On Mar 18, 2024, at 1:21 PM, segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> only caveat being the transmitter status register was a dirty filthy liar and wouldn't flip the bit on transmit, so just had to put a delay, which it turns out all of the BSDs currently also do for Ti 16550-family UARTs as well.
NatSemi (later Ti) 16550s have a 16 byte fifo in each direction.
Any delays would be in getc(), putc(), used for system console io,
not general serial io. Ignoring any code for brokenness! The early
16660 versions had a bug preventing use of the fifo but this was
fixed ages ago. At least this is what I remember decades later!
On Monday, March 18th, 2024 at 1:08 PM, Ron Natalie <ron@ronnatalie.com> wrote:
> The other problem with the DZ is it was one interrupt per character if I
> recall.
> Thte DH you could get multiple (output) characters per interrupt.
> Greatly decreased the load on the system.
>
> I do remember the KL kernel prints were not interrupt driven so the
> system pretty much froze while the kernel printfs were being output.
> There was a comment on the code saying this was “Not for idle chit
> chat.”
Yep, synchronous code that writes a character at a time to the transmit register then spins on a status bit awaiting transmit complete, or something like that. I adapted the V6 kernel printf to a RISC-V board I was working on the past year to have a trustworthy print mechanism, only caveat being the transmitter status register was a dirty filthy liar and wouldn't flip the bit on transmit, so just had to put a delay, which it turns out all of the BSDs currently also do for Ti 16550-family UARTs as well.
- Matt G.
On Monday, March 18th, 2024 at 12:36 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024, Ron Natalie wrote: > > > /dev/tty existed in Version 6 for sure. It wasn't the console but > > rather a magic device that mapped to the processes "controlling > > terminal." > > > I was referring to /dev/tty8, not /dev/tty... > > -- Dave ttys(V) in the Sixth Edition indicates the first digit of an /etc/ttys entry indicates a terminal line is active on init and the second indicates the final character of the /dev/ttyx entry[1]. Looking at both the Fifth and Sixth Edition /etc/ttys in the archive[2][3], both only have a 1 in the first column of entry 8, corresponding with /dev/tty8. From the setup document distributed with the Sixth Edition[4]: "The same goes for the character devices. Here the names are arbitrary except that devices meant to be used for teletype access should be named /dev/ttyX, where X is any character. The files tty8 (console), mem, kmem, null are already correctly configured." From all of this it appears that by convention, tty8 was indeed the default console /dev entry, although this could be changed by editing the conf and ttys entries followed by regeneration of the system. This would change in the Seventh Edition with the rearrangement of the ttys file to indicate longer /dev entry names and the establishment of a specific /dev/console entry. - Matt G. [1] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/usr/man/man5/ttys.5 [2] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V5/etc/ttys [3] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/etc/ttys [4] - https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/usr/doc/start/start
The other problem with the DZ is it was one interrupt per character if I recall. Thte DH you could get multiple (output) characters per interrupt. Greatly decreased the load on the system. I do remember the KL kernel prints were not interrupt driven so the system pretty much froze while the kernel printfs were being output. There was a comment on the code saying this was “Not for idle chit chat.”
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024, Ron Natalie wrote:
> /dev/tty existed in Version 6 for sure. It wasn't the console but
> rather a magic device that mapped to the processes "controlling
> terminal."
I was referring to /dev/tty8, not /dev/tty...
-- Dave
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:58:04AM -0400, Paul Winalski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 9:57???AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
> > The DZ11 is an eight-port mux (with short pinned modem control and no DMA
> > - both causing issues).
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure that when we beta tested the VAX-11/780 in the summer of
> 1977 it had a DZ11. We only had a few LA36 printing terminals on it so we
> never saw any issues with it. Not so when I started work at DEC in 1980.
> The VAX-11/780 I worked on had IIRC three DZ11a supporting 24 terminals.
> The lack of DMA was a big issue. We had to run our VT52s no faster than
> 300 baud or it brought the system to its knees.
I was one of about 40 students working on a terminal hooked to a 780.
I put up with it for a semester and then bought a 4mhz 128KB Z80
CPM machine. It was not that fast but it was all mine. I was more
productive on the Z80.
I got a $2000 loan to buy it. Taught me that I really really hated to
owe the bank.
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --] On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 9:57 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote: > The DZ11 is an eight-port mux (with short pinned modem control and no DMA > - both causing issues). > I'm pretty sure that when we beta tested the VAX-11/780 in the summer of 1977 it had a DZ11. We only had a few LA36 printing terminals on it so we never saw any issues with it. Not so when I started work at DEC in 1980. The VAX-11/780 I worked on had IIRC three DZ11a supporting 24 terminals. The lack of DMA was a big issue. We had to run our VT52s no faster than 300 baud or it brought the system to its knees. -Paul W. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 925 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2994 bytes --] Yes. The lawyer was walking on air when he got back to the office to tell about it. If I may digress into a personal story, somewhat pre-Unix. (I was nine years old.) I remember my father showing exactly the same excitement when he returned from testifying as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a near-electrocution case that left the victim paralyzed. A visitor touring a substation had pointed to something to ask what it was, and got hit with a 33,000-volt arc. The defense lawyer tried to discredit the expert, a professor who formerly had been an electrical engineer for a utility company. Lawyer: Have you ever designed a 33,000-volt indoor substation? Prof: I have. Lawyer, changing tactics after an unexpected answer: Do you recognize this book? Prof: I do. Some discussion describing the book, an inventory of utility facilities, for the benefit of the jury. Lawyer, with a hint of triumph: The inventory shows that your former employer has no such substation. Prof: Yes, after a few years we decided it was too dangerous and decommissioned it. ... Lawyer, showing a photo of the busbar that arced: Wouldn't someone have to stretch unusually high to get near to it? Prof: No. That picture was taken exactly [some measurement like 2'3"] from the floor. Lawyer: Do you mean to tell me you know where the picture was taken from, without having been present when it was taken? Prof, pointing to a blown-up engineering drawing on the courtroom wall: This horizontal pipe is seen end-on in the photo. It is dimensioned as being 2'3" from the floor. The plaintiff won. Doug On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 8:28 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 5:24 PM Douglas McIlroy > <douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote: > > > > > There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen. > > > > Not always misplaced. There was a guy in Boston who sold Unix look-alike > programs. A quick look at the binary revealed perfect correlation with our > C source. Coincidentally, DEC had hired this person as a consultant in > connection with cross-licensing negotiations with AT&T. Socializing at the > end of a day's negotiations, our lawyer somehow managed to turn the > conversation to software piracy. He discussed a case he was working on, > and happened to have some documents about it in his briefcase. He pulled > out a page disassembled binary and a page of source code and showed them to > the consultant. > > > > After a little study, the consultant confidently opined that the binary > was obviously compiled from that source. "Would it surprise you," the > lawyer asked, "if I told you that this is yours and that is ours?" The > consultant did not attend the following day's meeting. > > Fantastic story, and talk about a true "Perry Mason" moment for the > lawyer. I'm sure it was also fertile material for stories at cocktail > parties for the rest of his days. > > - Dan C. > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3604 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1601 bytes --] Dave -- As Ron pointed /dev/ty was part of UNIX early in the game. I'm pretty sure it was in V5 but it might even go back to V3 or V4. To your point on naming the first serial mux for the PDP-11 was the DH11/DM11, a 16 port [full 'system unit' in the backplate]. The single hex-height DZ board did not appear from DEC until 1977 at the earliest (although my memory is that it was late 78). The DZ11 is an eight-port mux (with short pinned modem control and no DMA - both causing issues). If you remember, the original 1979 AT&T V7 release tape does not even have a driver for the DZ ( it's in the v7 addendum, which came out 6-9 months later). I don't know, but maybe tty8 was just simply that the DC11s had originally been to the first eight serial ports, and the first DL/KL was tty8 I'm not sure why I think this ... my hazy memory is that DC11 was 0-7, the DLs 8-15, and DHs started 16 That memory may be because when I set up the the Teklabs 11/70 with 6 Able DH/DMs [which were 16 ports in a hex board each], I used that convention to remember which board controlled which port. ᐧ ᐧ ᐧ On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:14 AM Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> wrote: > Evenin' all... > > I have a vague recollection that /dev/tty8 was the console in Edition 5 > (we only used it briefly until Ed 6 appeared), but cannot find a reference > to it; lots of stuff about Penguin/OS though... > > Something to do with 0-7 being the mux, so "8" was left (remember that > /dev/tty and /dev/console didn't exist back then), mayhaps? > > Thanks. > > -- Dave > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3478 bytes --]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 5:24 PM Douglas McIlroy
<douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen.
>
> Not always misplaced. There was a guy in Boston who sold Unix look-alike programs. A quick look at the binary revealed perfect correlation with our C source. Coincidentally, DEC had hired this person as a consultant in connection with cross-licensing negotiations with AT&T. Socializing at the end of a day's negotiations, our lawyer somehow managed to turn the conversation to software piracy. He discussed a case he was working on, and happened to have some documents about it in his briefcase. He pulled out a page disassembled binary and a page of source code and showed them to the consultant.
>
> After a little study, the consultant confidently opined that the binary was obviously compiled from that source. "Would it surprise you," the lawyer asked, "if I told you that this is yours and that is ours?" The consultant did not attend the following day's meeting.
Fantastic story, and talk about a true "Perry Mason" moment for the
lawyer. I'm sure it was also fertile material for stories at cocktail
parties for the rest of his days.
- Dan C.
/dev/tty existed in Version 6 for sure. It wasn't the console but
rather a magic device that mapped to the processes "controlling
terminal."
Just checked the V5 and V6 sources in the archive. /dev/tty indeed
showed up there. The driver is in dmr/sys.c.
------ Original Message ------
From "Dave Horsfall" <dave@horsfall.org>
To "The Eunuchs Hysterical Society" <tuhs@tuhs.org>
Date 3/18/2024 7:13:45 AM
Subject [TUHS] Of /dev/tty8
>Evenin' all...
>
>I have a vague recollection that /dev/tty8 was the console in Edition 5
>(we only used it briefly until Ed 6 appeared), but cannot find a reference
>to it; lots of stuff about Penguin/OS though...
>
>Something to do with 0-7 being the mux, so "8" was left (remember that
>/dev/tty and /dev/console didn't exist back then), mayhaps?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-- Dave
Evenin' all... I have a vague recollection that /dev/tty8 was the console in Edition 5 (we only used it briefly until Ed 6 appeared), but cannot find a reference to it; lots of stuff about Penguin/OS though... Something to do with 0-7 being the mux, so "8" was left (remember that /dev/tty and /dev/console didn't exist back then), mayhaps? Thanks. -- Dave
[ Slowly going OT ]
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, Rich Salz wrote:
> This was common practice among map publishers, called a trap street.
Yep; I've seen one myself. A dead-end (where someone I knew lived, just
right behind where I used to), suddenly vanished from one edition; one
complaint later, and it reappeared in the next edition.
-- Dave
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --] > > > . The Bells would deliberately put in bogus listings to see if the > non-Bell phone books were stealing their data. > This was common practice among map publishers, called a trap street. > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 607 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --] "... literally bug-compatible ..." When I used to work for the phone company.... wait, I mean Bell Labs ... I was in a department (under Rudd Canaday!) that was building an application to print phone books, so I got to learn a little about that side of the business. The Bells would deliberately put in bogus listings to see if the non-Bell phone books were stealing their data. (In the one case I was told about, they were not. The Bell company had no idea how they were getting the data.) Marc On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:28 PM Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Douglas McIlroy wrote: > > [...] > > > After a little study, the consultant confidently opined that the binary > > was obviously compiled from that source. "Would it surprise you," the > > lawyer asked, "if I told you that this is yours and that is ours?" The > > consultant did not attend the following day's meeting. > > Does anyone remember the case of the program that was literally > bug-compatible? That's mostly because the source had been pirated; the > bug was obscure enough that it was unlikely to have been reproduced > independently... > > -- Dave > -- *My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com <mrochkind@gmail.com>* [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1862 bytes --]
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
[...]
> After a little study, the consultant confidently opined that the binary
> was obviously compiled from that source. "Would it surprise you," the
> lawyer asked, "if I told you that this is yours and that is ours?" The
> consultant did not attend the following day's meeting.
Does anyone remember the case of the program that was literally
bug-compatible? That's mostly because the source had been pirated; the
bug was obscure enough that it was unlikely to have been reproduced
independently...
-- Dave
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 05:23:44PM -0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote: > > There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen. > > Not always misplaced. There was a guy in Boston who sold Unix look-alike > programs. A quick look at the binary revealed perfect correlation with our > C source. Coincidentally, DEC had hired this person as a consultant in > connection with cross-licensing negotiations with AT&T. Socializing at > the end of a day's negotiations, our lawyer somehow managed to turn the > conversation to software piracy. He discussed a case he was working on, > and happened to have some documents about it in his briefcase. He pulled > out a page disassembled binary and a page of source code and showed them to > the consultant. > > After a little study, the consultant confidently opined that the binary was > obviously compiled from that source. "Would it surprise you," the lawyer > asked, "if I told you that this is yours and that is ours?" The consultant > did not attend the following day's meeting. Oh come on, you can leave that juicy story there. What happened next? -- --- Larry McVoy Retired to fishing http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 935 bytes --] > There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen. Not always misplaced. There was a guy in Boston who sold Unix look-alike programs. A quick look at the binary revealed perfect correlation with our C source. Coincidentally, DEC had hired this person as a consultant in connection with cross-licensing negotiations with AT&T. Socializing at the end of a day's negotiations, our lawyer somehow managed to turn the conversation to software piracy. He discussed a case he was working on, and happened to have some documents about it in his briefcase. He pulled out a page disassembled binary and a page of source code and showed them to the consultant. After a little study, the consultant confidently opined that the binary was obviously compiled from that source. "Would it surprise you," the lawyer asked, "if I told you that this is yours and that is ours?" The consultant did not attend the following day's meeting. Doug [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1767 bytes --]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:10:31AM -0600, Marc Rochkind wrote:
> I have already posted this in another thread (on non-BTL C compilers), but
> it's more relevant here. My 1985 review of Coherent for BYTE Magazine:
>
> https://www.mrochkind.com/mrochkind/docs/Byte-Pick-Coherent-Theos.pdf
It's interesting that it says that $495 for Coherent was a good deal.
(That's over $1700 in 2024 dollars.) On the other hand, in 1984, the
New York Times reported that IBM had "cut the price of the PC/XT" to
$2,520 for a machine with 256k RAM, a single disk drive, and a
monochrome display. (That's over $7400 in 2024 dollars.)
It's amazing how much hardware and software has gotten cheaper in the
past four decades!
- Ted
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --] On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:00 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote: > Another detail. There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen > > There were similar issues at DEC when we ported VAX Fortran to Ultrix. Especially with the port of the VMS linker, the piece of the project I worked on. We had a member of the Ultrix team writing the code to convert VMS object file debug information to a.out STABs, but other than that the team doing the port stayed clear of the Ultrix sources. -Paul W. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 865 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2120 bytes --] I have already posted this in another thread (on non-BTL C compilers), but it's more relevant here. My 1985 review of Coherent for BYTE Magazine: https://www.mrochkind.com/mrochkind/docs/Byte-Pick-Coherent-Theos.pdf I see that I went into some detail. For example: "Of the 77 requests in the Version 7 nroff. only 31 are present in Coherent (the most useful 31. however)." And this, although I'm sure there were incompatibilities I didn't uncover: "Coherent has all the Version 7 system calls except nice (which sets a process's priority). and they seem to be used in the same way. It should be easy to port C programs between Coherent and UNIX Version 7." On the whole my review was very positive. Marc On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:43 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:03 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:00 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Another detail. There was lawyerly concern about the code being > stolen, and we (127) were asked to find ways to test, absent their source, > whether they had just stolen our source and built the binaries. It was soon > concluded that there were enough details different to definitively say that > at least most of the work was done in a clean room, as advertised, but the > piece I liked best is that their PPT(1) program (ASCII art showing a paper > tape rendering the argument text) did not include the original, and just > discovered, bug that mispunched, if I remember right, the letter 'R'. > > > > Along those lines, Dennis Ritchie wrote up a summary of the event on > > USENET; apparently in 1998 (I had no idea it was this late): > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.folklore.computers/c/_ZaYeY46eb4/m/5B41Uym6d4QJ > > Sorry, just to clarify: I meant I had no idea Dennis's posting about > the event happened so late; by 1998 USENET was basically overrun by > spam. Obviously, the inspection trip had happened much earlier. > > - Dan C. > -- *My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com <mrochkind@gmail.com>* [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3154 bytes --]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:03 AM Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:00 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another detail. There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen, and we (127) were asked to find ways to test, absent their source, whether they had just stolen our source and built the binaries. It was soon concluded that there were enough details different to definitively say that at least most of the work was done in a clean room, as advertised, but the piece I liked best is that their PPT(1) program (ASCII art showing a paper tape rendering the argument text) did not include the original, and just discovered, bug that mispunched, if I remember right, the letter 'R'.
>
> Along those lines, Dennis Ritchie wrote up a summary of the event on
> USENET; apparently in 1998 (I had no idea it was this late):
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.folklore.computers/c/_ZaYeY46eb4/m/5B41Uym6d4QJ
Sorry, just to clarify: I meant I had no idea Dennis's posting about
the event happened so late; by 1998 USENET was basically overrun by
spam. Obviously, the inspection trip had happened much earlier.
- Dan C.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:00 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote: > Another detail. There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen, and we (127) were asked to find ways to test, absent their source, whether they had just stolen our source and built the binaries. It was soon concluded that there were enough details different to definitively say that at least most of the work was done in a clean room, as advertised, but the piece I liked best is that their PPT(1) program (ASCII art showing a paper tape rendering the argument text) did not include the original, and just discovered, bug that mispunched, if I remember right, the letter 'R'. Along those lines, Dennis Ritchie wrote up a summary of the event on USENET; apparently in 1998 (I had no idea it was this late): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.folklore.computers/c/_ZaYeY46eb4/m/5B41Uym6d4QJ COHERENT (version 4) was my introduction to Unix (or Unix-like) systems. I bought it from an ad in the back of "Computer Shopper" or one of those things; my first inkling that it was rather different from actual Unix was that the `lc` command they had picked up (probably from York or Toronto) was not present on SunOS or 4.3BSD. Similarly, the manual was rather different: it didn't have the usual sectioned Unix manual, but rather an alphabetical "Lexicon" and chapters discussing specific topics (editors, UUCP, etc); in retrospect I thought their manual and its format was rather nice; it was certainly well-written and beautifully typeset. Regardless of that, I pretty quickly left COHERENT behind for NetBSD. COHERENT was an early casualty of Linux's success, and I don't think it ever occupied much more than a niche, but it was an interesting system. I've booted it a few times under emulation out of nostalgia. I had a very small hand in the opening of their sources. I knew that Stephen Ness had archived copies, at the request of Bob Swartz, and I wrote to him about the system overall and ended with something like, "if those sources are available, I'd love to see them." He responded that due to my message, he'd corresponded with Swartz, who had agreed to release the sources under the 3 clause BSD license. Incidentally, Robert Swartz was the father of the late Aaron Swartz. - Dan C. > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:16 PM Heinz Lycklama <heinz@osta.com> wrote: >> >> Interesting little history about Coherent. They were >> one of a few companies building UNIX-like systems >> from scratch without using UNIX source code in the >> early 1980's. Robert Schwartz represented the Mark >> Williams Company on the /usr/group standards >> effort resulting in the /usr/group Standard in 1984. >> Robert was very insistent that members of the >> /usr/group standards group did not have to be >> UNIX source licensees. >> >> Heinz >> >> On 3/14/2024 8:45 PM, Marc Rochkind wrote: >> > In another thread there's been some discussion of Coherent. I just >> > came across this very detailed history, just posted last month. >> > There's much more to it than I knew. >> > >> > https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-mark-williams-company >> > >> > Marc >> > >>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1461 bytes --] Another detail. There was lawyerly concern about the code being stolen, and we (127) were asked to find ways to test, absent their source, whether they had just stolen our source and built the binaries. It was soon concluded that there were enough details different to definitively say that at least most of the work was done in a clean room, as advertised, but the piece I liked best is that their PPT(1) program (ASCII art showing a paper tape rendering the argument text) did not include the original, and just discovered, bug that mispunched, if I remember right, the letter 'R'. -rob On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:16 PM Heinz Lycklama <heinz@osta.com> wrote: > Interesting little history about Coherent. They were > one of a few companies building UNIX-like systems > from scratch without using UNIX source code in the > early 1980's. Robert Schwartz represented the Mark > Williams Company on the /usr/group standards > effort resulting in the /usr/group Standard in 1984. > Robert was very insistent that members of the > /usr/group standards group did not have to be > UNIX source licensees. > > Heinz > > On 3/14/2024 8:45 PM, Marc Rochkind wrote: > > In another thread there's been some discussion of Coherent. I just > > came across this very detailed history, just posted last month. > > There's much more to it than I knew. > > > > https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-mark-williams-company > > > > Marc > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2199 bytes --]
Interesting little history about Coherent. They were
one of a few companies building UNIX-like systems
from scratch without using UNIX source code in the
early 1980's. Robert Schwartz represented the Mark
Williams Company on the /usr/group standards
effort resulting in the /usr/group Standard in 1984.
Robert was very insistent that members of the
/usr/group standards group did not have to be
UNIX source licensees.
Heinz
On 3/14/2024 8:45 PM, Marc Rochkind wrote:
> In another thread there's been some discussion of Coherent. I just
> came across this very detailed history, just posted last month.
> There's much more to it than I knew.
>
> https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-mark-williams-company
>
> Marc
>