9 Jul
2005
9 Jul
'05
3:41 p.m.
To all you programmers,
I'm sure you're scoffing at me, but I just obtained Borland's C++
BuilderX, Person Edition. It only cost $10.00 U.S. dollars direct from
Borland.
I plan to teach myself how to view, modify, replace, and
write/re-write Unix Operating System code.
May I rely on help from TUHS expert programmers? I know I'm going to
need the help.
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the 21st century.
Since 4.3BSD contributed code into Unix Version8, I feel I will probably
use portions of the latest BSD sources that are legally available.
Again, if I may use those of you that programmers help, I would
surely appreciate it alot.
Thank you,
James Falknor
10 Jul
10 Jul
8:21 p.m.
Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
To all you programmers,
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the 21st century.
And which hardware do You plan to support ? Unix Version 7 was as I
understand designed for PDP-11 etc. Do You have running PDP machine ?
Andrzej
8:25 p.m.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:21:54PM +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote..
Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
You can also run on a PDP emulator.
--
Wilko
To all you programmers,
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the 21st century.
And which hardware do You plan to support ? Unix Version 7 was as I
understand designed for PDP-11 etc. Do You have running PDP machine ?
9:06 p.m.
Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
Andrzej,
My first goal is to achieve modern x86 system support. After all,
somebody was able to get Unix Version6 to run on a 286 system.
Eventually, achieve modern 64bit system support.
James Falknor
To all you programmers,
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the 21st century.
And which hardware do You plan to support ? Unix Version 7 was as I
understand designed for PDP-11 etc. Do You have running PDP machine ?
Andrzej
19 Jul
19 Jul
10:13 p.m.
Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
My first goal is to achieve modern x86 system support.
After all,
somebody was able to get Unix Version6 to run on a 286 system.
Eventually, achieve modern 64bit system support.
Well , it seems to be a giant effort You are planning to accomplish.
Because pdp and x86 have different architectures, a lot of new low level
stuff will have to be added.
The same concerns multitasking, multithreading , shared libraries etc.
You will take these from BSD probably.
So I am asking what are You planning to preserve in the modified system.
Will it be still be a Unix Version 7 ?
BTW I have ported apout emulator to Coherent. What I miss is "more" and
"vi". Editing with "cat" is possible but not very useful. I am not
going
to learn "ed". Did You try to port "vi" to Unix Version 7 system ? I
can
build everything for V7 under Coherent, so I thought about vi. One would
have to port curses . What about termcap and terminfo for V7 ?
Andrzej
20 Jul
20 Jul
5:21 p.m.
The same concerns multitasking, multithreading ,
shared libraries etc.
V7 already multitasks.
Why would you want shared libraries!?
BTW I have ported apout emulator to Coherent. What I
miss is "more" and
I have a small paging utility at
http://lava.net/~newsham/x/machine/more_v6.c
http://lava.net/~newsham/x/machine/more_v7.c
"vi". Editing with "cat" is
possible but not very useful. I am not going
to learn "ed".
Why?
Did You try to port "vi" to Unix Version 7
system ? I can
Why!?
Andrzej
If one wanted an architecturally clean and modern V7-like system
that ran on the PC they could always install Plan9. Of course if
you're porting V7 for the educational experience, more power to you.
Tim Newsham
http://www.lava.net/~newsham/
7:50 p.m.
Uz.ytkownik Tim Newsham napisa?:
OK, so problem is solved.But I suspect it multitasks differently on
different hardware, unless You use existing V7 x86 implementation. I do
not know pdp architecture, I suspect it does differ from x86, I mean
TSS,GDT, TR etc.
Simply because. Because I do not like ed.
I want to have useful and user friendly system. To use ed, only because
it is the oldest editor, does not make any sense for me.
I appreciate ed, because of sed, because sed has some similarity to ed
and is extremely useful as a tool.
Unix is not about ed, Unix is about unlimited possibilities of adding
new software , new applications or new editors, it makes Unix beautiful
that it can develop and not editor ed.If ed were all Unix has, it would
not survive.
I hope You accept that someone else can have different favourite
editors. I prefer vi, or even more vim, which is perfect editor.Of
course in the case of emulator missing user friendly editor is not a
problem, because I can edit under Coherent and then build under
emulator.It is good to have a choice, and Unix offers it.
As I said, because I like vi more than ed. Do You suggest , that James
should invest giant amount of time into porting V7 to x86/x64 and than
after use only one editor , namely ed ? As if it was prohibited to
develop another editor ?
The same
concerns multitasking, multithreading , shared libraries etc.
V7 already multitasks. Why would you want shared libraries!?
Not me, but others, and possibly James himself, he wanted to make V7 top
modern.
Fine, I will try it out.I let You know if it works on Coherent.
I have already began to port more, but to finish I need to port termcap
first.
"vi". Editing with "cat" is possible but not very useful. I am not
going
to learn "ed".
Why? Did You try to
port "vi" to Unix Version 7 system ? I can
Why!? If one wanted an architecturally clean and modern
V7-like system
that ran on the PC they could always install Plan9. Of course if
you're porting V7 for the educational experience, more power to you.
I do not know Plan9, but according to descriptions I have read, it looks
very interesting. Well it was developed by Bell Lab...(?)-AT/T, which
does not require recommendation.They offer also another interesting OS,
namely Inferno.
BTW, I am not porting it(V7), It is James , who wants to do it .So more
power to him.
I have enough fun with Coherent, it is according to wikipedia based on
Unix version 7 and is x86.
Andrzej
21 Jul
21 Jul
7:41 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:50, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
Simply because. Because I do not like ed.
I want to have useful and user friendly system. To use ed, only because
it is the oldest editor, does not make any sense for me.
I appreciate ed, because of sed, because sed has some similarity to ed
and is extremely useful as a tool.
If you have a look at the more modern *BSD, you'll see that vi contains ed
and ex. It should be possible to backport that to V7 and likewise to
Coherent.
Uz.ytkownik Tim Newsham napisa?:
<snip>
"vi". Editing with "cat" is
possible but not very useful. I am not going
to learn "ed".
Why? Unix is not about ed, Unix is about unlimited
possibilities of adding
new software , new applications or new editors, it makes Unix beautiful
that it can develop and not editor ed.If ed were all Unix has, it would
not survive.
I hope You accept that someone else can have different favourite
editors. I prefer vi, or even more vim, which is perfect editor.Of
course in the case of emulator missing user friendly editor is not a
problem, because I can edit under Coherent and then build under
emulator.It is good to have a choice, and Unix offers it.
As I said, because I like vi more than ed. Do You suggest , that James
should invest giant amount of time into porting V7 to x86/x64 and than
after use only one editor , namely ed ? As if it was prohibited to
develop another editor ?
<snip>
Did You
try to port "vi" to Unix Version 7 system ? I can
Why!?
Andrzej
<snip>
Wesley Parish
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
8:35 a.m.
Uz.ytkownik Wesley Parish napisa?:
If you have a look at the more modern *BSD,
you'll see that vi contains ed
and ex. It should be possible to backport that to V7 and likewise to
Coherent.
What for ?
Vim 6.1(my port) under Coherent works perfectly. And of course Coherent
has its own very good vi and also ed and microEmacs and as far as I
rememeber (I have seen on Tuhs) Emacs too.
I have ported also mp( ala DOS edit) , asedit,xed(better version of
xedit) .Unfortunately I was not lucky with gvim and nedit.I have added
also about 1990 my own editor cedit(with hex support ala vim), but it
was for Coherent 4.0 and I did not port it to Coherent 4.2.10 yet.
OK, but if You see it does make sense than do it.
9:27 a.m.
Uz.ytkownik Wesley Parish napisa?:
If you have a look at the more modern *BSD,
you'll see that vi contains ed
and ex. It should be possible to backport that to V7 and likewise to
Coherent.
According to Coherent Manual :
*****
Coherent vi is a link to Berkeley screen editor elvis by Kirkendall from
1990.
elvis is a clone of Unix vi and ex editors.
elvis command structure ressembles command structure of line editor ed.
*****
11:44 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:27, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
Uz.ytkownik Wesley Parish napisa?:
Makes sense. My bad.
Wesley Parish
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
If you have a look at the more modern *BSD,
you'll see that vi contains
ed and ex. It should be possible to backport that to V7 and likewise to
Coherent.
According to Coherent Manual :
*****
Coherent vi is a link to Berkeley screen editor elvis by Kirkendall from
1990.
elvis is a clone of Unix vi and ex editors.
elvis command structure ressembles command structure of line editor ed.
***** 
5:15 p.m.
Wesley Parish <wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote:
If you have a look at the more modern *BSD,
you'll see that vi contains ed
and ex.
Which BSD implementation of vi contains ed?
It should be possible to backport that to V7 and
likewise to
Coherent.
For Unix 7th edition, you can just use vi version 2 from one of
the early 2BSD releases.
Gunnar
10 Jul
10 Jul
9:09 p.m.
Andrzej,
My first goal is to achieve modern x86 system support. After all,
somebody was able to get Unix Version6 to run on a 286 system.
Eventually, achieve modern 64bit system support.
James Falknor
Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
To all you programmers,
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the 21st century.
And which hardware do You plan to support ? Unix Version 7 was as I
understand designed for PDP-11 etc. Do You have running PDP machine ?
Andrzej
9:11 p.m.
Andrzej,
My first goal is to achieve modern x86 system support. After all,
somebody was able to get Unix Version6 to run on a 286 system.
Eventually, achieve modern 64bit system support.
James Falknor
Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
Uz.ytkownik James Falknor napisa?:
To all you programmers,
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the 21st century.
And which hardware do You plan to support ? Unix Version 7 was as I
understand designed for PDP-11 etc. Do You have running PDP machine ?
Andrzej
11:28 p.m.
In message: <42D18F06.3010104(a)peacemax.org>
James Falknor <james(a)peacemax.org> writes:
: somebody was able to get Unix Version6 to run on a 286 system.
Venix 86 ran on my old Rainbow. That's a 8086. It was v6 based,
iirc.
Warner
11 Jul
11 Jul
3:43 a.m.
Warner,
Where might I find the source code to Venix 86. I looked and could
not find it here on THUS.
Thank you,
James Falknor
M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <42D18F06.3010104(a)peacemax.org>
James Falknor <james(a)peacemax.org> writes:
: somebody was able to get Unix Version6 to run on a 286 system.
Venix 86 ran on my old Rainbow. That's a 8086. It was v6 based,
iirc.
Warner
4:11 a.m.
In message: <42D1EACD.8000701(a)peacemax.org>
James Falknor <james(a)peacemax.org> writes:
: Where might I find the source code to Venix 86. I looked and could
: not find it here on THUS.
I'd love to know myself. All a google search has turned up is the DEC
PRO version.
Warner
22 Jul
22 Jul
7:37 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-Jul-09 09:41:36 -0600, James Falknor wrote:
My ultimate goal is to bring Unix Version7 into the
21st century.
That's already been done: Look at 2.11BSD.
Note that getting V7 (or 2BSD) running on a 286 is non-trivial.
Whilst both the PDP-11 and 286 are both 16-bit machines supporting VM,
the 286 MMU is extremely primitive compared to the PDP-11. Your
biggest problem will be that the 286 does not support holes in the
address space - which means your data segment needs to cover both the
real data as well as the stack area and you lose brk limit checking.
--
Peter Jeremy
6850
days inactive
6863
days old
17 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Andrzej Popielewicz -
Gunnar Ritter -
James Falknor -
M. Warner Losh -
Peter Jeremy -
Tim Newsham -
Wesley Parish -
Wilko Bulte