Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #72292 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-26 14:04 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-31 20:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 21:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mBJtQ.856881$6hp4.691600@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #73076 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: >On 2025-08-30, candycanearter07 ><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:27 this Saturday (GMT): >> >>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >>>> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >>>> into it). >>> >>> Apple included a little springy clip thing (the “Programmers’s Switch”) in >>> the box with each of those original classic-form-factor Macintoshes. When >>> installed, pressing one side triggered NMI (used for invoking the resident >>> debugger), while the other side triggered the RESET line (hard reboot). >>> >>> I still have the muscle memory: seated in front of the machine, reach >>> around with right hand, far side was NMI, near side was RESET. >> >> That's pretty cool, I always wished there was a physical switch to >> trigger a debugger since the system might be frozen... > >And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you want a reset button >rather than having to resort to the power switch. Unfortunately, a reset button would destroy most state that would be helpful in debugging since it directly (after debouncing) asserts the CPU reset signal. An NMI button, on the other hand is quite useful for debugging, particularly for kernel debugging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 22:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <1097rvh$qe34$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73076 |
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:22:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-08-30, candycanearter07 > <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:27 this Saturday (GMT): >> >>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >>>> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >>>> into it). >>> >>> Apple included a little springy clip thing (the “Programmers’s Switch”) in >>> the box with each of those original classic-form-factor Macintoshes. When >>> installed, pressing one side triggered NMI (used for invoking the resident >>> debugger), while the other side triggered the RESET line (hard reboot). >> >> That's pretty cool, I always wished there was a physical switch to >> trigger a debugger since the system might be frozen... > > And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you want a reset button > rather than having to resort to the power switch. Interrupt button, surely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <PtLtQ.978515$3yJ3.368110@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #73099 |
On 2025-09-02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:22:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2025-08-30, candycanearter07 >> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:27 this Saturday (GMT): >>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >>>>> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >>>>> into it). >>>> >>>> Apple included a little springy clip thing (the “Programmers’s Switch”) in >>>> the box with each of those original classic-form-factor Macintoshes. When >>>> installed, pressing one side triggered NMI (used for invoking the resident >>>> debugger), while the other side triggered the RESET line (hard reboot). >>> >>> That's pretty cool, I always wished there was a physical switch to >>> trigger a debugger since the system might be frozen... >> >> And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you want a reset button >> rather than having to resort to the power switch. > > Interrupt button, surely. Maybe we need a series of buttons in a row, e.g. NMI, reset, power... And don't call me Shirley. -- /~\ 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 | Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 14:31 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <slrn10bgd8e.2doek.als@frodo.angband.thangorodrim.de> |
| In reply to | #73105 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-09-02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:22:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2025-08-30, candycanearter07 >>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >>> >>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:27 this Saturday (GMT): >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >>>>>> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >>>>>> into it). >>>>> >>>>> Apple included a little springy clip thing (the “Programmers’s Switch”) in >>>>> the box with each of those original classic-form-factor Macintoshes. When >>>>> installed, pressing one side triggered NMI (used for invoking the resident >>>>> debugger), while the other side triggered the RESET line (hard reboot). >>>> >>>> That's pretty cool, I always wished there was a physical switch to >>>> trigger a debugger since the system might be frozen... >>> >>> And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you want a reset button >>> rather than having to resort to the power switch. >> >> Interrupt button, surely. > > Maybe we need a series of buttons in a row, e.g. NMI, reset, power... .. halt-and-catch-fire, ... > And don't call me Shirley. Shirley, you jest? SCNR, Alex. -- "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 01:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <1097u85$h1i$1@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #73076 |
On 2025-09-02 23:22, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-08-30, candycanearter07 > <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:27 this Saturday (GMT): >> >>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >>>> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >>>> into it). >>> >>> Apple included a little springy clip thing (the “Programmers’s Switch”) in >>> the box with each of those original classic-form-factor Macintoshes. When >>> installed, pressing one side triggered NMI (used for invoking the resident >>> debugger), while the other side triggered the RESET line (hard reboot). >>> >>> I still have the muscle memory: seated in front of the machine, reach >>> around with right hand, far side was NMI, near side was RESET. >> >> That's pretty cool, I always wished there was a physical switch to >> trigger a debugger since the system might be frozen... > > And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you want a reset button > rather than having to resort to the power switch. Nah. That's the reason you want a front panel so you can halt the processor and change the PC to the debugger or crash dump function. Because interrupt vectors, including NMI, would normally be in RAM, and could be changed to something else than your debugger or whatever. (We are in a.f.c after all.) Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 01:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <10984nf$2mqu2$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #73104 |
In alt.folklore.computers Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2025-09-02 23:22, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2025-08-30, candycanearter07
>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:27 this Saturday (GMT):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:51:18 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished
>>>>> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig
>>>>> into it).
>>>>
>>>> Apple included a little springy clip thing (the “Programmers’s Switch”) in
>>>> the box with each of those original classic-form-factor Macintoshes. When
>>>> installed, pressing one side triggered NMI (used for invoking the resident
>>>> debugger), while the other side triggered the RESET line (hard reboot).
>>>>
>>>> I still have the muscle memory: seated in front of the machine, reach
>>>> around with right hand, far side was NMI, near side was RESET.
>>>
>>> That's pretty cool, I always wished there was a physical switch to
>>> trigger a debugger since the system might be frozen...
>>
>> And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you want a reset button
>> rather than having to resort to the power switch.
>
> Nah. That's the reason you want a front panel so you can halt the
> processor and change the PC to the debugger or crash dump function.
> Because interrupt vectors, including NMI, would normally be in RAM, and
> could be changed to something else than your debugger or whatever.
> (We are in a.f.c after all.)
There were nice debugging modules form 8-bit micros. IIUC better
ones would initiate an interrupt and substitute ROM instead of RAM.
So for CPU-s with fixed location of interrupt vectors CPU would
fetch address (or code) from ROM and in effect transfer control
to ROM. Code from ROM would do whatever was needed to get data
from RAM. I never used one myself, so can not say more.
There were also "developement systems", with comparator on address
bus, so that one cold transfer control to debugger when code
(or data) were fetched from chosen address. Debug registers in
modern processors make external hardware like this redundant (and
since important data stays inside the chip such external hardware
would be impossible to build).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-31 20:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <1092aqo$3en97$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72689 |
In comp.os.linux.misc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-08-29, Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote: > >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> 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). >> >> Really? System boards bought this year still have a reset line and my >> workstation tower case (about 10-15y old now) still has a reset button. > > Oops, I forgot about that. They did make a comeback, didn't they? > But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished > (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig > into it). That was likely caused more by cheap case makers racing to the bottom in trying to cut the price of their cases to the minimum. Eliminating the reset button dropped a button insert molding, an actual switch, the hardware to hold the switch in position, and the wiring and plug from switch to motherboard from the BOM cost of the case. Likely no more than $1 total at the quantities the cheap makers would have been purchasing, but for a case that was meant to be priced at $40 or $50 a $1 savings on BOM is a reasonable percentage of the MSRP (and even bigger percentage of their wholesale cost to retailers).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 14:46 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <sm0bjnuwg2v.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi> |
| In reply to | #72689 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > Oops, I forgot about that. They did make a comeback, didn't they? > But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished > (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig > into it). I think reset buttons may have vanished from branded PCs or maybe those never had them? IBM probably didn't. OTOH, the PC cases I've bought have always come with a reset button (since about 1990) and all motherboards I've bought have had pins where to connect said button. I don't think I've ever had a laptop with a reset button though. >> PCs bought in the 1990s and 2000s still tended to have nicely accessible >> reset buttons. Not that hiding the reset button would help, when one can >> just flip the power. > > Some people had debuggers that could scan memory after a crash. > Power cycling would wipe that - which is what the copy protection > enthusiasts were after. I have a vague feeling pressing the PC reset button stops memory refresh long enough for DRAM contents to disappear. Not sure though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 14:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <59itQ.92028$OjA2.23872@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #72903 |
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> writes: >Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > >> Oops, I forgot about that. They did make a comeback, didn't they? >> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >> into it). > >I think reset buttons may have vanished from branded PCs or maybe those >never had them? IBM probably didn't. OTOH, the PC cases I've bought have >always come with a reset button (since about 1990) and all motherboards >I've bought have had pins where to connect said button. I don't think >I've ever had a laptop with a reset button though. > >>> PCs bought in the 1990s and 2000s still tended to have nicely accessible >>> reset buttons. Not that hiding the reset button would help, when one can >>> just flip the power. >> >> Some people had debuggers that could scan memory after a crash. >> Power cycling would wipe that - which is what the copy protection >> enthusiasts were after. > >I have a vague feeling pressing the PC reset button stops memory refresh >long enough for DRAM contents to disappear. Not sure though. The reset "button" simply asserts (after debouncing) a processor reset line. This doesn't affect the contents of DRAM. It may reset the DRAM controller, but does not generally affect DRAM contents (this is generally to allow the contents of DRAM to be preserved for post mortem analysis).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 08:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <1094ckt$3tttm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72903 |
On 9/1/25 04:46, Anssi Saari wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > >> Oops, I forgot about that. They did make a comeback, didn't they? >> But there definitely was a period before that where the button vanished >> (although there would have been motherboard pins if you wanted to dig >> into it). > > I think reset buttons may have vanished from branded PCs or maybe those > never had them? IBM probably didn't. OTOH, the PC cases I've bought have > always come with a reset button (since about 1990) and all motherboards > I've bought have had pins where to connect said button. I don't think > I've ever had a laptop with a reset button though. > My Lenovo has a reset button.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 14:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <cek8olxic2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #72585 |
On 2025-08-29 08:50, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > 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). Vanished? All my PCs have it. ... -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-29 17:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108smt4$2pi1$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #72585 |
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. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web