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_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 11466 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2022 21:21:13 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 19 Dec 2022 21:21:13 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA31241BF0; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 07:21:07 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f49.google.com (mail-vs1-f49.google.com [209.85.217.49]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C2B141BEF for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 07:21:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 128so9992816vsz.12 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:21:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=diFraRwO6rlbNlD5ppNGVL9P8eR20KOFuVjNGcb8T2k=; b=c+i1UDhJMNKjJN/U/lHFy0tf3YXMBugbZLSmV5EtJEcKp9z2kA0m/FwZLYmq3K1YOM oAnPsUrdhGBqFMTEIT+C9uVPi26G2DF66AuDZY8J9zZAY8vTS6fwVr7o2CqsFZEg0iOO TajUD54gIt8SHHfRZHDJmRKlp4NXJXQuHe50eUxQsb7/DPDBbN6LwWeeXWVaH/dFSvDy kcktPNp3OQ2xYy7/KdvTBbWXgoKJ0S3sFz0Xc4kj3n+0GV1soIQPx1eoqY3hfu6g3hVs HDzLXi+attkvKLEhpkIa97V9cHbR4ye5sfuwA8uSRAlBiOotq886pNSZ9BGGNhbUs+Sm Ykog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=diFraRwO6rlbNlD5ppNGVL9P8eR20KOFuVjNGcb8T2k=; b=5TdxClmM8PLg4HjU7vcwQTlwAgLHqqifhmzp/2f5uxrKTPDo0x2X5zeJw0Xv/OTLas 02Sk5IbYLKTrMBUH5mV6h5QT7Lv0Yq5gEA9S91AeRT9cg5ueTAau+2QvMgRNfBV67GvN MIuHmsogKOc9J2hVCDui+TIjKkSQuz3tWQ1WvpdYIBlTUWP8ECVzSW5dNPhYgbLWOgPW JaRbkdvScJw70kvdBkWUCjPRgKEVhswoY/tRfC+a/3QxPXyjumrez9cfn34ENUk+vaTJ Opn5u//KKvmm7/MC4Xt4/aA/WQEx5mWrpV6W3+zqBneplNIhtNB66zEZWsW4cOhe7vpK pAyw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pl2vBDNSk6ZiefOQ9qcAtebHmykZUmU9RtM9EbqxmDTu9aZBbtm 1mwFc1zN+lZ2l24sg465+Wkxpq3uPYJZQE+6SITJHns8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5aHLWWCvm1yQwfSWqc1JAlJ5u5B8xFkgnHHcaYF1folkQEZHAY49fc8R9g2pB4+ux0TqZYxT7zSrfAPZN6Fyk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:7d9:b0:3b1:2e7b:f69e with SMTP id y25-20020a05610207d900b003b12e7bf69emr17260082vsg.83.1671484801894; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:20:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202212191738.2BJHcLBF024793@ultimate.com> In-Reply-To: From: Rob Pike Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 08:19:50 +1100 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd4ea705f034e1b2" Message-ID-Hash: LOJLEP4EBKPY4PGEVJHIOGDQ3RSNJNWE X-Message-ID-Hash: LOJLEP4EBKPY4PGEVJHIOGDQ3RSNJNWE X-MailFrom: robpike@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: segaloco , tuhs@tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: UNIX on (not quite bare) System/370 List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000dd4ea705f034e1b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quite a bit of this feels not exactly wrong, but not quite right. (And his name is John Reiser, not Reisner.) Steve Johnson didn't go to work in development until the mid 1980s, for example, long after these bloodlines as you call them were laid down. Do we know that PWB became USG? That doesn't feel right to me, although it might well be true, I wasn't there. I think of it as mostly staying in Whippany, not going to Summit. Also your prose would imply USG never got to V7 level, which is certainly not true. Columbus's major contribution, as we saw it from Research, was the world's second most complex init. All these variants lobbied to have Research adopt things, as such approval was seen as a badge of honor. Honestly, though, it was all pretty toxic. Reiser and London's Unix, which I greatly admired, died on the vine for a variety of political reasons, as well as because it had slightly different semantics in some important cases, and because of a broad antipathy to virtual memory across the company due to various people having used VM on inadequate hardware, and of course then there was Multics. Sandy Fraser was very nervous about Research adopting the BSD kernel because of his experience with Atlas. But let it be said: Reiser's VM system was seriously impressive, cleanly integrated, structurally central, and wonderfully fast. And Sandy relented but the general warmth of 1127 towards Berkeley led to Research adopting Berkeley Unix as its VAX VM platform, despite some, including myself, feeling that was the inferior choice. -rob On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:03 AM Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 1:54 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> All I can comment is there are a number of #ifdef u370 sections added to >> System V. Happened somewhere between 3.0 and 5.0, likely UNIX/TS. This= is >> my understanding of Bell-adjacent platform work: >> >> PDP-7 - Research, 1969 >> PDP-11 - Research, 1970 >> Interdata 8/32 - Research, 1977 >> VAX - Research, 1979 (or did USG do 32V, it's sitting in my >> USG folder...) >> 3B20 - UNIX/TS 4.x, 1981 >> System/370 - UNIX/TS?, 198x >> 3B5 - Release 5.0, 1982 >> M68000 - System V, 1983 >> Z8000 - System V, 1983 >> >> > Sadly, do I wish it was this linear as you present ;-) Simply - it was > not. > > Just like the folks outside of the Bell System, inside, there were severa= l > forks, many of which have been discussed here. > > Research was its own bloodline. Ken/Dennis et al.. This, of course, wa= s > what seeded much of the external work at the Universities with the BSD > bloodline as a direct result. There was a good bit of porting work done > there, such as the work on the Interdata, IBM S/360, and Honeywell, but > most of that work tended to leave the labs in an indirect form. > > PWB 1.0/2.0 started a different thread - Glaser, Mashey, et al... as a > fork of Research Sixth Edition. After many twists and turns, that > bloodline would become the Unix Support Group (a.k.a. USG) in Summit (Ste= ve > Johnson - a.k.a. yaccman - was a manager in Summit and has offered some > enlightenment on this list over the years). As we have often discussed > here, the TS line is hugely impure. There is a great question of what wa= s > TS and what was not. What was the name and what was actual technology? > It's clear it started based on AT&T politics of the mid-late 70s, but as > things changed at AT&T and their own internal Unix wars - names and > technologies shave been blurred and some of the details were lost to time= . > We know that the PWB thread (and >>name<< ) would >>eventually<< become > the many flavors of Sys V and it was the 'official' line that AT&T starte= d > to market -- at first to the Operating Companies and later more widesprea= d > commercially. What was PWB and what was TS is not completely clear? (I > think Werner may have done so of the best sleuthing here and has reported > his learnings in the past). > > Part of the issues we have as historians was because threads and those > twists and turns started before the breakup and were controlled by rules = of > the 1956 consent decree (TS and PWB itself are examples) and other things > happened afterward as Charlie Brown (AT&T CEO) wanted to make a run at > being in the computer business. Pre breakup, the AT&T >>commercial<< wor= k > was targeted for the Operating Companys. Each group often did different > things to deal with specific projects that were being targeted to solve > problems that the OCs had. > > As was pointed out before, the switching folks in Indian Hill not only > needed to build things like SW for the ESS#5 (the 370/TSS-based stuff > mentioned yesterday helped to support that project) but they were also > working on a very slick single system image Unix system [Tom Bishop at > friends] that ran on the 3B duplex and some other HW - the /400 IIRC] > (FWIW: Tom used to be findable - I've tried to get him on this list a few > times). But you will see some #ifdefs in various codes that ended back u= p > in Summit that really are from that work. That said, if I understand > things that have been suggested here, officially the Duplex system used a= n > OS that Indian Hill created but was >>seeded<< from Summit, but not the > Summit released directly [i.e., IH acted the same way as DEC, Sun, IBM, e= tc > might have]. > > Holmdel ( Reisner et al.) had several projects. The best we3 can tell, > is that bloodline seems to have died off due to some internal AT&T politi= cs > and reorgs, although a number of things from it seem to have shown up in > other bloodlines and different people brought some of the ideas. For > instance, while it's not directly there, SVR3's memory system >>seems<< t= o > have had some Reisner's influence. Again we don't have direct evidence > other than different people's recollections and some comments people here > and elsewhere have found in different sources. > > Columbus ( Dale's team ) did a great deal of work in several areas. Some > of it has been recovered, but not all. Mary Ann, is a one-time member of > that team and often comments and fills in some of the history here. FWIW= : > The PWB 3.0, a.k.a. System III release, got a bunch of the technology fro= m > CBUNIX (again discussed at length here over the years) - shared mem, > semaphore, ipc, etc. > > These are just a few and I apologize to anyone that was not mentioned. I > offered some highlights to make my point. > > If you are newer to the list, I respectfully suggest that instead of > restarting some of this discussion, please go back into the old Mail > archives and you will see a great deal of detail. > > The most important point I will leave you with is that the different UNIX > flavors influenced each other - inside and outside the Bell System. As > Larry points out, politics often had a more substantial influence on what > 'won' than the 'goodness' of the technology itself in many cases. But th= e > path from the root to any of the leaves includes a great deal of > cross-fertilization. It seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to offer a > linear statement from one of the bloodlines and infer that was how it all > worked, just because some #ifdefs have been found in a few places in some > of the different pieces of code, be kernel portions or user space. > =E1=90=A7 > =E1=90=A7 > --000000000000dd4ea705f034e1b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Quite a bit of this feels not exactly wrong, but not quite right.= (And his name is John Reiser, not Reisner.) Steve Johnson didn't go to= work in development until the mid 1980s, for example, long after these blo= odlines as you call them were laid down.

Do we know that PWB became USG? T= hat doesn't feel right to me, although it might well be true, I wasn= 9;t there. I think of it as mostly staying in Whippany, not going to Summit= . Also your prose would imply USG never got to V7 level, which is certainly= not true. Columbus's major contribution, as we saw it from Research, w= as the world's second most complex init. All these variants lobbied to = have Research adopt things, as such approval was seen as a badge of honor. = Honestly, though, it was all pretty toxic.

Reiser and London's Unix, w= hich I greatly admired, died on the vine for a variety of political reasons= , as well as because it had slightly different semantics in some important = cases, and because of a broad antipathy to virtual memory across the compan= y due to various people having used VM on inadequate hardware, and of cours= e then there was Multics. Sandy Fraser was very nervous about Research adop= ting the BSD kernel because of his experience with Atlas. But let it be sai= d: Reiser's VM system was seriously impressive, cleanly integrated, str= ucturally central, and wonderfully fast. And Sandy relented but the general= warmth of 1127 towards Berkeley led to Research adopting Berkeley Unix as = its VAX VM platform, despite some, including myself, feeling that was the i= nferior choice.

-rob


On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:03 AM Clem Cole <= ;clemc@ccc.com> wrote:


On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 1:54 PM = segaloco via TUHS <tu= hs@tuhs.org> wrote:
All I can comment is there are a = number of #ifdef u370 sections added to System V.=C2=A0 Happened somewhere = between 3.0 and 5.0, likely UNIX/TS.=C2=A0 This is my understanding of Bell= -adjacent platform work:

PDP-7=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Research, 1969
PDP-11=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Research, 1970
Interdata 8/32 - Research, 1977
VAX=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Research, 1979 (or did USG d= o 32V, it's sitting in my USG folder...)
3B20=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- UNIX/TS 4.x, 1981
System/370=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- UNIX/TS?, 198x
3B5=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Release 5.0, 1982
M68000=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- System V, 1983
Z8000=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - System V, 1983


Sadly, do I wish it was = this linear as you present ;-)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Simply - it was not.

Ju= st like the folks outside of the Bell System, inside, there were several fo= rks, many of which have been discussed here.

Research was its own b= loodline.=C2=A0 Ken/Dennis et al..=C2=A0 =C2=A0This, of course, was what se= eded much of the external work at the Universities with the BSD bloodline a= s a direct result. There was a good bit of porting work done there, such as= the work on the Interdata,=C2=A0 IBM S/360,=C2=A0 and Honeywell, but most = of that work tended to leave the labs in an indirect form.
<= font color=3D"#0000ff">
PWB 1.0= /2.0 started a different thread - Glaser, Mashey, et al...=C2=A0 as a fork = of Research Sixth Edition.=C2=A0 After many twists and turns, that bloodlin= e would become the Unix Support Group (a.k.a. USG) in Summit (Steve Johnson= - a.k.a.=C2=A0yaccman - was a manager in Summit and has offered some enlig= htenment on this list over the years).=C2=A0 As we have often discussed her= e, the TS line is hugely impure.=C2=A0 There is a great question of what wa= s TS and what was not.=C2=A0 What was the name and what was actual technolo= gy? It's clear it started based on AT&T politics of the mid-late 70= s, but as things changed at AT&T and their own internal Unix wars - nam= es and technologies shave been=C2=A0blurred and some of the details were lo= st to time.=C2=A0 =C2=A0We know that the PWB thread=C2=A0 (and >>name= << ) would >>eventually<< become the many flavors of Sys = V and it was the 'official' line that AT&T started to market --= at first to the Operating Companies and later more widespread commercially= .=C2=A0 What was PWB and what was TS is not completely clear? (I think Wern= er may have done so of the best sleuthing=C2=A0here and has reported his le= arnings in the past).

Part of the=C2=A0issues we have as historians= was because=C2=A0threads and those twists and turns started before the bre= akup and were controlled by rules of the 1956 consent decree (TS and PWB it= self are examples) and other things happened afterward as Charlie Brown (AT= &T CEO) wanted to make a run at being in the computer business.=C2=A0 P= re breakup, the AT&T >>commercial<< work was targeted for t= he Operating Companys. Each group often=C2=A0did different things to deal w= ith specific projects that were being targeted to solve problems that the O= Cs had.

As was pointed out before, the switching folks in Indian H= ill not only needed to build things like SW for the ESS#5 (the 370/TSS-base= d stuff mentioned yesterday helped to support that project) but they were a= lso working on a very slick single system image Unix system [Tom Bishop at = friends] that ran on the 3B duplex and some other HW - the /400 IIRC]=C2=A0= (FWIW: Tom used to be findable - I've tried to get him on this list a = few times).=C2=A0 But you will see some #ifdefs in various codes that ended= back up in Summit that really are from that work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0That said, i= f I understand things that have been suggested here, officially the Duplex = system used an OS that Indian Hill created but was >>seeded<< f= rom Summit, but not the Summit released directly [i.e., IH acted the same w= ay as DEC, Sun, IBM, etc might have].

Holmdel=C2=A0( Reisner et al.= ) had several projects.=C2=A0 The best we3 can tell, is=C2=A0that bloodline= seems to have died off due to some internal AT&T politics and reorgs, = although a=C2=A0 number of things from it seem to have shown up in other bl= oodlines and different people brought some of the ideas.=C2=A0 For instance= , while it's not directly there, SVR3's memory system >>seems= << to have had some Reisner's influence.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Again we don= 't have direct evidence other than different people's recollections= and some comments people here and elsewhere have found in different source= s.

Columbus ( Dale's team ) did a great deal of work in sever= al areas.=C2=A0 Some of it has been recovered, but not all.=C2=A0 Mary Ann,= is a one-time member of that team and often comments and fills in some of = the history here.=C2=A0 FWIW: The PWB 3.0, a.k.a. System III release, got a= bunch of the technology from CBUNIX=C2=A0(again discussed at length here o= ver the years) - shared mem, semaphore, ipc, etc.

These are just a = few and I apologize=C2=A0to anyone that was not mentioned.=C2=A0 I offered = some highlights=C2=A0to make my point.

If you are newer to the list= , I respectfully suggest that instead of restarting some of this discussion= , please go back into the old Mail archives and you will see a great deal o= f detail.=C2=A0 =C2=A0

The most important point I will leave you wi= th is that the different=C2=A0UNIX flavors influenced each other=C2=A0- ins= ide and outside the Bell System.=C2=A0 As Larry points out,=C2=A0politics o= ften had a more substantial influence on what 'won' than the 'g= oodness' of the technology itself in many cases.=C2=A0 But the path fro= m the root to any of the leaves includes a great deal of cross-fertilizatio= n. It seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to offer a linear statement from= one of the bloodlines and infer that was how it all worked, just because s= ome #ifdefs have been found in a few places in some of the different pieces= of code, be kernel portions or user space.=C2=A0
=E1=90=A7
3D""=E1=90=A7
--000000000000dd4ea705f034e1b2--