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, 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 a6169058 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 03:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 39D6694799; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:54:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765D69478D; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:53:35 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="bxptriHu"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1ABA49478D; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:53:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f174.google.com (mail-qt1-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8048393D35 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:53:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f174.google.com with SMTP id g13so23151984qtj.4 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:53:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jruLi7UlSjCx7KaCcjEWDzHTFXUIWWWfkZuZcSpvFTQ=; b=bxptriHuKOicMu1n1pxTVRlMlqrccezBrRY8EUyUNwaPmQfDhMM4/tLtldBBantrkr 8lkuYGAG75V47PbR2jX7o6Hgm8SneTLLRoyrJdadu+GJy3Dp5M4UznMo0Kf6ou/3ekLk BU0brxqDwH7Ongc+6xpK4j7cDKF7lvoJ+yLwOLoCYL3iXRZ9G5Mw1kzjzL/esGxT6Li8 j/Q7NspEKPB9C/08eQGnqNSGOnObOZmGiGsWq5niFGPi1hoJDuOVfwX3bLKTmM/V7LHO 84sFnW1PKuM5YX0TO/GWpAEo8KmpJgNtv4J+KqylZ5zgpZd7sDqyojKNlMc8XqLNIzuo ne2Q== 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=jruLi7UlSjCx7KaCcjEWDzHTFXUIWWWfkZuZcSpvFTQ=; b=exubgoA3LOVWqjOYqGEbLfwu/hlmlkjHXiwi0wmtvJI/61k56njC4KCCkw/qKmnqBt Tftuhr5ukrMpQWkW7tgjrgUq0Bcv78TvjwymZEo764oTNUkInVniabAF8NuLot9gZPUN 0cdeKp8yTqufHhD/ghmxU2vtcPZqsy6iXqqx+8cJn3IeZjkodPuvcDkeUZBIL1Mj+W+S ktlFyBWbbu+UlMIOdVeKfkxkyT6nezKAybUVomcpS5uAEUSePZqj5JgYA4P35o2D3vV+ vibSozTz5jPN9XXerZ5OiMJqARX5v65Gm+iRHWe0uWQydAgxWMaIVDO9rr4SLhhNNyXW 0hjw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXoM0KwPeB4kRUDH5FH+JYeYQHc2QWBkTYZ0uaCgri4v2k/wTzn e0HEpaDHQnyycHkAunL66wwERmcfWgOsz72GlzaAXA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWMOmvKOnMzgmXbGtLtZdJwhnThcY/yNxXTuT59kWGlU8fJ7Qxw17WYhJMOpwjKzt7PTRnX+JJfWvWnba0cjI= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:71cb:: with SMTP id i11mr31376580qtp.32.1568174010403; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:53:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:53:19 -0600 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d6227605923ef620" 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" --000000000000d6227605923ef620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:17 AM Clem Cole wrote: > 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. > "The Programmer's Workbench was started in 1973,[2] by Evan Ivie and Rudd Canaday to support a computer center for a 1000-employee Bell Labs division" is what wikipedia says, though that reference is in a acm queue article by Mashey... 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. > Yes. PWB had their own collection of add-ons. I believe, but can't find the reference, that there were frequent imports of Research Unix into PWB as I saw references to UNIX/TS and CB-UNIX never getting too far away from Research Unix, so that's kinda speculative... I imagine that SCCS was a boon for keeping it all straight, but I've never actually used SCCS. > 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). > Several timelines have, without references, Unix/TS or some variant of that going back to the V4 time frame. It's at best murky. There's some references in https://wiki.tuhs.org/doku.php?id=misc:snippets:mert1 including the post by Dan DeJegar which I had trouble parsing the ins and outs of. > 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.* > Yea, the Columbus crew added a lot to the different versions, and merged from them, according to the above link and a few other sources. > 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). > This jives with other information that says the basis of system V share memory, semaphores and ipc were derived from CB-Unix... > 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...) > Yes. There's some confusion as PWB and UNIX/TS become a USG thing that turns into System III and then the influx of CB-UNIX that's added before System V. How all that relates to USG, I'm quite unclear on still... > 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 > >From the above recollection of Dan DeJAger... > 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. > I've seen lots of references to UNIX/TS, but no versions, so this makes some sense... And it appears they go back further than V6... > 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. > Yea, the detailed part of my history ends with the progeny of V7 (and I only have room for some, I've found maybe 3 dozen different systems that started out with V7 and then merge in System III or System V code for later versions or some variation on this theme). > >> 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. > Works for me. Let me update based on this and Steve's email. > > >> 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. > I am so very grateful for the help. > Clem > --000000000000d6227605923ef620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:17 AM Clem = Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
<= /div>
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, but it's been quite a few beers

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 2:26 AM Warner Losh <<= a href=3D"mailto:imp@bsdimp.com" target=3D"_blank">imp@bsdimp.com> w= rote:
OK. I'm totally confused, and I s= ee contradictory information around. So I thought I'd ask here.<= div>
P= WB was started to support unix time sharing at bell labs in 1973 (around V4= time).
No...=C2=A0 that is not quit= e 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 Accounting and lot of the 'business' part of the Bell System w= as mainframe based].=C2=A0 I think Dick Haight was also involved.=C2=A0 I&#= 39;ve forgotten the site there were at.=C2=A0 It might have been Holmdel or= Whippany. But it was not MH or Summit.

"The Programmer's Workbench was started in 1973,[2]= =C2=A0by Evan Ivie and Rudd Canaday to support a computer center for a 1000= -employee Bell Labs division" is what wikipedia says, though that refe= rence is in a acm queue article by Mashey...

PWB 1.0 was released just after V6= "based on" it.
Well not so much "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 s= upport, SCCS and a different set of backup utilities; inc= luding some disk to disk (volcpy)=C2=A0and the original binary f= ormatted program for 9-tracks (cpio) to replace Ken&#= 39;s assembler based tp.

Yes. PWB had their own collection of add-ons. I believe, = but can't find the reference, that there were frequent imports of Resea= rch Unix into PWB as I saw references to UNIX/TS and CB-UNIX never getting = too far away from Research Unix, so that's kinda speculative...=C2=A0 I= imagine that SCCS was a boon for keeping it all straight, but I've nev= er actually used SCCS.
=C2=A0
SCCS was important and the RJE support was important = because that was the system being used and it made a huge impression on AT&= amp;T staff.=C2=A0 =C2=A0A terminal to a UNIX box was way cheaper and to th= e IBM and people were so much more productive.
=
Also remember, that tp(1) was written in assembler had been originall= y targeted to DECtape in a very early version of Research UNIX.=C2=A0 The D= ECtape 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 don't rem= ember 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 peripheral su= pport was really important in Mashey's setting.=C2=A0 In that world, th= e production computer system was being put in the raised floor computer roo= ms next to a mainframe and they had 'operators' so John and team st= arted to think more about what was needed to admin the system.=C2=A0 =C2=A0= 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.

Intere= stingly 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 i= s where we need Steve Johnson, aps, and I wish the late Ted Kowalski) to fi= ll in details I can not.=C2=A0 USG/Summit was chartered to "support UN= IX for the Bell System."=C2=A0 =C2=A0As I understand it, the genesis f= or their system was a kernel from MH that was moving towards V7s but not th= ere yet, the 'Typesetter C' and a bunch of other utilities that Sum= mit had collected/developed, but which I do not know.=C2=A0 I think fsdb wa= s around by that time. The new Bourne Shell and adb were being developed al= though how complete I'm not sure.

But accept for the new shell and updated compiler, I r= emember 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 t= hink that is the right date) to update the V6 system were then running.=C2= =A0 Anyway, Ted always referred to this as a UNIX/TS kernel.<= /div>

Another thing we did not have S= CCS 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 b= elieve that in our (CMU) case,Ted=C2=A0would just grab th= ings as they appeared that he thought we needed at CMU and he pushed things back (like CMU's fsck as he found thi= ngs we had that he thought we would like).=C2=A0 Interestingly enough, = RJE and SCCS was needed for the IBM support and while Ted (and his undergra= d roommate, Bill Joy) had worked on the MTS system on the IBM's at UMic= h, I always felt like Ted looked down on the mainframes (which was were I h= ad 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.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Tar did not yet exi= st. TS had some of the PWB tools like volcpy; but we were using DOS-11's similar but different backup scheme (I've forgo= tten the name of the format; but the tapes were boot-able, which=C2=A0volcp= y=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 many 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, whic= h is also what the original 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 task= s was using it with connect(1cmu).=C2=A0 The other thing I remember about t= hat program is it was the first time I wrote something that used two separa= te processes on a UNIX system that cooperated with each=C2=A0other and foun= d it so much easier than 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 system I can remember, I&#= 39;ll send an update

PWB 2.0 was= released just after V7, also "based on it".
I think the confusion is that T= S and V7 were done sort of at the same time and while the folks working on = them talked to each other,=C2=A0it has never been clear to me who was behin= d TS. For instance, I would learn that Bourne was the 'project leader&#= 39; for Seventh, in that he was the person that collected everything for it= .=C2=A0 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 th= e light of day as a formal release.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I really am not sure and wo= uld love to learn more details (I wish Ted were still alive to fill us in).=

Several ti= melines have, without references, Unix/TS or some variant of that going bac= k to the V4 time frame. It's at best murky. There's some references= in=C2=A0https://wiki.tuhs.org/doku.php?id=3Dmisc:snippets:mert1=C2=A0includin= g the post by Dan DeJegar which I had trouble parsing the ins and outs of.<= /div>
=C2=A0
As for V7 itself, Ken wrote ta= r(1) in response to cpio (preferring an ASCII based header, but = 'threading' it like cpio did, but keeping the user interface that t= p/stp had).=C2=A0 As I understand it, Dennis built up did the standalone to= olkit stuff.=C2=A0 Ken changed groups and messed with the file s= ystem 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 position.=C2=A0 Plus there were a number of other small cha= nges between v6 and v7.=C2=A0 Some of this stuff from PWB and Summit went b= ack to MH (fsck as an example), but not everything (like cpio/volcpy/SCCS).= =C2=A0 I kind of think of the kernel and Typesetter C going from MH to Summ= it 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'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 impressi= ons that was yet to happen, but I'm fuzzy on dates.
=

Remember, there are a number of teams at BTL hacking on UN= IX by then.=C2=A0 Dale's team in Columbus, the crew in Indiana=C2=A0Hil= l,=C2=A0 folks at Western Electric (the Teletype folks ported the Ritchie C= to the Z80 at some point for instance),=C2=A0etc.

Yea, the Columbus crew added= a lot to the different versions, and merged from them, according to the ab= ove link and a few other sources.
=C2=A0
Again, I don't remember the politics but like any big company= , you can 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= remember, Dale's shared memory hacks would beget System V Shared Mem, = Semaphores and IPC (they are different, but they started in Columbus).

This jives with = other information that says the basis of system V share memory, semaphores = and ipc were derived from CB-Unix...
=C2=A0
The other thing I'm not c= lear on is when the PWB team was folded into USG (Unix Support Group)=C2=A0in Summit.=C2=A0 I believe<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,255)"> that was after PWB 2.0 was released.=C2= =A0=C2=A0But at some point, Mashe= y's team and the USG got interwoven.=C2=A0 I really don't know/reme= mber many of those 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 releas= ed as the internal, but=C2=A0official= UNIX for the Bell System.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I= t 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 allo= wed=C2=A0to have computer product= s, etc...)=C2=A0

=
Yes. There's some confusion as PWB and UNIX/TS become a USG = thing that turns into System III and then the influx of CB-UNIX that's = added before System V. How all that relates to USG, I'm quite unclear o= n still...
=C2=A0
So PWB 2.0 is b= asically internal, and a melding of V7, TS, PWB 1.0 and starting to take th= ings from different labs with in=C2=A0BTL -- different from all of them but= mostly a superset.


=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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, mor= e in a minute

From the above recollection of Dan DeJAger...
=C2=A0
We know there was no System I or System = II.
Correct.=C2=A0
<= div>But was there a Unix 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, CM= U,=C2=A0etc. but never as a formal release.
=

I've seen lots of references to = UNIX/TS, but no versions, so this makes some sense... And it appears they g= o back further than V6...
=C2=A0
And were they the same thing as PWB 1.0 and 2.0, or somehow ju= st closely related?
See above... I&= #39;ll explain how PWB 3.0 became System III in a minute.
=C2=A0
= And I've seen both Unix/TS and Unix TS. Is there a preferred spelling?<= /font>
Don't know.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 First with V7, AT&T (Al Arms) wrote the = first binary system redistribution license.=C2=A0 The commercial folks were= happy to have a redistribution license, but the terms were not what they r= eally needed.=C2=A0 Much of the issue was that AT&T was not the compute= r hardware or software business and really did not understand the issues th= at the vendors had.=C2=A0 Professor Dennis Allison of Stanford, was consult= ing=C2=A0for almost all of us in the computer industry at the time (for tho= se that 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-a= silomar-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 w= ith a lawyer from Tektronix in the room (as I have said in other emails thi= s it is only time I have been in a meeting with Bill Gates).=C2=A0 The folk= s 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 fr= om SCO and DG.=C2=A0 =C2=A0There were some others, about 10 firms in total;= although I think if remember correctly, IBM was not among them [This is th= e meeting where Gates famously exclaimed: "You guys don't get i= t.=C2=A0 The only thing that matters in the software industry is volume= ."].

BTW: The bits we were discussi= ng was the upcoming release from USG, to be called PWB 3.0 and they were fo= r the PDP-11 only (which was fine, that was what we all had been licensing = already.=C2=A0 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 negotiatio= ns for a new license agreement that would allow the HW vendors to better sh= ip UNIX as a binary product:=C2=A0 FWIW: Gates wanted to pay $25/copy.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0The DEC, HP and DG folks laughed.=C2=A0 $1K/copy was fine by them= , since their HW was typically $50-150K/system.

<= /div>
Either shortly after or maybe during the negotiations time, Judge G= reen ruled and AT&T got broken up.=C2=A0 =C2=A0One of the things that o= ccured is that AT&T was now allowed to sell SW and more importantly the= ir new 3B20 as a product (against IBM and DEC).=C2=A0 From 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 they rebranded the n= ew software product 'System III.'

<= div style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Note the printing of the manuals had already begun, which is why the cove= r 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 late= r, negotiations=C2=A0had restarted on yet another license with the System I= II licensees and AT&T.=C2=A0 =C2=A0By the time that completed, yet anot= her release had been finished by USG.=C2=A0 The biggest change was the addi= tion support for HW besides the PDP-11. In particular, the official USG sup= port for the VAX and the 3B20.=C2=A0 What I forget, but I think in that lic= ense 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 'Cons= ider it Standard' campaign, called the new release "System V.&= quot;

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

Yea, t= he detailed part of my history ends with the progeny of V7 (and I only have= room for some, I've found maybe 3 dozen different systems that started= out with V7 and then merge in System III or System V code for later versio= ns or some variation on this theme).=C2=A0
=C2=A0

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 o= f my talk from this group?
I would= suggest sending a pointer to this group to the slides and ask for people t= o send you comments privately.
<= div>
Works for me. Let me update based on this and Steve'= s email.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
I'm sure they would be rather keener on catching er= rors in my understanding of Unix history than just about any other forum...=
Indeed - h= appy to help.

I am so very grateful for the help.
=C2=A0
Clem=C2=A0
<= /div>
--000000000000d6227605923ef620--