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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 bf30cdc6 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 15:16:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 52D429CCBE; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 01:16:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDF79CCAB; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 01:15:51 +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="WTKdZCKz"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 51E139CCAA; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 01:15:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f176.google.com (mail-qk1-f176.google.com [209.85.222.176]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E39699CCA9 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 01:15:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f176.google.com with SMTP id q15so2205620qki.2 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2020 07:15:46 -0800 (PST) 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=BjqwGKQM1gZcH7IsXNGY+t7P05why95IAimt/G3qdMU=; b=WTKdZCKzO3DXX7oYFyqgLqSR32riN20Dn9VwPBCX3BI4c2Kbu6IgeCzbYqu5cCC1ld 9uyeNti5XzRpDVZrq0FE2EPEAsWwPSPUNaPY6s6Cf0gP1oX/Rgyvimp4N6kjzKOl35yH mT4FFHZdsFjKow2gsVao1biyciDIYPJQiBcSZPI+OHhDIeYEDcsIAkYLCv0INYrpb7f6 rfFiOzqau5bNMfmF7MWSHKucrYTN6Ib02Z2J4ClisqE28vsulMoG3IM0PPJOW71bOXRM tI1u7Bj1+I6oMu31QtYPAD6L7lzOOp81SzW8b0nue7yjK/MeCuSitRNsYzGPe/U6jDtX /XJw== 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=BjqwGKQM1gZcH7IsXNGY+t7P05why95IAimt/G3qdMU=; b=Xi3sr5pMyu/iJYuiEUemzPk5B20tu237BRiuQIrwguiYflt0Kg5Uf2p+FtptBPGijV Pdy+aHpcEVEW5meV5VPg/mMOdbvu09akbeE5Vp0Odm7sArnGgne1Hz02xVzLnIC7WJJl zxOnKpdDcdFWIkI1DdCjB4CmG4UxtVGwh7i5tKHFTF5+jVkD3Ye8m8tExoxUZxTpoJby 2E6quNvV59CyjkJ51zz1Daj5IWZ69ocGAW2pMt3lh3PV0uZY0eRpdBZkLaiOKgMmTWQ9 YP9/CXiO4fZ/cjOGJgGEW8/vRGEcLMizhsrHBrZyvtfx8tKaTDXN4xXTUbUQh6jbGps9 /VVg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsAx0W8XTtcx6x9VP+0QeP6rRuBzB55h9hK6V+WUN4MrXVAQ3f G1XxTBPKIdGDfPI3MeRRU+MU+CVPTrwQQ1UM26/1vg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8bFh51zhN7bNoU9oVJpcROuWcDoFiENlPE8uGD7ugGqPvPAtgA6pGb9wkOGgKI+7Ms3WPVG8najPK3doQ5wk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2104:: with SMTP id l4mr3408871qkl.240.1581174945848; Sat, 08 Feb 2020 07:15:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 08:15:34 -0700 Message-ID: To: Rob Pike Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f9b24d059e11fad0" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Warner's Early Unix Presentation 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" --000000000000f9b24d059e11fad0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:58 PM Rob Pike wrote: > Very nice talk with lots of good background. It made me think of the boxes > of DECTapes we had under the Unix room floor, and what we might have lost. > (Volunteers did manage to recover a couple of them, but time was short). > That makes me sad... :( It seems weird: in the Unix room were also all the binders of PDP-7 code that we've retyped in. I wonder if that was considered the archive for early unix, and that may be why we don't have enough early unix artifacts before the 5th edition? I know it was a bit of a rolling release, but I would have thought that ken or dmr would have made archival copies of the system around 'manual edition day' given all the other artifacts they saved. > PWB inaccuracy: The talk said that tools like grep and sed came from PWB, > but that's not true. They were original, as I'm sure Warner knows; he just > misspoke. > Yes. I got confused. In the talk the organizers flashed the time signs too early so I got nervous and rushed through some bits (it didn't help that this was the largest room I've spoken to and it was in the 'lunch coma' spot so some people fell asleep). I also never have a script for the talks, just a good understanding of the material and a rough list of points I'd like to make... And at the last minute I thought it would be better to characterize all the v4-based systems as the early forks and de-emphasize that SCCS Unix -> CB Unix was the first fork, so I thought I made that point a little more awkwardly than I would have liked. > Slightly more important: PWB also did not introduce the idea of the shell > (neither did Unix, for that matter), although there was a distinct shell > for that system that included the legendary pump operator, later superseded > by here documents. > Yes. I'd only mean that pwb enabled people to start writing real, non-trivial shell scripts. There's other scripts in the tree prior to Bourne Shell... There's several 'runit' scripts that look to build things pre-make. There's also sources to 'goto.c' which implemented 'goto label' by rewinding stdin until it finds the label then exiting (I presume the older shell would then start reading again from stdin). Or maybe I've totally missed the point of s1/goto.c... there's no comments in it. It is a bit of a stretch, though, you're right. > The flow from PWB back to the main research line was a trickle at best. We > had bad NIH in 1127. > That matches other sources I've seen: bug fixes flowed into research relatively easily. Performance fixes sometimes (though often not). Some drivers did. And only the occasional program. It's my belief that this slow level of flow is why AT&T shifted from the Research line to the Unix/TS line and merged Unix/TS and PWB into Unix/TS 3.0 (System III was 3.0.1) and roped other internal lines into Unix/TS 4.0 and/or System V. I also now wonder if we got the Bourne Shell because of NIH or because there was some clear technical defect in pwbsh that Steve Bourne was correcting... There were no env vars before V7, and I haven't looked at the pwb sh to see how that issue was handled. I'll have to also include the 'pump' operator in future talks. Warner --000000000000f9b24d059e11fad0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:58 PM Rob Pi= ke <robpike@gmail.com> wrote= :
Very nice talk with lots of good background. It made me think of th= e boxes of DECTapes we had under the Unix room floor, and what we might hav= e lost. (Volunteers did manage to recover a couple of them, but time was sh= ort).

That makes me sad... :( I= t seems weird: in the Unix room were also all the binders of PDP-7 code tha= t we've retyped in. I wonder if that was considered the archive for ear= ly unix, and that may be why we don't have enough early unix artifacts = before the 5th edition? I know it was a bit of a rolling release, but I wou= ld have thought that ken or dmr would have made archival copies of the syst= em around 'manual edition day' given all the other artifacts they s= aved.
=C2=A0
PWB inaccuracy: The talk said that tools like grep= and sed came from PWB, but that's not true. They were original, as I&#= 39;m sure Warner knows; he just misspoke.

=
Yes. I got confused. In the talk the organizers flashed the time= signs too early so I got nervous and rushed through some bits (it didn'= ;t help that this was the largest room I've spoken to and it was in the= 'lunch coma' spot so some people fell asleep). I also never have a= script for the talks, just a good understanding of the material=C2=A0and a= rough list of points I'd like to make...=C2=A0 And at the last minute = I thought it would be better to characterize all the v4-based systems as th= e early forks and de-emphasize that SCCS Unix -> CB Unix was the first f= ork, so I thought I made that point a little more awkwardly than I would ha= ve liked.
=C2=A0
Slightly more important: PWB also did not = introduce the idea of the shell (neither did Unix, for that matter), althou= gh there was a distinct shell for that system that included the legendary p= ump operator, later superseded by here documents.
<= div>
Yes. I'd only mean that pwb enabled people to start = writing real, non-trivial shell scripts. There's other scripts in the t= ree prior to Bourne Shell...=C2=A0 There's several 'runit' scri= pts that look to build things pre-make. There's also sources to 'go= to.c' which implemented 'goto label' by rewinding stdin until i= t finds the label then exiting (I presume the older shell would then start = reading again from stdin). Or maybe I've totally missed the point of s1= /goto.c... there's no comments in it. It is a bit of a stretch, though,= you're right.
=C2=A0
The flow from PWB back to the main re= search line was a trickle at best. We had bad NIH in 1127.

That matches other sources I've seen: bug f= ixes flowed into research relatively easily. Performance fixes sometimes (t= hough often not). Some drivers did. And only the occasional program. It'= ;s my belief that this slow level of flow is why AT&T shifted from the = Research line to the Unix/TS line and merged Unix/TS and PWB into Unix/TS 3= .0 (System III was 3.0.1) and roped other internal lines into Unix/TS 4.0 a= nd/or System V. I also now wonder if we got the Bourne Shell because of NIH= or because there was some clear technical defect in pwbsh that Steve Bourn= e was correcting... There were no env vars before V7, and I haven't loo= ked at the pwb sh to see how that issue was handled. I'll have to also = include the 'pump' operator in future talks.

Warner
--000000000000f9b24d059e11fad0--