TUHS September 2020

tuhs@tuhs.org

60 participants
63 discussions

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Paul Riley <pdr0663(a)icloud.com> >> the tty driver: >> >> https://minnie.tuhs.org//cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=LSX/sys/tv.c >> >> only supports a single line. > The second serial port would not be to support another user, but to > communicate with peripherals. Ah. Well, AIX will still have an issue (above). Noel

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by Henry Bent

You're welcome. Other theoretical alternatives are one of the later 2.9BSD patches, though I have had no success getting those to run on anything, and maybe BRL UNIX from the CSRG DVD? I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has tried to get BRL UNIX running. -Henry On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 19:36, Paul Riley <pdr0663(a)icloud.com> wrote: > Thanks Henry, that’s an interesting alternative. > > I’m trying to get a photo of the drive label. > > Paul > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 22 Sep 2020, at 7:28 am, Henry Bent <henry.r.bent(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 23:24, Paul Riley <paul(a)rileyriot.com> wrote: > >> >> Team, >> >> I’ve read thru the FAQ and other sources regarding compatibility of >> Research and other flavours on the PDP-11. I have two physical machines, an >> 11/03 and an 11/23+. I’m choosing which version to use on each machine. >> >> Is LSX the only option on the 11/03, or could I run V6 or Mini-Unix with >> more RAM? >> >> From the FAQ, it says V7 would support 11/23 with kernel recompilation, I >> assume includes 11/23+. I see 2.11BSD would also run on a ‘23 (and + I >> guess) with 1MB or more of RAM, so that would be preferred. I suppose 2.11 >> would be preferable. >> >> I also have found another 11/23+ system from a seller here in China. >> There’s the system, and a VT100, and a hard drive I can’t identify. Here’s >> a photo, does anyone know what it is? I may bid for it... >> >> Paul >> >> *Paul Riley* >> > > Ultrix 3.1 should support the 11/23+, which would give you memory support > up to 4MB as well as support for TCP/IP if you have a DEQNA. I don't think > 2.11BSD will run on anything without split I/D which the 23 does not have. > > Without a closer view of the label I doubt that anyone could give you a > definite identification of that hard drive. > > -Henry > >

4 years, 3 months

Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by Paul Riley

Team, I’ve read thru the FAQ and other sources regarding compatibility of Research and other flavours on the PDP-11. I have two physical machines, an 11/03 and an 11/23+. I’m choosing which version to use on each machine. Is LSX the only option on the 11/03, or could I run V6 or Mini-Unix with more RAM? >From the FAQ, it says V7 would support 11/23 with kernel recompilation, I assume includes 11/23+. I see 2.11BSD would also run on a ‘23 (and + I guess) with 1MB or more of RAM, so that would be preferred. I suppose 2.11 would be preferable. I also have found another 11/23+ system from a seller here in China. There’s the system, and a VT100, and a hard drive I can’t identify. Here’s a photo, does anyone know what it is? I may bid for it... Paul *Paul Riley*

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Paul Riley > Using LSX on the 11/03... Will LSX handle cards with multiple serial > ports? Ah, I just read this carefully; LSX only supports a single user at a time, so there's no use to multiple serial lines? (But see below.) (I thought Heinz' reply message to this referred to Mini-Unix, which does suppport multiple users, but on reading it again I see it does not.) If you want multiple users on an -11/03, Mini-Unix would be an option; it doesn't support the -11/03 'out of the box', but looking at it, it shouldn't be too hard. (Heinz mentioned that it had been done before.) Change all cases of 'mov xx, PS' in mch.s: https://minnie.tuhs.org//cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Mini-Unix/usr/sys/mxsys/mch.s to 'MTPS xx' (PS access needs a special instructtion in the /03); that might be all you need to do. (Installing a KEV11-A, so you can avoid using the instruction emulation package for EIS instructions would be nice, but apparently isn't required.) If Mini-Unix supports multiple users, it ought to be possible to do the same with LSX. (I'm not sure what the rationale was for making LSX single-user: perhaps the RX was too slow; perhaps there was no need in their use case; etc.) But it would probably be more work than going the Mini-Unix route; e.g. to start with, init only supports a single user: https://minnie.tuhs.org//cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=LSX/src/init.c and the tty driver: https://minnie.tuhs.org//cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=LSX/sys/tv.c only supports a single line. One could cross-port the needed 'stuff' from Mini-Unix, but it'd probably be easier to do the Mini-Unix -11/03 conversion. Noel

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Heinz Lycklama > The DLV-11 supported only one serial port in 1975. Other DEC interface > devices may have been added to the Qbus after the mid 1970's. The DLV11-J: http://gunkies.org/wiki/DLV11-J_asynchronous_serial_line_interface is basically 4 DLV11's rolled into a single dual-width card; that's definitely an option for Mini-Unix (which apparently supports up to 4 simultaneous users). They are program compatible with the DHV11, so the driver should 'just work'. The boards are readily available on eBait; 'glitchworks' (of this parish) sells replacement cables (quite good, I have several). Another option for serial lines on QBUS machines are DZ11 and DH11 versions for QBUS. (The DZ11 is interrupt-per-character on output; the DH11 is DMA on output.) There are two generations of each: the DZV11 (quad-width) and DZQ11 (dual-width), and DHV11 (quad) and DHQ11 (dual). I think they are pretty much program compatible with their UNIBUS brethren, and should be easy to get running. The boards are easy to find on eBait, the breakout panels are somewhat rarer (although there sre some DH ohes up at the moment). Noel

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> They are program compatible with the DHV11 Argh; typo. 'DLV11'. Noel

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] reviving a bit of WWB

by norman＠oclsc.org

Brantley Coile: The fact that a pointer of zero generates a hardware trap is not defined in the language, whereas a 0 is is defined to be a null pointer. ===== The language doesn't require that dereferencing a null pointer cause a trap, either. There's no way to guarantee that behaviour in all environments unless every pointer dereference must include instructions to check for the null-pointer value, because C can run in environments in which any pointer value might be a valid address. On modern machines it's conventional for the null-pointer value in C, what you get when you assign 0 to a pointer, to be all-zeroes; and for operating systems to arrange that that address is unmapped. But that wasn't always so (on the PDP-7 there was no memory map; on the PDP-11 once memory-mapping was added, address space was too dear to throw away an eighth of it just to block null-pointer dereferencing), and it may still not be (consider a C program on an embedded system running without a memory map). It's good that modern systems usually whap you in the head if you deference a null pointer, but it's not required, and those who rely on it are as foolish as those who used to rely on the accident that the byte at address 0 on early VAX UNIX was a zero. Norman Wilson p&p6 and f(

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> Thanks so much for your reply. That's what we're here for... :-) > I have an 11/23+ does that make a difference? No. The KDF11-B of the 23+: http://gunkies.org/wiki/KDF11-B_CPU is the same CPU as all the other KDF11 CPUs; it just has a couple of extra peripherals on the board (2 asyn serial lines, and some PROMs, IIRC). > From the manual it seems to have an MMU Like all KDF11 CPUs, it has a socket for an MMU chip, but the chip may or may not be there (I don't know if it was standard on the 23+; and in any event, it may have been pulled - the CPU will work without it). The main CPU is a DIP carrier which holds two chips; the optional KTF11-A MMU has one (see the image, above); the optional KEF11-A FPU is also a carrier with two chips. (The KDF11-B can also hold the large 6-chip carrier of the optional KEF11-B CIS chip - a rara avid indeed, if you'relucky enough to have it.) If yours doesn't have the MMU chip, you're probably SOL; those are very rare. KEF11-A FPU chips are avilable on eBay for modest amounts. > I'm not sure if it's split I/D. None of the KDF11 CPUs support splite I/D. Noel

4 years, 3 months

Re: [TUHS] Unix on DEC AlphaServer 4000

by Rudi Blom

You're a bit harsh on the developers but I think in most cases it was the marketing/finance part of companies which decided on such mundane matters as licensing. My 2-1/2 cents. Cheers, uncle rubl >Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:42:39 -0700 >From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> >To: Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> >Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" <beebe(a)math.utah.edu>, tuhs > <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> >Subject: Re: [TUHS] Unix on DEC AlphaServer 4000 >Message-ID: <32401.1600544559(a)hop.toad.com> ... snip ... >License managers now count as DRM, under the Digital Millennium >Copyright Act (though no such laws had been passed when the license >managers were first created). So: is it worth breaking the law in many >countries, to maintain a historical curiosity? >Personally, I would throw DRM-encrusted software, and the hardware that >is dependent on it, into the dustbin of history. Its creators had fair. >warning that they were making their products unusable after they stopped >caring to maintain them. They didn't care about their place in history, >nor about their users. They did it anyway, for short-term profit and to >harass those people foolish enough to be their customers. Their memes >should not be passed to future generations. As Sir Walter Scott >suggested in another context, they "doubly dying, shall go down, to the. >vile dust, from whence [they] sprung, unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung". John

4 years, 3 months

Unix on DEC AlphaServer 4000

by Paul Riley

I have an opportunity to buy a DEC AlphaServer. Is there a version of Unix which will run on this? Paul *Paul Riley*

4 years, 3 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS September 2020