Ouch, Peter. Sorry that I'm contributing to the spam. I do agree that the flurry of mails these last two days have exceeded anything I would normally expect, and it is getting a little much off-topic.
Let's see if it calms down some, or else I'll put on my hat and ask for some of it to move elsewhere.
The mailing list *is* intended for HECnet specific things, and of course there pops up tangental questions, but Hercules and other things are a little too far out, if you ask me.
Johnny
On 2012-12-18 00:58, Peter Coghlan wrote:
And it's far easier to implement digest than get users to behave.
If there is a problem with the way people are behaving, I think it is
better
to try to encourage and reward better behaviour than to try to accomodate
it.
Sorry, that should be read "get users to change behaviour." I don't want
to restrict what anyone wants to talk about, personally.
Sorry - I misunderstood.
Sorry again, I don't feel you're trying to oppress anyone. And I
appreciate kicking the tires before buying the car. In my particular case
- and I can accept it graciously if I'm the only one - I would be very
happy if the HECnet list were available in digest form. I just don't see
that impinging on any other forms. If Mailman is adopted, it's already
part of the picture.
It looks like there are others that want digests and that digests are on
the way anyway.
I think that there are other issues with the list, unrelated to digests.
I was under the mistaken impression that others were trying to diplomatically
raise these issues and offer suggestions at possible solutions. It appears
that I was quite wrong there and I have now run out of diplomacy myself.
I wonder would it be possible to make available a mailing list where only
issues closely related to HECnet are discussed and where a policy of "no point
in making one post when ten will do" does not prevail?
I don't really have any use for a mailing list that has so far today produced
100+ messages on topics as diverse as 2.11BSD and GAWK on IA64 plus lots of
administrative stuff and containing buried within a few little gems of
importance to HECnet members, whether it has digests or not.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 2012-12-18 00:31, Clem Cole wrote:
actually 2.10/11 was a distant relation to 4.1/4.2 when Keith started. but his group had an 11/34 if IIRC and he wanted some the tools from the vax that had blown out the instruction limit
of the address space
Well, compared to FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD, 4.1/4.2 are also the distant country cousins. The fact that 2BSD kept being supported long after even BSD4.4 was dead only makes it slightly more funny, if more anachronistic.
2.11BSD is close to dead now, though. I sent out a bunch of patches/fixes about half a year ago, but it was quite a long time before the previous patch set to that went out.
But we're at patch #448 or something like that, to 2.11BSD. A lot of 4.3 functionality was eventually backported to 2.11.
Johnny
Clem
On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2012-12-17 23:50, Boyanich, Alastair wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone straighten me out on a few things.
1) Other than the tuhs/pups guys that seem to have archives of 2.11BSD,
is there a central place that manages source / build / patch trees ?
I've seen the "RetroBSD" guys running this on MIPS PIC32 stuff, but I
suspect from my readings thus far they don't much care about the 11
tree.
Eh. The obvious canonical source would be sms. Steve M. Schultz, who is the official maintainer. I don't remember where he keeps stuff, but that should be easy to locate.
Nobody cares about 2BSD except for the PDP-11 people, since 2BSD by now are rather distant in relation to all the "modern" BSD.
2) Was 2.11BSD ever ported to other platforms? Given the age/era, I'm
curious about 8088/8086/NECv20/80286 given the banked memory models used
and looking at the 8088/8086 XENIX disassembly.
Nope. That would not have been 2BSD then. And since the PDP-11 don't even have banked memory, it would probably cause some headaches to port 2BSD to something like 80286 or other similar machines.
To make it clear - the PDP-11 have a very normal MMU with pages.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 18 Dec 2012, at 01:58, Peter Coghlan <HECNET at beyondthepale.ie> wrote:
GAWK on IA64
Actually I was looking for that to improve the HECNET info web page but I can see how it's a bit off-topic :)
I personally like the atmosphere on this list and ignore any discussions that aren't of interest to me.
Sampsa
And it's far easier to implement digest than get users to behave.
If there is a problem with the way people are behaving, I think it is
better
to try to encourage and reward better behaviour than to try to accomodate
it.
Sorry, that should be read "get users to change behaviour." I don't want
to restrict what anyone wants to talk about, personally.
Sorry - I misunderstood.
Sorry again, I don't feel you're trying to oppress anyone. And I
appreciate kicking the tires before buying the car. In my particular case
- and I can accept it graciously if I'm the only one - I would be very
happy if the HECnet list were available in digest form. I just don't see
that impinging on any other forms. If Mailman is adopted, it's already
part of the picture.
It looks like there are others that want digests and that digests are on
the way anyway.
I think that there are other issues with the list, unrelated to digests.
I was under the mistaken impression that others were trying to diplomatically
raise these issues and offer suggestions at possible solutions. It appears
that I was quite wrong there and I have now run out of diplomacy myself.
I wonder would it be possible to make available a mailing list where only
issues closely related to HECnet are discussed and where a policy of "no point
in making one post when ten will do" does not prevail?
I don't really have any use for a mailing list that has so far today produced
100+ messages on topics as diverse as 2.11BSD and GAWK on IA64 plus lots of
administrative stuff and containing buried within a few little gems of
importance to HECnet members, whether it has digests or not.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
actually 2.10/11 was a distant relation to 4.1/4.2 when Keith started. but his group had an 11/34 if IIRC and he wanted some the tools from the vax that had blown out the instruction limit
of the address space
Clem
On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2012-12-17 23:50, Boyanich, Alastair wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone straighten me out on a few things.
1) Other than the tuhs/pups guys that seem to have archives of 2.11BSD,
is there a central place that manages source / build / patch trees ?
I've seen the "RetroBSD" guys running this on MIPS PIC32 stuff, but I
suspect from my readings thus far they don't much care about the 11
tree.
Eh. The obvious canonical source would be sms. Steve M. Schultz, who is the official maintainer. I don't remember where he keeps stuff, but that should be easy to locate.
Nobody cares about 2BSD except for the PDP-11 people, since 2BSD by now are rather distant in relation to all the "modern" BSD.
2) Was 2.11BSD ever ported to other platforms? Given the age/era, I'm
curious about 8088/8086/NECv20/80286 given the banked memory models used
and looking at the 8088/8086 XENIX disassembly.
Nope. That would not have been 2BSD then. And since the PDP-11 don't even have banked memory, it would probably cause some headaches to port 2BSD to something like 80286 or other similar machines.
To make it clear - the PDP-11 have a very normal MMU with pages.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
no. as one of it authors and very much "there" I think I can say that definitely. 2.10/11 was successful project to "port" most of the 4.1/4.2 functionality to the 16/17 bit address impaired 11 family. it uses thunks to swap instruction and data space at user level - cool project Keith did a great job on it.
But when the new generation of micro processors appeared people tended to start with 4.1 or 4.2 if they wanted a BSD flavor and used PWB 3.0 (aka System 3) or later the System V family - (they did not need to be limited by the 16 bit issues of the 11)
as for xenix (which was originally a microsoft product btw) was a port of version 7 originally for 186 and the 68000. This was done 2-5 years before Kieth starts the 2.8/9/10 stuff. btw after we got Al Arms to rewrite V7 commercial license to create what would become the System 3.0 license and microsoft sold xenix to SCO and they dropped support for anything but the PC/AT (who's processor was the 286)
Clem Cole
On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:50 PM, "Boyanich, Alastair" <Alastair.Boyanich at au.fujitsu.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone straighten me out on a few things.
1) Other than the tuhs/pups guys that seem to have archives of 2.11BSD,
is there a central place that manages source / build / patch trees ?
I've seen the "RetroBSD" guys running this on MIPS PIC32 stuff, but I
suspect from my readings thus far they don't much care about the 11
tree.
2) Was 2.11BSD ever ported to other platforms? Given the age/era, I'm
curious about 8088/8086/NECv20/80286 given the banked memory models used
and looking at the 8088/8086 XENIX disassembly.
Thoughts?
Additionally, I'd like to wish you all a safe and happy silly season :)
Al.
On 2012-12-18 00:03, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
One of my area routers (Nikkel) runs phase V. It is a VaxStation 4000/60 that runs VMS 7.3.
I can switch it on tomorrow when desired?
Yo. Care to hook up with one more person?
Johnny
Hans
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Kari Uusim ki
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Statistics
Verzonden: 17 december 2012 23:50
On 17.12.2012 18:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Well, I figured it might be fun for people to know that there are, as of
this moment, 405 known node names at MIM.
Not bad...
I know there are some more coming in, and in general, there is a steady
stream of new registrations.
Speaking of which, is noone running a phase V area router? (Or could
phase V not even be an area router?)
Johnny
.
A Phase V node can act as an Area router, yes.
I would still like to connect to HECnet using a Phase V router
(DECnet-plus), but I think there isn't anybody else running DECnet-plus
or some other Phase V router?
Regards,
Kari
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
One of my area routers (Nikkel) runs phase V. It is a VaxStation 4000/60 that runs VMS 7.3.
I can switch it on tomorrow when desired?
Hans
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Kari Uusim ki
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Statistics
Verzonden: 17 december 2012 23:50
On 17.12.2012 18:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Well, I figured it might be fun for people to know that there are, as of
this moment, 405 known node names at MIM.
Not bad...
I know there are some more coming in, and in general, there is a steady
stream of new registrations.
Speaking of which, is noone running a phase V area router? (Or could
phase V not even be an area router?)
Johnny
.
A Phase V node can act as an Area router, yes.
I would still like to connect to HECnet using a Phase V router
(DECnet-plus), but I think there isn't anybody else running DECnet-plus
or some other Phase V router?
Regards,
Kari
On 2012-12-17 23:50, Boyanich, Alastair wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone straighten me out on a few things.
1) Other than the tuhs/pups guys that seem to have archives of 2.11BSD,
is there a central place that manages source / build / patch trees ?
I've seen the "RetroBSD" guys running this on MIPS PIC32 stuff, but I
suspect from my readings thus far they don't much care about the 11
tree.
Eh. The obvious canonical source would be sms. Steve M. Schultz, who is the official maintainer. I don't remember where he keeps stuff, but that should be easy to locate.
Nobody cares about 2BSD except for the PDP-11 people, since 2BSD by now are rather distant in relation to all the "modern" BSD.
2) Was 2.11BSD ever ported to other platforms? Given the age/era, I'm
curious about 8088/8086/NECv20/80286 given the banked memory models used
and looking at the 8088/8086 XENIX disassembly.
Nope. That would not have been 2BSD then. And since the PDP-11 don't even have banked memory, it would probably cause some headaches to port 2BSD to something like 80286 or other similar machines.
To make it clear - the PDP-11 have a very normal MMU with pages.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Once upon a time, Peter Coghlan allegedly said
And it's far easier to implement digest than get users to behave.
If there is a problem with the way people are behaving, I think it is
better
to try to encourage and reward better behaviour than to try to accomodate
it.
Sorry, that should be read "get users to change behaviour." I don't want
to restrict what anyone wants to talk about, personally.
You can still get individual msgs if you want them. Why take the option
away from someone else?
I spent a bit of time composing my posting and I thought I carefully
avoided
giving the impression that I wanted to take away any option from anyone.
I'm
more interested in seeing why people want digest mode (as I said, I am
having
difficulty in seeing the attraction it clearly has for some) and whether
we
are trying to solve a problem that will still be there after a digest mode
is
made available.
Sorry again, I don't feel you're trying to oppress anyone. And I
appreciate kicking the tires before buying the car. In my particular case
- and I can accept it graciously if I'm the only one - I would be very
happy if the HECnet list were available in digest form. I just don't see
that impinging on any other forms. If Mailman is adopted, it's already
part of the picture.
On the other hand, I might actually be happy reading a weekly paper
version - something to keep in the "necessary room" with the Farmer's
Almanac?, but it would have to be run off on an LP20. ;)
Cheers,
Phil
--
"There is some truth in your fiction,
and some fiction in your truth." -- Animatrix
