Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:56:37 EDT "Jerry Feldman" said: >Burger King's point of Sale system in the early 1970s was a PDP-8M with 4 >attached registers. No disk, no paper tape, core memory. For the modem, we >had to time the 1200 baud with timing loops and send a bit at a time. No >UART. We also had to strike the hammers on the printer drum. Keyboard >required to reads (row and column). If the system crashed, a service guy >had to come in, plug in the paper tape board, and reload the program. You know, I just heard someone complaining that the quaility of "service" people has taken a drastic drop in the last 20-30 years. I guess if, to work for Burger King inthe 1970s you needed to be able to operate a PDP-8 class machine you'd have to be a whole lot smarter than those "touch screen monkeys" they have now-a-days, which explains why QoS at the burger joints has gone down hill ;) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:02:50 EDT Jon Hall said: >O.K.: > >First you toggle in the BIN loader. On the PDP-8 this was seventeen >twelve-bit instructions, so you have to flip (and get ABSOLUTELY CORRECT) >204 switches, and this was AFTER you toggled in the correct starting address. Okay, I've got to ask. Anyone here actually have this 204 switch-toggling sequence *still* memorized after all these years? ;) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:12:36 EDT "Bayard R. Coolidge" said: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: > was Unix ever developed on any of those? >(meaning the 12-bit PDP-8/PDP-12 architectures) > >AFAIK, no. I believe that the original development was >on some PDP-11's (11/45's?) that Bell Labs had at the time. I thought they were PDP-7s, no? If so, then they wouldn't need to back-port to the 8, would they? Though for some reason, I thought that the 7 and 11 were closer in architecture and that the 8 was totally different than anything else. >Those, of course, are 16-bit machines. But, I don't ever >hearing about any "back-porting" to the PDP-8's. At the >time, it would have been a real PITA, because the I/O >architectures were totally different. Different from the 7 *and* 11, or just different from the 11? -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:30:45 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I'm just curious... was Unix ever developed on any of those? I was pretty >much under the impression that Unix assumes an 8-bit byte, but I don't >really have anything to back that up... It was originally *developed* on a PDP-7 if my memory banks are correctly ECC'ed :) I believe it was ported to the PDP-8 at one point, but I don't remember for sure. I can check my copy of "25 years w/ UNIX" tonight when I get home if you wish :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > All this in 4K memory. Yeah, but Burger King was not selling as many hamburgers back in those days. :-) md -- = Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(SM) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Actually, WRT: Burger King, the PDP-8 was located under the counter. The AMF service guys were equipped with a briefcase mounted paper tape reader, and a few other things including the board. The POS maintained inventory, hourly sales by product, cash control, as well as the normal POS functions. The data was transmitted to Miami every night. There was only a single day's storage available. 100% of the software was written in PDP-8 assembler (Sabre I believe). Program changes were uploaded as necessary. All this in 4K memory. On 22 Aug 2002 at 9:18, Hewitt Tech wrote: > Or alternatively the service person could load the appropriate diagnostic > into a machine and then carry the core memory module to the system that > needed to be diagnosed. This could be very useful when the system you needed > to repair was difficult to get at (sitting in a cramped closet, etc.). The > memory module was easier to get at then trying to plug in a peripheral and > it's controller. Once you had the core memory plugged into the system you > would load the starting address of the diagnostic and then hit the "run" > switch. > > -Alex > > P.S. Geez, I guess I am getting to be "older than dirt"! ;^) > > - Original Message - > From: "Jerry Feldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:56 AM > Subject: Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ] > > > > Discussed that last night at the BLU meeting. > > Many of the PDP-8s did not come with a ROM. To load the executive, you > > would key in the RIM(ReadInMode) loader on the front panel switches. The > > RIM loader was a very simple paper tape reader program whose purpose was > to > > read in the real paper tape loader. From there you could reload the PDP-8. > > > > Burger King's point of Sale system in the early 1970s was a PDP-8M with 4 > > attached registers. No disk, no paper tape, core memory. For the modem, we > > had to time the 1200 baud with timing loops and send a bit at a time. No > > UART. We also had to strike the hammers on the printer drum. Keyboard > > required to reads (row and column). If the system crashed, a service guy > > had to come in, plug in the paper tape board, and reload the program. > > On 22 Aug 2002 at 8:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Okay, I have to ask: What's a "RIM loader"? > > > > -- > > Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Associate Director > > Boston Linux and Unix user group > > http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 > > PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 > > > > ___ > > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > > > -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Or alternatively the service person could load the appropriate diagnostic into a machine and then carry the core memory module to the system that needed to be diagnosed. This could be very useful when the system you needed to repair was difficult to get at (sitting in a cramped closet, etc.). The memory module was easier to get at then trying to plug in a peripheral and it's controller. Once you had the core memory plugged into the system you would load the starting address of the diagnostic and then hit the "run" switch. -Alex P.S. Geez, I guess I am getting to be "older than dirt"! ;^) - Original Message - From: "Jerry Feldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:56 AM Subject: Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ] > Discussed that last night at the BLU meeting. > Many of the PDP-8s did not come with a ROM. To load the executive, you > would key in the RIM(ReadInMode) loader on the front panel switches. The > RIM loader was a very simple paper tape reader program whose purpose was to > read in the real paper tape loader. From there you could reload the PDP-8. > > Burger King's point of Sale system in the early 1970s was a PDP-8M with 4 > attached registers. No disk, no paper tape, core memory. For the modem, we > had to time the 1200 baud with timing loops and send a bit at a time. No > UART. We also had to strike the hammers on the printer drum. Keyboard > required to reads (row and column). If the system crashed, a service guy > had to come in, plug in the paper tape board, and reload the program. > On 22 Aug 2002 at 8:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Okay, I have to ask: What's a "RIM loader"? > > -- > Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Associate Director > Boston Linux and Unix user group > http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 > PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > AFAIK, no. I believe that the original development was on some > PDP-11's (11/45's?) No, the original development was on a PDP-7, and in assembler. The second machine it ran on was a PDP-11, also in assembler. It was after that port that Dennis wrote "C", to make the next port easier. I think that for the most part he succeeded. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Okay, I have to ask: What's a "RIM loader"? O.K.: First you toggle in the BIN loader. On the PDP-8 this was seventeen twelve-bit instructions, so you have to flip (and get ABSOLUTELY CORRECT) 204 switches, and this was AFTER you toggled in the correct starting address. That BIN loader then loaded in a paper tape that had the RIM loader on it, which (hopefully) stayed in memory to load in things like an Editor, Assembler and (eventually) your program. However, with only 4K words (and poor programming skills) you usually overwrote the RIM loader with your program bombing (er, ah) running, so you had to start ALL OVER AGAIN. Ah, the good old days. :-) md -- = Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(SM) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Discussed that last night at the BLU meeting. Many of the PDP-8s did not come with a ROM. To load the executive, you would key in the RIM(ReadInMode) loader on the front panel switches. The RIM loader was a very simple paper tape reader program whose purpose was to read in the real paper tape loader. From there you could reload the PDP-8. Burger King's point of Sale system in the early 1970s was a PDP-8M with 4 attached registers. No disk, no paper tape, core memory. For the modem, we had to time the 1200 baud with timing loops and send a bit at a time. No UART. We also had to strike the hammers on the printer drum. Keyboard required to reads (row and column). If the system crashed, a service guy had to come in, plug in the paper tape board, and reload the program. On 22 Aug 2002 at 8:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, I have to ask: What's a "RIM loader"? -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, at 12:12am, Bayard R. Coolidge wrote: > Bayard, who tried, but failed to find his old copy of the > RIM loader... Okay, I have to ask: What's a "RIM loader"? -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: >>> was Unix ever developed on any of those? (meaning the 12-bit PDP-8/PDP-12 architectures) AFAIK, no. I believe that the original development was on some PDP-11's (11/45's?) that Bell Labs had at the time. Those, of course, are 16-bit machines. But, I don't ever hearing about any "back-porting" to the PDP-8's. At the time, it would have been a real PITA, because the I/O architectures were totally different. Also, by the time that UNIX was more or less working well enough to distribute to its users, the PDP-8 was rapidly approaching end-of-life; DEC had jumped through some really wierd hoops to get it to address 128kb of memory, and it was clear that that was it. The PDP-11s, on the other hand, could do that much fairly easily and was obviously much more extendible. Much of the development in the mid-70's was to meet some interesting requirements that customers had voiced, and obviously some of those customers were running UNIX. HTH, Bayard, who tried, but failed to find his old copy of the RIM loader... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, at 6:44pm, Jon Hall wrote: > To throw a bit (pun un-intentional) more into this discussion, don't > assume that a "byte" was eight bits. The PDP-8, Linc-8 and PDP-12 for > instance, were all twelve bit words, broken down into two six-bit > characters. I'm just curious... was Unix ever developed on any of those? I was pretty much under the impression that Unix assumes an 8-bit byte, but I don't really have anything to back that up... -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
To throw a bit (pun un-intentional) more into this discussion, don't assume that a "byte" was eight bits. The PDP-8, Linc-8 and PDP-12 for instance, were all twelve bit words, broken down into two six-bit characters. Nevertheless, back in those days saving a few bits for every entry in a symbol table was worth the time and effort. md -- = Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(SM) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, at 2:52pm, Bill Freeman wrote: > The description is close. Radix 50 actually allows you to get three > characters into a 16 bit word (40*40*40 <= 65536), or 6 into a 32 bit > word. Ya know, I thought a gain of only one character (five characters, vs the four 8-bit bytes in a 32-bit word) seemed too small, but I didn't actually do the math. Hypothesis: Since "creat" is a system call, and system calls are often implemented "behind the scenes" by functions with an underscore prefix (i.e., "_creat"), that might explain where the sixth character went. This debate only goes to show why Ken Thompson might well believe that the biggest mistake he made was spelling "creat" without the trailing "e". :-) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Mark Komarinski writes: > Good thing more colors other than green and amber were invented too. Newcommer! We only had black print on those cards and listings. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Way back when 16 kilobytes was a lot of memory, a method for encoding five > characters into a single 32-bit machine word was developed. It was called > "Radix-50", or "RAD50". The 50 is octal, or 40 decimal. The character set > was 26 monocase letters, 10 digits, three special characters, and a null (a > total of 40). This encoding was used in the linkers of various DEC PDP > operating systems, which is where Unix was born. > > (That could, of course, be incorrect, but I did find references to > Radix-50/RAD50 in some old DEC migration documentation.) It was also known as "squoze code" around the M.I.T. AI lab. RAD50 may have originated at DEC, but I wouldn't bet either way. The description is close. Radix 50 actually allows you to get three characters into a 16 bit word (40*40*40 <= 65536), or 6 into a 32 bit word. 5 characters will actually fit into 27 bits (10240 being no greater than 134217728). That means that you can also have up to 5 bits of "flags", say, for symbol type, in the same (double 16 bit) word of your symbol table as that which stores the name. When it wasn't uncommon to have as little as 4k words (8k bytes) on your PDP-11/20, people really did care about bit twiddling. People writing in assembly language for such machines didn't seem to chaff at such symbol length restrictions. (Perhaps few of them could type, and short names were easier.) Linkers developed for use with assemblers were pressed into service for linking C because originally the C compiler produced assembly languagy, and the assembler was invoked on the output. Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, at 10:10am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, I'll buy that, but why create a linker that only supports 5 > character function names? Okay, some Google searches eventually tracked down this explanation: Way back when 16 kilobytes was a lot of memory, a method for encoding five characters into a single 32-bit machine word was developed. It was called "Radix-50", or "RAD50". The 50 is octal, or 40 decimal. The character set was 26 monocase letters, 10 digits, three special characters, and a null (a total of 40). This encoding was used in the linkers of various DEC PDP operating systems, which is where Unix was born. (That could, of course, be incorrect, but I did find references to Radix-50/RAD50 in some old DEC migration documentation.) > I guess I don't fully understand the role of linkers, if this should be an > obvious thing :) A compiler/assembler turns source code into object code modules. Those modules are not working programs yet; they have symbolic names instead of addresses for variables and functions in many places. You then need to link the modules together, which includes replacing symbolic names with machine addresses everywhere. The output of the linking process is an executable program. Run-time dynamic linking makes things more complex. *hand wave* -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Good thing more colors other than green and amber were invented too. -Mark On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:00:10AM -0400, Andrew W. Gaunt wrote: > > Back in the early days of computers there weren't > as many characters to go around and folks had to > be very conservative with their use. Since then, more > have been pulled out of the ground so we can use > them more liberally. > > -- > __ > | 0|___||. Andrew Gaunt *nix Sys. Admin., etc. > _| _| : : } [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www-cde.mv.lucent.com/~quantum > -(O)-==-o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.gaunt.org ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Back in the early days of computers there weren't as many characters to go around and folks had to be very conservative with their use. Since then, more have been pulled out of the ground so we can use them more liberally. -- __ | 0|___||. Andrew Gaunt *nix Sys. Admin., etc. _| _| : : } [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www-cde.mv.lucent.com/~quantum -(O)-==-o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.gaunt.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:43:36 EDT > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be > >humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell "create" as "creat" in the > >first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as well > >type six. The reason it was spelled "creat" in the first place was the > >linked only supported five characters. That has caused much > >head-scratching, question-asking, and recompiling-due-to-typos; hence the > >remark about the spelling. > > Okay, I'll buy that, but why create a linker that only supports 5 > character function names? What was it which caused this scenario? > I guess I don't fully understand the role of linkers, if this should > be an obvious thing :) > -- > > Seeya, > Paul > -- > It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, >but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. > > If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:43:36 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be >humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell "create" as "creat" in the >first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as well >type six. The reason it was spelled "creat" in the first place was the >linked only supported five characters. That has caused much >head-scratching, question-asking, and recompiling-due-to-typos; hence the >remark about the spelling. Okay, I'll buy that, but why create a linker that only supports 5 character function names? What was it which caused this scenario? I guess I don't fully understand the role of linkers, if this should be an obvious thing :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
Didn't you work with Grace Hopper :-) "Hewitt Tech" wrote: > You had "C"? All we had was assembler! You had assembler? All we had was > ones and zeros! You had ones and zeros? ... -- -- Gerald Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Computer Solutions and Consulting ICQ#156300 PGP Key ID:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
You had "C"? All we had was assembler! You had assembler? All we had was ones and zeros! You had ones and zeros? ... -Alex - Original Message - From: "Jerry Feldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ] > I think you are correct. Create(2) is a system call. Linkage editors those > days were rather primitive. I think the name limit was either 7 or 8, but > external names in C were many times autoprefixed with __, such that creat > became __creat. > The C language had a limit of 8 characters for a variable name (K&R 2.1). > (Actually a name could be longer, but only the first 8 were significant). > I think the only other programmer on this list who might have been writing > C back then is my granduncle, Alex Hewitt ;-) > > On 20 Aug 2002 at 16:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be > > humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell "create" as "creat" in the > > first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as well > > type six. The reason it was spelled "creat" in the first place was the > > linked only supported five characters. That has caused much > > head-scratching, question-asking, and recompiling-due-to-typos; hence the > > remark about the spelling. > > -- > Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Associate Director > Boston Linux and Unix user group > http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 > PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Jerry Feldman wrote: =>I think you are correct. Create(2) is a system call. Linkage editors those =>days were rather primitive. I think the name limit was either 7 or 8, but =>external names in C were many times autoprefixed with __, such that creat =>became __creat. =>The C language had a limit of 8 characters for a variable name (K&R 2.1). =>(Actually a name could be longer, but only the first 8 were significant). =>I think the only other programmer on this list who might have been writing =>C back then is my granduncle, Alex Hewitt ;-) => =>On 20 Aug 2002 at 16:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =>> I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be =>> humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell "create" as "creat" in the =>> first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as well =>> type six. The reason it was spelled "creat" in the first place was the =>> linked only supported five characters. That has caused much =>> head-scratching, question-asking, and recompiling-due-to-typos; hence the =>> remark about the spelling. I have to jump in with an old arcana of my own. I used to work at Data General during Soul of a New Machine days. Their AOS operating system actually had roots originating from earliest Unix. The deal there was that all external variables (by convention) were coded in uppercase. Why? Because sometimes we needed to assign values at linktime to symbols. This was done on the commandline. And the Data General Command Line Interface (CLI) was case insensitive. So if the symbol wasn't uppercase, then the linker would be monkeying with the wrong symbol. :-) -- -Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have - -happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ -Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- -individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
I think you are correct. Create(2) is a system call. Linkage editors those days were rather primitive. I think the name limit was either 7 or 8, but external names in C were many times autoprefixed with __, such that creat became __creat. The C language had a limit of 8 characters for a variable name (K&R 2.1). (Actually a name could be longer, but only the first 8 were significant). I think the only other programmer on this list who might have been writing C back then is my granduncle, Alex Hewitt ;-) On 20 Aug 2002 at 16:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be > humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell "create" as "creat" in the > first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as well > type six. The reason it was spelled "creat" in the first place was the > linked only supported five characters. That has caused much > head-scratching, question-asking, and recompiling-due-to-typos; hence the > remark about the spelling. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
The 14 character limit did exist in Unix versions 6 and 7. Version 6 was used as a basis for the BSD releases. Version 7 was the basis for what became System 3 followed by System V. Long file names I think came out for the first time in BSD 4.3 (or possibly 4.2). Unlike MS DOS, which had a limit of 8 for the file name and 3 for the extension, the file extension was (and is) a convention, and the dot (.) could appear anywhere in the 14 characters. Filenames beginning with a dot are uninteresting, and not generally displayed by ls. On 20 Aug 2002 at 16:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The 14-character filename limit *did* exist in some early Unix or Unixes. > I do knot know exactly which ones, but it is an oft-cited limit when > worrying about "greatest common factors" for heterogeneous systems. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, at 4:14pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I think he is thinking of the five-character limit in the original >> linker(s) used to develop Unix (which very well may have come from >> Multics). That five-character limit gave us the infamous creat(2) system >> call. > > H, I don't believe that's correct either. I remember a discussion > with either Brian Kernighan or Dennis Ritchie, who, when asked what he > would do different if he had a chance to go back and change anything in > UNIX, stated, "I'd spell creat(2) with an 'e' on the end".[1] I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell "create" as "creat" in the first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as well type six. The reason it was spelled "creat" in the first place was the linked only supported five characters. That has caused much head-scratching, question-asking, and recompiling-due-to-typos; hence the remark about the spelling. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:20:29 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I think he is thinking of the five-character limit in the original >linker(s) used to develop Unix (which very well may have come from Multics). >That five-character limit gave us the infamous creat(2) system call. H, I don't believe that's correct either. I remember a discussion with either Brian Kernighan or Dennis Ritchie, who, when asked what he would do different if he had a chance to go back and change anything in UNIX, stated, "I'd spell creat(2) with an 'e' on the end".[1] [1] This quote is not necessarilly verbatim, but it's close :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, at 3:09pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Then you believe incorrectly. Many variants of Unix had a >> 14-character filename limit. There is still a limit today, though >> it's ridiculously large, so as not to matter practically. > > Ahh, 14 characters, that does sound familiar. You're right. It was the > mention of 4 character file names which threw me. Sorry. The 14-character filename limit *did* exist in some early Unix or Unixes. I do knot know exactly which ones, but it is an oft-cited limit when worrying about "greatest common factors" for heterogeneous systems. I am pretty sure there was never a 4-character filename limit. I can think of many things that would not fit: passwd, login, mount, mkdir, rmdir, issue, fstab ... >> I may only be imagining this, but I could swear it was a predecessor >> to Unix, from whence many of these commands originally came (possibly >> multics? anyone?) that did have a four character filename limit. > > I don't know a lot about multics. Perhaps you're thinking of the 6 > character limitations of node names in DECNET, from whence came the famous > 'decvax' et. al.? I think he is thinking of the five-character limit in the original linker(s) used to develop Unix (which very well may have come from Multics). That five-character limit gave us the infamous creat(2) system call. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
UNIX Arcana [was Re: Perl (or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:01:45 EDT "Derek D. Martin" said: >> I don't believe there was ever a name-length limitation on filenames. > >Then you believe incorrectly. Many variants of Unix had a >14-character filename limit. There is still a limit today, though >it's ridiculously large, so as not to matter practically. Ahh, 14 characters, that does sound familiar. You're right. It was the mention of 4 character file names which threw me. Sorry. >I may only be imagining this, but I could swear it was a predecessor >to Unix, from whence many of these commands originally came (possibly >multics? anyone?) that did have a four character filename limit. I don't know a lot about multics. Perhaps you're thinking of the 6 character limitations of node names in DECNET, from whence came the famous 'decvax' et. al.? >OTOH, I haven't been getting much sleep lately... =8^) What else have you to do? ;) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
