TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

26 participants
6495 discussions

by Sven Mascheck

Hello, I'm searching for documentation about the SVR1 shell: i would be glad if somebody could dig up e.g. a man page or the 1st edition of the SVID (System V Interface Definition). I'm interested in the history of the Bourne shell, and this is the last important variant i'm missing (my current knowledge documented in .sig). I know the short "changes" paragraph in the 2nd SVID, however a few points are still unclear to me. Sven -- <http://www.uni-ulm.de/~s_smasch/various/bourne/>

22 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Copies of 1978 and 1984 BSTJ on Unix; what should I do with them?

by Aharon Robbins

> (Does anyone know how many copies of BSTJ vol. 57, no. 6 there are out there?) Bell Labs reprinted this volume, it was popular for a while. I bought my copy circa 1981 simply by writing to the address listed and sending a check for whatever amount it said. Arnold

22 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Copies of 1978 and 1984 BSTJ on Unix; what should I do with them?

by Bryan Cantrill

> Dear UNIX Hertigate Society, > > I was wondering if you could tell me if these two journals are worth > anything and to whom. > > WHile I haven't done Unix work since 1992. When I picked these journals > up in 1986 out of computer engineering school I had a sense they were > something special. I believe the Bell System Technical Journal > July/August 1978 Vol. 57, No. 6., Part 2 is one of the first places that > Ritchie and THomson publicly described the design of Unix. > > They are both in reasonably good condition. Do you know if they are > worth anything? Do you know who might be interested in them? They are certainly worth something. (And, being finite, will probably be worth more in the future.) If they mean something to you personally, you should probably hold on to them. If you want to sell them, I would recommend eBay (which seems to be the best venue for selling used computer manuals at the moment). Be sure to include a write-up of what makes these two volumes so special. Note that BSTJ vol. 57, no. 6 will likely fetch a much higher price than vol. 63, no. 8. (I've bought the latter for as little as ten bucks.) (Does anyone know how many copies of BSTJ vol. 57, no. 6 there are out there?) - Bryan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. bmc(a)eng.sun.com (650) 786-3652

22 years, 10 months

Copies of 1978 and 1984 BSTJ on Unix; what should I do with them?

by Sylvan.Stephan＠epamail.epa.gov

Dear UNIX Hertigate Society, I was wondering if you could tell me if these two journals are worth anything and to whom. WHile I haven't done Unix work since 1992. When I picked these journals up in 1986 out of computer engineering school I had a sense they were something special. I believe the Bell System Technical Journal July/August 1978 Vol. 57, No. 6., Part 2 is one of the first places that Ritchie and THomson publicly described the design of Unix. They are both in reasonably good condition. Do you know if they are worth anything? Do you know who might be interested in them? THanks! Stephan Sylvan

22 years, 10 months

Distributions directory and UCB, and missing ftp site

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine Folks, I've got a question here. What happened to the ftp site mentioned in this Readme file? I'll post it here, in its entirety, with the reference in question highlighted. Quoted Readme there: "The directories 2.9BSD and 2.11BSD contain these UNIX distributions, and " "were supplied by Steven Schultz. They contain a full distribution, including " "installation tape images. " " " "The remaining gzipped tar files are other 2BSD distributions supplied by" "Keith Bostic, except for spencer_2bsd.tar.gz which came from Henry Spencer." "They do not contain installation tape images. The 2.9BSD-Patch directory" "contains patches to 2.9BSD dated August 85, and again supplied by Keith Bostic." " " "Note that Steven Schultz is still maintaining 2.11BSD, fixing bugs and making" "improvements. The patches required to bring this archive version of 2.11BSD" "up to the current patch level can be obtained via anonymous ftp to" "ftp.iipo.gtegsc.com in the directory /pub/2.11BSD" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have tried connecting to it, and my client tells me it does not exist. But I've seen Steve's message, on my earlier question, so I know he's here. Steve, are you continuing the work described in the file? And can you get back to me, via a private message. Warren both replies are valid. Gregg C Levine drwho8(a)worldnet.att.net "How many floors does this TARDIS of yours have, anyway?" P.S. Thanks to everyone for getting back to me so quickly on that issue regarding our old friend, and the historical items here.

22 years, 10 months

Re: [TUHS] Distributions directory and UCB, and missing ftp site

by Steven M. Schultz

Hi - > From: "Gregg C Levine" <drwho8(a)worldnet.att.net> > 2.11BSD" > "up to the current patch level can be obtained via anonymous ftp to" > "ftp.iipo.gtegsc.com in the directory /pub/2.11BSD" > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I have tried connecting to it, and my client tells me it does not exist. But Indeed. That's the trouble/curse of the Internet - it's not possible to go around and fix/change all the references to names that change as companies get bought/sold That was a long long (quad_t? ;)) time ago. GTE sold their Government Systems Corporation ('gsc') to General Dynamics several years ago. After a while GTE of course insisted we stop using 'gtegsc' - then a little later GTE became Verizon. Try "ftp.to.gd-es.com" For now. The idjits in charge are playing at reorganizing and I think sometime next year the domain name will change yet again - but the hope is that the current name will be retained for a while as a compatibility measure. > Steve, are you continuing the work described in the file? And can you get It's been a slow couple years - only a couple updates done last year and only one or so this year. Current patchlevel's at 442 (done Jan 2002). Yes, the archive of updates is maintained. I think there are a couple mirrors but I have no accurate count of who is mirroring the directory Steven Schultz sms(a)2bsd.com

22 years, 10 months

Re: [TUHS] Re: Porting Unix v6 to i386

by Warren Toomey

In article by Sven Dehmlow: > Hi Warren, > I can't find the port [of V6 to the 286] in the archives. > Am I'm too stupid to search or haven't you added it yet? > Sven My apologies, I had forgotten to import it. It's now available at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Other/V6on286 with the mirror sites to follow soon. Cheers, Warren

22 years, 10 months

Re: [TUHS] Other operating systems on the PDP-11

by Steven M. Schultz

Hi - > From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org> > In article by Greg 'groggy' Lehey: > > The big issue is address space. It's difficult enough shoehorning > > 2.11BSD onto the PDP-11. It's well-nigh impossible to retrofit 32 bit > > operating systems. But Steven M. Schulz will doubtless give you a > More specifically, the issue is data space. Using overlays, you can > have a process with more than 64Kbytes of instruction space on a PDP-11, > but the maximum data space that a process can have is 64Kbytes. > > The kernel is in a similar situation, but with some PDP-11 models > there is kernel mode and supervisor mode, giving you two separate > 64Kbytes instruction + 64Kbytes data address spaces (and overlays > to increase the I space). > > I can't see Linux fitting into 128K of data space, and GCC is definitely > out of the question. Besides, 2.11BSD already looks pretty close to 4BSD :-) Well said Warren. The D (data) space is the most severe constraint on adding any new feature to 2.11BSD. Besides, as Warren mentioned, most of 4.3BSD as well as a few bits&pieces of 4.4 are already present. A couple years ago I toyed with the idea of porting over the 4.4BSD tty subsystem (it'd be real nice to have termios and 8bit clean serial line handling). The 'struct tty' almost tripled in size! Even doing major surgery and leaving out a couple less useful capabilities the growth in 'struct tty' exceeded what is left available in 2.11's kernel D space. Oh, I should point out the limit for the kernel's D space is even lower than the 64KB mentioned. Of that 64KB the I/O page has to, of course, be mapped in at all times or the kernel wouldn't have access to the memory management registers, device registers, and so on. Then the kernel has to have access to 'struct u' (the per process context area - part of the address space is also where the kernel stack is kept). So, 64 - 8 - 8 = 48. The kernel has a total of 48KB of data space to use. There are a few "tricks" that are played. Some data structures are allocated external to the kernel's D space. That data is mapped in as needed. Slows things down of course since it does take a number of instructions to save the current memory manangement status, change it to access the external data, fetch the data, restore the mmu registers. Things such as the 4.3BSD disc quota system were implemented this way. There is at the present time an absolute maximum on the size of the I (instruction/text) space of 56K + (15*8)KB or 176KB (base segment of 56KB and 15 overlays of 8KB each. At present, depending on how many drivers and so on are configured, about 9 or 10 overlays are used to build a 2.11 kernel. The actual limit of kernel size that can be booted is a bit lower due to how the boot process functions - in order to simplify the memory manangement during booting the boot code relocates to 192KB. The sum of the kernel text plus initialized data (but not the .bss segment) can not exceed 192KB or the boot code will be overwritten. Another complicating factor comes from UMR (Unibus Mapping Registers) handling - if the boot code ever runs above 256KB then UMR handling would have to be done by the boot code on UNIBUS machines (Qbus machines of course don't have this problem since they don't have UMRs to contend with). GCC (all of the GNU stuff actually) was written with, I believe, "malloc aforethought" ;) It's outright hostile to 16 bit machines. There might be a few bytes free to add a feature or two to 2.11BSD but much more than that would mean a lot of work to come up with some free D space for the data structures that would be needed. Cheers, Steven Schultz sms(a)2bsd.com

22 years, 10 months

Other operating systems on the PDP-11

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine I've got a question for those of you, who work more in that field then I.Has anyone successfully gotten, say, NetBSD, or anything along the lines of the 4.4 series to run on a PDP-11? Granted I don't think it would work there, because of the way its hardware was constructed. Or for that matter, say Linux? Since the Simh collection builds easily on Linux, I was thinking that it would be relatively simple to do so. Gregg C Levine drwho8(a)worldnet.att.net "How many floors does this TARDIS of yours have, anyway?"

22 years, 10 months

SCO then Caldera

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine The web site links, that contain the SCO location, now point to a site on Caldera's site. I tried e-mailing someone via their contacts page, but so far to no avail. Has anyone on the list had any favorable response, regarding the ability to access their archives of the older versions of UNIX? As always, I am interested in the versions of UNIX that are targeted towards the PDP-11. Seriously though, has anyone actually gotten any feedback from Caldera? Warren if you want to comment, please do so, and I'll even accept a private one. Gregg C Levine drwho8(a)worldnet.att.net "How many floors does this TARDIS of yours have, anyway?"

22 years, 10 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS