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_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 5821 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2021 05:11:19 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 18 Mar 2021 05:11:19 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BC6EA9C278; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:11:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E169B68A; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:10:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="FC2QaHPH"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A7C9A9B68A; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:10:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f50.google.com (mail-ej1-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6A09B688 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:10:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f50.google.com with SMTP id l4so1894955ejc.10 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:10:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ry6qh8BLxBXrGC3v15KcZwjQHMIL6x59MGkrlk93Ztk=; b=FC2QaHPHMvOsTDtUm5rxrnWwDUaKSzcRrouFWXZV/9Yz9Qe/uJopJrrN2IBuJCDIUr Xba0WN+vER9ed/TMQNhVG/+TztHCDjcoVDo3QkmZSRiQ+WlV8ASRGncwegHISUCB+EJp JFd0IbVwuAnjf6HtCL7pOxGvRfKjc9xSHQgZZAK4lfdC/tX0+nR2527jQgcW5XwuFxD2 dnOsRlcikMRnl5q4cu/nEZ924IyUuWwYfIs2PjSI8xpys3GDTbrjy5JeJWA9SLJf4Hws 9e6QHv3Lqv5kLndVqjP44/CA9bYc1Fi6mNtFl9RPaNos4aI4PiycSkkUXpqTMuxfepgs /JAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ry6qh8BLxBXrGC3v15KcZwjQHMIL6x59MGkrlk93Ztk=; b=NI1dzSpH5HPHwNvly1Qzu+vhdY1MHLQc/16XmEJ5gWQ5s+p+rLqM7ute9bsSU2lN9N 2TNkZlUanbHbiiNokH7SaRMJ3ex3uChxOwj+fjNyl/jTpQ8gcJAZzrr+SGDqd6laOe4j iPSVLOYP2Yli6wbf1NWoDB6BWUcoEXPAhfXZGz78RvBkSPsDNjLEgK0Yb5Mt3i0d39yc PgPhB/W4wVfzkuA3a30Vuodl2FDT1NW36ZErNSSk6mu99xv6tyve9LW8WHjeSozFBLEZ eZTfwH51Z9KUwP6XMFYBD7pmkf9SF6v96/xoak20vFSZqxXJQa43phYo50pQNJMnryKv gW8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5308pDhuVGAj45UvnxNQGZgSm9DncDRYfr8I02PyqHi7nFpPENMo 9KAxfA/7xC11Pi40aqWgIQtNmhXGLJty/jR/u3E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwih7cK0cC0Ivao5IEQRKIA8jN7tFKfnhBOBZgPmMLQR9NY+Ae+em/vtDRx8T8PGdhwPwc/mKKvUpuVDH/rJCE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:14d0:: with SMTP id y16mr39708938ejc.242.1616044222701; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:10:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:aa7:cc0a:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:10:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20210317203335.GA5249@naleco.com> From: Wesley Parish Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:10:22 +1300 Message-ID: To: Henry Bent Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Surprised about Unix System V in the 80's - so sparse! 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" On 3/18/21, Henry Bent wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 16:52, Josh Good wrote: > >> >> And that's it. The communications part only deals the Micnet (a >> serial-port >> based local networking scheme), and UUCP. No mention at all of the words >> "Internet" or "TCP/IP", no even in the Index. >> > > Not a total surprise. In 1988, the average home user had probably barely > even heard of the internet. Even business users were only concerned with > on-site networking, and that was a fairly expensive proposition. FWVVLIW, I was not a computer user in 1989, and I had heard of the Internet, such as it was back then, through the pages of a little paperback highly critical of the SDI (or as Arthur C. Clarke retitled it, the BDI - Budgetary Defense Initiative). The author of that book the title of which I can't recall, talked about a computer network that was designed to stay up and working in spite of having bits and pieces shot out of it ... obviously not the Interwebs we today are blessed with, where a half-hearted DDoS can make the experience ... interesting ... if you happen to be on an ISP that's even remotely connected to the site undergoing the DDoS ... at the time I was envious and wished that the Pentagon and the US university system would make it more widely available. Be careful what you wish for (he growls to himself) you just might get it. Wesley Parish > > >> In truth, I fail to see what was the appeal of such a system, for mere >> users, when in the same PC you could run rich DOS-based applications like >> WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Ventura Publisher and all the PC software from >> those years. >> > > Indeed, from the perspective of a home user you didn't really need an > expensive UNIX box to do normal household chores. I was more than happy > with a Visual 1050 running CP/M (and Wordstar, Multiplan, etc.) well into > the late '80s. > > >> I mean, mail without Internet is pretty useless, althouhg I understand it >> could be useful for inter-company communications. And yes, it had vi and >> the >> Bourne Shell. But still, it feels very very limited, this Xenix version, >> from a user's point of view. >> > > Which might well explain why Xenix failed to gain much ground with normal > folks at home. If you used a UNIX at work, sure, you might want to pay the > money to have it at home. But why spend the $ for an operating system that > didn't have widespread application development? > > >> >> I'm probably spoiled from Linux having repositories full of packaged free >> software, where the user just has to worry about "which is the best of": >> email program, text editor, browser, image manipulation program, video >> player, etc. I understand this now pretty well, how spoiled are we these >> days. >> > > The proliferation of free software is practically unthinkable from the > standpoint of a home user 30 years ago. Shareware was a big concept a few decades ago, and PC/MS/DR DOS was very well supplied with useful programs. Even the Mac had its share, though significantly less than the *DOS family of OSes. It's amusing that Lotus' heavy-handed approach to its 1-2-3 spreadsheet interface succeeded in driving its direct competitors AsEasyAs and some others, into shareware distribution. Nobody as far as I know, ever tried to compete with WordPerfect by copying its interface - the shareware DOS word processors I tried, had their own approach. That small one-man shareware businesses could compete with big multinational companies for market share with products often as good or better, should've given Microsoft pause when it came out swinging against Linux in the late 90s and early 2000s. None so blind as those who will not see. Wesley Parish > > -Henry >