PDA

View Full Version : Help with Xenix



Echoes
February 1st, 2009, 09:21 AM
Hi,
I'm new here, so let me introduce myself a bit before getting to the hot stuff :)
I'm an Italian HCI student, who started his love-story with computers on a pentium 200 mmx (hey, I'm young!) and Windows 95 OSR2 and the wonderful Fat32.
Years later, I got involved in retrocomputing, and obviously that's why I'm here.

Ok, now back in-topic: I'm setting up a site for those who want to land on the world of Xenix. It seems that finding software and docs for this OS is not as easy as it could be, and I'm trying to do my best to solve this annoying problem.
So, do you want to help me sending what you have?
That's what I need for my site:

dd copies of installation disks for every version of xenix still present (Xenix for the PDP-11 won't be easy to find, so probably we should say it's lost)
dd copies of software/drivers disks
PDF copies of the manuals
Guides, HOW-TO, knowledge and experience you want to share


Tenox is exempted, he has already offered his help when I asked by mail :D

Chuck(G)
February 1st, 2009, 02:40 PM
I caution you to contact SCO (http://www.sco.com/) before you post any copyrighted material. They own exclusive rights to Xenix (now being peddled as SCO Unix) and have been known to be extremely predatory when it comes to IP rights.

Chuckster_in_Jax
February 1st, 2009, 06:53 PM
Good luck trying to find information on Xenix. I tried recently and came up with very little. There are diskette images of a number of Xenix versions on Bittorent and Vetusware.com but no documentation. I tried installing Xenix 386 from these archives, but they were missing one of the diskettes and installation failed.



I caution you to contact SCO (http://www.sco.com/) before you post any copyrighted material. They own exclusive rights to Xenix (now being peddled as SCO Unix) and have been known to be extremely predatory when it comes to IP rights.

I contacted SCO not too long ago and got this response(Individual names have been omitted):

I wrote:
> This email is from the company feedback form.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> COUNTRY: United States
> CONCERNING: Other
>
> MESSAGE:
> Hi, I am trying to find an old version of the Xenix Operating System that ran on the old Intel 30386 machines. It was marketed probably 20 years ago. By any chance does the SCO Group still have copies of this version or one that will run on this vintage machine? I am a collector of vintage computers and cannot find any sources for this software. Thanks for your time.

SCO's response:
Hello,

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, SCO no longer sells licensing or media for the Xenix OS. I apologize for the inconvenience, please let us know if there is anything else we may assist you with.

Kind regards,

Sales Administration Coordinator
The SCO Group

Sco is a leading provider of Unix-based solutions and mobile services.

chuckcmagee
February 1st, 2009, 07:58 PM
Unfortunately, "no longer sells" doesn't mean "we don't care what you do with it". IBM no longer sells OS/2 but good luck getting some legal source code to OS/2.

gerrydoire
February 1st, 2009, 08:00 PM
I caution you to contact SCO (http://www.sco.com/) before you post any copyrighted material. They own exclusive rights to Xenix (now being peddled as SCO Unix) and have been known to be extremely predatory when it comes to IP rights.

Just do it behind their backs like everyone else does...:rolleyes:

Sharkonwheels
February 1st, 2009, 08:12 PM
Xenix and Unix are two different beasts.
The court has already ruled that SCO does *NOT* own Unix - it is still owned by Novell.

However, the above advice is still valid - be careful what you do, especially any Xenix stuff owned by SCO. They are lawsuit-happy because they suck and noone wants anything to do with them, so it is becoming their main source of (attempted) revenue.

M$ also dabbled in Xenix, but i think that was sold off to SCO - not positive, but I'm pretty sure it was.

T

Chuck(G)
February 1st, 2009, 10:31 PM
M$ also dabbled in Xenix, but i think that was sold off to SCO - not positive, but I'm pretty sure it was.

At one time, Xenix was indeed a Microsoft product. I recall going to Bellevue to talk to the people who were doing the port for the Tandy Model 16. We had a similar issue--a 2-CPU system (80186+80286) and wanted to see how they'd rigged the communication between the Z80 and 68000. IIRC, this was V7. At the time, SCO was doing the port of the Unix code to the x86 platform under contract to Microsoft, with Intel doing the kernel port.

(I still have a copy of the OEM release notes for MS-DOS 2.00 from Microsoft, saying it was their intention that MS-DOS and Xenix would eventually become a single unified product.)

But here's where the story of SCO gets interesting. When Microsoft started working on OS/2 with IBM (another interesting story there), they dropped plans for Xenix and sold it to SCO in return for 25% ownership of SCO.

SCO hit hard times in the 1990s and sold off Xenix to Caldera. SCO had a product named Tarantella, sort of a enterprise-integration platform and renamed itself Tarantella. Sun eventually acquired Tarantella (the company) and that was the end of the original SCO.

In the meantime, Caldera changed its name to "The SCO Group". These are not the original Santa Cruz Operation (which no longer exists) people, but rather the people who have sued everyone using Linux and been countersued by everyone else.

The last I heard, this litigious strategy had backfired on them and they were in Chapter 11 reorganization.

How's that for confusing?

Echoes
February 2nd, 2009, 03:18 AM
Well, I'll eventually ask for SCO permission but I don't think they will give it.
By the way, from a legal point, I think that it's not the same case of OS/2. Xenix is owned only by SCO/caldera/whatever you may call it, while part of OS/2 is owned by other companies. This is why IBM won't ever release source code for his OS, while SCO could (and probably won't) behave differently.

In my opinion, they won't bother much this project (even if they eventually get to know it), as Xenix is completely dismissed and they won't risk to spend more than what they could earn from the lawsuit.

As soon as I'll have an answer from SCO, it will be posted here.

Terry Yager
February 2nd, 2009, 10:05 AM
By the way, from a legal point, I think that it's not the same case of OS/2. Xenix is owned only by SCO/caldera/whatever you may call it, while part of OS/2 is owned by other companies. This is why IBM won't ever release source code for his OS, while SCO could (and probably won't) behave differently.

I b'lieve it's the same deal with Xenix. In one of the court rulings mentioned above, it was found that ATT still owns the rights to part of Xenix.


As soon as I'll have an answer from SCO, it will be posted here.
Good luck with that too. A few years ago, when SCO still had the rights, I contacted them for an installation key (I had all the disks), but I got pretty much the same runaround. Bottom line was, they wouldn't even sell me a key (even if they could find one), because the product (Xenix 286) was no longer supported. Period.

--T

Echoes
February 2nd, 2009, 12:11 PM
I b'lieve it's the same deal with Xenix. In one of the court rulings mentioned above, it was found that ATT still owns the rights to part of Xenix.


Didn't knew about that... but didn't microsoft buyed rights for xenix from AT&T? And didn't microsoft sell everything to SCO?

By the way, I asked to SCO if they can provide a hobbyst license like the one for caldera's Unix for PDP11.

ahm
February 2nd, 2009, 12:48 PM
IANAL, but I think there's a some confusion here.
Just because a product is no longer being actively marketed or supported,
that doesn't mean the copyright holder won't still aggressively defend their copyright.

chuckcmagee
February 2nd, 2009, 01:03 PM
Ah, your version came out clearer than mine did. Exactly, they still love to defend those copyrights.

Chuck(G)
February 2nd, 2009, 06:17 PM
My point was that Caldera/SCOG went lawsuit-happy suing on the basis that there are bits and pieces of Xenix code in Linux, Xenix still has value to them, if for nothing else other than a litigation standpoint.

In view of this, they're probably going to be pretty touchy about any suggestion that they might give it away.

I could be all wet, but I still think it's prudent to ask.

Terry Yager
February 2nd, 2009, 10:18 PM
Didn't knew about that... but didn't microsoft buyed rights for xenix from AT&T? And didn't microsoft sell everything to SCO?

By the way, I asked to SCO if they can provide a hobbyst license like the one for caldera's Unix for PDP11.

ATT has not, and prolly never will sell the rights to unix, upon which the disputed code is based. M$ published Xenix under license. I don't recall the details of the settlement, but I'm sure google's memory is much better than mine.

--T

EddieDX4
February 4th, 2009, 12:44 AM
I just got the biggest migraine after reading this whole thread.

patscc
February 4th, 2009, 04:54 AM
Here's just a partial list of their lawsuits since 2000:
-SCO v. IBM
-Red Hat v. SCO
-SCO v. Novell
-SCO v. AutoZone
-SCO v. DaimlerChrysler

I think they're currently in Chapter 11. One of their strategies to get out of bankruptcy was to litigate. (seriously)
At the rate they're going, we're not going to have to worry about them for long.
Maybe we should offer them a pre-paid envelope and a Twinky bar for the soruces to Xenix, 'cause that'll probably be the best offer they get before SCO goes to the great firesale in the corporate sky.
patscc

Echoes
February 4th, 2009, 07:52 AM
lol the last 2 answers are probably the best :mrgreen:

Now, who has a twinky bar handy?

barythrin
February 4th, 2009, 07:55 AM
Those lawsuits were hilariously ridiculous. Reminds me of when Intel when on a suing spree over Rambus rights and eventually sued themselves (a subsidiary they already bought). It was funny watching Sco try and pretend to own anything as a dying company grasping at straws and just living off of lawsuits. Then a few folks speak up and say "Um.. no, we didn't sell you that, we own that." and another "We own that part, we never even gave that to MS.. so all your code is in violation of our material and we want compensation then."

IBM just sat there and said "show us what code you're talking about" which I believe during the duration of the court session had yet to ever been brought to light.

But yup, lawsuits to scare the poor are a popular tactic. It will cost more than it's worth fighting so most folks just agree to desist. However an open archive of public software or material regarding Xenix would still be quite useful effort.

I'm all for your goal btw, I just was laughing at the lawsuits.

jh1523
February 4th, 2009, 12:28 PM
BTW a full account of litigation by/against SCO can be found at http://www.groklaw.net/

Sharkonwheels
February 6th, 2009, 06:13 PM
Actually, AT&T Labs was bought by Novell, who is the proper owner, which was upheld in the courts.

They sued IBM, because they said IBM gave Unix code to the Linux camp, not Xenix. Link from SCO themselves (http://www.sco.com/copyright/)
They sued Sun, because of OpenSolaris, and saying that Sun also contributed code.

Funniest part, is that both AIX and SunOS/Solaris forked from AT&T code a REALLY long time ago, especially on Sun's part, and deviated down their own paths, to the point that alot of commands are different, mgmt utils are different, devices and device names are differentare different, etc..

SCO was an excellent product, and in my personal opinion, those idiot executives, from Mcbride down, should all face charges of SOME sort for that whole charade, and basically running the company into the ground. It's ludicrous that the government has done nothing.

I remember starting with Tandy Xenix, and then SCO Xenix in the late 80's, and did support on SCO Unix/Xenix until the mid-to-late 90's. Most Days Inn hotels used a PMS running SCO on NCR (AT&T) equipment. Some cruise lines also used SCO Unix 5.x even into the early 2000's for their PMS (TTG) and it was used in countless other systems.

Shame those morons ran the company into the ground.

At least Novell was smart enough to ask the court to set aside some of the money that SCO had as future payment to Novell, before the legal fees ate it all up.

T

Echoes
February 7th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Well, I see that SCO legal causes are very interesting :D
But we are going a bit OT.

So, does any of you still have some xenix software? If it's open source or free and you're willing to share it, then it's welcome. Contact me via PM and I'll give you my email address.
Otherwise, you can always post here just the name (and possibly the version) of what you have.

Thanks for your help ;)

Sharkonwheels
February 7th, 2009, 09:56 AM
Check vetusware.com and see if they have anything.
unfortunately, my wife accidentally tossed a HUGE box of SCO Unix and Xenix software I had about 8 years ago - everything from the OS's, to office suites, word, lyra, wordperfect, 123, all KINDS of stuff.
I was TICKED, but it was my fault - similar to the case of the new and sealed AT&T PC7300 manuals+software box: I pointed, and she grabbed the wrong box, and I didn't double-check

:(

I think I have disk images for SCO Xenix 2.3.2, though.
PM me your email addy and I'll try to find it.

T

Echoes
February 8th, 2009, 01:36 AM
PM me your email addy and I'll try to find it.

Nonono that would be absolutely illegal.

I think you have a PM... saying the same thing, obviously. :mrgreen:

Chuck(G)
February 8th, 2009, 09:11 AM
Are diskette installation sets likely to be of much use? Didn't Xenix also require an installation key--and some versions were peculiar to a given manufacturer's hardware.

Chuckster_in_Jax
February 8th, 2009, 09:53 AM
Are diskette installation sets likely to be of much use? Didn't Xenix also require an installation key--and some versions were peculiar to a given manufacturer's hardware.

The images on bittorent(titor-special) and vetusware have the keys in the zip file.

tenox
February 8th, 2009, 03:09 PM
Just add my 5 cents on the SCO/Microsoft/Lawsuit topic.

Xenix was licensed by Microsoft from AT&T. The first release of Xenix was done by Canadian company called HCR, this was for PDP-11 or VAX. VAX Xenix was actually USED by Microsoft at their HQ as late as 1994 as far as I recall.

Next versions of Xenix were for 286 and were a joint venture by Microsoft and IBM. In parallel several hardware vendors were licensing and porting Xenix to their platforms like Apple Lisa, Tandy 6000, Altos, etc. Even people like 3Com and Intel were doing their own ports. You can see the almost whole list here http://www.tenox.tc/docs/microsoft_xenix_oem_directory.pdf but there were more.

SCO comes in to play only later and only for x86 platform. However SCO is still selling Xenix codebase as their OpenServer platform. It's not claimed Xenix as such because that was long time ago, but OpenServer is a direct descendant with binary compatibility and many Xenix applications still running on it worldwide. This is different with their other product UnixWare which has absolutely nothing to do with Xenix.

So to summarize SCO would have nothing to say about say Lisa, Altos or Tandy Xenix. They could only complain about SCO Xenix. Microsoft on another hand is probably well used to piracy and have much bigger issues like Vista on their heads.

patscc
February 8th, 2009, 04:20 PM
What lawyers feel they can complain about, and what non-lawyers feel lawyers can complain about appear to mutually exclusive fields.
patscc

tenox
February 9th, 2009, 10:51 AM
I've heard recently that future lawyers are learning about software issues in law schools now. Interesting times ahead of us.

kb2syd
February 9th, 2009, 11:08 AM
So to summarize SCO would have nothing to say about say Lisa, Altos or Tandy Xenix. They could only complain about SCO Xenix. Microsoft on another hand is probably well used to piracy and have much bigger issues like Vista on their heads.

Did Microsoft sell the rights to Xenix, or just the PC based Xenix. I'm sure you could get a lawyer to argue either way if you paid enough.

If M$ didn't then do they still own Xenix on those other platforms? I know Tandy didn't own exclusive rights to theirs.

Echoes
February 9th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Well, it seems that the hobbyst license thing was discussed years ago by The Unix Heritage Society (search for "xenix" in ->this page<- (http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/0802.htm). I'll ask them if they can help me.

Elan
March 15th, 2009, 07:57 AM
As I explained in my first post to these forums (probably in wrong section, but its here) (http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showpost.php?p=92355&postcount=1) I have a problem with a 386 which runs xenix at work which interfaces with an analytical instrument I use on a regular basis.

I am trying to set up a null modem connection from the xenix machine using uucp, but really, I am pretty much a unix newbie, and I am finding it hard work, especially because I don't have any of the manuals for this version of xenix.

I found a manual from an earlier version, but the uuinstall options don't seem to be the same.

Does anyone know where I can get some sort of users guide for sco xenix sysV release 2.3.4?

Thanks, Malcolm

kb2syd
March 15th, 2009, 12:11 PM
I think I have a copy at work. Man covers more than the manuals if it is installed.

UUCP can be tricky for the unix novice. What are you trying to get off the computer, or why do you want to use uucp? There are other options (such as rz/sz). Where are you located?

Kelly

Elan
March 16th, 2009, 12:38 AM
I am trying to remove comma delineated text files from the system.
I need to set things up so that I do this on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, I can't find any mention of rz/sz in my system, and of course, floppy drive currently out of action.

Man is installed though - thanks for that, I always forget man exists... man uucp looks like it might be of some help eventually, but no entry for man uuinstall.

I don't even have another unix system to connect to at the other end of my null modem serial cable, instead I have a windows XP machine onto which I have so far failed to setup UUPC/extended. If I cant get that to work, I am thinking maybe create a linux partition in the XP box, or use Cygwin or something as unix emulator...

As for location, University of Novi Sad, Serbia.

chuckcmagee
March 16th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Wow, I just had to do a google search on Serbia. It sounded familiar but I couldn't figure out from where. The old Yugoslavia! Split up into tons of little countries. Los Angeles has more people than the entire Serbian country.

One of my doctors is from Lithuania! Close to there.

And I live in a town with a population of about 1200! with 2000+ cows.

Elan
March 16th, 2009, 02:17 AM
The pop of Novi Sad is about 300,000. Not sure how many cows are within the city limits, but this is more pork country, so less than 2000 for sure :)

chuckcmagee
March 16th, 2009, 02:29 AM
I am close to Death Valley California so it is getting nice and warm here already. As a result, there are currently many more flies than any other creature. I complain to the dairy owner but he could care less. All those cows are in one place!

Last I looked, Milk was MORE expensive than petrol (gasoline) in the U.S.

Echoes
March 16th, 2009, 08:21 AM
Well, I have two Virtual Machines with 386 xenix on it. I wanted to set up a uucp connection between them, so I can tell you how to configure a Xenix box for doing the same. For a linux or windows box you have to see if you can find an howto elsewhere.


My idea was simple: two virtual machines, xenix1 and xenix2 (I'm not so good in choosing names, ok? :p), a virtual serial cable between (I'm using com0com under windows. Obviously you'll need a real cable), uuinstall.

Start the xenix1 machine, login as root.

First of all, you have to disable the remote login from the serial port you're using. If you are using COM1, then the serial port is /dev/tty1a. We do this with:
disable /dev/tty1a


Then we make sure that the device is owned by uucp, so launch:
chown uucp /dev/tty1a

Now we need to launch uuinstall and set the system name:
Press 1, then 2. I used xenix1 for both site and machine names. No "Alternative 2". Press q, then save the changes with y.
You are now in the main menu of uuinstall.

Now we tell the machine that somewhere over the rainbow there is another machine called xenix2, and we want to be able to call it.
I deleted the "sosco" entry (we don't need it anymore) by pressing 3 and confirming. Then, you can add a new one by pressing 2. This is what I entered:
Site name: xenix2
Schedule: Any
Device type: Direct
Speed range: 9600
Phone number: -
Expect login: ogin:
Send login: root

Exit and save changes, you will be once again in the main menu.
We now need to set the serial port to the 9600 speed. Press 3, then press 4 and select to change tty1a. Set speed range to 9600, leave anything else unmodified.
Quit to main menu once again, then press 5 to check consistency. It may warn something about tty1A (note the capital A), I then decided to delete it in the third option (Display or update direct- or dial-out lines), but maybe you can just ignore it. If it's all ok, quit uuinstall.

Ok, now we have to do the same on the second vm, obviously changing every "xenix1" mentioned before in "xenix2" and viceversa (hey, that's an italian word, did you know it?).

Right, we are done. Let's try to remote login from xenix1 to xenix2. In xenix2 we have to enable the /dev/tty1a for incoming connections, so we launch the command "enable /dev/tty1a". Then, on xenix1, we do:
cu -x9 xenix2

we press backspace until the login prompt appears, and there we go!

Congratulations! The worst explained uucp-howto in the last 20 years is finished!

If something it's not working or unclear just ask, hopefully I'll be able to help... but I'm a newbie too, to be honest :)

kb2syd
March 16th, 2009, 09:59 AM
Unfortunately, I can't find any mention of rz/sz in my system, and of course, floppy drive currently out of action.


If you have the development system, the source for RZ/SZ is readily available.

Download it to your PC.
Log in to Xenix using Hyper Term
cat > sz.c
then use ascii transfer and add a little pacing (i think you can do that in HyperTerm).

when transfer done, cc sz.c

You can then use zmodem to transfer the files.

Elan
March 17th, 2009, 12:44 AM
Download it to your PC.
Log in to Xenix using Hyper Term
cat > sz.c
then use ascii transfer and add a little pacing (i think you can do that in HyperTerm).

This is very nice, but I still have not successfully got either machine to acknowledge the fact that there is another machine at the end of Echoes' rainbow. Logging into xenix from HyperTerminal is still a pipe (ha) dream.

Echoes, that looks very promising thanks - I managed to get halfway through your instructions by myself a few days ago, but got stuck trying to get uuinstall to acknowledge 'Dir' or 'D' as a device type instead of ACU. Its just possible I forgot to try the entire word 'Direct' :rolleyes:. I also couldn't work out what the hell was meant by those expect and send thingies, so thanks a lot.

Unfortunately, the xenix box and I are currently very busy doing something else (creating lots and lots of new ICPMS data files for me to transfer later, *sigh*), and later on today some guests from the UK are arriving for an academic visit for few days, so not sure when I will be able to take next serious stab at this... once I do, one thing that strikes me as going to be a problem is the fact that I don't actually have a second xenix box as a target, and I can't get uucp/extended to work on my XP machine (It refuses to acknowledge fact that I have set the system and user environment variables, grr). If I create connection in HyperTerminal with my name equivalent of Echoes' xenix2, will that be enough for the xenix box to believe its the correct rainbow?

Edit:

Well, looks like I got the basic installation of uupc/extended sorted out now... at least I managed to send an email to myself on the windows machine - how sad. My next hurdle will be attempting to send mail from the windows machine to the xenix box, but its still busy analysing samples... my uupc/extended 'systems' file currently has the line


xenix386 Any dir 9600 vg \c ogin:malcolm ssword:--ssword:

the first 4/5 entries I can cope with, but after that??? So we have

[name_of_other_machine] [when_to_make_connection] [type_of_connection] [baud_rate] [protocols_to_try] [phone_number] [login_stuff_which_looks_weird]

Its a direct connection, so no phone number required, the uupc/extended sample files say rather enigmatically "Telephone number (use \c to omit)" so I have tried that, and then I am left with the login stuff...

On the xenix box (called xenix386 obviously), do I create a login called malcolm or a site called malcolm? If its a login, I am pretty sure I can create one with no password required, which means I won't need the sswords bit...

Echoes
March 17th, 2009, 02:55 AM
uhm good question there.
I will try. But If it's not working, I have a simple solution: i can send you a virtual machine, and you connect the virtual serial port to the real one of the XP box. This will do the trick. Once you did this, you could simply send kermit (it's on the VM hd) to the real xenix, and then transfer files via hyperterminal, since at that point you won't need the vm again...
I'll let you know something this evening (WOW! Someone who's almost in my timezone! lol... by the way how far are you from rijeka?)

Echoes
March 17th, 2009, 03:22 AM
update: logging in from hyperterm is really easy.

On the xenix machine:
enable /dev/tty1a
Reboot just to make sure, wait for the "login:" screen to appear.

Now, on the XP box.
Set VT100 emulation on hyperterm, connect to the right serial port with: 9600, 8 bit, no parity, 1 stop bit, no handshaking.
Now press backspace until you see

xenix1!login:

now you can login remotely. How to transfer file is still a mistery though, since you're only working remotely on the machine... you need a terminal program on the xenix box to send files, from what I can understand

By the way, which version of xenix are you using?

Elan
March 17th, 2009, 03:44 AM
Well I am about 400 km from Rijeka I would guess...

As for xenix - its Release 2.3.4 of SysV apparently.

edit: Whats with hitting backspace by the way? What is that actually doing?

Echoes
March 17th, 2009, 04:21 AM
edit: Whats with hitting backspace by the way? What is that actually doing?

Uhm apparently nothing that the n or f or enter or whatever key couldn't do.
It just "refreshes the screen" if you want... I think simply it tells the other machine that someone is there, so it can send again the login prompt.

I saw a few tutorials that mentioned backspace, so I guess that

1) those howtos were written by the same person, who likes to use backspace so much... we all have a favourite key, right?

2) it's a commond rule of the good ol' days... when terminals were terminals and men were men.

3) Maybe it's just because sending backspace won't be recognized as the first character of the login string, but simply ignored

Elan
March 17th, 2009, 04:25 AM
2/ and small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri.

I see : )

Echoes
March 17th, 2009, 04:35 AM
2/ and small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Yes!!! Now, how did you know it?

Elan
March 17th, 2009, 05:26 AM
: )

Speaking of hhgttg refs, I was somewhat amused to see that the first page of the uupc/extended manual (http://www.kew.com/kendra/uupc/UUPC-Manual.htm) tells me "Don't Panic! (Much)", although I don't find the letters they used to be particularly big or friendly. At least they tried I guess.

Echoes
March 17th, 2009, 05:46 AM
Lol, you're right.

I'll see if it's possible to get it working somehow... the manual was written by a monkey... :rolleyes:

Elan
March 18th, 2009, 12:06 AM
update: logging in from hyperterm is really easy.

On the xenix machine:
enable /dev/tty1a
Reboot just to make sure, wait for the "login:" screen to appear.

Now, on the XP box.
Set VT100 emulation on hyperterm, connect to the right serial port with: 9600, 8 bit, no parity, 1 stop bit, no handshaking.
Now press backspace until you see

xenix1!login:

I tried this last night, but having pressed backspace at least 40 or 50 times (getting desperate) nothing seemed to happen. So I am beginning to suspect that the guy in the computer shop who sold me the serial cable had absolutely no idea what he was talking about when he assured me (I asked at least 3 times damnit) it was cross-linked. I will try a different guy, shop and cable asap, although that will probably turn out to be friday at earliest.

/Majority of the guys in the shops have never even heard of a null modem, which I thought was a bit strange, they are not exactly arcane or esoteric, not like floppy drives...

Echoes
March 18th, 2009, 03:17 AM
I can assure you that about 5/6 years ago I had trouble to find a cross-linked serial cable... so don't be so surprised. Most of the shops won't sell you a cd-rom unit either. Anything older than 2 years is simply discarded... from shops and from memory. Try in a shop that sells also electronic components, usually they are more experienced.

Btw, backspace is needed only 1-2 times :mrgreen:

Here's what you could do to check your cable:

Check it phisically:
Have you got a multimeter? check the cable with it. Use the resistance-meter if there is no continuity test, if it's = 0 then you are touching the same cable on the 2 connectors, if it's a BIG number, then the pins are not of the same cable... Hope you understand. My english is getting worse every day :mrgreen:

Check it with hyperterm and xenix:
disable /dev/tty1a
echo ruthere > /dev/tty1a

(maybe you should try also tty2a, just to be sure)
If you can see in hyperterminal what you echoed, then the cable is right and something else is wrong

Elan
March 21st, 2009, 05:21 AM
So I tried what you suggested re: testing the cable, twas a bit frustrating, but after trying tty1A and tty1a and tty2a, I finally got some response from tty2A.
But not very much, just !P. Oops, then realised baud rate was wrong - I set hyperterminal to 9600, and now it seems to work:

In root of xenix box:

echo pleasework > /dev/tty2A
echo thanks > /dev/tty2A

On HyperTerminal:

pleasework
thanks

So, can I now be reasonably sure the cable is indeed cross-linked?
Meanwhile, no success re logging in with backspace, no real joy with uuinstall. Am persevering.

Echoes
March 21st, 2009, 03:36 PM
Yes, we are resonably sure that the guy in the computer shop was somewhat competent (and, consequently, that the cable is cross-linked) :D

Now, before getting desperate, you could try to do this:

cat /etc/systemid
cat /usr/lib/uucp/Devices
cat /usr/lib/uucp/Systems

those are the files you configure with uuinstall, post them and we will see if something is wrong with it, maybe. Uh, I don't expect you to trascribe them line per line... you can do a
cat /etc/systemid > /dev/tty2a

and then copy the output from hyperterm. This will be a bit screwed up (no carriage return, probably), so you'll have to fix this in notepad or msdos edit or whatever you want.

By the way, don't post them here (it will take a lot of space!), use http://rafb.net/paste or a similar site instead.

Last but not least: are you sure that /dev/tty2A works and /dev/tty2a doesn't? I just noted the capital A and I'm a bit confused about that :confused:
I don't remember very well what's the difference, I know that the one with the capital letter is used for modems.

update (Thanks for this go to a friend that is helping me a lot with xenix :) ):
From ckubwr.txt in the kermit source:
"SCO systems tend to use different names (i.e. drivers) for the same
device. Typically /dev/tty1a refers to a terminal device that has no
modem control; open, read, write, and close operations do not depend
on carrier. On the other hand, /dev/tty1A (same name, but with final
letter upper case), is the same device with modem control, in which
carrier is required (the SET LINE command does not complete until
carrier appears, read/write operations fail if there is no carrier, etc)."

MikeS
March 21st, 2009, 03:46 PM
If you use Hyperterm, it does have options to add CRs etc.; a lot easier while downloading than later...

Echoes
March 21st, 2009, 04:27 PM
right, but I don't seem to get it working :confused:

I simply gave up on that, but if you know how that's possible please explain...

Elan
March 23rd, 2009, 06:38 AM
:-/ Cleanup proved a bit tricky...
cat of Devices is here (http://rafb.net/p/ppMRv121.html)
cat of Systems is here (http://rafb.net/p/5H59NY68.html)

Second in particular seems to be garbage... <erm>

Back in uuinstall:

In devices, was trying to set up device at tty2a, but it seems that there is

>>> No such character device in /dev
which I don't really understand...

Incidentally, seems it doesn't matter if I use /dev/tty2A or /dev/tty2a for my echos and cats, it arrives in a mess at Hyperterminal anyway...

Echoes
March 24th, 2009, 12:33 AM
First of all, /dev/tty2a and /dev/tty2A are the same device, only that the second supports hardware handshaking. If the pc is not sending CR/LF (if THAT is the problem) that's not a port problem.

I cannot understand the second file, but before that we can set up the first:

Direct tty1A - 9600 direct
This says that tty1A is suitable for a direct connection at 9600 baud.
You need to add a

Direct tty2a - 9600 direct
line (or just uncomment it from the file. Hope you know vim, lol. Otherwise, to delete a character, just press x when the cursor is on the character. To save and quit, press :wq but I guess reading the man page will help you more than me).

in the Systems file do you have only the sosco entry? Then we are missin something... you have to let uupc know who can call and be called.
I will answer to this later, now I have to finish my breakfast and run to the university otherwise I'll miss the lesson :mrgreen:

Elan
March 24th, 2009, 07:08 AM
added that line to Devices.
I have an entry imaginatively called malcolm in my Systems file, as well as the sosco entry, not sure why couldn't see it properly, will try again...

Meanwhile, I just realised that you have already given me a temporary solution to my data manipulation problems:

Short term solution:
I can get the instrument software on the xenix box to output the data files as ASCII based report files. I can then set up HyperTerminal to capture text in FileIWant2See.txt, and use

cat FileIWant2See > tty2a
to copy all my data (which is nicely comma delimited by the instrument software) across to that file, and import it into excel.

Mucking around with ascii report files is pretty much what I did before anyway, its just a bit more awkward this way.

The only problem is that I don't think I can backup the raw data files in this manner, as they are allegedly binaries.

I still haven't managed to get anything to work in opposite direction either - not managed to send anything from PC to xenix box.

Still hoping to:
Get this uucp uupc/extended thing sorted out, so I can actually copy files across properly from either computer whenever I need to.

Echoes
March 24th, 2009, 09:50 AM
you could probably write a little program that access the parallel port and captures the raw data, deleting the spaces and adding CR/LF.

When i get home I'll try to send a file between two xenix machines with cu and %take, if that works I'll send you a xenix vm with kermit on it, so you can transfer it on your machine and then use it to copy files (it's way better than uucp, trust me. And you only need hyperterm to transfer files then).

update: you are terribly lucky my friend. Com0com has stopped working, so every time I get to the login prompt, qemu hangs. I tried reinstalling it but no way. Now i'm downloading a mini xp to install in vpc, and I'll try it there (then I'll have an emulated xp with two emulated xenix on it... all running on my poor 1.6 ghz atom processor... omg)

Echoes
March 24th, 2009, 01:57 PM
Sorry, it didn't work. I cannot get the two boxes to communicate, or even to use hyperterm from a box to another. If you have some patience I will try on my real xenix box (a speedy 486!) with a real nullmodem cable and a software terminal (if someone wants to donate a real vt100 to me... :rolleyes:)

Btw, tomorrow 2 of my wisdom teeth will be extracted, so maybe I won't feel very well. Don't expect me to move computers around the house and configure them in the next few days. :rolleyes:
My personal feelings are perfectly described by "The scream" (http://fredriksarnblad.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/in495-munch-bst-scream-1893.jpg) (Munch's painting) at the moment.

Elan
March 25th, 2009, 08:46 AM
Ouch. Take it easy dude, the cat file > /dev/xxx work-around may not be terribly elegant, but its working fine for the moment - once I have transferred and number crunched the hundreds of samples I have currently waiting on the xenix box, I will get back to playing around with the rest of it, so really, no need to rush job sorting the rest of my problems : ).

Echoes
March 26th, 2009, 08:04 AM
Ok then. When you need it drop a line here and we will start working on this again :)
By the way I'm feeling well already, it didn't hurt too much.

Elan
March 29th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Hey Echoes,
good news on the xenix box front - with a bit of encouragement from Allen, I successfully (touch wood) cleaned the heads of my floppy drive, and so I now have a fall back plan for moving files between my computers... hopefully I can thus install a version of kermit (there seem to be many) and solve my file transfer files forever, and forget about my ignominious failure to get to grips with uucp : )

Echoes
March 30th, 2009, 01:00 AM
lol I'm happy for you, thas helps so much.

As for the version, this one (the latest) is fine:
ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/bin/cku209.sco234c

Since it's 1.40 MB it won't fit in a floppy, but you can:
1) gzip it on the xp machine (aa linux machine will do it, otherwise you need gzip for windows which you can find here (http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/downlinks/gzip-bin-zip.php)) and decompress in the xenix box (you need the gzip binary for xenix, which I can mail to you because I don't find it anymore in google)

2) download an older and much lighter version of kermit and use that to transfer the new kermit to xenix. This is worse, stupid and you still don't have gzip which will help you compress files before sending them from xenix to xp. But I used this solution since I didn't have gzip at the time, and it worked :p

You probably need the gnu tar binary too, which is better and easyer than the sco one. I have it too, just drop a line.

Pepinno
December 18th, 2010, 04:29 PM
I'm setting up a site for those who want to land on the world of Xenix. It seems that finding software and docs for this OS is not as easy as it could be, and I'm trying to do my best to solve this annoying problem.
So, do you want to help me sending what you have?
That's what I need for my site:

dd copies of installation disks for every version of xenix still present (Xenix for the PDP-11 won't be easy to find, so probably we should say it's lost)
dd copies of software/drivers disks
PDF copies of the manuals
Guides, HOW-TO, knowledge and experience you want to share


Tenox is exempted, he has already offered his help when I asked by mail :D

Hello. How is your Xenix software collection going? Have you got the "Development Set" (C compiler and header files) for Xenix?

I know some users here (I won't name names) have the "Development Set" floppies for SCO Xenix, but for the time being the willingness to share those bits is proving to be limited...

I have set up a working SCO Xenix 386 system, but I have no "Development Set" to go with it.

This blogger here ( http://virtuallyfun.blogspot.com/search/label/xenix ) managed to find in some Soviet Union FTP server a binary of GCC for Xenix, and used it successfully. However, the link seems dead now. So sad.

neozeed
December 28th, 2010, 10:05 AM
I saw my blog mentioned here and I thought I'd chip in....

I've built a few things for Xenix, and you can find them here:
http://vpsland.superglobalmegacorp.com/install/xenix/

Although I'd recommend gzip
gzip-i386-xenix.exe (http://vpsland.superglobalmegacorp.com/install/gzip-i386-xenix.exe)

And of course, I did save gcc for Xenix... I had a feeling that old soviet site would eventually go down...

gcc-xenix-bin.vfd.gz (http://vpsland.superglobalmegacorp.com/install/xenix/gcc-xenix-bin.vfd.gz)

I forget at the moment if the contents of the floppy are gzipped, then tarred, or if it's just a tar that contains a tar gzipped file..... It made sense when I made the disk a while back... Anyways this build of GCC includes the headers & libraries needed to build stuff. And honestly, it's better then the SCO compiler, as it's ANSI C, while the SCO compiler I had limited access to was K&R.

I'm not sure if it was custom patches to GCC to support XOUT binaries, or what the deal was... I just know it was a lucky find.

Pepinno
December 28th, 2010, 10:37 AM
I saw my blog mentioned here and I thought I'd chip in....

I've built a few things for Xenix, and you can find them here:
http://vpsland.superglobalmegacorp.com/install/xenix/


Those are great news!

Thanks a lot for sharing this information. Xenix revival looks much brighter now.

By the way, have you investigated the "SCO TCP/IP Supplement" for Xenix 386?

neozeed
December 29th, 2010, 06:58 AM
Those are great news!

Thanks a lot for sharing this information. Xenix revival looks much brighter now.

By the way, have you investigated the "SCO TCP/IP Supplement" for Xenix 386?

I don't have it, but someone I know does.. it only supports 2 NIC's (neither one are emulated!) and we set it up over SLIP... it's exceptionally unstable. I guess since it was so hard to get a hold of, nobody mentioned that little detail.

After all that fighting it just wasn't worth it.

cr1901
February 14th, 2014, 04:57 PM
I may take a bit of slack for reviving such an old thread, but neozeed appears to have checked the forums within the last month or so, so maybe this will get his (or others) attention.

I recently learned that modern versions of GCC can still be built with an ANSI C compiler as a base, which builds a first-stage compiler capable of compiling the remaining portions of GCC which depend on its own extension. In this case, it might be possible to have a modern version of GCC for Xenix for those interested, and would lend itself to modern versions of a number other of useful pieces of software (notably coreutils). Have you or anyone had any experience with trying to get a modern GCC or C compiler/bash/configure/make system working?

Echoes
March 6th, 2014, 07:38 AM
I didn't, and I don't think neozeed tried hard to do it either.

Where did you learn that?

Tor
March 6th, 2014, 05:27 PM
Is there still a Xenix target in new versions of GCC? If so, then I would simply build a cross-compiler on a Linux machine. You could then use the cross-compiler to build a native version of gcc, and any supporting libraries necessary (if said libraries have Xenix support).

-Tor

mdx
March 7th, 2014, 06:58 AM
According to the docs, gcc version 3 still supports xenix. Couldnt find anything in the version 4 docs.

Echoes
March 8th, 2014, 02:12 AM
The fact that the target is there doesn't mean the target was mantained in any way, but I'll try

cr1901
July 20th, 2014, 11:32 PM
I didn't, and I don't think neozeed tried hard to do it either.

Where did you learn that?

(Sorry for the delay- I never saw the respones): The GCC manual makes a note that the first stage requires an ANSI C compiler. Curious, I verified this for myself and successfully compiled (with very minor source tweaks) the first half of the first stage of GCC using the Tiny C Compiler- at which point, the resulting executable is a GCC that can compile the rest of itself (The source code of GCC proper depends on its own extensions). Sadly, due to problems with TinyCC, the cross-GCC segfaulted :P. But it can be done.

Echoes
July 21st, 2014, 11:47 PM
That'd be great... What about compiling with cc?

cr1901
July 22nd, 2014, 03:45 PM
That'd be great... What about compiling with cc?

Is CC an ANSI C or K&R C compiler? If the latter, GCC 2.95 and below is capable of being compiled with a K&R C compiler. My guess is that the Xenix port would have to be reinstated for 4.0 and above. Additionally, GCC after 4.7.3 requires an ANSI C++ compiler.

I don't have a copy of Xenix or a spare 286/386 to try to run it... I was just offering suggestions/what I know :P. Portable C Compiler may be a better alternative- for perspective it is capable of compiling most of the NetBSD source tree and userland... well when it's not out of date (http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2014/07/19/msg025301.html) :P.

Echoes
July 22nd, 2014, 11:57 PM
Uh you're absolutely right, it's K&R but my brain was melted yesterday.

Well, there's GCC 2.95 then.
I'll try as soon as I can (that means in a few months).

Tor
July 29th, 2014, 12:43 PM
Uh you're absolutely right, it's K&R but my brain was melted yesterday.

Well, there's GCC 2.95 then.
I'll try as soon as I can (that means in a few months).
You should in principle be able to bootstrap yourself up through various GCC versions.. (after all, that's how many of us did it, just spread over some years). First use cc to start building GCC 2.95, then use that one (as it's an ANSI compiler) to build as late a version of GCC 3.x as you can, and then you should, presumably, be able to build a 4.x version. Note that 4.5 through 4.9 (IIRC) have some issues but that has AFAIK only been reported with building Linux kernels (real bug, but may not hit everyone).

-Tor