Pure UNIX and how to get it as well is it legacy and if so what's happened to it?

scharfshutze009 said:
I know some of all this and maybe it's a necessity too to use a newer flavor as well. I got an OK feel for UNIX with CentOS and with other UNIX forks and Linux distros, but UNIX is and was the grand daddy of them all and if it's the grand daddy then Multics must be the god or whatever, even if neither one of the originals should ever be used anymore though and if they haven't been studied probably should to bring them up to code if necessary. I don't like proprietary that is why I stay away from it or try to. I prefer inlel, even if I shouldn't.

I regards to how many UNIX ports you've helped ported that is amazing considering the complexity of the code that must be faced.
Click to expand...

Biggest problem had to do with the compiler. In the early days of Unix, a full C compiler came with it. In particular it was used so that the kernel could be rebuilt with your own tuning parameters and possibly additional drivers and such. But then, they stopped shipping a compiler, or they shipped a low level compiler that could just be used for tuning options only. The problem was that the include files for many things were not provided. So you often had to create your for things normally found in /usr/include or include/sys. So it was a mixture of dealing with the variations of includes out there (because each vendor was also including their own as they were not supplied with the base) and creating ones that didn't exist. That was by far the the biggest issue in porting. The rest was BSD vs SysV-isms. Many of those SVR distros included BSD-isms with their own modifications. Some of the mods were smart, but just different. For example, it was nice to see shared objects in HP-UX. But it wasn't anywhere else. AIX had there own old style (extended) coff style jump table library mechanism (which had its own quirks, some interesting, some garbage). Signal handling varied. BSD style, SysV style, and of course AIX style (which was actually severely broken up to vers 3.something or maybe 4).

I don't really understand why there is no need for UNIX anymore or why I was so fascinated by it except now know how powerful it's code is and how it helped shape modern UNIX's and UNIX-Like OS as well as others.

I know Linux is the like UNIX with a major upgrade because it is the healthiest continuation of UNIX in existence, but I'm just facinated by it, even though I don't want to be a code to have to do anything that complex I hope and it's a good thing I can borrow the code and hopefully it's reliable considering how old it is.
Click to expand...

Oh, Linux is a different beast, not Unix. As "maddog" and I like to say, "Unix is a Linux-like OS". It's weird, the things that make Unix so wonderful, some of the elements are present in other OS's, but without the easy of reach to the end user (not sure why that is). IMHO, the shell (Bourne shell+) and the filtering command set are the most valuable features of a Unix system.

I mean, it's nice that Windows has Powershell, but even so, you just can't do half as much with Windows as you can with Linux (or even Unix).

As an "old" Unix guy, I"m very pleased that we have Linux. Unix is "reliable", but embarassingly poor code. Lots of bad stuff to make the kernel difficult to port (lots of 3b2 isms, SysV wise). Sadly, there was a lot of pride back then, and nobody really wanted to make something so free as to change the world back then (even BSD).
 
Haven said:
So back when I first started System Administration in the mid 90s, I was an administrator on AIX, SunOS, Solaris, SCO Unix (pre-caldera), and Linux. Some of those followed System V, some were more BSD. The commands between them all seemed the same, just the switches and operators were different. At various times over the past 20 years I have touched HP-UX, and Digital/UX as well as the others. In 2014 when I had to manage a HP-UX box, it was like going back to 1994 in terms of how the OS felt.


You might check out OpenIndiana, which is a fork of OpenSolaris.
Click to expand...

Thanks maybe I will, but I'm going to continue to try Solaris first especially to see if I want to run it on my server.
 
cjcox said:
Biggest problem had to do with the compiler. In the early days of Unix, a full C compiler came with it. In particular it was used so that the kernel could be rebuilt with your own tuning parameters and possibly additional drivers and such. But then, they stopped shipping a compiler, or they shipped a low level compiler that could just be used for tuning options only. The problem was that the include files for many things were not provided. So you often had to create your for things normally found in /usr/include or include/sys. So it was a mixture of dealing with the variations of includes out there (because each vendor was also including their own as they were not supplied with the base) and creating ones that didn't exist. That was by far the the biggest issue in porting. The rest was BSD vs SysV-isms. Many of those SVR distros included BSD-isms with their own modifications. Some of the mods were smart, but just different. For example, it was nice to see shared objects in HP-UX. But it wasn't anywhere else. AIX had there own old style (extended) coff style jump table library mechanism (which had its own quirks, some interesting, some garbage). Signal handling varied. BSD style, SysV style, and of course AIX style (which was actually severely broken up to vers 3.something or maybe 4).



Oh, Linux is a different beast, not Unix. As "maddog" and I like to say, "Unix is a Linux-like OS". It's weird, the things that make Unix so wonderful, some of the elements are present in other OS's, but without the easy of reach to the end user (not sure why that is). IMHO, the shell (Bourne shell+) and the filtering command set are the most valuable features of a Unix system.

I mean, it's nice that Windows has Powershell, but even so, you just can't do half as much with Windows as you can with Linux (or even Unix).

As an "old" Unix guy, I"m very pleased that we have Linux. Unix is "reliable", but embarassingly poor code. Lots of bad stuff to make the kernel difficult to port (lots of 3b2 isms, SysV wise). Sadly, there was a lot of pride back then, and nobody really wanted to make something so free as to change the world back then (even BSD).
Click to expand...

Yea borrowed piece of code from someone else can be a complete nightmare if you didn't think of them or design them yourself because the time and effort use to make them combine and work with existing working code that is why I had so many problem after borrow code from the kernel 101 guide and 201 guide because I tried to combine them. I may comment or reply to the rest of what you said later.
 
scharfshutze009 said:
Yea borrowed piece of code from someone else can be a complete nightmare if you didn't think of them or design them yourself because the time and effort use to make them combine and work with existing working code that is why I had so many problem after borrow code from the kernel 101 guide and 201 guide because I tried to combine them. I may comment or reply to the rest of what you said later.
Click to expand...

Only if the person borrowing the code or the person who wrote the code doesn't know what they're doing. The vast majority of software out there today was built by modifying code that already existed.
 
I came to the realization that it might not have been worth it to continue to try to use the original System V after what some of you said, but I might still try and I realized that the reason I might not be able to get it to mount it is because I didn't create separate partition on the flash drive for each to write to. At least I started small and from the beginning like Alejandro who's code I borrow because he made it easy or tried to make it easy to see what or how it was like to start from the beginning without all the other possible problems of existing kernels and Operating Systems as well as that it was a reliable first place to possible start. They say it's usually good to ask for feedback and let others test or use your code too as well and do other proper planning, which I may be very negative or critical of when using other peoples code or whatever, but don't mean to be and just do it over to much frustration that it wasn't thought of in the original design.

I doubt Alejandro may be wanting me to test or especially use his code, but he seems to be showing me an easy if not good place to start and I don't know for sure if I actually want to end up borrow possible final production of code for mine either and credit him as well for his work as necessary to if I use it and as I intend to actually credit him for.

I think Dennis Ritchie ultimately had to make the tough choice and let Linus continue his work because Linus wanted to, but I'm not sure I do. However, Dennis Ritiche is credited so much for making the C programming language with Brian Kernigan for how close it is to machine code that how could I not use it when it is or has proven to be the best choice for C if not more current implementation and I probably shouldn't try to go back to System V or it's code because the problems with it either are or Definitely have been figured out in more healthier newer implementations of True or Pure UNIX if not Linux. Solaris might be good, but it might be too expensive if it costs anything to use because the files of it didn't extract.

Also, UNIX didn't have antivirus, a firewall, or ip masquarading as well as other security features I'm interested in to keep my system secure from corrupt code that will keep it from working as intended for genenal use as is usually the purpose. UNIX System is far to early of a part of UNIX to be ready for modern server and especially desktop for sure, which has all been thought of most likly. I can see the need to possibly study it but not use it on modern hardware live and shouldn't have suggest that if I did.
 
Last edited:
UNIX may be very interesting after all this and learning about it and GNU, but I don't know if for sure if there is anything I'll be able to actually do to help preserve it correctly because of my disability, but thank you to the Entire BSD, GNU, UNIX and LInux as well as other who make it possible because it has helped alot financially in the most difficult times and for that I am greatful to all of you and I will remain here with you helping or trying to as long as I can. I don't know how you make this possible either.
 
Last edited:
Remember, BSD is Unix. So it's definitely around for PCs for quite some time (or is BSD dead?). HP-UX, AIX and some others aren't going anywhere. They aren't cheap since you pretty much have to buy their equipment, but still there. And there's always Oracle's Solaris, you just never know when Oracle is going to ax it to death accidentally.

Recommended book (easy read): The Design of the Unix Operating System by Maurice Bach (don't blame me if you find a full pdf of the book online if you google for it). This is old and outdated, but a good read.
Much harder read: The Magic Garden Explained: The Internals of Unix System V Release 4
If you don't fear the demon: The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System

Ok... it's not code (though there are code snippets throughout), but still great stuff.
 
If you really want to dig in on OS design, here's an open course from MIT on operating system design that uses a teaching OS call xv6. They provide the book, full source code, and lecture notes. There's also some assignments you can try out.

xv6 is an x86 multiprocessor adaptation of UNIX version 6 (an early predecessor of System V and the BSDs)
 
scharfshutze009 said:
I tried that and it didn't work because it should have extracted that contents of the .img files to inside the same forder
Click to expand...

Try winzip, and isobuster. But before that check the properties of the file to make sure its complete.

Actually, if you right click, the mount option may show if you have a windows version thats up to date. Win 7 was better in this regard. 7-zip should work though, its on their website as saying its can open .img files.

I like external programs to do these things because I can more specify how and what action they take.If these programs cant open them, they might be corrupted.
 
I think I may be wrong about UNIX security as well as antivirus and am just now possibly realizing it and just can't I know GNU/Linux has clamav and antivirus Live Linux though, which I would gladly donate for because of how well it works compared to other ones that make me subscribe. However, I can't find anything about it online except that UNIX will inevitably face these issues.
 
UNIX should have the ability to add security features, since at least Linux has them and all anybody should need it the code if it's given out as part of the GNU public license if it applies. All I may need to do is just look it up.
 
I couldn't find anything about the type of security it should have except file permissions, so it may need alot of work.
 
I cannot format or flash the same USB flash drive I mutiple flashed and it will not mount or format or show up with the df -h command, fdisk -l, or blkid. It just can't be accessod, used, saver, or studied, because it will do anything I want it too, so I force ejected it from my system by physically yanking it from the usb port. It seems hopeless to me to be able to actually do anything with the actual operating system or files that are .img. The only thing I'll be able to do is study it's code from sources. I don't know how tbg got it to work, but it not letting me do anything because it won't let me reformat the flash drive, so I'm not risking putting it on another one. The drive with not cooperate with me at all any more. It may be time to try dban on it maybe or leave the files in tack for data carving.
 
Last edited:
I've been bored at work lately with a terminal case of Don'tGiveAShititis (yay layoffs), so I've been digging into those WinWorld images to see what they're all about. Turns out none of the .img files contain any sort of mountable file system; so they are not mountable inside UNIX or Linux. Instead they are data files written directly to the floppy device via /dev/fd0 by whatever utility created them 30 years ago. Putting them on a flash drive will not work.


The base 01 and base 02 images are just pure executable code that load the initial UNIX environment to install from. Essentially they're nothing but one extremely long bootloader with an embedded ramdisk. The base 03 through base 10 files are archives written straight to the floppy media by the CPIO utility (CPIO is similar in function to tar). They contain the base system files that are to be installed to the hard drive. You can actually open them using 7-zip and see the contents.

The rest of the images are UNIX Datastream Pakage files used to install the rest of the system and extra features.

Again, none of these images contain mountable filesystems. You simply have to put them on a floppy disk using something like dd (for real hardware) or attach them as virtual floppy disks (for VMs). Then you can boot from them (Base 01 / Base 02), extract them with CPIO (Base 03 - Base 10) to see what's on them, or install them with pkgadd (all others).
 
I have no idea why you are so concerned with "Seeing" 40+ year old OS code. You can go and look at source for any BSD/Linux bits you like, most of the Unix code going back that far is pretty much useless now.

Linux and BSD are the replacements for all things Unix >.<

No one wants to pay for licencing, everyone wants to be able to make changes without asking permission. Use Linux, if you have some personal hate for Linus or something run BSD.

If you really really want to deal with a OS that still calls itself Unix run Solaris... which is updated and supported. Also btw Solaris 11.x is 64 bit they killed 32 bit... and all Solaris 11 copies that says x86, assume you know they are talking about AMD64 or IA-64. Solaris 11 doesn't run on older 32 bit sparac hardware either. Solaris 11 is 64 bit only so there is only one download.
 
If your interest is security within Unix, then OpenBSD would be a good option for you. It is forked off NetBSD, which was forked off 386BSD. OpenBSD is a security minded Unix.

I haven't played with it in years, but it looks to be going strong.
 
The biggest problem I have with understanding exactly what UNIX is or how it works is that there are so many bits and pieces as to what UNIX really is that only Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson originally only knew and know exactly what the overall problem may have been with it and how it worked. It's like the Matrix to me because I don't really have a clear overall picture of what the overall problem is or how UNIX worked, since there is so much code to filter through and test as well as that I seem to not be that good of a coder especially considering all this. The original hardware is ancient now and the code can't be directly port from the machine except in regards to that the code uses the C language, but isn't or wasn't designed originally for x86 processors. I definitely know it was an operating system from the 70's though especially now that I've learned how to use it.
 
For me as well UNIX is an incomplete thought to a whole problem that someone figured out a long time ago that I never could and needed help to get this far just to learn how to use code a little with. Someone somewhere might have it all figured out. Bill Gates has his vision of where he wanted to go with it and have mine, but not a clear vision, which is why I vent and get frustrated about. It stems from a problem from so long ago that I can't talk about here. Somebody knew why GNU not UNIX and Stallman is that man.
 
I noticed apparently if Stallman is a cheese toe eater that people may need to pay him at least something, so he can hopefully afford to eat well. That is why I asked how much True or Pure Linux costs because I wanted an I idea how much it would have costed if not for that winworldpc.com that really helped me get at least close to seeing what it might have been like.
 
When I first even thought I realized the UNIX operating system exited as a child it was a flawed idea, because I just didn't understand how it worked or how it should work. I know a little at least about it now, and for the things I don't I refer back to backups of the past files on storage devices to help for ethical purposes.
 
I understand commands better than I understand computer programming, because the commands just go as the command then the option and then the argument, for example ls -l /home/username/ I understand that ls -l goes like this ls is the command, -l is the option, and /home/username is the argument, which who wrote UNIX, Linux thought up a long time ago correct or more easier than Microsoft windows to me for some reason and it's probably because it's shorter. Hopefully, if anyone cares to respond that makes sense to them in words they can understand.
 
scharfshutze009 said:
The biggest problem I have with understanding exactly what UNIX is or how it works is that there are so many bits and pieces as to what UNIX really is that only Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson originally only knew and know exactly what the overall problem may have been with it and how it worked. It's like the Matrix to me because I don't really have a clear overall picture of what the overall problem is or how UNIX worked, since there is so much code to filter through and test as well as that I seem to not be that good of a coder especially considering all this. The original hardware is ancient now and the code can't be directly port from the machine except in regards to that the code uses the C language, but isn't or wasn't designed originally for x86 processors. I definitely know it was an operating system from the 70's though especially now that I've learned how to use it.
Click to expand...

What problem are you talking about ???

There is no problem with Unix its still in use today... Operating systems evolve, no one is running a 70s version of Unix just like no windows user is still seriously using windows 3.1

Unix still runs most of the big servers in the world today... Linux due to its licence runs the majority of it. But many big data centers still run Solaris. Others run some version of BSD Unix... mainly so they can properly use the ZFS file system. Heck even a large % of NAS units are running BSD and ZFS.

Your talking like Unix died or something... Unix hasn't WENT anywhere. It didn't die it evolved. Unix (linux/bsd/solaris/hp ect ect) run the majority of the worlds servers. For practical purposes... BSD is to 70s Unix as Windows 10 is to Windows 7. Linux is to 70s Unix as Windows 10 is to Windows 3.1.

The kernels differ... the licencing differs. THE OS is vastly the same. They use the same commands. They use the same file structures.
https://www.computerhope.com/unix.htm - ALL the basic commands your talking about learning are the same , be it Linux, BSD, mid 70s Unix or even osx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard - the FHS file system hierarchy is maintained by the Linux people these days but is almost every Unix derived modern OS adheres to this. The BSD people and even the Sun folks contribute. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/fhs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

I don't know where you got the idea that Unix was dead.... its not. Its the most widely used big iron OS and it has been since yes the 70s. It evolved of course... just like MS isn't selling windows 3.1 anymore. The basic directory layout, filesystem specs, and basic commands follow the same set of standards across all the current Unix Operating systems, be they BSD, Linux, Solaris, HP... and even OSx.
 
ChadD said:
What problem are you talking about ???

There is no problem with Unix its still in use today... Operating systems evolve, no one is running a 70s version of Unix just like no windows user is still seriously using windows 3.1

Unix still runs most of the big servers in the world today... Linux due to its licence runs the majority of it. But many big data centers still run Solaris. Others run some version of BSD Unix... mainly so they can properly use the ZFS file system. Heck even a large % of NAS units are running BSD and ZFS.

Your talking like Unix died or something... Unix hasn't WENT anywhere. It didn't die it evolved. Unix (linux/bsd/solaris/hp ect ect) run the majority of the worlds servers. For practical purposes... BSD is to 70s Unix as Windows 10 is to Windows 7. Linux is to 70s Unix as Windows 10 is to Windows 3.1.

The kernels differ... the licencing differs. THE OS is vastly the same. They use the same commands. They use the same file structures.
https://www.computerhope.com/unix.htm - ALL the basic commands your talking about learning are the same , be it Linux, BSD, mid 70s Unix or even osx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard - the FHS file system hierarchy is maintained by the Linux people these days but is almost every Unix derived modern OS adheres to this. The BSD people and even the Sun folks contribute. https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/fhs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

I don't know where you got the idea that Unix was dead.... its not. Its the most widely used big iron OS and it has been since yes the 70s. It evolved of course... just like MS isn't selling windows 3.1 anymore. The basic directory layout, filesystem specs, and basic commands follow the same set of standards across all the current Unix Operating systems, be they BSD, Linux, Solaris, HP... and even OSx.
Click to expand...

This is true, the SAP systems I deal with where I work are running HP-UX 11.31 for IA-64 (not x86-64). Except for the differences between Korn Shell and Bash, I almost wouldn't know the difference between them and our RHEL x86 servers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
If you can administer a Unix machine, you can administer a Linux machine as the commands/file structures are literally identical.
 
tbg said:
winworldpc.com has AT&T system V unix, thats probably as close as you are going to get to pure unix.
Solaris is probably the closest modern unix to sys V, and It runs fine on real x86 hardware, in virtualbox and vmware.
PC-BSD is now trueos, so if you want the newer version go to www.trueos.org and get it.
irix, was mips only, dead os, dead platform, probably to much bsd mixed in anyways if you are looking for pure sys V unix.
Click to expand...

Going back to this I distinctly remember reading or hearing that SGI Onyx Workstations cost about $100,000 or more if not slightly less in the $90 and from looking at the pictures in Nintendo Power Magazine or maybe next generation Magazine the Onyx Workstation was about the size of a normal refrigerator if not a little smaller anyway, so the price of an modern Intel or AMD system has help make running a modern highend graphics workstation more affordable.
 
TrueOS is the closest I'm going to get to running the Purest form of original UNIX as in System V because the flash drive with the imgs flashed to it by disks in Ubuntu doesn't do anything for me or mount. I probably just need to find another way to flash the images to the usb flash drive, but shouldn't have to because that shouldn't be the problem. Also, trueOS probably or definitely already solves the problems with Original System V anyway.
 
Stick with one of the core BSD operating systems. My preferred order is OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD. I wouldn't bother with TrueOS.

I've been using IBM AIX for 10+ years professionally now, ranging from Power 4 to Power 8 CPU's and AIX 5.1 to 7.2.

I do have a copy of AIX 1.3 (1992) that does run on x86. It originally ran on the IBM PS/2, but I does run in VirtualBox. It's pretty useless these days and only vaguely resembles any modern version of AIX.
 
tbg said:
But TrueOS is bsd, not sys V.
Click to expand...

Well I kind of knew that, but can probably only afford True OS currently and if I want IBM's AIX or HP-UX I need to find a way I can contact them to ask that will work if not by phone.
 
acascianelli said:
Stick with one of the core BSD operating systems. My preferred order is OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD. I wouldn't bother with TrueOS.

I've been using IBM AIX for 10+ years professionally now, ranging from Power 4 to Power 8 CPU's and AIX 5.1 to 7.2.

I do have a copy of AIX 1.3 (1992) that does run on x86. It originally ran on the IBM PS/2, but I does run in VirtualBox. It's pretty useless these days and only vaguely resembles any modern version of AIX.
Click to expand...

If I wanted IBM's AIX or HP-UX I need to find a way I can contact them to ask that it will work if not by phone.
 
tbg said:
But TrueOS is bsd, not sys V.
Click to expand...

Once, again in regards to this can you tell me what I did wrong when attempting to make it bootable and put it on a 2 GB usb flash drive by using disks in Ubuntu to put the mulitiple images you helped me get from winworldpc.com when flashing it. As well as why it won't automount in ubuntu, show up with the df -h command, show up with the blkid command, and showup with the fdisk -l. Finally, why reformatting the flash drive to repair the partition or partitions with the mkfs command and starting over as well as doing something else might be my only option.
 
scharfshutze009 said:
If I wanted IBM's AIX or HP-UX I need to find a way I can contact them to ask that it will work if not by phone.
Click to expand...

You need IBM hardware to run AIX, you're looking at $10k+ just to get started. That doesn't include the IBM Hardware Management Console that is required to do any virtualization, which is another $10(ish)k.

I assume HP-UX is probably very similar.
 
scharfshutze009 said:
Once, again in regards to this can you tell me what I did wrong when attempting to make it bootable and put it on a 2 GB usb flash drive by using disks in Ubuntu to put the mulitiple images you helped me get from winworldpc.com when flashing it. As well as why it won't automount in ubuntu, show up with the df -h command, show up with the blkid command, and showup with the fdisk -l. Finally, why reformatting the flash drive to repair the partition or partitions with the mkfs command and starting over as well as doing something else might be my only option.
Click to expand...

i do not think you will be able to put those images on to a usb, you might be able to dd them on to some floppys. like i said, i installed it in a VM, the images worked fine in virtualbox as floppys.
if you want to set it up in a vm to check out what it was like in the old days thats one thing, but you arn't going to make it a usable system. the images didn't include a network stack or compiler, file sizes are limited to 2mb, there does not even seem to be anything installed to get/send files over serial.
 
tbg said:
i do not think you will be able to put those images on to a usb, you might be able to dd them on to some floppys. like i said, i installed it in a VM, the images worked fine in virtualbox as floppys.
if you want to set it up in a vm to check out what it was like in the old days thats one thing, but you arn't going to make it a usable system. the images didn't include a network stack or compiler, file sizes are limited to 2mb, there does not even seem to be anything installed to get/send files over serial.
Click to expand...

He won't be able to use USB sticks, except maybe to boot the first image (which acutally is a Filesystem image). The other image files are not filesystems. They are images of straight data dumps originally written direclty to the floppy media as if the floppy disk itself was a single file.
 
acascianelli said:
You need IBM hardware to run AIX, you're looking at $10k+ just to get started. That doesn't include the IBM Hardware Management Console that is required to do any virtualization, which is another $10(ish)k.

I assume HP-UX is probably very similar.
Click to expand...

Well then nevermind then about AIX or HP-UX if that is true and I guess I'll have to stick with TrueOS or another form of BSD or someone elses fork.
 
tbg said:
i do not think you will be able to put those images on to a usb, you might be able to dd them on to some floppys. like i said, i installed it in a VM, the images worked fine in virtualbox as floppys.
if you want to set it up in a vm to check out what it was like in the old days thats one thing, but you arn't going to make it a usable system. the images didn't include a network stack or compiler, file sizes are limited to 2mb, there does not even seem to be anything installed to get/send files over serial.
Click to expand...

Ok well I knew they were designed for older storage media, like tape reels and not floppy. However, I thought I try the smallest capacity usb flash drives I could find, which were 2 GB that were meant for assisting my cell phone possibly and didn't think it would matter. I need to attempt to use them the way your suggesting though on my labtop, which has Ubuntu Linux because Windows 10 makes completing disabling Hyper-V and preventing it from interferring with the USE of VMware or virtual box a pain as well as complicates using it by requiring vlans, like it needs a virtual network equipment switch or something and that makes it even more painful to use or attempt to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top