TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6420 discussions

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

Kenneth Stailey: But Brian, FreeBSD does not run on a Mac unless you don't need features like booting up all the way. ======= I think that just underscores the point: it doesn't matter which church the system goes to as long as it works. If everyone was as areligious in their computing the world would be a much better place. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

21 years, 6 months

Re: [TUHS] Re: [pups] Prob OT, CP/88, CP/X86, anyone?

by Steve Nickolas

I used to have an old Lotus 123 1A manual, it was for the 3270PC. It mentioned how there was some windowed system and a way to escape to DOS 2.0 and how 123 had to be run in full-screen mode because it raw-blitted to the video RAM. Sounded like the system was rather Windows 2-like, or at the very least Windows 1-like, back before the Mac. *blink* I don't know, never seen a 3270PC in real life. I do think that this CP/88 might be that windowed system. ...I wonder if it could run on Bochs or some other x86 PC emulator *g* -uso. kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito ___________________________________________________________ Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com

21 years, 6 months

[pups] Uploading things into the Unix Archive

by Warren Toomey

Hi all, I see I've built up a long list of e-mails from people who have stuff to donate to the Unix Archive. There is now an FTP upload area on the machine: ftp to minnie.tuhs.org, cd to incoming. If you do upload anything called XXX, please also include a README.XXX file so I know what it is, where it came from and other useful information. If you have material that cannot be publicly released at present, but would like it archived for safety reasons, simply use random file names, and tell me the correct names in the README file. I will squirrel these things away for later. The area is set to allow uploads and to see the directory contents. No downloads are possible. Thanks all! Warren

21 years, 6 months

[pups] Prob OT, CP/88, CP/X86, anyone?

by Wesley Parish

I've just come across mention of an I80x86 product of IBM's, called CP/88 and CP/X86 http://www.stanford.edu/group/mmdd/SiliconValley/Ferguson/Chapter.5.html Anybody know anything more about it, and is it still extant, in existence? Wesley Parish -- Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."

21 years, 6 months

[pups] PDP-11 hardware & software usage poll

by Fred N. van Kempen

Hi All, For those of you who don't follow alt.sys.pdp11: I set up a simple web page to start an inventory poll on the number and types of PDP-11 systems used by hobbyists, the operating systems in use on them, and what, if any, licenses are being used for those systems. All this has to do with the whole Mentec not having a license program for the PDP-11 R* operaing systems (RT, RSX and RSTS). After some discussion with Mentec, the site was set up to do the gathering of numbers so we can convince their Management that there are many systems in hobby use, and that there's enough people willing to aquire such a license. Please check out http://www.pdp11.nl/poll.htm and do your magic. None of the information provided will be transferred to anyone- only the summarized info will be made available in a report to Mentec - a copy of which you can request by requesting the 'feedbeck' stuff in the poll. Thanks, and spread the word ! Fred

21 years, 6 months

[pups] LSI-11? And different versions of E-11

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine Here's a question. Does anyone on this list, know where I could obtain an LSI-11? Or even a Heathkit, H-11? And the other question, is: Has anyone gotten the different versions of E-11 to boot the operating systems that are available on the file server? These are versions that are stored on the file server itself. Older then 3.1 is what I am thinking of. For my first question, please reply directly to me. That is, only positive ones. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )

21 years, 6 months

[TUHS] Ransom Love's Speech that claims SCO will "Add Components" to Linux Kernel To Make It Scale

by Kenneth Stailey

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/08.html __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

21 years, 6 months

Comparing Linux code

by Jos� R. Valverde

Pardon me for posting not being a subscriber, I already subscribe to too many lists and I prefer to readd the archives at Minnie. I've used the procedures described in http://www.rickbradley.com/chron/20030619/ to compare the code in Linux with the code of Solaris. There are a few striking comments shared by .c files, some actually containing "jokes". However. Note that I'll NOT comment on anything I've seen in the Solaris code. I'll only talk of my own experience and what LINUX/BSD code says. Matches for [argh urg not set but urp changed a sensible implementation should n ever do this but rfc793 doesnt prohibit the change so we have to deal with it]: ***SOLARIS SOURCE ID REMOVED*** ./drivers/net/slhc.c Looks like the possible 'joke' shared code. Code inspection confirms. Linux code states that slhc code is (c) by BSD. 4.4BSD-Lite contains the code in ./sys/net/slcompress.c The same code appears first in 4.3BSD in the same file. This is NOT therefore SUN/ATT/SCO code, so I guess I can safely comment on it. This looks like one of those infamous source files from BSD whose copyright comments where stripped before the BSD/ATT lawsuit. SCO might preserve the original, pre-lawsuit ATT code (without the (c) notice) and _believe_ it to be theirs. Actually it makes sense in the UNIX sellout turmoil after the lawsuit that the BSD copyrights were forgotten to be merged back in the code. Should it be so, then perhaps SCO zealots did the so much aired comparison UNIX/Linux but did not care to check their own source code against BSD, thus slipping on this one? There is another source file which _might_ be contaminated, but I can't tell in which direction this might have happened. I won't venture breaking confidentiality agreements, but this I believe I can say: I know from experinece this file has suffered extense enhancements during the '90s, most of which were done by independent developers for Suns. The LINUX comments identify the author as an independent developer of world fame in the area indicating the routines were originally developed for SUN and DEC, so if SCO has any claims it might only be by "license contamination" (i.e. any independent addition must belong to me no matter how indirect because I say so). Actually it might be that Sun and DEC added the changes contributed to them and provided them back to the UNIX reference source. In that case, SCO will have a hard time to claim the code belongs to them and they are not stealing other people's contributed code. Furthermore, if they still claim it's theirs 'cos of license contamination, they will put a hard stress on UNIX vendors: in the '90s some vendors survived mainly because of specialized market niches (e.g. MBONE on Sun, graphics on SGI, etc..): everybody in some field would use the same system, users would contribute fixes to them, and this gave them an advantage. Now, if people see that contributing to any system will make them lose rights over their own code, in the future they won't tie themselves to any specific vendor, and vendors will lose the opportunity of taking advantage of specialized user groups to increase their competitivity. Now, imagine where would Sun be if they had never been able to differentiate themselves as, say, the 'dot com' company during the Internet boom. Were I SCO I'd think twice before hampering licensees ability to capitalize on market niche differentiations because of claims on independent, free code developed by _their_ users. All this, assuming, of course, these are the files in dispute. So far, and assuming these are the files, it mostly looks like external additions to SCO code that lost the original copyright references. It is understandable that SCO modern engineers ignore what happened before the ATT/BSD trial, or even ignore the original author of code reverted back by UNIX licensees, and that ignoring who wrote what, they may believe it is all theirs. But, if these were the files, they'll have a hard time. First for not checking correctly their claims (agains say, BSD code), second for not acknowledging nor keeping track of original authors of contributed code, and finally for claiming ownership of code that does not belong to them. Other files share some odd small comment, often it looks like pure chance, machine/vendor dependent code (probably not ATT/SCO therefore) or common sense, so I didn't investigate those any further. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural

21 years, 7 months

Re: Re: RE: [TUHS] v6on286

by Steve Nickolas

>From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 05:37:09 -0700 (PDT) >To: Steve Nickolas <usagi.tsukino(a)pinku.zzn.com> >Subject: Re: RE: [TUHS] v6on286 >The README says: ><< The kernel makes heavy use of the special 286 protected mode >features >> >Try bochs set to be a 286. I figure that a Celeron is a superset of the 386 - ergo, of the 286 also - so there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe I'll do that though, it's safer in a sandbox. >I am wondering if Cygwin could be used to build the code. I see that >ancient C stuff like "=+" was eliminated already. !! I think if you converted the ASM to some other format, you could use Turbo C++ to build it, though...haven't tried that, I don't grok ASM. >Plus check this site out: > >http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml LOL, I have 6 working C compilers on the Windows/DOS side of my box already :) (Turbo C++ 1, Borland C++ 3, Watcom C 11, djgpp, MinGW32, Cygwin) -uso. kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito ___________________________________________________________ Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com

21 years, 7 months

v6on286

by Steve Nickolas

I was finally able to download a good copy of v6on286 from minnie... I have Borland C++ 3.1, the existing version was built with 3.0. There are no binaries in the v6on286 package for the Unix itself, AFAICT, but I did get a successful MAKE. This is the weird thing, and I'm not sure if it's pilot error, the fact I'm running Windoze, or a glitch in the code. C:\UNIX>un Screen goes blank except for a block flashing cursor. The keyboard does not respond - not even the lights - indicating that the machine is either in a PM loop or completely hung. Has anyone had better luck than me? Or have I had better luck than everyone else (author excluded)? Thx. BTW...I wonder, could some old C compiler be bootstrapped on v6on286 and then V7 ported on it? -uso. kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito ___________________________________________________________ Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com

21 years, 7 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