ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (01/14/89)
I've heard recently of something called 9th edition UNIX being used at Bell Labs. How does this fit in UNIX family tree. I thought all UNIX coming out of would be Sys V, SysV.4 being the next generation.
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/14/89)
In article <19070@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I've heard recently of something called 9th edition UNIX being used at >Bell Labs. How does this fit in UNIX family tree. I thought all UNIX >coming out of would be Sys V, SysV.4 being the next generation. ^^^^^^^^^^ That's right, the only Unix you can buy from AT&T is Unix System V, in whatever is the current release. The ninth edition Unix is the successor of the eight edition which was the successor of the seventh (well, that's not 100% true, but close enough). Research on Unix is done using the ninth edition Unix at Bell Labs, but this version is not for sale. There also exists no real "release", as several routines or utilities are changing each day... Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (01/14/89)
In article <19070@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I've heard recently of something called 9th edition UNIX being used at >Bell Labs. How does this fit in UNIX family tree. I thought all UNIX >coming out of would be Sys V, SysV.4 being the next generation. But UNIX coming out of AT&T does not necessarily have anything to do with UNIX being used at Bell Labs. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume) (01/15/89)
In article <19070@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > I've heard recently of something called 9th edition UNIX being used at > Bell Labs. How does this fit in UNIX family tree. I thought all UNIX > coming out of would be Sys V, SysV.4 being the next generation. its looking like this newsgroup will soon see the end of questions on V9 Unix; we are preparing to think about contemplating preliminary work on plans to develop a schedule for producing the 10th edition of the Unix Programmers Manual. In honour of this event, we will be bringing out a new edition of Volume 2 as well. because i am a masochist, i invite comments on the above plans (by email please!). research!andrew or andrew@research.att.com
nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) (01/17/89)
In article <8764@alice.UUCP> andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume) writes: >we are preparing to think about contemplating preliminary >work on plans to develop a schedule for producing the 10th edition >of the Unix Programmers Manual. > >because i am a masochist, i invite comments on the above plans > >research!andrew or andrew@research.att.com what more can one say? :) mike borza <nusip@maccs.uucp or antel!mike@maccs.uucp>
jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) (01/28/89)
In article <8754@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: >In article <19070@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >>I've heard recently of something called 9th edition UNIX being used at >>Bell Labs. How does this fit in UNIX family tree. [...] >The ninth edition Unix is the successor of the eight edition which was the >successor of the seventh (well, that's not 100% true, but close enough). Scuze me if this sounds rude, but it seems to me that *NOBODY* answered the poster's original question!!! I assume that anyone capable of posting to Usenet can figure out that 9 > 8. The question is -- for those of us not privy to doings inside of AT&T research organizations -- what *INTERESTING STUFF* is there in the 9th edition that wasn't in the 8th edition??? My understanding is that the 8th edition brought a boatload of innovations: e.g. STREAMS, /proc, the ancestor of the File System Switch, etc. But I've never read an explanation of what new things came along in the 9th edition. Can one of you AT&T folks *please* elucidate?? -- Jim Rosenberg pitt Oglevee Computer Systems >--!amanue!oglvee!jr 151 Oglevee Lane cgh Connellsville, PA 15425 #include <disclaimer.h>
ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (01/28/89)
In article <462@oglvee.UUCP> jr@.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >I've never read an explanation of what new things came along in >the 9th edition. A new edition of the manual, of course ... Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) (02/05/89)
In article <462@oglvee.UUCP>, jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: > The question is -- for those of us not > privy to doings inside of AT&T research organizations -- what *INTERESTING > STUFF* is there in the 9th edition that wasn't in the 8th edition??? My > understanding is that the 8th edition brought a boatload of innovations: > e.g. STREAMS, /proc, the ancestor of the File System Switch, etc. But I've > never read an explanation of what new things came along in the 9th edition. Maybe they just wrote a new manual for the 8th edition and called the whole stuff -- including UNIX -- the 9th edition 8-). -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden "No problems." -- Alf Tel: +46 758-202 50 EUnet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE BITNET: rclaeson@ERBE.SE
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (02/06/89)
In article <487@maxim.ERBE.SE> prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes: >In article <462@oglvee.UUCP>, jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: > >> The question is -- for those of us not >> privy to doings inside of AT&T research organizations -- what *INTERESTING >> STUFF* is there in the 9th edition that wasn't in the 8th edition??? My >> understanding is that the 8th edition brought a boatload of innovations: >> e.g. STREAMS, /proc, the ancestor of the File System Switch, etc. But I've >> never read an explanation of what new things came along in the 9th edition. > >Maybe they just wrote a new manual for the 8th edition and called the whole >stuff -- including UNIX -- the 9th edition 8-). The confusion is caused by the fact that there is no 8th edition release and no 9th edition release. Although the 8th edition manual was written at some point the system didn't freeze at that point. New developments were made all the time, until about everything in the manual had become obsolete. Time to create the 9th edition unix, by producing a new manual and doing a global replace of eight by ninth in the source code :-) The ninth edition is going the same way... over half of the manual is obsolete already and there is talk about creating the 10th edition unix manual... Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (02/06/89)
In article <8872@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: >In article <487@maxim.ERBE.SE> prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes: >>In article <462@oglvee.UUCP>, jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >> >>> The question is -- for those of us not >>> privy to doings inside of AT&T research organizations -- what *INTERESTING >>> STUFF* is there in the 9th edition that wasn't in the 8th edition??? >> >>Maybe they just wrote a new manual for the 8th edition and called the whole >>stuff -- including UNIX -- the 9th edition 8-). > >The confusion is caused by the fact that there is no 8th edition release and >no 9th edition release. Actually, the confusion is caused by the fact that AT&T appears to use two different terminologies in naming their internal UNIX releases, and their external, commercial UNIX releases. Thus, nobody, so far, seems to have answered the original question: Where do System III and System V fit into the 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition succession; and whatever happened to System IV? Can someone answer this question? I would also be interested to know whether the following assumption is correct: Somehow, the powers that be (Marketing Dept.?) at AT&T have decided to make "UNIX System V" the name of their OS, rather than the name being "UNIX", and "System V" being a version designator. Thus, even though going from V.2 to V.3 brought major changes (i.e. streams, RFS), the "System V" name was retained; even though V.4 will bring even more major changes (USG/BSD/XENIX merge, NFS, etc.), they still retain the "System V" name, and it has become synonymous with "AT&T UNIX". There are other examples, such as the SVID -- I won't list them all. Can someone confirm or deny this interpretation of things? -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
jerbil@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]) (02/07/89)
In article <316@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >Thus, nobody, so far, seems to have answered the original question: Where do >System III and System V fit into the 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition succession; >and whatever happened to System IV? Can someone answer this question? Well, taking the notes from when my local guru/more-senior-worker Don Speck gave me a quick lecture on the subject: +++ TRUNK of UNIX Family Tree +++ version 0: PDP-7 version 1: PDP-11/20 version 2: PDP-11/45; 1972-73 version 3: version 4: version 5: ports to Interdata 8/32, IBM 370 version 6: 1976. Split to three. +++ Trunk continuation +++ version 7: 1977 32V: 1978. Merges into 3 BSD. +++ 'AT&T' branch +++ PWB: typesetter --- offshoot --- Unix RT: real time MERT: real time --- end offshoot --- TS1.0: TS2.0: SysIII: which spawned Xenix TS4.0: SysV: SysV Release 2: SysV R3: SysV R4: also known as SunOS 5.0 [in the works] +++ 'BSD' branch +++ 1 BSD: 2 BSD: --- offshoot --- 2.8 BSD: 2.9 BSD: 2.10 BSD: 1986? [also received code from 4.3 BSD] --- end offshoot --- 3 BSD: has merge from 32V 4 BSD: 1980 4.1 BSD: 1981 --- offshoot --- version 8: [apparently back to the trunk 8-] version 9: Plan 9: SUN OS 2.0: 1983? NFS, received code from 4.2 BSD SUN OS 3.0: SUN OS 4.0: 1988 SUN OS 5.0: also known as SysV R4 [in the works] --- end offshoot --- 4.1c BSD: 4.2 BSD: 1983, spawned SUN OS 2.0 4.3 BSD: 1986, contributed to 2.10 BSD 4.3 tahoe: 1987? 4.4 BSD: real soon now I was tempted to use a directory-like setup to show the relations, but then the symlinks would have been too much. :-) :-) As for the AT&T question, Wolf, I don't know, nor know who does. Please don't take this for gospel. Hope this answers a few questions, like it did for me. Joe Beckenbach asst system manager, Caltech CS dept "it's Don's fault" :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Joe Beckenbach joe@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125 Should programmers be licensed? Yes, but not yet: once we've got it together enough to be a profession.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (02/07/89)
In article <316@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >Thus, nobody, so far, seems to have answered the original question: Where do >System III and System V fit into the 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition succession; We did answer that. The short answer is, they're not directly related. >and whatever happened to System IV? Can someone answer this question? There was no UNIX System IV. UNIX System III was the commercial name for USG UNIX 3.0 and UNIX System V was the commercial name for UNIX 5.0. Because of the marketing hoopla about UNIX System V being the "standard" UNIX, further commercial releases retained the name "UNIX System V". This is expected to continue. There was a USG UNIX 4.0 (also 4.1), which some government sites obtained but which wasn't generally available for commercial license.
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (02/07/89)
In article <316@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: }In article <8872@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: }... }Thus, nobody, so far, seems to have answered the original question: Where do }System III and System V fit into the 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition succession; }and whatever happened to System IV? Can someone answer this question? } They don't "fit into" that succession. I.e. with little exception System III and System V have been developed separately, and there has been little flow from these commercial systems back into research. As for the other question, let's keep it simple in saying that System IV was superseded before being released. }I would also be interested to know whether the following assumption is }correct: } }Somehow, the powers that be (Marketing Dept.?) at AT&T have decided to make }"UNIX System V" the name of their OS, rather than the name being "UNIX", and }"System V" being a version designator. Thus, even though going from V.2 to }V.3 brought major changes (i.e. streams, RFS), the "System V" name was }retained; even though V.4 will bring even more major changes (USG/BSD/XENIX }merge, NFS, etc.), they still retain the "System V" name, and it has become }synonymous with "AT&T UNIX". There are other examples, such as the SVID -- }I won't list them all. } }Can someone confirm or deny this interpretation of things? } Don't know, but it sounds reasonable. But what's in a name? Version numbers have always been chosen in an arbitrary fashion, not only at AT&T but only at Berkeley, Sun, etc... Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) (02/07/89)
In article <9606@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > In article <316@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > >and whatever happened to System IV? Can someone answer this question? > > There was no UNIX System IV. According to a footnote in Bach's book, System IV existed internally, but evolved into System V before the commercial release. > UNIX System III was the commercial name for USG UNIX 3.0 and UNIX System > V was the commercial name for UNIX 5.0. Because of the marketing hoopla > about UNIX System V being the "standard" UNIX, further commercial > releases retained the name "UNIX System V". This is expected to continue. Is USG UNIX 5.0 the same as UNIX v5? Funny, what happened to all the IPC features, terminfo and all the other neato stuff when they went to UNIX v6? -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden "No problems." -- Alf Tel: +46 758-202 50 EUnet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE BITNET: rclaeson@ERBE.SE
reggie@pdn.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (02/07/89)
In article <9606@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >UNIX System III was the commercial name for USG UNIX 3.0 and UNIX System >V was the commercial name for UNIX 5.0. Because of the marketing hoopla >about UNIX System V being the "standard" UNIX, further commercial >releases retained the name "UNIX System V". This is expected to continue. To further add to the confusion, at one time those within AT&T who used 5.0 refered to it as such. I believe that now everyone at least calls it by the same name, System V.x. >There was a USG UNIX 4.0 (also 4.1), which some government sites obtained >but which wasn't generally available for commercial license. Yup, I still have my 4.0 manual (and some other relics). -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 reggie@pdn.nm.paradyne.com P.O. Box 2826 Phone: (813) 530-2376 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (02/08/89)
What does "USG" stand for?
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/08/89)
Some more stuff, for the incurably trivial: > +++ 'AT&T' branch +++ >PWB: typesetter PWB/UNIX 1.0 was basically V6-based, although it had some post-V6, pre-V7 stuff that also appeared elsewhere: "typesetter", or "Phototypesetter, Version 7", which included a C-language nroff/troff implementation, a newer C compiler with more of the features of modern C ("long"s, casts, I forget what else), the standard I/O library, and an "lseek" library routine implemented atop V6's "seek" that took a "long" as an argument; (actually, there were some tiny differences between what was in "Phototypesetter, Version 7" and what was in PWB/UNIX 1.0 - so tiny I forget what the were) assorted kernel changes that, I think, appeared in a "diff" listing Ken Thompson sent out called "50 changes to UNIX" or something like that. > --- offshoot --- >Unix RT: real time >MERT: real time > --- end offshoot --- Other way around; MERT was the first one on this branch (more-or-less V6, I think, but implemented as a layer atop a real-time kernel), and UNIX/RT came from that. >TS1.0: As I remember from a UNIX/TS 1.0 manual I saw once, this was sort of an "almost-V7" merged with some stuff from PWB/UNIX. (V7 file system, for example.) >TS2.0: >SysIII: which spawned Xenix I think the first Xenix was V7-based, and subsequent Xenix releases picked up stuff from S3 and S5. The big thing about V7 was the binary licensing schedule that allowed vendors to sell UNIX as the OS on their boxes - many based on 16-bit micros such as the Z8000 or on 16/32-bit micros such as the 68000 - without their customers having to fork out $20K or more for a UNIX source license. I think there are boatloads of internal AT&T UNIX flavors that got merged into S3; some AT&T people may be able to fill in the details there. >TS4.0: >SysV: >SysV Release 2: >SysV R3: >SysV R4: also known as SunOS 5.0 [in the works] Well, SunOS 5.0 - or whatever it's called - will be based on S5R4, but Sun will probably add stuff of their own, just as everybody else will.... > +++ 'BSD' branch +++ >1 BSD: V6-based, as I remember. >2 BSD: V7-based. > --- offshoot --- >2.8 BSD: >2.9 BSD: >2.10 BSD: 1986? [also received code from 4.3 BSD] > --- end offshoot --- >3 BSD: has merge from 32V >4 BSD: 1980 >4.1 BSD: 1981 > --- offshoot --- >version 8: [apparently back to the trunk 8-] Yup, although V8 and company are done at Bell Labs Research, not Berkeley; I'd be more inclined to call it an AT&T branch - or just "back to the trunk". >version 9: >Plan 9: (To what degree can Plan 9 be thought of as a descendant of V8/V9?) >SUN OS 2.0: 1983? NFS, received code from 4.2 BSD SunOS 1.0, more likely. It got stuff from 4.1cBSD and 4.2BSD. (I seem to remember hearing references to SunOS 0.x, for some value of x, but I don't know what that was or if it existed.) SunOS 2.0 was the first one with NFS.
guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/08/89)
>According to a footnote in Bach's book, System IV existed internally, >but evolved into System V before the commercial release. "UNIX 4.x", for various values of "x". >> UNIX System III was the commercial name for USG UNIX 3.0 and UNIX System >> V was the commercial name for UNIX 5.0. Because of the marketing hoopla >> about UNIX System V being the "standard" UNIX, further commercial >> releases retained the name "UNIX System V". This is expected to continue. > >Is USG UNIX 5.0 the same as UNIX v5? Funny, what happened to all the >IPC features, terminfo and all the other neato stuff when they went to >UNIX v6? "V5" in what sense? There was a "V5" that some universities got (I think Harvard had it, for instance), but that antedated V6. The only connection between it and System V is that it was a remote ancestor of System V (and of all the other later UNIX flavors). I think the IPC stuff first showed up on that particular branch of the tree in one of the UNIX 4.x releases ("System IV", if you will). V6 didn't have it, or "terminfo" and company, because V6 came out before System V (which may explain part of why they went to Roman numerals with System III). System V was, basically, UNIX 5.0 (just as System III was, basically, UNIX 3.0.1 - yes, 3.0.1, as I remember that's what "uname" was set up to claim it was; I think the ".0.1" was a minor bug-fix release after 3.0). I think System V Release 2 was, or would have been, "UNIX 6.0" - I remember some comments or SCCS IDs or something that indicated such - and I think I saw some "7.0" stuff lying around in S5R3 or some other post-S5R2 release.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (02/09/89)
In article <500@maxim.ERBE.SE> prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes: >Is USG UNIX 5.0 the same as UNIX v5? Funny, what happened to all the >IPC features, terminfo and all the other neato stuff when they went to >UNIX v6? If by "UNIX v5" you mean 5th Edition UNIX then obviously it's not the same as USG UNIX 5.0 which was produced about 10 years later. By the way, (formerly) USG UNIX 6.0 turned into UNIX System V Release 2 by the time it reached the public. The Don Speck summary was fairly accurate. The exact effects of different UNIX variants on each other are hard to untangle, although for the most part significant new features originate in the research versions, as one would expect. But the AT&T UNIX Development guys at Summit and elsewhere have come up with numerous contributions too. Why do we care, anyway?
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (02/09/89)
In article <602@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >What does "USG" stand for? "UNIX Support Group", one of the previous official agencies within AT&T tasked with providing supported releases of UNIX for AT&T's own use. I think the UNIX Development Laboratory was a direct descendant of USG but I could be mistaken; I have enough trouble keeping track of the Army's internal reorganizations without having to track AT&T's also.