Re: BACK TO BASICS (wikipedia's unix family tree)
Not strictly related to the topic, but Bell Labs is planning a big party related to the 50th anniversary for UNIX 50 years, half of century, amazing age https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/10/12/1625237/bell-labs-plans-big-50th-anniversary-event-for-unix On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 4:33 PM Marc Chantreux wrote: > hello, > > > > The Unix landscape was fragmented long, long before Linux or the three > > > modern BSDs even existed. > > according to > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg > > it started almost just after unix was born. > > regards. > marc > >
Re: BACK TO BASICS (wikipedia's unix family tree)
hello, > > The Unix landscape was fragmented long, long before Linux or the three > > modern BSDs even existed. according to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg it started almost just after unix was born. regards. marc
Re: BACK TO BASICS
Hi Andrew, andrew fabbro wrote on Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:17:28PM -0700: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:09 AM wrote: >> Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still >> performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three >> *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the >> Linux kernel... > The Unix landscape was fragmented long, long before Linux or the three > modern BSDs even existed. Correct. From my release list: Jun 1980 System III AT UNIX (32v) Jul 10, 1981* 4.1BSD [or June?] Jan 1983 System V Release 1 AT UNIX (4.1) 1983 SunOS 1.0 (4.1) Jun 1984 Ultrix-32 (4.2) Feb 1985 Version 8 AT UNIX (4.1c + System V Release 2) 1986 AIX 1 (System V Release 2 + 4.3) 1987 MINIX 1.0 1988 IRIX 3.0 (System V Release 3 + 4.3) Oct 5, 1991 Linux Jan 1992 DEC OSF/1 V1.0 (4.3-Reno) Mar 1992* 386BSD 0.0 (BSD Net/2) Apr 1992 === USL vs. BSDi lawsuit filed === Jun 1992 Solaris 2.0 (System V Release 4) Apr 20, 1993* NetBSD 0.8 (386BSD 0.1) Nov 1, 1993 FreeBSD 1.0 (386BSD 0.1) Feb 4, 1994 === USL vs. BSDi lawsuit settlement === Jun 23, 1995* 4.4BSD-Lite2 Jul 1996* OpenBSD 1.2 (NetBSD 1.0) Jul 12, 2004 DragonFly BSD 1.0 (FreeBSD 4.8) So your "long, long" can be quantified as almost exactly 10 years, and besides, Linux preceded NetBSD and FreeBSD by two years, so the OPs "and then further diluted efforts" is factually incorrect. (GNU development even started in 1984, but it can hardly be called a complete operating system until the Linux kernel was released.) Yours, Ingo * indicates direct ancestors of OpenBSD () means "based on"
Re: BACK TO BASICS
On 12/10/19 7:55 am, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still > performing, PDP-11 has become so divided first splitting into three > incompatible DEC productlines, and then further diluted efforts with > Intel and MIPS, and then all the other companies... It goes back further than that… Babbage engines, Turing machines, Collossus, ENIAC, the Von Neumann computer… … they weren't exactly "compatible". -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: BACK TO BASICS
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:09 AM wrote: > Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still > performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three > *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the > Linux kernel... > The Unix landscape was fragmented long, long before Linux or the three modern BSDs even existed. -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org
Re: BACK TO BASICS
Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Theo de Raadt wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:08:22AM -0600: > > openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: > > [...] > >> Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still > >> performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three > >> *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the > >> Linux kernel... > >> > >> That's all I was trying to say. > > > That's right, because monopolies always serve the public better! > > And besides, the original Version 7 AT UNIX has been more or less > free for several years now, so if you don't like the forks, you are > welcome to run the real thing. > > For your convenience, the OpenBSD project is even providing the > Version 7 manuals online: > > https://man.openbsd.org/UNIX-7/boot.8 > https://man.openbsd.org/?query=.=1=UNIX-7 > > In the unlikely case that you lack a PDP-11, i'm sure it will be > easy for you to port it to amd64. After all, most of the system > was written in K C, so it should still compile, with some minor > adjustments. Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still performing, PDP-11 has become so divided first splitting into three incompatible DEC productlines, and then further diluted efforts with Intel and MIPS, and then all the other companies... That's all I was trying to say. Yes, I'm mocking the OP's severe lack of education. Lack of variation and competition always sucks more.
Re: BACK TO BASICS
Theo de Raadt wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:08:22AM -0600: > openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: [...] >> Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still >> performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three >> *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the >> Linux kernel... >> >> That's all I was trying to say. > That's right, because monopolies always serve the public better! And besides, the original Version 7 AT UNIX has been more or less free for several years now, so if you don't like the forks, you are welcome to run the real thing. For your convenience, the OpenBSD project is even providing the Version 7 manuals online: https://man.openbsd.org/UNIX-7/boot.8 https://man.openbsd.org/?query=.=1=UNIX-7 In the unlikely case that you lack a PDP-11, i'm sure it will be easy for you to port it to amd64. After all, most of the system was written in K C, so it should still compile, with some minor adjustments. Yours, Ingo
Re: BACK TO BASICS
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Sylvain wrote: > Le 11 octobre 2019 18:08:22 GMT+02:00, "Theo de Raadt - dera...@openbsd.org" > a écrit : Holy fork, now this is a long email address... > >openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: [...] > > > >That's right, because monopolies always serve the public better! > > Rhetorically this answer sounds actually right... But I suspect it is given with a really long tongue in a cheek. Or maybe not? -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: BACK TO BASICS
Le 11 octobre 2019 18:08:22 GMT+02:00, "Theo de Raadt - dera...@openbsd.org" a écrit : >openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: > >> > "Nick Holland - n...@holland-consulting.net" >> > Envoyé: Jeudi 10 Octobre 2019 03:24AM >> > >> > On 10/9/19 11:19 AM, openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: >> > > Here's what I think. >> > ...[bla bla bla]... >> > > Amirite ? ;) >> > >> > I don't know. Let's see your work. >> > >> > I don't care what your theoretical arguments are, I want to see >> > results. >> >> Well then you'll only have the website provided... >> >> But actually my question is more rethorical. >> Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still >> performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three >> *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the >> Linux kernel... >> >> That's all I was trying to say. > >That's right, because monopolies always serve the public better! Rhetorically this answer sounds actually right... Sylvain Saboua K9 Mail sur Android
Re: BACK TO BASICS
openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: > > "Nick Holland - n...@holland-consulting.net" > > Envoyé: Jeudi 10 Octobre 2019 03:24AM > > > > On 10/9/19 11:19 AM, openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: > > > Here's what I think. > > ...[bla bla bla]... > > > Amirite ? ;) > > > > I don't know. Let's see your work. > > > > I don't care what your theoretical arguments are, I want to see > > results. > > Well then you'll only have the website provided... > > But actually my question is more rethorical. > Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still > performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three > *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the > Linux kernel... > > That's all I was trying to say. That's right, because monopolies always serve the public better!
Re: BACK TO BASICS
> "Nick Holland - n...@holland-consulting.net" > Envoyé: Jeudi 10 Octobre 2019 03:24AM > > On 10/9/19 11:19 AM, openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: > > Here's what I think. > ...[bla bla bla]... > > Amirite ? ;) > > I don't know. Let's see your work. > > I don't care what your theoretical arguments are, I want to see > results. Well then you'll only have the website provided... But actually my question is more rethorical. Deep down, I'm actually so saddened to see the original, and still performing, UNIX has become so divided first splitting into three *BSD communities, and then further diluted efforts with GNU and the Linux kernel... That's all I was trying to say. Sylvain S
Re: BACK TO BASICS
On 10/9/19 11:19 AM, openbsd.s...@0sg.net wrote: > Here's what I think. ...[bla bla bla]... > Amirite ? ;) I don't know. Let's see your work. I don't care what your theoretical arguments are, I want to see results. Nick.
BACK TO BASICS
Here's what I think. Proper software development should involve first a correct understanding of the norms : RFC, OSI model, and what not. Then ideally one must understand the hardware-software interactions, in other terms electronic engeneering, from chips to bits. This is assembly language. Finally, what I might call "grassroots" languages are more desirable than "pop", i.e. C over Python although both have their usage. Amirite ? ;) Sylvain sylvain.sab.free.fr
