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 15568 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2020 03:42:38 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 Aug 2020 03:42:38 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D19FD9CAA1; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:42:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137319CAAE; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:41:52 +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="GDg37VUH"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C71E69C1D7; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:41:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f67.google.com (mail-ej1-f67.google.com [209.85.218.67]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7DC9C1CE for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:41:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f67.google.com with SMTP id bo3so563236ejb.11 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 20:41:31 -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=4VA2yBnP5IWbG9N+HqB0QBrUe8fl/gFMwQlshrKG0HM=; b=GDg37VUHfF/fpj2O31ftI1RrzJxom7K8ED2dgSzYoejwYyFRPsWQHMmAkmMkUeDtyQ ImOEguoeOEz6OzZhqHRZLIzlF/tsQPvkz4vuWJ4eVr1k01tVwo6fRB2H9XdJmiNLSpmw UJ/af+E1eQhgjmcwZ7LysELiOPGyg9zb/Q3T2KHh+lxznzN6G/Gsr7GXeFUzpfqc+QMJ LfIEk5oS20k0sRg+Fx1fk0jMQKtMv2yMziT4L7mzDi2TO1km7oum0uAg5t2kxHUnv+yV +1Gk3Dfb1KuboQKSZpqLtgz/8XBqoTCcpG/Q4Ba40GGRQUHcxuZQzO7hi4Nmcm0dszD5 /9Rg== 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=4VA2yBnP5IWbG9N+HqB0QBrUe8fl/gFMwQlshrKG0HM=; b=UCNB1t201+9bY7PcUndd8h4X+8rBNC6U1+f1RziUthTK6CkDlgXkoHNgNmoVlxGyVj QPsNiWYo+QFplp9YtYH4SJ3lnM6gZSQjr83lZNxISa1zcBAjl2bOZUF7yRpFSrBhND6f eURfsG0BCapYfpqoygzy7MfqVxEAelufVY5cAqdcbDjhLijAC22edoehkfxX7cnRZzjc lAmESdMi1raTLpD79xKvgP/x+DIt2Royyen2Oyt610eG3y0B5AAuF1kXpyrqJfeUhfdD 1eKwQblt3+JQa9OHbKRtmLsL17uyLC/dme06Czh9V88CI7wGN33IE3QkU51XyekFssmA Ml3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311QhR2EAJrDPfxolWUJ06/lG1yerHFdAACOmkIaTHDb1dJjrLT Et0s6gCoELhPU+YVacwQKm4ZNn95CNgtNTCKs5o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQeBRkwhAGhexHM9Pod1Sw00zM6yAqqoXRhcjQuKqMfpHtZJsUVy6baVCvHh9p6/e3cYlT2la9C+upLJCxY3U= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c8d2:: with SMTP id gc18mr7996279ejb.24.1596771690169; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 20:41:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6402:68c:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 20:41:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Wesley Parish Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:41:29 +1200 Message-ID: To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] [COFF] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will) 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: Computer Old Farts Followers , TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" I'm trying to get my head around this, in relation to the U of Canterbury, NZ's setup. I know they had had some PDPs, because one was offered for sale c 1992. I expect it would've been running 2.xBSD, because the U of C NZ was by and large a BSD house - when I asked about a suitable OS for my brand-new 486 in 1991 I was told if I could afford the (AT&T) license I could have the source tree of (would've been) 4.3BSD. I know they had VAXes, and from what I recall, though the admin ones were VMS boxen, the Computer Science one/s would've been running Unix. They also had Sun pizza boxes. Am I right in assuming that 2.xBSD was the state of the play on PDP while 4.xBSD was the source tree compatible state of play on the VAXes? That if you had a VAX you got the 4.xBSD tapes, whereas if you had a PDP you got the 2.xBSD tapes? Wesley Parish On 8/7/20, Warner Losh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 PM Clem Cole wrote: > >> That said, when the distribution of UNIX moved to USG in Summit, things >> started >> to a bit more formal. But there were still differences inside, as we >> have tried to unravel. PWB/TS and eventually System x. FWIW, BSD went >> through the same thing. The first BSD's are really the binary state of >> the world on the Cory 11/70, later 'Ernie.' By the time CSRG gets stood >> up because their official job (like USG) is to support Unix for DARPA, >> Sam >> and company are acting a bit more like traditional SW firms with >> alpha/beta >> releases and a more formal build process. Note that 2.X never really >> went through that, so we are all witnessing the wonderful efforts to try >> to >> rebuild early 2.X BSD, and see that the ephemeral nature of the bits has >> become more obvious. >> > > I'm rebuilding 2.11BSD as released, not any of the early bits... :) 1991 is > quite late in the 2BSD timeline (oh, wait, it's still going strong in > PiDP-11 land). > > Having said that, though, 2BSD through at least 2.8BSD gives the feeling of > the tape of the day club. If you look closely at what's in the TUHS > archive, and what's in Kirk's archive as well as other copies around, > you'll likely notice small variations. Or you'll see a dozen or two files > having newer dates than the documented release date. And the 2.79BSD > tape... I'm more than half convinced it was really the 79th tape that had > been made and they said 'nuts to that, for a while we'll do 2.8BSD since we > now have a kernel'. This is pure speculation, I've not asked around... > > 2.9BSD, 2.10BSD and 2.10.1BSD all seem to be a little more controlled, > though 2.9BSD has a lot of forks and it's not entirely clear they all > started from the same spot. There's references to 2.9-SEISMO and 2.9.1 and > 2.9 with patches and it isn't at all clear if these are the same thing or > different (I think the same, but there's a 2.9 from princeton that's > clearly a rollup release years later in kirk's archives). > > And even my 2.11BSD reconstruction shows that proper CM wasn't deployed for > it. I've found half a dozen missing patches that were not released as real > patches, but showed up in the 'catch-up' kit that seems to be hiding these > sorts of minor sins in the first couple of years after 2.11BSD was > released. I'm down to 10-20 files that I'm unsure about ever recovering. > These are clearly local files (different kernel configs, UUCP data, games > high score files), and I doubt I'll be able to recover them completely.... > Though in the scheme of things, they likely are the least important files > since they only had relevance to the site making the tapes and were deleted > from later versions (which is why I can't find them :). > > In a way I've started thinking about this like quantum physics. Why you > look at it at the macro level, it's all predictable, orderly and makes > sense. But when you zoom in too much to any point on the timeline, you find > that things get messy, chaotic and a bit indeterminate. > > Warner >