The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
@ 2020-08-06 20:20 Clem Cole
  2020-08-06 23:15 ` Warner Losh
  2020-08-07  2:49 ` [TUHS] " John Cowan
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-08-06 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS main list, Computer Old Farts Followers

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4277 bytes --]

This topic is still primarily UNIX but is getting near the edge of COFF, so
I'll CC there if people want to follow up.

As I mentioned to Will, during the time Research was doing the work/put out
their 'editions', the 'releases' were a bit more ephemeral - really a set
of bits (binary and hopefully matching source, but maybe not always)
that become a point in time. With 4th (and I think 5th) Editions it was a
state of disk pack when the bits were copies, but by 6th edition, as Noel
points out, there was a 'master tape' that the first site at an
institution received upon executing of a signed license, so the people at
each institution (MIT, Purdue, CMU, Harvard) passed those bits around
inside.

But what is more, is what Noel pointed out, we all passed source code and
binaries between each other, so DNA was fairly mixed up [sorry Larry  - it
really was 'Open Source' between the licensees].  Sadly, it means some
things that actually were sourced at one location and one system, is
credited sometimes credited from some other place the >>wide<< release was
in USG or BSD [think Jim Kulp's Job control, which ended up in the kernel
and csh(1) as part in 4BSD, our recent discussions on the list about
more/pg/less, the different networking changes from all of MIT/UofI/Rand,
Goble's FS fixes to make the thing more crash resilient, the early Harvard
ar changes - *a.k.a.* newar(1) which became ar(1), CMU fsck, e*tc*.].

Eventually, the AT&T Unix Support Group (USG) was stood up in Summit, as I
understand it, originally for the Operating Companies as they wanted to use
UNIX (but not for the licenses, originally).  Steve Johnson moved from
Research over there and can tell you many more of the specifics.
Eventually (*i.e.* post-Judge Green), distribution to the world moved from
MH's Research and the Patent Licensing teams to USG and AT&T North Carolina
business folks.

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.

As a side story ... the fact is that even for professional SW houses, it
was not as pure as it should be.  To be honest, knowing the players and
processes involved, I highly doubt DEC could rebuild early editions of VMS,
particularly since the 'source control' system was a physical flag in
Cutler's office.

The fact is that the problem of which bits were used to make what other
bits was widespread enough throughout the industry that in the mid-late 80s
when Masscomp won the bid to build the system that Nasa used to control the
space shuttle post-Challenger, a clause of the contract was that we have
put an archive of the bits running on the build machine ('Yeti'), a copy of
the prints and even microcode/PAL versions so that Ford Aerospace (the
prime contractor) could rebuild the exact system we used to build the
binaries for them if we went bankrupt.  I actually, had a duplicate of that
Yeti as my home system ('Xorn') in my basement when I made some money for a
couple of years as a contract/on-call person for them every time the
shuttle flew.

Anyway - the point is that documentation and actual bits being 100% in sync
is nothing new.   Companies work hard to try to keep it together, but
different projects work at different speeds.  In fact, the 'train release'
model is what is usually what people fall into.   You schedule a release of
some piece of SW and anything that goes with it, has to be on the train or
it must wait for the next one.  So developers and marketing people in firms
argue what gets to be the 'engine' [hint often its HW releases which are a
terrible idea, but that's a topic for COFF].

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8191 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-06 20:20 [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will) Clem Cole
@ 2020-08-06 23:15 ` Warner Losh
  2020-08-07  3:41   ` [TUHS] [COFF] " Wesley Parish
  2020-08-07  2:49 ` [TUHS] " John Cowan
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-08-06 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3017 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4148 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-06 20:20 [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will) Clem Cole
  2020-08-06 23:15 ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-08-07  2:49 ` John Cowan
  2020-08-07  2:56   ` Steve Nickolas
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2020-08-07  2:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 352 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:22 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:


> [hint often its HW releases which are a terrible idea, but that's a topic
> for COFF].
>

Or for a "history of MS-DOS" list, if there is such a thing.  DOS 1.0 for
floppies, DOS 2.0 for 10 MB hard disks, etc. etc.  It was in 2.0 that
MS-DOS got all the Unix it was ever going to get.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 791 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-07  2:49 ` [TUHS] " John Cowan
@ 2020-08-07  2:56   ` Steve Nickolas
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Steve Nickolas @ 2020-08-07  2:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Cowan; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, John Cowan wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:22 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> [hint often its HW releases which are a terrible idea, but that's a topic
>> for COFF].
>>
>
> Or for a "history of MS-DOS" list, if there is such a thing.  DOS 1.0 for
> floppies, DOS 2.0 for 10 MB hard disks, etc. etc.  It was in 2.0 that
> MS-DOS got all the Unix it was ever going to get.

A list like that, I'd dig.

-uso.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] [COFF]  Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-06 23:15 ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-08-07  3:41   ` Wesley Parish
  2020-08-07 14:27     ` John Cowan
  2020-08-07 15:37     ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wesley Parish @ 2020-08-07  3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

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 <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> 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
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] [COFF] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-07  3:41   ` [TUHS] [COFF] " Wesley Parish
@ 2020-08-07 14:27     ` John Cowan
  2020-08-07 20:17       ` Warner Losh
  2020-08-07 15:37     ` Clem Cole
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2020-08-07 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wesley Parish; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1219 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:42 PM Wesley Parish <wobblygong@gmail.com> wrote:


> 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?
>

Broadly yes.  2BSD was for the PDP-11, and while it could probably have
been ported to another 16-bit box, I don't think that was ever done by
anyone.  The VAX was the target machine for 3BSD to 4.3BSD.  4.3-Tahoe ran
on the Vax and the Power 6/32, though the latter platform died fairly soon
(but it was worth it because that release separated out portable and
non-portable stuff), and 4.3-Reno on at least HP machines.  Then came the
Great Legal Mess followed by the BSD Explosion.



John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held sway in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
        --LOTR, "The Passage of the Marshes"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1771 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] [COFF]  Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-07  3:41   ` [TUHS] [COFF] " Wesley Parish
  2020-08-07 14:27     ` John Cowan
@ 2020-08-07 15:37     ` Clem Cole
  2020-08-07 20:23       ` Warner Losh
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-08-07 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wesley Parish; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3314 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:41 PM Wesley Parish <wobblygong@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Sort of/in theory and all that.

2.XBSD was initially developed by a group of folks that had already
invested in PDP-11s (in mainly separate I/D based 11s) and could not afford
a new Vax.  The 11's are address space-constrained and with the
introduction of the Vax, one of the side effects of BSD was much of
the Unix 'small is beautiful' / 'do one job well' / 'KISS' ideas started to
be lost,* i.e. * Rob's super 'cat -v harmful' became necessary to write
(along sadly was often ignored).

Since CSRG (EE and CS at EE) abandoned the 11's pretty fast, there was a
group (originally lead by Keith Bostic in the Stat Dept) that wanted some
of the new code (particularly the networking stack and sendmail) moved to
their 11's.   In some ways, I was surprised that it has kept going, as the
68000 & later 386 based UNIX systems came to the world, as the economics of
running an 11 started to dwindle quickly.


> That if you had a VAX you got the 4.xBSD tapes, whereas if you had a PDP
> you got the 2.xBSD tapes?
>
If you were a University or Research type that qualified for a $100 style
research license, you would get a pure V7 (PDP-11) or a 32/V(Vax) tape from
AT&T patent and license.  Once your site had that, you were part of the
source 'club' and could whatever you wanted based on the AT&T V7 license.
 So if you were interested in the BSD releases your team then contacted the
'ILO' (UCB's Industrial Laison Office - BTW CSRG's worked with the ILO for
all the BSD tapes) and asked to obtain UCB IP (be it the CAD tools such as
SPICE, or the OS work like BSD, IC process technology, *et al*).   There
probably was some sort tape writing, *i.e.* short fees, associated with the
specific IP on the order of $100-$1000 depending on what you requested, and
there might be some licensing steps (exchange of AT&T license signature
pages).  When you had a license from the ILO, you were part of the UCB
'club.'

The original BSD and 2BSD tapes themselves were released officially by the
ILO, as with 3BSD and 4/4.1BSD.  By the time of 4.1a  BSD and later, we had
CSRG, and those releases were done by them directly after the licensing was
set up by the ILO.   As part of the funding and creation of CSRG, UC
Berekely finally had a C30 IMP in Evans (as opposed to the VDH to LBL), so
the releases were also possible via ftp from a hidden location on ucbvax.
 4X originally targetted Vaxen, but famously other systems like the 386 we
available on that site.

By the time of the 2X releases,  UC Berekely had the C30 IMP ( *i.e. *direct
internet connection).  So, once you were licensed, you got the keys to be
able to FTP different 'tapes' (which included sources and binaries), be it
2X or 4X base   But, since CSRG stopped focusing on 16-bit, the 2X stuff
became more of labor of love and was a bit less formal and was done with
cooperation with the CSRG team.

So ...  if you owned a PDP-11 and were still running it and you had a
proper UCB license, then yes, you might be tempted to run 2X; but the truth
is most people began to turn them off in deference to more cost-effective
platforms.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5347 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] [COFF] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-07 14:27     ` John Cowan
@ 2020-08-07 20:17       ` Warner Losh
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-08-07 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Cowan; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 8:27 AM John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:

> Broadly yes.  2BSD was for the PDP-11, and while it could probably have
> been ported to another 16-bit box, I don't think that was ever done by
> anyone.
>

I'm not aware of any 16-but 2BSD ports. In fact, I'm aware of only one 2BSD
port, and that's RetroBSD to a 32-bit, though highly constrained, MIPS PIC
part.

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 795 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] [COFF]  Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-07 15:37     ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-08-07 20:23       ` Warner Losh
  2020-08-07 21:07         ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2020-08-07 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1101 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:37 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> By the time of the 2X releases,  UC Berekely had the C30 IMP ( *i.e. *direct
> internet connection).  So, once you were licensed, you got the keys to be
> able to FTP different 'tapes' (which included sources and binaries), be it
> 2X or 4X base   But, since CSRG stopped focusing on 16-bit, the 2X stuff
> became more of labor of love and was a bit less formal and was done with
> cooperation with the CSRG team.
>

2.8BSD was supposed to be the last PDP-11 release: A final wrapup of
everything, according to the release notes. However, there were a lot of
PDP-11s in specialized niches that weren't easily replaced by more modern
hardware, so 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 happened as well. The formality of the
release seemed to diminish a bit at each step (though that may just be my
perceptions). By the time we arrive at 2.11BSD, the tapes were produced by
USENIX where you had to send proof of license to get the tape... These
releases were driven by Seismo, and the USGS and/or military deployments
from everything I've read...

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1579 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] [COFF]  Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will)
  2020-08-07 20:23       ` Warner Losh
@ 2020-08-07 21:07         ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-08-07 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2112 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:23 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

> 2.8BSD was supposed to be the last PDP-11 release: A final wrapup of
> everything, according to the release notes.
>
Yeah, that sounds right.  Bostic had moved into CSRG and I think he was
hacking on it less and less.  Also Ultrix/PDP-11 was out by then and Fred
Cantor had sort of displaced Keith as the PDP-11/UNIX wizard.



> However, there were a lot of PDP-11s in specialized niches that weren't
> easily replaced by more modern hardware, so 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 happened as
> well.
>
You tell me from looking at the sources, do you know if there was any back
population to these releases from DEC?  The Ultrix team (aps et al) had fed
CRSG drivers and some stuff for the Vax.  Fred had a goal (took some pride)
in trying to make the PDP-11/Ultrix release very much plug and play, but I
had personally lost interest in the PDP-11 by then so I was not watching it
directly, only socially knowing many of the players.




> The formality of the release seemed to diminish a bit at each step (though
> that may just be my perceptions).
>
Well, the formality of anything before that was happenstance.  Because CSRG
was getting more formal, I think Keith and company were trying to
parrot the same schemes.  As I said, 4.1 and before like, Research was sort
of the state of the world when Joy made the tape.

To be fair, disk space was expensive.  So keeping a big hunk of space
dedicated to the 'release bits' was not really reasonable much less
imaginable.  It was only with CRSG that for the Vax there was 'enough'
hardware to have test machines and dedicated distribution.



> By the time we arrive at 2.11BSD, the tapes were produced by USENIX where
> you had to send proof of license to get the tape... These releases were
> driven by Seismo, and the USGS and/or military deployments from everything
> I've read...
>
That sounds right.   By the time of later 2.X versions UCB folks were much
less involved and I think you might be that USENIX took over some
distribution work (I was not on the board then, Steve might have been).

Clem

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3766 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-07 21:08 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-06 20:20 [TUHS] Unix and SW Releases (was V7 et al from Will) Clem Cole
2020-08-06 23:15 ` Warner Losh
2020-08-07  3:41   ` [TUHS] [COFF] " Wesley Parish
2020-08-07 14:27     ` John Cowan
2020-08-07 20:17       ` Warner Losh
2020-08-07 15:37     ` Clem Cole
2020-08-07 20:23       ` Warner Losh
2020-08-07 21:07         ` Clem Cole
2020-08-07  2:49 ` [TUHS] " John Cowan
2020-08-07  2:56   ` Steve Nickolas

The Unix Heritage Society mailing list

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/tuhs

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 tuhs tuhs/ http://inbox.vuxu.org/tuhs \
		tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
	public-inbox-index tuhs

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.tuhs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git