karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (06/24/87)
PATCHING UUCP TO USE WINDOWS=7 ON MICROPORT V2.2 Microport Unix SYSV's uucico comes set at the factory for WINDOWS = 3, as do most. Below is a method of changing this for those of you who do not have a source license. First, a small comment: If you are using PC-Persuit or other packet-switched network for uucp access, you WANT this patch. Our throughput doubled after installing it, from about 550 baud effective transfer rate to a little over 1100 -- probably the best you can achieve on a 1200 baud line. Disclaimer & Notes: This method worked here -- after a long night of trying to figure out where to patch the hard way! The article posted a few days previous about this patch on a VAX was incredibly helpful in locating the proper point to apply the patch at. Of course, as with any modification, your mileage may vary and you should test the results thoroughly before trusting valuable data to it. You will need: 1) MSDOS 2) Norton's Utilities or other similar package that can search and patch disk files (this is explained later) 3) Microport Unix. 4) About 15 minutes of your time. To change to Windows 7: 1) Make another copy of uucico in /usr/lib/uucp in case you mess up. 2) Copy uucico to a dos DISKETTE (DO NOT use 'doscp' to a hard disk partition, there is a bug which can DESTROY the Fat table. It works fine to floppy media) The command you want to use is: 'doscp -b uucico A:' (See documentation supplied for more on doscp and it's devices). 3) Boot MS-DOS. 4) Bring up your file-zapper, and search for the sequence: c6 44 27 03 b0 03 -- there is only one occurrance. 5) Change both of the '03's above to '07', and write the sector back to disk. 6) Reboot Microport, and replace your uucico in /usr/lib/uucp with the patched version using the command 'doscp -b A:uucico /usr/lib/uucico'. That's it! You now have windows 7. We've been using this for several days now, and have had zero problems with it. As mentioned before, our effective baud rate essentially doubled. Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? Well, although patch documents that it can use a hard address, we've been unable to get it to accept this form of the command. Since uucico (and everything else) is stripped, you cannot use a symbolic address.... thus the need for this route. Enjoy, and happy PC-Persuiting! -- Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200) "Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)
michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) (06/28/87)
In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? Well, although patch documents >that it can use a hard address, we've been unable to get it to accept this >form of the command. Since uucico (and everything else) is stripped, you >cannot use a symbolic address.... thus the need for this route. Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables (striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc. Ok, so not nicely, but still... I had to patch my uucico that way. -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Monsters from outta space -- 3-11-2
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart) (07/01/87)
The original article patched uucico by creating a DOS file, rebooting in DOS, and using DEBUG to patch the file, then going back to UNIX. In article <1614@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >>Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? Well, although patch documents >>that it can use a hard address, we've been unable to get it to accept this >>form of the command. Since uucico (and everything else) is stripped, you >>cannot use a symbolic address.... thus the need for this route. > >Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables >(striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc. Does Microport come with adb? While adb is good, when available, here's another technique: uuencode the uucico file patch the uuencoded version, either with "patch" or just "ed" uudecode the file Since I don't have Microport, I can't give you the correct patch; any volunteers out there? -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (07/01/87)
In article <1614@stb.UUCP>, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: > In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? (Michael Gersten) > Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables > (striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc. > The reason? Microport doesn't include ADB with the system, thus you have no choice in that matter at ALL! -- Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200) "Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 ! *
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (07/02/87)
In article <1614@stb.UUCP>, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: > In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > >Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? Well, although patch documents > >that it can use a hard address, we've been unable to get it to accept this > >form of the command. Since uucico (and everything else) is stripped, you > >cannot use a symbolic address.... thus the need for this route. > > Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables > (striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc. I can't think of a single good reason not to use adb. There is one overriding _bad_ reason, though. It isn't in sysV. From now on, think of it as standard. -AT&T From now on, think of it a braindamaged. -Steve Nuchia {housun,{soma,academ}!uhnix1}!nuchat!steve
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/04/87)
As quoted from <129@ddsw1.UUCP> by karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger): +--------------- | In article <1614@stb.UUCP>, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: | > In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: | > >Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? | > Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables | > (striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc. | The reason? Microport doesn't include ADB with the system, thus you have no | choice in that matter at ALL! +--------------- Even if it did, you'd lose. System V adb doesn't seem to be able to handle anything but COFF executables WITH SYMBOL TABLES. (Without a symbol table, it seems to blow up on a $c, at least on our system.) This is a lossage. On the other hand, it forced me to put together a good binary editor. (On the other hand, there's quite a few of these floating around the net....) ++Brandon -- ---- Moderator for comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc ---- Brandon S. Allbery <BACKBONE>!cbosgd!hal!ncoast!allbery ('til Aug. 1) aXcess Company {ames,mit-eddie,harvard,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery 6615 Center St. #A1-105 {well,sun,pyramid,ihnp4}!hoptoad!ncoast!allbery Mentor, OH 44060-4101 necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Internet) +01 216 974 9210 ncoast!allbery@CWRU.EDU (CSnet -- if you dare) NCOAST ADMIN GROUP Brandon Allbery on 157/504 (Fidonet/Matrix/whatever) * ncoast -- Public Access UN*X -- (216) 781-6201, 24 hrs., 300/1200/2400 baud * * ncoast is proud to be carrying alt.all -- contact me for more information *