On 10/01/2002 01:37:54 AM CET Ian Molton wrote:
>
>On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:29:02 +0930
>"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it would be nice to know what you're really trying to do.
>> What's the hardware? If the file system is UFS, it's unlikely to be a
>> good fit for Linux. I'd say "try FreeBSD", but without knowing more
>> about your software and hardware, it's not clear if that would be any
>> better. Google suggests that it runs on ARMs. Is that correct?
>
>The hardware is an obscure british platform from back when the ARM was
>young. - The Archimedes.
>
>The CPU is the ARM2 or 3 (either work) and the systems have SCSI,
>ethernet, and (up to) 16Mb of RAM.
I think NetBSD supports these machines. See
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/acorn26/
regards,
chris
On Oct 1, 1:37, Ian Molton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:29:02 +0930
> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, it would be nice to know what you're really trying to do.
> > What's the hardware? If the file system is UFS, it's unlikely to be a
> > good fit for Linux. I'd say "try FreeBSD", but without knowing more
> > about your software and hardware, it's not clear if that would be any
> > better. Google suggests that it runs on ARMs. Is that correct?
>
> The hardware is an obscure british platform from back when the ARM was
> young. - The Archimedes.
>
> The CPU is the ARM2 or 3 (either work) and the systems have SCSI,
> ethernet, and (up to) 16Mb of RAM.
>
> I dont actually know what the filesystem is, but my guess is UFS based
> on the newfs command in the mkkernel script, and a rumour it is BSD
> derived.
It is indeed a straight port of BSD 4.x, where x depends in whether is it's
RISC iX 1 or 1.2 (R440 used 4.2, I think; R260 used 4.3).
> I have everything from a machines filesystem in a tarball.
>
> I simply have no bootdisk, and cant create one without a suitable newfs
>
> > > any advice from the list would be appreciated :)
Take a look at James Carter's page at
http://www.jfc.org.uk/documents/riscix_clone.html
James and I worked this out when we rescued half-a-dozen R260's in various
states of disrepair and with various not-quite-complete copies of RISC iX.
> is it possible for someone else to make a filesystem image for me that I
> could dd onto a floppy? I suspect that this system uses an old variant
> of ufs.
It is a standard 4.3 filesystem (at least for the verison for an R260). It
even says so when it boots:
RISC iX Release 1.2
ARM3 processor, cache enabled
...
...
Root fstype 4.3, name /dev/sd0a
Swap fstype spec, name /dev/sd0S
...
One of us could copy some stuff for you. I'm not sure you'd be able to get
what you need onto a single floppy, though. That's not how Acorn did it.
We'd certainly be willing to help, especially if you have any RISC iX stuff
we're missing.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
now that i've signed up for this list I have forgotten what the topic is?
I am a disabled veteran, I do some work with Linux as a hobby, and some
web sites, also as
a hobby. I may be getting a Vaxstation soon. I don't think is one of
the ones supported by
Linux yet.
Richard Snow
----- Forwarded message from Ian Molton -----
>From spyro(a)f2s.com Tue Oct 1 09:02:24 2002
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:15:35 +0100
From: Ian Molton <spyro(a)f2s.com>
To: wkt(a)tuhs.org
Subject: Re: Making boot disks
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:37:35 +1000 (EST)
Warren Toomey <wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
> I'll pass this to the mailing list to see if others can help you.
> I'd say that Linux is unlikely to construct the correct filesystem
> type. There are severl UFS variants, and you'd need to know the exact
> layout details to be sure that Linux (or something else) could create
> the boot disks.
Thanks.
I found some ufs code in the HURD source, and VERY crudely hacked it. It
creates filesystems that linux can mount, but it crashed trying to write
big files to it (doh!)
any advice from the list would be appreciated :)
----- End of forwarded message from Ian Molton -----
In article by Ian Molton:
> Hi.
>
> Dunno if you can help me ont this...
>
> I have an unusual UNIX derived OS called RISCiX, but I cant install it
> because I have no bootdisks.
>
> I /do/ have scripts to make them, and the kernel + OS files, though.
>
> I think the filesystem was UFS.
>
> I can use my Linux box to create a filesystem, but I dont have a copy of
> the right utility (newfs?).
>
> Can you point me to source?
I'll pass this to the mailing list to see if others can help you.
I'd say that Linux is unlikely to construct the correct filesystem type.
There are severl UFS variants, and you'd need to know the exact layout
details to be sure that Linux (or something else) could create the
boot disks.
Warren
Following up Toomey's and Davidson's notes
(didn't see Garcia's):
It does appear that the early-distributed v7 didn't
require = in initializers. A slightly later version
of the original 11 C compiler did; the lines Davidson quoted,
if (o!=ASSIGN)
peeksym = o;
were replaced by
if (o!=ASSIGN) {
error("Declaration syntax");
peeksym = o;
}
bringing it into conformity with K&R1, which
did require the =.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to try the v7 crypt(3),
the 'encrypt' routine has an implicit, and unwarranted,
assumption that the L and R arrays are adjacent in storage
and thus that L can be oversubscripted to access R.
This was fixed at some (surprisingly late) point too.
Dennis
Hello,
My PDP11/44 is currently running RSX11M but since I lack experience and
documentation of RSX, I'd like to install a BSD-Unix.
I suppose I can install 2.11BSD or 2.9BSD on a 11/44. Which one should I
choose ? I do allready have 2.11 on my 11/93, so I might want to try 2.9BSD if
this is not asking for trouble.
I do have 1Mb of ram, two RL02 drives (and some disks, so I can always keep
RSX), FPU, Ethernet.
But I don't have a tapedrive!
I thought I could write the RL02 disks on my 11/93 and then put them in my
11/44. Will this work ? Is there something special I need to know ?
Regards,
--lothar
--
Werden Sie mit uns zum "OnlineStar 2002"! Jetzt GMX wählen -
und tolle Preise absahnen! http://www.onlinestar.de
In article by A. P. Garcia:
> Warren,
>
> I've been looking at the Henry_Spencer_v7 tar, and something
> is puzzling me. lines 49-54 of /usr/src/libc/gen/crypt.c are
> the following:
>
> static char PC1_D[] {
> 63,55,47,39,31,23,15,
> 7,62,54,46,38,30,22,
> 14, 6,61,53,45,37,29,
> 21,13, 5,28,20,12, 4,
> };
>
> That wasn't legal syntax, was it? There should be an '='
> between [] and {, as in the rest of the file, no?
I just tried to compile the code with the V7 compiler and it complained.
Maybe it was legal in V6 and they used the .o file from there and didn't
recompile it.
I think Dennis is on the list, maybe he can answer the intruiging question!
> Btw, it's neat to look at this code alongside the DES standard:
> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips46-3/fips46-3.pdf
> Phil Garcia
Yes, it certainly is.
Thanks Phil.
Warren
As Billquist, Wilson and others pointed out, the first
versions of Unix did run on machines with no memory
mapping or protection, and indeed context-switching
was accomplished by swapping. By 1973 we had the luxurious
11/45, to considerable relief.
I'm not positive about the logo on our first PDP-11.
On the earliest handbook I have, the front panel photo
just shows "PDP11", though inside the handbook
it does talk about the two models (11/10 and 11/20).
Both had the same KA11 processor, but the basic
11/10 sported 1024Kw ROM memory plus a generous
128 words of RAM, while the 11-20 had
4096Kw core RAM, and the ASR33 Teletype was included.
You could add more RAM to the 11/20.
Incidentally, the machine's handbook was a wonder.
In 104 pages (each 5.25x8 inches), it described the whole
system: not only the instruction set but the theory
of the Unibus (including some logic diagrams) together with
programming specifications for the TTY, the clock,
and the paper tape reader.
Dennis
Hi -
A few days ago the "getty plays parity games" topic came up
again.
I've been thinking about it and looked at the kernel a bit more.
7e1 is rather firmly in place and I'm not sure turning the 'console'
(kl/dl) driver into a "LITOUT only" one is a 100% correct way to
go (the other drivers such as dz, dh, etc remain 7e1 output by
default).
Here's a patch for getty/main.c which I think will do what's
wanted without having to modify the kernel:
------------snip-------------
*** main.c.dist Mon Sep 9 16:52:24 2002
--- main.c Mon Sep 9 16:56:55 2002
***************
*** 384,391 ****
c = cc;
c |= partab[c&0177] & 0200;
! if (OP)
! c ^= 0200;
if (!UB) {
outbuf[obufcnt++] = c;
if (obufcnt >= OBUFSIZ)
--- 384,401 ----
c = cc;
c |= partab[c&0177] & 0200;
! /*
! * If "any" parity do nothing otherwise set even parity unless OP is
! * set. Since 'ap' is set in the "default" entry of /etc/gettytab this
! * has the effect of disabling parity on output without having to change
! * the kernel.
! */
! if (!AP) {
! c |= partab[c & 0177] & 0200;
! if (OP)
! c ^= 0200;
! }
!
if (!UB) {
outbuf[obufcnt++] = c;
if (obufcnt >= OBUFSIZ)
--------------snip---------------
What this does is check the "AP" (AnyParity) flag from /etc/gettytab
and if NOT set then do the 'even' (or 'odd' if OP is set) parity.
Since 'ap' is present in the default line of /etc/gettytab the above
block effectively becomes a no-op unless /etc/gettytab is explicitly
set for 'ep' or 'op'.
If someone could test this and report back I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
Steven Schultz
sms(a)2bsd.com
Is there a description anywhere of how C was originally bootstrapped?
I'm sure it was nothing unconventional, but the question of how you
bring up compilers for other languages which are implemented in their
own language seems to mystify some people to the extent that they
argue that the compiler must be written in C (which is `always
there'), and I thought it would be good to have the real story about C
to tell them.
Thanks
--tim
Hi,
> Currently when I boot, I start off with my terminal set to 19,200 baud
> 8-N-1 but once BSD has booted I have to switch to 19,200 7-E-1
The hardware runs on 8-bit clean channels. Most UNIX kernels
kinda prefer to use 7e1 or 7o1.
> Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I fix it so
> the setting remains on 8-N-1? (stty?)
Once you're logged in to the system, type "stty -parenb bits8" or
"stty -parenb cs8" or "stty -parenb 8" to go back to 8-bit mode.
Then reset your terminal program again :)
> Also, if I can't fix this, will vtserver/vtc run on 7-E-1 comms?
Nope. VTc requires an 8-bit clean channel (for now).
--fred
> Dennis Ritchie wrote:-
>
> Early on, for fun, we tried assembling the DEC-supplied
> assembler, which came on at least one (maybe more) long
> fan-folded paper tapes. I don't think we ever succeeded; it had to
> be fed in twice for the two passes, and enough characters
> were dropped that phase errors occurred.
The early high speed tape readers used the clock pulse off the stepper motor
(with suitable delay) to strobe the data from the photo-transistors. It
was somewhat unreliable. Latter models added a ninth detector under the sprocket
holes, which being smaller, neatly strobed the data in the middle of the punched
data.
The 11/20 I first used only had the paper tape software. The pdp-11 instruction
set (at that point) was nicely orthogonal, so we often hand coded patches rather
than use the assembler/editor, since it was faster.
Hi,
I've managed to get a BSD 2.11 root filesystem onto my 11/73 via VTserver
and I am preparing to use vtc to transfer the /usr components.
Currently when I boot, I start off with my terminal set to 19,200 baud
8-N-1 but once BSD has booted I have to switch to 19,200 7-E-1
Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I fix it so the setting
remains on 8-N-1? (stty?)
Also, if I can't fix this, will vtserver/vtc run on 7-E-1 comms?
Toby
Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)update.uu.se> wrote:
> > It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws. Since that is
> > your personal voluntary choice, it is your problem.
>
> Yes, and it's *that* problem I'm looking for a solution to.
But since you've created that problem for yourself by your own voluntary choice
to honor copyrights, you shouldn't be asking others for a solution.
> Freed as in "legally freed", or just "made available".
Legally by whose law? It is legal by the Law of Hammurabi, King of Babylon by
the way of Anu, Enlil, and Marduk. [1]
> harhan.org don't exist from where my dns is looking... :-/
It sure exists:
Registrant:
Harhan Computer Operation Facility (HARHAN-DOM)
786 E MISSION AVE APT F
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025-2154
US
Domain Name: HARHAN.ORG
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Sokolov, Michael (MS35906) msokolov(a)IVAN.HARHAN.ORG
The Harhan Network
786 E MISSION AVE UNIT F
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025-2154
US
+1-760-480-4575 +1-760-747-1493
Record expires on 17-Feb-2004.
Record created on 17-Feb-2000.
Database last updated on 4-Sep-2002 16:59:12 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
IVAN.HARHAN.ORG 208.221.139.1
IFCTFVAX.HARHAN.ORG 208.221.139.2
> Another machine I have access to managed to resolve ivan.harhan.org to
> 208.221.139.1,
Correct.
> but there is no response at that address.
Maybe my outside link was down then, try again.
> However, if it is just the sources, and not some legal notes available,
> then I don't need to go there.
The new laws I've made for this planet haven't been posted yet, but they soon
will be.
MS
[1] Lofty Anu, lord of the gods
who from Heaven to Earth came,
and Enlil, lord of Heaven and Earth
who determines the destinies of the land,
Determined for Marduk, the firstborn of Enki,
the Enlil-functions over all mankind;
Made him great among the gods who watch and see,
Called Babylon by name to be exalted,
made it supreme in the world;
And established for Marduk, in its midst,
an everlasting kingship.
Dave Horsfall:
AFAIK, Unix never ran on the 11/20 (no MM unit); did you mean a DEC-20?
I don't know if it was called an 11/20 at the time (I seem to recall
some model-number upheaval in the early days of the -11), but the first
PDP-11 UNIX system was certainly one without memory management:
By the beginning of 1970, PDP-7 UNIX was a going concern ... In early
1970 we proposed acquisition of a PDP-11, which had just been introduced
by Digital ... to create a system specifically designed for editing and
formatting text, what might today be called a `word-processing system.'
... During the last half of 1971, we supported three typists from the
Patent Department, who spent the day busily typing, editing, and formatting
patent applications, and meanwhile tried to carry on our own work. UNIX
has a reputation for supplying interesting services on modest hardware,
and this period may mark a high point in the benefit/equipment ratio;
on a machine with no memory protection and a single 0.5-MB disk, every
test of a new program required care and boldness, because it could easily
crash the system, and every few hours' work by the typists meant pushing
out more information onto DECtape, because of the very small disk.
The experiment was trying but successful. Not only did the Patent
Department adopt UNIX, and thus become the first of many groups at the
Laboratories to ratify our work, but we achieved sufficient credibility
to convince our own management to acquire one of the first PDP-11/45
systems made.
Dennis M. Ritchie, Evolution of the UNIX Time-Sharing System; AT&T Bell
Labs Technical Journal, Vol. 63 No. 8 Part 2, October 1984.
Maybe Dennis will chime in with further memories.
Certainly there's nothing odd about UNIX running without memory protection,
though, especially in that era. The PDP-7 had none. The trick was that
every context switch was also a swap. The scheme was revived in the late
1970s for the early, no-memory-map versions of the LSI-11 (called LSX and
later Mini-UNIX; paper by Lycklama et al in the 1978 all-UNIX BLTJ, I believe).
I suppose next some whippersnapper will express disbelief that UNIX
could have run on a system with no Ethernet interface. You mean there
was life before 10BaseT, spam, and pornographic web sites?
(Not, to be fair, that Dave Horsfall is a whippersnapper.)
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
(Still on the shelf, but crawling toward the edge)
> From: Dennis Ritchie <dmr(a)plan9.bell-labs.com>
> Subject: [pups] Unix and PDP11/20 (was PDP9?)
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:08:02 -0400
>
> Holden's link,
>
> http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/11_20.html
>
> reinforces my guess that our first -11 probably did
> have just "PDP11" on the bezel. The one in my photo
> (which has the 20) is doubtless our second -11.
> I've looked at this page before, but it slipped my mind.
>
> Our first -11 was very early, and its disk took several
> months to arrive: it had TTY33 and high-speed paper tape
> as its only peripherals besides the clock.
>
> Early on, for fun, we tried assembling the DEC-supplied
> assembler, which came on at least one (maybe more) long
> fan-folded paper tapes. I don't think we ever succeeded; it had to
> be fed in twice for the two passes, and enough characters
> were dropped that phase errors occurred.
I was there once myself. The problem was fuzzy holes in the DEC-punched
fan-fold paper tape. So I toggled in a small utility program
"wait, read, wait, punch, loop" to copy from the TTY reader to the
high-speed punch. The sensing pins of the TTY had no trouble with the
fuzzy holes, and I got paper tapes that worked in the high-speed reader.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
Distribution can be restricted by agreement - for instance, I can share source code with you under an agreement that you will not disclose it to others, and I can seek redress if you do disclose. That is common with software. But even absent modifying contract, the "fair use" right you mention is not absolute and unfettered. If I write a book and it is published, you cannot decide to print your own copies and distribute them; I have not waived my rights under copyright by publishing. Indeed, the book does NOT "pass into the public domain" until after expiration of my copyright. This is no different from the case where I invent and create a physical object and distribute it, subject to patent rights that I have acquired; although the physical object is (by logical necessity) out in the public, others may not freely copy it and deny me the benefit of my creativity. "Publishing" is "making public," but not "placing into the public domain" - you have correctly stated that "public domain" is a legal concept, but incorrectly defined it. Even distribution for no material gain (e.g. "freeware") is not "public domain."
DEC (and others) wrote some interesting licenses; although I might buy a DEC computer from you, complete with its software, I would not be legally entitled to use the software until I had negotiated my own license with DEC (or now, most commonly, Mentec). I've always thought that was a bit greedy, but it is lawful to create a non-transferrable license. Today, once the license fee for a given copy has been paid, that license is usually transferrable to another; I can give (or sell) you a copy of a book I purchased, too. But that does not change the author's rights to the material, nor those of the party in possession; it is simply not true that "placing the work in the hands of the public" means "they may now be freely redistributed".
Software does make things more complex; the corpus of law around it is still being established. However, the fundamental principle of a party's right to control of and recompense for his/her/its work product, be it physical or intellectual, still applies. Anyone who denies that, and acts accordingly, is simply a thief, notwithstanding their erudite rationalizations. -- Ian
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mirian Crzig Lennox [mailto:mirian@cosmic.com]
Sent: Fri 9/6/2002 6:59 AM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:27:39 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote:
>* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
>
>> In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
>> perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
>> public domain. When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
>> example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
>> anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
>> wealth, and society as a whole loses.
>
>I think this is kind of unfair in many cases. Firstly copyright has
>lasted for a fairly long time for, well, a fairly long time. It's not
>some sinister new development which is keeping ultrix in copyright.
Copyright has existed for roughly 300 years[1]. However, the
construction of copyright as a form of property is a relatively recent
development. The original copyright term in the U.S. was a mere 14
years[2], and copyrights were adjudicated under tort law, not property
law. As framed in law and interpreted by U.S courts, the purpose of
copyright is foremost the public good (hence the "fair use" doctrine);
the act of 'publishing' is, as the etymology of the word suggests, a
contribution by the author to the public domain, in return for which
he or she is given exclusive right to profit from that work for a
limited prior time.
However, since 1960 the term of copyright has been extended 11 times,
so that no copyrighted work published before 1923 has entered the
public domain (nor will it until 2018, save for future extensions of
the term). The depletion of the public domain is real.
>Secondly, it's all very well to say that old and valueless bits of
>software should be freed, but if you are the organisation which has
>the copyright on these things it's really less trivial than you might
>think to just give them away. For a start, there's (almost by
>definition) no money in it, so any kind of work needed is costing
>money. Secondly there may be just plain trade-secret stuff in there,
>what do you do about that? There may be all sorts of other awful
>things that you don't want to let the world see.
This is all a totally unrelated issue however. Copyright refers
necessarily only to published materials, and published materials
cannot (by definition) be trade secrets. Furthermore, "public domain"
refers merely to legal status, not to any obligation to make physical
materials available. The presumption is that if a work is published,
then copies already exist in the hands of the public, and they may now
be freely redistributed.
--Mirian
[1] The Statute of Anne (1710, in England) is considered to be the
precursor to U.S. copyright law.
[2] It could however be renewed for a single further period of 14
years, provided the initial author was still alive.
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
"It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws." I can only hope that others (dis)regard your property rights, as you (dis)regard the property rights of others. BTW, where do you live? I could use a new monitor or two....
-- Ian King, speaking only for himself (the usual disclaimers apply)
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG]
Sent: Wed 8/28/2002 10:48 AM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)update.uu.se> wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out a way of getting the MSCP driver from Ultrix
> available for porting to NetBSD.
I don't support NetBSD, but Ultrix' MSCP/SCA code is available to everyone.
> The problem is that it's (c) by Digital, now HP.
It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws. Since that is your
personal voluntary choice, it is your problem.
> Could I be lucky enough that Ultrix actually have been released?
> And I'm talking Ultrix-32 here, not Ultrix-11.
The International Free Computing Task Force has freed the Ultrix-32 V2.00 and
V4.20 sources. They can be found on our FTP site in
ivan.Harhan.ORG:/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32
--
Michael Sokolov 786 E MISSION AVE APT F
Programletarian Freedom Fighter ESCONDIDO CA 92025-2154 USA
International Free Computing Task Force Phone: +1-760-480-4575
msokolov(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA)
Let the Source be with you
Programletarians of the world, unite!
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
The chist paper on my home page is pretty complete (if telegraphic)
about bootstrapping B on the PDP-7 and later C (via B) on the -11.
It does not, indeed, explain TMG. Doug McIlroy did write TMG
(on the -7) first in assembly language, then bootstrapped
that into itself. Doug had used TMG to write EPL, the early
Pl/I compiler for Multics. I don't know whether he needed
to create a new implementation of TMG for that or whether
it was already running on the IBM 7094.
The paper also mentions (as does some of the other history stuff)
that Unix itself was written first in assembler on the GE-645
(running GECOS, not Multics at that point),
using a macro package that turned symbolic -7 instructions into
an object deck that could be rendered onto paper tape.
There is not much about TMG on the web that I can find
(and some of it is inaccurate).
Incidentally, TMG didn't immediately survive the move
to the -11. B was already in its own language,
and nothing else was using TMG besides itself.
Doug did revive it later just for fun, and it is in the
6th edition distribution--you can get it nearby!
Both on the -7 and the -11, TMG was implemented as
an interpreter for an abstract machine.
Dennis
Holden's link,
http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/11_20.html
reinforces my guess that our first -11 probably did
have just "PDP11" on the bezel. The one in my photo
(which has the 20) is doubtless our second -11.
I've looked at this page before, but it slipped my mind.
Our first -11 was very early, and its disk took several
months to arrive: it had TTY33 and high-speed paper tape
as its only peripherals besides the clock.
Early on, for fun, we tried assembling the DEC-supplied
assembler, which came on at least one (maybe more) long
fan-folded paper tapes. I don't think we ever succeeded; it had to
be fed in twice for the two passes, and enough characters
were dropped that phase errors occurred.
Incidentally, B programs could be run on this first pre-disk
-11, using cross-compilation from GECOS. There was
a stand-alone predecessor of dc!
BTW, apologies for the units slip in the earlier posting.
Indeed 128 words of RAM on the 11/10, 4096 words
standard on the 11/20 (we splurged with 12K).
Also BTW, the young woman on p. 104 of the first
manual has a just-so-1969 hairdo! She has her
index finger on one of the console switches, is
holding a Unibus jumper in the other hand, and
the caption is "The PDP-11 provides Direct Device
Addressing...." The Unibus address pin assignments
that replaced herwere probably more useful, but not
so redolent of history.
Dennis
I agree with your premise that copyright can be detrimental to broader interests, and the case of "obsolete but historically interesting" software is a prime case in point. However, copyright holders can choose to make things readily available without placing them in the public domain; the 'Ancient UNIX' license is a great example. If they choose not to do so, the law does allow them recourse. I doubt they would consume the resources to execute on that against individuals who are running old software for non-commercial purposes; I suspect that those who commit such indiscretions wholesale may not be treated with such latitude.
And, IMHO, those who baldly advertise their general disdain of copyright law are pretty much asking for it. -- Ian
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent my employer's opinions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mirian Crzig Lennox [mailto:mirian@cosmic.com]
Sent: Thu 9/5/2002 4:56 PM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:15:52 -0700, Ian King <iking(a)microsoft.com> wrote:
>"It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws." I can
> only hope that others (dis)regard your property rights, as you
> (dis)regard the property rights of others. BTW, where do you live? I
> could use a new monitor or two....
It is possible to respect property rights and yet disagree (to the
point of disobedience) with how the concept has been lately twisted by
monied interests in the United States.
The purpose of copyright is not to be a form of property; if it were,
copyrights would not expire. The purpose of copyright is to enrich
the public domain by encouraging authors to publish their works, by
ensuring them exclusive right to profit from their work for a limited
time after which time *the work passes into the public domain*. This
is plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution as the basis for copyright
law: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries." [Article I, section 8].
In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
public domain. When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
wealth, and society as a whole loses.
--Mirian
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
<nl>
> I guess my MACRO-11 implementation of C isn't good enough.
> (Well, it ain't mine, it's the normal DECUS C, but I'm hacked some at it.)
<nl><nl>
and to bring this full circle, do you know where DECUS C came from?
<nl><nl>
> From: Al Kossow <aek(a)spies.com>
> To: pups(a)tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [pups] Bringing up the fist C compiler
> Content-ID: <9012_13188_1031248039_2(a)spies.com>
> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:47:19 -0700
>
> <nl>
> > I guess my MACRO-11 implementation of C isn't good enough.
> > (Well, it ain't mine, it's the normal DECUS C, but I'm hacked some at i=
> t.)
> <nl><nl>
>
> and to bring this full circle, do you know where DECUS C came from?
> <nl><nl>
It is my understanding that it was a "clean room" reimplementation of
the 6th Edition Unix "cc" and "as".
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
Peter Wrangell <pwrangell(a)bsdmercs.org> wrote:
> I am looking for a copy of Ultrix 4.5 preferably on TK70 tapes but any
> medium will do. I have a MicroVax 3300 that I would like to breath life
> into again.
I can't help you with 4.5, but I have the full V4.00 TK50 distribution and it
fully supports MV3300 with DSSI. The tape images are on my FTP site in:
ivan.Harhan.ORG:/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32/ult400vaxdist-tk50
On the same site I also have full sources for V2.00 and V4.20. (I have no
sources for the version for which I have the dist, and no dists for the
versions for which I have the sources... I guess I need to bite the bullet and
compile V4.20 myself. Some day maybe.)
MS
