> From: Angelo Papenhoff
> I believe 11/20 UNIX also needs the EAE.
Some applications might have used it (the story about the KS11 bug with the
KW11-A confirms they did use it on that machine), but I found no trace of use
of it in a quick scan of the entire Version 1 source (the one which is
extant).
Also, the first file in the OS source:
https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V1/u0.s
lists the addresses of all device registers, and the KE11-A isn't there.
If the KE11 is needed to run some application on the -11/04, there are
KE11-B's (program compatible, but a single hex card) available, ISTR. For
emulation, something (SIMH?) supports it, since the TV -11 on ITS (now running
in emulation,I'm pretty sure) uses it.
Noel
> From: Will Senn
> can I run Unix on a PDP 11/04?
No, it doesn't have memory management, so not any of the well-known 'stock'
versions (V5/V6/etc).
Two choices, though:
- If you get the V1 that ran on an -11/20 (which is mostly compatible with
the /04 and /05), it should run on an /04. (Not sure what you'd use for mass
storage, on a physical /04, though.) I'm not sure when they dropped the /20 -
I think V4 n(at the latest)? But V2 and V3 are lost.
- There's a 'Unix' for the LSI-11, and with minor changes (the LSI-11 isn't
100% compatible with other MMU-less 11's, but the changes are minor, e.g.
MOS, written in MACRO-11, was conditionalized to run on both the LSI-11
and the -11/20) it should run on an /04.
Noel
> From: Clem Cole
> And if you could find a KS-11 MMU that Ken and Dennis had for the 11/20
> ... we can't even find documentation about it (Ken's surviving code is
> the best doc we have).
Where is that code? The Version 1 at TUHS appears to pre-date it.
It would be great to have a look at it, we might be able to partially document
the KS11 using it. (Ken had only vague memories of the KS11.)
> From: Ronald Natalie
> There's always MiniUnix.
Ah; I didn't realize that was something different from LSX (the LSI-11
system).
Noel
The question is can I run Unix on a PDP 11/04? I've dug around and it's
unclear to me, so I'm asking y'all.
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
I'm trying to get 2bsd.tar extracted into v7. Does anyone have any
recollection how to do this. Here's what I'm seeing:
in simh:
simh> att tm0 -V -F TAR 2bsd.tar
Tape Image '2bsd.tar' scanned as TAR format.
contains 4935680 bytes of tape data (482 records, 1 tapemarks)
c
and in v7:
tar xv0
tar: bin/ - cannot create
directory checksum error
# ls
bin
What gives - it says it can't create the dir, but it does, it's there...
Thanks,
Will
--
GPG Fingerprint: 68F4 B3BD 1730 555A 4462 7D45 3EAA 5B6D A982 BAAF
> There was quite some communication between Peter Nilson (npn, known
> for picasso) and bwk.
In the interest of accuracy npn's full name is Nils-Peter Nelson.
He honchoed the Bell Labs Cray and originated <string.h>.
Doug
Hi folks,
I used thack to typeset my dissertation on v7 circa 1988. It converts C/A/T codes to postscript. i have no idea if it will cope with eqn or pic but it was enough for nicely formatted text as i remember.
this is the patch/bugfix with a link to the original package.
https://www.tuhs.org/Usenet/comp.sources.misc/1989-July/001073.html
-Steve
Nemu Nusquam:
When was dpost born?
=====
CSTR 97, A Typesetter-Independent TROFF by Brian W Kernighan
was issued in 1981 and revised the next year. So that's the
earliest possible date.
I vaguely remember the existence of Postscript support in
general, including at least one Apple Laserwriter kicking
around somewhere, starting at some point during my time at
1127 in the latter 1980s. There was even a Postscript
display engine that ran on 5620 terminals under mux, though
it wasn't normally used for troff previewing because the
troff-specific proofer was faster (mainly, I think, it
didn't send nearly as much data down the serial line to
the terminal).
My personal snapshot of V10, and the TUHS archive copy,
include dpost; see src/cmd/postscript/dpost. Everything
in the postscript directory came from USG, who had
packaged everything troff into a separately-licensed
Documenter's Workbench package. That may have made us
exclude it from the officially-distributed V8 tape and
V9 snapshots. In any case, the only V9 snapshot I know
of offhand (which is in Warren's archive) has no dpost.
Both my copy of V10 and the TUHS copy show dpost's
source files with dates in 1991, but it was certainly
there earlier if I used it in New Jersey (I left in
mid-1990). Dpost is documented in man8/postscript.8;
my copy of that file is dated October 1989.
Digging around in documents available on the web,
I found a bundle of DWB 2.0 docs:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/att/unix/Documentors_Workbench_1989/UNIX_Syste…
It's a scanned-image PDF so I can't search it by
machine, but it includes such things as listings of
the source-code directory and manifests of various
binary distributions, and dpost doesn't appear anywhere
I can see. As the URL implies, the docs seem to
be dated 1989. So maybe dpost wasn't part of the
product until DWB 3.0; but maybe we in Research got
an early copy of the postscript stuff (I think bwk
was in regular communication with the USG-troff
folks), perhaps in 1989.
I confess I've lost track of the original question
that spawned this thread, but if it is whether
dpost is easily back-ported to PDP-11 UNIX, I don't
think that's likely without a good bit of work.
It would very likely require a post-1980-type C
compiler, since it was written in the late 1980s.
It might or might not fit on a PDP-11; I don't
remember whether USG's system still officially
ran there by the late 1980s.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
> From: Paul Riley
> I'm struggling however with how C processes the IO. It seems that when I
> type at the console, my typing is immediately echoed to my terminal
> window. ... nothing appears on the terminal until I press enter, when
> the system displays the whole line of input ... How
> can I suppress the original C/Unix echo, and get my output to appear
> immediately?
This is not a C issue; it's the Unix I/O system (and specifically, terminal I/O).
Normally, Unix terminal input is done line-at-a-time: i.e. the read() call to
the OS (whether for 1 character, or a large number) doesn't return until an
enire line has been typed, and [Retrurn] has been hit; then the entire line is
available. While it's being buffered by the OS, echoing is done, and rubout
processing is also performed.
One can suppress all this; there's a mode call 'raw' (the normal mode is
sometime labelled 'cooked') which suppresses all that, and just gives one the
characters actually typed, as they are typed. The stty() system call can be
used to turn this on.
See the V6 tty(IV) manual entry for more. stty() is in stty(II).
Noel
