From guidoj2269 at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 22:49:38 2017 From: guidoj2269 at gmail.com (Guido) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 22:49:38 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> Message-ID: <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> Hi Chris, Unfortunately the project has not been active for quite some time now. I believe I was the last person to commit anything to FreeVMS 0.3.17 (in a separate branche). FreeVMS was originally based on the Linux 2.4.18 kernel with a lot of VMS code from the different internet resources added to it. I do not mean to belittle this effort, it is actually quite an accomplishment. The resulting FreeVMS 0.3.x code is an operating system that has some minimal VMS functionality. The downside is that it is presently still based on the Linux 2.4.18 kernel code, but now it is outdated and difficult to maintain. I tried to improve maintainability by eliminating unused code, consolidating coding styles, adding a minimal test framework, but I am afraid there is still a long way to go. The FreeVMS 0.4.x branch is a rewrite of FreeVMS based on the L4 micro kernel (in an effort to overcome the problems with the 0.3.x branch mentioned above, I assume). This branch did not get a lot of support though and lacks functionality. I must admit that I considered restarting form scratch myself several times, while working on the 0.3.x code, so I can appreciate this effort too. At present, I am not sure how to proceed. I believe there are different options (some more viable than others): 1. continue the 0.3.x branch 2. continue the 0.4.x branch 3. restart from scratch 4. restart based on the latest Linux kernel 5. restart based on a different open source OS (possibly ReactOS?) 6. start with a compatiblity layer that enables you to recompile VMS software on Linux or Windows (to be incorporated the into FreeVMS) 7. ...? I think that no matter what you choose, it will always be a lot of work (too much for a single person). I am still willing to spend some spare time on this project though, because I think it would be great to have an open source VMS-like operating system. I hope I have not been too blunt, I was just trying to be honest. Please note this is my personal view though. Maybe it would be best if you had a look at the code and let us know what you think and what exactly you could contribute. Regards, Guido On 05/31/2017 10:00 PM, Chris Craft wrote: > Hello fellow VMSers... I have been dabbling with VMS since I first > laid hands on a MicroVAX-II with 5.x on it (about 1995 or so?), and am > currently a licensed hobbyist with 7.3 running under simulation. I've > been running linux since 0.99 and would like to see if I can help the > two worlds meet in this project. > > > Sincerely, > > Chris. > > _______________________________________________ > FreeVMS mailing list > FreeVMS at rayleigh.systella.fr > https://www.systella.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freevms From joel.bertrand at systella.fr Tue Jun 6 15:46:18 2017 From: joel.bertrand at systella.fr (=?UTF-8?Q?BERTRAND_Jo=c3=abl?=) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:46:18 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> Message-ID: Guido a écrit : > Hi Chris, Hi, > Unfortunately the project has not been active for quite some time now. I > believe I was the last person to commit anything to FreeVMS 0.3.17 (in a > separate branche). > > FreeVMS was originally based on the Linux 2.4.18 kernel with a lot of > VMS code from the different internet resources added to it. I do not > mean to belittle this effort, it is actually quite an accomplishment. > The resulting FreeVMS 0.3.x code is an operating system that has some > minimal VMS functionality. The downside is that it is presently still > based on the Linux 2.4.18 kernel code, but now it is outdated and > difficult to maintain. I tried to improve maintainability by eliminating > unused code, consolidating coding styles, adding a minimal test > framework, but I am afraid there is still a long way to go. > > The FreeVMS 0.4.x branch is a rewrite of FreeVMS based on the L4 micro > kernel (in an effort to overcome the problems with the 0.3.x branch > mentioned above, I assume). This branch did not get a lot of support > though and lacks functionality. I must admit that I considered > restarting form scratch myself several times, while working on the 0.3.x > code, so I can appreciate this effort too. Right. > At present, I am not sure how to proceed. I believe there are different > options (some more viable than others): > > 1. continue the 0.3.x branch > 2. continue the 0.4.x branch > 3. restart from scratch > 4. restart based on the latest Linux kernel > 5. restart based on a different open source OS (possibly ReactOS?) > 6. start with a compatiblity layer that enables you to recompile VMS > software on Linux or Windows (to be incorporated the into FreeVMS) > 7. ...? L4/X2 was tried as this microkernel doesn't contain any unixisms and is able to create all separated address spaces used by VMS, but 0.4 requires a pager and a swapper and I have no time to write it. If you want to use 0.4, you have to write these two pieces of code. Regards, JKB From guidoj2269 at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 22:16:14 2017 From: guidoj2269 at gmail.com (Guido) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:16:14 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> Message-ID: <590562b3-8a5b-8710-ee8a-eb06874ca14d@gmail.com> On 06/06/2017 03:46 PM, BERTRAND Joël wrote: > L4/X2 was tried as this microkernel doesn't contain any unixisms and > is able to create all separated address spaces used by VMS, but 0.4 > requires a pager and a swapper and I have no time to write it. If you > want to use 0.4, you have to write these two pieces of code. Just for kicks I cloned the FreeVMS-0.4 git tree, but I am afraid I can not get it to build. I already get error messages when trying to run make kernelconfig. It seems it requires python 2.x and will not work with python 3.x. I have not investigated it any further though. Regards, Guido From herb.nowell at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 22:56:09 2017 From: herb.nowell at gmail.com (Herb Nowell) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:56:09 -0400 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <590562b3-8a5b-8710-ee8a-eb06874ca14d@gmail.com> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> <590562b3-8a5b-8710-ee8a-eb06874ca14d@gmail.com> Message-ID: I pulled down what I think were the right sources but haven't had a chance to try and build. My VMS years were long ago on the old Delphi service for those who remember it. I'm willing to take a swing at the pager and swapper but it could take me a LOONG time by myself. On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Guido wrote: > On 06/06/2017 03:46 PM, BERTRAND Joël wrote: > >> L4/X2 was tried as this microkernel doesn't contain any unixisms and is >> able to create all separated address spaces used by VMS, but 0.4 requires a >> pager and a swapper and I have no time to write it. If you want to use 0.4, >> you have to write these two pieces of code. >> > > Just for kicks I cloned the FreeVMS-0.4 git tree, but I am afraid I can > not get it to build. I already get error messages when trying to run make > kernelconfig. It seems it requires python 2.x and will not work with python > 3.x. I have not investigated it any further though. > > Regards, > Guido > > _______________________________________________ > FreeVMS mailing list > FreeVMS at rayleigh.systella.fr > https://www.systella.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freevms > -- Herbert H. Nowell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roart at nvg.ntnu.no Thu Jun 8 11:22:12 2017 From: roart at nvg.ntnu.no (Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?=) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:22:12 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170608092212.GA12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:49:38PM +0200, Guido wrote: > > The resulting FreeVMS 0.3.x code is an operating system that has some > minimal VMS functionality. The downside is that it is presently still > based on the Linux 2.4.18 kernel code, but now it is outdated and > difficult to maintain. I tried to improve maintainability by eliminating > unused code, consolidating coding styles, adding a minimal test > framework, but I am afraid there is still a long way to go. I would say that it is not based on Linux 2.4.18 anymore, even though it is the newest kernel that was used. (If you compare the sources, you will find almost all of 2.4.18 missing.) It makes no sense upgrading the parts of the Linux kernel, since there is very little remaining of it. The major/important system calls in Linux just wrap to some minimal VMS functionality. So that means we are more or less on our own, and can not lean on Linux so much. (Aside from using Debian and related tools to build FreeVMS.) Newer Linux kernels may be used for borrowing hardware driver code, but I would not say that is important now. FreeVMS could for the time being live happily in some virtual machine, with minimal drivers. > The FreeVMS 0.4.x branch is a rewrite of FreeVMS based on the L4 micro > kernel (in an effort to overcome the problems with the 0.3.x branch > mentioned above, I assume). This branch did not get a lot of support > though and lacks functionality. I must admit that I considered The 0.4 branch is actually L4 with some text changes (I think it was the last time I compared), so it has no VMS functionality. > restarting form scratch myself several times, while working on the 0.3.x > code, so I can appreciate this effort too. > > At present, I am not sure how to proceed. I believe there are different > options (some more viable than others): > > 1. continue the 0.3.x branch > 2. continue the 0.4.x branch Also 2. is actually a restart from scratch. > 3. restart from scratch > 4. restart based on the latest Linux kernel > 5. restart based on a different open source OS (possibly ReactOS?) Restarting would be very hard, it requires a person with a lot of competence and a lot of time available. So I would go for 1. continue the 0.3.x branch unless someone with a lot of competence and a lot of time show up. > 6. start with a compatiblity layer that enables you to recompile VMS > software on Linux or Windows (to be incorporated the into FreeVMS) I am not able to evaluate this option. -- Regards, Roar From roart at nvg.ntnu.no Thu Jun 8 11:22:12 2017 From: roart at nvg.ntnu.no (Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?=) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:22:12 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170608092212.GA12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:49:38PM +0200, Guido wrote: > > The resulting FreeVMS 0.3.x code is an operating system that has some > minimal VMS functionality. The downside is that it is presently still > based on the Linux 2.4.18 kernel code, but now it is outdated and > difficult to maintain. I tried to improve maintainability by eliminating > unused code, consolidating coding styles, adding a minimal test > framework, but I am afraid there is still a long way to go. I would say that it is not based on Linux 2.4.18 anymore, even though it is the newest kernel that was used. (If you compare the sources, you will find almost all of 2.4.18 missing.) It makes no sense upgrading the parts of the Linux kernel, since there is very little remaining of it. The major/important system calls in Linux just wrap to some minimal VMS functionality. So that means we are more or less on our own, and can not lean on Linux so much. (Aside from using Debian and related tools to build FreeVMS.) Newer Linux kernels may be used for borrowing hardware driver code, but I would not say that is important now. FreeVMS could for the time being live happily in some virtual machine, with minimal drivers. > The FreeVMS 0.4.x branch is a rewrite of FreeVMS based on the L4 micro > kernel (in an effort to overcome the problems with the 0.3.x branch > mentioned above, I assume). This branch did not get a lot of support > though and lacks functionality. I must admit that I considered The 0.4 branch is actually L4 with some text changes (I think it was the last time I compared), so it has no VMS functionality. > restarting form scratch myself several times, while working on the 0.3.x > code, so I can appreciate this effort too. > > At present, I am not sure how to proceed. I believe there are different > options (some more viable than others): > > 1. continue the 0.3.x branch > 2. continue the 0.4.x branch Also 2. is actually a restart from scratch. > 3. restart from scratch > 4. restart based on the latest Linux kernel > 5. restart based on a different open source OS (possibly ReactOS?) Restarting would be very hard, it requires a person with a lot of competence and a lot of time available. So I would go for 1. continue the 0.3.x branch unless someone with a lot of competence and a lot of time show up. > 6. start with a compatiblity layer that enables you to recompile VMS > software on Linux or Windows (to be incorporated the into FreeVMS) I am not able to evaluate this option. -- Regards, Roar From guidoj2269 at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 11:56:51 2017 From: guidoj2269 at gmail.com (Guido) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:56:51 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <20170608092212.GA12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> <20170608092212.GA12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> Message-ID: <16edcad5-bc00-497c-765e-62b666b64858@gmail.com> On 06/08/2017 11:22 AM, Roar Thronæs wrote: > I would say that it is not based on Linux 2.4.18 anymore, even though it is the > newest kernel that was used. > (If you compare the sources, you will find almost all of 2.4.18 missing.) > It makes no sense upgrading the parts of the Linux kernel, since there > is very little remaining of it. > The major/important system calls in Linux just wrap to some > minimal VMS functionality. > > So that means we are more or less on our own, and can not lean on Linux so > much. (Aside from using Debian and related tools to build FreeVMS.) > > Newer Linux kernels may be used for borrowing hardware driver code, > but I would not say that is important now. > FreeVMS could for the time being live happily in some virtual machine, > with minimal drivers. The x86_64 support of the 2.4.18 linux kernel was lacking at best (would have required a 2.6.x kernel at least). I agree that upgrading the kernel makes little sense though (did investigate it some time ago, but discarded the idea). This means that with FreeVMS 0.3.x we are essentially stuck with (virtual) i386 based hardware. Though that should not be a problem for adding most VMS functionality, it would be a lot more appealing to develop for more contemporary hardware. Adding x86_64 support is no small task either, because that bounds on developing some bare bones OS. Borrowing driver code of newer kernels might prove unnecessary (because of the i386 only support) or difficult because of internal API changes within the linux kernel. > Restarting would be very hard, it requires a person with a lot of competence > and a lot of time available. Competence and time are essential for any task :-) > So I would go for 1. continue the 0.3.x branch unless someone with a lot > of competence and a lot of time show up. Continuing the FreeVMS 0.3.x branch will be a lot of work too. In its present state it seems to be thrown together without much consideration for design, making it difficult to comprehend. >> 6. start with a compatiblity layer that enables you to recompile VMS >> software on Linux or Windows (to be incorporated the into FreeVMS) > I am not able to evaluate this option. It was just an idea I had. You could look at the examples from eight cubed (http://www.eight-cubed.com/examples.shtml) and get them to work by creating a layer consisting of (shared) libraries and/or modules so they can run without modification on linux (for instance). You can start with higher level service call functionality and work your way down from there. The examples can be extended/rewritten so they become system service tests and these tests can be verified by running them on a real VMS system. Many of the resources required for such a layer are already available as part of the FreeVMS code, although you should start with a better thought out design. I am not saying that this will be less work than any other option, but it might result faster in something that at least partially works. If you want, you will be able develop such a layer in parallel to current FreeVMS branches. Regards, Guido From roart at nvg.ntnu.no Sat Jun 10 16:56:59 2017 From: roart at nvg.ntnu.no (Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?=) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:56:59 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <16edcad5-bc00-497c-765e-62b666b64858@gmail.com> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> <20170608092212.GA12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> <16edcad5-bc00-497c-765e-62b666b64858@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170610145659.GB12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:51AM +0200, Guido wrote: > > The x86_64 support of the 2.4.18 linux kernel was lacking at best (would > have required a 2.6.x kernel at least). I agree that upgrading the That's is why I took some code from a newer kernel. > kernel makes little sense though (did investigate it some time ago, but > discarded the idea). This means that with FreeVMS 0.3.x we are > essentially stuck with (virtual) i386 based hardware. Though that should > not be a problem for adding most VMS functionality, it would be a lot > more appealing to develop for more contemporary hardware. Adding x86_64 > support is no small task either, because that bounds on developing some > bare bones OS. There is support for 64-bit, but with some more instability. (The disk images I provide are also 64-bit.) > >So I would go for 1. continue the 0.3.x branch unless someone with a lot > >of competence and a lot of time show up. > > Continuing the FreeVMS 0.3.x branch will be a lot of work too. In its > present state it seems to be thrown together without much consideration > for design, making it difficult to comprehend. Possibly, because it evolved. (I would not have been able to do it otherwise.) Anyway, developing and continuing any OS is a lot of work :) -- Regards, -Roar From roart at nvg.ntnu.no Sat Jun 10 16:56:59 2017 From: roart at nvg.ntnu.no (Roar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thron=E6s?=) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:56:59 +0200 Subject: [FreeVMS] New enthusiast. In-Reply-To: <16edcad5-bc00-497c-765e-62b666b64858@gmail.com> References: <9c83fdd0-8501-b06d-c309-b5faf6f06d44@netgenius.org> <472d0092-a774-72d9-15f6-855678a47059@gmail.com> <20170608092212.GA12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> <16edcad5-bc00-497c-765e-62b666b64858@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170610145659.GB12229@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:51AM +0200, Guido wrote: > > The x86_64 support of the 2.4.18 linux kernel was lacking at best (would > have required a 2.6.x kernel at least). I agree that upgrading the That's is why I took some code from a newer kernel. > kernel makes little sense though (did investigate it some time ago, but > discarded the idea). This means that with FreeVMS 0.3.x we are > essentially stuck with (virtual) i386 based hardware. Though that should > not be a problem for adding most VMS functionality, it would be a lot > more appealing to develop for more contemporary hardware. Adding x86_64 > support is no small task either, because that bounds on developing some > bare bones OS. There is support for 64-bit, but with some more instability. (The disk images I provide are also 64-bit.) > >So I would go for 1. continue the 0.3.x branch unless someone with a lot > >of competence and a lot of time show up. > > Continuing the FreeVMS 0.3.x branch will be a lot of work too. In its > present state it seems to be thrown together without much consideration > for design, making it difficult to comprehend. Possibly, because it evolved. (I would not have been able to do it otherwise.) Anyway, developing and continuing any OS is a lot of work :) -- Regards, -Roar