TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

61 participants
6532 discussions

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine One of my less then familiar with UNIX and its relatives, friend, wants to explore a system running UNIX. Probably BSD for the PDP-11 I should think. Since I view telnet, from the Internet to me anyway, as a security risk can someone check this assertion? The last version of BSD for the PDP-11 that I am aware of, and have seen on the site, 2.11 does not have the capability to run SSH, because it does not have the ability to compile it from source. SSH wasn't added to the operating systems that we use until much later. I freely admit that part of my assertion may not be correct however. (Regarding the ability to build SSH natively.) For example, I am aware that the BSD base, such as FreeBSD, and NetBSD, and OpenBSD, all have SSH included. It certainly is in Linux. What I am planning on doing is configuring the Linux version of E11 to run the chosen BSD pointing its Ethernet connection, to the one my Linux box in question uses. And have a second one also running the same release work as a gateway for the first. You'd run SSH to the gateway, login as a "guest" and via an appropriate password, and then telnet to the product. Of course to risk damage to the baseboard Ethernet connection, I'd probably put a cheap card in the computer, and run that over to my router. Pointing it of course to the E11instance. Warren, just for the sake of double checking my facts, are the instructions regarding the BSD family for the PDP-11 up to date? --- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net --- "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi

19 years, 7 months

[pups] "/unix is not the running version." ??

by Robert Armstrong

Guys, Thanks for the help with my dzq11 problem - I'm glad to see that there are still people around running PDP-11 Unix. Now that I've actually started using my 11/73, I've run into several things that I just don't know how to fix. Like this one - I built a non-networking kernel (my normal /unix kernel has DEQNA and TCP/IP support) using the NONET example that comes with 2.11BSD. No particular problems there. Since I don't actually want to overwrite my /unix file, I can't use "make install" to install the nonet kernel, and so I just say "cp unix /nonet" and then chmod /nonet to set the protections. This might have been my mistake, but I don't know any other way to do it without trashing my real /unix kernel. To boot the nonet kernel, at the ":" boot prompt I type "nonet". All is well until we get up to init, and then it says autoconfig: /unix is not the running version init: configuration setup error And then I'm stuck in single user mode with no devices configured. Not especially useful. Is my mistake in just "cp"ing the nonet kernel, or is there some limitation on booting files other than /unix? Thanks again, Bob Armstrong

19 years, 7 months

[pups] Can't get a second DZQ11 to configure?!

by Robert Armstrong

Hi Guys, I've got a 11/73 with 2.11BSD. The hardware configuration is pretty typical - RQDX3, DEQNA, TK50, and one DZQ11. Everything runs fine, but now I need to install a second DZQ. The first DZQ has csr 160100 and vector 300, so according to my calculations the second should be at 160110 and vector 310. I set the switches, install the card, and then edit my system configuration to change NDZ to be 2, rebuild the kernel, reboot, and, .... Disappointment! When it gets up to init, it says: init: configure system dz 0 csr 160100 vector 300 attached ra 0 .... 172150 .... 154 tms 0 .... 174500 ... 260 ... etc ... nothing about the second DZQ. Everything else still works, including the original DZQ11, and it boots up just fine except that there's no sign of the second DZQ11. I figured I made a mistake building the kernel, so I double check my kernel configuration and yes, the file dz.h contains "#define NDZ 2". Just to be safe I delete all the objects from my machine's configuration directory and rebuild the entire kernel from sources (takes a couple of hours on a 11/73!). Still no joy - init only finds one DZ... And I'm sure I'm booting the new kernel because of the timestamp it prints out when you boot it. At this point I figured it's a hardware problem. Just to be sure, I pulled out both DZQs and swapped the switch settings on the two cards. This makes the original DZQ card now the "second" one at 160110/310 and the new card the "first" DZQ at 160100/300. Put it all back together and boot it up again - same results! Init finds the first DZ but not the second! Moreover, all the serial ports on the back that are now connected to dz0 (which is the card that used to be the second dz) still work! Of course, the ports on dz 1 (which is the card that used to work) are now dead. It seems like the two DZQ11 cards must be OK. Oh, and BTW, I even used the 11/73's console ODT to verify that all addresses from 17760100 to 17760117 respond. The only explanation I'm left with is a configuration problem. Is there something I don't know about rebuilding the 2.11bsd kernel? Is 160110/310 the wrong location for the second DZQ11? Thanks much, any suggestions are appreciated. Bob Armstrong

19 years, 8 months

Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by Jose R Valverde

>It is in the same boat as the one Robert is writing >about. I know I can install NetBSD/vax on it using the >net boot concept. But I'd like to run one of the >appropriate distributions from "our" collection. Any >suggestions? The most obivous ones are - Quasijarus - Ultrix-32M -- ultrix 1.2 is in the archives -- from ifctvax.harhan.org you can get sources for ultrix 2.0.0 ultrix 4.2.0 (see previous posts in the list) - 32V j ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

19 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by Aharon Robbins

Wasn't there an "installboot" program that told the bootblock where to find the /boot file? Boy was it a lllloooonnnngggg time ago that I dealt with this stuff. Arnold > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:28:31 -0400 > From: robertdkeys(a)aol.com > Subject: Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape.... > To: msokolov(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG, tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > The /boot is there, so it is somewhere between the bootblocks > and /boot that the connection is lost. The /boot is apparently > not correctly found. But, it is there...... > > Bob Keys > > -----Original Message----- > > > The problem is that it won't install boot blocks that work. > > None of the raboot/rdboot/bootra/bootrd combos get > > any farther than the cryptic "loading boot" message. > > The "loading boot" message comes from the bootblock code and indicates > that the bootblocks are good and working. If it stops there, it means > that you are missing the /boot file in the root filesystem (that's what > it's loading). > > MS

19 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote: > Wasn't there an "installboot" program that told the bootblock where > to find the /boot file? The installboot program in the original 4.3BSD, whose function has been incorporated into disklabel(8) in 4.3-Tahoe/Quasijarus, writes the boot blocks to the disk, but it does not patch them with the location of /boot, the bootblock code is smart enough to understand the filesystem. As for Robert's problem, I don't know where he got screwed - but man, use your head, what do you think your god-given brain is for? You can single-step through the code with the MicroVAX ROM monitor's N command, you can put some printf's in the code to see where it dies, etc, the possibilities are limitless. Just debug it the same way you would debug any other problem. What do you think I do when I get a similar mysterious snafu? I debug it like a real programmer, don't go crying to a mailing list. MS

19 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Bringing up any 4.3BSD on a MicroVAX without tape....

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

robertdkeys(a)aol.com wrote: > The problem is that it won't install boot blocks that work. > None of the raboot/rdboot/bootra/bootrd combos get > any farther than the cryptic "loading boot" message. The "loading boot" message comes from the bootblock code and indicates that the bootblocks are good and working. If it stops there, it means that you are missing the /boot file in the root filesystem (that's what it's loading). MS

19 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Ancient unixes

by Brantley Coile

oops. sorry. it is http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/spe.html

19 years, 8 months

Re: [TUHS] Ancient unixes

by Brantley Coile

this name `internet' name space was considered and rejected. it's harder than one would think to get details right for all networks, the addess is only a small part of the information needed for the connection, and keeping a name space for all the internet updated would be very hard. instead they use a network!machine!port syntax with the dial command. you can follow the full development of those ideas in the following papers. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/who/dmr/spe.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/net/net.html remember. seventh edition was relase in 1977. Jimmy Carter was president, ``Anne Hall'' won best picture, and the Chevy Nova was a big hit.

19 years, 8 months

Status of "32i"

by Paul Duffy

Hi, Been reading through the list, just wondering did anything further come of the whole 32V/i project? Last mail about it i see was back in April 2004. -Paul "There is no greater sorrow then to remember times of happiness when miserable" -- Dante "The Inferno"

19 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS