UNIX 9th edition ????
ila...@violet.berkeley.edu
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.
Paul De Bra
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.
--
------------------------------------------------------
|de...@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra |
------------------------------------------------------
Doug Gwyn
UNIX System V is the commercial AT&T UNIX product.
9th Edition UNIX is used only internally by some of the Bell Labs
research staff, plus a small number of selected outside sites
that were considered to be likely to contribute to its development
(just a few universities so far as I know).
Many of 8th and 9th Edition UNIX's innovations eventually appeared
(usually in somewhat altered form) in the commercial product.
Wolf N. Paul
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!w...@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
Chris Torek
>Many of 8th and 9th Edition UNIX's innovations eventually appeared
>(usually in somewhat altered form) in the commercial product.
I think you mean `adulterated.' [ :-) ? ]
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain: ch...@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
Andrew Hume
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 and...@research.att.com
Paul De Bra
>In article <93...@smoke.BRL.MIL> gw...@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>Many of 8th and 9th Edition UNIX's innovations eventually appeared
>>(usually in somewhat altered form) in the commercial product.
>
>I think you mean `adulterated.' [ :-) ? ]
No I think the original poster really just meant "altered". This covers
the range from "improved" to "garbled".
Doug Gwyn
>No I think the original poster really just meant "altered". This covers
>the range from "improved" to "garbled".
Yup.
UNIX System V is a strange mixture of excellent and poor,
depending on what part you look at. I don't know if it's
getting a LOT better, but it tries to be more reliable
than the research software, and sometimes accommodates a
wider variety of applications. But it sure is big!
Mike Borza
>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.
>
>
what more can one say? :)
mike borza <nu...@maccs.uucp or antel!mi...@maccs.uucp>
Jim Rosenberg
>>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>
Eduardo Krell
>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: ekr...@ulysses.att.com
Robert Claeson
> 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: rcla...@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson
Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rcla...@ERBE.SE BITNET: rcla...@ERBE.SE
Paul De Bra
>In article <4...@oglvee.UUCP>, j...@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...
Wolf N. Paul
>In article <4...@maxim.ERBE.SE> p...@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes:
>>In article <4...@oglvee.UUCP>, j...@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???
>>
>>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?
Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]
>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 j...@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.
Doug Gwyn
>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.
Mark A. Heilpern
A while back I cam across the 4.3BSD ability to 'suspend' a running process
by hitting ^Z. (I think this is a CSH feature) (bug??)
Is there any way to resume the process, either by letting it continue to
run in the background or foreground?
TIA, Mark A. Heilpern heil...@brl.mil
--
|\/| |
| | _ |<
/ \_(_(_)\_/ \______
Paul De Bra
}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...
Robert Claeson
> In article <3...@dcs.UUCP> w...@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?
George W. Leach
>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
reg...@pdn.nm.paradyne.com P.O. Box 2826
Phone: (813) 530-2376 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
Derek Lee-Wo
:
:A while back I cam across the 4.3BSD ability to 'suspend' a running process
:by hitting ^Z. (I think this is a CSH feature) (bug??)
:
:Is there any way to resume the process, either by letting it continue to
:run in the background or foreground?
'bg' to put it in the background or 'fg' to put it back in the forground.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Derek Lee-Wo, Health Systems International, New Haven, CT 06511. |
|E-mail address :- de...@hsi.com ...!yale!hsi!derek |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Doug Gwyn
>A while back I cam across the 4.3BSD ability to 'suspend' a running process
>by hitting ^Z. (I think this is a CSH feature) (bug??)
No, job control is also available in the BRL Bourne shell on the same systems
(and in the Korn shell, which we haven't yet licensed).
>Is there any way to resume the process, either by letting it continue to
>run in the background or foreground?
Of course there is. The manual page for whichever shell will tell you how.
Don't you guys in IBD know how to ask questions locally instead of
broadcasting around the world? Next time try posting to Support.
Keith Gabryelski
>do System III and System V fit into the 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition
Lemme give it a shot :-)
???????????????
?????????????????????? ? SCO Unix 3.2?
? System V.4 ? ?MicroSoft/SCO?
?Merge BSD/SysV/SunOS? ? 1989 ?
? AT&T/Sun Micro ? ???????????????
? 1989 ? = = =
?????????????????????? = = ====================+
= = = = = =
= = +=========================================+ =
= = = = = =
= +============================+ = = =
= = = = =
= = +--------------+ = =
= = |Xenix Sys 2.3 | = =
= = |MicroSoft/SCO | +--------------+
= = | 1988 | |Unix Sys V.3.2|
= = +--------------+ | AT&T |
= = = = | 1988 |
= = [6]===+ = +--------------+
= = = =
= = +--------------+ =
= = +-------------+ | Xenix 386 | +--------------+
= = | A/UX | |2.2 with VP/ix| |Unix Sys V.3.1|
= = |Apple/Unisoft| |MicroSoft/SCO | | AT&T |
= = | 1988 | | 1987 | | 1987 |
= = +-------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
= = = = = =
= = = +=====================================+ = +====[8]
= = = = = = =
= = = = +------------+
= = = +-------------+ |Unix Sys V.3|
= = = |Xenix SysV2.2| | AT&T |
= = = |MicroSoft/SCO| | 1986 |
= = = | 1986 | +------------+
= = = +-------------+ =
= = = = = +=====[7]
= = = = = =
= = = +-------------+ +--------------+
= +===+ = |Xenix SysV1.0| |Unix Sys V.2.2|
= = = |MicroSoft/SCO| | AT&T |
+---------+ +------+ | 1985 | | 1985 |
| SunOS | |4.3BSD| +-------------+ +--------------+
|Sun Micro| | UCB | = = =
| 1982 | | 1986 | = +======+ =
+---------+ +------+ = = =
= = +-------------+ +========+ =
= = | Xenix Sys V | = =
= +-------+ +------+ |MicroSoft/SCO|==+ = =
= |4.2BSD | |Ultrix| | 1984 | = +------------+
=====| UCB |==| DEC | +-------------+ = |Unix Sys V.2|
| 1982 | +------+ = = | AT&T |
+-------+ = = | 1984 |
= +-------------+ = +------------+
= | Xenix 3.0 | = =
+-------+ |MicroSoft\SCO| +=========+ = +=====[4]
|4.1BSD | | 1983 | = = =
| UCB | +-------------+ +----------+
|1980/81| = |Unix sys V|
+-------+ = | AT&T |
= +-------------+ | 1983 |
= | Xenix 2.0 | +----------+
+------+ = +----------+ |MicroSoft/SCO| =
|3.0BSD|===+ | Venix | | 1981 | =
| BSD | |VentureCom| +-------------+ +------------+
+------+ +-------+ | 1981 | = |Unix sys III|
= |2.10BSD| +----------+ = | Bell Labs |=[3]
= +=====| UCB | = +---------+ | 1981 |
+------+ = | 1987 | = | Xenix | +------------+
|2.8BSD| = +-------+ = |MicroSoft| =
| UCB | = = | 1980 |========+ =
| 1978 | = +------------+ = +---------+ = =
+------+ = | Edison VII | = = =
= = |Perkin Elmer|=====+========================+ = =
+======+ | 1980 | = = = =
= +------------+ = = = =
+------+ = +---------+ +-----------+
|2.0BSD| = |Unix 32v| |Unix ver. 7|
| UCB |============================+==========|Bell Labs|==| Bell Labs |=[2]
+------+ = | 1978 | | 1979 |
= +---------+ +-----------+
= =
= =
= +-----------+
= |Unix ver. 6|
+=======================| Bell Labs |=[1]
| 1977 |
+-----------+
=
=
+---------+ +-------------+ +---------+ +-----------+
+-------------+ | MULTICS | |Unix Assembly| | Unix C | |Unix Ver. 5|
|The Dark Ages|==| MIT |==| Bell Labs |==|Bell Labs|==| Bell Labs |
+-------------+ | 1965 | | 1969 | | 1973 | | 1974 |
+---------+ +-------------+ +---------+ +-----------+
############################################################################
+-------+
|AIX/370|
| IBM |
| 1988 |
+-------+
=
=
+---------+
| PS/2 AIX|
|IBM/Locus|
| 1988 |
+---------+
=
=
+------+ +---------------+
|IX/370| | AIX |
| IBM | |IBM/Interactive|
| 1985 | | 1985 |
+------+ +---------------+
= =
[7]==========+=============+
############################################################################
+-----------+
| 386/IX |
|Interactive|
| 1987 |
+-----------+
= =
= +=====================================================+
= =
= +-------------+ =
= |System V/386 | =
= | Microport | =
= | 1987 | =
= +-------------+ +-----------+
= = = | IN/ix |
= = +================+ |Interactive|
= = = | 1984 |
+======+ = +------------+ +-----------+
= = |System V/286| =
[6]======+ = = | Microport | =
= = = | 1986 | =
+----------------------+ +------------+ =
| Unix Sys V/386 | = =
[8]=====|AT&T/Intel/Interactive| = =
| 1987 | +----------------------+ =
+----------------------+ | Unix Sys V/286 | =
|AT&T/Intel/Interactive| =
| 1985 | =
+----------------------+ =
= = =
[4]==================================+ = =
= =
+---------------+ =
| VM/IX | =
|IBM/Interactive| =
| 1984 | =
+---------------+ =
= =
= +===============+
= =
+---------------+ +-------+
| PC/IX | | Onix |
|IBM/Interactive| | Onyx |
| 1984 | | 1981 |
+---------------+ +-------+
= = =
= +======================+ =
= = =
+----------------+ +-----------+ =
|Serix (Series/1)| | IS/3 | =
| CMI | |Interactive| =
| 1982 | | 1982 | =
+----------------+ +-----------+ =
= = = =
[3]===============+===================+ = =
= =
+-----------+ =
| IS/1 | =
|Interactive| =
| 1977 | =
+-----------+ [2] =
= = =
+===================================+======+=+===+=========+===+
= = = = =
= [5] +==================+ +-----+ +-------+ +-----+
= = = | Zeus| |UniPlus| |Unity|
= +---------+ |Zilog| |Unisoft| | HCR |
= |Unix PWB | | 1979| | 1980 | |1981 |
[1]=====+========|Bell Labs| +-----+ +-------+ +-----+
| 1977 |
+---------+
#########################################################################
??????????????
?10th Edition?
?internal use?
? Bell Labs ?
? 1989? ?
??????????????
=
=
+------------+
|9th Edition |
|internal use|
| Bell Labs |
| |
+------------+
=
=
+------------+
|8th Edition |
|internal use|
| Bell Labs |
| |
+------------+
=
=
[5]
Most of this was stolen from a poster that I found in a magazine.
Errors are imminent.
Pax, Keith
--
a...@elgar.CTS.COM Keith Gabryelski ...!{ucsd, crash}!elgar!ag
Guy Harris
> +++ '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 Harris
>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.
Rodney R. Green
>
>
> A while back I cam across the 4.3BSD ability to 'suspend' a running process
> by hitting ^Z. (I think this is a CSH feature) (bug??)
>
> Is there any way to resume the process, either by letting it continue to
> run in the background or foreground?
To bring the job back into the foreground, type fg; to run it in
the background, use bg. Jobs running in the background already
(either put their using ^Z, bg or with the & at the end of the command)
can be brought back into the foreground using fg also.
Rodney Green
AT&T Bell Laboratories Denver, CO
rgr...@druhi.ATT.COM ...!att!druhi!rgreen
Doug Gwyn
>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?
Doug Gwyn
>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.
Malaclypse the Elder
<
<
< ???????????????
< ?????????????????????? ? SCO Unix 3.2?
< ? System V.4 ? ?MicroSoft/SCO?
< ?Merge BSD/SysV/SunOS? ? 1989 ?
< ? AT&T/Sun Micro ? ???????????????
< ? 1989 ? = = =
< ?????????????????????? = = ====================+
< = = = = = =
don't forget that system v.4 will also merge with xenix!
danny chen
att!homxc!dwc
Jeff Beadles
>by hitting ^Z. (I think this is a CSH feature) (bug??)
This is a feature. It's called Job Control. Not all
C-Shell's have it.
>Is there any way to resume the process, either by letting it continue to
>run in the background or foreground?
Sure is. Use "fg" to resume in the foreground, and "bg" to continue in the
background. You may also use "jobs" to get a list of stopped jobs.
Fg/bg also take an arguement to them. Use "fg %1" to bring job #1 to the
foreground. See the manual in fg(1csh), bg(1csh), jobs(1csh), and
csh(1csh) for more information.
Jeff Beadles
je...@tekcsc.MKT.TEK.COM
Stephen J. Friedl
Danny Chen writes:
> don't forget that system v.4 will also merge with xenix!
Don't forget that System V Release 3.2 already does this
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy fri...@vsi.com
V-Systems, Inc. I speak for you only attmail!vsi!friedl
Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl
--------Barbara Bush on... on... No, I just can't do it...--------