Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
From: la...@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <440@geowhiz.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-May-86 14:06:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: geowhiz.440
Posted: Fri May 23 14:06:28 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 17:45:26 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept.
Lines: 39
[muncha buncha cruncha muncha...]
I have heard rumors (from cmu, uci, ucberkeley, and wisc) that research Unix
will no longer be developed at bezerkely after 4.3. I hear that Darpa
support for such development has dried up. I have heard that cmu has a
OS called MACH (???) which runs 4.3 programs faster than 4.3BSD runs them,
and that they may be taking over where berkeley leaves off.
What I want to know is:
1) Why is Unix departing from berkeley? Who initiated the departure, them
or DOD?
2) What's this about MACH? I heard it's based on Accent, but I know nothing
beyond that. Is the claim that 4.3 progs run faster possible?
3) Is the DOD going to support cmu?
4) What about Version 8 Unix? I hear (I know, I know, I hear a lot) that
it is very nice, almost a "clean" version of 4.x. Streams sound very
nice.... Are there any plans to follow in berkeley's footsteps with
a version of unix based on version 8?
5) [This has very little to do with 1-4, I just thought I'd tack it on...]
What about a merger? I work on a Masscomp system which is really pretty
nice: they have this universe stuff in which both 4.2 & SysV system calls
can be supported. Also, both 4.2 and SysV utilities are available, I
very rarely am faced with "I can't do it because I don't have the
widget utility". Is there any chance of the various 4.x utils being
merged into AT&T Unix?
--
Larry McVoy
-----------
Arpa: mc...@rsch.wisc.edu
Uucp: {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
"Just remember, wherever you go -- there you are."
-Buckaroo Banzai
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: ch...@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <1717@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-May-86 20:29:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1717
Posted: Tue May 27 20:29:55 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 29-May-86 02:38:22 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP>
Reply-To: ch...@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 54
Summary: I doubt it
In article <4...@geowhiz.UUCP> la...@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes:
>I have heard rumors (from cmu, uci, ucberkeley, and wisc) that research Unix
>will no longer be developed at bezerkely after 4.3. I hear that Darpa
>support for such development has dried up. I have heard that cmu has a
>OS called MACH (???) which runs 4.3 programs faster than 4.3BSD runs them,
>and that they may be taking over where berkeley leaves off.
I have not heard most of this; but as no one else has done so, I will
try to answer the questions below. The only thing that I did hear is
that DARPA is not funding network development beyond 4.3 (the 4.3 TCP/IP
is `done', in someone's opinion, I suppose; and `the gummint' seems to
like funding project A for 5 years, then project B elsewhere for another
5 years, then project C at still another place).
Please note that everything below is also taken from rumours. I speak
only for myself!
>What I want to know is:
>1) Why is Unix departing from berkeley? Who initiated the departure, them
> or DOD?
I know nothing about `departing'. Why should a lack of DARPA money for
networking stop things? There are many sources of funding.
>2) What's this about MACH? I heard it's based on Accent, but I know nothing
> beyond that. Is the claim that 4.3 progs run faster possible?
Anything is possible; but I doubt that particular claim. (Unless the
hardware is faster.)
>3) Is the DOD going to support cmu?
I do not care to guess who is backing the Software Engineering
Institute grants, but CMU already has piles of equipment, and seems
to be doing well in the research grant area too . . . .
>4) What about Version 8 Unix? I hear (I know, I know, I hear a lot) that
> it is very nice, almost a "clean" version of 4.x. Streams sound very
> nice.... Are there any plans to follow in berkeley's footsteps with
> a version of unix based on version 8?
AT&T has, so far, released it only to a few universities. And I
hear that they intend to sell it as part of System V release N (N
likely tending towards infinity :-) ).
>5) [This has very little to do with 1-4, I just thought I'd tack it on...]
> What about a merger?
Berkeley would love to distribute lots of System V goodies. The problem
is licensing. Talk to the lawyers. (This last is a pretty solid rumour.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: ch...@mimsy.umd.edu
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <6778@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Jun-86 14:04:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6778
Posted: Fri Jun 6 14:04:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jun-86 14:04:27 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 35
Nah, 4BSD isn't dead, it just smells that way... :-)
> 1) Why is Unix departing from berkeley? Who initiated the departure...
I have no idea whether the rumor is true, but if it is... why should Unix
STAY at Berkeley? Universities are not software houses (it has been said,
not altogether untruthfully, that 4.2BSD is a bunch of M.Sc. theses loosely
stitched together). If they lose interest and/or funding, it departs.
> 3) Is the DOD going to support cmu?
CMU often gives the impression of being a wholly-owned subsidiary of DoD.
I'd guess that almost any major project they undertake would use DoD funds.
> 4) What about Version 8 Unix? ...
> Are there any plans to follow in berkeley's footsteps with
> a version of unix based on version 8?
Any such plan would have to be cleared with AT&T, who probably would be
very much opposed to it, on grounds of competition with System V. Existing
V8 licences are few and far between, and AT&T is serious about nondisclosure
on V8. Do not hold your breath.
> What about a merger? I work on a Masscomp system which is really pretty
> nice: they have this universe stuff in which both 4.2 & SysV system calls
> can be supported... Is there any chance of the various 4.x utils being
> merged into AT&T Unix?
To some extent this is already in progress; a few things have filtered over.
As far as the system calls... what ever happened to the idea that you should
do things once, right, instead of supporting every possible variation?
--
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!pyramid!decwrl!sun!guy
From: g...@sun.uucp (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <4025@sun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 10-Jun-86 02:49:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.4025
Posted: Tue Jun 10 02:49:40 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jun-86 00:28:53 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP> <6778@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 19
> > What about a merger? I work on a Masscomp system which is really pretty
> > nice: they have this universe stuff in which both 4.2 & SysV system calls
> > can be supported...
>
> ...As far as the system calls... what ever happened to the idea that you
> should do things once, right, instead of supporting every possible
> variation?
"What happened" is that people wrote code to use the 4.2 socket system
calls, or the S5 IPC system calls (to cite a couple of your favorite
bugbears), and those people aren't in a mood to change their code to use
some Wonderful New set of system calls which Do Things Right. I agree that
there's a lot of crap in all current versions of UNIX (I'll bet there's even
some crap in V8 if you look hard enough) but I don't think you can abolish
it all by fiat.
--
Guy Harris
{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
g...@sun.com (or g...@sun.arpa)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!topaz!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
From: la...@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <448@geowhiz.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Jun-86 02:52:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: geowhiz.448
Posted: Sat Jun 14 02:52:18 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jun-86 21:18:58 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP>
Reply-To: la...@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept.
Lines: 35
Summary: It seems to be true
Since I posted the original questions several people have come forward to
sustain them. Here's what I know:
1) Apparently, 4.3 is as far as it goes. I am reasonably certain that the
networking part of 4BSD will no longer be developed (at least not w/dod
funding). I am less certain that 4BSD will stop at 4.3; I will say that
nobody from ucb had anything to say. You would think that they would
complain if I was flapping my gums w/o cause.
2) There is an operating system, called "MACH", which is based on Accent. Both
were developed at cmu. Both are message based systems; Mach is supposedly
*binary compatible* with 4.3. Mach has a lot of neat features including
(as of yet unimplemented[??]) someting called threads. Threads are like
subdivisions of a process; they run concurrently but are lighter weight
than prcesses themselves. I think that means that context switches betweens
threads is easy. Also, it's a multi-processor system. They have it running
on a VAX 784 (as well as other flavors of vaxen).
3) It is not clear whether cmu will get the reins or not. They have something
that looks pretty nice and as Henry Spencer mentioned they get a lot of
funding from DoD. Does that mean they're the next Unix house? Who knows?
Maybe there won't be anything except sys5/version8.
Disclaimer (read this or my *ss is grass): Everything I've said is somewhat
necessarily vague. Obviously neither ucb nor cmu nor DoD consults me when
making these decisions. What I've learned is largely second hand info;
anyone who cared to ask could get the same.
--
Larry McVoy
-----------
Arpa: mc...@rsch.wisc.edu
Uucp: {seismo, topaz, harvard, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
"Just remember, wherever you go -- there you are."
-Buckaroo Banzai
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!gorgo.UUCP!bsteve
From: bst...@gorgo.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <13200008@gorgo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jun-86 01:37:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: gorgo.13200008
Posted: Mon Jun 16 01:37:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jun-86 05:23:38 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:geowhiz.UUCP:440:gorgo.UUCP:13200008:000:1092
Nf-From: gorgo.UUCP!bsteve Jun 16 00:37:00 1986
["No Emily, it is VIOLENCE, not violins...". "Oh, well that's very different."]
["Never mind."]
Lets get it all straight. CMU has an implementation of a modularized os kernel
that is inspired by UNIX and its numerous parents. They have separated the the
execution path of a process into a task (consisting of pieces atomic to the
processor) and an execution thread. It currently (MACH-1) offers source level
compatibility with 4.3BSD UNIX. This may not always be there..., it is there
now as a building block. Ultimiatly the project should yield an OS for the
distributed / parallel processing environment that includes those things that
people have learned over the past few years and have often put into UNIX.
That's it. 4BSD isn't dead, it has reproduced.
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY - I don't think that we should utterly dump 4BSD.
On the other hand, if marry it then we are just like the JCL lectroids,
ignoring new ideas and clinging to what we already know.
Steve Blasingame (Oklahoma City)
ihnp4!occrsh!gorgo!bsteve
attmail!sblasingame
(This is obviously purely my own opinion)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <6824@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jun-86 17:26:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6824
Posted: Tue Jun 17 17:26:51 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jun-86 17:26:51 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP> <6778@utzoo.UUCP>, <4025@sun.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 43
> > ...As far as the system calls... what ever happened to the idea that you
> > should do things once, right, instead of supporting every possible
> > variation?
>
> "What happened" is that people wrote code to use the 4.2 socket system
> calls, or the S5 IPC system calls (to cite a couple of your favorite
> bugbears), and those people aren't in a mood to change their code to use
> some Wonderful New set of system calls which Do Things Right.
Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of the IPC stuff, which is indeed a
difficult problem, as of all the other incompatibilities. For those,
would it be too much to ask that people relink their code with a special
library (given that they'll probably have to recompile to get their stuff
to run on the machine at all) which emulates system X's system calls using
system Y's system calls? Instead of having to put both in the kernel?
As for people who've written code and don't want to change it... Do those
people expect to upgrade to 4.4BSD when it arrives? If so, they'd better
brace themselves for another almighty sh*tload of gratuitous incompatibility,
because last I heard Berkeley had made it quite clear that 4.3->4.4
compatibility was most unlikely. The real solution to this mess, of course,
is that you isolate the stuff that depends on such things in as small a
portion of code as possible, so that you DON'T have to rewrite from scratch
when some crazed Berkloid bit-hacker or USG programming zombie does something
stupid. (Have I offended everybody yet? :-)
"I've got all these 7094 Fortran programs that run just fine on the 7094
emulator on my old IBM 360/65. You mean to say I'm going to have to change
them to run on a Celerity machine under Unix? That's outrageous."
> I agree that
> there's a lot of crap in all current versions of UNIX ...
> but I don't think you can abolish it all by fiat.
Of course, if you don't make some attempt to abolish it, you end up living
with it forever. The more patient you are with it, the worse the problem
gets, too.
"Backward compatibility means never being able to say 'that was a mistake'."
--
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
From: la...@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: 4BSD is dead???
Message-ID: <455@geowhiz.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Jun-86 03:14:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: geowhiz.455
Posted: Sat Jun 21 03:14:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jun-86 12:49:16 EDT
References: <440@geowhiz.UUCP> <13200008@gorgo.UUCP>
Reply-To: la...@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy)
Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept.
Lines: 43
In article <13200...@gorgo.UUCP> bst...@gorgo.UUCP writes:
>Lets get it all straight. CMU has an implementation of a modularized os kernel
>that is inspired by UNIX and its numerous parents. They have separated the the
>execution path of a process into a task (consisting of pieces atomic to the
>processor) and an execution thread. It currently (MACH-1) offers source level
>compatibility with 4.3BSD UNIX. This may not always be there..., it is there
>now as a building block. Ultimiatly the project should yield an OS for the
>distributed / parallel processing environment that includes those things that
>people have learned over the past few years and have often put into UNIX.
>That's it. 4BSD isn't dead, it has reproduced.
>
>EDITORIAL COMMENTARY - I don't think that we should utterly dump 4BSD.
>On the other hand, if marry it then we are just like the JCL lectroids,
>ignoring new ideas and clinging to what we already know.
>
> Steve Blasingame (Oklahoma City)
> ihnp4!occrsh!gorgo!bsteve
> attmail!sblasingame
1) It is *binary* compatible with 4.[23]. I quote from "MACH-1 KERNEL
INTERFACE MANUAL" by Baron, Rashid, Tevanian, & Young: "On all VAX
hardware MACH-1 is binary compatible with 4.2 bsd".
2) 4BSD is dead. It's a gawd-awful kludge & everyone who has looked at the
code (should & usually) agrees. At a recent presentation by the Sequent
company the speaker asked first "How many people have looked at the 4.3
kernel source?" and second "How many did it on a full stomach?" I rest
my case in this respect.
3) MACH-1 is more than a distributed/parallel system. It is compatible and
provides the functionality of 4BSD and it does it in a logical/rational/
extensible way (as opposed to the quick fix hacking I've come to expect).
4) MACH-1 is not alone. Ken Thompson & crew are working on a similar system
at Bell Labs... Who knows what will come out on top...
--
Larry McVoy
-----------
Arpa: mc...@rsch.wisc.edu
Uucp: {seismo, topaz, harvard, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!larry
"Just remember, wherever you go -- there you are."
-Buckaroo Banzai