---
created_at: '2016-08-24T07:29:27.000Z'
title: 'Unix: An Oral History (1989)'
url: https://www.princeton.edu/~hos/frs122/unixhist/finalhis.htm
author: kercker
points: 69
story_text: 
comment_text: 
num_comments: 4
story_id: 
story_title: 
story_url: 
parent_id: 
created_at_i: 1472023767
_tags:
- story
- author_kercker
- story_12350361
objectID: '12350361'

---
[Source](https://www.princeton.edu/~hos/frs122/unixhist/finalhis.htm "Permalink to Unix:")

# Unix:

# Unix: An Oral History

## Introduction

[Still to come]

## Multics 

#### Gordon M. Brown

This is the story of Unix. To fully understand the evolution of Unix, however, the story of Multics must first be told. Unix was born at Bell Labs out of the aborted attempt to make Multics the most advanced time sharing computer system yet available. When Bell Labs pulled out of the joint venture, in 1969, it brought with it numerous important ideas from Multics that would later serve to define Unix. Furthermore, the shift in momentum at Bell Labs, away from computing, created an environment of creativity and independent thought which was integral to Unix development. Multics, and Bell Labs decision to pull out of the Multics project, were multi-faceted influences in the history of the Unix time-sharing system. 

Multics, MULTiplexed Information and Computing Service, followed in the line of time sharing systems whose development was driven by the need for greater access to computing. A key proponent of this was J.C.R. Licklider, the head of ARPAs Information Techniques Processing Office, who sought to more efficiently integrate computers with human activities. IPTO funded many computer related projects at the time, as was the case with MITs Project MAC (Cambell-Kelly and Aspray, pg. 214). Project MAC (standing for _M_ultiple _A_ccess _C_omputers and also known as _M_an _A_nd _C_omputer in Marvin Minsky's Artificial Intelligence Lab) was headed by Robert M. Fano and included the Compatible Timesharing System. One of the earliest time sharing systems, CTSS was a fully functional system that could support up to 30 remote users and was an integral part of Project MAC. Yet by 1965 Project MAC had overloaded CTSS, and MIT had begun looking for a second generation time sharing system. This was the Multics project, which was intended as a dynamic, modular system capable of supporting hundreds of users. Joining MIT in the effort was General Electric and Bell Telephone Labs. GE had previously supplied hardware for the Dartmouth Timesharing System and provided a 635 mainframe (later to become known as the 645) for the Multics project (Cambell-Kelly and Aspray, pg. 215). Bell Labs, on the other hand, provided much of the programming experience. As a public utility, Bell was constrained by the 56 Consent Decree which effectively limited independent computing endeavors, hence the Multics project was a perfect outlet for Bells computing talent and a great opportunity to build up its software writing capability. Together, these three groups sought to create a system that would set new standards for the computer as a utility. 

Multics was not simply intended as a replacement for the overloaded CTSS, it was meant to go beyond time sharing to create a community computing facility. An integral part of this was to make the system modular, so as to support growth and change. To enable this type of system to be maintained and to maximize lucidity within the coding for it, PL/I was chosen as the programming language. The development of the PL/I compiler was contracted out to Digitek (Multics History, pg. 3) and while waiting for the compiler to come back, the design of Multics was laid out in the Multics System Programmers Manual (MSPM) (Corbato, F.J., Saltzer, J.H., and C.T.Clingen, pg. 2). This methodical approach to the planning reflected the disciplined style that the programming team used to build the system, and was thought necessary to effectively manage the complicated nature of the project. The system was designed to include fault-free continuous operation capabilities, convenient remote terminal access and selective information sharing. One of the most important features of Multics was to follow the trend towards integrated multi-tasking and permit multiple programming environments and different human interfaces under one operating system. Doug McIlroy emphasized that it wasn't that it [Multics] allowed many people to share the cycles in the machine:

> It was that it allowed many people to work in the same huge pot of data and it was this synergy of sharing data, to be able to quickly look at other people's files, pass messages around and so on, that was the best thing that time sharing had to offer. The other was merely an economic advantage, but the one of sharing was a qualitatively different way of using the machines. 

Although this greatly increased the complexity of Multics it reflected the desire for an interactive system that could increase the capacity of the computer as a communications tool. 

Development continued on the system design for a year and still no PL/I compiler had appeared. This was attributed to the difficulties involved with implementing the full PL/I language. Doug McIlroy and Bob Morris took it upon themselves to create a backup for the system by using EPL/I (early PL/I) to write a compiler which produced output in EPL Bootstrap Assembler (Multics History, pg. 3). This was not only very slow in compiling, but was also limiting in the features that could be implemented using it. For example, McIlroy remarked that "There were only two error messages, syntax error and redeclaration, and one warning, idiotic structure" (Salus, Peter, pg. 28). This problem was compounded by the necessity of an unanticipated phase of design iterations due to gross discrepancies between the actual and expected performance of the various logical execution paths throughout the software. 

As a result, the project began to fall behind schedule, threatening the intermediate funding being provided by the Cambridge Project, an ARPA funded political science computing project (Multics History, pg. 4). Concern over the extent of the software problems soon became widespread and as early as 1967 there existed growing doubts about the future of Multics. Sam Morgan, director of Computing Science Research at Bell Labs during this period, expressed his own concerns that Multics research was going very slowly and wasting effort, saying: "It was becoming clear to people that Multics was an attempt to climb too many trees at once. The development was moving more slowly than had been expected and users were sighing with varying degrees of pungency." In fact, to the entire labs computing community, the failure of Multics to deliver promptly any sort of useable system was increasingly obvious. 

Consequently, Bell Labs pulled out of the project in March of 1969, leaving GE and MIT to salvage what they could of the system. According to Berk Tague, it was Bill Baker who made the decision to pull the plug, saying "Like Vietnam, he [Bill Baker] declared victory and got out of Multics." McIlroy echoed these thoughts, mentioning that Bell Labs "had a million dollars worth of equipment in the attic that was sitting there being played with by three people. It became clear that we were a drag on the computer center's budget." This sudden loss of the Multics system was to have important consequences on the direction of computing at Bell Labs and on the creation of Unix. 

It was about this time that Sandy Fraser arrived at Bell Labs. An aeronautical engineer by trade, Fraser had been working with the ATLAS time sharing system in Cambridge, England, when he decided that the future of computing lay not in England, but on the other side of the Atlantic. He came with the hope of working on Multics and was quite startled to discover that it had been canceled, noting a similar reaction at Bell Labs: 

> It was quite clear that we were in the course of a fairly traumatic change for a lot of people. [For example], the end of the 60s, was a time of change for all universities. It used to be that the computing science research communities used to run the computing centers for the university. However, as the budgets grew, soon this became less and less practical, [and] one by one the universities started moving the computers from the responsibility of the computer centers into the administrative area.That is what happened when Multics departed. 

With Multics gone, there was a decisive shift in the momentum away from computing at Bell Labs, as the administration sought to transfer impetus to other research areas. 

Characteristic of the time was the loss of computer science personnel to other departments or research organizations, and the absence of both space and funding for computer science projects. In fact, to prevent Multics from resurfacing, directors were discouraged from buying any machines big enough for Multics to run on. However, the group that was most involved with the Multics project (Ken Thompson, [ Dennis Ritchie][1], McIlroy and J.F. Ossanna) desired to continue the communal computing environment provided by Multics. They found an alternative to Multics in Unix. 

Unix, while not necessarily a reaction to Multics, certainly represented a different approach to the time sharing problem. Ritchie, a systems programmer at Bell Labs, expressed that "it was really the combination of the disappearance of Multics and the fact that Ken [Thompson] had always wanted to write an operating system of his own [that] led fairly directly to Unix." He went on to explain another reason the programming group created Unix was that 

> we didn't want to lose the pleasant niche we occupied, because no similar ones were available; even the time-sharing service that would later be offered under GE's operating system did not exist. What we wanted to preserve was not just a good environment in which to do programming, but a system around which a fellowship could form (Dennis M. Ritchie, pg. 1).

This mentality fostered a simple, yet effective system design based on the ideals of ease of use and close communication. 

Moreover, two key concepts had been picked up on in the development of Multics that would later serve to define Unix. These were that the less important features of the system introduced more complexity and, conversely, that the most important property of algorithms was simplicity. Ritchie explained this to Mahoney, articulating that: 

> The relationship of Multics to [the development of Unix] is actually interesting and fairly complicated. There were a lot of cultural things that were sort of taken over wholesale. And these include important things, [such as] the hierarchical file system and tree-structure file system - which incidentally did not get into the first version of Unix on the PDP-7. This is an example of why the whole thing is complicated. But any rate, things like the hierarchical file system, choices of simple things like the characters you use to edit lines as you're typing, erasing characters were the same as those we had. I guess the most important fundamental thing is just the notion that the basic style of interaction with the machine, the fact that there was the notion of a command line, the notion was an explicit shell program. In fact the name shell came from Multics. A lot of extremely important things were completely internalized, and of course this is the way it is. A lot of that came through from Multics.

As will be discussed later, the integration of numerous aspects of Multics design into Unix maintained the power of Unix as a time-sharing system. In contrast, the simplicity of the Unix system avoided many of negative facets of the Multics system, as Ritchie relates below: 

> As far as other technical details, there were enormous differences. The scale of not only both effort and human resources, as well as machine resources, was just incomparable. I forget now how big the Multics machine was, it wasn't very big of course by today's standards, but the first PDP-7 was tiny. [Unix was designed on] only 8k words of memory, [whereas the machine Multics ran on had] 68k. So there was a vast difference in complexity. And a lot of that was forced just by conditions. But a lot of it really was a sense of taste as well. One of the obvious things that went wrong with Multics as a commercial success was just that it was sort of over-engineered in a sense. There was just too much in it. And it certainly explained why it took so long to get going. Heavily consumptive of resources, of machine and certainly in terms of people required to produce it. 

Ritchie's remarks reflect the impact of Multics failure on the computing atmosphere at Bell Labs and subsequently illustrate that the key to Unix was in avoiding these attributes through simple, well written programs. As Sam Morgan alluded to, "if you order an operating system of a group of programmers, you get Multics. If you leave them to their own resources and imagination, things like Unix will grow out of their creativity." As discussed next, the development of the file system leading to Unix was clearly derivative of this mentality. 

 

## The Beginning

#### Michael Errecart and Cameron Jones

### Files to Share

Development of Unix did not actually begin as work on an operating system. Rather, the small group of computer scientists who had seen their positions on the Multics project evaporate at Bell Labs' exit set out to create a file system that could be shared efficiently within their workgroup. The operating system was little more than an afterthought resulting from a need to test this file system. 

When Bell Labs broke off from the Multics project, Ken Thompson and the rest of his subgroup had been working on the file system for the project, "which never really came to exist" because of several technical problems that had grown so complex that they could not be ironed out. The goal that they were seeking was "to develop read and write calls that were sequential calls that turned around and ended just reading sequentially out of pages," but problems arose with a technology called "paging", which was intended to simplify the process of reading and writing files to disk but finally was abandoned. 

The Unix file system was based almost entirely on the file system for the failed Multics project. The idea was for file sharing to take place with explicitly separated file systems for each user, so that there would be no locking of file tables. The main ideas of the file system as outlined by Thompson are "to have the activity locus of manipulation of data for user one and user two to be disjoined, so that in fact, [they] wouldn't be locking common tables. [They] wouldn't be going through anything common unless [they] in fact shared files. To try to keep up real high, efficient access to disks. In fact, interleave accesses in a way." It is clear that the main goal of Multics  universal access to unlimited central computing power  was carried on in a large way through the work of Thompson, Canaday and Ritchie as they developed the file system for Unix. Stu Feldman noted that Project MAC and Multics combined to influence the file system:

> Project MAC had a rather weird, not really tree-structured, two-deep file system, for every name also had a two complement identifier. Multics had a very complex file system, which went the opposite end from this, and had a very messy directory structure... in which you could represent a remarkable number of important things. Very complicated access control, very complicated linking control... All kinds of wonderful things. All this list of wonderful things caused the system to sink into the mud... Everything takes cycles. Many of these ideas have reappeared in other forms. So, in some sense Unix, the Unix file system was the reaction to both of these, if you look at it. It had the flexibility. It had the essential tree flexibility of Multics. But a real dirty idea for implementation, which was to say that the file space was flat. 

Ken Thompson was the person most involved in the creation of the file system, as he handled all the coding and debugging, while he bounced ideas off the others on a whiteboard. Doug McIlroy, the project manager, talked about the transition between Multics and Unix, saying 

> Thompson and Ritchie and Rudd Canaday, who was an intern in my department for a year, were talking about, 'Well, how could we do this in a less massive way?' And, there were many afternoons spent across the hall there, working at the blackboard, working out the design of... what became the Unix file system. 'If we were to make a file system, what would it look like?' 

A major part of the answer to this question is that the file system had to be open. The needs of the group dictated that every user had access to every other user's files, so the Unix system had to be extremely open. This openness is even seen in the password storage, which is not hidden at all but is encrypted. Any user can see all the encrypted passwords, but can only test one solution per second, which makes it extremely time consuming to try to break into the system. Another example of the openness of the file system was the omission of records, a decision which came under heavy criticism from all sides. The proprietary nature of records made them inaccessible to users who did not utilize the exact same record format, and they were anathema to the group. Thompson would "give talks, it would always come up, you know, why you didn't do records and I'd have some extra slides, cause I knew I'd be asked this." And he would walk the audience through a sample problem that could occur between incompatible record types to prove his point. 

During this design process, Thompson made it clear that there were certain aspects of the file system on the Multics project that he would have liked to see happen, but which were never implemented. A major example is "treating files and devices the same... having the same read calls." This meant that terminals would input and output data in the same format that mainframes did, leveling the playing field between users on different computers. "Typically during those days there were special calls for the terminal and then the file system itself... Confusing them and redirecting I/O was just not done in those days." The idea of standard input and output for devices eventually found its way into Unix as pipes. Pipes enabled users and programmers to send one function's output into another function by simply placing a vertical line, a '|' between the two functions. Piping is one of the most distinct features of Unix and will be covered in greater detail in a later section. Thompson thought "everyone sort of viewed [standard I/O] as a clean concept and the right thing to do but for some reason it just wasn't done."

When the file system was finally past the point where it could be developed and modified exclusively in the abstract, but rather had to be implemented and tested on real hardware, Thompson laid out his idea of what the file system should look like: "there was the I-list, which is a definition of all the files on the system; and then some of those files were directories which just contained name and I-number. There's nothing in there that constrains it to a tree. So it was not in fact, not hierarchical at all." Just as terminals were to be treated no differently from mainframes, directories were just files that had an index attached to them. However, the flaws inherent in the original implementation became clear:

> When [the group] started writing things like file systems checking programs and stuff, the locking of the spaghetti bowl directories and finding of disjointed things, you'd dissever something and never get it back, because, you know, you'd lost it. Those problems became close to insurmountable, and so in the next implementation we forced a topology stronger than that.

This new topology, while slightly more constrained, still treated files and directories roughly equally, true to the ethos of the project. 

Having moved past the question of whether one user was able to use the system effectively, it became time to test the system as it was intended be used, with many users connected at once making read and write calls to the disk simultaneously. 

> To run the file system you had to create files and delete files, re-unite files to see how well it performed. To do that you needed a script of what kind of traffic you wanted on the file system, and the script we had was, you know, paper tapes, that said, you know, read a file, read a file, write a file, this kind of stuff. And you'd run the script through the paper tape and it would rattle the disk a little bit... you wouldn't know what happened. You just couldn't look at it, you couldn't see it, you couldn't do anything.

Because of this inability to effectively monitor the successes and failures of the file system in these tests, the group 

> built a couple of tools on the file system... used this paper tape to load the file system with these tools, and then we would run the tools out of the file system... and type at these tools... to drive the file system into the contortions that we wanted to measure how it worked and reacted. So [the file system] only lasted by itself for maybe a day or two before we started developing the things that we needed to load it. 

It was in this fashion, with the addition of system tools, that the idea of the hierarchical file system became the foundation for something more. 

At this point, there were the first glimmers within the group that they were working on something that would be more than just a file system for some larger operating system. While most of the file commands were still the pure system commands ("the system read call was in fact the read call of the file system and it was very synchronous") there followed "a very quick rewrite that admitted it was an operating system, and it had a kernel user interface that you trapped across." At that point it could officially be called an operating system. It is interesting to note that other members of the Unix group had quite different opinions about the infancy of the file system from those of its creator Ken Thompson. Stu Feldman claims "[Thompson] was writing Space Wars and he got sick and tired of having no support. So, he built a few things." This concept of building tools for one's own benefit, and adapting them to fit the needs of the group also stood out in Thompson's interview, as he explained his motivations for working on Unix. "I was more interested in myself. Just selfish notions of trying to get a environment to work in." Dennis Ritchie, who was also involved in the creation of the file system to a small extent, further backs up this statement about the file system: 

> I think that (the file system research) was basically part of Ken's desire to do a system of his own. So I don't know what very specific thing sparked it... Then he and I and Rudd Canaday started drawing pictures on the blackboard or maybe white board. Drawing the structure of this proposed system which was in most ways the predecessor of Unix... Most of the ideas were Ken's. 

Whatever the motivations for Unix, however, it began to look as if it had the potential to become something that nobody could have anticipated. And, for it to continue on its path, it needed solid code in a solid language. 

### Language from B to C

The selection of a programming language in which to write Unix was one that would help to define it almost as much as the development of the hierarchical file system had, if not more. At first, Ken Thompson believed that Unix would have to have a Fortran compiler in order to be considered a "serious system." After sitting down to do the Fortran grammar, "it took him about a day to realize that we wouldn't want to do a Fortran compiler at all." The Unix group knew that they still wanted a high-level language, but PL/1, which was used in Multics, was too high-level. So instead, Thompson created a new but very simple language, called B. 

At the time, both Thompson and Ritchie had worked with a new language which was just emerging from MIT, BCPL, and were taken by it. Unfortunately, it was too big to run on the 4K Unix machines, so Thompson made B, which was nearly exactly the same, although it was an interpreter, instead of a compiler. B made two passes, one to turn code into an intermediate language and another to interpret the intermediate language. Ritchie wrote a compiler for B which worked off of the intermediate language. Some system tools and utilities were written in B, but never the operating system itself. B was essentially the same language as BCPL; semantically, the two were exactly the same. Syntactically, however, it looked like what became C, although it lacked types. 

Thompson had the idea that B would be a very simple, very clean and very portable language. "It was written in its own language. That's why its so portable. Because you just pull it through and its up real quickly." Thompson was intent on having Unix be portable, and the creation of a portable language was intrinsic to this. 

B was a word-oriented language, and it operated on a word-oriented machine, the PDP-7. However, when it was moved to the new PDP-11, the interpreter had some trouble. Because the PDP-11 was byte-oriented, the machine and the language didn't fit well together; in particular, B and BCPL had notions of pointers which were names of storage cells and were oriented to a single size of object, while the PDP-11 had objects of different sizes. In addition, since B was an interpreter, it was doomed to be slow, so the Unix group decided they wanted something better as the systems language, which prompted Ritchie to begin to develop C, which occurred in two phases. 

Ritchie began by adding a type structure to B, and soon after wrote a compiler for it, marking the first phase. After the language changes, "it was called NB for New B... [and] it was also an interpreter." To make the C compiler, Ritchie began with the B compiler, and "sort of merged it into the C compiler" with the new type structure. 

> The basic construction of the compiler, of the co-generator for the compiler, was based on an idea that I heard about from someone at the Labs at Indian Hill  I never actually did find and read the thesis, but I had the ideas in it explained to me so that the co-generator for NB was... based on this Ph.D. thesis. 

Basically, C ended up containing B: "some of the anachronisms of C, that are now gone, or, at least are not [but] are unpublished to the point that no one knows they're there, are B."

"The second phase was slower; it all took place within a very few years, but it was a bit slower, so it seemed, and it stemmed from... the first attempt to rewrite Unix." In the summer of 1972, Thompson undertook this project, but gave up. "It may [have been] because he got tired of it or whatnot, but there were sort of two things that went wrong. One was his problem that he couldn't figure out how to... switch control from one process to another. The second thing that he couldn't easily handle  from my point of view the more important  was the difficulty of getting proper data structure." Originally, C did not have structures, so it was "really fairly painful" to make various types of tables; a technique found to deal with this was clumsy at best. "It was a combination of things that caused Ken to give up that summer."

Over the next year, Ritchie added structures to C and made the compiler somewhat better, with better code. "And so over the next summer that was when we made the concerted effort and actually did redo the whole operating system in C. That was fairly successful. It took the winter of '73 to do that. And there were no really tough problems."

After this, C took off. Part of its success was simply its association with Unix. As Unix's popularity increased, so did C's: "it just got carried along." Another reason for its popularity was that a number of machine dependent things can be visible to C programs, and with a little care, portability is possible. "Part of the art is to learn what sorts of things you can depend on, and what you shouldn't. I guess the only real explanation for success is that there were a lot of people writing in the language, typically prose, [who] are now able to write in C. The programs are likely to be a lot better for it."

Before Unix had begun to be a widely used system, a number of interesting tools were being developed, so there was an effort to make the tools available to other people. "The best way to do that was to have a C compiler on other machines." However, the real difficulties that the Unix group ran into when moving the various Unix tools to the IBM, GE or Honeywell systems were not due to differing underlying machine architecture, although C made it possible to see, but to operating system differences: "how you do I/O? How you write the so-called portable libraries? There were messes in... keeping these programs portable. It had nothing to do with the program itself. It had a lot to do with the interaction with the rest of the system." The solution: to not waste time trying to make individual programs portable while fighting the operating system, but to make the operating system portable, too. Thompson had proposed early on, while the group was still on the PDP-7, to write 

> in B the very simple operating system that would be very, very portable. It would run on all sorts of microcomputers that were just here. It would not be ambitious. The idea would be that this is something that could be distributed widely... The idea was just put out one day and I don't think he spent any time at all working on it. Even though nothing came of that immediately, or very directly, that was the first sort of specific impulse towards Unix portability. Upright system portability. 

The early emphasis of the Unix group was both on the development of the file system and on the portability brought about by C. This set the stage for further development of the operating system by laying down a basic framework in which the group would function, and paved the way to the realization of the Unix philosophy. But, before they could do so, they had to find a computer of their own.

## Finding a Machine 

#### Darice Wong and Jake Knerr

After Multics' cancellation in March of 1969, essentially no department was allowed to buy a computer powerful enough to continue Multics research. Sam Morgan became the department head of computing science research at Bell Labs in 1967, well into the Multics program. He was present during the cancellation of Multics and the birth of Unix. 

> There was an announcement, a formal announcement that the work was stopping, that we were [devoting] no more effort to [Multics], and that we were simply out of it. I believe it had to be done that way because ... unless there is a definite statement that you are not going to work on a project anymore, why, some people will continue to work on it. That's the way... research goes. Folk from day to day do their own thing. And so there was a clear announcement that the work was over...It was simply... using up effort and was not... advancing and showed no promise of... turning into a user useful thing. 

A number of factors contributed to AT&T's decision to not buy any more computers powerful enough to run Multics. As Sam Morgan was able to recount about the removal of service computing from all technical organizations in Bell Labs in the middle of 1969: 

> ... service computing at all Bell Labs locations ... merged into a single division under a man named Phil Thayer... All the comp centers were put under unified management and for a year and a half I was both Director of Service Computing at Murray Hill and Whippany, and Director of Computing Science Research. ... It just wasn't reasonable ... for a research organization also to try to manage a stable computing center. So anyhow, having a separate computing service organization was long overdue. [The separate computing organization] was started in the middle of 1969\. And this was another impetus I think toward the development of an operating system for small machines, namely Unix, that went on in computing science research. Because once the comp center machines were moved out from under the research aegis, we had in research had our own machines, and management would not buy big DEC PDP 10's and so we had to do something on minicomputers. And that was another impetus toward Thompson and Richie in the Unix direction. Anyway, that's, that's kind of the history of things. 

Many scientists did not understand, or did not want to understand, that AT&T was out of computers. Thompson in particular recalls, "There was no explicit policy that we weren't going to get back into the computer business"

Thompson and Ritchie began work on a Multics like file system because they enjoyed using Multics, as didmost of the scientists, and wanted to continue research. Sam Morgan felt that scientists liked Multics because "[Multics] was fun. You could develop software, you could do all sort of things with it. It just wasn't ... cost effective." Because the writers of Unix liked the type of environment Multics provided, when Unix was developed, it "turned out to be a much simpler, more cost effective environment which provided users with the pleasures of... the same kind of sandbox," the best of both worlds. Thompson and Ritchie were determined to find a computer to continue Multics-like research. What they found was an aging DEC PDP-7, the only system available. It had a very limited memory but at least they could implement a file system. 

The PDP-7 in question was specially equipped for fancy graphics work being done by Bill Minkey. It belonged to department 13, headed by Joseph Condon, an electrical engineer who worked on current flow. Condon's group wasn't using the computer, and Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were fooling around with it. They even programmed a famous computer game, "Space Travel". Sam Morgan noted "that Ken Thompson had a space war game that he played for a while when he was looking for something to replace Multics."

When asked how Thompson and Ritchie were using a computer not in their department, Condon said, "I don't know." In fact, Condon had become the head of the department that owned the PDP-7 after Thompson and Ritchie began borrowing the machine. Thompson explains how it happened:

> It was another department that owned it, and when it would break, it would be a hassle over who maintained it, and we didn't maintain it because we couldn't get our department to pay for maintenance. There was... no money ...[and] they just didn't want us to do this. ... this department that owned the machine ... wanted to throw it away, but [we wanted] to keep it, on their space and maintain it for [ourselves]. That was a precarious situation, and that persisted. Then when it became clear that these machines were nearing the end of their life, we ... tried to get them officially ours, which failed, our manager wouldn't pick up these machines, at zero cost, you know, they didn't want...the cost of the space. 

When Thompson realized that the PDP-7 was not powerful enough to implement a file system that could offer some of the advantages of Multics he initially programmed a bare-bones file system. The file system was then put on a PDP-10. Using this enhanced capability, Thompson and the others slowly added tools that helped them monitor what the file system was doing. Thompson devoted a month apiece to the shell, editor, assembler, and other software tools. When asked when he realized that a new operating system was being born, Thompson replied, 

> ... in the summer of '69, it was totally rewritten in a form that looked like an operating system, with tools that were sort of known, you know, assembler, editor, and shell -- if not maintaining itself, right on the verge of maintaining itself, to totally sever the GECOS connection. 

It was this point that the epic birth of UNIX became a reality. After the OS was implemented in assembly language it was dubbed UNIX as a play on Multics; MULTI- being many and UNI- being one. 

The file system on the PDP-7 was created in assembly language. As noted above, Thompson realized that for an operating system to be useful it needed to be created in a high-level programming language by which it could be ported to any system. Thompson initially began programming a Fortran compiler, but changed his mind and created a very simple language called B. Ritchie improved upon B and renamed the language C. UNIX was written in C and could be ported to any computer. 

Because of its portability, Unix could now be tried on a larger machine. The only trouble was finding a machine around the size of Multics and a department head to purchase it. Thompson was able to recall the process. 

> ... we started on a set of proposals for getting a new machine,...... So what would happen was that we would take these proposals for these machines and do all the research on them and get the vendors in and waste everybody's time, and get these proposals up and they'd be thought about our management for a extended periods of time and they'd say 'no' for some funny reason, you know, never for a real one (unclear) computing anymore. There were several, really several, of these big rounds of trying to get a vendor and a machine and, to get....to do this work. Most of it was carried on by Osanna and me, and the interference type people. Ultimately what happened was um we found a PDP-11, it was in fact not announced yet, but it was right on the edge of being announced. ...Osanna and I put together a proposal to buy a PDP-11 to do ... research in text processing, (unclear) and document preparation, ... it was the first of the goals that were specific, ... The other ones were...we wanted to play with computers and operating systems, and they were unspecific, and the our management went off and thought about it, and rejected it again. But in the meantime going up and down the hierarchy a sister department, 122, psychology research, came over and said 'well we'll fund it out of our area,' embarrassed the hell out of our management. And they bought it, gave it to us, and...They just had Insight, and inspiration and unfortunately our management didn't.... our management was suffering from wounds from the Multics days. 

Eventually, Lee McMahon, one of the four members of the Unix machine proposal group, the only one who belonged to another department, convinced his own department head to fund a machine. 

Meanwhile, Joe Osanna convinced the Bell Labs patent office that Unix would be a worthwhile investment as a text processing system. Use of Unix started in the patent office of Bell Labs, but by 1972 there were a number of non-research organizations at Bell Labs that were beginning to use Unix for software development. Morgan recalls the importance of text processing in the establishment of Unix. 

> [Space Travel] was fun but the, the first real application of the file system that became Unix was a text processing system. And this was kind of the merging of file system work and work that folks had been interested in for a long time, text processing... 
> 
> People were interested in text editing and formatting and you could do this on a small computer... if you had an operating system that involved easy handling of files and... time sharing, ... people could access and use each other's files. The Unix file system and the text editing and formatting work kind of came together... 
> 
> [A text processing system] was a system the Labs was willing to buy a machine for. When this, the proposal was first made that we should buy a machine for text processing it was presented to me because I had to sign the purchase order. 

Though in afterthought Morgan admits to the merits of text processing, he had this defense to his initial rejection: 

> [T]he pitch was not really that two of Morgan's MTS, having been thrown out of Morgan's office (I exaggerate here, but having been thrown out of Morgan's office), trot down the hall to Matthew's and say, 'Morgan doesn't love us what can you do for us?' They came in through McMahon's director ...The people who originally made the proposition to me were Osanna, Thompson and McMahon, who were working together. 

Morgan admits to his underestimation of the proposals but, acting as a department head, his responsibility was to rely on what he knew, which wasn't much about text processing. 

> I didn't understand at the time the innovative nature of the Unix file system, and we had done text processing work in the past and I didn't see that we were, that any great research advance was being made. It sounded as if people wanted to provide a service or something with a typing pool. So the first proposal to buy a, I guess it was a PDP1120 I turned down...As I said the first time that Thompson and company asked for a computer they asked for a DEC PDP10 and they were told no on that. It was simply too big and you are not going to do operating system research for a big computer just after Multics has been turned off. The second time they asked, they wanted a PDP-1120 and I said, 'I am not convinced yet, I want to see more of what you say you are going to do with your text processing system.' 

In any event, his philosophy followed a somewhat lax path. 

> I didn't stomp on them, but neither did I sign their order and they found somebody else, another director to sign the order, and the third time they came around they wanted an 11/45 and by that time they had a perfectly plausible and defensible story. So they got selective enthusiasm used on them but not too violently or with too short of a time scale. If it is going to be good it will prove itself. 

One of Morgan's problems with accepting the proposals was in dealing with his own management and the bureaucracy in the upper levels of Bell Labs. 

> well I guess I had some difficulty in sorting out the signal from the noise. I was quite well aware that my bosses wouldn't approve the purchase of a really large computer to support any surreptitious continuation of the Multics effort. And I was I think willing to wait for the initial shouting to die down, and I figured that if there was a research component involved in the text processing work that it would appear in due course. And indeed it did. 

Being a manager, Morgan had rules of management to follow. 

> The management principles here are that you hire bright people and you introduce them to the environment, and you give them general directions as to what sort of thing is wanted, and you give them lots of freedom. Doesn't mean you always necessarily give them all the money that they want. ...You exercise selective enthusiasm over what they do. And if you mistakenly discourage or fail to respond to something that later on turns out to be good, if it is really a strong idea it will come back... 

To Morgan, his decision and the effects of his decision were a natural process, and there was nothing to regret. 

> I have never been in an organization that had enough money, or enough hiring slots, or enough office or land space to do everything that we would like to do. So one provides some back pressure. And in the case of the transition from Multics to Unix, the Multics faucet had to be turned off reasonably hard. It was a part of turning off, I mean it was a management decision that this was going to be turned off. And part of turning it off was not immediately buying hardware on which Multics could be continued. In retrospect, Thompson and Ritchie and other people did find partly through their own efforts and partly by looking for a director that was willing to buy a small amount of hardware, did find machines on which they could work. And in due course when it was clear to everybody around the research area that Unix was going to go somewhere and needed to be supported, they have had the machines that they wanted. They simply went to the director of the other person in the trio. And I didn't think there was anything wrong with this or unreasonable about it. 

There was a reasonable justification for the way things eventually worked out. 

> Max Matthews was a person who collected little computers anyway, and it may be that he had more money at the time than I did. We have certain plant budgets. Anyway, I didn't think that there was anything out of the way about this and I didn't feel that somebody was criticizing my judgment. Max was perhaps in a better position to support the machine, or I don't know what. But anyway it didn't seem unusual to me, and now that I recall McMahon reported to me for a long time. He transferred from Max's organization into mine not too long after this particular incident. But at the time he was a department head for Max Matthews. So he added his voice to the desires that the other fellows had and so Max bought the first computer. But there was nothing, there was nothing particularly unusual about this. And since it would have been a little more unusual if people entirely from one center had gone to a different director and said, 'Can you support this?' In which case, I am sure that Max would have come to me and said, 'Look, two of your guys have come to me and have said, will I buy them a computer? If a computer is going be bought, you ought to buy it. Let's discuss whether it should be bought or not.' The reason it didn't happen that way was that one of Max's department heads was in this story. 

In Morgan's view, Matthews' department was a better choice for supporting the funding of a new machine than his own. 

> I was told, 'Look, Max Matthews can support this.' He was the other director. And why could he support it? He could support it because he was interested in text processing. He was doing, ... he was in behavioral sciences and psychology, and he had people who were working on text processing, and in fact one of the folk who was, came in with the proposition for the 11/20 that I turned down. 

Fraught with difficulties, the search for a machine came to a successful end. Though Thompson and his fellow Unix programmers eventually obtained a PDP-11/45, the PDP7, the machine that was too small, was integral in the way Unix developed. Had the PDP-7 not been available, history might have been different. 

## Building Unix

#### Jason Aughenbaugh  
Jonathan Jessup  
Nicholas Spicher 

Once the group had a machine of its own, its members began to articulate both the system and the style of computing they had envisioned from their experience with Multics. Ostensibly in support of the development of the text processing system for which the machine had been purchased, they began to forge a collection of software tools that would come to characterize the Unix approach to computing. Designed to foster and facilitate interactive programming, the tools formed the basis of a set of "Workbenches" that turned Unix into a production environment for Bell Labs at large. In the process, Unix itself became as much a toolbox as an operating system. Central to that toolbox was pipes, a system process that allowed routines to be linked in sequence, the output of one providing the input for its successor. According to both McIlroy and Kernighan, pipes created the concept of tools. So the story of software tools must begin with the creation of pipes. 

As a metaphor, pipes emphasized the notion of tools as filters or, more technically put, transducers, which transform a sequence of input symbols into a sequence of output symbols. That notion fit well with the line of research being pursued by the theoreticians in Computing Research, most notably Al Aho. As a result, many of the tools reflected in their conceptual structure the application of recent results in the theory of automata and formal languages and in the theory of algorithms. This tie to theory became another characteristic of the Unix approach to computing, or the Unix ethos.

Unix was intended to recreate the communal computing environment that had so impressed the Bell Labs participants in the Multics project. During the years in which the toolbox took shape, its creators shared not only a computer system but also a small attic room, and their physical proximity was often as important to their collaboration as was the ability to share files and programs. To understand the economy and efficiency of the Unix programming environment, one must appreciate the tight-knit community that created it.

What emerged from the building of Unix was not only, or even primarily, a text-processing and programming systems that were the vehicles of its dissemination throughout Bell Labs, AT&T, and soon the academic community. In its inspiration and articulation, Unix embodied an ethos of computing, a view of what computers were for and how they should be used, indeed a view of how computers could enable and encourage human community.

The sections to follow will begin, then, with the creation of pipes and the development of some of the basic tools of Unix. After a look at the theory that informed this work, we will take a peek at the attic room and the patterns of collaboration that are embedded in Unix. We will then follow the main lines of its dissemination to the larger world, starting with the text processing system that was its initial justification and moving then to the spread of Unix itself. Finally, we will consider the ethos that accompanied the software and that made Unix more than just another operating system.

### The Origin of Pipes

     The first edition of Thompson and Ritchie's _The Unix Programmer's Manual_ was dated November 3, 1971; however, the idea of pipes is not mentioned until the Version 3 Unix manual, published in February 1973. Although Unix was functional without pipes, it was this concept and notation for linking several programs together that transformed Unix from a basic file-sharing system to an entirely new way of computing. The ideas that led to pipes had existed in various forms long before the concept was formally implemented. In fact, McIlroy explains that pipes sprang from the earlier use of macros:

> [I]n the early sixties, Conway wrote an article about co-routines. Sixty-three, perhaps in the _C[ommunications of the] ACM_, I had been doing macros, starting back in 59 or 60\. And if you think about macros, they mainly involve switching data streams. You're taking in your input, you suddenly come to a macro call, and that says, 'Stop taking input from here, go take it from the definition.' In the middle of the definition, you'll find another macro call. So, macros... even as early as 64... Somewhere I talked of a macro processor as a switchyard for data streams. 

Aho recalls that McIlroy had developed the concept of pipes much further:

> Doug McIlroy, though, I think is probably the author of translation...of pipes. That he had written, I think, this unpublished paper when he [was] at Oxford back in the 60s....You should read this paper because it's UNIX pipes. One of the interesting things about Doug is that he has had these great, seminal ideas which not everyone knows about. And whether his standards are so high that he doesn't publish them...or what? But it's remarkable.... 

According to Thompson, the concept of pipes developed as a result of a combination of ideas from the 940 system, CTSS, and Multics. 

> There were a lot of things that were talked about but weren't really done. Like treating files and devices the same, you know, having the same read calls. Typically during those days there were special calls for the terminal and then the file system itself. Those calls weren't the same. Confusing them and redirecting I/O was just not done in those days. So, that was... I think everyone sort of viewed that as a clean concept and the right thing to do, but for some reason it just wasn't done. 

Ritchie is even more willing to acknowledge the contributions of earlier systems to pipes. To him, "the pipeline is merely a specific form of co-routine. Even the implementation was not unprecedented, although we didn't know it at the time; the communication files' of the Dartmouth Time-Sharing System did very nearly what Unix pipes do, though they seem not to have been exploited so fully."[1][2]

#### McIlroy, Thompson, and Pipes

     Although the concept of pipes existed in some form long before 1972, it was McIlroy who advocated an implementation of a pipeline structure into Unix. From the beginning stages of the project, he had been seeking an improved method of dealing with input/output structures. "It was clearly a beautiful mental model, this idea that the output from one process would just feed in as input to another." McIlroy further explains:

> So, this idea had been ironed on in my head for a long time....at the same time that Thompson and Ritchie were on their blackboard, sketching out their file system, I was sketching out on how to do data processing on this blackboard, by connecting together cascades of processes and looking for a kind of prefix notation language for connecting processes together... 

It was largely a result of his insistence that pipes was finally implemented.

     According to Ritchie, McIlroy later explained the pipeline idea to the Unix team on a blackboard. However, this did not spark immediate enthusiasm. There were objections to the notations and the one-input, one-output command execution structure. [2][3] Nevertheless, McIlroy succeeded in convincing Thompson to add pipes to Unix. Thompson explains the difficulty in implementing McIlroy's ideas:

> Doug had...talked to us continually about it, a notion of interconnecting computers in grids, and arrays, you know very complex, you know, and there were always problems in his proposals....I mean there's just no way to implement his ideas and we kept trying to pare him down and weed him down and get him down, you know, and get something useful and distill it. What was going on, what was needed, what was real ideas, what was the fantasy of his...and we ...there were constant discussions all through this period, and it hit just one night, it just hit, and they went in instantly, I mean they are utterly trivial. 

McIlroy recalls the events a bit differently:

> Over a period from 1970 till '72, I would, from time to time, say 'How about making something like this?', and I would put up another proposal, another proposal, another proposal. Then one day I came up with a syntax for the shell, that went along with the piping and Ken said, 'I'm gonna do it.' He was tired of hearing all this stuff...and that was certainly what makes it....That was absolutely a fabulous day, the next day too. 'I'm gonna do it.' He didn't do exactly what I had proposed for the pipe system call. He invented a slightly better one, that finally got changed once more to what we have today. He did use my clumsy syntax... 

     Originally, pipes used the same syntax as redirection (< and >). However, this proved to be cumbersome, as several different combinations could represent the same command. Just before a presentation in London, Thompson decided to replace McIlroy's syntax with the vertical bar, eliminating the ambiguities of the old syntax. As Kernighan recalls, "I remember the preposterous syntax, that ">>" or whatever syntax, that somebody came up with, and then all of a sudden there was the vertical bar, and just [snaps fingers] everything clicked at that point." The beauty of the structure that McIlroy once described as "garden hoses" was recognized; data would simply flow from one program to another.

     In retrospect, the notation and syntax of pipes were just as important as the concept itself; pipes might not have been so successful without this further distinction from redirection. As Aho recalls, the full implications of pipes gradually developed after this:

> I really didn't appreciate the significance of what you could do with it, at the time, in the 60s. And I don't think anyone did, because...what made a lot of this philosophy...a lot of these tools go was the framework that Unix provided. That you could have pipes on which you could take the output of one program, and transmit it as input to another program. 

Kernighan explains why pipes was a superior method of input/output:

> It's not that you couldn't do those kind of things, because I had already written redirection; it predates pipes by a noticeable amount. Not a tremendous amount, but it definitely predates it. That's an oldish idea. That's enough to do most of the things that you currently do with pipes; it's just not notationally anywhere near so convenient. I mean, it's sort of loosely analogous to working with Roman numerals instead of Arabic numerals. It's not that you can't do arithmetic, it's just a bitch. Much more difficult, perhaps, and therefore mentally...more constraining. 

Pipes went far beyond McIlroy's original goal of creating a new I/O mechanism; the programmers used pipes to send an output of one program to the input of another. As Kernighan explains:

> That was the time, then, I could start to make up these really neat examples [of pipe commands] that would show things like doing, you know, running `who`, and collecting the output in a file, and then word counting the file to say how many users there were, and then saying, 'Look how much easier it is with...[piping] the `who` into the word count, and running `who` into `grep`,' and starting to show combinations that were things that were never thought of, and yet they were so easy that you could just compose them at the keyboard and get them right every time. That's, I think, when we started to think, probably consciously, about tools, because then you could compose the things together if you had made them so that they actually worked together. 

It was the pipes concept that allowed the notion of the software toolbox to develop. When interviewed by Mahoney, McIlroy insisted that pipes "not only reinforced, [but] almost created" the toolbox.

### Software Tools

     The first step in developing what would come to be known as the software toolbox was to ensure that all programs could read from the standard input. McIlroy explains the problem, and its solution:

> Most of the programs up until that time couldn't take standard input, because there wasn't the real need. They had file arguments. `grep` had a file argument, `cat` had a file argument. Thompson saw that that wasn't going to fit into this scheme of things, and he went in and changed all those programs in the same night. I don't know how. In the next morning we had this orgy of 'one-liners.' Everybody had one-liner. 'Look at this, look at that.' 

Kernighan elaborates with an example:

> And that's when people went back and consciously put into programs the idea that they read from a list of files, but if there were no files they read from the standard input, so that they could be used in pipelines. People went back and did that consciously in programs, like `sort`. `Sort`\--an example of a program that cannot work in a pipeline, because all the input has to be read before any output comes out--it doesn't matter, because you're going to use it in a pipeline, right? And you don't care whether it piles up there briefly; it's going to come out the other end. It's that kind of thing, where we say, 'Hey, make them work together. Then they become tools.' Somewhere in there, with the pipes, and maybe somewhere the development of `grep`\--which Ken did, sort of overnight--the quintessential tool, as I guess Doug refers to it. A thing which, in a different environment probably you don't see it that way. But, in the Unix environment you see it as the basic tool, in some sense. 

`grep` was, in fact, one of the first programs that could be classified as a software tool. Thompson designed it at the request of McIlroy, as McIlroy explains:

> One afternoon I asked Ken Thompson if he could lift the regular expression recognizer out of the editor and make a one-pass program to do it. He said yes. The next morning I found a note in my mail announcing a program named `grep`. It worked like a charm. When asked what that funny name meant, Ken said it was obvious. It stood for the editor command that it simulated, g/re/p (global regular expression print)....From that special-purpose beginning, `grep` soon became a household word. (Something I had to stop myself from writing in the first paragraph above shows how firmly naturalized the idea now is: 'I used `ed` to `grep` out words from the dictionary.') More than any other single program, `grep` focused the viewpoint that Kernighan and Plauger christened and formalized in _Software Tools_: make programs that do one thing and do it well, with as few preconceptions about input syntax as possible. [3][4]

     The idea of specialized programs was carried even further with the development of `eqn`, a mathematical text formatter developed by Kernighan and Cherry. Kernighan explains how `eqn` developed:

> [T]here was a graduate student named [name deleted] who had worked on a system for doing mathematics, but had a very different notion of what it should be. It basically looked like function calls. And so, although it might have worked, he a) didn't finish it, I think, and b) the model probably wasn't right. I remember, he and Lorinda had worked on it, or she had been guiding him, or something like that. I looked at and I thought, 'Gee, that seems wrong, there's got to be a better way to say it.' I mean, then suddenly I drifted into this notion of, do it the way you say it. I don't know where that came from, although I can speculate. I had spent a fair length of time, maybe a couple of years, when I was a graduate student, at Recording for the Blind, at Princeton. I read stuff like computing reviews and scattered textbooks of one sort or another, so I was used to at least speaking mathematics out loud. Conceivably, that trigged some kind of neurons. I don't know. 

`eqn` was an important software tool because, according to Kernighan, it 'was the first--something that sat on top of, or in front of, a formatter to genuinely broaden what you could do with them.' `eqn` went a step beyond `grep`; not only was it a small program that served one function, but it served little purpose without being tied to another program through a pipeline.

     `eqn` and `grep` are illustrative of the Unix toolbox philosophy that McIlroy phrases as, "Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs that handle text streams, because that is a universal interface." This philosophy was enshrined in Kernighan and Plauger's 1976 book, _Software Tools_, and reiterated in the "Foreword" to the issue of _The Bell Systems Technical Journal_ that also introduced pipes. [4 ][5]By the time these were published in the late 1970s, software tools were such an integral part of Unix that one could hardly imagine the operating system without them. As Kernighan explains:

> People would come in and they'd say, 'Yeah, this is nice, but does the system do X?' for some X, and the standard answer for all of this was, 'No, but it's easy to make it do it.' Unix has, I think for many years, had a reputation as being difficult to learn and incomplete. Difficult to learn means that the set of shared conventions, and things that are assumed about the way it works, and the basic mechanisms, are just different from what they are in other systems. Incomplete means, because it was meant as a program development environment, it doesn't have all the finished products necessarily. But, as a program development environment, it's very easy to build a lot of these things. It's sort of like a kit. And if you want a new thing, you can take the pieces out of the kit and assemble them to make your new thing, rather more rapidly than you would be able to do the same thing in some other kind of environment. So, we used to say that. 'Does it do X?' 'No, but it's real easy. Do you want one by tomorrow? I'll give you one by tomorrow.' 

As the software tools concept solidified, there was an increased interest among Unix programmers in developing a wider variety of specialized tools, and in developing them more quickly. 

#### Little Languages

     The idea of tools was extended to include the idea that people would actually use tools to develop other tools. Thus, the Unix programmers developed highly specialized scripting tools that became known as "little languages." Kernighan explains how the concept of little languages developed for him:

> Somewhere, somebody asked me to give a talk. I looked back and realized that there was, in some way, a unifying theme to a lot of the ways that I had been fooling around over the years, which is that I had been building languages to make it easy to attack this, that, or the other problem. In some way, make it easy for somebody to talk to the machine. I started to count them up, and, gee, there were a lot of things there that were languages. Some of them were absolutely conventional things, some of them were pre-processors that sat on other things, some were not much more than collections of subroutines; but, you know, you could sort of call them languages. And they were all characterized by being relatively small, as they were things that were done by one or two people, typically. And they were all not mainstream; I never built a C compiler. They were attacking sort of off-the-wall targets. So, I said, gee, well, they're little languages. 

According to the broad definition given by Kernighan, software tools such as `eqn`, `tbl`, and `make` can be considered little languages. Scripting languages are also little languages because they simplify tasks that would otherwise become complex under a full-scale language such as C. 

     One such scripting language, `awk`, was developed by Aho, Peter Weinberger, and Kernighan to be used for "simple one or two-line programs to do some filtering as part of a larger pipeline."[5][6] The modern language `perl`, a prominent scripting language used on the World Wide Web, is a descendant of `awk`. Kernighan explains the origins of `awk`: 

> We had this thing called `qed`....It was a programmable editor, but it was programmable in some formal sense. It was just awful, and yet it was the only thing around that let you manipulate text in a program without writing a hell of a lot of awkward code. So I was interested in programmable editors, things that would let you manipulate text with somewhat the same ease that you can manipulate numbers. I think that that was part of my interest in `awk`. The other thing is--that I remember as a trigger for me--was a very, very specialized tool that a guy named Mark Rochkind developed....He had a program that would let you specify basically a sequence of regular expression and message...and then it would create a program such that, if you pass data through this program, when it's an instance of the regular expression, it would print the message. And we'd use it for data validation. And I thought, what a neat idea! It is a neat idea. It's a really elegant idea. It's a program that creates a program that then goes off and validates data, and you don't have to put all the baggage in. Some program creates the baggage for you. The only problem with it was that it was specialized, this one tiny application. And so my contribution to `awk`, if you like, is the notion that you can generalize this. 

Weinberger explains that one of the main purposes of `awk` was to improve the database capabilities of Unix: 

> So we sat around and talked about this stuff and there's roughly speaking two pieces to databases. One is the question of how you get stuff out of the database. And the other is the question of how you sort of put stuff into the database. And putting stuff into a database gets involved in these are we going to allow for concurrent transactions?' and do we have to do locking?' because Unix was not particularly good...was incapable of in those days. And it was just all too weird. Eventually we settled on the idea of what we wanted was some...tool that would let you get stuff out of ordinary Unix files in a way that was...more general, more useful, more database-like, more report generally like. 

`awk` used a regular expression matching function similar to `grep`, but greatly expanded on it by adding the ability to replace the original expressions with the desired data stream. 

## Formal Methods

#### Mark Tygert

The Unix development group had a rich background in mathematical methods. Peter Weinberger had studied number theory as a professor at the University of Michigan. Brian Kernighan wrote his Ph.D. thesis on graph partitioning. Alfred Aho minored in mathematics as a graduate student. And M. Douglas McIlroy reports, "I went to Oxford for a year, solely so I could imbibe denotational semantics from the source."

Not surprisingly, then, the Unix group utilized formal methods very early in its history. In fact, Aho arrived at Bell Laboratories in 1967, and immediately began researching concepts that are now fundamental to computer science. In Kernighan's view, 

> The theory-based part of it [Unix] goes back to Al Aho, I think, starting here [at Bell Labs] -- having just finished a thesis at Princeton on a particular class of formal languages, having worked with [John Hopcroft][7], having had [Jeff Ullman][8] as best friend all the way through graduate school, when the analysis of formal languages was the hot topic in computer science. Computer science didn't really exist in those days, but that was the topic. People were studying the properties of languages [especially those useful for computing]. So, when Al got here, he was still interested in that, and I suspect that there were times when his management would wish that he'd get off this damn language stuff and do something that mattered. Fortunately, in the best tradition, he never did. 

During the initial development of Unix, Aho co-authored many of the standard textbooks associated with computer languages and analysis of algorithms. Interestingly, all of these books include examples of programming within Unix. Through these texts, Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman intertwined programming and Unix, while helping to give compiler design a firm theoretical basis. Aho relates, 

> So, in the early '70s, we [Aho and Ullman] wrote this two-volume sequence, Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling, that attempted to distill the essence of automata and language theory with applications to the process of compilation. And, I think this was one of the interesting demonstrations of putting a theoretical foundation onto an important practical area of computer science, that people in programming languages and compilers are, I think, an indigenous part of computer science. 

Aho and Ullman wanted to formalize the construction of programming languages and their compilers. Aho recalls, 

> What we discovered when we wrote the theory of parsing book...what we discovered was that the literature -- the scientific literature, if you could call it that -- was very inaccurate. These objects were so new, and the techniques for dealing with them were so incomplete, that many of the claims that were made and published about various parsing methods were just wrong. The proofs did not hold. So one of the things that Jeff [Ullman] and I did was to attempt to understand what kind of techniques could be used to analyze these formalisms, and also to put a clear picture into the scientific literature -- what was true and what wasn't. 

Clearly, Aho was interested in theory at least partly for its own sake. However, theoretical work at Bell Laboratories involved much more than just theory. Researchers always attempted to create something useful. Aho reports, 

> And there's also a certain consulattive aspect to the work that the Math Center used to do that we would be treated as consultants by the rest of the company, who could be called upon to help out, to help understand phenomena that was important to the telephone company. But, they were given a charter in which there were no holds barred in how they solved those particular problems, and some very innovative solutions came out of that. I think that kind of tradition was inherited by the Computing Science Research Center [the home of the Unix development group]. And I think it's a good tradition to have. That...there were also very high standards for the work and the people, that, no matter who came in, you were expected to be the forefront of your field, and be able to interact with the forefront of your field. There was probably also an implication that the real contribution was not just writing the paper, or, in fact, in many cases papers were never written. But, the real contributions were the ideas, and the refinement of the ideas, and showing people how to use these ideas, to solve problems of interest. 

Of course, others had somewhat different viewpoints. As manager of the Unix development team, McIlroy regarded theory as strictly a means, rather than an end: 

> Most of us are more computer types than mathematicians.... I had, in my department, system builders like Thompson, and theoretical computer scientists like Aho. And Aho plowed the fields of language theory from '60.... He joined us in around '66 -- just around the same time as Thompson. Handing out paper after paper of slightly different models of parsing and automata. And that was supported with the overt idea that, one day out of it, this really would feed computing practice.... When the sound theory of parsing went into a compiler writing system, it became available to the masses. It...there is a case where...there's absolutely no doubt that, overtly, theory fed into what we do. There are lots of other places where theory is an inspiration, or it's in the back of your mind. 

But even though McIlroy subordinated theory to "what we do," he realized that theory was absolutely essential: "I think really that `yacc` [yet another compiler-compiler] and `grep` are what people hold up [as] the 'real tools' -- and they are the ones where we find a strong theoretical underpinning."

Interestingly, since some members of the Unix development team had such pragmatic, tool-oriented views, they invented their theoretically-based ideas in a somewhat peculiar manner. For instance, when the Unix project had just begun, Stephen C. Johnson asked Aho to construct a C parser for him. Aho remembers, 

> I foolishly decided to construct the parser by hand, implementing one of these LR parser construction techniques [a formalism from language theory]. And I had a huge sheet of paper -- big piece of cardboard -- on which I carried out the sets of items construction, usually while I was watching television, 'cause it is such a trivial and mind-numbing task. And, of course, I didn't get it right. And I gave this piece of cardboard to Steve, and Steve would then encode it into his computer program. After a while, he become so frustrated with me, that I couldn't get it 100% right, he wrote a program that automated this parser construction technique. And that's how the tool `yacc` was born. 

Soon after the birth of `yacc`, Michael Lesk, another Bell Labs scientist, created `lex`, a tool for creating lexical analyzers. `lex` could create programs that would take raw text, fresh from the fingertips of a programmer, and group the characters of the text into lexical units. Then, a `yacc`-generated compiler could map these lexical units into object code, the binary code that computers actually run. Thus, by feeding `lex` with regular expressions (formalisms from language theory), and by feeding `yacc` with a specification of a context-free grammar (another formalism from language theory) and code for the actions associated with each grammatical unit, one could automatically construct a compiler for a programming language. 

Obviously, such automation depended upon the associated formal methods. The Unix group needed theory. Aho notes, 

> Well, with ad hoc methods you can do anything, but...at least my point of view is that, if you have a scientific base on which you can measure performance, and you can iterate and improve your algorithms with this scientific understanding, and then build an engineering design theory on that, you are going to be unassailable in the work and some of the compiler construction tools.... The other aspect of this is that it improves software quality in a significant way, and productivity in a significant way, 'cause you can write a compiler much more quickly using these tools, than if you had to do it from scratch. None of these stories that the first FORTRAN compiler took dozens of staff years to produce. Whereas now you could construct a compiler -- a significant compiler -- as part of a classroom project in an undergraduate computer science course. 

Clearly, then, theory had practical value. Formal methods often encouraged efficiency and clean coding. In Weinberger's eyes, 

> If you have a theory-based program, you can believe you got the last bug out. If you have a hacked-up program, all it is is bugs -- surrounded by, you know, something that does something. You never get the last bug out. So, we've got both kinds. And it's partly the style of the programmer. Both kinds are useful. But one kind's a lot easier to explain and understand, even if it's not more useful. 

Aho prized formal techniques even more than Weinberger, as he reveals in the following tale: 

> Doug McIlroy, in the previous year, had had a summer student who had taken a classical algorithm for constructing a deterministic automaton from a regular expression and looked for these patterns. And it was written in machine language. I was astonished to discover that the program that I had written ran several times faster that what this machine language program did. And, in fact, this sort of became an avocation of mine for a number of years subsequently, and the improvement in performance of that program has gone up by almost two orders of magnitude.... 

Without a doubt, the Unix group benefitted enormously from using formal methods. 

Yet, formalism would sometimes prove cumbersome and inefficient. Weinberger assesses early versions of the methods underlying `yacc` as follows: 

> The theory is correct. The theorems are correct. But the implications aren't what they sound like. You learn...that's one of the annoyances. Now, on the other hand, if you don't base it on theory, it's just chaos; you say, 'Well, I can hack it.' We have programs which are not based on theory, and some of our quite successful programs are not based on theory. 

Furthermore, on occasion the creators of Unix would make theoretical discoveries inadvertently. In attempt to make practical tools, they would generate new theories. For example, while implementing efficient mathematical routines, Bob Morris produced publishable techniques: 

> By and large, when I did things like writing sine, cosine, tangent, exponential, and logarithm functions, I tried very hard, to some success, to first do a very good job, and, second, there was enough originality [_i.e._, theory] in it that most of the work of that sort that I did got published. 

Indeed, Kernighan believes that practical concerns strongly influenced theoretical developments: 

> I think the reason [`yacc`] was well done is -- aside from the intrinsic brightness of the people involved, and the fact that they picked good algorithms and continued to refine them over the years -- I think it's the milieu of other people sort of banging against it, and trying things with it, and building things with it -- build up sort of a collection of things, where you could look at it and say, 'Yeah, this is actually useful stuff. It's not an academic exercise. It's genuinely a better way to do things than what you might have had before.' 

So, practicality dominated the Unix group. Yet, a wide range of activities qualified as "practical." For example, the abstruse research into language theory eventually fueled the automation of compiler construction, and therefore qualified as practical. Kernighan clarifies exactly how Bell Labs scientists were judged: 

> Impact is, I think, ultimately the criterion, but there's quite a long view taken, and quite a broad view of what impact is. So, somebody who does purely theoretical work -- but whose theoretical work affects the community in some sense, either because other people take it and produce artifacts, or because that person is able to shape a field, or something like that -- that's fine. That's good work. That has impact. It doesn't mean that you can see it in a telephone or anything like that; it means that it has had an effect -- a positive effect -- on something of substance. 

In this way, the Unix group practiced a distinctive type of theory. For Kernighan, 

> ...it's [programming] different from at least pure mathematicians; there is, in addition, the reward of utility if you do it well. People come along and say, 'Hey, look what I did!' Maybe mathematicians don't get any jollies when somebody says, 'Oh, I used your theorem.' But I think people who write programs do get a kick out of it when somebody comes along and says, 'Hey, I used your program.' 

Thus, the creators of Unix valued theory for its utility. While speaking about `awk`, a scripting language invented by Aho, Weinberger, and Kernighan, Weinberger noted that "a lot of the other aspects of the program are irrelevant compared to the fact that it does something useful." As he puts it at another point: 

> When you prove a theorem, you now sort of know something you didn't know before. But when you write a program, the universe has changed. You could do something you couldn't do before. And I think people are attracted to...these kinds of things. I've always found thinking a lot of work. And anything you can get the computer to do -- that's not what you would call thinking.... And once the program is working, it's working, and if it can do different forms of the calculation for you, it's not just that it's faster, it's also more accurate than doing them over and over by hand.... 

In short, formal methods were powerful, practical tools in the Unix architects' toolbox. 

### The Attic

     It might have been more difficult for the Unix programmers to develop software tools as quickly as they did had they been working in a different environment. The center of Unix activity was a sixth-floor room at Murray Hill which contained the PDP-11 that ran Unix. "Don't think of a fancy laboratory, but it was a room up in the attic," as Morris describes it. In addition to the programmers, four secretaries from the patent department worked in the attic, performing the text-processing tasks for which Unix was ostensibly developed. Morris describes the environment:

> We all worked in the same room. We worked all up in an attic room on the sixth floor, in Murray Hill. In space that maybe was one and a half times the size of this hotel room. We were sitting at adjacent terminals, and adjacent, and we knew each other and we always in fact ate lunch together. Shared a coffeepot. So, it was a very close relationship and most of us were both users and contributors and there was a significant initiative for research contribution at all points. 

The unique working conditions of the programmers led to a free exchange of ideas and complete access to information. Moreover, the close-knit environment led to certain standards of etiquette among the programmers. Cherry gives an example:

> [T]here was this attitude that he who touched it last owned it. So if you needed `pr` to do something `pr` didn't do, and you went and added it, you now owned `pr`. And so if some other part of it broke, you owned it. 

Despite the additional responsibilities that resulted from changing a tool, the programmers did not hesitate to make any improvements they deemed necessary. For example, Morris modified `pr`, as he explains:

> I remember, for example, one piece of software that I made a noticeable change in. I was listening one day in about 1974 to Ken and Dennis arguing about when something happened, and even at that point they couldn't agree to the nearest year it happened. They had a printout in front of them which had the date on it--month and day of the month. And I looked at them, looked at the piece of paper, their argument, and in my best Southern drawl I said, 'Ah shit,' and turn around [to the] console and actually changed the print programming program called `pr` and so it would now print out the year. 

Morris greatly appreciated the fact that tools were easy to use and fix, even fixing problems before they were vocalized.

> One day early on--let me pick about 1973--I was watching Dennis Ritchie do some arithmetic computations. I don't mean anything fancy. He was just adding up a list of numbers, using `dc` to do it, and as he was typing them in he made a error of typing, and `dc` for no particular reason except just the way it was designed--it could have just printed him an error comment, but that's not what it did--it printed him an error comment and wiped out the current sum. So, he had to start from scratch, and [I] again went back to my favorite Southern drawl. Went in made the change to the first program of `dc`. Recompiled it and installed it and it when about ten minutes later. Dennis, who probably hadn't seen me, the fact that I was watching him, said, 'There's a problem with your program and think I ought to fix it.' 'Hey, it's already installed.' And that kind of thing could happen with any person, any software, any time and was the rule rather than the exception. 

This example illustrates how the open, cooperative environment in the attic improved the responsiveness and flexibility of the system. 

     More importantly, each programmer used all of the tools himself, and thus could correct and enhance them in ways that would not have been possible in a different environment. As Morris explains, no person involved in the project could be a user without being a programmer.

> I was a user and I was creating [a] system that in part, in large parts I wanted to use. So, the parts I was creating were in many cases the part I needed for my own work. So, I was both a user and a contributor. But, that was generally true. It was true of everyone. 

He specifically discusses his calculator program, `dc`: 

> Though I didn't write [`dc`] for the public, I wrote it for myself and thats true of a lot of software that people are by and large writing software according to their own standards. The way they wanted to. For their own use, and the use of their friends and associates. 

Similarly, Kernighan believes that no one could be a programmer in Unix without being a user of the system.

> We use our own stuff, and I think that's a critical observation about this group here. We do not build tools for other people. We do not build anything for other people. I think it's not possible to build things for other people, roughly speaking. 

He continues: 

> If I build something for you, even if you spend a lot of time describing to me what you want, and why it's the way it is, it's not going to be as successful as something where I personally face the problems. Now, I may live with you long enough that I start to understand what your problems are, and then I'll probably do a better job, but I think that we have historically done the best on building things that address problems that we face ourselves. That we understand them so well because we face them, either directly--you know, I face that problem myself--or it's the person in the next office. 

This environment fostered not only the toolbox idea, but an entire philosophy of programming.

## Text Processing and the Writer's Workbench

#### David Silverman

The Writers Workbench exemplifies the collaborative nature of the UNIX group. The people of the Unix project had always done text processing. They had been writing and editing code to create Unix and its tools. The project, moreover, had received funding from the patent department in exchange for a document preparation package. Lorinda Cherry, an experienced programmer who had earned a computer science degree from Stevens Institute in 1969, and Brian Kernighan built an open-ended system of programs to deal with text. Their work on formatting, text analysis and style helped to create troff, ntroff and _Writers Workbench_, programs still used today.

Three factors contributed to the interest in text processing: in-house use, parts-of-speech programs, and statistical analysis of text. As various groups investigated or required new ways to process text, the number of tools grew. The team used text processing to work on programs and prepare reports. Some of the Unix teams tinkering, moreover, led to improvements in the new tools. Cherrys self-described goal was to "see what kind of neat new things I can make the computer do." Although Unix had used the text processor ed since its inception, Kernighan and Cherry improved not only the way ed performed its old functions, but created new functions for it.

The first improvements were troff** **and ntroff. These commands facilitated "a wide variety of formatting tasks by providing flexible fundamental tools rather than specific features," according to the _Bell Labs Technical Journal _(Kernighan, Lesk, and Ossanna 2119). Combined with the little languages described above, notably eqn, these features allowed the text processing and formatting both on the computer and in printed documents. This was particularly important for a company such as Bell Labs where so many reports were on technical matters.

The second project to assist with text processing was Brent Akers work on the Votrex machine, a peripheral that spoke for the computer. The Votrex did not intonate or emphasize properly. Cherry worked on a parts-of-speech program that would allow the computer to pronounce words properly. The computer needed "parts of speech for syllabic stress."

The third project was Bob Morris and Lee McMahons work on the authorship of the Federalist papers. Working with the ideas of statistician Fredrick Mosteller, Morris and McMahon were trying to determine who wrote which paper using statistical analysis. "Taking turns typing," they entered the papers into the machine to run them through various filters and counters. They "developed lots of tools for processing text in the process." Typo, for example, was "one of the early spell-checkers." It worked based on trigram statistics, a Mosteller technique that analyzed chunks of repeated letters. Cherrys familiarity with trigram statistics had come from a compression project she worked on in 1976\. She describes the process:

> > You take the whole string, if your ten-letter work had maybe a trigram that was six letters long that had a high enough count to be worthwhile, you pick that entire six-letter string off and store it in a dictionary and replace it with a byte and then with an index into the dictionary.

This counting procedure was applied to the other forms of analysis, for example, the Federalist papers authorship research.

Unixs special capabilities made much of the text processing work possible. Because ed** **was general purpose, "programs originally written for some other purpose" could be used in document preparation. Rudimentary spell checkers utilized the sort command, for example. "Case recognition," which "changed with Unix," also enhanced the programmers ability to analyze text. New methods of accounting** "**for punctuation and blank space and upper-lower case" also contributed.

With the background of formatting, part of speech analysis and statistical filtering, Cherry embarked on the project _Writers Workbench_. As the "grandmother" of this new aid, Cherry created a word processor with the capacity to analyze style, determine readability and facilitate good writing.

Cherry heard through a colleague that Bill Bestry, an instructor in Princeton Universitys English department "had his students  count parts of speech." The students were then able to use the objective statistics to improve their writing. Drawing on Cherrys previous part of speech work, _Writers Workbench_ did the count automatically. As Cherry put it:

> > There are various things you would count and look at using parts of speech to decide whether youve got a compound or compound sentencing sentences types, so the part of speech program turned into the style program.

This "layer on top of style and diction" features filled the program with a wider range of capabilities for both students and colleagues at Bell Labs. "There was a human factors group in Piscataway," for example, that wanted to "look at [computer] documentation and decide whether it was reasonable from a human factors standpoint." The readability indices of _Workbench_ helped to edit the manuals of Unix itself.

During beta testing with Colorado State, the _Workbench_ saw active faculty and student use. This program succeeded for three main reasons  its reliability, structure, and the programmers understanding of the writing process. The competing IBM product, _Epistle_, was based on a parser, making it slow and incapable of coping with incorrect student grammar. _Workbench_ "never really did check grammar" but did illuminate the style of sentences employed. The "press-on-regardless attitude" of workbench lead to accuracy across the entire paper. The most important factor, however, was the programmers understanding of the writing process itself. They knew to present readability scales as estimates, not to squeeze papers into pure numbers. They knew that the ultimate lesson was to teach students that writing is a series of choices, not a matter of pretty formatting on a laser printer. Cherry expressed her vision of the Workbenchs use:

> > My feeling about a lot of those tools is their value in education um is as much pointing out to people who are learning to write that they have choices and make choices when they do it. They dont think of a writing task as making choices per se. Once they get it on paper they think its cast in stone. So it makes them edit.

This step beyond formatting is what makes Unix truly able to process text and improve the writing skills of its user.

## Ethos

#### Robert Murray-Rust and Malika Seth

The creation of the Unix operating system was a collaborative effort of many mathematicians and theorists, and much of the success of the project was due to the people involved and the environment in which the system was written. Unlike most businesses, the workplace at Bell Labs was relaxed, and specific tasks were not assigned to individuals. According to Kernighan, who worked with the same group at Bell Labs before joining the Unix project, each person worked on projects of their choice:

> It's interesting, I had so much fun here in '67 and '68-just, you know, the people. It was just such a good collection of people, and I've enjoyed it. I never interviewed anyplace else; I never even thought of any other place. I simply said I'd like to work here. And Sam Morgan, in his wisdom, said, "We don't want any Ph.D. dropouts, so you have to get your degree finished. But, other than that, sure, we'd love to have you." That was it, and I came early in '69 and the charter, or my instructions, were-as they are for everyone else-non-existent. Do what you want. The hope is that the combination of people around you, doing things that are interesting-and perhaps ultimately relevant, but not instantaneously relevant, I don't even know-but the combination of people around you doing interesting things, and getting their jollies, I think, from having their interesting things affect other people, means that there's this sort of gentle gravitational pull towards doing the same kind of thing yourself. It's clear the reward mechanism ultimately favors those people who have an impact on the local community, impact on the Bell Labs community, impact on AT&T, impact on the scientific community, in some combination.

Likewise, Bob Morris felt that the researchers' freedom was essential and probably would not have been possible at any other point in time.

> ...General attitude. People contributing system software and that crucial, there were not working toward externally separate departments. We were not bidding on some Goddamn government project. Which meant somebody who didn't know anything had set out a lot of ways of how the system should operate...We had almost total freedom in that, and we were able to, and it's a luxury. I mean no one could do that kind of stuff with Unix now. Couldn't possibly. Not with AT&T Unix. Not with any Unix. You just couldn't possibly laugh and see something go so wrong with a program. See that it was wrong. Go in, find the place when the change needed to be made and install the result. Hey, that was perfectly reasonable in 1974. By 1978, it was absolutely out of the question. 

From the management side, this idea of freedom and the importance of creating personal projects was reflected in Morgan's hiring practices. Morgan relates,

> ...We have the philosophy that you hire bright people, you expose them to interesting problem areas, and you keep an eye on what they are doing and in particular on their interactions with other people. You attempt to give them guidance only in a very general sort of way. Often times this guidance is simply a lot of enthusiasm for something that they are working on. An environment like that is self perpetuating, so long as you keep your hiring standards up and your management keeps its eyes open.

Another unique feature of the Unix project was that the mangers were technically trained people with similar qualifications to those developing the tools. Morgan says,

> ...The management around, around Bell Labs all are, at least around the research area, all came up through the technical route. And people don't get promoted to management in the research area here unless they have a good track record. You may find a few folk who disagree with that. But my view is that our department heads and directors and executive directors were once technical hot shots. Sometimes that back fires, because you get a technical hot shot who has no people skills. But that is a different story. Your technical people, your managers were once technical hot shots and they were imbued with this general philosophy of how you conduct, how you manage research at this kind of place. And good things come out of this...philosophy of research management...I didn't create this, to some extent I keep it going

Morgan felt there was a delicate balance between giving people complete freedom and assigning tasks. Also, he only gave explicit approval to certain projects when he felt the group was ready ("selective enthusiasm"), for instance when Thompson's group asked for a computer. In Morgan's words,

> You can't make it happen. You hire bright people, provide them with a stimulating environment. And you do selective pruning and encouragement of what they undertake. But you don't do this with too short a time constant. As I said, the first time that Thompson and company asked for a computer, they asked for a DEC PDP-10 and they were told no on that. It was simply too big and you are not going to do operating system research for a big computer just after Multics has been turned off. The second time they asked, they wanted a PDP-11/20 and I said, "I am not convinced yet, I want to see more of what you say you are going to do with your text processing system." So I didn't stomp on them, but neither did I sign their order, and they found somebody else, another director to sign the order, and the third time they came around they wanted an 11/45 and by that time they had a perfectly plausible and defensible story. So they got selective enthusiasm used on them but not too violently or with too short of a time scale. If it is going to be good it will prove itself. 

Similarly, Kernighan felt that there was no direct management and that the group's success was due to both coincidence and the people involved. He explains,

> I don't think it was directed, or least if it was directed, it was done in an incredibly deft and unobtrusive way. Maybe management will tell you that that's worse... .If that is true then it is to their eternal credit. Now, I think, in a sense-I mean, Doug was management of at least some part of that. I guess Ken technically was in Doug's department, and Doug is superb [with] that kind of stuff. Insofar as he manages it, he does by superlative constructive criticism at the right time, and by going out and trying your stuff and finding out where it works and where it doesn't work, and then telling you what was good about it and what didn't work. To a lesser degree, I suspect that, in some sense, we all do that. I don't think that this was done by any direct management, so we can dispose of that part. 

> Part of it is a confluence of really good people with reasonably good taste. Particularly Ken and Dennis, who, as far as I can tell, genuinely have truly deep insight, and at the same time, good taste, and at the same time, essentially very close to parallel taste, so that they don't get going in opposite directions. Part of it is happy coincidence, that technology had gotten just about the right point where you could get hardware-a machine to work on-where you didn't have to, in some sense, be beholden to other people. You didn't have to use that machine their way because they paid for it, or something like that; that you could have something that's sort of your own, so you could furnish your computing world the way you wanted it, the way you are comfortable with it.

Bob Morris also commented on Doug McIlroy's role in the project, both on the managerial and technical levels. Morris narrates,

> Doug was a manager and he had a supervisory responsibility for the whole thing anyway...He was a department head and I think it was being done by people in his department. There may well be exceptions but, most of them certainly were in his department. So, at the early stage, he simply watched this happen and thought it was a good idea, supported it, and helped in an administrative way to make it happen. Perhaps a couple of years later, he was right along in there pushing along with the rest of them. On the technical level. That's why in this stage I include him. I don't mean Doug as a manager, as a department head. But, as a technical might, he was in there by 1973 thereabouts. 

At the same time, he felt that there was no particular leadership during the project, and stressed the importance of doing things yourself. Morris remarks,

> It was [more cooperative]. I don't think there was any time when there was any notion of anybody adopting on leadership. If Ken asked somebody to do something, the answer would be, "Go suck a grapefruit"...Oh, no matter who he asked. Or if someone in the group had been asked to do something, "Do it yourself." There was no leadership that I detected for being in, was community.

In addition, there was a strong sense of responsibility for the quality of the work, resulting in projects supported by theory. According to Weinberger, 

> ...there's definitely been a tendency is, if you don't know how to do it right, just don't bother in the Unix development. And I think that's one of the things that...leads one to choose things that are backed by theory.

> Because I have this feeling I make mistakes, everybody makes mistakes, I also have this feeling that you never want to have to touch the programs. So it's important to do it right early and that it [will] always be okay.... It's not just a problem of the minute, although one writes a lot of code that's got to do the problem of the minute. It's got to fill the niche permanently, which is completely unrealistic but it's certainly an attitude. And I think that matches this other. If it's just going to be a slipshod temporary hacked up way of doing it it's just not going to work long enough. And you're going to just have to come back and do it again and it's just too much like work. Not that reality actually matches this in any way but I think that's the attitude. I think that makes it easier to pick up that ethos.

Although there was a push towards excellent quality of work, Weinberger asserts,

> It's clear that the most powerful pieces of it have that property [of being theory-driven] and that many of the pieces, even where there's no clear theoretical piece behind them, have sort of... the next best cousin in programming language, designer stuff like that... .Unix is famous for this theory that it's best to do 80% because the last 20% is way too hard. But if there were a big piece you could chop off, then you did it. And that's why you get general regular expressions instead of some other version...I think regular expressions is clearly the...single thing that distinguishes the Unix way from other ways, the MS DOS way and many others. Yes, I think the compromises that are made are made somewhere else. Not made in these places where there are strong algorithms.

Lorinda Cherry felt that the theoretical foundation for the work led to an attitude of discipline. Nothing was included unless it was essential and people had to justify what they were doing, to some extent. Cherry comments,

> There's certainly some discipline in what's allowed to hang around and what isn't. One can watch that in whatever manual is produced and Doug starts throwing programs or people start, 'Rather than document this file, we're going to remove it. It's not really necessary, there's another way to do it.'

As previously discussed, this was also a sense a sense of ownership, in that the last person to touch a program owned it. These two factors, discipline and ownership, were unique to this Unix project, according to Cherry. She compares it to the Berkeley Unix system, suggesting that the variations are possibly due to the differences between environments:

> If you look at the Berkeley Unix system and some of the commands that are similar, the same in Berkeley as what we have here but you look at the Berkeley manual they've added 85 flags to the `cat` command or something. It was a very simple elegant thing that did a very simple job. I guess we've always had the attitude that it has to be really useful to be worthwhile putting in. Maybe just 'cause it was a smaller group than at Berkeley or maybe people in Berkeley, everybody needs to find a niche so they've got to put a flag on something, I don't know what the environment is there. But I think it was here to prevent featurism. I think that's the difference between the two systems. And I think that undoubtedly has to do with the university environment where everybody has to do something as opposed to the environment where in some sense everybody had to justify what it is they were doing to your cause. And there is also some hesitancy 'cause if you touched it you owned it, you thought hard about whether you needed to add that flag or whether there was some other way around it. Whether there was some program. You said I'll find some other way to do this 'cause I don't want to own this program.

At the same time, however, people were both willing and expected to help others with their programs in any way possible. One example of this responsiveness was the previously mentioned account of dc, told by Bob Morris. As shown from this example, collaboration played an integral role in the success of the project. The group discussed problems they were having, and often worked together to solve problems. A perfect example of this is AWK, a text processing language developed by Al Aho, Peter Weinberger, and Brian Kernighan. As the name implies, it was certainly not a singular effort. 

According to McIlroy, the trend towards working together grew stronger with the introduction of pipes. One aspect of this approach that made their work more difficult was that they had to be very careful that all the parts would work together; when many small pieces are put together to form a finished project, the interaction between the pieces can often lead to mistakes. It is because of the internal efficacy of the individual pieces that the project as a whole was a success. McIlroy says,

> This is the Unix philosophy. Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs that handle text streams because, that is a universal interface. All of those ideas, which add up to the tool approach, might have been there in some unformed way prior to pipes. But they really came in afterwards.

In Morgan's opinion, the management encouraged this collaboration but sometimes had to help organize the partnership. Morgan observes,

> We do encourage people to be enterprising, that if they want something done, or if they want somebody to cooperate with them...You will occasionally get someone with feels that he would like to have somebody working with him and this won't happen until somebody's boss says, You two guys collaborate. One does not tell researchers to collaborate with each other. You find, you find common interests in somebody and then the collaboration occurs. So if somebody came to me and said, You tell somebody to, you tell such and so to work with me. You make your own contacts. So folks...are encouraged to be entrepreneurial in the sense that they make contacts and they get collaborations going.

The cooperative efforts were facilitated by the close working environment. The attic had a lot to do with that, but the success was also due to the people working in the attic. Morgan remembers the group as tight-knit, spending time with each other even when they were not working. In his words,

> From about 1970 to about 1976 or 1977 we had about two dozen people, twenty four people in the whole group. We were essentially not hiring anybody, we were in one of our chronic hiring freezes and we just had a small group of good people who generally ate lunch together, and who were quite willing to argue with each other and to discuss and to use the techniques they knew about to put together things that they thought were interesting. It was a lot of work in text processing at that time. There was a lot of work in practical operating system development. There was a lot of work in theoretical computer science, compiler theory and algorithms. It was done essentially by a handful of people. But they were people who did a lot of talking to each other and a lot of shouting and who essentially collaborated. And that is the way that research is supposed to be done.

This led to what Aho called "Darwinism in Unix." The programming languages were tested by users so that they would best suit the users' needs. Aho says,

> Well, you [Mahoney] talked about Unix being a spirit. The one way that I view it is that there's a great deal of Darwinism in Unix. If one looked at how certain commands and languages came into being, it was because someone had an idea. Say like Kernighan and Cherry for this language for typesetting equations. They got a rudimentary form of the language processor to be up and running, and then they let their friends use it. Then the language evolved on the basis of usage patterns. That, as users gained more experience with the language, they would be able to say, I'd like to have these additional features. Or, These are some awkwardnesses in the language. So there was a Darwinistic evolution of the language, and, in fact, of the Unix system itself. That it is satisfied a certain user's needs, and there was enough time to refine the system so that it satisfied those needs...I thought, quite efficiently and quite elegantly. There is this "European approach," if you want to use that term, or this more dogmatic approach to language design, where you have some august committee that meets for a period of several years to come up with a language specification. They...write a document. Compiler writers work off that document for several years to produce a compiler, only to discover that there may be some infelicities in the language design. And, the process is much more cumbersome. Natural languages evolve, and I think, Why shouldn't programming languages?

Lorinda Cherry also described the importance of a natural programming language, specifically in reference to eqn:

> ...the graphics is easy. The hard part is getting a language that you can teach to a math typist that will just flow off her fingertips to complicated graphics. I think the language part of that was what was neat about it. It's still what's neat about it.

Morris also described the same necessity for an intuitive math program, also in reference to eqn:

> ...the damn thing ought to work and it ought to work in obvious ways and I didn't have a manual. Wasn't going to get one and never intended to look at one. [Brian Kernighan's] view was completely supportive of that...his view was if I used common sense and tried to create some construct, and I wrote integral from A to B of X that it should damn well produce a nice integral sign and an A at the bottom of it and a B at the top of it and an integrand and do all that without a lot of messing around and if it didn't recognize common sense ways that ordinary people say this is mathematical text so ordinary people who were writing that mathematical text, then it ought to be changed. And that's the way it stayed. I'm still a user of eqn, and I still never seen a manual with eqn. That's one of the credible ones. Because there are an awful lot of possible differences. I mean looking at competing packages of that sort damn near unusable, because you have to learn so many rules to operate them that by the time you learn half of the rules, you're already bored with the whole thing.

Morris conveyed this to Condon early on, and Condon expressed a similar feeling, describing it as "cognitive engineering". He spoke of going to Bob Morris and asking

> How do you understand what these commands do? The manual pages aren't all that clear. [Morris] would say, What do you think is the reasonable thing to do? Try some experiments with it and find out. I think that was a very interesting clue. At least his philosophy and some of the other people's philosophy, of Dennis's also, of how system commands should work. It should work in a way that is easy to understand. It shouldn't be a complex function which is all hidden in a bunch of rules. I think the concept of cognitive engineering...is that people form a model. You present them with some instruments, tools, like a faucet, electric stove or something like that and demonstrate how it works. They then form in their heads a model that shows how it works inside to help them remember how to use it in the future. It may be a totally erroneous model of what is going on inside the black box. What in fact is going on inside, I think Bob Morris [told] me, I know he felt this way, is that the black box itself should be simple enough. Such as when you form a model of what is going on in the black box that's in fact is going on in the black box. [Don't] write a program to try and outwit and double guess what they're going to want to do. You should make it such that it is clear about what it does.

This idea of clarity characterizes of the Unix philosophy. Unix was created in a environment of bright, motivated people from various backgrounds. They were given the freedom to invent their own projects and the system developed as a combination of inputs from a variety of people. There was no a organized structure, and tools were written as they were needed. Much of the work had a strong theoretical basis resulting in disciplined programming. Collaboration was also key to success, and this was enhanced by the close working environment. The researchers all worked together in the attic, and then continued their discussions outside working hours. They strove for intuitive and efficient programs, qualities that perhaps could not be replicated if the project were to take place under other conditions.

## The dissemination of Unix, with a focus on what went on within Bell Labs

#### Steve Chen

     One of the appealing characteristics of the Unix operating system is its efficiency. This aspect of Unix arose out of two factors. First, the researchers at Bell Labs were working on small machines to create Unix. Second, the desire for efficiency was a natural reaction to the complexity of Multics which turned out to included much code that didn't have anything to do with the operating system. Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie understood what to leave out of an operating system without impairing its capability. 

     The way in which the Unix operating system evolved in AT&T and within Bell Laboratories was complementary to the philosophy that underlay the development of Unix. When Unix evolved within Bell Laboratories, it was not a result of a deliberate initiative by managememt. Rather, it spread through channels of technical need and technical contact. The popularity of Unix was not the result of some grand advertising campaign, nor was it the result of brilliant marketing strategy. Instead, departments at Bell Laboratories came to know Unix simply because it was the most efficient and flexible operating system available at that time. 

     Unix had several advantages. First of all, it was written in a high level language, C, rather than in assembly language as were almost all of the previous operating systems. This in turn meant improved portability. Unix eventually became the only operating system to run on supercomputers and micros alike. Also, the concept of pipes allowed streams for connecting processes together. The Berkeley System Distribution (BSD) added many of the network features such as sockets, and many of the software tools came in with System V. Unix featured simple treatment of files and devices. It was flexible enough to be used on systems of all sizes, and its workbench concept provided the user with an easily extendible toolset. 

     After the withdrawal from Multics, as researchers in Bell Laboratories were searching for the operating system that Multics failed to become, the Bell System was faced with the problem of automating its telephone operations using minicomputers. According to Berk Tague, "The discovery that we had the need-- or actually, the opportunity-- in the early '70s to use these minis to support telephone company operations encouraged us to work with the Unix system. We knew we could do a better job with maintenance, traffic control, repair, and accounting applications." ("Interview with Berkley Tague," _Unix Review_, June 1985, p.59.) Tague continues, "The existing systems were made up of people and paper. The phone business was in danger of being overwhelmed in the early '70s with the boom of the 60's. There was a big interest then in using computers to help manage that part of the business." Coming into the late 1960's, the New York Public Service Commission and other such regulatory bodies began putting pressure on AT&T to solve what was termed as a "service crises." This pressure led AT&T in search of technological advances that would make its support operations more efficient. This search eventually led to Unix. 

     At first, AT&T had looked for operating systems from outside vendors. However, it turned out that the vendor operating systems that were available simply were not adequate. Also, during that time, a number of people had already started building their own operating systems. Thus, AT&T launched into the development of Unix to satisfy its own needs. 

     Berk Tague played a major role in providing support for the Unix system. He had been responsible for systems engineering as head of the Computer Planning Department. It was Tague who pushed for Unix to be adopted and made the internal standard. In September of 1973, he had in place an organization called Unix Development Support to provide support for a standard Unix. In an interview with Michael S. Mahoney, Tague talks about how he get started in Unix. 

> I got into the Unix business... in September of '73 [and] I got permission to put together the first Unix support group in Bell Laboratories. I put a supervisory group together and staffed that up. And at that time I was also interested in supporting MERT. I thought I'd do MERT for real time and Unix for a time sharing kind of application. MERT never got off the ground. We wasted energy on that. Though MERT actually got embedded in some of the Unix line systems that underlined the ESS processors... But I was driven by my customers. When I went into business all of my customers knew more than my people did. So we spent the first year in documenting the product, getting an LDI to Western that made it an official product which is a submission of design information that had to be done. And my people [were] learning to be as good as their customers were in understanding what it was we had. But we quickly got to the point where we understood what the business was and we were trying to gain control of the customers... We ended up just at the end putting in a lot of that stuff in Unix to hold it together. (Berk Tague, Interview with Michael S. Mahoney.)

This organization, along with Bell Labs Research, agreed on the need for Unix portability. The goal was to allow Unix to become an interface between hardware and software that would allow applications to keep running while the hardware underneath was changing. The fact that Unix was later rewritten in C meant that it was no longer machine dependent. The decision to rewrite Unix in C came from Ritchie and Thompson. This was a major breakthrough in portability for the Unix operating system. Tague recounts his first sale of Unix, 

> I vividly remember the first guy I sold Unix to. There was a fellow here at Whippany and he'd gotten a crew of pretty good programming talent off of Safeguard. They'd never written for anything but large machines. They'd never done an operating system before or a compiler or anything very sophisticated in the way of systems software. And they had a schedule that said they were going to buy a PDP-11... build an operating system... write their own language and they were going to compile an application that was going to be in the field in the spring. I came around to review this purchase. And I sat down with... a fella named Jan Norton... and he and I were eyeball to eyeball pretty quickly... I said, 'Look, here's the deal: I understand you guys will probably want the world's most portable operating system, but what I'm going to insist you do, is you pick up Unix and that you use it as a basis for your development because it'll get this machine running. And if you don't do that you don't have a prayer. I'll bet you money on that.' So I said, 'You can go on and do your own operating system.' Of course I knew what would happen when they got this thing up, and they really realized what they were up against. UNIX would be the only way they had a prayer of getting anything done even close to the time schedule. And indeed that was... and I repeated that process with several people and the PDP-11 DEC had a good reputation. It was clearly the machine they liked. (Ibid.)

Unix sold because it was the most effective operating system for the job at hand. Along with Unix came various software tools such as the programmer's workbench and a technical staff to support the operating system. This type of marketing and support mirrored that of telephone systems at Bell Labs. 

     Providing support for Unix was a major part of Tague's work at Bell Labs. In this sense, selling Unix was like selling telephone systems. One couldn't just sell the product and be done with it. When selling Unix, one also sold people to help support Unix. 

> I've always seen the business as having three layers. There's always been a top and middle and a small. And those have changed their definition over the years but from about the end of the '60s on I can always find those three layers and they're defined not just by machine size but the approach to the marketing machine was bundled is how it is. And it ranges from the large end which is this thing when you buy a machine we put people on your premises. It's all a package. The unbundling of course has attacked that a little bit but it still stems from that tradition. It's very much seen." (Ibid.)

When talking of the support for Unix in Bell Labs, Tague says, 

> It was clear that people wanted central support for UNIX. For a developer to take an uncommented batch or code from Research would normally be impossible. But you see these guys had (hooked) themselves. Because they were promising to write their own operating system from scratch. So I could point out to them, 'Look, you're going to have to support an operating system, so you might as well support one that exists. And don't tell me it's going to be easier to write your own and to beat this guy who's doing his third operating system.' And by that time it was beginning to get some momentum. So that was a seller. But I knew life would be easier if we had central support. So I went to my boss and in effect what we agreed to do was to split the planning department into two pieces. And I took on a department that became UNIX-MERT development... (Ibid.)

When talking about the PWB programmer's workbench-- a set of tools that were started up independently but eventually grew to become a tightly held complement of Unix-- Tague says, 

> And there were very good tools that Dick and his people had produced on the PWB for managing code and doing code control and that sort of thing. Dick was not very patient for that, but he appreciated [it]; his managers needed it. We referred to them as a manager's "Linus' blanket," and there was a certain amount of fairness about it." (Ibid.)

Clearly, Unix was a very marketable product. However, the transition from the research environment to the sales department still had to be made. In addition, there was the need to standardize Unix in order to present it as a marketable product. Tague was a key player in facilitating this transition. 

When the idea of marketing Unix as a product was presented to Research, it was not very well received. Nonetheless, Research eventually agreed to Tague's proposal. 

> ... I had this vision we ought to be able to take Unix as an operating system but as a company we can support this as an internal standard operating system along with C in an environment. And then we can then front end a large external agency and commercial agency in this. With the idea that people would sort of see the machine and use a common front. It was not well received by Research... My story is they may not have appreciated it but it all came true. That really is pretty much the way the business has gone. (Ibid.)

In his interview with Tague, Mahoney asks, " Did you decide at a certain point then that it was time to take over the latest version of Unix and standardize it?" Tague replies, 

> Yes, as I say, in '73 it was apparent that we needed the support and the right thing to do was to go up to Research and tell Ritchie... And we synchronized reasonable well in that and my people took care of the dog work of putting together the design information files and things that Western required in order to capture the configuration and to do configuration control. (Ibid.)

By 1976 Unix support was established, and Unix internally was a sole product. 

> In September of '78 Jack Scanlon was putting together the initial computing business center... I guess there were five of us. I was brought in for Unix, Lee Thomas was brought in for the MAC-8 micro-processor chip, Nick Maralotto was brought in for some of the software support tools for Jay and Dick Haddon... I believe there was another whole hardware center that did the 3B development... [We] tried to put together a single Unix that would sell very easily across the board in those places... The C machine was all very nice but they really wanted to have the hottest Unix in the marketplace out there... [that] the 3B should sell itself because it was the hottest Unix box around was the idea behind it. (Ibid.)

The 3B machines were mostly used within Bell Laboratories, and very few were picked up outside the Labs. 

In 1973, the first Unix applications were installed on a system involved in updating directory information and intercepting calls to numbers that had been changed. This was the first time Unix had been used in supporting an actual, ongoing operating business. Soon, Unix was being used to automate the operations systems at Bell Laboratories. It was automating the monitoring, involved in measurement, and helping to rout calls and ensure the quality of the calls. Tony Cuilwik states, 

> Among the varied and wide-ranging functions these systems perform are network performance measurement, automated network testing, circuit order planning, circuit order record keeping, automated trouble detection, automated or directed trouble repair, service quality assurance, quality control, inventory control, customer record-keeping, and customer billing-- as well as any number of other operational and administrative functions. These functions all require the ability to present data to users in real time." ("Reach out and Touch the Unix System," by Tony Cuilwik, "Unix Review," June 1985, p.50.)

Cuilwik, who was the head of the Operations Systems Development Department at Bell Laboratories and later the director of AT&T Information Systems Laboratories at Columbus, Ohio, relates the object in these systems was "to guarantee a minimal acceptable human response time. This challenge has been met by tuning the underlying Unix system." (Ibid.) In the end, the fundamental integrity of the national telecommunications network came to depend on over 1000 real-time, mini-computer-based systems that were all built on a version of the Unix operating system. 

Because AT&T was not in the business of selling operating systems, Unix soon became readily available to academic institutions at a very small charge. There were numerous reasons for the friendliness the academic society, especially the academic Computer Science community, showed towards Unix. John Stoneback relates a few of these: 

> Unix came into many CS departments largely because it was the only powerful interactive system that could run on the sort of hardware (PDP-11s) that universities could afford in the mid '70s. In addition, Unix itself was also very inexpensive. Since source code was provided, it was a system that could be shaped to the requirements of a particular installation. It was written in a language considerably more attractive than assembly, and it was small enough to be studied and understood by individuals. (John Stoneback, "The Collegiate Community," Unix Review, October 1985, p. 27.)

Stoneback also relates how research Unix aided academic computer science departments in establishing and developing research in computer science. 

> Unix had another appealing virtue that many may have recognized only after the fact -- its faithfulness to the prevailing mid-'70s philosophy of software design and development. Not only was Unix proof that real software could be built the way many said it could, but it lent credibility to a science that was struggling to establish itself as a science. Faculty could use Unix and teach about it at the same time. In most respects, the system exemplified good computer science. It provided a clean and powerful user interface and tools that promoted and encouraged the development of software. The fact that it was written in C allowed actual code to be presented and discussed, and made it possible to lift textbook examples into the real world. Obviously, Unix was destined to grow in the academic community. (Ibid., p. 27)

At its outset, Unix was very compatible with academic institutions. Not only was it a capable operating system, but it also provided professors with a model for teaching the newly emerging field of Computer Science. 

    The power of Unix as a tool in the computer science research field was also been felt. By using Unix as a basis for operating systems research, researchers have benefited in three major was. First, the portability and flexibility of Unix gave researchers a means through which they could verify each other's experiments by way of a common operating system. Second, researchers were able to use the solid base of systems software provided by Unix to build on the work of others and to approach problems without wasting time by developing all the pieces from scratch. Third, by allowing both research and computing to be carried on within the same system, Unix made it possible for researchers to move results from the laboratory to the production environment rather quickly. This speed is mandatory for state-of-the-art computing. 

    Though AT&T gave Unix to the academic community at a very low cost, the academic community gave back to Unix in the form of testing and contributing to the system. An example of this is the virtual memory version of Unix for the VAX computer which was created by Babaoglu and Porker at UC Berkeley and later optimized by Bill Joy. 

    Within Bell Labs, as Unix was being used for real-life applications, bugs would be discovered and reported back to the programmers. There were also situations where the departments using the Unix system would create new applications for their own tasks. It was the job of the research labs to provide maintenance for Unix, update the software, and reporting the discovered bugs to the programmers and distributing the fixes. 

    The support group for Unix became important in 1978 when Bell Labs started to depend heavily on the Unix system for their operations. This trend began to show itself with the introduction of Edition 7. At this point, the vision of the support group was to develop a polished and more stable version of Unix, while at the same time stabilizing the system so that everything would run smoothly at Bell Labs. Unix was being used as the operating system basis for many of the support systems in the Bell Operating Companies, and Bell Labs simply could not afford to let these support systems go down. Meanwhile, in academia, Unix users were responsible for their own maintenance. This fostered a community of Unix users who were willing to help one another. 

    UUCP was introduced with the Version 7 Unix. This was used to pioneer the advance of Usenet News. Usenet News was a step forward from ARPANET, and was embraced enthusiastically by the academic community, as it made inexpensive electronic communication available to all of its members. Through Usenet, a community was formed which was democratic in the purest sense. It was a community that supported it members and in turn was nurtured by the people it served. It was open to new ideas, open to change, and generous with its benefits. In 1980, a survey conducted by the Computer Science Research Network (CSNET) of academic institution revealed that over 90 percent of all departments were served by one or more Unix systems. Usenet truly was a landmark in the history of the dissemination of Unix, as it displayed in bright colors the solidarity of the Unix community in the vast and dynamic world of computing. 

    The popularity of the Unix operating system grew because it was innovative and was written efficiently in a high level language with code that could be modified to fit individual preferences. The key features and characteristics of Unix that held it above other operating systems at the time were its software tools, its portability, its flexibility, and the fact that it was simple, compact, and efficient. The development of Unix in Bell Labs was carried on under a set of principles that the researchers had developed to guide their work. These principles included: 

> (i) Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh 
> 
> rather than complicate old programs by adding new features. 
> 
> (ii) Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don't clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don't insist on interactive input. 
> 
> (iii) Design and build software, even operating systems, to be tried early, ideally within weeks. Don't hesitate to throw away the clumsy parts and rebuild them. 
> 
> (iv) Use tools in preference to unskilled help to lighten a programming task, even if you have to detour to build the tools and expect to throw some of them out after you've finished using them."
> 
> (M.D. McIlroy, E.N. Pinson, and B.A. Tague "Unix Time-Sharing System Forward," The Bell System Technical Journal, July-Aug 1088 vol 57, number 6 part 2. P. 1902)

    The amazing aspect of Unix lies in the philosophy that was used in creating the system and then realized in the dissemination of Unix first within Bell Labs and later among the academic community. Although it would be unjust to try to describe the underlining philosophy behind Unix in one short paragraph, it is nonetheless important to realize that this new philosophy of computing was a revolutionary one. It encompassed freedom and individuality. It featured efficiency, flexibility, and versatility. It produced openness and a sense of community in a world of programmers and researchers. Without a sales force, without a marketing team, and without the support of hardware makers, the Unix operating system was enthusiastically embraced around the world. Therein lies the genius of Unix. 

## **From Dissemination back to ****_Ethos_**

#### **J. Graham Spence**

While the story of Unix's dissemination and the story of the evolution of its ethos_ _are two distinct stories, one can hardly refer to one without making reference to the other. The Unix _ethos _as it existed at Bell Labs did not become etched in stone the moment that Unix was exported to the outside world. Dissemination played a major role in the evolution of the Unix _ethos _because Unix found its way back to Bell Labs. As surely as it was exported to the outside world, it was imported back to Bell Labs. Here, once again we see that indispensable Unix saying at work: "the last one who touches it, owns it." This statement may have been coined during the construction of Unix at Bell Labs, but it is equally applicable to the story of dissemination. For example, when Berkeley System Designs redesigned the main Unix kernel in the late 70's, its modified version of Unix made its way back to Bell Labs. Berkeley touched it last, so they owned it. The onus was on the Bell Labs group to address the challenges and flaws of the new version. These challenges were constantly reviving the Bell Labs environment, forcing it to innovate. Moreover, this innovation was not restricted to the design of Unix itself; in fact, it encompassed the structure of the entire Unix operation. 

So whose voice can begin to tell these intertwined stories of dissemination and ethos_, _the story of Unixs spread to the outside world and then back to Bell Labs again? Who can describe how Unix created a full-fledged international community and with it, a reputation for innovation and portability? This reputation, while well deserved, is nonetheless in need of some support. Great claims have been made for Unix; in their broad historical overview, _Computer_, historians Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray state that "Unix is one of the great design masterpieces of the twentieth century"(Campbell-Kelly and Aspray, 222). The surprising candidate to describe the ongoing reinvention of the Unix environment is Stu Feldman, best known as the author of Unixs `make`. 

Feldmans qualifications to tell this story are not immediately evident. Feldmans background and the profile of his work on Unix do not indicate right away his value to the project. Feldman got his undergraduate degree from Princeton in astrophysics, and his Ph.D from MIT in applied mathematics and the theories of galaxies in 1973. For a long time, Feldman considered computing to be "a side interest", and claims that his only computer related academic work was a graduate course at Princeton and Seymour Paperts MIT graduate seminar on automata. Feldmans obvious aptitude earned him summer work at Murray Hill, and some early work with Bell Labs on the Multics project. Feldmans rare blend of technical expertise and relative inexperience tended to land him on the periphery of some of the larger projects within Unix. This perspective, in limbo between insider and outsider, is the optimal vantage point from which to view the stages of Unixs dissemination and the evolution of its ethos. After all, isn't the story Feldman is trying to tell, that relationship between ethos_ _and dissemination, a classic case of trying to link inside with outside? Feldman is that unusual composite of insider and outsider, so who better to try and reconcile the inside story of Unix with its outside story?

Feldmans official contributions to the Unix project are the `efl`** **language**, **the first complete `f77` compiler, and `make`. Anyone familiar with the technical obstacles which faced the Unix workers should immediately acknowledge the importance of these contributions to the construction of Unix itself. And yet these contributions do not seem nearly as integral to the story of the dissemination of Unix as they do to the story of Unixs construction. However, the value of Feldman's contributions, `make` in particular, can be recognized only through a more thorough examination. 

`make `is a script for Unix, a program designed by Feldman to take control of the compilation process and form an executable program. Feldman puts his invention of `make `in 1976, "give or take a year." In _Unix Systems for Microcomputers_, Ross Burgess explains the value of `make` in the Unix programming environment.

> If your program consists of a number of different files, it may be difficult to remember which files are included in a particular program, and which ones have changed recently. For instance, you may have a number of programs under development, any of which use a selection of various common subroutines that you have written. Maybe you have a team of programmers, each of them working on different aspects of an overall suite of programs. To keep track of what needs to be recompiled and linked in which program, you can use the `make` utility. This keeps track of which files are needed in which program, and what has to be done with them. By noting the dates when the various files were last altered, `make `can work out which of them need to be reprocessed to produce the new version of the complete program(Burgess, 194).

`make` searches out dependencies within files with the aim of updating files and forming executable programs. In short, `make` is a clerical system for Unix. Hear Feldman place `make`** **in the larger Unix perspective, both as a key tool to the system and as a symbol of the system itself.

> So, `make`** **was possible because you could ask the file system a dumb question, and it would answer, and if you wanted to run a command, you would just run a command. You didnt have to plan it in advance, you didnt have to get Gods permission you just did the damn thing. Therefore, I just put it together without thinking.

In _Life with Unix, _as a prelude to his section on `make`, Don Libes offers the following saying from Richard E. Fairley: "The structure of a system reflects the structure of the organization that built it"(Libes, 181). Make is a worthy reflection of some basic components of Unix. `make` is simple; Feldman put it together "without thinking." `make` is portable; it was used across Bell Labs by a wide variety of workers performing a wide variety of tasks within the Unix project.

As it turns out, virtually every download of Unix that takes place anywhere around the world relies on `make`** **to govern and expedite the process. New users download Unix as a series of makefiles. These files are key to the efficient and successful download of Unix. `make` is essentially a program designed by Feldman to take control of the compilation process and form an executable program. Without `make`, Unix users would have to make use of an array of programs such as `cc`, `ld, as`, `yacc, lex`, `mv`**, **`cp, sed` and `ln`, to rebuild sophisticated software sets. In short, the entire process would become much more confused and inefficient. In fact, one could even argue that without `make`, Unix itself might not be as enticing an option to the potential user. Without the `make`** **program around to ease the installment, Unix might well have lost ground to other operating systems. Without `make`, Unix would retain the same level of portability, but the resulting inefficiency of installation would equate to a lack of portability for many potential users. Potential users might not be able to take on the difficulties of installation, regardless of Unix's technical level of portability.

As things stand now, however, `make`** **retains its elegant simplicity, and its indispensability is given its due respect for every efficient download of Unix. `make`s ongoing services are continually reasserting the value of Feldman to the dissemination of Unix. `make`** **never was the key to the dissemination of Unix; only the design features of Unix itself can lay claim to that title. Portability, relative simplicity, self-sufficiency, and friendly manuals are the features that earned Unix its reputation. `make`** **did not "sell" Unix, but insofar as it aided the spread of Unixs reputation, it did serve as an agent to that sale, and a catalyst to its dissemination. 

Feldman stands further qualified to reflect on the dissemination of Unix because of the year he spent at Berkeley, working on the pivotal Berkeley Systems Design, or BSD. Not realizing the full potential of their curious little operating system, Bell Labs gave Unix away to educational institutions for free, charging them only for the cost of the tape. BSD was the first significant offshoot of Unix designed outside of its Bell Labs home. Certainly it could not be claimed that BSD is solely responsible for the pioneering, innovative spirit of Unix outside Bell Labs. The string of early BSD Unix releases was so important because it proved to the rest of the computing world that that same spirit of innovation could thrive outside of the sheltered environment at Bell Labs. BSD also gave Unix an unshakable foothold in educational institutions, and helped in developing a close relationship with those institutions that remains today.

So here we have `make`** **and its maker. We have the surprise catalyst to the dissemination of Unix and the man who designed that catalyst. What can they tell us about the spread of Unix? Most of what Feldman offers us relates back to the nurturing of the Unix ethic at Bell Labs. In the true spirit of UNIX, Feldman seems to suggest that his listeners utilize a tools approach in understanding the history of Unix. The onus is on the listener (or user) to use these tools as a means of extending their database of UNIX history. Feldman does not dole out facts and dates, but instead chooses to reminisce about the aura surrounding UNIX, and how that aura translated into international success. 

>  if I have to say theres a technical strand to the things that Ive done and that Im interested in now, its that of how do you use one technology to get you out of the trouble of another one? (Pause) And Ive been quoted more than once on the line that one of the great things about UNIX is that it lets you get out of the troubles it puts you into. 

If troubleshooting is a Unix trademark, then one could hardly exclude the importance of serendipity to the project. 

> I'll tell you one or two simple stories about it(`make`) to give you an idea of the environment. After a few months of its being used locally, it spread around to other Unix systems. Unix was already in use lightly throughout the company. Somebody came up from the first floor support group; they decided to try using `make` to support their systems releases. And somebody came into my office saying, 'I'm having trouble with this `makefile.' And they dropped this 1500 page makefile` on my desk My jaw dropped. I said, 'Goddamn, it works on that.' Of course, I'd never used a `makefile` longer than about 15 to 100 lines.

Feldman makes a key insight here. He reveals the feeling of serendipity and constant surprise that pervades much of the Unix ethos. In this passage, we see that Feldman did not know the capability of his own tool, a program which he himself authored, until that tool had been taken to work, used and dirtied. And if he did not even know what his own tool could, how could he know what the entire Unix system was capable of? How could he even begin to assess the worldwide prospects of this new operating system? This Feldman episode is even somewhat of a microcosm for the Unix dissemination. Make a quaint little tool and give it away, not knowing its real working capacity, and pretty soon that same tool is being slammed back down on your desk. With it come a list of capabilities you never knew it had, but also a whole new host of flaws to address. 

> Well, Unix is a sparsely furnished or spartanly furnished home. It lacks all the plush conveniences of professional operating systems. The bad news is that over the years, it has picked up much of the plushness and the lousy handling It was Im not a car expert, but it was sort of the MG of operating systems in the early days. It had just enough to get you from here to there. It was fun to play with. It didnt have the handling of a Buick or a Cadillac, nor did it have the performance of a Ferrari. It was fun. And if you wanted to do something, you did it. This openness went, however, with the fact that things were going to change under your feet. More than once, the C compiler died with me as its only user at two in the morning, because Dennis is a late night person also. And at one thirty, he might install a small bug. He was actually extremely good at this. More than once, I was the first person to be hit. And the good answer was that at two thirty, it would be fixed. Thats sort of the Unix ethic. We were living in a high-risk, fun, changing place. That hasnt been true, of course, for a decade, since it became an official product, and a major force in the universe. With all the problems of annual releases and two year bug recycles. Unix has gotten by with the worlds dumbest loader and pretty offensive debuggers because nobody was going to build anything intrinsic.

Armed with hindsight, Feldman hits the high points of the Unix ethos_, _and relates it to the early dissemination of Unix. It is unlikely that Feldman, nor anyone for that matter, could have predicted the overwhelming worldwide success of Unix. But of course, this uncertainty only added to that "high-risk, fun, changing environment" that was the Bell Labs Unix project. What's more, as a computing success story, Unix may just be getting started. As recently as 1995, in _The Unix Philosophy, _Mike Gancarz made the bold prediction that "it is only a matter of time before Unix becomes the world's operating system"(Gancarz, xix). Feldman would likely refute this statement: "Unix is a superb, simple but it's a time-bound concept." No one can really say whether Unix's days are numbered or whether we are just touching the tip of the iceberg. What we can count on is that as long as Unix moves throughout the computing community, the ongoing reinvention of Unix will go on, trademark licenses and troubleshooting be damned. 

 

[1]: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bigbio1st.html
[2]: https://www.princeton.edu/footnote.htm#footnote_1
[3]: https://www.princeton.edu/footnote.htm#footnote_2
[4]: https://www.princeton.edu/footnote.htm#footnote_3
[5]: https://www.princeton.edu/footnote.htm#footnote_4
[6]: https://www.princeton.edu/footnote.htm#footnote_5
[7]: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/faculty/annual_reports/hopcroft.htm
[8]: http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/

