Transferring files over to A/UX machine with no network

[LarBob]

I am having trouble getting files (specifically tar files) over to my SE/30 running A/UX. I try to transfer them over floppy using HFVExplorer but it destroys the files, even when I do it as a supposedly raw copy. They are not able to be extracted. Tar xvf (file) displays nothing with the files transferred this way. I don't have an ethernet card for the SE/30 and I don't have a serial cable. Another option I was thinking is just storing them in a plaintext file after uuencoding them and the uudecoding them on the SE/30, but that's not really ideal. Should I just get a Mini-DIN-8 to DB9 cable and transfer over serial?

 

[Unknown_K]

Easiest way is to transfer files using something like a SCSI ZIP drive between machines.

Are you formatting the floppy in a mac and then trying to use a PC to dump files onto that floppy? I assume the mac is seeing the files as PC files (text) and doesn't know what to do with them.

 

[LarBob]

Easiest way is to transfer files using something like a SCSI ZIP drive between machines.

Are you formatting the floppy in a mac and then trying to use a PC to dump files onto that floppy? I assume the mac is seeing the files as PC files (text) and doesn't know what to do with them.

I am using a PC, yes, but I am transferring them over with HFVExplorer. Also, I'm using tar in A/UX to unarchive them. This isn't resource forks getting destroyed; HFVExplorer just doesn't seem to properly raw copy them.

Sadly I don't have a SCSI Zip drive.

 

[Gorgonops]

If you're trying to copy over tar files you intend to unpack on the A/UX side using the "unix" part of it instead of the Mac environment I'm guessing your problem is related to resource forks, but not in the way you expect. When the MacOS "vm" in A/UX manipulates files on the UNIX file system it tacks the resource fork information that the classic OS wants directly onto the front of the real file. The resulting format is called an "AppleSingle" file, and so far as the UNIX tools on A/UX are concerned this file is now hopelessly corrupted. (The UNIX tools have no built-in understanding of this format.) There's a program called "fcnvt" that lets you strip the two pieces apart; this resulting pair of files is in "AppleDouble" format, which is used most of the time third party software like Netatalk stores Mac files on non-resource-fork-supporting filesystems. It's honestly pretty stupid Apple didn't use it by default in A/UX.

There are other potential issues you can run into when trying to use MacOS software to manipulate UNIX files on AUX. Search for fcnvt in this FAQ:

http://christtrekker.users.sourceforge.net/doc/aux/faq.html

To see some potential workarounds.

 

[LarBob]

If you're trying to copy over tar files you intend to unpack on the A/UX side using the "unix" part of it instead of the Mac environment I'm guessing your problem is related to resource forks, but not in the way you expect. When the MacOS "vm" in A/UX manipulates files on the UNIX file system it tacks the resource fork information that the classic OS wants directly onto the front of the real file. The resulting format is called an "AppleSingle" file, and so far as the UNIX tools on A/UX are concerned this file is now hopelessly corrupted. (The UNIX tools have no built-in understanding of this format.) There's a program called "fcnvt" that lets you strip the two pieces apart; this resulting pair of files is in "AppleDouble" format, which is used most of the time third party software like Netatalk stores Mac files on non-resource-fork-supporting filesystems. It's honestly pretty stupid Apple didn't use it by default in A/UX.

There are other potential issues you can run into when trying to use MacOS software to manipulate UNIX files on AUX. Search for fcnvt in this FAQ:

http://christtrekker.users.sourceforge.net/doc/aux/faq.html

To see some potential workarounds.

Ah -- interesting! I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I have looked through that faq but must have missed that. Thanks so much.

 

[Gorgonops]

Thanks so much.

No problem. I vaguely remembered this from my brief fling with A/UX the better part of 20 years ago.

 

[CC_333]

"AppleDouble" format

It's honestly pretty stupid Apple didn't use it by default in A/UX.

Early-mid 90s Apple was honestly pretty stupid in general.

With A/UX as a starting point, Mac OS could've become preemptively multi tasked with protected memory a full 10 years before OS X happened (indeed, A/UX was based on a very similar concept), and thus making full use of their computers' hardware (classic Mac OS was woefully inefficient with its use of resources, especially on Power Macs).

Instead, they toiled away at Copland (a noble idea, granted), draining valuable resources and wasting time (and accomplishing almost nothing in the end). Meanwhile, Microsoft released Windows 95, whizzing past Apple and becoming quite competitive (95 still wasn't fully 32-bit and had many stability problems due to its still having some 16-bit components and a heavy dependence on MS-DOS, but it had at least partial support for preemptive multi tasking and protected memory, things the classic Mac OS never had, and things that set it light years ahead technologically). Not to mention MS' already extensive market share.

TL;DR... A/UX, for all its shortcomings, had a lot of potential, and it was a missed opportunity (they had announced A/UX 4.0, which would've been PPC compatible, and thus a boon for anyone trying to tap into their Power Mac's full potential, but it got cancelled for no apparent reason), but for some reason, they didn't seem to care enough to bother.

c

 

[nglevin]

Speaking somewhat broadly, I think OS projects are doomed to be a drain on resources unless their goals are extremely tightly scoped, especially if they have customers developing against it.

It's telling that Mac OS X (nee Rhapsody), though in many respects a reskinned NeXTSTEP that was almost there mod some serious surgery on the kernel (XNU), needed a Wineskin-like wrapper (Carbon) to truly get off the ground. Many of the larger developers, particularly Macromedia and the majority of Mac game ports, had slimmed down their Mac development so drastically that they had the majority of their engineers dedicated to Windows, and only one Mac developer per product.

I can't really imagine a world where Copland could have succeeded, it was hard enough to get Mac OS X accepted. This is why most OS development is at best incremental, not revolutionary, especially today.

Switching back to A/UX, I agree it would have been the smarter bet. Get a GUI layer on UNIX, which they practically had with A/UX hybrid apps to begin with, and they wouldn't have had to reinvent the wheel as badly as they did with Copland.

I suspect there may have been some other issues at play. Maybe AT&T asked too much to continue licensing UNIX.