scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Solaris is also one of the only options too including these if the download completed successfully or at all.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Pure UNIX and how to get it as well is it legacy and if so what's happened to it?
- Thread starter scharfshutze009
- Start date
Solaris is also one of the only options too including these if the download completed successfully or at all.
You can find some user Power6 hardware on eBay for cheap(ish). You'd still have the problem with only being able to have a monolithic system without an HMC. Older un-supported HMC models are available on eBay as well for cheap, or you can hack the HMC images to run on non-HMC PC's.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-IBM-8...612602&hash=item1edae6390d:g:nCcAAOSwTPlaluTs
https://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-7310-C...445350&hash=item41925e5fd1:g:DTEAAOSwv0tVAxJo
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
The x86 version of Solaris was dropped and they're no longer providing updates for the last version that ran on x86. Solaris 11 is not compatible with many older machines and primarily only runs on larger enterprise level systems. I don't know as much about Solaris as AIX, but I would cross that one off your list too.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Thanks and the size of those servers or whatever those links are to is a lot more reasonable, realistic to transport, and deal with than the original way older as well as ugly main frames that the Original UNIX was created and derived from, which is also true of the original mainframes used for original UNIX's influence being Multics. However, I already have a more modern server than uses two socket 2011v2 processors, a highend desktop that uses a single socket 2011v2 1600 series Xeon, two computers in my apartment that use Intel 1200v3 series Xeon's, a Mac Pro Mid 2012 with a single socket 1366 Xeon, and a highend dual Xeon system that will either use Intel Xeon 2011v3 that can support up to Intel Xeon 2011v4 processors or will use the newest available Intel Xeon Scalable and probably not AMD Opteron or the newest available highend Epyc processor(s) in the works. However, I believe your tying to tell me I need IBM's Power6 processor whatever it is because those ebay listings don't seem to say and I really don't want to have to research the answer, but here is what I found on the IBM-8203-E4A-Power6-Server, which the processor specs are decent compared to Modern Intel or AMD and more modern Power6 or CR3 HMC systems might have better or closer processors compared to modern Intel or AMD processors too:
1.7.1 1-core 4.2 GHz offering This section describes the features of the 1-core 4.2 GHz offering. Deskside configuration Table 1-11 lists the features and descriptions for the deskside 8203-E4A with only one processor activated. Table 1-11 8203-E4A deskside configuration (1-core 4.2 GHz) features and descriptions Rack mount configuration Table 1-12 lists the features and descriptions for the rack mount 8203-E4A with only one processor activated. Table 1-12 8203-E4A rack mount configuration (1-core 4.2 GHz) features and description Feature Code Description Qty 1843 Operator Panel Cable, Deskside with 3.5 in. DASD Backplane 1 3647 146.8 GB 15 000 rpm SAS Disk Drive 2 4521 2048 MB (2 x 1024 MB) RDIMMs, 667 MHz, 512 Mb DRAM 1 5623 Dual Port 1 Gb Integrated Virtual Ethernet Daughter Card 1 5633 1-core 4.2 GHz POWER6 Processor Card, 4 Memory DIMM Slots 1 5676 Zero-priced Processor Activation for 5633 1 5743 SATA Slimline DVD-ROM Drive 1 6xxx Power Cord 2 7112 IBM Deskside Cover Set (With door) 1 7703 Power Supply, 950 watt ac, Hot-swap, Base and Redundant 2 8308 DASD/Media Backplane for 3.5 in. DASD/SATA DVD/Tape (without external SAS port) 1 9300/97xx Language Group Specify 1 Feature Code Description Qty 1877 Op Panel Cable for Rack Mount Drawer with 3.5 in. DASD 1 3647 146.8 GB 15 000 rpm SAS Disk Drive 2 4521 2048 MB (2 x 1024 MB) RDIMMs, 667 MHz, 512 Mb DRAM 2 5623 Dual Port 1 Gb Integrated Virtual Ethernet Daughter Card 1 5633 1-core 4.2 GHz POWER6 Processor Card, 4 Memory DIMM Slots 1 5676 Zero-priced Processor Activation for 5633 1 5743 SATA Slimline DVD-ROM Drive 1 6xxx Power Cord 2 7114 IBM/OEM Rack Mount Drawer Rail Kit 1 7200 IBM Rack Mount Drawer Bezel and Hardware 1 7703 Power Supply, 950 watt ac, Hot-swap, Base and Redundant 2 26 IBM Power 520 Technical Overview 1.7.2 2-core 4.2 GHz offering This section describes the features of the 2-core 4.2 GHz offering. Deskside configuration Table 1-13 lists the features and descriptions for the deskside 8203-E4A with two processors activated. Table 1-13 8203-E4A deskside configuration (2-core 4.2 GHz) features and descriptions Rack mount configuration Table 1-14 lists the features and descriptions for the rack mount 8203-E4A with two processors activated. Table 1-14 8203-E4A rack mount configuration (2-core 4.2 GHz) features and descriptions 8308 DASD/Media Backplane for 3.5 in. DASD/SATA DVD/Tape (without external SAS port) 1 9300/97xx Language Group Specify 1 Feature Code Description Qty Feature Code Description Qty 1843 Operator Panel Cable, Deskside with 3.5 in. DASD Backplane 1 3647 146.8 GB 15 000 rpm SAS Disk Drive 2 4532 4096 MB (2 x 2048 MB) RDIMMs, 667 MHz, 1 Gb DRAM 1 5623 Dual Port 1 Gb Integrated Virtual Ethernet Daughter Card 1 5634 2-core 4.2 GHz POWER6 Processor Card, 4 Memory DIMM Slots 1 5654 One Processor Activation for Processor Feature 5634 1 5677 Zero-priced Processor Activation for 5634 1 5743 SATA Slimline DVD-ROM Drive 1 6xxx Power Cord 2 7112 IBM Deskside Cover Set (With door) 1 7703 Power Supply, 950 watt ac, Hot-swap, Base and Redundant 2 8308 DASD/Media Backplane for 3.5 in. DASD/SATA DVD/Tape (without external SAS port) 1 9300/97xx Language Group Specify 1 Feature Code Description Qty 1877 Op Panel Cable for Rack Mount Drawer with 3.5 in. DASD 1 3647 146.8 GB 15 000 rpm SAS Disk Drive 2 4532 4096 MB (2 x 2048 MB) RDIMMs, 667 MHz, 1 Gb RDRAM 1 5623 Dual Port 1 Gb Integrated Virtual Ethernet Daughter Card 1 5634 2-core 4.2 GHz POWER6 Processor Card, 4 Memory DIMM Slots 1 Chapter 1. General description 27 1.7.3 2-core 4.7 GHz offering This section describes the features of the 2-core 4.7 GHz offering. Deskside configuration Table 1-15 lists the features and descriptions for the deskside 8203-E4A with two processors activated. Table 1-15 8203-E4A deskside configuration (2-core 4.7 GHz) features and descriptions Rack mount configuration Table 1-16 on page 28 lists the features and descriptions for the rack mount 8203-E4A with two processors activated. 5654 One Processor Activation for Processor Feature 5634 1 5677 Zero-priced Processor Activation for 5634 1 5743 SATA Slimline DVD-ROM Drive 1 6xxx Power Cord 2 7114 IBM/OEM Rack Mount Drawer Rail Kit 1 7200 IBM Rack Mount Drawer Bezel and Hardware 1 7703 Power Supply, 950 watt ac, Hot-swap, Base and Redundant 2 8308 DASD/Media Backplane for 3.5 in. DASD/SATA DVD/Tape (without external SAS port) 1 9300/97xx Language Group Specify 1 Feature Code Description Qty Feature Code Description Qty 1843 Operator Panel Cable, Deskside with 3.5 in. DASD Backplane 1 3647 146.8 GB 15 000 rpm SAS Disk Drive 2 4532 4096 MB (2 x 2048 MB) RDIMs, 667 MHz, 1 Gb DRAM 1 5577 2-core 4.7 GHz POWER6 Processor Card, 4 Memory DIMM Slots 1 5578 One Processor Activation for Processor Feature 5635 (price per processor) 1 5579 Zero-priced Processor Activation for 5635 1 5623 Dual Port 1 Gb Integrated Virtual Ethernet Daughter Card 1 5743 SATA Slimline DVD-ROM Drive 1 6xxx Power Cord 2 7112 IBM Deskside Cover Set (With door) 1 7703 Power Supply, 950 watt ac, Hot-swap, Base and Redundant 2 8308 DASD/Media Backplane for 3.5 in. DASD/SATA DVD/Tape (without external SAS port) 1 9300/97xx Language Group Specify
Ok and apparent pasting that text copied from the datasheet about the Power6 turned out to be a jumbled mess that I'm not sure or having difficult making easier to read because Hard Forum messed up the paste, but here is the information about the CR3 system that may also suffer from the same problem when pasted in this reply:
Hardware specifications provide detailed information for your Hardware Management Console (HMC), including dimensions, electrical, power, temperature, and environmental specifications.
The HMC controls managed systems, including the management of logical partitions and the use of capacity on demand. Using service applications, the HMC communicates with managed systems to detect, consolidate, and send information to IBM® for analysis. The HMC provides service technicians with diagnostic information for systems that can operate in a multiple-partitioned environment.
Use the following specifications to plan for your HMC.
Table 1. Hardware Management Console specifications
Measurements Width Depth Height Weight (minimum configuration as shipped) Weight (maximum configuration)
Metric 438 mm 540 mm 216 mm 16.3 kg 25.2 kg
English 17.25 in. 21.25 in. 8.5 in. 36 lb 56 lb
Electrical1
Power source loading 0.106 kVa to 0.352 kVa
Input voltage 100 - 127 V ac (low range)
200 - 240 V ac (high range)
Frequency (hertz) 47 Hz to 53 Hz (low range)
57 Hz to 63 Hz (high range)
Thermal output (minimum) 630 Btu/hr. (185 watts)
Thermal output (maximum) 1784 Btu/hr. (523 watts)
Maximum altitude (Server off) 2133 m (7000 ft)
Air temperature requirements
Operating Shipping
10 to 32°C (50 to 89.6°F)
-40 to 60°C (-40 - 140°F)
Humidity requirements
Operating Nonoperating
Noncondensing humidity 8 - 80% 8 - 80%
Noise emissions2
Product description Declared A-weighted sound power level, LWAd (bels) Declared A-weighted sound pressure level, LpAm (dB)
Operating Nonoperating Operating Nonoperating
One hard disk drive configuration 5.2 4.8 37 33
Notes
- Power consumption and heat output vary depending on the number and type of optional features installed and the power management optional features in use.
- These levels were measured in controlled acoustical environments according to the procedures specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.10 and ISO 7779 and are reported in accordance with IS) 9296. Actual sound-pressure levels in a given location might exceed the average values stated because of room reflections and other nearby noise sources. The declared sound-power levels indicate an upper limit, below which a large number of computers will operate.
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
That's what I thought after trying it before, but someone in this thread insisted that it had been updated to x86_64 and that it would run on my computer hardware. Therefore, I downloaded it again just to pretty much realize the same thing except i haven't tried it again yet even though I put it on optical media and usb flash again anyway. Therefore, once again the only modern UNIX that seems like I'll be able to use once my laptop finishes updating it's backup or I use my other Xeon 1200v3 series computer is TrueOS or some other BSD fork or someone else's fork.
The thing is though is that I was or still am using the Xeon 1200v3 system for testing borrowed code for an Operating System Kernel and hopefully making my own shell for it considering the borrowed kernel code has already been tested and proven to work by me regardless of if the code from the Kernel 101 only says "My first Kernel" or the code from the Kernel 201 only says "My first kernel with text support" when they finish loading and that I need to integrate the code from the rest of the idea's I found on the internet. The main purpose of this hole post might now be becoming if is necessary to have access to Original UNIX code with the closest available being UNIX System V especially if Linux is the healthest continuation and not BSD UNIX forks or other UNIX forks. After all I did find or get access to just the code for the original if not latter Linux Kernel(s).
Last edited:
brutalizer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,602
True Unix still lives but is shrinking. True Unix is Oracle Solaris, IBM AIX and BSD. HP-UX is effectively dead. Solaris 11 is free for testing and development and works great on most x86 PCs. The new Solaris 11.4 is the same as Solaris 12 under a different name, so Solaris 12 will not be released. Its name will be Solaris 11.4 and brings lot of new shiny features.
Linux is eating Unix market share, except in the large scale-up server domain. The largest Linux servers has until the last year(?) been ordinary 8-cpu servers from IBM, Oracle, HP, etc. Until recently, there did not exist larger x86 servers with 16 or even 32-cpus. So Linux could not run on large 16- or 32-socket servers - because they did not exist until last year. Scalability is difficult.
If you wanted to run the largest workloads (that required 16-cpu or 32-cpus) the only choice was Unix RISC or Mainframes. Only these servers have 16 or 32-cpus. No x86 servers with that many cpus existed until last year. As a result, Linux has very bad scalability because no large x86 servers existed until last year. How can developers optimize scalabilty on Linux, when the hardware did not exist?
A large single servers, with 16 or 32-cpus are extremely expensive and can tackle the largest workloads. For instance, one 32-socket IBM P595 server for the old TPC-C record costed $35 million. No typo. One single server with 32 cpus costed $35 million. Why on earth are these large scale-up business servers soooo expensive? Because scalability is difficult to engineer.
Today HP bought SGI and SGI had the Linux UV3000 servers with 10.000s of cores - but they were excusively used for HPC number crunching, i.e. clustered workloads. In practice, UV3000 servers are clusters. Only large 16 or 32- cpu servers can run large business workloads, clusters can not run business workloads. Look at the official SAP benchmark top list. The top spots are all RISC Solaris servers. x86 comes far behind. The new x86 servers with 16 cpus scale bad, it is the first generation. Linux scales bad, the hardware scales bad.
There are two different scalabilities: scale-up and scale-out. Scale-up is one single large server typically used for business workloads such as OLTP databases, SAP, etc - examples are Solaris RISC servers or IBM AIX Risc servers or Mainframes. Scale-out servers are clusters, a bunch of PCs running on a fast switch - they are exclusively used for number crunching HPC workloads - and cannot run business workloads. So if you need to run large business workloads today, you have no other option than large RISC or Mainframe servers - and they are extremely expensive. SGI UV3000 with 10.000s of cores is cheap, because it is just a bunch of PCs connected together. However, Linux will slowly improve scale-up ability - but that will take decades. So until then, RISC servers live.
Linux is eating Unix market share, except in the large scale-up server domain. The largest Linux servers has until the last year(?) been ordinary 8-cpu servers from IBM, Oracle, HP, etc. Until recently, there did not exist larger x86 servers with 16 or even 32-cpus. So Linux could not run on large 16- or 32-socket servers - because they did not exist until last year. Scalability is difficult.
If you wanted to run the largest workloads (that required 16-cpu or 32-cpus) the only choice was Unix RISC or Mainframes. Only these servers have 16 or 32-cpus. No x86 servers with that many cpus existed until last year. As a result, Linux has very bad scalability because no large x86 servers existed until last year. How can developers optimize scalabilty on Linux, when the hardware did not exist?
A large single servers, with 16 or 32-cpus are extremely expensive and can tackle the largest workloads. For instance, one 32-socket IBM P595 server for the old TPC-C record costed $35 million. No typo. One single server with 32 cpus costed $35 million. Why on earth are these large scale-up business servers soooo expensive? Because scalability is difficult to engineer.
Today HP bought SGI and SGI had the Linux UV3000 servers with 10.000s of cores - but they were excusively used for HPC number crunching, i.e. clustered workloads. In practice, UV3000 servers are clusters. Only large 16 or 32- cpu servers can run large business workloads, clusters can not run business workloads. Look at the official SAP benchmark top list. The top spots are all RISC Solaris servers. x86 comes far behind. The new x86 servers with 16 cpus scale bad, it is the first generation. Linux scales bad, the hardware scales bad.
There are two different scalabilities: scale-up and scale-out. Scale-up is one single large server typically used for business workloads such as OLTP databases, SAP, etc - examples are Solaris RISC servers or IBM AIX Risc servers or Mainframes. Scale-out servers are clusters, a bunch of PCs running on a fast switch - they are exclusively used for number crunching HPC workloads - and cannot run business workloads. So if you need to run large business workloads today, you have no other option than large RISC or Mainframe servers - and they are extremely expensive. SGI UV3000 with 10.000s of cores is cheap, because it is just a bunch of PCs connected together. However, Linux will slowly improve scale-up ability - but that will take decades. So until then, RISC servers live.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I shouldn't have any problems getting it booted once I finish backing up my laptops important files, which is keeping it heavily occupied at the moment and slowing it down when I try to use it too and when I'm not using it for my College Classes too. However, it's not like I haven't tried TrueOS or FreeBSD in the past or PC-BSD either that is now TrueOS, but FreeBSD seemed better suited for learning about computer science considering I was having to install and configure everything from the ground up as well as that I just couldn't immediately use all of it's features together easily after install. However, all BSD forks are well documented and provide the documentation with practically little or no added expense too. Basically, I just need to freeup a system to test the most current TrueOS on a virtual machine though. As for other UNIX forks I really have a lot of research to do to find the right one or one that I like enough and that hasn't happened yet.
Last edited:
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Thanks I guess I describe the situation with UNIX improperly and that there may not be a need to go back other than it is no longer just called UNIX or that original UNIX was never just called UNIX in the many forks as well as adaptations that brought it to PC or other hardware that I know of besides the original mainframes it was used on or so it seems.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I've been doing some digging to look back for the reply that said where to get the other UNIX forks besides BSD, but can't find the reply can someone help me find it or tell me again to help me research the other non-BSD forks.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Thanks I knew SGI still lived until now and technically still does too. Also, that SGI started focusing on server last i looked, but I didn't know HP bought them out SGI today either and nothing about it prior to prepare me for it, but I don't own any true SGI hardware anyway unless you count or can consider Nintendo 64 LOL. I didn't know the rest of what you wrote either or typed and thought nothing of it until you replied with it and I read it too. Also, had you not replied with with what you said I may not have understood what you replied with had you not and I had already knew by finding out another way. It's very impressive to interms of processing power and way out of my reach for home use, but not for datacenter, but the price is just way beyond obtainable too at this point if ever obtainable and I'm pretty satisfied with what I have or have planned that still may be unobtainable anytime soon if ever. SGI approach sounds more realistic though to achieve the same processing power though and what I was thinking to because it would be easier to cluster many servers together to achieve than than build one gigantic computer to do the same thing or better, since large computer most likely have extremely complex wiring and circuitry designs.
http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/AIX_1-3/AIX_Index.html
From what I remember the show-stopper I ran into was I couldn't get networking to work.
From what I remember the show-stopper I ran into was I couldn't get networking to work.
SGI and IRIX we're the first Unix operating systems I ever used. I really like their hardware and software at the time. IIRC, I had a bunch of Indy, Indigo, and Indigo2. One of the Indigo2's I had was a frankenmonster that I tried to max out the specs on, as best I could really.
They still make and support solaris x86
No, they still have x86 for 11.3 and the 11.4 beta.
Its confusing perhaps because Sun just says ... X86. They refuse to say X86_64 or AMD64 or IA-64. Solaris 11 does not support 32 bit processors of any type... be they X86 or Sparac. Its now 64 bit only. I think that is what confused the OP for a bit there as he couldn't find a 64 bit download. 
yeah it always felt odd, it says i386 everywhere you would normally look, uname -a, /etc/release, psrinfo, none of them give a hint of it being 64bit, i think isainfo is the only thing that i remember seeing amd64 from.Its confusing perhaps because Sun just says ... X86. They refuse to say X86_64 or AMD64 or IA-64. Solaris 11 does not support 32 bit processors of any type... be they X86 or Sparac. Its now 64 bit only. I think that is what confused the OP for a bit there as he couldn't find a 64 bit download.
well, if you want to relive those old days... https://winworldpc.com/product/pc-ix/4x
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I have Solaris 11.3 and had still had it prior to obtaining it again after having it suggested to me in this thread, but my laptop was running extremely slow for some reason when trying to upload and share files in google drive, which I think it might be because the primary internal hard drive is full and therefore I'm cut and pasting the files to a folder on the secondary internal hard drive I have in hopes that it resolves it. However, the laptop is still cut and pasting the files to the other internal hard drive at the time of this reply.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Thanks I did not know this because it wasn't obvious whatever you meant in your reply to the person you reply to this with and me.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Its confusing perhaps because Sun just says ... X86. They refuse to say X86_64 or AMD64 or IA-64. Solaris 11 does not support 32 bit processors of any type... be they X86 or Sparac. Its now 64 bit only. I think that is what confused the OP for a bit there as he couldn't find a 64 bit download.
That's exactly what I thought, but couldn't prove it to myself and none of the responses cleared up this concern sooner.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I didn't really realize this either, but that's kinda exactly what I thought too. I just needed someone who knew to reply and say it. AMD64 is 64-bit and can or is supposed to work with Intel 64-bit processors though, even if you knew that.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I don't want to rellive the old days necessarily and I don't think I could revive any of these Operating Systems if they are dead or not being preserved in the exact way they were intended to. However, I did want to know how Linus Torvalds got access to the UNIX kernel or how I could especially without hacking into someone else's UNIX system. Also, it might have been nice if some original form of UNIX was named and ported to the x86 and future x86 processor that isn't a true fork, like AIX, HP-UX, or Solaris, isn't a BSD fork, or someone else, but without Dennis Ritchie and all of the original UNIX community that probably isn't going to happen or happen anytime soon or be as the original UNIX community intended. If I were to do it myself it would take me to long, I doubt I would be able to finish it because their most likely is too much code required, and I don't know enough about how to successfully do it or am overwelmed or possibly losing my ability to do so.
It might be nice in terms of enhancing the computers performance if everything was stored in ROM and it didn't need changed too, but that's not the case because a lot of time the code needs changed to because of errors or because it doesn't do what someone wants it to do too and that is completely different problem. However, not having it all stored in ROM is an idea that has come to my mind many times and steams from mostly playing console ROM based cartridge based games as a child as well as Optical media ROM games later.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Here are two screenshots from what happened when I tried to install Solaris 11.3 x86 on a VirtualBox Virtual Machine with AHCI turned on as well as other drive controller setting needed that I was unable to change regardless of if I turned of the VM or not, gave 4096 MB of RAM to, and gave 60 GB of virtual hard disk space to as well. The first picture is what happened when I tried to boot from the just the virtual hard disk when pressing F12 during boot and the second picture is what happened when I booted from the cdrom drive or optical media drive when pressing F12 during boot or when I just let the virtual machine boot to grub rescue:
What you want and are looking for does not exist, and does not make sense for it to exist. It's like if i went to a car forum and asked why they don't still make the model-T, but with AC , power windows and anti-lock breaks. Calming if Henry Ford was still alive we could get this. Time has moved on, it does not mater if Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were still around or not, Unix was not developed the same way Linux has a single person at the top wrangling everything, and even then Linus is focused on kernel dev, he did not build all the userland tools. The guys at bell labs gave us a really great idea/start, but unix did not become usable by modern day standards until after a lot of places, including berkeley, added their pieces back in to it.
you said you want "pure unix" i take that to mean you want something as close to what came out of at&t/bell labs as possible, and their involvement in unix ended with sysVr4, if you look at any of the history of unix maps then you will can see that 2 of the closest decedents from that are solaris and unixware, both of which they still make and run on x86.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
https://www.levenez.com/unix/unix.pdf
But even then solaris for example has changed a lot over the years, it no longer uses system v style init scripts, it uses smf to control start up of services, those are based on milestones rather then init levels, they started jamming configs in to xml files. so while it may have the same roots, at times it does not feel like standard unix any more.
In the end what is the goal, because the answer the question really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want more experience with something as close to what came out of bell labs as possible thats going to be a different thing then if you are asking for a fully modern unix with all of todays features.
however we have all seen your posts/problems you have getting things to work, i think you personally should install ubuntu and get good at that before you try to get your hands in to something else. every time you post there is some mention about all this hardware you have, and how it doesn't work right, and you can't make it go. you spend to much time OS hopping, chasing what you think is going to be an easy solution rather then learning how things actually work. pick one thing, and get good at it. it does not mater what it is, i suggest ubuntu because it has a large community. if you are going to go run some unix that only .01% of computer users have experience with, then you have to be prepared to trouble shoot stuff your self, dig in to logs, and configs, figure out what things mean, google stuff on your own, and learn to filter out the bs from the useful info.
Here are two screenshots from what happened when I tried to install Solaris 11.3 x86 on a VirtualBox Virtual Machine with AHCI turned on as well as other drive controller setting needed that I was unable to change regardless of if I turned of the VM or not, gave 4096 MB of RAM to, and gave 60 GB of virtual hard disk space to as well. The first picture is what happened when I tried to boot from the just the virtual hard disk when pressing F12 during boot and the second picture is what happened when I booted from the cdrom drive or optical media drive when pressing F12 during boot or when I just let the virtual machine boot to grub rescue:
If you are installing a VM, why are you messing with an actual CDrom drive. edit settings in on the VM, under storage point the cdrom device at the sol-11_3-text-x86.iso, under system make sure optical is above hard drive. then power it on.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
The main goal of this thread was accomplished for the most part, but I did want to know if it was necessary to even think about picking up exactly where System V left off as well as keep it true to it's true form and if there was still a completely true successer to System V as it was actually intended by the Original UNIX community or if everyone has just been doing their own thing.
As for why I'm OS hoping for UNIX forks made by BSD or others it's because of all the other suggestion I got.
As for OS hoping the physical or host OS I am using or use the answer is that I'm not and I'm still mostly using Ubuntu and Windows 10 on my PC's except my server and Mac OS X or Mac OS and WIndows 10 on my Macbook Pro. The only exceptions are my older computers that I need older versions of operating system, such as WIndows or Linux to using especially 32-bit because they are 32-bit computers and my test machines that I use to test Operating Systems on when VM's become a hassle or I want to test on physical machines just to see how they react to real hardware.
As for whatever else you mean I do that, but don't find good answers, get spam answers, or don't get an answer that seem to help.
Last edited:
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Here's what's going on with my experience of UNIX System V at the moment which is that it is creating a process or cancelling the creation of the process considering I clicked cancel and it's really slowing my laptop down as well as causing the host Operating System to hang occasionally:
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
Ok did everything you first mention, which was give the VM 64 MB of memory, 128 MB of hard drive space, and put other for OS. However, which base01.img did you use out of the following names:
Base 01 (2.1a).img
or
Base 01 (2 User System).img
Also, someone if not you said on need to write the images to floppy to use for virtual floppy, but how can I do that when I have very few floppies that may not already be in use from past files, and I don't have a floppy drive in this laptop or a usb floppy drive with me at the moment or in my apartment at the moment either. The only usb floppy drive I have I just got too and the only alternative is the USB LS-120 Superdisk drive I also have, which is at my parents house. I'm guessing you're going to say go get either the USB floppy drive and/or the USB LS-120 Superdisk drive too though as well as any floppy disks I can find else where in my parents house.
Last edited:
I actually installed it twice, once with each. I did not really notice a difference, but i didn't dig to deep looking either.
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I tried just using 7z to just open the img files without extracting them to view the files, but it didn't work and gave me the following error. Also, when I tried to extract the .img files it just made a shortcut in the same folder.
i cant say for getting them images out on windows, i unpacked it in ubuntu.
i put the 7z bundle in its own dir and ran the following in that dir.
# 7za e *.7z
and that screen shot error looks like you are trying to open the image, which is not what you want to do, attach the image to virtual box as a floppy
i put the 7z bundle in its own dir and ran the following in that dir.
# 7za e *.7z
and that screen shot error looks like you are trying to open the image, which is not what you want to do, attach the image to virtual box as a floppy
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
I did that with both absolute and without absolute paths and this is what happened:
username@hostname:~$ 7za e /home/username/Documents/My\ first\ sample\ kernel/Unix\ System\ V\ Release\ 4\ Version\ 2\.1\ \(3\.5\)/AT\&T\ UNIX\ System\ V\ Release\ 4\ Version\ 2\.1\*.img \(3\½\)/ /home/username/Documents/My\ first\ sample\ kernel/Unix\ System\ V\ Release\ 4\ Version\ 2\.1\ \(3\.5\)/AT\&T\ UNIX\ System\ V\ Release\ 4\ Version\ 2\.1\ \(3\½\)/UNIX\ System\ V\ Release\ 4\ Version\ 2\.1\ extracted/
7-Zip (A) [64] 9.20 Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov 2010-11-18
p7zip Version 9.20 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,8 CPUs)
Error:
Cannot use absolute pathnames for this command
username@hostname:~$ 7za e *.img
7-Zip (A) [64] 9.20 Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov 2010-11-18
p7zip Version 9.20 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,8 CPUs)
Error:
there is no such archive
username@hostname:~$
scharfshutze009
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
How do I do that though and do I need a physical floppy drive?
no, at the top of the virtualbox VM window: devices > floppy drives > choose disk image
or in settings in (system) make sure floppy is checked and the first boot devices, then go to storage , make sure there is a floppy controller, if not add one under the add controller button, after that you can add the first boot image and power on the VM.
or in settings in (system) make sure floppy is checked and the first boot devices, then go to storage , make sure there is a floppy controller, if not add one under the add controller button, after that you can add the first boot image and power on the VM.