[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

I know this is somewhat off topic, but there is a connection.

I am trying to track down a copy of the distribution of:
   The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

The last known repository of the complete system was apparently USENIX.
They have been unable to find a copy anywhere up to this point, so I'm
asking here as there must be many long time members in this group.

Does anyone still have a copy of this and could I possibly get it??
I really need to find a copy for a project I want to work on.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Frank Mandarino]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>
> I know this is somewhat off topic, but there is a connection.
>
> I am trying to track down a copy of the distribution of:
>    The Software Tools Virtual Operating System
>
> The last known repository of the complete system was apparently USENIX.
> They have been unable to find a copy anywhere up to this point, so I'm
> asking here as there must be many long time members in this group.
>
> Does anyone still have a copy of this and could I possibly get it??
> I really need to find a copy for a project I want to work on.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> bill

Bill,

Your posting brought back fond memories of running Ratfor and tools on
an Interdata 8/32 during my University CO-OP work terms.

I took a look around and found a copy of the Software Tools Package on a
page called "Ken Yap's Links" at:

	http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/9247/

in the section entitled "Some source for compilers of historical
interest".

Hope this helps.

Regards,
../fam
-- 
Frank A. Mandarino				fam at infrasoft.com
Infrasoft Inc.
Georgetown, Ontario, Canada

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Frank Mandarino wrote:

>
> Your posting brought back fond memories of running Ratfor and tools on
> an Interdata 8/32 during my University CO-OP work terms.
>
> I took a look around and found a copy of the Software Tools Package on a
> page called "Ken Yap's Links" at:
>
> 	http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/9247/
>
> in the section entitled "Some source for compilers of historical
> interest".
>
> Hope this helps.
>

Sadly, this is just the stuf from the K&P book and not the Virtual OS.
The Virtual OS was considerably more than what K&P did but was built on
their ideas.  It is really sad to think that this, like so much else of
computing history, has been lost.  It should make people appreciate the
work of Warren and PUPS to preserve Unix even more!!

All the best.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[David C. Jenner]

Actually, if you look carefully, you'll see that it is in fact there.
It the next item in the list after the Software Tools book routines.

Dave


Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Frank Mandarino wrote:
> 
> >
> > Your posting brought back fond memories of running Ratfor and tools on
> > an Interdata 8/32 during my University CO-OP work terms.
> >
> > I took a look around and found a copy of the Software Tools Package on a
> > page called "Ken Yap's Links" at:
> >
> >       http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/9247/
> >
> > in the section entitled "Some source for compilers of historical
> > interest".
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> 
> Sadly, this is just the stuf from the K&P book and not the Virtual OS.
> The Virtual OS was considerably more than what K&P did but was built on
> their ideas.  It is really sad to think that this, like so much else of
> computing history, has been lost.  It should make people appreciate the
> work of Warren and PUPS to preserve Unix even more!!
> 
> All the best.
> 
> bill
> 
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

-- 
David C. Jenner
djenner at earthlink.net

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[SHOPPA]

>I know this is somewhat off topic, but there is a connection.
>
>I am trying to track down a copy of the distribution of:
>   The Software Tools Virtual Operating System
>
>The last known repository of the complete system was apparently USENIX.
>They have been unable to find a copy anywhere up to this point, so I'm
>asking here as there must be many long time members in this group.
>
>Does anyone still have a copy of this and could I possibly get it??
>I really need to find a copy for a project I want to work on.

Point yourself towards

  ftp://ftp.trailing-edge.com/pub/rsx11freewarev2/rsx81a/

In the 30703* directories you will find:

[307,30] TOOLGEN.CMD, the command file for building
         the  LBL  Software  Tools  Virtual Operating System. The
         release notes for the VOS are  also  contained  in  this
         UIC.

[307,31] Fortran and macro sources for VOS.

[307,32] Manual entries for VOS utilities.

[307,33] Ratfor source files for VOS utilities.

[307,34] Source files for variable-length send/receive driver.

[307,35] Source files for virtual aether driver.

Tim.

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 SHOPPA at trailing-edge.com wrote:

>
> Point yourself towards
>
>   ftp://ftp.trailing-edge.com/pub/rsx11freewarev2/rsx81a/
>

Tim,
  Thanks for the pointer.  I was aware of the RSX version that was contained
in the DECUS library.  But there really was quite a bit more to the whole
distribution than that.  I am greatly saddened by the fact that this stuff
is lost.  I have received an official notice from someone at USENIX to the
effect that they have not retained any copy of the stuff they were sent.
Worse still, I was offered 2.11 BSD as an alternative.  Not only is the
software gone, there appears to be no one left who even remembers what it
was about. To me this is equivalent to waking up tomorrow to find that all
copies of Version 7 had disappeared and people thought it was just the same
as MSDOS.

Maybe I'm just being sentimental but I think this is another part of our
history and deserved better than to be just abandoned.

If anyone knows of a copy if the whole Software Tools Virtual Operating
System, please let me know where I might get a copy of it.

All the best.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[SHOPPA]

>>   ftp://ftp.trailing-edge.com/pub/rsx11freewarev2/rsx81a/

>  Thanks for the pointer.  I was aware of the RSX version that was contained
>in the DECUS library.  But there really was quite a bit more to the whole
>distribution than that.

Can you educate us about what is missing?  If you can clue me in as
to a specific file name or a specific text string that might be in a
missing file, I'll gladly search through the few tens of gigabytes of
images I've got here.

Tim.

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 SHOPPA at trailing-edge.com wrote:

>
> Can you educate us about what is missing?  If you can clue me in as
> to a specific file name or a specific text string that might be in a
> missing file, I'll gladly search through the few tens of gigabytes of
> images I've got here.
>

Nothing specific, more general.  By the time of the Hall,  Scherrer, Sventek
ACM paper (September 1980) the VOS was known to have been ported to over 40
differnt machines and over 50 differnt OSes.  I was interested in looking at
reviving and expanding the original idea.  A quick search of the INTERNET
shows at least a half dozen independant projects attempting to implement
Virtual Operating Systems and at least one commercial product (other than
the Java VM which is really just a VOS).  Like many computing projects,
the original work was done by visionaries and went to it's death not because
it was a bad idea, but because time (and technology) wasn't ready for it
yet.  And now we have all these people re-inventing the wheel in a dozen
different and likely incompatable ways.

And, as far as the PDP-11 (my first love!) goes, I see this as being a
possiblity for development of a truly free (as in un-encumbered) OS.
Something that does not exist at this point.  All that would be needed
would be a small kernel to run below the VOS primitives.

I guess I will have to look at what has been pointed out to me so far
and see if there is enough there to make something functional on any
system to serve as the first in a new line of ports.

I appreciate all the help and hope if anyone stumbles on anything
related they will keep me in mind.

All the best.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Warren Toomey]

In article by Bill Gunshannon:
> And, as far as the PDP-11 (my first love!) goes, I see this as being a
> possiblity for development of a truly free (as in un-encumbered) OS.
> Something that does not exist at this point.  All that would be needed
> would be a small kernel to run below the VOS primitives.
> 
> I appreciate all the help and hope if anyone stumbles on anything
> related they will keep me in mind.
> bill

Does anybody have Debbie Scherrer's e-mail address? I would think that
she would be the best person to ask about the whereabouts of VOS.

	Warren

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Warren Toomey wrote:

>
> Does anybody have Debbie Scherrer's e-mail address? I would think that
> she would be the best person to ask about the whereabouts of VOS.
>

Actually, she was my first contact about this.  She is the one who sent me
to USENIX. :-(

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, David C. Jenner wrote:

> Bill,
>
> I can assure you that what you were pointed to at the Ken Yap's Links
> is what you are seeking.  It may not be the final version, but it is
> essentially what I received on a tape 20 years ago.  There's even some
> later material circa 1983, which postdated what I had, in the "Toys" file.

Hmmmm.  I'm beginning to think as it neared the end and interest trailed
off much of the work did not get rolled back in to the base distribution.
My last experience was around 84-85 and it was a package from GA Tech
that ranon the Prime 50 series minis.  It was alot like using Eunice on
a VAX/VMS system.  A quick scan of the stuff from Ken Yap found no mention
of a number of systems that were known to exist by that time.  No PDP-11,
no Prime, some mention of the VAX, no mention of Unix (don't ask me why,
but the VOS was ported to Unix!!).  I guess what I need to do is see what
systems are supported in what I have and try to get a system up again to
check out.

>
> I probably still have the tape, but, it's 20 years old, hasn't been
> used for at least 15 years, who knows what condition it's in, and it's
> not much different than the content on the Web.

What are the odds that a 15 year old tape is even readable today??  I know
when I found the original BSD tapes here even with their being stored in the
computer room, they were unreadable.

>
> You must realize, I guess, that you aren't getting a complete operating
> system when you speak of STVOS, but just a ratfor translator and sources
> for lots of Unix-like utilities.

And primitives to translate between the host OS and the VOS API.

>                                  You need to supply a Fortran compiler
> and operating system on which to build this.

And many were supported.  I was hoping to find enough of them to have a
good example of what problems were run into doing the ports.  Can go a
long way in helping with other porting efforts.  And because the API is
very Unix-like it offers some intersting possibilities for expansion.

>                                               The idea was to make a
> highly-portable set of software development tools and utilities that
> could be ported and used across many OSes, thus making what you develop
> available across many OSes.  There is no OS (i.e., resource management,
> file system, etc.) included.

True.  But a common API with hooks into a number of very different OSes.

>
> What you refer to in your emails about VOS bears little resemblance
> to the STVOS, because STVOS wasn't an OS.

Probably depends on your definition of OS.  It was an ambitious project
at the time and an idea whose time may just now be coming into vogue.

>                                            Today's VOSes, like a Java
> machine, are at least one step beyond the STVOS.

Again, I am not sure I agree.  To me the Java VM is just the UCSD P-machine
warmed over.  One of the reasons things like the P-Machine and VOSes didn't
fly 20 years ago was performance.  We were trying to wring every last bit
(no pun intended!) of performance out of our hardware.  We frequently still
did a lot of our programming in assembler (I was doing things like Prime
50-series and Univac-1100 assembler and almost anything on a micro was either
complete or heavily laced with assembler, LSI-11, Z80, M68K.)  Today, for all
intents and purposes we have cpu cycles to burn.  Look at the popularity of
hardware emulators.  E11, Charon VAX, SIMH.  And people talking about how
these emulators outperform the real hardware and could easily be used as
production systems.  Maybe it's time to look into reviving some of these
ideas, but hopefully, not with a return to the beginning and a total re-
invention of the wheel.

>
> You might want to establish what the final date of release of STVOS
> was to determine what the final version was.  As I recall, it wasn't
> too much later than 1981.  (The Toys tape is 1983.)  Somewhere I have
> a pile of old newsletters that would have the answer, but they're
> boxed away in storage.  I won't be able to dig for them for another
> month.

I know the Prime version was still available until the mid 80's. but much
of this may have been independant work as STUG may have already faded
into the background.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is not wether or not this can be
turned into something usable, but the fact that what was an impressive work
for the time it was done has been allowed to all but disappear.  Maybe I'm
getting maudlin in my old age.  :-)

I appreciate everyone's help and as I said previously, it makes me appreciate
even more the work of Warren and PUPS and Tim Shoppa as well.

All the best.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Mayhew]

> (don't ask me why, but the VOS was ported to Unix!!).

That's easy to answer, recalling some of the burnt and frayed edges of the Good
Old Days ;-)

The question "what *is* UNIX?" was a popular *philosophical* question at the
time, even among people who used UNIX and knew it well, because there were so
many incompatible variants, even on the same hardware, that called themselves
UNIX.

That problem was one of the drivers of the whole Software Tools movement, as I
recall.  ST, including VOS, was viewed as a way of addressing the compatibility
problem, regardless of whether the underlying "real" OS claimed to be UNIX,
UNIX-compatible, UNIX-like, or none-of-the-above.

    -Bill Mayhew

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, David C. Jenner wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I can assure you that what you were pointed to at the Ken Yap's Links
> > is what you are seeking.  It may not be the final version, but it is
> > essentially what I received on a tape 20 years ago.  There's even some
> > later material circa 1983, which postdated what I had, in the "Toys" file.
>
> Hmmmm.  I'm beginning to think as it neared the end and interest trailed
> off much of the work did not get rolled back in to the base distribution.
> My last experience was around 84-85 and it was a package from GA Tech
> that ranon the Prime 50 series minis.  It was alot like using Eunice on
> a VAX/VMS system.  A quick scan of the stuff from Ken Yap found no mention
> of a number of systems that were known to exist by that time.  No PDP-11,
> no Prime, some mention of the VAX, no mention of Unix (don't ask me why,
> but the VOS was ported to Unix!!).  I guess what I need to do is see what
> systems are supported in what I have and try to get a system up again to
> check out.
>
> >
> > I probably still have the tape, but, it's 20 years old, hasn't been
> > used for at least 15 years, who knows what condition it's in, and it's
> > not much different than the content on the Web.
>
> What are the odds that a 15 year old tape is even readable today??  I know
> when I found the original BSD tapes here even with their being stored in the
> computer room, they were unreadable.
>
> >
> > You must realize, I guess, that you aren't getting a complete operating
> > system when you speak of STVOS, but just a ratfor translator and sources
> > for lots of Unix-like utilities.
>
> And primitives to translate between the host OS and the VOS API.
>
> >                                  You need to supply a Fortran compiler
> > and operating system on which to build this.
>
> And many were supported.  I was hoping to find enough of them to have a
> good example of what problems were run into doing the ports.  Can go a
> long way in helping with other porting efforts.  And because the API is
> very Unix-like it offers some intersting possibilities for expansion.
>
> >                                               The idea was to make a
> > highly-portable set of software development tools and utilities that
> > could be ported and used across many OSes, thus making what you develop
> > available across many OSes.  There is no OS (i.e., resource management,
> > file system, etc.) included.
>
> True.  But a common API with hooks into a number of very different OSes.
>
> >
> > What you refer to in your emails about VOS bears little resemblance
> > to the STVOS, because STVOS wasn't an OS.
>
> Probably depends on your definition of OS.  It was an ambitious project
> at the time and an idea whose time may just now be coming into vogue.
>
> >                                            Today's VOSes, like a Java
> > machine, are at least one step beyond the STVOS.
>
> Again, I am not sure I agree.  To me the Java VM is just the UCSD P-machine
> warmed over.  One of the reasons things like the P-Machine and VOSes didn't
> fly 20 years ago was performance.  We were trying to wring every last bit
> (no pun intended!) of performance out of our hardware.  We frequently still
> did a lot of our programming in assembler (I was doing things like Prime
> 50-series and Univac-1100 assembler and almost anything on a micro was either
> complete or heavily laced with assembler, LSI-11, Z80, M68K.)  Today, for all
> intents and purposes we have cpu cycles to burn.  Look at the popularity of
> hardware emulators.  E11, Charon VAX, SIMH.  And people talking about how
> these emulators outperform the real hardware and could easily be used as
> production systems.  Maybe it's time to look into reviving some of these
> ideas, but hopefully, not with a return to the beginning and a total re-
> invention of the wheel.
>
> >
> > You might want to establish what the final date of release of STVOS
> > was to determine what the final version was.  As I recall, it wasn't
> > too much later than 1981.  (The Toys tape is 1983.)  Somewhere I have
> > a pile of old newsletters that would have the answer, but they're
> > boxed away in storage.  I won't be able to dig for them for another
> > month.
>
> I know the Prime version was still available until the mid 80's. but much
> of this may have been independant work as STUG may have already faded
> into the background.
>
> I guess the thing that bothers me the most is not wether or not this can be
> turned into something usable, but the fact that what was an impressive work
> for the time it was done has been allowed to all but disappear.  Maybe I'm
> getting maudlin in my old age.  :-)
>
> I appreciate everyone's help and as I said previously, it makes me appreciate
> even more the work of Warren and PUPS and Tim Shoppa as well.
>
> All the best.
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Bill.Mayhew.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Card for Bill Mayhew
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20011102/80617c7f/attachment.vcf>

[pups] The Software Tools Virtual Operating System

[Bill Gunshannon]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Bill Mayhew wrote:

> > (don't ask me why, but the VOS was ported to Unix!!).
>
> That's easy to answer, recalling some of the burnt and frayed edges of the Good
> Old Days ;-)
>
> The question "what *is* UNIX?" was a popular *philosophical* question at the
> time, even among people who used UNIX and knew it well, because there were so
> many incompatible variants, even on the same hardware, that called themselves
> UNIX.

I would imagine the differences then were minor compared to today.  There
really were only two major variants.  And, because the underlying model of
Unix was also The Software Tools approach, the APIof the VOS, as far as it
went, was of a decidely Unix flavor.

>
> That problem was one of the drivers of the whole Software Tools movement, as I
> recall.  ST, including VOS, was viewed as a way of addressing the compatibility
> problem, regardless of whether the underlying "real" OS claimed to be UNIX,
> UNIX-compatible, UNIX-like, or none-of-the-above.

And this is one of the reasons why I am so interested in reviving the effort.
This need still exists, even among Unix systems, but when you bring none
Unix systems into the picture (yes, they still exist!!) the problem grows
exponentially.

So, let's look backwards a little.  Anybody here remember Eunice on VMS??
How about Primix on Primos??  These were obvious commercial attempts at
the STVOS.  Why did they fail??  Performance.  And a user community unwilling
to accept anything less than the best performance the hardware of the day
could deliver.  The same was true of the P-Machine approach.  While it
offered true binary compatability and portability of applications (anybody
here remember PCD Systems of Penn Yan, NY??) even the minor loss of machine
efficiency made people look at (frequently more expensive) alternatives.

But today, the average user has power to burn.  The Java VM is stting on
top of the world.  And efficiency doesn't even get mentioned in most CS
classrooms.  And there are other examples.  "The POSIX Shell".  CYGWin.
Even DII-COE smacks of it.

And anyway, some of the old ideas are just plain fun.  Why else do we all
spend our free time working with our PDP-11's??  :-)

All the best.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill at cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>