>I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout
Basically the same machine was also sold as the 3b1; the difference
between the 7300 and the 3b1 is that the 3b1 has room for a taller
hard disk drive.
I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.
It's definitely not SVR3; no "STREAMS".
Greetings
I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some information
regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power supply has
problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what we have
here, namely 220V 50Hz.
I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams for the
power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to have a go at
redesigning it.
Am I barking up the wrong tree?
regards
Duncan
___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
Hello,
On my FreeBSD/i386 host, I was unable to extract the "rootdump"
file of the 4.4BSD-Alpha distribution available on Minnie.
Fortunately, I succeeded on my NetBSD/vax machine, even though
its version of NetBSD is far older than FreeBSD 5.3 which is
what I have on the i386.
The VAX "restore" program mentioned something about quad-
swapping, so perhaps FreeBSD's "restore" does not translate
the byte order. I think the 4.4BSD distribution is from a
big-endian machine ("hp300"). It's funny, then, that I was
sure that *at least* byte-order could *not* be the problem
since both the i386 and VAX are little-endian and I was sure
the 4.4BSD distribution was a VAX one!
After extracting the rootdump, I created a .tar file instead
and uploaded it to minnie.tuhs.org:/incoming, file name
bsd44a-shoppa-rootdump.tar. You may wish to compress it and
move it to the same directory as the other 4.4BSD-Alpha files
so others won't have to go through the trouble I experienced.
Regards,
A. Wik
I just received this from a friend. The format was heavily >>>>>>'d, so I've
cleaned it up a bit. The information about who said what is vague.
Warren
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
To: UNIX Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Subject: PDP-11 and PDP-10s in Holland
From a discussion on a FreeBSD mailing list:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:16PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote..
>>>>>>> I forgot- the world premier PDP-11 site is in .nl.
>>>>> http://www.pdp-11.nl/
Wilko Bulte then wrote:
>>>> I am sure you will also appreciate Geert's museum at:
>>>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~geerol/
>>>> Geert is a friend of mine with a *big* farm house :)
Then Matthew Jacob wrote:
>> see also:
>> http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/default.htm
>> They also have a full KL10 (PDP10 (!)) that seems to not be in the list..
>> see: http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/EventDetail.asp?lngEventId=48
From a discussion on a FreeBSD mailing list:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:09:34 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
>> Yeah!
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:16PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I forgot- the world premier PDP-11 site is in .nl.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it? Which one do you mean?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pdp-11.nl/
>>>
>>> Ah.
>>>
>>> I am sure you will also appreciate Geert's museum at:
>>>
>>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~geerol/
>>>
>>> Geert is a friend of mine with a *big* farm house :)
>
> see also:
> http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/default.htm
>
> They also have a full KL10 (PDP10 (!)) that seems to not be in the list..
> see: http://aceware.iinet.net.au/acms/EventDetail.asp?lngEventId=48
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Markus E Leypold wrote:
> I wonder, wether you realize that getting pcc "ready" would mean
> writing a x86 backend for it. Or does it already have one?
>From what I heard it does, unless I misremembered...
-uso.
On 2005-Nov-14 10:45:13 -0500, Brantley Coile <brantley(a)coraid.com> wrote:
>> This is fairly wasteful of RAM. Keep in mind that V6 cannot page -
>> a process is either entirely in memory or entirely on disk. If you
>> limit yourself to 640K RAM, you are probably restricting yourself
>> to about 6 resident processes. And swapping means moving 64K of
>> data to/from disk.
>
>true, but your numbers are a bit off. 640k / 64k = 10 not 6.
I realise that.
> the kernel will take only 2, so you should have 8.
I was assuming split I+D, with the data segment fixed at 64K. This
means that you have (64K + code) per process. If you have code plus
data in 64K then you can fit more, but I think that was getting to
be a squeeze even on V6. (And would definitely write off something
like 2BSD).
>the mit x86 stuff would be where i'd start. i haven't looked to see
>if you need to tweak the assignment operators to avoid having
>to s/=+/+=/, but it might already be done.
Given an open-source compiler, it would be fairly easy to retrofit the
=+ operators into the lexer. (Probably easier than cleaning up the
code). The alternative is to start with something later (eg 2BSD) but
code quality then becomes far more of an issue (because 2BSD tends to
push the I-space limits in lots of areas).
>it's all 16 bit stuff: port of PCC, assembler and loader.
The x86 instruction set and registers are nothing like as regular and
orthogonal as the PDP-11. In particular, there are _no_ general
purpose registers - every register has has a particular purpose and
either you need to do data-flow analysis to work out what register to
load something into, or you (basically) give up and load from memory
as needed. You could port PCC but this would be much more difficult
than (say) a M68K port. You'd probably need a fairly decent peep-hole
optimiser to get good results.
Wesley Parish mentioned bcc and OpenWatcom. I looked into the former
and it's probably the best starting point (though, with due respect to
BDE, the code it generates could be better). Assuming that Unix fits
into the C subset implemented by bcc, you'd be better off spending the
effort on improving bcc than porting PCC. At the time I looked,
OpenWatcom was either still vapourware or not self-hosting.
>an enjoyable discussion. wish i had time to work on it.
Agreed.
--
Peter Jeremy
This email may contain privileged/confidential information. You may not copy or disclose this email to anyone without the written permission of the sender. If you have received this email in error please kindly delete this message and notify the sender. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily the opinions of the employer.
This email and any attached files should be scanned to detect viruses. No liability will be accepted by the employer for loss or damage (whether caused by negligence or not) as a result of email transmission.
I've thought, since there doesn't seem to be a working "V6on286", maybe I
should try porting it myself though I'm not very familiar with the Ancient
Unix sources or with the ancient C used. The oldest compiler I've got
that will compile is Turbo C++ 1.01 from 1990 and it's an ANSI C compiler.
(I do think it'll compile late K&R, but there's weirdnesses in the C used
by V6.)
Having an emulator like QEMU handy is a nice plus. I could prolly build
everything onto a 1.44 MB disk image and boot it in emulation. I'm
thinking I'd want to create tools for transferring files into and out of
disk images, and a bootloader to put on the first sector of the disk
(though, 512 bytes is awful small...)
Any ideas?
-uso.
Brantley Coile:
i don't know that it's a squese. a version of v6 ran on an lsi-11
with very little ram.
=======
If you're thinking of Mini-UNIX, it's a bit of a stretch to call
it `V6 running on an LSI-11.' I think the original LSI-11 had no
memory management; in any case, Mini-UNIX didn't use it, but was
a throwback to the early days of the PDP-7 and the 11/20 (neither
of which had memory management). Only one process could be in
memory at a time; to let another process run meant swapping the
first completely out of memory.
I believe there's a paper in the 1978 all-UNIX issue of the Bell
Systems Technical Journal about Mini-UNIX or its immediate
predecessor. As I recall, there were additional compromises;
e.g. the shell quietly translated
a | b
to
a >tempfile; b <tempfile; rm tempfile
because that was much faster than the thrashing that often
resulted from trying to let a and b run concurrently.
Mini-UNIX might be a simpler starting point to get a system
running on a 286. Just don't think of it as full V6; it's not.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
Hi all,
here at freaknet medialab we made some images of our
RL02 disk packs with RT-11 and GAMMA-11 software
(specific for a Nuclear Camera, this pdp-11 was used
for medical exams) :)
those images are very funny, we can use them under
simh emulator! :)
So, now that we have the backups, we're wondering about
installing UNIX in this pdp11/34.
what can we install? any hint ?
please help! :)
p.s. something about our restoration and the disk image of
our rt-11 system is online at http://zaverio.net/pdp11, under
the "stuff" directory. :)
--
[ asbesto : IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry ]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbestohttp://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ http://www.emergelab.org :: NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LE ACCENTATE ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC, SPAM ]
