On 2022-01-02, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 1/2/2022 1:36 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>> I think it booted to single user mode. Not sure it got much further. Not
>> sure anyone would even want to try and pick that up, as Linux is
>> constantly changing under the hood, making it a big task to resume
>> something abandoned years ago.
>
> Remember that Simon believes using C makes porting easy.
>
> Great opportunity to demonstrate.
>
>:-)
>

Hey!!! :-)

Simon said "easier" not "easy" and how much easier depends on how
well the OS has been designed internally for portability.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-01-02, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the
>>DEC stuff is still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last
>>I heard that was the reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever
>>had a functioning X11.
>
> Ever had a functioning X11 _server_. The clients work just fine,
> it's just that the DEC framebuffers are nontrivial to develop a
> display server for given the available documentation.
> --scott

Someone added basic framebuffer support to simh, and it does mostly
work ok with VAX/VMS. It's been a while but I do remember being able
to get a DECwindows display running under simh (although there might
have been some mouse issues (I can't remember for sure)).

Of course, as of this year, that's now obsolete... :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 1/3/22 4:22 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 16:53:55 -0500, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the DEC stuff is
>> still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last I heard that was the
>> reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever had a functioning X11.
>
> I find that hard to believe. I am using X11 on FreeBSD right now, and the
> projects overlap quite a bit.
>
>
>

FreeeBSD does not run on a VAX so that really has nothing to do with
the discussion. It is the VAX video hardware that is not supported
under NetBSD and, especially at this point, probably never will be.

bill

On 2022-01-03 11:47, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-01-02, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>>
>> That is definitely true. It's not that pleasant to run current NetBSD on
>> any VAX at the moment. But there are also some problems/issues that
>> we're waiting for a new version of gcc to come along, where they have
>> been fixed.
>>
>
> Generating the ssh server keys in NetBSD running under simh was
> certainly "interesting". :-) I left it running overnight and it
> was done in the morning so I don't know how long that actually took. :-)
>
> Regarding gcc, I notice there were discussions about removing VAX
> support from gcc and the subsequent bounty to fix the immediate
> issues to stop that from happening.
>
> Are those the issues you were talking about ?

I suspect so, yes.
A bunch of issues have been fixed, which will be in the next version of
gcc to be incorporated into NetBSD, at which point I have some hopes
that things will improve. Maybe not in speed, but at least functionality.
And I believe some bounty was collected.

Johnny

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2022-01-02, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the
>>>DEC stuff is still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last
>>>I heard that was the reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever
>>>had a functioning X11.
>>
>> Ever had a functioning X11 _server_. The clients work just fine,
>> it's just that the DEC framebuffers are nontrivial to develop a
>> display server for given the available documentation.
>
>Someone added basic framebuffer support to simh, and it does mostly
>work ok with VAX/VMS. It's been a while but I do remember being able
>to get a DECwindows display running under simh (although there might
>have been some mouse issues (I can't remember for sure)).

Yes. But it's harder the other way around.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2022-01-03, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>On 2022-01-02, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the
>>>>DEC stuff is still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last
>>>>I heard that was the reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever
>>>>had a functioning X11.
>>>
>>> Ever had a functioning X11 _server_. The clients work just fine,
>>> it's just that the DEC framebuffers are nontrivial to develop a
>>> display server for given the available documentation.
>>
>>Someone added basic framebuffer support to simh, and it does mostly
>>work ok with VAX/VMS. It's been a while but I do remember being able
>>to get a DECwindows display running under simh (although there might
>>have been some mouse issues (I can't remember for sure)).
>
> Yes. But it's harder the other way around.

Are you sure ?

The people who emulated the framebuffer hardware in software in simh
had to understand the framebuffer hardware well enough for the VAX/VMS
framebuffer device driver to recognise and use the emulated framebuffer.

If the public framebuffer documentation is really that limited, that
sounds like an impressive achievement to be able to emulate the
VAXstation framebuffer hardware in software well enough for VMS to
be able to start using it.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>
> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>
> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>
> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>
> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon.
>

Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32, for example. 4.3 BSD works
on Vaxen up to MicroVAX II and possibly later. Having installed
4.3 bsd on both a Vax 730 and 725 many years ago, can confirm
that it is stable, works with most interfaces including mscp and
tmscp disk and tape controllers and good for serious work. Iirc,
I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.

All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...

Chris

On 01/02/22 15:11, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/2/2022 3:39 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>
>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>
>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>
>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>
>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>
> Wikipedia lists BSD 4.3, NetBSD, OpenBSD and something called Xinu
> as open source options for VAX.

Xinu was an educational OS written by Doug Comer at Purdue to teach
os classes. For the original system, it was assumed that a Vax
running BSD 4.3 or similar, typically a 750 class machine, did the
development, and a pdp11 target machine to run the developed code.

It was quite complete for it's time and was interested enough to
buy the book and later x86 and 68000 versions that ran on pc or sun 3
hardware. Not really a mainstream OS, whatever Wiki says...

Chris

>
> NetBSD may be the only one with current support. But do you need to run
> a current version??
>
> You did not run a current VMS version on it.
>
> And resource wise it may be a better fit for an older OS
> anyway.
>
> Alternatively you could take up the Linux VAX port. Some
> work was done many years ago and I believe they got pretty
> far.
>
> Arne
>

On 01/03/22 12:18, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/3/22 4:22 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 16:53:55 -0500, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the DEC stuff is
>>> still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last I heard that was the
>>> reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever had a functioning X11.
>>
>> I find that hard to believe. I am using X11 on FreeBSD right now, and the
>> projects overlap quite a bit.
>>
>>
>>
>
> FreeeBSD does not run on a VAX so that really has nothing to do with
> the discussion. It is the VAX video hardware that is not supported
> under NetBSD and, especially at this point, probably never will be.
>
> bill
>

If you look at some early X11 sources, there is code to drive dec
frame buffer hardware, so there is info out there and probably more
if you have access to VMS or Ultrix 32 sources. Not impossible to
reverse engineer from that.

Some of the very earliest work on X11 was done on a VS100 (aka, Vax 725)
with E&S frame buffer...

Chris

On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>
>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>
>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>
>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>
>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,

Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.

> for example. 4.3 BSD works
> on Vaxen up to MicroVAX II and possibly later. Having installed
> 4.3 bsd on both a Vax 730 and 725 many years ago, can confirm
> that it is stable, works with most interfaces including mscp and
> tmscp disk and tape controllers and good for serious work.

Why run 4.3 BSD when NetBSD is the continued development from there.

> Iirc,
> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>
> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...

I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
developed from it. :-)

bill

On 1/4/22 5:59 PM, chris wrote:
> On 01/03/22 12:18, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/3/22 4:22 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 16:53:55 -0500, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the DEC stuff is
>>>> still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last I heard that was the
>>>> reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever had a functioning X11.
>>>
>>> I find that hard to believe. I am using X11 on FreeBSD right now, and
>>> the
>>> projects overlap quite a bit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> FreeeBSD does not run on a VAX so that really has nothing to do with
>> the discussion. It is the VAX video hardware that is not supported
>> under NetBSD and, especially at this point, probably never will be.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> If you look at some early X11 sources, there is code to drive dec
> frame buffer hardware, so there is info out there and probably more
> if you have access to VMS or Ultrix 32 sources. Not impossible to
> reverse engineer from that.

If you have Ultrix32 and VMS sources and you work from them you
are not reverse-engineering and anything you use those sources
for would still be encumbered,

>
> Some of the very earliest work on X11 was done on a VS100 (aka, Vax 725)
> with E&S frame buffer...

It has nothing to do with the availability of X-11 sources. It is the
information regarding the DEC hardware that is not publicly available.

I am sure some people have fudged around and made some of it work. But
until it is free (which will never happen) you will never see a any
serious development of X-11 for the remaining legal free VAX OSes.

Too bad they never did a port of Plan9 for the VAX. :-)

bill

On 1/4/2022 6:33 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>
>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>
>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>
>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>
> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.

Yes. Commercial licensed product.

>>                                        for example. 4.3 BSD works
>> on Vaxen up to MicroVAX II and possibly later. Having installed
>> 4.3 bsd on both a Vax 730 and 725 many years ago, can confirm
>> that it is stable, works with most interfaces including mscp and
>> tmscp disk and tape controllers and good for serious work.
>
> Why run 4.3 BSD when NetBSD is the continued development from there.

Sometimes an OS from time T runs better on HW or simulated HW
from time T than OS from time T + 20 years.

Often newer OS versions require more resources (CPU, memory, disk).

I have no idea how slim NetBSD can be.

>>                                                            Iirc,
>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>
>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>
> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
> developed from it.  :-)

Newer versions are not always more stable than the older versions.
Because new features can have problems.

I doubt it is the case here. The 3 modern *BSD's have a pretty
good reputation for stability.

Arne

On 01/04/22 23:40, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/4/22 5:59 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 01/03/22 12:18, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/3/22 4:22 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 16:53:55 -0500, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, language has little to do with it. Too much of the DEC stuff is
>>>>> still proprietary and trade secret locked. Last I heard that was the
>>>>> reason why neither NetBSD or OpenBSD ever had a functioning X11.
>>>>
>>>> I find that hard to believe. I am using X11 on FreeBSD right now,
>>>> and the
>>>> projects overlap quite a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> FreeeBSD does not run on a VAX so that really has nothing to do with
>>> the discussion. It is the VAX video hardware that is not supported
>>> under NetBSD and, especially at this point, probably never will be.
>>>
>>> bill
>>>
>>
>> If you look at some early X11 sources, there is code to drive dec
>> frame buffer hardware, so there is info out there and probably more
>> if you have access to VMS or Ultrix 32 sources. Not impossible to
>> reverse engineer from that.
>
> If you have Ultrix32 and VMS sources and you work from them you
> are not reverse-engineering and anything you use those sources
> for would still be encumbered,

Not suggesting that you should copy the code, but rather as an aid to
understanding how the hardware works. Still encumbered perhaps, but
it's now so old I doubt if anyone would care if someone wrote new
drivers for the hardware. Istr, there's loads of info in the public
domain on VCB... series qbus frame buffers out there, at least for
the mono versions, if not the GPX series boards. All i'm saying is
that you need to think creatively if you want to keep obsolete
historical hardware working.

>
>>
>> Some of the very earliest work on X11 was done on a VS100 (aka, Vax 725)
>> with E&S frame buffer...
>
> It has nothing to do with the availability of X-11 sources. It is the
> information regarding the DEC hardware that is not publicly available.

Well it does in fact, since some of the X11 sources do include frame
buffer drivers for DEC hardware. X11 is open source so it would be
fine to use any info in that to modify or write fresh code.

>
> I am sure some people have fudged around and made some of it work. But
> until it is free (which will never happen) you will never see a any
> serious development of X-11 for the remaining legal free VAX OSes.
>
> Too bad they never did a port of Plan9 for the VAX. :-)

Would have been interesting to have a play with that. Worked for AT&T
wireless many years ago and it was big news at the time...

>
> bill
>

On 01/04/22 23:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>
>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>
>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>
>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>
> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.

Well, it's available for free download at the unix historical society,
for years, so perhaps they organised some agreement to cover that ?.
Never run it here, but have run Ultrix 11, for evaluation. Does work
(on an 11/53), but not very stable.

>
>> for example. 4.3 BSD works
>> on Vaxen up to MicroVAX II and possibly later. Having installed
>> 4.3 bsd on both a Vax 730 and 725 many years ago, can confirm
>> that it is stable, works with most interfaces including mscp and
>> tmscp disk and tape controllers and good for serious work.
>
> Why run 4.3 BSD when NetBSD is the continued development from there.
>
>> Iirc,
>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>
>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>
> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
> developed from it. :-)
>

Perhaps it has improved, but last version run here was 1.01 or
similar and at that stage neither of the qbus network
interfaces were stable for long before falling over. Sort of
worked, but not well. Firmware bug on the network cards, from
memory. Perhaps I should give it another try...

Chris

> bill
>
>

On 1/4/22 7:29 PM, chris wrote:
> On 01/04/22 23:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>>
>>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>>
>>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>>
>>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>>
>> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.
>
> Well, it's available for free download at the unix historical society,
> for years, so perhaps they organised some agreement to cover that ?.

Lots of commercial software is available for free on the Internet.
But having the software alone (I still have copies from when I could
actually run it legally) doesn't make it work. Things like users
require a license. :-)

> Never run it here, but have run Ultrix 11, for evaluation. Does work
> (on an 11/53), but not very stable.

Nothing comp[arable about them other than the name. Ultrix-11 is
V7 Unix and Ultrix-32 much later and never released for um-licened
use by AT&T.

>
>>
>>> for example. 4.3 BSD works
>>> on Vaxen up to MicroVAX II and possibly later. Having installed
>>> 4.3 bsd on both a Vax 730 and 725 many years ago, can confirm
>>> that it is stable, works with most interfaces including mscp and
>>> tmscp disk and tape controllers and good for serious work.
>>
>> Why run 4.3 BSD when NetBSD is the continued development from there.
>>
>>> Iirc,
>>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>>
>>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>>
>> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
>> developed from it. :-)
>>
>
> Perhaps it has improved, but last version run here was 1.01 or
> similar and at that stage neither of the qbus network
> interfaces were stable for long before falling over. Sort of
> worked, but not well. Firmware bug on the network cards, from
> memory. Perhaps I should give it another try...

Or compare the sources and see who broke what. :-)

bill

On 2022-01-04, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> wrote:
>
> Xinu was an educational OS written by Doug Comer at Purdue to teach
> os classes. For the original system, it was assumed that a Vax
> running BSD 4.3 or similar, typically a 750 class machine, did the
> development, and a pdp11 target machine to run the developed code.
>
> It was quite complete for it's time and was interested enough to
> buy the book and later x86 and 68000 versions that ran on pc or sun 3
> hardware. Not really a mainstream OS, whatever Wiki says...
>

There are a number of academic created operating systems that are
interesting in their own right. None run on VAX however. :-)

Here's one I look at every so often:

http://www.helenos.org/

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-01-05 00:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>
>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>
>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>
>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>
> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.
>
>>                                        for example. 4.3 BSD works
>> on Vaxen up to MicroVAX II and possibly later. Having installed
>> 4.3 bsd on both a Vax 730 and 725 many years ago, can confirm
>> that it is stable, works with most interfaces including mscp and
>> tmscp disk and tape controllers and good for serious work.
>
> Why run 4.3 BSD when NetBSD is the continued development from there.

One reason would be that something that takes a few seconds to run in
4.3BSD might take an hour or three under NetBSD...

However, depending on needs and preferences, one might want to go with
4.3Reno...

>>                                                            Iirc,
>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>
>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>
> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
> developed from it.  :-)

Believe it or not, but it's likely true for the moment, and have
probably been for a number of years now.
NetBSD/vax have been suffering from a gcc that generates bad code for
some situations for quite a while, making the who system somewhat
unstable and totally unable to rebuild itself natively for about 10
years at least.

Johnny

On 2022-01-05 01:29, chris wrote:
> On 01/04/22 23:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>>
>>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>>
>>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>>
>>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>>
>> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.
>
> Well, it's available for free download at the unix historical society,
> for years, so perhaps they organised some agreement to cover that ?.
> Never run it here, but have run Ultrix 11, for evaluation. Does work
> (on an 11/53), but not very stable.

For a PDP-11 I would definitely point at 2.11BSD any day of the week.
It's really nice and good, and actually pretty useful even for "real" work.

Ultrix-11 or some older BSD would really only be for curiosity.

>>> Iirc,
>>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>>
>>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>>
>> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
>> developed from it. :-)
>>
>
> Perhaps it has improved, but last version run here was 1.01 or
> similar and at that stage neither of the qbus network
> interfaces were stable for long before falling over. Sort of
> worked, but not well. Firmware bug on the network cards, from
> memory. Perhaps I should give it another try...

Around NetBSD 5 or so, it was maybe at its peak. After that it have
become really problematic.

(NetBSD never had a 1.01 version number, but back in the days when it
was still at 1.something, Qbus might have not been working that well.
For now, if someone wants NetBSD on a VAX, I would probably look at
version 4 or 5. But I do have some kind of hope that things will soon
improve.)

Johnny

On 1/5/22 11:18 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-01-05 01:29, chris wrote:
>> On 01/04/22 23:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>>>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>>>
>>>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>>>
>>> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.
>>
>> Well, it's available for free download at the unix historical society,
>> for years, so perhaps they organised some agreement to cover that ?.
>> Never run it here, but have run Ultrix 11, for evaluation. Does work
>> (on an 11/53), but not very stable.
>
> For a PDP-11 I would definitely point at 2.11BSD any day of the week.
> It's really nice and good, and actually pretty useful even for "real" work.
>
> Ultrix-11 or some older BSD would really only be for curiosity.
>

Depends on your wishes. Ultrix-11 runs on machines that can not
run 2.22. Try putting 2.11 on an RL02. :-)

>>>> Iirc,
>>>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>>>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>>>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>>>
>>>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>>>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>>>
>>> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
>>> developed from it. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it has improved, but last version run here was 1.01 or
>> similar and at that stage neither of the qbus network
>> interfaces were stable for long before falling over. Sort of
>> worked, but not well. Firmware bug on the network cards, from
>> memory. Perhaps I should give it another try...
>
> Around NetBSD 5 or so, it was maybe at its peak. After that it have
> become really problematic.
>
> (NetBSD never had a 1.01 version number, but back in the days when it
> was still at 1.something, Qbus might have not been working that well.
> For now, if someone wants NetBSD on a VAX, I would probably look at
> version 4 or 5. But I do have some kind of hope that things will soon
> improve.)

For the VAX, I doubt it. we will be stuck with what we have. Unless
someone wants to try porting RSX-180. :-)

bill

On 2022-01-05, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> NetBSD/vax have been suffering from a gcc that generates bad code for
> some situations for quite a while, making the who system somewhat
> unstable and totally unable to rebuild itself natively for about 10
> years at least.
>

Do you happen to know what the OpenBSD people used for a compiler
when OpenBSD still supported the VAX architecture ?

Did they have some custom gcc patches or was it an earlier version
of gcc they used to build the OpenBSD VAX installation kit ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:18:40 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:

> For a PDP-11 I would definitely point at 2.11BSD any day of the week.
> It's really nice and good, and actually pretty useful even for "real"
> work.

If the machine is use doesn't have separate I and D space, it's a bit of
a tight fit. I remember the struggles we had.

In that case, there's always Sixth Edition.

And if it's a PDP-11 with no memory management, Mini-UNIX (a little known
thing, but a genuine Bell Labs one):

http://www.tavi.co.uk/unixhistory/mini-unix.html

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 2022-01-05 18:08, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/5/22 11:18 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-01-05 01:29, chris wrote:
>>> On 01/04/22 23:33, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/22 5:28 PM, chris wrote:
>>>>> On 01/02/22 08:39, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> Before deleting my simh instances, I thought I would look for
>>>>>> other operating systems which ran on VAX and try them out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only current one I have found is NetBSD (which certainly has
>>>>>> a _very_ retro 1980s Unix feel to it. :-)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OpenBSD dropped VAX as an architecture a number of years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know of any other operating systems (including any
>>>>>> experimental ones) for VAX that are still legal to run under simh ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, do you have any links to them ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some old unix distributions, Ultrix32,
>>>>
>>>> Ultrix32 is not legal for use without a license which you can not get.
>>>
>>> Well, it's available for free download at the unix historical society,
>>> for years, so perhaps they organised some agreement to cover that ?.
>>> Never run it here, but have run Ultrix 11, for evaluation. Does work
>>> (on an 11/53), but not very stable.
>>
>> For a PDP-11 I would definitely point at 2.11BSD any day of the week.
>> It's really nice and good, and actually pretty useful even for "real"
>> work.
>>
>> Ultrix-11 or some older BSD would really only be for curiosity.
>>
>
> Depends on your wishes. Ultrix-11 runs on machines that can not
> run 2.22. Try putting 2.11 on an RL02. :-)

True. If you can't run 2.11, then obviously you'll have to try alternative.

>>>>> Iirc,
>>>>> I installed from 9 track magtape, but can be done via TK50 if you
>>>>> can find a way to write the tape. I used an Emulex QD33 and UD33
>>>>> smd disk controllers and disks for the work here.
>>>>>
>>>>> All that stuff is available online for free now and probably far
>>>>> more robust than NetBSD Vax, for example...
>>>>
>>>> I really don't see how 4.3 can be more robust than the versions
>>>> developed from it. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps it has improved, but last version run here was 1.01 or
>>> similar and at that stage neither of the qbus network
>>> interfaces were stable for long before falling over. Sort of
>>> worked, but not well. Firmware bug on the network cards, from
>>> memory. Perhaps I should give it another try...
>>
>> Around NetBSD 5 or so, it was maybe at its peak. After that it have
>> become really problematic.
>>
>> (NetBSD never had a 1.01 version number, but back in the days when it
>> was still at 1.something, Qbus might have not been working that well.
>> For now, if someone wants NetBSD on a VAX, I would probably look at
>> version 4 or 5. But I do have some kind of hope that things will soon
>> improve.)
>
> For the VAX, I doubt it. we will be stuck with what we have. Unless
> someone wants to try porting RSX-180. :-)

Like I said - a much improved version of gcc for VAX is in the queue,
which will seriously improve on the current situation.
Exactly how much remains to be seen, though. I'm hoping that it will
once more be possible to do native builds. At which point I might also
look at some other things I've been putting off for a long time.

Johnny

On 2022-01-06 00:29, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:18:40 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> For a PDP-11 I would definitely point at 2.11BSD any day of the week.
>> It's really nice and good, and actually pretty useful even for "real"
>> work.
>
> If the machine is use doesn't have separate I and D space, it's a bit of
> a tight fit. I remember the struggles we had.

Today I'm not even sure you can get a non-I/D space machine running 2.11.

> In that case, there's always Sixth Edition.

Or Ultrix 11, as Bill suggested.
But then we're back to much less useful systems again.

> And if it's a PDP-11 with no memory management, Mini-UNIX (a little known
> thing, but a genuine Bell Labs one):
>
> http://www.tavi.co.uk/unixhistory/mini-unix.html

Cool. Thanks for the link.

Johnny

On 2022-01-05 19:45, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-01-05, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>> NetBSD/vax have been suffering from a gcc that generates bad code for
>> some situations for quite a while, making the who system somewhat
>> unstable and totally unable to rebuild itself natively for about 10
>> years at least.
>>
>
> Do you happen to know what the OpenBSD people used for a compiler
> when OpenBSD still supported the VAX architecture ?
>
> Did they have some custom gcc patches or was it an earlier version
> of gcc they used to build the OpenBSD VAX installation kit ?

Earlier version. NetBSD used to be better as well, but later versions of
gcc introduced new problems on the VAX side. Which haven't been
addressed until recently.

Also, not sure if OpenBSD ever got around to dynamic linking and other
stuff on VAX. NetBSD did get there, but I'm not sure if anyone else
picked that up.

Johnny

On 06/01/2022 09:44, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-01-06 00:29, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:18:40 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>>> For a PDP-11 I would definitely point at 2.11BSD any day of the week.
>>> It's really nice and good, and actually pretty useful even for "real"
>>> work.
>>
>> If the machine is use doesn't have separate I and D space, it's a bit of
>> a tight fit. I remember the struggles we had.
>
> Today I'm not even sure you can get a non-I/D space machine running 2.11.
>
>> In that case, there's always Sixth Edition.
>
> Or Ultrix 11, as Bill suggested.
> But then we're back to much less useful systems again.
>
>> And if it's a PDP-11 with no memory management, Mini-UNIX (a little known
>> thing, but a genuine Bell Labs one):
>>
>>   http://www.tavi.co.uk/unixhistory/mini-unix.html
>
> Cool. Thanks for the link.
>
>   Johnny

Whilst all these suggestions may work, I can't really see any point in
running anything other than VMS on my VAXs. That is what they were
bought for, that is what I have always done.

Given the lack of a legal OS I am quite inclined to send them to the
re-cyclers to be crushed and scrapped.

This would appear to be my only legal way to dispose of them

Thank you HP for "letting me go" and then destroying one of my few
remaining pleasures...

Dave
G4UGM