From wkt at tuhs.org  Fri Feb  3 08:52:45 2006
From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:52:45 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Some PDP-11 and -10 links
Message-ID: <20060202225245.GA23259@minnie.tuhs.org>

I just received this from a friend. The format was heavily >>>>>>'d, so I've
cleaned it up a bit. The information about who said what is vague.
	Warren

  From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com>
  To: UNIX Heritage Society <tuhs at tuhs.org>
  Subject: PDP-11 and PDP-10s in Holland

 From a discussion on a FreeBSD mailing list:

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:16PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote..
>>>>>>> I forgot- the world premier PDP-11 site is in .nl.
>>>>> http://www.pdp-11.nl/

Wilko Bulte then wrote:
>>>> I am sure you will also appreciate Geert's museum at:
>>>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~geerol/
>>>> Geert is a friend of mine with a *big* farm house :)

Then Matthew Jacob wrote:
>> see also:
>> http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/default.htm
>> They also have a full KL10 (PDP10 (!)) that seems to not be in the list..
>> see:  http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/EventDetail.asp?lngEventId=48


From grog at lemis.com  Fri Feb  3 08:17:26 2006
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:47:26 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] PDP-11 and PDP-10s in Holland
Message-ID: <20060202221726.GQ97116@wantadilla.lemis.com>

From a discussion on a FreeBSD mailing list:


On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:09:34 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
>> Yeah!
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:16PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I forgot- the world premier PDP-11 site is in .nl.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it?  Which one do you mean?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pdp-11.nl/
>>>
>>> Ah.
>>>
>>> I am sure you will also appreciate Geert's museum at:
>>>
>>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~geerol/
>>>
>>> Geert is a friend of mine with a *big* farm house :)
>
> see also:
> http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/default.htm
>
> They also have a full KL10 (PDP10 (!)) that seems to not be in the list..
> see:  http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/EventDetail.asp?lngEventId=48

--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060203/fb130d9e/attachment.sig>

From aw at aw.gs  Fri Feb 17 03:27:38 2006
From: aw at aw.gs (A. Wik)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:27:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [TUHS] Uploaded 44bsd rootdump
Message-ID: <20060216163453.R97604@dynamite.narpes.com>


Hello,

On my FreeBSD/i386 host, I was unable to extract the "rootdump" 
file of the 4.4BSD-Alpha distribution available on Minnie.
Fortunately, I succeeded on my NetBSD/vax machine, even though
its version of NetBSD is far older than FreeBSD 5.3 which is
what I have on the i386.

The VAX "restore" program mentioned something about quad-
swapping, so perhaps FreeBSD's "restore" does not translate
the byte order.  I think the 4.4BSD distribution is from a
big-endian machine ("hp300").  It's funny, then, that I was
sure that *at least* byte-order could *not* be the problem
since both the i386 and VAX are little-endian and I was sure
the 4.4BSD distribution was a VAX one!

After extracting the rootdump, I created a .tar file instead
and uploaded it to minnie.tuhs.org:/incoming, file name
bsd44a-shoppa-rootdump.tar.  You may wish to compress it and
move it to the same directory as the other 4.4BSD-Alpha files
so others won't have to go through the trouble I experienced.

Regards,
A. Wik


From imp at bsdimp.com  Fri Feb 17 03:59:09 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:59:09 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [TUHS] Uploaded 44bsd rootdump
In-Reply-To: <20060216163453.R97604@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <20060216163453.R97604@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <20060216.105909.74740396.imp@bsdimp.com>

> On my FreeBSD/i386 host, I was unable to extract the "rootdump" 
> file of the 4.4BSD-Alpha distribution available on Minnie.
> Fortunately, I succeeded on my NetBSD/vax machine, even though
> its version of NetBSD is far older than FreeBSD 5.3 which is
> what I have on the i386.
> 
> The VAX "restore" program mentioned something about quad-
> swapping, so perhaps FreeBSD's "restore" does not translate
> the byte order.  I think the 4.4BSD distribution is from a
> big-endian machine ("hp300").  It's funny, then, that I was
> sure that *at least* byte-order could *not* be the problem
> since both the i386 and VAX are little-endian and I was sure
> the 4.4BSD distribution was a VAX one!
> 
> After extracting the rootdump, I created a .tar file instead
> and uploaded it to minnie.tuhs.org:/incoming, file name
> bsd44a-shoppa-rootdump.tar.  You may wish to compress it and
> move it to the same directory as the other 4.4BSD-Alpha files
> so others won't have to go through the trouble I experienced.

When Sam Leffler added ufs2 support to FreeBSD's dump/restore
programs, he eliminated support for reading very old dump files.
Supposedly, these were only 4.3BSD based dump files, but it appears
that some newer versions of dump still use this older format.
NetBSD's hasn't been updated to support ufs2, afaik, and even if it
has, the support for the old formats hasn't been removed.

FreeBSD's restore, like all the other restores, does have support for
different endians.  If you have a 4.x old older FreeBSD restore
binary, then you should still be able to read these files.

Just for future reference.  There was talk about extracting restore at
the tip of RELENG_4 and making it a port for dealing with really old
restore files, but nothing ever came of that talk.

Glad to see you were able to deal none the less.  This issue seems to
come up every few months.  Unfortunately, re-merging the old format
support back into restore appears to be kinda hard (where hard here
means that the old code won't work due to structural changes, although
one could imagine making it work w/o too much hassle).

Warner



From duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Feb 18 18:48:16 2006
From: duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk (Duncan Anderson)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:48:16 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Message-ID: <200602181048.16424.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>

Greetings

I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some information 
regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power supply has 
problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what we have 
here, namely 220V 50Hz. 

I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams for the 
power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to have a go at 
redesigning it.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

regards
Duncan

		
___________________________________________________________ 
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry


From brantley at coraid.com  Sun Feb 19 00:34:23 2006
From: brantley at coraid.com (Brantley Coile)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:34:23 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602181048.16424.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <f79fcb134f8eefb41d6f789ef8797d96@coraid.com>

The tree you're barking up has fruit.  I know the schematics are
out there.  I used to have a set, but have since lost them.

I've used several 7300s.  The hardware was designed by convergent
technologies.  It has a wonky graphics interface because of a poor
choice of a monitor.

There should be simple power converters to give you 120v at 60 Hz.

The 7300 was used as a console for some of the AT&T PBXs, so there was
a lot of them made.  They had the bigest expansion slots I have ever
seen, going almost the entire depth of the box, which was too deep.
Key action on the keyboard was nice.  The unicomp keyboad that I now
use has similar action.

If AT&T had put some version of Unix other than System V, there might
have been life in the old girl.  The UNIX PC and the DMD terminals had
this myopic corporate protectionism in common.  I always thought that
if the DMD5620 had been cheaper and they had had OS support for BSD as
well as System V, the history of computing would have been very
different.  I couldn't get my boss to pay $6K for a terminal when the
average price for a nice terminal was $1K.  If he had let me buy one,
I then would have had to port the support code.  Compilers, the Mux
communiction protocol, all the programs that ran in the terminal,
would have had to be change to run under the non-System V system that
we were using at the time.  AT&T's decisions during the period
displayed a persistant lack of undertanding marketing.  If the
customer came first, they would have supported the OS customers
wanted.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: unknown sender
Subject: no subject
Date: no date
Size: 38
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060218/b4e2e1b7/attachment.mht>

From duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Feb 18 18:48:16 2006
From: duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk (Duncan Anderson)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:48:16 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Message-ID: <200602181048.16424.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>

Greetings

I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some information 
regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power supply has 
problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what we have 
here, namely 220V 50Hz. 

I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams for the 
power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to have a go at 
redesigning it.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

regards
Duncan

		
___________________________________________________________ 
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
--upas-lesofxjcmltaujjboajzbvfvmu--


From duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Feb 19 01:25:35 2006
From: duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk (Duncan Anderson)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:25:35 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <f79fcb134f8eefb41d6f789ef8797d96@coraid.com>
References: <f79fcb134f8eefb41d6f789ef8797d96@coraid.com>
Message-ID: <200602181725.35854.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>

On Saturday, 18 February 2006 16:34, Brantley Coile wrote:
> The tree you're barking up has fruit.  I know the schematics are
> out there.  I used to have a set, but have since lost them.
>
> I've used several 7300s.  The hardware was designed by convergent
> technologies.  It has a wonky graphics interface because of a poor
> choice of a monitor.
>
> There should be simple power converters to give you 120v at 60 Hz.
>
> The 7300 was used as a console for some of the AT&T PBXs, so there was
> a lot of them made.  They had the bigest expansion slots I have ever
> seen, going almost the entire depth of the box, which was too deep.
> Key action on the keyboard was nice.  The unicomp keyboad that I now
> use has similar action.
>
> If AT&T had put some version of Unix other than System V, there might
> have been life in the old girl.  The UNIX PC and the DMD terminals had
> this myopic corporate protectionism in common.  I always thought that
> if the DMD5620 had been cheaper and they had had OS support for BSD as
> well as System V, the history of computing would have been very
> different.  I couldn't get my boss to pay $6K for a terminal when the
> average price for a nice terminal was $1K.  If he had let me buy one,
> I then would have had to port the support code.  Compilers, the Mux
> communiction protocol, all the programs that ran in the terminal,
> would have had to be change to run under the non-System V system that
> we were using at the time.  AT&T's decisions during the period
> displayed a persistant lack of undertanding marketing.  If the
> customer came first, they would have supported the OS customers
> wanted.
As it happens, I have all the original software that came with the beastie. 
I'm not sure if it's OK, but the hard drive is loaded, anyway, since a friend 
had it running a BBS about 13 years ago.

I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout

cheers
Duncan.

		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


From tuhs at ducky.net  Sun Feb 19 01:44:40 2006
From: tuhs at ducky.net (Mike Haertel)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:44:40 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Message-ID: <200602181544.k1IFieBg081209@ducky.net>

>I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout

Basically the same machine was also sold as the 3b1; the difference
between the 7300 and the 3b1 is that the 3b1 has room for a taller
hard disk drive.

I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.

It's definitely not SVR3; no "STREAMS".


From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Sun Feb 19 02:48:04 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:48:04 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602181544.k1IFieBg081209@ducky.net>
References: <200602181544.k1IFieBg081209@ducky.net>
Message-ID: <43F74FC4.3090304@pacbell.net>

Mike Haertel wrote:

>>I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout
>>    
>>
>
>I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
>of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
>further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.
>
Yes - it is an SVR2 derivative - essentially the same thing that CT used 
on their "MiniFrame"
systems (some of the header files in /usr/include/sys actually contain 
references to the MiniFrame)


From corey at lod.com  Sun Feb 19 01:32:37 2006
From: corey at lod.com (Corey Lindsly)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602181048.16424.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060218153237.BFB785D85F@lod.com>


> 
> I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some information 
> regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power supply has 
> problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what we have 
> here, namely 220V 50Hz. 
> 
> I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams for the 
> power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to have a go at 
> redesigning it.

Greetings.

1. I have three or four UNIXpc machines (3b1/7300) including
   one for parts. I can probably hook you up with a replacement
   power supply if needed.

2. I have the technical reference manual for this machine,
   which includes numerous schematics. I would be happy to
   scan in the relevant sections for you.

Feel free to contact me off-list if I can help you with
anything UNIXpc related.

Regards,

corey at lod.com


From rob2 at atvetsystems.com  Sun Feb 19 06:19:04 2006
From: rob2 at atvetsystems.com (Robert Tillyard)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:19:04 +0000
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602181048.16424.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <200602181048.16424.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <FCB70F20-6017-4EC9-A75D-395DECB0AAE5@atvetsystems.com>

I have one with a broken Hard Disk if anyone wants it they're welcome  
to have it. It would need collecting from Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk  
(UK), also comes with tape drive some expansion cards and lots of  
manuals and floppy disks.

Regards, Rob.

On 18 Feb 2006, at 08:48, Duncan Anderson wrote:

> Greetings
>
> I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some  
> information
> regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power  
> supply has
> problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what  
> we have
> here, namely 220V 50Hz.
>
> I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams  
> for the
> power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to  
> have a go at
> redesigning it.
>
> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
> regards
> Duncan


From duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Feb 20 20:03:28 2006
From: duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk (Duncan Anderson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:03:28 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602181544.k1IFieBg081209@ducky.net>
References: <200602181544.k1IFieBg081209@ducky.net>
Message-ID: <200602201203.28665.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>

On Saturday, 18 February 2006 17:44, Mike Haertel wrote:
> >I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout
>
> Basically the same machine was also sold as the 3b1; the difference
> between the 7300 and the 3b1 is that the 3b1 has room for a taller
> hard disk drive.
>
> I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
> of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
> further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.
>
> It's definitely not SVR3; no "STREAMS".

Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that it 
was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If 
there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?

regards
Duncan

	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


From Jon.Stuart at pegs.com  Tue Feb 21 03:43:34 2006
From: Jon.Stuart at pegs.com (Stuart, Jon)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:43:34 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] ATT 3b2
Message-ID: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D9205C2E2DF@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>

Hello,

I'm interested in acquring an AT&T 3b2 computer.  One of these systems
used to run a famous public UNIX system "killer".  They also run #5ess
telephone switches, however the OS is different in that case
(DMERT/UNIX-RTR instead of whatever the consumer-level 3b2 runs).  

If anyone has information on where to acquire these (I saw the recent
discussion on 3b1s and I know they are more prolific than 3b2s-- infact
a friend of mine used to have a UNIX PC which we set up a BBS on).

Thanks.

Jonathan Stuart, CISSP   /"\  ASCII Ribbon
Software Engineer        \ /    Campaign 
Pegasus Solutions, Inc.   X   against HTML     
                         / \  email & vCards



From tuhs at cuzuco.com  Tue Feb 21 13:46:22 2006
From: tuhs at cuzuco.com (Brian S Walden)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:46:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Message-ID: <200602210346.WAA21487@cuzuco.com>

Duncan Anderson asks:
> Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that it
> was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If
> there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?

SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
StarLAN hardware for it.



From dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com  Tue Feb 21 14:16:49 2006
From: dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com (dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:16:49 -0500
Subject: [TUHS]  re: ATT 3b2
Message-ID: <dc50b0abdcf6b048b5529f34287f8bf8@plan9.bell-labs.com>

 > I'm interested in acquring an AT&T 3b2 computer.  One of these systems
 > used to run a famous public UNIX system "killer".  They also run #5ess
 > telephone switches, however the OS is different in that case
 > (DMERT/UNIX-RTR instead of whatever the consumer-level 3b2 runs).

 > If anyone has information on where to acquire these (I saw the recent
 > discussion on 3b1s and I know they are more prolific than 3b2s-- infact
 > a friend of mine used to have a UNIX PC which we set up a BBS on).

The 3B2 was not the same machine as the one in 5ESS, which
was/is the 3B20D, a fairly large duplexed machine (two processors
that mutually checked each other).  The 3B2 was a desktop.
The 3B20D wasn't sold commercially, as far as I know.  There
was a 3B20S (multi-cabinet) that at least nominally
was commercially available.

Their ISAs were not quite the same, but some assembler language
tricks made the assembler-level languages look quite similar.

	Dennis


From corey at lod.com  Tue Feb 21 14:52:26 2006
From: corey at lod.com (Corey Lindsly)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:52:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602210346.WAA21487@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <20060221045226.0461F5D85F@lod.com>


> Duncan Anderson asks:
> > Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that it
> > was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If
> > there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?
> 
> SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
> implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
> hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
> StarLAN hardware for it.

There is indeed an ethernet interface for 
the UNIXpc, but they are exceedingly difficult 
to come by. It's separate from the StarLAN card.

>From the 3b1 FAQ:

"If you want to connect your UNIX PC to a *real* Ethernet,
you'll need to hunt down the AT&T UNIX PC Ethernet board.  This board
runs a version of the TCP/IP drivers developed by Wollogong.  The
board will require the proper cables, as well as a transceiver.  This
increases the cost of Ethernet interconnectability.  The Wollogong
TCP/IP drivers are an older version not supported by Wollogong
anymore.  It's generally acknowledged that there are many bugs, and
the throughput of the board is nowhere near what Ethernet should be
getting.  (People report that throughput with the Starlan-1 board was
better than the TCP/IP Ethernet board, which shouldn't be the case.)"

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/3b1-faq/part2/

There are also information and schematics pertaining
to the UNIXpc ethernet interface in the Technical Reference
manual, which I am in the process of scanning & PDFing
for interested parties.

Regards,

---corey



From corey at lod.com  Tue Feb 21 15:05:14 2006
From: corey at lod.com (Corey Lindsly)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [TUHS] ATT 3b2
In-Reply-To: <dc50b0abdcf6b048b5529f34287f8bf8@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <20060221050514.DCE6E5D85F@lod.com>


> The 3B2 was not the same machine as the one in 5ESS, which
> was/is the 3B20D, a fairly large duplexed machine (two processors
> that mutually checked each other).  The 3B2 was a desktop.
> The 3B20D wasn't sold commercially, as far as I know.  There
> was a 3B20S (multi-cabinet) that at least nominally
> was commercially available.

In '93 or '94 I responded to an advertisement by
Temple University (Philadelphia) that they were
giving away for free - U haul - a working 3B20S
system. Figuring it was simply a slightly bigger 
brother of the 3B2, I arranged to pick it up and
drove out there. 

Imagine my dismay when I discovered it to consist
of four refrigerator-sized cabinets, several
washing-machine disk units, and boxes of spare
parts. Alas, no way that was all going to fit
in my little apartment, not to mention the power
requirements, so I had to turn it down. I hope
they eventually found a good home for it..

Regards,

---corey




From michael_davidson at pacbell.net  Tue Feb 21 16:58:48 2006
From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:58:48 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] ATT 3b2
In-Reply-To: <dc50b0abdcf6b048b5529f34287f8bf8@plan9.bell-labs.com>
References: <dc50b0abdcf6b048b5529f34287f8bf8@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <43FABA28.1060408@pacbell.net>

dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

>The 3B2 was not the same machine as the one in 5ESS, which
>was/is the 3B20D, a fairly large duplexed machine (two processors
>that mutually checked each other).  The 3B2 was a desktop.
>The 3B20D wasn't sold commercially, as far as I know.  There
>was a 3B20S (multi-cabinet) that at least nominally
>was commercially available.
>
>Their ISAs were not quite the same, but some assembler language
>tricks made the assembler-level languages look quite similar.
>  
>
That brings back memories ...

If I remember correctly, all of the "real" members of the 3B family
(i.e. 3B2, 3B5, 3B15 and 3B20) shared a common "virtual"
instruction set called (I think) IS25 - it was the job of the assembler
to translate IS25 into the actual machine code for the specific
processor used in each machine.

IS25 was a little curious because it only defined those instructions
that were likely to be of use to the C compiler - thus there was a
"push" instruction so that the compiler could push function arguments
onto the stack, but no "pop" instruction because the C compiler
never generated it.

The 3B2 was also quite "ahead of it's time" in having a soft power
switch (i.e. one that signalled the sytem to shut down and power
off rather than simply cutting the power) and the ability to (attempt
to) reconfigure itself when new hardware was installed. This latter
feature involved automatically relinking the kernel and rebooting
the system and it was not uncommon to get into an infinite loop
where, each time the system booted, it decided that the current
system configuration didn't quite match the booted kernel and
proceeded to relink yet another kernel and reboot.



From duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Feb 21 18:56:08 2006
From: duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk (Duncan Anderson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:56:08 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602210346.WAA21487@cuzuco.com>
References: <200602210346.WAA21487@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <200602211056.08890.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>

On Tuesday, 21 February 2006 05:46, Brian S Walden wrote:
> Duncan Anderson asks:
> > Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that
> > it was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and
> > 3? If there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP
> > network?
>
> SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
> implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
> hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
> StarLAN hardware for it.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of PPP or SLIP.

cheers
Duncan

		
___________________________________________________________ 
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/


From duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Feb 21 18:58:18 2006
From: duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk (Duncan Anderson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:58:18 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <20060221045226.0461F5D85F@lod.com>
References: <20060221045226.0461F5D85F@lod.com>
Message-ID: <200602211058.18339.duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>

On Tuesday, 21 February 2006 06:52, Corey Lindsly wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/3b1-faq/part2/
>
> There are also information and schematics pertaining
> to the UNIXpc ethernet interface in the Technical Reference
> manual, which I am in the process of scanning & PDFing
> for interested parties.
>
> Regards,
>
> ---corey

Would manual have any schematics and information regarding the power supply?

regards
Duncan

	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


From carl.lowenstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 21 16:28:07 2006
From: carl.lowenstein at gmail.com (Carl Lowenstein)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:28:07 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] ATT 3b2
In-Reply-To: <dc50b0abdcf6b048b5529f34287f8bf8@plan9.bell-labs.com>
References: <dc50b0abdcf6b048b5529f34287f8bf8@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <5904d5730602202228o26dc9d68m6b302386b468d8ec@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/20/06, dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com <dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>  > I'm interested in acquring an AT&T 3b2 computer.  One of these systems
>  > used to run a famous public UNIX system "killer".  They also run #5ess
>  > telephone switches, however the OS is different in that case
>  > (DMERT/UNIX-RTR instead of whatever the consumer-level 3b2 runs).
>
>  > If anyone has information on where to acquire these (I saw the recent
>  > discussion on 3b1s and I know they are more prolific than 3b2s-- infact
>  > a friend of mine used to have a UNIX PC which we set up a BBS on).
>
> The 3B2 was not the same machine as the one in 5ESS, which
> was/is the 3B20D, a fairly large duplexed machine (two processors
> that mutually checked each other).  The 3B2 was a desktop.
> The 3B20D wasn't sold commercially, as far as I know.  There
> was a 3B20S (multi-cabinet) that at least nominally
> was commercially available.
>
> Their ISAs were not quite the same, but some assembler language
> tricks made the assembler-level languages look quite similar.

Here at U.C. San Diego, the Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science department  received an AT&T donation of a whole lab full of
3B2 computers for instructional purposes.

I had the unenviable task of trying to teach a course based around
Assembly language and interfacing to higher-level languages (like C)
and OS functionality.  Using the 3B2, for which the official AT&T
position was that these computers were not intended to be programmed
in assembly language, and the appropriate documentation was sort of
non-existent to us outsiders.

I remember when I discovered that the assembler would generate
instructions different from those that were present in the source
code, as demonstrated by running the object-code disassembler.

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


From mascheck at in-ulm.de  Wed Feb 22 03:00:55 2006
From: mascheck at in-ulm.de (Sven Mascheck)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:00:55 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
In-Reply-To: <200602210346.WAA21487@cuzuco.com>
References: <200602210346.WAA21487@cuzuco.com>
Message-ID: <20060221170054.GX22044@lisa.in-ulm.de>

Brian S Walden wrote:
> Duncan Anderson asks:

>> Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3?
> 
> SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
> implementation was from Wollongong.

A slightly awkward [1] but quite comfortable approach to
distinguish the Research/AT&T releases is identifying the shell.

New in the SVR3 shell (features easy to test):
 - "getopts" built-in
 - "read" knows the error message "missing arguments"
(- "cd" diagnostics.  Some vendors modified these again, though.
   Stock SVR3: cd formerly only knew "bad directory" and now there
   are "not a directory", "does not exist", "permission denied" and
   two diagnostics concerning remote file systems.)

[1] Not really awkward, because the introduction of shell functions
    is a quite frequently mentioned feature to identify SVR2.


From dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com  Wed Feb 22 15:08:57 2006
From: dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com (dmr at plan9.bell-labs.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:08:57 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] (no subject)
Message-ID: <713800fd0bb6afb1eb6ee39dcec5fe7c@plan9.bell-labs.com>

 > If I remember correctly, all of the "real" members of the 3B family
 > (i.e. 3B2, 3B5, 3B15 and 3B20) shared a common "virtual"
 > instruction set called (I think) IS25 - it was the job of the assembler
 > to translate IS25 into the actual machine code for the specific
 > processor used in each machine.

 > IS25 was a little curious because it only defined those instructions
 > that were likely to be of use to the C compiler - thus there was a
 > "push" instruction so that the compiler could push function arguments
 > onto the stack, but no "pop" instruction because the C compiler
 > never generated it.

IS25: just so. I managed to retrieve the scanned PDF for
the manual for this virtual instruction set.  It's an
internal memo, but I'll send it if anyone asks.  It's
2.8MB of page images and is 108 pages long.

The memories of Lindsly and Lowenstein are also apposite.
AT&T donated quite a few machines (3B20 and 3B2) to universities,
and though they appreciated the thought, there were
various drawbacks--the gift didn't include maintenance, for
example.

	Dennis


From slapinid at gmail.com  Fri Feb 24 02:41:45 2006
From: slapinid at gmail.com (Sergey Lapin)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:41:45 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] Old C code
Message-ID: <48239d390602230841o4c11fcelba411ec8827bee83@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, all!
I just dug into sed.h from 32V version of sed:

gcc can't parse the following code:
union   reptr {
        struct reptr1 {
                char    *ad1;
                char    *ad2;
                char    *re1;
                char    *rhs;
                FILE    *fcode;
                char    command;
                char    gfl;
                char    pfl;
                char    inar;
                char    negfl;
        };
        struct reptr2 {
                char    *ad1;
                char    *ad2;
                union reptr     *lb1;
                char    *rhs;
                FILE    *fcode;
                char    command;
                char    gfl;
                char    pfl;
                char    inar;
                char    negfl;
        };
} ptrspace[PTRSIZE], *rep;

Does anyone know current form of that, or how to force this
to compile and work?

Thanks a lot!

S.


From jcapp at anteil.com  Fri Feb 24 06:43:14 2006
From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:43:14 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Old C code
In-Reply-To: <48239d390602230841o4c11fcelba411ec8827bee83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48239d390602230841o4c11fcelba411ec8827bee83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060223204314.GC5795@anteil.com>

Shouldn't be a problem.  I defined PTRSIZE and added an #include <stdio.h>
and gcc compiled it fine for me.

--------------- try this -------------------

#define PTRSIZE	10
#include <stdio.h>

union   reptr {
        struct reptr1 {
                char    *ad1;
                char    *ad2;
                char    *re1;
                char    *rhs;
                FILE    *fcode;
                char    command;
                char    gfl;
                char    pfl;
                char    inar;
                char    negfl;
        };
        struct reptr2 {
                char    *ad1;
                char    *ad2;
                union reptr     *lb1;
                char    *rhs;
                FILE    *fcode;
                char    command;
                char    gfl;
                char    pfl;
                char    inar;
                char    negfl;
        };
} ptrspace[PTRSIZE], *rep;


main( )
{
printf( "hello world\n" );
}
--------------------------------------------

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 07:41:45PM +0300, Sergey Lapin wrote:
> Hi, all!
> I just dug into sed.h from 32V version of sed:
> 
> gcc can't parse the following code:
> union   reptr {
>         struct reptr1 {
>                 char    *ad1;
>                 char    *ad2;
>                 char    *re1;
>                 char    *rhs;
>                 FILE    *fcode;
>                 char    command;
>                 char    gfl;
>                 char    pfl;
>                 char    inar;
>                 char    negfl;
>         };
>         struct reptr2 {
>                 char    *ad1;
>                 char    *ad2;
>                 union reptr     *lb1;
>                 char    *rhs;
>                 FILE    *fcode;
>                 char    command;
>                 char    gfl;
>                 char    pfl;
>                 char    inar;
>                 char    negfl;
>         };
> } ptrspace[PTRSIZE], *rep;
> 
> Does anyone know current form of that, or how to force this
> to compile and work?
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> S.
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs


From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Fri Feb 24 07:53:33 2006
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Madcrow Maxwell)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:53:33 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Tape images of 2.9BSD for SIMH?
Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0602231353j53ece473kac6def1f728f9fc7@mail.gmail.com>

I was wondering how I can turn the provided TAR files of 2.9BSD into a
proper tape image for use with an emulator? Is a premade emu-friendly
install tape available? I don't have either a real '11 or a physical
tape drive on my computer?


From luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu  Sat Feb 25 03:03:13 2006
From: luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu (Andru Luvisi)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [TUHS] Tape images of 2.9BSD for SIMH?
In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0602231353j53ece473kac6def1f728f9fc7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8dd2d95c0602231353j53ece473kac6def1f728f9fc7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602240900250.12968@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Madcrow Maxwell wrote:
> I was wondering how I can turn the provided TAR files of 2.9BSD into a
> proper tape image for use with an emulator? Is a premade emu-friendly
> install tape available? I don't have either a real '11 or a physical
> tape drive on my computer?

This 2.11 image in:
http://www.tribug.org/pub/tuhs/PDP-11/Boot_Images/2.11_on_Simh/

contains a perl script which creates a bootable tape image from the tape 
files for 2.11BSD.  It shouldn't be too hard to modify it to do the same 
for 2.9BSD.

Andru
-- 
Andru Luvisi

Quote Of The Moment:
  "If you give someone Fortran, he has Fortran. 
   If you give someone Lisp,    he has any language he pleases." 
  		-- Guy Steele


