From wkt at tuhs.org  Wed Apr 19 10:46:54 2006
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:46:54 +1000
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
Message-ID: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>

     [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ]

----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net> -----

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
To: <wkt at tuhs.org>

I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes
in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in
the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?

Bill
----- End forwarded message -----


From root at dynamite.narpes.com  Wed Apr 19 11:42:32 2006
From: root at dynamite.narpes.com (Charlie ROOT)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:42:32 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Warren Toomey wrote:

>      [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ]
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net> -----
> 
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
> 
> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes
> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in
> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?

I've heard of a free VAX emulator called SIMH/vax, and a commercial
one named Charon-VAX (or something), but I've tested neither.  If you're
adventurous enough, you might consider real VAX hardware: the VAXstation
3100 and 4000 series models can be had at reasonable cost, and are not
larger than a desktop PC.  As for VMS, at least the recent 7.x versions
are available more or less freely for hobbyist use.

By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.

-aw


From toby at smartgames.ca  Wed Apr 19 15:56:33 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:56:33 -0400
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP11B274CE0A54F810E35916BFC50@CEZ.ICE>


On 18-Apr-06, at 9:42 PM, Charlie ROOT wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Warren Toomey wrote:
>
>>      [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on  
>> the list ]
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net>  
>> -----
>>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
>> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
>> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
>> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
>>
>> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother  
>> boot tapes
>> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with  
>> gcc-3.4.6. I
>> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
>> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like  
>> this in
>> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?
>
> I've heard of a free VAX emulator called SIMH/vax, and a commercial
> one named Charon-VAX (or something), but I've tested neither.  If  
> you're
> adventurous enough, you might consider real VAX hardware: the  
> VAXstation
> 3100 and 4000 series models can be had at reasonable cost, and are not
> larger than a desktop PC.  As for VMS, at least the recent 7.x  
> versions
> are available more or less freely for hobbyist use.
>
> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.

There were. On 23 March 2002 Martin Crehan started a thread on this  
list, including a cite to this Slashdot posting: http://slashdot.org/ 
comments.pl?sid=29920&cid=3213453

I would link to the thread, but the search seems broken (http:// 
minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/pups.cgi).

Apart from the PDP-11 version mentioned there, I am also aware of the  
Lisa XENIX port (68K).

--T

>
> -aw
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From iking at killthewabbit.org  Wed Apr 19 16:07:22 2006
From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:07:22 -0700
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <4445D39A.70303@killthewabbit.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060418/fb00307d/attachment.html>

From rp at servium.ch  Wed Apr 19 18:44:05 2006
From: rp at servium.ch (Rico Pajarola)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:44:05 +0200
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>

Hi Bill

you may try a current version of the simh emulator (simh 3.5.-2) which 
is available from simh.trailing-edge.com. I had no problems with Ultrix 
3.1, Unix V6/V7 etc.. I couldn't find xenix for pdpd-11 (did I miss that 
in the archives?). There is Venix, but it's for the PRO-350/380, which 
is not a "normal" PDP-11.

As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that 
it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. There is very few information 
available on these machines, and I don't think there is an emulator for 
them. There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see 
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a 
picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in 
addition to the monitor). I recently donated my Technostation to a 
computer museum...

regards
--rp

> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
> 
> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes
> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in
> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?
> 
> Bill


From tfb at tfeb.org  Wed Apr 19 19:10:48 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:10:48 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
Message-ID: <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>

On Wed, April 19, 2006 09:44, Rico Pajarola wrote:

>
> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that
> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. There is very few information
> available on these machines, and I don't think there is an emulator for
> them. There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see
> http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a
> picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in
> addition to the monitor). I recently donated my Technostation to a
> computer museum...

I understood it was NeXTStep
(http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem to back
that up).  So that would be running on some kind of NeXT box I should
think.  Today's descendent is MacOS X, which still has a lot of things
named NS* in it.

--tim



From milov at uwlax.edu  Wed Apr 19 22:51:54 2006
From: milov at uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:51:54 -0500
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <BC056526-4A5B-497F-93BE-7AE59D9CFD1D@uwlax.edu>


On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:00 PM, pups-request at minnie.tuhs.org wrote:

> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net>  
> -----
>
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
>
> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother  
> boot tapes
> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with  
> gcc-3.4.6. I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read.

Doubtful. Everything I have read leads me to believe that Tim Berners- 
Lee wrote the first web browser on using a NeXT cube running an early  
version (2.x or earlier) of the NEXTSTEP operating system.

> Is there anything like this in
> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?
>
> Bill
> ----- End forwarded message -----

--
Milo Velimirović
University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA
43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W
--
There's a reason Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson have been awarded  
the U.S. National Medal of Technology (1998) and are fellows of the  
Computer History Museum Online. Dave Cutler hasn't and isn't.
"You are not expected to understand this."




From cmcnabb at vt.edu  Wed Apr 19 21:45:40 2006
From: cmcnabb at vt.edu (Christopher McNabb)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:45:40 -0400
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <1145447140.10479.2.camel@morden.cc.vt.edu>

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 01:42 +0000, Charlie ROOT wrote:
> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. 

In my memory, it seems that Xenix was originally done for the Motorola
68000 then ported to the Intel x86 architecture.  The first real "Unix"
I ever ran, by the way, was Microsoft Xenix on a Motorola 68000 based
Tandy 6000.  I do not believe that Xenix *ever* ran on PDP based
hardware.



From toby at smartgames.ca  Wed Apr 19 23:24:06 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:24:06 -0400
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
	<2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP0121247B0F960045EA1416BFC50@CEZ.ICE>


On 19-Apr-06, at 5:10 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

> On Wed, April 19, 2006 09:44, Rico Pajarola wrote:
>
>>
>> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I  
>> believe that
>> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. ...

Now I've heard everything :)

>
> I understood it was NeXTStep
> (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem  
> to back
> that up).  So that would be running on some kind of NeXT box

Yes, as Milo points out, an M68K model, for which afaik no emulator  
exists. The original hardware can still be bought on ebay, or from  
http://www.blackholeinc.com/ (if they are still responsive).

However you should be able to run NEXTSTEP/Intel (which means a late  
version like 3.3) on emulated hardware (QEMU, Bochs, etc), which  
coincidentally is what I've been trying to do this week.

Several versions of TBL's browser (M68K and Intel binaries for  
NEXTSTEP 3.3) can be found at http://browsers.evolt.org/?worldwideweb/ 
NeXT

--Toby

> ...  Today's descendent is MacOS X, which still has a lot of things
> named NS* in it.
>
> --tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From toby at smartgames.ca  Wed Apr 19 23:26:04 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:26:04 -0400
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
	<2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP075882C8AD62CA73AF48C9BFC50@CEZ.ICE>


On 19-Apr-06, at 5:10 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

> On Wed, April 19, 2006 09:44, Rico Pajarola wrote:
>
>>
>> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I  
>> believe that
>> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. There is very few  
>> information
>> available on these machines, and I don't think there is an  
>> emulator for
>> them. There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see
>> http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a
>> picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in
>> addition to the monitor). I recently donated my Technostation to a
>> computer museum...
>
> I understood it was NeXTStep
> (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem  
> to back
> that up).

Further to last post, see this note by TBL: http:// 
www.mirrorservice.org/sites/browsers.evolt.org/browsers/worldwideweb/ 
NeXT/WorldWideWeb.html
(includes link to screenshot).

--Toby

> ...
>
> --tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From rp at servium.ch  Thu Apr 20 00:17:25 2006
From: rp at servium.ch (Rico Pajarola)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:17:25 +0200
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <BAYC1-PASMTP075882C8AD62CA73AF48C9BFC50@CEZ.ICE>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
	<2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
	<BAYC1-PASMTP075882C8AD62CA73AF48C9BFC50@CEZ.ICE>
Message-ID: <44464675.5040503@servium.ch>

Toby Thain wrote:
>> I understood it was NeXTStep
>> (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem  to 
>> back
>> that up).
> 
> 
> Further to last post, see this note by TBL: http:// 
> www.mirrorservice.org/sites/browsers.evolt.org/browsers/worldwideweb/ 
> NeXT/WorldWideWeb.html
> (includes link to screenshot).
I know that, but this program was based on another program called 
"Enquire", which was written by Berners-Lee on a Norsk Data machine 
(supposedly a Technostation running Sintran III), see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_Data, 
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Longer.html

regards
--rp


From bill at cs.uofs.edu  Thu Apr 20 00:36:28 2006
From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <1145447140.10479.2.camel@morden.cc.vt.edu>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
	<1145447140.10479.2.camel@morden.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <4471.134.198.172.102.1145457388.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>


> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 01:42 +0000, Charlie ROOT wrote:
>> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
>> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.
>
> In my memory, it seems that Xenix was originally done for the Motorola
> 68000 then ported to the Intel x86 architecture.  The first real "Unix"
> I ever ran, by the way, was Microsoft Xenix on a Motorola 68000 based
> Tandy 6000.  I do not believe that Xenix *ever* ran on PDP based
> hardware.

My 1985 PDP11 Software Sourcebook lists XENIX for the PDP11 as
being available from SCO.  It also lists Venix as available for
other than just the Pro.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>




From bill at cs.uofs.edu  Thu Apr 20 00:33:55 2006
From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [pups] [Fwd: Re:  [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix]
Message-ID: <4444.134.198.172.102.1145457235.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>



>> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
>> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.
>
> There were. On 23 March 2002 Martin Crehan started a thread on this
> list, including a cite to this Slashdot posting: http://slashdot.org/
> comments.pl?sid=29920&cid=3213453
>
> I would link to the thread, but the search seems broken (http://
> minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/pups.cgi).
>
> Apart from the PDP-11 version mentioned there, I am also aware of the
> Lisa XENIX port (68K).

And also a8K version for the Tandy 16/6000 series.  I still have
it, but don't use it anymore.  It probably wouldn't even boot at
this point.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>



-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>




From bill at cs.uofs.edu  Thu Apr 20 00:34:17 2006
From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [pups] [Fwd: Re:  [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix]
Message-ID: <4450.134.198.172.102.1145457257.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>


>
> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.

I believe there was a version of Xenix for the PDP-11 but Xenix is
based on SYSIII which I understand is not covered by the ancient Unix
license.  Of course, if it is, I would love a copy of SYSIII.  :-)

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>



-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>




From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Thu Apr 20 01:13:18 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:13:18 -0700
Subject: [pups] [Fwd: Re:  [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix]
In-Reply-To: <4450.134.198.172.102.1145457257.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
References: <4450.134.198.172.102.1145457257.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
Message-ID: <4446538E.5050703@pacbell.net>

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>>By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
>>I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.
>>    
>>
>
>I believe there was a version of Xenix for the PDP-11 but Xenix is
>based on SYSIII which I understand is not covered by the ancient Unix
>license.  Of course, if it is, I would love a copy of SYSIII.  :-)
>
XENIX for the PDP-11 was available in the UK from the Software Products 
Group
of Logica (which in late 1986 was acquired by the Santa Cruz Operation 
and became
their UK and European office).

As far as I know it was entirely based on V7 - other than adding a few 
device drivers
and configuring the system to match the customer's hardware I don't 
think that either
Microsoft or Logica really did much to the PDP-11 version. I used XENIX on a
PDP11/34 back in (I think) 1982 and most of the work was in finding a kernel
configuration which both had all of the drivers that we needed and would 
fit on a
non split i&d machinne.

I don't believe that any System III code showed up in XENIX until 
sometime later
in the Motorola 68k and Intel x86 versions.

Michael Davidson


From carl.lowenstein at gmail.com  Wed Apr 19 14:10:20 2006
From: carl.lowenstein at gmail.com (Carl Lowenstein)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:10:20 -0700
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <5904d5730604182110hbe43a38ic4eed65910803f25@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/18/06, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:
>      [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ]
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net> -----
>
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
>
> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes
> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in
> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?

Tim Berners-Lee developed what became the WWW, server and browser, on
a NeXT computer running the NeXTstep OS.  There is not a whole lot of
public knowledge about the internals of the NeXT hardware, which makes
it difficult to write an emulator for it.

There is a slowly progressing effort to port NetBSD to NeXT hardware. 
Also, the last few releases of NeXTstep and OpenStep would run either
on NeXT hardware or selected x86 hardware.  Somewhere there is a
writeup covering the subject of running OpenStep on the VMware virtual
machine.

None of this is VAX, nor is it any other hardware covered by SimH.

    carl
--
    carl lowenstein         marine physical lab     u.c. san diego
                                                 clowenst at ucsd.edu


From toresbe at ifi.uio.no  Thu Apr 20 08:36:02 2006
From: toresbe at ifi.uio.no (Tore S Bekkedal)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:36:02 +0200
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel>

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:46 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
>      [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ]
> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net> -----
> I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
> browser.
You mean SINTRAN III/VSX?



From toresbe at ifi.uio.no  Thu Apr 20 08:59:50 2006
From: toresbe at ifi.uio.no (Tore S Bekkedal)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:59:50 +0200
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
Message-ID: <1145487590.3928.42.camel@fortran.babel>

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:44 +0200, Rico Pajarola wrote:
> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that 
> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. 
I doubt that, for the reasons I posted to the list.
> There is very few information 
> available on these machines, and I don't think there is an emulator for 
> them. 
I'm working on one, little by little. But I have pretty much zero docs
on the ND-500(0) side of the things, as well as the interface between
the ND-100 and ND-500(0) processors. 
> There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see 
> http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a 
> picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in 
> addition to the monitor).
I believe they were plasma screens, and emulated a pair of standard
TDV-22xx serial terminals (the OS did AFAIK not support the huge
framebuffer natively).
The writer of the original version in Norwegian has all parts of the
Technostation apart from the giant desk.
>  I recently donated my Technostation to a 
> computer museum...
Which museum? Did you include the funny desk? Was it running when you
gave it up? What software did it run?

I personally have a ND-5700 computer, and would of course *kill* for
ENQUIRE. :)

http://toresbe.at.ifi.uio.no/technostation.jpeg offers a more detailed
view of the console. The article is in Norwegian, about the machine
winning a design award.

-toresbe :)



From toresbe at ifi.uio.no  Thu Apr 20 08:47:25 2006
From: toresbe at ifi.uio.no (Tore S Bekkedal)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:47:25 +0200
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <BC056526-4A5B-497F-93BE-7AE59D9CFD1D@uwlax.edu>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<BC056526-4A5B-497F-93BE-7AE59D9CFD1D@uwlax.edu>
Message-ID: <1145486845.3928.31.camel@fortran.babel>

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 07:51 -0500, Milo Velimirovic wrote:
> Doubtful. Everything I have read leads me to believe that Tim Berners- 
> Lee wrote the first web browser on using a NeXT cube running an early  
> version (2.x or earlier) of the NEXTSTEP operating system.
Sorry, quick trigger finger, wrote the previous reply before checking
the rest of the thread and accidentally sending it..

Tim Berners-Lee wrote what could be thought of as an early prototype of
the Web on a Norsk Data SINTRAN-III/VSX minicomputer. Though it was
probably not a Technostation (In a talk at the CHM, Tim Berners-Lee
mentions giving the program (called ENQUIRE) to someone on an 8" floppy,
which would place it far away in time from the Technostation (which was
in the late eighties and a special-purpose CAD workstation) and closer
to the (binary-compatible) 32-bit ND-5x0 systems, which were quite
popular at CERN. Also, IIRC the manual discusses the use of a TDV
terminal, which were the (awesome!) CRT terminals that came with the
system) 

However, the HTTP-style Web was indeed written on a NeXT cube.

-toresbe :)



From rp at servium.ch  Thu Apr 20 16:18:12 2006
From: rp at servium.ch (Rico Pajarola)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:18:12 +0200
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <1145487590.3928.42.camel@fortran.babel>
References: <mailman.5.1145412001.42991.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>	
	<4445F855.2060402@servium.ch>
	<1145487590.3928.42.camel@fortran.babel>
Message-ID: <444727A4.1080401@servium.ch>

Tore S Bekkedal wrote:
>> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that 
>> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. 
> I doubt that, for the reasons I posted to the list.
maybe the word browser is not really correct, it's ENQUIRE that I meant, 
which is the great-grandfather of that browser.

 > I believe they were plasma screens, and emulated a pair of standard
 > TDV-22xx serial terminals (the OS did AFAIK not support the huge
 > framebuffer natively).
that's what I understood, the monitor was not really "part" of the 
computer, more like an external device controlled by it.

> Which museum? Did you include the funny desk? Was it running when you
> gave it up? What software did it run?
http://www.bolo.ch/

And yes, it included the funny desk (altough the wooden "arms" were 
broken off). It seemed complete (SCSI, CPU, 16MB RAM, 3-board Ethernet 
etc. was all there, even a spare powersupply, only the front plate was 
apparently missing), but it was halfways disassembled, and lacking any 
software or other knowledge and time to investigate, I never dared to 
turn it on.

It's a shame to let such a machine rot in storage, the museum is a much 
better place for that machine, and it's not as if it's "gone" now, I can 
visit it even more often than when I had it in storage ;)

> I personally have a ND-5700 computer, and would of course *kill* for
> ENQUIRE. :)
so would I...

> http://toresbe.at.ifi.uio.no/technostation.jpeg offers a more detailed
> view of the console. The article is in Norwegian, about the machine
> winning a design award.
yeah, that's it, although my machine looked smaller (half as wide)

regards
--rp


From milov at uwlax.edu  Thu Apr 20 23:20:06 2006
From: milov at uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:20:06 -0500
Subject: [pups] NEXTSTEP etc. [was: Bob's emulator and ultrix]
References: <mailman.3.1145498401.69557.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <E907DB0E-6670-4E21-BB76-BACA2FF67737@uwlax.edu>



Begin forwarded message:

[snip]

>
> On 4/18/06, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:
>>      [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on  
>> the list ]
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net>  
>> -----
>>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
>> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
>> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
>> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
>>
>> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother  
>> boot tapes
>> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with  
>> gcc-3.4.6. I
>> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
>> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like  
>> this in
>> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?
>
> Tim Berners-Lee developed what became the WWW, server and browser, on
> a NeXT computer running the NeXTstep OS.  There is not a whole lot of
> public knowledge about the internals of the NeXT hardware, which makes
> it difficult to write an emulator for it.
>
> There is a slowly progressing effort to port NetBSD to NeXT hardware.
> Also, the last few releases of NeXTstep and OpenStep would run either
> on NeXT hardware or selected x86 hardware.

NEXTSTEP 3.3 & OpenStep run on NeXT's m68k, x86, and on HP/Apollo 700  
series HPPA workstations and on several SUN SPARCstation models.

I own an HP735 that runs NS3.3 quite nicely.

>   Somewhere there is a
> writeup covering the subject of running OpenStep on the VMware virtual
> machine.

This is a close but not quite the same thing article:
http://iamleeg.blogspot.com/2006/04/so-heres-full-system-networking- 
is.html
>
> None of this is VAX, nor is it any other hardware covered by SimH.
>
>     carl
> --
>     carl lowenstein         marine physical lab     u.c. san diego
>                                                  clowenst at ucsd.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
Milo Velimirović                            <milov at uwlax.edu>
Unix Computer Network Administrator            608-785-6618 Office
ITS Network Services                        608-386-2817 Cell
University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA                43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W




From toby at smartgames.ca  Fri Apr 21 01:01:37 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:01:37 -0400
Subject: [pups] NEXTSTEP etc. [was: Bob's emulator and ultrix]
In-Reply-To: <E907DB0E-6670-4E21-BB76-BACA2FF67737@uwlax.edu>
References: <mailman.3.1145498401.69557.pups@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<E907DB0E-6670-4E21-BB76-BACA2FF67737@uwlax.edu>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP10DD951C030AD4BCCCDBD3BFBA0@CEZ.ICE>


On 20-Apr-06, at 9:20 AM, Milo Velimirovic wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> [snip]
>
>> ...
>> There is a slowly progressing effort to port NetBSD to NeXT hardware.
>> Also, the last few releases of NeXTstep and OpenStep would run either
>> on NeXT hardware or selected x86 hardware.
>
> NEXTSTEP 3.3 & OpenStep run on NeXT's m68k, x86, and on HP/Apollo 700
> series HPPA workstations and on several SUN SPARCstation models.
>
> I own an HP735 that runs NS3.3 quite nicely.


Me too. :-)

>
>>   Somewhere there is a
>> writeup covering the subject of running OpenStep on the VMware  
>> virtual
>> machine.
>
> This is a close but not quite the same thing article:
> http://iamleeg.blogspot.com/2006/04/so-heres-full-system-networking-
> is.html


Here's a step by step for the QEMU emulator, http://www.dad- 
answers.com/qemu-forum/viewtopic.php?p=4874&
But I have not yet been able to duplicate his success.

--Toby

>>
>> None of this is VAX, nor is it any other hardware covered by SimH.
>>
>>     carl
>> --
>>     carl lowenstein         marine physical lab     u.c. san diego
>>                                                  clowenst at ucsd.edu
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>
> --
> Milo Velimirović                            <milov at uwlax.edu>
> Unix Computer Network Administrator            608-785-6618 Office
> ITS Network Services                        608-386-2817 Cell
> University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
> La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA                43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From billcu1 at verizon.net  Thu Apr 20 09:05:18 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:05:18 -0400
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel>
Message-ID: <000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

> You mean SINTRAN III/VSX?

    Is there quite a disagreement in what the first browser was?

Bill




From kelli217 at gmail.com  Fri Apr 21 13:37:14 2006
From: kelli217 at gmail.com (Kelli Halliburton)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:37:14 -0500
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel>
	<000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <200604202237.15604.kelli217@gmail.com>

On Wednesday 19 April 2006 06:05 pm, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > You mean SINTRAN III/VSX?
>
>     Is there quite a disagreement in what the first browser was?

Well, there seems to be some issue with ENQUIRE, Tim Berners-Lee's first foray 
into hypertext, but considering that that program may not have used a 
protocol named HTTP, a markup language named HTML, nor a spatial metaphor 
called the World Wide Web, it may not count.

The first time, AFAIK, that the terms we now know came together was in the 
browser built for NextStep.


From tfb at tfeb.org  Fri Apr 21 17:43:27 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:43:27 +0100
Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <200604202237.15604.kelli217@gmail.com>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel>
	<000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<200604202237.15604.kelli217@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E023C2B8-AD29-45C5-9227-56270B3816B5@tfeb.org>

On 21 Apr 2006, at 04:37, Kelli Halliburton wrote:
>
> Well, there seems to be some issue with ENQUIRE, Tim Berners-Lee's  
> first foray
> into hypertext, but considering that that program may not have used a
> protocol named HTTP, a markup language named HTML, nor a spatial  
> metaphor
> called the World Wide Web, it may not count.

I think if you're going to count ENQUIRE you ought to count some of  
the other earlier hypertext systems.

--tim


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Mon Apr 24 09:27:55 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:27:55 -0400
Subject: [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
Message-ID: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.

Bill




From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Mon Apr 24 10:33:33 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>they don't work much anymore.
>  
>
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.

Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.

Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.

I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...

Michael Davidson

[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
 ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]




From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au  Mon Apr 24 10:00:46 2006
From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:00:46 +1000
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060424000046.GE720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?

What do you mean by "old unixes"?  32V or 4BSD would be trivial.  2BSD
or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible.  gcc was born in a
32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a
16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend):  Both the code and
data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to
using overlays.

If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very
slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that
runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it.

> A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99.

As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it
impossible to build a simple C compiler.

-- 
Peter Jeremy


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Mon Apr 24 18:44:07 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:44:07 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
Message-ID: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>

djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
trick. 
 
If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating 
environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work.  I've never heard of 
anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either. 
 
Just my 0.02c 
 
Wesley Parish 
 
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Michael Davidson napisaÅ(a): 
>  
> >Bill Cunningham wrote: 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It 
> >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would 
> work 
> >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that 
> would 
> >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for 
> safekeeping as 
> >>they don't work much anymore. 
> >>  
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 
> >for the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at 
> >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development 
> >targeted at the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost 
> >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, 
> >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at 
> >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it 
> >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. 
> > 
> >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" 
> >wouldn't fit either ... 
> > 
> >Michael Davidson 
> > 
> >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for 
> > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] 
> > 
> > 
> >_______________________________________________ 
> >TUHS mailing list 
> >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32  
> bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. 
> Perhaps DeJorie could help. 
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> TUHS mailing list 
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 


From lars at nocrew.org  Mon Apr 24 19:29:20 2006
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:29:20 +0200
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> (Michael Davidson's message of
	"Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700")
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Michael Davidson <michael_davidson at pacbell.net> writes:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?
> Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
> least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
> targeted at the PDP-11.

I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff.  It was made just for fun, so it's
not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok.

As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
source tree from old cruft.


From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au  Mon Apr 24 17:47:54 2006
From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:47:54 +1000
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
Message-ID: <20060424074754.GH720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
>What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
>bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.

Won't work.  http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states:
"3.5 Can I run it on a 286?

 Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also....

 A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here.  Gcc doesn't care
 much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit
 processor, which the 286 isn't.  A 386 or better CPU really is
 required."

-- 
Peter Jeremy


From vasco at icpnet.pl  Mon Apr 24 17:33:34 2006
From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:33:34 +0200
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>

Michael Davidson napisał(a):

>Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
>  
>
>>   Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>>they don't work much anymore.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
>for the PDP-11.
>
>Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
>least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
>targeted at the PDP-11.
>
>Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
>certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
>*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
>least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
>isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
>
>I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
>wouldn't fit either ...
>
>Michael Davidson
>
>[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
> ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>  
>
What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Perhaps DeJorie could help.

Andrzej


From vasco at icpnet.pl  Mon Apr 24 19:50:40 2006
From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:50:40 +0200
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
	<1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>

Wesley Parish napisał(a):

>djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
>operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
>- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
>trick. 
>  
>
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.

I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit 
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can 
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible .

BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and 
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
be good environment for this simulator (?).
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
console to exit.


Andrzej


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Mon Apr 24 23:05:20 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:05:20 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
	<1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
	<444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>
Message-ID: <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz>

Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Wesley Parish napisaÅ(a): 
>  
> >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit  
> >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS 
> extender  
> >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same 
> kind of  
> >trick.  
> >  
> > 
> I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. 
>  
> I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit  
> environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. 
> I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can  
> create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not 
> impossible . 
 
In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are 
cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted.  Then the files get 
rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a gcc guru 
nor a pdp11 guru. 
>  
> BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and  
> it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386  
> processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
>  
> be good environment for this simulator (?). 
 
That's good news! 
> I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
>  
> console to exit. 
 
You're not the only one, either. 
 
Wesley Parish 
>  
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> PUPS mailing list 
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 


From nuclearjoker at gmail.com  Tue Apr 25 03:00:01 2006
From: nuclearjoker at gmail.com (Jacques Wagener)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:00:01 +0200
Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of)
Message-ID: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there !

Over december last year I had my first wonderful expierence with a
micro-pdp11 running Micro-RSX.
In actual fact I haven't tried much, only a complete reinstall of the
system(which was unecessary, because I've got backup tapes !).

But still an amazing moment.

What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old
data/programs/source code from an old
hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to
transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but
old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface
card.

Thanking you in advance

Jacques Wagener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060424/03af77a2/attachment.html>

From bqt at update.uu.se  Tue Apr 25 05:35:53 2006
From: bqt at update.uu.se (Johnny Billquist)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:35:53 +0200
Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of)
In-Reply-To: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <444D2899.7010804@update.uu.se>

Hi.
Nice to hear you have a working system.
As for transfer... Well, there are several ways.

DECnet (if you have it).
KERMIT
TCP/IP (if you have it).
Tapes (if both machine have tape drives)
Disks (both could have SCSI for instance)

So it very much depends on what hardware and software you have.
Also, if you plan on using the Osprey (which the mail almost hints at), 
I think they have the option of hooking up the old disks to the Osprey 
as well.

And then of course, you can ship the disks, or tape backups to someone 
who can do the conversion for you. Me for instance. It's also a question 
of time, money and safety issues involved.

Let me know if you want more help.

	Johnny

Jacques Wagener wrote:
> Hi there !
> 
> Over december last year I had my first wonderful expierence with a
> micro-pdp11 running Micro-RSX.
> In actual fact I haven't tried much, only a complete reinstall of the
> system(which was unecessary, because I've got backup tapes !).
> 
> But still an amazing moment.
> 
> What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old
> data/programs/source code from an old
> hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to
> transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but
> old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface
> card.
> 
> Thanking you in advance
> 
> Jacques Wagener
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol


From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Mon Apr 24 16:44:28 2006
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:44:28 (EDT) -0500
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
Message-ID: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>

Bill Cunningham:

    I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
  because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
  example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
  which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.

=======

Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From ggs at shiresoft.com  Tue Apr 25 07:00:27 2006
From: ggs at shiresoft.com (Guy Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:00:27 -0700
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
In-Reply-To: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site>

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
> Bill Cunningham:
> 
>     I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
>   because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
>   example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
>   which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.
> 
> =======
> 
> Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card?

The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software.  A USB stack
(OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver
stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP is a
stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and I'd
say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack).

-- 

TTFN - Guy



From cowan at ccil.org  Mon Apr 24 22:53:24 2006
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:53:24 -0400
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
Message-ID: <20060424125324.GD29916@ccil.org>

Lars Brinkhoff scripsit:

> As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
> haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
> because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
> source tree from old cruft.

http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported
target, with these caveats:  narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE
floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole,
does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use
define_constants, and no ELF support.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Tue Apr 25 06:28:08 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400
Subject: [pups] Ancient Unixes
Message-ID: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.

Bill




From wkt at tuhs.org  Tue Apr 25 07:30:54 2006
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:30:54 +1000
Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of)
In-Reply-To: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:00:01PM +0200, Jacques Wagener wrote:
> What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old
> data/programs/source code from an old
> hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to
> transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but
> old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface
> card.

Apart from the tools that Johnny mentioned, there is a program I once
write called VTServer, which copies entire disk images into hardware
over a serial interface. The program has since been taken over by Fred
van Kempen, and I don't have a canonical reference to it. However, if
you search for "VTServer fred" on Google, it should turn up.

Cheers,
	Warren


From toby at smartgames.ca  Tue Apr 25 07:51:19 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:51:19 -0400
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
In-Reply-To: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site>
References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP0196654153CC3CD96D165BBFBE0@CEZ.ICE>


On 24-Apr-06, at 5:00 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>> Bill Cunningham:
>>
>>     I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it  
>> to cd
>>   because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking  
>> was v5,6,7 for
>>   example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good  
>> example from
>>   which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde  
>> to /dev.
>>
>> =======
>>
>> Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card?
>
> The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software.  A USB  
> stack
> (OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver
> stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP  
> is a
> stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and  
> I'd
> say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack).


No, it certainly is possible. I've used USB stacks on much smaller  
devices, such as Microchip PIC18. That is not a full-featured stack,  
but certainly enough to do quite a lot.

TCP/IP doesn't have to be large either. See Adam Dunkel's uIP: http:// 
www.sics.se/~adam/uip/

--Toby

>
> -- 
>
> TTFN - Guy
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From bqt at update.uu.se  Tue Apr 25 08:31:44 2006
From: bqt at update.uu.se (Johnny Billquist)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:31:44 +0200
Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of)
In-Reply-To: <20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <444D51D0.9000204@update.uu.se>

Wasn't that an RT-11 thing, Warren?
(I have a short memory...)

	Johnny

Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:00:01PM +0200, Jacques Wagener wrote:
> 
>>What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old
>>data/programs/source code from an old
>>hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to
>>transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but
>>old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface
>>card.
> 
> 
> Apart from the tools that Johnny mentioned, there is a program I once
> write called VTServer, which copies entire disk images into hardware
> over a serial interface. The program has since been taken over by Fred
> van Kempen, and I don't have a canonical reference to it. However, if
> you search for "VTServer fred" on Google, it should turn up.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Warren
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol


From wkt at tuhs.org  Tue Apr 25 08:44:17 2006
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:44:17 +1000
Subject: [pups] VTServer
In-Reply-To: <444D51D0.9000204@update.uu.se>
References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<444D51D0.9000204@update.uu.se>
Message-ID: <20060424224417.GA10673@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:31:44AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Wasn't that [VTServer] an RT-11 thing, Warren?
> (I have a short memory...)
> 	Johnny

Actually, it was based on the 2.11BSD bootstrap code, but with a
"virtual tape" device. See
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Tools/Tapes/Vtserver/vtreadme.html
for my original version.

Cheers,
	Warren


From imp at bsdimp.com  Tue Apr 25 22:54:26 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:54:26 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
In-Reply-To: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060425.065426.74734530.imp@bsdimp.com>

From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400

>     I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
> because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
> example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
> which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.

Linux is very unlike early v[567] kernels.  Those kernels are not
posix by any stretch of the imagination.  In addition, Posix is a
userland interface, not an internal kernel structure, so even if they
were posix, I'm not sure how much it  would help you.  Porting Linux's
usb stack to FreeBSD, say, would be really hard because Linux and
FreeBSD have such different intenral kernel APIs.

You'll also run into the size issue if you want to implement a generic
stack.  For example, FreeBSD's usb stack is 100kB.  While one could
slim that down a lot (it include multiple drivers and such), it would
be difficult to fit in the space contraints of the PDP-11  It should
be possible, but one's first naive attemept to implement things may
not be so straight forward.

Warner


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Sat Apr 29 23:48:55 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:48:55 -0400
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
Message-ID: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use
the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then breaks. The
output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there maybe
something I'm not using.

Bill



From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net  Sun Apr 30 01:08:26 2006
From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:08:26 -0400
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
In-Reply-To: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7>

Hello!
Bill? What are you building this on? If it's a Linux host, then check
your sources. They are required to provide them. I should also add
that the embedded tool providers should have notes on those steps. Oh
and while your at it, you could show us the complete listing of your
attempts.
---
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
---
"Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org
[mailto:pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On
> Behalf Of Bill Cunningham
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:49 AM
> To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
> 
>     Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use
> the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then
breaks. The
> output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there
maybe
> something I'm not using.
> 
> Bill
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Sun Apr 30 01:29:56 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:29:56 -0700
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
In-Reply-To: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <44538674.7010304@pacbell.net>

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use
>the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then breaks. The
>output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there maybe
>something I'm not using.
>
>  
>
Building gcc as a cross compiler can be quite challenging.

Dan Kegel has put together a set of scripts which largely automate the 
process
and which can be found at http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) pdp11 is not on of the targets 
supported
by crosstool, but you might still find it useful as an illustration of 
the kinds of
things that may need to be done.

Michael Davidson


From bill at cs.uofs.edu  Sun Apr 30 02:00:39 2006
From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
In-Reply-To: <008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7>
References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7>
Message-ID: <50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>


Before people devote too much effort to flogging a dead horse, I,
too, have recently tried to build a gcc cross-compiler for the
PDP-11 with no success.  I have not seen a version that worked
since GCC 2.something.  It is possible that changes to GCC have
broken the PDP-11 code and that no one is keeping it up.  I would
love to hear otherwise if anyone has successfully built a pdp-11
cross compiler using anything vaguely current.

bill

> Hello!
> Bill? What are you building this on? If it's a Linux host, then check
> your sources. They are required to provide them. I should also add
> that the embedded tool providers should have notes on those steps. Oh
> and while your at it, you could show us the complete listing of your
> attempts.
> ---
> Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net
> ---
> "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org
> [mailto:pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On
>> Behalf Of Bill Cunningham
>> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:49 AM
>> To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org
>> Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
>>
>>     Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use
>> the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then
> breaks. The
>> output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there
> maybe
>> something I'm not using.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PUPS mailing list
>> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>


-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>




From billcu1 at verizon.net  Sun Apr 30 05:19:20 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:19:20 -0400
Subject: [pups] pdp11
Message-ID: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/PDP_002d11-Options.html#PDP_002d
11-Options

    Here's some info.

Bill



From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au  Sun Apr 30 08:57:45 2006
From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:57:45 +1000
Subject: [pups] pdp11
In-Reply-To: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060429225745.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

On Sat, 2006-Apr-29 15:19:20 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/PDP_002d11-Options.html#PDP_002d11-Options
>
>    Here's some info.

gcc definitely can generate PDP-11 code.  That doesn't mean it can execute
on a PDP-11.

-- 
Peter Jeremy


From bill at cs.uofs.edu  Sun Apr 30 09:31:37 2006
From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:31:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [pups] pdp11
In-Reply-To: <20060429225745.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
References: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<20060429225745.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <50779.70.16.123.154.1146353497.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>


> On Sat, 2006-Apr-29 15:19:20 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/PDP_002d11-Options.html#PDP_002d11-Options
>>
>>    Here's some info.
>
> gcc definitely can generate PDP-11 code.  That doesn't mean it can execute
> on a PDP-11.

GCC had PDP-11 support years ago.  The question is wether or not
this has been kept up and still works.  It could never and can
naver execute on a PDP-11.  I would be happy if it could just
generate Macro!!

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>




From wkt at tuhs.org  Wed Apr 19 10:46:54 2006
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:46:54 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix
Message-ID: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>

     [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ]

----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net> -----

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
To: <wkt at tuhs.org>

I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes
in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in
the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?

Bill
----- End forwarded message -----


From root at dynamite.narpes.com  Wed Apr 19 11:42:32 2006
From: root at dynamite.narpes.com (Charlie ROOT)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:42:32 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Warren Toomey wrote:

>      [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ]
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham <billcu1 at verizon.net> -----
> 
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
> 
> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes
> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first
> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in
> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?

I've heard of a free VAX emulator called SIMH/vax, and a commercial
one named Charon-VAX (or something), but I've tested neither.  If you're
adventurous enough, you might consider real VAX hardware: the VAXstation
3100 and 4000 series models can be had at reasonable cost, and are not
larger than a desktop PC.  As for VMS, at least the recent 7.x versions
are available more or less freely for hobbyist use.

By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware?
I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones.

-aw


From iking at killthewabbit.org  Wed Apr 19 16:07:22 2006
From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:07:22 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  Bob's emulator and ultrix
In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <4445D39A.70303@killthewabbit.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060418/fb00307d/attachment-0001.html>

From txomsy at yahoo.es  Sat Apr 22 05:14:36 2006
From: txomsy at yahoo.es (Jose R Valverde)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:14:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix
Message-ID: <20060421191436.87797.qmail@web26109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

I have been able to install and run ultrix 3, ultrix4
and OpenVMS on the SIMH emulator. No problem at all at
any point.

Regarding ultrix, the images available on the archive
worked like a charm. For ultrix 4 I used an
installation CD I still kept around for ULTRIX on
VAXen.

As for OpenVMS, if you are interested, it also works
OK, but getting it is a bit more difficult. First you
need a Hobbyist license from HP.

You can get one by joining a local VMS user group (or
Encompass US if there is none in your Country).
Usually you can get a free limited membership that
will give you access to the license. It must be
renewed periodically.

Then you need access to VMS for VAX distribution
media. We have been an Ultrix, OSF-Tru64 and VMS shop
for a long time, so that wasn't a problem for me.
Otherwise it might be difficult. I think you can order
a hobbyist copy from HP, but don't rely on my feeble
memory.

Once you have the license and the media, installing it
is just as simple as installing on a real VAX. I had
no trouble at all, but again, I've been a VMS sysman
as well for over 20 years. The only problematic point
is making the network work, but the recipes available
on the web are excellent. You can get to them from the
links in SIMH web page.

> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix
> To: <wkt at tuhs.org>
> 
> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix
or anyother boot tapes
> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11
emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I
> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to
write his first
> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there
anything like this in
> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS?




		
______________________________________________ 
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 
http://es.voice.yahoo.com


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Mon Apr 24 09:00:02 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:00:02 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] unix
Message-ID: <000701c66729$a8197ac0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    I am running linux and I want to devote a partition to a good working
old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's simulator and it works great.
The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145 which is I believe
Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the system. I also want to
make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do that with a pdp-11
emulator. I want the source so it can be generated too.

Bill




From billcu1 at verizon.net  Mon Apr 24 09:27:55 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:27:55 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
Message-ID: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.

Bill




From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Mon Apr 24 10:33:33 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>they don't work much anymore.
>  
>
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.

Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.

Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.

I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...

Michael Davidson

[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
 ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]




From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au  Mon Apr 24 10:00:46 2006
From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:00:46 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060424000046.GE720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?

What do you mean by "old unixes"?  32V or 4BSD would be trivial.  2BSD
or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible.  gcc was born in a
32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a
16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend):  Both the code and
data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to
using overlays.

If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very
slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that
runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it.

> A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99.

As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it
impossible to build a simple C compiler.

-- 
Peter Jeremy


From vasco at icpnet.pl  Mon Apr 24 17:33:34 2006
From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:33:34 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>

Michael Davidson napisał(a):

>Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
>  
>
>>   Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>>they don't work much anymore.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
>for the PDP-11.
>
>Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
>least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
>targeted at the PDP-11.
>
>Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
>certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
>*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
>least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
>isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
>
>I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
>wouldn't fit either ...
>
>Michael Davidson
>
>[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
> ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>  
>
What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Perhaps DeJorie could help.

Andrzej


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Mon Apr 24 18:44:07 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:44:07 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
Message-ID: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>

djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
trick. 
 
If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating 
environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work.  I've never heard of 
anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either. 
 
Just my 0.02c 
 
Wesley Parish 
 
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Michael Davidson napisaÅ(a): 
>  
> >Bill Cunningham wrote: 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It 
> >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would 
> work 
> >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that 
> would 
> >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for 
> safekeeping as 
> >>they don't work much anymore. 
> >>  
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 
> >for the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at 
> >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development 
> >targeted at the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost 
> >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, 
> >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at 
> >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it 
> >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. 
> > 
> >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" 
> >wouldn't fit either ... 
> > 
> >Michael Davidson 
> > 
> >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for 
> > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] 
> > 
> > 
> >_______________________________________________ 
> >TUHS mailing list 
> >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32  
> bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. 
> Perhaps DeJorie could help. 
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> TUHS mailing list 
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 


From lars at nocrew.org  Mon Apr 24 19:29:20 2006
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:29:20 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> (Michael Davidson's message of
	"Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700")
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Michael Davidson <michael_davidson at pacbell.net> writes:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?
> Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
> least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
> targeted at the PDP-11.

I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff.  It was made just for fun, so it's
not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok.

As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
source tree from old cruft.


From vasco at icpnet.pl  Mon Apr 24 19:50:40 2006
From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:50:40 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
	<1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>

Wesley Parish napisał(a):

>djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
>operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
>- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
>trick. 
>  
>
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.

I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit 
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can 
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible .

BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and 
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
be good environment for this simulator (?).
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
console to exit.


Andrzej


From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au  Mon Apr 24 17:47:54 2006
From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:47:54 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
Message-ID: <20060424074754.GH720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
>What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
>bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.

Won't work.  http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states:
"3.5 Can I run it on a 286?

 Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also....

 A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here.  Gcc doesn't care
 much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit
 processor, which the 286 isn't.  A 386 or better CPU really is
 required."

-- 
Peter Jeremy


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Mon Apr 24 23:05:20 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:05:20 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
	<1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
	<444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>
Message-ID: <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz>

Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Wesley Parish napisaÅ(a): 
>  
> >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit  
> >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS 
> extender  
> >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same 
> kind of  
> >trick.  
> >  
> > 
> I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. 
>  
> I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit  
> environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. 
> I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can  
> create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not 
> impossible . 
 
In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are 
cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted.  Then the files get 
rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a gcc guru 
nor a pdp11 guru. 
>  
> BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and  
> it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386  
> processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
>  
> be good environment for this simulator (?). 
 
That's good news! 
> I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
>  
> console to exit. 
 
You're not the only one, either. 
 
Wesley Parish 
>  
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> PUPS mailing list 
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 


From txomsy at yahoo.es  Tue Apr 25 04:01:43 2006
From: txomsy at yahoo.es (Jose R Valverde)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:01:43 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [TUHS]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
Message-ID: <20060424180143.41943.qmail@web26107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

>   I am running linux and I want to devote a
partition to a good working
>old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's
simulator and it works great.
>The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145
which is I believe
>Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the
system. I also want to
>make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do
that with a pdp-11
>emulator. I want the source so it can be generated
too.

Gasp! I think you have a number of things wrong that
need correction.

First, now what LINUX stands for? Linux Is Not UniX.
Yep, that's it!

While it is true that LINUX is not UNIX, it is similar
enough. It was designed to be a substitute for UNIX,
and is good enough at it that one could argue it fully
behaves as a UNIX now (which would be tantamount to
saying it is UNIX, though it hasn't passed X/Open
certification).

Then, what's in the archive are not old versions of
LINUX, but of UNIX. In the sense UNIX predates and
sheds the field for LINUX you could think of them as
LINUX antecessors, although there is no shared code or
lineage among them.

What you do when you "boot" the old versions within
SIMH is run an ancient UNIX inside a program that
emulates (behaves as) an old computer. You are not
booting your computer. You are booting a virtual old
computer.

Then, to shut down an old machine, UNIX 6 or 7 you
would simply 'sync' the disks (to ensure all temporary
data was saved)and power down the machine. Or at least
interrupt it to the console monitor. Under SIMH you
can "interrupt" or stop the machine by pressing ^E
([Ctrl] + [E], both pressed at the same time). This
will stop the emulation (sort of as if you had turned
off the old machine) and take you to the SIMH command
prompt. Once there simply type in "quit" and you are
out.

Under system 7 you start in single user mode. You can
go to multi-user status by typing ^D. Then you can
login and out as usual. And stop the machine as
described above ('sync' a couple of times as root and
press ^E).

Regarding the filesystem, you don't need a partition.
SIMH being an emulator and the machine (PDP11)
virtual, everything is virtual. So, what you need to
add more space is to add another disk. Not to *your*
machine, but to the virtual machine, and not a real
disk, but a virtual disk. I.e. a file on your *real*
filesystem that you will treat as a virtual disk. Then
attach it to the virtual PDP11 using the SIMH "attach"
command (this would be tantamount to connecting the
virtual wires of the virtual disk to the virtual
computer). See the manual of SIMH for more details.

As for formatting the disk, see the manual pages. I've
got the kids in the bath now and can't type more, but
this should be enough to clear up your mind.

                                   j



		
______________________________________________ 
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 
http://es.voice.yahoo.com


From Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de  Tue Apr 25 05:13:45 2006
From: Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de (Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:13:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [TUHS] unix
In-Reply-To: <000701c66729$a8197ac0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <XFMail.20060424211345.Hellwig.Geisse@mni.fh-giessen.de>

Hi Bill,

On 23-Apr-2006 Bill Cunningham wrote:
>     I am running linux and I want to devote a partition to a good working
> old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's simulator and it works great.
> The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145 which is I believe
> Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the system. I also want to
> make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do that with a pdp-11
> emulator. I want the source so it can be generated too.
> 
> Bill

may I suggest taking a look into this package:

http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg53/pdp11-unix/unix-v7-3.tar.gz

I tried to be very specific as to how things
are to be done (but I also refer to the manual
pages of V7 for setting up the system of course).
All parts that you need to get V7 up and running
from the original tape images (also included) are
there, as well as the manuals for V7 and for the
PDP11-40. Also included is a file extractor, which
can be used to extract files from the simulated
file system to the Linux host file system.

Good luck!
Hellwig



From billcu1 at verizon.net  Tue Apr 25 06:28:08 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
Message-ID: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.

Bill




From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Mon Apr 24 16:44:28 2006
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:44:28 (EDT) -0500
Subject: [TUHS]  Ancient Unixes
Message-ID: <20060424204859.5E0401E7@minnie.tuhs.org>

Bill Cunningham:

    I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
  because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
  example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
  which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.

=======

Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON


From cowan at ccil.org  Mon Apr 24 22:53:24 2006
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:53:24 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
Message-ID: <20060424125324.GD29916@ccil.org>

Lars Brinkhoff scripsit:

> As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
> haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
> because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
> source tree from old cruft.

http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported
target, with these caveats:  narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE
floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole,
does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use
define_constants, and no ELF support.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev


From toby at smartgames.ca  Tue Apr 25 02:06:13 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:06:13 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>
	<1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>
	<444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>
	<1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP08717C48B565AEC0F9B8FFBFBE0@CEZ.ICE>


On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:

> Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>:
>
>> Wesley Parish napisaÅ‚(a):
>>
>>> djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16- 
>>> bit
>>> operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS
>> extender
>>> - OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the  
>>> same
>> kind of
>>> trick.
>>>
>>>
>> I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.
>>
>> I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit
>> environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
>> I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc  
>> can
>> create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not
>> impossible .
>
> In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are
> cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted.  Then the files get
> rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a  
> gcc guru
> nor a pdp11 guru.


It can't be done.

As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too  
big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all  
meant for large 32-bit systems.

However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made  
a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it  
can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much  
smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still  
massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.

--Toby

[1] http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/info/lcc-pdp11.html
[2] http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/


>>
>> BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent  
>> 4.2.10 and
>> it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386
>> processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it  
>> seems to
>>
>> be good environment for this simulator (?).
>
> That's good news!
>> I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on  
>> another
>>
>> console to exit.
>
> You're not the only one, either.
>
> Wesley Parish
>>
>>
>> Andrzej
>> _______________________________________________
>> PUPS mailing list
>> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>>
>
>
>
> "Sharpened hands are happy hands.
> "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
> - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
>
> "I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"
> I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol  
> of the
> other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From aek at bitsavers.org  Tue Apr 25 05:40:24 2006
From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:40:24 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] "Preliminary Relase of UNIX Implentation Document"
Message-ID: <C07277B8.2224%aek@bitsavers.org>


http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/bellLabs/unix/

here is a note from Dennis about the history of the documents
that I've just put up on bitsavers

--

The manual is the 1st edition, a scan of which has been available at
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/1stEdman.html
in various forms (all renditions of the same scan) for a while.

However, the annotated OS and software scan is new to me  This is
a medium-age version of the assembler system for the
PDP 11/20,  and is apparently without an MMU.  A good find!
There were subsequent assembler versions for the (DEC Special Systems)
11/20 with an MMU and then for a while for the 11/45;
the first C version would appear late summer of 1973.

    Regards and thanks,
    Dennis



From ggs at shiresoft.com  Tue Apr 25 07:00:27 2006
From: ggs at shiresoft.com (Guy Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:00:27 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  Ancient Unixes
In-Reply-To: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site>

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
> Bill Cunningham:
> 
>     I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
>   because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
>   example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
>   which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.
> 
> =======
> 
> Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card?

The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software.  A USB stack
(OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver
stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP is a
stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and I'd
say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack).

-- 

TTFN - Guy



From toby at smartgames.ca  Tue Apr 25 07:51:19 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:51:19 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  Ancient Unixes
In-Reply-To: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site>
References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP0196654153CC3CD96D165BBFBE0@CEZ.ICE>


On 24-Apr-06, at 5:00 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote:
>> Bill Cunningham:
>>
>>     I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it  
>> to cd
>>   because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking  
>> was v5,6,7 for
>>   example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good  
>> example from
>>   which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde  
>> to /dev.
>>
>> =======
>>
>> Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card?
>
> The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software.  A USB  
> stack
> (OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver
> stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP  
> is a
> stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and  
> I'd
> say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack).


No, it certainly is possible. I've used USB stacks on much smaller  
devices, such as Microchip PIC18. That is not a full-featured stack,  
but certainly enough to do quite a lot.

TCP/IP doesn't have to be large either. See Adam Dunkel's uIP: http:// 
www.sics.se/~adam/uip/

--Toby

>
> -- 
>
> TTFN - Guy
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups



From vasco at icpnet.pl  Tue Apr 25 16:28:57 2006
From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:28:57 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <BAYC1-PASMTP08717C48B565AEC0F9B8FFBFBE0@CEZ.ICE>
References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>	<444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net>
	<444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl>	<1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz>	<444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl>	<1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz>
	<BAYC1-PASMTP08717C48B565AEC0F9B8FFBFBE0@CEZ.ICE>
Message-ID: <444DC1A9.2080501@icpnet.pl>

Toby Thain napisał(a):

>On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Wesley Parish napisaÅ‚(a):
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>It can't be done.
>
>As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too  
>big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all  
>meant for large 32-bit systems.
>
>However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made  
>a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it  
>can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much  
>smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still  
>massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
>  
>
Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message : 
too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged 
the system BTW).
Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors 
to Your disposal and You can work faster.
Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have 
anyway only hobbyst license .

Andrzej


From imp at bsdimp.com  Tue Apr 25 22:54:26 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:54:26 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
In-Reply-To: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060425.065426.74734530.imp@bsdimp.com>

From: "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net>
Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400

>     I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd
> because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for
> example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from
> which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev.

Linux is very unlike early v[567] kernels.  Those kernels are not
posix by any stretch of the imagination.  In addition, Posix is a
userland interface, not an internal kernel structure, so even if they
were posix, I'm not sure how much it  would help you.  Porting Linux's
usb stack to FreeBSD, say, would be really hard because Linux and
FreeBSD have such different intenral kernel APIs.

You'll also run into the size issue if you want to implement a generic
stack.  For example, FreeBSD's usb stack is 100kB.  While one could
slim that down a lot (it include multiple drivers and such), it would
be difficult to fit in the space contraints of the PDP-11  It should
be possible, but one's first naive attemept to implement things may
not be so straight forward.

Warner


From patv at monmouth.com  Tue Apr 25 22:53:28 2006
From: patv at monmouth.com (patv at monmouth.com)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:53:28 EST
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
Message-ID: <200604251253.k3PCrR0f005871@wwws.monmouth.com>

If this helps at all, I've been working (very, very slowly) on a port of
v32 to Intel platforms.  At first I used gcc for some kernel work, but
quickly realized that it would be overwhelming to the final v7 system. 
Since I don't want to do the work twice, I looked for a different compiler
suite.  I switched to the ACK compiler suite and just finished the WinXP
cross compiler work.  It has a pdp11 back end, which I have yet to try,
that may be useful.

It isn't gcc, but ir does do ANSI C and the i386 assembler seems to be
pretty complete.  Let me know if there's any interest and I'll put it up
on my site for download.

Pat


> Toby Thain napisał(a):
> 
> >On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Wesley Parish napisaÅ‚(a):
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >It can't be done.
> >
> >As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too  
> >big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all  
> >meant for large 32-bit systems.
> >
> >However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made  
> >a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it  
> >can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much  
> >smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still  
> >massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
> >  
> >
> Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message : 
> too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged 
> the system BTW).
> Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors 
> to Your disposal and You can work faster.
> Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have 
> anyway only hobbyst license .
> 
> Andrzej
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Monmouth Internet MI-Webmail.
http://www.monmouth.com/




From dpeschel at eskimo.com  Wed Apr 26 05:45:17 2006
From: dpeschel at eskimo.com (Derek Peschel)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:45:17 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Bellmac-32 and WE32000 and self-virtualization?
Message-ID: <20060425124517.A9726@eskimo.com>

First off, isn't it true that both these chips are the same or similar?

A short conference paper on the Bellmac-32 caught my eye because it
mentioned the various data structures the Bellmac keeps in memory,
such as process and interrupt control blocks.  I'v become interested in
self-virtualizing CPUs (one well-known example being the IBM System/370
and up, running VM) and I wondered if the data structures make the Bellmac-32
a good candidate for self-virtualization.  They are not tied to particular
addresses and a supervisor could inspect and alter its caller's data.

I'm still trying to get my head around the theory.  So the manuals would
be interesting, but details about actual implementations would be even
more interesting.  Perhaps MERT is relevant to this discussion.

Thanks,

-- Derek


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Thu Apr 27 09:33:37 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:33:37 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] *nixs
Message-ID: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix
and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here?

Bill




From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Thu Apr 27 10:25:59 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:25:59 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] *nixs
In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <44500F97.2070406@pacbell.net>


Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix
>and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here?
>
>  
>
XENIX was a UNIX variant developed by Microsoft along with Logica
and The Santa Cruz Operation.

It was originally based on V7 and subsequently picked up bits of System III
and System V through System V Release 2.

It ran on PDP-11 (earliest verion only), Motorola 68k, Intel 8086 / 
80286 / 80386
and Nat Semi 32000 (not sure if that version was ever released though).

On Intel platforms it appeared as both an OEM offering from companies 
such as
Intel and IBM, and as a shrink wrapped end-user product from SCO.

The Linux kernel, by contrast, was developed from scratch and while it 
implements the
UNIX system calls and interfaces it has no other relation to the 
original AT&T UNIX
line.






From mparson at bl.org  Thu Apr 27 10:15:57 2006
From: mparson at bl.org (Michael Parson)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:15:57 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] *nixs
In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060427001557.GA11978@bl.org>

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>     This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix
> and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here?

Xenix was an early UNIX written for the Intel line of processors
originally by Microsoft and later sold off to the Santa Cruz
Organization (SCO).

BSD started off as extentions to the AT&T lines of UNIX, eventually
leading to a lawsuit in the early 90s and the 'Lite' distributions which
were finally free of AT&T code but also marked UCB's exit from the OS
market.

Minix shares no source-code with AT&T or BSD unixes, it was written from
the ground up by AST.

Linux shares no source code with AT&T, BSD, or Minix.  Linus Torvalds
started it as a way to learn i386 asssembly and multitasking.  He
started with Minix as his development platform, but used no code from
it.

This is HIGHLY simplified summary, if you want more in depth
information, a good read is 'A Quarter Centry of Unix' by Peter
H. Salus.  FreeBSD also has a good history file that gives a little
more information thatn I gave here..

-- 
Michael Parson
mparson at bl.org



From wkt at tuhs.org  Thu Apr 27 10:35:56 2006
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:35:56 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] *nixs
In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060427003556.GA64980@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>     This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix
> and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here?

Minix, like Linux, was written from scratch, and isn't derived from UNIX.

	Warren


From imp at bsdimp.com  Thu Apr 27 18:26:06 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:26:06 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] *nixs
In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <20060427.022606.62341025.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0 at myhome.westell.com>
            "Bill Cunningham" <billcu1 at verizon.net> writes:
:     This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix
: and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here?

venix was a v6 port to the 8086 and pdp-11 (the Digital Professional
computers).  It was notable because it ran on the Digital Rainbow 100.
Later there was a 286 port of v7.  I believe venturacom created this
port.

Warner



From tfb at tfeb.org  Fri Apr 28 17:23:19 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:23:19 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] On the subject of old Unix variants: Tenix?
Message-ID: <109A4122-F4EE-4430-B7CC-7EB2A0FC35E9@tfeb.org>

Does anyone know anything about this? What I *think* it was was  
something that ran on a logic analyser (?) made by Tektronix, which  
had some kind of PDP-11 inside them.  I suspect it was actually 7th  
edition or something similar in rather light disguise.  I came across  
one of these in the early 80s but never used it, hence the vagueness  
of my memory.

--tim


From vonhagen at vonhagen.org  Sat Apr 29 14:11:55 2006
From: vonhagen at vonhagen.org (William von Hagen)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:11:55 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1146276000.50996.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.1.1146276000.50996.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org>

Tektronix had a Unix variant called uTek that ran on a number of
workstations that they produced in the 1980s - perhaps that's what
you're thinking of? These started out with Nat Semi processors, but
later production systems were 68Ks IIRC. Most of them ran uTek,. but
some also ran a SmallTalk-based system and were sold as AI boxes. As
you'd expect from Tektronix products, the graphics were superb for their
day. The uTek boxes ran the X Window system and had Tektronix' own
window manager. 

   Bill

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:23:19 +0100
> From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org>
> Subject: [TUHS] On the subject of old Unix variants: Tenix?
> To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
> Message-ID: <109A4122-F4EE-4430-B7CC-7EB2A0FC35E9 at tfeb.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> 
> Does anyone know anything about this? What I *think* it was was  
> something that ran on a logic analyser (?) made by Tektronix, which  
> had some kind of PDP-11 inside them.  I suspect it was actually 7th  
> edition or something similar in rather light disguise.  I came across  
> one of these in the early 80s but never used it, hence the vagueness  
> of my memory.



From tfb at tfeb.org  Sat Apr 29 23:06:09 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:06:09 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants
In-Reply-To: <1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org>
References: <mailman.1.1146276000.50996.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org>
Message-ID: <57B5B54F-F4BE-40DB-8CF9-B3E18E5A469F@tfeb.org>

On 29 Apr 2006, at 05:11, William von Hagen wrote:

> Tektronix had a Unix variant called uTek that ran on a number of
> workstations that they produced in the 1980s - perhaps that's what
> you're thinking of? These started out with Nat Semi processors, but
> later production systems were 68Ks IIRC. Most of them ran uTek,. but
> some also ran a SmallTalk-based system and were sold as AI boxes. As
> you'd expect from Tektronix products, the graphics were superb for  
> their
> day. The uTek boxes ran the X Window system and had Tektronix' own
> window manager.

I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some  
trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a  
piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might  
have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802  
or something so you could see what it was doing) I think.  It almost  
certainly had a serial console (which would have been a Tek graphics  
terminal of course _ I think it had a pair of them), and I am  
reasonably sure the thing that ran it all was a PDP-11 of some kind  
(poresumably a small one, because the whole system was not enormous).

--tim


From aek at bitsavers.org  Sun Apr 30 13:01:40 2006
From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:01:40 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 11
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1146362401.55725.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.3.1146362401.55725.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <5B5246CE-8D25-4545-B7DA-32990CC5382A@bitsavers.org>


On Apr 29, 2006, at 7:00 PM, tuhs-request at minnie.tuhs.org wrote:

>
> I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some
> trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a
> piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might
> have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802
> or something so you could see what it was doing) I think.

It was the Tek 8560 multi-user development system.
Different models had either an 11/23 or 11/73 processor
with their own peripheral interfaces.

Manuals on bitsavers.com under tektronix/85xx




From rivie at ridgenet.net  Sun Apr 30 05:46:31 2006
From: rivie at ridgenet.net (Roger Ivie)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants
In-Reply-To: <57B5B54F-F4BE-40DB-8CF9-B3E18E5A469F@tfeb.org>
References: <mailman.1.1146276000.50996.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org>
	<57B5B54F-F4BE-40DB-8CF9-B3E18E5A469F@tfeb.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0604291243500.19003@stench.no.domain>

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some
> trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a
> piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might
> have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802
> or something so you could see what it was doing) I think.  It almost
> certainly had a serial console (which would have been a Tek graphics
> terminal of course _ I think it had a pair of them), and I am
> reasonably sure the thing that ran it all was a PDP-11 of some kind
> (poresumably a small one, because the whole system was not enormous).

I can confirm your memory. I was involved in a demo of one round about
1983. It was an ICE, but I forget which processors it supported. TEK4105
terminal (first time I saw one of those). It did, indeed, run Unix on a
PDP-11, but I forget the details. Only saw it once, and I quit working 
for that company within six months of the demo; don't know whether they 
wound up buying any.
-- 
roger ivie
rivie at ridgenet.net


