subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao) (03/03/91)
I've seen people that use System V and the like refer to their Unix as
"tenth edition" or "ninth edition", or whatever. I've always seen things as
"System V release n", or whatever. Anyone know the difference between these
different naming schemes ?
-Kartik
--
internet# find . -name core -exec cat {} \; |& tee /dev/tty*
subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU -| Internet
kartik@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (NeXT mail)
SUBBARAO@PUCC.BITNET - Bitnetgwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (03/03/91)
In article <6798@idunno.Princeton.EDU> subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao) writes: >I've seen people that use System V and the like refer to their Unix as >"tenth edition" or "ninth edition", or whatever. I've always seen things as >"System V release n", or whatever. Anyone know the difference between these >different naming schemes ? "Nth Edition UNIX" refers to "research UNIX", in use by the original UNIX developers who are still at Bell Labs and a few selected outside sites. "UNIX System V Release N" refers to a release of AT&T's commercial UNIX system. Release 4.0 is the latest that I know of.
alan@frey.newcastle.edu.au (Alan Hargreaves) (03/04/91)
subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao) writes: >I've seen people that use System V and the like refer to their Unix as >"tenth edition" or "ninth edition", or whatever. I've always seen things as >"System V release n", or whatever. Anyone know the difference between these >different naming schemes ? ok, easy really. nth Edition refers to the revision of the UNIX manuals inside AT&T. ie each time the manuals have changed substantially from the last set, n gets incremented. eg the version that the original system V was based on was 8th edition, i believe that the current manual set is 10th edition. alan. -- Alan Hargreaves (VK2MGL) alan@frey.newcastle.edu.au, Uni of Newcastle, UCS. Ph: +61 49 215 512 Fax: +61 49 687 472 ICBM: 32 53 44.6 S / 151 41 52.6 E "Romeo, Romeo, I'd know where you were if you had a telepager." Shelly on If Shakespeare had been an advetising executive.
torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar3.233814.14234@frey.newcastle.edu.au> alan@frey.newcastle.edu.au (Alan Hargreaves) writes: >ok, easy really. nth Edition refers to the revision of the UNIX manuals >inside AT&T. ie each time the manuals have changed substantially from the last >set, n gets incremented. Correct so far, but only if you choose the proper meaning of `inside AT&T'. >eg the version that the original system V was based on was 8th edition, >i believe that the current manual set is 10th edition. Nay, not so. (Were I one of the authors of 8th edition Unix, I would find the implication `System V reflects V8' insulting and/or revolting. Fortunately, I am firmly in the `BSD is the one true Unix' camp. :-) ) V8 was to a large extent a simplified, fixed-up, and rewritten version of 4.1BSD, and its relationship to System V (any release) could best be described as `distant cousin' (usually as distant as possible :-) ). A full description of the history of Unix is beyond the scope of this netnews article, but a *very* simplified family tree might look something like this: V5 (`5th edition') | v V6 (`6th edition') | / \ / \ / \ / \ v v PWB V7 | | v v SysIII 32/V | | v v SysV 3BSD | v 4.0BSD | v 4.1BSD | / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ v v 4.2BSD V8 (`8th edition') | | v v 4.3BSD V9 --> V10 Until recently, for instance, the `base' technology in System V (by which I mean `the algorithms that had not been rewritten or otherwise fixed to handle modern systems') dated back to the mid 1970s, rather than the mid-1980s (which is when many of the `base' algorithms in the 4.2BSD kernel were redone [FS & IPC; the VM was left rotting and is only now being fixed---but at least expansion swaps were just a last resort, rather than an everyday occurrence as in SysV]). Incidentally, the `AT&T' which can correctly be used to name `V10 Unix' is `AT&T Bell Laboratories' (or have they changed its name again, already? :-) ). -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab EE div (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar3.233814.14234@frey.newcastle.edu.au> alan@frey.newcastle.edu.au (Alan Hargreaves) writes: >eg the version that the original system V was based on was 8th edition, Completely wrong.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (03/05/91)
In article <10556@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: >Until recently, for instance, the `base' technology in System V (by >which I mean `the algorithms that had not been rewritten or otherwise >fixed to handle modern systems') dated back to the mid 1970s, rather >than the mid-1980s (which is when many of the `base' algorithms in the >4.2BSD kernel were redone [FS & IPC; the VM was left rotting and is >only now being fixed---but at least expansion swaps were just a last >resort, rather than an everyday occurrence as in SysV]). In fact UNIX System V was not using the virtual memory system to which Chris refers any time in the recent past. Before the switch to VM a la Sun, UNIX System V had been using a "region"-oriented system based on concepts similar to DEC's VAX/VMS. There are advantages and drawbacks to both approaches to virtual memory. In fact there were many technical aspects of UNIX System V that were superior to 4BSD, just as there were some that were inferior. All religions are equally wrong.
xtdn@levels.sait.edu.au (03/05/91)
subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao) writes: > I've seen people that use System V and the like refer to their Unix as > "tenth edition" or "ninth edition", or whatever. I've always seen things as > "System V release n", or whatever. Anyone know the difference between these > different naming schemes ? As it was explained to me, the i'th edition refers to AT&T's i'th edition of the manuals describing their research OS. System V release j refers to the j'th major release of System V (which is just what you'd expect). System V derives from System III which derives from 6th edition (or there abouts). BSD unix derives from 7th edition. David Newall, who no longer works Phone: +61 8 344 2008 for SA Institute of Technology E-mail: xtdn@lux.sait.edu.au "Life is uncertain: Eat dessert first"
torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) (03/05/91)
In article <15385@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In fact UNIX System V was not using the virtual memory system to which >Chris refers any time in the recent past. Before the switch to VM a >la Sun, UNIX System V had been using a "region"-oriented system based >on concepts similar to DEC's VAX/VMS. Not on the 3B2. :-) (The problem with talking about `System V' is that the four `Release N's are completely different, and a `Release N' for machine A is completely different from a `Release N' for machine B. The region VM was in the VAX versions of VR2 and VR3, and maybe even VR1, if my faulty memory is giving the right answers. But the System V source trees for different platforms were entirely separate. Keith Bostic once had an argument with some USDL-type who claimed that merged trees were impossible, even though 4.3BSD-tahoe had already shipped!) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab EE div (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov
andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) (03/05/91)
Anytime someone says 8th, 9th or 10th edition (or V8, V9 or V10) they are referring to that edition of the Research Unix system (or more precisely, its manual). The commercial unix, System V, has various names that look like 5.3.2, or Release 4.0 (== 5.4.0). Under no circumstances, can anyone claim to have a 9th edition system V and actually mean anything.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/06/91)
>System V derives from System III which derives from 6th edition (or there >abouts). No. System III derives from UNIX/TS 1.0 or some such thing (I *think* PWB/UNIX 2.0, or whatever the UNIX release between 1.0 and 3.0 was called, got in there somewhere; System III was 3.0.1 or something near to that), which had quite significant V7 content (e.g., the file system, the "stat()" call, environment variables, Bourne shell), although it had a V6-flavored tty driver. System III also had a fair bit of PWB content. (Note: when I say "V7 content", I mean that the items in question first appeared *in widely-available releases outside AT&T* in V7. The branch of the family DAG that contains UNIX/TS 1.0, S3, and the S5 releases probably first split off from the Research branch before V7, but after the V7 file system first appeared. And no, I said "family DAG", not "DAG's family"; as far as I know, Doug is the only member of the Gwyn family involved with UNIX. :-))
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/06/91)
>(The problem with talking about `System V' is that the four `Release N's >are completely different, and a `Release N' for machine A is completely >different from a `Release N' for machine B. Well, not *completely* different, although it's far more different than it needs to be or than it should be. >The region VM was in the VAX versions of VR2 and VR3, and maybe even VR1, >if my faulty memory is giving the right answers. SV"R1" (I don't think they ever actually called it "Release 1"; back then, they may have still thought that the successor to "UNIX 5.0"/"System V" would be called "UNIX 6.0" or "System VI", rather than "System V Release 2"; perhaps the fact that "System VI" came with, well, "vi" made them nervous about the name :-)) had a swap-based VM, with largely V7ish (or maybe 32Vish) underpinnings. System V Release 2 on the VAX did as well; S5R2 Version 2, or whatever it was called, had the region VM. The 3B2 paging S5's had it as well, as I remember - at least S5R3 does - albeit with changes for different hardware that pervade nominally machine-independent portions of the kernel far more than they need to. "Fixed in 4.0", with the introduction of the SunOS VM system. >But the System V source trees for different platforms were entirely >separate. Keith Bostic once had an argument with some USDL-type who >claimed that merged trees were impossible, even though 4.3BSD-tahoe >had already shipped!) Yes, there is that rather gaping blind spot in the vision of some of them; some USDL type (perhaps the same one as Keith spoke with) was quite shocked to hear that SunOS 3.0 for the VAX was built mostly from the exact same source tree as SunOS 3.0 for Sun-2s and Sun-3s (the differences being things such as the assembler, parts of the compiler, machine-dependent parts of the kernel and libraries, etc. - the bulk of the kernel and user-mode stuff was shared).
tim@dell.co.uk (Tim Wright) (03/06/91)
In <15385@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <10556@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: >>Until recently, for instance, the `base' technology in System V (by >>which I mean `the algorithms that had not been rewritten or otherwise >>fixed to handle modern systems') dated back to the mid 1970s, rather >>than the mid-1980s (which is when many of the `base' algorithms in the >>4.2BSD kernel were redone [FS & IPC; the VM was left rotting and is >>only now being fixed---but at least expansion swaps were just a last >>resort, rather than an everyday occurrence as in SysV]). >In fact UNIX System V was not using the virtual memory system to which >Chris refers any time in the recent past. Before the switch to VM a >la Sun, UNIX System V had been using a "region"-oriented system based >on concepts similar to DEC's VAX/VMS. True, but is it not true that all SysVs until 4.0 still have the obnoxious expansion swap code. I'm pretty sure they do and it has horrendous performance implications. It's like the way fsck complains about possible file size errors on FIFOs. They've only been around for 5+ years - you would have thought somebody in the USG could have taught fsck about them :-(. Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp., Bracknell | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Berkshire, UK, RG12 1RW. Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim Nobody ever said I was charming before. They said, "Rimmer, you're a total git" - Red Dwarf, "Camille".
rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) (03/07/91)
In article <6798@idunno.Princeton.EDU> subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao) writes: >I've seen people that use System V and the like refer to their Unix as >"tenth edition" or "ninth edition", or whatever. I've always seen things as >"System V release n", or whatever. Anyone know the difference between these >different naming schemes ? There are actually three designations: Versions, Editions, and System/Releases. The proper names of the first six Unixen were "The #th Edition". Colloquially, people called them "Version #". The Version Sixth Edition split off several variations, one of which became Version Seven (the Seventh Edition) and sired BSD. From several others, System III was born, and later named System V. Tacked onto this name were Release numbers and yes, Versions. So you will see things line SVr3v2. The Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Editions seldom left Bell Labs and are also referred to as "Research UNIX". Another system (not UNIX) they are playing with is called "Plan 9". Every so often, a feature, such as STREAMS, finds its way into System V. In some ways, Research UNIX is closer to BSD than to System V. I may have mangled a few details, but this is basicly it. -- [rbj@uunet 1] stty sane unknown mode: sane
richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (03/08/91)
In article <6437@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >Yes, there is that rather gaping blind spot in the vision of some of >them; some USDL type (perhaps the same one as Keith spoke with) was >quite shocked to hear that SunOS 3.0 for the VAX was built mostly from >the exact same source tree as SunOS 3.0 for Sun-2s and Sun-3s SunOS 3.0 for the *VAX*?? Did this really exist? Who used it? -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/10/91)
>SunOS 3.0 for the *VAX*?? Did this really exist? Yes. >Who used it? The OS group in Sun, on one machine in Sun, "sunvax", an 11/750. It wasn't ever made available as a product; it was mainly just a "proof of concept" thing. Nobody ever went past 3.0, as far as I know; when Sun got its 4.3BSD tape, they brought 4.3BSD up on "sunvax", to provide a "reference" machine with 4.3BSD on it (useful for e.g. testing that the 4.1 UUCP works over TCP when talking to 4.3BSD machines), and it mainly ran that. I don't even think "sunvax" is around any more....
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (03/11/91)
In article <6436@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >... System III derives from UNIX/TS 1.0 or some such thing ... Of course, recent versions of most UNIX variants incorporate major features from a variety of earlier versions of UNIX. UNIX System V Release 4.0, in particular, incorporates in a (hopefully consistent) single system practically all useful features from previous 4BSD and Xenix releases. >And no, I said "family DAG", not "DAG's family"; as far as I know, Doug >is the only member of the Gwyn family involved with UNIX. :-)) Yup. Perhaps you should have explained that by "DAG" you meant Directed Acyclic Graph: "directed" by the flow of time, "acyclic" since effects cannot precede their causes, and "graph" since each OS release can be treated as a node with having an effect on another OS release being treated as a (directed) edge. I personally am not a directed acyclic graph; I'm as loopy as they come. - DAG
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (03/13/91)
In article <20017@alice.att.com> andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) writes: >The commercial unix, System V, has various names >that look like 5.3.2, or Release 4.0 (== 5.4.0). Except that I've seen people from the commercial side of AT&T complain loudly about calling System V Release X.Y "5.X.Y." Apparantly, they want people to use the trademarked name for lots of legal reasons I don't understand too well. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (03/14/91)
>Except that I've seen people from the commercial side of AT&T complain >loudly about calling System V Release X.Y "5.X.Y." Apparantly, they want >people to use the trademarked name for lots of legal reasons I don't >understand too well. Of course, your interests may not coincide with AT&T's, so feel free to call it whatever you like ("MSDOS version 6", for example). -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin