2 Nov
2001
2 Nov
'01
1:53 a.m.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, David C. Jenner wrote:
Bill,
I can assure you that what you were pointed to at the Ken Yap's Links
is what you are seeking. It may not be the final version, but it is
essentially what I received on a tape 20 years ago. There's even some
later material circa 1983, which postdated what I had, in the "Toys" file.
Hmmmm. I'm beginning to think as it neared the end and interest trailed
off much of the work did not get rolled back in to the base distribution.
My last experience was around 84-85 and it was a package from GA Tech
that ranon the Prime 50 series minis. It was alot like using Eunice on
a VAX/VMS system. A quick scan of the stuff from Ken Yap found no mention
of a number of systems that were known to exist by that time. No PDP-11,
no Prime, some mention of the VAX, no mention of Unix (don't ask me why,
but the VOS was ported to Unix!!). I guess what I need to do is see what
systems are supported in what I have and try to get a system up again to
check out.
I probably still have the tape, but, it's 20 years old, hasn't been
used for at least 15 years, who knows what condition it's in, and it's
not much different than the content on the Web.
What are the odds that a 15 year old tape is even readable today?? I know
when I found the original BSD tapes here even with their being stored in the
computer room, they were unreadable.
You must realize, I guess, that you aren't getting a complete operating
system when you speak of STVOS, but just a ratfor translator and sources
for lots of Unix-like utilities.
And primitives to translate between the host OS and the VOS API.
You need to supply a
Fortran compiler
and operating system on which to build this.
And many were supported. I was hoping to find enough of them to have a
good example of what problems were run into doing the ports. Can go a
long way in helping with other porting efforts. And because the API is
very Unix-like it offers some intersting possibilities for expansion.
The idea
was to make a
highly-portable set of software development tools and utilities that
could be ported and used across many OSes, thus making what you develop
available across many OSes. There is no OS (i.e., resource management,
file system, etc.) included.
True. But a common API with hooks into a number of very different OSes.
What you refer to in your emails about VOS bears little resemblance
to the STVOS, because STVOS wasn't an OS.
Probably depends on your definition of OS. It was an ambitious project
at the time and an idea whose time may just now be coming into vogue.
Today's VOSes, like a Java
machine, are at least one step beyond the STVOS.
Again, I am not sure I agree. To me the Java VM is just the UCSD P-machine
warmed over. One of the reasons things like the P-Machine and VOSes didn't
fly 20 years ago was performance. We were trying to wring every last bit
(no pun intended!) of performance out of our hardware. We frequently still
did a lot of our programming in assembler (I was doing things like Prime
50-series and Univac-1100 assembler and almost anything on a micro was either
complete or heavily laced with assembler, LSI-11, Z80, M68K.) Today, for all
intents and purposes we have cpu cycles to burn. Look at the popularity of
hardware emulators. E11, Charon VAX, SIMH. And people talking about how
these emulators outperform the real hardware and could easily be used as
production systems. Maybe it's time to look into reviving some of these
ideas, but hopefully, not with a return to the beginning and a total re-
invention of the wheel.
You might want to establish what the final date of release of STVOS
was to determine what the final version was. As I recall, it wasn't
too much later than 1981. (The Toys tape is 1983.) Somewhere I have
a pile of old newsletters that would have the answer, but they're
boxed away in storage. I won't be able to dig for them for another
month.
I know the Prime version was still available until the mid 80's. but much
of this may have been independant work as STUG may have already faded
into the background.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most is not wether or not this can be
turned into something usable, but the fact that what was an impressive work
for the time it was done has been allowed to all but disappear. Maybe I'm
getting maudlin in my old age. :-)
I appreciate everyone's help and as I said previously, it makes me appreciate
even more the work of Warren and PUPS and Tim Shoppa as well.
All the best.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
2 Nov
2 Nov
4:28 p.m.
New subject: [pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System
(don't ask me why, but the VOS was ported to
Unix!!).
That's easy to answer, recalling some of the burnt and frayed edges of the Good
Old Days ;-)
The question "what *is* UNIX?" was a popular *philosophical* question at the
time, even among people who used UNIX and knew it well, because there were so
many incompatible variants, even on the same hardware, that called themselves
UNIX.
That problem was one of the drivers of the whole Software Tools movement, as I
recall. ST, including VOS, was viewed as a way of addressing the compatibility
problem, regardless of whether the underlying "real" OS claimed to be UNIX,
UNIX-compatible, UNIX-like, or none-of-the-above.
-Bill Mayhew
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, David C. Jenner wrote:
Bill,
I can assure you that what you were pointed to at the Ken Yap's Links
is what you are seeking. It may not be the final version, but it is
essentially what I received on a tape 20 years ago. There's even some
later material circa 1983, which postdated what I had, in the "Toys" file.
Hmmmm. I'm beginning to think as it neared the end and interest trailed
off much of the work did not get rolled back in to the base distribution.
My last experience was around 84-85 and it was a package from GA Tech
that ranon the Prime 50 series minis. It was alot like using Eunice on
a VAX/VMS system. A quick scan of the stuff from Ken Yap found no mention
of a number of systems that were known to exist by that time. No PDP-11,
no Prime, some mention of the VAX, no mention of Unix (don't ask me why,
but the VOS was ported to Unix!!). I guess what I need to do is see what
systems are supported in what I have and try to get a system up again to
check out.
I probably still have the tape, but, it's 20 years old, hasn't been
used for at least 15 years, who knows what condition it's in, and it's
not much different than the content on the Web.
What are the odds that a 15 year old tape is even readable today?? I know
when I found the original BSD tapes here even with their being stored in the
computer room, they were unreadable.
You must realize, I guess, that you aren't getting a complete operating
system when you speak of STVOS, but just a ratfor translator and sources
for lots of Unix-like utilities.
And primitives to translate between the host OS and the VOS API.
You need to
supply a Fortran compiler
and operating system on which to build this.
And many were supported. I was hoping to find enough of them to have a
good example of what problems were run into doing the ports. Can go a
long way in helping with other porting efforts. And because the API is
very Unix-like it offers some intersting possibilities for expansion.
The
idea was to make a
highly-portable set of software development tools and utilities that
could be ported and used across many OSes, thus making what you develop
available across many OSes. There is no OS (i.e., resource management,
file system, etc.) included.
True. But a common API with hooks into a number of very different OSes.
What you refer to in your emails about VOS bears little resemblance
to the STVOS, because STVOS wasn't an OS.
Probably depends on your definition of OS. It was an ambitious project
at the time and an idea whose time may just now be coming into vogue.
Today's VOSes, like a Java
machine, are at least one step beyond the STVOS.
Again, I am not sure I agree. To me the Java VM is just the UCSD P-machine
warmed over. One of the reasons things like the P-Machine and VOSes didn't
fly 20 years ago was performance. We were trying to wring every last bit
(no pun intended!) of performance out of our hardware. We frequently still
did a lot of our programming in assembler (I was doing things like Prime
50-series and Univac-1100 assembler and almost anything on a micro was either
complete or heavily laced with assembler, LSI-11, Z80, M68K.) Today, for all
intents and purposes we have cpu cycles to burn. Look at the popularity of
hardware emulators. E11, Charon VAX, SIMH. And people talking about how
these emulators outperform the real hardware and could easily be used as
production systems. Maybe it's time to look into reviving some of these
ideas, but hopefully, not with a return to the beginning and a total re-
invention of the wheel.
You might want to establish what the final date of release of STVOS
was to determine what the final version was. As I recall, it wasn't
too much later than 1981. (The Toys tape is 1983.) Somewhere I have
a pile of old newsletters that would have the answer, but they're
boxed away in storage. I won't be able to dig for them for another
month.
I know the Prime version was still available until the mid 80's. but much
of this may have been independant work as STUG may have already faded
into the background.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most is not wether or not this can be
turned into something usable, but the fact that what was an impressive work
for the time it was done has been allowed to all but disappear. Maybe I'm
getting maudlin in my old age. :-)
I appreciate everyone's help and as I said previously, it makes me appreciate
even more the work of Warren and PUPS and Tim Shoppa as well.
All the best.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
_______________________________________________
PUPS mailing list
PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
4:51 p.m.
New subject: [pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Bill Mayhew wrote:
I would imagine the differences then were minor compared to today. There
really were only two major variants. And, because the underlying model of
Unix was also The Software Tools approach, the APIof the VOS, as far as it
went, was of a decidely Unix flavor.
(don't
ask me why, but the VOS was ported to Unix!!).
That's easy to answer, recalling some of the burnt and frayed edges of the Good
Old Days ;-)
The question "what *is* UNIX?" was a popular *philosophical* question at the
time, even among people who used UNIX and knew it well, because there were so
many incompatible variants, even on the same hardware, that called themselves
UNIX.
That problem was one of the drivers of the whole Software Tools movement, as I
recall. ST, including VOS, was viewed as a way of addressing the compatibility
problem, regardless of whether the underlying "real" OS claimed to be UNIX,
UNIX-compatible, UNIX-like, or none-of-the-above.
And this is one of the reasons why I am so interested in reviving the effort.
This need still exists, even among Unix systems, but when you bring none
Unix systems into the picture (yes, they still exist!!) the problem grows
exponentially.
So, let's look backwards a little. Anybody here remember Eunice on VMS??
How about Primix on Primos?? These were obvious commercial attempts at
the STVOS. Why did they fail?? Performance. And a user community unwilling
to accept anything less than the best performance the hardware of the day
could deliver. The same was true of the P-Machine approach. While it
offered true binary compatability and portability of applications (anybody
here remember PCD Systems of Penn Yan, NY??) even the minor loss of machine
efficiency made people look at (frequently more expensive) alternatives.
But today, the average user has power to burn. The Java VM is stting on
top of the world. And efficiency doesn't even get mentioned in most CS
classrooms. And there are other examples. "The POSIX Shell". CYGWin.
Even DII-COE smacks of it.
And anyway, some of the old ideas are just plain fun. Why else do we all
spend our free time working with our PDP-11's?? :-)
All the best.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
8218
days inactive
8218
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Bill Gunshannon -
Bill Mayhew