Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.2bsd Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newshost.convex.com!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.new-york.net!wlbr!sms From: sms@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com (Steven M. Schultz) Subject: Re: Is this group for the discusion and use of BSD 2.x? Sender: news@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com (Steven M. Schultz) Organization: GTE Government Systems, Thousand Oaks CA USA Message-ID: <Do8183.831@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com> References: <4i4mvm$611@beta.datastorm.com> <1996Mar13.033039.1@spcvxb.spc.edu> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:38:27 GMT Lines: 61 In article <1996Mar13.033039.1@spcvxb.spc.edu>, Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr. <terry@spcvxb.spc.edu> wrote: >In article <4i4mvm$611@beta.datastorm.com>, John A. Maier <johnam@beta.datastorm.com> writes: >> Is this group for the discusion and use of BSD 2.x? > > Yes. [Hooray! An on-topic post that isn't from Steve! 8-] But you didn't expect me to stay quiet did you? :-) > I don't think there's a FAQ. However, lots of friendly 2BSD users (all of Never been a need for one so far - "everyone" _knew_ that that 2BSD was pdp-11 specific (and that 4BSD started out on Vaxen and migrated to other platforms later). > While it's theoretically possible to port one of the free BSD-derived >systems to the PDP-11, some things get in the way: First, there's been a >lot of "code bloat" since 2BSD (my 2BSD kernel is 150629 bytes; my Net2- Yep - while (editorial) "we"ve gotten quite adept at stuffing 10 kilograms of 'stuff' into 5kg sacks there comes a point at which it becoming impossible. The presumption of 32bit addressing and unlimited memory makes for a very uncomfortable fit in a 64k address space and 4mb (max) of memory. >Gang-of-N copyright is claimed in most of the existing 2BSD machine mod- >ules as I recall. Lastly, you'll need to find somebody to do the work. And come up with a C compiler. >Steve and I came up with a [much simpler] new pseudo-VM scheme that would >allow virtually (no pun intended) unlimited code and data segments, but >even that was impossible to get implemented. Part of the problem is that the folks who can do the (compiler) work aren't likely to be interested in the challenge of squishing 100kg into 1kg sacks any more. >do this any more. If you have a valid license, you can ask Steve what the >best way to get a copy is - send mail to sms@moe.2bsd.com. That's cause 'curly' (the /73) and 'larry' (the /93) aren't up all the time 8-) >I/D space and a Unibus or a Q-bus. Supervisor mode is necessary if you I never saw, did you Terry?, a 11 that had split I/D but did not have supervisor mode. >There once was a version of 2BSD that ran on the Pro, but the current Some one did hack PRO support into 2.9BSD. It's *ugly* (the PRO architecture makes one want to hurl - and not just shotputs ;-)). In any event the PRO-350 wouldn't work anyhow since it lacks split I/D. The 380 might work, but the limitation on the max sized disks supported by the PRO controller puts a damper on any development on a PRO - you'd need a larger 11 around and do work there. Steven Schultz sms@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com sms@moe.2bsd.com