Hi. Has anyone managed to compile a version of the original BSD vi under
Linux? I'm looking from something from the 4.3 to 4.4 vintage sources.
I made a stab at the Open Solaris version of vi, but could only get so
far.
Thanks,
Arnold Robbins
Caldera changed very drastically as a company at the time it changed
its name to SCO). Ancient Unix was opened up in January of 2002. In
June of that year, the CEO of Caldera was forcibly replaced with an
M$-backed anti-open source crusader. It was at that point that Caldera
stopped selling its Linux distro, changed its name to SCO and started
suing any company involved with Linux.
On 11/28/06, Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> wrote:
>
> On 28 Nov 2006, at 13:17, Michael Kerpan wrote:
>
> > That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V
> > and SCO is a M$-funded anti-open source crusader.
>
> Didn't SCO open up the early UNIX versions on TUHS now? and I thought
> that previously Caldera had opened some old OSs like DR-DOS or CP-M.
>
> Regards, Rob.
>
See the December 2002 discussion threads "V6: 50 bugs tape"
and "Patches to improve 6th Edition" in the archive
(http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2002-December/date.html)
While not specifically mentioned in those mails it is part
of the 50 bugs tape -- you'll want to extract usr/sys/v6unix/* from
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Spencer_Tapes/unsw3.tar.gz
and you'll see it fixed in usr/sys/v6unix/updat/ken/sig.c
> From: jigsaw <jigsaw(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [TUHS] UNIX V6 line 3973: Is it really a typo?
>
> hi all,
>
> It's stated in Lion's book chapter 13.13 that at line 3973, i.e. the
> function psignal, there is a typo where the p_stat should be p_pri.
>
> Is there anyone can confirm it?
>
> If it's really a bug, why it remains p_stat in UNIX V7?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Qinglai
hi Hellwig,
Thanks for pointing out.
I was viewing actually the V6's source while I had thought it's V7.
Thanks &
Regards,
Qinglai
On 10/17/06, Hellwig Geisse <Hellwig.Geisse(a)mni.fh-giessen.de> wrote:
> Hi Qinglai,
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 14:26 +0800, jigsaw wrote:
> > If it's really a bug, why it remains p_stat in UNIX V7?
>
> it was changed in V7 to p_pri (file sig.c, lines 64/65).
>
> Regards,
> Hellwig
>
>
hi all,
It's stated in Lion's book chapter 13.13 that at line 3973, i.e. the
function psignal, there is a typo where the p_stat should be p_pri.
Is there anyone can confirm it?
If it's really a bug, why it remains p_stat in UNIX V7?
Thanks in advance
Qinglai
The thrust meter project -- was that an analog meter that displayed %
CPU utilization? I remember that Tom Ferrin had one mounted in the
middle of a DEC panel filler on the 11/70 at the Computer Graphics
Lab at UCSF. It was really delightful having this analog meter
bouncing up and down as people worked away.
Brian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_| _| _| Brian Knittel
_| _| _| Quarterbyte Systems, Inc.
_| _| _| Tel: 1-510-559-7930
_| _| _| Fax: 1-510-525-6889
_| _| _| Email: brian(a)quarterbyte.com
_| _| _| http://www.quarterbyte.com
> But you'd need kernel mode for that; this is a DoS attack (one of the
> first?) launched by a user.
The userland DoS I remember:
main() {
while(1)
fork();
}
And in fact I tried it once on the 11/45 I had access to. Not pretty.
It can be made less disastrous by judicious addition of a wait(); call.
--Milo, wondering how contemporary UNIX will deal with such
pathological behavior....
--
Milo Velimirović
University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA
43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W
--
There's a reason Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson have been awarded
the U.S. National Medal of Technology (1998) and are fellows of the
Computer History Museum Online. Dave Cutler hasn't and isn't.
"You are not expected to understand this."
[ Meant to go to list, but sent to DMR only by mistake. ]
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 dmr(a)plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> > It contains the famous Thrust Meter, a few papers by Yours Truly, and
> > I think it has the short assembly program that would bring a PDP-11/70
> > to its knees (the infamous "SPL" firmware bug).
>
> Was this the feature (not really a bug; it's in the manual) that SPL
> suppressed interrupts for one instruction after the SPL? I suppose it
> was indeed a bug that this happened even in user mode where SPL was
> intended to be a no-op.
Yep, that's the one. I regard it as a bug because it indeed happened in
user mode...
> I remember trying this. It depends on completely filling memory with
> SPLs, which I could not figure out how to do using an instruction
> sequence. However, putting a bunch of SPLs into a file and reading it
> in over the program did the job.
There was a clever assembly program that did it; it relied upon the
instruction counter wrapping around (I can't remember in which direction,
or whether it first relocated itself). Anyone, it managed to fill memory
with SPLs, so the next instruction after overwriting its last instruction
was SPL, and for the foreseeable future after that...
If I find the article I'll post it here; I don't think there are too many
11/70s still in public operation.
> It was a bit hard to break out of--the halt switch didn't work. At first
> I thought that power-off was the only solution, but it turned out that
> holding down both reset and halt simultaneously did the job.
I'll remember that, should I ever see an emulator :-) I still remember
Ian Johnstone cursing me...
-- Dave
Dave Horsfall mentioned, about some old editions of AUUGN,
> It contains the famous Thrust Meter, a few papers by Yours Truly, and I
> think it has the short assembly program that would bring a PDP-11/70 to
> its knees (the infamous "SPL" firmware bug).
Was this the feature (not really a bug; it's in the manual)
that SPL suppressed interrupts for one instruction after the SPL?
I suppose it was indeed a bug that this happened even in user mode
where SPL was intended to be a no-op.
I remember trying this. It depends on completely filling
memory with SPLs, which I could not figure out how to
do using an instruction sequence. However, putting
a bunch of SPLs into a file and reading it in over the program
did the job.
It was a bit hard to break out of--the halt switch didn't work.
At first I thought that power-off was the only solution, but it
turned out that holding down both reset and halt simultaneously did
the job.
Dennis
Hi,
at
http://www.ba-stuttgart.de/~helbig/os/script/chapt2.2
I tried to explain the dynamic memory allocation in Unix V6.
Greetings,
Wolfgang
--
"Dijkstra is right, but you don't say such things!"
(A less courageous programmer)