Steven,
I'm building a 2.11BSD kernel on my 11/73 (so I can include the networking
code and put my machine on the LAN!), and I'm seeing the error "too big for
type 431". Through the wonders of Google, I saw your discussion of this
error and followed your advice (from 1996!). However, when I ask 'size
unix.o', I get a size comfortably within the limits for base - 50112, well
below the 57344 you cite. None of the overlays exceeds 8192, and the 'total
text' figure is well below your example, too. FWIW, I did a 'naive build'
first, copying GENERIC and changing a few parameters; after seeing the error
'text segment too big' I went through the config file with a little more
thought and eliminated drivers I clearly didn't need (I don't have RL01/02s,
for instance). Then I started getting this error. I did a 'make clean'
just to be sure, but still make gives me the 'too big for type 431' error.
(Yes, I RTFM on ld.)
I am standing here beside myself. :-) And I am humbly soliciting
suggestions.... -- Ian
PS: I'm at patch level 431, per the VERSION file.
pups-request(a)minnie.tuhs.org wrote:
>Send PUPS mailing list submissions to
> pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> pups-request(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of PUPS digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Installing Venix or 2.9bsdpro on a DEC PRO350 (Franco Tassone)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>From: "Franco Tassone" <franco.tassone(a)inwind.it>
>To: <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:30:08 +0100
>Subject: [pups] Installing Venix or 2.9bsdpro on a DEC PRO350
>
>Hi all,
>
>after having downloaded both distributions from a PUPS mirror, I was trying
>to install Venix or 2.9bsd modified for the PRO350.
>I've created for both distributions the installations floppy using a mvaxII
>with an rx50 floppy. The mvaxII actually runs netbsd, so I did a dd
>if=floppy.img of=/dev/rx0a for all the floppy images of the distributions,
>but when I go and try to boot the bot floppies of venix (and 2.9bsd too) on
>the PRO350, they fail to boot. The drive seems to try a little then the
>machine hangs, no messages on the console, except a nice capital DIGITAL, no
>messages on the serial terminale connected to the printer port with the
>maintenance cable.
>With venix floppy instead, after failing to boot, after a litle P/OS starts
>from hd.
>What am I missing, what did I wrong ?
>Any hint will be greatly appreciated.
>P.S. I definitively want to install an ancient unix on my dec pro350...,
>help me !
>...
>Franco Tassone
>
>
I think those may be teledisk images so DD probably wouldn't work.
You need an IBM PC with 80 track drives, IIRC to recreate the images...
It's been a long time since I looked at those images.
Bill
Hi all,
after having downloaded both distributions from a PUPS mirror, I was trying
to install Venix or 2.9bsd modified for the PRO350.
I've created for both distributions the installations floppy using a mvaxII
with an rx50 floppy. The mvaxII actually runs netbsd, so I did a dd
if=floppy.img of=/dev/rx0a for all the floppy images of the distributions,
but when I go and try to boot the bot floppies of venix (and 2.9bsd too) on
the PRO350, they fail to boot. The drive seems to try a little then the
machine hangs, no messages on the console, except a nice capital DIGITAL, no
messages on the serial terminale connected to the printer port with the
maintenance cable.
With venix floppy instead, after failing to boot, after a litle P/OS starts
from hd.
What am I missing, what did I wrong ?
Any hint will be greatly appreciated.
P.S. I definitively want to install an ancient unix on my dec pro350...,
help me !
...
Franco Tassone
I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees SCO's recent legal
activities with dismay. For those of you still looking for facts,
take a look at the links off http://www.sco.com/scosource/, and
particularly the complaint at
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html. There are a
number of things there which concern me, but particularly:
85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the
simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on
the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can
successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous
operation. This difference in memory management performance
is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely
high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to
accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and
SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for
design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth
of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
Apart from the fact that I can't see any factual evidence that System
V as licensed from SCO or its predecessors had any competitive SMP
scalability, the "20 years" concerns me. That could go back to the
days of the Seventh Edition.
Which brings me to the real point: a little over a year ago, we
received a message from Dion Johnson releasing Ancient UNIX under a
BSD licence. For those of you who have misplaced it, I'm attaching it
again. While none of us doubt that it is genuine, SCO has no record
of it on their web site, nor (as far as I know) do any of us have this
in signed form. In view of SCO's aggression, I think we should
contact them and ask them to at least put the statement somewhere on
their web site.
Comments?
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Aharon Robbins:
Sigh. This is the response on gcc and `conj.' Terms of
disgust elided, since the sentiments are undoubtedly shared.
This list isn't the right place for a general discussion of
the matter, but I cannot resist remarking that this is one
of the best arguments I have ever seen in support of gnu
control.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
Sigh. This is the response on gcc and `conj.' Terms of
disgust elided, since the sentiments are undoubtedly shared.
Arnold
> Date: 11 Mar 2003 15:07:13 -0000
> To: arnold(a)skeeve.com, gcc-bugs(a)gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs(a)gcc.gnu.org,
> nobody(a)gcc.gnu.org
> From: bangerth(a)dealii.org
>
> Synopsis: gcc 3.2.2 recognizes complex functions even without complex.h
>
> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> State-Changed-By: bangerth
> State-Changed-When: Tue Mar 11 15:07:12 2003
> State-Changed-Why:
> This is a gnu extension. The builtin conj function is switched
> off if you use -ansi or -std=c89.
>
> W.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&…
Can someone clarify for me how Caldera fits in the picture? I thought
SCO sold Unix to Caldera? It was Caldera that did the BSD-ing of ancient
Unix.
FWIW I too paid $100 for an ancient Unix license, and I've got the System III
stuff that licensees had access to.
Thanks,
Arnold
A working link to the ancient-Unix license exists at
http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html
This is a saved link; I didn't investigate how
to find it currently from a Caldera or SCO site.
In case anyone is interested, I retrieved
some fraction of the court papers from
the early 90s USL suit against BSDI and UCB.
The case seems in some ways similar to this
one. They are at
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html
In this one, USL pulled back after an injunction
was denied. By the time the 1993 ruling was issued,
USL was being taken over by Novell.
Dennis
Well, the impression I got from IBM re: AIX and Linux's relationship, was that
they were going to give AIX a Linux makeover so that they could maintain an
apparently unified Un*xish shop - as far as AIX and Linux _are_ Un*ces, that
is!
How that gets interpreted as importing Un*x trade secrets into Linux, I have
no idea.
I also thought IBM was going to allow some of their mainframe high
availability ideas to influence Linux - not through direct porting of the
code - VM/ESA is apparently written in PL/I, and I doubt that most Linux
programmers would touch that with a barge-pole. And a waldo at a workplace
on a planet on the other side of the galaxy. Or universe.
I myself wanted to get some information on the internal structure - ie, the
part that gets passed between the SFS client and the Reusable Kernel Server -
of the VM/ESA Shared File System way back when, and was told in no uncertain
terms, not to bother trying.
I don't see SCO has much chance of doing anything except causing a bit of
unwelcome disruption and - I hope - getting bought out at bargain basement
prices by IBM and getting the entire Un*x source tree BSDed or LGPLed to stop
all this useless nonsense at the "source". Or at the "sauce", to give it a
rather appropriate spin.
Wesley Parish
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 12:45 pm, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
<snip>
>
> I am very sure that IBM has not put any UNIX code into Linux. For one
> thing, it's not their style, and in fact they keep the AIX and Linux
> people very separate. Last year I wrote a clone of AIX's JFS file
> system on Linux for IBM. This is the old JFS, not the JFS they
> released under GPL. I was not allowed to see the AIX source code, for
> exactly the reasons of the complaint. The only information I had were
> the header files they distribute with the development system.
>
> The AIX code wouldn't have helped, anyway. Linux is not UNIX, as
> anybody who's done kernel programming in both knows. I had thought
> that this childish superstition about the holiness of source code
> would have been stamped out at the end of the last UNIX wars.
>
> Greg
--
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
