The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [TUHS] 2.10
@ 2014-11-21 15:37 Noel Chiappa
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Noel Chiappa @ 2014-11-21 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)


    > From: Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com>

    > an old Able "Enable" board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory
    > in an 40 class processor (you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22
    > bits of address like the 45 class processors).

But it doesn't add I/D to a machine without it, though, right? (I tried
looking for Enable documentation online, couldn't find any. Does anyone know
of any?)

I recall at MIT we had a board we added to our 11/45 which added a cache, and
the ability to have more than 256KB of memory, but I am unable to remember
much more about it (e.g. who made it, or what it was called) - it must have
been one of these.

I recall we had to set up the various memory maps inside the CPU to
permanently point to various ranges of UNIBUS address space (so that, e.g.
User I space was assigned 400000-577777), and then the memory map inside the
board mapped those out to the full 4MB space; the code changes were (IIRC)
restricted to m45.s; for the rest of the code, we just redefined UISA0 to
point to the one on the added board, etc. And the board had a UNIBUS map to
allow UNIBUS devices access to all of real memory, just like on an 11/70.


    > From: Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>

    > So does that single board contain the memory and everything, or is this
    > a backplane mod/special memory kind of setup?

I honestly don't recall much about how the board we had at MIT worked, but i)
the memory was not on the board itself, and ii) there had to be some kind of
special arrangements for the memory, since the stock UNIBUS only has 18 bits
of address space. IIRC, the thing we had could use standard Extended UNIBUS
memory cards.

I don't recall how the mapping board got access to the memory - whether the
whole works came with a small custom backplane which one stuck between the
CPU and the rest of the system, and into which the new board and the EUB
memory got plugged, or what. I had _thought_ it somehow used the FastBUS
provision in the 11/45 backplane for high-speed memory (since with the board
in, the machine had a basic instruction time of 300nsec if you hit the cache,
just like an 11/70), and plugged in there somewhere, but maybe not, since
apparently this board you have is for a /34? Or maybe there were two
different models, one for the /45 and one for the /34?

    > With the enable34 board, do I have some hope of getting 2.11bsd on this
    > one?

Since I doubt it adds I/D to machines that don't already have it, I would
guess no. Unless somehow one can use overlays, etc, to fit 2.11 into 56KB of
address space (note, not 'memory').

    > I do have an 11/73 I'm working on that could run that build much more
    > easily and appropriately..

That's where I'd go.

I do have that MIT V6 Unix with TCP/IP, where the TCP is almost entirely in
user space (only incoming packet demux, etc is in the kernel), and I have
found backup tapes for it, which are off at an old tape specialist being
read, and the interim reports on readability are good, but until that
happens, I'm not sure we'll be seeing TCP/IP on non-split-I/D machines.

	Noel



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  6:13       ` Jacob Ritorto
@ 2014-11-21 13:06         ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2014-11-21 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4277 bytes --]

Re: enable-34 - There are no backplane mods.  As I recall it used normal
memory, just enabled the top bits in the address map which were not driven
by the 40 class processors.   I'll see if I can dig up some doc for it,
which I might still have.   I'm traveling, so this will have to wait for a
few days.

As for running 2.11bsd - I can't say as I never tried it.  What the enable
board will do it give you 4Megs of memory. By using thunks and the memory
map, the enable will allow the kernel to have I/O buffers, mbufs, and a
kernel I space that can grow beyond the 64k address limit - plus still have
room for  a few user processes in memory at the same time.

RE: ultrix vs BSD 2* -- Once it's running, I don't think you are going to
find a lot differences mostly in what was packaged in the defaults system -
just shades of grey.  Much less than the flavors of Linux these days IMO.

Clem

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hilariously, I actually do have an enable-34 board in my stash.. Just saw
> it in the last week or so & will dig it out in next few days.  So does that
> single board contain the memory and everything, or is this a backplane
> mod/special memory kind of setup?
>
> I'd be eager to run Ultrix jut for the extra flavor (I've only done the
> bsds on my pdp11s thus far), but one of my real desires here is to have the
> machine behave itself as a pretty normal net citizen, connecting through
> some sort of ethernet and running legit telnetd and ftpd.  That said, I
> won't be too sad if that's impossible and kludges are required, but it is
> my initial hope.  I guess I need to first ascertain exactly which 11/34 I
> have, how much ram I can scrounge up, which addressing scheme, etc. then
> move on to what I can actually do, software-wise, with the kit.
>
> With the enable34 board, do I have some hope of getting 2.11bsd on this
> one?  Sounds like that'd avoid a lot of the more sporty software
> modifications and let me have something that works like a "normal"
> modern-ish system.  But then, I do have an 11/73 I'm working on that could
> run that build much more easily and appropriately..  I guess I'm up for
> whatever is most historically appropriate, a good match for the hardware
> and at least able to be present on a contemporary network without
> intermediary kludge hardware.
>
> thx
> jake
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, 2.10 has SLIP,
>>
>> ​SLIP means you still need the IP stack
>> ​ (serial-line-ip)​
>> .  It ​
>> ​just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple userland tool to talk
>>> to a frontend!
>>
>>
>> ​Actually there was tool that was almost all in userland to support
>> multiple sessions over single serial line between a Macs a UNIX system.  My
>> memory is that it used Chesson's multiplexer (mpx) which is part of stock
>> V7 (his is pre-select system call).​  I wish I could remember the name of
>> that program.  But I bet it or something like it could be repurposed pretty
>> quickly to talk to a frontend micro.
>>
>> Biggest issue is interrupt overhead on serial ports on the 11.   If this
>> is real HW, see you can find a real DEC DH or better yet - an Able DH/DM.
>> DH style interfaces will be a huge difference over DL's or DZs.  DZs were
>> pigs on Vaxen and on an 11 a line at 19.2K continuous could kill it.
>>
>> BTW:  I thought of another option.  It's not telnet or ftp, but if your
>> desire is move files back and forth without having to use a common physical
>> media and sneaker-net, BSD 2x should have the BerkNET code in it.   That
>> will run on an serial line - although my previous comment about the type of
>> interface can matter from a performance standpoint.
>>
>> Clem
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TUHS mailing list
>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141121/c5970403/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  5:46     ` Clem Cole
  2014-11-21  6:07       ` Cory Smelosky
@ 2014-11-21  6:13       ` Jacob Ritorto
  2014-11-21 13:06         ` Clem Cole
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Ritorto @ 2014-11-21  6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3199 bytes --]

Hilariously, I actually do have an enable-34 board in my stash.. Just saw
it in the last week or so & will dig it out in next few days.  So does that
single board contain the memory and everything, or is this a backplane
mod/special memory kind of setup?

I'd be eager to run Ultrix jut for the extra flavor (I've only done the
bsds on my pdp11s thus far), but one of my real desires here is to have the
machine behave itself as a pretty normal net citizen, connecting through
some sort of ethernet and running legit telnetd and ftpd.  That said, I
won't be too sad if that's impossible and kludges are required, but it is
my initial hope.  I guess I need to first ascertain exactly which 11/34 I
have, how much ram I can scrounge up, which addressing scheme, etc. then
move on to what I can actually do, software-wise, with the kit.

With the enable34 board, do I have some hope of getting 2.11bsd on this
one?  Sounds like that'd avoid a lot of the more sporty software
modifications and let me have something that works like a "normal"
modern-ish system.  But then, I do have an 11/73 I'm working on that could
run that build much more easily and appropriately..  I guess I'm up for
whatever is most historically appropriate, a good match for the hardware
and at least able to be present on a contemporary network without
intermediary kludge hardware.

thx
jake



On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, 2.10 has SLIP,
>
> ​SLIP means you still need the IP stack
> ​ (serial-line-ip)​
> .  It ​
> ​just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.
>
>
>
>
>> but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple userland tool to talk
>> to a frontend!
>
>
> ​Actually there was tool that was almost all in userland to support
> multiple sessions over single serial line between a Macs a UNIX system.  My
> memory is that it used Chesson's multiplexer (mpx) which is part of stock
> V7 (his is pre-select system call).​  I wish I could remember the name of
> that program.  But I bet it or something like it could be repurposed pretty
> quickly to talk to a frontend micro.
>
> Biggest issue is interrupt overhead on serial ports on the 11.   If this
> is real HW, see you can find a real DEC DH or better yet - an Able DH/DM.
> DH style interfaces will be a huge difference over DL's or DZs.  DZs were
> pigs on Vaxen and on an 11 a line at 19.2K continuous could kill it.
>
> BTW:  I thought of another option.  It's not telnet or ftp, but if your
> desire is move files back and forth without having to use a common physical
> media and sneaker-net, BSD 2x should have the BerkNET code in it.   That
> will run on an serial line - although my previous comment about the type of
> interface can matter from a performance standpoint.
>
> Clem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141121/7fbbc1d9/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  5:46     ` Clem Cole
@ 2014-11-21  6:07       ` Cory Smelosky
  2014-11-21  6:13       ` Jacob Ritorto
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Cory Smelosky @ 2014-11-21  6:07 UTC (permalink / raw)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Clem Cole wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
>
> ​just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.
>

Mmmm, right.  I figured.

>
>
>
> BTW:  I thought of another option.  It's not telnet or ftp, but if your
> desire is move files back and forth without having to use a common physical
> media and sneaker-net, BSD 2x should have the BerkNET code in it.   That
> will run on an serial line - although my previous comment about the type of
> interface can matter from a performance standpoint.
>

I take it you actually understand BERKNET's addressing then?  I could 
never figure it out!

> Clem
>

-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  4:55   ` Cory Smelosky
@ 2014-11-21  5:46     ` Clem Cole
  2014-11-21  6:07       ` Cory Smelosky
  2014-11-21  6:13       ` Jacob Ritorto
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2014-11-21  5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1551 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:

> Well, 2.10 has SLIP,

​SLIP means you still need the IP stack
​ (serial-line-ip)​
.  It ​
​just replaces an ethernet driver with a serial port.




> but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple userland tool to talk
> to a frontend!


​Actually there was tool that was almost all in userland to support
multiple sessions over single serial line between a Macs a UNIX system.  My
memory is that it used Chesson's multiplexer (mpx) which is part of stock
V7 (his is pre-select system call).​  I wish I could remember the name of
that program.  But I bet it or something like it could be repurposed pretty
quickly to talk to a frontend micro.

Biggest issue is interrupt overhead on serial ports on the 11.   If this is
real HW, see you can find a real DEC DH or better yet - an Able DH/DM.  DH
style interfaces will be a huge difference over DL's or DZs.  DZs were pigs
on Vaxen and on an 11 a line at 19.2K continuous could kill it.

BTW:  I thought of another option.  It's not telnet or ftp, but if your
desire is move files back and forth without having to use a common physical
media and sneaker-net, BSD 2x should have the BerkNET code in it.   That
will run on an serial line - although my previous comment about the type of
interface can matter from a performance standpoint.

Clem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/ab5a1bb6/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  4:43 ` Clem Cole
@ 2014-11-21  4:55   ` Cory Smelosky
  2014-11-21  5:46     ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Cory Smelosky @ 2014-11-21  4:55 UTC (permalink / raw)


On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Clem Cole wrote:

> I don't think the BSD networking code in 2.10 worked on systems with only
> 256K bytes of memory.  The kernel is too big even without networking and a
> lot of work was done to push things out of the kernel. [The 17th bit (split
> I/D) really only mattered for user space, the kernel mapped things around -
> but with only 18 bits of address map there is not much space]. Adding
> networking and in particular the space for the mbuf's becomes a real issue.
>

It's unsupported; see my email where I pasted the "HCL" from 2.10's 
GENERIC config.

>
> Here are some thoughts..
>
> 1.) Easiest/Cheapest solution might be to front end the system with an RPi,
> Intel Edison or the like and run the IP stack on it and then use one or
> more serial ports from the micro to 11.
>

Well, 2.10 has SLIP, but it'd certainly be easier to implement a simple 
userland tool to talk to a frontend!

> 2.) See if you can dig up an old copy of the 3 COM's first product - UNET -
> which was the original TCP/IP for V7.  It's old and not very sexy, but the
> kernel requirements are minimal and if all you want it telnet & FTP that
> will work.
>

That I am pretty sure I DO NOT have source for.

> 3.) If you have real hardware, see if you can find an old Able "Enable"
> board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory in an 40 class processor
> (you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22 bits of address like the 45
> class processors).   I had 2.X working on that years ago (and wrote a
> USENIX paper on it).  The Enable board support was in the BSD 2*
> distributions (I put there) but I doubt its been tried in many years.
>

That sounds like a neat board.  Betting it's a bit hard to find, though. 
;)

> 4.) Ultrix-11 should boot on a 40 class system, but I do not remember if on
> the 18 bit machines you could configure networking.   Armando might
> remember if Fred ever made that work.  If any one could have or would have,
> it would have been Fred.  As I said, there just is not a lot of space and
> frankly there is not going to be a lot of space left for user programs.
>

I'd check but I'm pretty sure I don't have Ultrix-11 sources. :(

> Clem
>
> PS I remember running V6 on 11/34 with 48K bytes of memory for a few months
> as our memory for that system was back ordered.  It was slow, but it worked
> and we were happy.  It was our machine!!
>

What were you using for paging/swapping on that?

-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  1:32 Jacob Ritorto
  2014-11-21  1:56 ` Nick Downing
       [not found] ` <CA+oaVqwGKiOPKm8Bz62Z0s9dEYiAbTXR9=WrQyjqGFX-uaYmjQ@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2014-11-21  4:43 ` Clem Cole
  2014-11-21  4:55   ` Cory Smelosky
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2014-11-21  4:43 UTC (permalink / raw)


I don't think the BSD networking code in 2.10 worked on systems with only
256K bytes of memory.  The kernel is too big even without networking and a
lot of work was done to push things out of the kernel. [The 17th bit (split
I/D) really only mattered for user space, the kernel mapped things around -
but with only 18 bits of address map there is not much space]. Adding
networking and in particular the space for the mbuf's becomes a real issue.


Here are some thoughts..

1.) Easiest/Cheapest solution might be to front end the system with an RPi,
Intel Edison or the like and run the IP stack on it and then use one or
more serial ports from the micro to 11.

2.) See if you can dig up an old copy of the 3 COM's first product - UNET -
which was the original TCP/IP for V7.  It's old and not very sexy, but the
kernel requirements are minimal and if all you want it telnet & FTP that
will work.

3.) If you have real hardware, see if you can find an old Able "Enable"
board which will allow you to put 4Megs of memory in an 40 class processor
(you get a cache plus a new memory MAP with 22 bits of address like the 45
class processors).   I had 2.X working on that years ago (and wrote a
USENIX paper on it).  The Enable board support was in the BSD 2*
distributions (I put there) but I doubt its been tried in many years.

4.) Ultrix-11 should boot on a 40 class system, but I do not remember if on
the 18 bit machines you could configure networking.   Armando might
remember if Fred ever made that work.  If any one could have or would have,
it would have been Fred.  As I said, there just is not a lot of space and
frankly there is not going to be a lot of space left for user programs.

Clem

PS I remember running V6 on 11/34 with 48K bytes of memory for a few months
as our memory for that system was back ordered.  It was slow, but it worked
and we were happy.  It was our machine!!

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>   Wanting to set up an 11/34 or 11/23 with a unix that's at least
> contemporary enough to run telnet and ftp.  From what I can gather on line,
> I guess 2.10 is the best shot, but it's apparently a little less popular
> and I can't fin enough docs about it to determine if it'll run with the
> hardware I have.  Am I on the right track here, or should I be considering
> backporting the programs to 2.9?  Pointers to 2.10 Setup manual would be
> most welcome as well as suggestions on where to find other resources to
> meet this goal..
>
> thx
> jake
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/cebdf591/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  3:36     ` Cory Smelosky
@ 2014-11-21  4:02       ` Cory Smelosky
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Cory Smelosky @ 2014-11-21  4:02 UTC (permalink / raw)


On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
>
>> Jim / Nick,  That's kinda my problem: can't find enough documentation on
>> 2.10 to ascertain if I can / should run it. I know 2.9 is OK for the 11/34,
>> but 2.9 doesn't have telnet or ftp and I want this machine to be easily
>> reachable on the net.
>> 
>
> Was it branched from the CSRG tree or was it implemented third-party?  I can 
> search my copy of the SCCS tree and see what it would've included if the 
> former is the case.
>

Oh, nevermind.  Looks like I have an archive containing 2.10 source and 
(maybe) some binaries.

# Machine type
# 2.10 runs on:
#	11/24/34/44/53/60/70/73/83/84
#	11/23/35/40/45/50/55 with 18 or 22 bit addressing
# 2.10 WILL NOT run on:
#	T11, 11/03/04/05/10/15/20/21
#	11/23/35/40/45/50/55 with 16 bit addressing
# 2.10 networking will run on:
#	11/44/53/70/73/83/84
#	11/45/50/55 with 18 bit addressing

#ifndef lint
static char sccsid[] = "@(#)telnetd.c   5.19 (Berkeley) 7/27/87";
#endif not lint


-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  3:25   ` Jacob Ritorto
@ 2014-11-21  3:36     ` Cory Smelosky
  2014-11-21  4:02       ` Cory Smelosky
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Cory Smelosky @ 2014-11-21  3:36 UTC (permalink / raw)


On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Jacob Ritorto wrote:

> Jim / Nick,  That's kinda my problem: can't find enough documentation on
> 2.10 to ascertain if I can / should run it. I know 2.9 is OK for the 11/34,
> but 2.9 doesn't have telnet or ftp and I want this machine to be easily
> reachable on the net.
>

Was it branched from the CSRG tree or was it implemented third-party?  I 
can search my copy of the SCCS tree and see what it would've included if 
the former is the case.

>  From what I've read, 2.11 is right out except for the little glimmer of
> hope in the docs that it "would probably only require a moderate amount of
> squeezing to fit on machines with less memory, but it would also be very
> unhappy about the prospect," which I think roughly translates to, "don't
> try it on a puny thing like an 11/34."
>
>  I wonder if porting telnet and ftp to 2.9 on the 11/34 would be my best
> hope?  But with a much more antique tcp stack, it sounds daunting.
>

Wonder if ULTRIX-11 would work on an 11/34 or if the usermode stack would 
run under MINIX-UNIX

>

-- 
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
       [not found] ` <CA+oaVqwGKiOPKm8Bz62Z0s9dEYiAbTXR9=WrQyjqGFX-uaYmjQ@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2014-11-21  3:25   ` Jacob Ritorto
  2014-11-21  3:36     ` Cory Smelosky
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Ritorto @ 2014-11-21  3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)


Jim / Nick,  That's kinda my problem: can't find enough documentation on
2.10 to ascertain if I can / should run it. I know 2.9 is OK for the 11/34,
but 2.9 doesn't have telnet or ftp and I want this machine to be easily
reachable on the net.

  From what I've read, 2.11 is right out except for the little glimmer of
hope in the docs that it "would probably only require a moderate amount of
squeezing to fit on machines with less memory, but it would also be very
unhappy about the prospect," which I think roughly translates to, "don't
try it on a puny thing like an 11/34."

  I wonder if porting telnet and ftp to 2.9 on the 11/34 would be my best
hope?  But with a much more antique tcp stack, it sounds daunting.


On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 2.10 and 2.11 require split I/D, right? I'm positive 2.9 was the
> latest I could run on my 11/34.
>
> Jim
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/7e451367/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
  2014-11-21  1:32 Jacob Ritorto
@ 2014-11-21  1:56 ` Nick Downing
       [not found] ` <CA+oaVqwGKiOPKm8Bz62Z0s9dEYiAbTXR9=WrQyjqGFX-uaYmjQ@mail.gmail.com>
  2014-11-21  4:43 ` Clem Cole
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nick Downing @ 2014-11-21  1:56 UTC (permalink / raw)


Is there any special reason why you want to use 2.09 or 2.10 rather than
the latest, 2.11? Is it because of your hardware requirements, I think
possibly 2.11 requires split I/D right? Anyway the best way to answer your
question is to try it out in SIMH. I do know that 2.11 has a modern TCP/IP
stack, which is backported from 4.3 or thereabouts (it does not suppprt
some advanced features such as syn cookies, so it was not backported from
the latest, but it's pretty modern still). I would be interested to know if
2.09 or 2.10 have the same TCP/IP stack as 2.11, my feeling is they don't.
cheers, Nick
On 21/11/2014 12:34 PM, "Jacob Ritorto" <jacob.ritorto at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>   Wanting to set up an 11/34 or 11/23 with a unix that's at least
> contemporary enough to run telnet and ftp.  From what I can gather on line,
> I guess 2.10 is the best shot, but it's apparently a little less popular
> and I can't fin enough docs about it to determine if it'll run with the
> hardware I have.  Am I on the right track here, or should I be considering
> backporting the programs to 2.9?  Pointers to 2.10 Setup manual would be
> most welcome as well as suggestions on where to find other resources to
> meet this goal..
>
> thx
> jake
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141121/251bc9ad/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] 2.10
@ 2014-11-21  1:32 Jacob Ritorto
  2014-11-21  1:56 ` Nick Downing
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Ritorto @ 2014-11-21  1:32 UTC (permalink / raw)


Hi all,
  Wanting to set up an 11/34 or 11/23 with a unix that's at least
contemporary enough to run telnet and ftp.  From what I can gather on line,
I guess 2.10 is the best shot, but it's apparently a little less popular
and I can't fin enough docs about it to determine if it'll run with the
hardware I have.  Am I on the right track here, or should I be considering
backporting the programs to 2.9?  Pointers to 2.10 Setup manual would be
most welcome as well as suggestions on where to find other resources to
meet this goal..

thx
jake
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20141120/81febd5b/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-11-21 15:37 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-11-21 15:37 [TUHS] 2.10 Noel Chiappa
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-11-21  1:32 Jacob Ritorto
2014-11-21  1:56 ` Nick Downing
     [not found] ` <CA+oaVqwGKiOPKm8Bz62Z0s9dEYiAbTXR9=WrQyjqGFX-uaYmjQ@mail.gmail.com>
2014-11-21  3:25   ` Jacob Ritorto
2014-11-21  3:36     ` Cory Smelosky
2014-11-21  4:02       ` Cory Smelosky
2014-11-21  4:43 ` Clem Cole
2014-11-21  4:55   ` Cory Smelosky
2014-11-21  5:46     ` Clem Cole
2014-11-21  6:07       ` Cory Smelosky
2014-11-21  6:13       ` Jacob Ritorto
2014-11-21 13:06         ` Clem Cole

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).