> From: Nigel Williams
> Is it a reasonable claim that the PDP-10 made time-sharing "common"
> ... I'm presuming that "common" should be read as ubiquitous and
> accessible
> I'm wondering if it was really the combination of the PDP-11
Good question; I think a case can be made both ways.
> (lower-cost more models)
One observation I will make: the two don't have identical time-lines; the
earliest PDP-10 models predate the PDP-11 by a good chunk, and the PDP-11
out-lasted the PDP-10. So that has a big influence, I think, on the question
above.
The first PDP-10 (the KA - we'll leave aside the even earlier PDP-6) was made
out of small cards with individual transistors (B-series Flip Chips), whereas
the earliest PDP-11 model (the -11/20) used SSI TTL on much larger cards.
Ditto on the other end: the last PDP-10 sold used 29xx bit-slice technology,
whereas the PDP-11 lasted through three generations of microprocessor (the
LSI-11, Fonz, and Jaws).
Noel
Nigel Williams <nw(a)retrocomputingtasmania.com> asks on the TUHS list today:
>> ...
>> Is it a reasonable claim that the PDP-10 made time-sharing "common"
>> (note it says "the machine")? I'm presuming that "common" should be
>> read as ubiquitous and accessible (as in lower-cost than
>> competing/alternative options from other manufacturers or even DEC).
>>
>> I'm wondering if it was really the combination of the PDP-11
>> (lower-cost more models) and Unix ("free" license to universities)
>> that propelled time-sharing, at least at universities.
>> ...
I worked on the IBM ATS (Administrative Terminal System) for text
processing in the early 1970s, and for several years, on the CDC 6400
under both SCOPE and KRONOS operating systems. Those were mainframe
environments, but users scattered around campus accessed them via
glass terminals, so that was certainly time sharing.
Later, for 12 years (1978--1990), I also worked on TOPS-20 on the
PDP-10, and that too was time sharing, with most users having a
terminal on their desks. We also had PDP-11 and LSI-11 systems, but
they ran DEC proprietary operating systems, and were generally
dedicated to particular research hardware.
It was only in the early 1980s that my institution also began to run
Unix systems, initially Wollongong BSD on VAX 750s, and then in 1987,
with our first Sun workstations running SunOS. Thus, for me at least,
Unix time sharing came a dozen years late (though it was still
welcome, and remains so today).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
- University of Utah FAX: +1 801 581 4148 -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe(a)math.utah.edu -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe(a)acm.org beebe(a)computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story appears today in The Register:
PDP-10 enthusiasts resurrect ancient MIT operating system
Incompatible Timesharing System now compatible with modern machines
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/30/pdp10_enthusiasts_resurrect_ancien…
Near the end of the story is a mention of SIMH and of KLH10, both
of which emulate the PDP-10. There is also mention of a PDP-11
emulator running inside ITS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
- University of Utah FAX: +1 801 581 4148 -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe(a)math.utah.edu -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe(a)acm.org beebe(a)computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Lars Brinkhoff
> several debuggers called RUG and CARPET
SYSENG;CARPET > and SYSENG;KLRUG > (and also SYSEN2;URUG >).
CARPET runs in the PDP-10, and talks to the 11's via the Rubin 10-11 interface
on MIT-AI (which let the PDP-10 see into the PDP-11s' memory); it installed a
small toehold in the 11 (e.g. for trap handling). There was also a version
(conditionalized in the source) called "Hali" ("Hali is Carpet over a [serial]
line") - 'hali' is Turkish for 'carpet' (I wonder how someone knew that).
RUG runs in the front-end 11 on the KL (MIT-MC). URUG is a really simple
version of RUG that runs in a GT40, and use the GT40 display for output.
There's also 11DDT (KLDCP;11DDT >) - not sure why both this and KLRUG exist -
unless RUG was for the front-end 11, and 11DDT was for the I/O-11?
Noel
> From: Paul Ruizendaal
>> the headers say they date from 1974-75.
> Wow, that's great! That means that you have the initial version.
The file write dates are May 1979, so that's the latest it can be. There is
one folder called 'DTI' which contains an email message from someone at DTI to
someone at SRI which is dated "10 Apr 1979" so that seems to indicate that
that's indeed when they are from.
(The message says that the folder contains the source for DTI's IMP-11A
driver, which is different from UIll's, although they both descend from the
same original version.)
> Possibly it is V5 not V6
Nope, definitely V6 here.
> All my leads for the 1975 version of this code base came up dry and I
> feared it lost.
I could have sworn that I'd seen _listings_ of the code in a UIllinois
document about NCP Unix that I had found (and downloaded) on the Internet, but
I can't find them here now. I did look again and found:
"A Network Unix System for the Arpanet", by Karl C. Kelley, Richard Balocca,
and Jody Kravitz
but it doesn't contain any sources.
> it may contain the first version of 'mbufs'
It might - the code is conditionalized for "UCBUFMOD" all over the place.
> Yes, a 'history' file seems to have been common practice at BBN. The
> kernel would have had many modifications:
> - the 'ports' extension from Rand
Yes.
> - the 'await' extension by Jack Haverty
Yup.
> - an 1822-driver
Yes (also by Haverty) - although IMP11-A drivers are all over the place, there
are two different ones in the NCP Unix alone.
> - possibly, an Autodin II network driver
Didn't see one.
> - possibly, shared memory extensions
Yes, there are two module in 'ken', map_page.c and set_lcba.c (I was unable to
work out what 'LCBA' stood for) which seem to do something with mapping.
> It might even have some NCP code in it
Yes, there's an 'ncpkernel' directory.
> There seem to have been two versions of the BBN modified kernel. One was
> done for systems without separate I/D with stuff heavily trimmed
Yes, there's a 'SMALL' preprocessor flag which conditionally removes some
stuff.
> The other may have extended the V6 kernel to run in separate I and D
> spaces
That capability was present in stock V6.
Noel
> From: Clem Cole
> Steve Ward's guys writing Trix hacked together a compiler, assembler and
> the like.
All of which I have the source for - just looked through it.
> If memory serves me, tjt wrote the assembler
I have the NROFF source for the "A68 Assembler Reference", and it's by James
L. Gula and Thomas J. Teixeira. It says that "A68 is an edit of the MICAL
assembler also written by Mike [Patrick].".
> Jack Test did much of the compiler and again IIRC that was based on PCC.
I dunno, I'm not familiar with PCC, so I can't say. It definitely looks very
different from the Ritchie C compiler.
Noel
> From: Paul Ruizendaal <pnr(a)planet.nl>
>> I have this distinct memory of Dave Clark mentioning the Liza Martin
>> TCP/IP for Unix in one of the meeting report publihed as IENs
> It may be mentioned in this report:
> http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/rfc/csr-rfc-228.pdf
Yeah, I had run across that in my search for any remnants of the Martin
stuff.
> Would you know if any of its source code survived?
As I had mentioned, I had found some old dump tapes, and had one of them read;
it had some bad spots, but we've just (this morning) succeeding in having a
look as to what's there, and I _think_ all of the source is OK (including the
kernel code, as well as applications like server Telnet and FTP). No SCCS or
anything like that, so it's a bit hit or miss doing history - the file write
dates were preserved, but of course a lot of them would have been edited over
time to fix bugs, add features, etc.
The tape appears to contains a _lot_ of other historic material, and it's
going to take a while to sort it all out; it includes a Version 6 with NCP
from NOSC/SRI, some Unix from BBN; a BCPL compiler; a 'bind' for .rel format
files (produced by MACRO-11 and probably BCPL) written in BCPL; programs to
convert from .rel to a.out and back; an early verion of Montgomery EMACS;
another Unix from 'TMI' (whoever that might be); another UNIX that's somehow
associated with TRIX; someone's early kernel overlay stuff; an early 68K C
compiler, and also an early 8080 C compiler - just a ton of stuff (that's just
a few items that grabbed my eye as I scrolled by).
Algol, alas, appears not to be there (we probably didn't add it, because of
space reasons). The copy of LISP on this tape seem to be damaged; I do have 3
other tapes, and between them, I hope we'll be able to retrieve it.
Noel
> From: Nick Downing
> This is a wonderful find
Yes, I was _very_ happy to find those tapes in my basement; up till that, I
was almost sure all those bits were gone forever.
Thanks to Chuck Guzis, whose old data recovery service made this possible - he
actually read the tape.
> is it possible for you to read the other tapes also?
Alas, they're all of the same system. So the most we're going to get is the
files that are missing on this one due to bad spots on the tape.
Noel
> some Unix from BBN
This one is from 1979, it includes Mike Wingfield's TCP. The 'Trix UNIX' is a
port to the 68K, probably started with something V7ish (I see "setjmp.h" in
there). Bits of the Montgomery EMACS appear to date from 1981, but the main
source files seem to be from 1984. I also have the source to 'vsh' (Visual
Shell), whatever that is.
Noel