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_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 d53ad28d for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E2FEE93D1F; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:18:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8EB93D09; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:17:08 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="lUlBZ6X4"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 33E7C93D07; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:17:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com (mail-wm1-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5412493D06 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:17:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id p7so18796wmp.4 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:17:02 -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=a7xfgTVkymIWcpVHag6RZXWyz8odvFr0gkoaR5g930s=; b=lUlBZ6X402UwjKiLKoDBMBlCLYz7KMPP6XnYEMk+VCXKp8FXKXbHY5MtpvVaqpKxWB Z2bYn3hnEdnsGVWnZTtxaIPsLTz1vX3WCffEFaXoRJma+UTBpRzQSCPObuq7ub2MlO6X z+1ZYWB3jM5jC1dvJVKzePJc5C3lS7ctx1490= 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=a7xfgTVkymIWcpVHag6RZXWyz8odvFr0gkoaR5g930s=; b=cm6qYMLiaKfI4XYQfqC/26RhsQSxkNIQKIwxpSUM/moEaLXwKn28d72qKY1KzYypDZ BZRPu+yyZfQB0D8xZCZbR+0dX2aN+5D/yyd7dEG5+Nzt7auFxJ6ZnTvRQbLpb15TSFWs lMlYMeNjVUOTyVDXOsJgE33exciPxAUjCDNUPwHDlQlyN3uqAwyoqO0GpHe6X+vR/LKl qtRA+qn9P+NDRggayQy5v7EhX+88sAoP9vKvgImzctEIHqZVCpCMAWHFS8bE7a9XpPSJ c/G6u0zwSUXyieAIhbI81/wIV9cpL3srqRIDtn6DdsA7XUCWbUwJjoLZQVO0vrH75yuz qtlA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURklLvtEg5g34E3J6n+2M0CXYYLuyxKsx0wxmMT3LaSv8UW8tB bP8/6rSXdOkGr1pb2n/zdtB5cZLkjNt4cVrvtwtqLg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwYEhl96j4zcTWiiCAgBLeJL50oEQ+iIlrlHs/q23kvY0cMEkfNL/MtVPYLtxAw0C3qLDNebuRP/e5opkIEVC0= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ca0f:: with SMTP id a15mr18926wmg.102.1568128620420; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:16:34 -0400 Message-ID: To: Warner Losh Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000061fa330592346574" Subject: Re: [TUHS] PWB vs Unix/TS 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 Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000061fa330592346574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Below ... from memory - Someone like APS was a little closer to some of this than I was, so I might have a few things wrong. I don't think so, but it's been quite a few beers On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 2:26 AM Warner Losh wrote: > OK. I'm totally confused, and I see contradictory information around. So I > thought I'd ask here. > > PWB was started to support unix time sharing at bell labs in 1973 (around > V4 time). > No... that is not quite right. PWB was Mashey's project to build an RJE system to front end SW development for the IBM systems, which AT&T had a number [IIRC Call Accounting and lot of the 'business' part of the Bell System was mainframe based]. I think Dick Haight was also involved. I've forgotten the site there were at. It might have been Holmdel or Whippany. But it was not MH or Summit. > PWB 1.0 was released just after V6 "based on" it. > Well not so much "right after", but it was based on V6. There are differences. IIRC this was the first attempt at redoing how groups worked. The biggest additions were an IBM RJE support, SCCS and a different set of backup utilities; including some disk to disk (volcpy) and the original binary formatted program for 9-tracks (cpio) to replace Ken's assembler based tp. SCCS was important and the RJE support was important because that was the system being used and it made a huge impression on AT&T staff. A terminal to a UNIX box was way cheaper and to the IBM and people were so much more productive. Also remember, that tp(1) was written in assembler had been originally targeted to DECtape in a very early version of Research UNIX. The DECtape nature is why the directory was on the front of the tape. Ken moved it 9-track but used the same tape format. I don't remember who wrote stp (super-tp - in C), [?? Harvard ?? it's on the Harvard tape and is how I got it]. But better peripheral support was really important in Mashey's setting. In that world, the production computer system was being put in the raised floor computer rooms next to a mainframe and they had 'operators' so John and team started to think more about what was needed to admin the system. IMHO: this was the first heavy use of shell scripts, while I saw them in MH, it was Mashey's guys that cause me personally to have an ah-ha moment about them. Interestingly enough, and I have talked to Bourne and Mashey about it, John's use of the V6 was definitely one of the groups that were asking for a new shell, which Bourne set out to solve; but that is not yet available. At some point (and here is where we need Steve Johnson, aps, and I wish the late Ted Kowalski) to fill in details I can not. USG/Summit was chartered to "support UNIX for the Bell System." As I understand it, the genesis for their system was a kernel from MH that was moving towards V7s but not there yet, the 'Typesetter C' and a bunch of other utilities that Summit had collected/developed, but which I do not know. I think fsdb was around by that time. The new Bourne Shell and adb were being developed although how complete I'm not sure. But accept for the new shell and updated compiler, I remember the system 'felt' like V6 (Thompson shell) and thinking how much 'better' different v7 (Bourne Shell was) when we finally got it. This earlier system is the one Ted brought to CMU in the fall 1977 (I think that is the right date) to update the V6 system were then running. Anyway, Ted always referred to this as a UNIX/TS kernel. Another thing we did not have SCCS or the RJE stuff. What I'm not sure of is if there was a formally release of what ted had. So it may have been that TS had them and sent the release to Mashey, although I don't think there were such releases originally in TS. FWIW: I believe that in our (CMU) case,Ted would just grab things as they appeared that he thought we needed at CMU and he pushed things back (like CMU's fsck as he found things we had that he thought we would like). Interestingly enough, RJE and SCCS was needed for the IBM support and while Ted (and his undergrad roommate, Bill Joy) had worked on the MTS system on the IBM's at UMich, I always felt like Ted looked down on the mainframes (which was were I had also emerged but from CMU's TSS team). Also, Ted was a die-hard original cpio user and I liked the user interface to stp, which I remember was a difference/source of argument. Tar did not yet exist. TS had some of the PWB tools like volcpy; but we were using DOS-11's similar but different backup scheme (I've forgotten the name of the format; but the tapes were boot-able, which volcpy tapes were not). FWIW: cu(1) did not yet exist. I wrote a program (that I tended to prefer in some ways for many years) called connect(1cmu) that did the same thing. We used it to download images to the Microprocessors like the KIM-1. It was originally written with the v6 portable C library, which is also what the original fsck used (it's what we had on v6). Ted introduced me to what would become stdio and one of my first tasks was using it with connect(1cmu). The other thing I remember about that program is it was the first time I wrote something that used two separate processes on a UNIX system that cooperated with each other and found it so much easier than on the PDP-10. Also, Dennis' stand-alone system for V7 was not yet available BTW. If I think of anything else about that system I can remember, I'll send an update PWB 2.0 was released just after V7, also "based on it". > I think the confusion is that TS and V7 were done sort of at the same time and while the folks working on them talked to each other, it has never been clear to me who was behind TS. For instance, I would learn that Bourne was the 'project leader' for Seventh, in that he was the person that collected everything for it. I never heard of someone having the same role for TS, which is why I sometimes think it was a name inside of Summit, but never actually saw the light of day as a formal release. I really am not sure and would love to learn more details (I wish Ted were still alive to fill us in). As for V7 itself, Ken wrote tar(1) in response to cpio (preferring an ASCII based header, but 'threading' it like cpio did, but keeping the user interface that tp/stp had). As I understand it, Dennis built up did the standalone toolkit stuff. Ken changed groups and messed with the file system in the kernel. Lots of new peripheral support, which is why he also added lseek() as disks overflowed a 16-bit integer for the seek position. Plus there were a number of other small changes between v6 and v7. Some of this stuff from PWB and Summit went back to MH (fsck as an example), but not everything (like cpio/volcpy/SCCS). I kind of think of the kernel and Typesetter C going from MH to Summit and the PWB teams. @Steve Johnson, I need your help here.... at some point PCC was created in MH (along with lint). Didn't that start on V6 but was not complete until V7? And when did you move to Summit to lead the compiler effort there? My impressions that was yet to happen, but I'm fuzzy on dates. Remember, there are a number of teams at BTL hacking on UNIX by then. Dale's team in Columbus, the crew in Indiana Hill, folks at Western Electric (the Teletype folks ported the Ritchie C to the Z80 at some point for instance), *etc.* Again, I don't remember the politics but like any big company, you can imagine it was not all that clean and crisp. PWB 2.0 & 3.0 definitely picked up features from other UNIX systems. As I remember, Dale's shared memory hacks would beget System V Shared Mem, Semaphores and IPC (they are different, but they started in Columbus). The other thing I'm not clear on is when the PWB team was folded into USG (Unix Support Group) in Summit. *I believe* that was after PWB 2.0 was released. But at some point, Mashey's team and the USG got interwoven. I really don't know/remember many of those details as I watched them from the outside and only knew the results. The key point is the PWB 2.0 would eventually be released as the internal, but official UNIX for the Bell System. It was supposed to bring together the needed from the different labs; but it was not >>officially<< released *outside of the Bell System* (it was an internal product, remember at this point, AT&T is not allowed to have computer products, etc...) So PWB 2.0 is basically internal, and a melding of V7, TS, PWB 1.0 and starting to take things from different labs with in BTL -- different from all of them but mostly a superset. > Later Unix TS 3.0 would become System III. > No --I do not think this is a true statement... not sure where you got that, more in a minute We know there was no System I or System II. > Correct. But was there a Unix TS 1.0 and 2.0? > This is where it gets sticky. I don't think so. TS was the original work by USG. What I do not know is if it ever was 'packaged' as PWB had been. *I do not believe it was*. I think a little like the way Research 'bled' out a little a time, pieces of TS made their way to MIT, CMU, *etc*. but never as a formal release. > And were they the same thing as PWB 1.0 and 2.0, or somehow just closely > related? > See above... I'll explain how PWB 3.0 became System III in a minute. > And I've seen both Unix/TS and Unix TS. Is there a preferred spelling? > Don't know. I remember Ted always called it UNIX/TS all caps. The thing you left out is how PWB 3.0 became System III. Two important issues. First with V7, AT&T (Al Arms) wrote the first binary system redistribution license. The commercial folks were happy to have a redistribution license, but the terms were not what they really needed. Much of the issue was that AT&T was not the computer hardware or software business and really did not understand the issues that the vendors had. Professor Dennis Allison of Stanford, was consulting for almost all of us in the computer industry at the time (for those that don't know Dennis, around the same time he founded what is now called the Asilomar Microprocessor Workshop (check out: https://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/the-asilomar-microcomputer-workshop-and-the-billion-dollar-toilet-seat/ ). Dennis arranged for a big meeting at Ricki's Hyatt in Palo Alto and invited Al Arms and team, plus a representatives from his clients. I was the techie with a lawyer from Tektronix in the room (as I have said in other emails this it is only time I have been in a meeting with Bill Gates). The folks I remember who were there: was Bill Munson and team from DEC; Fred Clegg and Team from HP; Bob MetCalfe from 3Com; Gates and the MSFT crew; folks from SCO and DG. There were some others, about 10 firms in total; although I think if remember correctly, IBM was not among them [This is the meeting where Gates famously exclaimed: "*You guys don't get it. The only thing that matters in the software industry is volume*."]. BTW: The bits we were discussing was the upcoming release from USG, to be called PWB 3.0 and they were for the PDP-11 only (which was fine, that was what we all had been licensing already. We could still use things from other places, because that is what those other places were all licensed to have -- all was good in UNIX-land). Thus began a series of negotiations for a new license agreement that would allow the HW vendors to better ship UNIX as a binary product: FWIW: Gates wanted to pay $25/copy. The DEC, HP and DG folks laughed. $1K/copy was fine by them, since their HW was typically $50-150K/system. Either shortly after or maybe during the negotiations time, Judge Green ruled and AT&T got broken up. One of the things that occured is that AT&T was now allowed to sell SW and more importantly their new 3B20 as a product (against IBM and DEC). From a SW standpoint, AT&T Marketing did not like the 'Programmers' moniker, feeling that it would limit who they could sell too. So they rebranded the new software product 'System III.' Note the printing of the manuals had already begun, which is why the cover of the manuals say System III, but the title pages say PWB 3.0. As other have said a few years later, another PWB release came out for the Bell System, *a.k.a.* PWB 4.0; but this was not licensed outside. At some point later, negotiations had restarted on yet another license with the System III licensees and AT&T. By the time that completed, yet another release had been finished by USG. The biggest change was the addition support for HW besides the PDP-11. In particular, the official USG support for the VAX and the 3B20. What I forget, but I think in that license you had to declare a system type and most licensees picked the VAX. By the time of release and finalization of the license, AT&T Marketing which had already started the '*Consider it Standard*' campaign, called the new release "System V." AT&T Marketing would stay with System V moniker from then on and we know have SVR2, SVR3, SVR4, SVR5 in later years. > Thanks for all your help with this topic and sorting things out. It's been > quite helpful for my talk in a few weeks. > > Warner > > P.S. Would it be inappropriate to solicit feedback on an early version of > my talk from this group? > I would suggest sending a pointer to this group to the slides and ask for people to send you comments privately. > I'm sure they would be rather keener on catching errors in my > understanding of Unix history than just about any other forum... > Indeed - happy to help. Clem --00000000000061fa330592346574 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Below ... from= memory - Someone like APS=C2=A0was a little closer to some of this than I = was, so I might=C2=A0have a few things wrong.=C2=A0 I don't think so, b= ut it's been quite a few beers

On M= on, Sep 9, 2019 at 2:26 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
OK. I'm totally confused, and I see contradictory information ar= ound. So I thought I'd ask here.
PWB was started to support unix = time sharing at bell labs in 1973 (around V4 time).
No...=C2=A0 that is not quite right= .=C2=A0 PWB was Mashey's project to build an RJE system to front end SW= development for the IBM systems, which AT&T had a number [IIRC Call Ac= counting and lot of the 'business' part of the Bell System was main= frame based].=C2=A0 I think Dick Haight was also involved.=C2=A0 I've f= orgotten the site there were at.=C2=A0 It might have been Holmdel or Whippa= ny. But it was not MH or Summit.

=C2=A0
PWB 1.0 was released just after V6 "based on" it.
Well not so much &quo= t;right after", but it was based on V6.=C2=A0 There are differences.= =C2=A0 IIRC this was the first attempt at redoing how groups worked.=C2=A0 = The biggest=C2=A0additions were an IBM RJE support, SCCS and a different = set of backup utilities; including some disk to disk (volcpy= )=C2=A0and the original binary formatted program for 9-tracks (<= /span>cpio) to replace Ken's assembler based tp.<= /span>

<= span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-seri= f">SCCS was important and the RJE support was impor= tant because that was the system being used and it made a huge impression o= n AT&T staff.=C2=A0 =C2=A0A terminal to a UNIX box was way cheaper and = to the IBM and people were so much more productive.

Also remember, that tp(1) was written in assembler had been or= iginally targeted to DECtape in a very early version of Research UNIX.=C2= =A0 The DECtape nature is why the directory was on the front of the tape.= =C2=A0 Ken moved it 9-track but used the same tape format.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I do= n't remember who wrote stp (super-= tp - in C), [?? Harvard ?? it's on the Harvard tape and is how I got it= ].=C2=A0=C2=A0 But better per= ipheral support was really important in Mashey's setting.=C2=A0 In that= world, the production computer system was being put in the raised floor co= mputer rooms next to a mainframe and they had 'operators' so John a= nd team started to think more about what was needed to admin the system.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0IMHO: this was the first heavy use of shell scripts, while I saw = them in MH, it was Mashey's guys that cause me personally to have an ah= -ha moment about them.

= Interestingly enough, and I have talked to Bourne and Mashey about it, = John's use of the V6 was definitely one of the groups that were asking = for a new shell, which Bourne set out to solve; but that is not yet availab= le.

At some point = (and here is where we need Steve Johnson, aps, and I wish the late Ted Kowa= lski) to fill in details I can not.=C2=A0 USG/Summit was chartered to "= ;support UNIX for the Bell System."=C2=A0 =C2=A0As I understand it, th= e genesis for their system was a kernel from MH that was moving towards V7s= but not there yet, the 'Typesetter C' and a bunch of other utiliti= es that Summit had collected/developed, but which I do not know.=C2=A0 I th= ink fsdb was around by that time. The new Bourne Shell and adb were being d= eveloped although how complete I'm not sure.

But accept for the new shell and updated comp= iler, I remember the system 'felt' like V6 (Thompson shell) and thi= nking how much 'better' different v7 (Bourne Shell was) when we fin= ally got it. This earlier system is the one Ted brought to CMU in the fall = 1977 (I think that is the right date) to update the V6 system were then run= ning.=C2=A0 Anyway, Ted always referred to this as a UNIX/TS kernel.=

=
Another thing we did not = have SCCS or the RJE stuff.=C2=A0=C2=A0What I'm not sure of is if there = was a formally release of what ted had.=C2=A0 So it may have= been that TS had them and sent the release to Mashey, although I don't= think there were such releases originally in TS.=C2=A0 FWIW:=C2=A0I= believe that in our (CMU) case,Ted=C2=A0would just g= rab things as they appeared that he thought we needed at CMU= and he pushed things back (like CMU's fsck as he fou= nd things we had that he thought we would like).=C2=A0 Interestingly en= ough, RJE and SCCS was needed for the IBM support and while Ted (and his un= dergrad roommate, Bill Joy) had worked on the MTS system on the IBM's a= t UMich, I always felt like Ted looked down on the mainframes (which was we= re I had also emerged but from CMU's TSS team).
<= span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-seri= f">
Also, Ted was a die-hard origi= nal cpio user and I liked the user interface to stp, which I remembe= r was a difference/source of argument.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Tar did not y= et exist. TS had some of the PWB tools like volcpy; but we were using DOS-11's similar but different backup scheme (I've= forgotten the name of the format; but the tapes were boot-able, which=C2= =A0volcpy=C2=A0tapes were not).

FWIW:=C2=A0 cu(1) did not yet = exist.=C2=A0 I wrote a program (that I tended to prefer in some ways for ma= ny years) called connect(1cmu) that did the same thing.=C2=A0 We used it to= download images to the Microprocessors like the KIM-1.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It was = originally written with the v6 portable C library, which is also what the o= riginal fsck used (it's what we had on v6).=C2=A0 =C2=A0Ted introduced = me to what would become stdio and one of my first tasks was using it with c= onnect(1cmu).=C2=A0 The other thing I remember about that program is it was= the first time I wrote something that used two separate processes on a UNI= X system that cooperated with each=C2=A0other and found it so much easier t= han on the PDP-10.

=
Also, Dennis' stand-alone system for V7 was = not yet available BTW.=C2=A0 =C2=A0If I think of anything else about that s= ystem I can remember, I'll send an update

PWB 2.0 was released just after V7, also "based on it&qu= ot;.
I thin= k the confusion is that TS and V7 were done sort of at the same time and wh= ile the folks working on them talked to each other,=C2=A0it has never been = clear to me who was behind TS. For instance, I would learn that Bourne was = the 'project leader' for Seventh, in that he was the person that co= llected everything for it.=C2=A0 I never heard of someone having the same r= ole for TS, which is why I sometimes think it was a name inside of Summit, = but never actually saw the light of day as a formal release.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I = really am not sure and would love to learn more details (I wish Ted were st= ill alive to fill us in).

As for V7 itself, Ken wrote tar(1) in response to cpio (preferring an ASCII based header, but 'threadi= ng' it like cpio did, but keeping the user interface that tp/stp had).= =C2=A0 As I understand it, Dennis built up did the standalone toolkit stuff= .=C2=A0 Ken changed groups and messed with the file system in the = kernel.=C2=A0 Lots of new peripheral support, which is why he = also added lseek() as disks overflowed a 16-bit integer for the seek po= sition.=C2=A0 Plus there were a number of other small changes betwee= n v6 and v7.=C2=A0 Some of this stuff from PWB and Summit went back to MH (= fsck as an example), but not everything (like cpio/volcpy/SCCS).=C2=A0 I ki= nd of think of the kernel and Typesetter C going from MH to Summit and the = PWB teams.

@Steve Johnson, I need your help = here.... at some point PCC was created in MH (along with lint).=C2=A0 Didn&= #39;t that start on V6 but was not complete until V7? And when did you move= to Summit to lead the compiler effort there?=C2=A0 My impressions that was= yet to happen, but I'm fuzzy on dates.

Remember, there are a number of teams at BTL hacking on UNIX by then.=C2= =A0 Dale's team in Columbus, the crew in Indiana=C2=A0Hill,=C2=A0 folks= at Western Electric (the Teletype folks ported the Ritchie C to the Z80 at= some point for instance),=C2=A0etc.

Again, I don't remember the politics but like any big company, you ca= n imagine it was not all that clean and crisp.=C2=A0 =C2=A0PWB 2.0 & 3.= 0 definitely picked up features from other UNIX systems.=C2=A0 As I remembe= r, Dale's shared memory hacks would beget System V Shared Mem, Semaphor= es and IPC (they are different, but they started in Columbus).
=

The other thing I'm not clear on is when= the PWB team was folded into USG (Un= ix Support Group)=C2=A0in Summit.= =C2=A0 I believe that was after PWB 2.0 was released.=C2=A0=C2=A0= But at some point, Mashey's team and= the USG got interwoven.=C2=A0 I really don't know/remember many of tho= se details as I watched them from the outside and only knew the results.=C2= =A0 The key point is the PWB 2.0 would eventually be released as the intern= al, but=C2=A0official UNIX for the Bell System.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It was supposed t= o bring together the needed from the different labs; but it was not >>= ;officially<< released outside of the Bell System (it was an int= ernal product, remember at this point, AT&T is not allowed=C2=A0to have computer products, etc...)=C2=A0=

So PWB 2.0 is basically internal, and a melding of V7, TS,= PWB 1.0 and starting to take things from different labs with in=C2=A0BTL -= - different from all of them but mostly a superset.

<= div>
=C2=A0
Later Unix TS 3.0 woul= d become System III.
No --I do not think this is a true statement... not sure where you= got that, more in a minute

We know there was no System I or Syst= em II.
Corr= ect.=C2=A0

But was there a Un= ix TS 1.0 and 2.0?
This is where it gets sticky.=C2=A0 I don't think so.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0TS was the original work by USG.=C2=A0 =C2=A0What I do not know is if it= ever was 'packaged' as PWB had been. I do not believe it was.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I think a little like the way Research 'bled' out a = little a time, pieces of TS made their way to MIT, CMU,=C2=A0etc. bu= t never as a formal release.
=C2=A0
And were they the same thing as PWB 1.0 and 2.0, or somehow just = closely related?
See above... I'll explain how PWB 3.0 became System III in a minu= te.
= =C2=A0
=
And I've seen both Unix/T= S and Unix TS. Is there a preferred spelling?
Don't know.=C2=A0 I remember Ted alwa= ys called it UNIX/TS all caps.

The thing you left out is how PWB 3.0 became System III.
<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif= ">
Two i= mportant issues.=C2=A0 First with V7, AT&T (Al Arms) wrote the first bi= nary system redistribution license.=C2=A0 The commercial folks were happy t= o have a redistribution license, but the terms were not what they really ne= eded.=C2=A0 Much of the issue was that AT&T was not the computer hardwa= re or software business and really did not understand the issues that the v= endors had.=C2=A0 Professor Dennis Allison of Stanford, was consulting=C2= =A0for almost all of us in the computer industry at the time (for those tha= t don't know Dennis, around the same time he founded what is now called= the Asilomar Microprocessor Workshop (check out:=C2=A0https://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/the-asilomar-microcomputer-wo= rkshop-and-the-billion-dollar-toilet-seat/).

Dennis arranged for a big meeting at Ricki's Hyatt in = Palo Alto and invited Al Arms and team, plus a representatives from his cli= ents. I was the techie with a lawyer from Tektronix in the room (as I have = said in other emails this it is only time I have been in a meeting with Bil= l Gates).=C2=A0 The folks I remember who were there: was Bill Munson and te= am from DEC; Fred Clegg and Team from HP; Bob MetCalfe from 3Com; Gates and= the MSFT crew; folks from SCO and DG.=C2=A0 =C2=A0There were some others, = about 10 firms in total; although I think if remember correctly, IBM was no= t among them [This is the meeting where Gates famously exclaimed: "= You guys don't get it.=C2=A0 The only thing that matters in the softwar= e industry is volume."].
BTW: The bits we were discussing = was the upcoming release from USG, to be called PWB 3.0 and they were for t= he PDP-11 only (which was fine, that was what we all had been licensing alr= eady.=C2=A0 We could still use things from other places, because that is wh= at those other places were all licensed to have -- all was good in UNIX-lan= d).

Thus began a series of negotiations for a new license agreemen= t that would allow the HW vendors to better ship UNIX as a binary product:= =C2=A0 FWIW: Gates wanted to pay $25/copy.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The DEC, HP and DG f= olks laughed.=C2=A0 $1K/copy was fine by them, since their HW was typically= $50-150K/system.

<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif= ">Either shortly after or maybe during the negotiat= ions time, Judge Green ruled and AT&T got broken up.=C2=A0 =C2=A0One of= the things that occured is that AT&T was now allowed to sell SW and mo= re importantly their new 3B20 as a product (against IBM and DEC).=C2=A0 Fro= m a SW standpoint, AT&T Marketing did not like the 'Programmers'= ; moniker, feeling that it would limit who they could sell too.=C2=A0 So th= ey rebranded the new software product 'System III.'=
Note th= e printing of the manuals had already begun, which is why the cover of the = manuals say System III, but the title pages say PWB 3.0.

As other h= ave said a few years later, another PWB release came out for the Bell Syste= m, a.k.a. PWB 4.0; but this was not licensed outside.

At som= e point later, negotiations=C2=A0had restarted on yet another license with = the System III licensees and AT&T.=C2=A0 =C2=A0By the time that complet= ed, yet another release had been finished by USG.=C2=A0 The biggest change = was the addition support for HW besides the PDP-11. In particular, the offi= cial USG support for the VAX and the 3B20.=C2=A0 What I forget, but I think= in that license you had to declare a system type and most licensees picked= the VAX.

By the time of release and finalization of the license, A= T&T Marketing which had already started the 'Consider it Standar= d' campaign, called the new release "System V."

A= T&T Marketing would stay with System V moniker from then on and we know= have SVR2, SVR3, SVR4, SVR5 in later years.


Thanks for al= l your help with this topic and sorting things out. It's been quite hel= pful for my talk in a few weeks.
<= br>
Warner

P.S. Would = it be inappropriate to solicit feedback on an early version of my talk from= this group?
I would suggest sending a pointer to this group to the slides and ask for = people to send you comments privately.

=C2=A0
= I'm sure they would be rather keener on catchi= ng errors in my understanding of Unix history than just about any other for= um...
Indee= d - happy to help.
Clem= =C2=A0
--00000000000061fa330592346574--