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 | 15 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 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 22:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <GQJtQ.604848$jMMa.461712@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #73081 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>On 2025-08-30, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Univac's OS/3 (sort of a 360/370 workalike) had several utilities
>that had as many as 45 overlays. This, combined with other
>memory-squeezing tricks like "transients" (routines that rolled
>in and out of special areas in memory) meant that the system drive
>was typically thrashing furiously.
Burroughs MCP/VS 1.0 (formerly MCP, MCPV, MCPIX) supported
overlays in applications[*]. Since the MCP was involved
in loading the overlay from storage, we were able to
leverage the larger memory in the later generations
of the original B3500 architecture to create a 'quickmem'
region in the physical memory that would cache overlays -
avoiding thrashing. MCP supported multivolume disk
subsystems (up to 6 IIRC) and overlay storage
could be isolated to a set of volumes across multiple
spindles for performance. In the 70's and 80's,
one of the disk subsystems could be assigned to very
expensive solid state disk subsystems (mainly third-party)
that had large amounts of RAM. The I/O subsystem
transferred at 8MBytes/sec per I/O controller, up to
two I/O controllers were supported.
[*] Automatically generated by the compilers, which supported
hints in the syntax to group functions into one or more
overlays. COBOL was the primary user language. Important
because the code region maxed out at 150,000 bytes[**] (total program
size maxed out at 500,000 bytes, so there could be up to
350,000 bytes of data).
MCP/VS 2.0 plus updated HW firmware/uCode provided a new highly
segmented hardware memory architecture which supported
100,000 full 500,000 byte code regions per application, so
overlays went the way of the dodo.
Just in time for the architecture to not survive the acquisition
of Sperry.
[**] Extended addressing in the B4700 extended maximum code + data
size to 500,000 bytes and code could be located anywhere in
the one megadigit region.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 19:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mddfrd8idth.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #72759 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> 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.
Far be it from me to defend the troll, but I will say that my experience (56
years and counting) agrees with his comment.
IIRC, I have made changes to exactly one (1) overlaid program in all that time,
having been forced to do that instead of a complete rewrite because it had to
work quickly at the museum.
That's with experience on OS/360, SVS and MVS on /370, Tops-10 and TOPS-20, and
RSX-11M/-20F.
Overlays are like a coyote ugly bed partner: I'd rather chew my arm off.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-31 13:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <h5pdolx0lq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| 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. > >> 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. It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 02:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <10930r8$3jjop$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72819 |
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:44:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. > > It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. There were two kinds of overlay system: the one where the calling code could be swapped out while the called code (needing a possible segment swap when returning from the callee) and the one where it couldn’t (needing more memory). Which one did Turbo Pascal use?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 01:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <zT6dneHBkZIuqSj1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #72860 |
On 8/31/25 10:36 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:44:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. >> >> It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. > > There were two kinds of overlay system: the one where the calling code > could be swapped out while the called code (needing a possible segment > swap when returning from the callee) and the one where it couldn’t > (needing more memory). > > Which one did Turbo Pascal use? I bought v1.x ... and then on. Best money I ever spent. DID need overlays for a large pgm in v3.x - something between a graphic and mini-GIS app. STILL use FPC/Lazarus fairly often. GREAT language. And, unlike 'C', you can actually kind of read and understand your own code years later :-) And the overlays WERE super easy. WERE limited to 64k however. The older TPs came for both x86/DOS and CP/M-86. Similar, though not quite identical, tricks and solutions. Foley & Van Dam - "Fundamentals Of Interactive Computer Graphics" - has all the good algos (IN Pascal). Hey, did use the M$/IBM multi-pass Pascal compiler (still have it in a VM somewhere) but TP was just a *revolution*. Even found a good use for the 'turtle' in v3.x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 11:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <4f5golxao.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #72864 |
On 2025-09-01 07:52, c186282 wrote: > On 8/31/25 10:36 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:44:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. >>> >>> It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. >> >> There were two kinds of overlay system: the one where the calling code >> could be swapped out while the called code (needing a possible segment >> swap when returning from the callee) and the one where it couldn’t >> (needing more memory). >> >> Which one did Turbo Pascal use? > > I bought v1.x ... and then on. Best money I ever > spent. DID need overlays for a large pgm in v3.x - > something between a graphic and mini-GIS app. > STILL use FPC/Lazarus fairly often. GREAT language. > > And, unlike 'C', you can actually kind of read and > understand your own code years later :-) > > And the overlays WERE super easy. WERE limited > to 64k however. The older TPs came for both x86/DOS > and CP/M-86. Similar, though not quite identical, > tricks and solutions. > > Foley & Van Dam - "Fundamentals Of Interactive > Computer Graphics" - has all the good algos > (IN Pascal). > > Hey, did use the M$/IBM multi-pass Pascal compiler > (still have it in a VM somewhere) but TP was just > a *revolution*. Even found a good use for the > 'turtle' in v3.x There was a "nasty" bug in the runtime that made old compiled programs crash on much faster computers later: the initialization code timed how much time a certain closed loop tuck to run, This was used so that the program could later time delays. Say, wait half a second. Well, the initial measuring loop of one tick overflowed the word variable, crashing. No one ever thought computers would become so fast. I believe there is a patch, but not created by Borland. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 08:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <1094cg4$3tttm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72864 |
On 8/31/25 22:52, c186282 wrote: > On 8/31/25 10:36 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:44:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. >>> >>> It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. >> >> There were two kinds of overlay system: the one where the calling code >> could be swapped out while the called code (needing a possible segment >> swap when returning from the callee) and the one where it couldn’t >> (needing more memory). >> >> Which one did Turbo Pascal use? > > I bought v1.x ... and then on. Best money I ever > spent. DID need overlays for a large pgm in v3.x - > something between a graphic and mini-GIS app. > STILL use FPC/Lazarus fairly often. GREAT language. > > And, unlike 'C', you can actually kind of read and > understand your own code years later :-) > > And the overlays WERE super easy. WERE limited > to 64k however. The older TPs came for both x86/DOS > and CP/M-86. Similar, though not quite identical, > tricks and solutions. > > Foley & Van Dam - "Fundamentals Of Interactive > Computer Graphics" - has all the good algos > (IN Pascal). > > Hey, did use the M$/IBM multi-pass Pascal compiler > (still have it in a VM somewhere) but TP was just > a *revolution*. Even found a good use for the > 'turtle' in v3.x I don't think I ever used TP, but I did use Turbo-C. Borland had great software, much better than any of its successors,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 18:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhm60cFj3p8U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72932 |
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 08:01:24 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: > I don't think I ever used TP, but I did use Turbo-C. Borland had great > software, much better than any of its successors, I bought Turbo Pascal for CP/M when it came out mostly out of curiosity about what $50 would buy. Compared to the DJGPP C compiler I thought the 'hello world' exercise was broken because it compiled so fast. I didn't care for Pascal though. At least Borland's version had real world use unlike Wirth's vision of a strictly didactic language. Based on that experience years later I went with Borland C++/OWL when I got into Windows. I liked it a lot better than the Microsoft package that ultimately won.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 20:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <ke4holx55v.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #72932 |
On 2025-09-01 17:01, Peter Flass wrote: > On 8/31/25 22:52, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/31/25 10:36 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:44:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. >>>> >>>> It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. >>> >>> There were two kinds of overlay system: the one where the calling code >>> could be swapped out while the called code (needing a possible segment >>> swap when returning from the callee) and the one where it couldn’t >>> (needing more memory). >>> >>> Which one did Turbo Pascal use? >> >> I bought v1.x ... and then on. Best money I ever >> spent. DID need overlays for a large pgm in v3.x - >> something between a graphic and mini-GIS app. >> STILL use FPC/Lazarus fairly often. GREAT language. >> >> And, unlike 'C', you can actually kind of read and >> understand your own code years later :-) >> >> And the overlays WERE super easy. WERE limited >> to 64k however. The older TPs came for both x86/DOS >> and CP/M-86. Similar, though not quite identical, >> tricks and solutions. >> >> Foley & Van Dam - "Fundamentals Of Interactive >> Computer Graphics" - has all the good algos >> (IN Pascal). >> >> Hey, did use the M$/IBM multi-pass Pascal compiler >> (still have it in a VM somewhere) but TP was just >> a *revolution*. Even found a good use for the >> 'turtle' in v3.x > > I don't think I ever used TP, but I did use Turbo-C. Borland had great > software, much better than any of its successors, I bought the first TP for Windows. I upgraded Windows 3 to 3.11 (I think), and then the debugger stopped working, the main dll was wrong. I wrote a mail (not email), got no answer from Borland. Eventually I learned I needed an updated dll (debug.dll?) which I copied from somewhere, instead of buying the next version of the compiler from Borland. Not nice not replying to customers. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-01 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <n35golxao.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #72860 |
On 2025-09-01 04:36, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:44:17 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2025-08-30 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> Using overlays was never straightforward, on any OS. >> >> It was trivial on Turbo Pascal. > > There were two kinds of overlay system: the one where the calling code > could be swapped out while the called code (needing a possible segment > swap when returning from the callee) and the one where it couldn’t > (needing more memory). > > Which one did Turbo Pascal use? That was long ago, I don't remember the details. I think the calling code could be swapped out if needed, in the last version I saw. Version 6 or 7. There was a much earlier version, I think with with .com binaries, then they changed to .exe and overlays disappeared, and then they came back. And there were tuning variables as to the size of the ram assigned to overlays vs the total size of the overlay file, determining how aggressive the algorithm was. You could also determine what code was fixed. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 11:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <108uhef$26t$1@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #72683 |
On 2025-08-29 22:52, 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. 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... The timeline is the bit I'm not entirely sure about. It uses the capabilities that were in the PDP-11 hardware all the time, though. So it's an interesting thing to remember/compare with Unix on an 8086. As for ease of use, you got it backward. While overlays in DEC OSes actually are way more advanced, and capable that overlays in Unix on the PDP-11, using them on the Unix side is basically a no brainer. You don't need to do anything at all. You just put modules wherever you want to, and it works. With the DEC OSes, you have to create an overlay description in a weird language, and you can't call cross overlay trees, and you need to be careful if you call upstream, which might change mapping, and all that. None of those restrictions apply for Unix overlays. The only thing you need to keep an eye out for is just that the size is kept within some rules. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-30 17:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <mhgrb4Fm7hhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72733 |
In article <108uhef$26t$1@news.misty.com>, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >On 2025-08-29 22:52, 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. 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... > >The timeline is the bit I'm not entirely sure about. It uses the >capabilities that were in the PDP-11 hardware all the time, though. So >it's an interesting thing to remember/compare with Unix on an 8086. > >As for ease of use, you got it backward. While overlays in DEC OSes >actually are way more advanced, and capable that overlays in Unix on the >PDP-11, using them on the Unix side is basically a no brainer. You don't >need to do anything at all. You just put modules wherever you want to, >and it works. > >With the DEC OSes, you have to create an overlay description in a weird >language, and you can't call cross overlay trees, and you need to be >careful if you call upstream, which might change mapping, and all that. >None of those restrictions apply for Unix overlays. The only thing you >need to keep an eye out for is just that the size is kept within some rules. > > Johnny > Since you've done it, I defer. I just recall that when we got 2.9BSD, I considered trying to port some big Vax program to the 11 and from reading the man pages I got the impression I would have to get intimately familiar with said program's call graph (which I definitely was not) to partition out the overlays and ended up moving on to something else. -- columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-31 12:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <10918rc$cqv$2@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #72765 |
On 2025-08-30 19:39, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: > In article <108uhef$26t$1@news.misty.com>, > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> As for ease of use, you got it backward. While overlays in DEC OSes >> actually are way more advanced, and capable that overlays in Unix on the >> PDP-11, using them on the Unix side is basically a no brainer. You don't >> need to do anything at all. You just put modules wherever you want to, >> and it works. >> >> With the DEC OSes, you have to create an overlay description in a weird >> language, and you can't call cross overlay trees, and you need to be >> careful if you call upstream, which might change mapping, and all that. >> None of those restrictions apply for Unix overlays. The only thing you >> need to keep an eye out for is just that the size is kept within some rules. >> >> Johnny >> > > Since you've done it, I defer. I just recall that when we got 2.9BSD, I > considered trying to port some big Vax program to the 11 and from reading > the man pages I got the impression I would have to get intimately familiar > with said program's call graph (which I definitely was not) to partition > out the overlays and ended up moving on to something else. You can basically just take the different object files, and put them into different overlays, and that's it. No need to think anything over with call graphs or anything. You do get headaches if individual object files are just huge, of course. And total data cannot be more than 64K. It's only code that is overlaid. But compared to the DEC overlay scheme, it's really simple. With the DEC stuff, you do need to keep track of call graphs, and stuff. Also, it is done in it's own language, which in itself is also a bit of a thing to get in to. But you can do a lot of stuff with the DEC overlay stuff that isn't at all possible to do under Unix. So it's a tradeoff (as usual). Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-31 08:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <1091p5i$3a35u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72814 |
On 8/31/25 03:40, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2025-08-30 19:39, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: >> In article <108uhef$26t$1@news.misty.com>, >> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>> As for ease of use, you got it backward. While overlays in DEC OSes >>> actually are way more advanced, and capable that overlays in Unix on the >>> PDP-11, using them on the Unix side is basically a no brainer. You don't >>> need to do anything at all. You just put modules wherever you want to, >>> and it works. >>> >>> With the DEC OSes, you have to create an overlay description in a weird >>> language, and you can't call cross overlay trees, and you need to be >>> careful if you call upstream, which might change mapping, and all that. >>> None of those restrictions apply for Unix overlays. The only thing you >>> need to keep an eye out for is just that the size is kept within some >>> rules. >>> >>> Johnny >>> >> >> Since you've done it, I defer. I just recall that when we got 2.9BSD, I >> considered trying to port some big Vax program to the 11 and from reading >> the man pages I got the impression I would have to get intimately >> familiar >> with said program's call graph (which I definitely was not) to partition >> out the overlays and ended up moving on to something else. > > You can basically just take the different object files, and put them > into different overlays, and that's it. No need to think anything over > with call graphs or anything. You do get headaches if individual object > files are just huge, of course. And total data cannot be more than 64K. > It's only code that is overlaid. But compared to the DEC overlay scheme, > it's really simple. > With the DEC stuff, you do need to keep track of call graphs, and stuff. > Also, it is done in it's own language, which in itself is also a bit of > a thing to get in to. But you can do a lot of stuff with the DEC overlay > stuff that isn't at all possible to do under Unix. > So it's a tradeoff (as usual). > > Johnny > Sort of. Assuming overlays on DEC function like all others I've seen, you need to organize. What goes into the root? (used by all overlays), then group object files so that things used together are in the same overlay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-31 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <109235p$cmg$1@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #72830 |
On 2025-08-31 17:19, Peter Flass wrote: > On 8/31/25 03:40, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> On 2025-08-30 19:39, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: >>> In article <108uhef$26t$1@news.misty.com>, >>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>>> As for ease of use, you got it backward. While overlays in DEC OSes >>>> actually are way more advanced, and capable that overlays in Unix on >>>> the >>>> PDP-11, using them on the Unix side is basically a no brainer. You >>>> don't >>>> need to do anything at all. You just put modules wherever you want to, >>>> and it works. >>>> >>>> With the DEC OSes, you have to create an overlay description in a weird >>>> language, and you can't call cross overlay trees, and you need to be >>>> careful if you call upstream, which might change mapping, and all that. >>>> None of those restrictions apply for Unix overlays. The only thing you >>>> need to keep an eye out for is just that the size is kept within >>>> some rules. >>>> >>>> Johnny >>>> >>> >>> Since you've done it, I defer. I just recall that when we got 2.9BSD, I >>> considered trying to port some big Vax program to the 11 and from >>> reading >>> the man pages I got the impression I would have to get intimately >>> familiar >>> with said program's call graph (which I definitely was not) to partition >>> out the overlays and ended up moving on to something else. >> >> You can basically just take the different object files, and put them >> into different overlays, and that's it. No need to think anything over >> with call graphs or anything. You do get headaches if individual >> object files are just huge, of course. And total data cannot be more >> than 64K. It's only code that is overlaid. But compared to the DEC >> overlay scheme, it's really simple. >> With the DEC stuff, you do need to keep track of call graphs, and >> stuff. Also, it is done in it's own language, which in itself is also >> a bit of a thing to get in to. But you can do a lot of stuff with the >> DEC overlay stuff that isn't at all possible to do under Unix. >> So it's a tradeoff (as usual). >> >> Johnny >> > > Sort of. Assuming overlays on DEC function like all others I've seen, > you need to organize. What goes into the root? (used by all overlays), > then group object files so that things used together are in the same > overlay. Right. With overlays in DEC OSes, that's what you want/need to do. With overlays in Unix, not really. Everything can be anywhere, except for the main function, which needs to be in the root. But everything can call everything, in any way it wants to. Makes no difference. No need to think about related stuff being in the same overlay, or shared things preferably in the root, and so on. Just put things wherever. There is a small performance penalty whenever calling something in another overlay, since it requires an MMU remapping, and the call goes through a stub function to make that happen. But that's about it. Note that in Unix, there is only a single level of overlays, and you can have at most 15 overlays. But that's the one limitation. Not having to worry about if the routine you call are in the overlay tree path, and so on, is very nice. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web