[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Michele Ghisolfo]

 Hi,

 I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
read.

 It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Michael Kerpan]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
> is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
> read.
>
>  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
> for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is
still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a
whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is
available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix
implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's
from the same era and has many of the same abilities.

Mike

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Jim Capp]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1570 bytes --]

Michele,

Some time ago, SCO made its source code available under an "Ancient UNIX" license.  That is also very close to SVR4.  I don't have the details at hand, but perhaps someone on this list does.

Is there a reason you need to see the source code specifically for SVR4?

Cheers,

Jim


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kerpan" <madcrow.maxwell@gmail.com>
To: "Michele Ghisolfo" <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com>
Cc: TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:42:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
> is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
> read.
>
>  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
> for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is
still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a
whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is
available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix
implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's
from the same era and has many of the same abilities.

Mike
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Al Kossow]

> Some time ago, SCO made its source code available under an "Ancient UNIX" license.  That is also very close to SVR4.

Not really.
The agreement does not cover any variant of System V.

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Jason Stevens]

Yeah it went as far as SYSIII ... which on SIMH/VAX was... involved to get
running.

But that was the old "SCO Ancient License" thing I wonder how many were
sold...?  Mine was numbered around 1500 ....

I guess I could try to put it online if there was even interest in that kind
of thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110714/8fd4d1ea/attachment.html>

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Random832]

On 7/14/2011 1:46 PM, Jason Stevens wrote:
> Yeah it went as far as SYSIII ... which on SIMH/VAX was... involved to 
> get running.
>
> But that was the old "SCO Ancient License" thing I wonder how many 
> were sold...?  Mine was numbered around 1500 ....
>
> I guess I could try to put it online if there was even interest in 
> that kind of thing.
I think the unix archive has SysIII for the PDP-11. (or is this unix 
trees page not actually part of the unix archive? since i can't see the 
corresponding tar)

http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII

I don't know what license it's made public under, since the Caldera 
License specifically excludes SysIII
ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Caldera-license.pdf

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[John Cowan]

Random832 scripsit:

> I think the unix archive has SysIII for the PDP-11. (or is this unix  
> trees page not actually part of the unix archive? since i can't see the  
> corresponding tar)
>
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII
>
> I don't know what license it's made public under, 

Apparently it's bootleg; that page says it's "floating around the web".
But I doubt whoever owns System III rights today will sue.

-- 
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML      John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker       cowan at ccil.org
saying "No information items inside".           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Eve Maler

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Wesley Parish]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]

For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major
contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it.

From what I've read, people bought SVRx for the source code license, and then
bought the 4.xBSD for the reliability and usability.

And yes, it would be nice if the entire SysVRx source trees were released under
a suitable FOSS license; but I think the usefulness of such a gesture would be
in stymieing any future "The SCO Group" shenanigans, and I don't know that such
acts of self-preservation are quite the flavour of the month with modern
software companies.

Wesley Parish

Quoting Michael Kerpan <madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  Hi,
> >
> >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.
>  It
> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
> > read.
> >
> >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4
> kernel
> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is
> still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a
> whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is
> available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix
> implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's
> from the same era and has many of the same abilities.
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> TUH S mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s
>  



"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" 
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge

"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!" 
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the 
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Nick Downing]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3308 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Wesley Parish
<wes.parish at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major
> contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it.

My understanding had been that BSD and SysV were quite distinct and
that BSD forked off around the early research editions (V6 or V7?), if
indeed 4.3BSD was a major contributor to SVR4 then it would have been
in a few specific areas, e.g. the sockets code, because SysV had its
own competing idea called STREAMS that I believe was later discarded
(or not used much) when the BSD sockets API became the de facto
standard.  Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of
development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think
is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because
AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was
merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create
Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have
things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm
this?

cheers, Nick

> From what I've read, people bought SVRx for the source code license, and then
> bought the 4.xBSD for the reliability and usability.
>
> And yes, it would be nice if the entire SysVRx source trees were released under
> a suitable FOSS license; but I think the usefulness of such a gesture would be
> in stymieing any future "The SCO Group" shenanigans, and I don't know that such
> acts of self-preservation are quite the flavour of the month with modern
> software companies.
>
> Wesley Parish
>
> Quoting Michael Kerpan <madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >  Hi,
>> >
>> >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.
>>  It
>> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
>> > read.
>> >
>> >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4
>> kernel
>> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TUHS mailing list
>> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>> OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is
>> still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a
>> whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is
>> available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix
>> implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's
>> from the same era and has many of the same abilities.
>>
>> Mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> TUH S mailing list
>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s
>>
>
>
>
> "Sharpened hands are happy hands.
> "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
> - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
>
> "I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"
> I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
> other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Doug McIntyre]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 07:53:46PM +1000, Nick Downing wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Wesley Parish
> <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major
> > contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it.
> 
> My understanding had been that BSD and SysV were quite distinct and
> that BSD forked off around the early research editions (V6 or V7?), 

Prior to SVR4, there were the two camps, with SVR3 being "business"
and BSD mostly being University/Research. With SVR4, things became
alot less distinct, and it was really only the linux camp that really
kept beating the drum that they were still so different. 

> if indeed 4.3BSD was a major contributor to SVR4 then it would have been
> in a few specific areas, 

It was more Sun with 4BSD based SunOS that contributed into SVR4 than
4.3BSD proper. At the time, that was some University somewhere, not what was
current in the Unix world.

> e.g. the sockets code, because SysV had its
> own competing idea called STREAMS that I believe was later discarded
> (or not used much) when the BSD sockets API became the de facto
> standard.  

There's both the STREAMS API (more properly XTI/TPI) and the STREAMS
Kernel network processing paths. XTI/TPI have died by the wayside
surplanted by the Sockets API, but the STREAMS kernel stuff is still
very much part of Solaris. To me, it seemed like Sun never really gave
all that it did for the streams kernel stuff back into SVR4, but alot
of the networking code seemed to be an early draft of what Solaris did
with it. Any SVR4 varients still ran with the streams networking kernel code.

> Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of
> development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think
> is one example),

Yes SunOS was definately 4.xBSD and had lots of research and
innovation I think. The big Sun Whitepaper book of research papers is 
pretty interesting reading.

>  but was discarded as a political decision because
> AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was
> merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create
> Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have
> things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm
> this?

I didnt see AT&T driving new "business" aspects of any flavor of
unix. They already had that perception going strong in the
market. AT&T's goals were more of uniting the various paths of unix
that were really already out. From the many BSD based systems with
SysV influences (ie. SunOS, Ultrix), and the Sys III type systems, to
the really strange one-off research type systems. All into one grand
unified Unix to take over the market. Until the revolt for having 
AT&T be the overlord master overtook them and shattered it all again. 

Sun and AT&T were partners developing SVR4 to some extent. Some of
Sun's tech went into SVR4 (based on their 4BSD based SunOS). To me, as
an outsider, it seemed Sun kept alot of tech to itself and rolled it
into Solaris. At the time, Sun's stated reason for creating Solaris
was to move to multi-processor machines, and that the 4BSD based code
had too many global-locks (something that FreeBSD had struggled with
even relatively recently), and moving to the new architecture would be
a lot easier for the future and would help them overcome those
limitations. Of course, this migration probably took far far longer than
they ever expected. But once Solaris actually became usable, it certainly did
rock a lot more than SunOS on the hardware it was tweaked for.

I didn't see Sun as not holding back on licensing SVR4. They seemed to
get what they wanted out of the deal with AT&T, and created Solaris as
their desired path out of the deficits they had with SunOS with the
partners they had on hand. 

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Larry McVoy]

> There's both the STREAMS API (more properly XTI/TPI) and the STREAMS
> Kernel network processing paths. XTI/TPI have died by the wayside
> surplanted by the Sockets API, but the STREAMS kernel stuff is still
> very much part of Solaris. To me, it seemed like Sun never really gave
> all that it did for the streams kernel stuff back into SVR4, but alot
> of the networking code seemed to be an early draft of what Solaris did
> with it. Any SVR4 varients still ran with the streams networking kernel code.

This is correct, I'm intimately familiar with that STREAMS networking 
stack, it came from Lachman and I ported it twice, to the ETA 10 and
SCO.  If anyone cares, http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/sw.shar is a "streams
watch" package I wrote (and SCO shipped, at least for a while) that 
let you see the resources being used by the kernel for the networking
stack.

The Sun code was a purchase of Lachman's code.  That didn't last long
because of the terms of the purchase, then my memory is Sun did their
own stuff and then eventually contracted a rewrite out to the Mentat
folks.  If anyone cares, I just went canoeing with one the main 
networking engineers at Sun at the time and I can get the exact 
details.

The whole SVR4/STREAMS thing was a frigging mess, sockets were a much
superior model and they eventually came back.

> > Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of
> > development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think
> > is one example),
> 
> Yes SunOS was definately 4.xBSD and had lots of research and
> innovation I think. The big Sun Whitepaper book of research papers is 
> pretty interesting reading.

Shared libaries, loadable modules, VFS, NFS, mmap all came from Sun.

> >  but was discarded as a political decision because
> > AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was
> > merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create
> > Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have
> > things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm
> > this?

This is wrong.  Sun needed money and AT&T agreed to buy stock at over
market but the terms of the deal was that Sun had to dump SunOS and 
use SVR4 instead.  It was a horrible decision and one that I spent
almost a year fighting full time.  I took SunOS and removed all 
encumbered source from the kernel and had a kernel that booted and
ran almost all applications (there were some tty drivers that didn't
work for some 3rd party cards, stuff like that, but for 99% of the
stuff you couldn't tell it wasn't the regular SunOS).  I wrote up a
paper about all this, trying to get Sun to give that kernel away
as open source:

http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html

> Sun and AT&T were partners developing SVR4 to some extent. Some of
> Sun's tech went into SVR4 (based on their 4BSD based SunOS). To me, as
> an outsider, it seemed Sun kept alot of tech to itself and rolled it
> into Solaris. 

Yup.

> But once Solaris actually became usable, it certainly did
> rock a lot more than SunOS on the hardware it was tweaked for.

SunOS would have worked fine and was a much, much, MUCH better starting
point.  We had it working on multi processors and the underlying code
would have been easier to make scale than that steaming pile of crap
that was SVR4.

If I had been successful getting SunOS out as open source, Linux wouldn't
exist, we'd all be running SunOS.  I tried.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[John Cowan]

Doug McIntyre scripsit:

> Prior to SVR4, there were the two camps, with SVR3 being "business"
> and BSD mostly being University/Research. With SVR4, things became
> alot less distinct, and it was really only the linux camp that really
> kept beating the drum that they were still so different. 

Eh?  SVR4 was released in 1988.  Linux didn't even exist until three
years later, and there wasn't much of a Linux community for at least
two years after that.

-- 
As we all know, civil libertarians are not      John Cowan
the friskiest group around --comes from         cowan at ccil.org
forever being on the qui vive for the sound     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
of jack-booted fascism coming down the pike.           --Molly Ivins

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Warner Losh]

On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:16 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> Doug McIntyre scripsit:
> 
>> Prior to SVR4, there were the two camps, with SVR3 being "business"
>> and BSD mostly being University/Research. With SVR4, things became
>> alot less distinct, and it was really only the linux camp that really
>> kept beating the drum that they were still so different. 
> 
> Eh?  SVR4 was released in 1988.  Linux didn't even exist until three
> years later, and there wasn't much of a Linux community for at least
> two years after that.

And once the Linux community developed, they tended to view BSD vs SYS V as being more different than they actually were...

Warner

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Nick Downing]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3308 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Wesley Parish
<wes.parish at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> For what it's worth, if I remember correctly, 4.3BSD was one of the major
> contributions to SVR4. I suspect that if it hadn't been, nobody would've bought it.

My understanding had been that BSD and SysV were quite distinct and
that BSD forked off around the early research editions (V6 or V7?), if
indeed 4.3BSD was a major contributor to SVR4 then it would have been
in a few specific areas, e.g. the sockets code, because SysV had its
own competing idea called STREAMS that I believe was later discarded
(or not used much) when the BSD sockets API became the de facto
standard.  Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of
development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think
is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because
AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was
merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create
Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have
things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm
this?

cheers, Nick

> From what I've read, people bought SVRx for the source code license, and then
> bought the 4.xBSD for the reliability and usability.
>
> And yes, it would be nice if the entire SysVRx source trees were released under
> a suitable FOSS license; but I think the usefulness of such a gesture would be
> in stymieing any future "The SCO Group" shenanigans, and I don't know that such
> acts of self-preservation are quite the flavour of the month with modern
> software companies.
>
> Wesley Parish
>
> Quoting Michael Kerpan <madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >  Hi,
>> >
>> >  I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.
>>  It
>> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
>> > read.
>> >
>> >  It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4
>> kernel
>> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TUHS mailing list
>> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>> OpenSolaris is derived from SVR4 and much of the userland stuff is
>> still quite similar to the original release. Sadly, System V as a
>> whole is still regarded as a commercial product and no source is
>> available. If you want the source code for a decent early-90s Unix
>> implementation, I'd take a look at 4.4BSD. It's not SVR4, but it's
>> from the same era and has many of the same abilities.
>>
>> Mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> TUH S mailing list
>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s
>>
>
>
>
> "Sharpened hands are happy hands.
> "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
> - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
>
> "I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"
> I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
> other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 12 Jul 2011, at 10:57, Nick Downing wrote:

> Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of
> development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think
> is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because
> AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was
> merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create
> Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have
> things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm
> this?

I think that's basically correct, although in some technical sense "SunOS" is still the name for the OS component of Solaris (or was until recently - Oracle have probably renamed it), so you probably mean "SunOS n" where n<=4.

I think (though I am not sure) that a lot of the virtual memory and shared library stuff which originated in SunOS 4 moved wholesale into SunOS 5, as well.

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Nick Downing]

Yes, but I think the SunOS 4 shared library stuff was based on a.out,
I remember looking at the ld.so source code and thinking how simple
and elegant it all was, until those SysV people got their hands on it
and created ELF ;)  What SysV release introduced ELF though?
cheers, Nick

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 10:57, Nick Downing wrote:
>
>> Also as I understand it, SunOS was a BSD which had heaps of
>> development and original ideas put into it (shared libraries I think
>> is one example), but was discarded as a political decision because
>> AT&T had managed to convince most corporate customers that BSD was
>> merely a hack and SysV was the "real unix", so Sun decided to create
>> Solaris instead by licensing SysV as a starting point, I may have
>> things slightly backward so I would appreciate if anyone can confirm
>> this?
>
> I think that's basically correct, although in some technical sense "SunOS" is still the name for the OS component of Solaris (or was until recently - Oracle have probably renamed it), so you probably mean "SunOS n" where n<=4.
>
> I think (though I am not sure) that a lot of the virtual memory and shared library stuff which originated in SunOS 4 moved wholesale into SunOS 5, as well.

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Sergio Aguayo]

If you're reading the Lion's book, better get Unix V6 from the archive. SVR4 is quite different in many aspects.

Best regards,

Sergio Aguayo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michele Ghisolfo" <ghisolfo.m@gmail.com>
To: TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:29:58 AM
Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

 Hi,

 I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
read.

 It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?

_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Michele Ghisolfo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit :
> >   Hi,
> >
> >   I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
> > read.
> >
> >   It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Try this :
> 
> ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Cyrille Lefevre


I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named
"usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule
client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field.

What I am doing wrong?

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Jason Stevens]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1164 bytes --]

Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting.

Also google "john titor" ..  There is a VERY interesting torrent out there.

On Monday, July 11, 2011, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
>> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit :
>> >   Hi,
>> >
>> >   I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
>> > is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
>> > read.
>> >
>> >   It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
>> > for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Try this :
>>
>> ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Cyrille Lefevre
>
>
> I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named
> "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule
> client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field.
>
> What I am doing wrong?
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Michele Ghisolfo]

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 17:56 -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
> Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting.
> 
> Also google "john titor" ..  There is a VERY interesting torrent out there.

You are right: I'm going off-topic. My apologies.

Anyway I seem to recall that Usl (UNIX System Laboratories) was the
ancestor of SysV...

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Warren Toomey]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:08:17PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote:
> Anyway I seem to recall that USL (UNIX System Laboratories) was the
> ancestor of SysV...

USL was the organisation that developed the commercial versions of Unix,
including System III and System V.

Cheers,
	Warren

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Milo Velimirović]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1506 bytes --]


On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Jason Stevens wrote:

> Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting.

Is there another way to retrieve this content? My campus has draconian limitations on P2P.

Thx, Milo
> 
> Also google "john titor" ..  There is a VERY interesting torrent out there.
> 
> On Monday, July 11, 2011, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
>>> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit :
>>>>   Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>   I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.  It
>>>> is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
>>>> read.
>>>> 
>>>>   It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4 kernel
>>>> for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Try this :
>>> 
>>> ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Cyrille Lefevre
>> 
>> 
>> I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named
>> "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule
>> client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field.
>> 
>> What I am doing wrong?
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TUHS mailing list
>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Jason Stevens]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1941 bytes --]

overplay.net?

I donno, in the 1980's you'd have more to worry about then campus people if
you had sysv source.... lol

2011/7/12 Milo Velimirović <mvelimirovic at uwlax.edu>

>
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Jason Stevens wrote:
>
> > Feed it to Emule.... It sounds interesting.
>
> Is there another way to retrieve this content? My campus has draconian
> limitations on P2P.
>
> Thx, Milo
> >
> > Also google "john titor" ..  There is a VERY interesting torrent out
> there.
> >
> > On Monday, July 11, 2011, Michele Ghisolfo <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 23:25 +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> >>> Le 11/07/2011 12:29, Michele Ghisolfo a écrit :
> >>>>   Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>   I'm currently reading J. Lion's commentary of Unix Code Level Six.
>  It
> >>>> is the most useful commentary to operating system kernel I have ever
> >>>> read.
> >>>>
> >>>>   It would be really useful to also have the source code of SVR4
> kernel
> >>>> for Intel x86.  Does anyone have that?
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Try this :
> >>>
> >>>
> ed2k://|file|usl-4x-source.emulecollection|84|A15FBAA27D00C2C4147EA58EAB629B1C|h=VHD37XHFUXWKQJMQUWGNXZHD6NCQONEQ|/
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Cyrille Lefevre
> >>
> >>
> >> I downloaded it and I only got a 4k file named
> >> "usl-4x-source.emulecollection". Doesn't seem a tar. I'm using aMule
> >> client and I put the address on the "ed2k Link" field.
> >>
> >> What I am doing wrong?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TUHS mailing list
> >> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> >> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20110712/f1d50420/attachment.html>

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Sergio Aguayo]

There is a somewhat modern port of V6 to the 286, which is in the archive (http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Other/V6on286/). There is also a modern x86 port of V7 available at http://www.nordier.com/v7x86/ This one is more interesting as it aims to run in modern machines and includes a bootable CD image.

Best regards,

Sergio Aguayo


----- Mensaje original -----
De: "Michele Ghisolfo" <ghisolfo.m at gmail.com>
Para: "Sergio Aguayo" <sergioag at qmailhosting.net>
Enviados: Lunes, 11 de Julio 2011 7:02:37
Asunto: Re: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 08:50 -0400, Sergio Aguayo wrote:
> If you're reading the Lion's book, better get Unix V6 from the archive. SVR4 is quite different in many aspects.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sergio Aguayo

I got them, but they work on PDP-11.  I'd like to see an version of Unix
working on Intel x86.  As far as I know, SVR4 was the first Unix working
on this architecture. 

If I recall correctly Unix V6 was only ported on Interdata 7/32
computers.  I'd like to get the sources of a small Unix kernel working
on x86.

Has anyone ported Unix V6 on x86?


Thanks for your replies,
	-- Michele

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Norman Wilson]

Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here,
SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL
(the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun.
The intent was to bring together the two different
commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred
to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX).

I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but
well off to the side of the effort, in a research
group where we tended (foolishly) to look down
our noses a bit at the whole thing.  I do know that
there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL
about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it
wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there
were similar feelings going the other way.  On
the other hand there were some pretty smart
people involved at a technical level on all
sides.

Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms
being injected into a USG system or vice versa.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Michele Ghisolfo]

> Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here,
> SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL
> (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun.
> The intent was to bring together the two different
> commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred
> to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX).
> 
> I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but
> well off to the side of the effort, in a research
> group where we tended (foolishly) to look down
> our noses a bit at the whole thing.  I do know that
> there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL
> about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it
> wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there
> were similar feelings going the other way.  On
> the other hand there were some pretty smart
> people involved at a technical level on all
> sides.
> 
> Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms
> being injected into a USG system or vice versa.
> 
> Norman Wilson
> Toronto ON

Thanks, Norman.  This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV.

I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all
UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly).  The last Research
Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix.  Is the source code of
releases 8, 9 and 10 available?  Are there other commentaries of ancient
Research Unixes, like Lions book?


Thanks,
  --Michele

P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion.  I realized my
mistake just after I sent the mail.  I'm really sorry!

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Larry McVoy]

"Joint project".  Hmm, I was at Sun at the time, John Pope was across
the hall from me, he did the SVR4 port to Sun/SPARC.

To call this joint is complete nonsense.  Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T
wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning.  The
story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun 
stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD
based SunOS and go to SVR4.  

Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote:
> > Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here,
> > SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL
> > (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun.
> > The intent was to bring together the two different
> > commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred
> > to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX).
> > 
> > I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but
> > well off to the side of the effort, in a research
> > group where we tended (foolishly) to look down
> > our noses a bit at the whole thing.  I do know that
> > there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL
> > about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it
> > wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there
> > were similar feelings going the other way.  On
> > the other hand there were some pretty smart
> > people involved at a technical level on all
> > sides.
> > 
> > Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms
> > being injected into a USG system or vice versa.
> > 
> > Norman Wilson
> > Toronto ON
> 
> Thanks, Norman.  This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV.
> 
> I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all
> UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly).  The last Research
> Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix.  Is the source code of
> releases 8, 9 and 10 available?  Are there other commentaries of ancient
> Research Unixes, like Lions book?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
>   --Michele
> 
> P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion.  I realized my
> mistake just after I sent the mail.  I'm really sorry!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Jason Stevens]

wow and I had thought companies paying eachother out to *NOT* do something
was all the rage today...

It'd make perfect sense, SUN have a loyal user base, so why on earth would
they rock the boat with a religious change.

And then there was that whole SYSV to the Commodore Amiga that SUN tried to
piggy back on.... There had to be a lot more to that then meets the eye.

Not to mention Commodore not letting SUN OEM the Amiga 3000/UX was their
biggest mistake.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:

> "Joint project".  Hmm, I was at Sun at the time, John Pope was across
> the hall from me, he did the SVR4 port to Sun/SPARC.
>
> To call this joint is complete nonsense.  Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T
> wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning.  The
> story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun
> stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD
> based SunOS and go to SVR4.
>
> Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote:
> > > Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here,
> > > SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL
> > > (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun.
> > > The intent was to bring together the two different
> > > commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred
> > > to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX).
> > >
> > > I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but
> > > well off to the side of the effort, in a research
> > > group where we tended (foolishly) to look down
> > > our noses a bit at the whole thing.  I do know that
> > > there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL
> > > about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it
> > > wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there
> > > were similar feelings going the other way.  On
> > > the other hand there were some pretty smart
> > > people involved at a technical level on all
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms
> > > being injected into a USG system or vice versa.
> > >
> > > Norman Wilson
> > > Toronto ON
> >
> > Thanks, Norman.  This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV.
> >
> > I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all
> > UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly).  The last Research
> > Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix.  Is the source code of
> > releases 8, 9 and 10 available?  Are there other commentaries of ancient
> > Research Unixes, like Lions book?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   --Michele
> >
> > P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion.  I realized my
> > mistake just after I sent the mail.  I'm really sorry!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110712/8aeceb56/attachment.html>

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Arno Griffioen]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:23:41PM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
> And then there was that whole SYSV to the Commodore Amiga that SUN tried to
> piggy back on.... There had to be a lot more to that then meets the eye.

The SVR4 Amiga UNIX implementation was an interesting oddball in itself as 
CBM was of course 'cheap' and trying to save money on the project, so
they licensed the code-base for the 3B2 instead of the original M68k codebase
from AT&T..

The M68k codebase was much more expensive to license as I recall from my days 
working at CBM

The result was that the 'port' was a real SVR4 and worked as such, but 
it lacked the SVR4 M68K ABI support in the kernel, which meant that
nearly all available off-the-shelf applications for M68K SVR4 
did NOT work on these.

Which 'slightly' hampered the rollout and acceptance of these UNIX machine
(understatement!).

Pity they disbanded the CBM UNIX devel group before it really got started and
an 68040 version was never officially released so the whole product fizzled
out.

I remember that the decision to axe the whole UNIX team inside CBM was 
really made without anyone knowing about it. Some of the guys were off 
on visits to CBM offices in other countries when they were told 
they were fired :(

The previous (mostly un-released/internal) SVR3.2 port to the A2500UX'es
for 68020+MMU or 68030 (of which I still have one, just no SVR3.2 media..) 
was AFAIK based on the real M68k codebase.

> Not to mention Commodore not letting SUN OEM the Amiga 3000/UX was their
> biggest mistake.

CBM in their late days were very good at making bad decisions ;)

								Bye, Arno

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[John Cowan]

Larry McVoy scripsit:

> Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion.

I think the competition for the position of "biggest Sun mistake" is
extremely stiff.

-- 
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John Cowan
is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901)           cowan at ccil.org

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:48:44PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Larry McVoy scripsit:
> 
> > Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion.
> 
> I think the competition for the position of "biggest Sun mistake" is
> extremely stiff.

As ex-Sun, someone who gave 7 years of his life there, along side of a 
bunch of people who did the same, while I may be wrong, I stand by the
statement that that was the biggest mistake Sun made.  They had the
community loving them, they shit all over that.  Big mistake.  I've
made it myself, big mistake.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Al Kossow]

On 7/12/11 4:26 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:

> To call this joint is complete nonsense.  Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T
> wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning.  The
> story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun
> stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD
> based SunOS and go to SVR4.
>
> Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion.
>

And they ending up having to support 4.1.x for a VERY long time because
major customers (like Valid) had absolutely no interest in dumping BSD.

[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

[Warren Toomey]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote:
> I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all
> UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly).  The last Research
> Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix.  Is the source code of
> releases 8, 9 and 10 available?  Are there other commentaries of ancient
> Research Unixes, like Lions book?
>   --Michele

Maurice Bach's book covers SysVR2 from a design point of view, but no code:
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Operating-System-Prentice-Hall-Software/dp/0132017997

Goodheart & Cox's book covers SysVR4 from a design point of view, no code:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Garden-Explained-Berny-Goodheart/dp/0130981389

Vahalia's book covers various Unix systems around the mid-90s:
http://www.amazon.com/UNIX-Internals-Frontiers-Uresh-Vahalia/dp/0131019082
and it's a great book!

On the BSD side, there are books on 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Implementation-Operating-Addison-Wesley-computer-science/dp/0201061961
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Implementation-4-4-Operating-System/dp/0201549794

And there is a commentary on the 1st Edition of Unix, i.e. the one from 1971
available as a downloadable PDF:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v1/PreliminaryUnixImplementationDocument_Jun72.pdf

Cheers,
	Warren