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: 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: (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> 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: 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: 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: References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Andru Luvisi 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: 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> <7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 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: References: <7d3530220605232246q7ef9823cyae4d146b21c3d8fb@mail.gmail.com> <7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d3530220605241242x2f23e3fse70658b46e50c26d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Andru Luvisi 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. 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: 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> <7d3530220605241225s76114e0ay227ef387a9c86699@mail.gmail.com> <7d3530220605241242x2f23e3fse70658b46e50c26d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 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: <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 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" 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: References: 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: <20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com> Message-ID: 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: References: <20060515042238.GA25047@bitmover.com> 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: Message-ID: <003501c6780e$6be0aec0$4405a6c0@FERRARI> From: "A. Wik" > > 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: 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: 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: References: 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: 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: <20060517231329.GF13940@ccil.org> Message-ID: <1147916526.446bd0ee65cc6@www.paradise.net.nz> Quoting John Cowan : > 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 > > -- > 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: <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: References: 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: <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: References: 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 > 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: <20060519023529.GD17801@bitmover.com> Message-ID: 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: <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: <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: 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 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: References: 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: <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: 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: <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: 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: References: 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 > Subject: Re: [TUHS] papers on the -mm macros? > To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org, "A. Wik" > > "A. Wik" 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: 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