Sorry, I hit return too soon. Mary Ann - I think PC/IX is what you were thinking. FWIW: it was one of the reasons why Andy developed Minix. He said at the time it was insufficient and if he was going to have a pure V7 port for the base 8088-based PC/XT (not 286s-based PC/AT) then he wanted something he could teach with. IIRC the early PC/IX (and I know for certain Minux did not) did not even recognize the MMU for the 286 of the AT (much less the later 386), but it did have a driver for the AT disk controller (which was/is a different controller than the XT). As Warner says, PC/XT was based on the new System III license we had just all negotiated earlier that winter. Microsoft had already started shipping Xenix on the x86/68000 and I think a z8000 using the V7 license, but I don't think IBM relicensed it. HP was shipping HP-UX for the original 9000 on the same, and Tek was also shipping it firsts emulator system on the V7 license. DEC had the original v7m which begat Ultrix, although I don't remember if DEC ever shipped binaries on the original V7 license. Charlie can correct me, but I don't think IBM ever shipped binaries on the V7 license either. [The original V7 redistribution license had terms that makers of $100K+ systems did not mind too much, but was difficult for what would eventually be called PCs and workstations at the <$10K (much less < $1K) price to swallow. FWIW: Years later, Linus famously got his 386 box from his parents for Christmas, got a copy of Andy's Minux (for a PC/XT), started writing his terminal program, and was annoyed that it did not use the VM/larger address space of hardware. ᐧ ᐧ On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:59 PM Clem Cole wrote: > PC/IX > ᐧ > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:32 AM Mary Ann Horton wrote: > >> I recall having an IBM PC port of UNIX in the 1980s on floppy with a >> black 6x9 box and Charlie Chaplin with the red rose. I thought it was >> called AIX. I installed it, and recall it being very different from UNIX >> for sysadmin (different logs, different admin commands) but similar for >> users. I thought it was based on System III or thereabouts. >> >> I can't find any evidence of this. It appears AIX 1.0 wasn't for the >> original PC. >> >> Does anyone else recall this distribution and what it was called or based >> on? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mary Ann >> On 5/1/22 19:08, Kenneth Goodwin wrote: >> >> My understanding of AIX was that IBM licensed the System V source code >> and then proceeded to "make it their own". I had a days experience with it >> on a POS cash register fixing a client issue. The shocker - they changed >> all the error messages to error codes with a look at the manual >> requirement. >> >> Not sure if this is true in its entirety or not. >> But that's what I recall, thst it was not a from scratch rewrite but more >> along the lines of other vendor UNIX clones of the time. >> License the source, change the name and then beat it to death. >> >> On Sun, May 1, 2022, 2:08 PM ron minnich wrote: >> >>> in terms of rewrites from manuals, while it was not the first, as I >>> understand it, AIX was an example of "read the manual, write the >>> code." >>> >>> Unlike Coherent, it had lots of cases of things not done quite right. >>> One standout in my mind was mkdir -p, which would return an error if >>> the full path existed. oops. >>> >>> But it was pointed out to me that Condor had all kinds of code to >>> handle AIX being different from just about everything else. >>> >>> >>>