View source | |
# 2025-08-28 - Unix, 1985 Computer Chronicles | |
I have been meaning to watch the Unix episode of Computer Chronicles | |
for years, and finally got around to watching it. It's 28 minutes | |
long and it's pretty dry in my opinion. | |
Watch: Unix (1985) | |
Computer Chronicles (Wikipedia) | |
Interviewees include: | |
Bill Joy | |
Gary Kildall | |
John Mashey | |
This episode showcases a unique piece of Unix retrocomputing hardware: | |
The HP Integral PC. It ran HP-UX from ROM and shipped with well under | |
1 MB of memory. | |
HP Integral PC | |
Another piece of retrocomputing kit in this episde is the Tandy 16B. | |
> The 16B was the most popular Unix computer in 1984, with almost | |
> 40,000 units sold. | |
List of Tandy branded computers (Wikipedia) | |
A past colleague of mine described setting up a Tandy 6000 for an | |
auto dealership. I seem to recall he said it had 3 terminals: the | |
console plus two serial terminals. He said the C compiler was | |
expensive, so he wrote everything in macro assembler. IIRC, he used | |
a freeware macro processor to write ASM code in a more C-like way. | |
Below is S.M. Oliva's blog post about this episode. | |
# UNIX System V SVR 2, BSD 4.2, and the HP Integral PC | |
In 1969, a computer scientist at Bell Labs named Ken Thompson wrote | |
an operating system for a Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-7 | |
minicomputer that he initially dubbed /Unics/. This was later renamed | |
/UNIX/ and continued to be developed at Bell throughout the 1970s, | |
with each numbered version corresponding to the current edition of | |
the accompanying /UNIX Programmer's Manual/. In fact, just a few days | |
ago marked the 50th anniversary of UNIX Version 1, dated | |
November 3, 1971. | |
PDP7 | |
UNIX Version 1 | |
Under a 1956 antitrust consent decree with the U.S. Department of | |
Justice, the Bell System (which owned Bell Labs) could not market | |
UNIX as a commercial product. Nevertheless, Bell offered highly | |
restricted UNIX source code licenses to corporate and educational | |
customers. Basically, these licenses offered UNIX "as is" without any | |
warranty or commercial support. | |
One of these early UNIX licensees was the University of California, | |
Berkeley. While on sabbatical from Bell Labs in 1975, Thompson helped | |
Berkeley install what was then UNIX version 6. Berkeley then created | |
its own derivative that became known as the Berkeley Software | |
Distribution (BSD) 1.0. | |
Fast forward to 1985. Another federal antitrust case led to the | |
breakup of the Bell System into AT&T and several regional telephone | |
companies. One consequence of this was that the 1956 consent decree's | |
prohibition on marketing commercial products no longer applied. This | |
meant AT&T, which retained ownership of UNIX, could now offer it as a | |
commercially supported product. This led to the release of UNIX | |
System III in 1982, followed by UNIX System V in 1983. (Don't ask me | |
why there was no System IV.) | |
This leads into our next /Computer Chronicles/ episode from early | |
1985, which focused on the current state of UNIX. At this point the | |
most recent AT&T release was UNIX System V, version 2 (SVR2 or 5.2) | |
and BSD was now at version 4.2. There were also several other UNIX | |
derivatives active on the market, such as XENIX (originally developed | |
by Microsoft and based on System III), SunOS (a BSD 4.2-derivative | |
used by Sun Microsystems), and the newly created HP-UX (a | |
Hewlett-Packard System III derivative), which was featured in one of | |
this episode's product demonstrations. | |
## Eunuchs on a Computer Show? | |
Stewart Cheifet did his cold open for this week from some | |
unidentified facility running a bunch of UNIX machines. We see one | |
man running an Amdahl 580 mainframe. Cheifet noted that while there | |
was a time when UNIX was only used on these types of large computer | |
systems. But nowadays, UNIX was showing on personal computers, such | |
as the Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 16B. Could this mean UNIX will become | |
the next MS-DOS? | |
Amdahl 580 | |
In the studio, Cheifet relayed this anecdote to Gary Kildall: "Gary, | |
I told a friend of mine we were doing a show on UNIX. And he said to | |
me, 'Why in the world would you want to feature a eunuch on a | |
computer show?'" The moral of the story, Cheifet said, was that while | |
some computer people were talking about nothing but UNIX, many | |
personal computer users didn't even know what UNIX was. So why all | |
the sudden excitement about UNIX? Kildall replied that the excitement | |
wasn't really sudden. UNIX itself had been around since the late | |
1960s. The problem was that microcomputers didn't have the power to | |
support UNIX in terms of memory, hard disk capacity, processor speed, | |
and so forth. Now there were micros that did have such power, which | |
made UNIX a serious contender for an operating system standard. | |
## Could UNIX Prove Itself on Micros? | |
Wendy Woods' first remote segment for the week featured B-roll of | |
UNIX-based computer systems in use at the University of California, | |
Berkeley. Woods noted the original UNIX developed at Bell Labs in the | |
1960s was later adopted by the University of California for academic | |
research and publishing. Here at Berkeley, the history of science | |
department relied on a network of UNIX terminals to typeset their | |
journals and directories. | |
Why use UNIX? Woods said that apart from the fact a major version of | |
UNIX was developed at Berkeley, UNIX was an eminently portable system | |
that ran on everything from micros to minis to mainframes. UNIX could | |
be easily adapted to these different systems with few or no changes | |
required. | |
Woods said that the typical UNIX network ran on minicomputers. | |
User-initiated tasks were distributed among the computers through | |
port selectors. But the advantages of UNIX were not limited to | |
multi-user portability. The system was also fast and powerful. Once | |
the user had mastered UNIX's "unorthodox" commands, Woods said they | |
were rewarded with some very sophisticated features such as | |
background processing. This meant that after initiating a task, the | |
user could initiate a second task while the system continued to work | |
on the first. | |
Surrounding the kernel of the UNIX system, Woods said, was a shell or | |
central command interpreter that redirected applications, controlled | |
input and output, manipulated files, and stored command sequences. | |
The shell structure was user-friendly and allowed even a first-time | |
user to perform complex tasks. Indeed, Woods said that UNIX users | |
gave the system high marks for versatility, but up until now the | |
operating system had been largely confined to a small group of | |
specialized users. The question was whether or not UNIX could prove | |
its value to the "rest of us." | |
## "The Normal Behavior Was to Find a Guru or Wizard and Chain Him to | |
## the Machine" | |
In the studio, Mark Sobell and John Mashey joined Cheifet and | |
Kildall. Cheifet asked Kildall to provide a brief background on UNIX. | |
Kildall explained that UNIX had "come down from" the world of | |
minicomputers to microcomputers. UNIX carried with it the C | |
programming language, the UNIX file system, and the UNIX interface. | |
Kildall noted the C language in particular was wildly successful on a | |
lot of operating systems, although the user interface still needed to | |
be addressed, as it was considered unfriendly. | |
With that, Kildall asked Sobell, the author of | |
/A Practical Guide to the UNIX System/, to demonstrate an application | |
that aimed to make UNIX more user friendly. Sobell explained that | |
UNIX involved using a lot of short commands, as it was originally | |
designed for terminals that ran slowly off of teletypes. Today, you | |
were seeing more applications built with user interfaces derived from | |
MS-DOS. Using an AT&T-branded UNIX workstation, Sobell demonstrated | |
one application, called File It, which he said incorporated UI | |
elements from /Lotus 1-2-3/. | |
Kildall said that one of the ideas pioneered by UNIX was the idea of | |
software portability--i.e., you could move an application around to | |
various types of computers. Mashey, who worked on UNIX at Bell Labs | |
in the early 1970s and was now with MIPS Computer Systems, said that | |
was probably the most important aspect of UNIX. He said UNIX started | |
out on some Digital Equipment Corporation machines and had since been | |
moved to between 50 and 100 different kinds of processors. That was | |
important because if you were investing a lot of effort to build | |
software, it was helpful to know that you could move it around, say | |
from a personal computer to a large mainframe. | |
Kildall added this was also true for software designers, because they | |
could take a language like C and its standard runtime library and | |
write an application that would run on UNIX as well as MS-DOS or | |
Digital Research's Concurrent DOS. Mashey noted that it was the fact | |
you could move C programs very easily that also made it possible to | |
move UNIX to other machines. | |
Kildall noted that one criticism of UNIX was that it had been | |
unreliable. Was that still the case? Mashey said he thought UNIX was | |
fairly reliable these days. He (semi) joked that, "originally when | |
you got your UNIX system, the normal behavior was to find a guru or | |
wizard and chain him to the machine," so that someone was there to | |
pick up the pieces when the computer broke. That was around | |
1972-1973, he said. But as UNIX started moving into computer centers | |
and more people depended on it, a lot of work was done to make it a | |
much more reliable system. Today, UNIX was used in some fairly | |
demanding applications. He added that one thing many people didn't | |
realize was that UNIX touched them through the telephone system | |
almost every day--if you wanted to get your phone fixed, the system | |
that tracked all that work was run by UNIX. | |
Cheifet chimed in at this point, noting that while Sobell's earlier | |
demo showed how you could "friendly up" UNIX to make it look like | |
MS-DOS, why should the average PC user care? What did they get from a | |
UNIX-based application that they couldn't get from a DOS application? | |
Sobell replied that everyone didn't want UNIX. If a user had a DOS | |
system running their applications and it did what they needed it to, | |
then maybe UNIX wasn't for them. As for the advantages of UNIX, | |
Sobell said it was a multi-user operating system. For example, he | |
could perform a query and look at data while at the same time another | |
user could change that same data or run a graphics or word processing | |
package on the same machine. So everyone didn't need to fight over | |
one machine. | |
Sobell also reiterated that UNIX was a multi-tasking operating | |
system. Kildall pointed out that UNIX was no longer the only | |
microcomputer operating system with that feature. He noted that IBM's | |
forthcoming TopView would have multi-tasking, and his own Concurrent | |
DOS did as well. Sobell added that at some point in the future, local | |
area networking would be a viable alternative to the traditional | |
multi-user environment. Right now, he said, "You can't plug every | |
computer into the same network." But that was something to watch for | |
in the future. | |
Kildall ended the segment by bringing up the subject of graphics. He | |
said that assuming TopView would address the problem of a | |
standardized graphics interface, at least as far as the PC was | |
concerned, what would that mean in terms of the evolving UNIX | |
standard for graphics display? Mashey said at this point it was hard | |
to tell. UNIX was originally designed for fairly slow-speed | |
terminals. That was still its standard interface. UNIX had also | |
become fairly standard in its handling of CRT displays. But work | |
still needed to be done in the graphics standards. | |
## Bill Joy on the Future of BSD and Its "Open Source Code" | |
Before returning to the studio for the final round table, Wendy Woods | |
presented her second remote feature, this time on Sun Microsystems | |
and one of its co-founders, Bill Joy, who was also behind the | |
Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) 4.2 version of UNIX. Woods said | |
the success of BSD could be measured by the success of Sun itself, | |
which produced a line of minicomputers and workstations based on the | |
4.2 release. Woods noted that Sun had grown from 6 to 1,000 employees | |
in just three years. The company currently shipped more than $7 | |
million in equipment each month, primarily to the technology and | |
engineering communities, which found BSD 4.2 the ideal operating | |
environment for their specialized software needs. | |
Despite this success, however, Woods said Joy wasn't allowing BSD 4.2 | |
to stagnate. He continued to work closely with his university roots | |
to improve upon UNIX. Joy told Woods that UNIX had hit the point | |
where we were "starting to get standardized by standards committees" | |
and there was an attempt by major corporations like IBM and AT&T to | |
control development. That inevitably meant slowing down the rate of | |
change in the operating system. | |
Regarding the future of BSD, Woods said its "open source code," | |
versatility, and ability to work on a variety of machines meant it | |
would remain popular with scientists and engineers for some time. Joy | |
added that UNIX would be important if it could deliver applications | |
that people wanted to run. The technology market needed more | |
operating system capabilities than you were likely to see from the | |
smaller systems. In that sense, Joy said there really wasn't an | |
alternative application delivery vehicle at the moment. | |
But would UNIX ever make it big in the business market, Woods asked | |
in narration. She said Joy doubted it. He said what would be needed | |
was a UNIX-based program like /Lotus 1-2-3/--something big and | |
successful. And until that was written, Joy was not super hopeful | |
about UNIX's future as a business OS. | |
## Why Were There So Many Versions of UNIX? | |
Back in the studio, Doug Hartman and Mike Denney joined Cheifet and | |
Kildall. Hartman was a UNIX specialist with Hewlett-Packard, which | |
had recently released a new UNIX-based microcomputer, the HP Integral | |
PC. Kildall opened by noting that microcomputer users now expected | |
some form of graphical animated communication with their programs. | |
Hartman said the Integral relied on "Windows menus" to give the user | |
a friendlier UI. | |
HP Integral PC | |
The HP Integral PC, a portable computer featuring a detachable | |
keyboard, a small black-and-amber screen, and a 3.5-inch floppy disk | |
drive attached to the side of the monitor. [And a built-in printer.] | |
Sticking to his main talking point from earlier, Cheifet asked how | |
this made UNIX special, given that non-UNIX computers could do some | |
of this stuff as well. Hartman, also sticking to the talking points, | |
said UNIX offered compatibility with other machines and software | |
portability. He said the idea that you could take programs written on | |
one machine and bring them to another UNIX machine with very little | |
effort made by the software developer's job easier. | |
Cheifet then asked if his guests could clear up the confusion | |
regarding the different UNIX variants. He listed just a few: BSD 4.2, | |
Xenix, UNIX, HP-UX, PCIX, System III, and System V. "Why are there so | |
many versions of UNIX?," he asked. Denney replied, "Just luck." | |
Denney, the co-founder of a company called Basis, Inc., explained | |
that the proliferation of names besides UNIX was dictated by AT&T's | |
requirement that you not call any of the derivatives UNIX. This meant | |
every manufacturer had to come up with their own name. For the most | |
part, however, everything was fairly standard. A Xenix machine looked | |
like UNIX to him. It might have a few extras here and there, but to | |
move even between the BSD and AT&T camps of UNIX showed they were | |
very strikingly the same. | |
Kildall asked why system programmers felt the need to make local | |
changes? He then managed to answer his own question by citing | |
something that happened at Digital Research. Kildall said he walked | |
into his computer center one night and asked one of the programmers | |
about an I/O statement that wasn't working right. The programmer then | |
made changes right there and compiled it on the spot. This meant they | |
were now running a different operating system. Denney noted that | |
everyone "improved" the UNIX recipe that they received from | |
grandma--or in this case, Ma Bell--and in particular, computer | |
manufacturers received original UNIX source code and implemented it | |
for different target markets. | |
Kildall asked about AT&T's role in all this. Were they trying to | |
bring all of these different versions back into one standard? Denney | |
said it was quite apparent that AT&T would like to define System V | |
SVR 2 (5.2) as the standard. But there was also the competing BSD 4.2 | |
standard. They were actually quite different in terms of the | |
underlying code, although they looked similar to the outside user, | |
with the difference of some utilities. Indeed, Denney said it was | |
quite common for manufacturers to adopt System V but put BSD | |
utilities on top as extensions. | |
Kildall added that IBM also supported a couple different versions of | |
UNIX. Was this just to fill the market out or were they really | |
getting behind it? After all, IBM and AT&T were competitors. Denney | |
said he wasn't sure but pointed out that AT&T did use IBM computers | |
in its organization. | |
Cheifet turned back to Hartman and asked about HP-UX, which was | |
Hewlett-Packard's implementation of UNIX on the Integral PC. Cheifet | |
noted this was a $5,000 PC. And earlier, Cheifet said Mark Sobell | |
used an AT&T machine priced between $12,000 and $15,000. Did we lose | |
anything in the implementation of UNIX on these lower-cost machines? | |
Hartman said the one thing left out of the Integral was the hard | |
drive, which would allow the user to do their own program | |
development. But by leaving out the hard drive, that allowed HP to | |
reduce cost while leaving the user enough memory to run | |
applications. | |
Cheifet said he'd read in the trade papers recently that Commodore | |
had plans to come out with a "Mac lookalike" running UNIX. Was that | |
possible? Hartman said the technology was certainly there to do such | |
a machine. It was a question of if the applications were there to | |
support the home user. Kildall remarked that if this rumor were true, | |
Commodore's machine would have to be different than the standard | |
computer they sold at K-Mart. | |
The main part of the episode then concluded with yet another | |
discussion of the relative advantages of UNIX over other operating | |
systems, which largely reiterated the earlier talking points. | |
## "The Wrong Tool in the Wrong Place" | |
Paul Schindler's commentary can be summed up by this statement: "UNIX | |
is the wrong tool in the wrong place in the micro world." He argued | |
that UNIX was nothing more than a development environment for | |
minicomputers. But using it on a micro was akin to using a | |
screwdriver to open a can of tomato juice instead of a can opener | |
(which he demonstrated). Schindler largely dismissed UNIX's | |
advantages in terms of software portability, noting that there were | |
"incompatible UNIX dialects galore," and UNIX was ultimately a | |
"user-hostile operating system" that was dramatically short on | |
software. | |
## H-P Managed to Pack UNIX Down Onto a Single ROM Chip | |
UNIX was a heavy operating system by the microcomputer standards of | |
the time. For example the Commodore 64, the most popular home | |
computer around 1984-1985, had a built-in ROM that contained both the | |
computer's operating system and the BASIC programming language on a | |
single 16 KB chip. In contrast, the HP Integral PC seen in this | |
episode came with a 256 KB ROM that included the HP-UX operating | |
system and the accompanying user interface. Of course, the Integral | |
PC started somewhere around $5,000 while the Commodore 64 could be | |
had for around $150 by early 1985. | |
And Hewlett-Packard had to put quite a bit of work to make a UNIX | |
operating system fit onto a 256 KB ROM. Keep in mind, UNIX | |
traditionally required a hard drive, as the typical size of a full | |
installation was around 6 MB. As Doug Hartman explained, HP decided | |
to forego the hard drive to keep costs down, so instead the engineers | |
decided to build what they described as a "RAM-based emulation of a | |
disc device" to mount the UNIX root file system. | |
In a Hewlett-Packard Journal article detailing the Integral PC's | |
development, Ray M. Fajardo, Andrew L. Rood, James R. Andrews, and | |
Robert C. Cline claimed they had developed the "first RAM disc for a | |
personal computer to manage its own space" dynamically. This meant | |
unused RAM disc space was not "statically allocated" and could be | |
"periodically freed for use by the rest of the system." The authors | |
claimed this actually made the RAM disc perform better than a hard | |
drive as there was no "time-consuming mechanical head movement." | |
Hewlett-Packard Journal, Oct 1985 | |
The authors also decided to eliminate the traditional UNIX practice | |
of storing data in an "intermediate buffer" before writing it to | |
disc, which they said made the file system "extremely susceptible to | |
corruption," especially if the user suddenly removed a disc. For this | |
reason, the Integral PC "immediately posted" all user data to disc | |
without using any buffer, so that if the user pulled the disc out | |
suddenly it would not damage the file system. The Integral also | |
contained special processes for automatically mounting removable | |
discs, which was not standard UNIX practice at the time. | |
I don't get the sense that HP managed to sell that many Integral PCs. | |
As one writer, Nick Walker of Personal Computer World, noted in his | |
June 1985 review of the Integral, "If a UNIX machine was what you are | |
looking for, then this may well be the cheapest way of obtaining one | |
with the added advantage of portability, although higher-priced UNIX | |
machines will be muti-user and higher performance." Walker added that | |
he was initially skeptical about a ROM-based UNIX system, but he | |
thought HP had managed to create a "machine that makes an awful lot | |
of computer power easy to use." | |
Integral PC Review, Personal Computer World, Jun 1985, p.144 | |
While the Integral PC might not have been a market blockbuster, the | |
HP-UX derivative of UNIX proved to have significant staying power. | |
Hewlett-Packard Enterprise continues to develop the operating system | |
for servers up until the present day. | |
## The Looming UNIX Wars | |
Although Bill Joy came from Berkeley, the other co-founders of Sun | |
Microsystems were from Stanford University. ("Sun" was derived from | |
the initials of the "Stanford University Network.") During the 1980s, | |
Sun was known as the place to buy UNIX-based workstations. According | |
to a history published by FundingUniverse, Sun was the | |
"fastest-growing company in the United States" between 1985 and 1989, | |
with a "compound annual growth rate of 145 percent." | |
As Wendy Woods noted, much of that success was powered by Bill Joy's | |
work on BSD 4.2 and its associated utilities. This ultimately led to | |
a 1987 alliance with AT&T in an attempt to unify the BSD and System V | |
code bases. That, in turn, led to the so-called "UNIX wars." I won't | |
go into detail on this right now, but suffice to say there were other | |
UNIX licensees who were opposed to the AT&T-Sun alliance. These | |
licensees created a new organization, the Open Software Foundation, | |
to promote a competing standard. | |
To make a very long story short, the UNIX wars led to the creation of | |
new BSD derivatives that did not use any of the copyrighted AT&T UNIX | |
code. These BSD derivatives are still in active use and development | |
today under a number of projects, notably FreeBSD, NetBSD, and | |
OpenBSD. | |
As for AT&T, it ended development of System V after version 4 and | |
transitioned to a joint venture with Novell to make a new UNIX system | |
called UnixWare. Novell later took over the project on its own before | |
transferring it to the Santa Cruz Operation in the mid-1990s. | |
Meanwhile, Sun continued to develop its own SunOS, re-basing its | |
later releases on System V and renaming the project Solaris. After | |
Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems in 2010, it renamed the operating | |
system Oracle Solaris. | |
From: https://www.smoliva.blog/post/computer-chronicles-revisited-032-system-v-… | |
tags: retrocomputing,technical,unix,video | |
# Tags | |
retrocomputing | |
technical | |
unix | |
video |