----- Forwarded message from Joe Dellea -----
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:35:12 -0600
From: Joe Dellea <jjdellea(a)chisp.net>
To: wkt(a)tuhs.org
Subject: heavy to ship
Proffessor Toomey:
I have an interesting problem for you....
A friend of mine here in Denver, (Colorado,US) is in posession of a
PDP 11/73 and litterally a ton of peripheral hardware- it was left in
her house by her ex-husband who more than likely dumpster-dived it while
working for the phone company. The Ex is a talented Computer guy, but a
bit of an idiot in his personal life....
Friend wants to find a new home for this machine.
Friend is erratic. Also fairly pissed off.
Could probably use some money, but mainly wants the thing to go away,
rather than calculate actual dollar value or whatever.... Would be happy
if it went to a good home.
What does one do in such a situation?
In my case, I found your web-page near the top of a Google search.....
Regards,
Joe Dellea
jjdellea(a)chisp.net
----- End of forwarded message from Joe Dellea -----
Ian King wrote:
> > I suggest you now find a multi-port beer card, insert that into a
free
> > slot, add /dev/beer to the kernel, and abuse it lots... :)
> >
> > (rumor is, that 2.9bsd has much more space available for /dev/beer
> > buffers, though, so if 2.11 doesn't allow enough of it, just take
the
> > plunge and downgrade to 2.9... ;-)
> > Should he implement uubp?
Well, that's kinda store-and-forward. A bit dated, innit? Why
not go the modern way and go straight for the splattering-type
mbdp? For those who dunno: Multicast Beer Distribution Protocol.
One catch... given the kind of stuff we want distributed, we'd better
not have any (memory and/or session) leaks...
--f
Needed to tell someone, so I thought I would tell all of you!
My PDP11/73 now has BSD2.11 installed and working. I added a DEQNA card,
rebuilt the kernel and now ping, telnet, ftp et al is working.
The joy of telneting into my '11 from a Windoze machine is beyond words!
Many thanks to Warren, Fred and Joe for all the help and advice.
Regards
Kevin
I suggest you now find a multi-port beer card, insert that into
a free slot, add /dev/beer to the kernel, and abuse it lots... :)
(rumor is, that 2.9bsd has much more space available for /dev/beer
buffers, though, so if 2.11 doesn't allow enough of it, just take
the plunge and downgrade to 2.9... ;-)
--f
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Murrell [mailto:kevin@ps8.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:04 PM
> To: Pups Mailing List
> Subject: [pups] It all works!!
>
>
> Needed to tell someone, so I thought I would tell all of you!
>
> My PDP11/73 now has BSD2.11 installed and working. I added a
> DEQNA card,
> rebuilt the kernel and now ping, telnet, ftp et al is working.
>
> The joy of telneting into my '11 from a Windoze machine is
> beyond words!
>
> Many thanks to Warren, Fred and Joe for all the help and advice.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>
It seems as though there was considerable interest in Porting Unix v6 to i386 some months ago. This is a project that appeals to me also. I was wondering if anyone has made any headway in the project and would like to share their experience.
Hi,
I have some RD54 drives (and maybe a RD53 or so) that I want to
part with. Free for a PDP user in the Netherlands who is willing
to pick them up in Arnhem (I won't ship them)
Wilko
--
| / o / /_ _ wilko(a)FreeBSD.org
|/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte Arnhem, the Netherlands
Bilquist said (quoting Buitinck):
> > we all know that UNIX first ran on the PDP-7 and then on the PDP-11/20,
> > but does anyone know anything about PDP-9 UNIX? it\'s mentioned in \"The
> > UNIX Time-Sharing System\" in the V7 manual:
> >
> > \"The earliest [version of UNIX] (circa 1969-70) ran on the Digital
> > Equipment Corporation PDP-7 and -9 computers.\"
> Hmmm, I cannot exactly answer that, but the PDP-7 and PDP-9 were both
> 18-bit machines, and somewhat compatible, I believe.
> The whole line is (I believe):
> PDP-4 -> PDP-7 -> PDP-9 -> PDP-15
> So I guess that if you had it running on a PDP-7, you could probably
> almost take the code unmodified and run it on the PDP-9.
> The PDP-15 have a different bus (Unibus?) I believe, and thus,
> peripherials are different from the predecessors.
> This obviosuly affects the OS. :-)
The 7, 9, 15 were very compatible. I think the -15
had some scheme for using an index register, which
the earlier ones didn't have, but it was otherwise
pretty much identical in IS architecture.
There was very little rewriting to try Unix out
on the -9 and -15; perhaps just some tweaks in
the disk device commands. I don't think the
system actually ran on either for more than a few
hours. Ken was just playing around.
The -15 may have had an electrically different
bus, but I'm reasonably sure it was not a Unibus.
All of them used IOT instructions, not memory-mapped
IO registers.
Both of the machines we tried were being used by other groups
and we couldn't squat on them as with the PDP-7.
I recall that the -15's main job was controlling a
step-and-repeat camera that exposed LSI masks.
Dennis
> To: pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> From: Dennis Ritchie <dmr(a)plan9.bell-labs.com>
> Subject: [pups] re: PDP-9
> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:55:55 -0400
>
> Bilquist said (quoting Buitinck):
>
> > > we all know that UNIX first ran on the PDP-7 and then on the PDP-11/20,
> > > but does anyone know anything about PDP-9 UNIX? it\'s mentioned in \"The
> > > UNIX Time-Sharing System\" in the V7 manual:
> > >
> > > \"The earliest [version of UNIX] (circa 1969-70) ran on the Digital
> > > Equipment Corporation PDP-7 and -9 computers.\"
>
> > Hmmm, I cannot exactly answer that, but the PDP-7 and PDP-9 were both
> > 18-bit machines, and somewhat compatible, I believe.
> > The whole line is (I believe):
>
> > PDP-4 -> PDP-7 -> PDP-9 -> PDP-15
>
> > So I guess that if you had it running on a PDP-7, you could probably
> > almost take the code unmodified and run it on the PDP-9.
> > The PDP-15 have a different bus (Unibus?) I believe, and thus,
> > peripherials are different from the predecessors.
> > This obviosuly affects the OS. :-)
>
> The 7, 9, 15 were very compatible. I think the -15
> had some scheme for using an index register, which
> the earlier ones didn't have, but it was otherwise
> pretty much identical in IS architecture.
>
> There was very little rewriting to try Unix out
> on the -9 and -15; perhaps just some tweaks in
> the disk device commands. I don't think the
> system actually ran on either for more than a few
> hours. Ken was just playing around.
>
> The -15 may have had an electrically different
> bus, but I'm reasonably sure it was not a Unibus.
> All of them used IOT instructions, not memory-mapped
> IO registers.
>
> Dennis
What I remember, as the last gasp of PDP-15 production was a
dual-processor setup, linked with a PDP-11. The intent was to take
advantage of the lower-cost Unibus peripherals. I remember the
sales literature, but do not recall ever seeing one.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
This is a test message, please ignore it.
-- Tom
--
Tom Alsberg - certified insane, complete illiterate.
e-mail: <alsbergt(a)softhome.net>
Homepage: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~alsbergt/
* An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Dennis Ritchie said:
> The 7, 9, 15 were very compatible. I think the -15
> had some scheme for using an index register, which
> the earlier ones didn't have, but it was otherwise
> pretty much identical in IS architecture.
According to Gordon Bell's "Computer Engineering", the primary differences
from the -4 to the -7 were switching from 6-bit to ASCII I/O devices and
the addition of a trap mechanism. The -9 primarily changed the memory
system, going to 2-1/2D core; it was also microcoded. The -15 went to
TTL ICs and added index registers and memory relocation. He says
"The PDP-9 instruction compatibility was acheived with three minor
exceptions about which no complaints were received", although I don't
see an explanation of the exceptions.
http://research.microsoft.com/users/GBell/Computer_Engineering/
--
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
