From random832 at fastmail.us  Fri Apr  1 09:41:13 2011
From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:41:13 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
In-Reply-To: <20110324002401.GA15851@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20110324002401.GA15851@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <op.vs8eqsibi7swck@r832laptop2>

I spent some time tracing what version of Linux itself each one was added  
in.

Note: This doesn't necessarily show that they originated with linux (the
opposite in some cases), but it should help get a good handle on dates
(for where to look in other OSes' history). And, date/version added to
linux might itself be an interesting column to include.

V7 - this is where EFAULT changed from 106 to 14
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/include/errno.h
Minix 1.1
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Minix1.1/usr/include/errno.h
Minix 1.5 - where 0.1 apparently took its numeric assignments from
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Minix1.5/include/errno.h
0.01 - first errno.h - interesting comment.
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v0.01/include/errno.h
0.95 - adds ELOOP
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v0.95/include/errno.h
0.96c - last errno.h
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v0.96c/include/errno.h
0.97.0 has first linux/errno.h, and a whole pile of new error numbers
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v0.97.0/include/linux/errno.h
0.99.0 - EWOULDBLOCK vaue changed
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v0.99.0/include/linux/errno.h
0.99.14 - adds 122 EDQUOT
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v0.99.14/include/linux/errno.h
2.1.34 - adds 123 and 124
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-old+v2.1.34/include/asm-i386/errno.h
2.6.10 - 125 through 129 added
http://lxr.linux.no/linux-bk+v2.6.10/include/asm-generic/errno.h

Still haven't spent the time to find:
Where 45-47 went, 51, value change of EDEADLOCK

2005-05-01 Addition of EOWNERDEAD and ENOTRECOVERABLE:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=4750e2c0c59e0c84c6c036b3d96ebd88365ae7ee
(This says it was done to support an external patch, so linux is
probably not the originating system)

2009-06-03 Addition of ERFKILL
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=1f87f7d3a3b42b20f34cb03f0fd1a41c3d0e27f3

2011-03-17 EHWPOISON
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=69ebb83e13e514222b0ae4f8bd813a17679ed876

EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
through 76 in SVR1?


From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Fri Apr  1 12:23:23 2011
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
In-Reply-To: <op.vs8eqsibi7swck@r832laptop2>
Message-ID: <584942.97532.qm@web82407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.us> wrote:

EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
through 76 in SVR1?

As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release 3.

As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers in the 72 - 79 range probably came from.

Michael Davidson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110331/d828a845/attachment.html>

From downing.nick+tuhs at gmail.com  Fri Apr  1 12:51:38 2011
From: downing.nick+tuhs at gmail.com (Nick Downing)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:51:38 +1100
Subject: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
In-Reply-To: <584942.97532.qm@web82407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <op.vs8eqsibi7swck@r832laptop2>
	<584942.97532.qm@web82407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yk+_6hnA+xvhn37i1rt32-JByu7dbYaDoa1Gd@mail.gmail.com>

I also looked up EDOTDOT and found reference to RFS but not much info about
it.  Why was it not used?  Not reliable enough?  I have often thought that
the stateless, idempotent NFS protocol leaves a lot to be desired due to its
inability to implement unix semantics (as discussed in the wikipedia stub
article on RFS), has this been improved with NFS4?  Should RFS be revived
and used?  Some of its features sounded quite attractive (location
transparency, etc).  It does appear to have the ability to execute a program
remotely??  What happens with regard to PIDs, home directory etc in this
case?  Does anyone know?
cheers, Nick

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson <
michael_davidson at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.us>* wrote:
>
>
> EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
> you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
> through 76 in SVR1?
>
>
> As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used
> "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release
> 3.
>
> As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers
> in the 72 - 79 range probably came from.
>
> Michael Davidson
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110401/dcb1b911/attachment.html>

From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Fri Apr  1 13:26:04 2011
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
Message-ID: <934693.10287.qm@web82408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX.  Similarly the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that Sun made it a de facto standard.

On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing wrote:

>I also looked up EDOTDOT and found reference to RFS but not much info about
>it.  Why was it not used?  Not reliable enough?  I have often thought that
>the stateless, idempotent NFS protocol leaves a lot to be desired due to its
>inability to implement unix semantics (as discussed in the wikipedia stub
>article on RFS), has this been improved with NFS4?  Should RFS be revived
>and used?  Some of its features sounded quite attractive (location
>transparency, etc).  It does appear to have the ability to execute a program
>remotely??  What happens with regard to PIDs, home directory etc in this
>case?  Does anyone know?
>cheers, Nick
>
>On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson <
>michael_davidson at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.us>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
>> you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
>> through 76 in SVR1?
>>
>>
>> As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used
>> "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release
>> 3.
>>
>> As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers
>> in the 72 - 79 range probably came from.
>>
>> Michael Davidson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TUHS mailing list
>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>>
>>



From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Fri Apr  1 13:38:47 2011
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:38:47 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
In-Reply-To: <934693.10287.qm@web82408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <934693.10287.qm@web82408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20110401033847.GA14980@mercury.ccil.org>

Michael Davidson scripsit:

> Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the
> implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's
> licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX.  Similarly
> the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that Sun made
> it a de facto standard.

A familiar tale: NeWS vs. X was exactly the same story, only with the players
reversed.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos          --Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem             --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
  deity'll donate doughnuts                     --English version by Muke Tever
God gave gums; God'll give granary              --Version by Mat McVeagh


From lm at bitmover.com  Fri Apr  1 13:40:23 2011
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:40:23 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Tracing origins of errno names/numbers
In-Reply-To: <934693.10287.qm@web82408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <934693.10287.qm@web82408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20110401034023.GB28441@bitmover.com>

If people wish to discuss RFS vs NFS, I was there are Sun when all this 
happened.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:26:04PM -0700, Michael Davidson wrote:
> Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX.  Similarly the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that Sun made it a de facto standard.
> 
> On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing wrote:
> 
> >I also looked up EDOTDOT and found reference to RFS but not much info about
> >it.  Why was it not used?  Not reliable enough?  I have often thought that
> >the stateless, idempotent NFS protocol leaves a lot to be desired due to its
> >inability to implement unix semantics (as discussed in the wikipedia stub
> >article on RFS), has this been improved with NFS4?  Should RFS be revived
> >and used?  Some of its features sounded quite attractive (location
> >transparency, etc).  It does appear to have the ability to execute a program
> >remotely??  What happens with regard to PIDs, home directory etc in this
> >case?  Does anyone know?
> >cheers, Nick
> >
> >On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson <
> >michael_davidson at pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> --- On *Thu, 3/31/11, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.us>* wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
> >> you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
> >> through 76 in SVR1?
> >>
> >>
> >> As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used
> >> "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release
> >> 3.
> >>
> >> As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers
> >> in the 72 - 79 range probably came from.
> >>
> >> Michael Davidson
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TUHS mailing list
> >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> >>
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From grog at lemis.com  Fri Apr  1 15:59:38 2011
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:59:38 +1100
Subject: [TUHS] RFS (was: Tracing origins of errno names/numbers)
In-Reply-To: <20110401034023.GB28441@bitmover.com>
References: <934693.10287.qm@web82408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20110401034023.GB28441@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <20110401055938.GH7159@dereel.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 31 March 2011 at 20:40:23 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:26:04PM -0700, Michael Davidson wrote:
>> On Thu Mar 31st, 2011 7:51 PM PDT Nick Downing wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Michael Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>>> EDOTDOT caught my eye for some reason - maybe because it's the only one
>>>> you attributed to linux in a long list of SVr1 ones... what were 72
>>>> through 76 in SVR1?
>>>>
>>>> As the comment indicates, EDOTDOT came from "RFS" - the almost never used
>>>> "remote file system" that was (optionally, I think) part of System V Release
>>>> 3.
>>>>
>>>> As best I can recall, that is also where several of the other error numbers
>>>> in the 72 - 79 range probably came from.
>>>
>>> I also looked up EDOTDOT and found reference to RFS but not much info about
>>> it.  Why was it not used?  Not reliable enough?  I have often thought that
>>> the stateless, idempotent NFS protocol leaves a lot to be desired due to its
>>> inability to implement unix semantics (as discussed in the wikipedia stub
>>> article on RFS), has this been improved with NFS4?  Should RFS be revived
>>> and used?  Some of its features sounded quite attractive (location
>>> transparency, etc).  It does appear to have the ability to execute a program
>>> remotely??  What happens with regard to PIDs, home directory etc in this
>>> case?  Does anyone know?
>>
>> Regardless of its technical merits (and I suspect that the
>> implementation may have been pretty bad) RFS was doomed by AT&T's
>> licensing policies and general ineptitude at marketing UNIX.
>> Similarly the widespread adoption of NFS was driven by the fact that
>> Sun made it a de facto standard.
>
> If people wish to discuss RFS vs NFS, I was there are Sun when all
> this happened.

Go ahead!  I have always wondered what was wrong with RFS, though I
suppose a Sun employee might have a slightly close perspective.

Greg
--
Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  See
http://www.lemis.com/grog/email/signed-mail.php for more details.
If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read
http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110401/a5a24f2a/attachment.sig>

From arnold at skeeve.com  Fri Apr  8 05:07:33 2011
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:07:33 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
Message-ID: <201104071907.p37J7XTQ025032@localhost.localdomain>

Hi. Does anyone remember for sure if "new" awk shipped with System V
Release 3.1 or 3.2?  I know it wasn't 3.0.

Thanks!

Arnold Robbins


From tuhs at cuzuco.com  Fri Apr  8 13:56:26 2011
From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:56:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
Message-ID: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>

I know for sure that in 1988's svr3.2 the "awk" command was the 1988 version
and the "oawk" command was the version from 1979.

In svr3.0 the "awk" command was the old and we'd get the new one 
from Holmdel's unix tools distribution group (called USTOP) and
install it as "nawk"

I think you could get the new one in stock svr3.1 but cannot
remember it it was provide as "awk" or "nawk."

> Hi. Does anyone remember for sure if "new" awk shipped with System V
> Release 3.1 or 3.2?  I know it wasn't 3.0.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Arnold Robbins



From lm at bitmover.com  Fri Apr  8 14:10:15 2011
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:10:15 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>

bwk tarred up his awk source and sent it to me.  I can paw through and see
what I can find.  Unless he objects.  I know dmr lurks here, does bwk?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From imp at bsdimp.com  Fri Apr  8 14:21:39 2011
From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:21:39 -0600
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
	<20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <D8B5FF64-FC7F-419A-A228-46316CD1ECEE@bsdimp.com>

The one-true-awk is in FreeBSD, so why would bwk object to your pawing through his tarball?  It is in FreeBSD's svn repo.

Warner


On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:

> bwk tarred up his awk source and sent it to me.  I can paw through and see
> what I can find.  Unless he objects.  I know dmr lurks here, does bwk?
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> 
> 



From lm at bitmover.com  Fri Apr  8 15:06:19 2011
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:06:19 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <4D9E96BA.2070208@solar.stanford.edu>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
	<20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
	<4D9E96BA.2070208@solar.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110408050619.GH1031@bitmover.com>

Indeed.  I funded a lot of work based on awk and at some point I asked
bwk if we could see the original source.  He sent me ~bwk/awk as a 
tarball.

The dmr reference is because I've never seen bwk here but dmr does
show up.

On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:01:46PM -0700, Deborah Scherrer wrote:
> Brian Kernighan wrote awk, not Dennis.
>
> Debbie
>
> On 4/7/2011 9:10 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
>> bwk tarred up his awk source and sent it to me.  I can paw through and see
>> what I can find.  Unless he objects.  I know dmr lurks here, does bwk?

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From dscherrer at solar.stanford.edu  Fri Apr  8 15:01:46 2011
From: dscherrer at solar.stanford.edu (Deborah Scherrer)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:01:46 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
	<20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <4D9E96BA.2070208@solar.stanford.edu>

Brian Kernighan wrote awk, not Dennis.

Debbie

On 4/7/2011 9:10 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> bwk tarred up his awk source and sent it to me.  I can paw through and see
> what I can find.  Unless he objects.  I know dmr lurks here, does bwk?


From martin.hardie at gmail.com  Fri Apr  8 17:52:32 2011
From: martin.hardie at gmail.com (martin hardie)
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:52:32 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <D8B5FF64-FC7F-419A-A228-46316CD1ECEE@bsdimp.com>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
	<20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
	<D8B5FF64-FC7F-419A-A228-46316CD1ECEE@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimwejfK_awK8tdkN-OJpgCpdXsHgg@mail.gmail.com>

not sure when it was exactly but very early
see p 46 http://auskadi.googlepages.com/nix1.pdf





On 8 April 2011 14:21, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:

> The one-true-awk is in FreeBSD, so why would bwk object to your pawing
> through his tarball?  It is in FreeBSD's svn repo.
>
> Warner
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > bwk tarred up his awk source and sent it to me.  I can paw through and
> see
> > what I can find.  Unless he objects.  I know dmr lurks here, does bwk?
> > --
> > ---
> > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110408/f749e325/attachment.html>

From jaapna at xs4all.nl  Fri Apr  8 19:02:42 2011
From: jaapna at xs4all.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:02:42 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <4D9E96BA.2070208@solar.stanford.edu>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
	<20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
	<4D9E96BA.2070208@solar.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <70633485-3EE6-4D7B-B15F-2141A5F3F2D7@xs4all.nl>


On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:01, Deborah Scherrer wrote:

> Brian Kernighan wrote awk

Officially it was written by Aho Weinberger Kernighan but
I suspect Brian did most of the actual coding.

> Debbie
> 
> On 4/7/2011 9:10 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
>> bwk tarred up his awk source and sent it to me.

I suspect it was actually a shar ball. I received a version around 1987
when the book (See <http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/awkbook/>)
was still being written.

I don't know when it was officially distributed or in which distribution.

	jaap


From arnold at skeeve.com  Fri Apr  8 20:19:43 2011
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:19:43 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <D8B5FF64-FC7F-419A-A228-46316CD1ECEE@bsdimp.com>
References: <201104080356.p383uQX4016699@cuzuco.com>
	<20110408041015.GG1031@bitmover.com>
	<D8B5FF64-FC7F-419A-A228-46316CD1ECEE@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <201104081019.p38AJhka003257@localhost.localdomain>

Hi All.  Thanks for the responses.  BWK's awk is available from his home
page at Princeton, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~bwk, click on the link
for the Bell Labs mirror and keep going.

The FreeBSD awk is based on BWK's, with a number of fixes / improvements,
but I don't know how frequently they sync with his version; the most
recent on BWK's home page is from May 2010.

I asked BWK when it was first released to the world but he doesn't
remember if it was SVR3.1 or SVR3.2.  The FIXES file in the source says
the book on awk went to the printer in August 1987 and I remember that
it was October 1987 when I bought the book.  I suppose I should try to
double check if it says that awk is available with Unix from AT&T; if
it does then that probably points at SVR3.1. (Anyone know the official
release dates for 3.1 and 3.2?  That might help.)

The gawk doc has said 3.1 since forever, but recently I started to wonder.
Nevertheless, since I wrote that much closer to when it happened, maybe I
should just trust my past self and not worry about it too much.  :-)

BWK first released his awk publicly circa 1993; I have about 20 different
versions, which I think comprise all the public releases he's made over
the years, but I can't be sure that I didn't miss any, since he doesn't
notify me when he makes a release :-(.

Thanks,

Arnold


From tuhs at cuzuco.com  Sat Apr  9 02:33:14 2011
From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden)
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:33:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
Message-ID: <201104081633.p38GXEnc002327@cuzuco.com>

Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> Officially it was written by Aho Weinberger Kernighan but
> I suspect Brian did most of the actual coding.

quote of Aho from an interview ---

 "We [Aho and Kernighan] had created a grammatical specification for AWK but
  hadn't yet created the full run-time environment. Weinberger came along
  and said 'hey, this looks like a language I could use myself', and within
  a week he created a working run time for AWK."

see http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/216844/a-z_programming_languages_awk/?fp=4194304&fpid=1%2F



From cyrille.lefevre-lists at laposte.net  Mon Apr 11 19:56:48 2011
From: cyrille.lefevre-lists at laposte.net (Cyrille Lefevre)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:56:48 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <201104071907.p37J7XTQ025032@localhost.localdomain>
References: <201104071907.p37J7XTQ025032@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <4DA2D060.9010802@laposte.net>


Le 07/04/2011 21:07, Aharon Robbins a écrit :
>
> Hi. Does anyone remember for sure if "new" awk shipped with System V
> Release 3.1 or 3.2?  I know it wasn't 3.0.

Hi,

http://www.levenez.com/lang/ says 1978 for oawk and 1985 for nawk.

regarding http://www.levenez.com/unix/, 1978 is between v6 and v7,
and 1985 is between SVr2 and SVr3.0.

Regards,

Cyrille Lefevre
-- 
mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists at laposte.net




From arnold at skeeve.com  Mon Apr 11 20:43:23 2011
From: arnold at skeeve.com (arnold at skeeve.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:43:23 GMT
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
Message-ID: <201104111043.p3BAhNiL003811@freefriends.org>

Hi.

> > Hi. Does anyone remember for sure if "new" awk shipped with System V
> > Release 3.1 or 3.2?  I know it wasn't 3.0.
>
> Hi,
>
> http://www.levenez.com/lang/ says 1978 for oawk and 1985 for nawk.

New awk existed inside the Research group for some time before it
filtered out through System V.  It was even available separately,
directly from them, to educational institutions. Circa 1986 I got
a copy that way when I worked at the Emory University computing center.

> regarding http://www.levenez.com/unix/, 1978 is between v6 and v7,
> and 1985 is between SVr2 and SVr3.0.

True but not relevant; new awk was released with System V at either
3.1 or 3.2; I'm leaning towards 3.1 since that is what I wrote way back
when in the gawk manual when I knew for sure. :-)

Unless anyone can check the actual sources, I think we should declare
this closed...  Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

Arnold


From jaapna at xs4all.nl  Mon Apr 11 21:35:50 2011
From: jaapna at xs4all.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:35:50 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <4DA2D060.9010802@laposte.net>
References: <201104071907.p37J7XTQ025032@localhost.localdomain>
	<4DA2D060.9010802@laposte.net>
Message-ID: <65A048BD-693E-4FEE-9D50-6023371A6AF2@xs4all.nl>


> http://www.levenez.com/lang/ says 1978 for oawk and 1985 for nawk.
> 
> regarding http://www.levenez.com/unix/, 1978 is between v6 and v7,
> and 1985 is between SVr2 and SVr3.0.

The preface of "The AWK Programming Language" says: "Awk was originally
designed and implemented by the authors in 1977, ... so awk was enhanced
in a new version made available in 1985". About the book and the
enhancements the preface says that "The examples in Chapter 1 use only
the facilities of the new version; many examples in later chapters take advantage
of new features. This version of awk is part of Unix System V Release 3.1. 
Source code for this version is also available through AT*T's Unix System
Toolchest software distribution; call 1-201-522-6900 and log in as guest." 

There is also info how to get it in other parts of the world.

	jaap



From arnold at skeeve.com  Wed Apr 13 05:17:29 2011
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:17:29 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
In-Reply-To: <65A048BD-693E-4FEE-9D50-6023371A6AF2@xs4all.nl>
References: <201104071907.p37J7XTQ025032@localhost.localdomain>
	<4DA2D060.9010802@laposte.net>
	<65A048BD-693E-4FEE-9D50-6023371A6AF2@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <201104121917.p3CJHT2u002710@localhost.localdomain>

Thanks for straightening this out!  When I did a quick skim of my copy
of the book a few weeks ago I missed it.

Arnold

> From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaapna at xs4all.nl>
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:35:50 +0200
> To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] when did new awk first appear?
>
> > http://www.levenez.com/lang/ says 1978 for oawk and 1985 for nawk.
> > 
> > regarding http://www.levenez.com/unix/, 1978 is between v6 and v7,
> > and 1985 is between SVr2 and SVr3.0.
>
> The preface of "The AWK Programming Language" says: "Awk was originally
> designed and implemented by the authors in 1977, ... so awk was enhanced
> in a new version made available in 1985". About the book and the
> enhancements the preface says that "The examples in Chapter 1 use only
> the facilities of the new version; many examples in later chapters take advantage
> of new features. This version of awk is part of Unix System V Release 3.1. 
> Source code for this version is also available through AT*T's Unix System
> Toolchest software distribution; call 1-201-522-6900 and log in as guest." 
>
> There is also info how to get it in other parts of the world.
>
> 	jaap
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs


From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Thu Apr 14 09:00:56 2011
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:00:56 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
Message-ID: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>

Now that Novell has definitively been found by the courts to own the
Unix copyrights AND decided not to sell them in their latest batch of
financial flailing about, I'm wondering what they're going to do about
the Ancient Unix license. While they've promised not to sue anybody
about Unix, I'm wondering if they'll ever officially endorse the
Ancient Unix 4-clause license or perhaps even switch it to something a
little less awkward like a 3-clause BSD clone or the MIT license.
Also, I wonder if perhaps they might be convinced to expand the
license to cover things like System III or maybe even some early
versions of System V. How might one go about making these inquiries?


From wkt at tuhs.org  Thu Apr 14 09:12:18 2011
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:12:18 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:00:56PM -0400, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> Also, I wonder if perhaps they might be convinced to expand the
> license to cover things like System III or maybe even some early
> versions of System V. How might one go about making these inquiries?

If anybody has any contacts at Novell, or even pointers to people
who have pointers to Novell, please pass them on. I too would like to
get SysIII and early SysV out publicly.

Cheers,
	Warren


From neozeed at gmail.com  Thu Apr 14 09:25:54 2011
From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:25:54 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>

I tried last year and they were doing their best to sell me linux..  I
even gave them links showing that they owned SYSV, I was asking about
source/binary licenses, or even the ability to resell SYSV.. lol that
got me nowhere.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:00:56PM -0400, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> > Also, I wonder if perhaps they might be convinced to expand the
> > license to cover things like System III or maybe even some early
> > versions of System V. How might one go about making these inquiries?
>
> If anybody has any contacts at Novell, or even pointers to people
> who have pointers to Novell, please pass them on. I too would like to
> get SysIII and early SysV out publicly.
>
> Cheers,
>        Warren
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs


From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Thu Apr 14 09:51:44 2011
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:51:44 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Jason Stevens <neozeed at gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried last year and they were doing their best to sell me linux..  I
> even gave them links showing that they owned SYSV, I was asking about
> source/binary licenses, or even the ability to resell SYSV.. lol that
> got me nowhere.

For something they fought so hard in court to own, they sure are
clueless about what they have. Still, perhaps asking about reselling
SVR4 or whatever they nominally may still have in some catalog isn't
going to get you in touch with the people who would need to be
persuaded to release some earlier stuff under an open license.


From neozeed at gmail.com  Thu Apr 14 09:56:52 2011
From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:56:52 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>

I honestly wonder if the people doing the lawsuits, and the people
selling stuff are even in the same continent...Then again they
probably have one of those fantastic 1970's models where you buy
through a reseller who masquerades as the parent company, and only
sells what is on a price list or at most they can pursue a part
number...  It is always strange these companies that fight over old
stuff like crazy, but refuse to support, or sell it...

But I'll sit tight, as I know the pain of supporting MS-DOS based
stuff .... in 2011.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Michael Kerpan
<madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Jason Stevens <neozeed at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I tried last year and they were doing their best to sell me linux..  I
>> even gave them links showing that they owned SYSV, I was asking about
>> source/binary licenses, or even the ability to resell SYSV.. lol that
>> got me nowhere.
>
> For something they fought so hard in court to own, they sure are
> clueless about what they have. Still, perhaps asking about reselling
> SVR4 or whatever they nominally may still have in some catalog isn't
> going to get you in touch with the people who would need to be
> persuaded to release some earlier stuff under an open license.
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>


From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Thu Apr 14 10:34:02 2011
From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104131726560.90396@legolas.orthanc.ca>

> For something they fought so hard in court to own, they sure are
> clueless about what they have.

I recall a message to the list a year or two(?) ago from Warren (I think) 
describing how he had to explain to one of the many incarnations of SCO[1]
just exactly what all this "UNIX" stuff was that they had bought (i.e. 
all the nth Editions, SysIII, SVRx, etc).  I'm too lazy to search the list 
archives to find it, but it's there someplace.

--lyndon

[1] The SCO-variant that was the ancestor of Caldera/Novell.  My brain 
turns to cottage cheese every time I think about this part of history.


From lm at bitmover.com  Thu Apr 14 11:04:57 2011
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:04:57 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>

I used to be plugged in to those guys but it was decades ago.
Anyone know if Ransome Love is still there?  Nope, just
googled him.  I can try and track him down and ask for help.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From stanley.lieber at gmail.com  Thu Apr 14 11:10:51 2011
From: stanley.lieber at gmail.com (Stanley Lieber)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:10:51 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTiky6vUf46s3f+iDpZHFHCkdZF5gbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Does Novell also now own Research Unix v8, v9 and v10?

-sl


From wkt at tuhs.org  Thu Apr 14 11:13:12 2011
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:13:12 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTiky6vUf46s3f+iDpZHFHCkdZF5gbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>
	<BANLkTiky6vUf46s3f+iDpZHFHCkdZF5gbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110414011312.GA19413@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:10:51PM -0500, Stanley Lieber wrote:
> Does Novell also now own Research Unix v8, v9 and v10?

I don't believe so, as they were from the labs not USL. However,
Norman or Dennis would be able to clarify.

Cheers,
	Warren


From grog at lemis.com  Thu Apr 14 12:49:28 2011
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:49:28 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110414024928.GQ49656@dereel.lemis.com>

On Wednesday, 13 April 2011 at 19:51:44 -0400, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Jason Stevens <neozeed at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I tried last year and they were doing their best to sell me linux..  I
>> even gave them links showing that they owned SYSV, I was asking about
>> source/binary licenses, or even the ability to resell SYSV.. lol that
>> got me nowhere.
>
> For something they fought so hard in court to own, they sure are
> clueless about what they have

They're a big company.  Left hand, right hand syndrome.

Greg
--
Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  See
http://www.lemis.com/grog/email/signed-mail.php for more details.
If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read
http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110414/443e0de3/attachment.sig>

From BHuntsman at mail2.cu-portland.edu  Thu Apr 14 17:00:00 2011
From: BHuntsman at mail2.cu-portland.edu (Benjamin Huntsman)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:00:00 +0000
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <20110414011312.GA19413@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>
	<BANLkTiky6vUf46s3f+iDpZHFHCkdZF5gbQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<20110414011312.GA19413@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <5782C16A7C920E469B74E11B5608B8E708A23424@Kriegler.ntdom.cupdx>

I've been asking this question around for a few years now.  My interest is in seeing the 10th Edition get released.
I've been told by sources in the Labs that there is no "9th Edition" in distribution format.  I'm only aware of the Labs'
archive copy and Norman Wilson's copies of 10th Edition still in existance...

Word is that Alcatel-Lucent and AT&T both don't care about it anymore.  I'm pretty sure it'd be up to Novell to add
8th, 9th, and 10th Edition UNIX to the "Ancient UNIX" license.  Might be a bit trickier getting SysIII and SysV on the
list, though.

I've been shooting e-mails to Novell's Intellectual Property office every few months for a while, but got no response.
It's probably time someone picked up the phone and attempted to navigate their menus.  We'd probably need the 
right person to call, though.  I've been meaning to set up a petition site to get a few signatures and see if we could
get Dennis Ritchie or someone to try to make a call.  Since this has come up again, I might give it a shot to see if
I can at least find a point of contact...


________________________________________
From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org [tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] on behalf of Warren Toomey [wkt at tuhs.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:13 PM
To: Stanley Lieber
Cc: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:10:51PM -0500, Stanley Lieber wrote:
> Does Novell also now own Research Unix v8, v9 and v10?

I don't believe so, as they were from the labs not USL. However,
Norman or Dennis would be able to clarify.

Cheers,
        Warren
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs


From arnold at skeeve.com  Fri Apr 15 06:24:59 2011
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:24:59 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <5782C16A7C920E469B74E11B5608B8E708A23424@Kriegler.ntdom.cupdx>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>
	<BANLkTiky6vUf46s3f+iDpZHFHCkdZF5gbQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110414011312.GA19413@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<5782C16A7C920E469B74E11B5608B8E708A23424@Kriegler.ntdom.cupdx>
Message-ID: <201104142024.p3EKOxXZ002361@localhost.localdomain>

Hi All.

I willing to bet that the lady running Groklaw would be a great person
to help out in the effort to free up the old Unixes.  She probably knows
who to talk to, and I bet they know who she is.

It's worth a shot, methinks.

Thanks,

Arnold


From aek at bitsavers.org  Sat Apr 16 07:13:07 2011
From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:13:07 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Novell and Ancient Unix
In-Reply-To: <5782C16A7C920E469B74E11B5608B8E708A23424@Kriegler.ntdom.cupdx>
References: <BANLkTimsHbdz10rvLokFRJKM0Od0Utom7A@mail.gmail.com>	<20110413231218.GA13201@minnie.tuhs.org>	<BANLkTiknVhawB4TLohwTiXdiRa0+Rn6Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTik+iBxhadEYQH=8jEt3tbkGcD03-A@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTinS+OX12y++260rQ0Kg-cj70MAbEw@mail.gmail.com>	<20110414010457.GL21881@bitmover.com>	<BANLkTiky6vUf46s3f+iDpZHFHCkdZF5gbQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<20110414011312.GA19413@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<5782C16A7C920E469B74E11B5608B8E708A23424@Kriegler.ntdom.cupdx>
Message-ID: <4DA8B4E3.1050208@bitsavers.org>

On 4/14/11 12:00 AM, Benjamin Huntsman wrote:

> I've been shooting e-mails to Novell's Intellectual Property office every few months for a while, but got no response.
> It's probably time someone picked up the phone and attempted to navigate their menus.  We'd probably need the
> right person to call, though.  I've been meaning to set up a petition site to get a few signatures and see if we could
> get Dennis Ritchie or someone to try to make a call.  Since this has come up again, I might give it a shot to see if
> I can at least find a point of contact...
>

If it helps, I can offer The Computer History Museum as an institutional host for the archive. We've had some good luck
recently with HP, Xerox, and IBM in getting code released for non-commercial use.

Al Kossow
Robert N. Miner Software Curator
Computer History Museum




