[Coco] [CoCo] OS-9 has a new owner

[Stephen H. Fischer]

Hi,

There is ONE place to look for the OS-9 source code that might still exist.

The CoCo3 system that Brother Jeremy, CSJW got from Kevin Darling.

I cannot find him in the CoCo Subscribers member list so he may not be part 
of the 400.

------------------------------------------------ 

The other less likely place is in the ~ 130 GB of CoCo files that Little 
John offered in the Glenside Newsletter.

I was too slow to ask for a copy and he disappeared.

------------------------------------------------ 

Even more less likely is one person that hosts two important CoCo sites that 
I suspect of hoarding files from CI$.

Boisy, if you wish to ask him, send me a PM. I really am not on speaking 
terms with him.

SHF


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Boisy G. Pitre" <boisy at tee-boy.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Coco] [CoCo] OS-9 has a new owner


> In all likelihood, Microware LP is not getting the source code to 
> OS-9/6809 because it no longer exists as far as anyone knows. The last 
> known copy that I personally saw of the source code to the OS was around 
> '95-'96. At Microware, there was a large 6809 machine named 'Sybil' (Allen 
> remembers this) which had an 8" floppy and a 5MB hard drive. I remember 
> Mark Hawkins pointing the machine out to me and indicating the source 
> might be there. I hooked up a dumb terminal to the com port, turned it on, 
> and it booted into OS-9 Level 2 and gave me a shell. I staying late 
> several nights at work digging into the file system and there it was... 
> all of the source code to the entire OS-9/6809 product. I could not get 
> the source code off the hard drive at the time because I couldn't find any 
> 8" floppies to copy files onto.
>
> Gosh, I even remember stumbling upon a text file that was a letter from 
> Mark Hawkins to Kevin Darling about trip arrangements to Des Moines to get 
> the OS-9 Level 2 source code for the CoCo 3 for the Level 2 Upgrade. That 
> was a piece of CoCo history!
>
> What happened to that machine is unclear. I called Mark Hawkins after 
> leaving Microware in order to find out what happened to it, and indicated 
> that it was used for target practice (literally). Allen Huffman indicated 
> something else.
>
> At any rate, it's gone, and from what I understand, that was the only 
> place where the OS-9/6809 source code resided. Microware did have tape 
> backups of the 68K source and other software, but Microware LP isn't even 
> able to get that. From what I understand, they're only able to get all 
> source code since the product was managed in ClearCase (a source code 
> management tool) from about OS-9 3.0 or 4.0 onward (mid 2000's vintage).
>
> *IF* the source code to OS-9/6809 turned up, it would be quite unexpected 
> and due to some old tape or hard drive showing up that had it. In other 
> words, quite by accident. The chances of that happening are probably close 
> to nil.
>
> So what do we have for OS-9/6809 source? We have the NitrOS-9 Project, 
> which has its roots in the NitrOS-9 product from Northern Xposure (Bill 
> Nobel, Curtis Boyle, Wes Gale, and Alan DeKok), which has ITS roots in a 
> disassembly effort that Nobel/Boyle/Gale did years ago. That source has 
> percolated up through the years, became mixed with Alan DeKok's "TuneUp" 
> product (which was a set of speedup patches for stock OS-9 Level Two by 
> Tandy), and finally got some additional drivers and patches.
>
> Then DriveWire sources were added, then SuperDriver sources (which I 
> wrote) were added, and now you have this huge amalgamation of code that is 
> composed of:
>
> 1) Disassembly of original OS-9 Level Two modules
> 2) Added enhancements: 6309 instructions, patches, bug fixes and speed-ups 
> like TuneUp
> 3) Drivers and booters for hardware that wasn't in the Tandy OS-9 Level 
> Two product
> 4) DriveWire modules
> 5) SuperDriver modules
>
> In short, we have a jambalaya of sorts...a mixture of code from a number 
> of different sources not owned or claimed by any one party per se.
>
> Now, a lot of effort over the years went into making this big soup of code 
> build and work on several computers, including the CoCo. A whole set of 
> tools (ToolShed) were built around this code to actually build it and 
> create disk images so that it could be deployed. Essentially an ecosystem 
> has grown around it.
>
> The NitrOS-9 Project represents the sole surviving remnant of the 
> OS-9/6809 product which itself spanned many systems (GIMIX, Tandy, 
> Fujitsu, etc). NitrOS-9 is targeted to the CoCo, Dragon and Atari 
> platforms, all of which are defunct.
>
> Since the 6809 isn't being sold anymore, and there is no perceivable 
> market for OS-9/6809, it's very unlikely that Microware LP would try to 
> "take over" the project or demand its dissolution (which would be nearly 
> impossible anyway since the source code has been in the public domain now 
> for many years; copies of this stuff are on MANY hard drives out there). 
> What Microware LP DOES have interest in and control of, is the registered 
> trademark name OS-9. The NitrOS-9 Project carries that name with impunity 
> :)
>
> This is no secret to anyone. The question has been asked before on this 
> very list about the legitimacy of the project given its pedigree. I chose 
> for the most part to not answer those questions, knowing the thorny issues 
> involved. RadiSys, for whatever reason, chose to ignore NitrOS-9 
> completely, and there was no need to wave the project in front of them to 
> garner attention. So it was pretty much left alone.
>
> But now with this acquisition, OS-9 is in the hands of a group of 
> investors who actually know about the hobbyist community and have some 
> affinity for it. As I posted before... when the dust clears on the 
> acquisition, I will work with Microware LP to obtain some sort of 
> legitimacy to the project and the use of the name OS-9/6809. Remember, 
> since they don't have the source code and in all likelihood won't get it, 
> this project represents their next best option. Not that they would ever 
> be interested in selling OS-9/6809 anyway.
>
> What I will be proposing would be something along these lines:
>
> 1) The NitrOS-9 Project (or the OS-9/6809 Project if we rename it so) 
> would exist as a hobbyist effort under some open source license (Linville 
> has volunteered to look into this in depth).
> 2) That effort would be recognized and sanctioned by Microware LP as such.
> 3) The name OS-9/6809 would be granted to the project for exclusive use.
> 4) Some recognition of the project on Microware LP's website.
>
> I have every reason to believe Microware LP will be amenable to terms like 
> this, with the following conditions:
>
> 1) Microware LP would not be responsible for the project, legally or 
> otherwise.
> 2) The project's scope would be defined as supporting 6809/6309 processors 
> ONLY in perpetuity. No other processor would be supported.
> 3) The project would carry the proper name OS-9 without alteration (the 
> 'Nitr' in NitrOS-9 would be dropped and /6809 would be added, hence 
> OS-9/6809 or OS-9/6309).
>
> That's my take on the situation as it stands. We're wanting to release 
> NitrOS-9 3.3, but with this monkey wrench thrown into the works, I think 
> it's best that we hold off until we have some agreement with Microware LP, 
> which could necessitate a name change and identity rebranding. Who knows, 
> we might have something to announce at this year's CoCoFEST at the end of 
> April.
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Allen Huffman <alsplace at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, John W. Linville <linville at tuxdriver.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Wow, that is really cool!  I hope that works out!  Let's hope for
>>> a nice, clean "open source" license for the 6809 code as well --
>>> I'm happy to consult on the choice of a license... :-)
>>
>> One thing I think could be an opportunity for Microware LP would be 
>> having some sort of limited licensing program for folks like us who would 
>> be interested in working with it and porting stuff over. I have been 
>> learning stuff at my day job (CAN bus, SPI bus, etc.) that seem like they 
>> would be really easy to implement on OS-9, but never were (though CAN bus 
>> came up from time to time). There is so much more reference code out 
>> there these days -- and stuff that runs on little 16-bit Arduinos or TI 
>> MSP430s  in straight C -- like USB stacks and the like. We might be able 
>> to contribute quite a bit if we had access to the OS and tools.
>>
>> -- Allen