RE: https://techhub.social/@rayckeith/116370449957346533

Didn't Windows 95 do this too?!?

For fuck's sake, Apple, get your shit together and stop reinventing 30 year old 32 bit Windows bugs!

@cstross Such bugs are far older than that.

The place I studied as an undergrad had a PDP-10 for campus-wide time sharing. ca. 1979 official IT staff (not that they were called that) moved most of their effort to getting new VAXes going as replacements. As part of that, they cancelled the weekly downtime to run diagnostics on the PDP-10.

That revealed a long-standing bug in TOP-10: some internal counter (I forget what, can't have been simple uptime in clock ticks on a system with 36-bit words) overflowed after about a month of uptime, causing havoc.

I forget whether DEC supplied a fix, IT staff (or us students helping keep the -10 running) rolled our own, or we just scheduled monthly reboots.

@oclsc @cstross TIMEVX:: forever! (I may boot up a VMS emulator and see if mined still compiles on it, someday).

@oddhack @cstross I was happy to leave VMS behind when I left California. I wish I could do the same with Linux and return to something that really feels like Unix, but that doesn't exist any more.

Need to find time to assemble, at long last, my PiDP-11 and run 7/e on it.

@oclsc @cstross Free/OpenBSD do not count?
@oddhack @cstross Both have cat -v and worse.

@oddhack

For context:

The -v option to cat was introduced to AT&T #Unix in 1987 with System 5 Release 3, so @oclsc is looking for something that's older than even late 1980s #Unix.

I don't know what old versions of #Xenix one could get up and running nowadays.

@cstross
#cat #retrocomputing #ComputerHistory

@JdeBP @oddhack @oclsc @cstross

I attended a mid-80s Unix conference (Toronto) where Rob Pike complained that “cat went off to Berkeley and came back waving flags”. I think his talk was an early exploration of what would become known as “the Unix philosophy”

@lain_7

It's interesting that not even Pike's paper gives an indication of who actually originated the -v option to cat.

The contemporary literature that I have kept explicitly says that it was new in S5R3, but alas covers AT&T better than BSD.

It doesn't say whether AT&T #Unix got it from BSD or vice versa.

@oddhack @oclsc @cstross
#cat #retrocomputing #ComputerHistory

@JdeBP @lain_7 @oddhack @cstross cat -v came from Berkeley. Rob didn't give a Usenix talk until 1983 but -v existed (and was a target of various naughty emotions amonst us purists) in 4.0 BSD. I just checked my paper copy of the 3BSD and 4.0 BSD manuals; the latter is dated November 1980.

One example of the wrongheadedness (at least as people like me see it): the same cat had options -n and -s to number lines (something pr could already do) and to remove empty lines (sed '/^$/d' works fine).

I think it was Rob who also wrote vis, a little tool that did nothing but convert control characters to visible form. Because that was its primary purpose, it was not intrusive for it to have flags to leave tabs alone and to elide rather than convert unprintables.

@JdeBP @lain_7 @oddhack @cstross
On the other extreme, I think there was a slightly-later Berkeley cat that had an option to report the time, in seconds, it would take to transmit a file via uucp, allowing for protocol overhead, and with yet another option to specify the modem speed in bps. That's the real poster child for bilge-worthy changes to cat. To their credit, after a change in who officially shepherded BSD releases, Berkeley removed that a year or two later.
@oclsc @JdeBP @lain_7 @oddhack There was some hilarious bullshit in the commercial UNIX sector, meanwhile. SCO bought an unlimited SVR3.2 license some time around 1989. But when SVR4.x came out, AT&T wanted more money than SCO could afford. So internally SCO white-room cloned SVR4, keeping only the SVR3.2 copyright headers intact so they could sell their product as "UNIX ™". Then they added a bunch of stuff to bring it into compatibility with X/Open Portability Guide 3 spec. And worse.
@oclsc @JdeBP @lain_7 @oddhack Basically SCO's marketing team wanted a checkbox list of features their enterprise customers were demanding that required SVR4.3, but weren't willing to pay for a 4.3 license, so they shoe-horned it into SVR3.2 at great expense.