https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking- origins/
On 10/28/25 13:03, rbowman wrote:
https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-404 found!
origins/
bliss
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 14:10:52 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/25 13:03, rbowman wrote:
https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-404 found!
origins/
bliss
Works here. Fix the obvious line break snafu.
On 28 Oct 2025 22:43:28 GMT, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 14:10:52 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/28/25 13:03, rbowman wrote:
https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-404 found!
origins/
bliss
Works here. Fix the obvious line break snafu.
I've got to figure that out. Pan either wraps or it doesn't.
On 10/28/25 13:03, rbowman wrote:Try without the wrap
https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-404 found!
origins/
bliss
By the way, “Unix” is supposed to be a trademark. That means you use it as an adjective, not a noun.
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the linebreak.
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-origins/>
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties
in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the linebreak.
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-origins/>
<snip>
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the linebreak.
origins/>
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties
in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
Yeah, those were the days.
"Thompson credits Richard Stallman with developing much more of the open source philosophy. “But Unix had a bit of that.” Maybe it grew out of what
Dennis Ritchie was remembering, that fellowship that formed around Unix. “For some reason, and I think it’s just because of me and Dennis, everything was open…”
It was just the way they operated. “We had protection on files — if you didn’t want somebody to read it, you could set some bits and then nobody could read them, right? But nobody set those permissions on anything … All of the source was writable, by anybody! It was just open …"
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
I dunno, any programmer who types enough code to get RSI (repetitive
stress injury) gets cut some slack from me.
I've been lucky to have only minor hand issues, but I've also tried a
large number of different keyboards, mice, trackballs,
desk arrangements, and posture, to mitigate the issues.
Yep, that's how it was. Even in DOS *nobody* used the 'protection'
bits.
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-origins/>
MULTICS didn’t die. Bell Labs pulled out, but the project continued,
and did finally reach production, obviously too late to satisfy some
parties. GE sold its hardware business (along with their rights to
MULTICS) to Honeywell who didn’t know what to do with that weird OS.
They charged an arm and a leg for it, but that didn’t seem to deter a
small cohort of loyal customers.
There are some documents at Bitsavers -- look at the brochure here <https://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/honeywell/large_systems/multics/>, for example, and see how advanced the capabilities were that it
offered, compared to any other early-1980s large-system OS.
By the way, Thompson doesn’t use Unix any more. He gave up on Apple a couple of years ago, and uses Linux now <https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/unix-pioneer-ken-thompson-announces-hes-switching-from-mac-to-linux.88451/>.
I remember just a little about MULTICS ... basically
a 'high-concept' project that became a total cluster-fuck when
implementation was attempted.
Nothing really wrong with modern UNIX implementations, but Linux IS
easier all-around.
I remember just a little about MULTICS ... basically
a 'high-concept' project that became a total cluster-fuck
when implementation was attempted.
UNIX was much better, more 'organic'. Get enough of
the right people together and great things happen.
Nothing really wrong with modern UNIX implementations,
but Linux IS easier all-around.
As the years went by it became harder and harder to do stuff and you
had to change your password every three months. I'd had the same one
for 21 years so that was a PITA. 2FA, Windows Authenticator, all that
shit.
Needless to say, word quickly got around, and after that the only people
who had to reset their passwords were our CEO and accountant.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:12:32 -0700, John Ames wrote:
Needless to say, word quickly got around, and after that the only people
who had to reset their passwords were our CEO and accountant.
I change it but each evolution is very similar to the last, maybe with the 'a' turning into a '@' etc. In the long run that isn't that great an idea since it probably would be easier to remember something completely different. In the best tradition, the current version is on a PostIt.
On 2025-10-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:12:32 -0700, John Ames wrote:
Needless to say, word quickly got around, and after that the only people >>> who had to reset their passwords were our CEO and accountant.
I change it but each evolution is very similar to the last, maybe with the >> 'a' turning into a '@' etc. In the long run that isn't that great an idea
since it probably would be easier to remember something completely
different. In the best tradition, the current version is on a PostIt.
During New Employee Orientation at an earlier employer about a
decade and a half ago, the _presenter_ stated his preferred
solution to required password changes was to have one good base
password, then append a digit, then rotate the digit when
required.
On 2025-10-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:12:32 -0700, John Ames wrote:
Needless to say, word quickly got around, and after that the only
people who had to reset their passwords were our CEO and
accountant.
I change it but each evolution is very similar to the last, maybe
with the 'a' turning into a '@' etc. In the long run that isn't
that great an idea since it probably would be easier to remember
something completely different. In the best tradition, the current
version is on a PostIt.
During New Employee Orientation at an earlier employer about a
decade and a half ago, the _presenter_ stated his preferred solution
to required password changes was to have one good base password,
then append a digit, then rotate the digit when required.
On 10/30/25 23:00, Robert Riches wrote:
On 2025-10-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:12:32 -0700, John Ames wrote:
Needless to say, word quickly got around, and after that the only
people
who had to reset their passwords were our CEO and accountant.
I change it but each evolution is very similar to the last, maybe
with the
'a' turning into a '@' etc. In the long run that isn't that great an
idea
since it probably would be easier to remember something completely
different. In the best tradition, the current version is on a PostIt.
During New Employee Orientation at an earlier employer about a
decade and a half ago, the _presenter_ stated his preferred
solution to required password changes was to have one good base
password, then append a digit, then rotate the digit when
required.
Eh ... good enough for most "corporate" stuff
except maybe payroll/accounting ........
People are just not going to be able to deal
with passwords of 18 random characters. That's
just how it is. They can't, they won't.
OR they'll write it on a post-it and stick it
to their keyboard :-)
On 2025-10-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:12:32 -0700, John Ames wrote:
Needless to say, word quickly got around, and after that the only
people who had to reset their passwords were our CEO and accountant.
I change it but each evolution is very similar to the last, maybe
with the 'a' turning into a '@' etc. In the long run that isn't that
great an idea since it probably would be easier to remember something
completely different. In the best tradition, the current version is
on a PostIt.
During New Employee Orientation at an earlier employer about a
decade and a half ago, the _presenter_ stated his preferred
solution to required password changes was to have one good base
password, then append a digit, then rotate the digit when
required.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the linebreak.
origins/>
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties
in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
Yeah, those were the days.
"Thompson credits Richard Stallman with developing much more of the open source philosophy. “But Unix had a bit of that.” Maybe it grew out of what
Dennis Ritchie was remembering, that fellowship that formed around Unix. “For some reason, and I think it’s just because of me and Dennis, everything was open…”
It was just the way they operated. “We had protection on files — if you didn’t want somebody to read it, you could set some bits and then nobody could read them, right? But nobody set those permissions on anything … All of the source was writable, by anybody! It was just open …"
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
Standard-setters realized this was a terrible idea some years ago.It's a bit "haven't gotten the message" and much more "better standards
IT and contracts departments haven’t all got the message yet.
* The only password a user should ever have to remember is their primary
login (meaning their domain password, in most corporate environments).
I just read the article, and I have to say that it happened because of
the culture in Bell Labs, and that money was not a problem. And they had
that money because the Bell company had that monopoly on phone service
and charged what they charged.
On 10/29/25 13:43, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the linebreak.
origins/>
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties
in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
Yeah, those were the days.
"Thompson credits Richard Stallman with developing much more of the open
source philosophy. “But Unix had a bit of that.” Maybe it grew out of what
Dennis Ritchie was remembering, that fellowship that formed around Unix.
“For some reason, and I think it’s just because of me and Dennis,
everything was open…”
It was just the way they operated. “We had protection on files — if you >> didn’t want somebody to read it, you could set some bits and then nobody >> could read them, right? But nobody set those permissions on anything … All >> of the source was writable, by anybody! It was just open …"
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
Yep, that's how it was. Even in DOS *nobody* used
the 'protection' bits.
Of course tangible THREATS were a LOT fewer back
then, just 'theoretical' if you weren't a spook ...
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/29/25 13:43, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the linebreak.
origins/>
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking-
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties
in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
Yeah, those were the days.
"Thompson credits Richard Stallman with developing much more of the open >>> source philosophy. “But Unix had a bit of that.” Maybe it grew out of what
Dennis Ritchie was remembering, that fellowship that formed around Unix. >>> “For some reason, and I think it’s just because of me and Dennis,
everything was open…”
It was just the way they operated. “We had protection on files — if you >>> didn’t want somebody to read it, you could set some bits and then nobody >>> could read them, right? But nobody set those permissions on anything … All
of the source was writable, by anybody! It was just open …"
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
Yep, that's how it was. Even in DOS *nobody* used
the 'protection' bits.
DOS had no protection bits on its files in its filesystem.
Of course tangible THREATS were a LOT fewer back
then, just 'theoretical' if you weren't a spook ...
With DOS they were almost non-existant. Single user, single tasking.
As long as you didn't insert every disk you found lying around and run
every program thereupon willy-nilly, you'd also be safe from the
eventual viruses that arose.
Both were essentially research playgrounds for bright people to try out
risky new ideas, run at the expense of a vast parent corporation that
made huge profits from a Government-granted monopoly (the US phone
monopoly in the case of AT&T, patents on photocopiers in the case of
Xerox).
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 23:16:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Both were essentially research playgrounds for bright people to try out
risky new ideas, run at the expense of a vast parent corporation that
made huge profits from a Government-granted monopoly (the US phone
monopoly in the case of AT&T, patents on photocopiers in the case of
Xerox).
IBM had their little skunk works too. In the early days of Java they
released a compiler that was a lot better than the official and had some other neat tools. Some middle manager may have said 'Take a look at that
Java stuff' and they grabbed it and ran.
On 11/1/25 01:41, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 23:16:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Both were essentially research playgrounds for bright people to try out
risky new ideas, run at the expense of a vast parent corporation that
made huge profits from a Government-granted monopoly (the US phone
monopoly in the case of AT&T, patents on photocopiers in the case of
Xerox).
IBM had their little skunk works too. In the early days of Java they released a compiler that was a lot better than the official and had some other neat tools. Some middle manager may have said 'Take a look at that Java stuff' and they grabbed it and ran.
A lot of good stuff did - and still does - come out
of Big Blue. You don't HEAR about it much anymore
however, but they're still into *everything*. They
are not a leading chips name, but their research
goes into all the new chips. They are not the center
of the net, but a lot of their stuff goes into the net.
They are not a leading "AI" company, but their stuff
is deeply entwined in "AI".
And they still sell Big Iron for Big Projects/corps.
IMHO, they have positioned themselves perfectly for
the early 21st century. Being just off the radar scope
by and large they will make their money yet not be
subject to the storms of the more popular tech stocks.
WHEN "AI" mostly crashes, IBM will still be there.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 02:54:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
By the way, “Unix” is supposed to be a trademark. That means you use it >> as an adjective, not a noun.
Trying to be more pedantic than thou, UNIX is the trademark, not Unix.
https://unix.org/trademark.html
Unlike most of the Microsoft world, case matters.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:33:46 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I just read the article, and I have to say that it happened because of
the culture in Bell Labs, and that money was not a problem. And they had
that money because the Bell company had that monopoly on phone service
and charged what they charged.
It is interesting to compare Bell Labs at AT&T, with PARC (the Palo Alto Research Center) at Xerox. The former was the birthplace of information theory, and Unix, among other things; the latter was the birthplace of the GUI, and Smalltalk, and Ethernet, among other things.
Both were essentially research playgrounds for bright people to try out
risky new ideas, run at the expense of a vast parent corporation that made huge profits from a Government-granted monopoly (the US phone monopoly in
the case of AT&T, patents on photocopiers in the case of Xerox).
And once the parent company lost that monopoly (the AT&T breakup, the
expiry of those photocopier patents), the glory days at the research playground were over.
They
are not a leading chips name, but their research goes into all the
new chips.
"Where would I be without IBM?"
On 10/31/25 23:40, Rich wrote:
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/29/25 13:43, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the line >>>> break.
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking- >>>> origins/>
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties >>>>> in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
Yeah, those were the days.
"Thompson credits Richard Stallman with developing much more of the open >>>> source philosophy. “But Unix had a bit of that.” Maybe it grew out of what
Dennis Ritchie was remembering, that fellowship that formed around Unix. >>>> “For some reason, and I think it’s just because of me and Dennis,
everything was open…”
It was just the way they operated. “We had protection on files — if you
didn’t want somebody to read it, you could set some bits and then nobody >>>> could read them, right? But nobody set those permissions on anything … All
of the source was writable, by anybody! It was just open …"
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
Yep, that's how it was. Even in DOS *nobody* used
the 'protection' bits.
DOS had no protection bits on its files in its filesystem.
Um ... you could mark 'read only' as I remember (been
awhile).
As for real 'protection' ... no. Nobody had the idea for
something as simple as DOS and how they envisioned it being used.
No user names/IDs/groups. Not sure ANY of that came in before
Win-3.11.
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/31/25 23:40, Rich wrote:
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/29/25 13:43, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:45:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
Copied to my clipboard then used the editor to correct the line >>>>> break.
<https://thenewstack.io/ken-thompson-recalls-unixs-rowdy-lock-picking- >>>>> origins/>
Old eyes at least in this person sometimes miss such subleties >>>>>> in small print.
That is an interesting article by the way.
Yeah, those were the days.
"Thompson credits Richard Stallman with developing much more of the open >>>>> source philosophy. “But Unix had a bit of that.” Maybe it grew out of what
Dennis Ritchie was remembering, that fellowship that formed around Unix. >>>>> “For some reason, and I think it’s just because of me and Dennis, >>>>> everything was open…”
It was just the way they operated. “We had protection on files — if you
didn’t want somebody to read it, you could set some bits and then nobody
could read them, right? But nobody set those permissions on anything … All
of the source was writable, by anybody! It was just open …"
While I appreciate some of the work of the FSF Stallman's talmudic
legalisms rub me the wrong way. I remember when 'it was just open'.
Yep, that's how it was. Even in DOS *nobody* used
the 'protection' bits.
DOS had no protection bits on its files in its filesystem.
Um ... you could mark 'read only' as I remember (been
awhile).
Not a "protection" in the context of what Ritchie was discussing. He
was refering to the fact that files can be owned by users/groups and
marked to only be read or written by those users/groups.
DOS's 'read only' bit was actually a "do not overwrite" bit. The only
user was handed an error message instead of being allowed to overwrite
the file contents. Of course nothing stopped that same single user
from flipping the 'read only' bit off and then overwiting the file
contents.
As for real 'protection' ... no. Nobody had the idea for
something as simple as DOS and how they envisioned it being used.
No user names/IDs/groups. Not sure ANY of that came in before
Win-3.11.
Unix had all that long before DOS ever existed. The concept of more
than one user and "file ownership" did not appear in the windows world
until NT arrived. And even then, the portion exposed by the win APIs
was a far cry from what Unix had years before DOS existed.
DOS's 'read only' bit was actually a "do not overwrite" bit. The only
user was handed an error message instead of being allowed to overwrite
the file contents. Of course nothing stopped that same single user
from flipping the 'read only' bit off and then overwiting the file
contents.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,075 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 90:34:33 |
| Calls: | 13,798 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,989 |
| D/L today: |
5,329 files (1,535M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,438,212 |