Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #69605 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-07-19 11:41 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-16 15:53 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2025-07-16 12:41 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-16 17:32 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-16 17:54 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-17 03:44 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-07-19 09:48 +0300
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-19 17:49 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-21 09:32 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-21 17:08 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-07-21 16:04 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-21 23:06 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 14:46 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-07-21 16:07 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-21 21:16 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:27 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:42 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-07-21 16:06 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-22 10:08 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-22 22:16 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-07-22 19:19 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 14:44 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-22 20:55 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 21:08 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-23 18:48 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 14:04 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 13:13 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 15:23 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:43 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:31 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-26 17:52 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:44 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 17:47 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-26 18:19 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:25 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 21:44 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 21:12 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-27 22:09 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 23:00 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-28 09:10 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:02 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:17 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 11:10 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:55 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 14:13 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-04 10:10 +0200
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 17:38 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 15:16 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 22:39 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:46 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 23:00 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 15:57 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:48 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:11 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:43 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-08 08:10 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alan Bowler <alantbowler@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 14:07 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-29 12:57 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:12 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:09 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 20:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:21 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-27 16:40 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 08:30 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-28 10:09 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-27 19:04 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 04:06 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 14:53 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-03 20:43 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 03:26 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-28 15:56 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 00:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:50 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:15 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 12:46 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:28 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-08-29 14:40 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:28 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 00:25 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-30 12:19 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:37 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:23 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 17:37 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-31 22:24 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:35 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 07:55 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-01 11:52 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:11 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 10:41 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 18:38 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:42 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-04 20:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:08 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:03 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-05 12:15 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:17 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 07:31 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-09-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:56 +0000
Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:10 +0200
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 14:23 +0000
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 14:11 -0400
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 21:07 +0200
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 19:29 +0000
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-10 20:13 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-04 22:22 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:06 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-05 12:02 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-30 18:30 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:25 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 21:46 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:44 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-03 14:31 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-09-03 01:22 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 01:13 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:20 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-09-01 14:46 +0300
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-01 14:33 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:03 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:53 +0200
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-29 17:09 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:18 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:54 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 03:06 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:28 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 05:30 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 11:59 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:26 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:36 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:31 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 03:10 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:13 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-29 22:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-29 21:12 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-29 20:52 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:34 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:51 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-30 15:54 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 12:13 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 19:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 14:45 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-02 14:45 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-09-03 10:40 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 07:59 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 17:38 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-03 17:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 22:03 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-08-30 19:34 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:44 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:36 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 01:52 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:26 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:01 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 18:12 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 20:15 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:20 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:49 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 12:40 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-31 08:19 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 20:10 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-07-21 16:05 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2025-07-19 11:41 +0100
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 19:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108sqta$256ak$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72644 |
On 29/08/2025 18:09, John Levine wrote: > According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>: >>>> That would require instructions that the C compiler >>>> didn't generate. >>> >>> That claim "would require instructions that the C compiler didn't generate" >>> is just not true. Without memory protection, there are plenty of ways to crash >>> the system - e.g. overwriting the operating system code due to a bug in an >>> application. >> >> If you didn't want to live entirely in a 64K segment, though, you probably >> told your C compiler to generate code for the various larger memory modules, > > Not the PC/IX compiler. It was small mode only, which was plenty to compile > all of the PDP-11 source code. x86 object code was a little smaller than > PDP-11 code, the data would have been thes same size. > > We got complaints from people who wanted to be able to run larger programs. > Sorry, doesn't do that, you can use several processes talking though pipes. PDP I worked on was 64k code, 64k data/stack C was designed for that My PC compilers could do large model. But oit wasnt really worth it until the 386 came along -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <V1rsQ.76266$GnW4.51675@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #72657 |
On 2025-08-29, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 29/08/2025 18:09, John Levine wrote: > >> According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>: >> >>>>> That would require instructions that the C compiler >>>>> didn't generate. >>>> >>>> That claim "would require instructions that the C compiler didn't generate" >>>> is just not true. Without memory protection, there are plenty of ways to >>>> crash the system - e.g. overwriting the operating system code due to a bug >>>> in an application. >>> >>> If you didn't want to live entirely in a 64K segment, though, you probably >>> told your C compiler to generate code for the various larger memory modules, >> >> Not the PC/IX compiler. It was small mode only, which was plenty to compile >> all of the PDP-11 source code. x86 object code was a little smaller than >> PDP-11 code, the data would have been thes same size. >> >> We got complaints from people who wanted to be able to run larger programs. >> Sorry, doesn't do that, you can use several processes talking though pipes. > PDP I worked on was 64k code, 64k data/stack > > C was designed for that > My PC compilers could do large model. But oit wasnt really worth it > until the 386 came along It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years ago that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize pointers and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 05:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhfi0qFfiteU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72688 |
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:17 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years ago > that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize pointers > and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K > barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. Tiny, Small, Large, Bigger & Humongous. I have the names wrong but I'm pretty sure there were 5 sets of libraries that you had to chose to do a build. Then there was what was referred to as the 'thunk' in DJGPP circles when you need to get real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 03:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <qc6cnRIe8Ih4Py_1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #72709 |
On 8/30/25 1:54 AM, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:17 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years ago >> that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize pointers >> and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K >> barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. > > Tiny, Small, Large, Bigger & Humongous. I have the names wrong but I'm > pretty sure there were 5 sets of libraries that you had to chose to do a > build. Then there was what was referred to as the 'thunk' in DJGPP circles > when you need to get real. Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code space and at LEAST another 64k data area. A few tricks and ....... So YEA - you COULD run some kind of -IX on the original PCs. Not super fast/efficient but it COULD work. Remember early versions of SCO. 286/386 ... MUCH better - but it came LATER.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 08:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108u972$2f7ql$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72720 |
On 30/08/2025 08:06, c186282 wrote: > On 8/30/25 1:54 AM, rbowman wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:17 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years ago >>> that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize pointers >>> and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K >>> barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. >> >> Tiny, Small, Large, Bigger & Humongous. I have the names wrong but I'm >> pretty sure there were 5 sets of libraries that you had to chose to do a >> build. Then there was what was referred to as the 'thunk' in DJGPP >> circles >> when you need to get real. > > Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. > Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code > space and at LEAST another 64k data area. A few > tricks and ....... > > So YEA - you COULD run some kind of -IX on > the original PCs. Not super fast/efficient > but it COULD work. Remember early versions > of SCO. > > 286/386 ... MUCH better - but it came LATER. The big trouble was that Unix was expanding faster than the PC architecture could handle until the 386 made it all easy. Then SCO Unix made it all not just possible, but extremely handy. But we never got a serious graphical user interface on Unix. By the time X windows had stabilised and cent window managers evolved Linux had arrived. -- "In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is true: it is true because it is powerful." Lucas Bergkamp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 05:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <s8acnZRwvctaWS_1nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #72725 |
On 8/30/25 3:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/08/2025 08:06, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/30/25 1:54 AM, rbowman wrote: >>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:17 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years ago >>>> that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize >>>> pointers >>>> and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K >>>> barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. >>> >>> Tiny, Small, Large, Bigger & Humongous. I have the names wrong but I'm >>> pretty sure there were 5 sets of libraries that you had to chose to do a >>> build. Then there was what was referred to as the 'thunk' in DJGPP >>> circles >>> when you need to get real. >> >> Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. >> Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code >> space and at LEAST another 64k data area. A few >> tricks and ....... >> >> So YEA - you COULD run some kind of -IX on >> the original PCs. Not super fast/efficient >> but it COULD work. Remember early versions >> of SCO. >> >> 286/386 ... MUCH better - but it came LATER. > > The big trouble was that Unix was expanding faster than the PC > architecture could handle until the 386 made it all easy. Agreed. > Then SCO Unix made it all not just possible, but extremely handy. Well ... not "handy" enough. My boss at the time - a very smart nerd - and I did discuss DOS -vs- Unix for The Outfit. We eventually decided on DOS, and ultimately Win. MORE stuff. MORE support. > But we never got a serious graphical user interface on Unix. By the time > X windows had stabilised and cent window managers evolved Linux had > arrived. Hey, DEALT with 'X' and WMs on the first versions of Linux you could get. NOT super-easy all the time. Spent like 48 hours getting it to rec my damned mouse with RH. NOT encouraging. However Linux GOT BETTER. Soon I had all the needed office servers on Linux - Just Because. But, alas, the Staff - Winders Forever And Always. Typical "split environment". Old DOS/Win ... you were limited to TEN clients for shared disks and net connections. Solution ... make Linux box ONE of those - and then share a LOT more using it's address :-) That was my first real use for Linux. Grew thereafter. No, the budget did NOT include switching to the early WinServer and per-user licenses. Only did that MUCH MUCH later - but there were only 5 users for that particular need. After retirement, not sure what the New Guy has done ... but it looked to be all M$ Cloud. He couldn't even write a three line Python script alas - but the bosses kinda LIKED that. Insanity. Vlad's boyz WILL destroy The Cloud REAL SOON. Have already proved they can. Then what ? Heh, heh ... shopping for net services ... a LOT of US corps now demand bank acct ROUTING NUMBERS. Note that what can be routed IN can be routed OUT. With CCards you have legal protections - NOT with routing numbers. Still get my pension/SS checks on PAPER. Do you wonder WHY ??? Vlad's boyz will have ALL the routing numbers by now. No - corp or govt - has been immune to Vlad's boyz. Xi's boyz, maybe even worse. Frankly, ALL US biz/banks/govt need to issue NEW NUMBERS. But it'd be a huge cluster-fuck so they WON'T. Alas the BIGGER cluster-fuck is on the NEAR horizon. 'Cold' war has become much warmer ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 11:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108ulik$2il1s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72732 |
On 30/08/2025 10:30, c186282 wrote: > On 8/30/25 3:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 30/08/2025 08:06, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/30/25 1:54 AM, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:17 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years >>>>> ago >>>>> that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize >>>>> pointers >>>>> and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K >>>>> barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. >>>> >>>> Tiny, Small, Large, Bigger & Humongous. I have the names wrong but I'm >>>> pretty sure there were 5 sets of libraries that you had to chose to >>>> do a >>>> build. Then there was what was referred to as the 'thunk' in DJGPP >>>> circles >>>> when you need to get real. >>> >>> Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. >>> Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code >>> space and at LEAST another 64k data area. A few >>> tricks and ....... >>> >>> So YEA - you COULD run some kind of -IX on >>> the original PCs. Not super fast/efficient >>> but it COULD work. Remember early versions >>> of SCO. >>> >>> 286/386 ... MUCH better - but it came LATER. >> >> The big trouble was that Unix was expanding faster than the PC >> architecture could handle until the 386 made it all easy. > > Agreed. > >> Then SCO Unix made it all not just possible, but extremely handy. > > Well ... not "handy" enough. > > My boss at the time - a very smart nerd - and I did > discuss DOS -vs- Unix for The Outfit. > > We eventually decided on DOS, and ultimately Win. > > MORE stuff. MORE support. > I was the boss. SCO Unix for the networked servers and Win 3 for the desktops SUN PC-NFS to hang it all together. >> But we never got a serious graphical user interface on Unix. By the >> time X windows had stabilised and cent window managers evolved Linux >> had arrived. > > Hey, DEALT with 'X' and WMs on the first versions > of Linux you could get. NOT super-easy all the time. > Spent like 48 hours getting it to rec my damned mouse > with RH. > > NOT encouraging. > I waited. By around 2003 Debian had some sort of GUI > However Linux GOT BETTER. Soon I had all the needed > office servers on Linux - Just Because. > > But, alas, the Staff - Winders Forever And Always. > > Typical "split environment". > Yup. Of course > -- “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 08:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <eHGdnUt6hJV5cC_1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #72738 |
On 8/30/25 6:59 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/08/2025 10:30, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/30/25 3:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 30/08/2025 08:06, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/30/25 1:54 AM, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:17 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few >>>>>> years ago >>>>>> that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize >>>>>> pointers >>>>>> and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the >>>>>> 640K >>>>>> barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. >>>>> >>>>> Tiny, Small, Large, Bigger & Humongous. I have the names wrong but I'm >>>>> pretty sure there were 5 sets of libraries that you had to chose to >>>>> do a >>>>> build. Then there was what was referred to as the 'thunk' in DJGPP >>>>> circles >>>>> when you need to get real. >>>> >>>> Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. >>>> Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code >>>> space and at LEAST another 64k data area. A few >>>> tricks and ....... >>>> >>>> So YEA - you COULD run some kind of -IX on >>>> the original PCs. Not super fast/efficient >>>> but it COULD work. Remember early versions >>>> of SCO. >>>> >>>> 286/386 ... MUCH better - but it came LATER. >>> >>> The big trouble was that Unix was expanding faster than the PC >>> architecture could handle until the 386 made it all easy. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> Then SCO Unix made it all not just possible, but extremely handy. >> >> Well ... not "handy" enough. >> >> My boss at the time - a very smart nerd - and I did >> discuss DOS -vs- Unix for The Outfit. >> >> We eventually decided on DOS, and ultimately Win. >> >> MORE stuff. MORE support. >> > > I was the boss. SCO Unix for the networked servers and Win 3 for the > desktops > SUN PC-NFS to hang it all together. We didn't have "servers" quite that far back. It was all DOS/Win3/95 plus Novell networking for awhile. I remember installing all the coax and T-connectors. >>> But we never got a serious graphical user interface on Unix. By the >>> time X windows had stabilised and cent window managers evolved Linux >>> had arrived. >> >> Hey, DEALT with 'X' and WMs on the first versions >> of Linux you could get. NOT super-easy all the time. >> Spent like 48 hours getting it to rec my damned mouse >> with RH. >> >> NOT encouraging. >> > I waited. By around 2003 Debian had some sort of GUI GUIs appeared fairly early - but EASY TO CONFIGURE ones ... had to wait a bit. >> However Linux GOT BETTER. Soon I had all the needed >> office servers on Linux - Just Because. >> >> But, alas, the Staff - Winders Forever And Always. >> >> Typical "split environment". >> > Yup. Of course This IS the norm. Some complain because I speak of Winders in this forum but, alas, it's still ALL CONNECTED. Win shit and YOU have to drop yer Linux stuff and fix all the Win boxes. Been there, done that, again and again and again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 20:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhh5mkFnn8kU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72738 |
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:59:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > I was the boss. SCO Unix for the networked servers and Win 3 for the > desktops SUN PC-NFS to hang it all together. Our legacy products were developed for RS6000 AIX. Port to Linux, port to Windows. Windows won. There were two sites that had Linux servers but then the administrators who were Linux fans moved on and the new guy went to Windows. The customer is always right as long as they keep signing checks (cheques, whatever you want to call them)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 20:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhh5crFnn8kU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72720 |
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 03:06:11 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. > Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code space and at LEAST > another 64k data area. A few tricks and ....... They mostly followed the bank switching the Z80s were doing but incorporated the memory management into the processor. After all, the i432 was the REAL answer so why get fancy with the Band-Aid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <veJtQ.970632$3yJ3.433337@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #72782 |
On 2025-08-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 03:06:11 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. >> Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code space and at LEAST >> another 64k data area. A few tricks and ....... > > They mostly followed the bank switching the Z80s were doing but > incorporated the memory management into the processor. After all, the i432 > was the REAL answer so why get fancy with the Band-Aid. "It's a good thing the iAPX432 never took off. Otherwise a totally horrid Intel architecture might have taken over the world." -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 03:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhpptkF76meU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73075 |
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:22:35 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-08-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 03:06:11 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Tbe original 8088 had all the needed registers. >>> Could minimum deliver at LEAST an easy 64k code space and at LEAST >>> another 64k data area. A few tricks and ....... >> >> They mostly followed the bank switching the Z80s were doing but >> incorporated the memory management into the processor. After all, the >> i432 was the REAL answer so why get fancy with the Band-Aid. > > "It's a good thing the iAPX432 never took off. Otherwise a totally > horrid Intel architecture might have taken over the world." There truly are worse things than the x86. I think one of the 432 designers had a computer science degree. That's the kiss of death :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 08:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108u8ao$2f7ql$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72688 |
On 30/08/2025 00:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-08-29, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 29/08/2025 18:09, John Levine wrote: >> >>> According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>: >>> >>>>>> That would require instructions that the C compiler >>>>>> didn't generate. >>>>> >>>>> That claim "would require instructions that the C compiler didn't generate" >>>>> is just not true. Without memory protection, there are plenty of ways to >>>>> crash the system - e.g. overwriting the operating system code due to a bug >>>>> in an application. >>>> >>>> If you didn't want to live entirely in a 64K segment, though, you probably >>>> told your C compiler to generate code for the various larger memory modules, >>> >>> Not the PC/IX compiler. It was small mode only, which was plenty to compile >>> all of the PDP-11 source code. x86 object code was a little smaller than >>> PDP-11 code, the data would have been thes same size. >>> >>> We got complaints from people who wanted to be able to run larger programs. >>> Sorry, doesn't do that, you can use several processes talking though pipes. >> PDP I worked on was 64k code, 64k data/stack >> >> C was designed for that >> My PC compilers could do large model. But oit wasnt really worth it >> until the 386 came along > > It was for us. We needed all that memory. It was only a few years ago > that I finally got rid of all the hacks I wrote in to normalize pointers > and deal with segment wrap-arounds. It was horrible. Forget the 640K > barrier - the 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8088/80286. > Yes. Well my programs were all relatively small, Mostly BIOS level ROMs and device drivers. Cant use large model in an 8k PROM... -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 22:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <dPpsQ.120663$xtoa.92489@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #72585 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: >On 2025-08-27, Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote: > >> I haven't tried Unix on 8086, but DOS on x86 essentially relied on applications >> being reasonably correct and not too buggy. Having the reset button conveniently >> accessible was effectively a requirement for any DOS PC ;-) > >Unfortunately, at about that time the reset button vanished (probably due >to the DMCA or whatever preceded it). We had an ISA/EISA card with a single pushbutton on it that would assert the NMI signal. The PCI version asserted SERR#. Very useful for OS debugging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 21:12 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108su32$3e8$1@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #72342 |
On 2025-08-26 22:21, John Levine wrote: > According to Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se>: >> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >> PDP-11, > > The 8086 had no MMU at all, but small model code gave you 64K each of > instructions and data, the same as what the 11's MMU gave you. There was no > hardware protection so a malicious or badly broken program could crash the > system but they rarely did. That would require instructions that the C compiler > didn't generate. If we were to compare the memory layout/concepts of the PDP-11 and x86, with an eye to powerful and capable, then the PDP-11, which have an MMU, don't need to allocate 64K of memory for each process. In fact, it only need to allocate as much memory as the process actually require, and any addressing outside of that would trap and you'd get an signal in your process. So you can easily squish in many more processes in the same amount of memory. The next couple of points I don't know exactly when they came about for the PDP-11, so it might have been a bit later, but I think it's still valid as a comparison against the x86 here. Stack, on the PDP-11 is dynamically grown and allocated while the program is running, so you don't have to pre-allocate all that memory either, even though it can grow up to close to 64K. But even more important, on the PDP-11, there is support for overlaid programs, which makes heavy use of the MMU. Basically, programs can be way larger than 64K code. You can place functions in different overlays, and call between them, and you can run up to many hundred of K of code very easy and straight forward on the PDP-11, and it's all because the MMU helps you out with it, moving the pages mapping around as needed. > I worked on PC/IX which was a straightforward port of PDP-11 System III Unix to > the PC. It wasn't particularly fast, but all the C programs that ran on the 11 > also ran on PC/IX. It was quite reliable. I recall that we got a bug report > about something that only broke if the system had been up continuously for a > year. And the PDP-11 grew more capable in ways the PC/IX would not be able to follow, getting programs you would not have been able to run on that PC. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 20:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhei7qFagenU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72670 |
In article <108su32$3e8$1@news.misty.com>, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >On 2025-08-26 22:21, John Levine wrote: >> According to Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se>: >>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >>> PDP-11, >> >> The 8086 had no MMU at all, but small model code gave you 64K each of >> instructions and data, the same as what the 11's MMU gave you. There was no >> hardware protection so a malicious or badly broken program could crash the >> system but they rarely did. That would require instructions that the C >compiler >> didn't generate. > >If we were to compare the memory layout/concepts of the PDP-11 and x86, >with an eye to powerful and capable, then the PDP-11, which have an MMU, >don't need to allocate 64K of memory for each process. In fact, it only >need to allocate as much memory as the process actually require, and any >addressing outside of that would trap and you'd get an signal in your >process. So you can easily squish in many more processes in the same >amount of memory. >The next couple of points I don't know exactly when they came about for >the PDP-11, so it might have been a bit later, but I think it's still >valid as a comparison against the x86 here. >Stack, on the PDP-11 is dynamically grown and allocated while the >program is running, so you don't have to pre-allocate all that memory >either, even though it can grow up to close to 64K. > >But even more important, on the PDP-11, there is support for overlaid >programs, which makes heavy use of the MMU. Basically, programs can be >way larger than 64K code. You can place functions in different overlays, >and call between them, and you can run up to many hundred of K of code >very easy and straight forward on the PDP-11, and it's all because the >MMU helps you out with it, moving the pages mapping around as needed. > My memory is that at leat for BSD Unix, overlays were not supported until um, 2.9BSD I think, and that using them was not at all straight-forward. It may have been easier for official DEC OSes... -- columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 23:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108tdf1$2a7v9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72683 |
On 29 Aug 2025 20:52:10 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: > In article <108su32$3e8$1@news.misty.com>, > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> >> But even more important, on the PDP-11, there is support for overlaid >> programs, which makes heavy use of the MMU. No, it didn’t make use of the MMU at all. It was a purely software thing, involving replacing in-memory parts of the program with other parts loaded from the executable file. > My memory is that at leat for BSD Unix, overlays were not supported > until um, 2.9BSD I think, and that using them was not at all > straight-forward. It may have been easier for official DEC OSes... Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 11:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108uhj9$26t$2@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #72687 |
On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On 29 Aug 2025 20:52:10 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: > >> In article <108su32$3e8$1@news.misty.com>, >> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>> >>> But even more important, on the PDP-11, there is support for overlaid >>> programs, which makes heavy use of the MMU. > > No, it didn’t make use of the MMU at all. It was a purely software thing, > involving replacing in-memory parts of the program with other parts loaded > from the executable file. No. You are wrong. If you want to, we can go and read the code together. DEC OSes on the other hand could do overlays either via MMU, or by reading in the correct overlay from disk. (I'm still supporting, fixing, and developing new bits for 2.11BSD.) >> My memory is that at leat for BSD Unix, overlays were not supported >> until um, 2.9BSD I think, and that using them was not at all >> straight-forward. It may have been easier for official DEC OSes... > > Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. Happy to show you otherwise. Really, under Unix, using the overlays requires almost no brain at all. You just spread the code out in different overlays and that's it. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 15:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <D8FsQ.705085$6hp4.678558@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #72687 |
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >On 29 Aug 2025 20:52:10 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: > >Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. Typical troll comment. There are existance proofs counter to your unsupported blanket statement. Burroughs medium systems for example, where using overlays was built into the compilation tools (including the COBOL compiler) and the operating system. Even the operating system used overlays for rarely used functionality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 12:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108vigs$2q3n5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72759 |
On 8/30/25 08:54, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> On 29 Aug 2025 20:52:10 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: >> > > >> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. > > Typical troll comment. > > There are existance proofs counter to your > unsupported blanket statement. > > Burroughs medium systems for example, where using overlays was built > into the compilation tools (including the COBOL compiler) and the > operating system. Even the operating system used overlays for > rarely used functionality. OS/360 and applications made extensive use of overlays. I remember a (PC)-Dos application called "Enable" that overlayed like crazy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web