From tuhs at tuhs.org Sun Mar 1 02:08:38 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Noel Chiappa via TUHS) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:08:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] Can PDP-11/23 PLUS run Unix? Message-ID: <20260228160838.76B2B18C084@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Phil Budne > V7M has overlays Ah, the CHWiki doesn't have a page for that system; I'll have to add it. Yes, it does seem to have had _kernel_ overlays before 2.9 (I looked, to see if I could find any direct credit in 2.9, to indicate that their support for kernel overlays came from V7M, but couldn't; I'm too lazy to do sources compares). I say "_kernel_ overlays" because I gather (see some evidence, below) that use-of/support-for overlays in _processes_, in user mode, preceded use-of/support-for overlays in the kernel. See: "Running Large Text Processes on Small Unix Systems", Charles Haley, William Joy, William F. Jolitz https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=2.9BSD/usr/doc/ovpap "We describe a set of simple modifications to the Unix system, which permit larger programs to be run than has previously been possible. In particular, the 'f77' and 'a68' compilers and version 2 of the 'ex' editor, which previously would not run on the non-separate I/D machines such as the 11/23, 11/34 and 11/40, may be run, without source code modification, using this scheme. This scheme will also allow processes larger than 65K bytes of instruction space to run on all 11/ cpu's with segmentation hardware. and: "How to use the UNIX Automatic Text Overlays: A Tutorial", Barbara Bekins, Bill Jolitz https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=2.9BSD/usr/doc/ovtutorial The former unfortunately does not have a date on it; the latter has a date of 10/20/81, but we can infer that the original work was before that. It does appear to be later than "The Second BSD" (1979-04); there's nothing about overlats that I could find there.. V7M contains notes that more or less state that its use-of/support-for overlays in the kernel is based on the prior support for overlays in _processes_, done at Berkeley: This directory contains the C overlay loader and some other junk. ... Covld is derived from Bill Joy's covld .. The paper in ovpap.n describes the original Berkeley overlayed text scheme which was intended for use in user mode programs. I use overlays only for the kernel itself. https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7M/src/cmd/covld/README I also have a memory that someone did some work that allowed large amounts of disk buffers (and maybe clists too), which were not statically mapped into kernel address space; one segment was used to map them in, as needed. Can anyone point me at anything which covers that? (URL's would be a big plus!) I will add all that (and this) to the appropriate places in the CHWiki. I understand that all these kludges were not really important; in the long run, they were dead ends. I just want to see them all documented, and credit correctly assigned (as above, for the code overlays). Noel From tuhs at tuhs.org Sun Mar 1 04:11:21 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:11:21 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Ongoing UNIX Manual Scans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thursday, February 26th, 2026 at 09:30, segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Hello, starting a new thread for a new round of UNIX manual scans I'm > going to be working up over the next few months. To start it all off, > here is the cover and introductory pages from the December, 1983 manual > UNIX System V Release 2.0 Programmer Reference Manual, known on-line as > "p_man". > > https://archive.org/details/unix-system-v-release-2-programmer-reference-manual-btl-edition > > ... > > - Matt G. > The above scan is now complete, and so I've now started on the corresponding User Manual: https://archive.org/details/unix-system-v-release-2-user-reference-manual-btl-edition Like the previous link, this is a BTL internal version that includes a number of pieces not found in the stock SVR2 manuals, including various microprocessor development tools as well as WWB. I'll let folks know when it is entirely scanned. For now, like last time, it is just the cover and man0 content until I get the manpages themselves scanned. - Matt G. From tuhs at tuhs.org Sun Mar 1 08:51:24 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via TUHS) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 08:51:24 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Fwd: London and Reiser's UNIX VAX port paper, reconstructed Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from "G. Branden Robinson" Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:48:08 -0600 From: "G. Branden Robinson" Subject: London and Reiser's UNIX VAX port paper, reconstructed [CCing Warren for help with my usual problems mailing the TUHS list] Hi folks, I'm pleased to report that I've "finalized" my reconstruction of London and Reiser's paper documenting the process of porting Seventh Edition Unix to the VAX-11/780. This effort started back in mid-2024, and drove numerous improvements to groff's mm package. You can find the reconstruction at GitHub, with a pre-rendered PDF under "Released". My thanks to everyone who helped; you're acknowledged in the paper itself. :) Regards, Branden ----- End forwarded message ----- From tuhs at tuhs.org Sun Mar 1 08:53:04 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey via TUHS) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 08:53:04 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Fwd: London and Reiser's UNIX VAX port paper, reconstructed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 08:51:24AM +1000, Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from "G. Branden Robinson" > I'm pleased to report that I've "finalized" my reconstruction of London > and Reiser's paper documenting the process of porting Seventh Edition > Unix to the VAX-11/780. https://github.com/g-branden-robinson/reconstructing-unix-32v-port-paper is the Github repository. Cheers, Warren From tuhs at tuhs.org Mon Mar 2 19:50:19 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Arnold Robbins via TUHS) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 11:50:19 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? Message-ID: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> Hello all. The CL memo was interesting, in a way. The notations are clearly much more verbose than the standard shell, and I found that a little off-putting. The memo's references refer to Marc Rochkind's 2dsh --- Marc, whatever happened to that? Are source and or the memo for it available somewhere? Also it refers to a shell by Blewett and arder called Parser. Anyone have that memo? Just wondering, Thanks, Arnold From tuhs at tuhs.org Mon Mar 2 19:58:35 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Arnold Robbins via TUHS) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 02:58:35 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Arnold Robbins via TUHS wrote: > Also it refers to a shell by Blewett and arder called Parser. Anyone ... and another called Parser. ... Sheesh. Not enough coffee this morning I guess. From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 04:03:40 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (ron minnich via TUHS) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 11:03:40 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: there was a lisp shell ca 1977. I always liked the idea. there were a lot of shells out there, like the REX shell. On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 1:58 AM Arnold Robbins via TUHS wrote: > Arnold Robbins via TUHS wrote: > > > Also it refers to a shell by Blewett and arder called Parser. Anyone > > ... and another called Parser. ... > > Sheesh. Not enough coffee this morning I guess. > From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 06:59:41 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Rob Pike via TUHS) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 07:59:41 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: Self promotion: the v8 shell was underseen. Not really even what people want in shells these days, but in its own environment it worked well and its principle of all its output being valid shell input is missing from most interactive tools to this day. -rob On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:04 AM ron minnich via TUHS wrote: > > there was a lisp shell ca 1977. I always liked the idea. > > there were a lot of shells out there, like the REX shell. > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 1:58 AM Arnold Robbins via TUHS > wrote: > > > Arnold Robbins via TUHS wrote: > > > > > Also it refers to a shell by Blewett and arder called Parser. Anyone > > > > ... and another called Parser. ... > > > > Sheesh. Not enough coffee this morning I guess. > > From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 07:30:26 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Douglas McIlroy via TUHS) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 16:30:26 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? Message-ID: > there were a lot of shells out there Much to the credit of Multics innovation, brought to you by Ken's mythical man-month. Doug From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 08:11:16 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Reese Johnson via TUHS) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 17:11:16 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, I just noticed this is the first post I've ever seen from this list. Thank you so much to the person that added me. I hope everybody has a good day today. I really love Unix. 73 DE KN4NTU - Reese On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 04:30:26PM -0500, Douglas McIlroy via TUHS wrote: > > there were a lot of shells out there > > Much to the credit of Multics innovation, brought to you by Ken's > mythical man-month. > > Doug From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 08:33:26 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (George Michaelson via TUHS) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 08:33:26 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: That "output is valid input" thing totally was what I wanted, I played with making PS1 and PS2 elements which did not prevent cut-paste making valid commands and it never quite worked for me. Not the same, but related. I think as a killer feature, that definitely counts as one. Modern shell behaviour being "nice" makes the output and command history very hard to just replay if it's a complex command. I frequently make intermediate commands in piped sequences emit shell which is then executed, because you can run it without the final | sh to see what it will do, and then do it. So my command streams in construction are often echo "thing to be done" =G On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 7:00 AM Rob Pike via TUHS wrote: > Self promotion: the v8 shell was underseen. Not really even what > people want in shells these days, but in its own environment it worked > well and its principle of all its output being valid shell input is > missing from most interactive tools to this day. > > -rob > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:04 AM ron minnich via TUHS wrote: > > > > there was a lisp shell ca 1977. I always liked the idea. > > > > there were a lot of shells out there, like the REX shell. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 1:58 AM Arnold Robbins via TUHS > > wrote: > > > > > Arnold Robbins via TUHS wrote: > > > > > > > Also it refers to a shell by Blewett and arder called Parser. Anyone > > > > > > ... and another called Parser. ... > > > > > > Sheesh. Not enough coffee this morning I guess. > > > > From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 08:45:21 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Larry McVoy via TUHS) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:45:21 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <20260302224521.GB27230@mcvoy.com> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 08:33:26AM +1000, George Michaelson via TUHS wrote: > That "output is valid input" thing totally was what I wanted, I played with > making PS1 and PS2 elements which did not prevent cut-paste making valid > commands and it never quite worked for me. Not the same, but related. > > I think as a killer feature, that definitely counts as one. Modern shell > behaviour being "nice" makes the output and command history very hard to > just replay if it's a complex command. > > I frequently make intermediate commands in piped sequences emit shell which > is then executed, because you can run it without the final | sh to see what > it will do, and then do it. So my command streams in construction are often > echo "thing to be done" Isn't this sort of solved by "set -x". lm goes and tries it. Welp, not so much: $ echo foo + echo foo foo $ ls | wc + ls -C + wc 377 381 3851 The set -x doesn't keep the pipeline so yeah, I see the problem. Or one of them. From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 09:13:45 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Noel Hunt via TUHS) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 10:13:45 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 09:33, George Michaelson via TUHS wrote: > That "output is valid input" thing totally was what I wanted, I played with > making PS1 and PS2 elements which did not prevent cut-paste making valid > commands and it never quite worked for me. Not the same, but related. > That's why 'rc' and 'es' use ';' and ';;', respectively, as prompts. From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 09:30:56 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Paul McJones via TUHS) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 15:30:56 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: <177249152689.1801233.9831702167961447275@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <177249152689.1801233.9831702167961447275@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <827E8BF2-FE25-4626-AE8F-512DADF33728@mcjones.org> > Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 11:03:40 -0700 > From: ron minnich > Subject: [TUHS] Re: Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? > To: arnold at skeeve.com > Cc: tuhs at tuhs.org > > there was a lisp shell ca 1977. I always liked the idea. > > there were a lot of shells out there, like the REX shell. Here’s the paper on the LISP shell: John R. Ellis. 1980. A LISP Shell. SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 15, Issue 5 (May 1980), pages 24-34. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/947639.947642 It was built on Forrest Howard’s Harvard Lisp for the PDP-11: https://softwarepreservation.computerhistory.org/LISP/other.html#Harvard_LISP_ From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 17:30:56 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Rob Pike via TUHS) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 18:30:56 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: Yes, rc shares that property at least to some extent. Try % whatis cd to see what I mean. -rob On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:14 AM Noel Hunt via TUHS wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 09:33, George Michaelson via TUHS > wrote: > > > That "output is valid input" thing totally was what I wanted, I played with > > making PS1 and PS2 elements which did not prevent cut-paste making valid > > commands and it never quite worked for me. Not the same, but related. > > > > That's why 'rc' and 'es' use ';' and ';;', respectively, as prompts. From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 18:01:54 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Arnold Robbins via TUHS) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 01:01:54 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <202603030801.62381sHC010624@freefriends.org> It took me a while to figure out the references... Douglas McIlroy via TUHS wrote: > > there were a lot of shells out there > > Much to the credit of Multics innovation, Which was that the command interpreter was "just" a user level program that could be replaced. > brought to you by Ken's mythical man-month. The weeks when his wife was on vacation and he turned his filesystem into an OS. Did I get them right? Thanks, Arnold From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 18:06:06 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Arnold Robbins via TUHS) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 01:06:06 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <202603030806.623866Rd011025@freefriends.org> Thanks Marc. Warren, can this go into the archive? It seems that with the invetion of /dev/fd, David Korn managed to provide a notation for non-linear pipelines: diff <(pipeline1) <(pipeline2) sets up the two pipelines, with the standard output of each dup'ed to different file descriptors and diff sees something like diff /dev/fd/41 /dev/fd/42 Bash provides this, and will use FIFOs if /dev/fd isn't available. I'm not sure it counts as fully two dimensional. Thanks, Arnold Marc Rochkind wrote: > The 2dsh shell came up in a discussion some months ago here, and Doug > McIlroy kindly provided me with a copy of the memo, which I've attached. > > I'm sure the source is long gone. It was really just a hobby research > project for me. (I spent part of my time at Bell Labs horsing around. What > a great place to work!) > > Marc > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 2:57 AM Arnold Robbins via TUHS > wrote: > > > Hello all. > > > > The CL memo was interesting, in a way. The notations are clearly > > much more verbose than the standard shell, and I found that a little > > off-putting. > > > > The memo's references refer to Marc Rochkind's 2dsh --- Marc, whatever > > happened to that? Are source and or the memo for it available somewhere? > > > > Also it refers to a shell by Blewett and arder called Parser. Anyone > > have that memo? > > > > Just wondering, > > > > Thanks, > > > > Arnold > > From tuhs at tuhs.org Tue Mar 3 23:05:51 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via TUHS) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 05:05:51 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: > That "output is valid input" thing totally was what I wanted, I played with > making PS1 and PS2 elements which did not prevent cut-paste making valid > commands and it never quite worked for me. Not the same, but related. I have had this in ~/.env for as long as I can remember: cd () { command cd "$@" && setprompt } setprompt () { PS1=": `id -un`@`hostname -s`:$(pwd -L); " } export PS1 setprompt --lyndon From tuhs at tuhs.org Wed Mar 4 01:50:33 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Ron Natalie via TUHS) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 15:50:33 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: I always detested the CSH. The problem was the Sys5 Bourne shell didn’t support the BSD job control. So, I spent the time to figure out how it worked in csh (the kernel calls are not exactly well documented), and hacked it into /bin/sh. Even that wasn’t enough to convince my coworkers to switch as they were now using the tcsh. So, ,I put command line editing (to a better implementation having been working on gosmacs at the time) into /bin/sh. I used it for as long as I was at BRL. By the time I left, the Korn shell was beginning to make its way out of the labs. I do remember sitting at a USENIX having a nice discussion of shell internals with Dave. I also explained carefully to the guys working on one of the open source shells how it all worked so they could implement it. For a long time googling my name got shell manual pages all over the place as the programmers gave me credit. Years after the fact I was working for my intelligence imagery company and we did a lot of work with loaner equipment (our software being ultraportable we worked on MIPS, Dec Alpha, Itanium, Suns and SGIs of various configurations Apollo, HP Oki, Masspar, Cray, DG, Stellar, Ardent, NeXT, IBM (from PCs to RS/6000 to mainframes) etc…). Usually the first thing I did is port emacs (having never really learned vi I always impressed my office mates with how fast I could do stuff with ed) and one of the shells (pdksh usually). Anyhow, I’m sitting at a machine and type “fg” at the coknsole absentmindedly. It comes back with “Job Control Not Enabled”. Hmm… that sounds familiar. I type “set -J” which was the command to turn on Job Control in my version fo the SysV shell and it replies with “Job Control Enabled.” Holy crap, this is a “ron shell.” After a bit of tracing I found that Doug Gwyn had put my shell on the SystemV on BSD distribution tapes. Then Mach fully included that distribution in theirs, so every one with mach derived source had a “ron shell” for /bin/sh. From tuhs at tuhs.org Wed Mar 4 17:55:23 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Arnold Robbins via TUHS) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:55:23 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <202603040755.6247tNjQ018520@freefriends.org> Ron, Doug Gwyn distributed your changes with his "System 5 on top of BSD" tape, which we had at Georgia Tech. As I recall it, the version we had did not have command line editing, neither csh-style nor vi/emacs style. I went through your changes and backported them to the 4.2 BSD Bourne shell (Boune-gol, anyone?), and posted the diffs to USENET. I also wrote a csh-style history mechanism for the Bourne shell and I'm pretty sure posted it as well. I did other hacking on the System V shell; Rob sent me the V8 sh(1) man page and that inspired me to do a whatis command that knew how to pretty-print shell functions. I may have done a "builtin" command and changed the order so that function were found first, but I don't remember. This would all have been circa 1983-1985. In any case, Ron, I was very grateful for your efforts, as I detested csh's syntax, and refused to use it, even though it meant not having job control. Later on we got ksh86 at Georgia Tech, and I switched to that for day-to-day use, and then even later on when I was at Emory to ksh88. At some point I also made a few contributions to pdksh; my name used to be listed in the doc for it. Upon moving to Linux, Bash became my daily driver and I've been quite happy with it for well over 25 years now (thanks Chet!) Arnold Ron Natalie via TUHS wrote: > I always detested the CSH. The problem was the Sys5 Bourne shell > didn’t support the BSD job control. So, I spent the time to figure out > how it worked in csh (the kernel calls are not exactly well documented), > and hacked it into /bin/sh. Even that wasn’t enough to convince my > coworkers to switch as they were now using the tcsh. So, ,I put > command line editing (to a better implementation having been working on > gosmacs at the time) into /bin/sh. I used it for as long as I was at > BRL. By the time I left, the Korn shell was beginning to make its way > out of the labs. I do remember sitting at a USENIX having a nice > discussion of shell internals with Dave. I also explained carefully > to the guys working on one of the open source shells how it all worked > so they could implement it. For a long time googling my name got shell > manual pages all over the place as the programmers gave me credit. > > Years after the fact I was working for my intelligence imagery company > and we did a lot of work with loaner equipment (our software being > ultraportable we worked on MIPS, Dec Alpha, Itanium, Suns and SGIs of > various configurations Apollo, HP Oki, Masspar, Cray, DG, Stellar, > Ardent, NeXT, IBM (from PCs to RS/6000 to mainframes) etc…). > > Usually the first thing I did is port emacs (having never really learned > vi I always impressed my office mates with how fast I could do stuff > with ed) and one of the shells (pdksh usually). > > Anyhow, I’m sitting at a machine and type “fg” at the coknsole > absentmindedly. It comes back with “Job Control Not Enabled”. Hmm… > that sounds familiar. I type “set -J” which was the command to turn on > Job Control in my version fo the SysV shell and it replies with “Job > Control Enabled.” > Holy crap, this is a “ron shell.” After a bit of tracing I found that > Doug Gwyn had put my shell on the SystemV on BSD distribution tapes. > Then Mach fully included that distribution in theirs, so every one with > mach derived source had a “ron shell” for /bin/sh. From tuhs at tuhs.org Wed Mar 4 19:31:46 2026 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Lars Brinkhoff via TUHS) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 09:31:46 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Other Bell Labs shells from the 80s? In-Reply-To: (Ron Natalie via TUHS's message of "Tue, 03 Mar 2026 15:50:33 +0000") References: <202603020950.6229oMxK017045@freefriends.org> <202603020958.6229wZg6017415@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <7wikbcndod.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Ron Natalie wrote: > Even that wasn’t enough to convince my coworkers to switch as they > were now using the tcsh. I guess they wanted to feel like 10X programmers.