[TUHS] virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[TUHS] virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS]

Thinking a bit more about terminal multiplexing was a major use case for early X, I recalled using Linux virtual consoles in the late 90’s for this purpose.

According to Wikipedia, virtual consoles originated with Xenix and before that with concurrent CP/M.

Perusing the documentation of those on Bitsavers, I can see that virtual consoles have a prominent mention in the manual for concurrent CP/M (1983), but not those of its forerunners MP/M II and MP/M (1979). I cannot find a mention of virtual consoles in Xenix documentation as late as 1988.

No such thing as a virtual (as distinct from pseudo) tty on 16-bit Unix or early 32-bit, as far as I know; one could argue it does not make much sense with physical terminals. Wikipedia says no such thing existed on SunOS either.

I think virtual consoles where present in Linux from a very early point.

So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became part of Linux in the early 90’s.

Have I missed other prior art?

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1935 bytes --]

The virtual consoles using the function keys predate Linux and 386BSD by a
number of years.  I used them only early x86 Unix ports to the IBM PC such
as Xenix.

FWIW I think Minix for the 8088 may have supported them - be
worth checking.

  I have no memories off them on the 8 bit systems when concurrency was
added but I did but do much them.

  I would not have been surprised that predates the x86 versions of
different systems. I.e. I have vague memories of something using the
function keys on the PDP-10s switching between screens but that was long
ago.

My bet would be to look at ITS, WAITES and Twenex for the origin story.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:13 AM Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
wrote:

> Thinking a bit more about terminal multiplexing was a major use case for
> early X, I recalled using Linux virtual consoles in the late 90’s for this
> purpose.
>
> According to Wikipedia, virtual consoles originated with Xenix and before
> that with concurrent CP/M.
>
> Perusing the documentation of those on Bitsavers, I can see that virtual
> consoles have a prominent mention in the manual for concurrent CP/M (1983),
> but not those of its forerunners MP/M II and MP/M (1979). I cannot find a
> mention of virtual consoles in Xenix documentation as late as 1988.
>
> No such thing as a virtual (as distinct from pseudo) tty on 16-bit Unix or
> early 32-bit, as far as I know; one could argue it does not make much sense
> with physical terminals. Wikipedia says no such thing existed on SunOS
> either.
>
> I think virtual consoles where present in Linux from a very early point.
>
> So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent
> CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became part
> of Linux in the early 90’s.
>
> Have I missed other prior art?
>
>
> --
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2465 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

Paul - one more thing.   In PDP-10 land, I think they would have called
them 'sessions' but it was a similar idea - although the PC versions since
they also provided the 'terminal emulation' had to do a bit more.
ᐧ

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:24 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> The virtual consoles using the function keys predate Linux and 386BSD by a
> number of years.  I used them only early x86 Unix ports to the IBM PC such
> as Xenix.
>
> FWIW I think Minix for the 8088 may have supported them - be
> worth checking.
>
>   I have no memories off them on the 8 bit systems when concurrency was
> added but I did but do much them.
>
>   I would not have been surprised that predates the x86 versions of
> different systems. I.e. I have vague memories of something using the
> function keys on the PDP-10s switching between screens but that was long
> ago.
>
> My bet would be to look at ITS, WAITES and Twenex for the origin story.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:13 AM Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thinking a bit more about terminal multiplexing was a major use case for
>> early X, I recalled using Linux virtual consoles in the late 90’s for this
>> purpose.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, virtual consoles originated with Xenix and before
>> that with concurrent CP/M.
>>
>> Perusing the documentation of those on Bitsavers, I can see that virtual
>> consoles have a prominent mention in the manual for concurrent CP/M (1983),
>> but not those of its forerunners MP/M II and MP/M (1979). I cannot find a
>> mention of virtual consoles in Xenix documentation as late as 1988.
>>
>> No such thing as a virtual (as distinct from pseudo) tty on 16-bit Unix
>> or early 32-bit, as far as I know; one could argue it does not make much
>> sense with physical terminals. Wikipedia says no such thing existed on
>> SunOS either.
>>
>> I think virtual consoles where present in Linux from a very early point.
>>
>> So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent
>> CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became part
>> of Linux in the early 90’s.
>>
>> Have I missed other prior art?
>>
>>
>> --
> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3396 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Paul Winalski]

On 3/13/23, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> one more thing.   In PDP-10 land, I think they would have called
> them 'sessions' but it was a similar idea - although the PC versions since
> they also provided the 'terminal emulation' had to do a bit more.

TOPS-10/20 had the concept of pseudo-terminals (PTYs)--objects in the
OS that appear to be terminals to user mode software (and most of the
kernel as well).  There was a utility called PTYCON (PTY CONtroller)
that would let one manage several login sessions (each on its own
pseudo-terminal) from a single terminal (which could of course itself
be a PTY).

IIRC PTYCON had the ability to split the VT-100 screen so that you
could view more than one PTY session at a time.  Poor man's windows.

-Paul W.

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Warner Losh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:24 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> FWIW I think Minix for the 8088 may have supported them - be
> worth checking.
>

Minix 1.1 and 1.2 didn't have them. Unsure of later versions since they
aren't packaged nicely for quick checking.

Coherent didn't seem to have them, but it's kinda hard to tell for sure
without more study.


> My bet would be to look at ITS, WAITES and Twenex for the origin story.
>

 TOPS-20 had a way to attach and detach from a PTY. But they didn't keep
the state of the screen... programs did, but not the kernel.

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1184 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[KenUnix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

Coherent had the beginnings of X. Not so good , but it worked.

Ken


On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:24 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW I think Minix for the 8088 may have supported them - be
>> worth checking.
>>
>
> Minix 1.1 and 1.2 didn't have them. Unsure of later versions since they
> aren't packaged nicely for quick checking.
>
> Coherent didn't seem to have them, but it's kinda hard to tell for sure
> without more study.
>
>
>> My bet would be to look at ITS, WAITES and Twenex for the origin story.
>>
>
>  TOPS-20 had a way to attach and detach from a PTY. But they didn't keep
> the state of the screen... programs did, but not the kernel.
>
> Warner
>


-- 
End of line
JOB TERMINATED

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1909 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>  TOPS-20 had a way to attach and detach from a PTY. But they didn't keep
> the state of the screen... programs did, but not the kernel.
>
That makes sense and is probably what I remember.  The big difference when
the 8/16 micros came along what the built-in display and thus the need to
create a "terminal emulator."
ᐧ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1298 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Dan Cross]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:24 AM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW I think Minix for the 8088 may have supported them - be worth checking.
>
> Minix 1.1 and 1.2 didn't have them. Unsure of later versions since they aren't packaged nicely for quick checking.
>
> Coherent didn't seem to have them, but it's kinda hard to tell for sure without more study.

I seem to recall that COHERENT _did_ have them, at least in version 4,
but it's been a while.

>> My bet would be to look at ITS, WAITES and Twenex for the origin story.
>
>  TOPS-20 had a way to attach and detach from a PTY. But they didn't keep the state of the screen... programs did, but not the kernel.

Yes, one could detach and reattach sessions, but not only did they not
preserve the state of the screen, they didn't preserve the state of
the terminal; reattaching a session puts you back in TTY mode, though
one could set it back up that in COMAND.CMD.

        - Dan C.

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Miod Vallat]

> > Coherent didn't seem to have them, but it's kinda hard to tell for sure without more study.
> 
> I seem to recall that COHERENT _did_ have them, at least in version 4,
> but it's been a while.

I have just checked the 3.1 manual and there is no mention of it, so if
there ever were virtual consoles in COHERENT they were introduced after
3.1.

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Dan Cross]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 1:26 PM Miod Vallat <miod@online.fr> wrote:
> > > Coherent didn't seem to have them, but it's kinda hard to tell for sure without more study.
> >
> > I seem to recall that COHERENT _did_ have them, at least in version 4,
> > but it's been a while.
>
> I have just checked the 3.1 manual and there is no mention of it, so if
> there ever were virtual consoles in COHERENT they were introduced after
> 3.1.

According to the lexicon for version 4
(https://www.nesssoftware.com/home/mwc/doc/coherent/manual/pdf/v.pdf),
virtual consoles are a feature.

        - Dan C.

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Derek Fawcus via TUHS]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:24:24AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> The virtual consoles using the function keys predate Linux and 386BSD by a
> number of years.  I used them only early x86 Unix ports to the IBM PC such
> as Xenix.

I'm pretty sure that the 386 version of ISC UNIX I used on a PC in the '88/89
timeframe had them.  I vaguely recall it having a more awkward key sequence
than Linux for switching between consoles.

Here we go:
  https://virtuallyfun.com/2010/02/09/fun-with-interactive-unix/

"On a text console side, the OS has virtual consoles switchable via SYSRQ + F key. Console is on F8."

DF

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Charles H Sauer (he/him)]

On 3/14/2023 11:42 AM, Derek Fawcus via TUHS wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:24:24AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
>> The virtual consoles using the function keys predate Linux and 386BSD by a
>> number of years.  I used them only early x86 Unix ports to the IBM PC such
>> as Xenix.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the 386 version of ISC UNIX I used on a PC in the '88/89
> timeframe had them.  I vaguely recall it having a more awkward key sequence
> than Linux for switching between consoles.
> 
> Here we go:
>    https://virtuallyfun.com/2010/02/09/fun-with-interactive-unix/
> 
> "On a text console side, the OS has virtual consoles switchable via SYSRQ + F key. Console is on F8."
> 
> DF

The real question in my mind is whether PC/IX had this sort of thing. 
PC/IX was the first Unix I used regularly, and my recollection is that 
it did have something along these lines, but Heinz or someone else with 
ISC back then might be able to say definitively.

When I got a PC/AT, I started using (SCO?) Xenix because it better 
utilized the hardware than PC/IX. I'm pretty sure Clem is correct that 
Xenix had virtual consoles selected by the function keys.

AIX for the RT/PC definitely had such virtual consoles from the 
beginning. See the article by Baker et al in the RT Book 
(https://technologists.com/sauer/SA23-1057_IBM_RT_Personal_Computer_Technology_1986.pdf). 
By the time I had my own RT, we had X in AIX, so I probably chose to use 
xterms.

I'm pretty sure that the SVR3 Dell Unix would have had these along the 
lines described by Antoni, cited above, since SVR3 Dell Unix began with 
code from ISC, probably a little earlier than what Antoni used. I 
probably chose to use xterms instead.

I just powered up my Dell 450DGX (“JAWS”) and verified that the 
SVR4-based Dell Unix had such virtual consoles. man keyboard excerpt:

Switching Screens
   To change screens (virtual terminals), first run  the  vtlmgr  command
   [see  vtlmgr(1M)].   Switch  the  current  screen by typing ALT-SYSREQ
   (also labelled ALT-PRINTSCRN on some systems) followed by a key  which
   identifies  the  desired screen.  Any active screen may be selected by
   following ALT-SYSREQ with Fn, where Fn is one of  the  function  keys.
   F1  refers  to  the  first  virtual  terminal screen, F2 refers to the
   second virtual terminal screen, etc.   ALT-SYSREQ `h'  refers  to  the
   main  console  display  (/dev/console).  The next active screen can be
   selected with ALT-SYSREQ `n,' and the previous screen can be  selected
   with ALT-SYSREQ `p.'

I doubt that I ever used them with Dell SVR4 before today, used xterms 
instead.

CHS

-- 
voice: +1.512.784.7526       e-mail: sauer@technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240         Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter: CharlesHSauer

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Heinz Lycklama]

Charlie,

I do not recall PC/IX having a virtual console capability,
but I could be wrong - we are talking almost 40 years
ago now.

BTW, I do have some rather complete sets of documents
and diskettes for INTERACTIVE UNIX for Intel 386.
If anyone has an interest, send me a private email.

Heinz

On 3/14/2023 3:46 PM, Charles H Sauer (he/him) wrote:
> On 3/14/2023 11:42 AM, Derek Fawcus via TUHS wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:24:24AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
>>> The virtual consoles using the function keys predate Linux and 
>>> 386BSD by a
>>> number of years.  I used them only early x86 Unix ports to the IBM 
>>> PC such
>>> as Xenix.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that the 386 version of ISC UNIX I used on a PC in 
>> the '88/89
>> timeframe had them.  I vaguely recall it having a more awkward key 
>> sequence
>> than Linux for switching between consoles.
>>
>> Here we go:
>> https://virtuallyfun.com/2010/02/09/fun-with-interactive-unix/
>>
>> "On a text console side, the OS has virtual consoles switchable via 
>> SYSRQ + F key. Console is on F8."
>>
>> DF
>
> The real question in my mind is whether PC/IX had this sort of thing. 
> PC/IX was the first Unix I used regularly, and my recollection is that 
> it did have something along these lines, but Heinz or someone else 
> with ISC back then might be able to say definitively.
>
> When I got a PC/AT, I started using (SCO?) Xenix because it better 
> utilized the hardware than PC/IX. I'm pretty sure Clem is correct that 
> Xenix had virtual consoles selected by the function keys.
>
> AIX for the RT/PC definitely had such virtual consoles from the 
> beginning. See the article by Baker et al in the RT Book 
> (https://technologists.com/sauer/SA23-1057_IBM_RT_Personal_Computer_Technology_1986.pdf). 
> By the time I had my own RT, we had X in AIX, so I probably chose to 
> use xterms.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the SVR3 Dell Unix would have had these along the 
> lines described by Antoni, cited above, since SVR3 Dell Unix began 
> with code from ISC, probably a little earlier than what Antoni used. I 
> probably chose to use xterms instead.
>
> I just powered up my Dell 450DGX (“JAWS”) and verified that the 
> SVR4-based Dell Unix had such virtual consoles. man keyboard excerpt:
>
> Switching Screens
>   To change screens (virtual terminals), first run  the  vtlmgr command
>   [see  vtlmgr(1M)].   Switch  the  current  screen by typing ALT-SYSREQ
>   (also labelled ALT-PRINTSCRN on some systems) followed by a key which
>   identifies  the  desired screen.  Any active screen may be selected by
>   following ALT-SYSREQ with Fn, where Fn is one of  the  function keys.
>   F1  refers  to  the  first  virtual  terminal screen, F2 refers to the
>   second virtual terminal screen, etc.   ALT-SYSREQ `h'  refers to  the
>   main  console  display  (/dev/console).  The next active screen can be
>   selected with ALT-SYSREQ `n,' and the previous screen can be selected
>   with ALT-SYSREQ `p.'
>
> I doubt that I ever used them with Dell SVR4 before today, used xterms 
> instead.
>
> CHS
>

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Paul,

> So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent
> CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became
> part of Linux in the early 90’s.
>
> Have I missed other prior art?

RISC iX for the ARM2 CPU had virtual consoles hopped between with the
function keys.  It was based on 4.3BSD and shipped on computers from
Acorn like the R140 in ’89.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC_iX

The ARM2 was the first generally released ARM and was created by Acorn
Computers in Britain because they wanted to move on from the 6502 they
used in the BBC Micro, etc.  They knew of RISC, didn't think much of the
16-bit CPUs on the market, and after a visit to Western Design Centre
thought they could have a go at chip design.  Roger Wilson, a very
seasoned and experienced assembly programmer on multiple instruction
sets, designed the instruction set; it was beautiful.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Warner Losh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2668 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:13 AM Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
wrote:

> Thinking a bit more about terminal multiplexing was a major use case for
> early X, I recalled using Linux virtual consoles in the late 90’s for this
> purpose.
>
> According to Wikipedia, virtual consoles originated with Xenix and before
> that with concurrent CP/M.
>
> Perusing the documentation of those on Bitsavers, I can see that virtual
> consoles have a prominent mention in the manual for concurrent CP/M (1983),
> but not those of its forerunners MP/M II and MP/M (1979). I cannot find a
> mention of virtual consoles in Xenix documentation as late as 1988.
>

Venix/86R 1.0 Boston Softwre Works Edition had virtual consoles. It was
released in 1986.
https://groups.google.com/g/mod.newprod/c/iYLc3cdnyms/m/Him5XgqwT70J is a
reference. However, it was inspired by Xenix and Microport System V/AT
according to the author. The stock version of Venix/86R 1.0 didn't have
them, nor did the PC version that we have some sources for. Here's the
relevant bits from the blurb:

Virtual consoles, as found in VENIX on IBM-compatible machines, and also in
XENIX and Microport System V/AT.

But also interesting was:

Support for simultaneous use of a monochrome display (for terminal/console
use) and a color graphics display (for graphics).

which I thought interesting at the time, but was pretty old-school Unix
Workstation by then.

No such thing as a virtual (as distinct from pseudo) tty on 16-bit Unix or
> early 32-bit, as far as I know; one could argue it does not make much sense
> with physical terminals. Wikipedia says no such thing existed on SunOS
> either.
>
> I think virtual consoles where present in Linux from a very early point.
>

Ditto for the 386BSD BSD/386 line of  code. I think they were added in the
patch-kit phase, not the original Jolitz code phase. FreeBSD 1.0 Beta had
them in 1993 for sure, as did NetBSD of the time.

I have a memory of them on 0.98pl13 on Linux as well, but that version
sticks in my head as a proxy for anything between 0.96 (the first one I
tried) and 0.99 (the last before 1.x Linux). This would be approximately
1992 or 1993.

I've not done the deep-dive into the ancient code bases to see if I can
suss out when they arrived.


> So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent
> CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became part
> of Linux in the early 90’s.
>
> Have I missed other prior art?
>

Maybe a little. Good information about Microport System V is kinda hard to
come by these days...

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3907 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Rik Schneider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 852 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:30 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
>
> Ditto for the 386BSD BSD/386 line of  code. I think they were added in the
> patch-kit phase, not the original Jolitz code phase. FreeBSD 1.0 Beta had
> them in 1993 for sure, as did NetBSD of the time.
>
> I have a memory of them on 0.98pl13 on Linux as well, but that version
> sticks in my head as a proxy for anything between 0.96 (the first one I
> tried) and 0.99 (the last before 1.x Linux). This would be approximately
> 1992 or 1993.
>
> I've not done the deep-dive into the ancient code bases to see if I can
> suss out when they arrived.
>
>

Virtual consoles were added to Linux in Version 0.12.  They may have been
available in 386BSD and FreeBSD 1.0 but it looks like they were not
configured by default until FreeBSD 1.1.

 --
Rik

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1747 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Ron Natalie]

The AIX for the PS/2 had a thing called the HFT which allowed you to 
switch the VGA head between different virtual screens long before LINUX 
came along.

I was using Xenix back on the 286, both on PCs and on an Intel 310 
Multibus I system.  The IBM Xenix I had on my 286 system (A real honest 
to god IBM PC AT)
had the feature Mutliscreen (TM) which supproted nine terminals.    This 
was in 1984.

Amusingly we moved on to the 386 on a Multibus II system.   We had 
started with an Intel-done port of Interactive Systems’s (Hi, Heinz!) 
product but it turns out Intel couldn’t provide (they claim they lost 
it) the source of the Multibus II interfaces to allow us to upgrade to a 
newer release so given the generic 386 IS/1 sources, I sat down and 
rebuilt all the MB-II specific stuff.   I really did like that bus, too 
bad it didn’t catch on.

-Ron

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Heinz Lycklama]

Nice work Ron!

On 3/13/2023 8:33 AM, Ron Natalie wrote:
> The AIX for the PS/2 had a thing called the HFT which allowed you to 
> switch the VGA head between different virtual screens long before 
> LINUX came along.
>
> I was using Xenix back on the 286, both on PCs and on an Intel 310 
> Multibus I system.  The IBM Xenix I had on my 286 system (A real 
> honest to god IBM PC AT)
> had the feature Mutliscreen (TM) which supproted nine terminals.    
> This was in 1984.
>
> Amusingly we moved on to the 386 on a Multibus II system.   We had 
> started with an Intel-done port of Interactive Systems’s (Hi, Heinz!) 
> product but it turns out Intel couldn’t provide (they claim they lost 
> it) the source of the Multibus II interfaces to allow us to upgrade to 
> a newer release so given the generic 386 IS/1 sources, I sat down and 
> rebuilt all the MB-II specific stuff.   I really did like that bus, 
> too bad it didn’t catch on.
>
> -Ron
>

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi,

Ron wrote:
> The AIX for the PS/2 had a thing called the HFT which allowed you to
> switch the VGA head between different virtual screens long before
> LINUX came along.

AIX 3.2.5 on the POWER RS/6000 still had the HFT, High Function
Terminal.  /dev/hft0 IIRC.  It had a framebuffer which was extremely
slow when used as a TTY; one could follow the old text rippling up the
screen to make way for the new line at the bottom.  Interrupting a
cat(1) didn't cut the wait for the HFT to catch up with what cat had
already written; seconds passed.

Given ‘startx’ was the main command entered this was only a pain when
debugging something outside of X Windows.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Brad Spencer]

Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> writes:

> Thinking a bit more about terminal multiplexing was a major use case for early X, I recalled using Linux virtual consoles in the late 90’s for this purpose.
>
> According to Wikipedia, virtual consoles originated with Xenix and before that with concurrent CP/M.
>
> Perusing the documentation of those on Bitsavers, I can see that virtual consoles have a prominent mention in the manual for concurrent CP/M (1983), but not those of its forerunners MP/M II and MP/M (1979). I cannot find a mention of virtual consoles in Xenix documentation as late as 1988.
>
> No such thing as a virtual (as distinct from pseudo) tty on 16-bit Unix or early 32-bit, as far as I know; one could argue it does not make much sense with physical terminals. Wikipedia says no such thing existed on SunOS either.
>
> I think virtual consoles where present in Linux from a very early point.
>
> So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became part of Linux in the early 90’s.
>
> Have I missed other prior art?

Not Unix, but OS-9 Level II on the CC3 had them.  Not exactly a console,
as a fixed console device really did not exist in the same way as Unix
on OS-9, but multiple shells each running in their own screen with
different sizes if I recall correctly.  This would have all been in the
early to mid 1980s in a 8/16 bit environment.




-- 
Brad Spencer - brad@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org

[TUHS] Re: virtual consoles / Alt-Fx

[Marc Donner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

AIX 3 had virtual consoles back in the early 1980s.  The Mathnet crowd at
IBM Research (my gang) sort of hated them, though not as much as SMIT and
the ODM, because they were implemented at too low a level and didn’t
provide any real way for window managers to leverage their facilities.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:13 PM Paul Ruizendaal via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
wrote:

> Thinking a bit more about terminal multiplexing was a major use case for
> early X, I recalled using Linux virtual consoles in the late 90’s for this
> purpose.
>
> According to Wikipedia, virtual consoles originated with Xenix and before
> that with concurrent CP/M.
>
> Perusing the documentation of those on Bitsavers, I can see that virtual
> consoles have a prominent mention in the manual for concurrent CP/M (1983),
> but not those of its forerunners MP/M II and MP/M (1979). I cannot find a
> mention of virtual consoles in Xenix documentation as late as 1988.
>
> No such thing as a virtual (as distinct from pseudo) tty on 16-bit Unix or
> early 32-bit, as far as I know; one could argue it does not make much sense
> with physical terminals. Wikipedia says no such thing existed on SunOS
> either.
>
> I think virtual consoles where present in Linux from a very early point.
>
> So, as far as I can tell virtual consoles were invented for concurrent
> CP/M around 1983, made their way to Xenix in the late 80’s and became part
> of Linux in the early 90’s.
>
> Have I missed other prior art?
>
>
> --
=====
nygeek.net
mindthegapdialogs.com/home <https://www.mindthegapdialogs.com/home>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2140 bytes --]