The Top UNIX Moments of the Century 200
jyang writes " Performance Computing has this December article: 'The world might seem to run on UNIX, but it wasn't always so.
Readers opine on the best moments of everyone's favorite OS.'" Well, among all those "end of the century" lists, we finally found a worthwhile one. ;-)
The day Netscape switched to the open-source model (Score:1)
Where can I get a tarball for Netscape?
K&R C? (Score:1)
Re:The day Netscape switched to the open-source mo (Score:1)
Man, you been living in a box lately or what? :) Go to http://www.mozilla.org [mozilla.org]...
No snappy subject :( (Score:2)
It also makes you think about Richard Stallman's contribution to computing to see that like 5 things on the list are his direct doing.
umm... (Score:3)
* Linus Torvalds uploads the linux kernel
I mean really, that's a given!
More great moments... (Score:2)
bakes
--
Re:The day Netscape switched to the open-source mo (Score:1)
--
CLI/Shell (Score:2)
1. The CLI (command language interpreter) was a separate, user-mode program that could be easily replaced. I was used to DEC operating systems where the CLI was an integral part of the operating system, sort of like the baby alien that attachs to your face in the movie Alien. It couldn't be removed without major surgery on the OS and its tentacles were firmly embedded in the kernel.
2. The shell didn't hardwire the command set like most CLIs of the day. You didn't have to modify the shell to add new commands, just write a new user-mode program. The shell was light on command line policy, leaving most things up to the interpretation of the user program.
Greatest moment? The release of Edition 7. (Score:5)
Research Unix Edition 7 was released in 1978, and included:
- The Bourne Shell, the first shell that was a programming language in its own right.
- Environment variables (this was an OS enhancement, not just the shell features supporting it).
- UUCP--the Unix/Unix Copy Program. This brought networking, email, and (a bit later) news to the masses. This feature literally changed the world.
- File systems larger than 32MB. Unix was no longer a toy.
- Lint, along with system sources that actually passed it (no more "register *p" for generic pointers everywhere). C was forever improved by this step, since many people learned to program in it from reading kernel sources (just like Linux programmers do today).
- 32V, the port to the VAX--this was the ancestor of 3.x and 4.x BSD. (The 2.x BSD's ran on PDP-11's, and for a time were developed in parallel.)
- And so on...
This was the version that got Unix started at many Universities. It was also the last version of Research Unix to make it out of Bell Labs into general distribution for research and educational use. One can only wonder what we would have seen had AT&T not decided to squeeze money out of it, locking away further Research Editions.They forgot one (Score:1)
Ahh, that takes me back.. or is it forwards? With time travel you never can tell.
Apollywoggies to the Doctor...
Hamilton Group? (Score:1)
Ok, call me a dunce.. but what is the Hamilton group, and when did they make this announcement?
Funny, i kinda thought that *I* was running UNIX on my desktop.
--
Issues with some of their "moments" (Score:2)
I fail to see why this is a top moment in Unix history. If anything, this is a downfall, as as far as I'm concerned, the last thing we need running on unix platforms is Microsoft software.
Netscape's introduction of an integrated mail, news, and browser application
I can't say I'm too much of a fan of this one either, at least not the way it's implemented. While I use Communicator for browsing and Mail under RH6.1, I hate the fact that whenever one function (mail or browser) locks up/crashes, the other does too. I think you could have the two as separate applications that were still tightly integrated.
Re:The day Netscape switched to the open-source mo (Score:1)
But!.. leave it up to marketing shmo-heads to screw everything up.
You can't get a tarball of Navigator or communnicator as far as i know...
--
Someone *does* remember :) (Score:2)
I can't beleive it - I can't beleive it!
Someone *does* remember this - it's amazing
I still remember the day when all those crappy newspapers called the A3000UX a 'miss of the decade'. Like "Who is going to use UNIX anyway?!". Indeed, it didn't make a lot of success, but Amiga was *always* way ahead of its time.
Re:K&R C? (Score:1)
They mention both AT&T's compiler, which I would assume is the first. Someone corrct if I'm wrong...
gcc? emacs? (Score:1)
That fateful night (Score:1)
There's still time... (Score:2)
However... kudos to BSD for developing Unix to what we have today, and the same to the Linux community, for continuing to develop it, and spread the gospel.
I think I'm continually impressed with how Unix takes a more open and general approach to everything, and makes life easier in the end.
Like how directories and even hardware devices are files, networking transparency is inherent in X (even if it took me a while to figure that out
Truly, if I hadn't found Unix, I would have been doomed to reinvent it. Probably starting with DOS. Ewww....
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:2)
That doesn't mean.. (Score:1)
..that the work done by the FSF to construct GNU and further the efforts of free software didn't inadvertantly help Unix at the same time. Many Unices use GNU software packages. I can barely remember the last time I used a Korn, C, or plain old Bourne shell (not that there aren't others that aren't GPL'ed).
Those were great moments for both GNU and Unix, strange as that may sound.
Re:gcc? emacs? (Score:2)
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:1)
Machines (Score:1)
Unix workstations could be called `C machines', in the same way as LispMs.
But I don't think it would make much sense having FORTRAN machines, except where you get bitten by the bugs on your C-based system.
If I remember correctly, there was FORTRAN for Symbolics lispms, but I don't know how friendly it was for calling Lisp routines from FORTRAN. There was indeed a C compiler, and X11 (but no Motif. You can use Motif from Lisp via a CLM server running on a Unix workstation).
BTW, Lisp is the only language besides C that has its own native X library (the equivalent of Xlib).
It's way nicer, of course, having all that macro machinery at your disposal.
If you need compatibility with C widget sets, you don't go through it, you use the C Xlib (directly and/or indirectly via Xt, GTK, etc.)
Three I would have added... (Score:1)
(2) PCC, the portable C compiler
(3) Berkeley networking
Don't know precise events to attach to each, but all seem to have significant impact.
Man page joke... (Score:1)
Re:Issues with some of their "moments" (Score:2)
I don't know how I'll react if I ever see a Microsoft copyright during a Linux boot, probably scream. But then again, if it's in the official kernel, that means that Linus accepted the patch and the code must be of tolerable quality. In that case, I'll be impressed: good quality code out of the king of if it compiles, ship it.
Re:umm... (Score:1)
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:4)
Too right. It's time the Real Programmers [monash.edu.au] reclaimed UN*X from the quiche eaters. Recently, the trend has been to make UN*X easy to use. The 'people' behind this abomination seem not to realise: if we do this, people will use it!
It is clear that steps must be taken. In addition to rewriting UN*X in FORTRAN, I propose additional measures:
It is only through measures such as these that UN*X can return to its glory days.
Fight the good fight, gentlemen.
Remeber: If you can't do it in FORTRAN, do it in assembly language. If you can't do it in assembly language, it isn't worth doing.
--
Repton.
Re:umm... (Score:2)
Like all great names, Linux is actually a recursive acronym.
Re: Machines (Score:1)
AT&T designed the CRISP microprocessor to efficiently run C programs.
Western Digital made a CPU from the original LSI-11 chip set that directly executed p-code (UCSD p-System Pascal pseudocode).
I have a vague memory of a FORTRAN machine, I don't remember who built it.
1976 (I think) (Score:1)
A few other people find it useful. ;-)
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... (Score:1)
There are old school Unix people who are reluctant to let a Linux box into their server room. The best thing that can be done to win these people over is to point out that legalisms aside, GNU/Linux IS Unix.
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:1)
INTERCAL, OTOH, is not. It's about time the INTERCAL users of the world had an operating system embodying the same concepts, in the same way that (early versions, at least) of UNIX embodied C concepts (or was that vice versa?).
Just think, a shell with INTERCAL syntax; that'd be a start :)
Re:umm... (Score:3)
UNIX was originally developed in the 70's under the auspices of AT&T Bell Labs. Because of that, AT&T owns the rights to Unix and it's direct derivatives, and receives a royalty for each true Unix sold (and no, it probably won't ever be GPL'd).
In the early 90's, Linus Torvalds was working with a Unix derivative known as Minix, when he began working on what became Linux. He did that for two reasons: A) Minix is not free and couldn't be redistributed. B) He thought he could do a "better" job than the Minix developers had. Now, here's where the important difference between Linux and UNIX comes in. Linus couldn't use the source from UNIX to develop Linux or he'd have been forced to pay royalties (and Linux would not be free). What he did instead was write his OS so that it would be very similar, and yet not infringe on any copyrights. Because Linux uses no UNIX code, and yet is so similar to UNIX, it's proper designation is as a "UNIX clone". Nevertheless, it should also be pointed out that there are quite a few differences between Linux and the commercial Unixes, a fact I personally learned the hard way after scamming my way into a Unix administration job based on my knowledge of Linux. While I wasn't exactly lost, it was definitely "different" (AIX, in case you're wondering).
The Top foo moments of the Century (Score:2)
As to his contribution to UN*X? I have no idea. I'm a newcomer to the wonderful world of SunOS, HP-UX, Solaris, *BSD and linux, I did my first man man in '93, I had my first root in '96, and I feel a lot of the Big Things In UN*X (tm) happened before my time.
I think it is a fundamental thing with these kind of lists that they pretty much always overvalue recent contributions/songs/films/ice-cream flavours, at the expense of older ones. A lot of people only catch on later, and will not remember the first tottering steps, the first breakthroughs, because they simply weren't there yet. They will go for the more recent accomplishments, the things they *did* witness.
So, lists like this are fun, and interesting, but I have my doubts as to their value for actually determining the impact that developments have had, the relative importance of UN*X moments.
Jos "numbers, I want numbers!" D.
Re: Machines (Score:1)
- Worse Is Better approach
- 1 `simple' language hack for each task instead of 1 properly designed language for everything.
Current microprocessors designed thinking about low-level languages like C, Pascal, FORTRAN, etc. (not Java, Smalltalk, Lisp or even C++ RTTI comes into play).
Unix is coded in C (plus `a couple' C++ libs). The design of the APIs is done with C[++] in mind.
They are indeed C machines. Although a real Lisp Machine would have support for GC, tagging, CDR-coding, etc., the most important functional characteristics surface at the software level. Many people would be happy enough with an X86-based Lisp Machine, even if the hardware (PC) is crap.
Even nice MIPS chips are so dumbly designed. Instead of adding a little bit of support for tagged and GCed languages, they keep throwing transistors at speculation and so on. That's because most EEs haven't much of a clue regarding CS beyond hacking C and assembler.
[Yes, I know about PicoJava and that's cool. But actual use is more vapor than anything].
Re: Machines (Score:1)
Re:Someone *does* remember :) (Score:2)
Yep. My only regret was the pricing structure. I lusted after Unix running on my beloved Amiga hardware for ages, but it was always priced way out my reach :-(
I'd have to agree with the creation of vi (Score:3)
I'd say, in general, that most of the work done at UCB contributed more to the success of Unix than anything else. Without UCB, Unix would have probably remained in the dark ages. They gave us networking, vi, csh, and perhaps most importantly, an open source development model, which allowed Unix to become widespread.
PS. Sure, csh syntax may suck, but without it, we'd all be using Bourne shell. csh gave us command histories, brace expansion, and numerous other goodies that we take for granted today. Without csh, other shells (ksh, bash, zsh) would be very different, if they existed at all.
Re:More great moments... (Score:2)
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:umm... (Score:2)
----------
Re:That fateful night (Score:1)
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:umm... (Score:3)
----------
Re:Three I would have added... (Score:1)
It was mentioned: "integration of TCP/IP into the kernel", eh?
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:1)
In short, FORTRAN may be good for number-crunching, ubt that doesn't make it a good language for writing OSs.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:Three I would have added... (Score:2)
PCC was another product of Edition 7. The VAX C compiler in 32V (and the first VAX-based BSD's) was constructed using PCC.
Berkeley wasn't alone in adding networking to Unix (there were at least half a dozen different protocol stacks for Unix before TCP/IP saw the light of day). But they were contracted to implement the Big One: TCP/IP. A good thing, too, since the NCP stack (NCP was the ARPANET protocol prior to TCP/IP) for Unix was pretty buggy.
X's predecessor was W (developed, I believe, at Stanford). So C isn't the only product of alphabetic succession (its precursor was B-- Ken Thompson's BCPL derivative). I wonder why the Berlin folks haven't named their project "Y"? (Why not?)
Missing entries (Score:2)
There are just too many to make it a good sample, but the above were darned fine moments.
Cheers,
Ben
finger coke@l.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Score:1)
Re:Man page joke... (Score:1)
-sirket
Re:CLI/Shell (Score:1)
Not many people do, as it's so damn powerful, but you can do it.
DCL is extremely good, if a little strange to look at initially (what's with the $ at the start of every line, for example?); however, it has string handling that is way ahead of any *NIX shell. 'course that argument goes away a bit if Perl lives on your system... but not everyone does, or wants to use it.
I feel better now.
(I'm also a VMS admin, can't you tell?)
--
Re:umm... (Score:2)
When Unix got 8-bit char support (Score:1)
That paved the way for Unix to the non-US world (it's out there somewhere you know
Sun rpc ? (Score:1)
I had no idea... (Score:1)
Re:umm... So? (Score:1)
Re:umm... (Score:1)
Re: Machines (Score:1)
Well, Apple's Open Firmware runs on FORTRAN... so in a sense all modern PowerMacs are "FORTRAN machines" - they just don't run a FORTRAN OS.
>>>
Isn't Open Firmware tied to FORTH, nor FORTRAN?
(And I think it's that it contains a FORTH interpreter, not that it's necessarily *written* in FORTH).
Regards,
Tim.
Re:umm... (Score:2)
Who says it has to make sense?
Re:umm... So? (Score:2)
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:2)
Many university maths departments code almost exclusively in F77: everyone understands it, and it has no pointers to slow down your code. If the GNU project [std.com] gets back on track, we could see a rennaisance in Fortran coding for Beowolf and SMP?
As far as commercial use of Fortran, alexk [slashdot.org] pointed out a couple of weeks ago [slashdot.org] that Bloomberg [bloomberg.com] has the bulk of its system written in Fortran. Especially, anything that has to do with their terminals and proprietary databases.
---
Re:K&R C? (Score:1)
Kernigan and Ritchies extortionately priced [in the UK anyway] paperback has been a staple of my programming life throughout its various editions.
Other good moments for Unix:
Release of PERL
Release dates of Doom and Quake for Unix
Re:umm... (Score:1)
And even though no one's bothered to pony up the bucks to certify Linux, you can't deny that Linux has impacted Unix.
Re:Hamilton Group? (Score:1)
restrict pointers and the pitfalls of ptr analysis (Score:2)
As the AC above noted, C's default assuptions about pointer aliasing make certain classes of programs run like crap. The new restrict keyword is a huge step in the right direction, but it's still a Band-Aid.
Why are sane pointer aliasing conventions important in the language? Well, since effecient code generation is something nearly everyone lusts after, compiler writers spend alot of effort "optimizing" code. Since C doesn't provide much of a mechanism for describing where pointers point, the compiler has to implement alot of guesswork. If it's not sure, it punts and outputs slow code.
The problem is that these optimizations are hard to get right. Notice how GCC 2.95 broke the Linux kernel, unless you compiled with the new alias analysis turned off. It would be better for the language to have saner pointer semantics.
Note that this wasn't so much of a problem in the beginning when pipelines were short and issue-widths were narrow. Nowadays, though, pointer aliasing issues are one of the biggest issues preventing code from going faster. (I know, I hit these issues regularly.) I welcome restrict with open arms.
--Joe--
More missed moments (Score:1)
And let's not forget
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:2)
One of the reasons for the continuing use of FORTRAN (I won't say popularity) is infrastructure. FORTRAN optimizing compilers are really really good. FORTRAN is available in a lot of parallel computing forms and for a lot of arrary processors that have no C. The collection math libraries for FORTRAN is peerless.
The main reason that FORTRAN was unsuitable for OS programming in the past was lack of pointers. Anonymous storage is a very powerful tool. But I believe that this is not a limitation with HPF, so it is quite feasible now to write an OS in FORTRAN.
What about in the man page's source? (Score:2)
The lp1 on fire bit wasn't in the docs, was it?
BTW, who remembers the rest of the tunefs joke? (Namely, the bits that were in the actual nroff source for the man page?)
From what I recall, the man page's source said something along the lines of "Remove this, and a Unix daemon will dog your steps until the time_t's wrap around." I unfortunately do not have access to a system with the original quote that I know of offhand. Anyone?
--Joe--
Netscape wasn't first! (Score:1)
Lucid Emacs (jwz's previous project) did all that and, err, edited text files, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc first!
Linux was not missed (Score:1)
Re:K&R C? (Score:1)
Yeah, but Linux is good for Unix. (Score:1)
Linux may not be an official Unix, but it is good for Unix. That alone makes it an important event in Unix history.
It's important in the same way IBM PC clones were important to IBM. They weren't IBM PCs, but the fact that they were compatible and completely changed IBM's impact on the world was fairly relevant. Linux seems to be having a similar effect with respect to Unix.
--Joe--
Re:Hamilton Group? (Score:1)
/peter
Re:There's still time... (Score:1)
but i think the point is (Score:1)
Notice that it is "Stallman invents GPL" and "Stallman founds FSF" (admittedly other accomplishments of his left the attribution off). I was under the impression that he had a lawyer help him write the GPL and other people were involved in the founding of the FSF. However, no names are mentioned when it comes to talking about the TCP/IP stack, pipes, sendmail, or "everything is a file". Is the GPL really more important to "Unix" than TCP/IP, pipes, and "everything is a file"?
IMHO (Score:2)
Anyways, here's a few moments that I'd regard as being significant (irrespective of whether they're in anyone else's list or not). They are not in any specific order - date, importance, etc. It's just the order I wrote them in.
should? (Score:2)
Fortran "should" be dead? not by a long shot. No, Fortran (not FORTAN anymore, btw) is not the language to use for everything. Even though Prime did it, it is not a good choice for writing an OS.
But when it comes time to due high level number crunching (or beyond that, merely bashing them into submission), Fortran has no peer--nothing even close.
Yes, you can usually tune c to give similar performance. But by the time you're done tuning, I've already used the Fortran code, and am on to the next project--or the one afterwards.
Fortan does not inlcude large portions of what c contains--which is what allows it to make assumpitons and optimizations that would be disastrous in c. It is also much faster to write (especially with F90 free-format), and easier for an "outsider" to read. (but then, there's no language yet built which is proof against crummy coding)
I hate to think of how much longer the dynamic programming project for my dissertation would have takein in c than Fortran *shudder*.
Re:The day Netscape switched to the open-source mo (Score:1)
Re:FORTRAN based UNIX? (Score:2)
>about FORTRAN is that it allows you to ocntrol
>floating-point precision better than C.
Matrices. Oh, my, the matrices
Re:umm... (Score:1)
But anyway, compared to NetScape on Linux I think that Linux itself is much more important. 'Netscape on Linux' is on the list. Why isn't Linux itself then?
Greetings,
First documentation: BSTJ issue (Score:1)
This issue holds the distinction of being the most-stolen magazine in AT&T/Lucent/Telecordia technical libraries.
The "Bell System" was AT&T, including Western Electric (now Lucent, more or less), the "baby Bells" (now Bell Atlantic et. al.), and Bell Telephone Laboratories (now AT&T Labs, Bell Labs, and Telecordia). It was broken up when AT&T "divested" the local operating companies in 1984.
Re:Yeah, but Linux is good for Unix. (Score:1)
Re:but i think the point is (Score:1)
This is the new era when everything good about Unix has to do with Open Source(tm) and the FSF.
Missing Names (Score:1)
The other name that should have been included in the article was Zawinski. Where would we be today without jwz [jwz.org]?
Re:umm... (Score:2)
Make that own. They sold USL (UNIX Systems Labs) to Novell quite a long time ago. A few years ago Novell gave the UNIX trademark to X/Open (now The Open Group) and sold the System V code base to SCO.
and receives a royalty for each true Unix sold
Actually, SCO now receives a royalty on each derivative of the System V code base, but The Open Group controls the licensing of the UNIX trademark. It is possible to be UNIX branded and not use a single line of the original AT&T source code and not pay SCO a penny. There are fees charged by TOG, however for getting validated, and parts of their spec for what 'true UNIX' is require commercial software (Motif and CDE for example), which makes it very difficult for a free OS like Linux or the *BSDs to consider getting UNIX branded.
(and no, it probably won't ever be GPL'd)
That is probably correct as far as the System V code base goes (unless SCO was to go belly up or something), however it really doesn't matter that much anymore because there are good free equivalents.
BTW, as for AIX, it differs fairly significantly from other commercial UNIXes as far as the system administration aspects go. Linux and for example, Solaris are much closer to each other than Linux and AIX are. From the point of view of a software developer or an end user, they are all more similar than from the perspective of a system administrator though.
Re:umm... (Score:1)
Yes, that can be said. A lot of the "embrace and extend" GNU projects use Linux as a battering ram to attack the standardization process, though. I guess the term "impacted" doesn't always have to carry a positive meaning...
Re:umm... (Score:2)
That should read above:
Make that owned
Definitely past tense.
amazing! (Score:1)
New with this release:
All known bugs fixed. New bugs added.
George
Re:Issues with some of their "moments" (Score:1)
I agree totally! (Score:1)
I also propose the banning of the tabs key and the parentheses keys for all languages - there should be no need for block indentation of code and cheating with operator precedence.
Ed, man! !man ed (Score:1)
From: patl@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti)
Subject: The True Path (long)
Date: 11 Jul 91 03:17:31 GMT
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi and Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, C-h for help and "foo" File is read only. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.
Ed, man! !man ed
ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED!
``Ed is the standard text editor.''
And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990
Of course, on the system I administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
``Ed is the standard text editor.''
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem> ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.
``Ed is the standard text editor.''
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a ``viitor.'' Not a ``emacsitor.'' Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their ``edlin'' on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can remember what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED ``VISUAL'' EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?
Re:Missing entries (Score:1)
Re:There's still time... (Score:2)
They will probably need that long.
It also makes their time_t incompatible with normal usage, but that wouldn't be surprising coming from Microsoft.
Re: Machines (Score:1)
We have people who don't know the difference between Forth and Fortran in the discussion now.
This really is Slashdot, isn't it!?!
SCO and Unix royalties (Score:2)
This is not strictly true. Some of the original System V licensees (Sun and SGI, at least) bought out the license for a large one off payment, when it was still owned by Novell, IIRC. As such, they no longer pay SCO royalties.
Re:Hamilton Group? (Score:2)
Sure, CDE sucks, but it's not so much that they were unable to come up with anything elegant, but more they were unwilling to do so. It was very much a political thing, with each manufacturer having to be seen to contribute a part of it. HP's contribution was VUE, their Visual User Environment, which later became what we now know as CDE. I hated VUE back then, and I still hate CDE now. As you say, though, being designed by committee didn't help, either...
Ahh... TECO (Score:2)
There was even a macro VEDIT, for those times you just wanted visual editing with arrow keys and all. It was conveniently distributed without any format characters and provided weeks of fun just figuring out how it worked.
I'm far more productive with Brief/Crisp but I've never had as much fun with an editor since TECO. It could really trash a file from the simplest typos!
Re:Issues with some of their "moments" (Score:2)
There are several others (Score:2)
HP-UX. Those PA-RISC machines are 64bit, right?
IRIX runs on 64bit MIPS chips.
For that matter, several BSDs are truly Unices, and run on some 64bit platforms. NetBSD runs on all of these, right? FreeBSD runs on several of them, and I think even Open has one or two (verification?).
And of course, everyone's favortie 64bit Unix-alike, Linux, which runs on all of the above
Re:Missing entries (Score:2)
That came out of Bell Labs, it was (in some form or another) a feature of the Version 8 research kernel (the Labs' internal successor to Version 7, while the commerical side was going with the V7-based System III and System V). I heard Rob Pike give a talk on it at a Usenix back in, oh, 1985 or '86.
I agree on the importance though. Beats hell out of grubbing through
May have been improved by him... (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ben