Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Saving Unix Heritage, One Kernel At a Time

Posted by timothy on from the this-algorithm-was-part-of-the-one-true-cross dept.

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."

11 of 169 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. Re:Why? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tron?

      He fights for the users.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

      --
      My blog
  2. 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."
  3. Re:Which "Unix" are they talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RTFA or even the summary per chance?

  4. 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
  5. 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.