SVR3.5 + source code
Edward John M. Brocklesby
Is it possible to obtain a copy of the SVR3.5 OS, and would it be
worth the upgrade from SVR3.0? Is it possible to obtain the source
to either of them?
And, with regard to the (hard-to-find) development set, would AT&T
really mind if someone posted the disk images onto a FTP archive
somewhere? (I would be willing to do this if there are no problems
with it)
--
Edward John M. Brocklesby
System Administrator, Klamath/Hades UNIX Network
-*- Klamath - Free UNIX accounts for everyone -*-
-*- Data: +44 (0)1865 454802 - UK - 9600bps - 8N1 -*-
gr...@cnct.com
e...@clearwater.gatekeeper.org (Edward John M. Brocklesby) wrote:
>
> Is it possible to obtain a copy of the SVR3.5 OS, and would it be
> worth the upgrade from SVR3.0? Is it possible to obtain the source
> to either of them?
Are we talking AT&T Unix PC Unix 3.0 to 3.5? Yes, that's worth the
effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
released by AT&T for that machine. Work was in progress at
Convergent, I have seen it boot, but there would have been a long
process getting it past SQA and the effort was aborted when AT&T
cancelled the product line. I have seen the source for both the
final released Unix PC OS and the SysVR3 attempt, the only
(unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
been able to track down in several years of searching.
>
> And, with regard to the (hard-to-find) development set, would AT&T
> really mind if someone posted the disk images onto a FTP archive
> somewhere? (I would be willing to do this if there are no problems
> with it)
It's not AT&T's choice anyway. The bulk of the code was by Convergent
Technologies, long since owned by Unisys, and Unisys is tight with
their patents and copyrights. They might not care about it on such
software that is so long discontinued, they might feel the need for a
test case.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gr...@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
WARNING: The Attorney General has determined that Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms can be hazardous to your health -- and get away with it.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Edward John M. Brocklesby
>In article <910031062.6454.1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> e...@clearwater.gatekeeper.org (Edward John M. Brocklesby) wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a copy of the SVR3.5 OS, and would it be
>> worth the upgrade from SVR3.0? Is it possible to obtain the source
>> to either of them?
>
>Are we talking AT&T Unix PC Unix 3.0 to 3.5? Yes, that's worth the
>effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
>released by AT&T for that machine. Work was in progress at
Yes. I had assumed that it was SVr3. Any ideas on where to get it?
William Fulmor
>gr...@cnct.com wrote:
>: effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
>...
>: (unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
>: been able to track down in several years of searching.
>If it's the same guy that had the color UnixPC...
Heehee.
>: It's not AT&T's choice anyway. The bulk of the code was by Convergent
>: Technologies, long since owned by Unisys, and Unisys is tight with
>All of the code belonged to AT&T. It was developed under contract.
>Several years ago I couldn't find anyone who cared enough about the
>source to release the control of it.
In 1994(?) I made an attempt to get ATT (NCR) to release the source for
the 3b1 OS. I was able to get them to agree to release it until they
figured out that ATT (NCR) no longer owned the underlying Unix licenses,
which ATT had passed to USL. Ultimately USL => Novel => SCO.
Novel would not return my calls. Subsequently, SCO said "there's no money
in it". I stopped trying.
Perhaps 6 months to a year ago there was a brief flurry of cross posts
here concerning SCO's providing unix licenses for obsolete DEC machines.
I believe there is/was a mailing list set up by some outfit in Australia.
I did not pursue it. The posts might still be available on DejaNews.
Else if I really dig I might be able to find the list address.
If anyone has an 'in' with SCO, and wants to pursue the matter, I'm game
to try. I know of at least one licensed copy of the 3.51 source tree
which was in existance as recently as 1995.
>I can't imagine any reason to want the source code, from a developmental
>and learning perspective. One would be better off with a fresh copy of
>Linux on a discarded PC.
Because it's there.
Bill
>--
>---
>Clarence A Dold - do...@network.rahul.net
> - Pope Valley & Napa CA.
do...@92.usenet.us.com
: effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
...
: (unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
: been able to track down in several years of searching.
If it's the same guy that had the color UnixPC...
: It's not AT&T's choice anyway. The bulk of the code was by Convergent
: Technologies, long since owned by Unisys, and Unisys is tight with
All of the code belonged to AT&T. It was developed under contract.
Several years ago I couldn't find anyone who cared enough about the
source to release the control of it.
I can't imagine any reason to want the source code, from a developmental
and learning perspective. One would be better off with a fresh copy of
Linux on a discarded PC.
--
Peter da Silva
>All of the code belonged to AT&T. It was developed under contract.
>Several years ago I couldn't find anyone who cared enough about the
>source to release the control of it.
You might want to talk to SCO. They're releasing all sorts of stuff these
days.
>I can't imagine any reason to want the source code, from a developmental
>and learning perspective. One would be better off with a fresh copy of
>Linux on a discarded PC.
From a *learning* perspective you'd be better off with BSD. It's closer to
commercial UNIX than Linux is.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"The GCOS GERTS interface is so bad that a description here is inappropriate.
Anyone seeking to use this interface should seek divine guidance."
Joe R.
>gr...@cnct.com wrote:
>
>: effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
>...
>: (unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
>: been able to track down in several years of searching.
>
>If it's the same guy that had the color UnixPC...
A color Unix PC? Tell me more!
>
>: It's not AT&T's choice anyway. The bulk of the code was by Convergent
>: Technologies, long since owned by Unisys, and Unisys is tight with
>
>All of the code belonged to AT&T. It was developed under contract.
>Several years ago I couldn't find anyone who cared enough about the
>source to release the control of it.
Typical big company mentality. No one is willing to take the
responsiblity of releasing it.
Joe
Hello Kittyhawk
|gr...@cnct.com wrote:
|
|: effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
|...
|: (unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
|: been able to track down in several years of searching.
|
|If it's the same guy that had the color UnixPC...
|
|: Technologies, long since owned by Unisys, and Unisys is tight with
|
|All of the code belonged to AT&T. It was developed under contract.
|Several years ago I couldn't find anyone who cared enough about the
|source to release the control of it.
SCO would be the place to go, I think. They have
already made source available for PDP systems.
|I can't imagine any reason to want the source code, from a developmental
|and learning perspective. One would be better off with a fresh copy of
|Linux on a discarded PC.
There's a number of things that could be fixed/modernised,
plus there's the chance to see how various devices are
managed by driver code, for those fiendish enough to
try to port a modern O/S to the beastie...
--
,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario 1 416 699 1868
a \i\ Internet: b...@gts.org Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
`/o/-e "We congratulate you on your free elections and your
_\ >_ successful dengue-abatement campaign!" - W. Gibson
Hello Kittyhawk
Edward John M. Brocklesby <e...@clearwater.gatekeeper.org> wrote:
|
|Is it possible to obtain a copy of the SVR3.5 OS, and would it be
|worth the upgrade from SVR3.0? Is it possible to obtain the source
|to either of them?
The version to get is 3.51
gr...@cnct.com
rig...@intellistar.net (Joe R.) wrote:
> do...@92.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
> >gr...@cnct.com wrote:
> >
> >: effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
> >...
> >: (unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
> >: been able to track down in several years of searching.
> >
> >If it's the same guy that had the color UnixPC...
>
To the best of my knowledge, there were three prototypes built of what
would have been the next version of the Unix PC. 68020. SIMM sockets
for 16MB. Color tube. Socket for math coprocessor. 2400 modem. I
forget what else. Brian salvaged one on its way to the dumpster. It
had a debug ROM, not a boot ROM, and a boot ROM from a stock Unix PC
did not work. Project aborted when AT&T pulled out. A damned shame.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gr...@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails
of the last priest." [Denis Diderot, "Dithyrambe sur la fete de rois"]
do...@19.usenet.us.com
: forget what else. Brian salvaged one on its way to the dumpster. It
Hey, that's not fair. The nameless person I referred to didn't snag things
from the dumpster. He bought them from the salvage department of
Convergent. In later days, they made sure that the products that they put
up for salvage sale were not capable of working.
In later days, I suppose they also made sure that the salvage 1/2" mag tape
didn't have copies of OS source on them either ;-)
Mark Emanuele
> do...@92.usenet.us.com writes:
>
> >gr...@cnct.com wrote:
>
> >: effort to upgrade. There was _never_ a SysVR3 version of Unix
> >...
> >: (unauthorized) copies I knew of were in the hands of a man I haven't
> >: been able to track down in several years of searching.
>
> >If it's the same guy that had the color UnixPC...
>
> Heehee.
>
> >: It's not AT&T's choice anyway. The bulk of the code was by Convergent
> >: Technologies, long since owned by Unisys, and Unisys is tight with
>
> >All of the code belonged to AT&T. It was developed under contract.
> >Several years ago I couldn't find anyone who cared enough about the
> >source to release the control of it.
>
> In 1994(?) I made an attempt to get ATT (NCR) to release the source for
> the 3b1 OS. I was able to get them to agree to release it until they
> figured out that ATT (NCR) no longer owned the underlying Unix licenses,
> which ATT had passed to USL. Ultimately USL => Novel => SCO.
>
> Novel would not return my calls. Subsequently, SCO said "there's no money
> in it". I stopped trying.
>
> Perhaps 6 months to a year ago there was a brief flurry of cross posts
> here concerning SCO's providing unix licenses for obsolete DEC machines.
> I believe there is/was a mailing list set up by some outfit in Australia.
> I did not pursue it. The posts might still be available on DejaNews.
> Else if I really dig I might be able to find the list address.
>
> If anyone has an 'in' with SCO, and wants to pursue the matter, I'm game
> to try. I know of at least one licensed copy of the 3.51 source tree
> which was in existance as recently as 1995.
>
> >I can't imagine any reason to want the source code, from a developmental
> >and learning perspective. One would be better off with a fresh copy of
> >Linux on a discarded PC.
>
> Because it's there.
>
> Bill
>
> >--
> >---
> >Clarence A Dold - do...@network.rahul.net
> > - Pope Valley & Napa CA.
I H A V E the "final" Sources, however I will need to try to work
something out with the legal people at AT&T / NCR / UNISYS / SCO. I have
them for "Any customer under support contract with NCR who requires
assistance" . It seems that someone at NCR sold a support contract to a
customer AFTER the product had been MD'd for seven years. I got the honors of
supporting that customer. I am GLAD to say that they are no longer running
3b1's, and I guess my "need to know access is no longer legally there". I
will have to check with my lawyer. IIf something can be worked out, Maybe I
can release it to the NET community. I have no idea if that will be
possible, though. (you know how lawyers are...)
--
Mark A. Emanuele
President
Overleaf International
69 Church Street - Keansburg, NJ 07734
+1.732.738.6815
+1.732.738.6827 FAX
Steven N. Hirsch
>
>I H A V E the "final" Sources, however I will need to try to work
>something out with the legal people at AT&T / NCR / UNISYS / SCO. I have
>them for "Any customer under support contract with NCR who requires
>assistance" . It seems that someone at NCR sold a support contract to a
>customer AFTER the product had been MD'd for seven years. I got the honors of
>supporting that customer. I am GLAD to say that they are no longer running
>3b1's, and I guess my "need to know access is no longer legally there". I
>will have to check with my lawyer. IIf something can be worked out, Maybe I
>can release it to the NET community. I have no idea if that will be
>possible, though. (you know how lawyers are...)
Best guess says that you'll never even get a return phone call from
the legal folks. Or, if you do, they'll promise to "get back to you"
and never follow up.
Still, I'd love to have a copy of the sources.
Steve
Richard L. Hamilton
b...@GTS.Net (Hello Kittyhawk) writes:
> In article <910031062.6454.1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Edward John M. Brocklesby <e...@clearwater.gatekeeper.org> wrote:
>|
>|Is it possible to obtain a copy of the SVR3.5 OS, and would it be
>|worth the upgrade from SVR3.0? Is it possible to obtain the source
>|to either of them?
>
>
> The version to get is 3.51
3.51m, actually, available as an update to 3.51 from
ftp://archive.cis.ohio-state.edu/pub/att7300/kernel/FIXDISK2.0+IN
Another nit: notwithstanding being version 3.5[whatever], it's _not_ SVR3
(no /proc, no FSS (filesystem switch), the old cruddy Wollongong TCP/IP
(if you have the Ethernet card and software), etc.) It's basically SVR2
with some goodies added (loadable drivers, hardware specific stuff like
the window driver, etc). To sort of clarify that, the manuals usually
called it _version_ 3.5[whatever], not _release_ 3.5[whatever]. When they
were being particularly pedantic, they called it version 3.5[whatever] for
the Unix PC.
--
ftp> get |fortune
377 I/O error: smart remark generator failed
Bogonics: the primary language inside the Beltway
mailto:rlh...@mindwarp.smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
do...@92.usenet.us.com
: (if you have the Ethernet card and software), etc.) It's basically SVR2
: with some goodies added (loadable drivers, hardware specific stuff like
The UnixPC was the origin of the loadable drivers, as well as shared
library, almost _required_ in light of the 10MB disk and 512k RAM ;-)
I haven't followed the Wollongong argument properly. My understanding at
the time was that Convergent did the TCP/IP port to the MegaFrame SVR2, and
then sold the rights to Lachman, as a marketing arm, which Convergent was
not interested in.
Boot messages, and /usr/include files generally have "Convergent"
copyrights in them, even today.
In the last gasping days of the project, there was some competitive
software development conducted by AT&T, but the vast majority of released
software was developed in Santa Clara, California.
gr...@cnct.com
do...@network.rahul.net wrote:
> Hey, that's not fair. The nameless person I referred to didn't snag things
> from the dumpster. He bought them from the salvage department of
> Convergent. In later days, they made sure that the products that they put
Well, he told _me_ it was on its way to the dumpster.
> up for salvage sale were not capable of working.
> In later days, I suppose they also made sure that the salvage 1/2" mag tape
> didn't have copies of OS source on them either ;-)
The tapes, IIRC, were QICs.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gr...@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_
do...@19.usenet.us.com
: > In later days, I suppose they also made sure that the salvage 1/2" mag tape
: > didn't have copies of OS source on them either ;-)
gr...@cnct.com wrote:
: The tapes, IIRC, were QICs.
But no. They were 1/2". I'm not talking about the strange QIC tapes
attached to UnixPC, but the 1/2" mag tapes used for transfer of source from
one location to another, and for archival storage.
gr...@cnct.com
<36535eca...@hell-flame-wars.mil>...
> Cyril...@Not.Valid.com wrote:
> >specia...@REMhell-flame-wars.org (Tim Thorne) wrote:
> >>Cyril...@Not.Valid.com wrote:
> >>>specia...@REMhell-flame-wars.org (Tim Thorne) wrote:
> >>>>"EditorinChief" <mth...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>Tim Thorne <specia...@REMhell-flame-wars.org> wrote
> >>>>>> "EditorinChief" <mth...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> >Tim Thorne <specia...@REMhell-flame-wars.org> wrote
> >>>>>> >> Cyril...@Not.Valid.com wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >"EditorinChief" <mth...@swbell.net>wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >>I'm telling you son, better get back to our threads or I'm
claiming
> >>>>>> >> >>another spank.
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >Perhaps he has bigger fish to fry than a Dipshit like
you...........
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> It appears my server is filtering articles on quality now. None
of
> >>>>>> >> Thacker's have shown up. I guess they've got DweebFeed (tm)
installed
> >>>>>> >> on it now. If he wants another good kicking and isn't scared of
> >>>>>> >> getting into a few threads without telling me what a "great
flamer" he
> >>>>>> >> is and then running off when asked for proof, he can always
repost
> >>>>>> >> them.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >Spank!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Told you he'd run away from reposting them...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Funny, Timmy...I didn't seem to have any difficulty viewing them on
my end.
> >>>>
> >>>>That doesn't mean dick, you clueless fuck. Don't you understand
> >>>>anything about Usenet?
> >>>>
> >>>>Hey Cyril, you'll never guess what happened. Thacker ran away from
> >>>>reposting them again. I bet doesn't even know how to repost them.
> >>>
> >>>Im shocked.......This man promised me a flame education........all he
> >>>has done,is show me what *not* to do...........
> >>
> >>This man promises many things, but the only thing he's delivered so
> >>far is fag lames, and crap ones too.
> >
> >Perhaps he is a slow starter?
>
> Non-starter would be more accurate.
>
> >On the other hand, perhaps he is just a crap flamer?
>
> I think that's it.
I see you're continuing your racist slurpfest.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Mike Thacker, your Editor in Chief
http://www.flameguide.com
Message-ID: <364a0aac...@news.alt.net>
Cyril...@Not.Valid.com wrote:
My head is nowhere near Mr. Thornes ass.