From milov at uwlax.edu Tue Jul 8 07:35:32 2008 From: milov at uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:35:32 -0500 Subject: [pups] pdp11/05 questions. Message-ID: hi all, The recent flurry of activity in early pre-C UNIX for an 11 with a small memory got me back to working on my 11/05. So far I've identified two nasty problems with the data paths board, the M7260. One of the 8266 MUX chips looks like the plastic boiled and bubbled and circuit board is discolored underneath it. I'd welcome both sources for replacement chips and techniques for replacing it. Additionally there's a lifted and broken trace on the non-component side of the module near the F edge connector. Any sugestions for repairing a damaged trace would be welcome. Lastly, I'd just as soon use a DL11W in the 11/05 rather than go to the trouble of setting up an external clock to feed the on board UART. I can get both 9600 baud and RS232 from the DL11W instead of 2400 baud current loop from the built-in interface. I haven't yet found the jumpers to remove/install that would disable the built-in console interface. There's also the LTC. TIA, Milo -- Milo Velimirović, Unix Computer Network Administrator University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W -- Unix: Where /etc/init is job #1. From johnh at psych.usyd.edu.au Tue Jul 8 13:27:46 2008 From: johnh at psych.usyd.edu.au (John Holden) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:27:46 +1000 Subject: [pups] pdp11/05 questions. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D206601-B83C-44CE-B1BF-0B394CE84DFF@psych.usyd.edu.au> On 08/07/2008, at 7:35 AM, Milo Velimirovic wrote: > hi all, > > The recent flurry of activity in early pre-C UNIX for an 11 with a > small memory got me back to working on my 11/05. So far I've > identified two nasty problems with the data paths board, the M7260. > One of the 8266 MUX chips looks like the plastic boiled and bubbled > and circuit board is discolored underneath it. I'd welcome both > sources for replacement chips and techniques for replacing it. > Tricky. The 8266 is rather odd in that it inverts one of the inputs and I know of no direct replacement. I'll check if I have a spare M7260 card. As for replacing chips, particularly on old cards. The only safe way is to:- 1) with a fine pair of cutters, cut every leg of the chip and remove the body 2) with needle nose pliers, grab each leg in turn, heat on the other side with a soldering iron and pull out the leg (use a light force and make sure the solder is molten on the top side, particularly if it has a track) 3) with a solder sucker (or desoldering station), remove the solder from the holes > Additionally there's a lifted and broken trace on the non-component > side of the module near the F edge connector. Any sugestions for > repairing a damaged trace would be welcome. > If the chip was toasted, then this track probably took all the current. You can either glue it down and bridge the break with solder, or cut the track where it's good, scrape off the PCB lacquer, then carefully solder in some wire. If it is a short run, use some stiff tinned copper, then hot glue in place. > Lastly, I'd just as soon use a DL11W in the 11/05 rather than go to > the trouble of setting up an external clock to feed the on board UART. > I can get both 9600 baud and RS232 from the DL11W instead of 2400 baud > current loop from the built-in interface. I haven't yet found the > jumpers to remove/install that would disable the built-in console > interface. There's also the LTC. You can disable the serial interface by removing W1 from the control logic / microcode board M7261. It is not possible to disable the LTC, simply don't enable it on the DL11W. I have, in the distant past, modified a M7260 for 9600 baud RS232, but it involves removing removing several components and modifying the 9602 oscillator timing. Using a DL11 is a better choice. John From milov at uwlax.edu Tue Jul 8 23:13:01 2008 From: milov at uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:13:01 -0500 Subject: [pups] pdp11/05 questions. In-Reply-To: <0D206601-B83C-44CE-B1BF-0B394CE84DFF@psych.usyd.edu.au> References: <0D206601-B83C-44CE-B1BF-0B394CE84DFF@psych.usyd.edu.au> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2008, at 10:27 PM, John Holden wrote: > On 08/07/2008, at 7:35 AM, Milo Velimirovic wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> The recent flurry of activity in early pre-C UNIX for an 11 with a >> small memory got me back to working on my 11/05. So far I've >> identified two nasty problems with the data paths board, the M7260. >> One of the 8266 MUX chips looks like the plastic boiled and bubbled >> and circuit board is discolored underneath it. I'd welcome both >> sources for replacement chips and techniques for replacing it. >> > > Tricky. The 8266 is rather odd in that it inverts one of the inputs > and I know of no direct replacement. I'll check if I have a spare > M7260 card. I noticed that oddity while staring at the printset. One thought (and a really ugly one at that) was to build a two chip replacement. Of course the pinouts of an inverter and a "normal" quad mux not being anything at all like the 8266 would really complicate matters. A last resort.... Also would the two chip sol'n change the timing through the AMUX - is it in a critical path? > > > As for replacing chips, particularly on old cards. The only safe way > is to:- > > 1) with a fine pair of cutters, cut every leg of the chip and remove > the body > 2) with needle nose pliers, grab each leg in turn, heat on the other > side > with a soldering iron and pull out the leg (use a light force and > make sure > the solder is molten on the top side, particularly if it has a track) > 3) with a solder sucker (or desoldering station), remove the solder > from the holes No surprises here. It's just painstaking, delicate work that I have little experience with. > > > >> Additionally there's a lifted and broken trace on the non-component >> side of the module near the F edge connector. Any sugestions for >> repairing a damaged trace would be welcome. >> > > If the chip was toasted, then this track probably took all the > current. You can That makes sense but it's a trace to the F connector (FK2 I think) and the 8266 is at position E10? above the A connector... > > either glue it down and bridge the break with solder, or cut the > track where it's > good, scrape off the PCB lacquer, then carefully solder in some > wire. If it is > a short run, use some stiff tinned copper, then hot glue in place. Again no surprises. The broken trace is in an area densely packed with runs as all the signals from the component side feed through the module and are interleaved with the lines from the solder side, all feeding into an area filled with resistors and diodes. > > >> Lastly, I'd just as soon use a DL11W in the 11/05 rather than go to >> the trouble of setting up an external clock to feed the on board >> UART. >> I can get both 9600 baud and RS232 from the DL11W instead of 2400 >> baud >> current loop from the built-in interface. I haven't yet found the >> jumpers to remove/install that would disable the built-in console >> interface. There's also the LTC. > > You can disable the serial interface by removing W1 from the control > logic / > microcode board M7261. I found the alleged location of W1 on the M7261 - it's not obvious what's a jumper and what's necessary copper. back to the print set before wielding and Xacto. > It is not possible to disable the LTC, simply don't > enable it on the DL11W. Easy enough to disable the LTC on a DL11W. > I have, in the distant past, modified a M7260 for > 9600 baud RS232, but it involves removing removing several > components and > modifying the 9602 oscillator timing. Using a DL11 is a better choice. I'd much prefer the DL11 choice to more board mods. - Milo -- Milo Velimirović, Unix Computer Network Administrator University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W From lehmann at ans-netz.de Tue Jul 1 03:34:50 2008 From: lehmann at ans-netz.de (Oliver Lehmann) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:34:50 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> Message-ID: <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Jose R. Valverde wrote: > But you would still be able to see what did generate the code (barring > register number). my C code: register char *r2; register long r4; r2 = uap->linkname; r4 = (long) r2; r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) r4; leads to: ldl rr2,rr8(#4) /* r2 = uap->linkname; */ ldl |_stkseg+~L1|(fp),rr2 /* r2 = uap->linkname; */ ldl |_stkseg+~L1+4|(fp),rr2 /* r4 = (long) r2; */ ldl rr4,rr2 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ and r4,#32512 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ ldl |_stkseg+~L1+4|(fp),rr4 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ ldl _u+78,rr4 /* u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) r4; */ looks not sooo bad - just the assigning into the stacked variables (no idea why no register bound is used here even if I told the compiler to make them register bound - but ,,register'' isn't that strong anyway) > That is why I suggested the extra cast to > see if the compiler would be misled into using an unneeded zero-offset > assignment instruction to an auxiliary register. > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); > [...] > but introducing a saddr_t cast that might fool the compiler into a > temporary assignment with a zero offset (the .l) into ldl rr4,rr2 but not with that code :/ u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); "sys2_.c":50: operands of CAST have incompatible types "sys2_.c":50: warning: struct/union or struct/union pointer required Thats why I changed it the last time... to * and ->. -- Oliver Lehmann http://www.pofo.de/ http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Wed Jul 2 00:21:02 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:21:02 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Message-ID: <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:34:50 +0200 Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > > But you would still be able to see what did generate the code (barring > > register number). > > my C code: > > register char *r2; > register long r4; > > r2 = uap->linkname; > r4 = (long) r2; > r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) r4; > > leads to: > > ldl rr2,rr8(#4) /* r2 = uap->linkname; */ > ldl |_stkseg+~L1|(fp),rr2 /* r2 = uap->linkname; */ > ldl |_stkseg+~L1+4|(fp),rr2 /* r4 = (long) r2; */ > ldl rr4,rr2 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ > and r4,#32512 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ > ldl |_stkseg+~L1+4|(fp),rr4 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ > ldl _u+78,rr4 /* u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) r4; */ > > looks not sooo bad - just the assigning into the stacked variables (no > idea why no register bound is used here even if I told the compiler to > make them register bound - but ,,register'' isn't that strong anyway) > So it means that you can reproduce (barring the stack assignments) the behavior that you describe is puzzling you by using an auxiliary variable. That is you exactly get > ldl rr2,rr8(#4) /* r2 = uap->linkname; */ > ldl rr4,rr2 /* r4 = (long) r2 */ > and r4,#32512 /* r4 &= 0x7F00FFFF; */ > ldl _u+78,rr4 /* u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) r4; */ So the problem now is to figure out how the compiler came to use an additional internal variable (maybe by playing with parenthesis) or figure out if the original coder could have sensibly used an additional variable actually. > > but not with that code :/ > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); > "sys2_.c":50: operands of CAST have incompatible types > "sys2_.c":50: warning: struct/union or struct/union pointer required > > Thats why I changed it the last time... to * and ->. > This is starting to look nasty. My bet now is the compiler is getting confused to parse the line. One thing: try with some additional parenthesis to disambiguate u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) (uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); and see if that works or the same error repeats. Then, either one of two: the original code did look that ugly, the author faced a difficult to parse expression and broke it with an auxiliary variable, saddr_t aux; aux.l = (caddr_t) uap->linkname; u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) aux.l & 0x7F00FFFF); or, now that I come to think of that, seeing the split example I just gave, maybe it was all the way implicitly defined _the right way_: and instead of register struct a { char *target; char *linkname; } *uap; ... u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t)(((long)uap->linkname) & 0x7F00FFFF); /* FIXME: this is not 100% compatible */ they actually had the original code register struct a { char *target; saddr_t *linkname; } *uap; ... u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t)(((long)uap->linkname.l & 0x7F00FFFF); which would be absolutely clean, coherent with the way u_dirp is declared and introduce a zero-offset union reference in the expression leading to the compiler assigning an additional auxiliary variable to produce the expression. j > > -- > Oliver Lehmann > http://www.pofo.de/ > http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lehmann at ans-netz.de Wed Jul 2 04:35:41 2008 From: lehmann at ans-netz.de (Oliver Lehmann) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:35:41 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> Message-ID: <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Jose R. Valverde wrote: > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) (uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); I've added a missing ) behind .l: u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) (uap->linkname).l)) & 0x7F00FFFF); And I've got: "sys2.c":305: warning: struct/union or struct/union pointer required "sys2.c":305: operands of CAST have incompatible types > saddr_t aux; > > aux.l = (caddr_t) uap->linkname; > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) aux.l & 0x7F00FFFF); ldl rr2,rr8(#4) ldl |_stkseg+~L1|(fp),rr2 and r2,#32512 ldl _u+78,rr2 > they actually had the original code > > register struct a { > char *target; > saddr_t *linkname; > } *uap; > ... > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t)(((long)uap->linkname.l & 0x7F00FFFF); Hm - my man page states, that link() needs a char * as 2nd parameter, but I've tested it: "sys2.c":305: operands of "&" have incompatible types "sys2.c":305: illegal combination of pointer and integer "sys2.c":305: syntax error I also tried u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t)(((long)((uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); -- Oliver Lehmann http://www.pofo.de/ http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Thu Jul 3 20:12:07 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:12:07 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Message-ID: <20080703121207.516f319a@veda.cnb.uam.es> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:35:41 +0200 Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) (uap->linkname).l) & 0x7F00FFFF); > > I've added a missing ) behind .l: > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) (((saddr_t) (uap->linkname).l)) & > 0x7F00FFFF); > > And I've got: > > "sys2.c":305: warning: struct/union or struct/union pointer required > "sys2.c":305: operands of CAST have incompatible types > > That looks like the compiler is ignoring the parenthesis... So, maybe what happened was that the original author also tried several of these combinations and failed as well, and may be -as I mentioned- On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:21:02 +0200 "Jose R. Valverde" wrote: > the author faced a difficult to parse > expression and broke it with an auxiliary variable, > > saddr_t aux; > > aux.l = (caddr_t) uap->linkname; > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) aux.l & 0x7F00FFFF); or some such. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Sat Jul 5 16:28:51 2008 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:28:51 +1200 Subject: [TUHS] BSD/386 and its ilk Message-ID: <200807051828.52614.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Hi. I'm reading TCP/IP Illustrated - for the first time; talk about slack! - and noticed Stevens used BSD/386. I remember seeing in DDJ in the early '90s ads for various software-plus-source from a Texas repackaging company, and they had BSD/[386|i|OS] at various times for $1k.00. That was then - this is now. Is it likely, or even possible, that BSDi the company would be ready to consider BSD/386 and such early releases, legacy that could be donated to TUHS? And if so, who should we contact, to ask? Thanks Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Gaul is quartered into three halves. Things which are impossible are equal to each other. Guerrilla warfare means up to their monkey tricks. Extracts from "Schoolboy Howlers" - the collective wisdom of the foolish. ----- 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. From grog at lemis.com Sat Jul 5 17:44:45 2008 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:44:45 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] BSD/386 and its ilk In-Reply-To: <200807051828.52614.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> References: <200807051828.52614.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <20080705074445.GA77107@dereel.lemis.com> On Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 18:28:51 +1200, Wesley Parish wrote: > Hi. > > I'm reading TCP/IP Illustrated - for the first time; talk about slack! - and > noticed Stevens used BSD/386. I remember seeing in DDJ in the early '90s ads > for various software-plus-source from a Texas repackaging company, and they > had BSD/[386|i|OS] at various times for $1k.00. > > That was then - this is now. Is it likely, or even possible, that BSDi the > company would be ready to consider BSD/386 and such early releases, legacy > that could be donated to TUHS? And if so, who should we contact, to ask? Well, definitely not BSDI, who closed down about 5 years ago. But you could try Wind River Systems, who bought them out before closing them down. It's not impossible; I have a complete BSD/OS 5.x tree somewhere which was given to me during my work on the FreeBSD SMPng project, which based on code from BSD/OS. I'm not at liberty to distribute it, unfortunately, but the impression I got at the time (2000) was that it wouldn't be too difficult to get code if you had a reason. Greg -- Finger grog at Freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lehmann at ans-netz.de Mon Jul 7 02:14:19 2008 From: lehmann at ans-netz.de (Oliver Lehmann) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:14:19 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080703121207.516f319a@veda.cnb.uam.es> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080703121207.516f319a@veda.cnb.uam.es> Message-ID: <20080706181419.0d360d7a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Hmmmm but still: Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > saddr_t aux; > > > > aux.l = (caddr_t) uap->linkname; > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) aux.l & 0x7F00FFFF); ldl rr2,rr8(#4) ldl |_stkseg+~L1+8|(fp),rr2 and r2,#32512 ldl _u+78,rr2 -- Oliver Lehmann http://www.pofo.de/ http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Mon Jul 7 19:25:26 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:25:26 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SysIII/PDP-11 on SIMH (was Re: Introduction) In-Reply-To: <20080706181419.0d360d7a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080703121207.516f319a@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080706181419.0d360d7a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Message-ID: <20080707112526.7c0f2ff6@veda.cnb.uam.es> This is puzzling me... so I decided to check whether I could somehow reproduce the problem here assuming your compiler derives from the one in System-III. So, I have installed System III on SIMH from the tapes in TUHS. Silly me, I didn't realize that I was using the ones for PDP-11 and so they are probably farther from the WEGA than the tapes for VAX. Still, while remaining within 16 bits, it seems like I can sort of reproduce some similar behavior on the PDP-11 System-III. If I find some spare time I will try to install SysIII on the VAX simulator as well and see if that works better. For the curious, I started off Hellwig Geisse's distro of V7 on PDP-11 http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg53/pdp11-unix/ and succeeded to install mini-root. Then I had to use an intermediate V7 to restore from tape the tar archive of the full file system. After a few extra changes, I got System III apparently up and running (at least reaches single user and compiles itself). I don't know if there is any additional interest on this, but should it be I can make the UNIX System III distribution with instructions available for anybody interested. This distro comes with instructions AND a working system image, hence it is big, much bigger than Geisse's V7, but for today's standards it is a paltry 35M. j On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:14:19 +0200 Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Hmmmm > > but still: > > Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > > > saddr_t aux; > > > > > > aux.l = (caddr_t) uap->linkname; > > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) aux.l & 0x7F00FFFF); > > ldl rr2,rr8(#4) > ldl |_stkseg+~L1+8|(fp),rr2 > and r2,#32512 > ldl _u+78,rr2 > > -- > Oliver Lehmann > http://www.pofo.de/ > http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Mon Jul 7 19:32:51 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:32:51 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080706181419.0d360d7a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080703121207.516f319a@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080706181419.0d360d7a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Message-ID: <20080707113251.10b945ca@veda.cnb.uam.es> Then, all I can think of is the other approach I mentioned: that the original authors first wrote prf.c, had a look at the assembly generated and then tweaked the assembly code generated from sys*.c by hand and reproduced some similar patterns. If the original authors used sys*.c as "templates" to then further fine tune the derived assembly listings (and in doing so left behind these puzzling traces) then that might explain why your sources contained the asm listings instead of the C ones. It might have made sense for them not to tune prf.c which is rarely used but try to tune sys*.c which are heavily used to account for their "new" segmented architecture. Well, if I can find some time to install SystemIII for VAX on SIMH, may be I will be able to reproduce this, but I seriously doubt it as they are different architectures. j On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:14:19 +0200 Oliver Lehmann wrote: > Hmmmm > > but still: > > Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > > > saddr_t aux; > > > > > > aux.l = (caddr_t) uap->linkname; > > > u.u_dirp.l = (caddr_t) ((long) aux.l & 0x7F00FFFF); > > ldl rr2,rr8(#4) > ldl |_stkseg+~L1+8|(fp),rr2 > and r2,#32512 > ldl _u+78,rr2 > > -- > Oliver Lehmann > http://www.pofo.de/ > http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lehmann at ans-netz.de Tue Jul 8 00:45:20 2008 From: lehmann at ans-netz.de (Oliver Lehmann) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:45:20 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Introduction In-Reply-To: <20080707113251.10b945ca@veda.cnb.uam.es> References: <20080604135729.4c50e178@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080605171758.64c80f06@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623161801.19a53c3e@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080623181101.e862a3a2.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080625122505.4e3d9803@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080626165246.9c3933eb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080627142430.57e0a9c4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080629102523.0219a85c.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080630113028.46a50360@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080630193450.b82063bb.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080701162102.4812f3d6@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080701203541.df06d2b1.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080703121207.516f319a@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20080706181419.0d360d7a.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <20080707113251.10b945ca@veda.cnb.uam.es> Message-ID: <20080707164520.a89082b6.lehmann@ans-netz.de> Jose R. Valverde wrote: > Then, all I can think of is the other approach I mentioned: that the > original authors first wrote prf.c, had a look at the assembly generated > and then tweaked the assembly code generated from sys*.c by hand and > reproduced some similar patterns. prf.c has another author than the source files I've got the problem with. prf.c was "developed" by the guys at EAW who created WEGA. Developed means here, they disassembled the ZEUS objects and created C files out of the ASM listing like I do. Probably they didn't figured out the "ldl rr4,rr2" part of the original ZEUS object (which was probably there) too and they decided that how it is done now has the same effect. So - you can say all sources which contain german text are created based on ZEUS disassembled objects so they are not "original" ZEUS. all the source files containing a "whatstring" from the version control system are files created by me by disassembling the original ZEUS objects. One interesting thing for example can be found in the WEGA-debug.c: callr _gethex and r2,#16128 ldl rr4,rr2 and r4,#32512 ldl |_stkseg+~L1+8|(fp),rr4 is the ASM code from the original object What they've tryed at EAW when writing the debug.c file was: #define UMASK 0x3f00ffffL #define KMASK 0x7f00ffffL [...] kadr = (unsigned int *)((long)(gethex() & UMASK) & KMASK); But this gets compiled into: callr _gethex and r2,#16128 ldl |_stkseg+~L1+8|(fp),rr2 which is the same because - when the AND with 16128 happend, an AND with any higher value won't change the register - so the optimizer probably decided to remove the and with 32512 - which is not removed in the original object.... > Well, if I can find some time to install SystemIII for VAX on SIMH, may > be I will be able to reproduce this, but I seriously doubt it as they > are different architectures. A friend of mine is working on a P8000 emulator - 8Bit is kinda done, 16bit part is "in progress" - no idea how long it will take him to complete it since I have no circuit plans of the 16Bit part - only the original (good documented) Firmware Sources. When it is done and it can be released officially you can all enjoy the feeling on working with a P8000! ;) -- Oliver Lehmann http://www.pofo.de/ http://wishlist.ans-netz.de/ From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Tue Jul 15 23:25:23 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:25:23 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Coherent running Message-ID: <20080715152523.5d44ef57@cnb.csic.es> Hi all, I just had a try to install Coherent on qemu (once more), and this time it did work. Formerly it would fail during installation complaining about floppy disks being unavailable, no root device or some other such error. Now it is happily finishing configuration using qemu 0.9.1 So, for all of you nostalgics who wanted to have Coherent up and running again, QEMU can finally run it since release 0.9.1. The distribution disks and serial number for Coherent are available on a number of sites, as you may know. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural From angus at fairhaven.za.net Tue Jul 15 23:52:44 2008 From: angus at fairhaven.za.net (Angus Robinson) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:52:44 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Coherent running In-Reply-To: <20080715152523.5d44ef57@cnb.csic.es> References: <20080715152523.5d44ef57@cnb.csic.es> Message-ID: <487CABAC.601@fairhaven.za.net> Jose R. Valverde wrote: > Hi all, > > I just had a try to install Coherent on qemu (once more), and this time > it did work. Formerly it would fail during installation complaining about floppy > disks being unavailable, no root device or some other such error. Now it is > happily finishing configuration using qemu 0.9.1 > > So, for all of you nostalgics who wanted to have Coherent up and running > again, QEMU can finally run it since release 0.9.1. The distribution disks and > serial number for Coherent are available on a number of sites, as you may know. > > j > > Are there any legal issues with this or since the company closed down its all well and good ? From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 23:45:48 2008 From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:45:48 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Coherent running In-Reply-To: <20080715152523.5d44ef57@cnb.csic.es> References: <20080715152523.5d44ef57@cnb.csic.es> Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0807150645s5ea9c32fj26de13dba36346da@mail.gmail.com> Great news! I wonder if any other "legacy" Unixes like Xenix or some of the PC System V ports are working now too? Mike From neozeed at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 01:37:38 2008 From: neozeed at gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:37:38 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] Coherent running In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0807150645s5ea9c32fj26de13dba36346da@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080715152523.5d44ef57@cnb.csic.es> <8dd2d95c0807150645s5ea9c32fj26de13dba36346da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46b366130807150837i5f7ec4fbu39d3485c5216db43@mail.gmail.com> Xenix has issues with the floppy driver... But you can install Xenix in bochs on a 'raw' disk image, that Qemu will happily run. Xenix also runs on Virtual PC & VMWare... I only have 2.3.4 i386 version with no compiler / no networking so it's not terribly usefull. On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Michael Kerpan wrote: > Great news! I wonder if any other "legacy" Unixes like Xenix or some > of the PC System V ports are working now too? > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Wed Jul 16 20:00:30 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:00:30 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] Coherent running Message-ID: <20080716120030.1fc42f82@cnb.csic.es> > Are there any legal issues with this or since the company closed down > its all well and good ? I've been researching it for some time... At one point you could download Coherent from ftp.mayn.de which contained a note saying it was OK and that the sources had been released publicly. I firmly remember seeing that note long ago. Many others seem to have seen the note and to remember it. But of course my memory might be deluding me. The problem is that ftp.mayn.de went down on 2004 and the original archive was lost. The only copies that survived were the ones at Demon and unixarchive which contained additional materials but lacked the original release message. The problem composited when some German? company bought the rights to the manual and started asking sites to take the mirrors down. At the time, I remember I had lost my own copy (I'm still looking around on old disks for it to see if I can recover that notice), but hadn't cared much because of the existence of the main site. When that was wiped, the copies at demon and tliquest begot prominence as the only remains. The notice lost meant that some people started questioning it. Nowadays, some people is trying to get it released again as open source with a clear statement (see comp.os.coherent), Andrzej Popielewicz leading the initiative. It seems all rights to Coherent reverted to Robert Swartz after MWC disappeared: > On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, Oliver White wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:26:55 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote: > > > A bit difficult to get written permission from an entity that doesn't > > > exist and Bob Swartz who wasn't really reachable for some time (and > > > still seems not to be able to make up his mind on the question of a > > > hobbyist license). > > > I was talking to Randall Howard a few days ago and he said that the > > copyright was sold to Ron Lachman for $30 000. Apparently MWC never > > bankrupted, simply was shut down because it was loosing too much money. > > There been a few posting about the status of the copyrights of > Coherent and what the status of the assets of Mark Williams Company, > perhaps I can clarify things. > > Mark Williams Company ceased operations and its assets became the > property of its bank. These assets which included the copyrights to > all Mark Williams Company's software were subsequently sold to > Kinetech. I was the person who managed these assets for Kinetech. > Early this year Kinetech sold all assets of Mark Williams to Open > Coherent LLC. A company of which I am the manager. The copyrights in > Coherent remain and are the property of Open Coherent LLC. At this > point in time we are working on how to making Coherent more generally > available and there should be more news on this shortly. If there are > any questions about Coherent or its copyrights I would be happy to > respond to them. > > Thanks, > > Robert Swartz > Problem is that I can find no trace of said company on Google or Yahoo. Andrezj claims to have permission to distribute it for personal use, and has an updated version, 4.2.10ap of the kernel. He claims > If You have purchased Coherent , You can of course still use it. > Otherwise the only authorized(by the owner) versions of Coherent kernel > can be legally downloaded(but not redistributed), but only for > noncommercial use , from > > http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~apopiele/embed.html > > There You will find > a)rescue floppy package for those , who have problems with installing > their Coherent 4.2.10 on newer systems > b) patched (by me) Coherent 4.2.10ap kernel, with support for 64/128MB > RAM. Originally Coherent 4.2.x supports 16 MB only > > Of course You can download legally GNU/GPL/Xfree stuff from > http://www.tuhs.org , for example X-windows 1.2 or gcc 2.56 etc, which > was once available for free download from MWC. > As far as sources/binaries of Coherent available at tuhs, well I do not > know. The owner knows about it, but he did not comment. > > The last sold version of Coherent was 4.2.12. The version 4.2.14 was in > development phase. > > OpenCoherent license is in preparation, but I cannot estimate how long > will it take. > > Andrzej > The notice remaining on demon is dated 1995, and things had changed a lot in one decade: From Aaron Swartz site (http://www.aaaronsw.com/history/2001) I see > Sites I Host > > * ChicagoForce.org - Star Wars fans unite! > * OpenCoherent.com - YAOSOS (Yet Another Open-Source Operating System). > * SwartzFam.com - The Swartz Family Server. Which supports my memories of Coherent having been released as Open Source. The Internet Archive contains only two pages of opencoherent.com dated Apr 22, 2001 and May 18, 2001, but both of them contain only > OpenCoherent > Coming Soon! Again, that would point that as early as 2001 the Swartzs were already intending to open source Coherent, and would justify my memories of an actual open sourcing notice in ftp.mayn.de but until (if) I can find that announcement I should suspect my memory. So, you are on your own, free to guess as much as anyone else. Bob Swartz or Open Coherent LLC are certainly elusive. That much I could find. I'll keep on digging if I have time. Personally, I don't quite see any of this clear at all, but you know, having been a system manager for decades makes one paranoid. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Thu Jul 17 18:18:01 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:18:01 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled Message-ID: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> Following up to recent questions about whether OpenSolaris might be jeopardized if SCO didn't have the rights to provide the license, I see that judge Kimball has ruled on the case, and in discussing its ruling, he mentions the agreement between SCO and Sun. Particularly he mentions: > Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO's obligation > to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the > Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties. > Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights > in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO > shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology > or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has > not been implicated or applied. I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that relies totally on SCO. SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant (though seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to allow open sourcing via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess they thought it would play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware as an 'enhanced' or 'better product' than open solaris. It also fits within Caldera's previous opening other ancient UNIX. My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead of opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a combined attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards opensource UNIX and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed Unixware to Sun's open source solution in line with tradition. But then comes the last sentence: the issue of opensolaris damage to the closedness of SVRX was not brought up at trial. May be it wasn't the time and place, or may be Novell reasoned that it does not matter to them to offer one open source system (linux) or other (solaris). I'd also guess given Novell involvement in SuSE that they would have liked to open SVRX all along but didn't dare to because of possible complains by existing licensees (like IBM or HP) who might see their licenses as oblivious, and -most probably- because it was never very clear whether all code could be open or belonged to them (sort of like Linux going to GPL3: it's difficult to identify all contributors and ask their permission). Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all responsibility. BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway, but it might also be that they were waiting to see the case unravel. In any case, we now know SCO has assumed the defense of OpenSolaris, which is a great thing to know. My kudos to SCO. They were bolder than I thought. Even if -IMHO- their strategy against Linux was misled, their willingness to support open solaris deserves respect. Or may be they didn't want to but needed so badly Sun's money to follow their lawsuit against IBM that they were willing to sell their souls (and IP) in the hope of a big win against IBM. Who knows? One thing is certain, Caldera/SCO should be thanked for allowing opening of so much ancient -and modern- UNIX source code. Their war against Linux OTOH is another issue. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural From hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net Fri Jul 18 01:55:53 2008 From: hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:55:53 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> Message-ID: <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> Hello! Good to know. However that's only valid for those individuals who are still running older versions of Solaris. It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original creators of UNIX. The fact that we can login on to a Sun system the same way we can logon to an emulated PDP-11 running the Seventh Edition of UNIX is clearly meant to be that way. (BSD2.11 included but not presumed.) Besides, those zealots at SCO only wanted to go out of business making all of us look foolish, I am very glad that it backfired and they are the ones looking foolish, because in the end it ruined the work habits of a lot of good people, and destroyed a lot of good software as well. (Not the stuff we discuss, related in function however.) -- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net "The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi   > -----Original Message----- > From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf > Of Jose R. Valverde > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:18 AM > To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled > > Following up to recent questions about whether OpenSolaris might be jeopardized > if SCO didn't have the rights to provide the license, I see that judge Kimball > has ruled on the case, and in discussing its ruling, he mentions the agreement > between SCO and Sun. > > Particularly he mentions: > > > Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO's obligation > > to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the > > Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties. > > Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights > > in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO > > shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology > > or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has > > not been implicated or applied. > > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that relies > totally on SCO. > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect > to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant (though > seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to allow open sourcing > via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess they thought it would > play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware as an 'enhanced' or 'better > product' than open solaris. It also fits within Caldera's previous opening > other ancient UNIX. > > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead of > opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a combined > attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards opensource UNIX > and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed Unixware to Sun's > open source solution in line with tradition. > > But then comes the last sentence: the issue of opensolaris damage to the > closedness of SVRX was not brought up at trial. May be it wasn't the time > and place, or may be Novell reasoned that it does not matter to them to > offer one open source system (linux) or other (solaris). I'd also guess > given Novell involvement in SuSE that they would have liked to open > SVRX all along but didn't dare to because of possible complains by > existing licensees (like IBM or HP) who might see their licenses as > oblivious, and -most probably- because it was never very clear whether > all code could be open or belonged to them (sort of like Linux going to > GPL3: it's difficult to identify all contributors and ask their permission). > Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, > and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing > SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all > responsibility. > > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway, but it might > also be that they were waiting to see the case unravel. In any case, we > now know SCO has assumed the defense of OpenSolaris, which is a great > thing to know. > > My kudos to SCO. They were bolder than I thought. Even if -IMHO- their > strategy against Linux was misled, their willingness to support open > solaris deserves respect. > > Or may be they didn't want to but needed so badly Sun's money to follow > their lawsuit against IBM that they were willing to sell their souls > (and IP) in the hope of a big win against IBM. Who knows? > > One thing is certain, Caldera/SCO should be thanked for allowing opening > of so much ancient -and modern- UNIX source code. Their war against Linux > OTOH is another issue. > > j > > -- > These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! > > José R. Valverde > > De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From lm at bitmover.com Fri Jul 18 01:58:19 2008 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:58:19 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> Message-ID: <20080717155819.GI19812@bitmover.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55:53AM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote: > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > creators of UNIX. Nonsense. Read bmap. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From bmc at eng.sun.com Fri Jul 18 02:18:04 2008 From: bmc at eng.sun.com (Bryan Cantrill) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:18:04 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> Message-ID: <20080717161804.GB7790@eng.sun.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55:53AM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote: > Hello! > Good to know. > However that's only valid for those individuals who are still running older > versions of Solaris. > > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > creators of UNIX. That is, of course, absurd, and whoever told you that doesn't have much of a grasp of the source base. Yes, gobs of stuff has been rewritten -- but plenty of code dates from Back in the Day, especially in userland. For evidence of this, I point (as I often do) to troff, and files like http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/troff/n5.c, which has had very little modification in the 18 years since The Merge, and still contains comments like this gem: /* * The following routines are concerned with setting terminal options. * The manner of doing this differs between research/Berkeley systems * and UNIX System V systems (i.e. DOCUMENTER'S WORKBENCH) * The distinction is controlled by the #define'd variable USG, * which must be set by System V users. */ And those who know their history already know the punchline: much of that code isn't going to change because (1) it basically works and (2) the engineer who wrote it -- Joe Ossanna -- is dead, having died of a heart attack in 1977. (This code is legend among Solaris developers; see, for example, http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock/entry/real_life_obfuscated_code.) - Bryan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems Fishworks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc From gerberb at zenez.com Fri Jul 18 02:33:12 2008 From: gerberb at zenez.com (Boyd Lynn Gerber) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:33:12 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jose R. Valverde wrote: > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that > relies totally on SCO. > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with > respect to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and > valiant (though seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to > allow open sourcing via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess > they thought it would play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware > as an 'enhanced' or 'better product' than open solaris. It also fits > within Caldera's previous opening other ancient UNIX. > > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead > of opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a > combined attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards > opensource UNIX and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed > Unixware to Sun's open source solution in line with tradition. Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. They had reached an agreement with every one and were about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb east cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly decided against it and were addamanly now doing everything to stop it. IBM was the "big bad guy". What I never could understand is how the roles got reversed and IBM the anti opensource and SCO the pro opensource changed places. I was working with both groups and could not understand why IBM was being such a big pain. Shortly after it came the SCO law suit. I thought it was going to be about IBM renigging on making things OpenSOURCE. I really can not understand just how the roles were changed so much. It was my understanding that the SUN deal was to add to the big change and making things better for UNIX in general. I am grateful to SCO for their attempt to make UnixWare/OpenUNIX opensource. I just wish it had succedded. -- Boyd Gerber ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 From cowan at ccil.org Fri Jul 18 03:12:05 2008 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:12:05 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717161804.GB7790@eng.sun.com> References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> <20080717161804.GB7790@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20080717171205.GD26919@mercury.ccil.org> Bryan Cantrill scripsit: > but plenty of code dates from Back in the Day, especially in userland. > For evidence of this, I point (as I often do) to troff, and files like > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/troff/n5.c, > which has had very little modification in the 18 years since The Merge, Another example, at the opposite end of the aesthetic spectrum, is cal, which does exactly what it is supposed to and has not been changed since at least 7th edition days, except to add a modest amount of i18n. The GNU version has a few more options, as is typical, but still produces exactly the same output as the 7th Edn. running under apout. > and still contains comments like this gem: Indeed, both ditroff and Plan 9 troff are directly descended from JFO's code. Only groff is independent, which just goes to show what a heroic programmer (in a quiet way) James Clark really is (as do nsgmls and jing/trang). The Law of James Clark: If you think James is wrong on a matter of fact, you have another think coming. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan From wb at freebie.xs4all.nl Fri Jul 18 03:04:07 2008 From: wb at freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:04:07 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> Message-ID: <20080717170407.GA95756@freebie.xs4all.nl> Quoting Boyd Lynn Gerber, who wrote on Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:33:12AM -0600 .. > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that > > relies totally on SCO. > > > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with > > respect to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and > > valiant (though seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to > > allow open sourcing via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess > > they thought it would play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware > > as an 'enhanced' or 'better product' than open solaris. It also fits > > within Caldera's previous opening other ancient UNIX. > > > > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead > > of opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a > > combined attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards > > opensource UNIX and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed > > Unixware to Sun's open source solution in line with tradition. > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. They had reached an agreement with > every one and were about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb > east cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly > decided against it and were addamanly now doing everything to stop it. > IBM was the "big bad guy". What I never could understand is how the roles ** lawyers ** that is the keyword here :) Wilko From lm at bitmover.com Fri Jul 18 03:27:32 2008 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:27:32 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717171205.GD26919@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> <20080717161804.GB7790@eng.sun.com> <20080717171205.GD26919@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <20080717172732.GK19812@bitmover.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:05PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Indeed, both ditroff and Plan 9 troff are directly descended from > JFO's code. Only groff is independent, which just goes to show what a > heroic programmer (in a quiet way) James Clark really is (as do nsgmls > and jing/trang). As a still-using-troff sort of person, I can vouch for James. Wow. Cool stuff. And groff really is mucho better than the original. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 03:32:22 2008 From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:32:22 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717172732.GK19812@bitmover.com> References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> <72A7B82944034552A9A2CEE09C3F6270@who8> <20080717161804.GB7790@eng.sun.com> <20080717171205.GD26919@mercury.ccil.org> <20080717172732.GK19812@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0807171032l76674668v7df1ae9a6fb938a8@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:05PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >> Indeed, both ditroff and Plan 9 troff are directly descended from >> JFO's code. Only groff is independent, which just goes to show what a >> heroic programmer (in a quiet way) James Clark really is (as do nsgmls >> and jing/trang). > > As a still-using-troff sort of person, I can vouch for James. Wow. > Cool stuff. And groff really is mucho better than the original. Perhaps, but it's not as good as Heirloom Troff, which is based on the "real" sources, but adds lots of groff's features PLUS adds a new font system that allows for the trasparent use of unmodified Type 1, Truetype and even OpenType (including all the fancy stuff) fonts AND tweaks the various typesetting algorithms for MUCH nicer results. From pepe at naleco.com Fri Jul 18 05:55:14 2008 From: pepe at naleco.com (Pepe) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:55:14 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> > From: "Jose R. Valverde" > > Following up to recent questions about whether OpenSolaris might be jeopardized > if SCO didn't have the rights to provide the license, I see that judge Kimball > has ruled on the case, and in discussing its ruling, he mentions the agreement > between SCO and Sun. > > Particularly he mentions: > > > Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO's obligation > > to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the > > Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties. > > Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights > > in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO > > shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology > > or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has > > not been implicated or applied. > > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that relies > totally on SCO. You guess Sun was worried about non-ATT code in SVRX? No quite. The SVRX code in Solaris (if any; and certainly there is plenty) is certainly 100% ATT-derived, and any non-ATT code in the SVRX code that The SCO Group passed on to Sun had (by a mere matter of time) to be added to SVRX after ATT relinquished the original SVRX code and quite after Solaris branched out of the UNIX System V Release 4, and therefore any non-ATT (or non-ATT-licenseable) code inside The SCO Group's SVRX certainly is not inside Solaris, so no worries there. You forget the The SCO Group was fully engaged in a total FUD campaign, whose ultimate goal was to cut off Linux support in the Enterprise via fear, uncertainty and doubt, and whose collateral goal was to make plenty of money selling bogus Linux licenses and suing everybody in sight (IBM and The SCO Group's own customers, of course). Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a bogus license to opensource Solaris. > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect > to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant Your ingenuity here is shocking. > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead of > opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a combined > attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards opensource UNIX > and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed Unixware to Sun's > open source solution in line with tradition. Ridiculous. With Solaris the Enterprise has a growth path to big iron. With UnixWare the Enterprise has a "growth" path from the PC to a bigger PC. > Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, > and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing > SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all > responsibility. So, what two "opens source" OSes does The SCO Group have? "Open"-Server and "Open"-Unix (aka Unixware)? Amazing! > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway Nobody cares about OpenSolaris. If you are going to go with Solaris, open or not, you are going to be paying much more for year-on-year support to the vendor than the Solaris license costs, so whether it is open o not is moot for the Enterprise. > In any case, we > now know SCO has assumed the defense of OpenSolaris, which is a great > thing to know. I do not see it like that at all. The SCO Group has afforded SUN indemnification in the eventual case the license they sold to them gets shot, as it is going to happen unless Novell gets its money, either from the now-bankrupt The SCO Group or from SUN itself (second payment for the same thing, funny deal there!). The question here is: the indemnification The SCO Group offered SUN weights less than smoke: What indemnification can you get from a bankrupt company? None, that is the answer. > Or may be they didn't want to but needed so badly Sun's money to follow > their lawsuit against IBM that they were willing to sell their souls > (and IP) in the hope of a big win against IBM. Who knows? That interpretation is much closer to the truth. Except they didn't sell "their IP", as The SCO Group had none of UNIX copyrights, none of UNIX IP, they just bought from Novell the UNIX distribution business, but not the UNIX IP. > One thing is certain, Caldera/SCO should be thanked for allowing opening > of so much ancient -and modern- UNIX source code. Their war against Linux > OTOH is another issue. Caldera/The SCO Group did no have just title to change the license on the intellectual property they did not own and which they were not allowed to re-license with different terms under the "Assets Purchase Agreement" signed between Caldera and Novell. Therefore, any and all relicensing done by Caldera of ancient or modern UNIX code is void and null. Unless Novell comes after the fact and endorses such open-sourcing. Absent Novell action, The SCO Group actions changing the UNIX license are void. Novell action in that sense has not happened up to the day of today. > From: "Gregg C Levine" > > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > creators of UNIX. That's not saying much. The original creators of UNIX wrote it in assembly for the PDP-11. Nothing of that is in Solaris, that's true. And BSD is open-source and legally close-able anytime, so no argument there either. Now, if "the good people at the Sun offices" are trying to imply there in no Unix System V code in Solaris, they are lying. Period. > From: Boyd Lynn Gerber > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. What? Care to show proof? What do you mean by the mention of "OpenUNIX" in the same paragraph where you say "SCO was trying to get everything opensourced"? That "OpenUNIX" is proof of the "opensourcing" done at The SCO Group? What?? > They had reached an agreement with > every one and were about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb > east cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly > decided against it and were addamanly now doing everything to stop it. Those are not verifiable facts. Rumors and hearsay make no history. > I am grateful to SCO for their attempt to make UnixWare/OpenUNIX > opensource. I just wish it had succedded. What attempts? Vaporware is nothing to be grateful about. -- Pepe pepe at naleco.com From gerberb at zenez.com Fri Jul 18 06:40:38 2008 From: gerberb at zenez.com (Boyd Lynn Gerber) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:40:38 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> References: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Pepe wrote: > > From: "Jose R. Valverde" > > > From: Boyd Lynn Gerber > > > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. > > What? Care to show proof? What do you mean by the mention of "OpenUNIX" > in the same paragraph where you say "SCO was trying to get everything > opensourced"? That "OpenUNIX" is proof of the "opensourcing" done at > The SCO Group? No, It was the name choosen to spearhead the new opensource movement of Caldera after purchase of SCO divisions from the OLD SCO. There were only 3-12 people outside SCO that new about the soon to be released email list. It was an NDA list, sadly I can not reproduce the copies because of the idiot that over wrote over 750 GB of disk with "DIE SCO DIE SCO". I was not backing up NDA stuff. But if you can get the Forum Presenations from the year Caldera purchased SCO assests and the next one you will see their agenda to OpenSource everything clearly stated. Ransome Love if my memory is correct was CEO at the time. > What?? > > > They had reached an agreement with every one and were about to release > > everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb east cost. It was to be a joint > > IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly decided against it and were > > addamanly now doing everything to stop it. > > Those are not verifiable facts. Rumors and hearsay make no history. No, not rummors or hearsey. I was in the meetings where it was discussed. There were the IBM reps, SCO reps and a few others. This was just prior to the big show. The next day IBM came in and said they would not opensource the stuff. All the press released were trashed and then the battle began. > > I am grateful to SCO for their attempt to make UnixWare/OpenUNIX > > opensource. I just wish it had succedded. > > What attempts? Vaporware is nothing to be grateful about. You were not there and did not live through what was happening. I was. I know others were as well. It was not vaporware. It was also part of the new United Linux. SUSE was there, as well as the other members of the colliation. It was a sad day when it all happened. It was to be part of the big announcement of United Linux. -- Boyd Gerber ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 From bmc at eng.sun.com Fri Jul 18 06:22:15 2008 From: bmc at eng.sun.com (Bryan Cantrill) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:22:15 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> References: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> Message-ID: <20080717202215.GE7790@eng.sun.com> > Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that > meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor [sic] > rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more > Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun > strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the > grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group > so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the > Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, > much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a > bogus license to opensource Solaris. Can we keep this kind of invective to a minimum? As it happens, you're wrong in this particular case, but more generally it would be nice if we could try to stick to the history of Unix as code, and not Unix as endless trench warfare... > > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway > > Nobody cares about OpenSolaris. I think you meant to say "I don't care about OpenSolaris"... > > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > > creators of UNIX. > > That's not saying much. The original creators of UNIX wrote it in assembly > for the PDP-11. Nothing of that is in Solaris, that's true. And BSD is > open-source and legally close-able anytime, so no argument there either. > Now, if "the good people at the Sun offices" are trying to imply there > in no Unix System V code in Solaris, they are lying. Period. I have already responded regarding this, but you would be wise to remember Hanlon's Razor (especially when dealing with my particular company): "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." For all its faults, there is little malice at Sun -- and I have no further comment. ;) - Bryan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems Fishworks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Fri Jul 18 06:51:14 2008 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <462575.26396.qm@web82405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. > They released OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. > They had reached an agreement with every one and were > about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb east > cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when > IBM suddenly decided against it and were addamanly > nowdoing everything to stop it. IBM was the "big bad guy". > What I never could understand is how the roles got reversed > and IBM the anti opensource and SCO the pro open source > changed places. It wasn't as simple as that - I was there (at SCO) at the time and, while it is true that the Caldera management at the time they acquired SCO's UNIX business (Ransome Love) was in favor of open sourcing everything it never came even close to actually happening. The main reason was that both SCO UnixWare and OpenServer were heavily encumbered with lots of bits of third party code and their associated licensing agreements and it was, for practical purposes, impossible to either negotiate agreements with all of the third parties or remove the code in question, As for why Caldera/SCO changed their position - that is simple. It happened overnight when the management changed and Darl McBride replaced Ransom Love. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pepe at naleco.com Fri Jul 18 08:30:02 2008 From: pepe at naleco.com (Pepe) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:30:02 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717202215.GE7790@eng.sun.com> References: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> <20080717202215.GE7790@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20080717223001.GA28983@d600.naleco.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:22:15PM -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > > > Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that > > meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor [sic] > > rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more > > Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun > > strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the > > grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group > > so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the > > Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, > > much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a > > bogus license to opensource Solaris. > > Can we keep this kind of invective to a minimum? As it happens, you're > wrong in this particular case, but more generally it would be nice if > we could try to stick to the history of Unix as code, and not Unix as > endless trench warfare... The history is made by people and their actions, people are not isolated beings but they are social. Therefore, history is always about politics. The code of Unix did evolve because of the politics they creators/vendors were engaged with (I'm talking about political economy). The actions which created and evolved Unix had political goals, sometimes for academic gain, sometimes for commercial gain. I don't think Unix as a phenomenon can be understood without understanding it's politics. You happen to have a different view on the political angle of Unix. That's fine. You also don't hold a totally impartial stance on Unix politics, as you are affiliated to one of the Unix parties. But I don't think it is fair to try to suppress the political views one doesn't like, or to try to suppress the political expression of history altogether.. It is as much "historical Unix" the political history of Unix, as it is the code history of it. -- Pepe pepe at naleco.com From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Sat Jul 19 00:10:00 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:10:00 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> References: <20080717195513.GA20242@d600.naleco.com> Message-ID: <20080718161000.4882efcf@cnb.csic.es> A few corrections: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:55:14 +0200 Pepe wrote: > You guess Sun was worried about non-ATT code in SVRX? No quite. The SVRX > code in Solaris (if any; and certainly there is plenty) is certainly 100% > ATT-derived, and any non-ATT code in the SVRX code that The SCO Group > passed on to Sun had (by a mere matter of time) to be added to SVRX > after ATT relinquished the original SVRX code and quite after Solaris > branched out of the UNIX System V Release 4, and therefore any non-ATT > (or non-ATT-licenseable) code inside The SCO Group's SVRX certainly is > not inside Solaris, so no worries there. > I don't quite get your point, but had access to some old versions of Solaris under NDA, and believe me or not, it hasn't changed that much (although it has changed a lot). As far as I remember, SV is not 100% ATT: a large part of it (the majority according to some) was developed by Sun. It would surprise me if in their joint agreement Sun hadn't safeguarded themselves to keep some control on their code. Not only that, there is/was code that didn't belong either to ATT nor Sun there. Tracking all that and getting agreements would have been a nightmare for Sun. And Sun had been after open sourcing Solaris since the late UNIX Wars and early Linux times, see Larry McVoigh's http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html Finally, probably a good part of the deal with SCO was due to Sun's interest in many SCO device drivers for x86 > You forget the The SCO Group was fully engaged in a total FUD campaign, > whose ultimate goal was to cut off Linux support in the Enterprise via > fear, uncertainty and doubt, and whose collateral goal was to make > plenty of money selling bogus Linux licenses and suing everybody in > sight (IBM and The SCO Group's own customers, of course). > I don't believe anybody sane would engage in deceptive action at that level consciously with such big players as IBM. From all the history of the cases it seems rather that this is a case of a change of management to unknowledgeable, ambitious managers who paid too much attention to the UNIX department on the Company and then had to put a straight face to defend what resulted to be an untenable position. Try to put yourself in Darl's place: you make a decision based on the promises of some head of department and sue IBM and the world. Then little by little your move is proven wrong. What can you do? Yes, say sorry, close the company, fire all workers and get punished for admitting to a scam. Or you can put a straight face, defend that you do actually believe the unbelievable -and look as a stupid instead- and try to save the company, the workers and your skin until you can find someone else to take the hot potato. I don't say that is what's happening, but it certainly looks like. > Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that > meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor > rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more > Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun > strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the > grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group > so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the > Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, > much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a > bogus license to opensource Solaris. In the dot-com bubble Sun was _the_ Internet company. They had a strong name and their view of the future was right. Plus, see the "The Sourceware Operating System Proposal". Plus, they had already tried half-opening Solaris 8, and the experience, well received, proved not enough. They might have been desperate, but open sourcing solaris was a decision taken long, long before. Maybe they took advantage of SCO's Linux war, but SCO clearing up SVRX for them was the move they had been forever praying for since they helped build SVRX. Do not forget Sun had been an open source company from its beginning selling BSD. The UNIX wars damaged them heavily, and after a short interlude of closedness in the 90s the company culture was bound to retake over. > > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect > > to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant > > Your ingenuity here is shocking. So is yours: think of Linux and GPLv3: that's an impossible move because there's no way to track contributors. Same happens (to a lesser degree perhaps) with SVRX. I never said it wasn't silly or wrongfully founded, but you must acknowledge it was bold. > > Ridiculous. With Solaris the Enterprise has a growth path to big iron. > With UnixWare the Enterprise has a "growth" path from the PC to a bigger > PC. > Not only did Unixware at the time have better SMP support, and Himalaya clustering, and many things above Linux, but Monterey goal was that Unixware would run on IBM's big iron. And last I looked IBM produced far more big iron than Sun. > > Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, > > and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing > > SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all > > responsibility. > > So, what two "opens source" OSes does The SCO Group have? "Open"-Server > and "Open"-Unix (aka Unixware)? Amazing! That 'them' refers to Novell, which is the subject of all the paragraph. Novell gets Linux and OpenSolaris if they reach an agreement with Sun. > > > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway > > Nobody cares about OpenSolaris. If you are going to go with Solaris, > open or not, you are going to be paying much more for year-on-year > support to the vendor than the Solaris license costs, so whether it is > open o not is moot for the Enterprise. > That argument applies equally to HP, IBM or any other. However... Certainly any company that outsources system management must pay for it, be it to Sun, RedHat, IBM or whomever. If you have competent sysadmins, then you can get all maintenance in-house and save a lot on support. And you may not care. But Sun's clustering, DTrace, ZFS, Grid, and many other technological offers are worth for real performance. I don't argue most people do not care about them and are happy with Linux or Windows. Me... I've used Linux since 0.1 believe it or not, and the bulk of my systems are Linux. But I also keep xBSD, Tru64, AIX and Solaris for those special cases where Linux falls short. > The question here is: the indemnification The SCO Group offered SUN > weights less than smoke: What indemnification can you get from a bankrupt > company? None, that is the answer. > The law may have something to say regarding Sun's role as a possible scam victim of a Novell representative (SCO). > Caldera/The SCO Group did no have just title to change the license on the > intellectual property they did not own and which they were not allowed to > re-license with different terms under the "Assets Purchase Agreement" > signed between Caldera and Novell. Therefore, any and all relicensing > done by Caldera of ancient or modern UNIX code is void and null. Unless > Novell comes after the fact and endorses such open-sourcing. Absent Novell > action, The SCO Group actions changing the UNIX license are void. > That's not true as we know now from the outcome of the ATT BSD settlement and the rulings on that case. A lot of code was published without copyright at a time when that meant public release. The issue was never actually resolved in court, but you can bet that most probably code up to SysIII is unprotected. Again, a risky decision by then Caldera, but this one with smaller risk. > > From: Boyd Lynn Gerber > > > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. > > What? Care to show proof? What do you mean by the mention of "OpenUNIX" > in the same paragraph where you say "SCO was trying to get everything > opensourced"? That "OpenUNIX" is proof of the "opensourcing" done at > The SCO Group? > > What?? Of course nobody can read someone else's mind. But just as SCO announced everywhere their war on Linux, Caldera announced everywhere their intent to progressively open source UNIX. At least you should give same weight to both series of statements (bearing in mind they were done by different CEOs). > > What attempts? Vaporware is nothing to be grateful about. > Don't let your bad experience with Microsoft spread to all vendors. Some have managed a long history of delivering on their promises, and Caldera at the time was one such. Personally, I think if they had stuck to Ransom Love and endured the harsh times for a couple of years until the "boom" of Linux they would have managed a lot better. Not to mention they could have unified UNIX at last. But there's no way to know now. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael_davidson at pacbell.net Sat Jul 19 03:03:52 2008 From: michael_davidson at pacbell.net (Michael Davidson) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled Message-ID: <123545.11910.qm@web82403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jose R. Valverde wrote: I don't believe anybody sane would engage in deceptive action at that level consciously with such big players as IBM. From all the history of the cases it seems rather that this is a case of a change of management to unknowledgeable, ambitious managers who paid too much attention to the UNIX department on the Company and then had to put a straight face to defend what resulted to be an untenable position. I am not going to comment on Darl's sanity. I think that you will find that Darl's problem was paying too little attention to the people who actually understood what was going on, not paying too much attention. He certainly didn't appear to pay much attention to this: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-459-22.pdf Try to put yourself in Darl's place: you make a decision based on the promises of some head of department and sue IBM and the world. Then little by little your move is proven wrong. What can you do? Yes, say sorry, close the company, fire all workers and get punished for admitting to a scam. Or you can put a straight face, defend that you do actually believe the unbelievable -and look as a stupid instead- and try to save the company, the workers and your skin until you can find someone else to take the hot potato. I think that it was more a case of suing IBM and the world based on what you (at the time) sincerely believed and hoped *must* have happened, and then spending several years and legal theories unsuccessfully trying to find any evidence for it. Don't let your bad experience with Microsoft spread to all vendors. Some have managed a long history of delivering on their promises, and Caldera at the time was one such. Personally, I think if they had stuck to Ransom Love and endured the harsh times for a couple of years until the "boom" of Linux they would have managed a lot better. Not to mention they could have unified UNIX at last. But there's no way to know now. One promise that, at the time, Caldera had never delivered on was making a profit. Caldera did some good things in the Linux world but they were a distinctly second tier player. Their decision to buy SCO' s UNIX business was a bad one, based largely on emotion not on good business sense (I know this, because I was one of the people that helped sell it to them). At the time Caldera had no revenue stream but still had some cash from their IPO, SCO had a rapidly declining revenue stream, and bunch of mostly 10 to 15 year old technology which was still in reasonable shape but which wasn't going anywhere. Somehow (with SCO's help) Ransom Love convinced himself that the deal made sense and that (most important of all, because it appealed to his ego) he could succeed where everyone else had failed and somehow unite UNIX and Linux and build a successful business out of it. Sadly none of that turned out to be true and, had Ransom Love stayed as CEO I suspect that the company would have been out of business by the end of 2003 at the latest. md -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es Wed Jul 23 20:02:03 2008 From: jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:02:03 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SysIII for the Vax Message-ID: <20080723120203.76e318f6@cnb.csic.es> About one year ago I found installation tapes for System III for the VAX somewhere on the Net. Unfortunately I can't find the original URL on disk any longer, neither on my bookmarks and a Google search does not find anything now. The distribution is available as tap archives, and you can find it on ftp://ftp.es.embnet.org/pub/misc/os/UNIX/sysIII As four files. My questions are: - as this is the only copy I can find now on the Net, would it make sense to save it also on TUHS and mirrors? - the tap tools do not seem to recognize contents (dtp seems to identify the first file) and I am currently too busy to further investigate. Could someone with spare time have a look at them? - a strings of tape1/set1 seems to reveal that it only supports an RP06 at NEXUS 8 and a TE16 at NEXUS 9. Could someone with more time have a try at them using SIMH? Thanks. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: