Subject: Re: [OT] Any sources for PDP-11 spares?
To: Robert E. Seastrom <email@example.com>
From: Brian Chase <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/11/2002 09:57:47
On 11 Jun 2002, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> "Zane H. Healy" <email@example.com> writes:
> > >> would it be worth me subscribing to the port-pdp10 list, or are the
> > >> PDP-10 and 11 radically different (apart from in size)?
> > What is port-pdp10? Is there an attempt to port NetBSD to the PDP-10?
> I had the same reaction you had. Someone appears to have created that
> mailing list. My guess is that either the person(s) who was
> suggesting it are young enough to be lacking perspective about the
> advisability of porting Unix to a 36-bit machine,
Hey, I take offense, even if the comment isn't too far off the mark.
It's probably /most/ inadvisable in that the ITS, the TOPS-10, and
TOPS-20 folks probably will gather together in an angry torch-wielding
mob to hunt down the portmaster. I don't imagine the idea of Unix
running on a PDP-10 would be well received by many who know and love
those systems. But now you've gone and made a challenge of it. <sigh>
> ... or that it's someone's idea of a joke.
Are you saying that it's impossible? The target platform is Ken
Harrenstien's KLH10 emulator running as KL10-B with extended addressing
<http://klh10.trailing-edge.com/>. There's already a port of GCC
available for the PDP-10, courtesy of Lars Brinkhoff through his work
for XKL. Ragge has been reading up on the memory management, and
perhaps more by now; I've been working on reading and assembling basic
info along with creating some sort of initial cross-development package.
Whether people are more inclined to cheer or jeer, feel free to join the
port-pdp10 list. I think the list would love to hear from those more
experienced about obstacles we might not yet understand. At this point,
I think the effort can most accurately be described as /investigative/
with extreme intent to port.