25 Sep
2015
25 Sep
'15
6:34 p.m.
The "wasn't" was a hint to indicate that the "OS" for the purpose
of this
conversation - actually the disklabel and FEP code- was never available or
intended to be loaded outside of a factory / support environment.
For all I know, the disk controller may require special microcode to be
able to write the volume header. I have no real idea-
I'm not claiming any amount of expertise- only that a microcoded,
undocumented 36-bit machine with it's own secondary frontend IOP, multiple
microcoded bit-slice based custom IO subsystems, and no known external
software tools is a little different than an 8-bit toy computer kit.
Guy's response touches on the broader strokes- the ISA for the main
processor itself isn't even documented.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:17 PM, dwight <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:
--
Ian Finder
(206) 395-MIPS
ian.finder at gmail.com
From: ian.finder at gmail.com
I'm sorry, I usually try and keep it together on this list.
Dwight- your post is a shitpost.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shit+Posting)
I'm not gonna delve into details, but the Symbolics machines have a
substantial number of unique challenges going for them. It's not as if
none
of us have invested substantial time into
understanding what's going on.
It's an extremely complicated, largely undocumented system.
Impossible? No. That said, your experience with bootstrapping an IMSAI
could not possibly be a more irrelevant anecdote.
But I do appreciate that you bootstrapped an S-100 machine once.
"A lisp machine would clearly be difficult but not impossible for a
determined
hacker.
If it was designed to run it can be made to run again."
I don't know you and you obviously don't know me.
I know many people like you. Many that claim to know what they are
doing and are experts in there fields.
I am curious about you statement" It wasn't", as to designed to run.
Dwight
If it was designed to run it can be made to run
again.
It wasn't. That's part of the problem.