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,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 31347 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2022 01:04:33 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 Feb 2022 01:04:33 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 35ECF9CD04; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:04:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F229CBBA; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:01:53 +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="f6cSzYl6"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BC11E9CBBA; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:01:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com (mail-oi1-f179.google.com [209.85.167.179]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 273CD9CB50 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:01:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id a6so9272874oid.9 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 17:01:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GtMPbtTPN1AATtUO1Z8xrA9Q3PlVl1d/Mgupbu19sN0=; b=f6cSzYl6zjnmeEiR1BPfpp5nlcEU+GEPAEdUnBJl0PWSbIZUfjNR6PcZ82sKBJy6Yy jC2SaZtobv3a4kwWIfVVfri3gBFGOYGSG7DXU/rEmLQusKPcs2xVlDejS5qRxWklN0PY V0aD4yhkhiFC47EzMWFfDNGBsHXK3MWmeUenhj3aL5bkGw5ok8ZeBBZw07X7gSN2hrKW k/mslVX4qaHOj9hOyRTeYIkpXOxhodH6cbGaxfhBIozzkvI1COBAvNBTyfoDEg0gCBAm QqeRkfsvjjpJdLg0FzAvOl9xNkNY5yUdT4Zc2aixLjiK0pMIYBBOUBENUmcW5FaWZQRv cGng== 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=GtMPbtTPN1AATtUO1Z8xrA9Q3PlVl1d/Mgupbu19sN0=; b=2xZ39j92JqY0M6uPdoRo7HsWUZ06yQlcvxrVWc7XspV7JGfLOz/LHWVXiSW/yZtKIG uCwH41eOlYMSqDSTSD2c637hh3w0AyLIuxOOY5UUU5WP52n2jTUn+n6BGMZgmbJczJmV JPu7s73S5FygY+It0l6RNrYlEwZxFeLcJOg8H4Wd4EY4PAPzNsWzBLalRc4bay+hQtYr oV/Er+wl565U/NvZnTTGnhh9vvbkUydW/bHji+CWuB1nBEtasUiWICxC7wwV2u3DdTnn W4Xk6DiKVchZMxhcX8duoI0++7pXP6K1iSxjL9L2FA5YOcTVfTSqpaCJI60OCjmXPib+ O+xQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532izD/7jJ9auYWR7nmN6m8lUCd0QbIzNJ73/xBnJVVOs2rb77VP eaC32RKwjiovXPX+Vjzk7+DSR/69FoZKP/2OVbA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYVl76067xLM9yqifFnrSC6DU8OmgfaiVPEH0+3SnQnfWSsIDLUIDtZWcLBfQ3rYU7pmrkrL8bP1ck4mG5EP0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1882:b0:2d4:872a:d9a9 with SMTP id bi2-20020a056808188200b002d4872ad9a9mr7472007oib.74.1645405308289; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 17:01:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8102A7AB-21F5-477D-8D37-5412103CD396@iitbombay.org> <4a8c1f33-ab34-7f5d-321a-a8d759eee7c8@in-ulm.de> <5a9e9d48-aaad-851e-94af-1f4c100e1eb2@case.edu> <615ad728-4a33-29d9-73a9-80f51e35f68e@case.edu> In-Reply-To: <615ad728-4a33-29d9-73a9-80f51e35f68e@case.edu> From: Dan Cross Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 20:01:12 -0500 Message-ID: To: Chester Ramey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9876c05d87cc630" Subject: Re: [TUHS] v7 source code for sh 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" --000000000000e9876c05d87cc630 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 5:42 PM Chet Ramey wrote: > On 2/20/22 4:19 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote: > > Did anyone think about doing this in the past? If yes, what made you > > decide against doing it? (Or a streams implementation, for that matter.) > > There have been several implementations (I never did one). I suspect that > the people who were in a position to integrate that functionality into > distributed kernels were not supportive, or the code didn't get to them > at the right time. > At this point, it feels like the die has been cast. Readline, or something like it, is "good enough" and those working with something plan9-like don't need the functionality at all. Arguably, on Unix-style systems it would be cleaner to do in the kernel, but aside from aesthetics, what's the incentive to change? - Dan C. --000000000000e9876c05d87cc630 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 5:42 PM Chet Rame= y <chet.ramey@case.edu> wr= ote:
On 2/20/22 4:19 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:=
> Did anyone think about doing this in the past? If yes, what made you > decide against doing it?=C2=A0 (Or a streams implementation, for that = matter.)

There have been several implementations (I never did one). I suspect that the people who were in a position to integrate that functionality into
distributed kernels were not supportive, or the code didn't get to them=
at the right time.

At this point, it fe= els like the die has been cast. Readline, or something like it, is "go= od enough" and those working with something plan9-like don't need = the functionality at all. Arguably, on Unix-style systems it would be clean= er to do in the kernel, but aside from aesthetics, what's the incentive= to change?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Dan C.

--000000000000e9876c05d87cc630--