slfrr@cc.usu.edu (12/23/90)
Hi,
Can anybody tell me where I can get a copy of the UNIX Kernel Source Code ?
I know that it is copyrighted, but can I get a "student copy" for a nominal
price ? It is purely for educational purposes.
Thanks in anticipation.
My email address : nani@biocat.chem.usu.edu
: nani@multi.ee.usu.edu bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/25/90)
> Can anybody tell me where I can get a copy of the UNIX Kernel >Source Code ? I know that it is copyrighted, but can I get a "student >copy" for a nominal price ? It is purely for educational purposes. Please post the code to the list! Seriously, you need a license executed by your institution for a copy of real (tm) Unix. Someone from your organization calls AT&T (USL?) and gets forms to fill out and pays a fee. Tapes will follow after your organization's lawyers express their nervousness over it all. You should ask around, there's a good chance your organization owns one of these licenses. For Berkeley code you then contact UCB/CSRG for another license, with your AT&T license (with another fee, tho much smaller), and they'll send you their version. For your vendors you'll have to contact them, but the AT&T license is still a pre-requisite (but check to make sure your vendor will even sell you the code, you'll need a copy from them if you really want to modify and run it, not all vendors will part with their code I assume, tho many will.) There's also free or almost free Unix-like kernels available. Minix is a Unix-clone which is available (Prentice-Hall?) for a small fee. And it can be shared among students somewhat last I looked. Much of the BSD ATT-free kernel code is becoming available for FTP from various archives. There seems to be enough there already to get a good understanding of how the (a) kernel works. There are certainly others which other people will mention. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
bc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) (01/03/91)
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >For your vendors you'll have to contact them, but the AT&T license is >still a pre-requisite (but check to make sure your vendor will even >sell you the code, you'll need a copy from them if you really want to >modify and run it, not all vendors will part with their code I assume, >tho many will.) SCO one told me on the phone (when I was contemplating SCO Unix/386) that they would not sell their source, but that if they did, they'd charge around $125,000.00 for it. >There's also free or almost free Unix-like kernels available. Minix is >a Unix-clone which is available (Prentice-Hall?) for a small fee. And >it can be shared among students somewhat last I looked. Minix is terrific. It goes for around $80, not including the book (whose exact title I forget) which is available separately for around $50. Check the group comp.os.minix for details -- there is a monthly post which gives the details. Minix is a very good way to learn the basics about how the kernel works, although it's not *really* the same. -- -- Ben Cox bc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
ti@altos86.Altos.COM (Ti Kan) (01/04/91)
In article <1991Jan3.112435.5509@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) writes: >Minix is terrific. It goes for around $80, not including the book (whose exact >title I forget) which is available separately for around $50. Check the group >comp.os.minix for details -- there is a monthly post which gives the details. >Minix is a very good way to learn the basics about how the kernel works, >although it's not *really* the same. Minix is not at all like real UNIX. The design and source is _completely_ different. Minix supports no virtual memory, and many customary UNIX kernel functionality (such as the filesystem and process scheduling) are implemented as user processes that communicate with the kernel via a special message scheme. Minix is useful for a student learning about a possible way to approach operating system design, but it is _not_ useful as a tool to learn about the internals of real UNIX (whichever flavor of UNIX you prefer, be it System V, BSD, Xenix, or whatever) because of the drastic differences, and it is certainly _not_ a useful OS to do real work on due to its limitations. -Ti -- Ti Kan | vorsprung durch technik! \\\ Internet: ti@altos.com \\\ UUCP: ...!{sun|sco|pyramid|amdahl|uunet}!altos!ti /// \\\ The opinions herein are not necessarily those of Altos. ////////\
ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer) (01/05/91)
In <4526@altos86.Altos.COM> ti@altos86.Altos.COM (Ti Kan) writes: >In article <1991Jan3.112435.5509@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) writes: >>Minix is terrific. [...] >Minix is not at all like real UNIX. The design and source is _completely_ >different. What is real UNIX anymore? Is it USL's UNIX? BSD 4.3? Mach with BSD functionality? SUN OS? OSF/1? XENIX? BSD 4.4? Each one is completely different from any other from the perspective of the kernel programmer. > Minix supports no virtual memory, and many customary UNIX >kernel functionality (such as the filesystem and process scheduling) are >implemented as user processes that communicate with the kernel via a >special message scheme. I don't know that AT&T UNIX uses virtual memory that well; I seem to recall that VM was kind of hacked in. People are working on adding VM to MINIX in some neat ways, but no one has posted their code to the net yet. The non-monlithic structure of MINIX makes it easier to port to other machines than any other UNIX kernel that originated from an AT&T source release. As for message passing: I wonder what Mach does? :-) > Minix is useful for a student learning about >a possible way to approach operating system design, but it is _not_ useful >as a tool to learn about the internals of real UNIX (whichever flavor of >UNIX you prefer, be it System V, BSD, Xenix, or whatever) because of >the drastic differences, and it is certainly _not_ a useful OS to do real >work on due to its limitations. Sure, it's limited the way UNIX Version 7 was limited (on PC's with 8086 or 80286 processors)---64K I&D. The 80386 version of MINIX isn't a production version yet, but it offers access to the full memory space with 32 bit pointers, and GCC even runs on it. Versions of MINIX for several 68000 processors exist, as well as one Sparc implementation. MINIX is only four years old, but has gone through versions 1.1-1.2-1.3-1.5 with a 1.6 in beta and 2.0 being worked on. Each version has contained a huge increase in functionality, and 2.0 will conform to the POSIX spec. At $179 per copy for MINIX (including full source & documentation), it's quite a steal compared to the thousands of dollars per license required for an AT&T source license for a university, or the hundreds of thousands for a company. The binary license for AT&T SVR3 per copy costs probably almost as much as MINIX. My point is that AT&T UNIX System V Release 4 isn't the only UNIX kernel around, and in the future the major design differences between kernels will become even less important than they are now. As for MINIX being great or poor, it depends on what you want out of it. I say it is great, but that's because it gives me a UNIX base that I can hack on and port stuff to. >-Ti >-- >Ti Kan | vorsprung durch technik! \\\ >Internet: ti@altos.com \\\ >UUCP: ...!{sun|sco|pyramid|amdahl|uunet}!altos!ti /// \\\ >The opinions herein are not necessarily those of Altos. ////////\ -- Guy Helmer helmer@sdnet.bitnet, uunet!dsuvax!ghelmer work: DSU Computing Services, Business & Education Institute (605) 256-5315 play: MidIX System Support Services (605) 256-2788 postnews: message content ambiguous; spurious information added as required
alan@frey.nu.oz.au (Alan Hargreaves) (01/05/91)
ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer) writes about minix: >Sure, it's limited the way UNIX Version 7 was limited (on PC's with 8086 >or 80286 processors)---64K I&D. hmmm, this needs some qualification. Perhaps you meant V7 on PDP 11's? I have a V7 system at this site (about to be retired) on a Perkin Elmer (now Concurrent) 3220. It runs stuff far bigger than 64k I&D. ls -s provides the following (blocksize == 1024): 158 rn 149 kermit 129 vi size gives (text+data+bss = image size (dec) = image size (hex)): rn: 111644+24032+30116 = 165792 = 287A0 vi: 125184+6856+14452 = 146492 = 23C3C kermit: 89856+38780+11132 = 139768 = 221F8 As an aside, I believe that the code running on this machine is VERY close to the original non-DEC port of UNIX by the wollongong group when it was still in wollongong and the licensing was done by western electric. There are many who will argue that V7 was the last REAL UNIX. There are also others who will argue that it was V6. alan. -- Alan Hargreaves (VK2MGL) alan@frey.newcastle.edu.au, Uni of Newcastle, UCS. Ph: +61 49 215 512 Fax: +61 49 602 118 ICBM: 32 53 44.6 S / 151 41 52.6 E Yes one usually thinks to oneself. If one thinks to others, it is called ESP. Me.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.164110.24105@dsuvax.uucp> ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer) writes: >What is real UNIX anymore? Is it USL's UNIX? BSD 4.3? Mach with BSD >functionality? SUN OS? OSF/1? XENIX? BSD 4.4? >Each one is completely different from any other from the perspective >of the kernel programmer. There isn't a single "real UNIX", but the collection of "real UNIX" implementations is a pretty small set. I'd say BSD 4.3 and SVR[34] is probably large enough. However, my experience has been that any knowlege of UNIX-like internals is better than none and MINIX sure does count as UNIX-like. Then entire realm of O/S internals is so unlike normal applications level programming. I could tell horror stories of the first college O/S project I was part of, but suspect many of you have similiar ones. They usually start with "but isn't that in the library?" or "but doesn't the compiler save those registers?" Learning MINIX or even 6th Edition UNIX would be very beneficial for someone considering a career as a UNIX kernel programmer. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "While you are here, your wives and girlfriends are dating handsome American movie and TV stars. Stars like Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, and Bart Simpson."