From tuhs at cuzuco.com  Fri Jun  5 13:48:53 2009
From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
Message-ID: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570

> So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate
> of the month and date in 1969 when it all began?
> 
> Tim Newsham


From lm at bitmover.com  Fri Jun  5 14:18:36 2009
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:18:36 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <20090605041836.GA26815@bitmover.com>

If there was some bright person here who had an idea as to how we might
honor these guys, in a way they would like, let's go.  They are geeks 
and we are too, seems like maybe someone could come up with an idea.

If that idea requires money then let me know, millions isn't in the
cards, but drop a couple of zeros and maybe we can do it.

Regardless of all that. kudos to Brian, Dennis, and Ken.  And Joe,
because I still do my papers in troff, our invoices are in troff,
and our logo is in troff.  Our website is in troff -ms format,
I wrote a perl script that generates the html.

--lm

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:48:53PM -0400, Brian S Walden wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570
> 
> > So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate
> > of the month and date in 1969 when it all began?
> > 
> > Tim Newsham
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jcapp at anteil.com  Fri Jun  5 21:42:04 2009
From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:42:04 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <20090605041836.GA26815@bitmover.com>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<20090605041836.GA26815@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <A53F7F25-4335-4E01-96BA-1E1480D3D34B@anteil.com>

Larry,

How about a virtual birthday "card" where we make a site that people  
from all over the world can sign on and leave personalized "best  
wishes"?

To promote it, we design a modest logo that people can place on their  
websites, linking to the site, allowing visitors to read the various  
"cards", and encouraging them to leave their own messages.

We could add an /etc/passwd style listing of "users" with their own / 
etc/motd or "wishes of the day".  We could bootstrap it with the  
original passwd entries, recognizing and saying "thank you" to the  
creators and contibutors of UNIX, in a wiki style with proper  
monitoring of course.

What do you think?

Jim


On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:18 AM, lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) wrote:

> If there was some bright person here who had an idea as to how we  
> might
> honor these guys, in a way they would like, let's go.  They are geeks
> and we are too, seems like maybe someone could come up with an idea.
>
> If that idea requires money then let me know, millions isn't in the
> cards, but drop a couple of zeros and maybe we can do it.
>
> Regardless of all that. kudos to Brian, Dennis, and Ken.  And Joe,
> because I still do my papers in troff, our invoices are in troff,
> and our logo is in troff.  Our website is in troff -ms format,
> I wrote a perl script that generates the html.
>
> --lm
>
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:48:53PM -0400, Brian S Walden wrote:
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570
>>
>>> So when do the official celebrations begin?  What's a good estimate
>>> of the month and date in 1969 when it all began?
>>>
>>> Tim Newsham
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>


From cowan at ccil.org  Sat Jun  6 00:40:15 2009
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:40:15 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org>

Brian S Walden scripsit:

> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570

Not a bad article, really, but <rant>I do get very tired of this rigid
separation of Linux and Unix.  No, Linux doesn't have any AT&T code,
but there isn't all that much left in Solaris or *BSD either (other
than header files and such).  And no, Linux distros aren't Unix-branded
at present, but FWIU, that's because certification is neither fast nor
cheap, and applies only to a given release.  Commercial Linuxes have fast
release cycles, and Debian, whose release cycles are slow, can't afford
certification.  But in terms of actual, rather than formal, compliance,
Linux is as much a Unix as any branded Unix.</rant>

-- 
The first thing you learn in a lawin' family    John Cowan
is that there ain't no definite answers         cowan at ccil.org
to anything.  --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird


From iking at killthewabbit.org  Sat Jun  6 02:06:39 2009
From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:06:39 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <A9E1F085-A9BE-43B9-94F8-9D9784F8F429@killthewabbit.org>


On Jun 5, 2009, at 7:40 AM, John Cowan wrote:

> Brian S Walden scripsit:
>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do? 
>> command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570
>
> Not a bad article, really, but <rant>I do get very tired of this rigid
> separation of Linux and Unix.  No, Linux doesn't have any AT&T code,
> but there isn't all that much left in Solaris or *BSD either (other
> than header files and such).  And no, Linux distros aren't Unix- 
> branded
> at present, but FWIU, that's because certification is neither fast nor
> cheap, and applies only to a given release.  Commercial Linuxes  
> have fast
> release cycles, and Debian, whose release cycles are slow, can't  
> afford
> certification.  But in terms of actual, rather than formal,  
> compliance,
> Linux is as much a Unix as any branded Unix.</rant>

Not a very *good* article, either, IMHO.  One gets the impression the  
author of the piece was given two or three pieces of data and  
instructed to write a historical drama around them.  I also suspect  
he's never seen a PDP-7, either.  Until about two years ago, one of  
these 'wimpy' machines was running a particle accelerator at the  
University of Oregon.  It was unnecessary to slam the PDP-7 to make  
the point that Unix was created on a computer of modest resources.

Unix bloat occurred for the same reason any other piece of software  
bloats up: users want to do less and get more.  While it's true that  
some programmers and companies are better than others at adding  
features without adding heft, most find such exercise in economy  
unnecessary given the "throw another giga[byte | hertz] at it"  
culture that currently prevails.

It's also amusing he introduces the NT kernel as some sort of  
'perfect foil' to Unix, without even mentioning its VMS roots - as  
though it sprang fully formed from the aether.  The reason NT was  
competitive is that Unix configuration and administration has never  
been a task for the meek.  The goal of Windows was to reduce - or  
hide - complexity and lower the intellectual 'cost' of entry.  It's  
not clear that newer versions have in fact accomplished that.  :-)

In other words, this read like any other popularized account - which  
would be expected, if it had been published in Ladies Home Journal.   
-- Ian 


From cowan at ccil.org  Sat Jun  6 04:29:24 2009
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:29:24 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <A9E1F085-A9BE-43B9-94F8-9D9784F8F429@killthewabbit.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org>
	<A9E1F085-A9BE-43B9-94F8-9D9784F8F429@killthewabbit.org>
Message-ID: <20090605182924.GC31649@mercury.ccil.org>

Ian King scripsit:

> Not a very *good* article, either, IMHO.  One gets the impression the  
> author of the piece was given two or three pieces of data and  
> instructed to write a historical drama around them.

A bit more than that: the author credits Salus as his main source,
so if you want more detail, you know where to get it.  Remember the
target audience.

> I also suspect he's never seen a PDP-7, either.

Few of us have, and even fewer have seen one running Unix, I dare say.
For that matter, I never saw a PDP-11 running Unix, though I certainly
heard plenty about it: my first Unix-in-anger was MS Xenix System III on
a PC/AT with a 10 Mb hard drive.

> It was unnecessary to slam the PDP-7 to make
> the point that Unix was created on a computer of modest resources.

"Wimpy" is a disrespectful word, undoubtedly.

> In other words, this read like any other popularized account - which  
> would be expected, if it had been published in Ladies Home Journal.   

Is it actually necessary to slam _Ladies' Home Journal_ to make the point
that _Computerworld_ is a popularizing magazine?  Have you ever read even
a single issue of LHJ?  I have read many of them, though admittedly not
since the 1970s.

-- 
John Cowan    cowan at ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
The present impossibility of giving a scientific explanation is no proof
that there is no scientific explanation. The unexplained is not to be
identified with the unexplainable, and the strange and extraordinary
nature of a fact is not a justification for attributing it to powers
above nature.  --The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "telepathy" (1913)


From neozeed at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 04:40:00 2009
From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:40:00 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian S Walden<tuhs at cuzuco.com> wrote:
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570
>


I've just posted my $0.02 on the whole thing, but to recap I think
it's lame the author didn't try to track down any actual digital
artifacts of the era.  I've tried to make the Unix v1 resurrection
project more 'accessible' to the 'masses' (albeit windows masses)..
But I guess it's just not glitzy enough.. Or they just don't realize
that it even exists.

I guess what it is coming down to, if you want it done 'right' you're
going to have to do it yourself.  And I guess that would be to make
something detailed to categorized the evolutionary steps of Unix from
all the versions that are in the TUHS/PUPS archive.  And if the
multiuser facilities exist, to make as may different versions
(free/unencumbered or even 'commercial?') available online for people
to kick the tires...

I don't know I may be just dreaming in the sense I figure I'd probably
end up with something just as empty, but would people be willing to
put forth some kind of wiki of antidotes of their usage of various
Unix on platforms?

Maybe I'm just babbling so if it sounding too grandiose feel free to
say I'm delusional.

But in some way it’d be cool to have a “Unix museum” online that could
walk you thru the various versions, show off the features of each, and
allow the person to actually logon to a system..

That being said, is there a way to “cap” the amount of CPU that SIMH
uses?  Like a good old fashioned throttle?


From wkt at tuhs.org  Sat Jun  6 09:30:40 2009
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:30:40 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:40:00PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
> I don't know I may be just dreaming in the sense I figure I'd probably
> end up with something just as empty, but would people be willing to
> put forth some kind of wiki of antidotes of their usage of various
> Unix on platforms?

Jason's e-mail gave me an idea. There's a website somewhere where some
of the Mac developers captured anecdotes of the development of the Mac.
How about a wiki-like website for Unix, which is a combination of an
anecdote Wiki and a Wikipedia-for-Unix?

The site could capture stories, technical documentation, historical
summaries, usage tips etc. Where possible, articles would have citations,
but the site should allow the storage of primary documents too, e.g.
e-mails and old Usenet articles.

I'd suggest that editing isn't open to the general public, but either by
invitation or vetting. A group of people would be needed to watch out for
seriously bad articles/editing. At the same time, Unix history has been
very diverse and there has always been lots of opposing sub-groups, so
the site would need to be able to capture & deal with this diversity, as
would the people overseeing the site.

Comments?
	Warren


From cowan at ccil.org  Sat Jun  6 09:39:43 2009
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 19:39:43 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20090605233943.GA10056@mercury.ccil.org>

Warren Toomey scripsit:

> Comments?

Wikia uses MediaWiki, like Wikipedia, but is ad-driven and partitioned
into individual wikis.  Currently unix.wikia.com belongs to a spammer:
maybe we could get it liberated by talking to the wikia admins.

Alternatively, someone could host a MediaWiki installation.

-- 
It was impossible to inveigle           John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Into offering the slightest apology
For his Phenomenology.                      --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953)


From aek at bitsavers.org  Sat Jun  6 09:50:06 2009
From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:50:06 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <4A29AF2E.9080000@bitsavers.org>

Warren Toomey wrote:

> Jason's e-mail gave me an idea. There's a website somewhere where some
> of the Mac developers captured anecdotes of the development of the Mac.
> 

http://www.folklore.org/index.py



From lm at bitmover.com  Sat Jun  6 10:17:06 2009
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:17:06 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <20090605233943.GA10056@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20090605233943.GA10056@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <20090606001706.GF10179@bitmover.com>

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 07:39:43PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Warren Toomey scripsit:
> 
> > Comments?
> 
> Wikia uses MediaWiki, like Wikipedia, but is ad-driven and partitioned
> into individual wikis.  Currently unix.wikia.com belongs to a spammer:
> maybe we could get it liberated by talking to the wikia admins.
> 
> Alternatively, someone could host a MediaWiki installation.

We have 3Mbit/sec (two T1's bonded) to the net and an air conditioned machine
room.  I'm more than happy to stick a machine in that room and put whatever
you guys want on it (debian? freebsd?) and make sure it is backed up.

Other than that it's up to you, but if that helps I can have a box in there
sometime next week.

We do this for other folks, my sister is a director at Music Together 
and we've hosted their mail server for years.

We're pretty stable as an organization, I can commit to a 5 year term
and unless the shit hits the fan I see no reason it can't go longer than
that.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From jcapp at anteil.com  Sat Jun  6 11:29:53 2009
From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:29:53 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <4A29C691.8020605@anteil.com>

Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:40:00PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
>   
>> I don't know I may be just dreaming in the sense I figure I'd probably
>> end up with something just as empty, but would people be willing to
>> put forth some kind of wiki of antidotes of their usage of various
>> Unix on platforms?
>>     
>
> Jason's e-mail gave me an idea. There's a website somewhere where some
> of the Mac developers captured anecdotes of the development of the Mac.
> How about a wiki-like website for Unix, which is a combination of an
> anecdote Wiki and a Wikipedia-for-Unix?
>
> The site could capture stories, technical documentation, historical
> summaries, usage tips etc. Where possible, articles would have citations,
> but the site should allow the storage of primary documents too, e.g.
> e-mails and old Usenet articles.
>
> I'd suggest that editing isn't open to the general public, but either by
> invitation or vetting. A group of people would be needed to watch out for
> seriously bad articles/editing. At the same time, Unix history has been
> very diverse and there has always been lots of opposing sub-groups, so
> the site would need to be able to capture & deal with this diversity, as
> would the people overseeing the site.
>
> Comments?
> 	Warren
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>   

Warren,

    Have you followed Groklaw?  Years ago, we put together a simple 
database to capture information on UNIX, books, technical papers, etc., 
for Groklaw.  It is still running to this day:

http://groklib.anteil.com/books/basic_list

It has a permanent spot on Groklaw's left hand menu ... 
http://www.groklaw.net

We have physical and virtual servers located in a colo-center with dual 
10-meg fiber to 8 N. Broad St. in Philadelphia.  The site has battery 
and generator backup.

Cheers,

Jim



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20090605/714f6dbe/attachment.html>

From grog at lemis.com  Sat Jun  6 13:12:27 2009
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 13:12:27 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20090606031227.GC13220@dereel.lemis.com>

On Saturday,  6 June 2009 at  9:30:40 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:40:00PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
>> I don't know I may be just dreaming in the sense I figure I'd probably
>> end up with something just as empty, but would people be willing to
>> put forth some kind of wiki of antidotes of their usage of various
>> Unix on platforms?
>
> Jason's e-mail gave me an idea. There's a website somewhere where some
> of the Mac developers captured anecdotes of the development of the Mac.
> How about a wiki-like website for Unix, which is a combination of an
> anecdote Wiki and a Wikipedia-for-Unix?

This is an excellent idea.  Count me in, and count a vote for
Mediawiki while you're at it.

> I'd suggest that editing isn't open to the general public, but
> either by invitation or vetting. A group of people would be needed
> to watch out for seriously bad articles/editing. At the same time,
> Unix history has been very diverse and there has always been lots of
> opposing sub-groups, so the site would need to be able to capture &
> deal with this diversity, as would the people overseeing the site.

I'm in two minds about this.  On the one hand, it makes perfect sense.
On the other, part of the advantage of things like Wikipedia is that
everything's in one place.  I honestly don't see the TUHS people being
active enough to produce anywhere like as much material as is already
present on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has various "projects" which concern themselves with certain
subtopics (or they had them; looking at various pages, I can no longer
see any hints).  Does anybody know more details?  If we could find a
way to get a few knowledgeable, active people to ensure the
consistency and accuracy of UNIX-related articles, that could be a
better approach.

Greg
--
Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  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: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20090606/2304bd97/attachment.sig>

From cowan at ccil.org  Sat Jun  6 14:11:16 2009
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 00:11:16 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Wikipedia for Unix?
In-Reply-To: <20090606031227.GC13220@dereel.lemis.com>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<46b366130906051140m35e27e17i4f124fb74be3d0f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090605233040.GA35610@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20090606031227.GC13220@dereel.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20090606041116.GC6139@mercury.ccil.org>

Greg 'groggy' Lehey scripsit:

> On the other, part of the advantage of things like Wikipedia is that
> everything's in one place.

Ah, if only there were services that allowed people to find things on the
Web, no matter what site they were on!

> I honestly don't see the TUHS people being
> active enough to produce anywhere like as much material as is already
> present on Wikipedia.

But on a private wiki there's no issue with "notability" and the
Deletionist Brigade.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston


From iking at killthewabbit.org  Sat Jun  6 15:20:47 2009
From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:20:47 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty
In-Reply-To: <20090605182924.GC31649@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com>
	<20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org>
	<A9E1F085-A9BE-43B9-94F8-9D9784F8F429@killthewabbit.org>
	<20090605182924.GC31649@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <AAFCE684-75F0-4A2E-8F19-3923BE3059A2@killthewabbit.org>


On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:29 AM, John Cowan wrote:

> Ian King scripsit:
>>
>
>> In other words, this read like any other popularized account - which
>> would be expected, if it had been published in Ladies Home Journal.
>
> Is it actually necessary to slam _Ladies' Home Journal_ to make the  
> point
> that _Computerworld_ is a popularizing magazine?  Have you ever  
> read even
> a single issue of LHJ?  I have read many of them, though admittedly  
> not
> since the 1970s.
>

I offer my sincere apology to Ladies Home Journal.  -- Ian 


From steve at quintile.net  Tue Jun  9 21:43:36 2009
From: steve at quintile.net (Steve Simon)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:43:36 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] pdu
Message-ID: <1b1dfa4d836179294c1014e6e04eb6d0@quintile.net>

Hi,

Anyone any info on PDU (Portable Distributed Unix) A one-time
competitor to RFS (the one-time competitor to NFS). I have read
that PDU is releated to the Newcastle connection, but how did it
differ?

Also, is there any relationship between either PDU or RFS and the
Eightth or Nineth edition network file systems (NETA and NETB)?

-Steve


From neozeed at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 05:36:37 2009
From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:37 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] front page on slashdot!
Message-ID: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba@mail.gmail.com>

Congrats to all the v1 team:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/11/181223/Saving-Unix-Heritage-One-Kernel-At-a-Time


From imp at bsdimp.com  Fri Jun 12 06:10:18 2009
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:10:18 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] front page on slashdot!
In-Reply-To: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090611.141018.70799548.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba at mail.gmail.com>
            Jason Stevens <neozeed at gmail.com> writes:
: Congrats to all the v1 team:
: 
: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/11/181223/Saving-Unix-Heritage-One-Kernel-At-a-Time

Speaking of which, what's the state of the world wrt v2, v3, v4 and
v5?

Warner


From spedraja at gmail.com  Fri Jun 12 07:49:15 2009
From: spedraja at gmail.com (SPC)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:49:15 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] front page on slashdot!
In-Reply-To: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7f1e0d30906111449k75016de0se8ed07fcbcdf4290@mail.gmail.com>

Very emotional. Sincerely

Sergio

2009/6/11 Jason Stevens

> Congrats to all the v1 team:
>
>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/11/181223/Saving-Unix-Heritage-One-Kernel-At-a-Time
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090611/f7b68d25/attachment.html>

From wkt at tuhs.org  Fri Jun 12 11:26:01 2009
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:26:01 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] front page on slashdot!
In-Reply-To: <20090611.141018.70799548.imp@bsdimp.com>
References: <46b366130906111236o20f11802pfce3f9ec9d1208ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090611.141018.70799548.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20090612012601.GA11935@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 02:10:18PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Speaking of which, what's the state of the world wrt v2, v3, v4 and v5?

Most of the following is in
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/

v1: full kernel source on paper, which has been scanned in and brought
    back to life with the v2 user-mode binaries (see below)

v2: paper copy of Programmers Manual is scanned in, some binary user-mode
    executables and bits of user-mode source code, no kernel anything

v3: machine readable copy of Programmers Manual, nothing else

just before v4: kernel source in C, aka the 'nsys' kernel

v4: machine readable copy of Programmers Manual, nothing else

v5: bootable disk image with full source and binaries, NO machine readable copy
    of the Programmers Manual, but there is a paper copy of the UPM which I
    have not yet scanned in.

v6: bootable disk image with full source and binaries, machine readable copy
    of the Programmers Manual

v7: bootable disk image with full source and binaries, machine readable copy
    of the Programmers Manual

Cheers,
	Warren


From newsham at lava.net  Fri Jun 19 01:41:14 2009
From: newsham at lava.net (Tim Newsham)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:41:14 -1000 (HST)
Subject: [TUHS] Good luck Warren!
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906180539540.14634@malasada.lava.net>

Warren's talk on 40 years of unix is today, I believe.  Good luck!
Let us know how it goes.

Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/


From wkt at tuhs.org  Fri Jun 19 04:14:44 2009
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:14:44 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Good luck Warren!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906180539540.14634@malasada.lava.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906180539540.14634@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <20090618181444.GA12546@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:41:14AM -1000, Tim Newsham wrote:
> Warren's talk on 40 years of unix is today, I believe.  Good luck!
> Let us know how it goes.

Yes, 4pm San Diego localtime today. Thanks. I'll try to do an audio
recording as I go & will put it up soon.

Cheers,
	Warren


From norman at oclsc.org  Fri Jun 19 05:01:36 2009
From: norman at oclsc.org (Norman Wilson)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:01:36 -0000
Subject: [TUHS] Good luck Warren!
Message-ID: <1245351383.28476.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org>

Warren's also giving a birds-of-a-feather session at USENIX
this evening at 2000.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
(San Diego CA)


From wkt at tuhs.org  Sat Jun 20 03:08:13 2009
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:08:13 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Good luck Warren!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906180539540.14634@malasada.lava.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906180539540.14634@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <20090619170813.GA34483@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:41:14AM -1000, Tim Newsham wrote:
> Warren's talk on 40 years of unix is today, I believe.  Good luck!
> Let us know how it goes.

It went well, as did the BoF later that night where we had about 30
people with a few old farts but mostly young-uns. I showed them V1
running, as well as nsys and V7.

Video of my presentation is here:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/Z/toomey.mov

Paper: http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix09/tech/full_papers/toomey/toomey.pdf
Slides: http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix09/tech/slides/toomey.pdf

Cheers,
	Warren


From wkt at tuhs.org  Sun Jun 21 02:13:26 2009
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:13:26 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Good luck Warren!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906191633211.14634@malasada.lava.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0906180539540.14634@malasada.lava.net>
	<20090619170813.GA34483@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<Pine.BSI.4.64.0906191633211.14634@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <20090620161326.GA63207@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:34:22PM -1000, Tim Newsham wrote:
> I just got to watch the video (slow download) and it looks
> like the talk went very well!  What was the BOF like?  Did
> you get a chance to demo the system and have people poke at it?

Yes, the BOF went well, about 30 people from various vintages, a few young
Linux-types, but also old farts like Norman Wilson, Andrew Hume and Bill
Cheswick. I showed them V1 in action, but not ed as my ed skills are not
flash. Also showed V5, V7, but didn't get nsys working. Still, showed them
the nsys code. Lots of stories & anecdotes. It went for 2 hours or so,
with a few stragglers left chatting after that for another 1/2 hour. Overall
a good response.

Cheers,
	Warren


From spedraja at gmail.com  Fri Jun 26 04:57:47 2009
From: spedraja at gmail.com (SPC)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:57:47 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
Message-ID: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>

Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
he PDP, returning this message:

  "Can't load split I&D files"

I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
understand what is the 'vt' device.

Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?

Regards
Sergio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20090625/04235f07/attachment.html>

From wb at freebie.xs4all.nl  Fri Jun 26 06:49:30 2009
From: wb at freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:49:30 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
In-Reply-To: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>

Quoting SPC, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:57:47PM +0200 ..
> Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
> PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
> he PDP, returning this message:
> 
>   "Can't load split I&D files"
> 
> I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
> 'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
> understand what is the 'vt' device.
> 
> Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?

I could be wrong, but I think the 11/23 is not a split ID CPU?

Wilko


From lbickley at bickleywest.com  Fri Jun 26 07:12:54 2009
From: lbickley at bickleywest.com (Lyle Bickley)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:12:54 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
In-Reply-To: <20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
References: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <200906251412.54705.lbickley@bickleywest.com>

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> Quoting SPC, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:57:47PM +0200 ..
> > Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
> > PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
> > he PDP, returning this message:
> > 
> >   "Can't load split I&D files"
> > 
> > I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
> > 'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
> > understand what is the 'vt' device.
> > 
> > Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think the 11/23 is not a split ID CPU?

That's correct. The 11/23 supported 256K memory and separate Kernel and User but not separate
I&D.

An 11/73 does support separate I&D...

Regards,
Lyle

> 
> Wilko
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> 
> 


-- 
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"


From pete at dunnington.plus.com  Fri Jun 26 07:26:06 2009
From: pete at dunnington.plus.com (Pete Turnbull)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:26:06 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
In-Reply-To: <20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
References: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <4A43EB6E.1030807@dunnington.plus.com>

On 25/06/2009 21:49, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> Quoting SPC, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:57:47PM +0200 ..
>> Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
>> PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
>> he PDP, returning this message:
>>
>>   "Can't load split I&D files"
>>
>> I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
>> 'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
>> understand what is the 'vt' device.
>>
>> Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think the 11/23 is not a split ID CPU?

Correct, it isn't.  You cannot run 2.11BSD in a PDP-11/23 or similar 
machine because a lot of things in 2.11BSD require split I&D.  It's 
declared on the first page of the setup instructions:

    "This distribution can be booted on a PDP-11 with 1Mb of memory or
     more, separate I&D, and with any of the following disks:"

You need an 11/73 or better to have split I&D.  For those who might not 
know what that means, it refers to the processor's ability to keep 
I(nstructions) and D(ata) in separate spaces, so in effect virtually 
doubling the amount of memory that can be used.  That is, you can have 
(almost) 64K of instructions *and* (almost) 64K of data at the same 
time.  Without split I&D, you have 64K in total for both.

-- 
Pete						Peter Turnbull
						Network Manager
						University of York


From wb at freebie.xs4all.nl  Fri Jun 26 07:31:44 2009
From: wb at freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:31:44 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
In-Reply-To: <ee5521f80906251419u35800e08wafdb68e3b11403e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
	<ee5521f80906251419u35800e08wafdb68e3b11403e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090625213144.GH10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>

Quoting Bill Pechter, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 05:19:47PM -0400 ..
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Wilko Bulte<wb at freebie.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Quoting SPC, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:57:47PM +0200 ..
> >> Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
> >> PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
> >> he PDP, returning this message:
> >>
> >>   "Can't load split I&D files"
> >>
> >> I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
> >> 'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
> >> understand what is the 'vt' device.
> >>
> >> Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?
> >
> > I could be wrong, but I think the 11/23 is not a split ID CPU?
> >
> > Wilko
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> >
> 
> IIRC --  Split I&D 11/45,11/50/11/55,11/70,11/44 and the 11/73 J11 and
> 11/83, 11/84, 11/94.
> 
> I think the 11/40 and the 11/34 didn't have it.  I don't think the

I am sure the 11/34 did not, I used an 11/34 once with UNIX.

> 11/60 did either.
> The 11/03, 11/23 and 11/23 plus and 11/24 didn't.
> 
> Bill
> --
>   d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN.  Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
>  pechter-at-gmail.com
--- End of quoted text ---


From pechter at gmail.com  Fri Jun 26 07:19:47 2009
From: pechter at gmail.com (Bill Pechter)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:19:47 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
In-Reply-To: <20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
References: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <ee5521f80906251419u35800e08wafdb68e3b11403e3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Wilko Bulte<wb at freebie.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Quoting SPC, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:57:47PM +0200 ..
>> Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
>> PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
>> he PDP, returning this message:
>>
>>   "Can't load split I&D files"
>>
>> I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
>> 'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
>> understand what is the 'vt' device.
>>
>> Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?
>
> I could be wrong, but I think the 11/23 is not a split ID CPU?
>
> Wilko
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>

IIRC --  Split I&D 11/45,11/50/11/55,11/70,11/44 and the 11/73 J11 and
11/83, 11/84, 11/94.

I think the 11/40 and the 11/34 didn't have it.  I don't think the
11/60 did either.
The 11/03, 11/23 and 11/23 plus and 11/24 didn't.

Bill
--
  d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN.  Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
 pechter-at-gmail.com


From lbickley at bickleywest.com  Fri Jun 26 08:17:10 2009
From: lbickley at bickleywest.com (Lyle Bickley)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:17:10 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Can't load split I&D files (in one PDP-11/23 PLUS)
In-Reply-To: <4A43EB6E.1030807@dunnington.plus.com>
References: <f7f1e0d30906251157v2c62c5f5wf0dd4c291ea4cb80@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090625204930.GC10610@freebie.xs4all.nl>
	<4A43EB6E.1030807@dunnington.plus.com>
Message-ID: <200906251517.10301.lbickley@bickleywest.com>

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> On 25/06/2009 21:49, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > Quoting SPC, who wrote on Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:57:47PM +0200 ..
> >> Well, the matter is simple: I'm trying to install 2.11 BSD in one PDP-11/23
> >> PLUS with 4MB of ram, and the 'restor' and 'icheck' utilities don't load in
> >> he PDP, returning this message:
> >>
> >>   "Can't load split I&D files"
> >>
> >> I tried with the diverse distributions of Vtserver and diverse versions of
> >> 'restor'. In the case of the 2.9BSD this don't happen but the utility can't
> >> understand what is the 'vt' device.
> >>
> >> Someone has encountered and solved this problem ?
> > 
> > I could be wrong, but I think the 11/23 is not a split ID CPU?
> 
> Correct, it isn't.  You cannot run 2.11BSD in a PDP-11/23 or similar 
> machine because a lot of things in 2.11BSD require split I&D.  It's 
> declared on the first page of the setup instructions:
> 
>     "This distribution can be booted on a PDP-11 with 1Mb of memory or
>      more, separate I&D, and with any of the following disks:"
> 
> You need an 11/73 or better to have split I&D.  For those who might not 
> know what that means, it refers to the processor's ability to keep 
> I(nstructions) and D(ata) in separate spaces, so in effect virtually 
> doubling the amount of memory that can be used.  That is, you can have 
> (almost) 64K of instructions *and* (almost) 64K of data at the same 
> time.  Without split I&D, you have 64K in total for both.

As Pete says, you can't run 2.11 on an 11/23.

However, I do run 2.9 BSD on my 11/34 as it does NOT require seperate I&D
as does 2.11 BSD.

Might want to try using 2.9 on your 11/23.  Here's the CPUs supported by
2.9 BSD:

11/23, 11/24, 11/34, 11/34A, 11/34C, 11/40, 11/44, 11/45, 11/55, 11/70

Min. required memory is 192K

Regards,
Lyle


-- 
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"


From wkt at tuhs.org  Fri Jun 26 11:44:27 2009
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:44:27 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Whence the 2.x BSD numbering?
Message-ID: <20090626014427.GA35098@minnie.tuhs.org>

Can anybody explain why the 2BSDs that were distributed with kernel source
code are numbered 2.8BSD upwards. Why start numbering at 8?

P.S Actually I have a 2.79BSD in the archive which came out in 1979 just
before 2.8BSD, so could it be that the '2.79' means 1979, and numbering
followed incrementally after that?

Cheers,
	Warren


From imp at bsdimp.com  Fri Jun 26 12:27:53 2009
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:27:53 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Whence the 2.x BSD numbering?
In-Reply-To: <20090626014427.GA35098@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20090626014427.GA35098@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20090625.202753.-1665546165.imp@bsdimp.com>

The FreeBSD (similar in the other BSDs) family tree file shows:

Sixth Edition (V6) -----*
       \                |
        \               |
         \              |
Seventh Edition (V7)    |
            \           |
             \        1BSD
             32V        |
               \      2BSD---------------*
                \    /                   |
                 \  /                    |
                  \/                     |
                 3BSD                    |
                  |                      |
               4.0BSD               2.7.9BSD
                  |                      |
               4.1BSD --------------> 2.8BSD
                  |                      |

so if the 2.7.9 is really 2.79, I'd like to know about it.

And the chronology lists:

2BSD                    mid 1978 [QCU]
                                75 2BSD tapes shipped
2.7.9BSD                ?? [SMS]
2.8BSD                  1981-07-xx [KSJ]

2.8.1BSD                1982-01-xx [QCU]
                                set of performance improvements


[KSJ] Michael J. Karels, Carl F. Smith, and William F. Jolitz.
        Changes in the Kernel in 2.9BSD. Second Berkeley Software
        Distribution UNIX Version 2.9, July, 1983.
[QCU] Salus, Peter H. A quarter century of UNIX.
[SMS] Steven M. Schultz. 2.11BSD, UNIX for the PDP-11.

Googling for [KSJ] is beyond my humble abilities...  The numbers from
[QCU] are about right for 2.7.9 to really be 2.79, eg the 79th tape
that left Berkeley before they switched...  But that's wild
speculation based on little more than whimsy and knowing how geeks
sometimes think...

Warner


From lbickley at bickleywest.com  Fri Jun 26 14:51:09 2009
From: lbickley at bickleywest.com (Lyle Bickley)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:51:09 -0700
Subject: [TUHS]  Unix Version Hisory...
Message-ID: <200906252151.09454.lbickley@bickleywest.com>

There's what looks to be a detailed timeline of UNIX history here:

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

Regards,
Lyle
-- 
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"


