From folkert at vanheusden.com Mon Apr 7 17:22:31 2025 From: folkert at vanheusden.com (Folkert van Heusden) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 09:22:31 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator Message-ID: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Hi, For fun I'm developing a PDP 11/70 emulator. It runs on everything from ESP32 microcontrollers up to linux, windows, etc https://vanheusden.com/emulation/PDP-11/kek/ Currently it can run UNIX 7 in multi user mode. Of course I would like it to run BSD 2.11 as well (because of the networking support). It boots, but after outputting the memory amounts it produces a lot of garbage. It does eventually complete booting and then allows you to log in. I wonder if you sees this: https://paste.nurd.space/mqIDB_0SjoDoJoasOGkiNQ_NjpRsCufAJCnKTA7ZxUI (text) or https://imgpaste.nurd.space/pics/437bcf0d149a017168cbbf2def8560917a037a3935c5c3aa1fbea2f7e43b485a.png (image), does this ring a bell to anyone? I verified with simh that the disk-image should work. regards -- www.vanheusden.com From kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com Mon Apr 7 22:02:30 2025 From: kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com (Kenneth Goodwin) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:02:30 -0000 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should be the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic buffers. User memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless it is referring to limits of mmu per process and not total available for all user level programs. 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data dumped from Ram. Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in memory is potentially being accessed. Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu for your image file. For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image you are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to run on a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of combined user and data. On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 3:30 AM Folkert van Heusden wrote: > Hi, > > For fun I'm developing a PDP 11/70 emulator. It runs on everything from > ESP32 microcontrollers up to linux, windows, etc > https://vanheusden.com/emulation/PDP-11/kek/ > Currently it can run UNIX 7 in multi user mode. > Of course I would like it to run BSD 2.11 as well (because of the > networking support). It boots, but after outputting the memory amounts > it produces a lot of garbage. It does eventually complete booting and > then allows you to log in. > I wonder if you sees this: > https://paste.nurd.space/mqIDB_0SjoDoJoasOGkiNQ_NjpRsCufAJCnKTA7ZxUI > (text) or > > https://imgpaste.nurd.space/pics/437bcf0d149a017168cbbf2def8560917a037a3935c5c3aa1fbea2f7e43b485a.png > (image), does this ring a bell to anyone? I verified with simh that the > disk-image should work. > > > regards > > -- > www.vanheusden.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com Mon Apr 7 22:07:59 2025 From: kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com (Kenneth Goodwin) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:07:59 -0000 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: Something is definitely off with memory layout. That 300000 user memory is not a reference to even the maximum split i/d image size. If your bsd image has kernel dynamic buffer configuration limit parameters, you could tweak those down say 50% to see what happens. (Not a BSD kernel hacker and it's been a while since I last read over the source code) On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 8:02 AM Kenneth Goodwin wrote: > To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. > > 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should be > the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic buffers. User > memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless it is referring to > limits of mmu per process and not total available for all user level > programs. > > 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data > dumped from Ram. > Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in memory > is potentially being accessed. > > Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu for > your image file. > > For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image you > are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. > > The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k > instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to run on > a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of combined > user and data. > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 3:30 AM Folkert van Heusden > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> For fun I'm developing a PDP 11/70 emulator. It runs on everything from >> ESP32 microcontrollers up to linux, windows, etc >> https://vanheusden.com/emulation/PDP-11/kek/ >> Currently it can run UNIX 7 in multi user mode. >> Of course I would like it to run BSD 2.11 as well (because of the >> networking support). It boots, but after outputting the memory amounts >> it produces a lot of garbage. It does eventually complete booting and >> then allows you to log in. >> I wonder if you sees this: >> https://paste.nurd.space/mqIDB_0SjoDoJoasOGkiNQ_NjpRsCufAJCnKTA7ZxUI >> (text) or >> >> https://imgpaste.nurd.space/pics/437bcf0d149a017168cbbf2def8560917a037a3935c5c3aa1fbea2f7e43b485a.png >> (image), does this ring a bell to anyone? I verified with simh that the >> disk-image should work. >> >> >> regards >> >> -- >> www.vanheusden.com >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ron at ronnatalie.com Tue Apr 8 02:15:34 2025 From: ron at ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 16:15:34 -0000 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: The 45 also has split I/D. The 11/ 70 is designed that if you can put a kernel that is cognizant only of the lower numbers in the line, it will still work. ------ Original Message ------ >From "Kenneth Goodwin" To "Folkert van Heusden" Cc "The Eunuchs Hysterical Society" Date 4/7/2025 8:02:01 AM Subject [TUHS] Re: running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator >To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. > >1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should >be the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic >buffers. User memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless >it is referring to limits of mmu per process and not total available >for all user level programs. > >2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data >dumped from Ram. >Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in >memory is potentially being accessed. > >Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu >for your image file. > >For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image >you are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. > >The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k >instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to >run on a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of >combined user and data. > >On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 3:30 AM Folkert van Heusden > wrote: >>Hi, >> >>For fun I'm developing a PDP 11/70 emulator. It runs on everything >>from >>ESP32 microcontrollers up to linux, windows, etc >>https://vanheusden.com/emulation/PDP-11/kek/ >>Currently it can run UNIX 7 in multi user mode. >>Of course I would like it to run BSD 2.11 as well (because of the >>networking support). It boots, but after outputting the memory amounts >>it produces a lot of garbage. It does eventually complete booting and >>then allows you to log in. >>I wonder if you sees this: >>https://paste.nurd.space/mqIDB_0SjoDoJoasOGkiNQ_NjpRsCufAJCnKTA7ZxUI >>(text) or >>https://imgpaste.nurd.space/pics/437bcf0d149a017168cbbf2def8560917a037a3935c5c3aa1fbea2f7e43b485a.png >>(image), does this ring a bell to anyone? I verified with simh that >>the >>disk-image should work. >> >> >>regards >> >>-- >>www.vanheusden.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 21:17:44 2025 From: kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com (Kenneth Goodwin) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 07:17:44 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: It is the BSD kernel or the emulator setup I question as to being correct. The clues being An almost 4 mb available memory coupled to a roughly 300 kb user space. The 300kb doesn't make sense at all from the limits of the split i/d memory layout. It's roughly 10% of available. It's inferring that the kernel itself is being configured as a 3.5 mb runtime image. Almost as if dynamic kernel level buffers are being over allocated by a configuration parameter or a miscalculation. The other clue being the dump of the printf style format strings from the data portion of the involved user space program images as it boots. That's the sign of a wrong address potentially being used. An address fault causing an abend happening to multiple binaries being launched for example These are the anomalies I see. The solution requires someone very familiar with the bsd 2.11 boot up sequence and the underlying executables involved. I am a V6, v7. System V head. Unfortunately Mr. Jolitz is no longer with us. As I recall, the bsd folks were back porting some of the features of the Vax virtual version of the bsd kernel as appropriate to the pdp version. I dont recall what was involved in that effort. The source code environment for 2.11 would help. I also don't know if those failure messages are coming from the bsd image handling address faults etc. or the actual emulator underneath detecting problems in the binary as it executes it. So the questions to be answered are 1. Why is the user memory only 10% of the available? 2. What is dumping and the "why of it" the text strings in the data space portion of the program image? I don't the answer. But it all strikes me as odd. On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 12:15 PM Ron Natalie wrote: > The 45 also has split I/D. The 11/ 70 is designed that if you can put a > kernel that is cognizant only of the lower numbers in the line, it will > still work. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From "Kenneth Goodwin" > To "Folkert van Heusden" > Cc "The Eunuchs Hysterical Society" > Date 4/7/2025 8:02:01 AM > Subject [TUHS] Re: running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator > > To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. > > 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should be > the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic buffers. User > memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless it is referring to > limits of mmu per process and not total available for all user level > programs. > > 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data > dumped from Ram. > Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in memory > is potentially being accessed. > > Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu for > your image file. > > For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image you > are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. > > The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k > instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to run on > a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of combined > user and data. > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 3:30 AM Folkert van Heusden > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> For fun I'm developing a PDP 11/70 emulator. It runs on everything from >> ESP32 microcontrollers up to linux, windows, etc >> https://vanheusden.com/emulation/PDP-11/kek/ >> Currently it can run UNIX 7 in multi user mode. >> Of course I would like it to run BSD 2.11 as well (because of the >> networking support). It boots, but after outputting the memory amounts >> it produces a lot of garbage. It does eventually complete booting and >> then allows you to log in. >> I wonder if you sees this: >> https://paste.nurd.space/mqIDB_0SjoDoJoasOGkiNQ_NjpRsCufAJCnKTA7ZxUI >> (text) or >> >> https://imgpaste.nurd.space/pics/437bcf0d149a017168cbbf2def8560917a037a3935c5c3aa1fbea2f7e43b485a.png >> (image), does this ring a bell to anyone? I verified with simh that the >> disk-image should work. >> >> >> regards >> >> -- >> www.vanheusden.com >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phil at ultimate.com Wed Apr 9 04:42:26 2025 From: phil at ultimate.com (Phil Budne) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:42:26 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: <202504081842.538IgQDM074804@ultimate.com> A fun thing 2.11BSD does is it runs networking in supervisor code in supervisor mode so that mbufs don't need to appear in the kernel address space. It was the first thing that came to my mind when you mentioned having trouble. This is what I see booting 2.11 under SimH: 44Boot from ra(0,0,0) at 0172150 : unix Boot: bootdev=02400 bootcsr=0172150 2.11 BSD UNIX #19: Sun Jun 17 16:44:43 PDT 2012 root at pdp11:/usr/src/sys/ZEKE ra0: Ver 3 mod 3 ra0: RA82 size=1954000 attaching de0 csr 174510 attaching lo0 phys mem = 3932160 avail mem = 3553344 user mem = 307200 May 26 12:08:51 init: configure system dz 0 csr 160100 vector 310 attached ra 0 csr 172150 vector 154 vectorset attached erase, kill ^U, intr ^C # A quick look at the code (the best documentation): "user mem" output is the result of: printf("user mem = %D\n", ctob((long)MAXMEM)); in init_main.c MAXMEM is defined in param.h: /* * MAXMEM is the maximum core per process is allowed. First number is Kb. */ #define MAXMEM (300*16) So the number being output seems like the intended value. From folkert at vanheusden.com Wed Apr 9 05:11:47 2025 From: folkert at vanheusden.com (Folkert van Heusden) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 21:11:47 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: 1. sounds like a calculation bug of some sort. possible, but not likely: I patched simh to output a set of large JSON-files with tests and their outcomes so that I can verify my emulator with the gold standard of pdp emulation without simply copying the simh-code (hopefully one day I can produce that set with a real hardware pdp 11/7). sofar I fixed all problems I found (a few flag problems and handling of the PSW). 2. yeah I have a suspicion that it might be a problem in one of the more complex addressing modes (@xxx(R7) for example where some of it comes from I space and some of D-space). am writing tests or that now. regarding the 11/45 versus 11/70: I set the cpu to 11/70 when verifying the disk-image with simh. so it should run in a 11/70. 3. if I do that, the "avail mem" goes down with it, user mem stays 307200. [1*: https://vanheusden.com/git/folkert/simh-testsetgenerator/src/branch/valgen look for test.c] On 2025-04-07 14:02, Kenneth Goodwin wrote: > To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. > > 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should > be the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic > buffers. User memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless > it is referring to limits of mmu per process and not total available > for all user level programs. > > 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data > dumped from Ram. > Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in > memory is potentially being accessed. > > Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu > for your image file. > > For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image > you are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. > > The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k > instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to > run on a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of > combined user and data. > [ this suggestion came from Kenneth's 2nd reply, added in this message to prevent a lot of reply-mails by me ] > 3. If your bsd image has kernel dynamic buffer configuration limit > parameters, you could tweak those down say 50% to see what happens. > (Not a BSD kernel hacker and it's been a while since I last read over > the source code) From henry.r.bent at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 06:01:33 2025 From: henry.r.bent at gmail.com (Henry Bent) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:01:33 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD Patch Announcements Message-ID: Hi all, I see that there has been quite a bit of activity in the last few weeks with 2.11BSD, resulting in the release of a number of patches. Is there any sort of announcement list that one could subscribe to in order to be notified of when these patch releases occur? Would it make sense to post patch announcements to the TUHS or SIMH lists? TUHS seems somewhat natural since one of the patch distribution methods is through their archive, though I am open to thoughts that anyone else has about this. I only happened to be aware of the patches because I have the "History of the Berkeley Software Distribution" page on my Wikipedia watchlist and someone has been very diligent about updating the 2.11BSD patch status there. -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Wed Apr 9 06:24:51 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 20:24:51 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Current Status of AT&T/USL Licensing? Message-ID: So System V shops had to hold a license with AT&T to modify and redistribute code based on UNIX System V and they would then license directly with their customers correct? This being distinct from the way licensing with BSD was concerned in that you had to pursue the license with AT&T to then use BSD. That is my current understanding anyway that I base this question on. So IBM, DEC, Sun, HP, Microsoft, etc. approach AT&T, got a source license, and started producing their System V value adds out there in the world. In this present day and age, for those still shipping genuine System V derivatives, what does this licensing landscape actually look like? Do the players still in the game still refer to whatever license they started with back in the 80s, did they renew up until say SVR4 when folks stopped drinking from the USL well, or are there still ongoing licenses that the remaining vendors have to renew to distribute their software? Where I'm going with this is just another angle on the whole "who owns System V" question which comes up in my mind all the time. Knowing the specific legal entities involved in the most recent licensing documentation would certainly factor into understanding the landscape a little better. To boil that down to a specific example, once upon a time, Sun held a license with AT&T to use, modify, and redistribute UNIX System V. At the present moment, Oracle is the distributor of Solaris. If there is a piece of licensing paperwork sitting in a filing cabinet at Oracle somewhere, who would that paperwork say is the original licensor of the product? Would that even matter in this year of 2025? - Matt G. From athornton at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 07:07:20 2025 From: athornton at gmail.com (Adam Thornton) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 14:07:20 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD Patch Announcements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hear about most of them on the PiDP-11 mailing list. I think PiDP-11 users have provided most of the recent motivation for the flurry of 2.11BSD activity. Adam On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 1:19 PM Henry Bent wrote: > Hi all, > > I see that there has been quite a bit of activity in the last few weeks > with 2.11BSD, resulting in the release of a number of patches. Is there > any sort of announcement list that one could subscribe to in order to be > notified of when these patch releases occur? Would it make sense to post > patch announcements to the TUHS or SIMH lists? TUHS seems somewhat natural > since one of the patch distribution methods is through their archive, > though I am open to thoughts that anyone else has about this. I only > happened to be aware of the patches because I have the "History of the > Berkeley Software Distribution" page on my Wikipedia watchlist and someone > has been very diligent about updating the 2.11BSD patch status there. > > -Henry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From imp at bsdimp.com Wed Apr 9 07:20:09 2025 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:20:09 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] Current Status of AT&T/USL Licensing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:25 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > Where I'm going with this is just another angle on the whole "who owns > System V" > question which comes up in my mind all the time. Knowing the specific > legal > entities involved in the most recent licensing documentation would > certainly > factor into understanding the landscape a little better. > We don't even know, for sure, who owns Unix, apart from The Open Group definitely owns the trademark and the whole POSIX stuff. Though we can make some good guesses. Novell had the copyrights, as far as anybody could tell. Let's assume that was true (not a big leap, but a point that's been contested in the past). They sold it to attachmate, who sold it to MicroFocus who sold it to OpenText. At least that's the paper trail, except the last step, that I think I can document on the US copyright registration web site. There's changes that release interest in the copyright filed 1/31/2023, which corresponds with the sale to OpenText. But I can't find OpenText's name on the new copyright paperwork, which is a bit weird since the older filings for the sale to MicroFocus have their name on it. It's part of a huge bundle of works transferred (like 1800 works). It includes System V, System V release 2; release 3; release 4, unixware and a couple of other things you'd expect to find here. But nothing for OpenText or Open Text that I saw. I'm sure those more skilled than I will surface those records. https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=Unix%20System%20V&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&REC=0&RD=0&RC=0&PID=Yig8CwgSX_JCL5yGUgrC0eBzQf4i16&SEQ=20250408171535&SID=3 might be useful to people to mine further. I imagine that OpenText is still getting at least a tiny royalty stream from sales of System V derived software, but I can't imagine that would be very large since I recall reading IBM, Digital, Sun and SGI all getting "paid up" licenses that required no future royalty. But I have no original sources for this information. Interestingly enough,on the above loc.gov web site, there's nothing for 6th edition, 7th edition or 32V or any of the variations I could think of. This fits with Clem's assertion that these were only trade secrets whose secret status was blown up decades ago. System III also has no registration (though System 3 found too many IBM System/3 systems to be a useful search). Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henry.r.bent at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 07:24:21 2025 From: henry.r.bent at gmail.com (Henry Bent) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:24:21 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD Patch Announcements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 17:07, Adam Thornton wrote: > I hear about most of them on the PiDP-11 mailing list. I think PiDP-11 > users have provided most of the recent motivation for the flurry of 2.11BSD > activity. > > Adam > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 1:19 PM Henry Bent wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I see that there has been quite a bit of activity in the last few weeks >> with 2.11BSD, resulting in the release of a number of patches. Is there >> any sort of announcement list that one could subscribe to in order to be >> notified of when these patch releases occur? Would it make sense to post >> patch announcements to the TUHS or SIMH lists? TUHS seems somewhat natural >> since one of the patch distribution methods is through their archive, >> though I am open to thoughts that anyone else has about this. I only >> happened to be aware of the patches because I have the "History of the >> Berkeley Software Distribution" page on my Wikipedia watchlist and someone >> has been very diligent about updating the 2.11BSD patch status there. >> >> -Henry >> > It's wonderful that there is activity around that particular implementation of the PDP-11, but since this is a much larger community I'm trying to think of ways that will engage the widest possible audience, hopefully without disturbing anyone or feeling off-topic. -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Wed Apr 9 07:33:31 2025 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:33:31 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: Do you pass the DEC diagnostics? They are not perfect, but they can sometimes tease out some of the interesting corner cases, although the OS's are known to be even better at that, albeit with less interesting diagnostics. Also, did you try Ultrix, which is one step farther than V7 but not quite as far as 2.11BSD? Another thing I learned from reading your comments that got me thinking a little: IIRC the red/yellow zone stuff for the stack is different between PDP-11 implementations. As Phil noted, 2.11BSD differs from V7 and Ultrix in that they tried adding more Vax logic into it. >>I have not looked at the 2.11BSD sources<< to check, but it possible/likely that Steven and team redid that code. So I would check to see what V7 is doing on a 70 when it gets a stack fault and needs to grow it vs. the 2.11BSD code. ᐧ On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 3:11 PM Folkert van Heusden wrote: > 1. sounds like a calculation bug of some sort. possible, but not likely: > I patched simh to output a set of large JSON-files with tests and their > outcomes so that I can verify my emulator with the gold standard of pdp > emulation without simply copying the simh-code (hopefully one day I can > produce that set with a real hardware pdp 11/7). sofar I fixed all > problems I found (a few flag problems and handling of the PSW). > > 2. yeah I have a suspicion that it might be a problem in one of the more > complex addressing modes (@xxx(R7) for example where some of it comes > from I space and some of D-space). am writing tests or that now. > regarding the 11/45 versus 11/70: I set the cpu to 11/70 when verifying > the disk-image with simh. so it should run in a 11/70. > > 3. if I do that, the "avail mem" goes down with it, user mem stays > 307200. > > [1*: > https://vanheusden.com/git/folkert/simh-testsetgenerator/src/branch/valgen > look for test.c] > > On 2025-04-07 14:02, Kenneth Goodwin wrote: > > > To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. > > > > 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should > > be the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic > > buffers. User memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless > > it is referring to limits of mmu per process and not total available > > for all user level programs. > > > > 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data > > dumped from Ram. > > Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in > > memory is potentially being accessed. > > > > Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu > > for your image file. > > > > For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image > > you are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. > > > > The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k > > instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to > > run on a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of > > combined user and data. > > > > [ this suggestion came from Kenneth's 2nd reply, added in this message > to prevent a lot of reply-mails by me ] > > > 3. If your bsd image has kernel dynamic buffer configuration limit > > parameters, you could tweak those down say 50% to see what happens. > > (Not a BSD kernel hacker and it's been a while since I last read over > > the source code) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clemc at ccc.com Wed Apr 9 09:09:55 2025 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:09:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Current Status of AT&T/USL Licensing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 4:25 PM segaloco via TUHS > wrote: > So System V shops had to hold a license with AT&T to modify and > redistribute > code based on UNIX System V and they would then license directly with their > customers correct? You are talking about two different licenses (with three fees, actually). > This being distinct from the way licensing with BSD was > concerned in that you had to pursue the license with AT&T to then use BSD. > That > is my current understanding anyway that I base this question on. > Right... that would worked for any version of the UNIX license from Fifth Edition through SVR5, which I believe was the last license that Novell released to the world. If you are a *commercial customer*, the license grants you the right to have the sources and use them on a >>single<< CPU, which is named (via make and serial number) in the license. Each additional CPU must be named and licensed separately at a reduced fee. The universities and research institutions had a non-commercial license that did not name a CPU. They could use the AT&T IP anywhere as long as it was for non-commercial purposes [more in a minute—there is a catch-22]. Either of these licenses also gives you the right to *share your sources with anyone else who has a source license from AT&T for the same (or a lesser) version*. That is, if you had a System 3.0 [renamed Sys III] or later System V license, you could still obtain things from someone with a V6 or V7 license (like UCB say), but since you were Sytem III and they V7 or V32, you could only give them code that was based on the license they had. For example, SCCS was part of PWB 2.0 originally and officially left the labs as part of and Sytem 3.0. Remember the research license only included V5, V6, V7, and V32 — not PWB, nor System 3 While SCCS "leaked" to some of the Universities via AT&T Employee's (the OYOCs), the Universities were technically not licensed for it, which is why, of course, even though it is being used at UCB, it's not in the BSD source distribution and also why UCB switched to RCS as soon as it was available (because it done at another University and was >>freely<< open source, not just AT&T licensed and open with the AT&T license community. The interesting catch-22 came about when Universities (like CMU originally) started using UNIX commercially internally for things like billing and student records. A few of us grew uncomfortable about this pretty blatant misuse in Mellon Institute, CMU's semi-cokmerical arm, which was using UNIX as its development system for the projects they contracted (like the Pittsburgh Press automation, USS Steel, Alcoa, and even the Israeli Army. In fact, in mid-1978, Danny Klein and I went on strike at Mellon Institute, and Al Arm's of AT&T Patent and Licensing team offered a compromise where CMU bought one commercial license and named the Mellon Institute PDP-11 as the CMU commercial host. Officially, any work, like the work that started to be done for the CMU back-office, even if it ran on a different system, was officially designated as work for Mellon. I know Case-Western got a similar license in late 1979 because I told Fred Park about it when he was working with us at Tektronix in the Summer of 1979. I believe UCB and Purdue also followed suit, but I never knew. > So IBM, DEC, Sun, HP, Microsoft, etc. approach AT&T, got a source license, err.. Sun was not there, thank you very much... [they would not exist for another 6 years]. With the release of the V7 license, a group of Prof. Dennis Allison's clients were brought together at Ricki's Hyatt in Palo Alto [I was there, and it is, as I have said in other messages, the only time I ever met Gates]. The firms I remember that were there (besides Al Arms for AT&T) were IBM, Tektronix, DEC, HP, Microsoft, 3Com, and what would eventually become SCO. There were a couple of others, but I do not remember who they were. Somebody like Bruce Borden, who was representing 3Com, might, and Dennis might remember who he invited from his client list. At that point, AT&T had produced the V7 "redistribution" license, which once you had a source license, then allowed you (for a per CPU fee) the right redistribute the AT&T IP. Let's just say the terms were pretty bad. I'll not go into them here. This first meeting resulted in a set of follow-up meetings to create what would eventually become the Sytem 3.0 redistribution license (and the new Sytem 3.0 source license). This group would also eventually create what would become /usr/group, but that's another story. As I said, AT&T Marketing decided to change the marketing materials to System III at the last minute. But all the docs and the licenses say *System 3.0* because they were already through the print cycle for the former and the legal approval cycle for the latter. The key is that a commercial firm had to pay for the right to have the source only on >>specific<< CPUs and then the rights redistribution, and then on a per redistributed binary, a license for each of those CPUs (3 different fees). BTW, the whole X-user license stuff for end-user binaries was because of the redistribution license fees. The fee the licensee paid to AT&T for a binary that ran a "workstation" was significantly cheaper than one that ran an eight or 16-user, much less 32 or 64-user time-sharing machine [thank you, Microsoft and DEC actually -- I can explain how this all happened in another email if folks are interested]. With later redistribution licenses for later AT&T releases such as System V, SRV2, SRV3, SRV4, some of the source license storage requirements were relaxed, but for this list, please understand there is the core source license (which is based on each release) and then a redistribution license for the release, and per CPU license BTW: the primary reason why OSF was created was because everytime AT&T made a new OS release, they changed the redistribution license terms. If you look at the OSF found principles the first one is "*stable license terms.*" It really was a problem for everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 13:11:55 2025 From: kennethgoodwin56 at gmail.com (Kenneth Goodwin) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 23:11:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: Sorry I dont have time to look at source code. Usermem is a hard coded compile time static unless ctob() is pulling in some boot time variable from all appearances. Compare your output from the boot to the other parties to see what is different. As well as your emulator and bsd configurations. I think his name was Phil... sorry in advance 😅 😔 (Sorry. Can't split screen on this smart phone) I am personnel curious as to WHY USER MAXMEM has this hard coded value of 300kb It's bigger than the 128k limit of split i/d. Last bsd kernel I looked at years ago was 2.9 And the pieces that Pyramid Tech used for their dual universe 32 bit virtual based on the bsd Vax releases. Does 2.11 have some form of shared memory that is bank selected so that a physical process can be as large as 300kb ? Or is it limiting the aggregate memory of user process, mbufs. Disk buffers and other kernel resources an Individual process can utilize?? On Tue, Apr 8, 2025, 3:11 PM Folkert van Heusden wrote: > 1. sounds like a calculation bug of some sort. possible, but not likely: > I patched simh to output a set of large JSON-files with tests and their > outcomes so that I can verify my emulator with the gold standard of pdp > emulation without simply copying the simh-code (hopefully one day I can > produce that set with a real hardware pdp 11/7). sofar I fixed all > problems I found (a few flag problems and handling of the PSW). > > 2. yeah I have a suspicion that it might be a problem in one of the more > complex addressing modes (@xxx(R7) for example where some of it comes > from I space and some of D-space). am writing tests or that now. > regarding the 11/45 versus 11/70: I set the cpu to 11/70 when verifying > the disk-image with simh. so it should run in a 11/70. > > 3. if I do that, the "avail mem" goes down with it, user mem stays > 307200. > > [1*: > https://vanheusden.com/git/folkert/simh-testsetgenerator/src/branch/valgen > look for test.c] > > On 2025-04-07 14:02, Kenneth Goodwin wrote: > > > To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU etc. > > > > 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which should > > be the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic > > buffers. User memory should be alot closer to available number. Unless > > it is referring to limits of mmu per process and not total available > > for all user level programs. > > > > 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data > > dumped from Ram. > > Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in > > memory is potentially being accessed. > > > > Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu > > for your image file. > > > > For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary image > > you are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. > > > > The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. 64k > > instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to > > run on a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb of > > combined user and data. > > > > [ this suggestion came from Kenneth's 2nd reply, added in this message > to prevent a lot of reply-mails by me ] > > > 3. If your bsd image has kernel dynamic buffer configuration limit > > parameters, you could tweak those down say 50% to see what happens. > > (Not a BSD kernel hacker and it's been a while since I last read over > > the source code) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lyndon at orthanc.ca Thu Apr 10 03:10:14 2025 From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 10:10:14 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Current Status of AT&T/USL Licensing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c3485d580443b1a@orthanc.ca> segaloco via TUHS writes: > To boil that down to a specific example, once upon a time, Sun held > a license with AT&T to use, modify, and redistribute UNIX System > V. At the present moment, Oracle is the distributor of Solaris. > If there is a piece of licensing paperwork sitting in a filing > cabinet at Oracle somewhere, who would that paperwork say is the > original licensor of the product? Would that even matter in this > year of 2025? At some point Sun bought out their license from AT&T. My guess is it was pre-Solaris 9, as that buyout was what let them start offering up Solaris 9 source code on an experimental basis, and then fully unleashing it with the Solaris 10 release. As Warren mentions, others might have done the same, but I have no knowledge of any deals other than Sun's. --lyndon From tuhs at tuhs.org Thu Apr 10 03:39:51 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (Alan Coopersmith via TUHS) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 10:39:51 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Current Status of AT&T/USL Licensing? In-Reply-To: <1c3485d580443b1a@orthanc.ca> References: <1c3485d580443b1a@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: On 4/9/25 10:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote: > segaloco via TUHS writes: > >> To boil that down to a specific example, once upon a time, Sun held >> a license with AT&T to use, modify, and redistribute UNIX System >> V. At the present moment, Oracle is the distributor of Solaris. >> If there is a piece of licensing paperwork sitting in a filing >> cabinet at Oracle somewhere, who would that paperwork say is the >> original licensor of the product? Would that even matter in this >> year of 2025? > > At some point Sun bought out their license from AT&T. From Novell, since AT&T had already sold USL to Novell by then: https://www.upi.com/amp/Archives/1994/03/17/Sun-Micro-pays-Novell-825-million-to-end-license-deal/7075763880400/ -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at oracle.com Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/solaris From sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au Thu Apr 10 07:52:43 2025 From: sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au (sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 07:52:43 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Current Status of AT&T/USL Licensing? In-Reply-To: <1c3485d580443b1a@orthanc.ca> References: <1c3485d580443b1a@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: <865365B1-E258-41B4-BE7D-15F50DAEC34B@canb.auug.org.au> For completeness, SUN & AT&T merged their lines, at least Userland, with SVR4, with, I believe, SUN paying a perpetual fee for its license. [ refs only for the merge, not license deal ] TUHS, Larry McVoy Excerpt from Solaris 8 System Admin Manual, 2000 Bill Calkins, ‘History of Solaris' Calkins makes the point the merge was to resolve the “Unix Wars”, to have one product going up against Windows NT. "UNIX is plural. It is not one operating system but, many implementations of an idea that originated in 1965." > On 10 Apr 2025, at 03:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote: > > At some point Sun bought out their license from AT&T. My guess is > it was pre-Solaris 9, as that buyout was what let them start offering > up Solaris 9 source code on an experimental basis, and then fully > unleashing it with the Solaris 10 release. > > As Warren mentions, others might have done the same, but I > have no knowledge of any deals other than Sun's. > > --lyndon -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From folkert at vanheusden.com Wed Apr 16 06:05:13 2025 From: folkert at vanheusden.com (Folkert van Heusden) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:05:13 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: Most of them do, the ones for instruction-emulation that is. MMU emulation not completely. I'll make a note to try Ultrix. This is also an update: I did fixes for MMR1 handling. It was reset at the wrong moment and not set correctly. Also I was throwing trap 4 instead of 250 for mmu errors - that doesn't help either :-) Now "make" starts without bus errors altough after cc fails with a "pushfile" error: 2.11 BSD UNIX (folkert.vanheusden.com) (console) login: root erase, kill ^U, intr ^C # cd /usr/src/sys # ls CURLY QT h netimp pdpif sys FVH autoconfig machine netinet pdpmba vaxif GENERIC bootrom mdec netns pdpstand vaxuba OTHERS conf net pdp pdpuba # cd FVH # make make -f Make.net I=/usr/include H=../h M=../machine AS="/bin/as -V" CPP="/lib/cpp -P -DKERNEL -DFVH -DINET -DSOFUB_MAP -I. -I../h -DSUPERVISOR" CFLAGS="-O -DKERNEL -DFVH -DINET -DSOFUB_MAP -I. -I../h -DSUPERVISOR" SED="/bin/sed" ED="/bin/ed" cc -O -DKERNEL -DFVH -DINET -DSOFUB_MAP -I. -I../h -DSUPERVISOR -S ../net/if_loop.c :1: warning: __BSD2_11__ redefined (previously defined at "" line 6) :2: warning: BSD2_11 redefined (previously defined at "" line 7) :3: warning: __pdp11__ redefined (previously defined at "" line 8) :4: warning: pdp11 redefined (previously defined at "" line 9) :5: warning: unix redefined (previously defined at "" line 10) :6: warning: __STDC__ redefined (previously defined at "" line 11) pushfile: error open >z(5\| *** Exit 1 Stop. *** Exit 1 Stop. Progress! On 2025-04-08 23:33, Clem Cole wrote: > Do you pass the DEC diagnostics? They are not perfect, but they can > sometimes tease out some of the interesting corner cases, although the > OS's are known to be even better at that, albeit with less interesting > diagnostics. Also, did you try Ultrix, which is one step farther than > V7 but not quite as far as 2.11BSD? Another thing I learned from > reading your comments that got me thinking a little: IIRC the > red/yellow zone stuff for the stack is different between PDP-11 > implementations. As Phil noted, 2.11BSD differs from V7 and Ultrix in > that they tried adding more Vax logic into it. >>I have not looked at > the 2.11BSD sources<< to check, but it possible/likely that Steven and > team redid that code. So I would check to see what V7 is doing on a 70 > when it gets a stack fault and needs to grow it vs. the 2.11BSD code. > ᐧ > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 3:11 PM Folkert van Heusden > wrote: > >> 1. sounds like a calculation bug of some sort. possible, but not >> likely: >> I patched simh to output a set of large JSON-files with tests and >> their >> outcomes so that I can verify my emulator with the gold standard of >> pdp >> emulation without simply copying the simh-code (hopefully one day I >> can >> produce that set with a real hardware pdp 11/7). sofar I fixed all >> problems I found (a few flag problems and handling of the PSW). >> >> 2. yeah I have a suspicion that it might be a problem in one of the >> more >> complex addressing modes (@xxx(R7) for example where some of it comes >> from I space and some of D-space). am writing tests or that now. >> regarding the 11/45 versus 11/70: I set the cpu to 11/70 when >> verifying >> the disk-image with simh. so it should run in a 11/70. >> >> 3. if I do that, the "avail mem" goes down with it, user mem stays >> 307200. >> >> [1*: >> https://vanheusden.com/git/folkert/simh-testsetgenerator/src/branch/valgen >> look for test.c] >> >> On 2025-04-07 14:02, Kenneth Goodwin wrote: >> >>> To me it looks like a memory issue of some sort. Setup of the MMU >>> etc. >>> >>> 1. Your user memory is less than 10% of "available memory" which >>> should >>> be the amount left after the kernel loads and allocates dynamic >>> buffers. User memory should be alot closer to available number. >>> Unless >>> it is referring to limits of mmu per process and not total available >>> for all user level programs. >>> >>> 2. The bulk of the text dump seems to just be random initialized data >>> dumped from Ram. >>> Aka - Printf() format strings. Indicates that the wrong address in >>> memory is potentially being accessed. >>> >>> Perhaps the pdp11 emulator configuration does not have a correct mmu >>> for your image file. >>> >>> For example, you are running the 11/70 emulation and the binary >>> image >>> you are running is actually compiled for a pdp 11/45. >>> >>> The 11/70 has an mmu supporting split instruction and data spaces. >>> 64k >>> instruction, 64k data. But the kernel you are using was compiled to >>> run on a non split I And D version of the pdp11 supporting only 64kb >>> of >>> combined user and data. >>> >> >> [ this suggestion came from Kenneth's 2nd reply, added in this message >> to prevent a lot of reply-mails by me ] >> >>> 3. If your bsd image has kernel dynamic buffer configuration limit >>> parameters, you could tweak those down say 50% to see what happens. >>> (Not a BSD kernel hacker and it's been a while since I last read over >>> the source code) -- www.vanheusden.com [1] Links: ------ [1] http://www.vanheusden.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blocked.gif Type: image/gif Size: 118 bytes Desc: not available URL: From clemc at ccc.com Wed Apr 16 07:05:22 2025 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:05:22 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] running BSD 2.11 on my PDP 11/70 emulator In-Reply-To: References: <122fede123f3d5bd5df3b9bf3ccb83dc@vanheusden.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 4:05 PM Folkert van Heusden wrote: > Most of them do, the ones for instruction-emulation that is. MMU emulation > not completely > That is a little worrisome to me. But of course, which ones. While I knew and probably worked with and thus probably have met who wrote the diagnostics, I do not think I can not come up with a name of the guilty party here to ask. As I said, where to loo, the stack grow logic is the real suspect because as the system runs, and it's not until you start to put a load on and start to swap a little that you are getting some failures. So some type of pressure is occurring. I guess that a number of mallocs have caused breaks to enlarge memory, but that happens a lot with so many commands. I reluctantly think there is something else wonky. Stack growth is surprisingly rare due to how processes are created. IIRC a stack on a separate I/D system is often about a few K to start which is usually "enough." Big compiles like the kernel, however, might push that limit, and the red/yellow zone stuff starts to get worked out. What I don't know is if there are diagnostics for that logic. I also know is the best description of what is >>supposed<< to happen is pages 278-279 of my 1981 processor handbook. (a.k.a. EB-19402-20 — https://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/handbooks/EB-19402-20_PDP-11_Processor_Handbook_1981.pdf ). I think there are two parts to this... You have the CPU itself generating 16-bit addresses (user mode) being mapped through your MMU. If the MMU has a >>slightly<< wonky corner case, I wonder if that is tripping up stack fault logic somehow, so 2.11BSD is getting confused. Since this is happening to >>user space<< code (we never "grow" kernel stacks), it's not fatal to the OS, but it will cause processes to go south. I can not guarantee this is the issue, but it certainly would be a scenario that would explain what you are seeing. Clem > ᐧ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tuhs at tuhs.org Thu Apr 17 03:00:37 2025 From: tuhs at tuhs.org (segaloco via TUHS) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:00:37 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Pre-Symposium on Operating System Principles Public UNIX Mentions? Message-ID: I see in many places the 1973 Symposium on Operating System Principles mentioned as one of the earliest if not the earliest discussion of UNIX in the public eye. This would be around the time of the Fourth Edition and the rewrite of the system for the PDP-11/45 in C. Well, I recently picked up Aho and Ullman's The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling. The very last sentence of the preface in Volume 1 reads: > The use of UNIX, an operating system for the PDP-11 computer designed by > Dennis Ritchie and Kenneth Thompson, expedited the preparation of certain > parts of this manuscript. Given that this text was published in 1972, would this have been a completely esoteric reference to the general target audience of these books or was knowledge of UNIX already well circulated in the computing community by then? What other sorts of notoriety/publicity did UNIX get out in the general public prior to its presentation in 1973 and subsequent publication of the paper in CACM? - Matt G. From lars at nocrew.org Fri Apr 18 13:28:49 2025 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 03:28:49 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 Message-ID: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> The floppy label says it's for AIX, but the source code hits it runs on Sun, IRIS, Apollo, HP, X10, X11, Amiga, Mac, MS-DOS, Xenix. https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history/tree/sources/Hans%20H%C3%BCbner From henry.r.bent at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 15:36:23 2025 From: henry.r.bent at gmail.com (Henry Bent) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 01:36:23 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:35, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > The floppy label says it's for AIX, but the source code hits it runs on > Sun, IRIS, Apollo, HP, X10, X11, Amiga, Mac, MS-DOS, Xenix. > > > https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history/tree/sources/Hans%20H%C3%BCbner Neat! This built very cleanly on IRIX 4 (what I had up at the moment); I imagine that it will work with minimal effort on any commercial UNIX from the appropriate (~1989) timeframe. -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From trnsz at pobox.com Sat Apr 19 04:44:06 2025 From: trnsz at pobox.com (Jeff Johnson) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 14:44:06 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> I got it mostly compiled on a modern Linux system with a bit of hacking, but got stuck at curses incompatibilities due to some defintions and it was more work than I was planning on. I might have time to take another look at it this weekend, though. What would be more worthwhile would be building the VMS, MS-DOS, etc. versions that were officially supported. -- Jeffrey H. Johnson trnsz at pobox.com On Fri, Apr 18, 2025, at 1:36 AM, Henry Bent wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:35, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: >> The floppy label says it's for AIX, but the source code hits it runs on >> Sun, IRIS, Apollo, HP, X10, X11, Amiga, Mac, MS-DOS, Xenix. >> >> https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history/tree/sources/Hans%20H%C3%BCbner > > Neat! This built very cleanly on IRIX 4 (what I had up at the moment); I imagine that it will work with minimal effort on any commercial UNIX from the appropriate (~1989) timeframe. > > -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From blake1024 at gmail.com Sat Apr 19 10:19:28 2025 From: blake1024 at gmail.com (Blake McBride) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:19:28 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: Greetings, I worked on the MS-DOS version many years ago. I'd really love to see this on modern Linux!! Thanks!! Blake McBride On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 1:44 PM Jeff Johnson wrote: > I got it mostly compiled on a modern Linux system with a bit of hacking, > but got stuck at curses incompatibilities due to some defintions and it was > more work than I was planning on. I might have time to take another look > at it this weekend, though. > > What would be more worthwhile would be building the VMS, MS-DOS, etc. > versions that were officially supported. > > -- > Jeffrey H. Johnson > trnsz at pobox.com > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025, at 1:36 AM, Henry Bent wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:35, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > > The floppy label says it's for AIX, but the source code hits it runs on > Sun, IRIS, Apollo, HP, X10, X11, Amiga, Mac, MS-DOS, Xenix. > > > https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history/tree/sources/Hans%20H%C3%BCbner > > > Neat! This built very cleanly on IRIX 4 (what I had up at the moment); I > imagine that it will work with minimal effort on any commercial UNIX from > the appropriate (~1989) timeframe. > > -Henry > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ron at ronnatalie.com Sat Apr 19 10:21:58 2025 From: ron at ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 00:21:58 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: I might be inclined to take a stab. Gosmacs was my editor of choice for years. I even worked for Unipress for a few months. ------ Original Message ------ >From "Blake McBride" To "Jeff Johnson" Cc "TUHS" Date 4/18/2025 8:19:28 PM Subject [TUHS] Re: UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 >Greetings, > >I worked on the MS-DOS version many years ago. I'd really love to see >this on modern Linux!! > >Thanks!! > >Blake McBride > > >On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 1:44 PM Jeff Johnson wrote: >>I got it mostly compiled on a modern Linux system with a bit of >>hacking, but got stuck at curses incompatibilities due to some >>defintions and it was more work than I was planning on. I might have >>time to take another look at it this weekend, though. >> >>What would be more worthwhile would be building the VMS, MS-DOS, etc. >>versions that were officially supported. >> >>-- >>Jeffrey H. Johnson >>trnsz at pobox.com >> >>On Fri, Apr 18, 2025, at 1:36 AM, Henry Bent wrote: >>>On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:35, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: >>>>The floppy label says it's for AIX, but the source code hits it runs >>>>on >>>>Sun, IRIS, Apollo, HP, X10, X11, Amiga, Mac, MS-DOS, Xenix. >>>> >>>>https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history/tree/sources/Hans%20H%C3%BCbner >>> >>>Neat! This built very cleanly on IRIX 4 (what I had up at the >>>moment); I imagine that it will work with minimal effort on any >>>commercial UNIX from the appropriate (~1989) timeframe. >>> >>>-Henry >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From whm at msweng.com Mon Apr 21 10:08:29 2025 From: whm at msweng.com (William H. Mitchell) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 17:08:29 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <5562D2B5-CDEB-4072-A145-7DFDE588A68B@msweng.com> I started using Gosling’s Emacs around 1981-1982. "make" in Emacs was a game changer! I recall that in the Emacs documentation Gosling wrote something like, "The only similarity between MockLisp and Lisp is the syntax." I didn’t get it--MockLisp sure seemed like Lisp to me! Years later I did get it and viewed that as a measure of my coming along as a computer scientist. A couple of years later I did a project where I dropped in the Icon programming language as a peer of MLisp (UniPress’s name for MockLisp, I believe.) See https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/~whm/An_Icon_Subsystem_for_UNIX_Emacs_tr84_8.pdf From lars at nocrew.org Tue Apr 22 00:45:08 2025 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:45:08 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: <0EE64047-17A8-4255-8CA7-C0928A5584C1@seiden.com> (Mark Seiden's message of "Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:00:35 -0400") References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> <0EE64047-17A8-4255-8CA7-C0928A5584C1@seiden.com> Message-ID: <7wjz7dh8uj.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Mark Seiden writes: > the display updating code, as i recall, had a skull and crossbones on it > i remember there was a bit of a kerfuffle when richard stallman introduced > that code into gnu emacs This is true. Gosling Emacs from 1984 and GNU Emacs 13 from 1985 both have the skull and crossbones comment. From marc.donner at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 07:22:00 2025 From: marc.donner at gmail.com (Marc Donner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:22:00 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] UniPress Emacs V2.20 from 1989 In-Reply-To: <7wjz7dh8uj.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <7wy0vyrvv2.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8f567939-973c-472e-83a5-48aa88d47fb5@app.fastmail.com> <0EE64047-17A8-4255-8CA7-C0928A5584C1@seiden.com> <7wjz7dh8uj.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: Yeah, the screen redraw stuff was tense. As I recall, the best way to see that was on a mid-speed line, say 9600 baud. Slower and you could see it but it was still just annoying. A lot faster and there was no visible magic. At 9600 you could see the screen optimization doing some startling stuff. ===== nygeek.net mindthegapdialogs.com/home On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:41 AM Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > Mark Seiden writes: > > the display updating code, as i recall, had a skull and crossbones on it > > i remember there was a bit of a kerfuffle when richard stallman > introduced > > that code into gnu emacs > > This is true. Gosling Emacs from 1984 and GNU Emacs 13 from 1985 both > have the skull and crossbones comment. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: