Hi all,
This is a general announcement :)
I have been working on getting to know the format used by the Ultrix-32
"setld" tapes for system (boot) tapes, and I am happy to announce that I
can now create bootable TK50 tapes from any valid Ultrix-32 CD-ROM dist
kit.
Once I get my stuff here sorted out (I am in the midst of redoing all my
computer stuff...) I will post the HOWTO (in PDF format, no less !) and
associated files on my web server.
I was able to successfully install Ultrix-32/VAX V4.5 on a MicroVAX 3300
with TK50 tape and no errors.
Next project is to get the V4.4 or V4.5 source to add CPU support for the
4000 series, and, eventually, add DSSI support for the SHAC chipset.
Anyone have pointers to source kits newer than V4.2 ?
Cheers,
Fred
--
InterNetworking, Network Security and Communications Consultants
MicroWalt Corporation (Netherlands), Postbus 8, 1400 AA BUSSUM
Phone +31 (35) 6980059 FAX +31 (35) 6980215 http://WWW.MicroWalt.NL/
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen is uitsluitend bestemd voor de
geadresseerde. Openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, verspreiding aan
derden is niet toegestaan. Er wordt geen verantwoordelijkheid
genomen voor de juiste en volledige overbrenging van de inhoud van
dit bericht, noch voor de tijdige ontvangst ervan.
Bleh, sorry for the blank post... notes went schitzo....
If MS can release WinCE source, then they would probably do the same for
XENIX.... both PDP/11 and the x86 version perhaps...
Its not like we want the source... just a tape image would do me :)
Perhaps there is someone in MS who knows of XENIX's existance and can
help.... I'll have a word with a friend of mine who works there :)
Regards,
Paul.
Frank Wortner <frank(a)wortner.com>
Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
04/03/2002 04:31
To: <asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk>, <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [pups] Interesting PDP/Xenix History
on 4/2/02 5:38 PM, asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk at asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk
wrote:
I wrote to SCO/Caldera a while back about this one... Here's a quote
from the mail I got in reply:
"XENIX will never be released under any license, as it is too full of
Microsoft copyrights...?
Well, there?s always the possibility that Microsoft could see fit to make
a ?hobby? PDP/11 XENIX license available. Why not?
--
Frank
"Don't Blame Me."
* Eeyore, "Winnie the Pooh"
Frank Wortner <frank(a)wortner.com>
Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
04/03/2002 04:31
To: <asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk>, <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [pups] Interesting PDP/Xenix History
on 4/2/02 5:38 PM, asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk at asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk
wrote:
I wrote to SCO/Caldera a while back about this one... Here's a quote
from the mail I got in reply:
"XENIX will never be released under any license, as it is too full of
Microsoft copyrights...?
Well, there?s always the possibility that Microsoft could see fit to make
a ?hobby? PDP/11 XENIX license available. Why not?
--
Frank
"Don't Blame Me."
* Eeyore, "Winnie the Pooh"
I wrote to SCO/Caldera a while back about this one... Here's a quote
from the mail I got in reply:
"XENIX will never be released under any license, as it is too full of
Microsoft copyrights, and "sanitizing" the source to remove such code
would render the product useless, and would be a MASSIVE undertaking."
Looks like we wont get Xenix in source format unless Microsoft want us to
have it.
Regards,
Paul.
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that
cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go
wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair" - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com>
Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
03/25/2002 10:38
To: pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [pups] Interesting PDP/Xenix History
Frank Wortner wrote:
>
> on 3/23/02 11:26 PM, Warren Toomey at wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org wrote:
>
> > In article by Martin Crehan:
> >> From a thread on Slashdot about Microsoft's Ancient History w/Unix
> >> http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/23/1422243.shtml?tid=130
> >>
> >> First Unix/Xenix (Score:1)
> >> by presearch on Saturday March 23, @01:58PM (#3213453)
> >> (User #214913 Info)
> >
> > I've left a comment in the thread asking if they would
> > donate a copy of the tape's contents to our Archive.
>
> I also remember running PDP/11 Xenix. The article is basically correct,
> although Microsoft (or HCR) did add a working paging system that enabled
> simulation of split I&D on small PDP/11s like the 11/23, 11/34, and
11/40.
> I also remember that my copy of the installation document had been
printed
> by Microsoft's PDP/10 (referred to as the "Microsoft Heating Plant" :-)
in
> the printout). I wish I still had the tape and that printout. Sigh
...
>
> --
> Frank
Would SCO->Caldera have copies of this? SCO did the Intel port of Xenix
so they would probably have started with the PDP source. Would tapes be
copyright to Microsoft?
I doubt that they would release the source for the Intel version as it
is still in use today although I don't think that SCO/Caldera will sell
it anymore.
Rob.
_______________________________________________
PUPS mailing list
PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
HI!
After a week or so of trying, I finally got 2.11BSD to recognize a KFQSA
in a PDP-11/73. The problem seems to be that 2.11BSD sets an MSCP packet
length of 64 bytes, but the KFQSA must have this field set to 60 bytes.
There is some confusion about if the header is part of the packet or
not. For the KFQSA, it is not included in the length. After that, life
is good........
Unfortunately I trashed my 2.11BSD installation in the process. :-( I
did a backup I think.....
Anyway, KFQSA modules are not that expensive and RF drives are pretty
cheap, so it is another solution to the lack of disk drives for QBus
PDPs. As long as you have a VAX for configuration. A 390MB RF71 is a
useful size for 2.11BSD.
After I get things put back together, I will send off a patch to sms for
the next release.... :-)
-chuck
on 3/23/02 11:26 PM, Warren Toomey at wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org wrote:
> In article by Martin Crehan:
>> From a thread on Slashdot about Microsoft's Ancient History w/Unix
>> http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/23/1422243.shtml?tid=130
>>
>> First Unix/Xenix (Score:1)
>> by presearch on Saturday March 23, @01:58PM (#3213453)
>> (User #214913 Info)
>
> I've left a comment in the thread asking if they would
> donate a copy of the tape's contents to our Archive.
I also remember running PDP/11 Xenix. The article is basically correct,
although Microsoft (or HCR) did add a working paging system that enabled
simulation of split I&D on small PDP/11s like the 11/23, 11/34, and 11/40.
I also remember that my copy of the installation document had been printed
by Microsoft's PDP/10 (referred to as the "Microsoft Heating Plant" :-) in
the printout). I wish I still had the tape and that printout. Sigh ...
--
Frank
"I don't hold with all this washing. This modern Behind-the-ears nonsense."
* Eeyore, "Winnie the Pooh"
Hello,
I'm writing a new networking protocol into the Linux kernel. I have to find the place in which the multiplexing of the incoming packets are done and sent to the initial handling functions of the appropriate protocols, according to the protocol types (x25,ax25,ip,appletalk,etc...). I think net_rx_action function does this. (version 2.4.8). W
Why does it searches two lists, why 2 lists (ptype_all-ptype_base)?
Second, what is the mission of dev_add_pack dev_remove pack functions in net/core/dev.h. I've heard they deal with protocols. But I am not sure.
Anyone interested in or know any person who knows about???
Arda...
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
From a thread on Slashdot about Microsoft's Ancient History w/Unix
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/23/1422243.shtml?tid=130
First Unix/Xenix (Score:1)
by presearch on Saturday March 23, @01:58PM (#3213453)
(User #214913 Info)
In 1979 all that existed of Xenix was a silver brochure from Microsoft
but there was no distribution. I wanted it to run it/sell it, seeing that
you could do the timesharing thing just like back at college, except
without a giant machine behind glass. I contacted the then tiny
Microsoft, asked, begged, pleaded but they had nothing to sell.
After multiple inquiries, they finally told me that they didn't have
Xenix yet, but they expected it to arrive shortly. Arrive? From where?
I was told, from Human Computing Resources (HCR) in Toronto.
Ahh, interesting. So I called HCR somehow got them to commit
to an early delivery. After a few weeks, and several dollars, the
day came. MS wanted a PDP-11 and 68000 version and was
only after the PDP-11 distro, I was 1 week ahead in the queue
from Microsoft. So, as I was told from HCR, I had the first Xenix
distribution in the US, ahead of Microsoft. I ran it on a LSI-11/23
with insanely expensive 256Kb of memory and a giant 20Mb
drive from Charles River Data Systems. It also had 2 eight inch
floppies (errrtt, clunk, clunk, errrrttt), and 2 four port serial cards
that each ran a VT100. The distro came on a 9-track tape (which
I still have) and the take drive was this weird, front loading thing
where you loaded the tape in the front like a big floppy and it
auto threaded the tape (sometimes). As I remember, it seemed
pretty fast, I'd start up stuff on all of the terminals, just to do it.
Of course, it wasn't that fast but at the time....
The Unix itself was a more or less pure Unix v7. The only thing,
as I remember that made is Xenix, was the boot message and
the captions on the man pages. There was no vi at that time,
the editor of choice was "ed". It did have a nice /usr/games
and I got a Zork for it from a friend.
We ended up selling a few of the boxes. The company was
called MSD. The only record of such is in a 1981 (Jan?) issue
of Byte with our little ad in the back. And that's the story of the
first commercial Unix sold in the US.
I am trying to get a KFQSA to work with 2.11BSD on a pdp-11. It always
fails with an error in the SA register during the transition between
STEP 3 and STEP 4 of the initialization sequence.
The SA register ends up with the value 101513. The error bit is set and
I think that the rest is an error code. I can't find a reference to
describe these error codes.
An RQDX3 and a CQD-223 in the same machine initialize fine. The KFQSA
initializes in an MVIII using NetBSD 1.5.
I have looked over the initialization code from NetBSD, Ultrix-32,
4.4BSD, Ultrix-11, and 2.11BSD. The values being sent, are all very
similar. One difference is that the VAXen OS use polling during the
init, and the pdp-11 code uses interrupts.
Any suggestions or comments about the MSCP 4 step init and how it works
on the KFQSA?
A pointer to error code reference would be great too.
-chuck
Hi there,
The pdp 11/44 is working with a minimal configuration!
Thanks to Bill Gunshannon and Milo Velmimirovic.
The M7090 CIM is now doing RS 232 and gives me output (i get the console
prompt >>>) the backplane only contains memory and the cpu-cards.
The connector M9202 connects the two planes. I tried to boot the RL11 with
one of my RL02's but i didn't work, i guess this is because i don't have a
UNIBUS terminator. is it possible to make one myself ? i could make a
dual-sided PCB. or is it possible that the backplane itself is terminated
(like small qbus-systems have)?
>> "DRU-11 CA" parallel DMA.
>
>Looks like it's a parallel interface module. Are there two 40-pin BERG
>headers on the board?
yes there are two 40 pin connectors. so it's a interface, i guess i don't
use this...
i guess i might use the Ethernet cards, the SMD-diskcontroller and the
RL11. does anyone have the pinout of the M7792/M7793 Ethernet-controller ?
i also still have no idea what those cards might be:
> Ramtek 508295/508297 (has a 50 pin connector)
> Eikonix 821-015cs (handwritten: 785-283)(has two 50 pin connectors)
if anyone has a spare unibus-controller for ciphertapes (pertec-interface),
please contact me.
-- regards, lothar.
