Discussed that last night at the BLU meeting.
Many of the PDP-8s did not come with a ROM. To load the executive, you
would key in the RIM(ReadInMode) loader on the front panel switches. The
RIM loader was a very simple paper tape reader program whose purpose was to
read in the real paper tape
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
AFAIK, no. I believe that the original development was on some
PDP-11's (11/45's?)
No, the original development was on a PDP-7, and in assembler.
The second machine it ran on was a PDP-11, also in assembler. It was after
that port that Dennis wrote C, to make the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
All this in 4K memory.
Yeah, but Burger King was not selling as many hamburgers back in those days. :-)
md
--
=
Jon maddog Hall
Executive Director Linux International(SM)
email:
In a message dated: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:30:45 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm just curious... was Unix ever developed on any of those? I was pretty
much under the impression that Unix assumes an 8-bit byte, but I don't
really have anything to back that up...
It was originally *developed* on
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:43:36 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I believe it was Ken Thompson, and I believe the remark was intended to be
humorous. Step back and ask: Why would he spell create as creat in the
first place? If you are going to type five characters, you might as
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:52:35 EDT
Steven W. Orr said:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:16:58 CDT
=Thomas Charron said:
=
=For example, in shell, the construct:
=
= cd /tmp rm foo
Whotchoo talkin 'bout Willis?
cd ==
Back in the early days of computers there weren't
as many characters to go around and folks had to
be very conservative with their use. Since then, more
have been pulled out of the ground so we can use
them more liberally.
--
__
| 0|___||. Andrew Gaunt *nix Sys. Admin., etc.
_| _| :
Good thing more colors other than green and amber were invented too.
-Mark
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:00:10AM -0400, Andrew W. Gaunt wrote:
Back in the early days of computers there weren't
as many characters to go around and folks had to
be very conservative with their use. Since then,
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, at 10:10am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I'll buy that, but why create a linker that only supports 5
character function names?
Okay, some Google searches eventually tracked down this explanation:
Way back when 16 kilobytes was a lot of memory, a method for encoding
Mark Komarinski writes:
Good thing more colors other than green and amber were invented too.
Newcommer! We only had black print on those cards and listings.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To throw a bit (pun un-intentional) more into this discussion, don't assume
that a byte was eight bits. The PDP-8, Linc-8 and PDP-12 for instance, were
all twelve bit words, broken down into two six-bit characters.
Nevertheless, back in those days saving a few bits for every entry in a symbol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
was Unix ever developed on any of those?
(meaning the 12-bit PDP-8/PDP-12 architectures)
AFAIK, no. I believe that the original development was
on some PDP-11's (11/45's?) that Bell Labs had at the time.
Those, of course, are 16-bit machines. But, I don't ever
hearing
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:01:45 EDT
Derek D. Martin said:
I don't believe there was ever a name-length limitation on filenames.
Then you believe incorrectly. Many variants of Unix had a
14-character filename limit. There is still a limit today, though
it's ridiculously large,
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:01:45 EDT
Derek D. Martin said:
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:37:34 EDT
Derek D. Martin said:
I never claimed Unix commands weren't obscure; they ARE. I prefer
them to
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, at 3:09pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you believe incorrectly. Many variants of Unix had a
14-character filename limit. There is still a limit today, though
it's ridiculously large, so as not to matter practically.
Ahh, 14 characters, that does sound familiar.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed, and in most cases where you need to deal with arrays of
hashes of hashes, or hashes of arrays of hashes, etc. you're probably
better off using something like C.
Of course, if you've mucked about with this type of thing long
enough, it becomes rather
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:20:29 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think he is thinking of the five-character limit in the original
linker(s) used to develop Unix (which very well may have come from Multics).
That five-character limit gave us the infamous creat(2) system call.
In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:16:58 CDT
Thomas Charron said:
I do occasionally use Perl, but I find that it's usually when I want
to do a lot of regexp work, or shell-script-like work, but don't want
to take the performance hit of using a shell script. Otherwise, bash
or C suit
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, at 4:14pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he is thinking of the five-character limit in the original
linker(s) used to develop Unix (which very well may have come from
Multics). That five-character limit gave us the infamous creat(2) system
call.
H, I don't
The 14 character limit did exist in Unix versions 6 and 7. Version 6 was
used as a basis for the BSD releases. Version 7 was the basis for what
became System 3 followed by System V. Long file names I think came out for
the first time in BSD 4.3 (or possibly 4.2).
Unlike MS DOS, which had a
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
=In a message dated: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:16:58 CDT
=Thomas Charron said:
=
=For example, in shell, the construct:
=
= cd /tmp rm foo
Whotchoo talkin 'bout Willis?
cd == chdir is a builtin command. But point taken.
=
=creates 2 sub-shell
I think you are correct. Create(2) is a system call. Linkage editors those
days were rather primitive. I think the name limit was either 7 or 8, but
external names in C were many times autoprefixed with __, such that creat
became __creat.
The C language had a limit of 8 characters for a
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Jerry Feldman wrote:
=I think you are correct. Create(2) is a system call. Linkage editors those
=days were rather primitive. I think the name limit was either 7 or 8, but
=external names in C were many times autoprefixed with __, such that creat
=became __creat.
=The C
(or Unix vs. MS, actually) ]
I think you are correct. Create(2) is a system call. Linkage editors those
days were rather primitive. I think the name limit was either 7 or 8, but
external names in C were many times autoprefixed with __, such that creat
became __creat.
The C language had a limit of 8
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, at 12:37pm, Derek D. Martin wrote:
[ Several paragraphs of completely irrelevant and bogus argument deleted.
I will provide explicit debunking of said argument if so requested. ]
There are very few Unix commands whose names are completely
unintelligible, and learning
Didn't you work with Grace Hopper :-)
Hewitt Tech wrote:
You had C? All we had was assembler! You had assembler? All we had was
ones and zeros! You had ones and zeros? ...
--
--
Gerald Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boston Computer Solutions and Consulting
ICQ#156300 PGP Key ID:C5061EA9
PGP Key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
Yet you complain about Perl being hard to learn and use, for the same
reasons, and not just for you, but for everyone?
I absolutely said no such thing.
Let's make this even simpler.
27 matches
Mail list logo
