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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 2882 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2022 18:42:17 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 Jul 2022 18:42:17 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D41C406FB; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 04:42:11 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhs.org; s=dkim; t=1657910531; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-owner:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=pjT7gHtWCSdngOCxmA3jUQcPu7iiF61+BQPuZje1N9U=; b=QDJBozjvNjbLqb3vaTD8b46pfFPYHojtTLyWjv9PMW/esm6bR4Tf/o3tcJwWLdRsPQTcLs tMJhjPha9wYoTKI2a0EWlea6xRAobw4l9Zvi+4UITsitnnRPgcM6xJ5Hx6alhcdjFEQtp7 VjPOnfqkl9JOw5VvWpprov5KymoHvZ4= Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8AB4406FA for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 04:42:06 +1000 (AEST) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 18:41:53 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1657910524; x=1658169724; bh=pjT7gHtWCSdngOCxmA3jUQcPu7iiF61+BQPuZje1N9U=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=y6T7ZB5TIkBUsVQRGGz4hFGQ7z8p3P4V4Oey/r//RRtz8l/XpyDRGWkFzEtx8nvDq zDcPXXx38WBZP/arNZslb84+nFOajgXX2MaUnmXOKvTucHgvbBivKnBC6Zq0MeTdrp KZFXHextMr5xVs2XZrLdbsnSS8SDZWkCt4hpR2ghb/dxFTk+g8WL3snNI8lyNbw54R X1s6ZCgfundJjVbQu3scX3W1PsgBHDBZNdzS1Dx9c8RMz2JRndpdT/8yvvvu7q6H4K NBxNHLdug+IVfSqH0+T8YFDw91bvDYwFgWRrqPPu2Gif44fbbbNQmDGnKdxYUVWvDw 6VAUSQ1+vN/Ig== To: Warner Losh Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2hK72A6Itq5yUS4eqzueKuU8hSC1JCR3XQbiHWTXnp-VS1V-eItyJ1gscCj2QR-0knXF7ukWVBxxzrC6e4TaN86l_2WAYK1eGrae2cskPb4=@protonmail.com> Feedback-ID: 35591162:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: DGIL7MXPWGMHBNPMTIREVOX2FMWJGUPM X-Message-ID-Hash: DGIL7MXPWGMHBNPMTIREVOX2FMWJGUPM X-MailFrom: segaloco@protonmail.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: Paul Ruizendaal , The Eunuchs Hysterical Society X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: V8 4BSD or 32V Based? (was: Unix V8 Chaosnet, any takers?) List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: From: segaloco via TUHS Reply-To: segaloco Thanks for the insight, definitely a stronger case for 4.1BSD being involve= d in some way, shape, or form. Here are a few SCCS strings from V8 vs 4BSD = and 4.1(c)BSD. init: V8 - "@(#)init.c=094.3 (Berkeley) 10/13/80" 4BSD - "@(#)init.c=094.3 (Berkeley) 10/13/80" 4.1cBSD - "@(#)init.c=094.10 (Berkeley) 12/22/82" getty: V8 - "@(#)getty.c=094.1 (Berkeley) 10/1/80" 4BSD - "@(#)getty.c=094.1 (Berkeley) 10/1/80" 4.1cBSD - "@(#)getty.c=094.9 4.9 82/12/23" Locore (not an SCCS string, but comment at top): V8 - "Locore.c=094.11=0981/05/15" 4BSD - "Locore.c=094.4=0911/10/80" 4.1BSD - "Locore.c=094.11=0981/05/15" (Note, used the BBN VAX version here= , I couldn't find the kernel sources in the 4.1cBSD on the archive...) Main (kernel): V8 - "main.c=094.14=0981/04/23" 4BSD - "main.c=094.2=0911/9/80" 4.1BSD - "main.c=094.14=0981/04/23" crt0: This one doesn't have SCCS info, is identical between V8 and 4BSD in = ASM. The crt0 in 4.1cBSD is in C instead, so not really comparable. doprnt (c library): V8 - "@(#)doprnt.s=094.3 (Berkeley) 3/22/81" 4BSD - No string... 4.1cBSD - "@(#)doprnt.s=094.4 (Berkeley) 11/25/81" Granted, this isn't exhaustive by any means, but everything I've checked ha= s shown a much stronger 4 through 4.1cBSD character than V7/32V. It's too = bad the march from V7 to V8 isn't more documented, what I'm starting to see= here is a incremental approach where perhaps 4BSD was picked up, started t= o be modified into a research version, and as useful developments were made= at Berkeley, they continued to merge in as well as make local changes unti= l V8 was born. This is all speculation on my part though, I don't want to establish histor= y I wasn't there for, but there is a strong case for V8 starting possibly a= s 4BSD with a pretty open door to continuing to pull from BSD for a little = while. Specifically, I've seen more 4BSD alignment in userland, more 4.1BS= D alignment in the kernel, but it's all, as Dennis put it, "pretty eclectic= ". - Matt G. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, July 15th, 2022 at 10:50 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:15 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > > Re-subject'd as this part of the conversation diverges. > > > > Found the quote that I was thinking of when I said that: > > > > https://yarchive.net/comp/bsd.html > > > > "Research Unix 8th Edition started from (I think) BSD 4.1c, but with en= ormous amounts scooped out and replaced by our own stuff." - Dennis Ritchie > > > > The "I think" adds some murkiness for sure. There's definitely a good c= hunk of code from 4BSD. Compare init, getty, locore.c (as opposed to .s in = V7 back). Heck, even the main.c between the two kernels are more similar to= each other than V7. I would almost opt towards calling that being rebased = on 4BSD rather than V7 with bits and pieces of BSD added. I could see it be= ing more beneficial to start with 4BSD and tack on necessary Bell bits rath= er than take V7/32V and try and shoehorn in the VM implementation for VAX. > > > > The 4.1cBSD copy on the archive does appear to be pretty different, so = in terms of raw comparison, I suspect the basis is 4BSD rather than 4.1cBSD= . I don't know that we have a clean copy of 4.1BSD gold, I'd be interested = to see if the structure of the source code changed between 4.1 and 4.1c, as= 4.1c does exhibit the new organization by the BSD folks, 4BSD still shows = folders like cmd, lib, and so on. > > > > Not trying to be combative by any means, but I've been doing a bit of r= esearch lately into when V8 was snapped from BSD and where Bell and Berkele= y then diverged from that last major confluence, especially with a focus on= init and other early stages of userland. > > > The biggest differences between BSD4.1 and BSD4.1c were the addition of F= FS in 4.1b (we have 4.1a from Kirk's DVD, as well as 4.1 and two versions o= f 4.1c). There's no ufs that I can detect in V8 though. > > If we look at the vm, the 4.1c.2 files are from 83, the 4.1 files are fro= m 80 and the v8 files are from 81. > > Kirk's DVD has a 4.1.snap on it that lines up more closely with at least = the vm files. I don't recall what these files are from. It's not present in= the TUHS archives that I see. This snapshot is about a year after 4.1BSD r= elease, but maybe 18 months before the 4.1a snapshot. > > Warner