![[BACK]](/cvsweb/icons/back.gif){kind=icon}
Return to mbox CVS log ![[TXT]](/cvsweb/icons/text.gif){kind=icon}
![[DIR]](/cvsweb/icons/dir.gif){kind=icon}
Up to [Research Unix] / researchv10dc / vol2 / ADM|
Return to mbox CVS log | Up to [Research Unix] / researchv10dc / vol2 / ADM |
1.1 root 1: From sfgum!condry Tue May 23 12:06 EDT 1989
2: Would you mail a draft copy for the 10th edition
3: to me:
4: Michael COndry
5: SF G-226
6: attunix!condry
7:
8: Thanks
9:
10: From andrew
11: after a chat with doug, i propose the following
12: to deal with how to deal with the past publication of
13: papers in vol2; both within the paper and within references.
14:
15: within the paper:
16: if there has been substantial work by a new author,
17: the paper gets that person as a new author.
18: there will be a footnote on the first page referring
19: to the last published version of the paper AND a comment
20: on who and how much revision was done. For example,
21: my editing of the lex paper would be 'reformatted by ANdrew Hume'
22: whereas the mk paper was significantly tweaked and thus
23: 'revised' and if more work was done, 'substantially revised'.
24:
25: references:
26: references to papers within vol2 have the vol2 paper as the primary
27: reference and an 'also in' pointer to the last published version.
28:
29: let me know if you are happy or not with this.
30:
31: From utzoo!utgpu!godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu!drb Thu Jul 20 23:50:03 1989
32: Received: from godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu by gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id 5285; Thu, 20 Jul 89 23:49:49 EDT
33: Received: by godzilla.eecg.toronto.edu id 2409; Thu, 20 Jul 89 23:49:14 EDT
34: From: "David R. Blythe" <[email protected]>
35: To: research!andrew@utzoo
36: Subject: reviewers
37: Message-Id: <[email protected]>
38: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 23:48:59 EDT
39:
40: I would be happy to review it if you are allowing 2-3 weeks
41: for the review period.
42: David Blythe
43:
44:
45: From yquem!ber Thu Jul 20 18:41 EDT 1989
46: To: research!andrew
47:
48: I'm game. When can you get it to me. Before I leave for
49: a week 8/6 would be good, then I could read it while on vacation.
50:
51: ber
52:
53: From arpa!geoff Thu Jul 20 18:28:02 EDT 1989
54: From: [email protected]
55: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 18:28:02 EDT
56: To: [email protected]
57:
58: I'll read papers for the new edition. I have already
59: read the upas paper. How soon do you need comments?
60:
61: From pipe!andrew Fri Jul 21 08:37:45 EDT 1989
62: proposed action for vol 2:
63:
64: by approx aug 1, volume 2 will be more or less complete.
65: the only papers likely to be missing that i care about are the
66: UCDS paper and norman's config paper. accordingly, i will make
67: a couple of review copies to go to some reviewers (say like
68: redman) and get back feedback on selection/presentation/content.
69:
70: by sept 1, i hope to have the above two missing papers
71: and have folded back in feedback from the aug 1 review. This
72: set i will send out for review by more people.
73:
74: around oct 1, finish reviewing, do any editing and
75: last minute updates and be ready for publishing.
76:
77:
78: comments?
79:
80: From honey Fri Jul 21 10:58:51 1989
81: From: Peter Honeyman <[email protected]>
82: To: [email protected]
83: Date: 21 Jul 1989 10:57 EDT
84:
85: i volunteer my services as well as those of my droids.
86:
87: From acsnet!oz!su!cs!sarad!bob Fri Jul 21 05:44:17 1989
88: To: [email protected]
89: In-reply-to: Your message of 21 Jul 1989 17:03 (Friday).
90:
91: Piers and I would be happy to review the new manual. Piers will be
92: dropping in to you next week so you can tell him he was volunteered!
93:
94: From utzoo!henry Fri Jul 21 15:15:57 1989
95: To: research!andrew
96: Subject: manual
97:
98: > we are producing a new edition of the manual,
99: > both volumes 1 and 2. we are looking for a couple of
100: > volunteers outside the center to review both volumes.
101:
102: Definitely interested enough to review it, although if this is scheduled
103: to happen next week I can't make it :-) -- I'll be away until Aug 2.
104:
105: Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
106: uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [email protected]
107:
108:
109: From arpa!csri.toronto.edu!darwin Fri Jul 28 10:34:53 EDT 1989
110: Received: from darwin by lowther.csri.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA02305; Fri, 28 Jul 89 10:34:53 EDT
111: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 89 10:34:53 EDT
112: From: "Ian F. Darwin" <[email protected]>
113: Message-Id: <[email protected]>
114: To: [email protected]
115: Subject: new manual
116: Cc: [email protected]
117:
118: I'd be willing to read volume 1 and some parts of vol2, tho I can't
119: promise to get all the way thru 2 (unless you are very patient).
120: Are you shipping the drafts in troff form or on paper?
121:
122: Thanks
123: Ian Darwin
124: [email protected] (among other places)
125:
126: From arpa!mtxinu.COM!ed Wed Aug 2 09:53:28 0700 1989
127: Received: by garcia.mtxinu.COM (5.61/1.29-emg890307)
128: id AA00521; Wed, 2 Aug 89 09:53:28 -0700
129: Date: Wed, 2 Aug 89 09:53:28 -0700
130: From: [email protected] (Ed Gould)
131: Message-Id: <[email protected]>
132: To: [email protected]
133: Subject: 10th Edition
134:
135: Send it to me:
136:
137: Ed Gould
138: mt Xinu
139: 2560 Ninth Street
140: Berkeley, CA 94710
141:
142: What's in the various volumes? What kind of review do you want?
143:
144: Ed
145:
146: From utzoo!henry Tue Aug 29 17:59:14 1989
147: To: research!andrew
148: Subject: V10 manual
149: Cc: utstat!geoff
150:
151: Having read most of the manual earlier in the month, I find I'm now pushed
152: for time when it comes to making a second pass for critical comments, so
153: this is going to be a bit sparser than I like...
154:
155: Something I've kept forgetting to grump about is that page 23 of the Sam
156: paper and page 4 of the picture-format paper were blank in the copy I
157: got. (The latter I don't mind; the former was right in the middle of
158: the most interesting part! :-))
159:
160: Is the Spin stuff really of sufficiently wide applicability to be in the
161: manual? Maybe I'm just not into protocol design the way your crew is...
162: Or was it included at least partly for the Promela manual? If so, the
163: blurb in the table of contents should mention that.
164:
165: Dennis's paper on streams is certainly worth including, but it would sure
166: be nice if there were a companion paper with up-to-date details on the
167: programming nitty-gritty of writing a stream module. Even the V8 kernel
168: had a lot of fine points in the source that weren't written up anywhere,
169: and I imagine it's gotten worse.
170:
171: I'm surprised to find a writeup on the Blit communications protocols but
172: none on writing Blit programs. Surely the latter are far more numerous,
173: and far more likely subjects for new programmers' creativity, than from-
174: scratch reimplementations of the former? And from what I know of it,
175: the in-Blit environment is different enough to need documenting.
176:
177: Nobody's using "bc" any more?
178:
179: The Monk paper is good on "how to type documents", but I miss seeing a
180: reference manual and/or innards manual for Monk.
181:
182:
183: From arpa!geoff Fri Sep 1 02:53:19 EDT 1989
184: From: [email protected]
185: Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 02:53:19 EDT
186: To: research!andrew
187: Cc: utzoo!henry
188:
189: Here are my comments on the draft V10 manual. I'm sorry that they are
190: arriving at the last moment; Henry only gave me the manual Tuesday
191: evening. These comments are a mix of stylistic, spelling and content
192: remarks.
193:
194: First a few general comments. I would like to see
195: previously-unpublished papers and papers that will never be published
196: in the open literature included in volume 2. Your attempt to use a
197: two-column format has largely succeeded, but an uncomfortable number of
198: displays crowd the second column, and the vertical space between
199: paragraphs and displays is often jarringly large in the first column.
200: I have noted below pages with large vertical spaces. In a few places,
201: noted below, I noticed an assumption that laser printers all understand
202: PostScript; I was surprised by the unusually low level of discussion
203: and wonder whether this assumption is rooted in local circumstances,
204: wishful thinking or PostScript enthusiasm.
205:
206: Table of Contents. It misspells obsolete as `obselete'. I'll second
207: Henry's comment on the lack of a bc manual, though perhaps you expect
208: people to see the V7 volume 2 for that. If so, why not omit the dc
209: manual too? Reference 28 looks incomplete. The tours of pdp-11 cc and
210: pcc have vanished; how about restoring the tour of pcc and adding tours
211: of cfront, cyntax and cemantics? If the latter three tours exist, I
212: don't believe they have been published, which makes them all the more
213: valuable. The tour of the i/o system by dmr vanished; is there a
214: current replacement? It too has not been published in the open
215: literature. I miss the old "UNIX Summary", brought up to date. I see
216: that UNIX Programming is gone. I know that it is reprinted wholesale
217: in The UNIX Programming Environment, but I think people are more likely
218: to read volume 2 than any book on UNIX and there is invaluable advice
219: in there, such as how to catch signals correctly, that far too many
220: people get wrong, out of ignorance. I see nothing on the V9 shell nor
221: m4. m4 is arguably covered by m4(1) but your shell is different enough
222: that I wonder if sh(1) really covers it. Should there be something on
223: Datakit? You should probably cite the "New S" book, not the "old S"
224: book.
225:
226: -ms. The abstract says "the the UNIX\(rg" Are the old macros, such as
227: .TL, .AB, .AE and .AU, still recognised? There is a disagreement about
228: spelling: "in Palatino you would say
229: .FP palitano". The detailed discussion of lp and PostScript is jarring
230: and seems inappropriate to me.
231:
232: eqn. Isn't saying "AT&T death-star \(bs" considered insubordination?
233:
234: tbl. The table in section 7 is incomplete; at least u/U and z/Z are
235: missing.
236:
237: dag. That's an interesting UNIX family tree(!) but it lacks "10th
238: edition". Is figure 4 a joke about "subrecursive hierarchies of
239: functions" theory?
240:
241: prefer. Throughout, inter-paragraph distance is large and jarring.
242:
243: cip. My cip does allow different sizes and fonts of text. The paper
244: refers to the 68000 in the blit.
245:
246: ped. The first column of p. 4 is really spacey.
247:
248: troff. It's up to date, and looks better in general (one could always
249: see what had been hard to typeset in the old one) but non-tabular
250: request descriptions aren't quite as pleasant as the old tabular ones.
251: In section 20, the .mc description is indented too much. p. 34 col. 1
252: is spacey!
253:
254: troff tutorial. p. 2 col 1. is spacey. On p. 3 change "many laser
255: writers" to "many laser printers"? p. 7 sees two first column examples
256: run into the second column, luckily only into whitespace. p. 14 is
257: really badly spacey; can't this be fixed? In appendix A, the eqn paper
258: and the troff tutorial think death-star is spelled \(L1, but troff
259: thinks it's spelled \(bs. Who's right? Does appendix A belong in this
260: document at all, especially since it disagrees with p.36 of the troff
261: manual? In appendix B, "Laserwiter" is missing an "r".
262:
263: monk. On p. 3, the letter at the bottom of the second column runs on
264: to the next page. In section 4.11, equation (1a) on p. 9 is utterly
265: empty and on p.10, eqn didn't process the in-line equation at the end
266: of the section. Shouldn't 4.13 be set in constant-width? On p.11,
267: section 4.14 figure 3 crashes into section 4.15! Also fig. 3 hasn't
268: been through pic and in section 4.14, figure 4 hasn't been through pic
269: nor eqn.
270:
271: mk. p. 6 column 1 is spacey again. Ozan mentioned that you are about
272: to change the world; true? before or after the V10 manual? Change
273: "aboyt" to "about".
274:
275: snocone. p. 12 is very spacey. Are people still using Snobol?
276:
277: f77. p.1 is very spacey. Is f89/f9? coming? Why is there no ratfor
278: paper? No one writes bare Fortran. Again, you should probably include
279: or omit both papers.
280:
281: pi case study. Both pi papers are great. In section 3, \\n appears
282: twice in the sample program; change to \n.
283:
284: dc. p.1 column 1 is very spacey. You probably should include or omit
285: both dc and bc papers. Why is pic referrence 2? Does pic use dc now?
286:
287: yacc. The characters are fuzzy and the whole appearance is unique; is
288: this tex output?
289:
290: lex. Pages 7, 10 and 12 have spacey first columns.
291:
292: sam. A great paper. p.22 column 1 is spacey.
293:
294: spin. The mix of 2 column text and wide examples is disruptive and
295: confusing.
296:
297: picture format. In p.3 section 3, troff has rendered the "fi" ligature
298: in "picfile.h" (which is CW) as a Roman ligature!
299:
300: setting up. On p.2 change `# umask 2"' to `# umask 2'.
301:
302: blit protocols. p.1 column 1 is spacey. It would be nice to have 5620
303: protocols documented too.
304:
305: v9 netb. Change "ontaining" to "containing". Pages 8-10 first columns
306: are all very spacey!
307:
308: v9 ipc. On p. 6, change "wait a connection" to "wait for a connection".
309:
310: unix security. Change "anuary 16" to "January 16".
311:
312: upas. I have already commented to ches.
313:
314: uucp by honey, dan and ber. On p.7, example "READ=/usr/ber/..." runs
315: off the page. On p.8, both LOGNAME examples crash into the 2nd column;
316: the 2nd one is missing a "\" at the end of the first line. On p.12,
317: the second example plows into the second column. The first 3
318: appendices have headings on the pages preceding the starts of their
319: contents (i.e. move each heading to the next page). Appendix III has
320: ``'' which should be "".
321:
322: backups. Change UIMPS to UMIPS. p.8 is a mess of overprinting.
323:
324: From arpa!mtxinu.COM!ed Mon Sep 18 11:07:59 0700 1989
325: Received: by garcia.mtxinu.COM (5.61/1.29-emg890307)
326: id AA01019; Mon, 18 Sep 89 11:07:59 -0700
327: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 11:07:59 -0700
328: From: [email protected] (Ed Gould)
329: Message-Id: <[email protected]>
330: To: [email protected]
331: Subject: Tenth Edition, Volume 2
332:
333: Well, I finally have something for you. I hope it's not too late
334: to use. (I'll be sending the marked-up copy to you via Fed Ex
335: today as well.)
336:
337: These are general comments about style. I agree that a two-column
338: format is generally easier to read, but for many of the papers
339: the price seems to be too high. In particular, many of the examples
340: (unfilled text) extend beyone the edge of the column; in some
341: cases (the Honey-DAN-BER UUCP paper comes to mind) the example
342: disappears off the right edge of the page or obliterates text in
343: the right-hand column. Vertical justification of the columns often
344: produces unpleasing amounts of space between paragraphs. It's
345: particularly bad in Koenig's "Snocone" paper. I seem to remember
346: seeing an orphaned section title, too. (That struck me as a bug
347: in the vertical-spacing stuff, not as a fundamental problem.)
348:
349: A few of the titles seemed uncharacteristically uninformative.
350: Titles of the form "FooBar, a Language for Fools -- User's Manual"
351: are better than "FooBar Manual". The Spin and Pico papers
352: were the ones that particularly struck me.
353:
354: Font usage is not uniform. For example, the "sam" paper uses
355: the CW font for the name of the program - even in the title -
356: where others use Italic. I think I saw one paper that used CW
357: for section titles (but I didn't write down which one, and I dont see it
358: now in a quick look); the Sethi YACC paper is typographically unique
359: (actually, I like much of it; I'm not, however, fond of mixing
360: sans-serif titles with serifed text).
361:
362: Odds and ends are marked in red on the hard copy. I tried to make
363: them obvious enough to find by just glancing at the marked page,
364: but I didn't do anything to flag the marked pages.
365:
366: Let me know *today* if the following is not the correct address
367: to which to send the hard copy:
368:
369: Andrew Hume
370: Bell Laboratories
371: Room 2C-471
372: 600 Mountain Ave.
373: Murray Hill, NJ 07974
374:
375: Ed
376:
377: From arpa!mtxinu.COM!ed Thu Sep 21 11:24:16 0700 1989
378: Received: by garcia.mtxinu.COM (5.61/1.29-emg890307)
379: id AA00878; Thu, 21 Sep 89 11:24:16 -0700
380: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 11:24:16 -0700
381: From: [email protected] (Ed Gould)
382: Message-Id: <[email protected]>
383: To: [email protected]
384:
385: I was the only reviewer here, but I'd love to get one for myself
386: as well as one for the company.
387:
388: From norman Sat Sep 23 12:36:00 EDT 1989
389: Hayes,Donald L bl 614860 4289 CB 1L334 45256 cbusa!dlh
390:
391: From arpa!geoff Fri Sep 1 02:53:19 EDT 1989
392: From: [email protected]
393: Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 02:53:19 EDT
394: To: research!andrew
395: Cc: utzoo!henry
396:
397: Here are my comments on the draft V10 manual. I'm sorry that they are
398: arriving at the last moment; Henry only gave me the manual Tuesday
399: evening. These comments are a mix of stylistic, spelling and content
400: remarks.
401:
402: First a few general comments. I would like to see
403: previously-unpublished papers and papers that will never be published
404: in the open literature included in volume 2. Your attempt to use a
405: two-column format has largely succeeded, but an uncomfortable number of
406: displays crowd the second column, and the vertical space between
407: paragraphs and displays is often jarringly large in the first column.
408: I have noted below pages with large vertical spaces. In a few places,
409: noted below, I noticed an assumption that laser printers all understand
410: PostScript; I was surprised by the unusually low level of discussion
411: and wonder whether this assumption is rooted in local circumstances,
412: wishful thinking or PostScript enthusiasm.
413:
414: Table of Contents. It misspells obsolete as `obselete'. I'll second
415: Henry's comment on the lack of a bc manual, though perhaps you expect
416: people to see the V7 volume 2 for that. If so, why not omit the dc
417: manual too? Reference 28 looks incomplete. The tours of pdp-11 cc and
418: pcc have vanished; how about restoring the tour of pcc and adding tours
419: of cfront, cyntax and cemantics? If the latter three tours exist, I
420: don't believe they have been published, which makes them all the more
421: valuable. The tour of the i/o system by dmr vanished; is there a
422: current replacement? It too has not been published in the open
423: literature. I miss the old "UNIX Summary", brought up to date. I see
424: that UNIX Programming is gone. I know that it is reprinted wholesale
425: in The UNIX Programming Environment, but I think people are more likely
426: to read volume 2 than any book on UNIX and there is invaluable advice
427: in there, such as how to catch signals correctly, that far too many
428: people get wrong, out of ignorance. I see nothing on the V9 shell nor
429: m4. m4 is arguably covered by m4(1) but your shell is different enough
430: that I wonder if sh(1) really covers it. Should there be something on
431: Datakit? You should probably cite the "New S" book, not the "old S"
432: book.
433:
434: -ms. The abstract says "the the UNIX\(rg" Are the old macros, such as
435: .TL, .AB, .AE and .AU, still recognised? There is a disagreement about
436: spelling: "in Palatino you would say
437: .FP palitano". The detailed discussion of lp and PostScript is jarring
438: and seems inappropriate to me.
439:
440: eqn. Isn't saying "AT&T death-star \(bs" considered insubordination?
441:
442: tbl. The table in section 7 is incomplete; at least u/U and z/Z are
443: missing.
444:
445: dag. That's an interesting UNIX family tree(!) but it lacks "10th
446: edition". Is figure 4 a joke about "subrecursive hierarchies of
447: functions" theory?
448:
449: prefer. Throughout, inter-paragraph distance is large and jarring.
450:
451: cip. My cip does allow different sizes and fonts of text. The paper
452: refers to the 68000 in the blit.
453:
454: ped. The first column of p. 4 is really spacey.
455:
456: troff. It's up to date, and looks better in general (one could always
457: see what had been hard to typeset in the old one) but non-tabular
458: request descriptions aren't quite as pleasant as the old tabular ones.
459: In section 20, the .mc description is indented too much. p. 34 col. 1
460: is spacey!
461:
462: troff tutorial. p. 2 col 1. is spacey. On p. 3 change "many laser
463: writers" to "many laser printers"? p. 7 sees two first column examples
464: run into the second column, luckily only into whitespace. p. 14 is
465: really badly spacey; can't this be fixed? In appendix A, the eqn paper
466: and the troff tutorial think death-star is spelled \(L1, but troff
467: thinks it's spelled \(bs. Who's right? Does appendix A belong in this
468: document at all, especially since it disagrees with p.36 of the troff
469: manual? In appendix B, "Laserwiter" is missing an "r".
470:
471: monk. On p. 3, the letter at the bottom of the second column runs on
472: to the next page. In section 4.11, equation (1a) on p. 9 is utterly
473: empty and on p.10, eqn didn't process the in-line equation at the end
474: of the section. Shouldn't 4.13 be set in constant-width? On p.11,
475: section 4.14 figure 3 crashes into section 4.15! Also fig. 3 hasn't
476: been through pic and in section 4.14, figure 4 hasn't been through pic
477: nor eqn.
478:
479: mk. p. 6 column 1 is spacey again. Ozan mentioned that you are about
480: to change the world; true? before or after the V10 manual? Change
481: "aboyt" to "about".
482:
483: snocone. p. 12 is very spacey. Are people still using Snobol?
484:
485: f77. p.1 is very spacey. Is f89/f9? coming? Why is there no ratfor
486: paper? No one writes bare Fortran. Again, you should probably include
487: or omit both papers.
488:
489: pi case study. Both pi papers are great. In section 3, \\n appears
490: twice in the sample program; change to \n.
491:
492: dc. p.1 column 1 is very spacey. You probably should include or omit
493: both dc and bc papers. Why is pic referrence 2? Does pic use dc now?
494:
495: yacc. The characters are fuzzy and the whole appearance is unique; is
496: this tex output?
497:
498: lex. Pages 7, 10 and 12 have spacey first columns.
499:
500: sam. A great paper. p.22 column 1 is spacey.
501:
502: spin. The mix of 2 column text and wide examples is disruptive and
503: confusing.
504:
505: picture format. In p.3 section 3, troff has rendered the "fi" ligature
506: in "picfile.h" (which is CW) as a Roman ligature!
507:
508: setting up. On p.2 change `# umask 2"' to `# umask 2'.
509:
510: blit protocols. p.1 column 1 is spacey. It would be nice to have 5620
511: protocols documented too.
512:
513: v9 netb. Change "ontaining" to "containing". Pages 8-10 first columns
514: are all very spacey!
515:
516: v9 ipc. On p. 6, change "wait a connection" to "wait for a connection".
517:
518: unix security. Change "anuary 16" to "January 16".
519:
520: upas. I have already commented to ches.
521:
522: uucp by honey, dan and ber. On p.7, example "READ=/usr/ber/..." runs
523: off the page. On p.8, both LOGNAME examples crash into the 2nd column;
524: the 2nd one is missing a "\" at the end of the first line. On p.12,
525: the second example plows into the second column. The first 3
526: appendices have headings on the pages preceding the starts of their
527: contents (i.e. move each heading to the next page). Appendix III has
528: ``'' which should be "".
529:
530: backups. Change UIMPS to UMIPS. p.8 is a mess of overprinting.
531:
This archive runs on limited infrastructure. Preserving old code on modern bandwidth. Automated agents are requested to crawl responsibly.