chinn@butler.UUCP (David Chinn) (05/31/86)
Sorry if this has been asked before....
Could anyone give me a short run down on lineage
of the major lines of UNIX? Perhaps a brief narration
or a family tree showing how sys V and 4.3 and such
are all related. I am primarily interested in AT&T and
Berkley, VAXEN and PDP's; where do 3b2 and 2.9 fit in?
Thanks in advance;
... uw-beaver david m chinn
!tikal!dataio box 639
!butler!chinn redmond, wash 98073henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/06/86)
> Could anyone give me a short run down on lineage > of the major lines of UNIX? Perhaps a brief narration > or a family tree showing how sys V and 4.3 and such > are all related... If you want a *very* brief version, draw a line of development marked "V1" through "V8". Between V6 and V7, draw a branch starting out "PWB" and proceeding on through "SysIII" and "SysV" to "SysV.3.2.4.etc". Between V6 and V7, draw another branch starting out "1BSD" and going on to "2BSD" and "2.nBSD". Draw a branch from V7 and another from somewhere in the 2.xBSD series, and merge them into a line starting "3BSD" and going on into the 4BSD series. That's roughly right. Then cover the whole drawing with a dense tangle of lines indicating variants, independent sub-lines of development, and cross-fertilization in various directions. There were several *major* independent lines (tangles) of development within AT&T alone. Some friends of mine tried to draw up an accurate family tree; it took them a long time and considerable research and there were still gray areas and question marks. -- 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
mrl@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (06/10/86)
In article <6780@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Could anyone give me a short run down on lineage >> of the major lines of UNIX? Perhaps a brief narration >> or a family tree showing how sys V and 4.3 and such >> are all related... > >Between V6 and V7, draw a branch starting out "PWB" and >proceeding on through "SysIII" and "SysV" to "SysV.3.2.4.etc". This raises the burning question: whatever happened to Systems I and II, and, especially, IV? I never hear them discussed. Were they ever released commercially, and if not, why not? -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
matt@saber.UUCP (Matt Perez) (06/11/86)
> > This raises the burning question: whatever happened to > Systems I and II, and, especially, IV? I never hear them > discussed. Were they ever released commercially, and if > not, why not? > > Scott Anderson > ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra System IV was in use within the Labs in (memory don't fail me now) the latter part of 1980. It was never released commercially because as SIV was released, SV was already targeted to be the system that was going to be released within and without Ma Bell at the same time. Up until then, a system was released in-house and external release would lag for as much as a couple of years or not at all. I know somebody who ran SI and SII at Teletype in or around 1978-1979. -- {amd,att,cbosgd,calma,cayuga,dual,idi,ihnp4,intel,imagen,nsc,qubix,qumix,sun,wamo,wcwvax,weitek}!saber!matt
sbs@valid.UUCP (Steven Brian McKechnie Sargent) (06/14/86)
> In article <6780@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >> Could anyone give me a short run down on lineage > >> of the major lines of UNIX? Perhaps a brief narration > >> or a family tree showing how sys V and 4.3 and such > >> are all related... > > > >Between V6 and V7, draw a branch starting out "PWB" and > >proceeding on through "SysIII" and "SysV" to "SysV.3.2.4.etc". > > This raises the burning question: whatever happened to > Systems I and II, and, especially, IV? I never hear them > discussed. Were they ever released commercially, and if > not, why not? > -- > > Scott Anderson > ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra If memory serves, what you call Systems I and II existed as versions of the UNIX Time Sharing System and the Programmer's Workbench system (versions 1.0 and 2.0). System III was made commercially available about 1981, during which time System IV was in use inside the phone company -- but at the same time that 4BSD was in its first blush of youth. So they leapfrogged IV altogether, presumably to avoid confusing the UNIX(TM)-buying public. Friends tell me there is also a System VI, which has been ruthlessly crushed for internal political reasons; but that's vicious rumour. The 8th Edition system is based on 4.1BSD, and I hear there's a Version 9 as well; so I think we've gotten the 1-digit numbers pretty well nailed down and bleeding, and the phone company will iterate forever on the System V.3.1.4a.870422.9:33:04am.Rev3 naming scheme. "After changes upon changes we are more or less the same." - Paul Simon S. (TM) UNIX is a Footnote of AT&T Bell Laboratories.
larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) (06/14/86)
In article <6780@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Could anyone give me a short run down on lineage >> of the major lines of UNIX? Perhaps a brief narration >> or a family tree showing how sys V and 4.3 and such >> are all related... > >If you want a *very* brief version, draw a line of development marked "V1" >through "V8". Between V6 and V7, draw a branch starting out "PWB" and [etc, etc] The best picture I've seen is by John Quartermain (sp?) in the chapter on Unix in the *second* edition of the Peterson & Silberschatz book "Operating System Concepts". I think it's just what the patient ordered. -- Larry McVoy ----------- Arpa: mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu Uucp: {seismo, topaz, harvard, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!larry "Just remember, wherever you go -- there you are." -Buckaroo Banzai
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/15/86)
Various people have been putting forth misleading or incorrect speculations about releases/versions of UNIX. Unless you were DIRECTLY involved with the development of UNIX, please cut it out.
mike@whuxl.UUCP (BALDWIN) (06/16/86)
> Friends tell me there is also a System VI, which has been ruthlessly > crushed for internal political reasons; but that's vicious rumour. System VI is really System V Release 2.0. The naming convention was changed to "nail down" the System V part. Some SVR2 code still has 6.0 embedded in the comments. > The 8th Edition system is based on 4.1BSD, and I hear there's a Version > 9 as well; so I think we've gotten the 1-digit numbers pretty well > nailed down and bleeding, and the phone company will iterate forever on > the System V.3.1.4a.870422.9:33:04am.Rev3 naming scheme. I haven't heard of any 9th Edition; the System V numbering should be standardized now on Release numbers. Release X.Y.Z is major release X, enhancement Y, bug-fixes Z. > (TM) UNIX is a Footnote of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Oops! UNIX is now a *registered* trademark of *AT&T*. (No Bell Labs anymore) -- Michael Baldwin (not the opinions of) AT&T Bell Laboratories {at&t}!whuxl!mike
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/17/86)
> This raises the burning question: whatever happened to > Systems I and II, and, especially, IV? ... Adam Reed and Matt Perez have already answered this moderately well, but I'll throw in a few more tidbits. System I was, approximately, PWB, which was released. System II was an improved PWB, incorporating some useful things like a souped-up shell; it was never released because just then AT&T was not sure it wanted to continue distributing useful new goodies to potential competitors. After the decision to continue with distribution was made, System III was released, well after it was in use internally. System IV never made it out because it was already in use when SysIII came out, and the decision to bring external releases into sync with internal ones overtook it. System V was then released. Since "System V" has now become a magic marketing buzzword, the top-level numbering is absolutely frozen for external purposes, and all future releases will be V.something rather than VI, VII, etc. Fortuitously, this happens to avoid 4, 6, and 7, which correspond to other well-known flavors of Unix. If you want to get a look at what System IV was like, check out the PDP11 distribution of System V. PDP11 SysV is really SysIV. Although AT&T won't admit it in so many words, they effectively abandoned work on PDP11 Unix a long time ago. For example, although some of the SysV performance work wouldn't fit on the 11, *some* of it would. None of it was applied to PDP11 SysV. The PDP11 SysV shared-memory stuff is also different from and incompatible with the regular SysV version. -- 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
hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (06/17/86)
> This raises the burning question: whatever happened to > Systems I and II, and, especially, IV? I never hear them > discussed. Were they ever released commercially, and if > not, why not? > Scott Anderson > ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra System numbers correspond to releases standardized by the Bell Labs' UNIX Support Group (USG) and its successor organization in AT&T IS Computer Systems Division. Roman numbers are used for external releases and arabic numbers for the corresponding internal releases. There were no external releases corresponding to USG internal systems 1, 2, and 4. USG System 4 did not have enough functionality beyond that available in USG System 3/III to justify a separate external release. Adam Reed ihnp4!npois!adam
ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (06/19/86)
> > This raises the burning question: whatever happened to > > Systems I and II, and, especially, IV? ... Back in 1978, I think it was, a grand new numbering scheme for UNIX releases put out by USG was devised. Release numbers were set back to 1.0 and the operating system was renamed UNIX/TS. (The "TS" stands for time sharing.) At the same time, MERT, a different operating system whose primary use was to run a UNIX emulator, was renamed UNIX/RT (the "RT" stood for real time) and also had its release numbers set back to 1.0. The idea was that com- patable releases of UNIX/TS and UNIX/RT would have the same release numbers. UNIX/RT proceeded to bite the dust and the name of UNIX/TS gradually shifted back to plain "UNIX". USG started producing top level releases once a year. Second level releases were used to make features available as they were written. Third level releases were limited to bug fixes. For example, UNIX 3.0 was followed by UNIX 3.0.1, which was basicly UNIX 3.0 with a few bug fixes. (It was also followed by UNIX 3.1, which may or may not have come out before UNIX 3.0.1.) The first two versions of USG UNIX that were release externally to AT&T were UNIX 3.0.1 and UNIX 5.0.1. They were called System III and System V externally. There were no systems named System I, II, and IV. > System I was, approximately, PWB, which was released. PWB UNIX was not developed by USG. One of the goals enunciated in the switch to the new release naming scheme was to eliminate the various special versions of UNIX floating around. SCCS was included in UNIX/RT 1.0. The PWB code didn't make it into USG UNIX until release 2.0. I don't know much about the version of PWB UNIX that was released externally, but I think that predated UNIX/TS 1.0 significantly, so there were probably UNIX/TS 1.0 features not in the external version of PWB UNIX, as well as vice versa. > System II was an improved PWB, incorporating some useful > things like a souped-up shell. The Borne shell (which was in UNIX/TS 1.0) did not undergo any major changes between UNIX/TS 1.0 and UNIX 5.0. > Since "System V" has now > become a magic marketing buzzword, the top-level numbering is absolutely > frozen for external purposes, and all future releases will be V.something > rather than VI, VII, etc. The real horror is that the internal numbering system has been abandoned, so that even those of us inside AT&T have to suffer with names like "System V Release 2 Issue 2". Does driving people up the wall with a chaotic numbering scheme really encourage them to buy from AT&T? > If you want to get a look at what System IV was like, check out the PDP11 > distribution of System V. PDP11 SysV is really SysIV. Not really. > Although AT&T won't admit it in so many words, they effectively > abandoned work on PDP11 Unix a long time ago. Most new features made it to the PDP11. The major exception is the news object module format, which makes SDB possible. SDB is a UNIX 3.0 feature which did not make it to the PDP11. The UNIX 4.0 and UNIX 5.0 releases for the PDP11 were pretty complete. > For example, although some of the SysV performance work wouldn't fit > on the 11, *some* of it would. None of it was applied to PDP11 SysV. The PDP-11 uses hashing to implement the sleep/wakeup facility in the kernel under System V. I don't know of any other System V performance work that was applied to the PDP11 (but then if it had been it would probably would not have helped a machine the size of a PDP-11 much.) > The PDP11 SysV shared-memory stuff is also different from and > incompatible with the regular SysV version. Right, but it is present, which is a difference from UNIX 4.0. The IPC stuff was first released in UNIX 4.2. Kenneth Almquist ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ka (official name) ihnp4!opus!ka (shorter path)
guy@sun.UUCP (06/21/86)
> I don't know much about the version of PWB UNIX that was released > externally, but I think that predated UNIX/TS 1.0 significantly, so there > were probably UNIX/TS 1.0 features not in the external version of PWB UNIX, > as well as vice versa. The PWB/UNIX that was released externally was PWB/UNIX 1.0, which was a V6-flavored system, rather than a V7-flavored system like the UNIX/TS line. > Most new features made it to the PDP11. The major exception is the news > object module format, which makes SDB possible. SDB is a UNIX 3.0 feature > which did not make it to the PDP11. The UNIX 4.0 and UNIX 5.0 releases > for the PDP11 were pretty complete. No; 3.0 had an object file format of the same flavor as that used by Research UNIX, and it supported "sdb" by adding the N_STAB symbol table entry type to hold debugger information. The way the N_STAB symbols were used, however, didn't support the new rules for structure member names, and didn't support some other things. The COFF debugger symbols do, so "sdb" was fixed to support them. I suspect the PDP-11 didn't support "sdb" either because 1) nobody bothered changing the Ritchie compiler to generate N_STAB entries or 2) there wasn't enough address space to support it. -- Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com (or guy@sun.arpa)
mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) (06/21/86)
In article <513@hropus.UUCP> ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) writes: >.... generally accurate description of release history... > >PWB UNIX was not developed by USG. One of the goals enunciated in the >switch to the new release naming scheme was to eliminate the various special >versions of UNIX floating around. SCCS was included in UNIX/RT 1.0. The >PWB code didn't make it into USG UNIX until release 2.0. > >I don't know much about the version of PWB UNIX that was released externally, >but I think that predated UNIX/TS 1.0 significantly, so there were probably >UNIX/TS 1.0 features not in the external version of PWB UNIX, as well as vice >versa. Close, but not quite. 1) A bunch of us [Haight, Wehr, me] moved from PWB to USG in early 1977, to help the merging process as noted. 2] Research was doing V7 at this time, and one of the additional goals of ours, working with them, was to get V7 to have the facilities found needed elsewhere, but in a more elegant fashion, given hindsight. For example, that's where environment variables (a drastic generalization of a PWB feature) and process accounting came from.) 3] Many PWB features actually did make it into UNIX/TS 1.0: the Acknowledgments say: '...; a large part ot its contents is descended from the UNIX Programmer's Manual-Sixth Edition...and the PWB/UNIX User's Manual...' Specifically, from PWB in that round were a) Numerous minor commands and command extensions, b) A few system calls, c) -MM and -MV macros, d) Miscellaneous functions. 4] The general goal was for UNIX/TS 1.0 to let the USG & PWB kernels merge at the transition to a V7 base, while integrating such user-level features as were easy to do and of general use. 5] PWB/UNIX 2.0 took the 1.0 base and added in some of the remaining features, that took more time and were more work, like: SCCS, RJE, LEAP, etc, etc. As noted, there never was a SYSTEM II; this was it, in some sense; of course, it was the last PWB release. 6] PWB/UNIX 1.0 was what was released outside, way back. This was too bad, there was a 1.2 release that was substantially cleaned up and tuned; this was probably the highest-performance V6 time-sharing version in any widespread use. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash, DDD: 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
simon@cstvax.UUCP (Simon Brown) (06/23/86)
In article <513@hropus.UUCP> ka@hropus.UUCP writes: --- ... PDP11 SysV vs. `real' SysV ... >Most new features made it to the PDP11. The major exception is the news >object module format, which makes SDB possible. SDB is a UNIX 3.0 feature >which did not make it to the PDP11. The UNIX 4.0 and UNIX 5.0 releases >for the PDP11 were pretty complete. > But they don't have sxt devices for the pdp11, so no job-control! -- ------------------------------------------------- | Simon Brown, Dept. of Computer Science, | | Edinburgh University | | ...!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!simon | -------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/26/86)
> > Although AT&T won't admit it in so many words, they effectively > > abandoned work on PDP11 Unix a long time ago. > > Most new features made it to the PDP11... But there weren't all that many new features. A lot of what was new was the performance work, which did *not* make it. > > For example, although some of the SysV performance work wouldn't fit > > on the 11, *some* of it would. None of it was applied to PDP11 SysV. > > The PDP-11 uses hashing to implement the sleep/wakeup facility in the kernel > under System V... It did under V7 too; this is nothing new. > I don't know of any other System V performance work that > was applied to the PDP11 (but then if it had been it would probably would not > have helped a machine the size of a PDP-11 much.) Nonsense. Things like inode hashing make quite a substantial difference, and are easy to put in, if anyone had bothered to *try*. As for "the size of a PDP-11"... an 11/44 is fully the equal of a 750 on anything that doesn't hit address-space problems, and an 11/70 approaches a 780. The neglect of the 11 was not because the machines wouldn't benefit from it, but because AT&T had, as I indicated, effectively abandoned the 11. (I don't *blame* them, given how hard the address-space problem hits the kernel, but they should stop lying about it.) > > ... PDP11 SysV is really SysIV. > > Not really. > > > The PDP11 SysV shared-memory stuff is also different from and > > incompatible with the regular SysV version. > > Right, but it is present, which is a difference from UNIX 4.0. The IPC > stuff was first released in UNIX 4.2. I wasn't claiming that PDP11 SysV was identically equal to 4.00000, but that it was largely one of the 4's, not really a 5. (I should have been clearer about this.) -- 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