Markus Weber wrote:-
> Didn't CDC's NOS use the term "deadstart"?
Yes, and some of their machines has 'deadstart panels'. A set of 12 x 12
switches that were the bootstrap for peripherial processor zero (12 bit
data/instruction). I think the CDC6600 had 12X12, but some of the latter
machines (Cybers) had up to 20x12
Hi,
in our free lab in catania we have one of these box, you can see
it here:
http://www.freaknet.org/history/freakalbum/freak_hardware/tn/dcp02097.jpg.h…
we only have this computer, and no manuals, no tapes, no floppy
disks, nothing. We made a raw "dd" backup of the whole hard disk, that
have some bad tracks :(
so, we are wondering if someone here can help us finding information
about this machine: PDF manuals, info, tape images, operating
system disks, or whatever useful for our computer museum :)))
p.s a look at http://www.freaknet.org/history/freakalbum/freak_hardware/
to have a little, poor idea about other machines we have, including
the PDP11/34 with the broken chip problem in the RL01 controller
board :(((
p.s.2. yes, we have printed schematics of PDP11/34. we are organizing
to scan all the schemes, maybe this can be useful for someone.
Sorry if i'm not so present in this list, but i read it every
day, it's a fantastic list. thanks to all :)
--
[asbesto : freaknet medialab : radio#cybernet : GPG key on keyservers]
[ MAIL ATTACH, SPAM, HTML, WORD, and msgs larger than 95K > /dev/null ]
[http://www.freaknet.org/asbesto IW9HGS http://kyuzz.org/radiocybernet]
Thanks,
those are the patch kits, Mario. You grab a system, then patch it
up to 'current' with those patches.
I expected something like that - any idea where to grab a system?
Every now and then, a kind sould releases a fully 'current' system.
Are there any old <fully 'current' systems> around?
Has anybody tried to run it on an emulator?
mario
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Premke [mailto:premke@ess-wowi.de]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: [pups] 2.11BSD ftp to moe.2bsd.com
>
>
> Hello list,
> there is the 2.11 BSD on moe.2bsd.com. I wonder why there aren't any
> filenames but only numbers instead. Is there somewhere a
> tar-archive of
> 2.11BSD on the net?
> Thanks
> Mario
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>
The London/Reiser internal memo about experiences in
porting Unix to the VAX emerged from the company
archives, and I scanned and OCRed it: it's underneath
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/portpapers.html
As the page cautions, the HTML is missing some stuff, but
the PS and PDF are reasonably good. I also have the
big pre-OCR PDF image scan if anyone wants to check details.
Dennis
Arnold forwraded this to me:
> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:35:40 -0400
> From: Pat Villani <Pat.Villani(a)hp.com>
> To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
> Subject: [TUHS] While on the subject of 32V ...
>
> Folks,
>
> I recently copied down the 32V source, and compiled the kernel with gcc. Much
> to my surprise, most of it compiled. I then split out the machine dependent
> versus the machine independent files (loose classification :-), and compiled
> again. Naturally, in both cases, you could not actually build a kernel because
> there are vax specific .s files, but the individual C files compiled. Not a bad
> start.
>
> As a result, I've been giving serious consideration to porting it to Intel IA32
> platforms. It's much simpler than the unix I worked on until last year (Tru64,
> aka OSF/1 and Digital UNIX), and the 32V kernel is only a little bigger than the
> original FreeDOS kernel I wrote. The Caldera license is pretty much a BSD
> license, which could be considered an open source license. This means I should
> be able to work on it without worrying about IP, although I'd still need
> management approval.
>
> Should I undertake such an project, would there be enough interest to justify
> the effort?
>
> Pat
>
> --
> You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do. -- Henry Ford
He noted the following and asked if I'ld like it posted to this list:
I see from subsequent mail that a project has been started.
The members of this list seem to share some common characteristics:
1. Some spare time for working with code.
2. A willingness to hack on code.
3. A desire to work with cleaner, smaller simpler versions of Unix,
instead of the modern, er, *full featured* open source systems
(Linux, *BSD).
I'd like to suggest that perhaps members of this list should check out
Plan 9 From Bell Labs (http://plan9.bell-labs.com) The Plan 9 developers
have recently posted a request for help, for people to tackle some projects
that need tackling. Why should people here look at it?
1. It's from Bell Labs: quality design and concepts guaranteed. (:-)
2. It's an opportunity to move into the future, instead of hiding out
in the past.
3. Plan 9 deserves good help.
4. People who appreciate early Unix and current Plan 9 will be welcomed
warmly.
So, check it out,
We sure would like more people using our system and our license is OSI
approved so it least has one stamp as open source. It clearly is not as
simple 32V or our 10th edition unix. However, it comes close and is way
simpler than either Linux or the current BSDs.
Hello list,
there is the 2.11 BSD on moe.2bsd.com. I wonder why there aren't any
filenames but only numbers instead. Is there somewhere a tar-archive of
2.11BSD on the net?
Thanks
Mario
Hiyas,
I just unearthed a unix source tree that seems to be dated 1972. is that of interest, or do
we already have it?
Cheers,
Fred
--
InterNetworking, Network Security and Communications Consultants
MicroWalt Corporation (Netherlands), Postbus 8, 1400 AA BUSSUM
Phone +31 (35) 7503090 FAX +31 (35) 7503091 http://WWW.MicroWalt.NL/
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen is uitsluitend bestemd voor de
geadresseerde. Openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, verspreiding aan
derden is niet toegestaan. Er wordt geen verantwoordelijkheid
genomen voor de juiste en volledige overbrenging van de inhoud van
dit bericht, noch voor de tijdige ontvangst ervan.
>From: Pat Villani <Pat.Villani(a)hp.com>
>Sent: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:35:40 -0400
>To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>Subject: [TUHS] While on the subject of 32V ...
>Folks,
>I recently copied down the 32V source, and compiled the kernel with
>gcc. Much to my surprise, most of it compiled. I then split out the
>machine dependent versus the machine independent files (loose
>classification :-), and compiled again. Naturally, in both cases, you
>could not actually build a kernel because there are vax specific .s
>files, but the individual C files compiled. Not a bad start.
Whew. Goes to show something about GCC backward compatibility.
>As a result, I've been giving serious consideration to porting it to
>Intel IA32 platforms. It's much simpler than the unix I worked on
>until last year (Tru64, aka OSF/1 and Digital UNIX), and the 32V
>kernel is only a little bigger than the original FreeDOS kernel I
>wrote. The Caldera license is pretty much a BSD license, which could
>be considered an open source license. This means I should be able to
>work on it without worrying about IP, although I'd still need
>management approval.
It's basically the old (with advertising) BSD license, AFAICT.
>Should I undertake such an project, would there be enough interest to
>justify the effort?
I for one would be interested... :)
>Pat
-uso.
> <snip>
> I've been giving serious consideration to porting it to
> Intel IA32 platforms. It's much simpler than the unix I worked on
> until last year (Tru64, aka OSF/1 and Digital UNIX), and the 32V
> kernel is only a little bigger than the original FreeDOS kernel I
> wrote. The Caldera license is pretty much a BSD license, which
> could be considered an open source license. This means I should be
> able to work on it without worrying about IP, although I'd still
> need management approval. Should I undertake such an project, would
> there be enough interest to justify the effort?
I'd certainly be intrigued enough to run it.
> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:35:32 +1300
> From: Wesley Parish <wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] UNIX/32V
> To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:20, Norman Wilson wrote:
> > Wesley Parish:
> >
> > I was wondering as well, are there any VAX assembler manuals online, in
> > an easily-copyable form?
> >
> > I've encountered html ones, but that isn't quite what I mean.
> >
> > What do you mean, then? In what way isn't HTML suitable?
> > I don't mean to be obstreperous; I just think it would be
> > easier to help if you made it clearer what you need and
> > what you don't.
>
> I'm a bit more used to using PDF for that purpose, since PDF data
> resides in a single file - ergo, easier downloads.
Download all the html. (use wget)
Make a list of the files in the order that they should appear in
the PDF file.
Use htmldoc < www.easysw.com/htmldoc/ > to make PDF or PostScript.
Htmldoc is interesting software -- it works well and is available in
source form with the caveat "here it is, take it and don't bother us
unless you want to buy a support contract".
carl
