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_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 18660 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2020 23:17:11 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 6 Aug 2020 23:17:11 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DF6C19CAA8; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:17:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECB59CAAE; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:16:27 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="REiJnKsE"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D7D739C1CE; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:16:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qv1-f48.google.com (mail-qv1-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A8B09C1C7 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:16:07 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qv1-f48.google.com with SMTP id l13so16963020qvt.10 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:16:07 -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=BhUv+pWC2eNLqIPawiuO9CKo50WOHS2kzLtu6fdnaxw=; b=REiJnKsEZ9MZBebo9JDv9sQXUmzUVHx/uoqmW4rn778KC0TbCluldJzW7ZNasOFpmO 8DiwyCRor34qjjl4AmirRNSHSKXUGcaWOqqpwBCoFZtrMvcpnriPA9sReAdDkS12asM+ 1LbGGtq+eQ9MREPARdFVt51xM+PTBocOprSXGLa/N/SjTwed1lSGYWf3MMN81OCFl1Xj 5rWUkYPIyXGt16rfnOIcXZnXhnCeqFiuORK4aZOXQt5wYW8fPgVBgrrKR3rkdfFcuiKR OXJhyLIcij9dLUy3pl2hrduj6EnP+TX+uZl78zguh9cbdwbd8wZMEPFjcdjEDt25aFZA eoMw== 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=BhUv+pWC2eNLqIPawiuO9CKo50WOHS2kzLtu6fdnaxw=; b=q/fo6xF81ogxeOjGWpvlxP3vff185mkzCzCf6Qx4koDDvjbGf83BJ2b6mnCjIeWksp 4FeyHyJcnnDY6sG/RdnaNRX08sZh0kXVOI8jIeYMoVzjY3jRtrYJG6ri3+toP/rU5bgW EPXU2SbRL2Z4u9rAqioxNBLZnzLBi6L1mxsrJ9uzXuQrQw2J/WHbfQiPLYTS+jw+Os6l BuIcqUIPsjBTWyLJjQdwYVu3BbFeX93v7p9wgQ3ikrZu4tbpOVDQn3jCz5VuVRbDuuPf aXyxP0p0pHN+d8SOsmaL15mlZYcR7IyUCXi7CqoN5sZCLbTaLh5TP6dywDemKJYrCsFt a1Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Yg1PuS6q9Tv8aRomdpex6zkbbAt2nVO0TzW1rwyZ4KDEeV/X0 j8FfsiWburfRRbeTymDLMEzPKUin4sFhIbfIMFOgmust X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmARuXqUn3dXh5I7JUwRJDrPuewROuDGNNXQb9yHhQSGZVSx6b/LSLPEsatbxV/ubhybl0Eh80WVeeufhTE30= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5252:: with SMTP id s18mr12098615qvq.125.1596755766675; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:16:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:15:55 -0600 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000441b7f05ac3dac32" Subject: Re: [TUHS] 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" --000000000000441b7f05ac3dac32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 --000000000000441b7f05ac3dac32 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 PM Clem C= ole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
=
That said, when the distribution of UNIX moved to USG in Summit, things starte= d to=C2=A0a bit more formal.=C2=A0=C2=A0 But there were still di= fferences inside, as we have tried to unravel.=C2=A0 PWB/TS and eventually = System x.=C2=A0=C2=A0 FWIW, BSD went through=C2=A0the same thing.=C2=A0 The first BSD's are really the binary state of the world o= n the Cory 11/70, later 'Ernie.'=C2=A0 By the time CSRG gets stood = up=C2=A0because their official=C2=A0job (like USG) is to support Unix for D= ARPA, Sam and company are acting a bit more like traditional SW firms=C2=A0= with alpha/beta releases and a more formal build process.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0Note that 2.X never really went through that, so we are all witnessing t= he wonderful efforts to try to rebuild early 2.X BSD, and see that the ephe= meral nature of the bits has become more obvious.
<= /blockquote>

I'm rebuilding 2.11BSD as released, not= any of the early bits... :) 1991 is quite late in the 2BSD timeline (oh, w= ait, it's still going strong in PiDP-11 land).

Having said that, though, 2BSD through at least 2.8BSD gives the feeling o= f the tape of the day club. If you look closely at what's in the TUHS a= rchive, 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 t= wo files having newer dates than the documented release date. And the 2.79B= SD tape... I'm more than half convinced it was really the 79th tape tha= t 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 n= ot asked around...

2.9BSD, 2.10BSD and 2.10.1B= SD all seem to be a little more controlled, though 2.9BSD has a lot of fork= s and it's not entirely clear they all started from the same spot. Ther= e's references to 2.9-SEISMO and 2.9.1 and 2.9 with patches and it isn&= #39;t at all clear if these are the same thing or different (I think the sa= me, but there's a 2.9 from princeton that's clearly a rollup releas= e years later in kirk's archives).

And even my= 2.11BSD reconstruction shows that proper CM wasn't deployed for it. I&= #39;ve found half a dozen missing patches that were not released as real pa= tches, 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 re= leased. I'm down to 10-20 files that I'm unsure about ever recoveri= ng. These are clearly local files (different kernel configs, UUCP data, gam= es high score files), and I doubt I'll be able to recover them complete= ly.... 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 d= eleted 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.<= /div>

Warner
--000000000000441b7f05ac3dac32--