TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6420 discussions

by Warren Toomey

I guess it's time to wake the list up. So far the Unix Archive has done well at collecting mostly PDP-11 stuff, but now that were in the next century, we should start working on the 1980s and 1990s. I'd like to call for volunteer curators. Each would look after a subset of the Unix Archive: add files, write README.TXT, rearrange things to be more useful. The Archive has been pretty static for quite some time now, and there are a list of things TODO, and I know some of you have things waiting which I haven't done yet. So perhaps some new blood, will kick things along. Any volunteers?

21 years, 11 months

Re: Re: [TUHS] Test

by Norman Wilson

This list is most definitely low-volume. Speak up, please. We can't hear you up here under the snow. Norman Wilson In a naughtly rosewood igloo somewhere near Toronto, ON

21 years, 11 months

Test

by Gregg C Levine

Test! Sorry for the disturbance, I have not seen any mail on the list, since sometime in the past. Gregg C Levine drwho8(a)worldnet.att.net "This signature would rather be out in the snow!"

21 years, 11 months

[pups] Anyone got a bulkhead connector?

by Ian King

I've checked commercial vendors and eBay to no avail, so now I'll appeal to the community: I would really like to find a bulkhead connector for a DEQNA card (the part number is CK-DEQNA-KB). If anyone has one they're willing to part with, please send me email with your terms. Otherwise, I'll just have to kludge something - but I'd sure like to do it right, as my 11/73 is in pretty nice shape. :-) TIA -- Ian

21 years, 11 months

Re: Another happy customer (was Re: [pups] Bootable media for 2 .11BSD)

by robin.birch＠royalmail.com

Well done, My 83 has 2 RD54s it is a nice configuration. As to your other query about the boot loader saying that it is an 83 as opposed to a 73. The response that you have had is correct AFAIK. My 83 was a 73 before I changed the processor and I had a similar conversation with Steve Schultz. If it is a quad board then the boot loader is doing as well as it can :-) Have fun Robin To: "Robin Birch" <robinb(a)ruffnready.co.uk> cc: <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org> Hard Copy To: Hard Copy cc: Date: 08/02/2003 18:48 From: "Ian King" <iking(a)killthewabbit.org>@minnie.tuhs.org Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org Subject: Another happy customer (was Re: [pups] Bootable media for 2.11BSD) It's amazing what happens when you follow the directions - thanks for your help, folks. I have 2.11BSD up and running on my 11/73 (booted off the disk, even), and it's currently untarring the last big chunk of /usr/src. (The docs mention that TK50s are slower than snot - believe it!) The system has two RD54s <woohoo!>, but I'm following the 'default' installation for now until I have everything running and have successfully rebuilt the kernel; then I'll probably move /usr and /tmp over to the second RD. I also need to dig into the machine a bit more - the bootloader tells me I have an 11/83, so I'm suspecting the CPU was changed at some point. For the record, I live in Seattle, and I can now produce bootable TK50s with 2.11BSD. :-) -- Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian King" <iking(a)killthewabbit.org> To: "Robin Birch" <robinb(a)ruffnready.co.uk> Cc: <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [pups] Bootable media for 2.11BSD > Yup, that's what I get for trying to be clever. :-) I built and ran > maketape, and the 11/73 likes the resulting tape (boots). So I'm remaking > the tape with the tar's on it (per the instructions). > > I also happened to look at my work email, and saw the recent thread on this > same subject - doh! > > Maybe we should add something to the /2.11BSD distribution README with the > caveats we've learned? -- Ian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robin Birch" <robinb(a)ruffnready.co.uk> > To: "Ian King" <iking(a)killthewabbit.org> > Cc: <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org> > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 3:20 AM > Subject: Re: [pups] Bootable media for 2.11BSD > > > > Use the maketape program in the sys/pdpstand directory. You can build > > this on most things and use it to create a bootable tape with the > > standalone system which contains all of the tools to set the system up. > > > > Cheers > > > > Robin > > > > [snip] > > > > -- > > Robin Birch > > > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups _______________________________________________ PUPS mailing list PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

21 years, 12 months

[pups] Bootable media for 2.11BSD

by Ian King

I think I've done enough homework and legwork to feel like I can ask the list a question now. :-) I've acquired an 11/73 and want to install 2.11BSD on it; it includes a TK50 and RX33. I also have a DECstation 5000/200 with a TK50, so my first efforts were to dd the files onto a tape. Depending on how I hacked around, I either got a "non-bootable media" error or "Error 21 - drive error". The two ways I tried to put the boot files on were per the instructions (cat mtboot mtboot boot | dd), and not per the instructions (dd mtboot, dd mtboot, dd boot). Depending on how I hacked around, I either got a "non-bootable media" error or "Error 21 - drive error" from the boot ROM monitor. With no way to troubleshoot the TK50 drive, I then tried to put at least a boot sector on a 1.2MB floppy, using rawrite on a PC; I copied mtboot + mtboot + boot to an intermediate file, then used rawrite to put that on the floppy. I got the same "Error 21". The machine also has a working RD54 containing Micro/RSX and some proprietary software for managing a parking lot. :-) I can boot to an RSX prompt (although I can't log in, having none of the passwords), so most of the machine appears to be working. While there's a stubborn side that wants to figure out how to build bootable media :-) I'd also be happy at this point to get a copy of a bootable TK50; I have blank tapes.... Either way, I hope someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance -- Ian

21 years, 12 months

[pups] DLVJ1 confusion on 2.11BSD

by David Evans

So the DLVJ1 has four serial ports. According to the info at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/hardwar… they essentially appear as four separate gizmos, with independant CSRs and vectors. So should I therefore set NKL to 5 (the console plus these four) and then have appropriate entries for devices 1 through 4 in /etc/dtab? Sounds like it. My DHV11 seems to work happily, so I already have rediculously more serial ports than I need. -- David Evans (NeXTMail/MIME OK) dfevans(a)bbcr.uwaterloo.ca Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/ University of Waterloo "Default is the value selected by the composer Ontario, Canada overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual

22 years

Re: Re: [TUHS] The ^ = | ?

by Norman Wilson

The earliest UNIX Programmer's Manual to describe shell pipelines is the Third Edition, February 1973. It gives a syntax quite different from the modern one: com1 > com2 > com3 > outfile meant what we would now write as com1 | com2 | com3 > outfile This original syntax was pretty cumbersome; pretty obviously it was put in as a quick hack (as were many things in those early days). Because > and < applied only to the following word, pipelined commands with arguments had to be quoted: who > "grep ken" >/tmp/kenlogins Even worse, the shell had no inherent way to tell whether the final word was a file or a program; if the last element in a pipeline was to write to standard output, you had to say so explicitly: who > "grep ken" > On the other hand the syntax was symmetric: you could also write "grep ken" < who < pipe(II) also debuted in the Third Edition. By the Fourth Edition (November 1973) there had evidently been more time to think about the syntax; the modern notation is shown, except that ^ is allowed as a synonym for |. I have long guessed that was because in those dark days of the past, some upper-case-only terminals (remember stty lcase?) offered no way to type | (and perhaps likewise {}`~) but I don't really know. Dennis? Norman Wilson Toronto ON

22 years

Re: [TUHS] The ^ = | ?

by Wolfgang Helbig

>I've been searching for some reference to the ^ symbol being the same a | in >Bourne shell. Does anyone remember seeing anything like this? I've searched >the early manpages to no avail. Look at http://www.ba-stuttgart.de/~helbig/os/v6/doc/index.html for the Unix V6 sh(I) man page. Greetings, Wolfgang

22 years

re: The ^ = | ?

by Dennis Ritchie

As Norman said, the earliest notation for pipes used an extension (or abuse) of the semantics of > and < . Warren's memory of what Salus wrote (it's on p. 52-53) is correct about the introduction of | (though I suspect that McIlroy (whom Salus quotes) is being kind to me when he said "he [Ken] couldn't bear to reveal my [Doug's] ugly syntax." Actually, I was responsible for the particular < and > syntax as implemented, although the whole idea came from much earlier on blackboard-only ideas, and the blackboard was Doug's. As to the original question: probably the ^ as an alternative to | (which does seem to be there from the start, i.e. 4th Edition) did have to do with character-set convenience on upper-case-only terminals. The TTY driver accepted \! as an escape for |, but this was somewhat of a pain. Dennis

22 years

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