25 Jan
25 Jan
9:42 a.m.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 01:39:50PM -0500, Rob Becker wrote:
who is going to port 7th edition to the i386? (:
OK I know that the comment was a joke but...
Funnily enough I started looking at doing just that around 18 months
ago. Unfortunately (from that point of view) it ground to a halt when
wedding arrangements took priority.
Anyhow the wedding is out of the way - the missus is now a computing
student so I should get some sympathy from her (she likes Unix :-), so
hopefully I can resurrect my notes etc and start working on it again.
No promises mind as I havent touched C or assembly for around 18months
now so am getting increasily rusty. Not that my x86 assembler is
particulary good, or that the missus will allow me enough free time to
get my head back into coding at home...
So the following is what I can remember from quite a while ago...
Also from what I did look at, I rapidly came to the conclusion that
a "real" mode i386 port was the more straight forward as that keeps
everything in 16 bits and saves a lot of mucking around.
So you could either rewrite it as a process that runs as 16 bits and
so use it as an app under say Linux/FreeBSD/OS/2 (I wont mention the
people from Redmond :-), or as a 16 bit OS running native.
Either way the first skirmishes I made with the source lead me to
believe that in simple terms, the following would need to be completed:
- rewrite the assembler portion to x86 - memory management/interrupt
handlers/booting and initialisation etc etc
- rewrite the disk driver to run the floppy drive (1.4 MB should be
enough to demonstrate it works and boot a kernel etc)
- the tty stuff could conceivably be pointed at COM1 and you could
hang a console/teletype (for the sad) onto the back of a PC or
just produce suitable keyboard/screen drivers.
With any joy if the assembler level can be done correctly (device drivers
aside) you could theoretically leave the bulk of the C source intact - which
could possibly make it a purer port, assuming you can get gcc to compile
K&R C - I havent tried yet.
Anyhow comments and sarcastic remarks are welcome.
Regards
Paul
------------
Paul Osborne
Computing Officer
University of Kent at Canterbury Computing Service
10:27 a.m.
In message: <20020125094218.C5968(a)apple.ukc.ac.uk>
"P.A.Osborne" <P.A.Osborne(a)ukc.ac.uk> writes:
: Also from what I did look at, I rapidly came to the conclusion that
: a "real" mode i386 port was the more straight forward as that keeps
: everything in 16 bits and saves a lot of mucking around.
Real as in 286 or as in 8088 :-). I've love to have a v7 port to my
DEC Rainbow 100, which isn't too IBM-PC-like other than the fact that
both have an 8088. There was a 8088 port of V7 (or maybe it was v6)
to the Rainbow marketed under the name of venix, but no one seems to
be able to find a distribution anymore.
: With any joy if the assembler level can be done correctly (device drivers
: aside) you could theoretically leave the bulk of the C source intact - which
: could possibly make it a purer port, assuming you can get gcc to compile
: K&R C - I havent tried yet.
gcc can compile K&R, but the language has evolved some since the v7
days. =*, =+, etc became *=, +=, etc. There are some other subtle
things too that I don't recall off the top of my head, but which vexed
the comp.lang.c news groups in the early 1980's.
Warner
11:16 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:27:25AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
Real as in 286 or as in 8088 :-).
Yup, otherwise you start mucking around with the protected mode
shuffle to 32 bits and I have been burnt by that before. The ix86
chips are startup from cold in 16bit mode so it makes life easier.
I've love to have a v7 port to my
DEC Rainbow 100, which isn't too IBM-PC-like other than the fact that
both have an 8088. There was a 8088 port of V7 (or maybe it was v6)
to the Rainbow marketed under the name of venix, but no one seems to
be able to find a distribution anymore.
Oooh that would be so usefull and save so much mucking around.
gcc can compile K&R, but the language has evolved
some since the v7
days. =*, =+, etc became *=, +=, etc. There are some other subtle
things too that I don't recall off the top of my head, but which vexed
the comp.lang.c news groups in the early 1980's.
That makes things a challenge. Still the source of the kernel is
around 10K lines IIRC and going through it in stages doesnt make life
too painfull.
I must be mad thinking about this again....
paul
3:19 p.m.
It seems that there is a distribution of Venix hanging about, but I
believe it is for the DEC PRO 350 or 380. So I don't know how useful
it might be in this context.
In any case, one can find it at:
http://www.os2site.com/sw/dec/pro/venix/
--
Ephrem Hugh Bensusan EMail: ephrem(a)bensusan.net
Phone: 352.687.3757
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GIT/CS d? s--:+ a C++++$ UB/L++++$ P++> L+++$ E W++(+++)$ N++> o? K++ w--
O M? V-- PS+++(--) PE Y+ PGP+ t++* 5- X++ R tv- b+++> DI-- D+
G++ e* h----(-)* r+++ y++++(+++(--))
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, P.A.Osborne wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:27:25AM -0700, M. Warner
Losh wrote:
Real as in 286 or as in 8088 :-).
Yup, otherwise you start mucking around with the protected mode
shuffle to 32 bits and I have been burnt by that before. The ix86
chips are startup from cold in 16bit mode so it makes life easier.
I've love to have a v7 port to my
DEC Rainbow 100, which isn't too IBM-PC-like other than the fact that
both have an 8088. There was a 8088 port of V7 (or maybe it was v6)
to the Rainbow marketed under the name of venix, but no one seems to
be able to find a distribution anymore.
Oooh that would be so usefull and save so much mucking around.
gcc can compile K&R, but the language has
evolved some since the v7
days. =*, =+, etc became *=, +=, etc. There are some other subtle
things too that I don't recall off the top of my head, but which vexed
the comp.lang.c news groups in the early 1980's.
That makes things a challenge. Still the source of the kernel is
around 10K lines IIRC and going through it in stages doesnt make life
too painfull.
I must be mad thinking about this again....
paul
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
3:52 p.m.
In message: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201251013350.610-100000@barclay>
Ephrem Hugh Bensusan <ephrem(a)bensusan.net> writes:
: It seems that there is a distribution of Venix hanging about, but I
: believe it is for the DEC PRO 350 or 380. So I don't know how useful
: it might be in this context.
:
: In any case, one can find it at:
: http://www.os2site.com/sw/dec/pro/venix/
I think this is binary only... Maybe it would make a good addition to
the TUHS archive, however...
Warner
9:08 p.m.
This Venix has been available from Barry Kort and ftp.update.uu.se/professional
for many years. It is "Pro/Venix" versions 1 and 2. Pro/Venix came directly
from VentureCom, the vendor who ported it. More desirable is "Venix/Pro"
especially version 2. Venix/Pro came from DEC, who got it from VentureCom and
spiffed it up a bit for the Pro. Anyone who has or comes across floppies for
Venix/Pro from DEC should really archive them (and please let me know! I have
a set of floppies with one or two bad disks).
Whether this is "legal" or not is up to some question. VentureCom put
Pro/Venix
out in the public domain, but the only "proof" of this is its widely available
existence and a verbal statement from the person who first got it. At some
point in the past, I think Bob Supnik thought it was reasonable that DEC would
put its interests in the product in the Ancient Unix license, but he no longer
works for DEC. There is also some question whether this Venix was ported from
System III, which would eliminate it from the Ancient Unix license and the new
form of it.
Dave
"M. Warner Losh" wrote:
In message: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201251013350.610-100000@barclay>
Ephrem Hugh Bensusan <ephrem(a)bensusan.net> writes:
: It seems that there is a distribution of Venix hanging about, but I
: believe it is for the DEC PRO 350 or 380. So I don't know how useful
: it might be in this context.
:
: In any case, one can find it at:
: http://www.os2site.com/sw/dec/pro/venix/
I think this is binary only... Maybe it would make a good addition to
the TUHS archive, however...
Warner
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
--
David C. Jenner
djenner(a)earthlink.net
4:24 p.m.
On Friday 25 January 2002 12:16, P.A.Osborne wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:27:25AM -0700, M. Warner
Losh wrote:
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/professional/venix
HTH
Wolfgang Rupp
There was a 8088 port of V7 (or maybe it
was v6) to the Rainbow marketed under the name of venix, but no one
seems to be able to find a distribution anymore.
Oooh that would be so usefull and save so much mucking around.
29 Jan
29 Jan
6:17 a.m.
In message: <200201251624.g0PGOd101040(a)tk212017121038.teleweb.at>
Wolfgang Rupp <rupp(a)chello.at> writes:
: On Friday 25 January 2002 12:16, P.A.Osborne wrote:
: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:27:25AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > > There was a 8088 port of V7 (or maybe it
: > > was v6) to the Rainbow marketed under the name of venix, but no one
: > > seems to be able to find a distribution anymore.
: >
: > Oooh that would be so usefull and save so much mucking around.
:
: ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/professional/venix
This is not the Rainbow version, but instead the PRO version. I'd
love to see the DEC Rainbow (or even the IBM PC) verions available.
Warner
25 Jan
25 Jan
4:30 p.m.
On Friday 25 January 2002 12:16, P.A.Osborne wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:27:25AM -0700, M. Warner
Losh wrote:
> I've love to have a v7 port to my
> DEC Rainbow 100
oops... I only read "Venix" and jumped to conclusions.
Sorry.
However, under /pub/rainbow there is rainbow stuff
on ftp.update.uu.se too.
Wolfgang Rupp
8128
days inactive
8133
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
David C. Jenner -
Ephrem Hugh Bensusan -
Jeffrey S. Sharp -
M. Warner Losh -
P.A.Osborne -
Rob Becker -
Wolfgang Rupp