Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Using Vim basics

  1. #1
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002

    Using Vim basics

    Using Vim basics:

    Written by : Gore

    A Mini tutorial on using Vim.

    Vim has a reputation for being hard and some senior members of Anti Online even say it's just hard to use and doesn't seem to work. Well, they said that about Slackware and Free BSD and I've written tutorials to help with all of them as well, so Vim can now be added to the list.

    Why use Vim?

    Vim is Vi Improved, it's got little changes from the original Vi.

    Using it can be hard at first but when and if you get good at it, it makes editing text really easy because it loads fast, is stable as hell, and to be honest I've never seen it crash even when editing HUGE txt files.

    Another reason to use it is because editing UNIX system files, well, they have to be plain text, if you opened them up in Word they would be destroyed.

    And of course, Emacs and Word are NOT on any UNIX recovery disks. If you mess something up on your system bad enough, you're going to either learn to use Vim or reinstall.


    To start Vim, simply open a bash shell, or if you're already in text only mode, just type "vim" at the prompt. you can have X loaded too, but Vim doesn't require a GUI to run.

    After you type vim you'll see it loaded with usually some form of text saying something about what version you have or something else.

    Now when you start typing it's just going to beep at you. when you first satrt vim you're in "command mode". This means Vim wants you to tell it what to do. Hit i and you'll go into insert mode. Now when you type it shows up on the screen.

    I can stand for insert text and that may make it simpler for you to remember.

    Now sometimes you may find yourself looking at a text file and for some reason you can get past a . in the text so when you start typing it's before the space you want it.

    this is easy to get around, hit Escape, and then hit a and you'll be AFTER the cursor.

    So far you've got i for insert text and a for after the cursor.

    With me so far?

    a = after cursor

    i - insert

    Now, how do you save text you've written? Well, you hit the Esc key, and type this:


    That will of course write the file. If you haven't given it a name yet and you want to save it as something hit the Escape jey again, and hit this:

    :w yourfile.txt

    Now, you don't have to call it a .txt of course. UNIx doesn't care if you make an extention or not, it just makes it easier for people coming from Windows where .txt means more than wasted space.

    So what if you want to open a file on your computer and edit it? Well, you can do two things here:

    vim filename

    Which will open filename in vim. Remember though that if filename doesn't exist it will create it but not save it until you tell it save.

    Or, you have Vim already open and don't want to quit, you can still open a file from inside Vim.


    That will open a file. You have to of course tell it which one you want opened, but it opens whatever you want it to.

    Moving in Vim :

    Say you're on an old old old machine and there are no arrow keys and moving the cursor looks impossible. Well, Unix has been made to work on anything, so as long as the keyboard is alright, Vim is as well.

    To move right, make sure you hit escape to be sure you're in the command mode, and hit l (L) This moves right.

    h will move you left.

    k moves you up

    j moves you down

    The keys are next to each other on the keyboard so this isn't real hard to remember, it's just

    l for the right

    h for left

    j for down

    k for up

    Now say you're done editing the file and want to save it. Well go back into command mode.

    Now just type :w

    This writes your file.

    Now what if you want to save and quit Vim so you're back at the shell prompt?


    That saves your text and quits Vim.

    What if something was edited and it screwed up and I don't want to save??

    Well, you may notice that :q isn't working because you have a text file you haven't yet written. Don't worry, just type this


    That will tell Vim quit and it won't save the changes you made.

  2. #2
    Honestly, what was the point of this? There are craploads of tutorials on Vi/Vim why another one? Was it really needed to write this? Even excluding that "I" find this to be a waste of space. If you are going to write it, don't write a short version. Write the entire thing, go over everything vi/vim can do, and prove why it is one of thee best text editors out there. And your opening statement is wrong. There are other text editors that can be used. Pico for instance.

    Point being, don't half ass something if you are going to do it.

    Oh, and for anyone that says VIm/VI are hard. They really need to use it more, it is really simple.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Hey Hey,

    I'll be honest.. this was below the basics.... I'm actually a little disappointed in you with this one gore...

    I've attached a sheet that I made for my 3rd semester Linux class... you may find it of some use, definately more useful than this tutorial in my opinion....


    Here's the content of it just not as pretty.

    General Commands
    Esc Return to Command Mode
    :q! quit without saving changes
    :wq or ZZ save changes and quit
    :w <filename> - save file
    :f- show current filename
    :e! Revert to last saved change
    :r <filename> - Insert <filename>
    !<command> - execute command
    Ctrl+z Access command line
    fg Leave command line
    u Undo last command
    . Repeat last command
    Text Entry
    i Insert Mode
    a Append right of cursor
    A Append (EOL)
    R Overstrike
    o Open a line below the current line
    O Open a line above the current line
    Delete/Copy & Paste Functions
    x Rubout/Cut Single Character
    #dd Delete/Cut Line(s)
    d$ or D Delete/Cut cursor to EOL
    d0 Delete/Cut cursor to SOL
    dw Delete/Cut word
    yw Copy word
    yy Copy Line
    p paste below cursor
    P paste above cursor
    <letter> - Name a buffer
    Navigation Commands
    h or left arrow Left one character
    l or right arrow Right one character
    k or up arrow Up one line
    j or down arrow Down one line
    H Upper-left corner of screen
    L Last line of screen
    #G Go To Line #
    w Forward one word
    b Back one word
    0 Beginning of current line
    $ - End of current line
    Ctrl+U Up one-half screen
    Ctrl+D Down one-half screen
    Ctrl+F or Pg Down Forward 1 screen
    Ctrl+B or Pg Up Back 1 screen
    Search and Replace
    /<text> - Search for <text>
    n repeat current search
    :1,$s/find/replace/g Search & Replace
    - 1 From 1st Line
    - $ - To EOF
    - find text to replace
    - replace replacement text
    - g replace all instances
    IT Blog: .:Computer Defense:.
    PnCHd (Pronounced Pinched): Acronym - Point 'n Click Hacked. As in: "That website was pinched" or "The skiddie pinched my computer because I forgot to patch".

  4. #4
    AO Senior Cow-beller
    zencoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Mountain standard tribe.
    Uhm...since we're being so damned picky...

    HT, ZZ is *NOT* the same thing as :wq. It will check the current state of the file against the one saved to the disk, and if there is a difference, it saves the changes. If there is no difference, it exist. This is good for one thing: preserving the timestamp! A minor but CRITICAL difference.
    "Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
    "...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

  5. #5
    Master-Jedi-Pimps0r & Moderator thehorse13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Washington D.C. area
    preserving the timestamp! A minor but CRITICAL difference.
    Heh. Nothing the shell can't fix by simply using "touch'.
    Our scars have the power to remind us that our past was real. -- Hannibal Lecter.
    Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. -- John Wooden

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Could this tutorial have added more imformation? Sure, but the title is "Using Vim basics:" I know there are other sources for this, but for the new user starting out that is frequenting this board, why not here? HTRegz, that is a nice referance, and usefull, but what about the new user, yes they should read up on how to use vi/vim, and gore did just that. He explained in easy terms how to actually start and use vi/vim.
    "I" find this to be a waste of space
    As for a waste of space, what have you contributed to this thread, any other helpfull tips? Not even a simple Sheesh

  7. #7
    I find that simply posting a link to google, to be ohhh... Useless. If a person can't find a link themselves. They seriously need help. Next, I don't really have to fix the tutorial, or point out all the faults to it. "I didn't write it." I can however say that it is jacked up.

    As for this being good for a new user. It just might be, but you are teaching someone something. Why only teach them a little when there is so much more to teach. I mean, I understand the concept of breaking knowledge up so that the user can have time to grasp concepts, but it is VI/VIM not actually rocket science. Give them the whole thing, and whatever they don't understand they can ask about.

    Point being, the tutorial is not good.

  8. #8
    Elite Hacker
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    I started out in vi/vim when someone simply told me to do vi filename, then hit i, then edit it, then hit esc, then :w and :q. That's all I knew for like a year :P. I helps to know a lot of other stuff though, but you can get by with knowing very little in vi in my opinion. I finally learned it in a bit more detail last semester from this:
    Not everything, but a good summary of a lot of useful commands. Probably not as many as HT's sheet though.

  9. #9
    Master-Jedi-Pimps0r & Moderator thehorse13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Washington D.C. area
    devpon has hit the nail on the head. There are quite a few people on this site who do nothing more than complain or worse, spill bad information. At least Gore is contributing, which is more than I can say for some in this thread. If you don't like contributions, or if you can't read the thread title, then perhaps you can find a place on EFNet or the like where you can sit complain about nothing.
    Our scars have the power to remind us that our past was real. -- Hannibal Lecter.
    Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. -- John Wooden

  10. #10
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Heh, Bold didn't work out, maybe next time I a small mini is done, I'll change the font on the word "Mini".... LOL. Would my lovely complainers have liked it better if I actually did write out an entire Vim book? Well gee, for people who don't know Vim, and are afraid to start with it, isn't a big huge manual the thing that scares them in the first place?

    I didn't write this to be some big huge monster, I wrote it because a lot of people who haven't used it DON'T because of the man page being big, and entire book sections are for Vim. Obviously that method didn't work for them, mine does.

    Keep It Simple Stupid. Slackware was based on this, UNIX was based on this, Vim was based on this, but the books about each were NOT. I've made almost every tutorial of mine to BE this. And I get more fan mail than hate mail. I must be doing something right.

    As for that comment on doing one big tutorial for an application or whatever it was. I thought TheHorse did great on his Nmap SERIES.

    And for the people still bitching that I don't do LONG ENOUGH tutorials (Heh, first time in my life someone ever bitched about something on ME not being big enough ) Here, this isn't finished yet, and is not even Beta quality yet, tell me THIS is too short:

    Reliability and stability of (Mostly) Common Operating systems

    A look at Operating Systems

    Written by: GORE.

    This is a text file that I hope will help others in the quest for knowledge of reliability and stability of some operating systems they may come across. This text is being written on a Linux box in XEmacs.

    Throughout the text, I will refer you to websites or other documentation, to give you a place to look if you want or need more information. this will help to keep the length of this text down a little, and make it easier to read. This way, if you want more information, you can have it without me having to make this longer than others may want to read.


    Operating Systems (Here after known as "OS") Are the software that stand between the hardware and the software of computers. Every computer now needs an OS of some sort, even though in the early days this was not even thought of.

    Before OS, programmers and researchers had to write all of the programs they wanted to use, and then, had no way of saving them. If you can imagine trying to write a program, it crashing, and then reading a print out of what happened because their was no "Core Dump" in these days, then you can see why someone started to think of the concept of an OS.

    An OS has a lot of responsibilities. It has to control your hardware, your programs, and of course, make it easier for coders to make new programs. My main goal with this text will be to try and teach you a few things about OS, and the stability and reliability of ones you probably come into contact with.

    Now, before I get to far into detail, you may be asking (Or you may not be asking, I really don't care either way =) ) What exactly IS an OS?

    Well, an OS is software. Software is nothing more than a series of instructions, in a syntax that can be understood by either the computer, or a compiler, or, for BASIC, an interpreter. The instructions basically tell the computer what to do, and how, and when.

    Most users interact with a lot of different programs on a daily basis. Some common applications you may use are: An Internet web browser, an e-mail client, a word processor application like Word, Word star, and Emacs, Text editors, like Vi, Vim, Emacs (I count it as both), Note pad, Edit, and Joe, and a lot of other types of programs. These are all software too.

    In a basic sence, an OS is a set of programs containing instructions that coordinate all of the activities among computer hardware resources. The OS recognizes input from a keyboard or a mouse, tells the monitor how to display things and where, the printer how to, and where to, print, and is in charge of data in RAM, and saved data on the disk.

    More jobs the OS must do include:

    Starting the computer up into a usable state

    Providing a user interface

    Managing programs

    Managing memory

    Scheduling jobs

    Configuring devices

    Accessing the Internet, and or a network

    Monitoring performance

    And all around doing some house keeper type jobs on the computer to make it useful for more than a paper weight.

    Most computers people come into contact with store the OS on the Disk, smaller computers may store the OS in ROM, or "Read Only Memory".

    Not all platforms use the same OS. Mac computers for example come with MAC OS. You can get other OS to run on a Mac though, like Linux.

    Mac OS will not run on PCs though. X86 based PCs however have hundreds of OS available. And for SUN hardware, Solaris and Sun OS are the main OS, but Linux can run on these types of things too.

    A bit about uptime:


    A lot of people say uptime is not important. I don't agree with this at all. A lot of hackers love having a huge uptime, because keeping a machine from rebooting for a long period of time, is like a badge of honor. Think of it like a Dr who has performed a lot of successful surgeries. It is a bragging right.

    But it is more than that. From a company perspective, uptime is very important. If a machine is rebooted, or turned off for any reason, that costs money. If a file server, for example, goes down for some reason, people can't do work.

    This also costs money. Uptime isn't there just so you can brag how long your machine has been up. If you work for a company in IT, let one of your machines with a good uptime get rebooted or shut down while people are trying to work, then you'll see uptime is in fact important.

    Now, with Windows, everyone has probably seen a "blue screen of death". Something happens, and Windows crashes. This in itself is bad enough, but think what happens when that machine is a server.

    A server machine crashing, or needing a reboot, does cost money. I am completely against running Windows as a server OS. For one thing, when a new security flaw is found in Windows, which is quite often, you have to download the update, and always have to reboot for the settings to take effect.

    Some people will say "You can get around rebooting if you know what services to restart". Well that's fine, but what they forget, is that by doing that, the machine usually becomes unstable, and ends up needing a reboot anyway.

    This is unacceptable. And when it is more than one update, you have to download each one separately. That means after rebooting, you have to take more time to download another patch, to fix what they broke with the last fix, when they tried fixing what they broke. This process can take over an hour easily.

    I run Windows on one of my home machines, and you have to download a patch, install, reboot, download another, install, reboot, and it goes on and on.

    In Linux and BSD, when you install a security patch, you never have to reboot unless it is a patch for the kernel itself. Which rarely happens. Also, Windows usually takes longer to come out with a patch that works.

    Recently this has been less of a problem though. They have been very good on the patching.

    Now in their defense, again, they have a lot more of a user base to make the patch for, but for some reason, the Linux community has one ready that works in a few hours, not months like Windows.

    For example, a few months ago, a hole was found in Internet Explorer. It didn't matter if you even used it, the fact that it was on your system made you have to update it. Internet explorer comes bundled with Windows, and can't be taken off.

    It took them a couple months to even get a patch ready for it. Linux and BSD also allow you to install multiple updates at the same time, and not even need a reboot after you're done. An example would be when you reformat a machine, or install an OS on it for the first time. You know the routine, you install the OS, then sit there for about 7 hours installing updates.

    Windows won't let you download some updates with others, and some of them have to be downloaded by themselves. In Linux and BSD, you download every update, all at once, and then you're done.

    Like I said, the only time Linux or BSD need a reboot, is when you update the kernel, or install hardware.

    This is much better for a server environment, where downtime costs money, because you don't need to reboot as often. Microsoft will try getting you to believe that Windows is a better environment than anything UNIX based, but after you have had the 30th Worm/Virus outbreak of the year, you probably will start not liking Windows.

    But again, in the defense of Microsoft, they can't be like UNIX, they try sometimes, but the customer base for Microsoft do not want to actually learn. They want to sit down, and have something work.

    Linux and UNIX do this, but require a small amount more in knowledge, which is why Windows still dominates with the filth they put out. Microsoft products are nice, and may not actually be filth, but the company is.

    Also, Microsoft are still the only company to have an OS that gets affected by Worms as often as they do. But again, to be fair about this, most people use Windows, so Virus writers target Windows so that the infection spreads as fast as possible.

    Well, the malicious coders do anyway. Linux, although not the epitome of security, is still more secure than Windows. People will tell you that security is made by the admin, not the OS, and I agree with this, except for one thing:


    Linux has had about 4 Worms that actually were big enough to realize they were there. All of them targeted Red Hat Linux, and for the most part, did nothing more than install a patch for the worm, and go to another machine....Users really didn't need to install the patch that allowed this to happen, as the person who coded the Worm obviously had a sense of humor about security.

    The worst Linux virus you are likely to ever see is:

    To: SomeDude

    From: Another Dude

    Subject: Linux Virii!

    This virus works on the honor system:

    If you're running any variant of UNIX or Linux, please forward this to everyone you know, and delete a bunch of your files at random.

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    As you can see, this is pretty bad. It can delete files from your HD...Well actually it would be you deleting them out of pity.

    One Linux virus that actually exists though, is called "W32/Lindose".

    Not something you're likely to see if you do as my Linux install tutorials say, and delete Windows. The only way this virus can do anything, is if you have your Linux partition mounted in Windows, so the virus can be run from it.

    It infects Windows PE executables and Linux ELF executables. If you somehow manage to infect yourself with this, don't pop open your Linux partition.

    Viruses can cause downtime just like any other pain in the neck security flaw. This is another reason I won't use Windows for a server.

    If you need to use Windows for a Desktop, I would recommend adhering to the following:

    When you turn the machine on, use Windows update to make sure you have all patches installed.

    After you have finished updating, check Windows update again. Sometimes when you install an update, you will notice there are now more updates than when you didn't have a certain update installed. This goes back to my complaint about fixing what they broke with the last patch they released to fix what they broke before.

    After you have this all completed, update your anti virus software to make sure you have all bug fixes, and the newest .DAT files to check for viruses.

    After you have done this, update your firewall software to make sure you are protected against new attacks.

    At this point you should have Windows completely updated, your anti virus updated, and your firewall updated. Now it's time to make sure you have Windows Media Player updated. Windows Media Player, although nice, is not exactly secure either.

    What I am trying to say, is when you turn your machine on, check for updates for the software you have. After you have finished updates and reboots, do a scan with your anti virus products.

    Another thing you should be doing after you have scanned everything, is to open up Ad Aware; Which any self respecting Windows computer user would have installed. After you have it open, update the reference file, and do a scan with that.

    UNIX hardware may cost a bit more, but it's worth it. Also, Linux and BSD do NOT need expensive hardware. The Newest version of Linux, will still run on a 386. A 386 was what people who ran DOS used. The newest versions of Windows need a lot more than that.

    Also, Linux and BSD can be ran on 8 MB of RAM. Windows XP needs at least 128. If you are about to toss out that 486 you don't use anymore, how about you instead install Linux or BSD on it? Learning UNIX is a joy, and that 386 will actually make a great router or firewall.

    You can take a 386 and turn it into a router or firewall with Linux or BSD. They both come with the programs needed to make it act as a router with very good firewall capabilities.

    Again, I don't want to come off as someone who does not like using Windows. I do use Windows, and I do like the following:

    -Windows NT

    -Windows 98

    -Windows 2000

    -Windows XP

    -Windows Server 2003 (Personal Favorite)

    So how stable is Linux and BSD?

    Well, I for one had 53 days of uptime on my machine, before a power outage took it down. The top 50 up-times of web servers on the Internet as of yesterday, are all running BSD. These machines have up times of over 1,780 days. That is about 5 years in case you want to know.

    Those machines have been running for 5 years without a reboot, as a server.

    And now for an update to this:

    I recently had 66 days of uptime on my SUSE Linux 8.2 Professional machine.

    A Windows 2000 machine was ONCE on the list with 900 days uptime. I will give Windows 2000 it's do, as it is fairly stable, but that machine probably had NO patches installed on it at all, as patches need a reboot.

    I would rather reboot because I am installing a security patch, than be rebooting because my machine got owned and I have to take it down.

    All in all, you would most likely have better success keeping a UNIX based Operating system up for long periods of time. DOS is another stable OS, but it is still very limited in capabilities.

    So, when it comes down to it, Linux and BSD are MUCH better at being a server OS than most anything else.

    The Kernel:

    The Kernel of an OS is the very core of the OS itself. the Kernel manages memory, devices, the computer's clock, starts applications, and assigns the computer's resources.

    The Kernel is also memory resident. It remains in memory while the computer is on.

    When using an OS, the two most common ways of communicating with it as to what you want to do, are through a GUI (Graphical User Interface), which Windows XP uses almost exclusively, and a CLI (Command Line Interface).

    The GUI can be nice to get common things done fast, but the command line is the best way to perform advanced tasks.

    A GUI takes more RAM than a CLI will, because a CLI is just text, nothing more, but a GUI has to keep all that pretty stuff on your screen and in RAM. I've had discussions myself about why a CLI based OS like UNIX is better for a server like Windows, and a strong point that is hard to argue with is that without a GUI running, the server can use it's resources to serve clients, which is what it's supposed to do, instead of wasting resources on a pretty interface on a machine sitting in a closet without a monitor (Headless servers).

    Micro Kernels:

    Micro Kernels are not exactly my idea of good. To me they seem like a pain. The Gnu/Hurd project runs on the Mach Micro Kernel, and from listening to Richard Stallman talk about it, it sounded like nothing more than a waste of time to me.

    A bunch of little "Servers" communicate back and forth with each other, and if you break even one, you may have to redo your whole system, because you have to figure out which one broke, and when you fix it, be careful that you don't break another one that it talks to too.

    Picture a card house. That is a Micro Kernel. Now, to simulate how I feel, smash it with a brick. Now put it back together the EXACT way it was before the whack with a brick.

    See what I mean?

    For more information on Gnu/HURD :

    Some people may actually find it useful, and may want to look deeper into it. That's fine, but personally, I like Monolithic Kernels. They just seem like a more stable design.

    Monolithic Kernels:

    The brick that whacked the card house

    Monolithic Kernels, unlike Micro Kernels, are one whole entity. Kernels are not exactly what I do for a living, but I've read about them and listened to Richard Stallman talk about them about 3 times. To me it seems Monolithic Kernels are a much better idea, as I don't like the idea of my machine using a bunch of "Servers" for the Kernel itself.

    Running an FTP, Apache, or SSH server is fine, but when it comes to a Kernel, no. Of course this is an opinion, but still, how many people can actually say a Micro Kernel sounds good?

    Different types of OS:

    Not all OS are the same. Most you are likely to come across may be very similar in what they do, but that doesn't mean they are all a like. Some OS are for servers, some are meant to be clients, some are single tasking single user, and some are embedded.

    For the most post, I will be discussing mainly server and client and desktop OS. Embedded OS are not something I use much.


    The best known single user single tasking OS is without a doubt DOS. DOS stands for two things:

    Disk Operating System

    Dirty Operating System

    In 1981, IBM was coming out with a Personal Computer. They needed an OS to run on this "PC", and thankfully IBM succeeded with the PC, as we all now have a computer in our homes.

    They went to Microsoft for an OS, and Microsoft lied and said they had an OS for the PC. They found a clone of Digital Researche's CP/M OS written by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products called QDOS (Quick Dirty Operating system).

    Microsoft bought it cheaply, and changed the name to MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating system). In some original copies, you could actually find the real name of it, as Microsoft had left some in, which I would guess was just a mistake when they looked for everything to change in it.

    DOS seemed like the answer to IBM needing an OS. It was small, didn't take up much space, and would work without a Hard Disk. The original PC had no Hard Disk anyway. They changed the name to PC-DOS for IBM, named after DOS/360, an OS of the mid 60's. Microsoft of course called it's own version MS-DOS.

    This was around the same time that BSD was being created too.

    DOS is a fairly stable OS. Most versions of course allow you to only do one thing at a time, but IBM has a version of DOS that came out around the year 2,000 that actually can multi task.

    You can find out more information of "PC-DOS 2000" here:

    As for security, DOS is great...To an extent. I haven't heard of many DOS users getting owned, as it can't handle another user to break in. This would in theory point to DOS actually being secure network wise.

    It can't handle more than one user, and can't handle more than one application at a time, so that would limit what could be done to it remotely. Remote access is possible in DOS though. Remote access tools were built for it, and a lot of applications that run in DOS, run much faster and much better than their Windows counterparts.

    As I said, the security of DOS in a network being great because of it only being able to handle one user, and one application at a time, is only a theory of mine. Maybe one day I will actually test it and see how good it can hold up.

    Even though it has age showing, DOS is still very much in use. Any Hacker worth his salt knows DOS.

    For DOS to be secure in the way I meant, you would have to code your own application that wouldn't allow anything else to run. I would like to thank Chsh of Anti Online for pointing out the holes in my theory. He has a larger understanding of the issue than I do, but it was fun to dicuss anyway.

    Anyone who uses Windows should also know DOS inside and out, as most advanced tasks would require opening a DOS command prompt.

    For information on MS-DOS, and help in learning commands, please see:

    Client/Desktop OS:

    The most well know OS in this category is without a doubt Windows. For a desktop, Windows is fine, but as for stability and reliability, they have had a less than perfect track record.


    Windows 3.X

    Windows 3.X was decent. It was fairly fast, and was simple. It was a bit reliable, heh, much more than Windows 95. And it was faster than 95. This OS is not in in use much anymore today, as support was dropped for it long ago, and it wouldn't be able to handle the new features that people have come to expect out of a modern OS. If you have older hardware lying around and don't want to use Linux for some reason, this could still be a valid option.

    The odd thing about this, is if you have a 486 running DOS, and have Windows 3.1 installed on it, it will boot up, and respond faster, than a 3.06 GHz processor with Windows XP will.

    I have actually seen this, and I was shocked to see how fast it boost up. And when you realise the processor on a 486 is so much slower, it kind of makes you wonder. But again, being fair, Windows XP has A LOT more to it than Windows 3.1 does, and also, Windows XP has a lot more running.

    For more information on Windows 3.X please refer to:

    Windows for Work-groups:

    Well, I am going to make this into another category. It was basically part of the 3.x line. Windows 3.x could be added to a network, but Windows for Work-groups made the task much easier to perform.

    Windows for Work-groups 3.11:

    This was a pretty good upgrade compared to Windows for Work-groups 3.1, which added 32 bit file access, fax capabilities, and higher performance. This was of course back when Microsoft released updates for windows to add new features, not because they had found some un-fixable security hole.

    There were actually 4 releases of Windows 3.1x :

    Windows 3.1 : The first release of Windows 3.1x.

    Windows 3.1 for Work groups.

    Windows 3.11.

    Windows 3.11 for Work-groups.

    For Windows 3.1 to use networking features, a DOS NIC driver, protocol, and client software had to be provided. And as networking software became feature rich, the size of the client software resident in the 640K portion of RAM grew to the point that many applications would not run do to insufficient free real mode RAM.

    Windows for Work-groups solves this problem by adding protected mode network support. Rather than loading the drivers in the 640K segment, The Windows networking software loads as .386 files. (VxD files).

    Of course this means as soon as you went back to DOS, you lost the network. ( Some of the text you just read about Windows for Work-groups was NOT stolen, but learned by me from I did not just copy and paste this, but this stuff came out LONG before I had a computer, and some of it when I was in diapers. I found this site very informative, so I'm going to give some credit for THIS Windows 3.x section to them, as I learned a lot of it there.)

    On a side note, to see what the FIRST version of Microsoft Word looked like running on Windows 1.0 look here:

    Images of Classic windows: Windows 2.x

    Page 228? The manual had more words than the source code!

    All that color!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This shot makes me actually regret giving away the only copy I had of Windows 3.x to my best friend for an old copy of UNIX. I need to find another copy.

    so they DID borrow from Mac and TWM!!

    This shot probably shows every color the monitor could handle. Lovely Chess board.

    Instead of Doom, they give you solitaire.

    This probably drove a few users to suicide.

    Wow...A screen saver... The technology!

    Ohhhh! Haxxor like!

    Because Windows is all about being open...

    Windows 3.2!

    And you thought he had no sense of humor!

    Windows 3.2 was for the Chinese.

    Windows Chicago.. *Cringing*

    I wonder if that sodding paper clip was present.

    I'm sure this was the top of the line in digital music...

    Control panel was NOT always there.

    This was a preliminary release from November 1993.

    Can't have Windows without solitaire....Nice to know they changed the games so often...

    An adventure in "Crap OS land".

    The titan of graphics and sound!

    64 MBs of RAM???? Wow! The fact that it used almost half of it is kind of funny though, lol.

    And it was still just a shell on top of DOS.

    This is what happened when you pressed CTRL ALT DELETE.... The Sodding paper clip strikes again in pop up window form...It appears that you are grossly disgusted with Windows, would you like me to reboot the system?????????? LOL. This version of clippy seemed a little coked up and excited.

    Good bye cruel world!

    This is a file called "SYSLOGO.RLE" Hmm, odd.

    A link to more images of Chicago. This was the Beta.


    If you look at Chicago Beta, which the link I provided will take you to, you can see it was just before windows 95.

    OK, this is weird. It is also a joke. Windows 98 running Windows 1.01 and shells from other oldies.

    13 Years after making note pad they still can't get it to hold more than 60K of data...This is a shot from Windows 98.

    Windows ME! And if you read into this page, there is a link that might even work, to show you a hack allowing Windows ME to be rebooted into MS-DOS mode!

    Ahhhh Windows 98 LITE.

    Windows 98 LITE version 2.

    I'm not sure what to say here. Go look.

    Another lovely show off page lol.

    Office XP doesn't like running without IE.

    You can get Windows XP to run things from Windows 1.0!

    Windows 95/98 in 1 bit color, heh.

    More weird Windows.


    Making Windows 3.1 look like XP.

    Windows 1.0 looking as XP as it can lol.

    Windows NT 3.51 running new applications like Mozilla...And somehow working a little.

    Windows 95 -

    Windows 95 is great for doing basic tasks like surfing the Internet, and sending email. That is about where it stops though too. It is very unreliable, and for stability in Windows 95, think WTC AFTER the planes. Both crashed bad.

    I used Windows 95 For about 6 months when I got my first computer. Even though Windows ME was about to be released, my first computer came with 95. It was from my uncle, and I learned quite a bit from it.

    Windows 95 is not in much use anymore, because it is not only no longer supported, but unstable to the point that people would probably rather use DOS. But, you can find a few places that still use it. If had a few extra boxes I myself would install it again. It's not a resource hog, but it still has use in my opinion, as most OS do.

    All around, Windows 95 is a good choice for an OS, but only if you're going to be doing very basic tasks. I'd think more than twice about using it for anything critical.

    If you can set it up properly you can easily get use out of it that most people think doesn't exist. All it takes is a little reading and learning. Some applications play better with Windows 95 than they do with other OSs, and so it's easy to have a Windows box lying around.

    Windows 98 -

    Windows 98 was an update to Windows 95 where some bugs were fixed, and the Internet was "integrated" into the OS...Supposedly. Windows 98 was decent though. It was more stable than 95, and more stable than the next home user OS, Windows ME.

    Windows 98 SE was probably the best for gaming until Windows XP home came out. And even then some games won't run on XP, so the ultimate gaming machine would have to have 98SE for the games to all run correctly.

    I can't say much bad about Windows 98 SE, because quite honestly, I have hardly ever had problems with it. It rarely crashed on me, and all the problems people report with it, hardly ever happened to me. Windows 98 SE can be used easily, and if you know what you're doing, and don't install "Dodgy" software on it, you can very easily keep a good uptime on it.

    Windows 98 for stability is not to bad. Don't expect it to stay crisp after about a day or two though. But it can be up for a month or more if you know what you're doing.

    For all you OEM people who wonder what your product key is:

    Get the Product key in Windows 98 :

    Hold down the Ctrl key during boot-up or keep
    pressing F8 until you get the option menu to start in Normal, Safe or Dos
    mode. Choose the Dos prompt......
    You now need to be in the Windows directory, so type in CD\Windows and press

    Type the following below, also note the spaces.
    attrib -h -s -r [Press your Enter Key]
    You will hear the hard drive working, wait until it stops. Now type in....
    Edit system.dat [Press your Enter Key]
    Press Alt then the S key and type in ProductKey
    This will bring you to your alpha-numeric product key, write it down.
    Press Alt then F, using your arrow keys move down to Exit and press Enter.
    You should now be able to re-install Windows 98.

    Windows ME -

    Doesn't belong in a conversation, or discussion about stability.

    But if you really want to read a bit about Windows ME, look here:

    Windows NT -

    Windows NT was something that came out just before 95. I have no idea why they released 95 when NT was already there. NT was much better, even though it needed more resources.

    NT machines have been known to stay up over a year without a reboot, but according to a Microsoft manual that no longer exists, you are supposed to reboot once a month for the memory leaks it has spilling out.

    Microsoft took this tip off the web site, but it is quite funny. As I am writing this on my Linux box, I have 58 days of uptime, and I'm not planning on rebooting yet. That's the problem with Linux, you don't need to reboot so you may have to buy a better power supply.

    I can't say I don't like Windows NT though. It was the first OS to have NTFS (Shocking, I know), and it is decent for being an old OS. It is somewhat dated now, but I would rather run it than nothing at all.

    Windows NT has been around long enough that most of the bugs that are in it have had time to be found and fixed. Now if Microsoft would actually support it, it would be great.

    All in all Windows NT is fairly decent, but no longer supported. The people at Microsoft dropped support for it a while back....And extended support for Windows 98.

    From a business perspective, this was a very smart move, because a lot of people still use it, but personally, I think NT is better, and would rather have the nice NT, still supported.

    Windows NT did have some problems that would make it hard to figure out what was going on. I've found quite a few things online showing answers to common questions about NT, so I'll copy them here, for help purposes:

    I Just installed a service pack. Why is my file permissions changed?

    There are some known instances where service packs have reset permission to the state the permissions where on the first installation.

    Why can users without permissions delete files?

    There is a known problem in 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 versions of NT that users might be able to delete files without permission.


    As shipped from Microsoft, most versions of NT have very weird access control list settings on the system registry keys. Some registry keys have had permissions that let everyone access and change them over the network.

    Dan Shearer <> wrote in message <"ydd1N.0.UA4.0BSJo"@suburbia> dated Sat, 28 Sept 1996 14:05:28 +0930
    > here's some more:
    > ppl can read portions of the registry remotely (via regedt32.exe).
    By default they can _write_ to it too, at least under 3.51 the default permissions gave Everyone write access to quite a few things. The canonical example was (is) the key that determines the association between an application and its extension in file manager. That can be changed by an unpriveliged, even unknown user with access to regedt32 on a connected network. Should the .txt entry be changed to point to:
    where bogus.cmd contains:
    net user administrator xxxxx /y
    notepad %1 %2 %2 %3 %4 %5
    all someone with admin privilege at the console has to do is double-click on a text file and the admin password is changed. Of course this is a pretty basic example because the admin would (hopefully) be suspicious on seeing a dos box pop up. But it is trivial to write a win32 app that both launches notepad and does some malicious trapdoor stuff with the admin privilege it has been given.
    This is true for NT 3.51.
    David LeBlanc <> has written some text on the registry
    In the registry, I'd go in and remove write permission to Everyone from HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, and give full access to creator\owner, which is what Microsoft did with NT 4.0 - much more secure.

    Is the registry accessible over the network?

    It depends on the version and role of the computer.
    In NT 3.51, the registry is remotely accessible by default.
    In NT 4.0, the ACL on the registry key HKLM\CurrentcontrolSet\Control\SecurePipeServers\winreg (DWORD:1) defines who can access the registry remotely. On a NT server, this key exists with permissions set to Administrators:Full Control, but on a workstation there is no such key. The workstation do look for it though, so just create it and set its permissions if this is an issue.

    As to user rights, I like to go through and make sure Guest is not only disabled, but that it has no rights to anything. Give careful attention to who is allowed to log on from the network and locally. One thing to consider is that the administrator account is on every machine, and can't be locked out from too many bad passwords. A good way around this is to remove the administrator's group from the permissions to log on from the network, and add back in the individual users who are the admins. Now go set it up to audit failed login attempts, lock out users for a few minutes if there are too many login failures, and require a password of decent length - 6 characters is acceptable. This makes brute force attacks very difficult. If you want to prevent other users from accessing the machine remotely, you can also remove the users from the right to log on from the network - that confines the users to having to use the shares on the server. This also prevents anyone not given that right from accessing the event log, the registry, and the shares on the machine. You might also want to pay attention to who can and cannot shut the machine down, and perhaps make it to where you need to log in to shut it down.

    Administrator account

    Microsoft recommends that you changes the name of the administrator account so that outsiders cannot guess the name.
    This is of course just one of the things you can do. But unlike what some Microsoft employees believe, security does not stop there. Just changing name of administrator is to trying to protect yourself by the lowest level of security there is, security by obscurity .
    It is possible to obtain the new name of the administrator by using the command
    nbtstat -A <ip-address>
    when the administrator is logged in on the console.

    Guest account

    As shipped, some older versions of Windows NT had a guest account that was easily used by outsiders. Newer versions of NT have their guest account closed as shipped from Microsoft. Anyway, you should check out your guest account and disable it as much as possible.
    Some people remove the guest account from their system, but unfortunately, Microsoft ship some product that relies upon the usage of that account. For example, if you use Microsoft Internet Studio in combination with Microsoft SQL or Microsoft Access running on another computer than the one running Internet Studio.

    Windows 2000 -

    Windows 2000 was the update to NT. It was based on NT, but had the new features NT was missing because of age. A lot happened between when NT came out and when 2000 came out, so 2000 is usually a little better if you want newer options.

    Windows 2000 is fairly stable. The Net-craft site showing the top 50 up-times once had a Windows 2000 box with 900 days of uptime on it. Not bad at all. Windows 2000 is still in wide use today, and seems to be running it too.

    I have used Windows 2000 Professional enough to know I can run it with confidence. Windows 2000 is all around a good OS if you actually take the time to learn it correctly. But few do.

    Most people who use a computer, and don't make a career or hobby out of it, generally don't want to take time learning an OS, but those who do, usually really like windows 2000.

    I just recently installed Windows 2000 on a new machine to see how it would work out. The Video card, NIC, and Sound Card in this machine are all integrated, and I had no drivers for them, and Windows 2000 didn;t work well on it obviously.

    The NIC couldn't be used, and the video card gave me a bad resolution, and it was in 8 bit mode. So if you have a new machine that you want to use with windows 2000, make sure you have drivers in hand. Intagrated hardware is a curse in my opinion, but it is used a lot, so if you aren't sure if you have drivers, try and download them before installing.

    Windows XP -

    Windows XP comes in two forms mainly, and a third and fourth known as Windows XP for Tablet PCs, and Windows XP Media Center edition. They are basically XP with some added features to run on the machines they were designed for.

    The other two main versions are Windows XP Home edition, and Windows XP Pro.

    Windows XP Home edition is pretty much the one made for home use, and XP Pro was the update to Windows 2000 Professional. Huge difference huh?

    Windows XP home is what I use at home, and I use XP pro at school. I've messed with both a fair amount, and from what I can tell, XP Pro's main difference is an extra $100.00 Price tag, and about 3 networking tools you could download anyway.

    Oh, and of course XP Pro has encryption built in...Another feature you can download.

    XP seems to mainly be a mix of Windows ME and Windows NT/2000. It is very stable, and also has a very good way with multimedia. Kind of like the best from both worlds. A lot of people have said XP was very insecure.

    I believe an OS is as secure as you make it to be. Pooh Sun Tzu proved this theory with a couple of tests he shared on Anti Online, proving XP more secure than anyone had ever given it credit for.

    I think Pooh Sun Tzu should be given a fair amount of credit for actually taking the time to learn Windows XP more than others have, and for teaching everyone that it can in fact be secured.

    For Windows XP, it is the only version of Windows I have right now running. I have it on a box that came with it, and I just never took it off as I need it for school, and use it for a few other things too.

    For stability, XP is an amazing OS compared to other OS Microsoft released. It is very stable, and I have yet to have to reboot unless I was installing something that required it... Or because I was worried about it over heating.

    I've had XP running for quite a while without any problems, although after about a week some games would start to lag until I rebooted. This is still better than other OS Microsoft has released though.

    XP does have a bit of a resources fetish though. You should have at the very least 256 MB of RAM, and a decent processor to run it. I personally have the XP box I talked about a bit earlier, and it runs great. It has 512 MB RAM, a 2.13 GHz AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Processor, and a 120 GB HD. This is a great machine for XP, as it has room to use.

    If you can give it a lot of resources to play in, you should have no real problems there.

    Windows server 2003 -

    This right here, in my opinion, is one of the fastest, and best OS they have ever released. I started playing with it on a box here at home, and right away noticed a speed increase.

    It seems to load applications much faster than previous versions of Windows could. Windows Server 2003 is amazing. I think Microsoft should take out all of the server software, and release it as a client version. It's fast, good to use, stable, easy to work with, and the install is easy, very painless to set up, and all around very good.

    If you did need Windows as a server OS, I would recommend this one. This, and XP, are what I use at home. Well, that and Windows 2000 Professional. My other boxes all run Linux or BSD.

    It seems very stable. I haven't had a problem with it at all.

    Not much else to really say about it, as it is based on Windows 2000, so is very similar, but in my opinion, much better. Much better to the extent that I would buy it.

    The install also goes a lot more smoothly than other versions.

    I actually like it. They really should make a desktop version of it. I'd use it.

    Are other Operating systems more secure than Windows?

    Well, this is a question a lot of people ask, but hardly any know the answer to. The answer really depends on what you know how to do. If you know Windows very well, then switching to Linux may be a bit odd, and securing it is different in a few ways, so this may not be the best option. But if you are willing to learn, UNIX systems can be secured beyond standards.

    I will cut this discussion down to only Linux, and BSD, because their are not very many homes that have any other versions of UNIX in them. Linux and BSD are both free to download and use. Or you can borrow a CD with Linux or BSD on it from a friend and copy it. This is all legal.

    It IS freely available, but may cost you an Internet connection to download it, or maybe you could go to a school and download it their. The fact is, you can get it easy.

    A lot of people think of BSD and Linux, and think "this is free, it must suck". It's sad people believe that. Linux and BSD are two of the most stable, reliable Operating systems in the world.

    Open BSD is considered the most secure Operating system in the world, it is also freely available. runs on Free BSD, and a bunch of companies use Linux. They are all very stable. I have so far only seen a core dump on my Linux boxes one time. A core dump would be like a Windows blue screen of death, but you don't usually have to reboot from it, which is another strong point.

    Also, Linux and BSD are immune to viruses. You have to be stupid enough to load one as root to make it do anything.

    So, with it being free to get, immune to viruses and worms that spread across Windows boxes, and being stable as a brick wall; Why would anyone use something else?

    Well, that is easily answered. People are used to Windows. At school you are taught to use Windows, and no one ever wants to learn anything else. Mac users are in a class all their own. Weirdos.

    But I for one use Linux and BSD at home. This document is being typed on a Linux box in Vi. Linux comes with over 4,000 tools for everything from coding, to professional office suites, and even image editing, and a lot more.

    The Matrix, for example, was MADE on Free BSD machines.

    Linux and Free BSD power a lot of movies.

    The Linux and BSD kernels both come with built in security. In short, yes, Linux and BSD can be much more secure than Windows, but you have to actually get off your butt and try. The way I mean they can be more secure, is the way Worms and Viruses rarely affect them, they have built in firewall capabilities, and they are stable.

    Theoretical example:

    Someone is updating a Windows box, and getting ready to reboot, well, this would normally be fine, but, what if someone inside the company wanted to gain access to the server? Well, a simple DDOS attack would stop the machine, or at least make it seem like it stopped. It would be lagging down to a crawl, and not be able to finish the update in time to stop the real attack about to occur, because the patch hadn't been installed, because the machine hadn't yet been rebooted.

    Well, on Linux, the patch is installed, and that's usually it unless you're upgrading Apache, and then you have to do the oh so hard job of typing "Apachectl start". this takes less time than rebooting, and in this example, could stop an attack, as the update was installed beforehand.

    Now, being fair, with Windows, the update would be very simple, so that way an MCSE can can do it too. Clicking on Windows Update and downloading patches should be easy, and for some reason, a bunch of people just do not pull this off.

    I've heard of many attacks, and almost all of them were because someone just doesn't know how to update.

    BeOS -

    BeOS is an OS that is unlike any other. I have a history with BeOS that I don't have with any other OS other than Windows 95 as it was my first. BeOS was hailed the Media OS, and after using it a few times, I cans ay it was very good at this.

    Another good thing BeOS brought to the table was the fact that it was a new OS, and had no legacy backwards compatibility problems that made it "have" to adhere to something like Windows does with DOS. It was a great begining.

    BeOS also offered a Bash shell, and scripting, but you could choose how you wanted to interact with the OS. The command line didn't reply on the GUI, and the GUI didn't need the command line. You could use either.

    The people who founded BeOS were all ex-Apple employees. In early 1990, the President of Apple's products division, Jean-Louis, decided he was ready to leave Apple, and make his next move.

    One of the things he thought about, was buying CompuServe. I, along with a few others I'm sure, am happy he did not. The BeBox he created instead, was so much better.

    In 1991, BeOS design was started, and not long after, BeOS was going smooothly, and was almost ready to be shown off. The reason an Apple port happened so quickly, was because Apple told BeOS that they had no business being at the Mac expo, as BeOS not only was a competitor, but also had nothing to do with Mac OS.

    In about 6 weeks, Be OS was riding Macs. I've read a lot about the people who worked on Be OS, and they seem like the nicest people. BeOS was also one of the few OS that didn't try starting any "fights". They didn't try bashing any other OS, and were happy with being nothing but a "Dual booted" OS.

    Be OS is written about 95% in C. The rest is in Assembler for speed. One of the things that really made me want to try BeOS out for the first time, was the fact that it was very stable.

    I have used it a while, and have yet to ever have a freeze, crash, or lag. Even getting multiple high graphic programs running doesn't slow it down. A lot of people say BeOS is not very good, but I personally like it a lot.

    BeOS was very good with memory protection too, and if something froze or crashed, you refreshed that part, and kept going. Also, on a Pentium 2 or so machine, BeOS boots in 20 seconds. Windows ME can supposedly do this, but unlike Windows ME, 20 seconds later, BeOS is still running.

    The GUI is really cool looking I think. The whole design of the OS over all is amazing, a work of art. You can kind of tell the people who amde it were almost completly made up of ex-Apple employees, but they don't copy anything.

    If you can imagine the ease of use, stability, and media power of Windows, Mac, and Linux all in one OS, you can imagine what BeOS is like. BeOS does have a web server, but it's not a server OS. It's made for the desktop, or a workstation, not a server. But it is stable enough to use a lot.

    Be OS on the desktop is great, and a number of applications are still on the internet for it.

    BeOS uses BFS as the file system, which is a fast and stable File System in my experiance.

    Stability in BeOS is very good. I've said it before, I've never seen BeOS crash, hang, or lag even.

    The User Interface for BeOS, looks a lot like used to look. Almost exactly like it.

    Screen Shot:

    For more information on BeOS, please visit:

    UNIX -

    The Great Grand Father of all modern OS. I'm sort of lost for words as to what to say really. UNIX was started in the 1960's by Ken Thompson and Denis Ritchie, when they were working in Bell Labs, a subsidary of AT&T. They made it to work on not very powerful machines, and to be fast.

    UNIX has become a monster, and to some is no longer considered an OS, but a standard for UNIX like OS.

    Contrary to pupular belief, the name UNIX does NOT belong to SCO. SCO seems to be implying they own it, but they don't. The Open Group owns it. And as for the code itself, well, SCO and Novelle own that. Novelle is reported to still have rights to quite a few parts of UNIX.

    Unix history goes back to 1969 and the famous "little-used PDP-7
    in a corner" on which Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie (the R in K&R)
    and others started work on what was to become Unix. The name
    "Unix" was intended as a pun on Multics (and was written "Unics"
    at first -- UNiplexed Information and Computing System).

    For the first 10 years, Unix development was essentially confined
    to Bell Labs. These initial versions were labeled "Version n" or
    "Nth Edition" (of the manuals), and were for DEC's PDP-11 (16
    bits) and later VAXen (32 bits). Some significant versions

    V1 (1971): 1st Unix version, in assembler on a PDP-11/20.
    Included file system, fork(), roff, ed. Was used as a text
    processing tool for preparation of patents. Pipe() appeared
    first in V2!

    V4 (1973): Rewritten in C, which is probably the most
    significant event in this OS's history: it means Unix can be
    ported to a new hardware in months, and changes are easy. The
    C language was originally designed for the Unix operating
    system, and hence there is a strong synergy between C and Unix.

    V6 (1975): First version of Unix widely available outside
    Bell Labs (esp. in universities). This was also the start of
    Unix diversity and popularity. 1.xBSD (PDP-11) was derived
    from this version. J. Lions published "A commentary on the
    Unix Operating System" based on V6.

    V7 (1979): For many, this is the "last true Unix", an
    "improvement over all preceding and following Unices"
    [Bourne]. It included full K&R C, uucp, Bourne shell. V7 was
    ported to the VAX as 32V. The V7 kernel was a mere 40

    Here (for reference) are the system calls of V7:
    _exit, access, acct, alarm, brk, chdir, chmod, chown,
    chroot, close, creat, dup, dup2, exec*, exit, fork, fstat,
    ftime, getegid, geteuid, getgid, getpid, getuid, gtty,
    indir, ioctl, kill, link, lock, lseek, mknod, mount,
    mpxcall, nice, open, pause, phys, pipe, pkoff, pkon,
    profil, ptrace, read, sbrk, setgid, setuid, signal, stat,
    stime, stty, sync, tell, time, times, umask, umount,
    unlink, utime, wait, write.

    These Vn versions were developed by the Computer Research Group
    (CRG) of Bell Labs. Another group, the Unix System Group (USG),
    was responsible for support. A third group at Bell Labs was also
    involved in Unix development, the Programmer's WorkBench (PWB),
    to which we owe, for example, sccs, named pipes and other
    important ideas. Both groups were merged into Unix System
    Development Lab in 1983.

    Another variant of Unix was CB Unix (Columbus Unix) from the Columbus
    branch of Bell Labs, responsible of Operations Support Systems. Its
    main contribution was parts of SV IPC.

    Work on Unix continued at Bell Labs in the 1980s. The V series
    was further developed by the CRG (Stroustrup mentions V10 in the
    2nd edition of his book on C++), but we don't seem to hear much
    about this otherwise. The company now responsible for Unix
    (System V) is called Unix System Laboratories (USL) and is
    majority-owned by AT&T. Novell has bought USL (early 93)!
    Novell has given rights to the "UNIX" trademark to X/Open (late 93).

    But much happened to Unix outside AT&T, especially at Berkeley
    (where the other major flavor comes from). Vendors (esp. of
    workstations) also contributed much (e.g. Sun's NFS).

    The book "Life with Unix" by Don Libes and Sandy Ressler is
    fascinating reading for anyone interested in Unix, and covers a
    lot of the history, interactions, etc.. Much in the present
    section is summarized from this book.

    Here (for reference) are the system calls of V7:
    _exit, access, acct, alarm, brk, chdir, chmod, chown,
    chroot, close, creat, dup, dup2, exec*, exit, fork, fstat,
    ftime, getegid, geteuid, getgid, getpid, getuid, gtty,
    indir, ioctl, kill, link, lock, lseek, mknod, mount,
    mpxcall, nice, open, pause, phys, pipe, pkoff, pkon,
    profil, ptrace, read, sbrk, setgid, setuid, signal, stat,
    stime, stty, sync, tell, time, times, umask, umount,
    unlink, utime, wait, write.

    These Vn versions were developed by the Computer Research Group
    (CRG) of Bell Labs. Another group, the Unix System Group (USG),
    was responsible for support. A third group at Bell Labs was also
    involved in Unix development, the Programmer's WorkBench (PWB),
    to which we owe, for example, sccs, named pipes and other
    important ideas. Both groups were merged into Unix System
    Development Lab in 1983.

    Another variant of Unix was CB Unix (Columbus Unix) from the Columbus
    branch of Bell Labs, responsible of Operations Support Systems. Its
    main contribution was parts of SV IPC.

    Work on Unix continued at Bell Labs in the 1980s. The V series
    was further developed by the CRG (Stroustrup mentions V10 in the
    2nd edition of his book on C++), but we don't seem to hear much
    about this otherwise. The company now responsible for Unix
    (System V) is called Unix System Laboratories (USL) and is
    majority-owned by AT&T. Novell has bought USL (early 93)!
    Novell has given rights to the "UNIX" trademark to X/Open (late 93).

    But much happened to Unix outside AT&T, especially at Berkeley
    (where the other major flavor comes from). Vendors (esp. of
    workstations) also contributed much (e.g. Sun's NFS).

    The book "Life with Unix" by Don Libes and Sandy Ressler is
    fascinating reading for anyone interested in Unix, and covers a
    lot of the history, interactions, etc.. Much in the present
    section is summarized from this book.

    Again, sooo not finished. I've been working on that a while. Now tell me it's to short.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts