=A0 As = a for instance, the compilers and libraries had been hacked a great deal by= a lot different people so even if the foo.c was the same chances are the /= bin/foo was different binaries between the two systems [hey I wasn't a = compiler person and I had hacked on libc to fix a stdio bug was causing my = thesis to go in the toilet].

That said, 4.1BSD was the= first really stable Vax code base and what a lot of people ran.=C2=A0 It w= as formal release a lot of people outside of BSD had it both universities a= nd commercial. There were copies at MIT, CMU, Standford, Harvard, much less= some of the big public school likes Michigan, Wisconson, and Purdue.=C2=A0= For instance, this is the kernel George Goble hacked on to create the Purd= ue Dual processor Vax.=C2=A0 =C2=A0We had it a Tektronix, I know HP and IBM= had it, and the original Marx brothers machines at AT&T Whippany ran i= t.=C2=A0 Dale's folks in Columbus had and I think ihnp4 [Indian Hill Ne= w Products group] was a BSD 4.1 system.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Plus, of course = by the time I was at Masscomp, that was what they had had.=C2=A0 [Sun did t= oo, but I don't think they ever shipped anything with 4.1 BSD=C2=A0base= .=C2=A0 The original Sun OS was done for them by Asa Romberger's folks = and was based on V7/System III.=C2=A0 Joy had not come there yet].=C2=A0

As was reported the follow on to 4.1 BSD was to be suppo= sed to 5.0 etc....=C2=A0 =C2=A0the naming stuff was described correctly in = earlier email here.=C2=A0 But all of that was >>post<< 4.1BSD.= =C2=A0 Post 4.1BSD shipping, CSRG had been formalized and now a project fro= m the DARPA to support UNIX on new Vax hardware and to add extensions.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 As was described they ended up using a different naming scheme.= =C2=A0 Remember until that time, there was no formal CSRG project.=C2=A0 It= was like ever other University, a group of people hacking and swapping cod= e changes with the reset of the Unix community.

So whe= n the became a project and started to release things for DARPA is when form= al tracking started.=C2=A0 =C2=A0CSRG's Alpha's [or release candida= tes in today's terms] for these were called 4.1A, 4.1B,=C2=A0and 4.1C.= =C2=A0 =C2=A04.1A was pretty stable, but IIRC was not quite as radical is 4= .1B (their's were signals got hacked and a number of new system calls a= dded).=C2=A0 4.1B was not particularly stable and as Larry suggested 4.1C a= ctually was usable and did not crash every day.=C2=A0 IIRC The actual 4.2 B= SD release took about a 9-12 months after 4.1C before Sam finally pushed it= out the door [and I think wnj had left for Sun by then].=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0=C2=A0

As Larry's comments about=C2=A0 Mass= comp, the original RTU 1.0 used a 4.1BSD kernel with a bunch of System III = as the base (which really was an Alpha release for MSCP).=C2=A0 It shipped = to a handful of customers, but it was easy to crash (But we got it out the = door and people loved it actually).=C2=A0 The first version that actually w= as fairly stable was RTU 1.0A which was a mash-up of the earlier work using= 4.1 plus=C2=A0tjt=C2=A0and I applying a lot of 4.1C to it (as I had brough= t 4.1C with me from UCB).=C2=A0 =C2=A0RTU 1.1 or maybe 1.2 was when 4.2BSD = was finally added.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I created conditional symbolic links before = that because we used them to create the Universe stuff and I've forgott= en when that shipped.

Clem


<= /div>
=3D""=E1=90=A7

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:39 PM Larry McVoy &= lt;lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
Other than for history's= sake, I don't see the value of 4.1, it wasn't
a great release (even though Masscomp did their changes to 4.1c if I
remember correctly.=C2=A0 Clem?).=C2=A0 4.2 was the first release that I re= member
being pretty solid and 4.3 improved on that.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:28:23AM -0700, Mike Haertel wrote:
> I contacted Kirk.=C2=A0 He was surprised to learn that the copy of 4.1= in
> his CSRG archive is not, in fact, 4.1.
>
> Also he says that the contents of the existing CSRG archive disks
> are all he has; apparently the dumps of old distribution tapes to
> disk were hastily done on the way out the door as CSRG was being
> shut down.
>
> He suggested I inquire with TUHS for a copy, so evidently he does not<= br> > read this list.=C2=A0 His other suggestion was to reconstruct from SCC= S files.
>
> I think at this point the preservation community has essentially all > the bits from tape 1 of the 7/10/81 release (in somewhat scattered
> form needing to be reassembled into a usable distribution tape image).=
>
> The contents of tape 2 seem to be altogether lost (unless someone is > able to recover it from surviving media).

--
---
Larry McVoy=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 l= m at mcvo= y.com=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://www.mcvoy.com= /lm
--00000000000099d2930583d5eef8--