From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b4@gewt.net (Cory Smelosky) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:29:54 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other In-Reply-To: References: <1c400c16-5f18-4475-a8e2-99976e571a37@SG2APC01FT039.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com> <635c06b4-0048-4951-95ca-283c64c30fed@SG2APC01FT017.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com> <1ba0f584-6478-4332-bcae-63ac6cedf2f6@SG2APC01FT041.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com> Message-ID: <1487554194.778935.886229480.27F99937@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017, at 13:19, Clem Cole wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 1:20 AM, > wrote: >> True, but It’s not 4.3 BSD … I was hoping for something vintage of >> the era, just as Solaris 11 is SYSV, but it’s nothing like SYSVr2 on >> the VAX…. > Fair enough... the Mt Xinu version is pretty much the CMU version > unadorned. Which mean that it is a 4.3BSD kernel, with the BSD based > MMU code ripped out and replaced with the CMU code, and the Mach > interfaces (ney RIG - Mach's and Accent's predecessor) messaging > system spliced into it; then the whole mess was built back up using a > 4.3BSD user space (and on top of the i386, an Intel developed boot > system - which is a different story I'll not repeat at this time - but > thankfully was common to all the UNIX systems of the day because Intel > developed and make it available to community at large). > > The other option which I would suggest to look at is the OSF/1 mk for > the i386 (monolithic) about version 3x which as I said forked off the > Alpha line and a couple of other systems. The i386 version of OSF/1 > supports the same chips (i386/i486/Pentium) at the CMU version, it > also comes with more HW device support (disk, tape, network, display > *et al*), than the CMU/Mt Xinu version -- including most importantly > SCSI support by default, which is why is might be a little easier to > work on today's HW and VMs. When I last used it, it lacked USB > support; but that was being worked on around the time I started doing > other things so even that might even be available today. > > FWIW: OSF/1 also started with 4.3BSD userspace, but it had a lot of > work done to it to updating it - adding the Sys V commands that BSD > lacked those days and adding Sys V options to many commands. * i.e.* > its user space is a tad more "complete" / "wider" than pure 4.3BSD and > again makes it a little easier to complete. > > Note that the user space commands from the mk would become the basis > for Tru64, HP/UX and later versions of AIX. And also the OSF/1 > version will have better Graphics, Motif and a much better GUI options > all around that Mt Xinu, which alone may be it easier to work. > > > As I also said elsewhere, the uK or Research Institute (RI) version is > a tad more fun to play with. It's a real kernel architecture moving > things like file systems *et al* in user space. But you can do do > things like start up multiple system interfaces. LCC had their > DOS/Win95 interface was actually developed running instead of as a VM > like it did for the basic mk code, but in as "second server" but I do > not think they ever sold it. The other thing the RI never did, was > the uk still has the pager and all the networking code in the kernel, > so the uk, is hardly 'micro' in size. > > There is a OSF Version 4 and maybe even version 5 (I've forgotten, if > some one remembers - please correct me). The OSF RI folks were trying > to rewrite it a bit in C++ as I recall, again this part of the UI vs > OSF wars of the day and Chorus has rewritten there version from Pascal > to C++, and IIRC the RI was trying to counter that. I don't remember > if that version of the uk ever saw the light of day. > > > > > Anyway, no matter which is the 3 code streams you pick, Mt Xinu, OSF/1 > mk or uk one hardest problems for today will be that the compiler is > of course extremely old by today's standards, and you are probably > going to run it some walls in that area faster than you might think. > That said, if you are willing to deal with the compiler as it comes, > non of them should be very high, or hard to get clear, but some are > likely to take some work. > > Have fun and good luck and let us know if you can get any of these > running. > > Clem Has any mtXinu stuff survived to be archives? -- Cory Smelosky b4 at gewt.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: