* Re: Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
@ 2006-04-27 3:11 Brian L.Stuart
2006-04-27 3:29 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Brian L.Stuart @ 2006-04-27 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> The thing about DEC's Unix on the Alpha was that it never ran on either
> the MIPS or VAX.... It was essentially OSF/1 with some DEC
> customizations and a custom compiler.
So I just spent a little time digging when I should have been writing.
And it's all your fault :-) Seriously, you're essentially right. The history
is more rich than I had realized.
- In the begining (well once Olsen got over his anti-UNIX thing), there
was ULTRIX on the 11, the VAX and MIPS.
- When DEC decided to swich from ULTRIX to OSF/1, it started its
development on MIPS.
- To what extent OSF/1 on MIPS was seen in the wild is not clear. Claims
range from, it was never officially released to, support for MIPS existed
in the source tree for several versions.
- When Alpha was released, OSF/1 was the UNIX for it.
- When OSF (at least as an OS purveyor) imploded, DEC changed
the name to Digital UNIX.
- When the farm was sold to Compaq, it was again renamed to Tru64.
But I stray OT. Sorry.
BLS
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
2006-04-27 3:11 Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error Brian L.Stuart
@ 2006-04-27 3:29 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2006-04-27 3:51 ` Dan Cross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2006-04-27 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> - In the begining (well once Olsen got over his anti-UNIX thing),
> there
> was ULTRIX on the 11, the VAX and MIPS.
On the /11? Ultrix seemed very VM-centric. (I.e. wanting post-11
TLBs and such.)
> - When DEC decided to swich from ULTRIX to OSF/1, it started its
> development on MIPS.
> - To what extent OSF/1 on MIPS was seen in the wild is not clear.
> Claims
> range from, it was never officially released to, support for MIPS
> existed
> in the source tree for several versions.
My hazy recollections of the first MIPS workstations involved Ultrix.
(1.1?) No OSF until ...
> - When Alpha was released, OSF/1 was the UNIX for it.
> - When OSF (at least as an OS purveyor) imploded, DEC changed
> the name to Digital UNIX.
> - When the farm was sold to Compaq, it was again renamed to Tru64.
I think Tru64 pre-dated Compaq. Nothing much changed between OSF/DUX/
Tru (from the standpoint of someone who had to keep reasonably large
apps running throughout).
Of all the commercial Unixen of the era, the Ultrix follow-on
variants were the least painful to deal with. And the DEC MIPS-
derived C compiler kicked ass when it came to spitting out
grandmother-guilt-fed diagnostics :-) (Was it DEC or MIPS who were
responsible for the Spanish Inquisition error messages? While noisy,
the verbiage shortened a lot of other conversations :-)
--lyndon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
2006-04-27 3:29 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2006-04-27 3:51 ` Dan Cross
2006-04-27 4:19 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2006-04-27 8:20 ` Moritz Kiese
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dan Cross @ 2006-04-27 3:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 08:29:42PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> >- In the begining (well once Olsen got over his anti-UNIX thing),
> >there
> >was ULTRIX on the 11, the VAX and MIPS.
>
> On the /11? Ultrix seemed very VM-centric. (I.e. wanting post-11
> TLBs and such.)
Yes, there was Ultrix on the 11. I believe you can download it....
Ultrix was a succession of different systems, starting on the PDP-11
but moving to the VAX and eventually MIPS.
> >- When DEC decided to swich from ULTRIX to OSF/1, it started its
> >development on MIPS.
> >- To what extent OSF/1 on MIPS was seen in the wild is not clear.
> >Claims range from, it was never officially released to, support for MIPS
> >existed in the source tree for several versions.
I know that CMU did a port of OSF/1 to MIPS, but I don't think it was
generally available. And I certainly believe that a lot of the development
work was hosted on MIPS and possibly even targeted MIPS before the Alpha
was ready, but I don't ever recall it being a commercial offering from
DEC. Even after the Alpha was released, if you bought a MIPS or VAX-based
machine from DEC, the only Unix offered was Ultrix.
Maybe if you were one of those special customers you could get them to
give you OSF for MIPS, but I never ranked that high. :-)
> My hazy recollections of the first MIPS workstations involved Ultrix.
> (1.1?) No OSF until ...
That's right.
> I think Tru64 pre-dated Compaq. Nothing much changed between OSF/DUX/
> Tru (from the standpoint of someone who had to keep reasonably large
> apps running throughout).
Nothing much changed, but I'm pretty sure the Tru64 name came after the
Compaq buy-out. The name Digial Unix didn't fly anymore since they didn't
keep the Digital name (though, if I recall, in the original buy-out
agreement they said they would). For a while, when you bought a Compaq
Alpha, it came with the D|I|G|I|T|A|L logo still on the front-panel; I
guess branding wasn't so important as using back-inventory of parts.
> Of all the commercial Unixen of the era, the Ultrix follow-on
> variants were the least painful to deal with. And the DEC MIPS-
> derived C compiler kicked ass when it came to spitting out
> grandmother-guilt-fed diagnostics :-) (Was it DEC or MIPS who were
> responsible for the Spanish Inquisition error messages? While noisy,
> the verbiage shortened a lot of other conversations :-)
Oh, Ultrix was a pain to administer, especially after DEC dropped support
for it. I didn't especially like the compiler for it, either, though I
have a vague recollection that it had good diagnostics. I don't think it
was fully ANSI C89 compliant, though, and other things in the OS left a
lot to be desired. The monicker Uglix wasn't all together inappropriate.
That said, I still have a MIPS-based Ultrix machine somewhere in storage.
I should dig it out and see if it still boots.... (and if I still have
any data on it!).
- Dan C.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
2006-04-27 3:51 ` Dan Cross
@ 2006-04-27 4:19 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2006-04-27 8:20 ` Moritz Kiese
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2006-04-27 4:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> Yes, there was Ultrix on the 11. I believe you can download it....
No thanks.
> Ultrix was a succession of different systems, starting on the PDP-11
> but moving to the VAX and eventually MIPS.
From 7th Edition, 4.1, or ??? I don't have the poster handy. What
I recall of Ultrix 1.0 said it was 4.2BSD plus stuff (on the 785 at
least).
> I know that CMU did a port of OSF/1 to MIPS, but I don't think it was
> generally available. And I certainly believe that a lot of the
> development
> work was hosted on MIPS and possibly even targeted MIPS before the
> Alpha
> was ready, but I don't ever recall it being a commercial offering from
> DEC. Even after the Alpha was released, if you bought a MIPS or
> VAX-based
> machine from DEC, the only Unix offered was Ultrix.
>
> Maybe if you were one of those special customers you could get them to
> give you OSF for MIPS, but I never ranked that high. :-)
We were hit with VAX-based workstations, early MIPS-based
workstations, and the new Sun Sparc pizza boxes, all at the same
time. It was very confusing. It was also a lot more entertaining
than chasing the generic foo86 hardware dragons that live today.
> Oh, Ultrix was a pain to administer, especially after DEC dropped
> support
> for it.
How so? Back then it was 4.2BSD + tools-to-be-ignored. You didn't
actually use the 'admin tools', did you?!? I fell in love with AIX
when I discovered the switch that made it convert the boot files from
SYSV to /etc/rc.* As I admin machines with /bin/ed that same crowd
is still trying to hack XML into vi.
--lyndon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
2006-04-27 3:51 ` Dan Cross
2006-04-27 4:19 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2006-04-27 8:20 ` Moritz Kiese
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Moritz Kiese @ 2006-04-27 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Dan Cross wrote:
[snip]
> I know that CMU did a port of OSF/1 to MIPS, but I don't think it was
> generally available. And I certainly believe that a lot of the development
> work was hosted on MIPS and possibly even targeted MIPS before the Alpha
Sort of. First development kits (ADU) where a rather large Alpha box with
one of the bigger DECStations (5000 ?) as I/O frontend (connected via
Turbochannel IIRC). Lots of the OSF/1 development took place on these
boxen...
++mbk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
2006-04-26 18:33 Gabriel Diaz
@ 2006-04-26 22:59 ` geoff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: geoff @ 2006-04-26 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
As I understand it, you need to have the Digital Unix PAL code (SRM)
installed to run Plan 9. I don't know if it can have SRM and the VMS
PAL code (ARC?) installed simultaneously.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error
@ 2006-04-26 18:33 Gabriel Diaz
2006-04-26 22:59 ` geoff
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Diaz @ 2006-04-26 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]
Hello
I saw this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.plan9/browse_frm/thread/4913c4288c457507/b82195ebedce5a65?tvc=1&q=bootalphapc#b82195ebedce5a65
And I'm having the same problem with an AlphaServer 1000A 4/266.
Trying to boot from network got this error:
halt code = 2
kernel stack not valid halt
PC = 0
The machine has OpenVMS 7.3 wokring with no problems (others than being vms.
. .)
Any tips to get this working would be appreciated :-)
I'm using the configuration Andrey posted on the list time ago.
Thank you very much,
Gabi
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 789 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-04-27 8:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-04-27 3:11 Re: [9fans] bootalpha and the no valid stack error Brian L.Stuart
2006-04-27 3:29 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2006-04-27 3:51 ` Dan Cross
2006-04-27 4:19 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2006-04-27 8:20 ` Moritz Kiese
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-04-26 18:33 Gabriel Diaz
2006-04-26 22:59 ` geoff
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).