TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6420 discussions

[pups] Re: minnie.tuhs.org mailing list memberships reminder

by Richard Snow

now that i've signed up for this list I have forgotten what the topic is? I am a disabled veteran, I do some work with Linux as a hobby, and some web sites, also as a hobby. I may be getting a Vaxstation soon. I don't think is one of the ones supported by Linux yet. Richard Snow

22 years, 4 months

Re: Making boot disks (fwd)

by Warren Toomey

----- Forwarded message from Ian Molton ----- >From spyro(a)f2s.com Tue Oct 1 09:02:24 2002 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:15:35 +0100 From: Ian Molton <spyro(a)f2s.com> To: wkt(a)tuhs.org Subject: Re: Making boot disks On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:37:35 +1000 (EST) Warren Toomey <wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote: > I'll pass this to the mailing list to see if others can help you. > I'd say that Linux is unlikely to construct the correct filesystem > type. There are severl UFS variants, and you'd need to know the exact > layout details to be sure that Linux (or something else) could create > the boot disks. Thanks. I found some ufs code in the HURD source, and VERY crudely hacked it. It creates filesystems that linux can mount, but it crashed trying to write big files to it (doh!) any advice from the list would be appreciated :) ----- End of forwarded message from Ian Molton -----

22 years, 4 months

Re: Making boot disks

by Warren Toomey

In article by Ian Molton: > Hi. > > Dunno if you can help me ont this... > > I have an unusual UNIX derived OS called RISCiX, but I cant install it > because I have no bootdisks. > > I /do/ have scripts to make them, and the kernel + OS files, though. > > I think the filesystem was UFS. > > I can use my Linux box to create a filesystem, but I dont have a copy of > the right utility (newfs?). > > Can you point me to source? I'll pass this to the mailing list to see if others can help you. I'd say that Linux is unlikely to construct the correct filesystem type. There are severl UFS variants, and you'd need to know the exact layout details to be sure that Linux (or something else) could create the boot disks. Warren

22 years, 4 months

[pups] Re: v7 crypt(3)

by Dennis Ritchie

Following up Toomey's and Davidson's notes (didn't see Garcia's): It does appear that the early-distributed v7 didn't require = in initializers. A slightly later version of the original 11 C compiler did; the lines Davidson quoted, if (o!=ASSIGN) peeksym = o; were replaced by if (o!=ASSIGN) { error("Declaration syntax"); peeksym = o; } bringing it into conformity with K&R1, which did require the =. Incidentally, if anyone wants to try the v7 crypt(3), the 'encrypt' routine has an implicit, and unwarranted, assumption that the L and R arrays are adjacent in storage and thus that L can be oversubscripted to access R. This was fixed at some (surprisingly late) point too. Dennis

22 years, 4 months

[pups] Installing BSD on 11/44 without tapedrive ?

by huglhuglhugl＠gmx.net

Hello, My PDP11/44 is currently running RSX11M but since I lack experience and documentation of RSX, I'd like to install a BSD-Unix. I suppose I can install 2.11BSD or 2.9BSD on a 11/44. Which one should I choose ? I do allready have 2.11 on my 11/93, so I might want to try 2.9BSD if this is not asking for trouble. I do have 1Mb of ram, two RL02 drives (and some disks, so I can always keep RSX), FPU, Ethernet. But I don't have a tapedrive! I thought I could write the RL02 disks on my 11/93 and then put them in my 11/44. Will this work ? Is there something special I need to know ? Regards, --lothar -- Werden Sie mit uns zum "OnlineStar 2002"! Jetzt GMX wählen - und tolle Preise absahnen! http://www.onlinestar.de

22 years, 4 months

[pups] Re: v7 crypt(3)

by Warren Toomey

In article by A. P. Garcia: > Warren, > > I've been looking at the Henry_Spencer_v7 tar, and something > is puzzling me. lines 49-54 of /usr/src/libc/gen/crypt.c are > the following: > > static char PC1_D[] { > 63,55,47,39,31,23,15, > 7,62,54,46,38,30,22, > 14, 6,61,53,45,37,29, > 21,13, 5,28,20,12, 4, > }; > > That wasn't legal syntax, was it? There should be an '=' > between [] and {, as in the rest of the file, no? I just tried to compile the code with the V7 compiler and it complained. Maybe it was legal in V6 and they used the .o file from there and didn't recompile it. I think Dennis is on the list, maybe he can answer the intruiging question! > Btw, it's neat to look at this code alongside the DES standard: > http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips46-3/fips46-3.pdf > Phil Garcia Yes, it certainly is. Thanks Phil. Warren

22 years, 4 months

[pups] Unix and PDP11/20 (was PDP9?)

by Dennis Ritchie

As Billquist, Wilson and others pointed out, the first versions of Unix did run on machines with no memory mapping or protection, and indeed context-switching was accomplished by swapping. By 1973 we had the luxurious 11/45, to considerable relief. I'm not positive about the logo on our first PDP-11. On the earliest handbook I have, the front panel photo just shows "PDP11", though inside the handbook it does talk about the two models (11/10 and 11/20). Both had the same KA11 processor, but the basic 11/10 sported 1024Kw ROM memory plus a generous 128 words of RAM, while the 11-20 had 4096Kw core RAM, and the ASR33 Teletype was included. You could add more RAM to the 11/20. Incidentally, the machine's handbook was a wonder. In 104 pages (each 5.25x8 inches), it described the whole system: not only the instruction set but the theory of the Unibus (including some logic diagrams) together with programming specifications for the TTY, the clock, and the paper tape reader. Dennis

22 years, 4 months

Re: [pups] BSD 2.11 on an 11/73 + RD54

by Steven M. Schultz

Hi - A few days ago the "getty plays parity games" topic came up again. I've been thinking about it and looked at the kernel a bit more. 7e1 is rather firmly in place and I'm not sure turning the 'console' (kl/dl) driver into a "LITOUT only" one is a 100% correct way to go (the other drivers such as dz, dh, etc remain 7e1 output by default). Here's a patch for getty/main.c which I think will do what's wanted without having to modify the kernel: ------------snip------------- *** main.c.dist Mon Sep 9 16:52:24 2002 --- main.c Mon Sep 9 16:56:55 2002 *************** *** 384,391 **** c = cc; c |= partab[c&0177] & 0200; ! if (OP) ! c ^= 0200; if (!UB) { outbuf[obufcnt++] = c; if (obufcnt >= OBUFSIZ) --- 384,401 ---- c = cc; c |= partab[c&0177] & 0200; ! /* ! * If "any" parity do nothing otherwise set even parity unless OP is ! * set. Since 'ap' is set in the "default" entry of /etc/gettytab this ! * has the effect of disabling parity on output without having to change ! * the kernel. ! */ ! if (!AP) { ! c |= partab[c & 0177] & 0200; ! if (OP) ! c ^= 0200; ! } ! if (!UB) { outbuf[obufcnt++] = c; if (obufcnt >= OBUFSIZ) --------------snip--------------- What this does is check the "AP" (AnyParity) flag from /etc/gettytab and if NOT set then do the 'even' (or 'odd' if OP is set) parity. Since 'ap' is present in the default line of /etc/gettytab the above block effectively becomes a no-op unless /etc/gettytab is explicitly set for 'ep' or 'op'. If someone could test this and report back I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Steven Schultz sms(a)2bsd.com

22 years, 5 months

[pups] Bringing up the fist C compiler

by Tim Bradshaw

Is there a description anywhere of how C was originally bootstrapped? I'm sure it was nothing unconventional, but the question of how you bring up compilers for other languages which are implemented in their own language seems to mystify some people to the extent that they argue that the compiler must be written in C (which is `always there'), and I thought it would be good to have the real story about C to tell them. Thanks --tim

22 years, 5 months

RE: [pups] BSD 2.11 on an 11/73 + RD54

by Fred N. van Kempen

Hi, > Currently when I boot, I start off with my terminal set to 19,200 baud > 8-N-1 but once BSD has booted I have to switch to 19,200 7-E-1 The hardware runs on 8-bit clean channels. Most UNIX kernels kinda prefer to use 7e1 or 7o1. > Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I fix it so > the setting remains on 8-N-1? (stty?) Once you're logged in to the system, type "stty -parenb bits8" or "stty -parenb cs8" or "stty -parenb 8" to go back to 8-bit mode. Then reset your terminal program again :) > Also, if I can't fix this, will vtserver/vtc run on 7-E-1 comms? Nope. VTc requires an 8-bit clean channel (for now). --fred

22 years, 5 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