[HECnet] 2.11BSD

[Clem Cole]

no.   as one of it authors and very much "there" I think I can say that definitely.     2.10/11 was successful project to "port" most of the 4.1/4.2 functionality to the 16/17 bit address impaired 11 family.     it uses thunks to swap instruction and data space at user   level - cool project Keith did a great job on it.   

But when the new generation of micro processors appeared people tended to start with 4.1 or 4.2 if they wanted a BSD flavor and used PWB 3.0 (aka System 3) or later the System V family -   (they did not need to be limited by the 16 bit issues of the 11)

as for xenix (which was originally a microsoft product btw) was a port of version 7 originally for 186 and the 68000.   This was done 2-5 years before   Kieth starts the 2.8/9/10 stuff.   btw   after we got Al Arms to rewrite V7 commercial license to create what would become the System 3.0 license and microsoft sold xenix to SCO and they dropped support for anything but the PC/AT (who's processor was the 286)


Clem Cole

On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:50 PM, "Boyanich, Alastair" <Alastair.Boyanich at au.fujitsu.com> wrote:


Hi all,

Can someone straighten me out on a few things. 

1) Other than the tuhs/pups guys that seem to have archives of 2.11BSD,
is there a central place that manages source / build / patch trees ?
I've seen the "RetroBSD" guys running this on MIPS PIC32 stuff, but I
suspect from my readings thus far they don't much care about the 11
tree.

2) Was 2.11BSD ever ported to other platforms? Given the age/era, I'm
curious about 8088/8086/NECv20/80286 given the banked memory models used
and looking at the 8088/8086 XENIX disassembly.

Thoughts? 

Additionally, I'd like to wish you all a safe and happy silly season :)

Al.