3 Jan
2002
3 Jan
'02
3:33 p.m.
The actual idea was to create or assist with the creation of a completely
"free" (GNU?) implementation of VMS that "looks and feels" just like
the
original.
The next step was to port this version of FreeVMS to i386, VAX, and AXP.
I've seen a few projects that have started or have stopped that attempt to
achieve similar goals.
- Matt
At 07:46 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Why not just get a VAX (or two or three?)
Peace... Sridhar
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ron Hudson wrote:
> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:51:27 -0800
> From: Ron Hudson <rhudson(a)cnonline.net>
> Reply-To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: FreeVMS
>
> I for one, would LOVE to run a VMS look alike on my
> i386 machine (or at least one of my spare machines...)
> It would bring back younger days when I was an op on several
> vaxen. (also some dg and some apollo)
>
> please please please!!! : ^ )
>
>
>
> Matthew Sell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I know I'm going to open up a can of worms on this post, but my
> > curiosity is killing me....
> >
> >
> > Now that I have OpenVMS 6.1 running on my VAX 4000, I'm curious about
> > the status of the various "FreeVMS" projects that are in progress (or
so
> > it would seem....).
> >
> > Are any of these projects really in active development? Which projects
> > have the greatest potential for operation? I checked several sites
> > related to "FreeVMS", which actually seems to be a common name for
> > several different projects with different goals.
> >
> > I'd love to "cut my teeth" with kernel development after working
with
> > Linux for several years. I personally think it would be neat to have an
> > accurate version of FreeVMS that would work on VAX, AXP, and i386
> > (gulp!). When I say accurate, I mean that FreeVMS would respond the same
> > as VMS would for the various commands and peripherals.
> >
> > Some of you probably think it would be silly to take an i386 version of
> > FreeVMS and port it "back" to VAX and AXP, but it would be a neat way
to
> > use FreeVMS, especially if the OpenVMS hobbyist program (or OpenVMS)
> > were to go away.
> >
> > Nuts? Probably. Neat? Yes!
> >
> > Here are links to the various FreeVMS projects I have visited:
> >
> > http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/free-vms.html
> > http://www.freevms.org/
> > http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/
> >
> >
> > - Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew Sell
> > Programmer
> > On Time Support, Inc.
> > www.ontimesupport.com
> > (281) 296-6066
> >
> > Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
> > http://www.ontimesupport.com/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi
> >
> >
> > "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
> > "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
> >
> > Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
>
>
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
4 Jan
4 Jan
4:36 a.m.
The actual idea was to create or assist with the creation of a completely
"free" (GNU?) implementation of VMS that "looks and feels" just like
the
original.
The next step was to port this version of FreeVMS to i386, VAX, and AXP.
I've seen a few projects that have started or have stopped that attempt to
achieve similar goals.
- Matt
The problem is VMS uses 4 separate CPU modes, besides the Unix kernel
and user modes which makes it difficult if not impossible to get
it right on x86.
Bill
6:14 a.m.
From what I understand of the Linux kernel, it uses two, and the i386 has
three modes of operation.
Don't forget that FreeBSD already runs on the VAX, and FreeVMS (in my
project concept) would be an extension and implementation of the existing
FreeBSD kernel so that it "looks and feels" like VMS.
I also wanted this implementation of FreeBSD to use native DEC filesystems
and operate classic DEC hardware.
- Matt
At 10:36 AM 1/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
The actual idea was to create or assist with the creation of a completely
"free" (GNU?) implementation of VMS that "looks and feels" just like
the
original.
The next step was to port this version of FreeVMS to i386, VAX, and AXP.
I've seen a few projects that have started or have stopped that attempt to
achieve similar goals.
- Matt
The problem is VMS uses 4 separate CPU modes, besides the Unix kernel
and user modes which makes it difficult if not impossible to get
it right on x86.
Bill 
6:32 a.m.
Matthew Sell said:
Don't forget that FreeBSD already runs on the VAX, and FreeVMS (in my
project concept) would be an extension and implementation of the existing
FreeBSD kernel so that it "looks and feels" like VMS.
I thought that FreeBSD only ran on x86 and Alpha? I believe you may be
thinking of NetBSD rather then FreeBSD here...
I also wanted this implementation of FreeBSD to use native DEC filesystems
and operate classic DEC hardware.
- Matt
At 10:36 AM 1/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
The actual idea was to create or assist with the creation of a completely
"free" (GNU?) implementation of VMS that "looks and feels" just like
the
original.
The next step was to port this version of FreeVMS to i386, VAX, and AXP.
I've seen a few projects that have started or have stopped that attempt to
achieve similar goals.
- Matt
The problem is VMS uses 4 separate CPU modes, besides the Unix kernel
and user modes which makes it difficult if not impossible to get
it right on x86.
Bill
6:56 a.m.
Actually, you are correct about FreeBSD.
What I meant was NetBSD.....
- Matt
At 11:32 AM 1/4/2002 -0600, you wrote:
Matthew Sell said:
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er... - Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
-] ------------------------------ [-] -------------------------------- [-
``Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honeydew hath fed, / and drunk the milk of Paradise.''
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
Don't forget that FreeBSD already runs on the VAX, and FreeVMS (in my
project concept) would be an extension and implementation of the existing
FreeBSD kernel so that it "looks and feels" like VMS.
I thought that FreeBSD only ran on x86 and Alpha? I believe you may be
thinking of NetBSD rather then FreeBSD here...
I also wanted this implementation of FreeBSD to use native DEC filesystems
and operate classic DEC hardware.
- Matt
At 10:36 AM 1/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > The actual idea was to create or assist with the creation of a
completely
> > "free" (GNU?) implementation
of VMS that "looks and feels" just
like the
> > original.
> >
> > The next step was to port this version of FreeVMS to i386, VAX, and
AXP.
> >
> > I've seen a few projects that have started or have stopped that
attempt to
achieve similar goals.
- Matt
The problem is VMS uses 4 separate CPU modes, besides the Unix kernel
and user modes which makes it difficult if not impossible to get
it right on x86.
Bill 
5:53 p.m.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Matthew Sell wrote:
Don't forget that FreeBSD already runs on the VAX,
and FreeVMS (in my
project concept) would be an extension and implementation of the existing
FreeBSD kernel so that it "looks and feels" like VMS.
NetBSD works better on the VAX. I suggest that you check it out. It runs
on a far wider variety of hardware than FreeBSD.
I also wanted this implementation of FreeBSD to use
native DEC filesystems
and operate classic DEC hardware.
Depends on what you mean by "classic". If you want to do UNIX on PDP-11,
2.11BSD is probably your best bet. On VAX, it's probably NetBSD. But VMS
is quite a bit nicer on VAX than UNIX is, IMHO.
Peace... Sridhar
5 Jan
5 Jan
4:59 a.m.
NetBSD works better on the VAX. I suggest that you
check it out. It runs
on a far wider variety of hardware than FreeBSD.
Not that I intend to remove VMS from my VAX, but does NetBSD
support 3rd party disk controllers, such as the Dilog ESDI setup that
I have on mine?
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
10:01 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD and Dilog ESDI controller (was: Re: FreeVMS)
On 5 Jan, Jeff Hellige wrote:
Not that I intend to remove VMS from my VAX, but does
NetBSD
support 3rd party disk controllers, such as the Dilog ESDI setup that
I have on mine?
Any MSCP disk adapter and the RL11/RLV11 / RL01/RL02 are supported
by
NetBSD. There are some compatibility issues with the CMD220 (?) SCSI to
MSCP adapter. That is a bug in the adapter, so don't blame the OS...
I have a DQ686 in my MV III and a DQ696 in my PDP 11/73 that was a MV II
in a former life. They work well with my Maxtor XT4380E, XT8760E and
some HH Micropolis drives. OSes on the machines are NetBSD 1.4/1.5,
4.3BSD-Tahoe and 2.11BSD.
--
tschuess,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz
12:30 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD and Dilog ESDI controller (was: Re: FreeVMS)
Any MSCP disk adapter and the RL11/RLV11 / RL01/RL02
are supported by
NetBSD. There are some compatibility issues with the CMD220 (?) SCSI to
MSCP adapter. That is a bug in the adapter, so don't blame the OS...
I have a DQ686 in my MV III and a DQ696 in my PDP 11/73 that was a MV II
in a former life. They work well with my Maxtor XT4380E, XT8760E and
some HH Micropolis drives. OSes on the machines are NetBSD 1.4/1.5,
4.3BSD-Tahoe and 2.11BSD.
Then NetBSD should work fine with the DQ686 (though I read it
as D0686 on my board) and a Maxtor XT-8380E in my MV II? Mine
originally had two of the 8380E's installed in it's BA23, but I
removed one of them and have it stuck away as a spare. It might be
interesting to try NetBSD loaded onto the 2nd one, if it could be
netbooted to do the install.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
11:24 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD and Dilog ESDI controller (was: Re: FreeVMS)
On 5 Jan, Jeff Hellige wrote:
Then NetBSD should work fine with the DQ686 (though I
read it
as D0686 on my board) and a Maxtor XT-8380E in my MV II?
Yes. I used the DQ686
with a KA630 and a KA655 under NetBSD and it just
worked.
It might be interesting to try NetBSD loaded onto the
2nd one, if it
could be netbooted to do the install.
All my NetBSD installations on VAXen are done
by netboot. I never used
the install programm. I use a minimal NFS root to do the disklabel,
newfs, tar, MAKEDEV, ... procedure by hand. See the NetBSD web site for
a HowTo...
Perhaps you should do a low level reformat and bad block scan of the
disk? You know the magic words to invoke the controller setup?
--
tschuess,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz
6 Jan
6 Jan
4:36 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD and Dilog ESDI controller (was: Re: FreeVMS)
Yes. I used the DQ686 with a KA630 and a KA655 under
NetBSD and it just
worked.
Looking at the compatibility listing, it didn't look like it
supported much else other than the standard MFM drives. It's good to
hear that I was wrong.
All my NetBSD installations on VAXen are done by
netboot. I never used
the install programm. I use a minimal NFS root to do the disklabel,
newfs, tar, MAKEDEV, ... procedure by hand. See the NetBSD web site for
a HowTo...
Cool...I'll have to check it out. It'll be nice to have an
alternative available.
Perhaps you should do a low level reformat and bad
block scan of the
disk? You know the magic words to invoke the controller setup?
That would probably be a good idea. Both disks were
installed into the MVII prior to 1990 and it was used for realtime
data aquisition in a production environment up until it's removal in
1990. I don't have any docs or anything on the DQ686 so, no, I don't
know anything about it's setup.
Thanks
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
8:28 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD and Dilog ESDI controller (was: Re: FreeVMS)
On 2002.01.06 16:36 Jeff Hellige wrote:
There is (T)MSCP, the (Tape) Mass Storage Control Protokol.
It is a
standard way to interface disks (and Tapes) on DEC Uni- and QBus (DSSI)
systems. If your disk adapter speaks MSCP, it will work regardless of
the actual disk type. The reference to the MFM disks is a reference to
the RQDX[123] adapter, that is a MFM to MSCP adapter...
[...]
Yes. I used the
DQ686 with a KA630 and a KA655 under NetBSD and it
just worked.
Looking at the compatibility listing, it didn't look like it
supported much else other than the standard MFM drives. It's good to
hear that I was wrong. Perhaps you
should do a low level reformat and bad block scan of the
disk? You know the magic words to invoke the controller setup?
That would probably
be a good idea. I don't know anything about it's setup.
INIT (via RESTART button)
Then type into the boot prom:
D/P/L 20088004 80000001 <cr>
D/P/W 20001f40 20 <cr>
D/P/W 2000146a 3FFF <cr>
S 200 <CR> (or "S 218 <cr>" if you have GPX graphics)
and you will see the adapter menu setup. Reformat the disks, do a bad
block scan and revector the bad blocks from the errorlog.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:49 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD and Dilog ESDI controller (was: Re: FreeVMS)
Perhaps you should do a low level reformat and bad
block scan of the
disk? You know the magic words to invoke the controller setup?
That would probably
be a good idea. I don't know anything about it's setup.
INIT (via RESTART button)
Then type into the boot prom:
D/P/L 20088004 80000001 <cr>
D/P/W 20001f40 20 <cr>
D/P/W 2000146a 3FFF <cr>
S 200 <CR> (or "S 218 <cr>" if you have GPX graphics)
and you will see the adapter menu setup. Reformat the disks, do a bad
block scan and revector the bad blocks from the errorlog. 
5 Jan
5 Jan
2:02 a.m.
At 11:14 AM 4/01/2002 -0600, Matthew Sell wrote:
Don't forget that FreeBSD already runs on the VAX,
and FreeVMS (in my
project concept) would be an extension and implementation of the existing
FreeBSD kernel so that it "looks and feels" like VMS.
At what sort of level do you want the "look and feel" to be at. If it's
just DCL then this might not be so difficult, but once you want to add the
OpenVMS API (system services, libraries, I/O, SMP, Clustering) it would be
exceedingly difficult to take a Unix core and add all this in a compatible
way so that some of the programs I tend to write would work. I guess you're
going to try to make a FreeVMS for VAX clone, emulating 64 bits on a 32 bit
machine would be a project killer from the start.
I really think if you want VMS buy a VAX or an Alpha (there are lots of
cheap, small systems around - I have a VLC4000, DEC2000 and a PWS500au that
cost less than AUD$1000 in total and the 500au was most of the cost).
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
3:54 a.m.
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Huw Davies wrote:
way so that some of the programs I tend to write would
work. I guess you're
going to try to make a FreeVMS for VAX clone, emulating 64 bits on a 32 bit
machine would be a project killer from the start.
Weren't there vaxen that didnt support the 64bit instructions? From
reading (excessively) the VAX Architecure Handbook, I seem to also
remember it saying that the address space was only 32bits. I could easily
be wrong, and it woudn't suprise me too much. Anyways, FreeVMS on a Sun
Enterprise 10k (or S/390 -- zSeries) would be cool, if not horribly wrong.
:P
Personally (as I stated in my original post) I don't know much about VMS,
yet, I was just trying to throw some ideas off the top of my head.
-- Pat
4 Jan
4 Jan
7:21 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Bill Pechter once stated:
What do you mean by that? The 286 and above have four levels of
protection, from ring 0 (all instructions available, all resources visible)
to ring 3 (only common registers and instructions available, no (or very
limited) resources visible). Most Unix systems for the 386 and above use 0
for kernel, 3 for user and don't bother to use the other two levels. OS/2
may have used the other rings though (it's been over 10 years since I've
used OS/2).
Then there are the operating modes supported on the 286 and above: real
mode (which looks like a very fast 8086) and protected mode. The 386 and
above also have a virtual 8086 mode, which allows you to run real mode code
under a protected OS---the real mode is virtualized (to an extent, I don't
think it's pure vitualizasion like you can get on the IBM 360 line). There
is an undocumented mode---real-32 bit (where the CPU is in 32-bit mode, but
not running protected) but that's a hack and is probably not recomended.
The 386 also has a paging system (in addition to a segmentation system but
I'm not going into the details of that) so I don't see why VMS couldn't run
on the 386. I do know that the VAX architecture had four address spaces
(P0, P1, System, unused) and that can be simulated.
-spc (I think you are talking about kernel, executive, supervisor and
user, which map quite well to rings 0 to 3 on the 386)
The actual idea was to create or assist with the
creation of a completely
"free" (GNU?) implementation of VMS that "looks and feels" just like
the
original.
The next step was to port this version of FreeVMS to i386, VAX, and AXP.
I've seen a few projects that have started or have stopped that attempt to
achieve similar goals.
The problem is VMS uses 4 separate CPU modes, besides the Unix kernel
and user modes which makes it difficult if not impossible to get
it right on x86. 
7:06 p.m.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
The 386 and above also have a virtual 8086 mode, which
allows you to
run real mode code under a protected OS---the real mode is virtualized
(to an extent, I don't think it's pure vitualizasion like you can get
on the IBM 360 line).
I believe that in virtual-8086 mode, priveleged instructions (e.g. OUT)
cause a trap. The OS, having set up the appropriate trap gates, gets
control and decides what to do for these instructions.
There is an undocumented mode---real-32 bit (where the
CPU is in
32-bit mode, but not running protected) but that's a hack and is
probably not recomended.
That's 'flat mode'. It's not a hack; it's actually the simplest way
to
set up protected mode, and requires very little work from the programmer.
Once upon a time, I built this floppy that contained a larval kernel and,
in the boot sector, a kernel loader. The only thing my 'kernel' did was
enter protected mode and print "Hello, world" on the screen. I used flat
mode.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)subatomix.com
7:40 p.m.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm'
Conner wrote:
I believe that in virtual-8086 mode, priveleged instructions (e.g. OUT)
cause a trap. The OS, having set up the appropriate trap gates, gets
control and decides what to do for these instructions.
There is a bit mask in the TSS (I think) that controls whether an I/O
will trap or be executed. Other privledged instructions will trap.
There is an
undocumented mode---real-32 bit (where the CPU is in
32-bit mode, but not running protected) but that's a hack and is
probably not recomended.
That's 'flat mode'.
6:50 p.m.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Bill Pechter wrote:
The problem is VMS uses 4 separate CPU modes, besides
the Unix kernel
and user modes which makes it difficult if not impossible to get it
right on x86.
32-bit x86 processors have 4 privelege levels for segment-level and I/O
protection, but only 2 privelege levels for page-level protection.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)subatomix.com
8228
days inactive
8231
days old
18 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
dtwright＠uiuc.edu -
Huw.Davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jss＠subatomix.com -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
msell＠ontimesupport.com -
pat＠purdueriots.com -
pechter＠bg-tc-ppp438.monmouth.com -
spc＠conman.org -
vance＠ikickass.org