VM-CMS emulator
Paul Nunnink
not long ago I found a zip file called vm-cms.zip which seems to contain
a vm-cms emulator that can be run under os/2. The first few lines from
the readme file are
"We offer CMS-C370VMa - a virtual machine designed for executing
operational
system CMS that is a host operational system among the set of Virtual
Machines Monitor."
So it's called CMS-C370VMa and it is being made by a russion company.
They have a website, but I can't read russian. Is there anyone who has
any experience with this? What is your opinion? Is it any good? Is there
a newsgroup that deals with vm-cms? Or is it just beginning to be
folklore :-) (Boy, I liked it. It was my first exposure to real
computing, after the ZX81)
Ok, thanks,
Paul.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> So it's called CMS-C370VMa and it is being made by a russion company.
> They have a website, but I can't read russian. Is there anyone who has
> any experience with this? What is your opinion? Is it any good? Is there
> a newsgroup that deals with vm-cms? Or is it just beginning to be
> folklore :-) (Boy, I liked it. It was my first exposure to real
> computing, after the ZX81)
there is a mailing list .. vme...@listserv.uark.edu ... it supposedly
has cross connected as bit.listserv.vmesa-l newsgroup but nothing
actually flows.
vm has picked up some new interest as the unpinnings for mainframe
linux and being being able to provide web hosting farms .. there was a
post some time ago about somebody in a "small" LPAR (aka subset of
real machine) achieved >40,000 different copies of linux before things
came to standstill.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | ly...@garlic.com, http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
John Lynn
around with the ultra-cool VMWare product from www.vmware.com ? It's a
virtual Pentium, able to host Windows 98, 2000, etc; and also Linux and
other OSs that run on Intel hardware. It supports networking, virtual disk
drives, communications ports, the works! I run a whole network of VMs under
my Dell 800Mhz 512M Win2K host. Awesome! Like the good ol' days!
I heard somewhere that there are some old IBM VMers affiliated with VMWare.
I wonder...
"Paul Nunnink" <P.Nu...@nunnink.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:3B141126...@nunnink.cjb.net...
Richard C. Steiner
>I know it's not what you're asking, but I gotta mention: Has anyone messed
>around with the ultra-cool VMWare product from www.vmware.com ? It's a
>virtual Pentium, able to host Windows 98, 2000, etc; and also Linux and
>other OSs that run on Intel hardware.
Sure, it supports Windows and Linux, but it won't run OS/2 or BeOS in its
virtual machines, making it less than useful for me.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
Written online using slrn 0.9.5.4!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Andrew McLaren
> >around with the ultra-cool VMWare product from www.vmware.com ? It's a
> Sure, it supports Windows and Linux, but it won't run OS/2 or BeOS in its
> virtual machines, making it less than useful for me.
Well struth, mate ... whaddya flaming-well reckon?
Implementing a machine (real or virtual) takes time. For simple business
reasons, you'd probably start by hosting popular, widely used operating
systems first. Later on, you might add support for other OSes ... even,
eventually, reaching such bijou options as, ah, OS/2. Besides Linux and
Windows (covering, say, 97% of of the target market) VMWare currently has
"sort-of" support for Solaris on Intel, and Netware (another 2%, cumulative
97%). That's not bad.
If you want to lock yourself up into a little cabin in the mountains, and
refuse to come out until the rest of the world starts using OS/2, go right
ahead ... but it's plain bile to then start bitching about how the rest of
the world don't see things your way.
Incidently, I have Linux and OS/2 Warp running on machines at home ... oh
and Windows, because YEP, I LIKE WINDOWS! Ha hahahaha ... I have been
looking around for some OS/2 utilities recently, but most OS/2 websites and
ftp sites have been dormant since around 1996-97. Think about it ....
By way of comment, I used VM/ESA for many years, incl CMS and for a brief
horrible while, AIX/370. So, I know of what I speak. I have also learned not
to get too emotionally attached to any operating system. That way lies
madness. Although I do sometimes miss XEDIT and Rexx ... ;-)
Cheers,
Andrew
Joe Morris
> Although I do sometimes miss XEDIT and Rexx ... ;-)
Try KEDIT from Mandfield Software Group (www.kedit.com); it's essentially
a port of XEDIT. Until about a year ago they had a character-mode
version, but now they're marketing only the Windows app. Both flavors
support a large subset of REXX (called, of course, KEXX).
At one time Charles Daney had a full REXX implementation for PC
systems on the market (as Quercus Inc.) but I'm not sure if it's
still available. The product could be merged with KEDIT to fill in
the gaps left by the KEXX implementation.
Strongly recommended.
John Lynn
point out the similarity in spirit to the mainframe VM product.
Jay Maynard
>Try KEDIT from Mandfield Software Group (www.kedit.com); it's essentially
>a port of XEDIT. Until about a year ago they had a character-mode
>version, but now they're marketing only the Windows app. Both flavors
>support a large subset of REXX (called, of course, KEXX).
Don't overlook Mark Hessling's THE and REGINA, freely available ports of
XEDIT and REXX. I don't use either (being an ISPF bigot), but I've heard
many, many good things about both. Mark's page is at
http://www.lightlink.com/hessling .
CBFalconer
I believe you can get REXX with 4dos from http://www.jpsoft.com
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@my-deja.com) (cbfal...@XXXXworldnet.att.net)
http://www.qwikpages.com/backstreets/cbfalconer :=(down for now)
(Remove "NOSPAM." from reply address. my-deja works unmodified)
mailto:u...@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest)
Chris Hedley
> support a large subset of REXX (called, of course, KEXX).
Named after underpants?!! At least they have a sense of humour...
Chris.
--
//USENET01 JOB (CBH,ISA),'TALKING BOLLOCKS',REGION=4000K,CLASS=F,
// MSGCLASS=A,PASSWORD=WIBBLE,USER=CBH,COND=(04,LT)
Pete Fenelon
> "Andrew McLaren" <andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com> writes:
>
>> Although I do sometimes miss XEDIT and Rexx ... ;-)
>
> Try KEDIT from Mandfield Software Group (www.kedit.com); it's essentially
> a port of XEDIT. Until about a year ago they had a character-mode
> version, but now they're marketing only the Windows app. Both flavors
> support a large subset of REXX (called, of course, KEXX).
There's also THE (The Hessling Editor), which is *ix freeware. Not an
exact clone of XEDIT but very similar... IIRC, you can use Regina or one
of the other open-source REXX implementations with it.
pete
Richard C. Steiner
>"Richard C. Steiner" <rste...@isis.visi.com> wrote
>> >around with the ultra-cool VMWare product from www.vmware.com ? It's a
>
>> Sure, it supports Windows and Linux, but it won't run OS/2 or BeOS in its
>> virtual machines, making it less than useful for me.
>
>Well struth, mate ... whaddya flaming-well reckon?
Not a flame. An observation. I already have the common platforms. It's
support for the uncommon ones that make the tool they sell worthwhile, at
least in my case.
If I want to run Windows stuff on one of my Linux boxes, I already have
Win4Lin and Wine to play with. A virtual machine is overkill.
VMWare had OS/2 client support in beta and had Warp 4 mostly *working* in
a beta state,, but they dropped the beta program and removed all the code
from the final 2.x release. Go figure...
>If you want to lock yourself up into a little cabin in the mountains, and
>refuse to come out until the rest of the world starts using OS/2, go right
>ahead ... but it's plain bile to then start bitching about how the rest of
>the world don't see things your way.
Feel free to go fsck yourself, mate. I don't care about whether or not
anyone else is using my choice of software, and I use a wide variety of
platforms myself (a KVM switch and various boot managers can enable one to
use all kinds of fascinating concurrent combinations).
However, as a long time PC hobbyist, I have a certain amount of software
that platforms like Windows and Linux simply cannot run, and that means I
still have reasons to run a few less popular platforms on my LAN.
I'd love to see OS/2 (and BeOS) support in VMWare, but I'm not sure why
that would justify such an attack from you.
Just what, exactly, is your problem?
Explain yourself, please.
Richard C. Steiner
>Yea... OS/2 support would be nice. Ahh well; I was just trying to
>point out the similarity in spirit to the mainframe VM product.
I was just pointing out that its support is still quite limited, and that
it isn't a magical solution for all Intel OSes. There are a half-dozen or
more OSes that it won't run, BeOS and OS/2 being two of the more popular
ones. Others include NextStep, QNX, and (I think) FreeBSD 4.x.
Charlie Gibbs
(Joe Morris) writes:
>"Andrew McLaren" <andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com> writes:
>
>> Although I do sometimes miss XEDIT and Rexx ... ;-)
>
>Try KEDIT from Mandfield Software Group (www.kedit.com);
^
That's spelled "Mansfield". I don't normally nitpick typos,
but this one's kind of important. :-)
>Strongly recommended.
Agreed.
--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com
What's the URL of the web-site? I don't read Russian, but, given enough
incentive, I can always learn. :*)
Of course, there's also IBM's answer to the software implementation of an
S/390 platform with the x/EFS software:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zbulletin/pdf/issue30/xefs.pdf
Dave
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com
Note that REXX is a standard part of IBM's PC DOS 2000 product:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/os/dos/psm951sa.html
and was also part of IBM's PC DOS 7 product.
Additionally, Object REXX is available from IBM for a variety of platforms:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/os/dos/psm951sa.html
including Windows95/NT:
Alexandre Pechtchanski
wrote:
[ Courtesy cc'ed through e-mail to the quoted author ]
>Hi all,
>
>not long ago I found a zip file called vm-cms.zip which seems to contain
>a vm-cms emulator that can be run under os/2. The first few lines from
>the readme file are
>
>"We offer CMS-C370VMa - a virtual machine designed for executing
>operational
>system CMS that is a host operational system among the set of Virtual
>Machines Monitor."
>
>So it's called CMS-C370VMa and it is being made by a russion company.
>They have a website, but I can't read russian.
If you posted an URL, I would 've looked into it for you. There are people
hanging here who _can_ read Russian, you know ;-)
--
[ When replying, remove *'s from address ]
Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com "Andrew McLaren" writes:
> Incidently, I have Linux and OS/2 Warp running on machines at home ... oh
> and Windows, because YEP, I LIKE WINDOWS! Ha hahahaha ... I have been
> looking around for some OS/2 utilities recently, but most OS/2 websites and
> ftp sites have been dormant since around 1996-97. Think about it ....
You are obviously looking in the wrong places: there is LOTS of new OS/2
stuff out there.
Not the least of which are two different new OS/2s. May I direct your
attention to the latest issue of Byte, and also to eComStation?
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Andrew McLaren
> Additionally, Object REXX is available from IBM for a variety of
platforms:
> http://www-4.ibm.com/software/os/dos/psm951sa.html
> Dave
Thanks for the pointers! Actually, I happened to downloaded ObjectRexx for
Linux a few days ago (ust be some strange synchronicity there). Can't say
I've mastered the OO extensions yet ;-) but it seems to handle "standard"
Rexx very well; at least for the trivial programs I've tried so far.
That was one thing I really missed, going from OS/2 & LanMan and/or LanSvr,
to NT: no built-in Rexx. It was great to write a CMD file and have it run by
the Rexx interpreter, with no special fuss or add-ons. Although In fairness,
NT^H^HWin2K now has an embarrassmnt of scripting languages via its built-in
WSH Scripting Host. But alas, I'm jumping ahead 15 years, for folklore
purposes ...
So, does anyone know what is Mike Cowlishaw doing these days? Is he still
working at Hursley?
Cheers,
Andrew
Andrew McLaren
> You are obviously looking in the wrong places:
Yeah, I'm searching via AltaVista and Google ... hopelessly unreliable
methods to find stuff ;-)
> there is LOTS of new OS/2 stuff out there.
Excellent - send me the urls!
In fairness, I did find some good pointers to current OS/2 development via
http://www.os2ss.com
> Not the least of which are two different new OS/2s. May I direct your
> attention to the latest issue of Byte, and also to eComStation?
Yep, I saw some eComStation info. It sounds good! (I'll buy one). Although,
I note it's the product of Serenity Systems not IBM, although IBM may be
complicit.
Anyway, I'm sorry if I've launched an advocacy discussion. That would be
off-topic and - worse still - incredibly tedious; my main point was
ANTI-advocacy. An OS is just something that's there, you work with it, enjoy
it, hate it, and move on when it's all over.
Andrew McLaren
> support for the uncommon ones that make the tool they sell worthwhile, at
I see your point. But, allocating resources to uncommon platforms can be
difficult for anyone trying to run a profitable business. Not impossible,
just difficult ...
> Feel free to go fsck yourself, mate.
<smile> Okay!
> However, as a long time PC hobbyist, I have a certain amount of software
> Just what, exactly, is your problem?
> Explain yourself, please.
Yeah, maybe I unfairly vented my spleen, and you just happened to be in the
way. So, apologies for that. A customer recently asked me to investigate a
problem they had with a client-server app running on a mixed OS/2 and NT
LAN. Hence dragging out copies of OS/2, Redbooks, etc that had been
mouldering in storage for some time. Actually it was kind of a buzz to be
fiddling with OS/2 again, it brought back happy memories of 1992 when I
thought OS/2 was the bees' knees. But while trawling around the lingering
remnants of the OS/2 world (in its commercial/professional, rather than
hobbyist, incarnation), I've run into a pathetic, yea tragic, collection of
OS/2 refugees who take it as a personal insult and affront that OS/2 as a
commercial proposition has *passed on*. OS/2 is no more. It has ceased to
be. It has expired, and gone to meet its maker. OS/2 is a stiff, bereft of
life. It rests in peace. If these sad TeamOS/2 wannabes hadn't hung on to
their crummy PM apps for N years, OS/2 would be pushing up the daisies. Its
metabolic processes are now history. OS/2 has dropped off the twig. It has
kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain
and joined the bleeding Choir Invisible. OS/2 has fscking snuffed it. It is
AN EX-Operating System!!
Ahem. Pardon me <wipes sweaty brow>. Anyway ... I'm reliably informed by
friends in IBM that they'd be quite happy to let OS/2 sink into the slime,
and continue their march forward with technically potent and commercially
viable OSs like z/OS, AIX and Linux. I am told Raleigh is a repository for
stellenbosched managers, demoralised devs struggling to escape, and
recidivist career victims. I believe IBM would also like to let TPF quietly
die; but customers keep running it (and wealthy customers are willing to pay
big bucks to IBM to keep TPF on life-support).
I'm sorry if I launched an advocacy discussion. That would be off-topic,
and incredibly tedious. My main point was ANTI-advocacy. An OS is just
something that's there: you work with it, enjoy it, get annoyed by it, and
move on when it's all over. It's not an emotional issue. But, if your main
interest is as a hobbyist, then fine - go ahead, I support you all the way.
And in fact I have copies of XENIX and CP/M floating around (and my own
private AS/400 ;-) for much the same reason. But (putting my conciliatory
tone aside ;-), it'd be churlish for me to post "VMWare is lossy because it
doesn't support CP/M" ... who'd give a fat rat's arse? If you run OS/2, you
should expect lack of support to be a daily fact-of-life.
Returning to the main theme .... one nice side-effect of VMWare is that
terms like "the guest OS", "I'll IPL the guest" and "support multiple
guests" have become day-to-day expressions again. Sweet!
BTW no-one rose to my flame-bait about AIX/370 ;-) Maybe it was too
short-lived and obscure a product ... it was IBM's very first cut at Unix on
s/370, and ran only as a VM guest. It was horrible, really horrible. In
fairness, OS/390 Unix services are vastly improved.
Cheers,
Andrew
W P S
>
>So, does anyone know what is Mike Cowlishaw doing these days? Is he still
>working at Hursley?
>
According to IBM's internal employee directory (which runs on VM) Mike is
still in Hursley. His Job Responsibility is "IBM Fellow"
Chris Hedley
> BTW no-one rose to my flame-bait about AIX/370 ;-) Maybe it was too
> short-lived and obscure a product ... it was IBM's very first cut at Unix on
> s/370, and ran only as a VM guest. It was horrible, really horrible. In
> fairness, OS/390 Unix services are vastly improved.
I noticed it, but it seemed to fit in pretty well with the (very) small
amount I've heard about AIX/370; I gather the main reason it was dropped
is because it was alleged to be irredeemably rubbish, although I'm a bit
surprised that no other UNIX for big iron (excepting the aforementioned
OS UNIX services) has appeared until Linux got ported.
Andrew McLaren
> amount I've heard about AIX/370; I gather the main reason it was dropped
> is because it was alleged to be irredeemably rubbish, although I'm a bit
> surprised that no other UNIX for big iron (excepting the aforementioned
> OS UNIX services) has appeared until Linux got ported.
The company I was working for at that time wanted Unix *and* big iron, not
an easy combination in 1990. Hence our brief excursion into AIX/370. Imagine
a cross between TSO and the Unix shell ... terminal output didn't scroll
past, you had to hit <enter> every 24 lines to see the rest of your output.
Block mode terminals. Sort of a compulsory 'more' on every command ;-)
TCP/IP was unusable; and great swathes of standard Unix APIs were missing.
Everything seemed to be in EBCDIC. I was very surprised to find, some years
later, that AIX on RS/6000 had actually become a very good Unix
implementation.
We eventually settled on Fujitsu 390 clones (M700s or somethink, I forget
now, much cheaper than IBM) and UTS Unix from Amdahl. In a twist of fate,
Amdahl eventually became a Fujitsu subsidiary, as did ICL .... ah, sic
transit gloria mundi*. UTS Unix was quite okay, but it seems to have
disappeared; like all those other lost operating systems of yore ... DG-UX,
AOS, VME ... Ah I tell thee, lad - you tell this t'yoong people today, an'
they just don't believe thee ... ;-)
Cheers,
Andrew
*I think this is Latin for "Gloria was sick on the bus, last Monday".
Andrew McLaren
> > Although I do sometimes miss XEDIT and Rexx ... ;-)
> Try KEDIT from Mandfield Software Group (www.kedit.com); it's essentially
Thanks. Indeed, I've seen Kedit from time to time, tho' never shelled out my
own $$$ to buy (well I'm a tight-arse ... it's a Presbyterian thing ;-).
Actually (and at risk of showing my true colours) what I'd REALLY like is an
*ISPF* that runs on PCs.
I looked at the SPF product from Command Systems, which is kind of nice; but
they have gone for a full Windows GUI which looses much of the nice "look
and feel" that their earlier (character-mode) SPF/2 for OS/2 had. That one
had red-coloured line numbers, and a '==> ' prompt at the top, and '3.2'
type commands, and everything.
But then, lets not start a text-editor war ;-)))
Chris Hedley
> an easy combination in 1990. Hence our brief excursion into AIX/370. Imagine
> a cross between TSO and the Unix shell ... terminal output didn't scroll
> past, you had to hit <enter> every 24 lines to see the rest of your output.
> Block mode terminals. Sort of a compulsory 'more' on every command ;-)
> TCP/IP was unusable; and great swathes of standard Unix APIs were missing.
> Everything seemed to be in EBCDIC.
I can understand it would've been pretty difficult at the time; probably
one of the reasons AIX wasn't very good is that IBM were said to be
distinctly unenthusiastic about anything that wasn't MVS, UNIX in
particular. As for usability, the "more" thing sounds good in principle,
but having used TSO and CMS a fair bit it can become a bit of a pain in
the bum after a while. As an aside, I heard someone claim, back in about
'90, that the AIX/370 implementation of "vi" was "very good." I suspect
they were having me on, since vi is the very antithesis of block-mode.
> I was very surprised to find, some years
> later, that AIX on RS/6000 had actually become a very good Unix
> implementation.
It's been a much vaunted version for a good few years now; I wonder if
it's a complete rewrite simply sharing the name, or if a lot of behind
the scenes "skunkworks" stuff was carried on out of view of the policy-
makers.
> We eventually settled on Fujitsu 390 clones (M700s or somethink, I forget
> now, much cheaper than IBM) and UTS Unix from Amdahl. In a twist of fate,
> Amdahl eventually became a Fujitsu subsidiary, as did ICL .... ah, sic
> transit gloria mundi*. UTS Unix was quite okay, but it seems to have
> disappeared; like all those other lost operating systems of yore ... DG-UX,
> AOS, VME ... Ah I tell thee, lad - you tell this t'yoong people today, an'
> they just don't believe thee ... ;-)
Although I'm a UNIX-head, I still feel quite sad that a lot of the
interesting systems of yesteryear are gone or at best marginalised (although
it's really good to see MVS and VM bouncing back) A world confined to UNIX
and NT would be a dull place indeed, at least for computing nuts.
> *I think this is Latin for "Gloria was sick on the bus, last Monday".
Well, instead of "bus" I read "Ford Transit" (obviously, or maybe I just
lack imagination) but the rest looks spot on.
Joe Morris
>"Joe Morris" <jcmo...@jmorris-pc.MITRE.ORG> wrote
>> > Although I do sometimes miss XEDIT and Rexx ... ;-)
>> Try KEDIT from Mandfield Software Group (www.kedit.com); it's essentially
*********
Sigh...it's "Mansfield". Oh well, I was off by only one keytop.
>Thanks. Indeed, I've seen Kedit from time to time, tho' never shelled out my
>own $$$ to buy (well I'm a tight-arse ... it's a Presbyterian thing ;-).
Well...I'll admit that I was one of the early customers for it, and the
price has probably gone up a little. My main concerns would be that
it works, it's reliable, and there's a path for getting bugfixes if
they should be required.
You can download a free demo version of KEDIT for Windows from the
web site; it's apparently full-featured except for a limit of 75
lines in edited files that you want to save.
>But then, lets not start a text-editor war ;-)))
Why not? That's one of the subjects that traditionally starts violent
religious wars among computer users. <g>
Joe Morris
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> The company I was working for at that time wanted Unix *and* big iron, not
> an easy combination in 1990. Hence our brief excursion into AIX/370. Imagine
> a cross between TSO and the Unix shell ... terminal output didn't scroll
> past, you had to hit <enter> every 24 lines to see the rest of your output.
> Block mode terminals. Sort of a compulsory 'more' on every command ;-)
> TCP/IP was unusable; and great swathes of standard Unix APIs were missing.
> Everything seemed to be in EBCDIC. I was very surprised to find, some years
> later, that AIX on RS/6000 had actually become a very good Unix
> implementation.
the first excursion they did for unix on mainframe was the adoption of
AT&T unix as a subsystem on TSS/370 that saw large deployment inside
AT&T.
The next was going to be BSD ported to 370 ... but the group got
diverted before the product delivered to doing a BSD port to the PC/RT
(which became AOS ... as an alternative system to the Interactive port
of AT&T to PC/RT that was called AIX).
In some sense ... the (UCLA) Locus port to mainframe (along with the
port to PS/2) ... resulting in AIX/370 and AIX/PS2 was to show
integration of the mainframe/PC world (client/server?) since Locus
provided quite a bit of support for location transparency (file
caching as well as process migration, multiple networked machine
process operation, etc).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | ly...@garlic.com, http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com "Andrew McLaren" writes:
> That was one thing I really missed, going from OS/2 & LanMan and/or LanSvr,
> to NT: no built-in Rexx. It was great to write a CMD file and have it run by
> the Rexx interpreter, with no special fuss or add-ons. Although In fairness,
> NT^H^HWin2K now has an embarrassmnt of scripting languages via its built-in
> WSH Scripting Host. But alas, I'm jumping ahead 15 years, for folklore
> purposes ...
Object Rexx for Windows (all 32-bit flavours) has been available for a
couiiple of years or more from IBM. Unlike ORexx for OS/2, Linux, AIX,
which are all free, one has to pay for the Doze version.
> So, does anyone know what is Mike Cowlishaw doing these days? Is he still
> working at Hursley?
Working on NetRexx; yes.
Richard C. Steiner
>"Richard C. Steiner" <rste...@isis.visi.com> wrote
>
>> Not a flame. An observation. I already have the common platforms. It's
>> support for the uncommon ones that make the tool they sell worthwhile, at
>
>I see your point. But, allocating resources to uncommon platforms can be
>difficult for anyone trying to run a profitable business. Not impossible,
>just difficult ...
Yup. I've been using OS/2 and dabbling with Linux since 1992, and I'm a
corporate Mac user who writes Unisys mainframe code now, so I know about
"niche platforms" all too well. :-)
That's why one can't always depend on third parties.
>Yeah, maybe I unfairly vented my spleen, and you just happened to be in the
>way. So, apologies for that.
That's okay. I guess I really wasn't expecting to encounter an anti-OS/2
broadside in this particular forum...
>Returning to the main theme .... one nice side-effect of VMWare is that
>terms like "the guest OS", "I'll IPL the guest" and "support multiple
>guests" have become day-to-day expressions again. Sweet!
Yes, and it's a nice concept. Then again, I've been doing things like
running Executor/DOS (68k Mac emulator) under an OS/2 VDM for years, so
virtual machines weren't necessarily unknown bevore VMWare -- they just
take it to a more flexible level.
BTW, I believe Connectix (makers of Virtual PC for the Mac) are coming out
with a version for Virtual PC for Windows, so perhaps VMWare will be under
some pressure to add client support for more platforms.
Charlie Gibbs
(Chris Hedley) writes:
>According to Andrew McLaren <andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com>:
>
>> *I think this is Latin for "Gloria was sick on the bus, last Monday".
>
>Well, instead of "bus" I read "Ford Transit" (obviously, or maybe I
>just lack imagination) but the rest looks spot on.
No, it's because you're a Brit. We leftpondians have never heard
of a Ford Transit. (But some us know who Ford Prefect is...)
Pete Fenelon
> Block mode terminals. Sort of a compulsory 'more' on every command ;-)
Uuuuurgh. *THERE*'s an old thread that refused to die on comp.unix.wizards --
I seem to recall the "should the tty driver do paging" thread running for
a disgustingly long chunk of the late 80s :)
> later, that AIX on RS/6000 had actually become a very good Unix
> implementation.
A matter of opinion. AIX doesn't "feel" like any other Unix; not helped by
the fact that it seems to be the union of SysV, BSD extensions, and IBMisms :)
Not a bad platform for databases though. Bloody awful for end-users and
developers. (xlc and xlp - just say no :))
pete
Richard C. Steiner
>The company I was working for at that time wanted Unix *and* big iron, not
>an easy combination in 1990. Hence our brief excursion into AIX/370. Imagine
>a cross between TSO and the Unix shell ... terminal output didn't scroll
>past, you had to hit <enter> every 24 lines to see the rest of your output.
>Block mode terminals. Sort of a compulsory 'more' on every command ;-)
Sounds like a problem with the software or IBM's implementation of "block
mode terminals", not a characteristic of block mode terminals per se.
I have no problem generating scrolling output on my UTS20. :-)
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"Andrew McLaren" <andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com> wrote:
AM> BTW no-one rose to my flame-bait about AIX/370 ;-) Maybe it was too
AIX/anything hurts AIX/370 had to be either the only good AIX or a
real disaster.
AM> short-lived and obscure a product ... it was IBM's very first cut at Unix on
AM> s/370, and ran only as a VM guest. It was horrible, really horrible. In
AM> fairness, OS/390 Unix services are vastly improved.
I presume it was at least as revolting as the Unix (I can't recall
now exactly what they put between the U and the X) that appeared on Fujitsu
boxes as a VM guest. I was once involved in an port/thrash exercise to
find the platform to deploy an engineer/task scheduling tool. We had four
boxes to play with, one of which was a sequent with 30 486/50s (that should
date it), a big HP box, a big Sun and 1/4 of the Fujitsu.
Suffice it to say the Fujitsu never finished the build and was the
hardest of all of them to even start the port (huge C++ program which used
*every* IPC mechanism available to SYSV).
--
Many have tried to formulate rules for software development, we
are guided by the ways in which they fail to work.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@sky.bus.com> wrote:
CG> No, it's because you're a Brit. We leftpondians have never heard
CG> of a Ford Transit. (But some us know who Ford Prefect is...)
Isn't the Transit called Econoline over there ?
Steve O'Hara-Smith
b...@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
BK> Object Rexx for Windows (all 32-bit flavours) has been available for a
BK> couiiple of years or more from IBM. Unlike ORexx for OS/2, Linux, AIX,
BK> which are all free, one has to pay for the Doze version.
Nice one IBM ... Ye gods I *never* thought I'd say *that*!
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote:
PF> A matter of opinion. AIX doesn't "feel" like any other Unix; not helped by
PF> the fact that it seems to be the union of SysV, BSD extensions, and IBMisms :)
It is the *only* Unix I have ever used in which the u and . commands
to vi interact. Not an apparently serious shortcoming, until it manages to
annoy you several times in the same day :( There were other issues with AIX
but that one sticks in the mind after the rest have faded into the morass of
Unix oddities from way too many versions.
PF> Not a bad platform for databases though. Bloody awful for end-users and
PF> developers. (xlc and xlp - just say no :))
Arrrghhh - yes that's right *issues*!
OTOH those Motorola Hi-Fi styled PPC boxes were really cute, completely
dismantle and replace *anything* by *hand* with *no* tools.
Chris Hedley
> OTOH those Motorola Hi-Fi styled PPC boxes were really cute, completely
> dismantle and replace *anything* by *hand* with *no* tools.
I remember those things; they started out life with (IIRC) the MVME197
M88K processor board, which was a sort-of improvement on the huge
"washing-machine" style box they used to live in (although I still
preferred the older ones) Unfortunately, some obscure legislation in
the UK mandated that the PCBs were still screwed into the chassis.
Paul Nunnink
http://195.131.75.158:81/products/products.html
You'll see that its too much for a simple dutchy from Nijmegen to
understand :-)
-Paul
Paul Nunnink
http://195.131.75.158:81/products/products.html
You'll see that its too much for a simple dutchy from Nijmegen to
understand :-)
-Paul
Paul Nunnink
http://195.131.75.158:81/products/products.html
You'll see that its too much for a simple dutchy from Nijmegen to
understand :-)
-Paul
Paul Nunnink
http://195.131.75.158:81/products/products.html
You'll see that its too much for a simple dutchy from Nijmegen to
understand :-)
-Paul
Paul Nunnink
first forgetting the url was not smart, sending it four times is
overdone. Sorry, about that....
Paul
Andrew McLaren
> > > sic transit gloria mundi
> > *I think this is Latin for "Gloria was sick on the bus, last Monday".
>
> Well, instead of "bus" I read "Ford Transit" (obviously, or maybe I just
> lack imagination) but the rest looks spot on.
Hmm, you might be right. I'll have to find the ol' Cassell's Latin
Dictionary and check ... I think I last saw my Latin dictionary under a big
pile of IBM Redbooks, out in the garden shed. I think Tacitus wrote
something about Agricola using Ford Transit vans when he routed the
Brigantes. This would confirm that Ford Transit vans are a UK and
Commonwealth form of vehicle, unknown in Vineland/Leftpondia. It would also
be, I think, the earliest reference to networking in Britain - I guess we'll
never know if they were using TCP/IP, but it must have been some form of
routed protocol, else Agricola couldn't have routed them.
(Of course here in Australia, we'd say Agricola *rooted* the Brigantes ...
but there's a slight semantic shift in this translation).
Anent the Ford Transits, now, here's some topic-drift, but truly folklore.
Back in high school, I worked part-time at a garage (service station). The
mechanic was repairing a Ford Transit van, and asked me to go up to the Ford
dealer to get a replacement part; I think it was a crown wheel or something.
So up I goes to the dealers. The spare parts bloke asks what I'm after and I
says, a replacement crown wheel for a Ford Transit. He says, what year. I
says, I dunno, it's a couple of years old, maybe a 1970 model or so. He
looks in the Big Book of Spare Parts (no terminals in those days!). Then he
said, there was no 1970 model, but there was a May 1969 model, a September
1969 model, and a February 1971 model. I rang the mechanic to check, he
says, it's a 1969 model. I asked, was that a May 1969 or a September 1969
model? He replies, How the #^*% do I know, it's a 1969 model. So I says to
the Ford parts bloke, it's some 1969 model. He says, well the book says the
crown wheels are different between teh May and September models, so we'll
need to know which it is. I said to the mechnic (still on the phone) we'll
need to know which month it was. He doesn't know. Maybe he could ring the
customer and ask when he'd bought the Transit van ... if it was between May
and September, we'd know for sure. But then, if he'd bought it after
September 1969 but before February 1971, we couldn't be sure. Bugger ...
In the end, we got the vehicle chassis number from the van, then the Ford
bloke rang Ford headquarters in Sydney and asked them to look it up. An hour
or so later the Ford headquarters rings back and says, well, we *think* that
chassis is from a September 1969 model ... but we're not 100% sure. I took
the new crown wheel back to the garage to try it out, it was the wrong one,
I took it back and the spare parts guy replaced it with the *other* 1969
crown wheel. Which fitted!
Afterwards, the mechanic and I theorised that Ford had had a shitload of
spare parts left over from all the truck and all the cars they'd ever made.
They started putting bits and pieces together and Lo! The Ford Transit van
was born! When they ran out of one set of spare parts, they'd start a new
collection of spare parts and Lo! A new model of the Ford Transit van was
announced! I don't think the modern Transit vans carry on that noble
tradition of recycling ... they're a bit boring compared to the old ones.
But I still smile when I see a Transit van ... I feel sorry for the Yanks if
they missed out on the offspring of this rich heritage of vehicle "design".
I may have the precise months incorrect, due to failing memory; but in every
other wise this is a true story - I was there!
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew McLaren
> corporate Mac user who writes Unisys mainframe code now, so I know about
> "niche platforms" all too well. :-)
Now would that Unisys be an A Series, or a 2200 machine? I always get
confused about which was which, one was from the Burroughs arm and one from
the Sperry arm. But yes ... trying to find a Macintosh terminal emulation
package for a Unisys mainframe would be, uh, interesting ;-)
> BTW, I believe Connectix (makers of Virtual PC for the Mac) are coming out
> with a version for Virtual PC for Windows, so perhaps VMWare will be under
Cool - I hadn't heard about that. I'll have to check it out.
Lars Poulsen
> The next was going to be BSD ported to 370 ... but the group got
> diverted before the product delivered to doing a BSD port to the PC/RT
> (which became AOS ... as an alternative system to the Interactive
> port of AT&T to PC/RT that was called AIX).
>
> In some sense ... the (UCLA) Locus port to mainframe (along with the
> port to PS/2) ... resulting in AIX/370 and AIX/PS2 was to show
> integration of the mainframe/PC world (client/server?) since Locus
> provided quite a bit of support for location transparency (file
> caching as well as process migration, multiple networked machine
> process operation, etc).
I forwarded this piece to one of my coworkers who worked at Locus
during that time, to ask for his comments. He did not want his name
brought forward, but this is what he said:
There's a lot of stuff they don't know about.
What they don't know about is the pissing contest
between the two divisions of IBM; the Palo Alto(BSD) and
Austin(SVID) groups.
Then, ultimately, the decision by Chm. Akers to only
have one Unix product; Austin won, but, Palo Alto wasn't done
throwing wrenches into the machinery.
Then Yorktown Heights and Boeblingen sp?) got into the
fracas.
I suspect some of you do know about it ...
--
/ Lars Poulsen - http://www.cmc.com/lars - la...@cmc.com
125 South Ontare Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 - +1-805-569-5277
Charlie Gibbs
rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) writes:
>In article <CtqR6.29167$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
>Andrew McLaren wrote:
>
>>The company I was working for at that time wanted Unix *and* big
>>iron, not an easy combination in 1990. Hence our brief excursion
>>into AIX/370. Imagine a cross between TSO and the Unix shell ...
>>terminal output didn't scroll past, you had to hit <enter> every
>>24 lines to see the rest of your output. Block mode terminals.
>>Sort of a compulsory 'more' on every command ;-)
>
>Sounds like a problem with the software or IBM's implementation of
>"block mode terminals", not a characteristic of block mode terminals
>per se.
>
>I have no problem generating scrolling output on my UTS20. :-)
Yeah, as long as you remember to pad with 20 milliseconds' worth
of NULs to make up for the fact that it takes that long to shift
the screen buffer, during which it's blind to all further input.
I considered it an accomplishment to get Adventure and Dungeon
working on those beasts (over and above porting the FORTRAN code
to OS/3).
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> I forwarded this piece to one of my coworkers who worked at Locus
> during that time, to ask for his comments. He did not want his name
> brought forward, but this is what he said:
>
> There's a lot of stuff they don't know about.
> What they don't know about is the pissing contest
> between the two divisions of IBM; the Palo Alto(BSD) and
> Austin(SVID) groups.
> Then, ultimately, the decision by Chm. Akers to only
> have one Unix product; Austin won, but, Palo Alto wasn't done
> throwing wrenches into the machinery.
> Then Yorktown Heights and Boeblingen sp?) got into the
> fracas.
note that the ykt was involved early because of 801, cpr, PL.8,
etc. The Austin project originally started out as a joint ykt/austin
closed romp/801 as a displaywriter follow-on in the office products
division using ykt cpr (for 801/romp & written in pl.8). when that
project got canceled, the resources was retargeted to "unix" ... still
using romp/801 and the ykt/aus resources going into a building the
"vrm" (written in pl.8) ... basically managing the metal ... and
interactive doing the svid port to a vrm abstraction layer. I was in
some of the early VRM meetings.
part of the tss/370 group supporting the AT&T unix activity were in
germany and working on making it a generalized product.
starting the pa/370/bsd, they tapped a guy out of the stl/apl group to
go to palo alto to manage the project. I got called in the first week
he showed up to participate in the effort. at that time, the palo alto
group already had an ongoing project with UCLA and had locus running
on S/1, some 68k machines and PCs.
one might might be tempted to characterize the ykt/aus effert as
putting a proprietary stamp on some product offering (which at that
moment happened to have some unix content) ... while the other efforts
were much more oriented towards offering ("some" standard) unix
offering on a company hardware platform.
It really got interesting when you took all the above (aus, locus,
ucla, pa, bsd, ykt, etc) and then included various CMU (mach, afs)
in the same room working on a "converged" distributed/network file
system.
random other refs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#4a John Hartmann's Birthday Party
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#2 IBM S/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#36 why is there an "@" key?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#63 System/1 ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#64 Old naked woman ASCII art
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#65 Old naked woman ASCII art
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#66 System/1 ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#129 High Performance PowerPC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#49 IBM RT PC (was Re: What does AT stand for ?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#51 APPC vs TCP/IP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#64 distributed locking patents
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#5 "Mainframe" Usage
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#8 IBM Linux
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#65 "all-out" vs less aggressive designs (was: Re: 36 to 32 bit transition)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#19 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#27 OCF, PC/SC and GOP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#44 Options for Delivering Mainframe Reports to Outside Organizat ions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#49 Options for Delivering Mainframe Reports to Outside Organizat ions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#14 IBM's announcement on RVAs
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#0 Anybody remember the wonderful PC/IX operating system?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#1 Anybody remember the wonderful PC/IX operating system?
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | ly...@garlic.com - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Dragonmaster Lou
<andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com> wrote:
>Now would that Unisys be an A Series, or a 2200 machine? I always get
>confused about which was which, one was from the Burroughs arm and one from
>the Sperry arm. But yes ... trying to find a Macintosh terminal emulation
>package for a Unisys mainframe would be, uh, interesting ;-)
The 2200 series is the Sperry arm, the A series is the Burroughs arm.
--
-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou" | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to
| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alumn | what dangers we'll find..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank McConnell
> Then Yorktown Heights and Boeblingen sp?) got into the
> fracas.
>
> I suspect some of you do know about it ...
Hmm, maybe. The 4361 was a Boeblingen product, wasn't it?
Before my time at The Wollongong Group, some folks there had been
involved in a port of TWG TCP/IP to Interactive's IX/370 running on an
IBM 4361. My understanding was that this was done under contract to
IBM who was trying to pitch the 4361 with Unix and TCP/IP as a
response to some RFP. IBM's proposal did not result in a contract
from their prospective customer, however, and so I don't think this
really went anywhere.
When I got there in 1989, the 4361 and most of its bits were sitting
ignored, disconnected, and turned off in a computer room. A year or
two later, someone else got it in his head to make it work so he could
use it for TN3270 testing, and did in fact get it to boot IX/370.
What we couldn't find was enough bus/tag cables to hook up the Micom
channel-attached Ethernet box, and I think the someone else concluded
that wouldn't help him anyway and he decided to abandon his efforts
to use the 4361.
-Frank McConnell
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"Andrew McLaren" <andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com> wrote:
AM> Afterwards, the mechanic and I theorised that Ford had had a shitload of
AM> spare parts left over from all the truck and all the cars they'd ever made.
AM> They started putting bits and pieces together and Lo! The Ford Transit van
AM> was born! When they ran out of one set of spare parts, they'd start a new
AM> collection of spare parts and Lo! A new model of the Ford Transit van was
The 1980s Renault Traffic was constructed in much the same fashion it
would seem, when getting parts for one you *always* needed the engine number
and the chassis number in order to identify the build list for the thing.
Apparently there were several alternatives for each part, not all sets went
together but the build list for each vehicle was recorded under chassis and
engine number. The only real difference was that they didn't bother with the
new model myth.
--
Directable Mirrors - A Better Way To Focus The Sun
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com
Thanks. We're not all bad. :*)
Dave
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com
Hey, who would be running something as old and obselete as OS/2?
Oh, wait a minute...
C:\> ver
The Operating System/2 Version is 4.00
Umm, I guess some of us are. :*)
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com "Andrew McLaren" writes:
> "Chris Hedley" <c...@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk> wrote
> > > > sic transit gloria mundi
> > > *I think this is Latin for "Gloria was sick on the bus, last Monday".
> >
> > Well, instead of "bus" I read "Ford Transit" (obviously, or maybe I just
> > lack imagination) but the rest looks spot on.
>
> Hmm, you might be right. I'll have to find the ol' Cassell's Latin
> Dictionary and check ... I think I last saw my Latin dictionary under a big
> pile of IBM Redbooks, out in the garden shed. I think Tacitus wrote
> something about Agricola using Ford Transit vans when he routed the
> Brigantes. This would confirm that Ford Transit vans are a UK and
> Commonwealth form of vehicle, unknown in Vineland/Leftpondia. It would also
> be, I think, the earliest reference to networking in Britain - I guess we'll
> never know if they were using TCP/IP, but it must have been some form of
> routed protocol, else Agricola couldn't have routed them.
:-)
I too have a favorite mis-translation; for this one, you have to know
that there's a Central London chain of garages (both new vehicle sales
and repairers) called Lex...
De minimus non curat lex == The garage say they can't repair the
minibus.
> (Of course here in Australia, we'd say Agricola *rooted* the Brigantes ...
> but there's a slight semantic shift in this translation).
Oo-er, missus!
[snip Transitory tale]
> I may have the precise months incorrect, due to failing memory; but in every
> other wise this is a true story - I was there!
Not only that, but I think you've finally exposed Ford's design strategy
of the period.
ic0c...@ic24.net
wrote:
>What we couldn't find was enough bus/tag cables to hook up the Micom
>channel-attached Ethernet box, and I think the someone else concluded
>that wouldn't help him anyway and he decided to abandon his efforts
>to use the 4361.
Hmmmm. If the 4361 was sat on a false floor then there would normally be
plenty of cables 'stored' under the floor. That is where the IBM CE keeps
them (in case they are needed (one day)).
--
Tony Lenton
Frank McConnell
> Hmmmm. If the 4361 was sat on a false floor then there would normally be
> plenty of cables 'stored' under the floor. That is where the IBM CE keeps
> them (in case they are needed (one day)).
Alas, the floor was tile on concrete slab. No good hiding places
for cables.
-Frank McConnell
Steve O'Hara-Smith
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com wrote:
> > Nice one IBM ... Ye gods I *never* thought I'd say *that*!
>
> Thanks. We're not all bad. :*)
To be fair, I get the distinct impression that IBM today bears very
little real resemblance to the IBM that was around when I got into this crazy
game.
At that time it had much the same reputation as Microsoft these days.
Practices like 'Is that an Amdahl next to our equipment, oh dear your support
contract has just been cancelled in mid service' were widely rumoured. OTOH
that may have been a blessing, most users of the 370 at Cambridge used to
dread the monthly causative maintenance :)
Rumour also had it that IBM marketing practices were set when after
announcing that one line (709 was mentioned IIRC) had to be delayed and would
be twice the previously announced price, none of the advance orders were
cancelled. Was this rumour close to reality ?
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
> Hey, who would be running something as old and obselete as OS/2?
>
> Oh, wait a minute...
>
> C:\> ver
>
> The Operating System/2 Version is 4.00
>
> Umm, I guess some of us are. :*)
Surely you can persuade them to let you have a copy of the Convenience
Pack, and get yourself up to v4.51 (which is lots better)?
Or even apply some fixpacks; that'll get you to v4.50.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> that may have been a blessing, most users of the 370 at Cambridge used to
> dread the monthly causative maintenance :)
I used to refer to PM as "preventing maintenance". It prevented
using the system for some period of time after the service call
ended.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@my-deja.com) (cbfal...@XXXXworldnet.att.net)
http://www.qwikpages.com/backstreets/cbfalconer :=(down for now)
(Remove "NOSPAM." from reply address. my-deja works unmodified)
mailto:u...@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest)
Christian Brunschen
CBFalconer <cbfal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> that may have been a blessing, most users of the 370 at Cambridge used to
>> dread the monthly causative maintenance :)
>
>I used to refer to PM as "preventing maintenance". It prevented
>using the system for some period of time after the service call
>ended.
I thought one common interpretation was 'Provocative Maintenance', in
that you would provoke the hardware into triggering new faults ?
>--
>Chuck F (cbfal...@my-deja.com) (cbfal...@XXXXworldnet.att.net)
// Christian Brunschen
jmfb...@aol.com
>>
>> that may have been a blessing, most users of the 370 at Cambridge used
to
>> dread the monthly causative maintenance :)
>
>I used to refer to PM as "preventing maintenance". It prevented
>using the system for some period of time after the service call
>ended.
>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Andrew McLaren
> In <slrn9hd4bo....@isis.visi.com>, rste...@isis.visi.com
(Richard C. Steiner) writes:
> >In article <XrgR6.27660$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Andrew McLaren
wrote:
> Oh, wait a minute...
> C:\> ver
>
> The Operating System/2 Version is 4.00
Well struth, cobber - even I ...who was somewhat unfairly portaryed as
anti-OS/2 earlier in this thread ;-) ... get the following on *my* OS/2 box
....
C:\> ver
The Operating System/2 Version is 4.50
But, given how hard it is to apply the Fixpacks, I'm not surprised you
haven't bothered to upgrade ;-))
Cheers,
Andrew
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
andrew...@bigpond.n0s-p-a-m.com "Andrew McLaren" writes:
> Well struth, cobber - even I ...who was somewhat unfairly portaryed as
> anti-OS/2 earlier in this thread ;-) ... get the following on *my* OS/2 box
> ....
>
> C:\> ver
>
> The Operating System/2 Version is 4.50
Ditto here.
> But, given how hard it is to apply the Fixpacks, I'm not surprised you
> haven't bothered to upgrade ;-))
Nothing hard about applying the fixpacks; just point NutScrape at the
relevant RSU file on IBM's site, and the fixpack applies itself
(automatically to all candidate systems, even those not currently booted,
if you wish).
The hard problem, until very recently, has been installing OS/2 from
scratch on a modern computer, especially on one with an IDE disk larger
than 4.3GB in size. One needed to make too many changes to the boot
diskettes for most people's patience.
But the Merlin Convenience Pack (part of the Software Choice
subscription) has cured that problem.
Richard C. Steiner
>"Richard C. Steiner" <rste...@isis.visi.com> wrote
>> Yup. I've been using OS/2 and dabbling with Linux since 1992, and I'm a
>> corporate Mac user who writes Unisys mainframe code now, so I know about
>> "niche platforms" all too well. :-)
>
>Now would that Unisys be an A Series, or a 2200 machine?
I wish I knew more about the A-series boxes, but we only have 2200's here.
Not that 2200's are bad. 36-bit words, octal dumps, and Fieldata are all
still in common use here, and I find the contrasts between its environment
and the typical UNIX/C environment to be very interesting.
>I always get confused about which was which, one was from the Burroughs
>arm and one from the Sperry arm. But yes ... trying to find a Macintosh
>terminal emulation package for a Unisys mainframe would be, uh,
>interesting ;-)
QuickWare actually makes a very good UTS emulation package for the Mac.
I really wish there was a decent Linux UTS emulation package about, tho,
or for FreeBSD. Attachmate has one, too, but last time I looked it was a
bit lacking.
>> BTW, I believe Connectix (makers of Virtual PC for the Mac) are coming out
>> with a version for Virtual PC for Windows, so perhaps VMWare will be under
>
>Cool - I hadn't heard about that. I'll have to check it out.
I will be. :-)
Richard C. Steiner
>Or even apply some fixpacks; that'll get you to v4.50.
I'm going to take the eComStation route myself.
Richard C. Steiner
Andrew McLaren wrote:
>Well struth, cobber - even I ...who was somewhat unfairly portaryed as
>anti-OS/2 earlier in this thread ;-)
Sheesh. <grin>
>But, given how hard it is to apply the Fixpacks, I'm not surprised you
>haven't bothered to upgrade ;-))
I didn't apply them to my Warp 4 setup because I wanted to see how the OS
reacted when it crossed the Y2K boundary.
When it didn't seem to care one way or the other, I decided that I'd keep
on going without installing any FixPaks just to be stubborn. :-)
Richard C. Steiner
>The hard problem, until very recently, has been installing OS/2 from
>scratch on a modern computer, especially on one with an IDE disk larger
>than 4.3GB in size. One needed to make too many changes to the boot
>diskettes for most people's patience.
The trick is never to purchase non-SCSI hardware. ;-)
Since I'm too cheap to buy new boxes, I tend to use more seasoned hardware
at home, mainly PPro-based IntelliStations and Deskpros and things, each
with its own 2940U or UW. The disks are more expensive, but prices are
slowly coming down.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
rste...@isis.visi.com "Richard C. Steiner" writes:
> In article <991435...@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
> >Or even apply some fixpacks; that'll get you to v4.50.
>
> I'm going to take the eComStation route myself.
So am I; indeed, I already have, in that I've paid for it (and received
the Preview 2 disks). However, I shall not be installing until the GA
comes out (let it not slip past the end of this month now, I pray).
I've even paid the USD110 extra for the SMP option, since I have a dual-
Slot 1 board.
Jeff Jonas
I salvaged so many good parts from parts cabinets when places moved out, etc.
It was common practice for large computer centers to have cabinets of parts,
even if it was only for the CEs.
I loved working on the IBM system 1130 at college: all the cabinets had
storage places for the manuals, parts, a few tools, etc.
(I think the 1620's card reader punch had a crank snapped inside
the door to manually advance the work, as well as a built-in multimeter,
and other indicators and blinkenlights)
--
Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@panix(dot)com
The original Dr. JCL and Mr .hide
David Scheidt
: On 31 May 01 08:49:23 -0800
: "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@sky.bus.com> wrote:
: CG> No, it's because you're a Brit. We leftpondians have never heard
: CG> of a Ford Transit. (But some us know who Ford Prefect is...)
: Isn't the Transit called Econoline over there ?
No, the Econoline (and the "Club Wagon") is a different beast. Similiar
though, big, square, often in poor repair. We get V8s in ours, though.
--
dsch...@tumbolia.com
Bipedalism is only a fad.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
dsch...@tumbolia.com (David Scheidt) wrote:
DS> : Isn't the Transit called Econoline over there ?
DS>
DS> No, the Econoline (and the "Club Wagon") is a different beast. Similiar
DS> though, big, square, often in poor repair. We get V8s in ours, though.
That explains the confusion. I have heard of V8s in Transits too, nasty
nasty thought. The mini with a 3.5l V8 was interesting though, thinking of
things that shouldn't have V8s :)
Chris Hedley
> That explains the confusion. I have heard of V8s in Transits too, nasty
> nasty thought. The mini with a 3.5l V8 was interesting though, thinking of
> things that shouldn't have V8s :)
My driving instructor was apparently into Mini racing for a while, and
was telling me that the usual "extreme" modification was to somehow
shoehorn a Morris 1800 (I think) under the bonnet, but of course someone
had to go one better and bung the Rover (Buick-sourced? I forget) V8 in
the back... Nothing more than an engine on wheels, really.
Chris.
--
//USENET01 JOB (CBH,ISA),'TALKING BOLLOCKS',REGION=4000K,CLASS=F,
// MSGCLASS=A,PASSWORD=WIBBLE,USER=CBH,COND=(04,LT)
John Carlyle-Clarke
<20010611205438....@eircom.net>:
> That explains the confusion. I have heard of V8s in Transits too, nasty
> nasty thought. The mini with a 3.5l V8 was interesting though, thinking
> of things that shouldn't have V8s :)
>
I can't think of *anything* that shouldn't have a V8 :)
David Scheidt
: Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
: <20010611205438....@eircom.net>:
Things with a V12?
Steve O'Hara-Smith
c...@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) wrote:
CH> had to go one better and bung the Rover (Buick-sourced? I forget) V8 in
I always thought the Rover V8 was homegrown, but I may be wrong.
CH> the back... Nothing more than an engine on wheels, really.
That was the one, a kind of mini drag racer really.
da...@sourplum.org.uk
> c...@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) wrote:
> CH> had to go one better and bung the Rover (Buick-sourced? I forget) V8 in
> I always thought the Rover V8 was homegrown, but I may be wrong.
IIRC the Rover V8 design was bought from Buick in the early/mid 1960s
Dave
David Scheidt
: c...@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) wrote:
: CH> had to go one better and bung the Rover (Buick-sourced? I forget) V8 in
: I always thought the Rover V8 was homegrown, but I may be wrong.
Nope. Rover bought the design from Buick in the mid 60's. Buick had used
the 215 in some "compact cars", like the Skylark, from 1960 to about 1964.
Buick had problems iwth the design, and stopped using it in cars. A rover
engineer ran across a boat powered by the engine, and decided that a
light-weight, moderatly powerful V8 was just what Rover needed. Rover
acquired the rights to it, including some of the machinary, and engineering
consultancy.
David
Steve O'Hara-Smith
dsch...@tumbolia.com (David Scheidt) wrote:
DS> : I can't think of *anything* that shouldn't have a V8 :)
DS>
DS> Things with a V12?
Nah, if you're going to go over the top do it properly otherwise be
sensible, V12 qualifies as going over the top properly IMHO (although the
RB211 attached to a Rolls Royce *car* was a *really* good job of going OTT).
Steve O'Hara-Smith
dsch...@tumbolia.com (David Scheidt) wrote:
DS> : I always thought the Rover V8 was homegrown, but I may be wrong.
DS>
DS> Nope. Rover bought the design from Buick in the mid 60's. Buick had used
DS> the 215 in some "compact cars", like the Skylark, from 1960 to about 1964.
DS> Buick had problems iwth the design, and stopped using it in cars. A rover
DS> engineer ran across a boat powered by the engine, and decided that a
DS> light-weight, moderatly powerful V8 was just what Rover needed. Rover
I'd say that engineer was right, Rover used that engine for a *long*
time.
DS> acquired the rights to it, including some of the machinary, and engineering
DS> consultancy.
Thanks for the detail.
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com
I'm sure the Campbell's soup company will thank you for that statement[1].
:*)
[1] V8 is the brand name of a blend of tomato and other vegetable juices:
http://www.v8juice.com/tomato_story.html
One of their advertising campaigns is "Wow, I could have had a V8!" (or,
words to that effect).
However, despite the wonderful properties of V8 juice, I think a bottle of
fluoro-inert might be better for cooling computers.
Dave
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
Chris Hedley
> sensible, V12 qualifies as going over the top properly IMHO (although the
No. If you *really* want to go over the top, try the "egg beater" engine
that they used in Sherman tanks (30 cylinders between five banks - sort of
a weird and wonderful cross between inline and radial technology) OTOH,
trying to find a car big enough to accomodate it... time to revisit the
"scary Transit van" discussion, perhaps. :)
Chris Hedley
Although I quite like fast cars, you'd have a hell of a job getting me
into one of those things (personal bulk notwithstanding...) A 1 litre
Mini is scary enough what with it's complete absence of any suspension
and skittish steering...
David Scheidt
: According to Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net>:
:> Nah, if you're going to go over the top do it properly otherwise be
:> sensible, V12 qualifies as going over the top properly IMHO (although the
: No. If you *really* want to go over the top, try the "egg beater" engine
: that they used in Sherman tanks (30 cylinders between five banks - sort of
: a weird and wonderful cross between inline and radial technology) OTOH,
: trying to find a car big enough to accomodate it... time to revisit the
: "scary Transit van" discussion, perhaps. :)
Some whakos build a motorcycle powered by a jet turbine engine, normally
used in helicopters. It's fast.
http://www.marineturbine.com/y2kinnov.htm
Don Chiasson
news:9g617b$ehm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> Some whakos build a motorcycle powered by a jet turbine engine, normally
> used in helicopters. It's fast.
>
> http://www.marineturbine.com/y2kinnov.htm
>
the end. Here the hot gases spin a turbine that goes trough a more or less
normal drive train. Still, a motorcycle with 300 horsepower and an estimated
top speed of 250 mph is scary.. Interesting that it runs on diesel rather
than avgas (which is essentially kerosene, or paraffin to right pondians).
Don
e-mail: it's not not, it's hot.
David Scheidt
: "David Scheidt" <dsch...@tumbolia.com> wrote in message
: news:9g617b$ehm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
:>
:> Some whakos build a motorcycle powered by a jet turbine engine, normally
:> used in helicopters. It's fast.
:>
:> http://www.marineturbine.com/y2kinnov.htm
:>
: It's a gas turbine, not a jet. A jet goes by squirting hot gas out
: the end. Here the hot gases spin a turbine that goes trough a more or less
Duh. I know that.
: normal drive train. Still, a motorcycle with 300 horsepower and an estimated
: top speed of 250 mph is scary.. Interesting that it runs on diesel rather
: than avgas (which is essentially kerosene, or paraffin to right pondians).
Turbines will run on just about anything that'll burn. There are limits, of
course, but diesel is close enough. A number of military helicopters list
diesel as an emergency use fuel.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"Don Chiasson" <don_ch...@notmail.com> wrote:
DC> > Some whakos build a motorcycle powered by a jet turbine engine, normally
DC> > used in helicopters. It's fast.
DC> It's a gas turbine, not a jet. A jet goes by squirting hot gas out
I have seen a bicycle with a jet engine, OK it was on TV - (BBC Local
Heroes series), I would love to know where he got that cute little toy - or
exactly how to make one. There wasn't much to it - *one* moving part, but
the devil is in the details.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
ste...@eircom.net "Steve O'Hara-Smith" writes:
> On 12 Jun 2001 12:38:45 GMT
> dsch...@tumbolia.com (David Scheidt) wrote:
>
>
> DS> : I can't think of *anything* that shouldn't have a V8 :)
> DS>
> DS> Things with a V12?
>
> Nah, if you're going to go over the top do it properly otherwise be
> sensible, V12 qualifies as going over the top properly IMHO (although the
> RB211 attached to a Rolls Royce *car* was a *really* good job of going OTT).
Errm, wasn't the RB211 a fan-jet, aka gas turbine engine (with knobs on)
for airliners?
Now that *is* OTT. I've travelled in a gas turbine car (JET 2, made by
Rover back in the 1950s), but the engine was *designed* to be used in a
road vehicle.
Another that I thought was really OTT was the guy that put a 27 litre
Rolls-Royce Merlin AVGAS[1] engine (from a Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire)
into a road vehicle. Can't remember much more than that: from the
earlyish 70s, IIRC.
[1] Of course, at the time that this engine was used operationally, the
epithet AVGAS hadn't been invented (nor NATO, which spawned it).
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
ste...@eircom.net "Steve O'Hara-Smith" writes:
> On 12 Jun 2001 18:38:51 GMT
> dsch...@tumbolia.com (David Scheidt) wrote:
>
>
> DS> : I always thought the Rover V8 was homegrown, but I may be wrong.
> DS>
> DS> Nope. Rover bought the design from Buick in the mid 60's. Buick had used
> DS> the 215 in some "compact cars", like the Skylark, from 1960 to about 1964.
> DS> Buick had problems iwth the design, and stopped using it in cars. A rover
> DS> engineer ran across a boat powered by the engine, and decided that a
> DS> light-weight, moderatly powerful V8 was just what Rover needed. Rover
>
> I'd say that engineer was right, Rover used that engine for a *long*
> time.
Indeed; wasn't it the same engine that was used in the MG B V8 GT?
IIRC, originally some bright spark came up with the concept of taking the
engine from the Rover 3500 (it was *never* called the 3.5) and putting it
into the MG B. At some later stage, Rover/BMC/British-Leyland [perm any
two from three] decided that they didn't like this idea, and cut off
supplies of the engines from the back-street garage that was performing
the "shoe-horning" operation, on the somewhat spurious grounds that the
resultant amalgum was dangerous. Then a few months later they decided to
start manufacture themselves, using the self-same components.
AIUI, they never achieved as good a melding as did the original
entrepreneurs.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
don_ch...@notmail.com "Don Chiasson" writes:
> It's a gas turbine, not a jet. A jet goes by squirting hot gas out
> the end. Here the hot gases spin a turbine that goes trough a more or less
> normal drive train. Still, a motorcycle with 300 horsepower and an estimated
> top speed of 250 mph is scary.. Interesting that it runs on diesel rather
> than avgas (which is essentially kerosene, or paraffin to right pondians).
I know that at my place of work they have created a diesel-engined motor-
cycle, in conjunction with some American company. This is a great
concept for NATO, because *everything* else on the battlefield can run on
diesel, but hitherto motor-cycles have required gasolene.
SFAIK, it is not a gas turbine however.
Furthermore, AVGAS is 110+ octane gasolene. Kerosene/paraffin is AVTUR.
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> I have seen a bicycle with a jet engine, OK it was on TV - (BBC Local
> Heroes series), I would love to know where he got that cute little toy - or
> exactly how to make one. There wasn't much to it - *one* moving part, but
> the devil is in the details.
Back in the 60's some (likely California) outfit named Turbinique (sp?)
made what they called "bolt on horsepower" - add their turbine powered
supercharger to my dad's 61 Mercury Monarch and watch those 390 cubic
inches (V8) pump out circa 1400 horse power. Add the turbine to the
rear differential, and it's like pushing the nitrous button on my
bro-in-law's cock wagon. They built a go cart with either two or four
of the screamers, and it left a multi-enginged dragster in the smoke.
(Top speed limited by take-off.)
Utterly pointless, yet interesting technology.
And then there was the guy who made something resembling a car with a
V12 Merlin engine.
da...@sourplum.org.uk
> Another that I thought was really OTT was the guy that put a 27 litre
> Rolls-Royce Merlin AVGAS[1] engine (from a Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire)
> into a road vehicle. Can't remember much more than that: from the
> earlyish 70s, IIRC.
I remeber that - and IIRC he was taken to court by RR Cars for trademark
infringement - he had claimed his car was a Rolls royce. Don't remember
the outcome.
Dave
Dave Daniels
<da...@sourplum.org.uk> wrote:
> I remeber that - and IIRC he was taken to court by RR Cars for trademark
> infringement - he had claimed his car was a Rolls royce. Don't remember
> the outcome.
Didn't he have a Rolls Royce grill on the front of it? I seem to
recall that the car was really a Ford Capri. I think the car was
destroyed in a fire.
Dave Daniels
Steve O'Hara-Smith
b...@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
BK> IIRC, originally some bright spark came up with the concept of taking the
BK> engine from the Rover 3500 (it was *never* called the 3.5) and putting it
I do recall hearing it referred to as a 'three five' (note absence of
point in this) up until the lat 70s body redesign when they were called much
less pleasant things :)
BK> AIUI, they never achieved as good a melding as did the original
BK> entrepreneurs.
I would be surprised if it were otherwise :)
Steve O'Hara-Smith
b...@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
BK> > sensible, V12 qualifies as going over the top properly IMHO (although the
BK> > RB211 attached to a Rolls Royce *car* was a *really* good job of going OTT).
BK>
BK> Errm, wasn't the RB211 a fan-jet, aka gas turbine engine (with knobs on)
BK> for airliners?
That's the one! AIUI some of the optional knobs were removed before
fitting to the top of a modified Corniche (IIRC). Cornering the beast must
have been interesting.
BK> Now that *is* OTT. I've travelled in a gas turbine car (JET 2, made by
BK> Rover back in the 1950s), but the engine was *designed* to be used in a
BK> road vehicle.
That must have been an interesting drive.
BK> Another that I thought was really OTT was the guy that put a 27 litre
BK> Rolls-Royce Merlin AVGAS[1] engine (from a Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire)
BK> into a road vehicle. Can't remember much more than that: from the
BK> earlyish 70s, IIRC.
Was that the one Rolls Royce sued over the use of the double R logo ?
I vaguely recall them suing someone for doing something with RR bits when they
were still stupidly expensive, and the defence being that *all* the parts were
Rolls Royce.
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
> I vaguely recall them suing someone for doing something with RR bits when they
> were still stupidly expensive, and the defence being that *all* the parts were
> Rolls Royce.
Perhaps you're thinking of the aftermarket RR "bonnet" (aka, "hood")
made for the VW Beetle back in the 70's.
Pete Fenelon
> engine from the Rover 3500 (it was *never* called the 3.5) and putting it
True, the "three point five" was a six sylinder wasn't it? :)
> into the MG B. At some later stage, Rover/BMC/British-Leyland [perm any
> two from three] decided that they didn't like this idea, and cut off
> supplies of the engines from the back-street garage that was performing
> the "shoe-horning" operation, on the somewhat spurious grounds that the
> resultant amalgum was dangerous.
This was Ken Costello... he did it to the B roadster and GT.
BMC only ever did it to the BGT. But it wasn't *that* much heavier than the
1800 B series four... and a hell of a lot lighter than the huge heavy straight-
six (note: NOT the same as the Austin-Healey engine!) in the MGC.
> Then a few months later they decided to
> start manufacture themselves, using the self-same components.
Yep. Typical.
>
> AIUI, they never achieved as good a melding as did the original
> entrepreneurs.
>
pete
Ian Stirling
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:24:26 GMT
>"Don Chiasson" <don_ch...@notmail.com> wrote:
>DC> > Some whakos build a motorcycle powered by a jet turbine engine, normally
>DC> > used in helicopters. It's fast.
>DC> It's a gas turbine, not a jet. A jet goes by squirting hot gas out
> I have seen a bicycle with a jet engine, OK it was on TV - (BBC Local
>Heroes series), I would love to know where he got that cute little toy - or
>exactly how to make one. There wasn't much to it - *one* moving part, but
>the devil is in the details.
See http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
Containing: jet go-karts, as well as links to how to make your own jet
engines.
(Pulsejets are probably what you were thinking of, they are a very simple
way to convert fuel to noise, with some thrust as a byproduct.)
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Get off a shot FAST, this upsets him long enough to let you make your
second shot perfect. -- Robert A Heinlein.
chris 'fufas' grace
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:45:14 GMT
> b...@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>
> BK> > sensible, V12 qualifies as going over the top properly IMHO (although the
> BK> > RB211 attached to a Rolls Royce *car* was a *really* good job of going OTT).
> BK>
> BK> Errm, wasn't the RB211 a fan-jet, aka gas turbine engine (with knobs on)
> BK> for airliners?
>
> That's the one! AIUI some of the optional knobs were removed before
> fitting to the top of a modified Corniche (IIRC). Cornering the beast must
> have been interesting.
I find this difficult to visualise. The RB-211s I've seen (as fitted
to the 747 and L-1011) are enormous. They just fit on a standard
airline 88" x 125" Pallet, but are too high to be carried as under
deck cargo on a standard 747 so they are usually carried as a fifth
engine bolted to the wing of a scheduled flight. I can't see how this
could be fitted to a car, even one as big as a Corniche, and if fitted
to the roof surely the thing would be most unstable.
chris 'fufas' grace
>
> In article <uEwV6.101457$Be4.31...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
> don_ch...@notmail.com "Don Chiasson" writes:
>
> > It's a gas turbine, not a jet. A jet goes by squirting hot gas out
> > the end. Here the hot gases spin a turbine that goes trough a more or less
> > normal drive train. Still, a motorcycle with 300 horsepower and an estimated
> > top speed of 250 mph is scary.. Interesting that it runs on diesel rather
> > than avgas (which is essentially kerosene, or paraffin to right pondians).
>
> I know that at my place of work they have created a diesel-engined motor-
> cycle, in conjunction with some American company. This is a great
> concept for NATO, because *everything* else on the battlefield can run on
> diesel, but hitherto motor-cycles have required gasolene.
>
Royal Enfield also have a diesel model. I suppose for the Indian Army.
It was on the web page someone cited yesterday.
(Further research on Royal Enfield shows that the Indian company did
not buy R-E "Lock Stock and Barrel" as someone posted. R-E simply went
bust, largely due to shipping motor cycles which did not work properly
i.e. the Continental. The Indian company now called "Royal Enfield"
was originally the Indian distributors and manufactured under license.
They continued to do so when the UK company went bust, but did not
change their name to Royal Enfield until quite recently. I wonder who
they got the rights from.)
--
For a dining "experience" visit the "Killer Prawn" in Whangarei!
Be served and charged for food *without even ordering it*!
Let the staff treat you with undisguised condescension and contempt!
Experience the total incompetence of the management! Book today!
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Ian Stirling <Inqui...@I.am> wrote:
IS> See http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
Thanks, bookmarked.
IS> (Pulsejets are probably what you were thinking of, they are a very simple
IS> way to convert fuel to noise, with some thrust as a byproduct.)
Nope, it was a minimal jet turbine. The moving part was a shaft with
a plate at the front which had blade like protrusions on the inner surfaces
sort of like a fan with a metal plate stuck to the front but neater, the
other end of the shaft had a set of simple fan blades. There was a solid
looking case around it a fuel feed (liquid under gravity I think, although I
suppose I jet turbine sucks on it's fuel feed when running) and a glow plug.
Now something tells me that there are some critical bits to get right
like the pitches of the two fans and the overall size and shape of the
combustion area. There may be some critical materials too.
I'm pretty sure I could get a pulse jet going - thermonuclear variety
for solar system touring would be fun but rather harder :).