I've assembled some notes from old manuals and other sources
on the formats used for on-disk file systems through the
Additional notes, comments on style, and whatnot are welcome.
(It may be sensible to send anything in the last two categories
directly to me, rather than to the whole list.)
Fred N. van Kempen wrote:
> Well, those programs emulate both the CPU (which *is* the same as
> those found in the PRO systems), but *also* the surrounding stuff
> like disk controllers, serial controllers and so on.
> It would not be (that) hard to add "PRO" emulation to SimH, if some
> sort of hardware specs are still available.
This is actually exactly what I have done. The emulator is
I just thought of a reason _why_ Caldera was unable to clarify the status of
System III - if you look at the documents on Groklaw.net,
one of them's a document between Novell and SCO Original, where the System V
releases are enumerated. Another is a similar document which mentions the
Ancient Unix and their manuals as being part of the deal.
Neither document that I can recall, mentions anything about System III - and
apparently Warren Toomey had to supply them with that, so it would appear
that System III is - quite literally - unclaimed by anyone, apart from its
copyright notices, and thus - since neither The SCO Group nor Novell has laid
claim to it in their copyright battle - it could well be considered Public
Just a thought, and don't take my word for it.
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
Jochen Kunz wrote:
>I see two problems:
>1. Bus transciever chips.
Yes, this is the big one. It turns out to be solvable, but not using
IC's. National DS3862 would be good, but it just went out of production...
I'm looking into making a "trapzoidal driver" (i.e. controlled edges)
using a FET and RC on the gate. Someone else suggested it and it
sounded like a good idea. Certainly easy to model/simulate first.
I asked this on the classic computer list and I thought I'd ask here
Does anyone have any thoughts on how hard it would be to make a unibus
board which is an IDE controller?
I have 4-6 layer boards fabbed regularly and use modern CPLD's & VHDL on
a regular basis, so the building part looks easy.
I've never looked at unibus controlleqr schematic, but plan to. I'm
assuming much of the old ttl can be sucked into something like a Xilinx
I also assume it's reasonably straightforward TTL, and at (by today's
standards) slow speed... true?
Any hints, or gotcha's as far as fabrication or interface? Has anyone
done this (in the modern day, that is :-)
My plan would be to build a 4 layer board of suitable thickness with
gold fingers, using an existing board for reference (any physical size
specs I could read?)
I'm well aware of the foolishness of this on one level, but there's a
side of me that really enjoys this sort of thing... perhaps medication
would help :-)
Learn is free. At least it's author, some unherad of guy named Brian
Kernighan is making it publicly available on the Net through his
web page :-)
It's been there for a long while.
I had a similar problem with novice users some years ago, and remembered
good old faithful 'learn' from Ultrix. I also remembered having compiled
it at some point in OSF/1. So I went to the net and started a search, and
lo! there it was at Brian's page.
I ported it to IRIX, which is where I had said novice users, and being at
it, to Linux as well. I must have the ported code somewhere but I'm on
A look at AIX and Tru64 revealed it is still there in new versions of these,
which proved great for me: DWK code did not come with all the lessons I had
used before, and I could just copy the lessons from these systems over and
use them with the port.
Therefore, yes, it is free, it is available on the Net, I have already ported
it to modern systems, and the lessons are still distributed with
some commercial UNIX variants should you need them.
These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!
José R. Valverde
De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
norman(a)nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson) wrote:
> You mean you've restored the original version of cat that had only one option,
Notice my use of the words "nearly" and "almost" in the part you responded to.
Seriously though, you gotta agree that until 4.3BSD inclusive, Berkeley was
basically adding to and extending V7. Sure they added a *lot* and extended
many of the existing facilities, but with very few exceptions, it was all
additive, virtually no V7 facility (except the mpx you mentioned) was removed.
Yes, they added fsck, but icheck is still there! (No one uses it of course,
but knowing that nobody removed it gives a warm fuzzy feeling.) The same goes
for almost everything else.
Here is the acid test: time-teleport a V7 user from 1979 to a VAX running
4.3BSD, set PATH=/bin:/usr/bin (no /usr/ucb), do stty old (old tty driver) and
stty ek (erase # kill @) and see if he feels at home or not.
Of course I never use my systems in this way, I make extensive use of Berkeley
UNIX facilities, but I like it much better to use a system that is additive
rather than substitutive with respect to Original UNIX.
It feels so great knowing that my current modern OS (last release
2003-12-07 counts as current and modern to me) still has nearly all original V7
UNIX code almost completely untouched. It's what gives me the right to call it
You mean you've restored the original version of cat that had only one option,
and the version of ls that had fewer than a dozen and didn't care how wide
the screen was; that filenames are only 14 characters long; that fsck has
been abolished in favour of icheck and ncheck and dcheck; and that file system
blocks have returned to their original V7 size of 512 bytes?
My hat's off to you if so.
On the other hand, I have to question either your stability or that of your
system if you have reinstated the original V7 code implementing mpx(2).
(who actually used the old multiplexor once, but had to fix it first!)