All,
I browsed thru the blocks on my `Museum Format' v6 disk image,
and after a bit of work found a nice comment from the writers of the
code:
/*
* Optimized RK-11/RK03/RK05/disk driver
*
* Copyright (c) 1975, the Children's Museum.
*
* [...] In this
* format, block 0 is in its standard place so that
* boot programs can be put there; blocks 1 through
* NHRKBLK (2435) are located beginning at block #2436,
* all remaining blocks are between block 1 & 2435. the
* effect of this mapping is to centralize disk head motion
* about the center of the disk.
* the optimization is ideal for those RK's
* which serve as both root device and swap device. It
* is less than ideal, although probably still an
* improvement over traditional form, for RK's used
* exclusively as mounted file systems.
So, after a bit of dd(1)ing, I had my two Museum Format v6 disk images
into a form which could be read with a normal v6 system.
Cheers,
Warren
Hi all,
I've just been looking thru the old tapes I have here from v6 Unix,
and I think I've got two RK disk images which were laid out with the RK
driver from the Boston Children's Museum. An old email from Kevin Hill
says that the inodes are in the middle of the pack, rather than at the
beginning. However, I don't know enough about the scheme to try and
decode the files from the disk image.
If anybody can help me out, could they email me back. I've got a
program called `grab' that can extract files from v6 images, and I'd
like to modify it to get the files from these `museum' disk images.
Re: the stuff from SCO, Dion at SCO is talking to the legal guys, but
I haven't heard anything as yet.
Thanks in advance!
Warren
In atricle by Tom I Helbekkmo:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Warren Toomey wrote:
>
> Is there really any good reason for them to object to the distribution
> of UNIXes prior to SVR1? Could there possibly be anything at all in
> V7 and earlier that could in any way be damaging to SCO (or anyone
> else who might buy UNIX from SCO) if it were freely distributed? If
> I'm right in assuming that it couldn't possibly make a difference to
> their bottom line, perhaps SCO could be convinced to formally release
> these oldest versions of UNIX?
I suggested to Dion that SCO would get kudos from the Unix community if
they did. Haven't heard back from him yet (still Sunday there).
> Does anyone know, by the way, what's happening with the Lions
> commentaries? They're at the top of my "stuff I want to read" list,
> and have been for quite some time now!
I have a copy of the PostScript version which floated around the 'net
a few years back. I'd be prepared to give it out on the solemn promise
that people buy Lions' commentaries when they are published.
I'll let you all know how I go with SCO.
Cheers,
Warren
> All,
> I just received a very pleasing letter from Dion L. Johnson II, the
> Product Manager at SCO, about the legal status of the PDP UNIXs. I've included
> his email and my response below. If I can get a legally authorative statement
> on paper from SCO, I'll pass it on to you all, especially Steven Schultz.
Not that I wan't to sound pessimistic, but there are several
miles between "would not mind", and "legally allowed".
>From what I read into his letter, he's saying that he don't think
SCO would take legal actions against us, but at the same time they
won't probably make it officially legal.
And your reply, hoping that they'll say that "Unix is legally owned by
SCO, but freely distributable", is really reaching for the sky... :-)
Anyway, keep trying, it would be very nice if they really did write
such a paper.
Johnny
All,
I just received a very pleasing letter from Dion L. Johnson II, the
Product Manager at SCO, about the legal status of the PDP UNIXs. I've included
his email and my response below. If I can get a legally authorative statement
on paper from SCO, I'll pass it on to you all, especially Steven Schultz.
Cheers,
Warren
In atricle by Dion:
>
> SCO owns the licensing rights all versions of the UNIX system, or
> so our legal folks tell me. Now, of course there are many
> derivative, licensed versions, and some of the holders of those
> licenses have rights to sublicense. In the case of BSD
> enhancements, the Berkeley additions are owned by the Regents of
> the University of California, and I believe the UCB license terms
> are well known.
>
> As for your friends who have rescued ancient PDP machines... I
> am confident that SCO would cheerfully encourage them to run UNIX
> on these antiques without any payment to us. I cant quite
> officially give that permission myself, but I can speculate that
> SCO certainly would not mind.
>
> So go for it. Does this help?
> -Dion
>Dion L. Johnson II - The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. dionj(a)sco.com
>SCO Product Manager - Development Systems and Various Other Stuff
>400 Encinal St. Santa Cruz, CA 95061 FAX: 408-427-5417 Voice: 408-427-7565
Dion, thanks very much for your email, in fact I'm ecstatic! I know this
could be a tricky legal minefield, so if possible could SCO draft a letter
(and run it past their lawyers) which sets out exactly what you said above.
In particular, you said that ``SCO would cheerfully encourage them to run UNIX
on these antiques without any payment to us''. Does this mean I can legally
distribute the source code to the PDP versions of UNIX, and to anybody? or
just to people who own PDP-11s. There are PDP-11 emulators available, so
it is conceivable that people who don't even have a real PDP-11 might like
to try UNIX out on these emulators. If to anybody, then I assume this means
the source is legally owned by SCO but freely distributable?
I really appreciate your offer of making these old versions of UNIX
available, but given the legal status of the code to this point, I would
like to cover myself with an officially blessed and signed document from SCO.
Let me know what you can do, and many many thanks again for this!
Cheers,
Warren
In atricle by Jacob Ritorto:
> Warren,
> I have three 600' 9-track 800bpi tapes marked (in pen) UNIX V6
> 4000 blocks. One Source, one Object, one Documentation. I've tried
> using ROLLIN to restore them, but it expects a filename, which I can't
> find. I did do an RT11 dump of the first few blocks of the tapes, which
> revealed an ascii 'd' as the first byte, then a series of decending
> bytes. It didn't look like a file structure or a filename. All the
> tapes had the same first block. I tried to boot the tapes directly on an
> 11/34. No luck. I tried to DIR them from rt11, but, of course, rt
> couldn't find any directory info. There's definately unix stuff on the
> tapes--I saw it in the RT11 device dump. Dates in some of the source
> files are around 1974 or 1976, if I recall correctly.
> What do I need to do to get these tapes back onto disk and
> running? I'm assuming they restore to RK05 disks because the labels say
> 4000 blocks. I have 4 rk05 drives and lots of packs. BTW, the tape
> drive I'm using is a TU10 with standard address and vector.
> Your help would be greatly appreciated.
> Jacob Ritorto
Jacob, I'm passing this onto a bunch of PDP Unix people, as I don't have
the hardware & RT11 experience to tell you how to install v6 from the
tapes. Yes, the 3 tapes are RK05 pack images, I have on-line copies here
if that can be of any help to you. Can you raw dump the tapes to RK05s
using RT11?
Can anybody help Jacob out here? We also have v7, 2.9BSD and 2.11BSD here.
What hardware do you have?
Best of luck,
Warren Toomey
The recent 11/23 discussion got me wondering if anybody has seen an 11/73
running UNIX - I've got one with 3M RAM, and an RD52(?) (32M winchester...)
-Pete, who has changed his address to pwargo(a)basenji.com (my own domain!)
-Pete "I *still* want a vacation", Chandra "I love it here", Keegan "SUN!"
and Spritzer "Let's go for *another* walk!"
Rio Rancho, New Mexico, USA
pwargo(a)basenji.com (a free system)
>From Robin Birch <robin(a)falstaf.demon.co.uk> Mon Apr 8 00:30:04 1996
Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.6.13/8.3) with SMTP id AAA19996; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:38:26 +1000
Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net
id ac13158; 7 Apr 96 15:38 +0100
Received: from falstaf.demon.co.uk ([158.152.152.109]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa26099; 7 Apr 96 15:32 +0100
Received: (from root@localhost) by falstaf.demon.co.uk (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA00403; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:30:04 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:30:04 +0100 (BST)
From: Robin Birch <robin(a)falstaf.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <199604071430.PAA00403(a)falstaf.demon.co.uk>
To: oldunix(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au, pwargo(a)basenji.com
Subject: Re: 11/73 and UNIX?
Got one at home. It has only got 1.5MByte but in soldiers on. You will need
more than an RD52, a 53 as a bare min and a 54 as ideal. I use 2*54s
RObin
>From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com> Mon Apr 8 03:41:58 1996
Received: from wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com (WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM [199.107.242.11]) by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.6.13/8.3) with ESMTP id DAA20814; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 03:42:22 +1000
Received: (from sms@localhost) by wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id KAA04105; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com>
Message-Id: <199604071741.KAA04105(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com>
To: oldunix(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au, pwargo(a)basenji.com,
robin(a)falstaf.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: 11/73 and UNIX?
> From: Robin Birch <robin(a)falstaf.demon.co.uk>
>
> Got one at home. It has only got 1.5MByte but in soldiers on. You will need
> more than an RD52, a 53 as a bare min and a 54 as ideal. I use 2*54s
Got two. A HP3724S 1.2GB SCSI drive works just fine <grin>
Steven Schultz
sms(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com
Forwarded message:
Subject: Re: UNIX for 11/23
To: wkt(a)csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:40:12 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <9603202323.AA23006@dolphin> from "Warren Toomey" at Mar 21, 96 09:23:49 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
>
>In atricle by Bob Manners:
>>
>> Now, the 11/23 has 128Kw, a 10Mb RD51 winchester and an RX50 floppy. I
>> need to get hold of a version of UNIX (pref. v7) The UNIX in question
>> obviously needs to support the RD51.
>>
>> Does v7 support RD series drives? If not, what does?
>
>v7 doesn't support RDs (just looked thru the archive), and I don't know
>of anything that does. You'd probably have to write your own device driver :-(
I beleive Digital's MV7 (I think) does support RDs. It is mentioned in
the 11/23+ Owners Manual. I'll have to check. I guess this version
isn't in the archive ...
Cheers,
Bob.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manners Osney Laboratory
rjm(a)swift.eng.ox.ac.uk Dept of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
01865 288762
Computer Museum: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk/rjm/museum.html
Also: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
"The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory" - Jello Biafra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manners Osney Laboratory
rjm(a)swift.eng.ox.ac.uk Dept of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
01865 288762
Computer Museum: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk/rjm/museum.html
Also: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
"The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory" - Jello Biafra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded message:
Subject: Re: UNIX for 11/23
To: sms(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com (Steven M. Schultz)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:43:47 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <199603202239.OAA28894(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com> from "Steven M. Schultz" at Mar 20, 96 02:39:32 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
What about Digital's MV7 (or whatever it was called). This is
mentioned in the 11/23+ owners' manual as supported. Thus it must run
on the 11/23+ and support RD series disks. It is basically Bell Labs
version 7 I think.
> Warren's correct. MSCP support did not enter the 'BSD' picture until
> late 2.9BSD or early 2.10BSD. TMSCP support for tapes didn't come
> about until early 2.11BSD when I "borrowed" the driver from 4.3BSD
> (who had earlier borrowed it from Ultrix).
OK. I guess 2.x BSD (x>=9) requires separate I+D space? That would
rule out the 11/23+ I think.
> It should be noted that the MSCP (and to a greater degree TMSCP)
> is a *pig* - it's the largest driver in the system, rivaling the
> TTY subsystem sizewise.
Yes. I can believe that. Looks like writing my own driver would be no
fun at all!
> An 11/23 is already extremely cramped for address space even using
> simpler/smaller drivers such as the RK, RL, etc. I seriously doubt
> the MSCP driver could be smashed in to a 11/23 kernel and leave room
> for too much else.
The 11/23+ has plenty of address space (22 bit), but mine only has 128Kw ...
Cheers,
Bob.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manners Osney Laboratory
rjm(a)swift.eng.ox.ac.uk Dept of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
01865 288762
Computer Museum: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk/rjm/museum.html
Also: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
"The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory" - Jello Biafra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manners Osney Laboratory
rjm(a)swift.eng.ox.ac.uk Dept of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
01865 288762
Computer Museum: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk/rjm/museum.html
Also: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
"The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory" - Jello Biafra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com> Fri Mar 22 02:31:20 1996
Received: from wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com (root(a)WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM [199.107.242.11]) by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.6.13/8.3) with ESMTP id CAA02140; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 02:32:56 +0959
Received: (from sms@localhost) by wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id IAA19050; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:31:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com>
Message-Id: <199603211631.IAA19050(a)wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com>
To: oldunix(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au, rjm(a)swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: UNIX for 11/23 (fwd)
Robert -
> I beleive Digital's MV7 (I think) does support RDs. It is mentioned in
> the 11/23+ Owners Manual. I'll have to check. I guess this version
> isn't in the archive ...
True - Ultrix-11 (what MV7 was called later on) does have MSCP
support in it. I've not looked at how they handle the rather
prodigious data space requirements (~2kb per controller) yet.
Cheers.
Steven
Having met with storming success (thanks Warren) in getting UNIX v6
and v7 up and running on my 11/34, and having recently (well
yesterday) acquired an 11/23+, I'd like to put UNIX on the latter.
Now, the 11/23 has 128Kw, a 10Mb RD51 winchester and an RX50 floppy. I
need to get hold of a version of UNIX (pref. v7) The UNIX in question
obviously needs to support the RD51.
In the case of the 11/34 I built a UNIX image under a PDP-11 emulator
and KERMITed it to the 11/34. I plan to do the same in this case ...
Any suggestions welcome. Does v7 support RD series drives? If not,
what does?
Cheers,
Bob.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manners Osney Laboratory
rjm(a)swift.eng.ox.ac.uk Dept of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
01865 288762
Computer Museum: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk/rjm/museum.html
Also: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
"The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory" - Jello Biafra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
