Has anybody succeeded installing Ultrix v4.4/4.5 for the VAX on SIMH from
DEC CD-ROM distribution?
I've been trying but when it goes to device detection it always turns
up with an empty list. I mean, the install kernel boots, detects the
virtual hard disk and the CD-ROM, the install program starts and reaches
the installation menu (options for BASIC or ADVANCED) and it's then,
when choosing any option that it does not detect any suitable install
device.
It's been about 10 years since last I installed Ultrix on a VAX and to
be true, I can hardly remember all the details involved. It this doesn't
work, I'll try to go back to legacy tapes (if I can still find any
around).
j
--
These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!
José R. Valverde
De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
Greetings all.
A few weeks ago, in a fit of nostalgia, I decided to gather together
a personal copy of the various Usenet source groups as still available
at places like gatekeeper.dec.com and ftp.uu.net. The result is
a collection of six newsgroups, net.sources, and then
comp.sources.{games,misc,x,unix,reviewed}.
I removed duplicates and fixed a few other archiving goofs as well.
The result is about 700M, uncompressed. It just fits on one CD. :-)
I have made a tarball available, it's about 145M, if anyone wants it.
URLs:
http://www.skeeve.com/Usenet.tar.bz2ftp://ftp.freefriends.org/arnold/upload/Usenet.tar.bz2
Only one compression format; the .gz file is almost 180M.
Enjoy,
Arnold
I once asked Brian Kernighan about style and diction. His
response was rather uncomplimentary; it's net meaning was
"don't bother with them".
As I recall, wwb was style, diction, maybe one or two other
related programs, and the ditroff suite: troff, tbl, eqn, pic,
and various macro packages. For the troff stuff, you're
better off with groff, anyway.
Arnold
> From: "Steve Simon" <steve(a)quintile.net>
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 06:44:52 0000
> To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone know the status of the writers workbench (WWB)
> which was a seperate package even in System III days
> I think.
>
> I know about style and diction which was shipped with BSD4.1
> which (again wooly memory) was an early subset of the
> whole wwb package.
>
> I was hoping to compile it up and use it to help me
> improve my written English!
>
> -Steve
Hi,
Anyone know the status of the writers workbench (WWB)
which was a seperate package even in System III days
I think.
I know about style and diction which was shipped with BSD4.1
which (again wooly memory) was an early subset of the
whole wwb package.
I was hoping to compile it up and use it to help me
improve my written English!
-Steve
Hi!
I would like to know which licence the files at
http://medialab.dyndns.org/~martin/tape/stuff/ditroff/
are under.
If it's http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
that would be nice, if not, is there any way to find
out whose (c) is on the files, and how to contact them?
Reason: I'm developer of a BSD offspring and already
integrated 4.4BSD-Alpha nroff, neqn, tbl etc. under the
Caldera licence above into our operating system in order
to get rid of the less free, written in C++, GNU groff.
With success. Now I'm lacking postscript output.
Thanks in advance,
//mirabile
"=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jos=E9?= R. Valverde" <jrvalverde(a)cnb.uam.es> wrote:
> While working at the Biomedical Research Institute (Madrid, Spain) I got a
> quote from DEC for access to Ultrix source code. As I remember it, it wasn't
> that expensive (~1000$ for an academic license) and I mused bout acquiring=
> =20
> it for some time. My na=EFvete at the time prevented me from ordering it (t=
> hat
> and the availability of BSD sources).
Ultrix-32 sources can be found on ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG in
/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32/sources available via anonymous FTP.
MS
Jose R. Valverde <jr(a)cnb.uam.es> wrote:
> But I understood the orioginal post to refer to other Ultrix sources.
> Ultrix had a long -and interesting- life after 32V. It was ported to
> MIPS machines,
By Ultrix-32 I didn't mean AT&T 32V, I just say Ultrix-32 to distinguish
it from Ultrix-11. Ultrix-32 was DEC's product for VAX and MIPS. On my
FTP site I have pirate sources for Ultrix-32 V2.00 and V4.20. The lalter
runs on all VAX models DEC ever supported Ultrix on and on MIPS.
MS
It's not a question of it being lost, but rather making sure it doesn't
become lost. My first order of business is for the product that was the
reason for Manalapan's existence -- VAX System V.
The Manalapan, NJ site, after two mergers, is still today known as UNX
because of it initial charter to port AT&T Unix to VAX. This dates back
to the old DEC days where all sites had a 3 character identifier. I guess
someone was a private pilot and modeled it after airport designations.
Anyway, Manalapan was also frequently used as a hub in a lot of uucp
activity -- just look for UNXA in the path.
Enough history for today.
Pat
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:09:19 -0400
> Pat Villani <patv(a)monmouth.com> wrote:
> > Don't know about a TCP/IP stack, but I'm sorry to tell you that Ultrix
> > is still proprietary and now owned by hp.
> >
> > The source is in danger of being lost unless I'm successful over the
> > next six months. The Manalapan, NJ site where a great deal of Ultrix
> > work was done will be closing soon and employees moved to other
location>
> > and otherwise. I volunteered to take the old tape archives and
transfer>
> > the source code to CD-ROM for preservation. I don't know if there are
> > any other copies in Nashua, NH, where the remainder of the work was done.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> While working at the Biomedical Research Institute (Madrid, Spain) I got a
> quote from DEC for access to Ultrix source code. As I remember it, it wasn't
> that expensive (~1000$ for an academic license) and I mused bout
acquiring>
> it for some time. My naïvete at the time prevented me from ordering it
(t> hat
> and the availability of BSD sources).
>
> But I'd feel pretty sure that at that price many source licenses must have
> been sold. Maybe there are still copies lying around and you can find
> someone to send you a copy back.
>
> Sure, it would be nicer to maintain the whole development log and versions.
>
> j
> --
> These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!
>
> José R. Valverde
>
> De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Monmouth Internet MI-Webmail.
http://www.monmouth.com/
Hi, all!!!
Are there any old TCP/IP implementations like these to work on V7 or V6,
freely accessible in source form?
It could be very nice thing to learn from.
And possibly offtopic question - if I want ULTRIX (RISC) source license,
where should I get it from? (mostly interested in newest source) :)
All the best,
S.
Greg Lemis wondered,
> On page 182 of K&R 1st edition there's a reference to an
> implementation of C on the Honeywell 6000, with 9 bit bytes. There's
> no mention of whether it was running UNIX.
That one was a C implementation under GCOS. There
was another 9-bit one for the PDP-10 (not using Unix).
There was a 4x9 bit version of Unix for the Univac 1100
series, which ran Unix as a guest system over the
native EXEC OS.
The most exotic version was the BBN C-machine, which
had 20-bit words, 10-bit bytes.
Dennis
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] 6-bit, 7-bit and 9-bit byte UNIXes
> From: Norman Wilson <norman(a)nose.cs.utoronto.ca>
> To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:47:22 -0400
>
> The very first UNIX ran on the PDP-7, which had 18-bit words.
>
> I happen to have the assembly-language source code to parts
> of that system. Many programs contain error-handling code
> that does something like this:
>
> lac d1
> sys write; 1f; 1
> jmp somewhere
>
> 1: 077012
>
> ...
>
> d1: 1
>
> Evidently the system thought in words in those days
> (the second argument to sys write is presumably a word
> count), but the single word written is a strong clue
> that 9-bit bytes were used, and that a certain concise
> error message that people love to complain about was
> there from the beginning (and why not?).
?
I would say "the PDP7 computer was word-addressable". In this
context, characters seem to have been packed as 9-bit half-words
in a big-endian fashion. No 'bytes'.
Maybe tomorrow I will be near my DEC literature archives, and see
if I can find some clues about PDP7 instructions that might deal
with half-words. If it's anything like the PDP8 of similar vintage,
there aren't any. Late in its life the PDP8 got a BSW "byte swap"
instruction to swap the half-words in the AC register. 6 bits,
of course.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
The very first UNIX ran on the PDP-7, which had 18-bit words.
I happen to have the assembly-language source code to parts
of that system. Many programs contain error-handling code
that does something like this:
lac d1
sys write; 1f; 1
jmp somewhere
1: 077012
...
d1: 1
Evidently the system thought in words in those days
(the second argument to sys write is presumably a word
count), but the single word written is a strong clue
that 9-bit bytes were used, and that a certain concise
error message that people love to complain about was
there from the beginning (and why not?).
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
Natalia
I don't know of any non-8-bit Unix systems, but Multics, on the GE645 at
least, had a 36-bit word. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics
James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Natalia Portillo" <iosglpgc(a)teleline.es>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:07:46 +0100
To: <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Subject: [TUHS] 6-bit, 7-bit and 9-bit byte UNIXes
> Hi!
>
> Was there any UNIX with 6-bit wide, 7-bit wide or 9-bit wide bytes or all
> UNIXes are 8-bit wide bytes?
>
> Regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
Hi,
I have a copy of the WEBSTER server and client port to UNIX by
* David A. Curry
* Purdue University
* Engineering Computer Network
* April, 1986
I see in the doc directory a very TOPS-20-ish docuement webster.hlp which
describes the way to invoke the client:
@WEBSTER word-to-define
I'm assuming the @ is the TOPS-20 prompt. It also says you can use
If you want to look up more than one word, just do
@WEBSTER<return>
and you will be prompted with
Word:
Type the word, or hit <return> to exit.
But if the @ prompt wasn't enough evidence of TOPS-20 you also get:
<escape> and "?" are used the same way in Webster as in most programs.
<escape> tries to complete what you have typed so far, and "?" lists
those words that match your partial word.
Which is pure TOPS-20 "COMND JSYS". See this page for what "COMND JSYS" is:
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/decuslib20-01/01/decus/20-0002/comnd.doc.ht…
There is some cryptic mentioning about EBCDIC conversion as if the dictionary
data went from ASCII to EBCDIC and back to ASCII causing some degradation.
ebcdictp.ememo talks about the format of the EBCDIC tape (not that I have one)
and errors.ememo says:
2) Pronunciation records.
Three classes of errors occur here.
During the translation to EBCDIC occurances of the glyphs *( and
)* in the pronunciation records were treated in the same way as in other
records, that is encoded as <( and >) (representing left and right
braces), rather than left as is. Thus a schwa precceding or following an
optional phoneme was lost.
I just blew a few minutes looking it over today and ported it to FreeBSD/AMD64
catching a
char word[BUFSIZ];
isnumber(word)
bug and some other minor things.
Does anyone else have this treasure running? I like it better than dict for
etymologies.
Hi,
I have a copy of the WEBSTER server and client port to UNIX by
* David A. Curry
* Purdue University
* Engineering Computer Network
* April, 1986
I see in the doc directory a very TOPS-20-ish docuement webster.hlp which
describes the way to invoke the client:
@WEBSTER word-to-define
I'm assuming the @ is the TOPS-20 prompt. It also says you can use
If you want to look up more than one word, just do
@WEBSTER<return>
and you will be prompted with
Word:
Type the word, or hit <return> to exit.
But if the @ prompt wasn't enough evidence of TOPS-20 you also get:
<escape> and "?" are used the same way in Webster as in most programs.
<escape> tries to complete what you have typed so far, and "?" lists
those words that match your partial word.
Which is pure TOPS-20 "COMND JSYS". See this page for what "COMND JSYS" is:
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/decuslib20-01/01/decus/20-0002/comnd.doc.ht…
There is some cryptic mentioning about EBCDIC conversion as if the dictionary
data went from ASCII to EBCDIC and back to ASCII causing some degradation.
ebcdictp.ememo talks about the format of the EBCDIC tape (not that I have one)
and errors.ememo says:
2) Pronunciation records.
Three classes of errors occur here.
During the translation to EBCDIC occurances of the glyphs *( and
)* in the pronunciation records were treated in the same way as in other
records, that is encoded as <( and >) (representing left and right
braces), rather than left as is. Thus a schwa precceding or following an
optional phoneme was lost.
I just blew a few minutes looking it over today and ported it to FreeBSD/AMD64
catching a
char word[BUFSIZ];
isnumber(word)
bug and some other minor things.
Does anyone else have this treasure running? I like it better than dict for
etymologies.
Ok Guys,
I humbly apologise for not working this out from day one :-)
The problem was that I'd mounted the device after fstab from the desktop and SuSE in this configuration appears to prevent shell scripts from being fired off. If I mount everything in fstab at boot time then it all works.
Don't know whether this is a general SuSE thing or whether it is just a "feature" of the version that I'm running (8.2).
Well, you live and learn don't you :-)
Chears and thanks for all of the advice, through which I learn't stuff so it wasn't all that bad.
Robin
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:49:11 +0100
> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com>
> From: Robin Birch <robinb(a)ruffnready.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [pups] Installing begemot
> I have a different problem as well. There is something broken in the
> configuration of this computer!!!!! If I execute a shell file by going
> /bin/sh filename then it works ok but if I try running a shell script
> with #!/bin/sh in the first line I get a bad permission error. This is
> preventing me from running make scripts and all sorts of things. Any
> ideas?
Yes. See the following transcript of a session. I created a small
script named "bad" which just does "date" to show that it worked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
iota: try 1107$ ls -l bad
-rwxrwxr-x 1 cdl cdl 16 Aug 12 15:56 bad*
iota: try 1108$ /bin/sh bad
Thu Aug 12 15:57:37 PDT 2004
iota: try 1109$ ./bad
: bad interpreter: No such file or directory
iota: try 1110$ cat bad
#!/bin/sh
date
iota: try 1111$ od -c bad
0000000 # ! / b i n / s h \r \n d a t e \n
0000020
iota: try 1112$
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note that there is a '\r' character at the end of the #! line.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
In message <411BD929.4080009(a)sun.com>, Chris Drake <Chris.Drake(a)sun.com>
writes
>> The most curious one is a "bad interpreter" one. This is what I get
>>along with the permissions moan. But curiously if I run it sh
>>filename then all works.
>> It is as though there is some global shell permissions set up that
>>is munged.
>
>Hoo, you've got a weirdo, all right. Darn, I was hoping it was trivial.
>
>Bad interpreter: sounds like the first line where you select "the shell"
>is munched somehow. Officially, you can select any interpreter you want -
>but you gotta get the name right. :)
>
>More thoughts:
> - any problems with the pathname? Is it /bin/sh and nothing else?
> - check perms on /, /bin, and /bin/sh just in case something got
> zapped
> - what's your normal shell? How about it you change /bin/sh to
> the thing you run normally?
> - does anything follow the "sh" on the line? Like, perchance any
> strange nonprintable chars that might be interpreted as a part
> of the name or as a parameter to the shell?
> - try #!/bin/sh -x to see if you get any output from the script
> as it's run
> - do other scripts like one-liners work OK? Ie,
> #!/bin/sh
> echo hello world
> - any other messages?
>
>Just saw Warren's email, and he has a few good ones as well - like, what are
>you running on? :)
>
> - Chris
>
Hi Chris,
See my reply to Warren. I'll try this all tomorrow, the system is in
work.
Cheers
Robin
--
Robin Birch
Hi All,
Well I know it's been quiet for ages on this but hopefully someone is
listening.
I've just started to put P11 on a new Linux box and am having problems
building begemot. It keeps blowing out when compiling panic. Is there
a more recent version or are there some obvious patches I can do.
Regards
Robin
--
Robin Birch
Hi all!!!
While educating people some unix stuff (at time, spare from work as
admin), I have a need for making some simple UNIX-like environment for
people to try to type some simple commands. Now I need to make it possible
to do it remotely. Are there any emulators, that are capable to run V5/6/7
or (better) 4.2BSD, and accessible by telnet or something like that?
Additional thing I need is vi, any emulator that is capable of
running vi could make me happy!!!
Emulation is needed because of unlimited virtualization possibility,
unlimited variation of configurations, and, of course, zero time for
recover after root errors. simh runs fast 60 instances on P233.
But now I need vi :(
Thanks a lot!
S.
In message <411BBDD3.3050400(a)sun.com>, Chris Drake <chris.drake(a)sun.com>
writes
>I'd be interested in seeing your results and final analysis for begemot.
>I tried (briefly) getting it to run and gave up. Post 'em!
>
>> I have a different problem as well. There is something broken in the
>>configuration of this computer!!!!! If I execute a shell file by
>>going /bin/sh filename then it works ok but if I try running a shell
>>script with #!/bin/sh in the first line I get a bad permission error.
>
>Starting with the simplest possibility -- if you run "sh filename", all
>you need are read permissions on the file. If you run "filename" with the
>#!/bin/sh in the first line, the filename itself needs to have execute
>permissions enabled.
>
>Try chmod a+x filename and see if that helps.
>
>If that's not the issue, then more detail on the error message would be
>good. There are tons of different messages and if you don't get the exact
>right one when you're trying to debug, you can go down lots of wild rat
>holes...
>
> - Chris
>
Hi Chris,
The most curious one is a "bad interpreter" one. This is what I get
along with the permissions moan. But curiously if I run it sh filename
then all works.
It is as though there is some global shell permissions set up that is
munged.
Robin
--
Robin Birch
In message
<7AD18F04B62B7440BE22E190A3F772140F6047(a)mwsrv04.microwalt.nl>, Fred N.
van Kempen <Fred.van.Kempen(a)microwalt.nl> writes
>> I have a different problem as well. There is something broken in the
>> configuration of this computer!!!!! If I execute a shell
>> file by going
>> /bin/sh filename then it works ok but if I try running a shell script
>> with #!/bin/sh in the first line I get a bad permission
>> error. This is
>> preventing me from running make scripts and all sorts of things. Any
>> ideas?
>Make sure the scripts have mode 0755 (or 0555, or whatever, as
>long as you have both read AND execute perm on the file...
>
>--f
Done that. What happens is that sometimes I get a permissions complaint
but sometimes I get a "bad interpreter" message. If I execute the shell
with the file name as a parameter then it all works. I'm stumped.
Robin
--
Robin Birch
