My speculation would be that TU58 did not add anything of value or
convenience to these systems.
I used Ultrix-11, V7M, Venix in this era. My recollection is that in
most cases to build these systems and patch them, you needed regular
access to 800/1600 BPI tape. Given this relatively standa
On 2/3/19 5:13 PM, GREEN wrote:
> I built support under V6 all in user space. That would be in the early 1980s
> and I don’t recall it being very difficult. I suspect others did that as
> well. Have you tried looking in the USENIX tapes?
>
I will probably look at writing a driver once I have so
I built support under V6 all in user space. That would be in the early 1980s
and I don’t recall it being very difficult. I suspect others did that as well.
Have you tried looking in the USENIX tapes?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>> O
On 2/3/19 3:41 PM, Aaron Jackson wrote:
> TU-58 support wouldn't need to be in the kernel, it could easily run in
> user space. Perhaps someone had written an application in user-space to
> dump TU-58 tapes.
I was looking for a device driver and when I didn't find it I
looked at SPD's and release
TU-58 support wouldn't need to be in the kernel, it could easily run in
user space. Perhaps someone had written an application in user-space to
dump TU-58 tapes.
Aaron.
Bill Gunshannon via cctalk writes:
> Here's a question for someone who has been around long enough to
> remember.
>
> Why did
> From: Bill Gunshannon
> Why did none of the available PDP-11 Unixes support the TU-58?
> I have looked at Ultrix-11, V7M and BSD 2.11
The 'TUHS' list might be more likely turn up the reasoning?
Noel
Here's a question for someone who has been around long enough to
remember.
Why did none of the available PDP-11 Unixes support the TU-58?
I have looked at Ultrix-11, V7M and BSD 2.11 (didn't try 2.9
but I suspect if it isn't in 2.11 it wasn't in 2.9) and none
of them had support for the TU-58. S
