From sms at 2BSD.COM  Thu May  1 01:56:58 2003
From: sms at 2BSD.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <200304301556.h3UFuwb20269@moe.2bsd.com>

Hi -

> From: Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
> > > cn 1 csr 176540 vector 344 no address found for kl/dl-11
> > 	Is 'cn 1 ...' line 38 of the /etc/dtab file?
> Yes: 
> cn      1 176540 344    5       cnrint  cnxint

	Interesting.   I do not recall any particular problem getting 
	additional DL devices recognized (the 11/93 had 7 of them).

	Seeing the 'no address found' error is *strange* though - that
	would indicate that 'autoconfig' could not find 'cnrint' or 'cnxint'
	in the /unix symbol table.   Look at /sys/autoconfig and you can
	see where that message is coming from.

	If you do 

		nm /unix | egrep 'cnxint|cnrint' 

	what do you see?

> NKL             4               # KL11, DL11
> The card has four ports, one of them is the console. (The M8192 CPU card
> has no SLU / ROM / ...) 
	
	Ah, ok.   My 11/73 has a SLU/ROM card and the console is on that.  I
	also have a DHV installed (alas, the system is powered down now
	so I can not check for more information).

> But I would prefere to get the DHV11 working. It seams that this device
> is more suitable for multi user operation. 

	Yes, it's a little better.  Not as nice as a DHQ-11 though (which can
	run in DHU or DHV modes - with DHU mode having much better silo 
	handling).

	I forget the exact error you were getting on the DHV but if it was
	'no interrupt' then it might be that the DHV clone is not behaving
	exactly like a DEC DHV

	In /sys/autoconfig/dhvauto.c here is how the probing attempts to
	force an interrupt:

dhvprobe(addr,vector)
        struct dhvdevice *addr;
        int vector;
{
    if ( grab ( &(addr->dhvcsr) ) & DHV_CS_MCLR )
        DELAY(35000L);
    if ( grab ( &(addr->dhvcsr) ) & (DHV_CS_MCLR|DHV_CS_DFAIL) )
        return ( 0 );
    stuff ( DHV_CS_RI | DHV_CS_RIE, &(addr->dhvcsr) );
    DELAY(3500L);
    stuff ( 0, &(addr->dhvcsr) );
    return(ACP_IFINTR);
}

	Either 3500 microseconds (very approximately of course) is too short 
	of a wait _or_ the method of trying to generate an interrupt is 
	not correct.    You can try changing 'ACP_IFINTR' to 'ACP_EXISTS'
	which tells autoconf to not care if the device interrupted or not.

> ** Last Mounted on /
> ** Root file system
> ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
> ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity
> ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts
> ** Phase 5 - Check Free List
> BLK(S) MISSING
> SALVAGE? y
> 
> ** Phase 6 - Salvage Free List
> 1364 files, 11625 used, 2430 free
> 
> ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
> 
> But on the next reboot I get the same when running fsck. Any hints? 

	How are you rebooting?  With the "reboot" command or by using the
	'halt' button?   You do not want to use the 'reboot' command because
	that does a "sync" which flushes the disc cache (and superblock) back
	out to disc - that overwrites the work that 'fsck' did.

	A few 'missing' blocks is not a serious problem though and can be
	ignored.

	Cheers,
	Steven Schultz


From sms at 2BSD.COM  Thu May  1 02:03:40 2003
From: sms at 2BSD.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <200304301603.h3UG3eE20319@moe.2bsd.com>

Hi!

> From: David Evans <dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca>
> > cn      1 176540 344    5       cnrint  cnxint
>  
> to the end of this line?  Perhaps the autoconfig parser becomes confused
> if there aren't any.
	
	I don't think that's the problem in this case - the error that is
	being printed out:

	 cn 1 csr 176540 vector 344 no address found for kl/dl-11

	comes from what appears to be a missing entry (or an entry that
	autoconfig can't find) in the /unix kernel symbol table.   One way,
	I think, this can happen is when booting an alternate kernel (/genunix
	instead of /unix).

	THe only suggestion I have at this point is to turn on debugging
	in autoconfig.   To do this go into /sys/autoconfig/main.c and
	add a line that forces 'debug = 1;', then install (after saving the
	original ;)) autoconfig into /etc and reboot.   Hopefully useful
	info about what autoconfig is doing will be printed.

>   Mine is at least correctly identified by autoconfig, though I've never
> attached a terminal to it to see whether the ports actually do anything.
> The post that's vanished included my dhv line from /etc/dtab but, except
> for the goofy CSR I used for some reason that I cannot now remember, it

	If I find the time I'll power up the 11/73 and see what it says but
	I've had a DHV11 on the system for years (it's how I got the RTS/CTS
	flow control working).

	My suspicion is that the DHV clone isn't behaving 100% like a DEC
	DHV card.

> > BTW: Never play with the SMD cables when the machine is running. Now I
> > get: 
> 
>   Is the disk write-inhibited?

	Doing a 'reboot' (which performs a sync(2) call) will overwrite
	what fsck has done - when the message about "reboot" comes out you
	should use the front panel or ODT to simply halt the cpu and then
	start the boot process cold.

	Cheers,
	Steven Schultz


From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de  Thu May  1 02:23:49 2003
From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:23:49 +0200
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
In-Reply-To: <20030430094032.A7330@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca>; from dfevans@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 15:40:32 CEST
References: <200304292248.h3TMmmc08433@moe.2bsd.com> <20030430102422.D196974@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> <20030430094032.A7330@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca>
Message-ID: <20030430182349.N196974@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

On 2003.04.30 15:40 David Evans wrote:

>   I didn't see my other post go through; 
I got it only via private mail.

> have you tried adding some comments
> to the end of this line?  Perhaps the autoconfig parser becomes
> confused if there aren't any.
Hmm. 
[...]
I added comments at the end of the lines and now it works:

April 30 17:29:29 init: configure system

dhv ? csr 160440 vector 310 didn't interrupt.
ra 0 csr 172150 vector 154 vectorset attached
ra 1 csr 160334 vector 764 vectorset attached
rx ? csr 177170 vector 264 skipped:  No CSR.
tms 0 csr 174500 vector 260 vectorset attached
ts 0 csr 172520 vector 224 attached
cn 1 csr 176540 vector 344 attached
cn 2 csr 176550 vector 354 attached
cn 3 csr 176560 vector 364 attached

Hmmm. No manpage for cn/dl/kl? Major / minor device numbers?
[reading the kernel source]
Aha. /dev/ttyl1 is what I am looking for. But the interrupt vector seams
to be wrong. 

But still trouble with the dhv. Maybe wrong interrupt vector too? Maybe
I compile a kernel with support for a DZQ11... 

> > But I would prefere to get the DHV11 working. It seams that this
> > device is more suitable for multi user operation. 
>   Mine is at least correctly identified by autoconfig, though I've
> never attached a terminal to it to see whether the ports actually do
> anything.
Normaly I use the console for booting only and then I telnet to the
machine. But I wane connect some terminals to the PDP-11 at the VCFe, so
the visitors can log in play around. 

[fsck trouble]
>   Is the disk write-inhibited?
No. It seams that I made the mistake to reboot using reboot(8) insted of
power cycling the machine when fsck modified the file system. Didn't
notice that / was mounted r/w. 
-- 


tschüß,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/




From dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca  Thu May  1 02:59:36 2003
From: dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca (David Evans)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:59:36 -0400
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
In-Reply-To: <20030430182349.N196974@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>; from jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:23:49PM +0200
References: <200304292248.h3TMmmc08433@moe.2bsd.com> <20030430102422.D196974@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> <20030430094032.A7330@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca> <20030430182349.N196974@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
Message-ID: <20030430125936.A7938@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca>

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:23:49PM +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> On 2003.04.30 15:40 David Evans wrote:
> 
> >   I didn't see my other post go through; 
> I got it only via private mail.
>  
 
  Ahh, OK--misfire on my part.

> > have you tried adding some comments
> > to the end of this line?  Perhaps the autoconfig parser becomes
> > confused if there aren't any.
> Hmm. 
> [...]
> I added comments at the end of the lines and now it works:
> 
> April 30 17:29:29 init: configure system
> 
> dhv ? csr 160440 vector 310 didn't interrupt.

  OK--that at least fixed the "three handlers" (or whatever) error message.
I haven't looked in detail at the parsing code for autoconfig so I don't
know why this is happening.  I may poke at it tonight if I have the energy,
though of course Steve has the knowledge to do it more easily.  :-)

> But still trouble with the dhv. Maybe wrong interrupt vector too?

  It's possible that your DHV board is simply strapped for something other
than 310.

> Normaly I use the console for booting only and then I telnet to the
> machine.

  Likewise.

> But I wane connect some terminals to the PDP-11 at the VCFe, so
> the visitors can log in play around. 
> 

  Not a bad plan.

> [fsck trouble]
> >   Is the disk write-inhibited?
> No. It seams that I made the mistake to reboot using reboot(8) insted of
> power cycling the machine when fsck modified the file system. Didn't
> notice that / was mounted r/w. 

  I typically use "reboot -n" in such circumstances.

-- 
David Evans          (NeXTMail/MIME OK)             dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie     http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual


From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de  Thu May  1 02:58:26 2003
From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:58:26 +0200
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
In-Reply-To: <200304301556.h3UFuwb20269@moe.2bsd.com>; from sms@2BSD.COM on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 17:56:58 CEST
References: <200304301556.h3UFuwb20269@moe.2bsd.com>
Message-ID: <20030430185826.R196974@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

On 2003.04.30 17:56 Steven M. Schultz wrote:

> 	Interesting.   I do not recall any particular problem getting 
> 	additional DL devices recognized (the 11/93 had 7 of them).
As already mentioned: If I add comments at the end of the lines it
works:
cn      1 176540 344    5       cnrint  cnxint  # kl/dl-11 (on mvx11-aa)
cn      2 176550 354    5       cnrint  cnxint  # kl/dl-11 (on mvx11-aa)
cn      3 176560 364    5       cnrint  cnxint  # kl/dl-11 (on mvx11-aa)
cn 1 csr 176540 vector 344 attached
cn 2 csr 176550 vector 354 attached
cn 3 csr 176560 vector 364 attached
Sounds like a funny bug? 

But if I try to use /dev/ttyl1 I get a message about a unknown interrupt
and the output of /dev/ttyl1 hangs after the first character. 

> 	If you do 
> 		nm /unix | egrep 'cnxint|cnrint' 
> 	what do you see?
# nm /unix | egrep 'cnxint|cnrint' 
007402 T _cnrint
007624 T _cnxint
000050 t cnrint
000060 t cnxint

> 	Yes, it's a little better.  Not as nice as a DHQ-11 though
I have a M3106 DZQ11 that I can use instead. 

> I forget the exact error you were getting on the DHV but if it was
> 'no interrupt' then it might be that the DHV clone is not behaving
> exactly like a DEC DHV
The DHV is a DEC M3104:
dhv ? csr 160440 vector 310 didn't interrupt.
The DL11 card is a clone made by Sigma. 

> How are you rebooting?  With the "reboot" command or by using the
> 'halt' button?   
[...]
Noticed that already. I am really not used to Unix stuff of that age.
;-) 
-- 


tschüß,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/




From sms at 2BSD.COM  Thu May  1 04:43:11 2003
From: sms at 2BSD.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <200304301843.h3UIhBa22154@moe.2bsd.com>

Hi -

> From: Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
> As already mentioned: If I add comments at the end of the lines it

> cn      1 176540 344    5       cnrint  cnxint  # kl/dl-11 (on mvx11-aa)
> cn      2 176550 354    5       cnrint  cnxint  # kl/dl-11 (on mvx11-aa)
> cn      3 176560 364    5       cnrint  cnxint  # kl/dl-11 (on mvx11-aa)
> cn 1 csr 176540 vector 344 attached
> cn 2 csr 176550 vector 354 attached
> cn 3 csr 176560 vector 364 attached
> Sounds like a funny bug? 

	Yes, it does.   A bug in the parsing.   Why it does not affect all
	the lines is unknown.   Perhaps some trailing whitespace caused the
	parser to exhibit the bug.

> But if I try to use /dev/ttyl1 I get a message about a unknown interrupt
> and the output of /dev/ttyl1 hangs after the first character. 
	
	What is the exact message?   I did a "strings /unix" and could not
	not find a string that looked mentioned unknown or interrupt.

	That would seem to indicate that the device is interrupting but not
	at the expected vector.

	It is possible to use 'adb' to look at the contents of the vectors.

	adb -k /unix /dev/kmem
	0344/o

	will show the contents of the 0344 vector.  The value there should
	be equal to 'cnrint' (or cnxint - I forget which comes first).

> I have a M3106 DZQ11 that I can use instead. 

	Definitely worth trying.   

> The DHV is a DEC M3104:
> dhv ? csr 160440 vector 310 didn't interrupt.
> The DL11 card is a clone made by Sigma. 
	
	Ah, ok.  Thanks for the correction.   I misread the initial mail item.

> > 'halt' button?   
> [...]
> Noticed that already. I am really not used to Unix stuff of that age.

	:)  

	I did the the same thing - wondered why I could never get a clean
	file system.   Then I realized what was going on.

	Cheers,
	Steven Schultz


From cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu  Thu May  1 13:30:47 2003
From: cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu (Carl Lowenstein)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <200305010330.h413Ul921643@opihi.ucsd.edu>

> From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms at 2BSD.COM>
> To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
> 
> > > 'halt' button?   
> > [...]
> > Noticed that already. I am really not used to Unix stuff of that age.
> 
> 	:)  
> 
> 	I did the the same thing - wondered why I could never get a clean
> 	file system.   Then I realized what was going on.

Isn't this really true of Unix systems of any age, when doing fsck
on a mounted root file system?

    carl



From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 13:35:03 2003
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:35:03 -0400
Subject: [pups] Restoring volumes
Message-ID: <000001c30f92$a78292a0$0100a8c0@who5>

Hello again from Gregg C Levine
Just for the sake of an argument, has anyone actually managed to
restore a volume from the collection on the ftp server, back to an
originally sized disk pack? Or for that matter restored a system so
that it behaves as advertised under E-11?

No, folks that machine I "have on order", has not arrived. Once again
I am searching for information for a future project. One that might be
happening sometime this week, or even later this month.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )

Sign on the side of a transport belonging to the Rebel Alliance,
"Force happens".




From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 13:48:52 2003
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:48:52 -0400
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
In-Reply-To: <200305010330.h413Ul921643@opihi.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <000401c30f94$95541d40$0100a8c0@who5>

Hello from Gregg C Levine
In a word, "Yes". I have seen it happen on a system running Linux,
here, and the disk was going. It would eventually destroy its
partition table, but that is beside the point.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )



> -----Original Message-----
> From: pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org]
On
> Behalf Of Carl Lowenstein
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:31 PM
> To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
> 
> > From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms at 2BSD.COM>
> > To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org
> > Subject: Re: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
> > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Hi -
> >
> > > From: Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
> >
> > > > 'halt' button?
> > > [...]
> > > Noticed that already. I am really not used to Unix stuff of that
age.
> >
> > 	:)
> >
> > 	I did the the same thing - wondered why I could never get a
clean
> > 	file system.   Then I realized what was going on.
> 
> Isn't this really true of Unix systems of any age, when doing fsck
> on a mounted root file system?
> 
>     carl




From sms at 2BSD.COM  Thu May  1 14:04:30 2003
From: sms at 2BSD.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <200305010404.h4144UJ18330@moe.2bsd.com>

Hi -

> From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl at mpl.ucsd.edu>
> > > > 'halt' button?   
> > > [...]
> > 
> > 	I did the the same thing - wondered why I could never get a clean
> > 	file system.   Then I realized what was going on.
> 
> Isn't this really true of Unix systems of any age, when doing fsck
> on a mounted root file system?

	Not really.  Newer systems mount the root filesystem read-only
	while running fsck.   After the filesystem is verified as clean
	then it is upgraded to read-write.

	Older systems such as 2BSD can't run with a read-only root 
	filesystem that I know of.   At least not easily/happily.   Might be 
	possible (the ability to upgrade a ro mount to rw is present) but
	it's never been a priority to look into it ;)

	Cheers,
	Steven Schultz


From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de  Thu May  1 19:24:50 2003
From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 02:24:50 -0700
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
In-Reply-To: <200304301843.h3UIhBa22154@moe.2bsd.com>; from sms@2BSD.COM on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:43:11 %z
References: <200304301843.h3UIhBa22154@moe.2bsd.com>
Message-ID: <20030501092450.GE1481@oblina.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

On 2003.04.30 11:43 Steven M. Schultz wrote:

> > Sounds like a funny bug?
> 	Yes, it does. A bug in the parsing. Why it does not affect
> all the lines is unknown.   Perhaps some trailing whitespace
> caused the parser to exhibit the bug.
Maybe I get some time at the VCFE to investigate this. (Showing 
visitors "live hacking". ;-) )

> > But if I try to use /dev/ttyl1 I get a message about a unknown
> interrupt
> > and the output of /dev/ttyl1 hangs after the first character.
> 	What is the exact message?
Sorry don't know. I may be able to reproduce the error later. I got PSU 
trouble when I wanted to do this yesterday...

> 	That would seem to indicate that the device is interrupting
> but not at the expected vector.
If I use a different vector (e.g. 404) it tells me that the vector is 
wrong when booting. Maybe I can use a VAX with NetBSD for some 
"probing".... 
> > I have a M3106 DZQ11 that I can use instead.
> 	Definitely worth trying.
But when I was compiling the kernel with the new driver the machine 
crashed. The PSU simply stoped working. :-((( It worked again when I 
pulled all non-essential cards and the TK50. Maybe I overloaded the 
PSU? Maybe I will need a new PSU soon? If everything fails I can use 
the BA215 for the PDP-11. I have several spare PSUs for that box. But a 
BA215 is not the "right", "contemporary" enclosure for PDP-11/73. 
> I did the the same thing - wondered why I could never get a
> clean	file system.   Then I realized what was going on.
Nice to hear that I am not the only one who made that mistake. ;-)
-- 



tschüß,
           Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Thu May  1 10:50:28 2003
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:50:28 +1200
Subject: [pups] About Per Brinch Hansen
Message-ID: <200305011250.28308.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

Anyone thought of asking him if he could contribute his Concurrent Pascal and 
Solo, etc, to PUPS?

Just a thought.

Welsey Parish
-- 
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."



From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Thu May  1 23:49:55 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Thu,  1 May 2003 08:49:55 -0500
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <YMWNFzDR0MYr.VjBrnZ0N@128.100.27.218>

Carl Lowenstein:

  Isn't this really true of Unix systems of any age, when doing fsck
  on a mounted root file system?

Some middle-elderly BSD systems--4.1 and possibly 4.0--
managed the buffer pool in such a way that the super-block
of a mounted file system was kept in the original buffer,
with device and block number correctly stored in the struct
buf header.  Hence if fsck wrote to the block device rather
than the raw one, the super-block came out right even when
checking a mounted file system; in particular there was no
need to reboot.

This convenience was abolished in either 4.2 or 4.3 (I am
travelling right now and cannot check manuals and 
sources).  I never quite understood why, though I never
looked at the source code in the later systems.  The
scheme found in most current systems, in which the
root starts out read-only, is a better idea anyway.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON (normally)




From dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca  Thu May  1 22:54:03 2003
From: dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca (David Evans)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:54:03 -0400
Subject: [pups] Restoring volumes
In-Reply-To: <000001c30f92$a78292a0$0100a8c0@who5>; from hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:35:03PM -0400
References: <000001c30f92$a78292a0$0100a8c0@who5>
Message-ID: <20030501085403.A9936@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca>

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:35:03PM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote:
> Just for the sake of an argument, has anyone actually managed to
> restore a volume from the collection on the ftp server, back to an
> originally sized disk pack? Or for that matter restored a system so
> that it behaves as advertised under E-11?
> 

  I did it on SIMH--I extracted the 2.11BSD system that had precompiled
networking in it...don't recall who made it.  I don't know whether this
overlaps sufficiently with what you want to do for me to be useful.

-- 
David Evans          (NeXTMail/MIME OK)             dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie     http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual


From msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG  Fri May  2 05:14:57 2003
From: msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Thu, 1 May 03 12:14:57 PDT
Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD device config trouble
Message-ID: <0305011914.AA15038@ivan.Harhan.ORG>

Norman Wilson <norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> This convenience was abolished in either 4.2 or 4.3 (I am
> travelling right now and cannot check manuals and 
> sources).

I don't remember the details in my head and I'm also typing this on the go, but
in 4.3BSD fsck does work on the block device and then you reboot with, well,
reboot, and it works.

MS


From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Fri May  2 08:31:47 2003
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:31:47 -0400
Subject: [pups] Restoring volumes
In-Reply-To: <000401c30fa3$40e59720$f10010ac@dawabbit>
Message-ID: <000901c31031$74a7c5e0$0100a8c0@who5>

Hello again from Gregg C Levine
Yes, Ian. That's exactly what I mean. Of course I was thinking of RL02
images, rather then a RK05 image. Which one did you choose? And can
you post something explaining the steps? 
And your response was the simpler form, which is what I wanted.
David's comment was a bit obtuse, but I got it. By the way? Are you a
WB fan? As in Warner Bros. Animation. I'm partial to the wisdom of B.
Bunny.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )


 Sign on the side of a transport belonging to the Rebel Alliance,
 "Force happens".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian King [mailto:iking at killthewabbit.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:34 AM
> To: Gregg C Levine
> Subject: Re: [pups] Restoring volumes
> 
> That's where I got my RK05 image for UNIX v6, which I run on my
11/34.  Is
> that what you're asking, or am I being simple?  -- Ian
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg C Levine" <hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net>
> To: <pups at minnie.tuhs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:35 PM
> Subject: [pups] Restoring volumes
> 
> 
> Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> Just for the sake of an argument, has anyone actually managed to
> restore a volume from the collection on the ftp server, back to an
> originally sized disk pack? Or for that matter restored a system so
> that it behaves as advertised under E-11?
> 
> No, folks that machine I "have on order", has not arrived. Once
again
> I am searching for information for a future project. One that might
be
> happening sometime this week, or even later this month.
> -------------------
> Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )




From dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca  Fri May  2 09:08:39 2003
From: dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca (David Evans)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 19:08:39 -0400
Subject: [pups] Restoring volumes
In-Reply-To: <000901c31031$74a7c5e0$0100a8c0@who5>; from hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net on Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:31:47PM -0400
References: <000401c30fa3$40e59720$f10010ac@dawabbit> <000901c31031$74a7c5e0$0100a8c0@who5>
Message-ID: <20030501190839.A4640@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca>

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:31:47PM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote:
> And your response was the simpler form, which is what I wanted.
> David's comment was a bit obtuse, but I got it.

  It was obtuse mostly because I couldn't remember exactly what I did nor was
I really sure what you wanted to do.  That's a dangerous combination!

-- 
David Evans          (NeXTMail/MIME OK)             dfevans at bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie     http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual


From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de  Thu May  8 07:16:38 2003
From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 23:16:38 +0200
Subject: [pups] Tektronix 8560 with PDP-11/23 CPU running TNIX (UINX)
Message-ID: <20030507231637.K206647@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

Hi.

I got a "Tektronix 8560 Multi-User Software Development Unit" together
with a Tektronix 8540 in system 68k CPU emulator. The 8560 is based on
the DEC M8186 PDP-11/23 CPU module but that card is the one and only DEC
part in the machine. Everything else is from Tektronix. There is a 35 MB
8" disk and a 8" floppy in the 8560 and it runs some flavor of UNIX
called TNIX. I am trying to break into it currently, as I have no
passwords. I can't get it to single user mode and I have no distribution
media nor no stand alone tools. 

Has someone heared from this machine bevore?
Has someone distribution media or stand alone tools?
-- 


tschüß,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/




From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  8 07:32:32 2003
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 17:32:32 -0400
Subject: [pups] Tektronix 8560 with PDP-11/23 CPU running TNIX (UINX)
In-Reply-To: <20030507231637.K206647@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
Message-ID: <000101c314e0$2bff7e60$0100a8c0@who5>

Hello from Gregg C Levine
Only indirectly. That because of the Tek4010 terminals that worked
with the PDP-11 families. There are speculations regarding the whole
hardware collection. Tell you what? Post photos, on notes on it, on
your website, in both English, and your native language, on your
website, and a link here, on this list to it. Also include your
progress. That because I'd love to have the chance to see your
collection.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )



> -----Original Message-----
> From: pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jochen Kunz
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:17 PM
> To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: [pups] Tektronix 8560 with PDP-11/23 CPU running TNIX
(UINX)
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I got a "Tektronix 8560 Multi-User Software Development Unit"
together
> with a Tektronix 8540 in system 68k CPU emulator. The 8560 is based
on
> the DEC M8186 PDP-11/23 CPU module but that card is the one and only
DEC
> part in the machine. Everything else is from Tektronix. There is a
35 MB
> 8" disk and a 8" floppy in the 8560 and it runs some flavor of UNIX
> called TNIX. I am trying to break into it currently, as I have no
> passwords. I can't get it to single user mode and I have no
distribution
> media nor no stand alone tools.
> 
> Has someone heared from this machine bevore?
> Has someone distribution media or stand alone tools?
> --
> 
> 
> tschüß,
>        Jochen
> 
> Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

Sign on Imperial Storm Trooper during the battle of Endor. "Kick me!".




From talmage at madison.onespeeddave.com  Fri May  9 07:03:00 2003
From: talmage at madison.onespeeddave.com (David W. Talmage)
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:03:00 -0400
Subject: [pups] Tektronix 8560 with PDP-11/23 CPU running TNIX (UINX) 
In-Reply-To: Message from Jochen Kunz <jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> 
   of "Wed, 07 May 2003 23:16:38 +0200." <20030507231637.K206647@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> 
Message-ID: <200305082103.h48L3079024077@madison.onespeeddave.com>

>I got a "Tektronix 8560 Multi-User Software Development Unit" together
>with a Tektronix 8540 in system 68k CPU emulator. The 8560 is based on

I found this by Googling for "tnix single-user":

http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/pups/1998-March/000027.html



From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de  Fri May  9 16:52:09 2003
From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:52:09 +0200
Subject: [pups] Tektronix 8560 with PDP-11/23 CPU running TNIX (UINX)
In-Reply-To: <200305082103.h48L3079024077@madison.onespeeddave.com>; from talmage@madison.onespeeddave.com on Thu, May 08, 2003 at 23:03:00 CEST
References: <jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> <200305082103.h48L3079024077@madison.onespeeddave.com>
Message-ID: <20030509085209.A206647@MissSophie.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

On 2003.05.08 23:03 David W. Talmage wrote:

> I found this by Googling for "tnix single-user":
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/pups/1998-March/000027.html
Meanwhile I found out myself that I have to run syschk and that the
system asks for single or multi user mode after syschk. I was able to
remove the root passwd but didn't get much further. The file system
needs to be repaired and I have no stand alone utilities. But only the
stand alone syschk is able to repair the file system.

Interresting that the machine in the mail archive above has a /73 CPU. I
have a spare /73 CPU module so I may be able to upgrade my machine... 
--  


tschüß,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/




From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Sun May 18 21:29:00 2003
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 23:29:00 +1200
Subject: [pups] Fwd: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
Message-ID: <200305182328.13320.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

I asked Per Brinch Hansen recently about Solo and Concurrent Pascal, for use 
on the PDP 11 simulators, et al, and I received a reply today.

This is it.  I am wondering, does anyone have any clue as to where these 
copies of the system might be squirrelled away?  How many might've seen it at 
their Universities?

Wesley Parish

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 00:17:33 -0400
From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
Cc: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>

Date: 18 May 2003
To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al

On May 4, you wrote:

  What I was wondering is, would it be worth asking you about
  the possibility of your releasing the Concurrent Pascal, Solo
  OS and several other such computer tools and programs, to PUPS
  (the PDP Unix Preservation Society)?

At Caltech we prepared a distribution tape for the PDP 11/45
with the source text and portable code of the Solo system,
including the Concurrent and Sequential Pascal compiler. The
system reports were supplemented by implementation notes.

By the spring of 1976 we had distributed the system to 75
companies and 100 universities in 21 countries. Later, other
people moved the system to the Interdata 8/32, NCR 8250,
Modular 1, LSI 11, IBM 370/145 and many other computers.

Sad to say, I no longer have a copy of the system (and I
don't know who does).

Per Brinch Hansen

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."



From cube1 at charter.net  Wed May 21 12:36:52 2003
From: cube1 at charter.net (Jay Jaeger)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 21:36:52 -0500
Subject: [pups] Fwd: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
In-Reply-To: <200305182328.13320.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030520213524.03daedf0@cirithi>

I recall some folks at the University of Wisconsin playing with Concurrent 
Pascal.  I doubt that a copy survived, though.

Jay Jaeger

At 11:29 PM 5/18/2003 +1200, you wrote:
>I asked Per Brinch Hansen recently about Solo and Concurrent Pascal, for use
>on the PDP 11 simulators, et al, and I received a reply today.
>
>This is it.  I am wondering, does anyone have any clue as to where these
>copies of the system might be squirrelled away?  How many might've seen it at
>their Universities?
>
>Wesley Parish
>
>----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
>Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
>Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 00:17:33 -0400
>From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
>To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
>Cc: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
>
>Date: 18 May 2003
>To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
>From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
>Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
>
>On May 4, you wrote:
>
>   What I was wondering is, would it be worth asking you about
>   the possibility of your releasing the Concurrent Pascal, Solo
>   OS and several other such computer tools and programs, to PUPS
>   (the PDP Unix Preservation Society)?
>
>At Caltech we prepared a distribution tape for the PDP 11/45
>with the source text and portable code of the Solo system,
>including the Concurrent and Sequential Pascal compiler. The
>system reports were supplemented by implementation notes.
>
>By the spring of 1976 we had distributed the system to 75
>companies and 100 universities in 21 countries. Later, other
>people moved the system to the Interdata 8/32, NCR 8250,
>Modular 1, LSI 11, IBM 370/145 and many other computers.
>
>Sad to say, I no longer have a copy of the system (and I
>don't know who does).
>
>Per Brinch Hansen
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
>You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
>Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
>I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
>
>_______________________________________________
>PUPS mailing list
>PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

---	
Jay R. Jaeger					The Computer Collection
cube1 at charter.net




From aek at spies.com  Thu May 22 06:45:35 2003
From: aek at spies.com (Al Kossow)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:45:35 -0700
Subject: [pups] Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
Message-ID: <200305212045.h4LKjZ0L005615@spies.com>

I was given a disc image of the system for the PDP11
I'll try to dig it up for you.



From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org  Tue May 27 10:54:16 2003
From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:54:16 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [pups] Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org
Message-ID: <200305270054.h4R0sG1P061799@minnie.tuhs.org>

All,
	At 7am on Saturday 31st May (local time), the machine which runs
this mailing list will be temporarily shut down as major power and UPS
alterations are done in the machine room. I am informed that this should
only take 12 hours, but you know what computers and such are like.
Therefore, you should expect that this mailing list will be unavailable
over the weekend of the 31st May / 1st June.

Normal services will be resumed shortly :-)

Cheers,
	Warren


From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Tue May 27 11:19:54 2003
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 21:19:54 -0400
Subject: [pups] Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org
In-Reply-To: <200305270054.h4R0sG1P061799@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <000001c323ee$151e4600$0100a8c0@who5>

Hello from Gregg C Levine
**Sneezes into his hand.** Yes, I do. Now, Warren does that include
the direct FTP service? Or just the box who hosts this mail list? Or
everything?
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )



> -----Original Message-----
> From: pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org]
On
> Behalf Of Warren Toomey
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 8:54 PM
> To: pups at tuhs.org
> Subject: [pups] Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org
> 
> All,
> 	At 7am on Saturday 31st May (local time), the machine which
runs
> this mailing list will be temporarily shut down as major power and
UPS
> alterations are done in the machine room. I am informed that this
should
> only take 12 hours, but you know what computers and such are like.
> Therefore, you should expect that this mailing list will be
unavailable
> over the weekend of the 31st May / 1st June.
> 
> Normal services will be resumed shortly :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Warren
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups




From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org  Tue May 27 11:57:47 2003
From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:57:47 +1000
Subject: [pups] Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org
In-Reply-To: <000001c323ee$151e4600$0100a8c0@who5>
References: <200305270054.h4R0sG1P061799@minnie.tuhs.org> <000001c323ee$151e4600$0100a8c0@who5>
Message-ID: <20030527015747.GA62555@minnie.tuhs.org>

>> From: pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:pups-admin at minnie.tuhs.org]
>> 	At 7am on Saturday 31st May (local time), the machine which runs
>> this mailing list will be temporarily shut down

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 09:19:54PM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote:
> Hello from Gregg C Levine
> **Sneezes into his hand.** Yes, I do. Now, Warren does that include
> the direct FTP service? Or just the box who hosts this mail list? Or
> everything?

That's everything. All things in tuhs.org will be gone for at least 12 hours.

	Warren


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Sun May 18 21:29:00 2003
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 23:29:00 +1200
Subject: [TUHS] Fwd: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
Message-ID: <200305182328.13320.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

I asked Per Brinch Hansen recently about Solo and Concurrent Pascal, for use 
on the PDP 11 simulators, et al, and I received a reply today.

This is it.  I am wondering, does anyone have any clue as to where these 
copies of the system might be squirrelled away?  How many might've seen it at 
their Universities?

Wesley Parish

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 00:17:33 -0400
From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
Cc: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>

Date: 18 May 2003
To: Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
From: Per Brinch Hansen <pbh at pothos.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al

On May 4, you wrote:

  What I was wondering is, would it be worth asking you about
  the possibility of your releasing the Concurrent Pascal, Solo
  OS and several other such computer tools and programs, to PUPS
  (the PDP Unix Preservation Society)?

At Caltech we prepared a distribution tape for the PDP 11/45
with the source text and portable code of the Solo system,
including the Concurrent and Sequential Pascal compiler. The
system reports were supplemented by implementation notes.

By the spring of 1976 we had distributed the system to 75
companies and 100 universities in 21 countries. Later, other
people moved the system to the Interdata 8/32, NCR 8250,
Modular 1, LSI 11, IBM 370/145 and many other computers.

Sad to say, I no longer have a copy of the system (and I
don't know who does).

Per Brinch Hansen

-------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."



From AdmiralAK at yahoo.com  Wed May 14 05:56:34 2003
From: AdmiralAK at yahoo.com (Apostolos Koutropoulos)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:56:34 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Looking for obscure unix information
Message-ID: <BAE6C632.1082%AdmiralAK@yahoo.com>

Hi to all,
I stumbled on your mailing list and I thought this would be a good place to
pose my question.  I was looking around for information about several little
known (to me) unix derived Oses.

AMIX (Amiga Unix)
RISCiX 
ArchBSD
Lynx
Inferno 
Helios


What I am looking for is basically what versions existed and when they were
released, and also from where did they originate. For instance I know that
RISCiX originated from BSD 4.4 but that is all I know.

I also know that inferno grew out of the research for plan 9, but what
version of plan 9 it evolved from I don¹t know.


Anyone know the above info? If not any idea where I can look for further
info?


Thanks :)




From apgarcia at oppie.phys.uwm.edu  Thu May 22 05:53:17 2003
From: apgarcia at oppie.phys.uwm.edu (Phil Garcia)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 14:53:17 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>

Hi,

What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
Does it affect the archive in any way?


From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Thu May 22 09:09:50 2003
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:09:50 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>
Message-ID: <000201c31fee$15b707e0$0100a8c0@who5>

Hello again from Gregg C Levine
Personally? I think SCO should just drop it. For everyone else? Search
me. Let's wait a few more weeks.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )



> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuhs-admin at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-admin at minnie.tuhs.org]
On
> Behalf Of Phil Garcia
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: tuhs at tuhs.org
> Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
> Does it affect the archive in any way?
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs




From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org  Thu May 22 09:19:45 2003
From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:19:45 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>
References: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>
Message-ID: <20030521231945.GA14255@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:53:17PM -0500, Phil Garcia wrote:
> Hi,
> What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
> Does it affect the archive in any way?

Assuming that the Caldera BSD-style license agreement for Ancient UNIX
is real (http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf), then it gives
us the right to freely distribute these systems.

	Warren


From iking at windows.microsoft.com  Thu May 22 13:37:38 2003
From: iking at windows.microsoft.com (Ian King)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 20:37:38 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <F7B97826912BC4419D5DDF53B216945301ABA2B4@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

Reminds me of the old joke about the gnat buzzing around the elephant's nether end, with rape on its mind....  :-)  

________________________________

From: tuhs-admin at minnie.tuhs.org on behalf of Phil Garcia
Sent: Wed 5/21/2003 12:53 PM
To: tuhs at tuhs.org
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm



Hi,

What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
Does it affect the archive in any way?
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs





From grog at lemis.com  Thu May 22 14:37:38 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:07:38 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <20030521231945.GA14255@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie> <20030521231945.GA14255@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030522043738.GJ68593@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at  9:19:45 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:53:17PM -0500, Phil Garcia wrote:
>> Hi,
>> What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
>> Does it affect the archive in any way?
>
> Assuming that the Caldera BSD-style license agreement for Ancient UNIX
> is real (http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf), then it gives
> us the right to freely distribute these systems.

I'd feel a *lot* happier if we'd finally get confirmation from SCO
that they both know about this license and agree that it's genuine.  I
was contacted by a reporter a week or so ago, and I told her about it.
She contacted Caldera, who pointed to
http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html as the current valid
license agreement:

> When I mentionned to SCO that they had released free licenses to
> ancient Unix, they said that that license was for non-commercial
> use. When I mentionned the letter (January 2002) from Bill Broderick
> that seemingly grants unemcumbered use of these ancient Unix
> versions, SCO said that that is not the license agreement and that
> they would send me the license agreement. Here it is:
> http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html

It appears that there has been such turnover in Caldera/SCO in the
last 15 months that they don't know what they have done.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030522/08c371f2/attachment.sig>

From arnold at skeeve.com  Thu May 22 19:24:25 2003
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:24:25 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c
Message-ID: <200305220924.h4M9OPki011867@localhost.localdomain>

Greetings all.

The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
blocks, includes any indirect blocks.

However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses

	long
	nblock(size)
	long size;
	{
		return((size+511)>>9);
	}

So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?

When did the struct stat acquire the st_blocks member?

While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the
list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default.
When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files?

Thanks,

Arnold Robbins


From arnold at skeeve.com  Thu May 22 19:32:58 2003
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:32:58 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] Open Source Initiative response to SCO vs. IBM
Message-ID: <200305220932.h4M9WwOO012040@localhost.localdomain>

A friend passed this URL on to me. I have not read it yet.  Principal
author is Eric Raymond.

	http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

Arnold


From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Thu May 22 21:54:03 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:54:03 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org>

I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?

Certainly there are electronic copies around; it existed (perhaps still
exists) as a PDF file on Caldera's web site.  I have a hardcopy in my
own files, next to the old SCO Ancient UNIX Source Code agreement for
which I paid hard cash (as we used to call the US dollar).  But if there
is an original somewhere, that might carry more weight.

Is Bill Broderick still in an appropriately high position at Caldera
or SCO?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From grog at lemis.com  Fri May 23 12:37:22 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:07:22 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at  7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
> I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
> like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
> to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
> genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
> that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
> name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?

This is a question I've been asking for some time.  Sadly, nobody has
answered "yes".  See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030523/80ae69c8/attachment.sig>

From chris at nodewarrior.org  Fri May 23 13:32:09 2003
From: chris at nodewarrior.org (Chris Palmer)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:32:09 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c
In-Reply-To: <200305220924.h4M9OPki011867@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200305220924.h4M9OPki011867@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030523033209.GE29449@nodewarrior.org>

Aharon Robbins writes:

> 	long
> 	nblock(size)
> 	long size;
> 	{
> 		return((size+511)>>9);
> 	}

Unfortunately I can't answer any of your questions; I can only ask a new
one: What's with that "511" in there?



From dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com  Fri May 23 14:10:30 2003
From: dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:10:30 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] (no subject)
Message-ID: <e0190f1c49950f6047d23047f9a45a1f@plan9.bell-labs.com>

 > The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
 >blocks, includes any indirect blocks.

 >However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
 > struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses

 > 	long
 >	nblock(size)
 >	long size;
 >	{
 >		return((size+511)>>9);
 >	}

 >So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?

Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving
the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible
from the 7th edition stat.  I'm not sure when (or by
whom) the st_blocks member was added.

 > While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the
 > list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default.
 > When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files?

UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first).
Both tended to use more . files.

	Dennis


From grog at lemis.com  Fri May 23 14:17:27 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:47:27 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c
In-Reply-To: <20030523033209.GE29449@nodewarrior.org>
References: <200305220924.h4M9OPki011867@localhost.localdomain> <20030523033209.GE29449@nodewarrior.org>
Message-ID: <20030523041727.GM80220@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 20:32:09 -0700, Chris Palmer wrote:
> Aharon Robbins writes:
>
>> 	long
>> 	nblock(size)
>> 	long size;
>> 	{
>> 		return((size+511)>>9);
>> 	}
>
> Unfortunately I can't answer any of your questions; I can only ask a new
> one: What's with that "511" in there?

Sector size - 1, just like the 9 is log(2) (511).  It converts bytes
to sectors.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030523/acb7628b/attachment.sig>

From msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG  Fri May 23 13:44:26 2003
From: msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Thu, 22 May 03 20:44:26 PDT
Subject: [TUHS] question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c
Message-ID: <0305230344.AA13738@ivan.Harhan.ORG>

Chris Palmer <chris at nodewarrior.org> wrote:

> What's with that "511" in there?

To divide by N rounding up you first add N-1, then divide by N.

MS


From imp at bsdimp.com  Fri May 23 14:02:51 2003
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 22:02:51 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c
In-Reply-To: <20030523033209.GE29449@nodewarrior.org>
References: <200305220924.h4M9OPki011867@localhost.localdomain>
	<20030523033209.GE29449@nodewarrior.org>
Message-ID: <20030522.220251.00484167.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <20030523033209.GE29449 at nodewarrior.org>
            Chris Palmer <chris at nodewarrior.org> writes:
: Aharon Robbins writes:
: 
: > 	long
: > 	nblock(size)
: > 	long size;
: > 	{
: > 		return((size+511)>>9);
: > 	}
: 
: Unfortunately I can't answer any of your questions; I can only ask a new
: one: What's with that "511" in there?

It rounds size up to the next larger block, and >> 9 divides by 512.
So if you size was 512 it would return '1' but if it was 513 it would
return '2'.

Warner


From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Fri May 23 23:40:43 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:40:43 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] The nameless horror of dotfiles [was (no subject)]
Message-ID: <200305231341.h4NDfNJ8028100@minnie.tuhs.org>

Dennis Ritchie, on ls discarding all names beginning with .:

  UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first).
  Both tended to use more . files.

Judging by the manuals, Research did it first.  In every manual from
1/e to 6/e, the entry for ls(I) has this description for the -a option:

	list all entries; usually those beginning with "." are suppressed

I always thought this was just a quick-and-dirty way to skip the . and ..
entries; the sort of shortcut that was common in the good old days when
everything was written in assembly language.

That the USL system kept the old convention probably reflects its PWB
heritage; both the latter system and that of Berkeley had already invented
lots of configuration files clumsily hidden by putting . at the beginning--
more than ls had options at the time--and I guess they felt it was better
to let sleeping dots lie.

Incidentally, in 1/e ls(I) had a whopping five options: l, t, a, s, and d,
each with the same meaning as now (except that -s is described simply as
`give size in blocks for each entry' with nothing about accounting for
indirect blocks or other overhead).  Who says we haven't made decadence,
er, progress over the years?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON

PS: I've lost track.  Did the original Subject: line of this thread of
conversation get lost because it began with a dot?


From tms2 at mail.ptd.net  Sat May 24 01:00:51 2003
From: tms2 at mail.ptd.net (T.M. Sommers)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:00:51 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org> <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net>

Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at  7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
> > I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
> > like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
> > to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
> > genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
> > that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
> > name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?
> 
> This is a question I've been asking for some time.  Sadly, nobody has
> answered "yes".  See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
> maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.

If he was their agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to
recognize now; they are bound by his statement.



From kstailey at yahoo.com  Sat May 24 13:42:24 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 20:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <e0190f1c49950f6047d23047f9a45a1f@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <20030524034224.21529.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dennis Ritchie <dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>  > The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
>  >blocks, includes any indirect blocks.
> 
>  >However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
>  > struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses
> 
>  > 	long
>  >	nblock(size)
>  >	long size;
>  >	{
>  >		return((size+511)>>9);
>  >	}
> 
>  >So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?
> 
> Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving
> the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible
> from the 7th edition stat.  I'm not sure when (or by
> whom) the st_blocks member was added.
> 
>  > While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the
>  > list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default.
>  > When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files?
> 
> UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first).
> Both tended to use more . files.
> 
> 	Dennis
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

1BSD ls.c has:

        for(;;) {
                p = &dentry;
                for (j=0; j<16; j++)
                        *p++ = getc(&inf);
                if (dentry.dinode==0
                 || aflg==0 && dentry.dname[0]=='.')
                        continue;
                if (dentry.dinode == -1)
                        break;
                ep = gstat(makename(dir, dentry.dname), 0);
                if (ep->lnum != -1)
                        ep->lnum = dentry.dinode;
                for (j=0; j<14; j++)
                        ep->lname[j] = dentry.dname[j];
        }

so it skips all that start with "." unless aflg is set from invoking ls with
-a.

I got it from the 1BSD tape that is on the CSRG archive CD-ROM set.  I had to
port ar11 to FreeBSD/i386 to get the sources out of the cont.a files.  If
anyone wants my port of ar11 I can send it to them.

ls.c starts with this block of comments:

#
/*
 * ls - list file or directory
 *
 * Modified by Bill Joy UCB May/August 1977
 *
 * This version of ls is designed for graphic terminals and to
 * list directories with lots of files in them compactly.
 * It supports three variants for listings:
 *
 *      1) Columnar output.
 *      2) Stream output.
 *      3) Old one per line format.
 *
 * Columnar output is the default.
 * If, however, the standard output is not a teletype, the default
 * is one-per-line.
 *
 * With columnar output, the items are sorted down the columns.
 * We use columns only for a directory we are interpreting.
 * Thus, in particular, we do not use columns for
 *
 *      ls /usr/bin/p*
 *
 * This version of ls also prints non-printing characters as '?' if
 * the standard output is a teletype.
 *
 * Flags relating to these and other new features are:
 *
 *      -m      force stream output.
 *
 *      -1      force one entry per line, e.g. to a teletype
 *
 *      -q      force non-printings to be '?'s, e.g. to a file
 *
 *      -c      force columnar output, e.g. into a file
 *
 *      -n      like -l, but user/group id's in decimal rather than
 *              looking in /etc/passwd to save time
 */

It's interesting they called CRTs "graphic terminals".


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com  Sat May 24 14:17:52 2003
From: dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:17:52 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] The nameless horror of dotfiles [was (no subject)]
Message-ID: <c799721951ed6dacbac364b8dcd0ef78@plan9.bell-labs.com>

The omniscient Norman seems to have nailed me:

 > Judging by the manuals, Research did it first.  In every manual from
 > 1/e to 6/e, the entry for ls(I) has this description for the -a option:

 > 	list all entries; usually those beginning with "." are suppressed

I suspect that in v7 (where .thing was indeed listed by default)
we decided that since .thing was a real file in the
directory it was better to list it instead of hiding it
by default.  (Seeing . and .. seemed  seldom interesting,
however).

I was solely (and much more recently) responsible for the lack
of subject header in my earlier reply.

	Dennis


From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Sun May 25 04:47:57 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:47:57 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <200305241848.h4OImTJ8039912@minnie.tuhs.org>

T. M. Sommers:

  If [Broderick] was [SCO's or Caldera's] agent, then it doesn't matter what
  they claim to recognize now; they are bound by his statement.

Assuming it can be proven that the statement was officially made,
which is why I ask after properly signed hardcopy rather than the
PDF file we have all seen.

Probably there are documents hidden away in SCO's files--there must
have been some paper trail leading to Broderick's letter--but that
is likely to be harder to track down from outside.

I don't doubt Broderick really wrote that letter, nor that he was
authorized to make the statement.  But the problem before us isn't
truth, it's proof.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From arnold at skeeve.com  Sun May 25 23:08:02 2003
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:08:02 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] V7 ls -s option
Message-ID: <200305251308.h4PD82YW011475@localhost.localdomain>

> From: Dennis Ritchie <dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com>
> To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: [TUHS] (no subject)
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:10:30 -0400
>
>  > The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
>  >blocks, includes any indirect blocks.
>
>  >However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
>  > struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses
>
>  > 	long
>  >	nblock(size)
>  >	long size;
>  >	{
>  >		return((size+511)>>9);
>  >	}
>
>  >So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?
>
> Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving
> the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible
> from the 7th edition stat.  I'm not sure when (or by
> whom) the st_blocks member was added.

Thanks for confirming this.  In fact, the V7 calculation is only
an approximation in another sense; a file with large holes could
generate too large a result.

System III doesn't have st_nblocks either.

>  > While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the
>  > list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default.
>  > When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files?
>
> UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first).
> Both tended to use more . files.
>
> 	Dennis

As already pointed out, earlier Research code only checked the
first character for being '.'; I later looked at the V6 ls.c.

The System III ls.c is essentially the V7 one, but with comments
added, and -l printing both owner and group, with -g and -o to
turn off group or owner from -l.  Also, support for FIFOs.

The nblock() calculation is considerably more complicated, and
would seem to actually get the number of indirect blocks. At
first glance, it looks though like a file with holes would
still confuse it.

Nothing like engaging in Software Archeology... :-)

Thanks,

Arnold


From grog at lemis.com  Mon May 26 12:56:50 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:26:50 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net>
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org> <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com> <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net>
Message-ID: <20030526025650.GK15770@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Friday, 23 May 2003 at 11:00:51 -0400, T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at  7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
>>> I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
>>> like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
>>> to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
>>> genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
>>> that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
>>> name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?
>>
>> This is a question I've been asking for some time.  Sadly, nobody has
>> answered "yes".  See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
>> maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.
>
> If he was their agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to
> recognize now; they are bound by his statement.

Yes, of course.  The issue here is whether we can prove that the
statement was made.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030526/df678dca/attachment.sig>

From grog at lemis.com  Mon May 26 14:16:34 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:46:34 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] V7 ls -s option
In-Reply-To: <200305251308.h4PD82YW011475@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200305251308.h4PD82YW011475@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030526041634.GR15770@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Sunday, 25 May 2003 at 16:08:02 +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>> From: Dennis Ritchie <dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com>
>> To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
>> Subject: [TUHS] (no subject)
>> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:10:30 -0400
>>
>>> The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total
>>> blocks, includes any indirect blocks.
>>
>>> However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the
>>> struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses
>>
>>> 	long
>>>	nblock(size)
>>>	long size;
>>>	{
>>>		return((size+511)>>9);
>>>	}
>>
>>> So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken?
>>
>> Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving
>> the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible
>> from the 7th edition stat.  I'm not sure when (or by
>> whom) the st_blocks member was added.
>
> Thanks for confirming this.  In fact, the V7 calculation is only
> an approximation in another sense; a file with large holes could
> generate too large a result.

A block is a block.  If it's allocated, it's all there (at least in
the Seventh Edition).  It doesn't make any difference that some of the
space in the block may not represent valid data.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030526/8b5dcf53/attachment.sig>

From vance at aurema.com  Mon May 26 15:40:38 2003
From: vance at aurema.com (Christopher Vance)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:40:38 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <20030526025650.GK15770@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org> <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com> <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net> <20030526025650.GK15770@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030526054038.GE559@aurema.com>

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 12:26:50PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
: Yes, of course.  The issue here is whether we can prove that the
: statement was made.

I guess the issue is what Dion L Johnson II, Paul Hatch, John
Terpstra, Bill Broderick, "drew at caldera.com", and/or Ransom Love will
say in a relevant court about the existence and veracity of the
announcing email.

It's interesting that the Levenez chart, used by SCO to argue that
Linux "stole stuff", comes from a page linking to a copy of the BSDish
Caldera license.

-- 
Christopher Vance


From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org  Tue May 27 10:54:18 2003
From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:54:18 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org
Message-ID: <200305270054.h4R0sIQG061814@minnie.tuhs.org>

All,
	At 7am on Saturday 31st May (local time), the machine which runs
this mailing list will be temporarily shut down as major power and UPS
alterations are done in the machine room. I am informed that this should
only take 12 hours, but you know what computers and such are like.
Therefore, you should expect that this mailing list will be unavailable
over the weekend of the 31st May / 1st June.

Normal services will be resumed shortly :-)

Cheers,
	Warren


From kstailey at yahoo.com  Tue May 27 12:45:58 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 19:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <20030526025650.GK15770@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030527024558.89482.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 23 May 2003 at 11:00:51 -0400, T.M. Sommers wrote:
> > Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at  7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
> >>> I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
> >>> like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
> >>> to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
> >>> genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
> >>> that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
> >>> name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?
> >>
> >> This is a question I've been asking for some time.  Sadly, nobody has
> >> answered "yes".  See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
> >> maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.
> >
> > If he was their agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to
> > recognize now; they are bound by his statement.
> 
> Yes, of course.  The issue here is whether we can prove that the
> statement was made.
> 
> Greg

The fact that they are not threatened by TUHS the way they are by Linux will
probably make them ignore TUHS but you never know.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


From arnold at skeeve.com  Tue May 27 22:26:24 2003
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:26:24 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] V7 ls -s option
Message-ID: <200305271226.h4RCQOQD005872@localhost.localdomain>

The V7 ls.c code:

> >>> 	long
> >>>	nblock(size)
> >>>	long size;
> >>>	{
> >>>		return((size+511)>>9);
> >>>	}
> >>

I wrote:

> > In fact, the V7 calculation is only
> > an approximation in another sense; a file with large holes could
> > generate too large a result.

Greg wrote:

> A block is a block.  If it's allocated, it's all there (at least in
> the Seventh Edition).  It doesn't make any difference that some of the
> space in the block may not represent valid data.

You're missing my point.  Consider a C program along these lines:

	int main(void)
	{
		int fd = creat("/some/file", 0600);

		lseek(fd, 123456789L, 0);	/* absolute seek */
		write(fd, "x", 1);
		close(fd);
	}

After running this program, the `/some/file' file now looks rather
large. But it only has one block allocated to it.  However, the V7
nblock() function computes a number somewhat larger than one.

Thanks,

Arnold


From grog at lemis.com  Wed May 28 10:07:02 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:37:02 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] V7 ls -s option
In-Reply-To: <200305271226.h4RCQOQD005872@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200305271226.h4RCQOQD005872@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030528000702.GF84922@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Tuesday, 27 May 2003 at 15:26:24 +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> The V7 ls.c code:
>
>>>>> 	long
>>>>>	nblock(size)
>>>>>	long size;
>>>>>	{
>>>>>		return((size+511)>>9);
>>>>>	}
>>>>
>
> I wrote:
>
>>> In fact, the V7 calculation is only
>>> an approximation in another sense; a file with large holes could
>>> generate too large a result.
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>> A block is a block.  If it's allocated, it's all there (at least in
>> the Seventh Edition).  It doesn't make any difference that some of the
>> space in the block may not represent valid data.
>
> You're missing my point.  Consider a C program along these lines:
>
> 	int main(void)
> 	{
> 		int fd = creat("/some/file", 0600);
>
> 		lseek(fd, 123456789L, 0);	/* absolute seek */
> 		write(fd, "x", 1);
> 		close(fd);
> 	}
>
> After running this program, the `/some/file' file now looks rather
> large. But it only has one block allocated to it.  However, the V7
> nblock() function computes a number somewhat larger than one.

Yes, I missed your point.  Sorry.  This is what comes of shooting off
my mouth before reading the code.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030528/233ac556/attachment.sig>

From mckusick at beastie.mckusick.com  Mon May 26 02:22:39 2003
From: mckusick at beastie.mckusick.com (Kirk McKusick)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 09:22:39 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c
Message-ID: <200305251622.h4PGMdp0003047@beastie.mckusick.com>

The st_blocks field was first added to the stat structure in 4.2BSD
(4.1b really) as part of the overhaul to add the new filesystem. I
added it because the variable filesystem blocksize made it difficult
to compute the amount of storage dedicated to a file.

	Kirk McKusick


From arnold at skeeve.com  Wed May 28 21:14:11 2003
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:14:11 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something
Message-ID: <200305281114.h4SBEBta027832@localhost.localdomain>

I just saw this:

	http://www.catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/

This either Very Smart or Very Dumb, I'm not sure which.  I don't know
that it need be discussed to death on this list, either, but I do figure
that the list members will at least be interested in it.

Arnold


From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Wed May 28 21:51:38 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 07:51:38 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something
Message-ID: <200305281152.h4SBqDJ8075263@minnie.tuhs.org>

Aharon Robbins:

  I just saw this:

	http://www.catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/

  This either Very Smart or Very Dumb, I'm not sure which.

I will just point out the recursive conflict when he says

  I can't talk about how this information will be applied, nor by
  who.  You'll have to trust me, or at any rate my record as
  ambassador to the community ...

I find it hard to take a secret No Secrets campaign seriously.
If I am to be used as an example of something or to promote some
cause, I think it's only fair that the campaigner tell me just
what he's up to first.

That such a campaign exists in the current context also sounds to
me like an admission that substantial parts of Linux were in fact
lifted directly from a licensed UNIX.  That that might be so seems
surprising; that someone would want to prove it was OK even more so.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From kstailey at yahoo.com  Wed May 28 22:07:22 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 05:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something
In-Reply-To: <200305281114.h4SBEBta027832@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030528120722.72762.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Aharon Robbins <arnold at skeeve.com> wrote:
> I just saw this:
> 
> 	http://www.catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/
> 
> This either Very Smart or Very Dumb, I'm not sure which.  I don't know
> that it need be discussed to death on this list, either, but I do figure
> that the list members will at least be interested in it.
> 
> Arnold

I think the intent is to to demonstrate that they did not value their trade
secrets and did not make an effort to (even just a show of an effort) to defend
them.  By showing that tens of thousands of people had access to the UNIX
source that was supposed to be a secret and SCO not going after any of them
(unlike, say, Microsoft's defending Windows source) will weaken their arguments
that these were valuable trade secrets.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


From kstailey at yahoo.com  Wed May 28 22:11:16 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 05:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something
In-Reply-To: <200305281152.h4SBqDJ8075263@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030528121116.15955.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Norman Wilson <norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Aharon Robbins:
> 
>   I just saw this:
> 
> 	http://www.catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/
> 
>   This either Very Smart or Very Dumb, I'm not sure which.
> 
> I will just point out the recursive conflict when he says
> 
>   I can't talk about how this information will be applied, nor by
>   who.  You'll have to trust me, or at any rate my record as
>   ambassador to the community ...
> 
> I find it hard to take a secret No Secrets campaign seriously.
> If I am to be used as an example of something or to promote some
> cause, I think it's only fair that the campaigner tell me just
> what he's up to first.

If ESR told the world what he was going to do with the evidence then the
opposition would be able to prepare for it.

> That such a campaign exists in the current context also sounds to
> me like an admission that substantial parts of Linux were in fact
> lifted directly from a licensed UNIX.

Hmmm.  Either that or he's trying to keep all the bases covered.  What happened
in reality and what they prove in the courts need not be the same as we have
seen as time and again Microsoft goes to trial and gets off.

It helps to have a fallback arguement ready.

> That that might be so seems
> surprising; that someone would want to prove it was OK even more so.
> 
> Norman Wilson
> Toronto ON
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


From arnold at skeeve.com  Wed May 28 23:27:30 2003
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 16:27:30 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something
Message-ID: <200305281327.h4SDRUJi015729@localhost.localdomain>

> I find it hard to take a secret No Secrets campaign seriously.

That says it well.

> That such a campaign exists in the current context also sounds to
> me like an admission that substantial parts of Linux were in fact
> lifted directly from a licensed UNIX.  That that might be so seems
> surprising; that someone would want to prove it was OK even more so.

I think it's more of a "How dare anyone even think licensed code was
lifted?  We all know better than that. I'm gonna show you that you don't
even have a leg to stand on."

Whatever.  Anyone with any sense knows that SCO hasn't got much ground
to stand on.  Sadly, "anyone with any sense" likely doesn't cover
the judge and the jury.

Sigh.  (Fade to black, as Dionne Warwick sings "Deja Vu" in the
background...)

Arnold


From kstailey at yahoo.com  Thu May 29 04:49:13 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 11:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <20030528121116.15955.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20030528184913.25621.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com>

Press Release

	Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux

PROVO, Utah � May 28, 2003 � Defending its interests in developing services to
operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO
Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential
intellectual property rights claims over Linux.

First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and
patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement
entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to
SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain
UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these
concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell� Chairman and CEO Jack
Messman in response to SCO making these claims.

more:

http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Thu May 29 05:25:05 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:25:05 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
Message-ID: <200305281925.h4SJPYJ8078685@minnie.tuhs.org>

Interesting.  I suggest everyone interested in this fracas read the
whole scoop at (to repeat Kenneth Stailey's pointer)

  http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html

Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002?  Are those agreements really valid?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From ckeck at texoma.net  Thu May 29 09:24:56 2003
From: ckeck at texoma.net (Cornelius Keck)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 18:24:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <200305281925.h4SJPYJ8078685@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10305281816160.9998-100000@ppp-151-110-2.texoma.net>

> Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
> the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
> convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
> the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
> version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
> 2002?  Are those agreements really valid?

Good point. If memory serves me correctly, the 1998 agreement was
not free for the asking, but rather required shelling out US$100,
which means that SCO "sold" something they never owned, which
constitutes fraud (anybody with some legal background reading
this: please correct). What's the statue of limitations (sp?)
for this?

Regards,

Cornelius

-- 
                             Cornelius Keck
                            ckeck at texoma.net



From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org  Thu May 29 10:02:19 2003
From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:02:19 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10305281816160.9998-100000@ppp-151-110-2.texoma.net>
References: <200305281925.h4SJPYJ8078685@minnie.tuhs.org> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10305281816160.9998-100000@ppp-151-110-2.texoma.net>
Message-ID: <20030529000219.GA82058@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 06:24:56PM -0500, Cornelius Keck wrote:
> > Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
> > the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
> > convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
> > the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
> > version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
> > 2002?  Are those agreements really valid?
> 
> Good point. If memory serves me correctly, the 1998 agreement was
> not free for the asking, but rather required shelling out US$100,
> which means that SCO "sold" something they never owned, which
> constitutes fraud (anybody with some legal background reading
> this: please correct). What's the statue of limitations (sp?)
> for this?

Actually, Novell have only asserted that SCO/Caldera did not obtain
the rights to System V. Now, neither the $100 nor the BSD-style
SCO/Caldera Ancient UNIX licenses covered System V, so this might
not be fraud.

It depends on whether or not SCO/Caldera have the rights to Research
Editions 1 to 7 and System III :-)

This is all getting to be like a very bad TV soap: UNIX Sons and Daughters.
We've got grandad Research who was a pioneer in the area, son USL, and
now a lot of bastard grandchildren. And of course there's the newcomer
in town called Linux.

	Warren


From mike at ducky.net  Thu May 29 17:49:56 2003
From: mike at ducky.net (Mike Haertel)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <200305281925.h4SJPYJ8078685@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <200305290749.h4T7nu22092199@ducky.net>

>Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
>the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
>convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
>the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
>version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
>2002?  Are those agreements really valid?

You can have the right to sublicense something without owning
the copyright.  You can even have the right to sublicense the
right to sublicense without owning the copyright, and so on.
It all depends on your contract with the real copyright holder.

This is probably how the contract for Novell's "sale" of Unix
to (old) SCO was written.

But only the real copyright holder can bring a legal action
against copyright violators.  And judging from recent press
releases it would seem that Novell feels it is under no
contractual obligation to do so on (new) SCO's behalf.


From rob at vetsystems.com  Thu May 29 22:16:33 2003
From: rob at vetsystems.com (Robert Tillyard)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:16:33 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <200305290749.h4T7nu22092199@ducky.net>
Message-ID: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com>

I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and not on
copyright issues.

But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and putting it
into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit upset about it,
after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to compete with a product that's
just about free and contains code that I wrote.

Regards, Rob.

On 29/5/03 8:49 am, "Mike Haertel" <mike at ducky.net> wrote:

>> Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
>> the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
>> convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
>> the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
>> version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
>> 2002?  Are those agreements really valid?
> 
> You can have the right to sublicense something without owning
> the copyright.  You can even have the right to sublicense the
> right to sublicense without owning the copyright, and so on.
> It all depends on your contract with the real copyright holder.
> 
> This is probably how the contract for Novell's "sale" of Unix
> to (old) SCO was written.
> 
> But only the real copyright holder can bring a legal action
> against copyright violators.  And judging from recent press
> releases it would seem that Novell feels it is under no
> contractual obligation to do so on (new) SCO's behalf.



From kstailey at yahoo.com  Thu May 29 23:18:49 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 06:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com>
Message-ID: <20030529131849.23434.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> wrote:
> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and not on
> copyright issues.

SCO has packed so much FUD around this issue.  If Novell did anything to help
it made SCO clarify their posistion.

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126

Another good thing that came out of this mess is the neat-o table embedded in
this page:

http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

That shows AIX (and XENIX/SCO) in relationship to other systems.

Search for "Relationships among the Unix variants at issue"

It does leave out AIX 2 on ROMP.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


From kstailey at yahoo.com  Fri May 30 02:08:29 2003
From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] where to find source to pack(1)/unpack(1)
Message-ID: <20030529160829.55129.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi,

I have a cont.a.z I would like to extract.  When I run it through Solaris
unpack(1) there are no complaints but then I go to unarchive it with either my
3BSD derived ar11 port or Warren's 2.9BSD newoldar and get:

$ file cont.a
cont.a: old PDP-11 archive
$ ar11 tv cont.a
rwx---r--  2/0   3505 Aug 20 17:07 1976 alog.mat
rw----r--  2/0    273 Jan  3 05:14 1978 assem
rwx---r--  2/0   6332 Aug 20 17:07 1976 atan.mat
r-s--x-w-  9/49170995977 Oct 22 01:48 1974      1
        1
        1
        1
        1
ar11: phase error on    1
        1
        1
        1
        1

Same thing with newoldar.  I'm thinking Solaris unpack was incompatible with
the pack that was used to make the cont.a.z.  Possibly endian issues.

I go poking around for pack(1) in V7 and PWB and 2.11BSD but can't find
anything.  Any ideas?

Thanks,
Ken


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com


From imp at bsdimp.com  Thu May 29 22:33:54 2003
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 06:33:54 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com>
References: <200305290749.h4T7nu22092199@ducky.net>
	<BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com>
Message-ID: <20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob at vetsystems.com>
            Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> writes:
: I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and not on
: copyright issues.

All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual.  Their
statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
aren't actually alledged in the court filings.

: But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and putting it
: into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit upset about it,
: after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to compete with a product that's
: just about free and contains code that I wrote.

That's the rub.  Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?

SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes
them for the fruads that they have become.

Warner


From cyrille.lefevre at laposte.net  Fri May 30 01:44:13 2003
From: cyrille.lefevre at laposte.net (Cyrille Lefevre)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:44:13 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] Re: non-broken 4.3BSD set?
In-Reply-To: <200212112326.gBBNQlr04157@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <ca.15d9a70c.2b28d371@aol.com>
	<200212112326.gBBNQlr04157@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030529154413.GA52289@gits.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:26:47AM +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> In article by Robertdkeys at aol.com:
> > Warren... is there a non-broken 4.3BSD-Tahoe set somewhere?
> > Bob
> 
> As in a bootable 4.3BSD-Tahoe kit? As far as I know, no. The Unix Archive
> has a broken copy in 4BSD/Distributions/4.3BSD-Tahoe, indicating that
> both usr.tar and src.tar are broken.
> 
> It might/should be possible to merge files from the CRSG CD set from Kirk
> to recreate these tar files.
> 
> Anybody out there have an unbroken Tahoe release?

Hi, take a look at http://mapage.noos.fr/clefevre/4bsd/

you will found the listings of some archives found around the net some years ago.
don't ask me where, I can't remember. If you are interrested by one or more
of them, let me know, I'll provide you in a way or another.

FYI, appart the 4.3BSD-Tahoe archive, the following one is also broken :

4BSD/Distributions/4.3BSD-Rev2-Foreign/usr.tar.gz

4BSD/Distributions/4.3BSD-Tahoe/src.tar.gz
4BSD/Distributions/4.3BSD-Tahoe/usr.tar.gz

Cyrille.
-- 
Cyrille Lefevre                 mailto:cyrille.lefevre at laposte.net


From grog at lemis.com  Fri May 30 09:50:27 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:20:27 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com>
References: <200305290749.h4T7nu22092199@ducky.net> <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com> <20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20030529235027.GE20321@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at  6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob at vetsystems.com>
>             Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> writes:

>> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
>> not on copyright issues.
>
> All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual.  Their
> statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
> aren't actually alledged in the court filings.

What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues.  The
IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
have been remarkably vague.  The suspension of Linux distribution is a
different matter.  From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:

   On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
   director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
   independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
   kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
   occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
   kernels.

   In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
   the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
   older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
   UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
   UnixWare 7.

>> But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and
>> putting it into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit
>> upset about it, after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to
>> compete with a product that's just about free and contains code
>> that I wrote.
>
> That's the rub.  Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
> they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?

Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright.  The
release of JFS was one example.  Probably the majority of AIX was
developed by IBM, not by AT&T.  It's rather similar to the issue with
4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably
replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not
require an SCO license.

If you mean "is there IBM copyright code in Linux?", I think the
answer is again yes, but it's under the GPL or possibly IPL, IBM's
attempt at a compromise between proprietary licenses and the GPL.  I
think they've given up on the IPL now.

For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
true.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030530/2af6817f/attachment.sig>

From imp at harmony.village.org  Fri May 30 09:56:39 2003
From: imp at harmony.village.org (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:56:39 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <20030529235027.GE20321@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com>
	<20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<20030529235027.GE20321@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030529.175639.34763729.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <20030529235027.GE20321 at wantadilla.lemis.com>
            "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com> writes:
: On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at  6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob at vetsystems.com>
: >             Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> writes:
: 
: >> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
: >> not on copyright issues.
: >
: > All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual.  Their
: > statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
: > aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
: 
: What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues.  The
: IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
: have been remarkably vague.  The suspension of Linux distribution is a
: different matter.  From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
: 
:    On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
:    director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
:    independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
:    kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
:    occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
:    kernels.
: 
:    In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
:    the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
:    older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
:    UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
:    UnixWare 7.

I base my statements on the legal filings that are available at the
SCO site.  I do not base them on anything that SCO has said to the
press, since those statements are nearly universally overinflated.
Since these are statements to the press, or other public statements, I
trust them as much as I trust public statements by politicians.

: > That's the rub.  Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
: > they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
: 
: Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright.  The
: release of JFS was one example.  Probably the majority of AIX was
: developed by IBM, not by AT&T.  It's rather similar to the issue with
: 4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably
: replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not
: require an SCO license.

I was speaking of SCO, not IBM.  What code does SCO own the copyright
to?

: For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
: true.

Me too.  There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
line snippets scattered all through the kernel.  Give me a break.
That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face.  I can see
one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
can't see anything more pervasive than that.

Warner


From grog at lemis.com  Fri May 30 10:37:46 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:07:46 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <20030529.175639.34763729.imp@bsdimp.com>
References: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com> <20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030529235027.GE20321@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030529.175639.34763729.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20030530003746.GF20321@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 17:56:39 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20030529235027.GE20321 at wantadilla.lemis.com>
>             "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com> writes:
>> On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at  6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>>> In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob at vetsystems.com>
>>>             Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> writes:
>>
>>>> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
>>>> not on copyright issues.
>>>
>>> All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual.  Their
>>> statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
>>> aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
>>
>> What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues.  The
>> IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
>> have been remarkably vague.  The suspension of Linux distribution is a
>> different matter.  From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
>>
>>    On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
>>    director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
>>    independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
>>    kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
>>    occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
>>    kernels.
>>
>>    In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
>>    the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
>>    older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
>>    UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
>>    UnixWare 7.
>
> I base my statements on the legal filings that are available at the
> SCO site.  I do not base them on anything that SCO has said to the
> press, since those statements are nearly universally overinflated.
> Since these are statements to the press, or other public statements, I
> trust them as much as I trust public statements by politicians.

The trouble is that there *is* no legal filing on the Linux without
IBM case.

>>> That's the rub.  Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
>>> they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
>>
>> ...
>
> I was speaking of SCO, not IBM.  What code does SCO own the copyright
> to?

Ah, sorry.  Got to pass on that one.  They probably have the rights to
XENIX.

>> For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
>> true.
>
> Me too.  There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
> line snippets scattered all through the kernel.  Give me a break.
> That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face.  I can see
> one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
> can't see anything more pervasive than that.

There are plenty of cases where you need to initialize a data
structure.  Many data structures are public knowledge, and
initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
been written independently and look almost the same.  Does this line
ring a bell?

	(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)]->d_strategy) (bp);

How many people have written that independently of each other?

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030530/288820cf/attachment.sig>

From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Fri May 30 11:00:17 2003
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:00:17 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
Message-ID: <200305300100.h4U10pJ8090918@minnie.tuhs.org>

M. Warner Losh:

  There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
  line snippets scattered all through the kernel.  Give me a break.
  That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face.  I can see
  one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
  can't see anything more pervasive than that.

I agree that it sounds unlikely, and I won't give it much credit
until SCO makes its evidence generally available.  But it's by no
means absurd.  Suppose SCO invented some whizzy data structure and
associated code conventions to afford especially efficient
interprocessor locks.  That could show up in fragments scattered
throughout the kernel, and the idea itself could in fact be
valuable intellectual property and the fragments a demonstration
that the idea was stolen.

Or suppose the issue at hand was a particular way to implement a
file system switch.  I was involved in adding such a thing to an
old-fashioned kernel myself; it touches many little pieces of
code all over the kernel that happen to do certain things to or
with in-core i-nodes.  If I was worried that someone had stolen
such work wholesale, part of what I would look for would indeed
be scattered fragments.

As I say, there's no useful evidence on view at all, therefore
there is no useful evidence that what I am describing is what
the fuss is about.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From wkt at minnie.tuhs.org  Fri May 30 11:01:26 2003
From: wkt at minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:01:26 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <20030530003746.GF20321@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com> <20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030529235027.GE20321@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030529.175639.34763729.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030530003746.GF20321@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030530010126.GA90870@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:07:46AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> There are plenty of cases where you need to initialize a data
> structure.  Many data structures are public knowledge, and
> initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
> been written independently and look almost the same.  Does this line
> ring a bell?
> 
> 	(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)]->d_strategy) (bp);

And you've got to watch out for these ones, which have been around
since 1973:

#define EPERM           1               /* Operation not permitted */
#define ENOENT          2               /* No such file or directory */
#define ESRCH           3               /* No such process */
#define EINTR           4               /* Interrupted system call */

So that that extent, there is real UNIX code in Linux 8-)

	Warren


From grog at lemis.com  Fri May 30 11:20:30 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:50:30 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In-Reply-To: <20030530010126.GA90870@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob@vetsystems.com> <20030529.063354.51702197.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030529235027.GE20321@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030529.175639.34763729.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030530003746.GF20321@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030530010126.GA90870@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030530012030.GA39063@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Friday, 30 May 2003 at 11:01:26 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:07:46AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>> There are plenty of cases where you need to initialize a data
>> structure.  Many data structures are public knowledge, and
>> initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
>> been written independently and look almost the same.  Does this line
>> ring a bell?
>>
>> 	(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)].d_strategy) (bp);
>
> And you've got to watch out for these ones, which have been around
> since 1973:
>
> #define EPERM           1               /* Operation not permitted */
> #define ENOENT          2               /* No such file or directory */
> #define ESRCH           3               /* No such process */
> #define EINTR           4               /* Interrupted system call */
>
> So that that extent, there is real UNIX code in Linux 8-)

Heh.  Also in the Third Edition:

/src/UNIX/PDP-11/Third-Edition/dmr/bio.c:       (*bdevsw[dev.d_major].d_strategy)(rbp);
/src/UNIX/PDP-11/Third-Edition/dmr/bio.c:       (*bdevsw[rbp->b_dev.d_major].d_strategy)(rbp);

Yes, this is the reason why I asked Kieran if it was really UnixWare
or UNIX System V.  They need to prove where the code originally came
from before they have any kind of case.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030530/9f90c188/attachment.sig>

From lm at bitmover.com  Fri May 30 12:42:53 2003
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 19:42:53 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs
In-Reply-To: <200305300130.h4U1UMJ8091290@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200305300130.h4U1UMJ8091290@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030530024253.GE21405@work.bitmover.com>

> SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes
> them for the fruads that they have become.

In the for what it is worth department, I happen to know that this
stuff is more complex than it seems.  For instance, I am pretty sure
that ATT should have won their lawsuit over the BSD stuff and if you
doubt that I'd suggest that you go compare the UFS code against the 32v
or v7 code.  bmap() is a good place to look.  Any suggestions that that
was completely rewritten are patently false, at least in my opinion.
I'm a file system guy, I've done a lot of work in UFS, I'm intimately
familiar with the code.  In fact, I defended UFS against LFS when Kirk
wouldn't (LFS is a friggin' joke, any file system hacker knows that the
allocation policy is 90% of the file system).

I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes.  And I
think that SCO is about as astute as I am in terms of public relations
(we both tend to be our own worst enemies and I thought I was without
peer in that department :-)  But I suspect that there is at least some
merit to what they are claiming.  I have to believe that nobody is stupid
enough to have zero data and jump out in public like they are doing.
That's just way too far over the top.  Anything is possible I guess,
but doesn't it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would
commit that public a suicide?  I'll probably be proved wrong but I'm
a CEO, running a small company, much smaller than SCO, and there is
no way I'd stick my neck out that far with no data to back it up.
I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it,
they have more experience.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Fri May 30 19:01:44 2003
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:01:44 +1200
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
Message-ID: <200305302101.44047.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

On Friday 30 May 2003 11:50 am, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at  6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob at vetsystems.com>
> >
> >             Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> writes:
> >> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
> >> not on copyright issues.
> >
> > All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual.  Their
> > statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
> > aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
>
> What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues.  The
> IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
> have been remarkably vague.  The suspension of Linux distribution is a
> different matter.  From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
>
>    On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
>    director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
>    independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
>    kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
>    occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
>    kernels.
>
>    In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
>    the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
>    older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
>    UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
>    UnixWare 7.
>
> >> But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and
> >> putting it into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit
> >> upset about it, after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to
> >> compete with a product that's just about free and contains code
> >> that I wrote.
> >
> > That's the rub.  Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
> > they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
>
> Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright.  The
> release of JFS was one example.  Probably the majority of AIX was
> developed by IBM, not by AT&T.  It's rather similar to the issue with
> 4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably
> replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not
> require an SCO license.

I would say that that is entirely likely.  AIX was developed by IBM for
IBM-specific machines running in IBM-style environments, and I can imagine
that SysVRx just _doesn't_ _cut_ _the_ _mustard_.

So, SCO's latching on the IBM for Monterey - RS-6000 was 64-bit, or am I
getting confused? - probably gave SCO much more than it gave IBM.  So
ironically, if IBM donated stuff to Monterey under the terms of the agreement
and later incorporated the same stuff into Linux, it _could_ look as if they
had taken stuff from SysVRx/Unixware - stuff that SCO had never had the
opportunity to develop if it hadn't been for Monterey and IBM's pre-existing
expertise.

Just some thoughts - but if that is so, I can see why IBM's not getting too
het up about the whole muck-up.

Wesley Parish

> If you mean "is there IBM copyright code in Linux?", I think the
> answer is again yes, but it's under the GPL or possibly IPL, IBM's
> attempt at a compromise between proprietary licenses and the GPL.  I
> think they've given up on the IPL now.
>
> For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
> true.
>
> Greg

--
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."


From grog at lemis.com  Fri May 30 13:31:24 2003
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 13:01:24 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs
In-Reply-To: <20030530024253.GE21405@work.bitmover.com>
References: <200305300130.h4U1UMJ8091290@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20030530024253.GE21405@work.bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <20030530033124.GB39668@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 19:42:53 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes.

Which puts you in the same boat as the rest of us.

> But I suspect that there is at least some merit to what they are
> claiming.  I have to believe that nobody is stupid enough to have
> zero data and jump out in public like they are doing.  That's just
> way too far over the top.  Anything is possible I guess, but doesn't
> it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would commit that
> public a suicide?

It's certainly unlikely, agreed.  But SCO has done some unlikely
things recently.  You saw the public threat to sue Linus Torvalds
personally?

> I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it,
> they have more experience.

As far as I can see (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), most of
the key players at SCO have changed over the last 12 months.  They
appear to have few engineers left, which is presumably one reason why
they gave the UnixWare and Linux code to outsiders to compare.  I'm
not convinced of their understanding of the matters at hand.  For
example, last year Caldera released "ancient UNIX" under a BSD-style
license, but now they're claiming it never happened.  Maybe they don't
know about the company history.  And if the code in dispute is derived
from ancient UNIX, there'll be egg on their face.  

Of course, a simple comparison doesn't show the origin of the code.
If it proves to have been lifted from Linux, they'll *really* look
stupid.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030530/b75f8346/attachment.sig>

