below . . .
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
Glad you did actually get credit, what license was your stuff released under?
License?? we did need no stinking license. We shared it. It was a cute hack I wrote one weekend when I was a grad student. Klein was an old friend from CMU, he wanted it. I sent it to him. ....
I would agree there. I was referring to the current FSF-lead RMS army, not the older project.
rms was who I was refering too at the time (late 1970s, early 1980s). He seems to be the one that took Gosling EMACs and rerouted it and he did not have a debugger for his C compiler. Mark finished up pdx and dbx (and graduated). They started with it and forked it.
below..
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
I honestly don't know for sure, but this is the first I've ever heard of that.
Doing a "portable" stack for RSX would probably be very hard, by the way.
Actually doing a portable stack was hard for any OS, but that was idea. It was written originally in C by Rob Gurweitz and some other ??Bob Walsh maybe?? - I want to say in 1978/79 time frame, using the original Ritchie compiler. There were a ton of tools developed in the UNIX community to move code at the assembler lever from V6/V7 to RT11 & RSX. Look at the old Harvard tape that I think Warren has in his archives if you are interested. I do not remember how it moved the HP's, but there must have been an 3000 or 1000 hack for the Ritchie compiler at HP and/or Berkeley.
As for the BBN portable IP/TCP stack, it is where the famous "mbuf" structure came from. Rob needed an OS independent memory system for incoming packets. The BBN IP/TCP was written to call it, and then on a kernel for kernel basis the mbuf system was written for the native OS.
BTW: for UNIX there was no socket call. It used open and an interesting trick, BBN stole from the MIT Chaos-Net guys.
... you want really bad performance, you want to be close to the kernel,
That was not an goal. You have to remember that at the time of IP's development, every computer firm had it's own proprietary networking scheme. DARPA wanted something that worked on all them, so they paid to have it created and implemented. But it also meant that DARPA needed those implementations of IP/TCP for the system that their primary folks were using - the PDP-10, Multics, UNIX. In some labs (like US Army's BRL if IIRC), there were realtime systems doing specific tasks. HP and DEC were the two firms selling those systems. So BBN needed an implementation of IP that >>worked<< that allowed those systems to connect.
Also remember at the time many of the IMPs are being connected by 9600 baud leased lines - T1s are still not something even DoD would pay to support. So the original BBN stack was to connected to the system via BBN custom created IMP interfaces (which I think I still have the documentation for in my archives for the Unibus version).
But I really thought one of the targets DARPA had for the stack was
RSX-11.
It would be interesting to find out more.
Low, priority for me, but if I come across some of the old doc / mail messages, I'll try to make said available. There is an Internet Protocol Implementors guide circa 1978 I think I still have, and I think it might be in there.
I do remember VMS was not a target, and thus we wrote the original
implementation at Tektronix in 1979, which we gave to CMU via my
connections and would become the basis for the VMS versions.
Is that the Multinet IP for VMS? Never looked at it, but it's been around for a long time. (And several people here are running it.)
Maybe. It was known for years as the CMU/Tektronix IP/TCP stack. Written a combination of BLISS and Macro32. DEC was also use it as their basis much, much later. The original version supported the HyperChannel and the original 3COM adapter. I've forgotten, we might have written the FTP in FORTRAN, I remember we had do some sort of horsing around with FTN. I have vivid memories at the time being the only BLISS programmer at Tek and teach Stan and a few others why I loved and hated it (I had already been turned to the dark side of C - I missed the BLISS optimizer, but definitely preferred the C tools chain).
When we finished it, some of my friends/former colleagues at CMU/CS asked me for it, we made it available (no stinking GPL, or calling it "open source" - we just shared it). They wrote the mail 11 interface and cleaned the whole thing up a great deal.
Clem
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
The GNU project would never borrow userspace code.
Careful here -- a lot of the original Gnu code was borrowed. Gnu Emacs was
a rewrite Goslings (CMU) Emacs. gdb was based on Mark Linton's pdx/dbx
from Berkeley. The Gnu dialector is based on something I wrote at UCB and
that Dan Klein would rewrite (we do get credit).
Simply, there is a bunch of the Gnu original code that has hazy provenance.
Sadly, I have been part of the some the torts associated with some of these.
But no one should try to say they are holier than anyone else.
That said, my experience is that by the 1990s the Gnu project was better
about understanding provenance, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they took what
ever they could get.
Clem
Hello!
Clem will correct me, but I do know from reading Clifford Stoll's
excellent book "Cuckoo's Egg" that RMS worked on creating software
regarding the GNU Project, and mentioned the circumstances behind it
there, he specified Emacs as one lurid example because of its
popularity and much of the insanity that Clem relates did happen.
The early kernel TCP/IP stack contains references to the BSD one, and
the Manpages do mention it.
However they did fix some of the inherent bugs.
Anything else is still Dave's fault.
--
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On 16 Feb 2013, at 20:21, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-02-17 02:14, Clem Cole wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net
<mailto:b4 at gewt.net>> wrote:
The GNU project would never borrow userspace code.
Careful here -- a lot of the original Gnu code was borrowed. Gnu Emacs
was a rewrite Goslings (CMU) Emacs.
Well, to be honest Gosling's Emacs is just a rewrite of the TENEX TECO Emacs, which returns us back to RMS again...
(And I was never very fond of Gosmacs with it's Mocklisp. Pretty awful.)
:-)
Simply, there is a bunch of the Gnu original code that has hazy
provenance. Sadly, I have been part of the some the torts associated
with some of these. But no one should try to say they are holier than
anyone else.
That said, my experience is that by the 1990s the Gnu project was better
about understanding provenance, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they took
what ever they could get.
The GNU Project didn't even exist in the 70s, exce t perhaps in the brain of RMS. I remember when the GNU Manifesto came out.
(The GNU Project was started in 1983 now that I checked up on it.)
However, I was expecting someone to bring up the question of what GNU have to do with this. We're talking about the TCP/IP of Linux. Linux is a project of Linus Thorvalds. Still not part of GNU. -)
The kernel is GPL-licensed though, with a lot off people vilifying those that don't conform to a GPL-only original code policy. ;) I kinda lump kernel developers, the GNU project, and the FSF project together...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 2013-02-17 02:14, Clem Cole wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net
<mailto:b4 at gewt.net>> wrote:
The GNU project would never borrow userspace code.
Careful here -- a lot of the original Gnu code was borrowed. Gnu Emacs
was a rewrite Goslings (CMU) Emacs.
Well, to be honest Gosling's Emacs is just a rewrite of the TENEX TECO Emacs, which returns us back to RMS again...
(And I was never very fond of Gosmacs with it's Mocklisp. Pretty awful.)
:-)
Simply, there is a bunch of the Gnu original code that has hazy
provenance. Sadly, I have been part of the some the torts associated
with some of these. But no one should try to say they are holier than
anyone else.
That said, my experience is that by the 1990s the Gnu project was better
about understanding provenance, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they took
what ever they could get.
The GNU Project didn't even exist in the 70s, exce t perhaps in the brain of RMS. I remember when the GNU Manifesto came out.
(The GNU Project was started in 1983 now that I checked up on it.)
However, I was expecting someone to bring up the question of what GNU have to do with this. We're talking about the TCP/IP of Linux. Linux is a project of Linus Thorvalds. Still not part of GNU. -)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 16 Feb 2013, at 20:14, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
The GNU project would never borrow userspace code.
Careful here -- a lot of the original Gnu code was borrowed. Gnu Emacs was a rewrite Goslings (CMU) Emacs. gdb was based on Mark Linton's pdx/dbx from Berkeley. The Gnu dialector is based on something I wrote at UCB and that Dan Klein would rewrite (we do get credit).
I was just restating what some of the vocal proponents often proclaim.
Glad you did actually get credit, what license was your stuff released under?
Simply, there is a bunch of the Gnu original code that has hazy provenance. Sadly, I have been part of the some the torts associated with some of these. But no one should try to say they are holier than anyone else.
I based my comment on how they always go on about how they're going for "freedom" and "clean-room implementations" It doesn't surprise me at all that they can be rather two-faced.
That said, my experience is that by the 1990s the Gnu project was better about understanding provenance, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they took what ever they could get.
I would agree there. I was referring to the current FSF-lead RMS army, not the older project.
Clem
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
The GNU project would never borrow userspace code.
Careful here -- a lot of the original Gnu code was borrowed. Gnu Emacs was a rewrite Goslings (CMU) Emacs. gdb was based on Mark Linton's pdx/dbx from Berkeley. The Gnu dialector is based on something I wrote at UCB and that Dan Klein would rewrite (we do get credit).
Simply, there is a bunch of the Gnu original code that has hazy provenance. Sadly, I have been part of the some the torts associated with some of these. But no one should try to say they are holier than anyone else.
That said, my experience is that by the 1990s the Gnu project was better about understanding provenance, but in the 1970s and 1980s, they took what ever they could get.
Clem
On 2013-02-17 02:05, Clem Cole wrote:
BTW: the bits have definitely rotted in my brain here, but I thought the
BBN "portable" stack was targeted to RSX years ago, I know it ran on
one of the HP systems (do not remember if it was the 3000 or the 1000).
I honestly don't know for sure, but this is the first I've ever heard of that.
Doing a "portable" stack for RSX would probably be very hard, by the way. There are definitely some quirks in RSX to take into consideration making it less easy to do something generic. In addition, unless you want really bad performance, you want to be close to the kernel, which severely restricts your memory size, making anything written in a high level language very hard. Not to mention that there are no "official" support for writing any code that interfaces to the kernel in any high level language. Not that I even could think of what language that portable stack would have been written in. C was not on the table for RSX for a long time. FORTRAN is hardly suitable, and DEC used BLISS internally, but that was not really available to the outside.
But I really thought one of the targets DARPA had for the stack was
RSX-11.
It would be interesting to find out more.
I do remember VMS was not a target, and thus we wrote the original
implementation at Tektronix in 1979, which we gave to CMU via my
connections and would become the basis for the VMS versions.
Is that the Multinet IP for VMS? Never looked at it, but it's been around for a long time. (And several people here are running it.)
Johnny
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com
<mailto:clemc at ccc.com>> wrote:
right.
the Linux implementation is not the BBN/BSD scheme, but I agree
/ I'd be shocked if the Linux folks had not looked at
NET2/FreeBSD/NetBSD code (and it's too bad the Linux folks never
looked at the BBN releases post Joy's messing with the BBN version).
Note that BBN was not partly at fault for that. Very few
people ever got to see the later versions I fear.
The excuse was always CMU/MIT/BSD license vs. GNU GPL - but I
personally think was an excuse to say they needed to do it over.
Sigh...
Clem
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
On 2013-02-17 01:28, Clem Cole wrote:
Linux ip/tcp stack is not the bbn/bsd derived code. it was
independently developed so the fact that they are
differences is not surprising. one of my own personal
gripes about Linux is the desire/need to redo things from
scratch (ext fs comes to find here also).
I seem to remember that they have in fact had several
implementations, as their first attempts really sucked (Linux
people take some pride in the many iterations they do of
implementations, it would seem).
I would not be surprised to learn that after a few failed
attempts, they "borrows" parts of the BSD code for their TCP/IP,
but I have not looked properly at it in quite a number of years.
Johnny
On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Gregg Levine
<gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com <mailto:gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
On 2013-02-16 01:13, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Hi. As I'm working on my TCP/IP for RSX, I just
noticed something that I
think looks funny in Linux. But right now my
head is also spinning, so
maybe there is something I've just forgotten, or
don't know, which
explains this. But if anyone can shed some
light, I'd be interested.
Just for the record - I *think* that TCP/IP in
Linux is misbehaving, but
it's not really hurting anything, but I like my
TCP/IP to really do
things as right and optimal as possible.
[...]
Any thoughts, opinions or knowledge always welcome.
Not that I've come any closer to figuring it all
out, however I thought I
should mention that I've checked some more against
both NetBSD and OS/X and
neither show the behavior I observe in Linux, so I
think I'm just going to
attribute this to a crappy implementation on the
Linux side. That's not the
first time Linux code turns out to be bad, so I'm
not totally surprised...
(And yes, I also tried VMS actually... :-) )
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a
psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>
|| Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay
hip" - B. Idol
Hello!
Johnny I've been arguing with the stack for Linux for
about as many
years as I've known about the idea of emulating our
friends, the
PDP-11 crowd and those Vaxes. And sadly it happens to be
something of
a kludge. Alan Cox and the others behind it are
constantly sorting it
out. Fact is, three-quarters of it, happens to be from
the land of BSD
and fitted into it rather awkwardly.
So your discoveries must be a surprise to a lot of us,
but it confirms
what I've known all along.
Incidentally Dave this isn't your fault.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
<mailto:gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com>
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se> ||
Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
BTW: the bits have definitely rotted in my brain here, but I thought the BBN "portable" stack was targeted to RSX years ago, I know it ran on one of the HP systems (do not remember if it was the 3000 or the 1000). But I really thought one of the targets DARPA had for the stack was RSX-11.
I do remember VMS was not a target, and thus we wrote the original implementation at Tektronix in 1979, which we gave to CMU via my connections and would become the basis for the VMS versions.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
right.
the Linux implementation is not the BBN/BSD scheme, but I agree / I'd be shocked if the Linux folks had not looked at NET2/FreeBSD/NetBSD code (and it's too bad the Linux folks never looked at the BBN releases post Joy's messing with the BBN version). Note that BBN was not partly at fault for that. Very few people ever got to see the later versions I fear.
The excuse was always CMU/MIT/BSD license vs. GNU GPL - but I personally think was an excuse to say they needed to do it over. Sigh...
Clem
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-02-17 01:28, Clem Cole wrote:
Linux ip/tcp stack is not the bbn/bsd derived code. it was independently developed so the fact that they are differences is not surprising. one of my own personal gripes about Linux is the desire/need to redo things from scratch (ext fs comes to find here also).
I seem to remember that they have in fact had several implementations, as their first attempts really sucked (Linux people take some pride in the many iterations they do of implementations, it would seem).
I would not be surprised to learn that after a few failed attempts, they "borrows" parts of the BSD code for their TCP/IP, but I have not looked properly at it in quite a number of years.
Johnny
On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-02-16 01:13, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Hi. As I'm working on my TCP/IP for RSX, I just noticed something that I
think looks funny in Linux. But right now my head is also spinning, so
maybe there is something I've just forgotten, or don't know, which
explains this. But if anyone can shed some light, I'd be interested.
Just for the record - I *think* that TCP/IP in Linux is misbehaving, but
it's not really hurting anything, but I like my TCP/IP to really do
things as right and optimal as possible.
[...]
Any thoughts, opinions or knowledge always welcome.
Not that I've come any closer to figuring it all out, however I thought I
should mention that I've checked some more against both NetBSD and OS/X and
neither show the behavior I observe in Linux, so I think I'm just going to
attribute this to a crappy implementation on the Linux side. That's not the
first time Linux code turns out to be bad, so I'm not totally surprised...
(And yes, I also tried VMS actually... :-) )
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Hello!
Johnny I've been arguing with the stack for Linux for about as many
years as I've known about the idea of emulating our friends, the
PDP-11 crowd and those Vaxes. And sadly it happens to be something of
a kludge. Alan Cox and the others behind it are constantly sorting it
out. Fact is, three-quarters of it, happens to be from the land of BSD
and fitted into it rather awkwardly.
So your discoveries must be a surprise to a lot of us, but it confirms
what I've known all along.
Incidentally Dave this isn't your fault.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
right.
the Linux implementation is not the BBN/BSD scheme, but I agree / I'd be shocked if the Linux folks had not looked at NET2/FreeBSD/NetBSD code (and it's too bad the Linux folks never looked at the BBN releases post Joy's messing with the BBN version). Note that BBN was not partly at fault for that. Very few people ever got to see the later versions I fear.
The excuse was always CMU/MIT/BSD license vs. GNU GPL - but I personally think was an excuse to say they needed to do it over. Sigh...
Clem
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-02-17 01:28, Clem Cole wrote:
Linux ip/tcp stack is not the bbn/bsd derived code. it was independently developed so the fact that they are differences is not surprising. one of my own personal gripes about Linux is the desire/need to redo things from scratch (ext fs comes to find here also).
I seem to remember that they have in fact had several implementations, as their first attempts really sucked (Linux people take some pride in the many iterations they do of implementations, it would seem).
I would not be surprised to learn that after a few failed attempts, they "borrows" parts of the BSD code for their TCP/IP, but I have not looked properly at it in quite a number of years.
Johnny
On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-02-16 01:13, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Hi. As I'm working on my TCP/IP for RSX, I just noticed something that I
think looks funny in Linux. But right now my head is also spinning, so
maybe there is something I've just forgotten, or don't know, which
explains this. But if anyone can shed some light, I'd be interested.
Just for the record - I *think* that TCP/IP in Linux is misbehaving, but
it's not really hurting anything, but I like my TCP/IP to really do
things as right and optimal as possible.
[...]
Any thoughts, opinions or knowledge always welcome.
Not that I've come any closer to figuring it all out, however I thought I
should mention that I've checked some more against both NetBSD and OS/X and
neither show the behavior I observe in Linux, so I think I'm just going to
attribute this to a crappy implementation on the Linux side. That's not the
first time Linux code turns out to be bad, so I'm not totally surprised...
(And yes, I also tried VMS actually... :-) )
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Hello!
Johnny I've been arguing with the stack for Linux for about as many
years as I've known about the idea of emulating our friends, the
PDP-11 crowd and those Vaxes. And sadly it happens to be something of
a kludge. Alan Cox and the others behind it are constantly sorting it
out. Fact is, three-quarters of it, happens to be from the land of BSD
and fitted into it rather awkwardly.
So your discoveries must be a surprise to a lot of us, but it confirms
what I've known all along.
Incidentally Dave this isn't your fault.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
