Re: Modern disk system for our -11s - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Modern disk system for our -11s - VMS ; From: "Tobias Russell" >I'd certainly advocate a unix/linux solution on the PC side although >having produced that porting to windows might not be a big issue. FWIW, I've found that making a PCI device driver continue to work across various ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Modern disk system for our -11s

  1. Re: Modern disk system for our -11s

    From: "Tobias Russell"

    >I'd certainly advocate a unix/linux solution on the PC side although
    >having produced that porting to windows might not be a big issue.


    FWIW, I've found that making a PCI device driver continue to work across
    various Linux kernel releases is a total nightmare. They make gratuitous
    changes all along, and nothing is really documented. Well OK there's a
    book available but I've found it gives only fleeting enlightment, everything
    changes two weeks after each edition and you're back where you started.

    Only half kidding: how about stand-alone? Over the past 23 years, PC
    hardware has maintained vastly better backwards compatibility (for better
    or worse) than any PC operating system has.

    (Yes, a stand-alone version of E11 is in the works.)

    I like the idea of an embedded CPU better, since that gives you a stable
    place to put the real device driver code (for talking to the CSRs and
    DMA system). Then use some bus with a good combination of price, speed,
    simplicity, and longevity (hmm, sounds like the anti-Massbus), for talking
    to the PC side.

    John Wilson
    D Bit
    ----------
    To unsubscribe (or subscribe) from (to) this list, send a message to
    info-pdp11-request@village.org, with the first line of the message
    body being "unsubscribe" or "subscribe", respectively (without the quotes).

  2. Re: Modern disk system for our -11s

    In article <200409281843.i8SIhuG11329@dbit.com>,
    John Wilson writes:
    > From: "Tobias Russell"
    >
    >>I'd certainly advocate a unix/linux solution on the PC side although
    >>having produced that porting to windows might not be a big issue.

    >
    > FWIW, I've found that making a PCI device driver continue to work across
    > various Linux kernel releases is a total nightmare. They make gratuitous
    > changes all along, and nothing is really documented. Well OK there's a
    > book available but I've found it gives only fleeting enlightment, everything
    > changes two weeks after each edition and you're back where you started.


    All the more reason to target BSD rather than Linux. The only thing Linux
    has going for it is hype.

    >
    > Only half kidding: how about stand-alone? Over the past 23 years, PC
    > hardware has maintained vastly better backwards compatibility (for better
    > or worse) than any PC operating system has.


    This was what came immediately to my mind when someone mentioned the
    problem with Windows Drivers.

    >
    > (Yes, a stand-alone version of E11 is in the works.)
    >
    > I like the idea of an embedded CPU better, since that gives you a stable
    > place to put the real device driver code (for talking to the CSRs and
    > DMA system). Then use some bus with a good combination of price, speed,
    > simplicity, and longevity (hmm, sounds like the anti-Massbus), for talking
    > to the PC side.


    What about a hacked RQDX module? There seem to be plenty of them still
    around. Doesn't it have the T-11 on board? If using the MFM logic isn't
    practical, hack ia nsomehwere just before it.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

+ Reply to Thread