From dave at horsfall.org Tue Feb 11 07:00:39 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:00:39 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... Message-ID: ... it is possible to kill a person if you know his true name. I'm trying to find the origin of that phrase (which I've likely mangled); V5 or thereabouts? -- Dave From stewart at serissa.com Tue Feb 11 07:09:59 2025 From: stewart at serissa.com (Lawrence Stewart) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:09:59 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> > On Feb 10, 2025, at 16:00, Dave Horsfall wrote: > > ... it is possible to kill a person if you know his true name. > > I'm trying to find the origin of that phrase (which I've likely mangled); > V5 or thereabouts? > > —Dave Here’s a stackexchange page about it. https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/1724/where-did-the-idea-of-a-true-name-come-from From crossd at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 07:56:45 2025 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:56:45 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> References: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 4:10 PM Lawrence Stewart wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2025, at 16:00, Dave Horsfall wrote: > > ... it is possible to kill a person if you know his true name. > > > > I'm trying to find the origin of that phrase (which I've likely mangled); > > V5 or thereabouts? > > Here’s a stackexchange page about it. > > https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/1724/where-did-the-idea-of-a-true-name-come-from Meta note: I think Dave meant a quote in a comment in Unix somewhere, not the origin of the True Name myth. :-) - Dan C. From fair-tuhs at netbsd.org Tue Feb 11 08:14:22 2025 From: fair-tuhs at netbsd.org (Erik E. Fair) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:14:22 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> References: Message-ID: <13592.1739225662@cesium.clock.org> Shriekback - "Gunning for the Buddha" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLG92w1SfqI https://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670 Erik From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Feb 11 08:22:46 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:22:46 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <13592.1739225662@cesium.clock.org> References: <13592.1739225662@cesium.clock.org> Message-ID: On Monday, February 10th, 2025 at 2:14 PM, Erik E. Fair wrote: > Shriekback - "Gunning for the Buddha" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLG92w1SfqI > > https://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670 > > Erik Looks to be ps(I) introduced in V4: https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V4/man/man1/ps.1 The quote is describing the fields printed, among them: "The process unique number (as in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name)." - Matt G. From reed at reedmedia.net Tue Feb 11 08:27:46 2025 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <357d90a5-4e4f-3739-82e6-911030641e20@reedmedia.net> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Dave Horsfall wrote: > ... it is possible to kill a person if you know his true name. > > I'm trying to find the origin of that phrase (which I've likely mangled); > V5 or thereabouts? v5 ps manual (v5man.pdf page 94) The process unique number (as in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name). v7 usr/man/man1/ps.1 .TP PID The process ID of the process; as in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. From dave at horsfall.org Tue Feb 11 16:12:15 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:12:15 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> Message-ID: <6ceefa9a-f29f-7e85-b4a3-37775c6a3d52@horsfall.org> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, Dan Cross wrote: > Meta note: I think Dave meant a quote in a comment in Unix somewhere, > not the origin of the True Name myth. :-) And you win the lollipop :-) 'Twas the "ps(1)" command... -- Dave From jpl.jpl at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 21:15:59 2025 From: jpl.jpl at gmail.com (John P. Linderman) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 06:15:59 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <6ceefa9a-f29f-7e85-b4a3-37775c6a3d52@horsfall.org> References: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> <6ceefa9a-f29f-7e85-b4a3-37775c6a3d52@horsfall.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:12 AM Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, Dan Cross wrote: > > > Meta note: I think Dave meant a quote in a comment in Unix somewhere, > > not the origin of the True Name myth. :-) > > And you win the lollipop :-) 'Twas the "ps(1)" command... > > -- Dave > On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion Names of God" in the 50s. When you got all 9 billion names, EVERYBODY got killed. 9 billion would have been more than adequate to hit all possible process IDs. -- jpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norman at oclsc.org Wed Feb 12 02:05:25 2025 From: norman at oclsc.org (Norman Wilson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:05:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... Message-ID: John P. Linderman (not the JPL in Altadena): On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion Names of God" in the 50s. === Ken wishes he'd spelled it Clarke, as the author did. Norman Wilson Toronto ON From g.branden.robinson at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 04:15:16 2025 From: g.branden.robinson at gmail.com (G. Branden Robinson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:15:16 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> At 2025-02-11T11:05:25-0500, Norman Wilson wrote: > John P. Linderman (not the JPL in Altadena): > > On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion > Names of God" in the 50s. > > === > > Ken wishes he'd spelled it Clarke, as the author did. So you're saying "Clarke" is like "create()"... I surmis that Ken was on a wortwhil cours to mak the English languag simpl. W should declin to writ the ultimat "e" in a word everywher possibl. Regards, Branden -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rik at rikfarrow.com Wed Feb 12 04:18:45 2025 From: rik at rikfarrow.com (Rik Farrow) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:18:45 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> References: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:15 AM G. Branden Robinson < g.branden.robinson at gmail.com> wrote: > At 2025-02-11T11:05:25-0500, Norman Wilson wrote: > > John P. Linderman (not the JPL in Altadena): > > > > On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion > > Names of God" in the 50s. > > > > === > > > > Ken wishes he'd spelled it Clarke, as the author did. > > So you're saying "Clarke" is like "create()"... > > I surmis that Ken was on a wortwhil cours to mak the English languag > simpl. W should declin to writ the ultimat "e" in a word everywher > possibl. > After reading the thread about how Doug McIlroy learned how to compress the spell dictionary, I stopped wondering about why it was creat()... Rik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at horsfall.org Wed Feb 12 05:33:19 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 06:33:19 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> <6ceefa9a-f29f-7e85-b4a3-37775c6a3d52@horsfall.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, John P. Linderman wrote: > On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion Names of > God" in the 50s. When you got all 9 billion names, EVERYBODY got killed. > 9 billion would have been more than adequate to hit all possible process > IDs. -- jpl And a great story too; read it :-) -- Dave, who hopes the stars won't go out... From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed Feb 12 07:21:32 2025 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 22:21:32 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> <6ceefa9a-f29f-7e85-b4a3-37775c6a3d52@horsfall.org> Message-ID: <20250211212132.avrinvHj@steffen%sdaoden.eu> segaloco via TUHS wrote in : |On Monday, February 10th, 2025 at 2:14 PM, Erik E. Fair wrote: |> Shriekback - "Gunning for the Buddha" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL\ |> G92w1SfqI |> |> https://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670 |> |> Erik | |Looks to be ps(I) introduced in V4: https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.p\ |l?file=V4/man/man1/ps.1 | |The quote is describing the fields printed, among them: | |"The process unique number (as in certain cults it is possible to kill \ |a process if you know its true name)." Dave Horsfall wrote in : |On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, John P. Linderman wrote: | |> On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion Names of |> God" in the 50s. When you got all 9 billion names, EVERYBODY got killed. |> 9 billion would have been more than adequate to hit all possible process |> IDs. -- jpl | |And a great story too; read it :-) | |-- Dave, who hopes the stars won't go out... Now, then, with this, i have to. I cannot give the real source of the quote (someone may know it!!), but a buddhistic teacher told his scholars ~"When they slice you in pieces, suffer in silence." This (surely, definitely) referred to Lingchi, and the honest and innocent soul surely adhered to the teacher's advice. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) | |In Fall and Winter, feel "The Dropbear Bard"s pint(er). | |The banded bear |without a care, |Banged on himself for e'er and e'er | |Farewell, dear collar bear From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed Feb 12 07:45:13 2025 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 22:45:13 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <20250211212132.avrinvHj@steffen%sdaoden.eu> References: <12BE330F-A47D-49C4-88F2-9CB8CDB2EB2A@serissa.com> <6ceefa9a-f29f-7e85-b4a3-37775c6a3d52@horsfall.org> <20250211212132.avrinvHj@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20250211214513.vWiFJ9Ep@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20250211212132.avrinvHj at steffen%sdaoden.eu>: |segaloco via TUHS wrote in | : ||On Monday, February 10th, 2025 at 2:14 PM, Erik E. Fair wrote: ||> Shriekback - "Gunning for the Buddha" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL\ ||> \ ||> G92w1SfqI ||> ||> https://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670 ... ||-- Dave, who hopes the stars won't go out... ... |Now, then, with this, i have to. |I cannot give the real source of the quote (someone may know |it!!), but a buddhistic teacher told his scholars ~"When they |slice you in pieces, suffer in silence." This (surely, |definitely) referred to Lingchi, and the honest and innocent soul |surely adhered to the teacher's advice. Ie .. it is likely that master Linji quoted by the linked page from Erik Fair is the namesake for Lingchi (from my superficial western point of understanding), and that very likely "milks the transcendency out of every being", and, likely, can kill Buddha. (Some lucky get around the actual thing, like the German Jesuit who reformed the Chinese calendar [1], he then died by natural causes one year thereafter, may his soul rest in heavenly peace. Now that also was in 1666, which is three times six, hm-hm-hm, but only to mention it.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Adam_Schall_von_Bell --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) | |In Fall and Winter, feel "The Dropbear Bard"s pint(er). | |The banded bear |without a care, |Banged on himself for e'er and e'er | |Farewell, dear collar bear From jpl.jpl at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 10:03:14 2025 From: jpl.jpl at gmail.com (John P. Linderman) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:03:14 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> References: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:15 PM G. Branden Robinson < g.branden.robinson at gmail.com> wrote: > At 2025-02-11T11:05:25-0500, Norman Wilson wrote: > > John P. Linderman (not the JPL in Altadena): > > > > On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion > > Names of God" in the 50s. > > > > === > > > > Ken wishes he'd spelled it Clarke, as the author did. > > So you're saying "Clarke" is like "create()"... > > I surmis that Ken was on a wortwhil cours to mak the English languag > simpl. W should declin to writ the ultimat "e" in a word everywher > possibl. > > Regards, > Branden > The e was not only silent, it was invisible. Except to those who are exceptionally ... -- jpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at horsfall.org Wed Feb 12 10:48:35 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:48:35 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> Message-ID: <8ed202a1-2e5a-3013-4715-97579b1d31aa@horsfall.org> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, John P. Linderman wrote: > The e was not only silent, it was invisible. Except to those who are > exceptionally ... -- jpl Silent, like the "p" in swimming? :-) -- Dave From kenbob at gmail.com Wed Feb 12 10:57:46 2025 From: kenbob at gmail.com (Ken Thompson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:57:46 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> Message-ID: dam wright On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:10 PM John P. Linderman wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:15 PM G. Branden Robinson < > g.branden.robinson at gmail.com> wrote: > >> At 2025-02-11T11:05:25-0500, Norman Wilson wrote: >> > John P. Linderman (not the JPL in Altadena): >> > >> > On a faux-cultural note, Arthur C Clark wrote the "Nine Billion >> > Names of God" in the 50s. >> > >> > === >> > >> > Ken wishes he'd spelled it Clarke, as the author did. >> >> So you're saying "Clarke" is like "create()"... >> >> I surmis that Ken was on a wortwhil cours to mak the English languag >> simpl. W should declin to writ the ultimat "e" in a word everywher >> possibl. >> >> Regards, >> Branden >> > > The e was not only silent, it was invisible. Except to those who are > exceptionally ... -- jpl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Wed Feb 12 11:55:53 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Bakul Shah via TUHS) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:25:53 +0530 Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: <20250211181516.uz6hc53sodb3jxs2@illithid> Message-ID: <0024997C-8441-4F22-BE61-9749B137B3B7@iitbombay.org> On Feb 12, 2025, at 5:33 AM, John P. Linderman wrote: > > The e was not only silent, it was invisible. Except to those who are exceptionally ... Sounds like the first sentence of a sci-fi story.... From norman at oclsc.org Wed Feb 12 12:10:29 2025 From: norman at oclsc.org (Norman Wilson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:10:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... Message-ID: Dave Horsfall: Silent, like the "p" in swimming? :-) === Not at all the same. Unix smelled much better than its competitors in the 1970s and 1980s. Norman Wilson Toronto ON From dave at horsfall.org Wed Feb 12 14:42:38 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:42:38 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [TUHS] In some cults... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1de2aae9-291a-00cf-0159-555956345652@horsfall.org> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Norman Wilson wrote: > Dave Horsfall: > > Silent, like the "p" in swimming? :-) > > === > > Not at all the same. Unix smelled much better than its competitors in > the 1970s and 1980s. Don't get me wrong; I still remember RSX-11 and RSTS etc... Although RT-11 wasn't too bad (I used to be a contract programmer in my CompSci days). Heck, there was PICK (anyone remember Dick Pick?), and BOS... -- Dave From g.branden.robinson at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 11:21:07 2025 From: g.branden.robinson at gmail.com (G. Branden Robinson) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:21:07 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: <6jefoqbmf6fwzjjvonee7npjvpvwayksydqjcouijbfufipn4z@adrjauck4ov4> Message-ID: <20250213012107.urh4ndk4tnnzm3wx@illithid> [looping in TUHS so my historical mistakes can be corrected] Hi Alex, At 2025-02-13T00:59:33+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Just wondering... why not build a new PDF from source, instead of > scanning the book? A. I don't think we know for sure which version of troff was used to format the V10 manual. _Probably_ Kernighan's research version, which was similar to a contemporaneous DWB troff...but what "contemporaneous" means in the 1989-1990 period is a little fuzzy. Also, Kernighan may not have a complete source history of his version of troff, it is presumably still encumbered by AT&T copyrights, and he's been using groff for at least his last two books (his Unix memoir and the 2nd edition of the AWK book). B. It is hard to recreate a Research Unix V10 installation. My understanding is that Unix V8-V10 were not full distributions but patches. And because troff was commercial/proprietary software at that (the aforementioned DWB troff), I don't know if Kernighan's "Research troff" escaped Bell Labs or how consistently it could be expected to be present on a system. Presumably any of a variety of DWB releases would have "worked fine". How much they would have varied in extremely fiddly details of typesetting is an open question. I can say with some confidence that the mm package saw fairly significant development. Of troff itself (and the preprocessors one bumps into in the Volume 2 white papers) I'm much more in the dark. C. Getting a scan out there tells us at least what one software configuration deemed acceptable by producers of the book generated, even if it's impossible to identify details of that software configuration. That in turn helps us to judge the results of _known_ software configurations--groff, and other troffs too. D. troff is not TeX. Nothing like trip.tex has ever existed. A golden platonic ideal of formatter behavior does not exist except in the collective, sometimes contentious minds of its users. > Doesn't groff(1) handle the Unix sources? Assuming the full source of a document is available, and no part of its toolchain requires software that is unavailable (like Van Wyk's "ideal" preprocessor) then if groff cannot satisfactorily render a document produced by the Bell Labs CSRC, then I'd consider that presumptively a bug in groff. It's a rebuttable presumption--if one document in one place relied upon a _bug_ in AT&T troff to produce correct rendering, I think my inclination would be to annotate the problem somewhere in groff's documentation and leave it unresolved. For a case where groff formats a classic Unix document "better" (in the sense of not unintentionally omitting a formatted equation) than AT&T troff, see the following. https://github.com/g-branden-robinson/retypesetting-mathematics > I expect the answer is not licenses (because I expect redistributing > the scanned original will be as bad as generating an apocryphal PDF in > terms of licensing). I've opined before that the various aspects of Unix "IP" ownership appear to be so complicated and mired in the details of decades-old contracts in firms that have changed ownership structures multiple times, that legally valid answers to questions like this may not exist. Not until a firm that thinks it holds the rights decides it's worth the money to pay a bunch of archivists and copyright attorneys to go on a snipe hunt. And that decision won't be made unless said firm thinks the probability is high that they can recover damages from infringers in excess of their costs. Otherwise the decision simply sets fire to a pile of money. ...which isn't impossible. Billionaires do it every day. > I sometimes wondered if I should run the Linux man-pages build system > on the sources of Unix manual pages to generate an apocryphal PDF book > of Volume 1 of the different Unix systems. I never ended up doing so > for fear of AT&T lawyers (or whoever owns the rights to their manuals > today), but I find it would be useful. It's the kind of thing I've thought about doing. :) If you do, I very much want to know if groff appears to misbehave. Regards, Branden -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lm at mcvoy.com Thu Feb 13 11:45:22 2025 From: lm at mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:45:22 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: <20250213012107.urh4ndk4tnnzm3wx@illithid> References: <6jefoqbmf6fwzjjvonee7npjvpvwayksydqjcouijbfufipn4z@adrjauck4ov4> <20250213012107.urh4ndk4tnnzm3wx@illithid> Message-ID: <20250213014522.GF31438@mcvoy.com> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:21:07PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > Doesn't groff(1) handle the Unix sources? > > Assuming the full source of a document is available, and no part of its > toolchain requires software that is unavailable (like Van Wyk's "ideal" > preprocessor) then if groff cannot satisfactorily render a document > produced by the Bell Labs CSRC, then I'd consider that presumptively a > bug in groff. In my experience, groff has handled decades old troff source and done a great job. I'd not be surprised if there was something that didn't work, but the vast majority of the stuff I've tried has worked just fine. --lm From norman at oclsc.org Thu Feb 13 11:52:45 2025 From: norman at oclsc.org (Norman Wilson) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:52:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs Message-ID: For the non-TUHS folks who don't know me, I worked in Center 1127 (the Bell Labs Computing Science Research Center) 1984-1990, and had some hand in 9th and 10th Edition Manuals and what passed for the V8-V10 `distributions.' To answer Branden's points: A. I do know what version of troff was used to typeset the 8th through 10th Edition manuals. It was the version we were using in 1127 at the time, which was indeed Kernighan's. The macro packages probably matter more than the particular troff edition. For the 10th Edition (which files I have at hand), there was an individual mkfile (mk(1)) for each paper, so in principle there was no fixed formatting package, but in practice everything appears to have used troff -mpm, with various preprocessors according the paper: prefer, tbl, pic, ideal, and in some cases additional macros and even odds and ends of sed and awk. If you wanted to re-render things from scratch you'd want all the tools. But if you have the real troff sources you'll have all the mkfiles--things were stored one paper per directory. -mpm (mpm(6) in 10/e vol 1) was a largely ms-compatible package with special expertise in page layout. B. There was no such thing as a `release' after V7. In fall 1984 we made a single V8 snapshot. Making that involved a lot of fiddly work, because we didn't normally try to build systems from scratch; when we brought in a new computer we cloned it from an existing one. So there was lots of fiddly work to make sure every program in /bin and /usr/bin on the tape compiled correctly from the source code that would be on the tape when the cc and as and ld and libraries on the tape were used. We sent V8 tapes to about a dozen external places, few of which did anything with it (many probably never even installed it). Which makes sense, by then we really weren't a central source for Unix even within AT&T, let alone to the world. Neither did we want the support burden that would have carried--the group's charter was research, after all, not software support. So the 9th and 10th editions existed as manuals, but not as releases. We did occasionally make one-off snapshots for other parts of AT&T, and maybe for a university or two. (I definitely remember taking a snapshot to help the official AT&T System N Unix people set up a Research system at one point, and have a vague memory that I may have carried a tape to a university under a special one-off license letter.) On the other hand, troff wasn't a rapid moving target, and unlike the stars of the modern software world, we tried not to break things unless there was a real reason to do so. So I suspect the troff from any system of that era would render the Volume 2 papers properly, and am all but certain the 10th-edition-era troff would do so even for older manuals. C. Just to be clear, the official 10th Edition manuals published by Saunders College Publishing were made from camera-ready copy prepared by us in 1127 (Doug McIlroy did all the final work, I think) and printed on our phototypesetter. We didn't ship them troff source, nor even Postscript. We did everything including the tables of contents and indexes and page numbering. D. troff is indeed not TeX, and some of us think of that as a feature, not a bug. I think the odds are fairly good (but not 100%) that groff would do a reasonable job of rendering the papers; as I said, the hard part is the macro packages. I'm not sure -mpm ever made it out of Research. And there are probably copyright issues not just with the software but with the papers themselves. The published manuals bear a copyright notice, after all. Norman Wilson Toronto ON (A much nicer place than suburban NJ, which is why I left the Labs when I did) From robpike at gmail.com Thu Feb 13 12:34:50 2025 From: robpike at gmail.com (Rob Pike) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:34:50 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Doug was part of the story but the 10th edition manual was mostly my effort to herd the cats into production, including finding and working with the publisher. -rob On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:52 PM Norman Wilson wrote: > For the non-TUHS folks who don't know me, I worked in > Center 1127 (the Bell Labs Computing Science Research > Center) 1984-1990, and had some hand in 9th and 10th > Edition Manuals and what passed for the V8-V10 > `distributions.' > > To answer Branden's points: > > A. I do know what version of troff was used to typeset > the 8th through 10th Edition manuals. It was the version > we were using in 1127 at the time, which was indeed > Kernighan's. The macro packages probably matter more > than the particular troff edition. > > For the 10th Edition (which files I have at hand), there > was an individual mkfile (mk(1)) for each paper, so > in principle there was no fixed formatting package, > but in practice everything appears to have used troff -mpm, > with various preprocessors according the paper: prefer, > tbl, pic, ideal, and in some cases additional macros and even > odds and ends of sed and awk. > > If you wanted to re-render things from scratch you'd > want all the tools. But if you have the real troff > sources you'll have all the mkfiles--things were stored > one paper per directory. > > -mpm (mpm(6) in 10/e vol 1) was a largely ms-compatible > package with special expertise in page layout. > > B. There was no such thing as a `release' after V7. > In fall 1984 we made a single V8 snapshot. Making > that involved a lot of fiddly work, because we didn't > normally try to build systems from scratch; when we > brought in a new computer we cloned it from an existing > one. So there was lots of fiddly work to make sure > every program in /bin and /usr/bin on the tape compiled > correctly from the source code that would be on the tape > when the cc and as and ld and libraries on the tape were > used. > > We sent V8 tapes to about a dozen external places, few > of which did anything with it (many probably never even > installed it). Which makes sense, by then we really > weren't a central source for Unix even within AT&T, let > alone to the world. Neither did we want the support > burden that would have carried--the group's charter was > research, after all, not software support. So the 9th > and 10th editions existed as manuals, but not as releases. > We did occasionally make one-off snapshots for other parts > of AT&T, and maybe for a university or two. (I definitely > remember taking a snapshot to help the official AT&T System N > Unix people set up a Research system at one point, and have > a vague memory that I may have carried a tape to a university > under a special one-off license letter.) > > On the other hand, troff wasn't a rapid moving target, and > unlike the stars of the modern software world, we tried not > to break things unless there was a real reason to do so. > So I suspect the troff from any system of that era would > render the Volume 2 papers properly, and am all but certain > the 10th-edition-era troff would do so even for older manuals. > > C. Just to be clear, the official 10th Edition manuals > published by Saunders College Publishing were made from > camera-ready copy prepared by us in 1127 (Doug McIlroy > did all the final work, I think) and printed on our > phototypesetter. We didn't ship them troff source, nor > even Postscript. We did everything including the tables > of contents and indexes and page numbering. > > D. troff is indeed not TeX, and some of us think of that > as a feature, not a bug. > > I think the odds are fairly good (but not 100%) that > groff would do a reasonable job of rendering the papers; > as I said, the hard part is the macro packages. I'm > not sure -mpm ever made it out of Research. > > And there are probably copyright issues not just with > the software but with the papers themselves. The published > manuals bear a copyright notice, after all. > > Norman Wilson > Toronto ON > (A much nicer place than suburban NJ, which is why > I left the Labs when I did) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu Thu Feb 13 12:45:49 2025 From: douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:45:49 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs Message-ID: > My understanding is that Unix V8-V10 were not full distributions but patches. "Patch" connotes individually distributed small fixes, not complete working systems. I don't believe Brendan meant that v8 was only a patch on v7, but that's the natural interpretation of the statement. V8-v10 were snapshots, yes, possibly not perfectly in sync with the printed editions. But this was typical of Research editions, and especially of Volujme 2, which was originally called something like "Documents for Use with Unix". Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crossd at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 00:53:31 2025 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 09:53:31 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 8:05 AM Norman Wilson wrote: >[snip] > -mpm (mpm(6) in 10/e vol 1) was a largely ms-compatible > package with special expertise in page layout. > > [snip] > > I think the odds are fairly good (but not 100%) that > groff would do a reasonable job of rendering the papers; > as I said, the hard part is the macro packages. I'm > not sure -mpm ever made it out of Research. If it's the one I'm thinking about, then it did make it out in drips and drabs on Plan 9; it was in the 1st and 2nd Edition distributions. However, to be used to its full effect, -mpm also required a postprocessor, called `pm`, which was written in C++ and built with cfront. Probably for that reason, it was not distributed with Plan 9 3rd edition or later (the later versions of Plan 9, available under an Open Source license, did not include cfront). All of the historical Plan 9 editions are now available under the MIT license and available for download from the Plan 9 Foundation. I just checked and it appears that mpm is in the tar archive for the 2nd edition; one can download that here: https://p9f.org/dl/index.html (It's probably in the tarball for the 1st edition too, but I didn't look.) Note that the source files for sys/src/cmd/pm are all named "whatever.c", but are C++ code in disguise. At one point I took a swing at trying to rewrite it in C, because the idea seemed cool, but other things took precedence and I never got back to it. I haven't tried to build it with a modern C++ compiler, but it probably wouldn't be _that_ much work for someone motivated to do so. - Dan C. From tuhs at tuhs.org Sat Feb 15 06:36:45 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:36:45 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System Message-ID: So in most technical circles and indeed in the research communities surrounding UNIX, the name of the system was just that, UNIX, prefixed often with some descriptor of which stream, be it Research, USG, BSD/Berkeley, but in any case the name UNIX itself was descriptive of the operating system for many of its acolytes and disciples. However, in AT&T literature and media, addition of "System" to the end of the formal name seemed to become de facto if not de jure. This can be seen for instance in manual edits in the early 80s with references to just "UNIX" being replaced with variations on "The UNIX System", sometimes haphazardly as if done via a search and replace with little review. This too is evident in some informative films published by AT&T, available on YouTube today as "The UNIX Operating System" and "UNIX: Making Computers Easier to Use"[1][2]. Discrepancies in the titles of the videos notwithstanding, throughout it seems there are several instances where audio of an interviewee saying "The UNIX System" were edited over what I presume were instances of them simply saying UNIX. I'm curious if anyone has the scoop on whether this was an attempt to echo the "One Bell System" and related terminology, marketing tag lines like "The System is the Solution", and/or the naming of the revisions themselves as "System ". On the other hand, could it have simply been for clarity, with the uninitiated not being able to glean from the product name anything about it, making the case for adding "System" in formal descriptions to give them a little bit of a hint. Bell Labs folks especially, was there ever some grand thou shalt call it "The UNIX System" in all PR directive or was it just something that organically happened over time as bureaucratic powers at be got their hands on a part of the steering wheel? - Matt G. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDZLjaCJuw From brantley at coraid.com Sat Feb 15 06:40:35 2025 From: brantley at coraid.com (Brantley Coile) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:40:35 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C17A8F8-B8C2-40FA-B904-71416CF78876@coraid.com> UNIX is a trademark and as such, it's an adjective and needs a noun to go with it. Unix operating system is okay. Unix system is more descriptive. It's a intellectual property thing. Brantley > On Feb 14, 2025, at 3:36 PM, segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > So in most technical circles and indeed in the research communities surrounding > UNIX, the name of the system was just that, UNIX, prefixed often with some > descriptor of which stream, be it Research, USG, BSD/Berkeley, but in any case > the name UNIX itself was descriptive of the operating system for many of its > acolytes and disciples. > > However, in AT&T literature and media, addition of "System" to the end of the > formal name seemed to become de facto if not de jure. This can be seen for > instance in manual edits in the early 80s with references to just "UNIX" being > replaced with variations on "The UNIX System", sometimes haphazardly as if done > via a search and replace with little review. This too is evident in some > informative films published by AT&T, available on YouTube today as > "The UNIX Operating System" and "UNIX: Making Computers Easier to Use"[1][2]. > Discrepancies in the titles of the videos notwithstanding, throughout it seems > there are several instances where audio of an interviewee saying > "The UNIX System" were edited over what I presume were instances of them simply > saying UNIX. > > I'm curious if anyone has the scoop on whether this was an attempt to echo the > "One Bell System" and related terminology, marketing tag lines like > "The System is the Solution", and/or the naming of the revisions themselves as > "System ". On the other hand, could it have simply been for clarity, with > the uninitiated not being able to glean from the product name anything about it, > making the case for adding "System" in formal descriptions to give them a little > bit of a hint. > > Bell Labs folks especially, was there ever some grand thou shalt call it > "The UNIX System" in all PR directive or was it just something that organically > happened over time as bureaucratic powers at be got their hands on a part of the > steering wheel? > > - Matt G. > > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 > [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDZLjaCJuw From rik at rikfarrow.com Sat Feb 15 06:57:08 2025 From: rik at rikfarrow.com (Rik Farrow) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:57:08 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: <1C17A8F8-B8C2-40FA-B904-71416CF78876@coraid.com> References: <1C17A8F8-B8C2-40FA-B904-71416CF78876@coraid.com> Message-ID: You've got that right, although I learned that from a different perspective. A Unix magazine I contracted for was contacted more than once by AT&T legal saying "Unix" is an adjective, not a noun. I didn't know about the connection with copyright. Rik On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:40 PM Brantley Coile wrote: > UNIX is a trademark and as such, it's an adjective and needs a noun to go > with it. Unix operating system is okay. Unix system is more descriptive. > It's a intellectual property thing. > > Brantley > > > On Feb 14, 2025, at 3:36 PM, segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > > > So in most technical circles and indeed in the research communities > surrounding > > UNIX, the name of the system was just that, UNIX, prefixed often with > some > > descriptor of which stream, be it Research, USG, BSD/Berkeley, but in > any case > > the name UNIX itself was descriptive of the operating system for many of > its > > acolytes and disciples. > > > > However, in AT&T literature and media, addition of "System" to the end > of the > > formal name seemed to become de facto if not de jure. This can be seen > for > > instance in manual edits in the early 80s with references to just "UNIX" > being > > replaced with variations on "The UNIX System", sometimes haphazardly as > if done > > via a search and replace with little review. This too is evident in some > > informative films published by AT&T, available on YouTube today as > > "The UNIX Operating System" and "UNIX: Making Computers Easier to > Use"[1][2]. > > Discrepancies in the titles of the videos notwithstanding, throughout it > seems > > there are several instances where audio of an interviewee saying > > "The UNIX System" were edited over what I presume were instances of them > simply > > saying UNIX. > > > > I'm curious if anyone has the scoop on whether this was an attempt to > echo the > > "One Bell System" and related terminology, marketing tag lines like > > "The System is the Solution", and/or the naming of the revisions > themselves as > > "System ". On the other hand, could it have simply been for > clarity, with > > the uninitiated not being able to glean from the product name anything > about it, > > making the case for adding "System" in formal descriptions to give them > a little > > bit of a hint. > > > > Bell Labs folks especially, was there ever some grand thou shalt call it > > "The UNIX System" in all PR directive or was it just something that > organically > > happened over time as bureaucratic powers at be got their hands on a > part of the > > steering wheel? > > > > - Matt G. > > > > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 > > [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDZLjaCJuw > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuff at riddermarkfarm.ca Sat Feb 15 07:46:09 2025 From: stuff at riddermarkfarm.ca (Stuff Received) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:46:09 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: <1C17A8F8-B8C2-40FA-B904-71416CF78876@coraid.com> References: <1C17A8F8-B8C2-40FA-B904-71416CF78876@coraid.com> Message-ID: <7d97a0eb-8b70-b07d-b6fa-eef263f94e73@riddermarkfarm.ca> On 2025-02-14 15:40, Brantley Coile wrote: > UNIX is a trademark and as such, it's an adjective and needs a noun to go with it. Unix operating system is okay. Unix > system is more descriptive. It's a intellectual property thing. This is correct. UNIX is currently listed as a trademark of the Open Group in the USPTO (https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87120150&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch) with the following statement: "The certification mark, as used by persons authorized by the certifier, certifies that the goods have met the specifications and standards identified in the certifier's Product Standard." Incidentally, if you search for unix, you find boatloads of Unix trademarks that have nothing to do with s/w (such as sunglasses, zippers, drawing instruments, ...) S. > > Brantley > >> On Feb 14, 2025, at 3:36 PM, segaloco via TUHS wrote: >> >> So in most technical circles and indeed in the research communities surrounding >> UNIX, the name of the system was just that, UNIX, prefixed often with some >> descriptor of which stream, be it Research, USG, BSD/Berkeley, but in any case >> the name UNIX itself was descriptive of the operating system for many of its >> acolytes and disciples. >> >> However, in AT&T literature and media, addition of "System" to the end of the >> formal name seemed to become de facto if not de jure. This can be seen for >> instance in manual edits in the early 80s with references to just "UNIX" being >> replaced with variations on "The UNIX System", sometimes haphazardly as if done >> via a search and replace with little review. This too is evident in some >> informative films published by AT&T, available on YouTube today as >> "The UNIX Operating System" and "UNIX: Making Computers Easier to Use"[1][2]. >> Discrepancies in the titles of the videos notwithstanding, throughout it seems >> there are several instances where audio of an interviewee saying >> "The UNIX System" were edited over what I presume were instances of them simply >> saying UNIX. >> >> I'm curious if anyone has the scoop on whether this was an attempt to echo the >> "One Bell System" and related terminology, marketing tag lines like >> "The System is the Solution", and/or the naming of the revisions themselves as >> "System ". On the other hand, could it have simply been for clarity, with >> the uninitiated not being able to glean from the product name anything about it, >> making the case for adding "System" in formal descriptions to give them a little >> bit of a hint. >> >> Bell Labs folks especially, was there ever some grand thou shalt call it >> "The UNIX System" in all PR directive or was it just something that organically >> happened over time as bureaucratic powers at be got their hands on a part of the >> steering wheel? >> >> - Matt G. >> >> [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 >> [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDZLjaCJuw > From kenbob at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 08:45:54 2025 From: kenbob at gmail.com (Ken Thompson) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:45:54 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: <1C17A8F8-B8C2-40FA-B904-71416CF78876@coraid.com> Message-ID: the bell labs legal vacillated between 1company private, 2 intellectual property 3 trademark. 1 is a secret, 2 is noun and 3 is an adjective. each change came with replacing a thousand notices in the code. On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:57 PM Rik Farrow wrote: > You've got that right, although I learned that from a different > perspective. A Unix magazine I contracted for was contacted more than once > by AT&T legal saying "Unix" is an adjective, not a noun. I didn't know > about the connection with copyright. > > Rik > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 1:40 PM Brantley Coile > wrote: > >> UNIX is a trademark and as such, it's an adjective and needs a noun to go >> with it. Unix operating system is okay. Unix system is more descriptive. >> It's a intellectual property thing. >> >> Brantley >> >> > On Feb 14, 2025, at 3:36 PM, segaloco via TUHS wrote: >> > >> > So in most technical circles and indeed in the research communities >> surrounding >> > UNIX, the name of the system was just that, UNIX, prefixed often with >> some >> > descriptor of which stream, be it Research, USG, BSD/Berkeley, but in >> any case >> > the name UNIX itself was descriptive of the operating system for many >> of its >> > acolytes and disciples. >> > >> > However, in AT&T literature and media, addition of "System" to the end >> of the >> > formal name seemed to become de facto if not de jure. This can be seen >> for >> > instance in manual edits in the early 80s with references to just >> "UNIX" being >> > replaced with variations on "The UNIX System", sometimes haphazardly as >> if done >> > via a search and replace with little review. This too is evident in >> some >> > informative films published by AT&T, available on YouTube today as >> > "The UNIX Operating System" and "UNIX: Making Computers Easier to >> Use"[1][2]. >> > Discrepancies in the titles of the videos notwithstanding, throughout >> it seems >> > there are several instances where audio of an interviewee saying >> > "The UNIX System" were edited over what I presume were instances of >> them simply >> > saying UNIX. >> > >> > I'm curious if anyone has the scoop on whether this was an attempt to >> echo the >> > "One Bell System" and related terminology, marketing tag lines like >> > "The System is the Solution", and/or the naming of the revisions >> themselves as >> > "System ". On the other hand, could it have simply been for >> clarity, with >> > the uninitiated not being able to glean from the product name anything >> about it, >> > making the case for adding "System" in formal descriptions to give them >> a little >> > bit of a hint. >> > >> > Bell Labs folks especially, was there ever some grand thou shalt call it >> > "The UNIX System" in all PR directive or was it just something that >> organically >> > happened over time as bureaucratic powers at be got their hands on a >> part of the >> > steering wheel? >> > >> > - Matt G. >> > >> > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 >> > [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDZLjaCJuw >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robpike at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 08:47:33 2025 From: robpike at gmail.com (Rob Pike) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:47:33 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The lawyers insisted that Unix be upper case and only used as an adjective. Also, to attempt to make others go along, they applied the rule to other companies' trademarks too. At one point we were putting together a commemorative issue of the Bell Labs Technical Journal to include some old papers that would do well collected together, and the lawyers tried to edit the old papers to honor the new rules. Dennis objected furiously: their coinage of "PDP-11 computer system UNIX System file system" was multiple bridges too far. It was hard to rile Dennis, and eventually they realized this and pulled back. But sheesh, that was inane. "The UNIX Programming Environment" was the title of bwk's and my book, and that took some doing too. I spent literal years of my time at Bell Labs dealing with lawyers. Years. Only to have others tell me that I should have asked the lawyers to do something different, assuming I hadn't tried. It could make one cry in frustration. -rob On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 7:37 AM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > So in most technical circles and indeed in the research communities > surrounding > UNIX, the name of the system was just that, UNIX, prefixed often with some > descriptor of which stream, be it Research, USG, BSD/Berkeley, but in any > case > the name UNIX itself was descriptive of the operating system for many of > its > acolytes and disciples. > > However, in AT&T literature and media, addition of "System" to the end of > the > formal name seemed to become de facto if not de jure. This can be seen for > instance in manual edits in the early 80s with references to just "UNIX" > being > replaced with variations on "The UNIX System", sometimes haphazardly as if > done > via a search and replace with little review. This too is evident in some > informative films published by AT&T, available on YouTube today as > "The UNIX Operating System" and "UNIX: Making Computers Easier to > Use"[1][2]. > Discrepancies in the titles of the videos notwithstanding, throughout it > seems > there are several instances where audio of an interviewee saying > "The UNIX System" were edited over what I presume were instances of them > simply > saying UNIX. > > I'm curious if anyone has the scoop on whether this was an attempt to echo > the > "One Bell System" and related terminology, marketing tag lines like > "The System is the Solution", and/or the naming of the revisions > themselves as > "System ". On the other hand, could it have simply been for clarity, > with > the uninitiated not being able to glean from the product name anything > about it, > making the case for adding "System" in formal descriptions to give them a > little > bit of a hint. > > Bell Labs folks especially, was there ever some grand thou shalt call it > "The UNIX System" in all PR directive or was it just something that > organically > happened over time as bureaucratic powers at be got their hands on a part > of the > steering wheel? > > - Matt G. > > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 > [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDZLjaCJuw > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ron at ronnatalie.com Sat Feb 15 08:55:57 2025 From: ron at ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:55:57 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The lawyers insisted that Unix be upper case and only used as an adjective. That is required for trademarks. A trademark has to be an adjective describing a generic noun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Sat Feb 15 09:14:17 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:14:17 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8xGmxcgzn7Cqbsa7mAb5ZKO7Kqpw6Cuz9g4qxuc-mjtgQuA9sBpJ5qLCxLgqSWWlFjSVMlfHK0DQFKINaTKKjvv_xpJO2n2ecN_J3FaDkk8=@protonmail.com> On Friday, February 14th, 2025 at 2:55 PM, Ron Natalie wrote: > The lawyers insisted that Unix be upper case and only used as an adjective. > > > That is required for trademarks. A trademark has to be an adjective describing a generic noun. I'm now reminded of Streams vs STREAMS. The current project I'm working on at work is similarly shouted when written despite internal references being an old crusty name in more natural casing that we all still use within the team. This is why I love the UNIX story, it helps me rationalize things in my day to day...or perhaps understand others rationale which is anything but to me... - Matt G. From robpike at gmail.com Sat Feb 15 09:16:19 2025 From: robpike at gmail.com (Rob Pike) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:16:19 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The adjective story is neither a fact nor a law codified by statute. It is just one approach lawyers use to try to prevent trademarks becoming generic. There are others. Also, I probably left some ™ markers out of the coinage I quoted. -rob On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 9:55 AM Ron Natalie wrote: > *The lawyers insisted that Unix be upper case and only used as an > adjective.* > > That is required for trademarks. A trademark has to be an adjective > describing a generic noun. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brantley at coraid.com Sat Feb 15 10:38:56 2025 From: brantley at coraid.com (Brantley Coile) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:38:56 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6EF9E7F7-F777-4FC3-8C5A-7A7F3DC6037F@coraid.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu Sat Feb 15 23:11:44 2025 From: douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:11:44 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System Message-ID: Although I edited the v7 through v10 manuals, I have no recollection of why "system" crept into the title between v7 and v8. Resistance to trademark edicts did grow. In v10, the cover and the man pages proclaimed "Unix". However, the fossilized spelling, "UNIX", still appeared in the introduction to Volume 1 and scattered throughout Volume 2. Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rich.salz at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 04:51:55 2025 From: rich.salz at gmail.com (Rich Salz) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:51:55 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >However, to be used to its full effect, -mpm also required a > postprocessor, called `pm`, A troff post-processor? What did it do? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robpike at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 06:49:15 2025 From: robpike at gmail.com (Rob Pike) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:49:15 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And despite what I wrote before, I was confusing the Plan 9 printed manuals with the Unix v10 ones, perhaps because they both used the same publisher. I was not principal in the v10 books. Someone should start a mailing list so we can record the history for those who can't remember what happened or weren't there. -rob On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 12:12 AM Douglas McIlroy < douglas.mcilroy at dartmouth.edu> wrote: > Although I edited the v7 through v10 manuals, I have no recollection of > why "system" crept into the title between v7 and v8. Resistance to > trademark edicts did grow. In v10, the cover and the man pages proclaimed > "Unix". However, the fossilized spelling, "UNIX", still appeared in the > introduction to Volume 1 and scattered throughout Volume 2. > > Doug > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Sun Feb 16 07:27:41 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via TUHS) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:27:41 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <603B528C-24C6-43EF-8107-09FA03662A5F@tuhs.org> On 16 February 2025 6:49:15 am AEST, Rob Pike wrote: >Someone should start a mailing list so we can record the history for those >who can't remember what happened or weren't there. > >-rob I might get around to doing that one day :-) -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From crossd at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 08:41:46 2025 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:41:46 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 1:52 PM Rich Salz wrote: > >However, to be used to its full effect, -mpm also required a > > postprocessor, called `pm`, > > A troff post-processor? What did it do? As I understood it, it took directives embedded in troff's output and used those to perform better vertical justification and image layout, so that things like the page ends matched across facing pages in a printed book and so forth. Oh, I just realized that this _has_ been ported to modern machines. Perhaps ironically, it's part of plan9port, the port of (most of) plan9 to Unix: https://github.com/9fans/plan9port/tree/master/src/cmd/mpm A paper about it was in the Volume 2 of the 10th Ed manual; I was just looking to see if a PDF of that was floating around when I ran across this: https://archive.org/details/unixresearchsystemprogrammersmanualtentheditionfixed/mode/2up I'm not sure who this person is, but it seems like they've uploaded some cool stuff. https://archive.org/details/@yehudahamakabi Anyway, I didn't find a PDF of Vol2, but I did find this: https://github.com/Alhadis/Research-Unix-v10/tree/master/docs/vol2/pm (of course, the V10 source is available, but this is easy to grab). Running it through `groff -ms` gives output that's imperfect, but intelligible to get the main gist. Hmm, it doesn't seem to mention the post-processor at all; maybe that didn't come until later? Ken, Rob, do either of you remember? - Dan C. From dave at horsfall.org Sun Feb 16 09:25:28 2025 From: dave at horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:25:28 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <020525ea-53d2-4ce8-b7dd-f76d0986ba76@horsfall.org> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Ron Natalie wrote: > The lawyers insisted that Unix be upper case and only used as an adjective. > > That is required for trademarks.   A trademark has to be an adjective > describing a generic noun. And you wonder why humans hate lawyers... -- Dave From gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 12:23:41 2025 From: gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com (Gregg Levine) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:23:41 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] The Case of UNIX vs. The UNIX System In-Reply-To: <603B528C-24C6-43EF-8107-09FA03662A5F@tuhs.org> References: <603B528C-24C6-43EF-8107-09FA03662A5F@tuhs.org> Message-ID: Hello! Then count me in as an observer. This is turning into an interesting discussion. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com "This signature was still fighting the timewars, Time and again." On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 4:35 PM Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > > > > On 16 February 2025 6:49:15 am AEST, Rob Pike wrote: > >Someone should start a mailing list so we can record the history for those > >who can't remember what happened or weren't there. > > > >-rob > > I might get around to doing that one day :-) > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From arnold at skeeve.com Sun Feb 16 17:52:48 2025 From: arnold at skeeve.com (arnold at skeeve.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 00:52:48 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202502160752.51G7qmK0190936@freefriends.org> I think there was also a paper about it in the Computing Systems journal that USENIX did for a while. Arnold Dan Cross wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 1:52 PM Rich Salz wrote: > > >However, to be used to its full effect, -mpm also required a > > > postprocessor, called `pm`, > > > > A troff post-processor? What did it do? > > As I understood it, it took directives embedded in troff's output and > used those to perform better vertical justification and image layout, > so that things like the page ends matched across facing pages in a > printed book and so forth. > > Oh, I just realized that this _has_ been ported to modern machines. > Perhaps ironically, it's part of plan9port, the port of (most of) > plan9 to Unix: https://github.com/9fans/plan9port/tree/master/src/cmd/mpm > > A paper about it was in the Volume 2 of the 10th Ed manual; I was just > looking to see if a PDF of that was floating around when I ran across > this: > https://archive.org/details/unixresearchsystemprogrammersmanualtentheditionfixed/mode/2up > > I'm not sure who this person is, but it seems like they've uploaded > some cool stuff. > https://archive.org/details/@yehudahamakabi > > Anyway, I didn't find a PDF of Vol2, but I did find this: > https://github.com/Alhadis/Research-Unix-v10/tree/master/docs/vol2/pm > (of course, the V10 source is available, but this is easy to grab). > Running it through `groff -ms` gives output that's imperfect, but > intelligible to get the main gist. > > Hmm, it doesn't seem to mention the post-processor at all; maybe that > didn't come until later? > > Ken, Rob, do either of you remember? > > - Dan C. From jaapna at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 16 22:31:07 2025 From: jaapna at xs4all.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:31:07 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: <202502160752.51G7qmK0190936@freefriends.org> References: <202502160752.51G7qmK0190936@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <146074A2-A294-42C8-8A3D-366961614270@xs4all.nl> > On 16 Feb 2025, at 08:52, arnold at skeeve.com wrote: > > I think there was also a paper about it in the Computing Systems > journal that USENIX did for a while. Yup: http://www.usenix.org/publications/compsystems/1989/spr_kernighan.pdf jaap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jaapna at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 16 22:31:07 2025 From: jaapna at xs4all.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:31:07 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: <202502160752.51G7qmK0190936@freefriends.org> References: <202502160752.51G7qmK0190936@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <146074A2-A294-42C8-8A3D-366961614270@xs4all.nl> > On 16 Feb 2025, at 08:52, arnold at skeeve.com wrote: > > I think there was also a paper about it in the Computing Systems > journal that USENIX did for a while. Yup: http://www.usenix.org/publications/compsystems/1989/spr_kernighan.pdf jaap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rich.salz at gmail.com Mon Feb 17 02:30:12 2025 From: rich.salz at gmail.com (Rich Salz) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 11:30:12 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Unix V10 Volume 2 PDFs In-Reply-To: <146074A2-A294-42C8-8A3D-366961614270@xs4all.nl> References: <202502160752.51G7qmK0190936@freefriends.org> <146074A2-A294-42C8-8A3D-366961614270@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: > > Yup: http://www.usenix.org/publications/compsystems/1989/spr_kernighan.pdf > Thanks for that. It was a fun read -- switching to two columns and the slight dig (" Good page makeup cannot be defined in terms of purely numerical properties of the input ") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crossd at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 04:58:54 2025 From: crossd at gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:58:54 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Unix page at the Multicians web site. Message-ID: Tom Van Vleck just posted to the multicians mailing list that he is doing an update to the Unix page at multicians.org and is soliciting feedback. I figure some folks here may have useful suggestions. His draft is here: https://multicians.org/unix2.html Comments directly to Tom, I suppose, but if interested parties would rather discuss here I'd be happy to summarize and send to him as well. - Dan C. From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Feb 18 19:31:55 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Yufeng Gao via TUHS) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:31:55 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] 1972 UNIX V2 "Beta" Resurrected Message-ID: Hi everyone, First-time poster here. Near the end of last year, I did some forensic analysis on the DMR tapes (https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Dennis_Tapes) and had some fun playing around with them. Warren forwarded a few of my emails to this list at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, but it was never my intention for him to be my messenger, so I'm posting here myself now. Here's an update on my work with the s1/s2 tapes - I've managed to get a working system out of them. The s1 tape is a UNIX INIT DECtape containing the kernel, while s2 includes most of the distribution files. The s1 kernel is, to date, the earliest machine-readable UNIX kernel, sitting between V1 and V2. It differs from the unix-jun72 kernel in the following ways: - It supports both V1 and V2 a.outs out of the box, whereas the unmodified unix-jun72 kernel supports only V1. - The core size has been increased to 16 KiB (8K words), while the unmodified unix-jun72 kernel has an 8 KiB (4K word) user core. On the other hand, its syscall table matches that of V1 and the unix-jun72 kernel, lacking all V2 syscalls. Since it aligns with V1 in terms of syscalls, has the V2 core size and can run V2 binaries, I consider it a "V2 beta". login: root root # ls -la total 42 41 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:02:02 . 41 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:02:02 .. 43 sdrwrw 2 root 620 Jan 1 00:01:30 bin 147 l-rwrw 1 root 16448 Jan 1 00:33:51 core 42 sdrwrw 2 root 250 Jan 1 00:01:51 dev 49 sdrwrw 2 root 110 Jan 1 00:01:55 etc 54 sdrwrw 2 root 50 Jan 1 00:00:52 tmp 55 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:00:52 usr # ls -la usr total 8 55 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:00:52 . 41 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:02:02 .. 56 sdrwrw 2 28 60 Jan 1 00:02:22 fort 57 sdrwrw 2 jack 50 Jan 1 00:02:39 jack 58 sdrwrw 2 6 30 Jan 1 00:02:36 ken 59 sdrwrw 2 root 120 Jan 1 00:00:52 lib 60 sdrwrw 2 sys 50 Jan 1 00:02:45 sys 142 s-rwrw 1 jack 54 Jan 1 00:52:29 x # ed a main() printf("hello world!\n"); . w hello.c 33 q # cc hello.c I II # ls -l a.out total 3 153 sxrwrw 1 root 1328 Jan 1 00:02:12 a.out # a.out hello world! # It's somewhat picky about the environment. So far, aap's PDP-11/20 emulator (https://github.com/aap/pdp11) is the only one capable of booting the kernel. SIMH and Ersatz-11 both hang before reaching the login prompt. This makes installation from the s1/s2 tapes difficult, as aap's emulator does not support the TC11. The intended installation process involves booting from s1 and restoring files from s2. What I did was I extracted the files from the s1 tape and placed them on an empty RF disk, then installed the unix-jun72 kernel. After booting from the RF under SIMH, I extracted the remaining files from s2. Finally, I replaced the unix-jun72 kernel with the s1 kernel using a hex editor, resulting in an RF disk image containing only files from s1/s2. This RF image is bootable under aap's emulator but not SIMH. The RF disk image can be downloaded from here (https://github.com/TheBrokenPipe/Research-UNIX-V2-Beta): Direct link - https://github.com/TheBrokenPipe/Research-UNIX-V2-Beta/raw/refs/heads/main/s1s2unix_rf.img Interestingly, its init(7) program does not mount the RK to /usr, suggesting that /usr was stored on the RF. Sincerely, Yufeng From aap at papnet.eu Tue Feb 18 19:52:41 2025 From: aap at papnet.eu (Angelo Papenhoff) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:52:41 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] 1972 UNIX V2 "Beta" Resurrected In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is very exciting news! I have to say i'm a bit surprised my emulator of all things can run it. It's not terribly flexible and doesn't have a lot of features. So the next step would be to restore the assembly source? :) cheers, aap On 18/02/25, Yufeng Gao via TUHS wrote: > Hi everyone, > > First-time poster here. Near the end of last year, I did some forensic analysis on the DMR tapes (https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Dennis_Tapes) and had some fun playing around with them. Warren forwarded a few of my emails to this list at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, but it was never my intention for him to be my messenger, so I'm posting here myself now. > > Here's an update on my work with the s1/s2 tapes - I've managed to get a working system out of them. The s1 tape is a UNIX INIT DECtape containing the kernel, while s2 includes most of the distribution files. > > The s1 kernel is, to date, the earliest machine-readable UNIX kernel, sitting between V1 and V2. It differs from the unix-jun72 kernel in the following ways: > > - It supports both V1 and V2 a.outs out of the box, whereas the unmodified unix-jun72 kernel supports only V1. > - The core size has been increased to 16 KiB (8K words), while the unmodified unix-jun72 kernel has an 8 KiB (4K word) user core. > > On the other hand, its syscall table matches that of V1 and the unix-jun72 kernel, lacking all V2 syscalls. Since it aligns with V1 in terms of syscalls, has the V2 core size and can run V2 binaries, I consider it a "V2 beta". > > login: root > root > # ls -la > total 42 > 41 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:02:02 . > 41 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:02:02 .. > 43 sdrwrw 2 root 620 Jan 1 00:01:30 bin > 147 l-rwrw 1 root 16448 Jan 1 00:33:51 core > 42 sdrwrw 2 root 250 Jan 1 00:01:51 dev > 49 sdrwrw 2 root 110 Jan 1 00:01:55 etc > 54 sdrwrw 2 root 50 Jan 1 00:00:52 tmp > 55 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:00:52 usr > # ls -la usr > total 8 > 55 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:00:52 . > 41 sdrwrw 7 root 80 Jan 1 00:02:02 .. > 56 sdrwrw 2 28 60 Jan 1 00:02:22 fort > 57 sdrwrw 2 jack 50 Jan 1 00:02:39 jack > 58 sdrwrw 2 6 30 Jan 1 00:02:36 ken > 59 sdrwrw 2 root 120 Jan 1 00:00:52 lib > 60 sdrwrw 2 sys 50 Jan 1 00:02:45 sys > 142 s-rwrw 1 jack 54 Jan 1 00:52:29 x > # ed > a > main() printf("hello world!\n"); > . > w hello.c > 33 > q > # cc hello.c > I > II > # ls -l a.out > total 3 > 153 sxrwrw 1 root 1328 Jan 1 00:02:12 a.out > # a.out > hello world! > # > > It's somewhat picky about the environment. So far, aap's PDP-11/20 emulator (https://github.com/aap/pdp11) is the only one capable of booting the kernel. SIMH and Ersatz-11 both hang before reaching the login prompt. This makes installation from the s1/s2 tapes difficult, as aap's emulator does not support the TC11. The intended installation process involves booting from s1 and restoring files from s2. > > What I did was I extracted the files from the s1 tape and placed them on an empty RF disk, then installed the unix-jun72 kernel. After booting from the RF under SIMH, I extracted the remaining files from s2. Finally, I replaced the unix-jun72 kernel with the s1 kernel using a hex editor, resulting in an RF disk image containing only files from s1/s2. This RF image is bootable under aap's emulator but not SIMH. > > The RF disk image can be downloaded from here (https://github.com/TheBrokenPipe/Research-UNIX-V2-Beta): > Direct link - https://github.com/TheBrokenPipe/Research-UNIX-V2-Beta/raw/refs/heads/main/s1s2unix_rf.img > > Interestingly, its init(7) program does not mount the RK to /usr, suggesting that /usr was stored on the RF. > > Sincerely, > Yufeng