From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Apr 19 10:46:54 2006 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:46:54 +1000 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix Message-ID: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ] ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham ----- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 From: "Bill Cunningham" Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix To: I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? Bill ----- End forwarded message ----- From root at dynamite.narpes.com Wed Apr 19 11:42:32 2006 From: root at dynamite.narpes.com (Charlie ROOT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:42:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Warren Toomey wrote: > [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ] > > ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham ----- > > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 > From: "Bill Cunningham" > Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix > To: > > I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes > in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in > the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? I've heard of a free VAX emulator called SIMH/vax, and a commercial one named Charon-VAX (or something), but I've tested neither. If you're adventurous enough, you might consider real VAX hardware: the VAXstation 3100 and 4000 series models can be had at reasonable cost, and are not larger than a desktop PC. As for VMS, at least the recent 7.x versions are available more or less freely for hobbyist use. By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. -aw From toby at smartgames.ca Wed Apr 19 15:56:33 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:56:33 -0400 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> Message-ID: On 18-Apr-06, at 9:42 PM, Charlie ROOT wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Warren Toomey wrote: > >> [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on >> the list ] >> >> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham >> ----- >> >> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 >> From: "Bill Cunningham" >> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix >> To: >> >> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother >> boot tapes >> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with >> gcc-3.4.6. I >> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first >> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like >> this in >> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? > > I've heard of a free VAX emulator called SIMH/vax, and a commercial > one named Charon-VAX (or something), but I've tested neither. If > you're > adventurous enough, you might consider real VAX hardware: the > VAXstation > 3100 and 4000 series models can be had at reasonable cost, and are not > larger than a desktop PC. As for VMS, at least the recent 7.x > versions > are available more or less freely for hobbyist use. > > By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? > I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. There were. On 23 March 2002 Martin Crehan started a thread on this list, including a cite to this Slashdot posting: http://slashdot.org/ comments.pl?sid=29920&cid=3213453 I would link to the thread, but the search seems broken (http:// minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/pups.cgi). Apart from the PDP-11 version mentioned there, I am also aware of the Lisa XENIX port (68K). --T > > -aw > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From iking at killthewabbit.org Wed Apr 19 16:07:22 2006 From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:07:22 -0700 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> Message-ID: <4445D39A.70303@killthewabbit.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rp at servium.ch Wed Apr 19 18:44:05 2006 From: rp at servium.ch (Rico Pajarola) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:44:05 +0200 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> Hi Bill you may try a current version of the simh emulator (simh 3.5.-2) which is available from simh.trailing-edge.com. I had no problems with Ultrix 3.1, Unix V6/V7 etc.. I couldn't find xenix for pdpd-11 (did I miss that in the archives?). There is Venix, but it's for the PRO-350/380, which is not a "normal" PDP-11. As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. There is very few information available on these machines, and I don't think there is an emulator for them. There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in addition to the monitor). I recently donated my Technostation to a computer museum... regards --rp > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 > From: "Bill Cunningham" > Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix > To: > > I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes > in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in > the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? > > Bill From tfb at tfeb.org Wed Apr 19 19:10:48 2006 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:10:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> References: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> Message-ID: <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com> On Wed, April 19, 2006 09:44, Rico Pajarola wrote: > > As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that > it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. There is very few information > available on these machines, and I don't think there is an emulator for > them. There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see > http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a > picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in > addition to the monitor). I recently donated my Technostation to a > computer museum... I understood it was NeXTStep (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem to back that up). So that would be running on some kind of NeXT box I should think. Today's descendent is MacOS X, which still has a lot of things named NS* in it. --tim From milov at uwlax.edu Wed Apr 19 22:51:54 2006 From: milov at uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:51:54 -0500 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:00 PM, pups-request at minnie.tuhs.org wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham > ----- > > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 > From: "Bill Cunningham" > Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix > To: > > I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother > boot tapes > in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with > gcc-3.4.6. I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Doubtful. Everything I have read leads me to believe that Tim Berners- Lee wrote the first web browser on using a NeXT cube running an early version (2.x or earlier) of the NEXTSTEP operating system. > Is there anything like this in > the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? > > Bill > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Milo Velimirović University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W -- There's a reason Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson have been awarded the U.S. National Medal of Technology (1998) and are fellows of the Computer History Museum Online. Dave Cutler hasn't and isn't. "You are not expected to understand this." From cmcnabb at vt.edu Wed Apr 19 21:45:40 2006 From: cmcnabb at vt.edu (Christopher McNabb) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:45:40 -0400 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> Message-ID: <1145447140.10479.2.camel@morden.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 01:42 +0000, Charlie ROOT wrote: > By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? > I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. In my memory, it seems that Xenix was originally done for the Motorola 68000 then ported to the Intel x86 architecture. The first real "Unix" I ever ran, by the way, was Microsoft Xenix on a Motorola 68000 based Tandy 6000. I do not believe that Xenix *ever* ran on PDP based hardware. From toby at smartgames.ca Wed Apr 19 23:24:06 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:24:06 -0400 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com> References: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com> Message-ID: On 19-Apr-06, at 5:10 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On Wed, April 19, 2006 09:44, Rico Pajarola wrote: > >> >> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I >> believe that >> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. ... Now I've heard everything :) > > I understood it was NeXTStep > (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem > to back > that up). So that would be running on some kind of NeXT box Yes, as Milo points out, an M68K model, for which afaik no emulator exists. The original hardware can still be bought on ebay, or from http://www.blackholeinc.com/ (if they are still responsive). However you should be able to run NEXTSTEP/Intel (which means a late version like 3.3) on emulated hardware (QEMU, Bochs, etc), which coincidentally is what I've been trying to do this week. Several versions of TBL's browser (M68K and Intel binaries for NEXTSTEP 3.3) can be found at http://browsers.evolt.org/?worldwideweb/ NeXT --Toby > ... Today's descendent is MacOS X, which still has a lot of things > named NS* in it. > > --tim > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From toby at smartgames.ca Wed Apr 19 23:26:04 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:26:04 -0400 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com> References: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com> Message-ID: On 19-Apr-06, at 5:10 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On Wed, April 19, 2006 09:44, Rico Pajarola wrote: > >> >> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I >> believe that >> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. There is very few >> information >> available on these machines, and I don't think there is an >> emulator for >> them. There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see >> http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a >> picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in >> addition to the monitor). I recently donated my Technostation to a >> computer museum... > > I understood it was NeXTStep > (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem > to back > that up). Further to last post, see this note by TBL: http:// www.mirrorservice.org/sites/browsers.evolt.org/browsers/worldwideweb/ NeXT/WorldWideWeb.html (includes link to screenshot). --Toby > ... > > --tim > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From rp at servium.ch Thu Apr 20 00:17:25 2006 From: rp at servium.ch (Rico Pajarola) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:17:25 +0200 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: References: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> <2667.80.75.66.29.1145437848.squirrel@www.gradwell.com> Message-ID: <44464675.5040503@servium.ch> Toby Thain wrote: >> I understood it was NeXTStep >> (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html would seem to >> back >> that up). > > > Further to last post, see this note by TBL: http:// > www.mirrorservice.org/sites/browsers.evolt.org/browsers/worldwideweb/ > NeXT/WorldWideWeb.html > (includes link to screenshot). I know that, but this program was based on another program called "Enquire", which was written by Berners-Lee on a Norsk Data machine (supposedly a Technostation running Sintran III), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_Data, http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Longer.html regards --rp From bill at cs.uofs.edu Thu Apr 20 00:36:28 2006 From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:36:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <1145447140.10479.2.camel@morden.cc.vt.edu> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> <1145447140.10479.2.camel@morden.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <4471.134.198.172.102.1145457388.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 01:42 +0000, Charlie ROOT wrote: >> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? >> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. > > In my memory, it seems that Xenix was originally done for the Motorola > 68000 then ported to the Intel x86 architecture. The first real "Unix" > I ever ran, by the way, was Microsoft Xenix on a Motorola 68000 based > Tandy 6000. I do not believe that Xenix *ever* ran on PDP based > hardware. My 1985 PDP11 Software Sourcebook lists XENIX for the PDP11 as being available from SCO. It also lists Venix as available for other than just the Pro. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include From bill at cs.uofs.edu Thu Apr 20 00:33:55 2006 From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:33:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [pups] [Fwd: Re: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix] Message-ID: <4444.134.198.172.102.1145457235.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> >> By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? >> I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. > > There were. On 23 March 2002 Martin Crehan started a thread on this > list, including a cite to this Slashdot posting: http://slashdot.org/ > comments.pl?sid=29920&cid=3213453 > > I would link to the thread, but the search seems broken (http:// > minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/pups.cgi). > > Apart from the PDP-11 version mentioned there, I am also aware of the > Lisa XENIX port (68K). And also a8K version for the Tandy 16/6000 series. I still have it, but don't use it anymore. It probably wouldn't even boot at this point. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include From bill at cs.uofs.edu Thu Apr 20 00:34:17 2006 From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [pups] [Fwd: Re: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix] Message-ID: <4450.134.198.172.102.1145457257.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> > > By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? > I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. I believe there was a version of Xenix for the PDP-11 but Xenix is based on SYSIII which I understand is not covered by the ancient Unix license. Of course, if it is, I would love a copy of SYSIII. :-) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Thu Apr 20 01:13:18 2006 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:13:18 -0700 Subject: [pups] [Fwd: Re: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix] In-Reply-To: <4450.134.198.172.102.1145457257.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> References: <4450.134.198.172.102.1145457257.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> Message-ID: <4446538E.5050703@pacbell.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? >>I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. >> >> > >I believe there was a version of Xenix for the PDP-11 but Xenix is >based on SYSIII which I understand is not covered by the ancient Unix >license. Of course, if it is, I would love a copy of SYSIII. :-) > XENIX for the PDP-11 was available in the UK from the Software Products Group of Logica (which in late 1986 was acquired by the Santa Cruz Operation and became their UK and European office). As far as I know it was entirely based on V7 - other than adding a few device drivers and configuring the system to match the customer's hardware I don't think that either Microsoft or Logica really did much to the PDP-11 version. I used XENIX on a PDP11/34 back in (I think) 1982 and most of the work was in finding a kernel configuration which both had all of the drivers that we needed and would fit on a non split i&d machinne. I don't believe that any System III code showed up in XENIX until sometime later in the Motorola 68k and Intel x86 versions. Michael Davidson From carl.lowenstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 14:10:20 2006 From: carl.lowenstein at gmail.com (Carl Lowenstein) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:10:20 -0700 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <5904d5730604182110hbe43a38ic4eed65910803f25@mail.gmail.com> On 4/18/06, Warren Toomey wrote: > [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ] > > ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham ----- > > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 > From: "Bill Cunningham" > Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix > To: > > I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes > in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in > the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? Tim Berners-Lee developed what became the WWW, server and browser, on a NeXT computer running the NeXTstep OS. There is not a whole lot of public knowledge about the internals of the NeXT hardware, which makes it difficult to write an emulator for it. There is a slowly progressing effort to port NetBSD to NeXT hardware. Also, the last few releases of NeXTstep and OpenStep would run either on NeXT hardware or selected x86 hardware. Somewhere there is a writeup covering the subject of running OpenStep on the VMware virtual machine. None of this is VAX, nor is it any other hardware covered by SimH. carl -- carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego clowenst at ucsd.edu From toresbe at ifi.uio.no Thu Apr 20 08:36:02 2006 From: toresbe at ifi.uio.no (Tore S Bekkedal) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:36:02 +0200 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:46 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote: > [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ] > ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham ----- > I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. You mean SINTRAN III/VSX? From toresbe at ifi.uio.no Thu Apr 20 08:59:50 2006 From: toresbe at ifi.uio.no (Tore S Bekkedal) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:59:50 +0200 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> References: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> Message-ID: <1145487590.3928.42.camel@fortran.babel> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:44 +0200, Rico Pajarola wrote: > As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that > it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. I doubt that, for the reasons I posted to the list. > There is very few information > available on these machines, and I don't think there is an emulator for > them. I'm working on one, little by little. But I have pretty much zero docs on the ND-500(0) side of the things, as well as the interface between the ND-100 and ND-500(0) processors. > There are only a few webpages mentioning it at all: see > http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~toresbe/nd/history.html for example (it has a > picture of the machine, note the funny terminal with the two LCD's in > addition to the monitor). I believe they were plasma screens, and emulated a pair of standard TDV-22xx serial terminals (the OS did AFAIK not support the huge framebuffer natively). The writer of the original version in Norwegian has all parts of the Technostation apart from the giant desk. > I recently donated my Technostation to a > computer museum... Which museum? Did you include the funny desk? Was it running when you gave it up? What software did it run? I personally have a ND-5700 computer, and would of course *kill* for ENQUIRE. :) http://toresbe.at.ifi.uio.no/technostation.jpeg offers a more detailed view of the console. The article is in Norwegian, about the machine winning a design award. -toresbe :) From toresbe at ifi.uio.no Thu Apr 20 08:47:25 2006 From: toresbe at ifi.uio.no (Tore S Bekkedal) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:47:25 +0200 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1145486845.3928.31.camel@fortran.babel> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 07:51 -0500, Milo Velimirovic wrote: > Doubtful. Everything I have read leads me to believe that Tim Berners- > Lee wrote the first web browser on using a NeXT cube running an early > version (2.x or earlier) of the NEXTSTEP operating system. Sorry, quick trigger finger, wrote the previous reply before checking the rest of the thread and accidentally sending it.. Tim Berners-Lee wrote what could be thought of as an early prototype of the Web on a Norsk Data SINTRAN-III/VSX minicomputer. Though it was probably not a Technostation (In a talk at the CHM, Tim Berners-Lee mentions giving the program (called ENQUIRE) to someone on an 8" floppy, which would place it far away in time from the Technostation (which was in the late eighties and a special-purpose CAD workstation) and closer to the (binary-compatible) 32-bit ND-5x0 systems, which were quite popular at CERN. Also, IIRC the manual discusses the use of a TDV terminal, which were the (awesome!) CRT terminals that came with the system) However, the HTTP-style Web was indeed written on a NeXT cube. -toresbe :) From rp at servium.ch Thu Apr 20 16:18:12 2006 From: rp at servium.ch (Rico Pajarola) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:18:12 +0200 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <1145487590.3928.42.camel@fortran.babel> References: <4445F855.2060402@servium.ch> <1145487590.3928.42.camel@fortran.babel> Message-ID: <444727A4.1080401@servium.ch> Tore S Bekkedal wrote: >> As for the OS Tim Berners-Lee used for his first Browser, I believe that >> it was made on a Norsk Data Technostation. > I doubt that, for the reasons I posted to the list. maybe the word browser is not really correct, it's ENQUIRE that I meant, which is the great-grandfather of that browser. > I believe they were plasma screens, and emulated a pair of standard > TDV-22xx serial terminals (the OS did AFAIK not support the huge > framebuffer natively). that's what I understood, the monitor was not really "part" of the computer, more like an external device controlled by it. > Which museum? Did you include the funny desk? Was it running when you > gave it up? What software did it run? http://www.bolo.ch/ And yes, it included the funny desk (altough the wooden "arms" were broken off). It seemed complete (SCSI, CPU, 16MB RAM, 3-board Ethernet etc. was all there, even a spare powersupply, only the front plate was apparently missing), but it was halfways disassembled, and lacking any software or other knowledge and time to investigate, I never dared to turn it on. It's a shame to let such a machine rot in storage, the museum is a much better place for that machine, and it's not as if it's "gone" now, I can visit it even more often than when I had it in storage ;) > I personally have a ND-5700 computer, and would of course *kill* for > ENQUIRE. :) so would I... > http://toresbe.at.ifi.uio.no/technostation.jpeg offers a more detailed > view of the console. The article is in Norwegian, about the machine > winning a design award. yeah, that's it, although my machine looked smaller (half as wide) regards --rp From milov at uwlax.edu Thu Apr 20 23:20:06 2006 From: milov at uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:20:06 -0500 Subject: [pups] NEXTSTEP etc. [was: Bob's emulator and ultrix] References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: [snip] > > On 4/18/06, Warren Toomey wrote: >> [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on >> the list ] >> >> ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham >> ----- >> >> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 >> From: "Bill Cunningham" >> Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix >> To: >> >> I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother >> boot tapes >> in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with >> gcc-3.4.6. I >> am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first >> browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like >> this in >> the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? > > Tim Berners-Lee developed what became the WWW, server and browser, on > a NeXT computer running the NeXTstep OS. There is not a whole lot of > public knowledge about the internals of the NeXT hardware, which makes > it difficult to write an emulator for it. > > There is a slowly progressing effort to port NetBSD to NeXT hardware. > Also, the last few releases of NeXTstep and OpenStep would run either > on NeXT hardware or selected x86 hardware. NEXTSTEP 3.3 & OpenStep run on NeXT's m68k, x86, and on HP/Apollo 700 series HPPA workstations and on several SUN SPARCstation models. I own an HP735 that runs NS3.3 quite nicely. > Somewhere there is a > writeup covering the subject of running OpenStep on the VMware virtual > machine. This is a close but not quite the same thing article: http://iamleeg.blogspot.com/2006/04/so-heres-full-system-networking- is.html > > None of this is VAX, nor is it any other hardware covered by SimH. > > carl > -- > carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego > clowenst at ucsd.edu > > > ------------------------------ -- Milo Velimirović Unix Computer Network Administrator 608-785-6618 Office ITS Network Services 608-386-2817 Cell University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W From toby at smartgames.ca Fri Apr 21 01:01:37 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:01:37 -0400 Subject: [pups] NEXTSTEP etc. [was: Bob's emulator and ultrix] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20-Apr-06, at 9:20 AM, Milo Velimirovic wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > [snip] > >> ... >> There is a slowly progressing effort to port NetBSD to NeXT hardware. >> Also, the last few releases of NeXTstep and OpenStep would run either >> on NeXT hardware or selected x86 hardware. > > NEXTSTEP 3.3 & OpenStep run on NeXT's m68k, x86, and on HP/Apollo 700 > series HPPA workstations and on several SUN SPARCstation models. > > I own an HP735 that runs NS3.3 quite nicely. Me too. :-) > >> Somewhere there is a >> writeup covering the subject of running OpenStep on the VMware >> virtual >> machine. > > This is a close but not quite the same thing article: > http://iamleeg.blogspot.com/2006/04/so-heres-full-system-networking- > is.html Here's a step by step for the QEMU emulator, http://www.dad- answers.com/qemu-forum/viewtopic.php?p=4874& But I have not yet been able to duplicate his success. --Toby >> >> None of this is VAX, nor is it any other hardware covered by SimH. >> >> carl >> -- >> carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego >> clowenst at ucsd.edu >> >> >> ------------------------------ > > -- > Milo Velimirović > Unix Computer Network Administrator 608-785-6618 Office > ITS Network Services 608-386-2817 Cell > University of Wisconsin - La Crosse > La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W > > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From billcu1 at verizon.net Thu Apr 20 09:05:18 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:05:18 -0400 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel> Message-ID: <000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com> > You mean SINTRAN III/VSX? Is there quite a disagreement in what the first browser was? Bill From kelli217 at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 13:37:14 2006 From: kelli217 at gmail.com (Kelli Halliburton) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:37:14 -0500 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel> <000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <200604202237.15604.kelli217@gmail.com> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 06:05 pm, Bill Cunningham wrote: > > You mean SINTRAN III/VSX? > > Is there quite a disagreement in what the first browser was? Well, there seems to be some issue with ENQUIRE, Tim Berners-Lee's first foray into hypertext, but considering that that program may not have used a protocol named HTTP, a markup language named HTML, nor a spatial metaphor called the World Wide Web, it may not count. The first time, AFAIK, that the terms we now know came together was in the browser built for NextStep. From tfb at tfeb.org Fri Apr 21 17:43:27 2006 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:43:27 +0100 Subject: [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <200604202237.15604.kelli217@gmail.com> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <1145486163.3928.19.camel@fortran.babel> <000701c66405$bb9bc5c0$1801a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <200604202237.15604.kelli217@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 21 Apr 2006, at 04:37, Kelli Halliburton wrote: > > Well, there seems to be some issue with ENQUIRE, Tim Berners-Lee's > first foray > into hypertext, but considering that that program may not have used a > protocol named HTTP, a markup language named HTML, nor a spatial > metaphor > called the World Wide Web, it may not count. I think if you're going to count ENQUIRE you ought to count some of the other earlier hypertext systems. --tim From billcu1 at verizon.net Mon Apr 24 09:27:55 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:27:55 -0400 Subject: [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix Message-ID: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as they don't work much anymore. Bill From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Mon Apr 24 10:33:33 2006 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> Bill Cunningham wrote: > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It >would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work >with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would >compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as >they don't work much anymore. > > By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 for the PDP-11. Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at least to some extent, so you can already do cross development targeted at the PDP-11. Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, *many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" wouldn't fit either ... Michael Davidson [ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au Mon Apr 24 10:00:46 2006 From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:00:46 +1000 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060424000046.GE720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? What do you mean by "old unixes"? 32V or 4BSD would be trivial. 2BSD or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible. gcc was born in a 32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a 16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend): Both the code and data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to using overlays. If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it. > A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99. As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it impossible to build a simple C compiler. -- Peter Jeremy From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Mon Apr 24 18:44:07 2006 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:44:07 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender - OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of trick. If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work. I've never heard of anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either. Just my 0.02c Wesley Parish Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : > Michael Davidson napisał(a): > > >Bill Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It > >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would > work > >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that > would > >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for > safekeeping as > >>they don't work much anymore. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 > >for the PDP-11. > > > >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at > >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development > >targeted at the PDP-11. > > > >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost > >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, > >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at > >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it > >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. > > > >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" > >wouldn't fit either ... > > > >Michael Davidson > > > >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for > > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >TUHS mailing list > >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s > > > > > > > What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 > bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. > Perhaps DeJorie could help. > > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press From lars at nocrew.org Mon Apr 24 19:29:20 2006 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:29:20 +0200 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> (Michael Davidson's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700") References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Michael Davidson writes: > Bill Cunningham wrote: > > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? > Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at > least to some extent, so you can already do cross development > targeted at the PDP-11. I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff. It was made just for fun, so it's not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok. As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape. I haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases, because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their source tree from old cruft. From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au Mon Apr 24 17:47:54 2006 From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:47:54 +1000 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <20060424074754.GH720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote: >What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 >bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. Won't work. http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states: "3.5 Can I run it on a 286? Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also.... A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here. Gcc doesn't care much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit processor, which the 286 isn't. A 386 or better CPU really is required." -- Peter Jeremy From vasco at icpnet.pl Mon Apr 24 17:33:34 2006 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:33:34 +0200 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> Michael Davidson napisał(a): >Bill Cunningham wrote: > > > >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as >>they don't work much anymore. >> >> >> >> >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 >for the PDP-11. > >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development >targeted at the PDP-11. > >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. > >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" >wouldn't fit either ... > >Michael Davidson > >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] > > >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. Perhaps DeJorie could help. Andrzej From vasco at icpnet.pl Mon Apr 24 19:50:40 2006 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:50:40 +0200 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> Wesley Parish napisał(a): >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of >trick. > > I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible . BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to be good environment for this simulator (?). I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another console to exit. Andrzej From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Mon Apr 24 23:05:20 2006 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:05:20 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz> Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : > Wesley Parish napisał(a): > > >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit > >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS > extender > >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same > kind of > >trick. > > > > > I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. > > I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit > environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. > I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can > create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not > impossible . In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted. Then the files get rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a gcc guru nor a pdp11 guru. > > BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and > it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 > processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to > > be good environment for this simulator (?). That's good news! > I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another > > console to exit. You're not the only one, either. Wesley Parish > > > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press From nuclearjoker at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 03:00:01 2006 From: nuclearjoker at gmail.com (Jacques Wagener) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:00:01 +0200 Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of) Message-ID: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> Hi there ! Over december last year I had my first wonderful expierence with a micro-pdp11 running Micro-RSX. In actual fact I haven't tried much, only a complete reinstall of the system(which was unecessary, because I've got backup tapes !). But still an amazing moment. What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old data/programs/source code from an old hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface card. Thanking you in advance Jacques Wagener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bqt at update.uu.se Tue Apr 25 05:35:53 2006 From: bqt at update.uu.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:35:53 +0200 Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of) In-Reply-To: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <444D2899.7010804@update.uu.se> Hi. Nice to hear you have a working system. As for transfer... Well, there are several ways. DECnet (if you have it). KERMIT TCP/IP (if you have it). Tapes (if both machine have tape drives) Disks (both could have SCSI for instance) So it very much depends on what hardware and software you have. Also, if you plan on using the Osprey (which the mail almost hints at), I think they have the option of hooking up the old disks to the Osprey as well. And then of course, you can ship the disks, or tape backups to someone who can do the conversion for you. Me for instance. It's also a question of time, money and safety issues involved. Let me know if you want more help. Johnny Jacques Wagener wrote: > Hi there ! > > Over december last year I had my first wonderful expierence with a > micro-pdp11 running Micro-RSX. > In actual fact I haven't tried much, only a complete reinstall of the > system(which was unecessary, because I've got backup tapes !). > > But still an amazing moment. > > What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old > data/programs/source code from an old > hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to > transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but > old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface > card. > > Thanking you in advance > > Jacques Wagener > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at update.uu.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca Mon Apr 24 16:44:28 2006 From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:44:28 (EDT) -0500 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes Message-ID: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> Bill Cunningham: I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. ======= Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card? Norman Wilson Toronto ON From ggs at shiresoft.com Tue Apr 25 07:00:27 2006 From: ggs at shiresoft.com (Guy Sotomayor) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:00:27 -0700 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes In-Reply-To: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote: > Bill Cunningham: > > I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd > because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for > example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from > which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. > > ======= > > Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card? The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software. A USB stack (OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP is a stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and I'd say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack). -- TTFN - Guy From cowan at ccil.org Mon Apr 24 22:53:24 2006 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:53:24 -0400 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <20060424125324.GD29916@ccil.org> Lars Brinkhoff scripsit: > As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape. I > haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases, > because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their > source tree from old cruft. http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported target, with these caveats: narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole, does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use define_constants, and no ELF support. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the witch is dead." --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev From billcu1 at verizon.net Tue Apr 25 06:28:08 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400 Subject: [pups] Ancient Unixes Message-ID: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. Bill From wkt at tuhs.org Tue Apr 25 07:30:54 2006 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:30:54 +1000 Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of) In-Reply-To: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:00:01PM +0200, Jacques Wagener wrote: > What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old > data/programs/source code from an old > hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to > transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but > old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface > card. Apart from the tools that Johnny mentioned, there is a program I once write called VTServer, which copies entire disk images into hardware over a serial interface. The program has since been taken over by Fred van Kempen, and I don't have a canonical reference to it. However, if you search for "VTServer fred" on Google, it should turn up. Cheers, Warren From toby at smartgames.ca Tue Apr 25 07:51:19 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes In-Reply-To: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site> References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site> Message-ID: On 24-Apr-06, at 5:00 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote: >> Bill Cunningham: >> >> I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it >> to cd >> because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking >> was v5,6,7 for >> example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good >> example from >> which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde >> to /dev. >> >> ======= >> >> Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card? > > The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software. A USB > stack > (OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver > stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP > is a > stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and > I'd > say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack). No, it certainly is possible. I've used USB stacks on much smaller devices, such as Microchip PIC18. That is not a full-featured stack, but certainly enough to do quite a lot. TCP/IP doesn't have to be large either. See Adam Dunkel's uIP: http:// www.sics.se/~adam/uip/ --Toby > > -- > > TTFN - Guy > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From bqt at update.uu.se Tue Apr 25 08:31:44 2006 From: bqt at update.uu.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:31:44 +0200 Subject: [pups] PDP11 reverse-engineering(sort-of) In-Reply-To: <20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> <20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <444D51D0.9000204@update.uu.se> Wasn't that an RT-11 thing, Warren? (I have a short memory...) Johnny Warren Toomey wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:00:01PM +0200, Jacques Wagener wrote: > >>What I wanted to ask is, in what manner would one transfer old >>data/programs/source code from an old >>hard-drive/tapes/floppy to more modern drives etc. I basically need to >>transfer controller-programs over to x86( Everything works, I believe, but >>old hardware is scares) where I want to connect a modern pdp11-interface >>card. > > > Apart from the tools that Johnny mentioned, there is a program I once > write called VTServer, which copies entire disk images into hardware > over a serial interface. The program has since been taken over by Fred > van Kempen, and I don't have a canonical reference to it. However, if > you search for "VTServer fred" on Google, it should turn up. > > Cheers, > Warren > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at update.uu.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol From wkt at tuhs.org Tue Apr 25 08:44:17 2006 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:44:17 +1000 Subject: [pups] VTServer In-Reply-To: <444D51D0.9000204@update.uu.se> References: <5ca2537e0604241000m13e9c99dkeff498811e3f4346@mail.gmail.com> <20060424213054.GA1098@minnie.tuhs.org> <444D51D0.9000204@update.uu.se> Message-ID: <20060424224417.GA10673@minnie.tuhs.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:31:44AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > Wasn't that [VTServer] an RT-11 thing, Warren? > (I have a short memory...) > Johnny Actually, it was based on the 2.11BSD bootstrap code, but with a "virtual tape" device. See http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Tools/Tapes/Vtserver/vtreadme.html for my original version. Cheers, Warren From imp at bsdimp.com Tue Apr 25 22:54:26 2006 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:54:26 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [pups] [TUHS] Ancient Unixes In-Reply-To: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060425.065426.74734530.imp@bsdimp.com> From: "Bill Cunningham" Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400 > I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd > because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for > example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from > which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. Linux is very unlike early v[567] kernels. Those kernels are not posix by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, Posix is a userland interface, not an internal kernel structure, so even if they were posix, I'm not sure how much it would help you. Porting Linux's usb stack to FreeBSD, say, would be really hard because Linux and FreeBSD have such different intenral kernel APIs. You'll also run into the size issue if you want to implement a generic stack. For example, FreeBSD's usb stack is 100kB. While one could slim that down a lot (it include multiple drivers and such), it would be difficult to fit in the space contraints of the PDP-11 It should be possible, but one's first naive attemept to implement things may not be so straight forward. Warner From billcu1 at verizon.net Sat Apr 29 23:48:55 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:48:55 -0400 Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11 Message-ID: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then breaks. The output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there maybe something I'm not using. Bill From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net Sun Apr 30 01:08:26 2006 From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:08:26 -0400 Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11 In-Reply-To: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7> Hello! Bill? What are you building this on? If it's a Linux host, then check your sources. They are required to provide them. I should also add that the embedded tool providers should have notes on those steps. Oh and while your at it, you could show us the complete listing of your attempts. --- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net --- "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi > -----Original Message----- > From: pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On > Behalf Of Bill Cunningham > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:49 AM > To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11 > > Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use > the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then breaks. The > output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there maybe > something I'm not using. > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Sun Apr 30 01:29:56 2006 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:29:56 -0700 Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11 In-Reply-To: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <44538674.7010304@pacbell.net> Bill Cunningham wrote: > Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use >the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then breaks. The >output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there maybe >something I'm not using. > > > Building gcc as a cross compiler can be quite challenging. Dan Kegel has put together a set of scripts which largely automate the process and which can be found at http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/ Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) pdp11 is not on of the targets supported by crosstool, but you might still find it useful as an illustration of the kinds of things that may need to be done. Michael Davidson From bill at cs.uofs.edu Sun Apr 30 02:00:39 2006 From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11 In-Reply-To: <008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7> References: <000501c66b93$a91184e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <008101c66b9e$cc98ab40$6501a8c0@who7> Message-ID: <50956.70.16.123.154.1146326439.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> Before people devote too much effort to flogging a dead horse, I, too, have recently tried to build a gcc cross-compiler for the PDP-11 with no success. I have not seen a version that worked since GCC 2.something. It is possible that changes to GCC have broken the PDP-11 code and that no one is keeping it up. I would love to hear otherwise if anyone has successfully built a pdp-11 cross compiler using anything vaguely current. bill > Hello! > Bill? What are you building this on? If it's a Linux host, then check > your sources. They are required to provide them. I should also add > that the embedded tool providers should have notes on those steps. Oh > and while your at it, you could show us the complete listing of your > attempts. > --- > Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net > --- > "Remember the Force will be with you. Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org > [mailto:pups-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On >> Behalf Of Bill Cunningham >> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:49 AM >> To: pups at minnie.tuhs.org >> Subject: [pups] gcc-.3.4.6 for pdp11 >> >> Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use >> the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then > breaks. The >> output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there > maybe >> something I'm not using. >> >> Bill >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PUPS mailing list >> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups > -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include From billcu1 at verizon.net Sun Apr 30 05:19:20 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:19:20 -0400 Subject: [pups] pdp11 Message-ID: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/PDP_002d11-Options.html#PDP_002d 11-Options Here's some info. Bill From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au Sun Apr 30 08:57:45 2006 From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:57:45 +1000 Subject: [pups] pdp11 In-Reply-To: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060429225745.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> On Sat, 2006-Apr-29 15:19:20 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: >http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/PDP_002d11-Options.html#PDP_002d11-Options > > Here's some info. gcc definitely can generate PDP-11 code. That doesn't mean it can execute on a PDP-11. -- Peter Jeremy From bill at cs.uofs.edu Sun Apr 30 09:31:37 2006 From: bill at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [pups] pdp11 In-Reply-To: <20060429225745.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <000701c66bc1$d1366160$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <20060429225745.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <50779.70.16.123.154.1146353497.squirrel@www.cs.scranton.edu> > On Sat, 2006-Apr-29 15:19:20 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: >>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/gcc/PDP_002d11-Options.html#PDP_002d11-Options >> >> Here's some info. > > gcc definitely can generate PDP-11 code. That doesn't mean it can execute > on a PDP-11. GCC had PDP-11 support years ago. The question is wether or not this has been kept up and still works. It could never and can naver execute on a PDP-11. I would be happy if it could just generate Macro!! bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill at cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Apr 19 10:46:54 2006 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:46:54 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix Message-ID: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ] ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham ----- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 From: "Bill Cunningham" Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix To: I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? Bill ----- End forwarded message ----- From root at dynamite.narpes.com Wed Apr 19 11:42:32 2006 From: root at dynamite.narpes.com (Charlie ROOT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:42:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Warren Toomey wrote: > [ Please reply to Bill if you can, I don't know if he's on the list ] > > ----- Forwarded message from Bill Cunningham ----- > > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 > From: "Bill Cunningham" > Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix > To: > > I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes > in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in > the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? I've heard of a free VAX emulator called SIMH/vax, and a commercial one named Charon-VAX (or something), but I've tested neither. If you're adventurous enough, you might consider real VAX hardware: the VAXstation 3100 and 4000 series models can be had at reasonable cost, and are not larger than a desktop PC. As for VMS, at least the recent 7.x versions are available more or less freely for hobbyist use. By the way, are there releases of Xenix that run on PDP-hardware? I've only ever heard of PC (8086+)-based ones. -aw From iking at killthewabbit.org Wed Apr 19 16:07:22 2006 From: iking at killthewabbit.org (Ian King) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:07:22 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] [pups] Bob's emulator and ultrix In-Reply-To: <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> References: <20060419004654.GA38557@minnie.tuhs.org> <20060419011004.X3950@dynamite.narpes.com> Message-ID: <4445D39A.70303@killthewabbit.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From txomsy at yahoo.es Sat Apr 22 05:14:36 2006 From: txomsy at yahoo.es (Jose R Valverde) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [TUHS] Bob's emulator and ultrix Message-ID: <20060421191436.87797.qmail@web26109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I have been able to install and run ultrix 3, ultrix4 and OpenVMS on the SIMH emulator. No problem at all at any point. Regarding ultrix, the images available on the archive worked like a charm. For ultrix 4 I used an installation CD I still kept around for ULTRIX on VAXen. As for OpenVMS, if you are interested, it also works OK, but getting it is a bit more difficult. First you need a Hobbyist license from HP. You can get one by joining a local VMS user group (or Encompass US if there is none in your Country). Usually you can get a free limited membership that will give you access to the license. It must be renewed periodically. Then you need access to VMS for VAX distribution media. We have been an Ultrix, OSF-Tru64 and VMS shop for a long time, so that wasn't a problem for me. Otherwise it might be difficult. I think you can order a hobbyist copy from HP, but don't rely on my feeble memory. Once you have the license and the media, installing it is just as simple as installing on a real VAX. I had no trouble at all, but again, I've been a VMS sysman as well for over 20 years. The only problematic point is making the network work, but the recipes available on the web are excellent. You can get to them from the links in SIMH web page. > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:32:27 -0400 > From: "Bill Cunningham" > Subject: Bob's emulator and ultrix > To: > > I can't get the sim 2.3d to boot ultrix 3.1 or xenix or anyother boot tapes > in the uhs's archive. I have compiled the pdp11 emulator with gcc-3.4.6. I > am also interested in the OS Tim Berners-Lee used to write his first > browser. VMS on a VAX machine I have read. Is there anything like this in > the archive? A VAX emulator and VMS OS? ______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com From billcu1 at verizon.net Mon Apr 24 09:00:02 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:00:02 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] unix Message-ID: <000701c66729$a8197ac0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> I am running linux and I want to devote a partition to a good working old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's simulator and it works great. The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145 which is I believe Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the system. I also want to make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do that with a pdp-11 emulator. I want the source so it can be generated too. Bill From billcu1 at verizon.net Mon Apr 24 09:27:55 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:27:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix Message-ID: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as they don't work much anymore. Bill From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Mon Apr 24 10:33:33 2006 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> Bill Cunningham wrote: > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It >would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work >with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would >compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as >they don't work much anymore. > > By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 for the PDP-11. Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at least to some extent, so you can already do cross development targeted at the PDP-11. Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, *many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" wouldn't fit either ... Michael Davidson [ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au Mon Apr 24 10:00:46 2006 From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:00:46 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060424000046.GE720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? What do you mean by "old unixes"? 32V or 4BSD would be trivial. 2BSD or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible. gcc was born in a 32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a 16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend): Both the code and data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to using overlays. If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it. > A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99. As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it impossible to build a simple C compiler. -- Peter Jeremy From vasco at icpnet.pl Mon Apr 24 17:33:34 2006 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:33:34 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> Michael Davidson napisał(a): >Bill Cunningham wrote: > > > >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as >>they don't work much anymore. >> >> >> >> >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 >for the PDP-11. > >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development >targeted at the PDP-11. > >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. > >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" >wouldn't fit either ... > >Michael Davidson > >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] > > >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. Perhaps DeJorie could help. Andrzej From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Mon Apr 24 18:44:07 2006 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:44:07 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender - OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of trick. If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work. I've never heard of anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either. Just my 0.02c Wesley Parish Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : > Michael Davidson napisał(a): > > >Bill Cunningham wrote: > > > > > > > >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It > >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would > work > >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that > would > >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for > safekeeping as > >>they don't work much anymore. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 > >for the PDP-11. > > > >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at > >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development > >targeted at the PDP-11. > > > >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost > >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, > >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at > >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it > >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. > > > >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" > >wouldn't fit either ... > > > >Michael Davidson > > > >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for > > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >TUHS mailing list > >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s > > > > > > > What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 > bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. > Perhaps DeJorie could help. > > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press From lars at nocrew.org Mon Apr 24 19:29:20 2006 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:29:20 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> (Michael Davidson's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:33:33 -0700") References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Michael Davidson writes: > Bill Cunningham wrote: > > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? > Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at > least to some extent, so you can already do cross development > targeted at the PDP-11. I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff. It was made just for fun, so it's not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok. As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape. I haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases, because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their source tree from old cruft. From vasco at icpnet.pl Mon Apr 24 19:50:40 2006 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:50:40 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> Wesley Parish napisał(a): >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of >trick. > > I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible . BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to be good environment for this simulator (?). I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another console to exit. Andrzej From peterjeremy at optushome.com.au Mon Apr 24 17:47:54 2006 From: peterjeremy at optushome.com.au (Peter Jeremy) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:47:54 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <20060424074754.GH720@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote: >What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 >bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. Won't work. http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states: "3.5 Can I run it on a 286? Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also.... A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here. Gcc doesn't care much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit processor, which the 286 isn't. A 386 or better CPU really is required." -- Peter Jeremy From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Mon Apr 24 23:05:20 2006 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:05:20 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> Message-ID: <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz> Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : > Wesley Parish napisał(a): > > >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit > >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS > extender > >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same > kind of > >trick. > > > > > I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. > > I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit > environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. > I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can > create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not > impossible . In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted. Then the files get rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a gcc guru nor a pdp11 guru. > > BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and > it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 > processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to > > be good environment for this simulator (?). That's good news! > I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another > > console to exit. You're not the only one, either. Wesley Parish > > > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press From txomsy at yahoo.es Tue Apr 25 04:01:43 2006 From: txomsy at yahoo.es (Jose R Valverde) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:01:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix Message-ID: <20060424180143.41943.qmail@web26107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> > I am running linux and I want to devote a partition to a good working >old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's simulator and it works great. >The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145 which is I believe >Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the system. I also want to >make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do that with a pdp-11 >emulator. I want the source so it can be generated too. Gasp! I think you have a number of things wrong that need correction. First, now what LINUX stands for? Linux Is Not UniX. Yep, that's it! While it is true that LINUX is not UNIX, it is similar enough. It was designed to be a substitute for UNIX, and is good enough at it that one could argue it fully behaves as a UNIX now (which would be tantamount to saying it is UNIX, though it hasn't passed X/Open certification). Then, what's in the archive are not old versions of LINUX, but of UNIX. In the sense UNIX predates and sheds the field for LINUX you could think of them as LINUX antecessors, although there is no shared code or lineage among them. What you do when you "boot" the old versions within SIMH is run an ancient UNIX inside a program that emulates (behaves as) an old computer. You are not booting your computer. You are booting a virtual old computer. Then, to shut down an old machine, UNIX 6 or 7 you would simply 'sync' the disks (to ensure all temporary data was saved)and power down the machine. Or at least interrupt it to the console monitor. Under SIMH you can "interrupt" or stop the machine by pressing ^E ([Ctrl] + [E], both pressed at the same time). This will stop the emulation (sort of as if you had turned off the old machine) and take you to the SIMH command prompt. Once there simply type in "quit" and you are out. Under system 7 you start in single user mode. You can go to multi-user status by typing ^D. Then you can login and out as usual. And stop the machine as described above ('sync' a couple of times as root and press ^E). Regarding the filesystem, you don't need a partition. SIMH being an emulator and the machine (PDP11) virtual, everything is virtual. So, what you need to add more space is to add another disk. Not to *your* machine, but to the virtual machine, and not a real disk, but a virtual disk. I.e. a file on your *real* filesystem that you will treat as a virtual disk. Then attach it to the virtual PDP11 using the SIMH "attach" command (this would be tantamount to connecting the virtual wires of the virtual disk to the virtual computer). See the manual of SIMH for more details. As for formatting the disk, see the manual pages. I've got the kids in the bath now and can't type more, but this should be enough to clear up your mind. j ______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com From Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de Tue Apr 25 05:13:45 2006 From: Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de (Hellwig.Geisse at mni.fh-giessen.de) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:13:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [TUHS] unix In-Reply-To: <000701c66729$a8197ac0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 23-Apr-2006 Bill Cunningham wrote: > I am running linux and I want to devote a partition to a good working > old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's simulator and it works great. > The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145 which is I believe > Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the system. I also want to > make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do that with a pdp-11 > emulator. I want the source so it can be generated too. > > Bill may I suggest taking a look into this package: http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg53/pdp11-unix/unix-v7-3.tar.gz I tried to be very specific as to how things are to be done (but I also refer to the manual pages of V7 for setting up the system of course). All parts that you need to get V7 up and running from the original tape images (also included) are there, as well as the manuals for V7 and for the PDP11-40. Also included is a file extractor, which can be used to extract files from the simulated file system to the Linux host file system. Good luck! Hellwig From billcu1 at verizon.net Tue Apr 25 06:28:08 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes Message-ID: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. Bill From norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca Mon Apr 24 16:44:28 2006 From: norman at nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:44:28 (EDT) -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes Message-ID: <20060424204859.5E0401E7@minnie.tuhs.org> Bill Cunningham: I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. ======= Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card? Norman Wilson Toronto ON From cowan at ccil.org Mon Apr 24 22:53:24 2006 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:53:24 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <85fyk31fv3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <20060424125324.GD29916@ccil.org> Lars Brinkhoff scripsit: > As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape. I > haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases, > because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their > source tree from old cruft. http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported target, with these caveats: narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole, does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use define_constants, and no ELF support. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the witch is dead." --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev From toby at smartgames.ca Tue Apr 25 02:06:13 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:06:13 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz> References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote: > Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : > >> Wesley Parish napisaÅ‚(a): >> >>> djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16- >>> bit >>> operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS >> extender >>> - OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the >>> same >> kind of >>> trick. >>> >>> >> I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. >> >> I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit >> environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. >> I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc >> can >> create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not >> impossible . > > In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are > cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted. Then the files get > rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a > gcc guru > nor a pdp11 guru. It can't be done. As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all meant for large 32-bit systems. However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still massively outsize for PDP-11 systems. --Toby [1] http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/info/lcc-pdp11.html [2] http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/ >> >> BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent >> 4.2.10 and >> it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 >> processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it >> seems to >> >> be good environment for this simulator (?). > > That's good news! >> I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on >> another >> >> console to exit. > > You're not the only one, either. > > Wesley Parish >> >> >> Andrzej >> _______________________________________________ >> PUPS mailing list >> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups >> > > > > "Sharpened hands are happy hands. > "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" > - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge > > "I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!" > I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol > of the > other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From aek at bitsavers.org Tue Apr 25 05:40:24 2006 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:40:24 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] "Preliminary Relase of UNIX Implentation Document" Message-ID: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/bellLabs/unix/ here is a note from Dennis about the history of the documents that I've just put up on bitsavers -- The manual is the 1st edition, a scan of which has been available at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/1stEdman.html in various forms (all renditions of the same scan) for a while. However, the annotated OS and software scan is new to me This is a medium-age version of the assembler system for the PDP 11/20, and is apparently without an MMU. A good find! There were subsequent assembler versions for the (DEC Special Systems) 11/20 with an MMU and then for a while for the 11/45; the first C version would appear late summer of 1973. Regards and thanks, Dennis From ggs at shiresoft.com Tue Apr 25 07:00:27 2006 From: ggs at shiresoft.com (Guy Sotomayor) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:00:27 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] [pups] Ancient Unixes In-Reply-To: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote: > Bill Cunningham: > > I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd > because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for > example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from > which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. > > ======= > > Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card? The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software. A USB stack (OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP is a stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and I'd say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack). -- TTFN - Guy From toby at smartgames.ca Tue Apr 25 07:51:19 2006 From: toby at smartgames.ca (Toby Thain) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] [pups] Ancient Unixes In-Reply-To: <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site> References: <20060424204843.2831915B@minnie.tuhs.org> <1145912427.9595.28.camel@linux.site> Message-ID: On 24-Apr-06, at 5:00 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 16:44 -0500, Norman Wilson wrote: >> Bill Cunningham: >> >> I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it >> to cd >> because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking >> was v5,6,7 for >> example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good >> example from >> which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde >> to /dev. >> >> ======= >> >> Has anyone ever made a UNIBUS or Qbus USB card? > > The problem isn't so much the hardware, it's the software. A USB > stack > (OHCI/UHCI) isn't exactly small and I doubt you could create a driver > stack that would fit in a PDP-11's 16 bit address space (ie TCP/IP > is a > stretch in that it only works on systems with 22-bit addressing and > I'd > say that a USB stack is *at least* as complicated as a TCP/IP stack). No, it certainly is possible. I've used USB stacks on much smaller devices, such as Microchip PIC18. That is not a full-featured stack, but certainly enough to do quite a lot. TCP/IP doesn't have to be large either. See Adam Dunkel's uIP: http:// www.sics.se/~adam/uip/ --Toby > > -- > > TTFN - Guy > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From vasco at icpnet.pl Tue Apr 25 16:28:57 2006 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:28:57 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix In-Reply-To: References: <000701c6672d$8d6f2ae0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> <444C1CDD.20805@pacbell.net> <444C7F4E.7040906@icpnet.pl> <1145868247.444c8fd727f62@www.paradise.net.nz> <444C9F70.2030409@icpnet.pl> <1145883920.444ccd101dfd0@www.paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <444DC1A9.2080501@icpnet.pl> Toby Thain napisał(a): >On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote: > > > >>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : >> >> >> >>>Wesley Parish napisaÅ‚(a): >>> >>> >>> > >It can't be done. > >As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too >big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all >meant for large 32-bit systems. > >However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made >a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it >can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much >smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still >massively outsize for PDP-11 systems. > > Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message : too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged the system BTW). Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors to Your disposal and You can work faster. Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have anyway only hobbyst license . Andrzej From imp at bsdimp.com Tue Apr 25 22:54:26 2006 From: imp at bsdimp.com (Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:54:26 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes In-Reply-To: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c667dd$9a66cea0$2f01a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060425.065426.74734530.imp@bsdimp.com> From: "Bill Cunningham" Subject: [TUHS] Ancient Unixes Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:28:08 -0400 > I am copying all I can from the unix archive and will burn it to cd > because I know how precious they are. But what I was thinking was v5,6,7 for > example. Take them and add USB support. Linux would be a good example from > which to draw from. Because it's Posix. Much more could be adde to /dev. Linux is very unlike early v[567] kernels. Those kernels are not posix by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, Posix is a userland interface, not an internal kernel structure, so even if they were posix, I'm not sure how much it would help you. Porting Linux's usb stack to FreeBSD, say, would be really hard because Linux and FreeBSD have such different intenral kernel APIs. You'll also run into the size issue if you want to implement a generic stack. For example, FreeBSD's usb stack is 100kB. While one could slim that down a lot (it include multiple drivers and such), it would be difficult to fit in the space contraints of the PDP-11 It should be possible, but one's first naive attemept to implement things may not be so straight forward. Warner From patv at monmouth.com Tue Apr 25 22:53:28 2006 From: patv at monmouth.com (patv at monmouth.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:53:28 EST Subject: [TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix Message-ID: <200604251253.k3PCrR0f005871@wwws.monmouth.com> If this helps at all, I've been working (very, very slowly) on a port of v32 to Intel platforms. At first I used gcc for some kernel work, but quickly realized that it would be overwhelming to the final v7 system. Since I don't want to do the work twice, I looked for a different compiler suite. I switched to the ACK compiler suite and just finished the WinXP cross compiler work. It has a pdp11 back end, which I have yet to try, that may be useful. It isn't gcc, but ir does do ANSI C and the i386 assembler seems to be pretty complete. Let me know if there's any interest and I'll put it up on my site for download. Pat > Toby Thain napisał(a): > > >On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote: > > > > > > > >>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz : > >> > >> > >> > >>>Wesley Parish napisaÅ‚(a): > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >It can't be done. > > > >As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too > >big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all > >meant for large 32-bit systems. > > > >However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made > >a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it > >can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much > >smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still > >massively outsize for PDP-11 systems. > > > > > Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message : > too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged > the system BTW). > Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors > to Your disposal and You can work faster. > Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have > anyway only hobbyst license . > > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Monmouth Internet MI-Webmail. http://www.monmouth.com/ From dpeschel at eskimo.com Wed Apr 26 05:45:17 2006 From: dpeschel at eskimo.com (Derek Peschel) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:45:17 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Bellmac-32 and WE32000 and self-virtualization? Message-ID: <20060425124517.A9726@eskimo.com> First off, isn't it true that both these chips are the same or similar? A short conference paper on the Bellmac-32 caught my eye because it mentioned the various data structures the Bellmac keeps in memory, such as process and interrupt control blocks. I'v become interested in self-virtualizing CPUs (one well-known example being the IBM System/370 and up, running VM) and I wondered if the data structures make the Bellmac-32 a good candidate for self-virtualization. They are not tied to particular addresses and a supervisor could inspect and alter its caller's data. I'm still trying to get my head around the theory. So the manuals would be interesting, but details about actual implementations would be even more interesting. Perhaps MERT is relevant to this discussion. Thanks, -- Derek From billcu1 at verizon.net Thu Apr 27 09:33:37 2006 From: billcu1 at verizon.net (Bill Cunningham) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:33:37 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] *nixs Message-ID: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here? Bill From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Thu Apr 27 10:25:59 2006 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:25:59 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] *nixs In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <44500F97.2070406@pacbell.net> Bill Cunningham wrote: > This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix >and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here? > > > XENIX was a UNIX variant developed by Microsoft along with Logica and The Santa Cruz Operation. It was originally based on V7 and subsequently picked up bits of System III and System V through System V Release 2. It ran on PDP-11 (earliest verion only), Motorola 68k, Intel 8086 / 80286 / 80386 and Nat Semi 32000 (not sure if that version was ever released though). On Intel platforms it appeared as both an OEM offering from companies such as Intel and IBM, and as a shrink wrapped end-user product from SCO. The Linux kernel, by contrast, was developed from scratch and while it implements the UNIX system calls and interfaces it has no other relation to the original AT&T UNIX line. From mparson at bl.org Thu Apr 27 10:15:57 2006 From: mparson at bl.org (Michael Parson) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:15:57 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] *nixs In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060427001557.GA11978@bl.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: > This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix > and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here? Xenix was an early UNIX written for the Intel line of processors originally by Microsoft and later sold off to the Santa Cruz Organization (SCO). BSD started off as extentions to the AT&T lines of UNIX, eventually leading to a lawsuit in the early 90s and the 'Lite' distributions which were finally free of AT&T code but also marked UCB's exit from the OS market. Minix shares no source-code with AT&T or BSD unixes, it was written from the ground up by AST. Linux shares no source code with AT&T, BSD, or Minix. Linus Torvalds started it as a way to learn i386 asssembly and multitasking. He started with Minix as his development platform, but used no code from it. This is HIGHLY simplified summary, if you want more in depth information, a good read is 'A Quarter Centry of Unix' by Peter H. Salus. FreeBSD also has a good history file that gives a little more information thatn I gave here.. -- Michael Parson mparson at bl.org From wkt at tuhs.org Thu Apr 27 10:35:56 2006 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:35:56 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] *nixs In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060427003556.GA64980@minnie.tuhs.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: > This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix > and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here? Minix, like Linux, was written from scratch, and isn't derived from UNIX. Warren From imp at bsdimp.com Thu Apr 27 18:26:06 2006 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:26:06 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] *nixs In-Reply-To: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> References: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0@myhome.westell.com> Message-ID: <20060427.022606.62341025.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <000701c66989$d8aa18e0$1901a8c0 at myhome.westell.com> "Bill Cunningham" writes: : This xenix and venix OS thing. Where did these OSs come from? If minix : and BSD are direct descendants of v4,5,6,7 where does linux fit in here? venix was a v6 port to the 8086 and pdp-11 (the Digital Professional computers). It was notable because it ran on the Digital Rainbow 100. Later there was a 286 port of v7. I believe venturacom created this port. Warner From tfb at tfeb.org Fri Apr 28 17:23:19 2006 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:23:19 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] On the subject of old Unix variants: Tenix? Message-ID: <109A4122-F4EE-4430-B7CC-7EB2A0FC35E9@tfeb.org> Does anyone know anything about this? What I *think* it was was something that ran on a logic analyser (?) made by Tektronix, which had some kind of PDP-11 inside them. I suspect it was actually 7th edition or something similar in rather light disguise. I came across one of these in the early 80s but never used it, hence the vagueness of my memory. --tim From vonhagen at vonhagen.org Sat Apr 29 14:11:55 2006 From: vonhagen at vonhagen.org (William von Hagen) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:11:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org> Tektronix had a Unix variant called uTek that ran on a number of workstations that they produced in the 1980s - perhaps that's what you're thinking of? These started out with Nat Semi processors, but later production systems were 68Ks IIRC. Most of them ran uTek,. but some also ran a SmallTalk-based system and were sold as AI boxes. As you'd expect from Tektronix products, the graphics were superb for their day. The uTek boxes ran the X Window system and had Tektronix' own window manager. Bill > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:23:19 +0100 > From: Tim Bradshaw > Subject: [TUHS] On the subject of old Unix variants: Tenix? > To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Message-ID: <109A4122-F4EE-4430-B7CC-7EB2A0FC35E9 at tfeb.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > Does anyone know anything about this? What I *think* it was was > something that ran on a logic analyser (?) made by Tektronix, which > had some kind of PDP-11 inside them. I suspect it was actually 7th > edition or something similar in rather light disguise. I came across > one of these in the early 80s but never used it, hence the vagueness > of my memory. From tfb at tfeb.org Sat Apr 29 23:06:09 2006 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:06:09 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants In-Reply-To: <1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org> References: <1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org> Message-ID: <57B5B54F-F4BE-40DB-8CF9-B3E18E5A469F@tfeb.org> On 29 Apr 2006, at 05:11, William von Hagen wrote: > Tektronix had a Unix variant called uTek that ran on a number of > workstations that they produced in the 1980s - perhaps that's what > you're thinking of? These started out with Nat Semi processors, but > later production systems were 68Ks IIRC. Most of them ran uTek,. but > some also ran a SmallTalk-based system and were sold as AI boxes. As > you'd expect from Tektronix products, the graphics were superb for > their > day. The uTek boxes ran the X Window system and had Tektronix' own > window manager. I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802 or something so you could see what it was doing) I think. It almost certainly had a serial console (which would have been a Tek graphics terminal of course _ I think it had a pair of them), and I am reasonably sure the thing that ran it all was a PDP-11 of some kind (poresumably a small one, because the whole system was not enormous). --tim From aek at bitsavers.org Sun Apr 30 13:01:40 2006 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:01:40 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B5246CE-8D25-4545-B7DA-32990CC5382A@bitsavers.org> On Apr 29, 2006, at 7:00 PM, tuhs-request at minnie.tuhs.org wrote: > > I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some > trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a > piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might > have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802 > or something so you could see what it was doing) I think. It was the Tek 8560 multi-user development system. Different models had either an 11/23 or 11/73 processor with their own peripheral interfaces. Manuals on bitsavers.com under tektronix/85xx From rivie at ridgenet.net Sun Apr 30 05:46:31 2006 From: rivie at ridgenet.net (Roger Ivie) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] Tektronix Unix Variants In-Reply-To: <57B5B54F-F4BE-40DB-8CF9-B3E18E5A469F@tfeb.org> References: <1146283916.17552.52.camel@64bit.vonhagen.org> <57B5B54F-F4BE-40DB-8CF9-B3E18E5A469F@tfeb.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some > trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a > piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might > have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802 > or something so you could see what it was doing) I think. It almost > certainly had a serial console (which would have been a Tek graphics > terminal of course _ I think it had a pair of them), and I am > reasonably sure the thing that ran it all was a PDP-11 of some kind > (poresumably a small one, because the whole system was not enormous). I can confirm your memory. I was involved in a demo of one round about 1983. It was an ICE, but I forget which processors it supported. TEK4105 terminal (first time I saw one of those). It did, indeed, run Unix on a PDP-11, but I forget the details. Only saw it once, and I quit working for that company within six months of the demo; don't know whether they wound up buying any. -- roger ivie rivie at ridgenet.net