Slashdot Mirror


Saving Unix Heritage, One Kernel At a Time

coondoggie writes "In this, its 40th year of operating system life, some Unix stalwarts are trying to resurrect its past. That is, they are taking on the unenviable and difficult job of restoring to their former glory old Unix software artifacts such as early Unix kernels, compilers and other important historical source code pieces. In a paper to be presented at next week's Usenix show, Warren Toomey of the Bond School of IT is expected to detail restoration work being done on four key Unix software artifacts all from the early 1970s — Nsys, 1st edition Unix kernel, 1st and 2nd edition binaries and early C compilers. In his paper, Toomey states that while the history of Unix has been well-documented, there was a time when the actual artifacts of early Unix development were in danger of being lost forever."

169 comments

  1. Why? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there really any useful purpose to be served by dredging this up? Don't these guys have anything better to do?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you can study the path something has taken, you can understand where it's going.

    2. Re:Why? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unix really was one of the few programs to determine the fate of an entire industry. Every modern OS can trace back to Unix in some way or form. Keeping the history of Unix especially the early releases and plans can help better document the historical software.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Why? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0

      Only if you care about history and the future. If you only care about the present, like a greedy selfish bastard, then no.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    4. Re:Why? by rcamans · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only if you know it is going in a straight line.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      VMS? Windows? ReactOS? Plan9? QNX? Tron? zOS?

    6. Re:Why? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those that don't learn UNIX are doomed to reinvent it. Poorly.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:Why? by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe they're looking for the stolen SCO code in Linux?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:Why? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. I agree, they should be doing something useful like trying to get first post on slashdot.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Why? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      (Cough) Microsoft (Cough)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    10. Re:Why? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tron?

      He fights for the users.

    11. Re:Why? by qortra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not true - for example, if shown the first 3 cycles of a sinusoidal wave, I'm sure you could predict the next cycle. There are lots of non-linear numeric sequences that allow for relatively accurate predictions.

      Obviously, history is more complicated, but idea is the same.

    12. Re:Why? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      So we can tell today's young'ns what *real* programming was like. Back in my day we didn't have this new-fangled Internet, we had to walk to the terminal room. Uphill, in the snow, both ways...

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    13. Re:Why? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every modern OS can trace back to Unix in some way or form.

      VMS? Windows? ReactOS? Plan9? QNX? Tron? zOS?

      I wouldn't call VMS modern...
      Windows: take a look in c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\ some time. See any Unix style influences?
      The others I have no clue about.

    14. Re:Why? by dword · · Score: 1

      You don't need a straight line to find its logic.

    15. Re:Why? by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Principles, ie: the Unix Philosophy, is more important that where it's been and trying to predict where its going.

    16. Re:Why? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      I studied this and found that June 4th, 2014 will be the start of the year of the Linux Desktop.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody should be using any of those ones though.

    18. Re:Why? by killmofasta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Overgeneralization.

      Old source code gives us ideas, like looking at the design philosophy behind the code, and the ultimate operation of the software. These are actually *priceless* artifacts, and since they are mostly digital ( reserive the right for first pun... they are 'Digital' ), the study and the disemination of the early code is of extrodinary value to coders and software architects.

      Of course its also invaluable to have their nemisises Multics and VMS alos preserved. I personally got an enourmous amount of respect for K&R reading the source code for the kernel (the V4), and the proto compiler. K&R, and the linux/GNU write well, wereas their MS counterparts wirte pretty crappy stuff.  I would also venture to guess that the code alone can serve as an example of how to write code.

      I will look forward to taking a detailed 'History of the UNIX Kernel' class in the near future.

    19. Re:Why? by killmofasta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fork off!

    20. Re:Why? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't know that much about VMS, but according to the Wikipedia page it uses Unix-y things such as X11, but its more separate than Unix being that it is little-used and totally proprietary to HP. Windows NT's kernel design was inspired by Unix, and it used (uses?) the BSD networking stack for TC/IP. If you look at NT you will notice a lot of similarities in the NT design that were first introduced in Unix. ReactOS uses a lot of source code from Unix programs in order to replicate the Windows functionality such as WINE. And are you kidding me about Plan9? That was inspired in the extreme by Unix and was meant to fix the flaws Unix had, if there was no Unix there would be no Plan 9. On the Wikipedia page for QNX at the top are

      QNX (pronounced /kju n ks/ or /kju nks/) is a commercial Unix-like real-time operating system, aimed primarily at the embedded systems market

      I would call that Unix. I can't find much info on TRON but it seems to be a not very modern OS in terms of design. zOS works on one processor architecture that is proprietary to IBM to run on mainframes, as such it isn't exactly a general use OS and you could probably find some Unix in it if you looked hard enough.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    21. Re:Why? by artlogic · · Score: 1

      Plan9 is a reaction to some of the problems in Unix and still includes a lot of common ideas.

      --
      "A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." ~ Paul Erdos
    22. Re:Why? by killmofasta · · Score: 0

      VMS => Yes, and Multics too. ( Your forkin A right )

      Windows => "Worthless coagulated clot of speghetti." That would be a no.
      Windows should not be 'preserved' it should be "Castrated so it doesnt pass on its genes to future generations" -Hunter S Tompson

      ReactOS => Mabye.

      Plan9 => YES!

      ONX => Possible.

      Tron. => Insert Quarter for next game

      zOS = Which one? Zos ZOS or zOS? This one is a little forkin crazy.

    23. Re:Why? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      As opposed to inventing it poorly the first time?

      (Ignore me, I'm just your neighborhood young crotchety old man who hates all of at least the mainstream OSes with equal passion, though for different reasons each.)

    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VMS was, if anything, a contemporary to early UNIX. It's not modernly used to a significant degree, but if UNIX was around at the time of the VMS creation, certainly something from UNIX made its way into VMS.

      Windows has a lot of the VMS design principles, at least in theory. But it also has a number of command line tools for network connectivity (nslookup, ping, etc.) which originate with UNIX. And of course, there's the DOS legacy of Windows, which in all likelihood took concepts from UNIX.

      Plan9 and QNX are, I seem to recall, essentially UNIX derivatives. No idea about the others.

    25. Re:Why? by qortra · · Score: 1
      • Windows - As another poster mentioned, there have been significant amounts of BSD-Unix networking code in Windows over the years.
      • QNX - A "Unix-Like" OS.
      • Reactos - The userland is primarily based on Wine, a Windows compatibility layer for Unix-Like OSes.
      • Plan9 - "Unix-Like". The planned success to Unix, and developed by Bell.
      • zOS,VMS - These do appear to not be Unixy.
      • TRON - I look for good information in vain. The Wikipedia article on it was deeply suspect, and the outside references looked like they were made by high-schoolers in 1997. Perhaps you would be kind enough to [anonymously] provide some?
    26. Re:Why? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      At some point in the past, evolutions has taken the path that lead to the Dodo. Could you have understood where that evolutionary path was going, given that initial mutation?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    27. Re:Why? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Are those Unix influences, or influences from an OS predating Unix? i.e. the same source that caused Unix to adopt that style? You make it sound like there was nothing before Unix.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    28. Re:Why? by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are those Unix influences, or influences from an OS predating Unix? i.e. the same source that caused Unix to adopt that style? You make it sound like there was nothing before Unix.

      Almost nothing. Unix was created on The Second Day.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    29. Re:Why? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      VMS came after Unix so calling it a not very modern OS is kind of odd. X-Windows was never supposed to be Unix specific in fact there was even a version for DeskView way back when.
      WindowsNT really owes more to VMS than Unix the chief architect came from Digital. Tron also came after Unix as well. zOS is still an extremely important OS so just because it only runs on one CPU I wouldn't just thow it away as well. As to finding some Unix in zOS frankly you would probably find more zOS in modern Unix than the other way around. IBM really did pretty much invent everything that Bell Labs did not and they where their first.
      I really am not fond of the the write up about QNX. It is Unix like in someways and shares an API with it. but QNX is a micro kernel RTOS.
      And lets be very honest. Unix came from Multics. Every OS has built on and taken ideas from other OS's. None of them is the pure root source.
      I am a big Linux fan but I often wonder if we are too willing to keep Unix as our foundation. BeOS was a clean new OS and while I have never used it wonder if it may not be better than Linux and WindowsNT. It did some amazing things back in the day.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seriously asking what Unix heritage Plan9 has?

    31. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can study the path something has taken, you can understand where it's going.

      You're forgetting that on Slashdot, a large portion of the userbase questions the value of brick and mortar libraries. As though information older than 30 years is no longer relevant. Damn kids, always thinking they can re-do things better.

    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tron is the most used OS in the world.

      It was invented in Japan and is an embedded device OS.

    33. Re:Why? by Jamie's+Nightmare · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is an asinine quote that assumes all future Operating Systems should try and be Unix. I completely disagree. New ideas should be just that, new.

      --
      "When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
    34. Re:Why? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I doubt Microsoft would be taking notes from Multics for Windows NT.

    35. Re:Why? by jdbausch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is there really any useful purpose to be served by dredging this up? Don't these guys have anything better to do?

      yeah! FUCK HISTORY!

    36. Re:Why? by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you for real? Windows NT's kernel was practicaly a copy of VMS, it wasn't "inspired by UNIX". VMS was based on RSX. RSX came to be at approximately the same time as UNIX, circa 1970. RSX and VMS were influenced by UNIX allright, in a negative way - if UNIX did something, RSX and VMS definitely wanted to do it some other way.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    37. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zOS is still an extremely important OS so just because it only runs on one CPU I wouldn't just thow it away as well. As to finding some Unix in zOS frankly you would probably find more zOS in modern Unix than the other way around. IBM really did pretty much invent everything that Bell Labs did not and they where their first.

      Nope. There's a lot more Unix in Z/OS than the other way around. In fact all of Unix is in Z/OS--IBM will tell you that Z/OS is a Unix.
      See Z/OS Unix System Services
      http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/unix/

    38. Re:Why? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Z/OS runs Unix as a service.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    39. Re:Why? by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

      Unix influences. Notice that they're networking related; Windows used BSD's TCP/IP stack for a long time

    40. Re:Why? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      VMS? Windows? ReactOS?

      Just look at the way they use sockets. Internet is a Unix feature.

      Plan9?

      It was created to fix Unix, so obviously it has a LOT of unix heritage.

    41. Re:Why? by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, totally. We should like burn the Wright Flyer and close the Smithsonian too. They're like boring and old and stuff. Then we can go get some Brawndo.

      You really are a tarded aren't you? Thought about being a pilot?

    42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Windows? 98, ME, XP, Vista, etc...

    43. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VMS?

      Not modern, as a previous poster said.

      Windows?

      I'd say it at least takes something from UNIX, the BSD TCP/IP stack. Probably other things that aren't as widely noted.

      ReactOS?

      By virtue of the above.

      Plan9?

      Plan 9 is actually considered the successor to unix by a good four or five people. It takes some operating system concepts like "everything is a file" as well as I believe the directory hierarchy, for instance. It takes the file thing even further, I'm told, though I don't have specific examples.

      QNX?

      Influenced by UNIX on account of being UNIX.

      Tron? zOS?

      Now, there, you've stumped me.

    44. Re:Why? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      The wheel does need to be reinvented from time to time. Otherwise it just gets too square.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    45. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I believe the quote actually "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

      Second, as much as I like Unix (been using Linux since 95, running BSD and MacOSX as well, Windows free since '04), I absolutely hate this statement to the effect that somehow OS architecture reached perfection in the 70s.

      So maybe attempts since then have not been as good, or not better enough, or whatever. Fine. But to say that it's now as good as it's going to get is a load of cr*p.

    46. Re:Why? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Old source code gives us ideas,

      Like "WTF did they do here?!", "Why did they do it THAT way?!" and "That has got to be the ugliest kludge I've ever seen!"

      Of course its also invaluable to have their nemisises Multics and VMS alos preserved.

      Multics was hardly a 'nemesis' of Unix. Multics was basically dead when Unix arrived; its death inspired Ken Thompson and company to work on Unix.

    47. Re:Why? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      K&R, and the linux/GNU write well, wereas their MS counterparts wirte pretty crappy stuff. I would also venture to guess that the code alone can serve as an example of how to write code.

      You're kidding, right? We're talking about the kernel that doesn't bother with unit tests or actual release cycles, and which thinks that "our users find our bugs" is a good replacement for a QA process?

      Look, I like Linux and use it a lot, but to say that they "write well" and Microsoft "write pretty crappy stuff" is reveal a limited exposure to professional software development.

      BTW I disagree there's much to be learned from looking at old codebases. It's like saying modern engineers can learn something from examining rusty old steam engines. Sure, it's useful to know where it came from, but that can be covered quite well by a book, you don't need to spend time actually reading the old code. Because nearly without question the worst code I see in operating systems is always the oldest.

    48. Re:Why? by Kidbro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is there really any useful purpose to be served by dredging this up?

      No. There is nothing useful to be learned from history.
      Close your eyes, put the pedal to the metal, and assume that whatever you're doing, it's the right thing, and that nobody has ever tried it before.

    49. Re:Why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      DOS' shell was inspired by Unix; Windows NT's shell was inspired by VMS, and Microsoft indeed hired numerous VMS engineers to write it. Windows XP was the last version of NT to use BSD's TCP stack; a new one was written for vista to integrate IPv6. It reintroduced numerous pathetic vulnerabilities (like land and teardrop) during the Vista RC process, making it clear that Microsoft does not or at least did not do any bounds checking in the brand spanking new TCP stack.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:Why? by inamorty · · Score: 5, Funny

      pitty the world will end in 2012 :(

    51. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dodo didn't die out because it was unfit for its habitat in any way. It died out because of three reasons: One, like most animals that have never seen a human before, and especially those with no natural predators, it was unafraid of them. Two, it was very tasty. Finally, three, it was an island species which was constrained to a somewhat small population that humans could wipe out in a very short span of time, much faster than any large species could respond evolutionarily.

    52. Re:Why? by atlastiamborn · · Score: 1

      I wish I had modpoints. :(

      --
      I never apologize. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.
    53. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      The NT filenames were copied from Unix, not VMS. So was all the stream I/O and the socket api, and the libc library. Well they were really copied from MSDOS, but that had already been modified extensively to resemble Unix so NT had to resemble Unix as well.

      Some aspects of process management were from VMS but I suspect there was just as much variety between Unix's as there was between NT and some Unix here.

    54. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      No, the DOS shell (if you mean command.com or cmd.exe) was inspired by the CP/M shell, which was based on RSX style systems. It was modified in some crude ways to look more like a Unix shell.

      The NT shell was identical to the MSDOS one so it certainly could not be inspired somehow differently.

      Calling the windowing system the "shell" is an interesting different use of the term, but any such shell could not be considered to be derived from either Unix or VMS as they had no such thing.

    55. Re:Why? by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      UNIX compatibility and being UNIX are two different things.

    56. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the earliest UNIX code I've seen is very nice in terms of elegance, but the code style is difficult to follow. Ie, K&R style (duh), short variable names, etc. It's best to read it with a copy of the Lyon's book handy. Of course, UNIX grew up in an era when it was more important to be terse because keyboards weren't nearly so ergonomic and you didn't see more than 24 lines on screen and hard copy printouts were more common.

      So while I would encourage new programmers to learn from the programming techniques and algorithms of UNIX, I wouldn't want to encourage that style so much. I'd also want to add caveats that many of the techniques used may not be appropriate with a more modern approach (ie, lots of unions everywhere, a lot of machine dependence in the early versions, etc).

    57. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I suspect there was some minor influence from VMS to UNIX too. VMS introduced or popularized many ideas before a lot of other operating systems did. Ie, distributed file systems and clusters, security, and a common API/ABI for programming language interoperability. It had a sophisticated virtual memory system for a minicomputer and I can't imagine that UNIX completely ignored it (or at least not Berkeley with all their vaxen).

    58. Re:Why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The NT shell was identical to the MSDOS one so it certainly could not be inspired somehow differently.

      Yeah, I meant kernel there, correction fail. Sorry.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:Why? by sneezinglion · · Score: 1

      And here I thought that it was hip to be square.

    60. Re:Why? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      The NT shell was not the same. Trust me, I wrote bash scripts for both. Microsoft stripped down DOS when it embeded it into windows 95/NT. And 95's is different in a number of subtle ways from NT's. But on later versions of NT, you could invoke either one: command or cmd. But not so different as to be differently inspired.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    61. Re:Why? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Two, it was very tasty.

      Actually, documentary evidence suggests the reverse. But the birds grew so big (~30kg) they ate them anyway.

    62. Re:Why? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Those who don't know history will be doomed to repeat it, which in the case of UNIX, was a lot of fun the first time.

      But not the second time, when Microsoft reinvented UNIX -- poorly.

      That's why we study history.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    63. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look at http://www.multicians.org/myths.html sometime.

      What do you mean by dead? Unsupported? Unmaintained? Unpopular? Unused? Unportable?

      Bell Labs pulled out of the project in 1969. Multics had operational sites shortly after, and there were functioning, maintained Multics systems very much alive until October of 2000. For quite a long time, Multics was the only system to achieve one of the highest security ratings (an entire level beyond what any Hardened Unix system has accomplished).

      The Intel 80386 memory management system was designed to have approximately the same capabilities for memory management as the H6180 systems Multics was originally developed for. A port of Multics to the 386 was underway in the 80s but the project was canned due to budget constraints.

      Unix and Multics were not really competitors until much later in Unix's lifetime. Multics was designed from the ground up to be a highly flexible, reliable, secure computing resource. Unix was designed to be a small, lightweight text-processing system.

      PL/I compilers and tools are still available from IBM. There are plenty of people who worked on Multics who can be hired to port Multics PL/I to IBM PL/I or microcomputer PL/M.

      The Unix filesystem and memory management models are based heavily on those of Multics. The VMS security model was based significantly on that of Multics. The Windows NT development team basically hired a bunch of ex-VMS designers and ex-PR1ME designers (PR1ME was a system heavily based on ideas from Multics and coded by many ex-Multics designers, seeing a lot of use in the industry before PR1ME fell behind in hardware capabilities along with many other specialized minicomputer manufacturers with the rise of the consumer workstations). Multics made a *huge* impact on modern computing. Unix would not have gotten very far is Bell Labs had not been involved in the early development of Multics. Many of the features from Multics that were not brought over to Unix was because Unix was not aiming to be a multiprogramming environment (initially) so much as a DOS for PDPs that didn't suck...

      Honeywell/Bull made some very dumb moves, and that's why Multics is no longer running. If there was an inexpensive, highly secure, highly flexible, multiuser, multiprogramming operating system for the 386 in the era of PCBSD, DR-DOS, Xenix, and Novell, as there would have been until some executives canned the port to the 386... things might be very different today...

    64. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the zeroes were all patented.

    65. Re:Why? by elronxenu · · Score: 1

      No, what it means is that understanding Unix is a prerequisite for good OS design. It doesn't mean that nothing's ever been done better, but if you don't understand the Unix principles, good luck designing something better.

    66. Re:Why? by LeninZhiv · · Score: 1

      UNIX grew up in an era when it was more important to be terse because keyboards weren't nearly so ergonomic and you didn't see more than 24 lines on screen and hard copy printouts were more common.

      That and the fact that C at the time had a six-character limit for variable names.

    67. Re:Why? by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At that time, lots of languages had short variable names. It wasn't seen as all that much of a big deal until later.

      It was around this time, BTW, that I thought getting a 24x80 synchronous terminal on my desk was cool. (Synchronous = sends and receives in sort of a batch mode, asynchronous = character by character.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    68. Re:Why? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's why I drive while looking in the rear-view mir@L
      K&^£$%
      no carrier

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    69. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I could have sworn I read somewhere that some of the sailors said it was delicious. But I guess after a few years at sea, anything that's not fish starts to taste pretty inviting.

    70. Re:Why? by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      No religion that I have found actually has an end of the world. None. Of course at closer inspection I haven't found a true polytheistic religion either unless we go to the expired ones that have slipped into Mythology. Even from what I know of mezoamerican mythology and ancient religions an actual end of existience doesn't come up as best I can remember. I could be wrong but true "end of the world"'s are rare.

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    71. Re:Why? by vcompiler · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? We're talking about the kernel that doesn't bother with unit tests or actual release cycles, and which thinks that "our users find our bugs" is a good replacement for a QA process?

      You don't quiet know how MS work. Most of a QA process is a black-box process. A tester can make a voice only when she/he can produce a bug appearing to the outside of software. Actually, "out-users-(who-have-the-code)-find-our-bugs" is a way better method to find bugs than a QA process. In modern software company, QA process is more about politic than quality. Testers gain good performance by filing more bugs. Programmers gain good performance by preventing testers from filing more bugs. How programmers do so? By excessive design test. Basic design test is good, but why duplicate more than 70% test cases between a programmer and a tester? It's a waste of resource. And also, it's some vanity to prevent software company from pushing their software as early to users as possible. Google's way is right, to push even alpha version to users (but warn them don't download it unless they know what they are really doing. And, one thing, Google implement that alpha version for Mac/Linux too slow, just a complain about the speed, not the methodology).

      It's like saying modern engineers can learn something from examining rusty old steam engines.

      Sometimes computer is crude than a steam engine. Say today any crappy car with a poor-designed chassis can pass through a curve way with the help of a ABS system. But that's way ugly than the feeling of a well-designed chassis.

    72. Re:Why? by martin_lovick · · Score: 1

      regarding a 'History of the UNIX kernel' class, check out http://bitsavers.org/pdf/bellLabs/unix/ it has some interesting documents about the and unix kernel and some of the listings are being used as part of the current effort to resurrect the very early unix (ie v1 etc) also theres always lions commentary to be found on the net at http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/Lions/

    73. Re:Why? by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Yeh, but all the /dotters in their mama's basements won't even know it's ended, unless they get a "game over" message

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    74. Re:Why? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Filename syntax, stream and socket IO are all just a little bit of gingerbread on the product. The internals of NT, including memory management, IO, process structure, scedhuling, were practically identical to VMS. Very little UNIX like structure to be found.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  2. Usenix attendees..... by KingPin27 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In a paper to be presented at next week's Usenix show, Warren Toomey of the Bond School of IT is expected to detail restoration work being done on four key Unix software artifacts all from the early 1970s

    Afterwards atendees will be ushered to the dining hall for a fine serving of raisins, prune juice, and Oxygen treatments.
    St. John's ambulance will also be on site to assist with attendees suffering with various age related ailments such as broken hips and arthritis.

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
    1. Re:Usenix attendees..... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Here's a nickel kid, go buy yourself a real computer.

    2. Re:Usenix attendees..... by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      I have a special gizmo on my Go Go Elite Traveler PLUS to hold my EeePC!
      And a bag for my depends..

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    3. Re:Usenix attendees..... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was at Usenix (LISA) in 2001 (age 19), and it was awesome. I wish I could go again, but it doesn't look likely in the near future.

    4. Re:Usenix attendees..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's St John Ambulance (at least according to my uniform, my ID badge and their website at http://www.sja.org.uk/sja/), not St John's Ambulance *pedant*

    5. Re:Usenix attendees..... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Those diseases come with the age (because of decades of eating crap) not from the age. Just so you know (And possibly can prevent them yourself. [Some of them can even be fixed trough eating species-appropriate, even when you're not in your 20s anymore.])

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Usenix attendees..... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      My other computer is a 4000 node Beowulf cluster. Does that count?

      Or do I need a 4 million node botnet nowadays?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. Worth saving.. by nmrtian · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Not to diminish Unix's importance, it is a link in the chain -- but what a link it is! When MS is bankrupt, Windoze won't fit onto a DVD and no affordable hardware will be able to run it, Unix will be here. I run FreeBSD on my desktop and still enjoy firing up my AT&T 6300+ and playing with SVR2. Amazingly, the two computers, separated by more than 20 years, interact very nicely through a RS232 connection.

    1. Re:Worth saving.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Apple and its tragic inability to deliver a UNIX® that can multi-task in all situations you insensitive Clod!

  4. Worse is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite what many a slashdot crowd might think, UNIX isn't exactly an elixir from the Gods. UNIX, Microsoft Windows and Intel x86 are living proofs that the best / most innovative technology doesn't necessarily have to win. Check Out: http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html.

    1. Re:Worse is better by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that MS-DOS outsold the Amiga and Atari ST is proof that best doesn't always win. The x86 is a great example as well. The 68k chip was a much better CPU than the 8088,8086, and even the 80286. Only when the 386 hit the market did Intel really have a CPU that wasn't a freaking nightmare.
      Another example is PHP. Good grief $A[1]==$A['1'], that is just wrong.
      PHP, Windows, x86, and so much of what we live with are all examples of good enough. Not great but good enough.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Worse is better by Teckla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that MS-DOS outsold the Amiga and Atari ST is proof that best doesn't always win. The x86 is a great example as well. The 68k chip was a much better CPU than the 8088,8086, and even the 80286.

      The 68000 didn't have a built-in MMU. You could run an OS with process isolation (a requirement for a safe multi-user OS) on the 80286. You could not do that with a 68000 (unless you added a separate MMU; the 68881 maybe?).

    3. Re:Worse is better by sorak · · Score: 1

      Another example is PHP. Good grief $A[1]==$A['1'], that is just wrong.

      So why is that such a bad thing? Granted you can make the "unclean, unclean, UNCLEAN!" argument, but why is that the worst of php's atrocities?

    4. Re:Worse is better by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The memory protection on the 286 was terrible. It still used segments and wasn't a flat address space.
      I think the the 68010 came out around the time of 286 and you could add a real mmu that supported paging and had a flat address space. Also the 68020 came out during the time of the 286 so you could make the jump to true 32 bit.
      Of course the vast majority of 286s where used to run DOS so it's memory protection just wasn't that important. BTW the 68881 was an FPU the Motorola 68841 or 68851 where the MMUs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Worse is better by sowth · · Score: 1

      This may be true, but Unix / Posix is the result of decades of research for such things as security and administration on real software systems. Much of it contains features requested by admins in hostile environments trying to run and protect their systems. It may not be new and innovative, but its model works for me. I haven't seen anything better from a practical standpoint. Obviously, this doesn't mean there can't be other types of systems. There is always more than one way of doing things.

    6. Re:Worse is better by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Another example is PHP. Good grief $A[1]==$A['1'], that is just wrong.

      I think $A[1] === $A['1'] will do what you're wanting it to do. What's wrong with having the language smart enough to know that 1 and '1' are the same thing? It can tell the difference between an int and a char, it's just usually not useful.

    7. Re:Worse is better by glenstar · · Score: 1

      My favorite fucked up PHPism has always been:

      $space_var='THIS IS A STUPID VARIABLE WITH SPACES IN ITS NAME';
      $$space_var = "this is some content";
      print $$space_var;
      print_r($GLOBALS);

      Which puts a nice variable named $"THIS IS A STUPID VARIABLE WITH SPACES IN ITS NAME" into your global namespace.

    8. Re:Worse is better by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Actually the 80286 could do full memory protection. The pages were in effect 64K in size. There was certainly some strange stuff so that you were encouraged to keep using the same page, but at the time memory sizes were such that you really wanted to limit how many 64K pages were swapped in.

      The problem was that the 8086 version of MSDOS preset the segments to overlap 16 bytes apart, and lots of programs assumed this. If you changed it so the paging was useful then no MSDOS programs could run, which pretty much meant it was a non-starter except for some alternative operating systems that had far less luck than Linux in competing with the juggernaut.

    9. Re:Worse is better by Teckla · · Score: 1

      The memory protection on the 286 was terrible. It still used segments and wasn't a flat address space.

      I've never been a fan of segments either.

      I think the the 68010 came out around the time of 286 and you could add a real mmu that supported paging and had a flat address space. Also the 68020 came out during the time of the 286 so you could make the jump to true 32 bit.

      Sure, hardware makers could choose to add an MMU to their 68010/68020 based machines.

      Of course the vast majority of 286s where used to run DOS so it's memory protection just wasn't that important.

      I was lucky, I got to use QNX (running on 80286) and Microport (sp?) Unix (also running on 80286) -- both in protected mode, of course. It's a shame most 80286s ran DOS in real mode...

      BTW the 68881 was an FPU the Motorola 68841 or 68851 where the MMUs.

      Thanks for the correction!

    10. Re:Worse is better by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is a bad comparison, comparing early generation chips to a later one. The 8086, 8088, and 80186 didn't have built-in MMUs either! Compare the 68020 to the 80286 for a more reasonable comparison.

      Memory protection was not at all a design factor for DOS or even early versions of Windows. Memory protection didn't really take off in the PC world until the 80386, which was after the 68020 was being used to run UNIX.

      The two competing families didn't release new CPUs at the same time, so it's difficult to say which CPU should compare to which; they tended to leap-frog, as in 68020 being better than 80286, then 80386 being better a year or two later, then 68030 being better a year or two after that, etc.

      This is in terms of MMU that is, the overall architecture of the 680x0 family was always much cleaner than the 80x86 family in my view. When you're comparing MS-DOS to Atari ST or Amiga, the 68000 is a clear winner. The reason that IBM did not go with that family for the first PC was due to the availability of support chips as I understand it.

    11. Re:Worse is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really true about the 80386...

      I could remember that only one of several 80386 versions produced by Intel actually functioned well. Anyone remembered Intel Secrets website, merged with Dr Dobbs some time ago...

      All Intel chips over the years were mostly buggy, probably still so.

    12. Re:Worse is better by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I agree. PHP is the biggest WTF of an interpreter I have ever seen.

      If you do it right, you can manage to add non-code strings right between the lines of code. Without them being comments. I think this works because the interpreter does only parse code immediately before execution. Which means that if you have an "if" construct, with code inside, that will not be executed, it will not be parsed. If you got a bug in there that every other language catches on compile time, it will only reveal itself in that one-in-a-million case where that rare if construct is executed. Which is part of what makes debugging an incredible nightmare.

      There is so much mess inside that interpreter, that I fear, reading its source, will make you go blind, to save your heart. ;)

      I even got a real trauma from it (and the IE), when I worked at a large Internet portal. Which lead me to switch to Haskell (and Python for scripting needs). I never looked back.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    13. Re:Worse is better by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      and Microport (sp?) Unix

      OMG. For a second or two, I thought you said "Microsoft Unix". /fear /run /hide /cry

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:Worse is better by uiuyhn8i8 · · Score: 0

      >UNIX isn't exactly an elixir from the Gods

      I absolutely beg to differ. Although the general unix design isn't bleeding edge in any form it is a very good design that has survived for forty years and is still going strong. That IS a mark of excellence. I say Unix, C, emacs and latex has the same qualities together with ethernet and tcp/ip which are the all time greats in computing. Any good programmer can design something that works now. It takes a really great programmer to design something that can work for FOUR DECADES.

      We stand on the shoulders of giants and we owe it to them to preserve our common first footsteps in the sand.

    15. Re:Worse is better by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Man, you can go WAY further:

      $space_var=THIS IS A STUPID VARIABLE WITH SPACES IN ITS NAME;
      $$space_var = "this is some content";
      print $$space_var;
      print_r($GLOBALS);
      if (!nonExistingVariable) {
          nonExistingFunction();
      }

      This works perfectly in PHP 5.2.9.
      The spaces need to be protected spaces, for it to work. Same as " ", but in Unicode. Both of which are removed by Slashdot's filter. I can type them with Mod3-Shift-Space on my keyboard. Other space-like characters should work too.
      PHP thinks the non-existing variable can be interpreted as a boolean with the value "TRUE".
      And it never cares for the non-existing function.
      Unfortunately, I could not reconstruct the bug where you could put truly random stuff in that "if" block, without PHP noticing.

      Oh the fun! But still better than IE's non-deterministic behavior of pure evil insanity.
      (Like a Javascript running onload to change the style of an element, moving another unrelated element down exactly 51 pixels, depending on some race condition. [Forgot if up or down.])

      Ok, I have to go to my therapy now... ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    16. Re:Worse is better by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      It's not being smart. It's guessing. And it can be very wrong. Hiding bugs.
      In fact it's the same level of expecting the user to be retarded, that makes MS office unusable for professional users.
      It changes your quotes to "real quotes" even if you did not want it, makes every letter after a dot uppercase, even if you did not want that too, assists you here and there, until you get so annoyed from fixing this shit, that you just install OpenOffice... ...and notice that it got infected with that shit too. :(

      At least you can disable the training wheels and wheelchair. Which is the first thing I usually do after installation. Of course, nowadays I do my documents with XHTML or some professional DTP tool.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    17. Re:Worse is better by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Child.
      It was Xenix and Microsoft loved unix. Most of it's developers used Xenix to write DOS. :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:Worse is better by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually it was a shame there was a 286 at all. It really was a terrible design. Memory protection was very much underused on the desktop for many years. Heck even the 386s where mainly used to run DOS and Windows 3. The thing is that the 68k beat the x86 left right and sidways. The joke back in the day was. If you had to run DOS you used an x86 if you got to choose the cpu you ran a 68k.
      QNX is one of those things I wish I had time to play with. Of course in 86 I was running an Amiga with color and real multitasking.
      I remeber I was helping a local Sysop debug zmodem on his bbs. He asked me to download a gif as a test. Once the download was done I told him I would go check it. He chatted back that "I didn't have to hang up just to do that" He said he could wait until I was done reading my messages. He was shocked when I told him that I didn't have to hang up at all to check it!
      He thought that was so cool that I could actually lock at a GIF and run a terminal at the same time.
      I later showed him that I could play music, write a paper, and look at a Gif while downloading. He was shocked.
      Oh the good old days when 3 Megabytes of ram and 80 megabytes of disk space was a big machine.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:Worse is better by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Because they sure as shooting are not the same thing!
      Okay lets change this one up a bit.
      $inx='9';
      a$[$inx]=10;
      $inx++;
      $a[$inx]=12;

      so later if you us 9 instead of 9 and to a inc will you find the same value?
      Nope because 9 and "9" are NOT THE FREAKING SAME BLOODY THING!
      This isn't being smart it is allowing more and better bugs! That is a negative in a programing language.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  5. Which "Unix" are they talking about? by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    I thought Unix has lots of so called "flavors" so which one are they talking about?

    In fact, the little piece I link to has this introduction:

    Unix is not a single operating system. It has many flavors (aka. variants, types, or implementations). Although based on a core set of Unix commands, different flavors have their own unique commands and features, and designed to work with different types of hardware. No one knows exactly how many Unix flavors are there, but it is safe to say that if including all those that are obscure and obsolete, the number of Unix flavors is at least in the hundreds. You can often tell that an operating system is in the Unix family if it has a name that is a combination of the letters U, I, and X.

    So what exactly are these folks talking about?

    1. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFA or even the summary per chance?

    2. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all of those flavors come from one version of unix written in the early 70s. That's the one they're trying to find out about. Linux is an exception in that it did not "evolve" from that early Unix or it's descendants. It was written to function like "Minix" another unix-like OS which surprisingly, is also not descended from the Unix line. Even operating systems like modern Windows borrow heavily from concepts and ideas in Unix.

    3. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Original flavor. All the stuff talked about in this article comes from before UNIX split into its hundreds of variants. In fact, these are so early that they come from before UNIX escaped out of Bell Labs. UNIX didn't start splitting into different flavors until about Versions 4 and 5.

    4. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by middlemen · · Score: 1

      You can often tell that an operating system is in the Unix family if it has a name that is a combination of the letters U, I, and X.

      That's a little unfair to the users of BSD based operating systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Mac OSX and other variants.

    5. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You can often tell that an operating system is in the Unix family if it has a name that is a combination of the letters U, I, and X.

      That's a little unfair to the users of BSD based operating systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Mac OSX and other variants.

      MacOSX has an X. "B" is just two small sideways U's and an I. "D" is a wide sideways U and an I

    6. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Akir · · Score: 1

      You are confused sir. 'D' is a slice of watermelon.

    7. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say they're talking about "vanilla."

    8. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I always thought melons were '%'

    9. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Fnordulicious · · Score: 1

      No, those are stairs. Food is :.

  6. History is history by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there really any useful purpose to decoding Sumerian clay tablets, or analysing dockyard records from the 18th Century? One of the things that differentiates civilised human beings from all other living things on this planet is that we study history and preserve things from the past. Perhaps it just doesn't need justification, it is part of what we are.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:History is history by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And, fitting onto a single DVD, these systems are much cheaper for museums to show to the kids than Sumerian clay tablets.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  7. What, no documentation? by bzzfzz · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA: "documentation is missing or incomplete, source code is missing leaving only the binary executables, or conversely the source exists but the compilation tools to reconstruct the executables are missing."

    Sounds like any number of projects I've had the pleasure of working on over the years.

  8. Careful... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those that don't learn UNIX are doomed to reinvent it. Poorly.

    One may interpret that saying as someone trying to incite a Linux / BSD war. We lost good men from both sides the last time that happened...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Careful... by iYk6 · · Score: 1

      One may interpret that saying as someone trying to incite a Linux / BSD war. We lost good men from both sides the last time that happened...

      Why can't we all just get along? And unite against our common enemy, OSX.

      (bet you thought I was going to say Windows).

  9. SIMH by wandazulu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SIMH is a hardware emulator for a lot of the machines Unix ran on (PDP-8, PDP-11, etc.). They also have some original Unix versions along with some other software for the other hardware they support.

    I have run Unix V5 on a SIMH-based PDP-11, and it worked well, though it was strange to realize how fast it was running, in emulation, on a machine 1/16 its original size (Mac laptop).

    1. Re:SIMH by dburkland · · Score: 1

      That's pretty sweet, I'm gonna give this a try to night. Thanks for the link!

    2. Re:SIMH by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I just set up a SIMH VAX machine last night running 4.3BSD-quasijarus, which is one purist's project to continue maintaining "pure" BSD Unix.

      The project: http://ifctfvax.harhan.org/Quasijarus/
      How to get a SIMH VM set up: http://www.retrocomputinggeek.com/retrowiki/Install4.3BSDQuasijarus/

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:SIMH by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Ummm...

      Unix never ran on a PDP-8, as far as I know.

      For DEC systems, it ran on PDP-7, PDP-11, VAX, and Alpha. The original PDP-7 version, and the early PDP-11 versions are lost to the mists of time.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  10. Unix as an "Idea Mine" by mpapet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Very often the technically 'best' implementation doesn't win and I'd like to see those stories from inside Unix. For me, that's a more interesting angle than just version/feature stories.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  11. how about curses and text games? by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    rogue, sail, wump, search (you have crashed into a planet), battlestar (in the closet is a kingly robe), mazewars, that mazewars-like curses game who's name escapes me, with a variety of weapons (satchel bomb... oooo...) that had destructable maze walls.

    There are a variety of Rogue-like games out there that have been ported to current platforms, but the other ones, especially sail, search and mazewars, I haven't seen in years and years. These games were arguably part of our early Unix heritage because they enticed people to get a login and explore the OS, and for many of us (myself included) they were our motivation learn how to write termcaps for obscure terminals and emulators (the acid test was if Rogue would render correctly), learn programming to fix and enhance the games, and earn root access to do installs and fix permission issues.

    Multi-user Unix games like sail and mazewars helped spread the Unix word because we were always trying to entice others to get a login so we could play with them. People with early PC experience couldn't even conceive of multi-user games.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:how about curses and text games? by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are a variety of Rogue-like games out there that have been ported to current platforms, but the other ones, especially sail, search and mazewars, I haven't seen in years and years.

      sail, at least, is part of the "bsdgames" package on Debian.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:how about curses and text games? by harry666t · · Score: 1

      Most of the games mentioned by OP are included in Debian. bsdgames includes:

      adventure, arithmetic, atc, backgammon, battlestar, bcd, boggle, caesar, canfield, countmail, cribbage, dab, go-fish, gomoku, hack, hangman, hunt, mille, monop, morse, number, pig, phantasia, pom, ppt, primes, quiz, random, rain, robots, rot13, sail, snake, tetris, trek, wargames, worm, worms, wump, wtf.

      rogue is in bsdgames-nonfree.

    3. Re:how about curses and text games? by Teckla · · Score: 1

      rogue, sail, wump, search (you have crashed into a planet), battlestar (in the closet is a kingly robe), mazewars, that mazewars-like curses game who's name escapes me, with a variety of weapons (satchel bomb... oooo...) that had destructable maze walls.

      You're thinking of Hunt. Multi-player fragfest goodness! It had pretty decent performance on 1200 baud (even 300 baud) too.

      Hunt was also a great way to train your fingers to use the hjkl movement keys!

    4. Re:how about curses and text games? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Most of the games mentioned by OP are included in Debian.

      It was "mazewars" and "search" I wasn't too sure about... Never played 'em and couldn't find 'em. But I saw the post mention sail - I used to play Sail back in college, so I knew that one wasn't a "lost treasure"...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:how about curses and text games? by axl917 · · Score: 1

      OMG Hunt! That's what it was called. Me and the fellow MUDders used to hop onto that whenever the network dropped our connections to the outside world, which was frequent back then. The sysop was brutal, having played it for a few years when he was a student, before we got there. Used to excel at running thru people and stabbing them.

    6. Re:how about curses and text games? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was playing it just a few days ago. wump is part of the same collection.

  12. I love the smell of analogies in the morning! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Is there really any useful purpose to decoding Sumerian clay tablets, or analysing dockyard records from the 18th Century? One of the things that differentiates civilised human beings from all other living things on this planet is that we study history and preserve things from the past. Perhaps it just doesn't need justification, it is part of what we are.

    Or to restoring old cars...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:I love the smell of analogies in the morning! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Restoring old cars saves energy and is environmentally friendly. I bought a used 1992 F250 needing work (I just finished replacing the mechanical fuel injection pump, and making a custom intake for the turbo kit, yaargh) instead of buying a new truck because I could get more truck for less money and save energy and did I mention it's a diesel with 20 mpg on the freeway even though it's a 3/4 ton 4x4?

      Ford claims they're going to make flex-fuel engines to replace diesels. Fuckheads. E85 is a terrible boondoggle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I love the smell of analogies in the morning! by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Restoring old cars saves energy and is environmentally friendly. I bought a used 1992 F250 needing work

      No no no no no... I mean old cars...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    3. Re:I love the smell of analogies in the morning! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I bought a used 1992 F250 needing work

      No no no no no... I mean old cars...

      Uh, I did say it was a Ford, right?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Perfect diversion for those with hoarding disorder by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    If you must obsessively collect something, it might as well be bits. Every year or two, you can squeeze twice as much stuff into the same space. That makes it less likely that you'll be found trapped, filthy and emaciated, beneath a collapsed pile of your hoarded treasures.

    This is the first time in human history that true exponential hoarding has become not only possible, but practical.

  14. Re:Why? Why not? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Is there really any useful purpose to be served by dredging this up? Don't these guys have anything better to do?

    I say, "Why not?" It's interesting. That's enough.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  15. Re:I do the same thing with used condoms by hmar · · Score: 1

    Too bad, being a /. troll and all, you keep needing to borrow them.

  16. Easy to use Windows SIMH packages by JasonStevens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm glad this is getting some exposure. I know that Warren & co worked hard to get this ancient UNIX not only in a working state, but also he is the one responsible for pushing SCO with the oldSCO source license, and played a hand in getting Research UNIX 1-7 & 32v under a BSD style license, thus setting the foundation of UNIX free. Now SIMH may not be the 'friendliest' software out there for a new user to get used to, so I've done my part in making it a little more accessible. On the sourceforge project https://sourceforge.net/projects/bsd42 I've created Windows installable versions of the 4BSD stuff, 32v and UNIX v1. I do plan to add all the other research versions, along with a new build of RENO that doesn't need 1.8GB... Anyways try them out! the 4BSD stuff has TCP/IP along with a SLiRP hack it can connect to the internet immediately! IRC/Lynx/GCC work great on the Uwisc 4.3 BSD build. Ok that being said, there is a repository of SIMH binaries on https://sourceforge.net/projects/simh , and the MS-DOS build includes some small 'bootstrap' versions of various OS's including v1 UNIX on the PDP-11 simulator. The bar to trying this stuff is a lot lower then you may have guessed, and I'd encourage any fan of UNIX to really check it out.

    1. Re:Easy to use Windows SIMH packages by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      If I believed in God I'd say you will burn in Hell for doing this.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  17. Run the real Curses text games! by JasonStevens · · Score: 1

    Absolutely you can play these! And I'm not talking about 'ported' packages, and linux / BSD game stuff. I'm talking the actual 4BSD stuff. Check out SIMH, along with the TUHS archives, and you can run the real deal! I've setup some pointers on running this here: http://gunkies.org/wiki/4.0_BSD http://gunkies.org/wiki/4.2_BSD http://gunkies.org/wiki/4.3_BSD Of course curses didn't make it's appearence until 4.0BSD. And TCP/IP in 4.2.. 4.3BSD was without a doubt the best. And of course the guy who got it running has his pages, along with 'tape' images here: http://zazie.tom-yam.or.jp/starunix/ And of course for windows users there is the ready to run packages here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bsd42

  18. Oh boy by FranTaylor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone will trot out a copy of the Morris worm and we can relive history all over again.

    1. Re:Oh boy by JasonStevens · · Score: 1

      What I'd really love is a broken version of Emacs that was used back in the early 1980s around the time of Clifford Stoll's Cuckoo's egg.

    2. Re:Oh boy by ukbazza · · Score: 1

      I thought all versions of Emacs were broken.

  19. Re:Perfect diversion for those with hoarding disor by swb · · Score: 1

    I was kind of thinking along the same lines. One of the problems with computers is that you CAN save every variation, every single edit of every file, everything, and it just seems to flow into a recursive save everything mindset that never ends and never saves enough.

    Has anyone bothered saving the paper TTY output from the compiling (or worse -- line editing!) of these original UNIX items? What about that?

    Ugh.

  20. What an odd thought by Akir · · Score: 1

    "... the actual artifacts of early Unix development were in danger of being lost forever."


    That's odd. I seem to have had copies of Unix versions 1-5 on my computer for quite a while. And I'm not talking about UNIX system V SVR blah blah. I had some (there was a lot, it could have been all of it, but I didn't look too far into it) of the source code too.

    This was at least a year or two back, when I was interested in the origins of UNIX, when I was simulating the PDP with SIMH. Complicated computers they were.

    Also note that I don't have any real links to AT&T, Lucient Technologies, or Bell Labs. I do, however, have the internet and access to Google.

    1. Re:What an odd thought by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, they point out that a lot of this stuff comes from 'packrats'. From a preservation standpoint, it's important to get this stuff into a university library where someone can find it 20 years from now, rather than relying on underground FTP repositories and the like.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  21. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SLASHCODE?!?! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK seriously, the above post is pretty screwed up in Firefox. I've got floating tab bars or something all over the post as well as throughout the thread and the tt font is coming out at 16 point or in some very large font.

    These css screw ups have been happening a lot lately. Then again I am using the older (and better) comment system.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SLASHCODE?!?! by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      Like this? http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g269/bob-appleyard/slashbug.png

      I tried submitting a bug report, but it placed too many obstacles in my path, and broke down before it could go anywhere.

      Messed up.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    2. Re:WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SLASHCODE?!?! by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 1

      mine's doing the same thing. damnably annoying too... i never thought /. would join the conspiracy to force people to use IE!

      --
      ... wait, what?
    3. Re:WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SLASHCODE?!?! by rdebath · · Score: 1

      It's got multicolour dots and pills too now. :-(

  22. paper and program by adelporto · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:paper and program by adelporto · · Score: 3, Informative

      The paper is free next week when it becomes published.

  23. In other news, who the hell cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UNIX has evolved for a good reason. Only an academic would find this pursuit to be a reasonable use of time.

    1. Re:In other news, who the hell cares? by mihalis · · Score: 1

      UNIX has evolved for a good reason. Only an academic would find this pursuit to be a reasonable use of time.

      Oh thank God. If I ever have hobbies that are considered a reasonable use of time please just kill me...

  24. Re:I do the same thing with used condoms by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    Being a /. troll and all, I doubt he has ever needed one, or ever will.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  25. Worse loses at the end by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you are fooled by lack of Desktop popularity of Linux since I see UNIX, by exact meaning along with certificates is approaching 10% desktop share now and basically sets the destination on mobile scene. That is OS X for you. Should Apple do the most interesting thing ever and gather Unix 03 certificate for a mobile device too?

    If we look to matter as *NIX, MS is actually struggling to reach top spot spending billions of dollars to overtake Linux and FreeBSD _dominance_ on server scene. Enterprise? UNIX simply owns it. No matter their web 2.0 abuser army says or their sell off trojans in FOSS claims, UNIX runs the enterprise for 40 years and counting.

  26. Re:I do the same thing with used condoms by hmar · · Score: 1

    Being a /. troll and all, I doubt he has ever needed one, or ever will.

    which was my point. too subtle?

  27. Re:I do the same thing with used condoms by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sadly, my not getting the joke rarely has anything to do with the quality of the joke itself.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  28. In contrast to the early pre NT Windows specimens by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    ...which the CDC considers harmful to humans and has placed the two last known remaining copies at strategically placed bunkers in different parts of the US.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  29. Re:Why? (VMS) by uassholes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is something that might help. Excerpt: "And now...the rest of the story: I'll take you on a short tour of NT's lineage, which leads back to Digital and its VMS OS. Most of NT's lead developers, including VMS's chief architect, came from Digital, and their background heavily influenced NT's development. After I talk about NT's roots, I'll discuss the more-than-coincidental similarities between NT and VMS, and how Digital reacted to NT's release. . ." Link: http://windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=4494

  30. Cheap and massively produced by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Actually, what made x86 and Windows dominant, was the PC Clone market :
    A huge market with lots of companies competing by producing even cheaper version of the same product, following (approximately) the same standard.

    Mass production makes the product widely available, and cheap.

    Thus PCs got easier to get for much less money, even if they where shittier than the better, but more expensive and more scarce Amiga computers.

    The 68k is a whole different story. It actually enjoyed a good success, become almost omnipresent in home consoles, arcade machines, embed controllers, UNIX workstations, early Macs, etc...
    If you don't restrict yourself to the desktop computer category, the 68k was very widespread.
    Its just that one product got widespread (the PC compatibile clone) and it tended to use a weird CPU. Everything else used mostly 68k.

    Just the same way as today, Intel has a quasi monopoly, only when exclusively considering desktop computer. Loosen your definition of CPU and start including embed platforms, handhelds and smart phone, and suddenly the quasi monopolist is ARM. Followed by MIPS, and SuperH, with x86 a distant contender.
    (and if you admit an even wider definition of CPU, PIC microcontroller will probably be overwhelmingly more widespread than anything else)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Cheap and massively produced by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      bull it came down to marketing.
      An Amiga 1000 was cheaper than an AT. The ST was even cheaper.
      The Amiga 2000 was also cheaper than the same PC.
      When the 500, 600, and 1200 came out they where still cheaper.
      It came down to marketing and frankly the trade rags.
      With a number of PC makers buying ads you really couldn't say. Hey for less money than a PC running MS-DOS you can buy an Amiga with a full multitasking OS, Stereo sound, and color graphics.
      Ho and no silly 640 k limits or 33 MB partion limits like you had with Dos at the time.
      Also for software makers a bird in the hand like the PC was better than an Amiga, ST, or even Mac.
      Cheap PCs are actually a realtivly new thing. The Amiga and ST didn't loose on price they lost on marketing.
      Frankly if Commodore had bought KFC they would have changed the name to "Warm dead birds in a cardboard bucket".

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  31. yippee by planetfinder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Its the same basic stuff we use today with color graphics thrown in for a thrill. The appeal of this sort of thing is really odd.

    It begs the question:
    Why are we still stuck with this archaic style of operating system after all these decades ?
    Its so dated in the face of todays needs that we are supplementing file browsing with a brute force string search
    to find our stuff. Funnier still we tout this crude bandaid on defunct technology as new and innovative technology.

    I once thought that computer technology would amount to something in my lifetime.
    Now we sit around waiting for the year of the Linux desktop, the free version of 40 year old shit.
    I don't understand why it wasn't being given away 20 years ago.

    1. Re:yippee by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The appeal of this sort of thing is that it works very well. Unix, in its many forms, has survived many competitors. On the desktop, and in most server rooms, it's NT and some form of Unix, and the NT style of operating system is no better than the Unix style. Many people have tried to come up with something better, and failed. I'd hate to think it was the ultimate OS, but I haven't seen anything better yet.

      The reason we're still stuck with OSes like Unix is that nobody's come up with anything significantly better. Unix has also proved to be exceptionally adaptable, and is now far better than it used to be, without changing its basic nature.

      We've had brute force string searches for a long time. We just spelled them differently:

      find . -xargs grep -i fnord {} \; -print 2>/dev/null

      Many people find the dialog box to be an improvement, but it doesn't really do anything different.

      A more relevant question would be what the deficiencies of Unix really are? What would the ideal OS do that Unix doesn't? (My suggestion would be more forgiving file handling, with undelete capability and versioning in the file system, but that could be added readily on top of the current file system.) Come up with something that can't be fairly easily fitted on to Unix, and we'll talk.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. For geeks who wanna run 1st edition unix (pre-C) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, some friends and I managed to make a printout of PDP11/20 assembler of first edition unix into electronic form and get it running in an emulator last year:

    http://code.google.com/p/unix-jun72/

  33. keep regressing by thethibs · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, all these OS' lead back to the Berkeley Timesharing System (1964). So do many of the relevant people.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.