Live data from Hacker News

1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

tuhs.org

61–70 of 153 posts

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#61

Software archeology

One of the many things I dislike about the SaaS era is that this will never happen. Nobody in 2075 will boot up an old version of Notion or Figma for research or nostalgia.

Like the culture produced and consumed on social media and many other manifestations of Internet culture it is perfectly ephemeral and disposable. No history, no future.

SaaS is not just closed but often effectively tied to a literal single installation. It could be archived and booted up elsewhere but this would be a much larger undertaking, especially years later without the original team, than booting 1972 Unix on a modern PC in an emulator. That had manuals and was designed to be installed and run in more than one deployment. SaaS is a plate of slop that can only be deployed by its authors, not necessarily by design but because there are no evolutionary pressures pushing it to be anything else. It's also often tangled up with other SaaS that it uses internally. You'd have to archive and restore the entire state of the cloud, as if it's one global computer running proprietary software being edited in place.

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When gasoline was leaded, cigarette smoke was normal everywhere, and asbestos was used for everything you can think of? It is a fascinating decade but also quality of life likely has skyrocketed since.

> quality of life likely has skyrocketed since it hasn't

I survived cancer because of modern medical advances.

I'll take the world with Rituxan and CAR T-cell therapy, thank you.

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#63
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When gasoline was leaded, cigarette smoke was normal everywhere, and asbestos was used for everything you can think of? It is a fascinating decade but also quality of life likely has skyrocketed since.

it is fascinating to consider that this might not be true even though it seems true

No? Thinking the world has gotten worse is classic old person chuntering from time immemorial.

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#64
post #6

I love this! first time I see people use 'ed' for work!!! I wonder who else has to deal with ed also... recently I had to connect to an ancient system where vi was not available, I had to write my own editor, so whoever needs an editor for an ancient system, ping me (it is not too fancy). amazing work by the creators of this software and by the researchers, you have my full respect guys. those are the real engineers!

I used ed in Termux on my cellphone to write http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/justhash.c in August. Someone, I forget who, had mentioned they were using ed on their cellphone because the Android onscreen keyboard was pretty terrible for vi, which is true. So I tried it. I decided that, on the cellphone, ed was a little bit worse than vi, but they are bad in different ways. It really is much easier to issue commands to ed than to vi on the keyboard (I'm using HeliBoard) but a few times I got confused about the state of the buffer in a way that I wouldn't with vi. Possibly that problem would improve with practice, but I went back to using vi.

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ed, append mode ends by entering a single '.' on an empty line, and then pressing enter. You can see that happening in the article.

Now we know where SMTP got it, I guess.

That's possible but unlikely. MTP as defined by Suzanne Sluizer and Jon Postel in RFC 772 in September 01980 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc772 seems to have been where SMTP got that convention for ending the message:

> ...and considers all succeeding lines to be the message text. It is terminated by a line containing only a period, upon which a 250 completion reply is returned.

But in 01980 Unix had only been released outside of Bell Labs for five years and was only starting to support ARPANET connections (using NCP), so I wouldn't expect it to be very influential on ARPANET protocol design yet. I believe both Sluizer and Postel were using TOPS-20; the next year the two of them wrote RFC 786 about an interface used under TOPS-20 at ISI (Postel's institution, not sure if Sluizer was also there) between MTP and NIMAIL.

For some context, RFC 765, the June 01980 version of FTP, extensively discusses the TOPS-20 file structure, mentions NLS in passing, and mentions no other operating systems in that section at all. In another section, it discusses how different hardware typically handles ASCII:

> For example, NVT-ASCII has different data storage representations in different systems. PDP-10's generally store NVT-ASCII as five 7-bit ASCII characters, left-justified in a 36-bit word. 360's store NVT-ASCII as 8-bit EBCDIC codes. Multics stores NVT-ASCII as four 9-bit characters in a 36-bit word. It may be desirable to convert characters into the standard NVT-ASCII representation when transmitting text between dissimilar systems.

Note the complete absence of either of the hardware platforms Unix could run on in this list!

(Technically Multics is software, not hardware, but it only ever ran on a single hardware platform, which was built for it.)

RFC 771, Cerf and Postel's "mail transition plan", admits, "In the following, the discussion will be hoplessly [sic] TOPS20[sic]-oriented. We appologize [sic] to users of other systems, but we feel it is better to discuss examples we know than to attempt to be abstract." RFC 773, Cerf's comments on the mail service transition plan, likewise mentions TOPS-20 but not Unix. RFC 775, from December 01980, is about Unix, and in particular, adding hierarchical directory support to FTP:

> BBN has installed and maintains the software of several DEC PDP-11s running the Unix operating system. Since Unix has a tree-like directory structure, in which directories are as easy to manipulate as ordinary files, we have found it convenient to expand the FTP servers on these machines to include commands which deal with the creation of directories. Since there are other hosts on the ARPA net which have tree-like directories, including Tops-20 and Multics, we have tried to make these commands as general as possible.

RFC 776 (January 01981) has the email addresses of everyone who was a contact person for an Internet Assigned Number, such as JHaverty@BBN-Unix, Hornig@MIT-Multics, and Mathis@SRI-KL (a KL-10 which I think was running TOPS-20). I think four of the hosts mentioned are Unix machines.

So, there was certainly contact between the Unix world and the internet world at that point, but the internet world was almost entirely non-Unix, and so tended to follow other cultural conventions. That's why, to this day, commands in SMTP and header lines in HTTP/1.1 are terminated by CRLF and not LF; why FTP and SMTP commands are all four letters long and case-insensitive; and why reply codes are three-digit hierarchical identifiers.

So I suspect the convention of terminating input with "." on a line of its own got into ed(1) and SMTP from a common ancestor.

I think Sluizer is still alive. (I suspect I met her around 01993, though I don't remember any details.) Maybe we could ask her.

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#67
post #6

I love this! first time I see people use 'ed' for work!!! I wonder who else has to deal with ed also... recently I had to connect to an ancient system where vi was not available, I had to write my own editor, so whoever needs an editor for an ancient system, ping me (it is not too fancy). amazing work by the creators of this software and by the researchers, you have my full respect guys. those are the real engineers!

In the mid 90s we had an AT&T 3B2 that only had ed on it. We used it via DEC VT-102 terminals. It (ed) works but it’s not fun by any modern standards. Must’ve been amazing on a screen compared to printout from a teletype though!

Side note: that ~1 MIP 3B2 could support about 20 simultaneous users…

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#68
post #47

I once saw a talk from Brian Kernighan who made a joke about how in three weeks Ken Thompson wrote a text editor, the B compiler, and the skeleton for managing input/output files, which turned out to be UNIX. The joke was that nowadays we're a bit less efficient :-D

I’m wondering what the process was for the early UNIX developers to attain this level of productivity.

Did they treat this as a 9-5 effort, or did they go into a “goblin mode” just to get it done while neglecting other aspects of their lives?

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#69

Can anyone provide a reference on what those file permissions mean? I can make a guess but when I searched around, could not find anything about unix v2 permissions. ls output looks so familiar, except for the sdrwrw!

Someone in the mailing list thread linked the man pages that they were able to extract out

https://gitlab.com/segaloco/v1man/-/blob/master/man1/stat.1?...

for sdrwrw:

- column 1 is s or l meaning small or large

- column 2 is d, x, u, -; meaning directory, executable, setuid, or nothing.

- the rest are read-write bits for owner and non-owner.

Re: 1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

#70
post #68
post #47

I once saw a talk from Brian Kernighan who made a joke about how in three weeks Ken Thompson wrote a text editor, the B compiler, and the skeleton for managing input/output files, which turned out to be UNIX. The joke was that nowadays we're a bit less efficient :-D

I’m wondering what the process was for the early UNIX developers to attain this level of productivity. Did they treat this as a 9-5 effort, or did they go into a “goblin mode” just to get it done while neglecting other aspects of their lives?

Genius level mind minus scrum/agile nonsense can help.
Post reply on HN