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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 10947 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2022 18:46:03 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Dec 2022 18:46:03 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26385423D0; Sun, 18 Dec 2022 04:45:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f171.google.com (mail-vk1-f171.google.com [209.85.221.171]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072654238B for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2022 04:45:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id o136so2617736vka.2 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:45:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QwsaoeUR+xapKQoTfvzXQmtiWXXfpxeM8lHqzIA5yOM=; b=Z7DJlv6mzc25IVlpPQpPyDb1U9/9i5GJ2GjJNGeB6CV+h29kiVCStnQbyNLVv2N1Om Kd5wwrJhzcAmBpeXn2zkEgy+mOGBoY9kdBO3wM+AvfuSBnHWZfYIIi1HNmkqBcDwAIdJ pDTAQ8JV6AYpJJOsnHJs0KsM3l0/jVxHYcW9w= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=QwsaoeUR+xapKQoTfvzXQmtiWXXfpxeM8lHqzIA5yOM=; b=NjSPdJTEDrFVSbz2bRkPY/+fEl18KOdVjyJX1eiNlKDrV8+rP7FdAQyiq6aEJj1eE1 vSBpzOyjDgDnjnJua1zhVJN0Ba8mVEiXsStAgs24fkpaYmwnlJGPv5xPcIdtzGlPdgnV qTBh1133S9IsAf6HOpC2o43WatM2gE/KVZJwambmhStL2bTNC1AzgV/A/rdcnjhKf31T KW4swnSZ5iWZ32Mdd0DpORrS4WYvsXDu8MK+4lNezg+yo4P6XQYujNGca63CqrXJA0Ab 7I8OmACXZ0ndoHbPIaM6616W5LHUcDqipVqSR1bNhVLM4yqZy22iGMyUBM0B59jRTduX 35XQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kp2gK0PHtijrtXFqVg5CBiD4BeDj5Too0G8Rtc4o2BCcEMFkObt JAYbUhWhkKAxyBj6Y3B1Tgdv8uGP1Z+O9OCjIpd4kYVfCO0b35nkvIU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXsnZPVG9+OK/x19yn3RxrGuD538M+GKcJY3rEQ/yg4gwUl3YHZT+H0WLztkCG6eH+DF35IF5NDaqvCmFZVPxEw= X-Received: by 2002:ac5:c65d:0:b0:39f:c1eb:85fe with SMTP id j29-20020ac5c65d000000b0039fc1eb85femr1226340vkl.32.1671302659744; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:44:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:43:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: Tom Lyon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058b91705f00a79b6" Message-ID-Hash: 2H5VZ643EPWZ3SFY32WSAVZZ7ERD2OKC X-Message-ID-Hash: 2H5VZ643EPWZ3SFY32WSAVZZ7ERD2OKC X-MailFrom: clemc@ccc.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Douglas McIlroy , TUHS main list X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: origin of null-terminated strings List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --00000000000058b91705f00a79b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom Lyon -- TSS was around and supported into the 80's. That said, I've seen that May '71, but it might be a typo -- '81 sounds much more plausible as it real death. IIRC Tom Haight has better dates in his book. FWIW: I was at CMU in the mid 70s [programming TSS including installing fixes from the IBM support team]. Plus, my old boss, Dean Hiller, left CMU in the late 70s to work for IBM as a TSS system person [he retired from IBM years later and had moved to the AIX team at one point]. And I also have a copy of one of the TSS documents that has a printing date of 1980. It's also possible IBM stopped *selling new sites* in the early 70s, but TSS was definitely a supported product throughout the 1980s. IBM had some large and important customers running TSS, in particular, NASA and I believe a couple of automotive ones -- maybe GM and Rolls Royce but I don't know. IIRC: One of the original mechanical CAD programs had been developed on it and users needed either MTS or TSS to run it properly. I also remember that in 77-78, when CMU started to move off the /67 to the DEC-20s, IBM had counter-proposed an S370/168 with VM on it - which CMU had rejected. But Amdahl had proposed CMU could keep running TSS on their then-newest system which was at least the V7 (maybe the V8 as I have forgotten when the latter was released). Around that same time, Michigan had stayed with MTS but had switched to Amdhal as the vendor. =E1=90=A7 On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 1:15 PM Tom Lyon wrote: > Clem doesn't mention CP-67/CMS, which IBM kept trying to kill in favor of > CMS. > From Melinda Varian's amazing history of VM, I gleaned these factoids: > CP-67 - 8 sites by May '68 > Feb of 68 - IBM decommits from TSS > Apr 69 - IBM rescinds decommit of TSS > CP-67 - 44 sites by 1970, ~10 internal to IBM > May 71 - TSS finally decommitted > > So TSS was a rocky road, while CP&VM were simple and just worked. > > > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 9:13 AM Clem Cole wrote: > >> Given the number of ex-MTS (Bill Joy and Ted Kowalski, to name two) and >> TSS hackers that were also later to be UNIX hackers after their original >> introduction to system programming as undergrads. I will keep this repl= y >> in TUHS, although it could be argued that it belongs in COFF. >> >> Note good sources for even more of the background of the history politic= s >> at both IBM & GE can be found in Haigh and Ceruzzi's book: "A New >> History of Modern Computing >> " - >> which I have previously mentioned as it is a beautiful read. >> >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 5:27 PM Douglas McIlroy < >> douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote: >> >>> IBM revealed Gerrit Blaauw's skunk-works project, the 360/67, >>> but by then the die had been cast. Michigan bought one and built a >>> nice time-sharing system that was running well before Multics. >>> >> All true, but a few details are glossed over, and thus, this could be >> misinterpreted - so I'm going to add those as one of the people. >> >> TSS and the /67 was IBM's answer to Multics, as Doug mentions. Note tha= t >> the /67 could run as a model /65, which as I understand it, most of the >> ones IBM sold did. >> >> At the time, IBM offered the /67 to Universities at a >> substantial discount (I believe even less than the /65). Thus, several >> schools bought them with Michigan, CMU, Cornell, and Princeton that I am >> aware of; but I suspect there were others. >> >> TSS was late, and the first releases could have been more stable. >> Cornell and Princeton chose to run their systems as /65 using the origi= nal >> IBM OS. CMU and Michigan both received copies of TSS with their systems= . >> Michigan would do a substantial rewrite, which was different enough tha= t >> became the new system MTS. CMU did a great deal of bug fixing, which w= ent >> back to IBM, and they chose to run TSS. [I believe that CMU runs OS/360= by >> data and TSS at night until they felt they could trust it to not crash]. >> Nominally, TSS and MTS should share programs, and with some work, both >> could import source programs from OS/360 [My first paid programming job = was >> helping to rewrite York/APL from OS/360 to run on TSS]. So the compiler= s >> and many tools for all three were common. >> >> MTS and TSS used the same file system structure, or it was close enough >> that tools were shared. I don't know if OS/360 could read TSS disk pack= s - >> I would have suspected, although the common media of the day was 1/2" ma= g >> tape. >> >> This leads to a UNIX legacy that ... Ted's fsck(8) - which purists know >> as a different name in the first version - was modeled after the disk >> scavenger program from TSS and MTS. icheck/ncheck et al. seem pretty >> primitive if you had used to see the other as a system programmer first. >> Also, a big reason why all the errors were originally in uppercase was = the >> IBM program had done it. In many ways, neither Ted nor I knew any bette= r >> at the time. >> >> Clem >> >> >> >> --00000000000058b91705f00a79b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom Lyon -- TSS was around and supported into the 80= 9;s.=C2=A0 That said, I've seen that May '71, but it might be a typ= o -- '81 sounds much more plausible as it real death.=C2=A0 =C2=A0IIRC = Tom Haight has better=C2=A0dates in his book.

FWIW: I= was at CMU in the mid 70s [programming TSS including installing fixes from= the IBM=C2=A0support team].=C2=A0 Plus, my old boss, Dean Hiller, left CMU= in the late 70s to work for IBM as a TSS system person [he retired from IB= M years=C2=A0later and had moved to the AIX=C2=A0team at one point].=C2=A0 = =C2=A0And I also have a=C2=A0copy of one of the TSS documents that has a pr= inting date of 1980.

It's also possible IBM stop= ped selling new sites in the early 70s,=C2=A0 but TSS was def= initely a supported product=C2=A0throughout=C2=A0the 1980s.=C2=A0 IBM had s= ome large and important customers running TSS, in particular, NASA and I be= lieve a couple of automotive ones -- maybe GM and Rolls Royce but I don'= ;t know.=C2=A0 =C2=A0IIRC: One of the original mechanical=C2=A0CAD programs= had been developed on it and users needed either MTS or TSS to run it prop= erly.

I also remember that in 77-78, when CMU started = to move off the /67 to the DEC-20s, IBM had counter-proposed an S370/168 wi= th VM on it - which CMU had rejected.=C2=A0 But Amdahl had proposed CMU cou= ld keep running TSS on their then-newest system which was at least the V7 (= maybe the V8 as I have forgotten when the latter was released).=C2=A0 =C2= =A0

Around that same time, Michigan had stayed with MT= S but had switched to Amdhal as the vendor.
3D""=E1=90=A7<= /div>
O= n Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 1:15 PM Tom Lyon <pugs78@gmail.com> wrote:
Clem doesn't mention CP-67/CMS, w= hich IBM kept trying to kill in favor of CMS.
From Melinda Varian's= amazing history of VM, I gleaned these factoids:
CP-67 - 8 sites= by May '68
Feb of 68 - IBM decommits from TSS
Apr = 69 - IBM rescinds decommit of TSS
CP-67 - 44 sites by 1970, ~10 i= nternal to IBM
May 71 - TSS finally decommitted

So TSS was a rocky road, while CP&VM=C2=A0were simple and just = worked.



On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 9:13 AM = Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.= com> wrote:
Given the number of ex-MTS (Bill Jo= y and Ted Kowalski, to name two) and TSS hackers that were also later to be= UNIX hackers after their original introduction to system programming as un= dergrads.=C2=A0 I will keep this reply in TUHS, although it could be argued= that it belongs in COFF.

Note good sources for even m= ore of the background of the history politics at both IBM & GE can be f= ound in Haigh and Ceruzzi's book: "A New History of Modern Computing" - which I have pr= eviously mentioned as it is a beautiful read.

= On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 5:27 PM Douglas McIlroy <douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
IBM revealed Gerrit Blaauw's skunk-works p= roject, the 360/67,
but by then the die had been cast. Michigan bought one and built a
nice time-sharing system that was running well before Multics.
All true, but a few details are glossed=C2=A0over, and = thus, this could be misinterpreted - so I'm going to add those as one o= f the people.

TSS and the /6= 7 was IBM's answer to Multics, as Doug mentions.=C2=A0 Note that the /67 could run a= s a model /65, which as I understand it, most of the ones IB= M sold did.=C2=A0

At the time, IBM = offered the /67 to Universities at a substantial=C2=A0discount (I believe e= ven less than the /65).=C2=A0 Thus, several schools bought them with Michig= an, CMU, Cornell, and Princeton that I am aware of; but I suspect there wer= e others.

TSS was late, and the first releases could h= ave been more stable.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Cornell and Princeton chose to run their= =C2=A0systems as /65 using the original IBM OS.=C2=A0 CMU and Michigan both= received copies of TSS with their systems.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Michigan would do a= substantial rewrite, which was different enough that became=C2=A0the new s= ystem MTS.=C2=A0 =C2=A0CMU did a great deal of bug fixing, which went back = to IBM, and they chose to run TSS.=C2=A0 [I believe that CMU runs=C2=A0OS/3= 60 by data and TSS at night until they felt they=C2=A0could trust it to not= crash].=C2=A0 Nominally, TSS and MTS should share programs, and with some = work, both could import source programs from OS/360 [My first paid programm= ing job was helping to rewrite York/APL from OS/360 to run on TSS].=C2=A0 S= o the compilers and many tools for all three were common.

MTS and TSS used the same file system structure, or it was close enou= gh that tools were shared.=C2=A0 I don't know if OS/360 could read TSS = disk packs - I would have suspected, although the common media of the day w= as 1/2" mag tape.

This leads to a UNIX legacy tha= t ...=C2=A0 Ted's fsck(8) - which purists know as a different name in t= he first version -=C2=A0 was modeled after the disk scavenger=C2=A0program = from TSS and MTS.=C2=A0 =C2=A0icheck/ncheck et al. seem pretty primitive if= you had used to see=C2=A0the other as a system programmer first.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0Also, a big reason why all the errors were originally in uppercase was t= he IBM program had done it.=C2=A0 In many ways, neither Ted nor I knew any = better at the time.

Clem


<= /span>

--00000000000058b91705f00a79b6--