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.)
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:11:43 +1000
> From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org>
> To: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] DEC V7M-11 manuals
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Carl Lowenstein wrote:
> > While preparing to move out of the office that I have occupied for the
> > past couple of decades, I came across an unused set of V7M-11 manuals.
> > Three large binders, DEC Orange (Chinese Red?). Is this something that
> > should be archived somewhere? Scanned and put on line? I don't have
> > the resources to do that, but could ship them somewhere.
> > Labels on the binders are:
> > V7M-11 Volume 1 Programmer's Manual
> > V7M-11 Volume 2A and 2B Programmer's Manual
> > V7M-11 System Management and Operation Manuals
> Carl, we have v7m source + binaries in the Unix Archive, but I'm not sure
> if this also includes the documentation that you have unearthed. I will
> go through what's in the archive here and see if it corresponds with what
> you have, and get back to you.
Fine. I didn't mention that I also came across a V7M-11 distribution
tape, because I was pretty sure you already had that.
I will be away for about three weeks starting Monday 27 June, so we might
not connect until I get back. On the other hand, these books have been
sitting around for a few years, another month won't hurt them.
While preparing to move out of the office that I have occupied for the
past couple of decades, I came across an unused set of V7M-11 manuals.
Three large binders, DEC Orange (Chinese Red?). Is this something that
should be archived somewhere? Scanned and put on line? I don't have
the resources to do that, but could ship them somewhere.
Labels on the binders are:
V7M-11 Volume 1 Programmer's Manual
V7M-11 Volume 2A and 2B Programmer's Manual
V7M-11 System Management and Operation Manuals
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some VERY good discussion of the 'openness' of this code...
From: "Gregg C Levine" <hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:52:35
Subject: RE: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code
Hello from Gregg C Levine
However, it happens that I spent some time talking with the folks at
the company in question, during the boot camp sessions that launched
Sol 10. It happens that the code is one hundred percent theirs. Now
there might be some lingering strangeness that follows from the BSD
evolved forms of Sol leading up to 10, that is all there will be.
Although I suspect a good hacker would be able to sort out the
differences and dummy up a working kit to support the assertions of
yours James Falknor, I myself do not have those talents.
However, Andrzej Popielewicz, I welcome your efforts.
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net
"The Force will be with you... Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuhs-bounces(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> Behalf Of Andrzej Popielewicz
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: James Falknor
> Cc: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] Solaris 10 source code
> Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
> > To all the Unix Officiando's,
> > Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10
> > source code known as OpenSolaris?
> > What are your thoughts on the subject?
> > Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4?
> > Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or
> > 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage?
> > Thank you,
> > James Falknor
> I did not check sources of Solaris 10 yet, but as an owner of many
> Solaris 8/9 licenses I will certainly do it.
> As far as Unix Version 7 is concerned I see some chances . Let us
> consider such idea .
> For example Coherent is based on Unix version 7. It has also support
> DKI/DDI driver interface (but not complete implementation). Solaris
> drivers as far as I know use DKI/DDI. So there is some chance that
> least drivers could be in some way portable .
> Probably using NetBSD would be also an alternative.
TUHS mailing list
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.
To all the Unix Officiando's,
Have any of you checked out the recent release of Sun's Solaris 10
source code known as OpenSolaris?
What are your thoughts on the subject?
Is the source code still considered to be based on SVR4?
Any likely chance of using Solaris source code to bring 32V or
Version 7 of Unix into the modern world of x86 usage?
I am looking for a copy (electronic or paper) of the digital PDP-11 advertisement that appeared in Newsweek in the early 1980s. The ad states "Who needs a computer with thousands of software programs?", with sketches of people explaining how the computer can be used in their field (ie. "I need it for word processing", "designing bridges", "collecting the bills", etc). Do you know where I can find a copy of it?
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!
>I was reading Groklaw yesterday night when I came across this. It is a
>very sad thought to know that possibly tons of old/ancient code is being
>dumped in the trash bin.
>More so now since the advent of software patents: it may become very
>difficult to avoid a patent on a re-invention of the wheel if previous
>knowledge has been dumped.
>OK, the quote. It is from "the Todd Shaughnessy affidavit [PDF] from IBM
>that Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells requested they file when they turned
>over all the code and paperwork to SCO":
> 28. As I have noted above, IBM does not maintain revision control
> information for AIX source code pre-dating 1991. To the extent that
> any code for the AIX operating system (that did not duplicate the
> code already being produced in CMVC) was found during the search
> described in Paragraph 26-27 above, it was produced. Paragraphs
> 29-31 below describe additional search efforts IBM undertook to
> locate pre-1991 versions of AIX code. No versions of AIX pre-dating
> 1991 were found.
> 29. In the 1980s and early 1990s, IBM prepared vital records backups
> of AIX source code and transferred them to a remote storage location.
> At some point in the 1990s, the AIX vital records tapes were transferred
> to Austin, Texas. In late 2000, the tapes were determined to be obsolete,
> and were not retained.
> 30. The AIX development organization contacted other IBM employees who
> were known or believed to have been involved with the development or
> product release of AIX versions prior to 1991. In addition, IBM
> managers and attorneys asked current members of the AIX development
> organization whether they were aware of the location of pre-1991
> releases of AIX source code. No one asked was aware of any remaining
> copies of pre-1991 AIX source code.
>Perhaps we should do something to raise awareness about the relevance of
>legacy (not only UNIX) source code. And in any case, it is a pity that all
>that historical information had been lost forever.
>I have always complained about this, and consider it the biggest drawback of
>closed proprietary source code: it is OK that law protects developer interests
>with the goal of promoting innovation and the public benefit at large. But it
>is a lose for everybody whenever any such "protected" code is dumped into the
>bin banning anyone else from further benefitting from or exploiting it, and
>opening the road for opportunists to claim they "newly invented" it.
All may not be lost.
As it appears to me, TUHS has connections with Universities / Colleges
and other types schools, as well as programmers, software engineers and
All we need to do is put the word out that TUHS is seeking pre-1991 AIX
source code and it's bound to surface. If all else fails, I'm sure
someone has a pre-1991 AIX binary distribution that could be
disassembled (that is if a binary distribution can be disassembled back
to a rough source code).
To all TUHS members,
As a part of the heritage of Unix, please search any and all your
archives for pre-1991 AIX Source Code. Maybe, just maybe, a pre-1991 AIX
Binary Distribution will suffice. Help IBM, TUHS, and in the end, the
heritage of Unix.
Somehow this message got stuck at the wrong end of my inbox. It
relates to a thread on this list a few months back. The content
speaks for itself, so I'll just forward it here.
----- Forwarded message from Russ Cox <russcox(a)gmail.com> -----
> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:33:17 -0500
> From: Russ Cox <russcox(a)gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Russ Cox <russcox(a)gmail.com>
> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 port license (was: licence of ditroff?)
> [Feel free to forward this response to the appropriate lists.]
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:39:32 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
>> As you can see, there's a certain amount of confusion about the
>> license of this software. I took a cursory look and couldn't find
>> anything. In this day of predatory companies, it would be good to
>> have clarity. Could you please clarify, both to the list and on the
>> web site?
> The license is the Lucent Public License. There are some exceptions
> with MIT-like licensing, but troff is not one of them. This is made clear
> if you look in the tar file -- there is a LICENSE file in the root that
> explains the situation. I've added a link to this file on the web site
> next to the download link.
> I hate haggling over licensing so I try to draw as little attention as
> possible to such issues. I do appreciate their importance.
> The Lucent Public License is the IBM Public License made optionally non-viral.
> If you want to contribute changes back to the Plan 9 project, then
> those changes must be made available under the LPL. But (and
> this is where the difference is) if you don't want to contribute your
> changes back, then you don't have to.
>>>> Instead of starting with 27 year old code, you'd be better
>>>> off taking the troff from http://www.swtch.com/plan9port.
>>> Thanks, that's a nice idea, but from what I experienced,
>>> the portability of recent AT&T/Bell/Lucent/whatever code
>>> is worse than the bugs in old code (eg. I could not get
>>> ksh93 to compile, something in there just dumped core;
>>> but then that's Unix, not Plan 9).
> Confusing Plan 9 with ksh is sure to offend both sets of authors.
> Plan9port builds and runs fine on Linux, FreeBSD, SunOS, and Mac OS X,
> and I'm sure it would be easy to get running on other Unix-like systems,
> but I haven't had the need and no one has mailed me diffs.
>>>> This is a port of many Plan 9 utilities to Unix. The troff there
>>>> (a) has an explicit license that will probably do for the BSD people
>>> If it's the same licence as for 8c, then no, unfortunately.
> It's the LucentPL as mentioned earlier. I'm sure the BSD guys
> won't love it (it's not the BSD license), but at least it's not viral.
----- End forwarded message -----
The virus contained in this message was not detected.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.