From iking at killthewabbit.org  Wed May  3 03:40:49 2006
From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:40:49 -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: <445799A1.9080805@killthewabbit.org>

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.
>
>  
>
[snip]

And there's another issue: *which* PDP11?  I have a MINC-11 that was 
upgraded with an 11/23 CPU, as many were.  I managed to get my hands on 
the original MINC software, and it would not run.  It's been a while 
since I did that so I don't remember the exact instruction on which it 
choked (with an illegal instruction trap).  But I dropped in an 11/03 
CPU and all ran fine.  I found a helpful matrix in one of the DEC 
handbooks that outlines just which instructions were changed between 
several of the Qbus processors, anyway. 

Imagine the number of compiler switches....  -- Ian


From nick at holland-consulting.net  Wed May  3 12:14:38 2006
From: nick at holland-consulting.net (Nick Holland)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 22:14:38 -0400
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
In-Reply-To: <50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>	<008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7>
	<50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
Message-ID: <44581225.8050403@holland-consulting.net>

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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

The GCC team has dropped a lot of older and "less interesting"
(in their minds) platforms from active support (and made the thing
too slow for anything but modern processors, but that's another
rant).

http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#older

What would be wrong with using gcc 2.95 or older?

Nick.



From toby at smartgames.ca  Wed May 24 03:28:17 2006
From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:28:17 -0400
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
In-Reply-To: <50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7>
	<50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP110D7F841AEF32A5EBC9CFBF9B0@CEZ.ICE>


On 29-Apr-06, at 12:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>
> 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.


Long ago I saved this post by Michael Gschwind relating to patching  
gcc 2.1:
http://groups.google.com/group/vmsnet.pdp-11/msg/4c7df7591ea87dbe

--Toby

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



From lars at nocrew.org  Wed May 24 19:27:30 2006
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:27:30 +0200
Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11
In-Reply-To: <BAYC1-PASMTP110D7F841AEF32A5EBC9CFBF9B0@CEZ.ICE> (Toby Thain's
	message of "Tue, 23 May 2006 13:28:17 -0400")
References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
	<008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7>
	<50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu>
	<BAYC1-PASMTP110D7F841AEF32A5EBC9CFBF9B0@CEZ.ICE>
Message-ID: <85irnvzsal.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

I may be able to offer help with the PDP-11 target in GCC and/or
binutils.  Email me for details.


From slawmaster at gmail.com  Wed May 24 15:46:00 2006
From: slawmaster at gmail.com (John Floren)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:46:00 -0400
Subject: [pups] simh and 2.11BSD
Message-ID: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone, I'm just trying to get into PDP-11 Unix.
I have a couple older machines lying around not doing much (a SPARCstation 4
and an Ultra 1), and I've been fiddling around with the simh pdp11 and
2.11BSD on the Ultra 1. I can get the system to boot using the
211bsd.simhconfig file from the tarball here:
http://ftp.gcu-squad.org/tuhs/PDP-11/Boot_Images/2.11_on_Simh/
I can boot into what appears to be a workable system, but I'd like to have
networking and a larger hard drive. Can somebody help me out with getting
this set up? If anybody else out there has done the same thing, I'd like to
hear exactly what you did.
Thank you very much

John F.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060524/a54d0561/attachment.html>

From luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu  Thu May 25 02:47:19 2006
From: luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu (Andru Luvisi)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] simh and 2.11BSD
In-Reply-To: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605240925570.12968@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 24 May 2006, John Floren wrote:
[snip]
> I can boot into what appears to be a workable system, but I'd like to have
> networking and a larger hard drive. Can somebody help me out with getting
> this set up? If anybody else out there has done the same thing, I'd like to
> hear exactly what you did.
> Thank you very much

For networking, you need to:
   compile simh with networking support
   edit 211bsd.simh to
     attach to the correct network device
     use the hardware address that you want
   Inside the system, you will need to edit /etc/hosts and /etc/netstart
   to configure your hostname and networking options.
   Reboot

As for getting a bigger disk, you've got two options.  Reinstall on a 
larger disk image, or just mount a larger disk image onto the file system.

To reinstall, read the directions in README.networked.211BSD and 
docs/2.11bsd_setup.txt .  If you do a fresh reinstall, you will need to 
recompile the kernel (as described in docs/2.11bsd_setup.txt) to get 
networking support.

Or you can create a second, larger, disk image with dd, attach it, and 
label, format, and mount it from within the emulator.

Best of luck,
Andru
-- 
Andru Luvisi

Quote Of The Moment:
  Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
  ( Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound. )


From slawmaster at gmail.com  Thu May 25 05:25:53 2006
From: slawmaster at gmail.com (John Floren)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:25:53 -0400
Subject: [pups] simh and 2.11BSD
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605240925570.12968@localhost.localdomain>
References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605240925570.12968@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/24/06, Andru Luvisi <luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006, John Floren wrote:
> [snip]
> > I can boot into what appears to be a workable system, but I'd like to
> have
> > networking and a larger hard drive. Can somebody help me out with
> getting
> > this set up? If anybody else out there has done the same thing, I'd like
> to
> > hear exactly what you did.
> > Thank you very much
>
> For networking, you need to:
>    compile simh with networking support
>    edit 211bsd.simh to
>      attach to the correct network device
>      use the hardware address that you want
>    Inside the system, you will need to edit /etc/hosts and /etc/netstart
>    to configure your hostname and networking options.
>    Reboot
>
> As for getting a bigger disk, you've got two options.  Reinstall on a
> larger disk image, or just mount a larger disk image onto the file system.
>
> To reinstall, read the directions in README.networked.211BSD and
> docs/2.11bsd_setup.txt .  If you do a fresh reinstall, you will need to
> recompile the kernel (as described in docs/2.11bsd_setup.txt) to get
> networking support.
>
> Or you can create a second, larger, disk image with dd, attach it, and
> label, format, and mount it from within the emulator.
>
> Best of luck,
> Andru
> --
> Andru Luvisi


When you say "use the hardware address you want", do you mean set it to the
host machine's MAC, or to something I make up?

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060524/45a06647/attachment.html>

From luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu  Thu May 25 05:31:38 2006
From: luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu (Andru Luvisi)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] simh and 2.11BSD
In-Reply-To: <7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com> 
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605240925570.12968@localhost.localdomain>
	<7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605241231230.12968@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 24 May 2006, John Floren wrote:
[snip]
> When you say "use the hardware address you want", do you mean set it to the
> host machine's MAC, or to something I make up?
[snip]

Something you make up.

Andru
-- 
Andru Luvisi

Quote Of The Moment:
  Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
  ( Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound. )


From slawmaster at gmail.com  Thu May 25 05:42:56 2006
From: slawmaster at gmail.com (John Floren)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:42:56 -0400
Subject: [pups] simh and 2.11BSD
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605241231230.12968@localhost.localdomain>
References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605240925570.12968@localhost.localdomain>
	<7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605241231230.12968@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <7d3530220605241242x2f23e3fse70658b46e50c26d@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/24/06, Andru Luvisi <luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006, John Floren wrote:
> [snip]
> > When you say "use the hardware address you want", do you mean set it to
> the
> > host machine's MAC, or to something I make up?
> [snip]
>
> Something you make up.


<snipped>
Okay, done that, but when I try to "attach xq eth0" I get the error "Command
not allowed". This occurs even when running as root. I believe I have
correctly built libpcap and simh, but the problem remains. Suggestions?


John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060524/50be935c/attachment.html>

From luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu  Thu May 25 06:19:15 2006
From: luvisi at andru.sonoma.edu (Andru Luvisi)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [pups] simh and 2.11BSD
In-Reply-To: <7d3530220605241242x2f23e3fse70658b46e50c26d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605240925570.12968@localhost.localdomain>
	<7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605241231230.12968@localhost.localdomain>
	<7d3530220605241242x2f23e3fse70658b46e50c26d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605241300540.12968@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 24 May 2006, John Floren wrote:
[snip]
> Okay, done that, but when I try to "attach xq eth0" I get the error "Command
> not allowed". This occurs even when running as root. I believe I have
> correctly built libpcap and simh, but the problem remains. Suggestions?
[snip]

I'm not very familiar with the libpcap magic.  I suggest asking on the 
simh mailing list (information at 
http://simh.trailing-edge.com/help.html).

Andru
-- 
Andru Luvisi

Quote Of The Moment:
  Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
  mediocre minds.
                  -- Albert Einstein
  
  They laughed at Einstein.  They laughed at the Wright Brothers.
  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
                  -- Carl Sagan


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Fri May 26 14:52:26 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:26 -0400
Subject: [pups] Unix V7
Message-ID: <000701c68080$3028fe80$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    I have I V7 system Warren that runs on PDP-11 that was created from some
of Keith Bostics's fileblock fragments. I can get this system up and running
but the C compiler seems to be broke. I get ***error 8 which I don't know
what that means but it's probably a pdp11 error code. I'm still trying to
learn about the pdps but do you know how I might regenerate this C compiler
from v7 that will fix c0? When I try to add floating point number emulation
to the C compiler and regen things I always get an error at c0. How could I
regenerate the c0 pass file? That seems to be the only thing that's stopping
me from going further. I don't know if the compiler can be rebuilt from
scratch if something like lib/c0 is broken.

Bill



From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de  Tue May  2 08:08:53 2006
From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 00:08:53 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants
In-Reply-To: <5B5246CE-8D25-4545-B7DA-32990CC5382A@bitsavers.org>
References: <mailman.3.1146362401.55725.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<5B5246CE-8D25-4545-B7DA-32990CC5382A@bitsavers.org>
Message-ID: <20060502000853.372e013c@SirToby.dinner41.de>

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:01:40 -0700
Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:

> 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.
I own one of the 11/23 based models together with a 6800 and 68000 in
circuit emulator. It is complete, I have manuals, it runs some sort of
UNIX V7 caled TENIX. I have a spare 11/73 CPU board that I can plug into
it in exchange to the 11/23 CPU.

I need the instalation media or at least the stand alone tools for this
machine. It needs a fsck(8) but fsck(8) is a stand alone tool...
It would be really great if someone could help with this.

Hmmm. That machine would be a great exhibition at the next the Vintage
Computing Festival Europa.
-- 


tschüß,
       Jochen

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



From aw at aw.gs  Wed May  3 03:09:21 2006
From: aw at aw.gs (A. Wik)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:09:21 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <20060424180143.41943.qmail@web26107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <20060424180143.41943.qmail@web26107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060502170530.S78098@dynamite.narpes.com>

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jose R Valverde wrote:

> 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!

I'm not sure whether you're kidding about that,
but Linux is not an acronym - it's a pun on Unix
and on Linus (the first name of the author).

-aw


From imp at bsdimp.com  Wed May  3 03:57:47 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:57:47 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <20060502170530.S78098@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <20060424180143.41943.qmail@web26107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<20060502170530.S78098@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <20060502.115747.07017068.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <20060502170530.S78098 at dynamite.narpes.com>
            "A. Wik" <aw at aw.gs> writes:
: On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jose R Valverde wrote:
: 
: > 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!
: 
: I'm not sure whether you're kidding about that,
: but Linux is not an acronym - it's a pun on Unix
: and on Linus (the first name of the author).

"Linux is Not UniX" is a corruption of Gnu: Gnu is Not Unix...

Warner


From patv at monmouth.com  Wed May  3 11:17:33 2006
From: patv at monmouth.com (Pat Villani)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 21:17:33 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <20060502114434.B78098@dynamite.narpes.com>
References: <200604251253.k3PCrR0f005871@wwws.monmouth.com>
	<20060502114434.B78098@dynamite.narpes.com>
Message-ID: <445804AD.3040605@monmouth.com>


It's actually a GNU port, with small changes to the actual sources.  
Mainly configure and make file changes so that it properly builds on 
cygwin and linux.  Creates minix binaries.

Pat


Charlie ROOT wrote:
>
> Did you make other improvements than XP cross-compilation?
>
> -aw
>   





From root at dynamite.narpes.com  Wed May  3 02:52:22 2006
From: root at dynamite.narpes.com (Charlie ROOT)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:52:22 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [TUHS] [pups]  gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
In-Reply-To: <200604251253.k3PCrR0f005871@wwws.monmouth.com>
References: <200604251253.k3PCrR0f005871@wwws.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <20060502114434.B78098@dynamite.narpes.com>


On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 patv at monmouth.com wrote:

> 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. 

If you're interested in running V7 on x86, you should check out
the 286-port on the TUHS FTP site, as it was fully operational 
until the author, according to his report, messed up the file 
system code.

For a 32-bit Unix, the Quasijarus project would be better
starting point, as it is more seasoned as a 32-bit operating
system.  The project project was started by Michael Sokolov, with
the primary goal of extending 4.3BSD-Tahoe to run on newer VAX
hardware.  You can find the source, as well as the mailing list,
from the web page at:  http://ifctfvax.harhan.org/Quasijarus/

Because NetBSD and especially GCC have long since outgrown all
but the most powerful VAX hardware, including my VAXstation
4000-60, I've been looking into the possibility of getting
Quasijarus to run on the machine - very slowly, of course.
I've only managed to hack the NetBSD kernel into running the
binaries properly - it should support 32V-ones as well, for
that matter.

I'm also interested in 386-ports of the classical Unix utilities,
but my kernel-side focus is on a brand new, non-portable kernel
written in assembly language for compactness and flexibility of
running, examining and debugging code that excessively picky
operating systems choke at - e.g. real- and kernel-mode code.

> 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.

Did you make other improvements than XP cross-compilation?

-aw



From aw at aw.gs  Mon May 15 05:32:33 2006
From: aw at aw.gs (A. Wik)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 19:32:33 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [TUHS] RFS (Remote? File System)
Message-ID: <20060514191901.Y6729@dynamite.narpes.com>


In the context of non-local file systems - Sun's NFS
in particular - I've seen RFS be mentioned.  This was
AT&T's implementattion of transparent real-time (for
contrast with UUCP, FTP, etc.) remote file access.

But that's all I know.  Does anyone know of useful
sources of information (or just anecdotes, for that
matter)?

-aw


From lm at bitmover.com  Mon May 15 14:22:38 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:22:38 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1147658400.31029.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.3.1147658400.31029.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com>

> in particular - I've seen RFS be mentioned.  This was
> AT&T's implementattion of transparent real-time (for
> contrast with UUCP, FTP, etc.) remote file access.

It wasn't real time, it was "remote file system" == RFS.

It was different than NFS in that it was stateful and that it knew that the
other side knew what it knew (think ioctls, yuck).  

My officemate worked on it, it was problematic.  Don't go there.  NFS is
bad enough, but it works.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From asbesto at freaknet.org  Mon May 15 17:05:55 2006
From: asbesto at freaknet.org (asbesto)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:05:55 +0000
Subject: [TUHS] PDP11/23 and microPDP (11/23?)
Message-ID: <20060515070555.GB11843@freaknet.org>


Hi,

in the end of May i'm going to recover a PDP11/23, a
MicroPDP11/23 (maybe? i've not seen it) and some other stuff for
our computer museum. 

Does someone have an idea about what flavour of Unix can be run,
if this is possible, on 11/23? :)

greets from sicilia, italy!

-- 
[ asbesto : IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry ]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE, NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC, SPAM ]



From tfb at tfeb.org  Mon May 15 17:46:33 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:46:33 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com>
References: <mailman.3.1147658400.31029.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <C5D6F2D0-E9DF-41AC-B33F-C85177F64E0F@tfeb.org>

On 15 May 2006, at 05:22, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> It wasn't real time, it was "remote file system" == RFS.
>
> It was different than NFS in that it was stateful and that it knew  
> that the
> other side knew what it knew (think ioctls, yuck).

My memory, which may be wrong, is that some SunOS 4s had support for  
it (may be all did), so there are probably manuals and so forth which  
can still be found there.

--tim


From lm at bitmover.com  Tue May 16 00:02:42 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:02:42 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <C5D6F2D0-E9DF-41AC-B33F-C85177F64E0F@tfeb.org>
References: <mailman.3.1147658400.31029.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com>
	<C5D6F2D0-E9DF-41AC-B33F-C85177F64E0F@tfeb.org>
Message-ID: <20060515140242.GA27749@bitmover.com>

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:46:33AM +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 15 May 2006, at 05:22, Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> >It wasn't real time, it was "remote file system" == RFS.
> >
> >It was different than NFS in that it was stateful and that it knew  
> >that the
> >other side knew what it knew (think ioctls, yuck).
> 
> My memory, which may be wrong, is that some SunOS 4s had support for  
> it (may be all did), so there are probably manuals and so forth which  
> can still be found there.

That's correct and I have those manuals somewhere (anyone want a full
set of 4.x manuals?)
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From berny.goodheart at myrealbox.com  Mon May 15 20:57:47 2006
From: berny.goodheart at myrealbox.com (Berny 'Scouser' Goodheart)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:57:47 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] RFS (Remote? File System) (A. Wik)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1147658400.31029.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <003501c6780e$6be0aec0$4405a6c0@FERRARI>

From: "A. Wik" <aw at aw.gs>
>
> In the context of non-local file systems - Sun's NFS
> in particular - I've seen RFS be mentioned.  This was
> AT&T's implementattion of transparent real-time (for
> contrast with UUCP, FTP, etc.) remote file access.
> 
> But that's all I know.  Does anyone know of useful
> sources of information (or just anecdotes, for that
> matter)?
> 
> -aw

There's an entire section devoted to RFS in the USL SVR4 Network
User's And Administrator's Guide. What is it you after
Exactly?

-Berny




From tuhs at entropy.homeip.net  Thu May 18 01:29:45 2006
From: tuhs at entropy.homeip.net (tuhs at entropy.homeip.net)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:29:45 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <446B4169.8010007@entropy.homeip.net>


http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/BUSINESS/604300358/1003

Coming down

The developer buying Lucent Technologies' 472-acre campus in Holmdel 
plans to tear down the massive 2-million-square-foot research center 
that has been home to Bell Labs for the past 44 years.
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 04/30/06
BY DAVID P. WILLIS
BUSINESS WRITER

As the sale of Lucent Technologies' behemoth Bell Labs research center 
on Crawfords Corner Road in Holmdel moves forward, one thing seems certain.

Preferred Real Estate Investments Inc., a developer that specializes in 
redeveloping obsolete buildings and properties, will knock down the 2 
million-square-foot structure, one of the largest office buildings in 
New Jersey.

"I have walked through that building a dozen times. It is a crime that 
we can't figure out a way to reuse this building," said Michael G. 
O'Neill, founder and chief executive officer of Preferred Real Estate 
Investments. "There is just no way. It is just absolutely and utterly 
unusable."

The way the building was designed, using concrete structural walls and 
hallways that run along the outside of the building, makes it impossible 
to redevelop, O'Neill said. "It was built for a single purpose that no 
longer exists," he said.

The company has not yet determined how it will take down the building. 
The large ponds on the property, as well as its road system, will be 
used by the developer.

Lucent is selling the six-story building to Preferred for an undisclosed 
price. On Thursday, Lucent spokesman John Skalko said a closing on the 
deal is "imminent."

The original building opened in 1962 and was expanded in 1964 and 1982. 
It was once home to as many as 5,600 employees. But only 1,054 work 
there now as Lucent has cut jobs and spun off businesses. The company 
plans to move the remaining workers to offices in Murray Hill and 
Whippany by the end of August 2007 as it seeks to make the most use of 
its real estate holdings.

Meanwhile, Preferred Real Estate Investments, a developer based in 
Conshohocken, Pa., said it will involve township officials and residents 
to come up with a plan for the 472-acre property.

Neighbor Barbara Daly said she would like to see any future development 
limited to the building's current location on the large property.

She also worried about traffic. Even at its height, Lucent's staggered 
work hours kept traffic down, said Daly, who has lived in Holmdel for 14 
years.

"Part of the charm of Holmdel is the rural feeling," said Daly. "I don't 
think we need structures visible from Crawfords Corner Road or Roberts 
Road."

Holmdel resident Teresa M. Graw said the property should continue to be 
used for office and laboratory space by high-tech companies.

"Any new construction should go forward with an understanding and 
respect for the beautiful open spaces, panoramic views and high 
environmental quality that the property offers, for these attributes are 
truly what will continue to bring the most added value to the property 
in the long run," Graw said in an e-mail.

The design of the new buildings could take into account the 
architectural significance of the original, she said. It was designed by 
Finnish architect Eero Saarinen, the designer of the Gateway Arch in St. 
Louis, and is encased in a shell of reflective glass.

"It seems to me that they have to somehow capture that, the history, the 
flavor of the property's past," Graw said.

O'Neill said there is no formal plan yet for the property. The company 
does not contemplate any industrial, retail or high-density residential 
housing development there.

"This property is a magnificent setting for corporate users," O'Neill 
said. "While the buildings are antiquated, the site should be very, very 
attractive."

Preferred also would keep the property's water tower, designed by 
Saarinen, which people say looks like a giant transistor.

"We think that is really neat," O'Neill said. "The significance of 
telecommunications shouldn't be forgotten."

He believes any design for the property would include several buildings, 
which would total less than 2 million square feet of office space.

He also said they will have to try to explore some other "low density 
use," such as age-restricted housing, that may be appropriate for the 
site. The property is currently zoned for office and laboratory use. Any 
other type of development may require a zoning change, said Christopher 
Shultz, the township administrator.

"We know the sensitivity of the open space along the road and the view," 
O'Neill said. "The challenge we have on this site is to maintain that 
bucolic feeling, but create something that is economic."

Founded in 1992, Preferred specializes in buying closed properties, such 
as manufacturing plants and corporate offices or headquarters, which 
were central locations in a town. The company owns properties from 
Connecticut to Georgia worth more than $1.5 billion.

"We go in and look at these things that have clearly become antiquated 
from what they were," O'Neill said. "We figure out how to design and 
envision a new life for those sites."

In Hamilton in Mercer County, Preferred is redeveloping an old toilet 
factory formerly owned by American Standard Cos., converting the 
World-War-I-era building into 450,000 square feet of office space.

Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore said Preferred worked with the township, 
creating a building that is filling with tenants.

"They are people who keep their word and are able to take a challenging 
project and do something unique with it," Gilmore said of the developer.

In Holmdel, Preferred executives have already introduced themselves to 
officials and plan on having a public meeting with residents as well.

Mayor Serena DiMaso said the town is looking forward to working with 
Preferred.

The township wants to protect its tax base, DiMaso said. Lucent, the 
township's largest taxpayer, paid $3.19 million in taxes last year on 
the property, which is assessed at $98.5 million.

"We made them understand that we need the ratable base to remain as 
constant as it can be," DiMaso said. "They (residents) understand that 
it cannot be Lucent anymore. They are willing to make the compromise for 
something else."

The mayor said she would like to see it continue to be a development 
with office or laboratory space. Preferred is aware of the township's 
commitment to open space, she said.

Township Committeeman Terence Wall said he envisions a corporate campus 
that does not include housing. The property also could include space for 
a library and offices for the board of education, which are now located 
in town hall, he said.

"They can achieve the return on the investment that they require without 
a housing component," Wall said.

Before the sale was announced last month, Holdmel's elected officials 
had asked the township's planner to look at the best uses for the 
property, including those that may require a zoning change, said 
Schultz. The planner also will look at whether the state's redevelopment 
law applies to the property.




From patv at monmouth.com  Thu May 18 05:56:08 2006
From: patv at monmouth.com (patv at monmouth.com)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:56:08 EST
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <200605171956.k4HJu7Ct028200@wwws.monmouth.com>

Just a personal commentary on that article from the local newspaper.

I live in Freehold, a few miles from the Holmdel facility, and I used to
work in Holmdel some time back.  I worked on several 68K based boards used
in a product called DACS.  I worked on both hardware and firmware,
maintained UNIX for several groups, struggled with nmake and software
manufacturing for several products (bugging both Glenn Fowler and David
Korn when new nmake releases broke builds), supported the pcc compiler as
a cross compiler, etc., for DACS and other products.  I was also
responsible for the architecture of something called the Line Monitoring
Equipment (LME), used in some undersea cable systems, well before
Submarine Systems was sold off to Tyco.  I can't tell you how many hours I
spent in that building.  It was fun.

Another loss to the UNIX community that I can personally report was the
closing, one year ago this month, of the old DEC Manalpan facility (UNX).
 This was the home of VAX System V, a large portion of Ultrix, and
everything that made up OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX except for kernel,
drivers, and several other components (although I personally did some
kernel work on occasion).  We did shell and utilities, about 1/2 of X,
Motif, CDE, installation, mail, and other parts of the OS that made it
useful.  If you look at old uucp headers anywhere on usenet, any of the
traffic with headers that included systems with "unx" in the name was
routed through this facility.  I was there from when it was Digital
through Compaq and finally HP, almost all the way through to the closing.

In general, the whole area is undergoing a massive transition.  If I had
to guess, I'd say it is mostly due to the downswing in telecom, followed
closely by the closing of Fort Monmouth.  The latter, I think, is the
death blow for technology in this region.

For hardware developers, not much left at all around the area, and
software people have to either go financial in NYC, or work for a
pharmaceutical or insurance company.  Not much room left for innovation
here.  Sad.

Pat


> 
> http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/BUSINESS/604300358/1003
> 
> Coming down
> 
> The developer buying Lucent Technologies' 472-acre campus in Holmdel 
> plans to tear down the massive 2-million-square-foot research center 
> that has been home to Bell Labs for the past 44 years.
> Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 04/30/06
> BY DAVID P. WILLIS
> BUSINESS WRITER


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




From lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx  Thu May 18 06:48:10 2006
From: lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx (Lyrical Nanoha)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <200605171956.k4HJu7Ct028200@wwws.monmouth.com>
References: <200605171956.k4HJu7Ct028200@wwws.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605171647140.15127@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 17 May 2006, patv at monmouth.com wrote:

> Another loss to the UNIX community that I can personally report was the
> closing, one year ago this month, of the old DEC Manalpan facility (UNX).
> This was the home of VAX System V, a large portion of Ultrix, and
> everything that made up OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX except for kernel,
> drivers, and several other components (although I personally did some
> kernel work on occasion).  We did shell and utilities, about 1/2 of X,
> Motif, CDE, installation, mail, and other parts of the OS that made it
> useful.  If you look at old uucp headers anywhere on usenet, any of the
> traffic with headers that included systems with "unx" in the name was
> routed through this facility.  I was there from when it was Digital
> through Compaq and finally HP, almost all the way through to the closing.

It would be nice if CDE were free, the rest is either part of the Heirloom 
project or cloned in some open-source system (e.g., Lesstif). --;

-uso.


From patv at monmouth.com  Thu May 18 07:39:31 2006
From: patv at monmouth.com (patv at monmouth.com)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:39:31 EST
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <200605172139.k4HLdVx5001770@wwws.monmouth.com>

I have heard some grumblings of TOG possibly releasing CDE as open source,
but have no idea of where that stands.  To be perfectly frank, it had a
lot of problems, especially in a 64-bit world.  There were too many word
size assumptions, and a very good friend struggled for many, many hours
fixing those problems before it went to DEIL in India for support.  It
could probably still benefit from a good �many eyes� developer review and
bug fix session in the hands of open source developers.  However, IMHO, it
no longer has any advantage over KDE or Gnome, but, as I said, that is my
opinion.

Personally, I�d love to see OSF1 released open source.  There were
experimental x86 and two Itanium versions in various states of completion
floating around DEC/Compaq/HP.  I was part of the last Itanium effort
before the HP merger.  That one booted to single user before the project
was killed.

OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX was already branded as UNIX, and it would be
fun to see what would happen to the landscape if a branded UNIX was free.
 Unfortunately, too many proprietary licensed pieces of code in the HP
version, especially in System V support, for that to ever happen. Oh well,
we can all dream �

Pat

 

> On Wed, 17 May 2006, patv at monmouth.com wrote:
> 
> > Another loss to the UNIX community that I can personally report was the
> > closing, one year ago this month, of the old DEC Manalpan facility (UNX).
> > This was the home of VAX System V, a large portion of Ultrix, and
> > everything that made up OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX except for kernel,
> > drivers, and several other components (although I personally did some
> > kernel work on occasion).  We did shell and utilities, about 1/2 of X,
> > Motif, CDE, installation, mail, and other parts of the OS that made it
> > useful.  If you look at old uucp headers anywhere on usenet, any of the
> > traffic with headers that included systems with "unx" in the name was
> > routed through this facility.  I was there from when it was Digital
> > through Compaq and finally HP, almost all the way through to the closing.
> 
> It would be nice if CDE were free, the rest is either part of the Heirloom 
> project or cloned in some open-source system (e.g., Lesstif). --;
> 
> -uso.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG  Thu May 18 08:40:19 2006
From: msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:40:19 GMT
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <0605172240.AA02650@ivan.Harhan.ORG>

patv at monmouth.com wrote:

> Personally, I^Rd love to see OSF1 released open source.

Then why don't YOU release it as open source?  Yes, you personally.
Pull out your personal copy of the source (I sure hope you've had enough
brains to smuggle one home with you when you left HP/Comfuq), put it on
a bunch of Free Software FTP sites (IFCTF would gladly host it), and
announce it to the world.  And while you are at it, shoot a few cops and
hang their heads on a wall as war trophys (in the humanity's war for
liberation of all software, of course).

You've also mentioned in another post about good jobs in your area going
away.  Why don't you offer your technical skills and expertise to Iran?
I'm sure your engineering expertise would be useful to their nuclear
weapons program, and you could thus put your skills to serve a good
cause, helping make missiles to annihilate evil copyrighting nations.

Space Falcon,
Programletarian Freedom Fighter,
Interplanetary Internationale


From Jon.Stuart at pegs.com  Thu May 18 08:30:47 2006
From: Jon.Stuart at pegs.com (Stuart, Jon)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:30:47 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>

Perhaps an OSF1-"lite", on par with 4.4BSD-Lite which had the
copyrighted code removed, would be possible to get released.  Of course,
HP would have to have a motive in doing so.

All of this, the closing of UNX, the loss of the VAX and now the dying
of the Alpha chip, is very disheartening.  Although I'm lucky enough to
have access to 5 VAXen (running 4.3 BSD UNIX and one running Ultrix4),
it's tough for anyone to learn and play with this stuff, because they
are becoming so scarce (you can by a VaxStation/MicroVax on eBay, but
these will only run Ultrix and not 4.3 BSD, unfortunately).

I also am very disappointed about the abandoning of the Alpha chip.
>From it's start I was very impressed with it.  It was a very good RISC
architecture, and the first to really do 64-bit computing, and do it
well.  Before they decided to kill it, it was still the best
architecture for 64-bit computing on the market.  

Even though I'm pro-open-source, I also can't help but lament losing
many of the commercial Unices over the past few years.  The next version
of HP-UX will apparently be the last, PA-RISC is dying along with Alpha,
so presumably OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 is either dead or end-of-lifed as
well, IRIX has moved to x86 (the platform I tend to loathe the most,
probably because I know it best and learned it first),  AIX is still
around but IBM is focussing strongly on Linux, and Solaris is still
around (but they did kill SunOS 4.1.4 -- personally one of my favorite
Unices of all time, basically 4.3 BSD + Sun stuff such as OpenWindows +
nice improvements such as loadable kernel modules + pcc ported to
SPARC).

Not to mention all the mid-to-late 80's versions of UNIX -- Interactive,
AT&T System V (actually branded as that, uname -a returned
UNIX_System_V), as well as a ton of others I'm forgetting.

I guess I'm somewhat nostoglic about old UNIX, and I enjoy seeing it's
evolution.  That's why whenever I'm able to view the source code of some
closed-source UNIX, it's very enjoyable to me.  Old UNIX has a rustic
appeal to me.

It's unfortunate that it seems we must resign ourselves to a future of
x86-based OSs, such as Linux, or even Open/Free/NetBSD, which aren't
really UNIX (Linux definitely isn't, and the modern BSDs have changed
enough that they also aren't IMO).

It seems there's no diversity anymore, both in software and hardware.
It's amazing how x86 (an inferior architecture) could win the war of
architectures when it was basically a bastardized version of the VAX
(the best CISC chip ever, IMO).  There were so many superior
architectures out there, such as SPARC, MIPS, Alpha, PA-RISC, POWER,
PowerPC, and VAX.  For x86 to win, really shows that the quality of
technology in a product really has no bearing on how it will do in the
market.  It's not about quality, it's about profitability, and they are
very often not the same.

While IA-64 is based on the PA-RISC, it's still Intel, and the choice of
operating systems for it is still going to be limited to the handful
previously mentioned.  Apple's move away from a RISC architecture
(PowerPC) to x86 is just as disheartening. 

Oh well.  I guess we are nearing the finish-line of this "race to the
bottom", because of the capitalistic influence on the computer industry.
 
My advice to anyone interested in UNIX (and computer architecture)
history is to stock up on machines now, while you can still find them on
places like eBay.  Some of the newer-but-still-dead architectures such
as SGI/MIPS are numerous on eBay.  Although, be careful when buying on
eBay, because many times you'll get a banged up, stripped of components,
unworking shell of one of the slower models of a system.  This is
particularly true when trying to acquire a SparcStation on eBay.  Good
luck trying to find a 2way SparcStation 20 with a nice size hard drive
and lots of RAM (the fastest machine SunOS 4.1.4 could run on -- and
I've heard that 4.1.4 did have very alpha SMP support, similar to what
Linux and the modern BSDs used for a long time, that being a "big giant
lock" [mutex] around the kernel).

...Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org]
On Behalf Of patv at monmouth.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:40 PM
To: Lyrical Nanoha; tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down

I have heard some grumblings of TOG possibly releasing CDE as open
source, but have no idea of where that stands.  To be perfectly frank,
it had a lot of problems, especially in a 64-bit world.  There were too
many word size assumptions, and a very good friend struggled for many,
many hours fixing those problems before it went to DEIL in India for
support.  It could probably still benefit from a good "many eyes"
developer review and bug fix session in the hands of open source
developers.  However, IMHO, it no longer has any advantage over KDE or
Gnome, but, as I said, that is my opinion.

Personally, I'd love to see OSF1 released open source.  There were
experimental x86 and two Itanium versions in various states of
completion floating around DEC/Compaq/HP.  I was part of the last
Itanium effort before the HP merger.  That one booted to single user
before the project was killed.

OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX was already branded as UNIX, and it would
be fun to see what would happen to the landscape if a branded UNIX was
free.
 Unfortunately, too many proprietary licensed pieces of code in the HP
version, especially in System V support, for that to ever happen. Oh
well, we can all dream ...

Pat

 

> On Wed, 17 May 2006, patv at monmouth.com wrote:
> 
> > Another loss to the UNIX community that I can personally report was 
> > the closing, one year ago this month, of the old DEC Manalpan
facility (UNX).
> > This was the home of VAX System V, a large portion of Ultrix, and 
> > everything that made up OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX except for 
> > kernel, drivers, and several other components (although I personally

> > did some kernel work on occasion).  We did shell and utilities, 
> > about 1/2 of X, Motif, CDE, installation, mail, and other parts of 
> > the OS that made it useful.  If you look at old uucp headers 
> > anywhere on usenet, any of the traffic with headers that included 
> > systems with "unx" in the name was routed through this facility.  I 
> > was there from when it was Digital through Compaq and finally HP,
almost all the way through to the closing.
> 
> It would be nice if CDE were free, the rest is either part of the 
> Heirloom project or cloned in some open-source system (e.g., Lesstif).

> --;
> 
> -uso.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 cowan at ccil.org  Thu May 18 09:13:29 2006
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:13:29 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
Message-ID: <20060517231329.GF13940@ccil.org>

Stuart, Jon scripsit:

> Perhaps an OSF1-"lite", on par with 4.4BSD-Lite which had the
> copyrighted code removed, would be possible to get released.  

That was only possible because of the massive effort to rewrite all things
AT&T out of the BSD source.

> All of this, the closing of UNX, the loss of the VAX and now the dying
> of the Alpha chip, is very disheartening.  Although I'm lucky enough to
> have access to 5 VAXen (running 4.3 BSD UNIX and one running Ultrix4),
> it's tough for anyone to learn and play with this stuff, because they
> are becoming so scarce (you can by a VaxStation/MicroVax on eBay, but
> these will only run Ultrix and not 4.3 BSD, unfortunately).

On come the emulators.

> I guess I'm somewhat nostoglic about old UNIX, and I enjoy seeing it's
> evolution.  That's why whenever I'm able to view the source code of some
> closed-source UNIX, it's very enjoyable to me.  Old UNIX has a rustic
> appeal to me.

It's really "middle Unix" you are talking about.  Old Unix and new Unix
(and I don't agree that Linux/*BSD are not Unix) are both now open source.

> It's unfortunate that it seems we must resign ourselves to a future of
> x86-based OSs, such as Linux, or even Open/Free/NetBSD, which aren't
> really UNIX (Linux definitely isn't, and the modern BSDs have changed
> enough that they also aren't IMO).

Unix is a local minimum in the design space.  It can be reimplemented
over and over.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If he has seen farther than others,
        it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves.
                --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)


From lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx  Thu May 18 09:27:00 2006
From: lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx (Lyrical Nanoha)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <200605172139.k4HLdVx5001770@wwws.monmouth.com>
References: <200605172139.k4HLdVx5001770@wwws.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605171924250.19459@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 17 May 2006, patv at monmouth.com wrote:

> I have heard some grumblings of TOG possibly releasing CDE as open source,
> but have no idea of where that stands.  To be perfectly frank, it had a
> lot of problems, especially in a 64-bit world.  There were too many word
> size assumptions, and a very good friend struggled for many, many hours
> fixing those problems before it went to DEIL in India for support.  It
> could probably still benefit from a good �many eyes� developer review and
> bug fix session in the hands of open source developers.  However, IMHO, it
> no longer has any advantage over KDE or Gnome, but, as I said, that is my
> opinion.

It's not a matter of advantage so much as it's been a de-facto standard 
for so long and I'd just like to work with it even if it's just a clone 
like Lesstif.

> OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX was already branded as UNIX, and it would be
> fun to see what would happen to the landscape if a branded UNIX was free.
> Unfortunately, too many proprietary licensed pieces of code in the HP
> version, especially in System V support, for that to ever happen. Oh well,
> we can all dream �

Well, there is the Solaris stuff, and some of it's gone into Heirloom, 
which I believe is an attempt to bring together the existing open-sourced 
Unix code, and bring it up to date.  And I think Lesstif is a good enough 
clone of Motif for the majority of programs, in the way that Linux is of 
Unix, or am I wrong?

-uso.

From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Thu May 18 11:42:06 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:42:06 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <20060517231329.GF13940@ccil.org>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
	<20060517231329.GF13940@ccil.org>
Message-ID: <1147916526.446bd0ee65cc6@www.paradise.net.nz>

Quoting John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>:

> Stuart, Jon scripsit:
> 
> > Perhaps an OSF1-"lite", on par with 4.4BSD-Lite which had the
> > copyrighted code removed, would be possible to get released. 
> 
> That was only possible because of the massive effort to rewrite all
> things
> AT&T out of the BSD source.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to talk Novell into releasing the Unix
SysVr* source code under some form of BSD/MIT X license following the coming
evaporation of Societe Commerciel du Ondit - the SCOGroup Rumourmonging Machine.

Then get OSF1-"lite" released following that.  Eating an elephant - one bite at
a time.

Wesley Parish
<snip>
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
> If he has seen farther than others,
>  it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves.
>  --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s
>  



"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 norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca  Thu May 18 12:48:58 2006
From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:48:58 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <20060518024931.4140A7A@minnie.tuhs.org>

Michael Sokolov, it was, that writted:

  Then why don't YOU release it as open source?  Yes, you personally.
  Pull out your personal copy of the source (I sure hope you've had enough
  brains to smuggle one home with you when you left HP/Comfuq), put it on
  a bunch of Free Software FTP sites (IFCTF would gladly host it), and
  announce it to the world.  And while you are at it, shoot a few cops and
  hang their heads on a wall as war trophys (in the humanity's war for
  liberation of all software, of course).

====

You silly, twisted boy, you.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
Idiot Connoisseur


From tfb at tfeb.org  Thu May 18 18:36:08 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:36:08 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <1147916526.446bd0ee65cc6@www.paradise.net.nz>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
	<20060517231329.GF13940@ccil.org>
	<1147916526.446bd0ee65cc6@www.paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <5980.80.75.66.29.1147941368.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>

On Thu, May 18, 2006 2:42 am, Wesley Parish wrote:

>
> I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to talk Novell into releasing
> the Unix SysVr* source code under some form of BSD/MIT X license following
> the coming evaporation of Societe Commerciel du Ondit - the SCOGroup
> Rumourmonging Machine.
>
>
> Then get OSF1-"lite" released following that.  Eating an elephant - one
> bite at a time.

I think the problem with all these `just open source it' schemes is that
they're simpler in theory than in practice.  In particular, in practice
someone has to go through the source of the system checking for everything
that might have been licensed from someone else and whose license
agreements might prohibit its release.  Few of those things will
(probably) have been kept track of, and the penalty for failure is that
some nasty residual company which now owns the stuff you licensed comes
down your throat.

For orphaned systems this is a lot of work for no obvious gain (it
wouldn't be orphaned if the organization that created it thought it had
much value to them).

A good example would probably be SunOS 4 - we already know that Sun are
quite interested in open sourcing stuff given OpenSolaris, but SunOS 4
hasn't been, presumably because it is full of stuff-they-don't-own and has
no commercial value at all.

--tim



From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au  Thu May 18 18:50:52 2006
From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:50:52 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
Message-ID: <20060518085052.GA799@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

On Wed, 2006-May-17 15:30:47 -0700, Stuart, Jon wrote:
>I also am very disappointed about the abandoning of the Alpha chip.

Likewise.  And on a related subject, FreeBSD dropped its Alpha support
(from the development branch) earlier this week - it had fallen below
critical mass - and a lot of this would have been the death of the
underlying chip.

>From it's start I was very impressed with it.  It was a very good RISC
>architecture, and the first to really do 64-bit computing, and do it
>well.  Before they decided to kill it, it was still the best
>architecture for 64-bit computing on the market.  

I can't think of any other architecture where the designers considered
what they needed to do to make the architecture future-proof.  The
normal architectural design criteria are a mixture of the number of
transistors they can fit on a chip today and backward compatibility.

>so presumably OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 is either dead or end-of-lifed as

It's effectively end-of-life.  There will be no future releases, though
HP will support it until about 2011.

>It's unfortunate that it seems we must resign ourselves to a future of
>x86-based OSs, such as Linux, or even Open/Free/NetBSD, which aren't
>really UNIX (Linux definitely isn't, and the modern BSDs have changed
>enough that they also aren't IMO).

If Linux and *BSD aren't Unix, how do you define Unix?  (Other than
having paid TOG the trademark licensing fees).

>PowerPC, and VAX.  For x86 to win, really shows that the quality of
>technology in a product really has no bearing on how it will do in the
>market.

That is a surprise to you?

>  It's not about quality, it's about profitability, and they are
>very often not the same.

There's a bit of a feedback loop: Starting with the IBM-PC, x86 sold
in large volumes, so there were lots of profits and design costs could
be amortised over a larger volume, allowing more man-hours to be
invested in the next generation whilst still returning a profit.  This
makes the next generation of x86 outperform the competition at a lower
price - encouraging more people to use x86.

>While IA-64 is based on the PA-RISC, it's still Intel,

I suspect the IA-64 will quietly fade away.  It hasn't lived up to the
hype and even Intel seem to acknowledge this by licensing the amd64.

>and lots of RAM (the fastest machine SunOS 4.1.4 could run on -- and
>I've heard that 4.1.4 did have very alpha SMP support, similar to what

SMP support started earlier than 4.1.4.  The sun4m machines (SS470,
SS670) were the first SMP machines and ISTR they were supported in
the last 4.0.x or early 4.1.x releases.  (I was using them at the
time but the details have faded a bit after 15 years).

>Linux and the modern BSDs used for a long time, that being a "big giant
>lock" [mutex] around the kernel).

Most early SMP systems worked this way - it's relatively easy to
implement and gives good CPU utilisation on CPU-intensive tasks (that
don't need the kernel much).

-- 
Peter Jeremy


From wb at freebie.xs4all.nl  Thu May 18 19:42:03 2006
From: wb at freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:42:03 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <20060518085052.GA799@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
	<20060518085052.GA799@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <20060518094203.GA4190@freebie.xs4all.nl>

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:50:52PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote..
> On Wed, 2006-May-17 15:30:47 -0700, Stuart, Jon wrote:

> >and lots of RAM (the fastest machine SunOS 4.1.4 could run on -- and
> >I've heard that 4.1.4 did have very alpha SMP support, similar to what
> 
> SMP support started earlier than 4.1.4.  The sun4m machines (SS470,
> SS670) were the first SMP machines and ISTR they were supported in
> the last 4.0.x or early 4.1.x releases.  (I was using them at the
> time but the details have faded a bit after 15 years).

I ran a SS670MP for a while.  ISTR 4.1.1 or somesuch was the first SunOS 
to run on it.

Wilko


From lm at bitmover.com  Fri May 19 12:35:29 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:35:29 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1148004001.45222.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.3.1148004001.45222.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com>

> Michael Sokolov, it was, that writted:
>  [stuff]
> 
> ====
> 
> You silly, twisted boy, you.

Indeed.  Michael does not seem to have been taking his meds.  Nice guy but
a bit out there.

Tim wrote:
> A good example would probably be SunOS 4 - we already know that Sun are
> quite interested in open sourcing stuff given OpenSolaris, but SunOS 4
> hasn't been, presumably because it is full of stuff-they-don't-own and has
> no commercial value at all.

I'm the guy who took SunOS 4.1.3 and removed all the non-free stuff from it
(which was 90% STREAMS) and demo-ed it to McNealy in effort to set it free.
A lot went into this: http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html

There isn't much chance they'll release it and at this point it is so far
behind I'm not sure I see the point.  Even though that is the one kernel
that I really loved.

> From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au>
> SMP support started earlier than 4.1.4.  The sun4m machines (SS470,
> SS670) were the first SMP machines and ISTR they were supported in

Um, search google groups for lm at slovax - that was a 470.  It was most
definitely not an SMP box though it was my favorite Sun machine.  Great
machine, my home machine is still named slovax in honor of that box (which
was named slovax in honor of a Wisconsin 11/750 that held the 4.x BSD source
which taught me more than anything else).

And for those who care, slovax/470 now belongs to Theo Deraadt, I'm
ashamed to say that I sold it to him so I could buy some parts for my
VW van at the time.  At the time I didn't have any money, if I could do
it over again I would have given it to him.

The 670 was an SMP, that's Chuck Narad's box.  Pretty nice except that
bcopy performance was really bad.

-----

But the bigger point I wanted to make was to react to all the stuff about
OSF/1 or Ultrix or Tru64 or AIX or whatever.  Most of you probably have
no idea who I am or what we do.  I run a company that makes a software
product which runs on all those old Unix platforms.  We have all the
boxen with all the various Unix versions.

Other than SunOS 4.x, if they all fell off the face of the earth tomorrow
I couldn't be happier.  They suck.  And even SunOS sucks in some ways, it's
way behind Linux.  I'm a file system guy, I'm the last guy who did anything
significant to UFS (ask Kirk), and I have to admit that the Linux guys are
in some ways running circles around the old school Unix guys.  The one 
exception (that I know of) is ZFS.  That's pretty cool, the Linux guys
are unlikely to do anything that good, it's too complex.

But my point is that the love for the old unix versions is mostly
misplaced.  V7, you bet.  That teaches you "small" (as does Comer's
Xinu work).  But all of the vendor Unices, even my beloved SunOS, pale in
comparison to Linux.  Sad but true, I've spent a lot of time in the code.

And in some ways it isn't sad at all, it's cool.  Linux is free.

The only sad part that I still see is maybe personal.  I loved SunOS
because working in it, as a young kid, I didn't know shit.  But there
I was, hacking away.  When I started, wandering through the code made
me feel like I was in a fog, I couldn't see the next step.  But as time
went on the fog cleared and I saw this very clear and clean architecture.
It became something that you could really see and see why it was that
way and see how you could extend it and see how you shouldn't extend it.

The generic kernel source (take away drivers and file system
implementations, but keep the VFS layer) is very small.  I've lived for
many years in SunOS, I've lived in IRIX, I've lived in SCO (which is
more true to V7 than anything else), I've lived in Linux, I've read the
HP-UX code, I haven't read Ultrix, OSF/1 or AIX, but the ones I know,
they are all pretty simple.  The only one that ever cleared the fog for
me was SunOS, all the other ones looked like a mess which is why I don't
share the sentiment that we should be crying over the loss of all the
vendor Unices.

I don't want to go back.  Linux is pretty nice.  Maybe they'll fuck it
up, that seems to be a Unix OS tradition, but so far so good.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx  Fri May 19 14:28:54 2006
From: lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx (Lyrical Nanoha)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 00:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com>
References: <mailman.3.1148004001.45222.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605190024550.19301@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Tim wrote:
>> A good example would probably be SunOS 4 - we already know that Sun are
>> quite interested in open sourcing stuff given OpenSolaris, but SunOS 4
>> hasn't been, presumably because it is full of stuff-they-don't-own and has
>> no commercial value at all.
>
> I'm the guy who took SunOS 4.1.3 and removed all the non-free stuff from it
> (which was 90% STREAMS) and demo-ed it to McNealy in effort to set it free.
> A lot went into this: http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html

The idea is not unlike what I am hoping to be able to do, that is, make a 
system as close to "real" Unix as possible, and fully open-source / 
copyleft, where Linux really isn't "it", BSD is closer to this goal, and 
indeed NetBSD + Heirloom Toolchest is where I would start.  I'd like to 
see a system, and hell, if I could I'd implement it myself.  One that felt 
so like commercial Unix that you couldn't tell the difference unless you 
ran uname.  And had needed functionality without being uber-bloated like 
GNU.

-uso.


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Fri May 19 18:16:25 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:16:25 +1200
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <5980.80.75.66.29.1147941368.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
	<1147916526.446bd0ee65cc6@www.paradise.net.nz>
	<5980.80.75.66.29.1147941368.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
Message-ID: <200605192016.25862.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

Several comments spring to mind:
One - closed-source proprietary software development is a minefield waiting 
for the unwary;
Two - open-source development is self-administering as far as "contributions" 
goes, and we generally don't need people to go through on a similar "find the 
haystack -in-the-needle" search;
Three - there is usually a group of people willing to do this sort of work - 
voluntarily - as the Groklaw example shows us, so it's often more an inertia 
thingee than anything more serious.

And last but hardly least, given the rise of the law-suit residual company, 
etc, opening the source of such orphaned systems may become a necessity, 
because law-suits such as the SCO example, will succeed if the law in general 
is kept ignorant of computer history, etc.  In that case, opening the OSF1 
source tree would pay dividends in peace of mind.

Just some thoughts.

Wesley Parish

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:36, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 2:42 am, Wesley Parish wrote:
> > I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to talk Novell into releasing
> > the Unix SysVr* source code under some form of BSD/MIT X license
> > following the coming evaporation of Societe Commerciel du Ondit - the
> > SCOGroup Rumourmonging Machine.
> >
> >
> > Then get OSF1-"lite" released following that.  Eating an elephant - one
> > bite at a time.
>
> I think the problem with all these `just open source it' schemes is that
> they're simpler in theory than in practice.  In particular, in practice
> someone has to go through the source of the system checking for everything
> that might have been licensed from someone else and whose license
> agreements might prohibit its release.  Few of those things will
> (probably) have been kept track of, and the penalty for failure is that
> some nasty residual company which now owns the stuff you licensed comes
> down your throat.
>
> For orphaned systems this is a lot of work for no obvious gain (it
> wouldn't be orphaned if the organization that created it thought it had
> much value to them).
>
> A good example would probably be SunOS 4 - we already know that Sun are
> quite interested in open sourcing stuff given OpenSolaris, but SunOS 4
> hasn't been, presumably because it is full of stuff-they-don't-own and has
> no commercial value at all.
>
> --tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-------------
Mau ki ana, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku ki ana, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."


From patv at monmouth.com  Sat May 20 00:33:55 2006
From: patv at monmouth.com (patv at monmouth.com)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:33:55 EST
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
Message-ID: <200605191432.k4JEW48K025015@wwws.monmouth.com>


> 
> I don't want to go back.  Linux is pretty nice.  Maybe they'll fuck it
> up, that seems to be a Unix OS tradition, but so far so good.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           

I hate when these discussions become religious.  What I initially said was
I'd love to see what would happen if a TOG branded UNIX were open source.
 As for which one, I don't really care.  It doesn't matter which.  The
hypothetical scenario is if suddenly there was a "Open Source UNIX" out
there, what would happen to all the FUD and other marketing spin? 

This hypothetical OS could easily be a Linux based GNU distribution,
almost any BSD, or some other OS out there. I just mentioned OSF/1 because
it already has been branded UNIX.

Pat


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




From lm at bitmover.com  Sat May 20 00:42:06 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 07:42:06 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <200605191432.k4JEW48K025015@wwws.monmouth.com>
References: <200605191432.k4JEW48K025015@wwws.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <20060519144206.GA18956@bitmover.com>

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:33:55AM -0500, patv at monmouth.com wrote:
> > I don't want to go back.  Linux is pretty nice.  Maybe they'll fuck it
> > up, that seems to be a Unix OS tradition, but so far so good.
> > -- 
> > ---
> > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           
> 
> I hate when these discussions become religious.  What I initially said was
> I'd love to see what would happen if a TOG branded UNIX were open source.

Isn't Solaris what you want then?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From cowan at ccil.org  Sat May 20 00:44:36 2006
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:44:36 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <200605191432.k4JEW48K025015@wwws.monmouth.com>
References: <200605191432.k4JEW48K025015@wwws.monmouth.com>
Message-ID: <20060519144435.GD18907@ccil.org>

patv at monmouth.com scripsit:

> I hate when these discussions become religious.  What I initially said was
> I'd love to see what would happen if a TOG branded UNIX were open source.

Ah, I missed that point (and I think some others did too).  The text
below strikes me as relevant; it was written by me, edited by Eric
Raymond with my consent, and published in his name in TAOUP:

                Master Foo Discourses on the Unix-Nature

A student said to Master Foo: ``We are told that the firm called SCO
holds true dominion over Unix.''

Master Foo nodded.

The student continued, Yet we are also told that the firm called
OpenGroup also holds true dominion over Unix.''

Master Foo nodded.

``How can this be?'' asked the student.

Master Foo replied:

``SCO indeed has dominion over the code of Unix, but the code of
Unix is not Unix. OpenGroup indeed has dominion over the name of Unix,
but the name of Unix is not Unix.''

``What, then, is the Unix-nature?'' asked the student.

Master Foo replied:

``Not code. Not name. Not mind. Not things. Always changing, yet
never changing.

``The Unix-nature is simple and empty. Because it is simple and empty,
it is more powerful than a typhoon.

``Moving in accordance with the law of nature, it unfolds inexorably
in the minds of programmers, assimilating designs to its own nature. All
software that would compete with it must become like to it; empty, empty,
profoundly empty, perfectly void, hail!''

Upon hearing this, the student was enlightened.


-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org   ccil.org/~cowan
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos          --Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem             --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
  deity'll donate doughnuts                     --English version by Muke Tever
God gave gums; God'll give granary              --Version by Mat McVeagh


From tfb at tfeb.org  Sat May 20 06:41:50 2006
From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:41:50 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
In-Reply-To: <200605192016.25862.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
References: <ABD5F0691C83424997EBEBF369ED9D92062AF8F4@PHXEXHVRT01.americas.ad.pegs.com>
	<1147916526.446bd0ee65cc6@www.paradise.net.nz>
	<5980.80.75.66.29.1147941368.squirrel@www.gradwell.com>
	<200605192016.25862.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <C195F4F7-95E5-4B74-9696-92CACC751928@tfeb.org>


On 19 May 2006, at 09:16, Wesley Parish wrote:
> Three - there is usually a group of people willing to do this sort  
> of work -
> voluntarily - as the Groklaw example shows us, so it's often more  
> an inertia
> thingee than anything more serious.
>

I think this is off topic now, but the issue is that the company that  
signed the license agreements is the entity that is liable to be  
sued.  So it is their responsibility to ensure that they are safe  
from that.  That pretty much means it will cost them money, because  
*their* engineers and legal people will have to check things, and  
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the officers of the company (who  
carry the can if they get sued) that it's OK.

This doesn't mean it can't happen (as said in another branch of this,  
people within Sun have tried it before) but it does mean it's  
competing with other stuff for resource.  Would Sun (say) improve  
their chances of survival by  to open source SunOS 4 (which, although  
people romanticise it now, actually sucked, even at the time - it was  
only being better than early SunOS 5 and being a long time ago that  
make it seem nice) or to open source Java?  Or by doing neither?

Sorry for the rant, I'll shut up now.

--tim




From msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG  Fri May 19 00:34:53 2006
From: msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:34:53 GMT
Subject: [TUHS] Bell Labs Holmdel site coming down
Message-ID: <0605181434.AA03566@ivan.Harhan.ORG>

Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> wrote:

> A good example would probably be SunOS 4 - we already know that Sun are
> quite interested in open sourcing stuff given OpenSolaris, but SunOS 4
> hasn't been [...]

Yes it has been open sourced, albeit by force since they refused to do
it voluntarily:

ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG:/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/SunOS/sunos-414-source.tar.gz

SF


From lm at bitmover.com  Sun May 21 13:32:01 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 20:32:01 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 10
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1148090400.69531.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.3.1148090400.69531.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20060521033201.GA12282@bitmover.com>

> I couldn't be happier.  They suck.  And even SunOS sucks in some ways, it's
> way behind Linux.  I'm a file system guy, I'm the last guy who did anything
> significant to UFS (ask Kirk), and I have to admit that the Linux guys are

As Mike H pointed out, Kirk has been more busy than I remembered and has been
busy in UFS, so I retract that.

That point made, I think the general point that I was making, which is that 
the Linux guys seem to be moving faster, is still valid.  I'm very fond of 
UFS and have a lot of respect for Kirk, so it's not about that, it's just 
that the energy seems to be elsewhere.  For better or worse.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From grog at lemis.com  Tue May 23 12:26:54 2006
From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 11:56:54 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com>
References: <mailman.3.1148004001.45222.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <20060523022654.GF48088@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 18 May 2006 at 19:35:29 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Most of you probably have no idea who I am or what we do.

But of course!  Your reputation precedes you.

> I'm a file system guy, I'm the last guy who did anything significant
> to UFS (ask Kirk),

Hmm.  You know about the UFS2 work that Kirk did in FreeBSD over the
last few years, right?  Here's part of the last commit he did.

mckusick    2005-05-18 22:18:21 UTC

  FreeBSD src repository

  Modified files:
    sys/ufs/ufs          ufs_vnops.c
  Log:
  Allow removal of empty directories with high link counts.  ...

If you've been doing something in this time frame, I'd be very
interested in hearing about it.

Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060523/0aa283fd/attachment.sig>

From lm at bitmover.com  Tue May 23 12:38:21 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:38:21 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
In-Reply-To: <20060523022654.GF48088@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <mailman.3.1148004001.45222.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com>
	<20060523022654.GF48088@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20060523023821.GE20079@bitmover.com>

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:56:54AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> Hmm.  You know about the UFS2 work that Kirk did in FreeBSD over the
> last few years, right?  Here's part of the last commit he did.

You're right but I already sent out mail correcting that statement.

But the point I was really trying to make had little to do with UFS,
I was simply trying to establish my credentials as a kernel hack (once
upon a time).  Because without being one, making comments on all the
various Unices out there is pretty lame.

I'm perfectly happy to say Kirk is still kicking butt on UFS, in fact,
I'm ecstatic about that, I'm the guy who beat him up when he didn't
defend UFS at the LFS presentation (UFS is a much much nicer file system
and it's all about the allocation policy.  LFS doesn't really have one.
Works great for writing, sucks for reading.  Which do you do more?).
So go Kirk!

But the point being made was that I've been around the block, I've worked on
and/or looked hard at many different Unix variants and I'm not at all sad
to see them go.  Once upon a time it would have been great if SunOS 4.x 
had been open source, it was a much (and I mean MUCH) nicer place to start
than *BSD or Linux.  Much nicer.  But time has marched on and these days
I think that SunOS wouldn't be as viable.  And it's the only one that I
think would have had a chance and I work daily on all of them, we support
our product on 

	AIX
	IRIX
	Tru/64
	HP-UX
	Solaris
	SCO
	MacOS X

as well as all the free Unix variants.  Our build cluster is 35 platforms and
we get to deal with all the issues associated with all of them.  If I could
reduce that down to Linux, Windows, MacOS and Solaris I'd be happier.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From berny.goodheart at myrealbox.com  Thu May 25 07:35:35 2006
From: berny.goodheart at myrealbox.com (Berny 'Scouser' Goodheart)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 22:35:35 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 9
Message-ID: <011001c67f79$fef5f4a0$4205a6c0@FERRARI>

On Mon, 22 May 2006, 19:38:21 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:

>But the point being made was that I've been around the block, I've worked
on and/or looked hard at many different Unix variants and I'm not at all sad
to see them go.

 

Why are you here then?

 

It's a fact that many of the big-gun Unix vendors have moved on but Unix

development continues to persist, so don't put it down yet. Unix is still

very much alive and kicking. Unix has been around forever and the Unicies

that remain still offer enough diversions to mix up the market and make

things interesting for us all. If Linux was the only Unix like system out

there then what would happen if Linux went belly-up. It could easily

happen if the big Linux vendors Redhat, Suse etc went to the dogs. Having

other Unix systems out their competing with each other as well as Linux is

healthy.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060524/34b0a330/attachment.html>

From lm at bitmover.com  Thu May 25 12:38:42 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:38:42 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1148522401.17245.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.3.1148522401.17245.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20060525023842.GC14330@bitmover.com>

> >But the point being made was that I've been around the block, I've worked
> >on and/or looked hard at many different Unix variants and I'm not at all sad
> >to see them go.
> 
> Why are you here then?

Good question.  I like it here, I like old Unix.  I have little fondness
for all the commercial unices, see http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html
for my reasons.

I think you may be confusing my dislike for commercial unix with a dislike
for unix.  If so, that's mistake because I love Unix.  I've dedicated a
huge portion of my life to helping unix as best I can.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Thu May 25 13:39:33 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:39:33 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] unix v7 c compiler
Message-ID: <000a01c67fac$d7333e40$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

    I have a copy of a unix v7 c compiler that doesn't work for some reason
c0 the first pass doesn't work. How can I rebuild and repair c0.

Bill




From arnold at skeeve.com  Fri May 26 05:10:27 2006
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 22:10:27 +0300
Subject: [TUHS] papers on the -mm macros?
Message-ID: <200605251910.k4PJARBV004210@skeeve.com>

OK, so I'm wwwwwaaaaaaayyyyyyy behind on reading TUHS.

I just wanted to say that if you can find a copy of the third edition
of "Unix In A Nutshell" (NOT the current fourth edition) you'll find
a chapter on the MM macros. It should be enough to make use of them,
as I did buy one of the SysIII licenses and I have a copy of this paper
that I referred to when writing that chapter.

And groff did do a good enough job formatting it that I was able
to print it out and it looked reasonable if not perfect. (Of course,
that was circa 1999...)

If I ever Get A Round Tuit I want to take the troff material from that
edition and do it as an ebook for O'Reilly. But I don't know when or
even if that'll ever happen.

Arnold

> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:25:49 +0100
> From: Gunnar Ritter <gunnarr at acm.org>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] papers on the -mm macros?
> To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org, "A. Wik" <aw at aw.gs>
>
> "A. Wik" <aw at aw.gs> wrote:
>
> > I've found the documentation for most of the major
> > troff preprocessors and macros packages, but I can't
> > seem to find anything but occasional references to a
> > paper on the "Programmer's Memorandum Macros" (troff -mm)
> > by Smith and Mashey.
>
> The source code for this paper had been available as part
> of the System III distribution under the old (unfree) SCO
> license.
>
> In case you had applied for that license, and you still
> have an old PUPS archive CD at hand, you can find it in
> Distributions/usdl/SysIII/sys3.tar.gz.
>
> You will not be able to recover the original layout since
> PostScript font metrics are quite different from CAT ones,
> but Heirloom troff produces readable output at least.
>
> 	Gunnar


From billcu1 at verizon.net  Sat May 27 07:18:25 2006
From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:18:25 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] V7 unix
Message-ID: <000301c68109$edd3b040$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>

        Greetings Hellwig

Mine Brooder in Unix Dast ist!

I have noticed something about your v7 creation. When I try to use the C
compiler to compile fp support or any system structures(not structs but
components) I get an error /lib/c0 so there's something wrong with the c0
pass in libc. It was probably that way when the tapes were recovered. I have
managed to compile and assemble all the c source in the /usr/src/cmd/c
directory into object files so the assembler works. What should I do
manually with all these .o files? I need a working compiler.

Bill




From vasco at icpnet.pl  Sat May 27 18:07:40 2006
From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:07:40 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] V7 unix
In-Reply-To: <000301c68109$edd3b040$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
References: <000301c68109$edd3b040$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <447808CC.50701@icpnet.pl>

Bill Cunningham napisał(a):

>        Greetings Hellwig
>
>Mine Brooder in Unix Dast ist!
>
>I have noticed something about your v7 creation. When I try to use the C
>compiler to compile fp support or any system structures(not structs but
>components) I get an error /lib/c0 so there's something wrong with the c0
>pass in libc. It was probably that way when the tapes were recovered. I have
>managed to compile and assemble all the c source in the /usr/src/cmd/c
>directory into object files so the assembler works. What should I do
>manually with all these .o files? I need a working compiler.
>
>Bill
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>  
>
What about using portable pcc ?

Andrzej


From Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de  Sat May 27 19:23:25 2006
From: Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de (Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de)
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 11:23:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [TUHS] V7 unix
In-Reply-To: <000301c68109$edd3b040$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com>
Message-ID: <XFMail.20060527112325.Hellwig.Geisse@mni.fh-giessen.de>

Hi Bill,

On 26-May-2006 Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I have noticed something about your v7 creation. When I try to use the C
> compiler to compile fp support or any system structures(not structs but
> components) I get an error /lib/c0 so there's something wrong with the c0
> pass in libc. It was probably that way when the tapes were recovered. I have
> managed to compile and assemble all the c source in the /usr/src/cmd/c
> directory into object files so the assembler works. What should I do
> manually with all these .o files? I need a working compiler.

in principle, the .o files have to be bound (together with
the libraries) by the linker, which produces the executable.
But this is tedious to do manually, so you better use the
makefile (and the "make" utility) to run the necessary
commands automatically.

I can reproduce your problem with the c0 pass. I don't
know the exact cause but I guess it has nothing to do
with the compiler itself. I found a workaround: reset
the sticky bit for cc, i.e., do a "chmod 755 cc" in /bin.
At least on my machine I then can run the makefile for
building cc without errors.

Hellwig



