> From: John Foust
> Mark Riordan has a copy and some docs...
> http://www.60bits.net/msu/mycomp/terak/termedia.htm
Alas, the only thing online there is a list of which floppies he had, not any
actual content (other than one document). I've sent him an email (at the
address given on that site), we'll see if I get a reply. He might not have a
way to read those floppies...
If not, no biggie; in asking I more wanted to make sure I wasn't wasting my
time, I don't really need him to come through. Having done the /40->/23 move,
I'm sure the /05->/03 move won't present any major problems.
BTW, looking around for a copy of a document he mentioned, I found this:
http://www.tavi.co.uk/unixhistory/mini-unix.html
so between them and the stuff at TUHS, I think we have everything we'd need.
Noel
Hello,
Perhaps this has been discussed here before, but I
couldn't find a definitive answer as to the origin of
"Charlie Root".
https://www.geeklan.co.uk/?p=2457 includes links to
some of the /etc/passwd files from 4.1cBSD, 4.2BSD,
and 2.9BSD, where we see root changing from being "The
Man" to "Charlie &".
Speculations on the internet about Charlie Root the
baseball player are easy enough to find, but no
confirmation or official origin story.
So I thought I'd ask here: who can (authoritatively)
shed light on how we ended up with Charlie Root?
-Jan
I wrote:
>There was one for the Terak (an 11/03) in May 1979 but I've never found a copy.
I take it back... Mark Riordan has a copy and some docs...
http://www.60bits.net/msu/mycomp/terak/termedia.htm
- John
> If you want multiple users on an -11/03, Mini-Unix would be an option;
> zit 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.)
On thinking about it, I might do the -11/03 port of Mini-Unix for the hack
value; it looks like it should be a quick project (a couple of hours, much of
which would be getting Mini-Unix set up; I'd use a simulator, my QBUS RK11
emulator is broken at the moment).
I think it should mostly just be some fairly straight-forward changes to
mch.s; I think all the C code would be fine. (Unless there's an 'PS->integ' or
something hiding somewhere.) Also a few odds and ends, like a software console
switch register (been there, done that).
That would make the full power of Mini-Unix available to people with -11/03's;
those are still fairly common, and reasonably cheap. (Unlike -11/05's.) It's a
considerably more capable system than LSX: e.g. the tty driver is the full V6
one, and supports an arbitrary number of devices.
So my question is: had anyone else already done this (I don't want to waste
time replicating already-done work)? Also, would anyone have a use for it if I
did it? If so, I'll put it up on a Web page when I'm done. (No, I _don't_ use
Guthub, and have zero interest in learning how. I'd rather spend my remaining
un-comitted neurons improving my ability to read feudal Japanese.)
Noel
Doug McIlroy:
To put it more strongly. this is not a legal C source file.
char *s = NULL;
But this is.
char *s = 0;
Clem Cole:
67)The macro NULL is defined in <stddef.h> (and other headers) as a null
pointer constant; see 7.19.
====
$ cat null.c
char *s = NULL;
$ cat zero.c
char *s = 0;
$
zero.c is a legal C program. null.c is not. Create
files exactly as shown and compile them if you don't
believe me.
Prepend `#include <stddef.h>' (or <stdlib.h> or <stdio.h>)
to null.c and it becomes legal, but I think that's Doug's
point: you need an include file.
Personally I prefer to use NULL instead of 0 when spelling
out a null pointer, because I think it's clearer:
if ((buf = malloc(SIZE)) == NULL)
error("dammit andrew");
though I am willing to omit it when there's no confusion
about = vs ==:
if (*p)
dammit(*p, "andrew");
But that's just a question of style, and Doug's is fine too.
The language does not require the compiler to pre-define
NULL or to recognize it as a keyword; you have to include
an appropriate standard header file.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON (not 0N nor NULLN)
> 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
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
>
>
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*
> 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
> 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