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_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6686 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2022 00:23:00 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Feb 2022 00:23:00 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8E9439D6C3; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:22:59 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468ED9B9F3; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:22:38 +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="UaVgHbAz"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3C4249B9F3; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:22:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f173.google.com (mail-qk1-f173.google.com [209.85.222.173]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E93A9B95E for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:22:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f173.google.com with SMTP id j24so14449767qkk.10 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:22:34 -0800 (PST) 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=2l0LnH+KbDQGUcqUtqNy78P8QnMjy9HUeM5bnItTb3Y=; b=UaVgHbAzYok756nlAVdaiuArQoGhyqrzCZ0Jn1bzmo8ZvSh5ycJ0HJYXeUmk6wE+a2 E6WpihqYpZwFmeEijKE5bv93xXI0trsKvyNZCgauRNPut4g5r6NOc2qC3ZN9G0tO5weG d0d5REl9Vk860qltl8XhJbbDlukuNDXyM+2qY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2l0LnH+KbDQGUcqUtqNy78P8QnMjy9HUeM5bnItTb3Y=; b=D/pHctKbP4Pe8hTPUQ2tToDa2TO/wkOOWs7w6hcbGciw4tB0h2QpDjXop1KfKXE/lc njemf2BKiVFpsWYyX9zfd3Wy2WDILJBJxXNGea8yhp2K03xDnjF+HldlWHvEK70m9Tl/ c8t36Ee2TYHh1spJAO70c/cS+R9uRSff5keY2IjLyUX5E837bEbTlL1pB4EPmueedUfW DWNFMOjeetTrrVbYgVBxH8rKE6S1q5c9mJteWzw/e69M0gcreJkCvdOZjnC8nbnmhzeN z8Psr1TB6dHJ8PuUx1o67EaFPj2aK1XoVaBfZ/5EKGfgADzRrdMkPrW6WgPI6m3l5fi1 xTyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FQlyGklcfqu6FTz9mZT5M++ZpyARsyI/DOpfGJakP771bllNI Mh/RKcBSLz+k1TLI/RxU9JF0gjKlget2TiuDilHU0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwW2vCssorpldn9EB2lpVvKhhOGO7iAGRDF6aX0ExDrKO/kC4tN+Ik2psvDYYeR1o18QT0uEesfAF1W3aKIuck= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:10ac:: with SMTP id h12mr18500310qkk.502.1643761353225; Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:22:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:22:07 -0500 Message-ID: To: Dan Cross Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e8e3b05d6fe03bd" Subject: Re: [TUHS] BSD 4.1, 4.1x, Quasijarus, and 4.3x 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 main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000008e8e3b05d6fe03bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dan/Will - I think we need the political way back machine ... below... On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 5:19 PM Dan Cross wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:35 PM Will Senn wrote: > >> All, >> >> I did my research on this, but it's still a bit fuzzy (why is it that >> people's memories from 40 years ago are so malleable?). >> >> 1. What are y'all's recollections regarding BSD 4.1's releases, vis a vi= s >> the VAX. In McKusick's piece, Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix, I get one >> perspective, and from Sokolov's Quasijarus project, I get quite another.= In >> terms of popularity and in terms of stable performance, what say you? Wa= s >> 4.1 that much better than 4BSD? >> > Yes but you need to understand the politics. ARPA had been supplying 16/36 PDP-6/10s to the research community with BBN, MIT, Stanford and CMU sort of being the prime places. The compilers mostly were the same (close enough) although the OS's (user interfaces) were all different. Tenex vs. ITS vs. WAITS vs. TOPS (sort of). People forget that the real reason it happened was that UCB had a contract to get Maxima running on a Vax for DARPA [this work would begat 3BSD]. Only after that, did DARPA switch to the 32 bit vax as the system of choice. Stanford wanted VMS and mostly everyone else wanted UNIX. But DEC did not support UNIX. So ... ARPA funded CSRG to support UNIX for the ARPA contracts. But remember CSRG did not have everything - just a support contact [which raised a lot of hackels both inside and outside of UCB]. For instance networking for UNIX was at BBN not UCB. And all of CMU, Stanford and MIT had ARPA $s for basic OS research and other ideas. The Stanford crew tried to show that VMS was faster than 4BSD. Joy famously did the 'FASTVAX' work over a period oa 6-8 weeks and got UNIX within epsilon of VMS on almost everything and actually faster in a number of places. This would become 4.1 - add it was the version that most people that had vaxen started to use. > Was 4.1as obsolete immediately as McKusick says? >> > Well yes in that very few systems ran it. It was Joy's first attempt at creating sockets. I'm probably not being fair, but it was the BBN stack hacked to have a new interface. I ran it on UCBCAD and Sam probably had it running on 5-10 750s in Evans. I thought it got sent to a few sites outside of UCB, but 4.1B was pretty close behind. > 4.1b sounds good with FFS, was it? >> > Hmm, you'd have to check the sources. I thought Kirk had FFS running with 4.1a --- but maybe not. > 4.1c's the last pre 4.2 release, but it sounds like it was nearly a beta >> version of 4.2... >> > Hmm, not so much a release candidate as a test vehicle. Beta is probably a good term for it. 4.2 was not ready when I finished so I brought 4.1c with me to Masscomp - which is what we started with for the networking code. It was what we added MP support to and then added 4.2 fixes when it came out. But 4.1c was breaking a lot of user mode code and so 4.2 really did not go out until they had caught most of the issues. > >> >> 2. Sokolov implies that the CSRG mission started going off the rails wit= h >> the 4.3/4.3BSD-Tahoe >> > Not really. A few things happened. First manufacturers (including DEC) were now supporting UNIX so DARPA no longer felt they needed to fund support. You could buy a computer and system vendor made work. Second as I said, there were people inside of the EECS Dept at UCB that felt that CSRG was turning the department away from research and they needed to reclaim that. And third as others have suggested, Joy went to Sun, and a number of the others formed BSDi. Kirk was still there and there was still some work going on, but it was nothing like it was. The net result was the desire to keep going was lost, less than going off the rails. It just did not have the same people, the same money and as such, the same effort. > and it all went pear shaped with the 4.3-Reno release, and that Quasijaru= s >> puts the mission back on track, is that so? >> > > Bluntly, no. Sokolov fell deeply into the nostalgia trap, and combined it > with a revolutionary zeal that was off-putting at best. As far as I know, > it was never more than one individual's project, and boasts of reclaiming > the mantle of CSRG and BSD are grossly exaggerated. The world changed, an= d > Unix moved in a different direction to accommodate; there's really no goi= ng > back. > Amen -- I can add little to that. > > 3. I've gotten BSD 4.2 and BSD 4.3 releases built from tape and working >> very well. I just can't decide whether to go back to one of the 4.x >> releases (hence question 1), or go get Quasijarus0c - thoughts on why on= e >> might be more interesting than another? >> > > Quasijarus is like 4.3 with some bug fixes and enhancements. If you want > to run something like 4.3 in an emulator, it's not bad; I'm running it fo= r > a ham radio project (just for fun) and it's Y2K compliant and seems > reliable. > Then again, if the idea is running BSD on a Vax, Ultrix 4.5 is even better, and has all the DEC languages and layered products. > > 4. Is Quasijarus0c end of the line for VAX 4.xBSD? Why does tuhs only hav= e >> Quasijarus0 and 0a, was there something wrong with 0b and 0c? >> > > Well, no. Both OpenBSD and NetBSD ported back to the VAX, but the OpenBSD > effort has ended due to lack of hardware and interest. It appears that > NetBSD is still being actively developed on the VAX, however, so it's > possible to get a "modern" 4.4BSD derived system on that architecture. > Right - either current NetBSD or the Ultrix 4.5 is what I would do. If NetBSD will run the Ultrix layered products, that would be the system with the most; but I'm not sure if that will work. Ultrix for instance supports DEC (VMS) FTN - which I know you (Will) have been messing with. That is the best (most complete) FTN for Vaxen. I believe there is Ada, PL/1 and maybe even Basic2 and Cobol/RPG [I think most of not all of the VMS languages for the VAX were released on Ultrix but frankly, I don't remember]. > 5. Has anyone unearthed an original 4.1 tape, or is Haertel's >> reconstruction of the 1981 tape 1 release as close as it gets? >> > > For the fifth time today this reminded me that I wanted to find my images > from Kirk's CD collection and move them over to another machine. Sigh.' > =F0=9F=98=8E --0000000000008e8e3b05d6fe03bd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dan/Will - I t= hink we need the political=C2=A0way back machine ... =C2=A0below...<= /div>

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 5:19 PM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tu= e, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:35 PM Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
All,

I did my research on this, but it's still a bit fuzzy (why is it that people's memories from 40 years ago are so malleable?).

1. What are y'all's recollections regarding BSD 4.1's rel= eases, vis a vis the VAX. In McKusick's piece, Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix, I get one perspective, and from Sokolov's Quasijarus project, I get quite another. In terms of popularity and in terms of stable performance, what say you? Was 4.1 that much better than 4BSD?
Yes but you need to understand the politics.=C2=A0 ARPA = had been supplying 16/36 PDP-6/10s to the research community with BBN, MIT,= Stanford and CMU sort of being the prime places. =C2=A0 The compilers most= ly=C2=A0were the same (close enough) although the OS's (user interfaces= ) were all different.=C2=A0 Tenex vs. ITS vs. WAITS vs. TOPS (sort of).

People forget that the=C2=A0real reason it happened was that UCB had a= contract to get Maxima running on a Vax for DARPA [this work would begat 3= BSD]. =C2=A0 Only after that, did=C2=A0DARPA switch to the 32 bit vax as the system of choice. =C2=A0 Stanfo= rd wanted VMS and mostly everyone else wanted UNIX. =C2=A0 But DEC did not = support UNIX. =C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0So = ... ARPA funded CSRG to support UNIX for the ARPA contracts. =C2=A0<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,255)">=C2=A0 But remember CSRG did not have eve= rything - just a support contact [which raised a lot of hackels both inside= and outside of UCB].=C2=A0 For instance networking for UNIX was at BBN not= UCB.=C2=A0 And all of CMU, Stanford and MIT had ARPA $s for basic OS resea= rch and other ideas.

The Stanford crew tried to show that VMS was f= aster than 4BSD. =C2=A0 Joy famously did the 'FASTVAX' work over a = period oa 6-8 weeks and got UNIX within epsilon of VMS on almost everything= and actually faster in a number of places.=C2=A0 This would become 4.1 - a= dd it was the version that most people that had vaxen started to use.

=C2=A0
Was 4.1as obsolete immediately as McKusick = says?
Well yes in that very few systems ran it. It was Joy's fi= rst attempt at creating sockets.=C2=A0 I'm probably not being fair, but= it was the BBN stack hacked to have a new interface. =C2=A0 I ran it on UC= BCAD=C2=A0and Sam probably had it running on 5-10 750s in Evans.=C2=A0 I th= ought it got sent to a few sites outside of UCB, but 4.1B was pretty close = behind.

=C2=A0
4.1b sounds good with FFS, was it?
Hmm, you'd have to check the source= s. =C2=A0 I thought Kirk had FFS running with 4.1a --- but maybe not.


=C2=A0
4.1c's the last pre 4.2 r= elease, but it sounds like it was nearly a beta version of 4.2...
Hmm, not so much= a release candidate as a test vehicle.=C2=A0 Beta is probably a good term = for it. =C2=A0 4.2 was not ready when I finished so I brought 4.1c with me = to Masscomp - which is what we started with for the networking code.=C2=A0 = It was what we=C2=A0added MP support=C2=A0to and then added 4.2 fixes when = it came out. But 4.1c was breaking a lot of user mode code and so 4.2 reall= y did not go out until they had caught most of the issues.
=


2. Sokolov implies that the CSRG mission started going off the rails with the 4.3/4.3BSD-Tahoe
=
Not really.=C2=A0 A few things= happened.=C2=A0 First manufacturers (including DEC) were now supporting UN= IX so DARPA no longer felt they needed to fund support.=C2=A0 You could buy= a computer and system vendor made=C2=A0work. =C2=A0 Second as I said, ther= e were people inside of the EECS Dept at UCB that felt that CSRG was turnin= g the department away from research and they needed to reclaim that.=C2=A0 = And third as others have suggested, Joy went to Sun, and a number of the ot= hers formed BSDi. Kirk was still there and there was still some work going = on, but it was nothing like it was. =C2=A0 =C2=A0The net result was the des= ire to keep going was lost, less than going off the rails.=C2=A0 It just di= d not have the same people, the same money and=C2=A0as such, the same effor= t.

=C2=A0
and it all went pear shaped with the 4.3-Reno release, and that Quasijarus puts the mission back on track, is that so?

Blunt= ly, no. Sokolov fell deeply into the nostalgia trap, and combined it with a= revolutionary zeal that was off-putting at best. As far as I know, it was = never more than one individual's project, and boasts of reclaiming the = mantle of CSRG and BSD=C2=A0are grossly exaggerated. The world changed, and= Unix moved in a different direction to accommodate; there's really no = going back.
Amen -= - I can add little to that.
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">

3. I've gotten BSD 4.2 and BSD 4.3 releases built from tape and working very well. I just can't decide whether to go back to one of the 4.x releases (hence question 1), or go get Quasijarus0c - thoughts on why one might be more interesting than another?
<= /div>

Quasijarus is like 4.3 with some bug = fixes and enhancements. If you want to run something like 4.3 in an emulato= r, it's not bad; I'm running it for a ham radio project (just for f= un) and it's Y2K compliant and seems reliable.
Then again, if the idea is running BSD= on a Vax, Ultrix 4.5 is even better, and has all the DEC languages and lay= ered products.

4. Is Quasijarus0c end of the line for VAX 4.xBSD? Why does tuhs only have Quasijarus0 and 0a, was there something wrong with 0b and 0c?

Well, no. Both Ope= nBSD and NetBSD ported back to the VAX, but the OpenBSD effort has ended du= e to lack of hardware and interest. It appears that NetBSD is still being a= ctively developed on the VAX, however, so it's possible to get a "= modern" 4.4BSD derived system on that architecture.
<= /blockquote>
Right - either current NetBSD or the= Ultrix 4.5 is what I would do.=C2=A0 If NetBSD will run the Ultrix layered= products, that would be the system with the most; but I'm not sure if = that will work. =C2=A0 Ultrix for instance supports DEC (VMS) FTN - which I= know you (Will) have been messing with. =C2=A0 That is the best (most comp= lete) FTN for Vaxen.=C2=A0 I believe there is Ada, PL/1 and maybe even Basi= c2 and Cobol/RPG [I think most of not all of the VMS languages for the VAX = were released on Ultrix but frankly, I don't remember].
=
=

5. Has anyone unearthed an original 4.1 tape, o= r is Haertel's reconstruction of the 1981 tape 1 release as close as it gets?

For the fifth time today this remi= nded me that I wanted to find my images from Kirk's CD collection and m= ove them over to another machine. Sigh.'
<= /blockquote>
=F0=9F=98=8E=C2=A0
--0000000000008e8e3b05d6fe03bd--