at&t unix pc
snhirsch at gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 10:57:06 CDT 2010
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> On 10/12/10, Steven Hirsch <snhirsch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Jason T wrote:
>> And of course there is the quite-rare 3B1 10BT card.
>> I was lucky enough to score the 3B1 Ethernet adapter.
> It makes one wonder then how hard it would be to rig up a card with a
> Lance chip (7990) and either IDE or SCSI - I know there are "memory
> expansion" slots, but don't know how finicky the machine might be
> about borrowing some of that address space for I/O (or if the slots
> could decode regions already _in_ I/O space). Abstractly, I know how
> to do this on M68M machines, but I lack specific knowledge of the
> innards of the 3B1/7300 to predict how this would go.
> Of course, the expected market of such a peripheral would be somewhat
> small, and I suppose if it were easy, there would have been something
> like it 15 years ago. Still - it's easy to dream one up. Back when
> they were new, I would have loved to have had one, but they were
> priced far out of my reach (though many of my local friends who worked
> at the Columbus Bell Labs/Western Electric plant bought them through
> employee discounts - we were all part of a county-wide UUCP network in
> the days before ISPs and dialup PPP links were common. Later, many of
> the 7300s were gradually replaced by 386s running Interactive UNIX,
> which I _could_ afford).
>> And, yes, the Woolongong TCP stack sucks majorly!
> Was there ever an attempt made at a replacement, or was the nature of
> the machine (i.e., closed-source controlled by AT&T) such that
> user-initiated projects were doomed to fail?
At a hardware level, there is sufficient information available to produce
some sort of "combo" card. However, to the best of my knowledge the
kernel sources never leaked out. Without that, I think the chances of
producing a robust TCP stack are about zeo.
More information about the cctech