Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
PDP-11 OSes
500 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Gunshannon
Oct 8, 2012, 7:55:51 AM10/8/12
to
I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
them available to hobbyists?
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
them available to hobbyists?
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Tim
Oct 8, 2012, 8:24:00 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 7:55:53 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making them available to hobbyists?
I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this also.
> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making them available to hobbyists?
Johnny Billquist
Oct 11, 2012, 5:14:46 PM10/11/12
to
On 2012-10-08 13:55, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
> the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
> them available to hobbyists?
I thought we'd covered this a number of times now.
> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
> the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
> them available to hobbyists?
Anyway, the PDP-11 OSes have been acquired by XX2247 LLC.
As far as making anything available for hobbyists, that hangs on getting
HP to release things.
Johnny
Scott Dorsey
Oct 11, 2012, 5:22:49 PM10/11/12
to
call? I have a couple of folks here who would gladly pay for RT-11 support.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
dsn...@blueshiftinc.com
Oct 11, 2012, 6:25:00 PM10/11/12
to
if they (XX2247 LLC) have acquired it, why is HP involved?
does HP own XX2247 LLC?
what "things" would HP be releasing?
Don North
Oct 11, 2012, 6:35:09 PM10/11/12
to
My understanding is XX2247 LLC obtained (from Mentec-US) what Mentec-US
had previously obtained, which was the right to distribute the s/w and
documentation, not outright ownership of the s/w. Someone correct me if
this is not correct.
Al Kossow
Oct 11, 2012, 7:02:31 PM10/11/12
to
On 10/11/12 3:35 PM, Don North wrote:
> My understanding is XX2247 LLC obtained (from Mentec-US) what Mentec-US had previously obtained, which was the right to distribute the s/w and documentation, not outright ownership of the s/w. Someone
> correct me if this is not correct.
>
That is my understanding as well. The exact status of PDP-11 software has been murky.
> My understanding is XX2247 LLC obtained (from Mentec-US) what Mentec-US had previously obtained, which was the right to distribute the s/w and documentation, not outright ownership of the s/w. Someone
> correct me if this is not correct.
>
Unfortunately with all that is going on with HP right now, it is very difficult to
get anyone inside of HP to give any cycles to what the legal situation is for software
developed for a long dead aquired product line.
Johnny Billquist
Oct 12, 2012, 9:23:28 AM10/12/12
to
On 2012-10-12 00:25, dsn...@blueshiftinc.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:14:45 PM UTC-7, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2012-10-08 13:55, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
>>
>>> the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
>>
>>> them available to hobbyists?
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought we'd covered this a number of times now.
>>
>> Anyway, the PDP-11 OSes have been acquired by XX2247 LLC.
>>
>> As far as making anything available for hobbyists, that hangs on getting
>>
>> HP to release things.
>>
>>
>>
>> Johnny
>
> what do you mean by "acquired by XX2247 LLC"?
XX2247 now owns the rights to the PDP-11 software products, that was
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:14:45 PM UTC-7, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2012-10-08 13:55, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
>>
>>> the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
>>
>>> them available to hobbyists?
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought we'd covered this a number of times now.
>>
>> Anyway, the PDP-11 OSes have been acquired by XX2247 LLC.
>>
>> As far as making anything available for hobbyists, that hangs on getting
>>
>> HP to release things.
>>
>>
>>
>> Johnny
>
> what do you mean by "acquired by XX2247 LLC"?
previously owned by Mentec Inc.
> if they (XX2247 LLC) have acquired it, why is HP involved?
clauses in agreement, which gave DEC control of how the "technology"
could be redistributed. In short - DEC sold it, but retained control of
the spreading.
> does HP own XX2247 LLC?
> what "things" would HP be releasing?
better, release the right to continue to control it.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist
Oct 12, 2012, 9:24:37 AM10/12/12
to
But I think they could also contact HP. It's just a question of being
lucky enough to find someone at HP who would understand what they say,
and take them seriously. As far as I understand, HP can still sell new
licenses.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist
Oct 12, 2012, 9:27:08 AM10/12/12
to
DEC retained the control of the spreading of the technology. In short,
Mentec did not own the right to pass the
knowledge/information/technology on to a third party. But they owned the
software as such. They did the development, they produced new versions,
they sold it, with DEC/COMPAQ/HP being a reseller, and so on.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist
Oct 12, 2012, 10:50:13 AM10/12/12
to
On 2012-10-12 15:24, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2012-10-11 23:22, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-08 13:55, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
>>>> the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
>>>> them available to hobbyists?
>>>
>>> I thought we'd covered this a number of times now.
>>> Anyway, the PDP-11 OSes have been acquired by XX2247 LLC.
>>> As far as making anything available for hobbyists, that hangs on getting
>>> HP to release things.
>>
>> Who is XX2247 LLC? Do they have a website? A telephone number? Who
>> do I
>> call? I have a couple of folks here who would gladly pay for RT-11
>> support.
>> --scott
>
> Contact me offline, and I'll happily try helping you with this.
Offline is probably the wrong word... Email me.
> On 2012-10-11 23:22, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-08 13:55, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> I know this is probably flogging dead horse, but what ever happened to
>>>> the last effort to acquire the PDP-11 OSes with an eye towards making
>>>> them available to hobbyists?
>>>
>>> I thought we'd covered this a number of times now.
>>> Anyway, the PDP-11 OSes have been acquired by XX2247 LLC.
>>> As far as making anything available for hobbyists, that hangs on getting
>>> HP to release things.
>>
>> Who is XX2247 LLC? Do they have a website? A telephone number? Who
>> do I
>> call? I have a couple of folks here who would gladly pay for RT-11
>> support.
>> --scott
>
> Contact me offline, and I'll happily try helping you with this.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist
Oct 12, 2012, 10:55:32 AM10/12/12
to
know for which intentions they acquired the software.
Johnny (just trying to provide as much information as I can, while not
stepping on toes, spreading anything confidential, project opinions, or
give false hopes...)
glen herrmannsfeldt
Oct 12, 2012, 1:01:31 PM10/12/12
to
Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
(snip)
right to resell something, someone can buy the whole company and
get some IP. Maybe even later sell back other parts, keeping
only the part that they couldn't otherwise buy.
This question comes up in the case of mailing lists, or other
personal information which a company promissed not to sell.
-- glen
(snip)
> As far as I understand it, the "ownership" did indeed transfer. However,
> DEC retained the control of the spreading of the technology. In short,
> Mentec did not own the right to pass the
> knowledge/information/technology on to a third party. But they owned the
> software as such. They did the development, they produced new versions,
> they sold it, with DEC/COMPAQ/HP being a reseller, and so on.
As well as I understand things, (and IANAL), even without the
> DEC retained the control of the spreading of the technology. In short,
> Mentec did not own the right to pass the
> knowledge/information/technology on to a third party. But they owned the
> software as such. They did the development, they produced new versions,
> they sold it, with DEC/COMPAQ/HP being a reseller, and so on.
right to resell something, someone can buy the whole company and
get some IP. Maybe even later sell back other parts, keeping
only the part that they couldn't otherwise buy.
This question comes up in the case of mailing lists, or other
personal information which a company promissed not to sell.
-- glen
Johnny Billquist
Oct 12, 2012, 6:48:20 PM10/12/12
to
On 2012-10-12 19:01, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> As far as I understand it, the "ownership" did indeed transfer. However,
>> DEC retained the control of the spreading of the technology. In short,
>> Mentec did not own the right to pass the
>> knowledge/information/technology on to a third party. But they owned the
>> software as such. They did the development, they produced new versions,
>> they sold it, with DEC/COMPAQ/HP being a reseller, and so on.
>
> As well as I understand things, (and IANAL), even without the
> right to resell something, someone can buy the whole company and
> get some IP. Maybe even later sell back other parts, keeping
> only the part that they couldn't otherwise buy.
I would assume that is correct. But that don't mean you cancel the
> Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> As far as I understand it, the "ownership" did indeed transfer. However,
>> DEC retained the control of the spreading of the technology. In short,
>> Mentec did not own the right to pass the
>> knowledge/information/technology on to a third party. But they owned the
>> software as such. They did the development, they produced new versions,
>> they sold it, with DEC/COMPAQ/HP being a reseller, and so on.
>
> As well as I understand things, (and IANAL), even without the
> right to resell something, someone can buy the whole company and
> get some IP. Maybe even later sell back other parts, keeping
> only the part that they couldn't otherwise buy.
conditions and agreements that put DEC in control. Those conditions
would continue with the new owner. Which is what has happened.
> This question comes up in the case of mailing lists, or other
> personal information which a company promissed not to sell.
agreement just because one side changes. A new agreement needs to be
reached before that can be done.
If that was not the case, any agreement would be pretty much useless.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
glen herrmannsfeldt
Oct 12, 2012, 7:37:27 PM10/12/12
to
Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> wrote:
(snip on law and selling IP)
>> This question comes up in the case of mailing lists, or other
>> personal information which a company promissed not to sell.
> Data given under one agreement cannot be used in conflict with that
> agreement just because one side changes. A new agreement needs to be
> reached before that can be done.
> If that was not the case, any agreement would be pretty much useless.
Yes, but sometimes what people believe is different from what
the law says.
A company might not even be sold, but just change name.
People might believe that their information now belongs to
a different company.
Or the board of directors could be replaced one by one, until
all the original members are gone. Is it now a different company?
(Reference to George Washington's axe story.)
-- glen
(snip on law and selling IP)
>> This question comes up in the case of mailing lists, or other
>> personal information which a company promissed not to sell.
> Data given under one agreement cannot be used in conflict with that
> agreement just because one side changes. A new agreement needs to be
> reached before that can be done.
> If that was not the case, any agreement would be pretty much useless.
the law says.
A company might not even be sold, but just change name.
People might believe that their information now belongs to
a different company.
Or the board of directors could be replaced one by one, until
all the original members are gone. Is it now a different company?
(Reference to George Washington's axe story.)
-- glen
shrb...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2012, 1:51:32 PM10/16/12
to
Ahh the old question of ownership of the PDP-11 OS's strikes again!
Mentec, when it acquired the rights to the PDP-11 software (there were some that it didn't get) acquired what might be best described as "limited rights".
As I understand it, and remember that where the following says DEC, for example, DEC's rights are passed by succession to Compaq and then to HP, the rights went like this ...
DEC maintained the original and primary IP rights to the software in every version produced.
Mentec acquired a) the right to sell and distribute the software either in its original form or in modified form, b) the right to modify and upgrade the software and c) royalties to DEC were payable for every copy distributed by Mentec and d) to maintain the copyright for the products.
As I understood it also, the royalty was a fixed amount per copy, not a percentage.
This is where the problems arise for the hobbyist ...
Mentec still had to pay for every copy of the software distributed, even if they gave it away for free.
Now, with the eventual passing of rights to DEC's successors, the mechanism for paying the royalties remained, but management responsibility to get the royalty waived for hobbyist licenses was not passed in the chain of command. Nobody in HP seemed willing to make the decisions, after it had gone to lawyers while under Compaq. So, the idea again fell into oblivion.
I believe I know who the company might be that now owns Mentec's rights to the software, but on the other hand there probably still remains no-one at HP willing to take on the managerial decision and cost to change the license agreement with Mentec (and its successors) and the people who now acquired Mentec's rights probably can't afford the legal costs of the change either. Nothing like this is done with a simple signature. One can expect 10s of thousands of dollars of corporate legal bills!
Because the cost to do the "right thing" and release the rights is too high to be worth doing, most archaic software ends up as abandoned. The rights owners sometimes decide to bring product names out of abandonment so they rarely actually waive their rights. The unique thing about the PDP-11 software is that it won't say die even amongst hobbyists.
Al Kossow
Oct 16, 2012, 2:03:38 PM10/16/12
to
On 10/16/12 10:51 AM, shrb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> there probably still remains no-one at HP willing to take on the managerial decision and cost to change the license agreement with Mentec
On the other hand, the Computer History Museum HAS executed agreements with HP for the redistribution of the software for non-commercial
>
> there probably still remains no-one at HP willing to take on the managerial decision and cost to change the license agreement with Mentec
use for two product lines they produced (HP1000 and 68K-based HP9000) and one that they did not (Apollo).
This is probably the best approach for getting the DEC/Compaq product lines which they consider of no commercial value released. Given
my experience with HP and other companies, it is pretty unlikely that a any sort of agreement for anything other than non-commerical
use could be negotiated.
I made inquiries last year about this, and was told it would be difficult to get this started, given what was going on inside HP at the
time and because they are products that were from aquistions. If things begin settling out inside the company, I will try again. The problem
with waiting is people who came from Compaq that are familiar with the situation have either left, or are retiring.
shrb...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2012, 2:17:11 PM10/16/12
to
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:03:40 PM UTC-4, Al Kossow wrote:
Because Mentec (and its successors) have limited rights, this would have to be done through them. It has been a constant nightmare that people have been going through since the time Digital decided to retire PDP-11s ... DEC didn't want to release what they considered a cash cow, then they negotiated an agreement with Bob Supnik for older versions at the time Mentec bought the ongoing limited rights. Mentec were in negotiation with Digital, Compaq and HP regarding hobbyist licenses. Nobody was willing to put their name to it.
The last contact I had with my old Mentec colleagues a few years ago suggested they were still trying to get this resolved, but that the issues didn't change ... who in HP, cost to HP and the colleague involved. The big question to HP was "What's in it for us?"
The last contact I had with my old Mentec colleagues a few years ago suggested they were still trying to get this resolved, but that the issues didn't change ... who in HP, cost to HP and the colleague involved. The big question to HP was "What's in it for us?"
glen herrmannsfeldt
Oct 16, 2012, 2:22:08 PM10/16/12
to
Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:
(snip)
> On the other hand, the Computer History Museum HAS executed
> agreements with HP for the redistribution of the software
> for non-commercial
> use for two product lines they produced (HP1000 and
> 68K-based HP9000) and one that they did not (Apollo).
I wonder if there was any thought about getting congress
interested in computer history and abandonware.
Given that they don't seem interested in doing anything
that actually has any politics in it, it might be possible.
I don't know copyright law well enough to say what is now,
and what could be, possible. It should at least allow for
escrow copies of software until any agreements can be reached.
Maybe some definition of abandonware, and an allowance
for non-commercial use once that definition has been satisfied.
> This is probably the best approach for getting the DEC/Compaq
> product lines which they consider of no commercial
> value released. Given my experience with HP and other companies,
> it is pretty unlikely that a any sort of agreement for anything
> other than non-commerical use could be negotiated.
I believe non-commercial is fine for most readers of this group.
One complication might be for-profit museums, where it might
be hard to claim non-commercial use. For us home users who want
to remember what it was like to run Fortran IV on a PDP-11,
non-commercial is fine.
-- glen
(snip)
> On the other hand, the Computer History Museum HAS executed
> agreements with HP for the redistribution of the software
> for non-commercial
> use for two product lines they produced (HP1000 and
> 68K-based HP9000) and one that they did not (Apollo).
interested in computer history and abandonware.
Given that they don't seem interested in doing anything
that actually has any politics in it, it might be possible.
I don't know copyright law well enough to say what is now,
and what could be, possible. It should at least allow for
escrow copies of software until any agreements can be reached.
Maybe some definition of abandonware, and an allowance
for non-commercial use once that definition has been satisfied.
> This is probably the best approach for getting the DEC/Compaq
> product lines which they consider of no commercial
> value released. Given my experience with HP and other companies,
> it is pretty unlikely that a any sort of agreement for anything
> other than non-commerical use could be negotiated.
One complication might be for-profit museums, where it might
be hard to claim non-commercial use. For us home users who want
to remember what it was like to run Fortran IV on a PDP-11,
non-commercial is fine.
-- glen
Johnny Billquist
Oct 16, 2012, 2:46:22 PM10/16/12
to
On 2012-10-16 20:22, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> On the other hand, the Computer History Museum HAS executed
>> agreements with HP for the redistribution of the software
>> for non-commercial
>> use for two product lines they produced (HP1000 and
>> 68K-based HP9000) and one that they did not (Apollo).
>
> I wonder if there was any thought about getting congress
> interested in computer history and abandonware.
>
> Given that they don't seem interested in doing anything
> that actually has any politics in it, it might be possible.
>
> I don't know copyright law well enough to say what is now,
> and what could be, possible. It should at least allow for
> escrow copies of software until any agreements can be reached.
That would be nice.
> Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> On the other hand, the Computer History Museum HAS executed
>> agreements with HP for the redistribution of the software
>> for non-commercial
>> use for two product lines they produced (HP1000 and
>> 68K-based HP9000) and one that they did not (Apollo).
>
> I wonder if there was any thought about getting congress
> interested in computer history and abandonware.
>
> Given that they don't seem interested in doing anything
> that actually has any politics in it, it might be possible.
>
> I don't know copyright law well enough to say what is now,
> and what could be, possible. It should at least allow for
> escrow copies of software until any agreements can be reached.
> Maybe some definition of abandonware, and an allowance
> for non-commercial use once that definition has been satisfied.
abandonment. The computer was just too successful for that.
>> This is probably the best approach for getting the DEC/Compaq
>> product lines which they consider of no commercial
>> value released. Given my experience with HP and other companies,
>> it is pretty unlikely that a any sort of agreement for anything
>> other than non-commerical use could be negotiated.
>
> I believe non-commercial is fine for most readers of this group.
still running then? We can't really produce a new version with fixes and
improvements, and then prevent commercial sites from using it. And how
about help and support to commercial customers, where you will actually
gain a big advantage from the knowledge you might gather from having
access to the whole system source tree?
Will you then not be able to help commercial installations?
> One complication might be for-profit museums, where it might
> be hard to claim non-commercial use. For us home users who want
> to remember what it was like to run Fortran IV on a PDP-11,
> non-commercial is fine.
installations running this stuff.
Or at least RSX. I would be very happy to support and help commercial
RSX installations (in fact, I still do), and improve their life by
releasing a new version of RSX. But at the moment I can't see how to do
this.
The best of worlds would be to get HP to just release their hold. I
doubt it makes them any money anymore, and if they released things,
maybe a few more years of life might be gotten out, to the benefit of
everyone else. For HP it would only be a goodwill gesture, but hopefully
one that at least some positive visibility.
shrb...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2012, 3:38:36 PM10/16/12
to
For something that could have been so simple, this all became so complicated as Digital went and
Al Kossow
Oct 16, 2012, 4:20:46 PM10/16/12
to
On 10/16/12 11:17 AM, shrb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Because Mentec (and its successors) have limited rights, this would have to be done through them.
Since I have never seen the original agreement, what exactly does this mean? Did Mentec get exclusive
> Because Mentec (and its successors) have limited rights, this would have to be done through them.
rights for distribution of the software they licensed, or did DEC/Compaq retain that?
Johnny Billquist
Oct 16, 2012, 5:15:33 PM10/16/12
to
the PDP-11 OSes.
Some of the manuals for RSX even had the Compaq logo on them, if I
remember right. Some others had Mentec as well, so looking at that
detail is confusing...
shrb...@gmail.com
Oct 20, 2012, 11:44:29 AM10/20/12
to
> I honestly don't know, but I do know that Compaq did distribute (sell)
>
> the PDP-11 OSes.
I believe that some DEC manuals were sold and had supplementary Compaq covers ... but these were rare and the manual inside was still DEC.
Johnny Billquist
Oct 20, 2012, 4:45:23 PM10/20/12
to
On 2012-10-20 17:44, shrb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I honestly don't know, but I do know that Compaq did distribute (sell)
>>
>> the PDP-11 OSes.
>
> I understood that they sold them only for a short period until Mentec acquired rights. Then all orders were passed to Mentec.
Mentec acquired the rights long before Compaq took over DEC. You should
>
>> I honestly don't know, but I do know that Compaq did distribute (sell)
>>
>> the PDP-11 OSes.
>
> I understood that they sold them only for a short period until Mentec acquired rights. Then all orders were passed to Mentec.
know that, Stuart... :-)
Or did you mean something else that I'm unaware of?
> I believe that some DEC manuals were sold and had supplementary Compaq covers ... but these were rare and the manual inside was still DEC.
DEC did it, yes. The only change is that the binders finally became
grey/brown. Funnily enough with the burgundy digital logo on them.
But the specific 4.6 supplemental manuals that I've seen have been, in
some cases, with the Compaq logo, and in some cases with the Mentec logo
on them.
shrb...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2012, 2:39:23 PM10/21/12
to
Brain freeze ... age creep ... call it what you will :-)
I remember answering "Are we selling PDP stuff any more?" several times even when doing VMS support.
I remember answering "Are we selling PDP stuff any more?" several times even when doing VMS support.
Rob Brown
Oct 22, 2012, 11:44:25 AM10/22/12
to
On 2012-10-20, shrb...@gmail.com <shrb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that some DEC manuals were sold and had supplementary Compaq
> covers ... but these were rare and the manual inside was still DEC.
I have a set that were purchases with M+ V4.6. They have Compaq
>
> I believe that some DEC manuals were sold and had supplementary Compaq
> covers ... but these were rare and the manual inside was still DEC.
covers and came with white binders, but inside they are photocopies of
the M+ V4.3 manual set. The two colour printing used in the original
printing is all collapsed to black.
AND
The PDP-11 Programming Card that came with the set was photocopy of
the card we all know and love, all colours collapsed to black, each
face trimmed to size, and the stack stapled in the upper left hand
corner. :-( I don't remember whether or not the copy was printed
two-sided.
--
Rob Brown mylas...@gmcl.com
Johnny Billquist
Oct 22, 2012, 1:05:27 PM10/22/12
to
It's really annoying that all the colors disappeared, as they implied
some important information... Not only the red for user input, but there
was also sometimes reddish text or background for 11M specific things,
and greyish background for M+ specific things, not to mention the blue
text for Multiprocessor systems only...
And yes, the reference cards are also photocopies. :-(
glen herrmannsfeldt
Oct 22, 2012, 2:54:22 PM10/22/12
to
Rob Brown <br...@libra.gmcl.internal> wrote:
> On 2012-10-20, shrb...@gmail.com <shrb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that some DEC manuals were sold and had supplementary Compaq
>> covers ... but these were rare and the manual inside was still DEC.
> I have a set that were purchases with M+ V4.6. They have Compaq
> covers and came with white binders, but inside they are photocopies of
> the M+ V4.3 manual set. The two colour printing used in the original
> printing is all collapsed to black.
(snip)
> On 2012-10-20, shrb...@gmail.com <shrb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that some DEC manuals were sold and had supplementary Compaq
>> covers ... but these were rare and the manual inside was still DEC.
> I have a set that were purchases with M+ V4.6. They have Compaq
> covers and came with white binders, but inside they are photocopies of
> the M+ V4.3 manual set. The two colour printing used in the original
> printing is all collapsed to black.
> The PDP-11 Programming Card that came with the set was photocopy of
> the card we all know and love, all colours collapsed to black, each
> face trimmed to size, and the stack stapled in the upper left hand
> corner. :-( I don't remember whether or not the copy was printed
> two-sided.
preserve the colors. They are not saving all the bits.
IBM uses shading to indicate extensions to languages, at least Fortran.
The shading usually survives scanning, though sometimes it almost
makes the underlying text unreadable.
There is no good storage form for two color, in addition to the
white background, image data.
-- glen
Johnny Billquist
Oct 22, 2012, 3:02:00 PM10/22/12
to
manuals. Even better if we OCRed them, so that we could do new work on
them, as well as produce proper PDFs instead of PDFs which are just images.
Charles Richmond
Oct 22, 2012, 4:25:48 PM10/22/12
to
"Johnny Billquist" <b...@softjar.se> wrote in message
news:k64578$kn2$1...@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE...
Great idea, Johnny!!! I extimate that it will take about 3 million man hours
to re-scan all the manuals and add the ASCII text to them. Let's petition
the US National Science Foundation for a *grant* to finance it!!!
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
news:k64578$kn2$1...@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE...
to re-scan all the manuals and add the ASCII text to them. Let's petition
the US National Science Foundation for a *grant* to finance it!!!
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Johnny Billquist
Oct 22, 2012, 4:58:22 PM10/22/12
to
and depending on the software, the quality might differ, but it would
still be pretty usable.
However, there is no helping that information have been lost as a result
of scanning in just black and white.
I have paper copies with the colors intact, so for me personally, I'll
survive. But it's a shame for all the people who might read these
manuals later, and will be missing some important information.
But I'm not claiming it would be easy. Just expressing a wish. And no,
I'll likely not do it myself. Too busy with other stuff... :-(
Richard
Oct 22, 2012, 5:59:15 PM10/22/12
to
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> spake the secret code
<k644ou$vcm$1...@speranza.aioe.org> thusly:
>Note that the scanned manuals I have seen on bitsavers also don't
>preserve the colors. They are not saving all the bits.
I am working on this. I have a plan that I executed recently and it
worked out well. Here is an example from an SGI manual:
<http://user.xmission.com/~legalize/tmp/vintage/sgi/scan-quantizing-experiment.pdf>
I'm just waiting for this scan to hit BitSavers before I publish my
blog post about it.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> spake the secret code
<k644ou$vcm$1...@speranza.aioe.org> thusly:
>Note that the scanned manuals I have seen on bitsavers also don't
>preserve the colors. They are not saving all the bits.
worked out well. Here is an example from an SGI manual:
<http://user.xmission.com/~legalize/tmp/vintage/sgi/scan-quantizing-experiment.pdf>
I'm just waiting for this scan to hit BitSavers before I publish my
blog post about it.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
Paul Robinson <paul@paul-robinson.us>
Jul 9, 2013, 1:14:15 PM7/9/13
to
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:51:32 PM UTC-4, shrb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mentec still had to pay for every copy of the software distributed, even if they gave it away for free.
>
> Now, with the eventual passing of rights to DEC's successors, the mechanism for paying the royalties remained, but management responsibility to get the royalty waived for hobbyist licenses was not passed in the chain of command. Nobody in HP seemed willing to make the decisions, after it had gone to lawyers while under Compaq. So, the idea again fell into oblivion.
Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License, which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital for personal use, subject to the provisions that Mentec does not offer you support, will not find the software, you have to find it yourself, and you have to figure out how to find hardware or emulation to run it..
> Mentec still had to pay for every copy of the software distributed, even if they gave it away for free.
>
> Now, with the eventual passing of rights to DEC's successors, the mechanism for paying the royalties remained, but management responsibility to get the royalty waived for hobbyist licenses was not passed in the chain of command. Nobody in HP seemed willing to make the decisions, after it had gone to lawyers while under Compaq. So, the idea again fell into oblivion.
Johnny Billquist
Jul 9, 2013, 1:46:40 PM7/9/13
to
specific simulator product made by DEC.
I'm sure someone here can dig up a link for it.
It's even a little unclear if that license is at all usable today, since
the simulator it referred to was simh, and simh is no longer made by
DEC, and have not been for many years.
And it only covered software up to specific versions, which were pretty old.
Johnny
Al Kossow
Jul 9, 2013, 2:29:06 PM7/9/13
to
On 7/9/13 10:14 AM, Paul Robinson <pa...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
> Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License, which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital for personal use
There was a draft that appeared on a well-known web site.
> Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License, which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital for personal use
This was never blessed by the current rights holders.
It may be time to try another run at this with HP, but their lawyers have had little interest
in dealing with releasing legacy Compaq software in the past.
Bill Gunshannon
Jul 9, 2013, 3:02:45 PM7/9/13
to
In article <d99cdb14-f469-4efa...@googlegroups.com>,
Read that license again. People have often trotted it out as a "Hobbyist
License" when, in fact, it covers running certain old versions but only
on one particular emulator that has not existed for more than a decade.
"EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation that
emulate s the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11 programs
and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems."
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that the term EMULATOR is clearly defined in the license. Being
as DEC ceased to exist in 1998 even if there was such an EMULATOR it
also ceased to meet the requirements of the License at that time. There
has never been (and likely never will be) any kind of blanket Hobbyist
Program for the PDP-11.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
License" when, in fact, it covers running certain old versions but only
on one particular emulator that has not existed for more than a decade.
"EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation that
emulate s the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11 programs
and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems."
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that the term EMULATOR is clearly defined in the license. Being
as DEC ceased to exist in 1998 even if there was such an EMULATOR it
also ceased to meet the requirements of the License at that time. There
has never been (and likely never will be) any kind of blanket Hobbyist
Program for the PDP-11.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
glen herrmannsfeldt
Jul 9, 2013, 3:19:49 PM7/9/13
to
Bill Gunshannon <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
> In article <d99cdb14-f469-4efa...@googlegroups.com>,
(snip)
>> Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and
>> probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License,
>> which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital
>> for personal use, subject to the provisions that Mentec does
>> not offer you support, will not find the software, you have
>> to find it yourself, and you have to figure out how to find
>> hardware or emulation to run it..
> Read that license again. People have often trotted it out
> as a "Hobbyist License" when, in fact, it covers running certain
> old versions but only on one particular emulator that has not
> existed for more than a decade.
You mean no copies of the software exist? How hard have you looked?
> "EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment
> Corporation that emulate s the operation of a PDP-11 processor
> and allows PDP-11 programs and operating systems to run on
> non-PDP-11 systems."
As usual, IANAL, but as well as I understand the law, when a company
is bought, unless something specific is done, its IP goes along
with the sale. That is, even though the words say "Digital
Equipment Corporation" the current owner is what counts.
That said, as far as I know, you would still have to satisfy
any other requirement of the license.
(snip)
> Note that the term EMULATOR is clearly defined in the license. Being
> as DEC ceased to exist in 1998 even if there was such an EMULATOR it
> also ceased to meet the requirements of the License at that time.
> There has never been (and likely never will be) any kind of
> blanket Hobbyist Program for the PDP-11.
Did all other DEC licenses also cease to exist at that time?
-- glen
> In article <d99cdb14-f469-4efa...@googlegroups.com>,
(snip)
>> Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and
>> probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License,
>> which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital
>> for personal use, subject to the provisions that Mentec does
>> not offer you support, will not find the software, you have
>> to find it yourself, and you have to figure out how to find
>> hardware or emulation to run it..
> Read that license again. People have often trotted it out
> as a "Hobbyist License" when, in fact, it covers running certain
> old versions but only on one particular emulator that has not
> existed for more than a decade.
> "EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment
> Corporation that emulate s the operation of a PDP-11 processor
> and allows PDP-11 programs and operating systems to run on
> non-PDP-11 systems."
is bought, unless something specific is done, its IP goes along
with the sale. That is, even though the words say "Digital
Equipment Corporation" the current owner is what counts.
That said, as far as I know, you would still have to satisfy
any other requirement of the license.
(snip)
> Note that the term EMULATOR is clearly defined in the license. Being
> as DEC ceased to exist in 1998 even if there was such an EMULATOR it
> also ceased to meet the requirements of the License at that time.
> There has never been (and likely never will be) any kind of
> blanket Hobbyist Program for the PDP-11.
-- glen
Bill Gunshannon
Jul 9, 2013, 9:11:59 PM7/9/13
to
In article <krhnok$jkt$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
this license applies no longer exists. Read the next paragraph.
Then tell me what EMULATOR meets that description.
>
>> "EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment
>> Corporation that emulate s the operation of a PDP-11 processor
>> and allows PDP-11 programs and operating systems to run on
>> non-PDP-11 systems."
>
> As usual, IANAL, but as well as I understand the law, when a company
> is bought, unless something specific is done, its IP goes along
> with the sale. That is, even though the words say "Digital
> Equipment Corporation" the current owner is what counts.
OK. And what HP EMULATOR fits the description? Or did you mean
MENTEC? OK, what EMULATOR did MENTEC ever distribute?
This "license" is nothing but a piece of trivia that dates back to
when Bob Supnik actually worked for DEC and wrote the original SIMH.
>
> That said, as far as I know, you would still have to satisfy
> any other requirement of the license.
>
> (snip)
>
>> Note that the term EMULATOR is clearly defined in the license. Being
>> as DEC ceased to exist in 1998 even if there was such an EMULATOR it
>> also ceased to meet the requirements of the License at that time.
>> There has never been (and likely never will be) any kind of
>> blanket Hobbyist Program for the PDP-11.
>
> Did all other DEC licenses also cease to exist at that time?
No existing licenses stopped because of the demise of DEC but the
conditions needed for this license to be valid ceased to exist.
Note, the neither MENTEC nor HP ever provided an updated verrsion
that corrected this and it was not because they somehow didn't
know there were other emulators because they licensed copies of
PDP-11 sotware to run in them commercially all the time. It should
be rather obvious to anyone that the original license existed
because of Bob Supnik and when he left the game there was no
interest in extending it.
The license may still be valid, but only if you are running that
version of SIMH that Bob Supnik wrote when he worked for DEC. When
he left DEC he somehow became the owner of the SIMH code and it
continued to develop. But, at that point it stopped meeting the
requirements of the above mentioned license.
glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> In article <d99cdb14-f469-4efa...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> (snip)
>
>>> Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and
>>> probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License,
>>> which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital
>>> for personal use, subject to the provisions that Mentec does
>>> not offer you support, will not find the software, you have
>>> to find it yourself, and you have to figure out how to find
>>> hardware or emulation to run it..
>
>> Read that license again. People have often trotted it out
>> as a "Hobbyist License" when, in fact, it covers running certain
>> old versions but only on one particular emulator that has not
>> existed for more than a decade.
>
> You mean no copies of the software exist? How hard have you looked?
No, the EMULATOR specifically spelled out as the only one for which
> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> In article <d99cdb14-f469-4efa...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> (snip)
>
>>> Well, it must have been revived, because I have seen, and
>>> probably still have a copy of, the Mentec Hobbyist License,
>>> which allowed you to use the software Mentec got from digital
>>> for personal use, subject to the provisions that Mentec does
>>> not offer you support, will not find the software, you have
>>> to find it yourself, and you have to figure out how to find
>>> hardware or emulation to run it..
>
>> Read that license again. People have often trotted it out
>> as a "Hobbyist License" when, in fact, it covers running certain
>> old versions but only on one particular emulator that has not
>> existed for more than a decade.
>
> You mean no copies of the software exist? How hard have you looked?
this license applies no longer exists. Read the next paragraph.
Then tell me what EMULATOR meets that description.
>
>> "EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment
>> Corporation that emulate s the operation of a PDP-11 processor
>> and allows PDP-11 programs and operating systems to run on
>> non-PDP-11 systems."
>
> As usual, IANAL, but as well as I understand the law, when a company
> is bought, unless something specific is done, its IP goes along
> with the sale. That is, even though the words say "Digital
> Equipment Corporation" the current owner is what counts.
MENTEC? OK, what EMULATOR did MENTEC ever distribute?
This "license" is nothing but a piece of trivia that dates back to
when Bob Supnik actually worked for DEC and wrote the original SIMH.
>
> That said, as far as I know, you would still have to satisfy
> any other requirement of the license.
>
> (snip)
>
>> Note that the term EMULATOR is clearly defined in the license. Being
>> as DEC ceased to exist in 1998 even if there was such an EMULATOR it
>> also ceased to meet the requirements of the License at that time.
>> There has never been (and likely never will be) any kind of
>> blanket Hobbyist Program for the PDP-11.
>
> Did all other DEC licenses also cease to exist at that time?
conditions needed for this license to be valid ceased to exist.
Note, the neither MENTEC nor HP ever provided an updated verrsion
that corrected this and it was not because they somehow didn't
know there were other emulators because they licensed copies of
PDP-11 sotware to run in them commercially all the time. It should
be rather obvious to anyone that the original license existed
because of Bob Supnik and when he left the game there was no
interest in extending it.
The license may still be valid, but only if you are running that
version of SIMH that Bob Supnik wrote when he worked for DEC. When
he left DEC he somehow became the owner of the SIMH code and it
continued to develop. But, at that point it stopped meeting the
requirements of the above mentioned license.
Johnny Billquist
Jul 10, 2013, 10:48:33 AM7/10/13
to
think. If you manage to get HP to approve anything I would be extremely
happy.
Johnny
Bill Gunshannon
Jul 10, 2013, 11:06:53 AM7/10/13
to
In article <krjs81$no3$1...@iltempo.update.uu.se>,
I think everyone knows where I stand on this. Although I am going
to be getting rid of just about all my PDP-11 (and VAX and Alpha
and Sparc and etc...) stuff in the very near future I still plan
to do some playing and there are good emulators around. But I
would also still like to see source code released under a BSD style
or even (worst case) a GPL style license because I still have this
warped idea of porting RSTS to other architectures. x86 for sure
but lately I have even been thinking about how much fun it would
be to run it on one of my Z80 or 6809 boxes. :-)
But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
But, life goes on. Maybe I really shuols just take up fishing or
something. :-)
to be getting rid of just about all my PDP-11 (and VAX and Alpha
and Sparc and etc...) stuff in the very near future I still plan
to do some playing and there are good emulators around. But I
would also still like to see source code released under a BSD style
or even (worst case) a GPL style license because I still have this
warped idea of porting RSTS to other architectures. x86 for sure
but lately I have even been thinking about how much fun it would
be to run it on one of my Z80 or 6809 boxes. :-)
But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
But, life goes on. Maybe I really shuols just take up fishing or
something. :-)
Charles Richmond
Jul 10, 2013, 3:47:57 PM7/10/13
to
"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:b45bkd...@mid.individual.net...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
on your PDP-11's??? It could be a "work alike" or *not*. Then you can
release it under GPL or copyright it and let HP ask *you* for permission to
use it!
I know... it's *not* that easy, it's easier said than done, it'll take a
long time, it's a very difficult task, etc. But you must admit... it's
easier than getting HP to approve anything!!! :-) And the OS could be
written to be used in two different modes... in one mode, the OS would only
accept "vintage" devices and disks, in mode two the OS might interface with
newer things like USB3, SATA hard disks, etc.
I saw a picture on the 'net of a fat guy jogging in a sweat suit. The
caption read: "You may *not* run very far and you may *not* be excercising
the right way... but you are running circles around the guys just sitting on
the couch!!!"
Back at the university in the "olden days", an OS course was taught to CS
students. I often wondered if *any* of the professors teaching these
courses ever actually *wrote* an OS themselves. I know... Andrew Tanenbaum
wrote the MINIX operating system... but then he's a "big time" professor who
also wrote an OS book. I think it's safe to say... that most who taught OS
courses *never* wrote their own book, much less their own OS.
news:b45bkd...@mid.individual.net...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>
Why don't you guys in the PDP-11 "brain trust"... write your own OS to run
> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>
on your PDP-11's??? It could be a "work alike" or *not*. Then you can
release it under GPL or copyright it and let HP ask *you* for permission to
use it!
I know... it's *not* that easy, it's easier said than done, it'll take a
long time, it's a very difficult task, etc. But you must admit... it's
easier than getting HP to approve anything!!! :-) And the OS could be
written to be used in two different modes... in one mode, the OS would only
accept "vintage" devices and disks, in mode two the OS might interface with
newer things like USB3, SATA hard disks, etc.
I saw a picture on the 'net of a fat guy jogging in a sweat suit. The
caption read: "You may *not* run very far and you may *not* be excercising
the right way... but you are running circles around the guys just sitting on
the couch!!!"
Back at the university in the "olden days", an OS course was taught to CS
students. I often wondered if *any* of the professors teaching these
courses ever actually *wrote* an OS themselves. I know... Andrew Tanenbaum
wrote the MINIX operating system... but then he's a "big time" professor who
also wrote an OS book. I think it's safe to say... that most who taught OS
courses *never* wrote their own book, much less their own OS.
Bill Gunshannon
Jul 10, 2013, 4:55:30 PM7/10/13
to
In article <krkdej$het$1...@dont-email.me>,
it is just another. Some of us spent many moons working with the DEC
OSes and would ike to be able to play with them, too.
>
> I know... it's *not* that easy, it's easier said than done, it'll take a
> long time, it's a very difficult task, etc. But you must admit... it's
> easier than getting HP to approve anything!!! :-) And the OS could be
> written to be used in two different modes... in one mode, the OS would only
> accept "vintage" devices and disks, in mode two the OS might interface with
> newer things like USB3, SATA hard disks, etc.
And you are going to put USB3 and SATA on a PDP-11 how? :-)
>
> I saw a picture on the 'net of a fat guy jogging in a sweat suit. The
> caption read: "You may *not* run very far and you may *not* be excercising
> the right way... but you are running circles around the guys just sitting on
> the couch!!!"
>
> Back at the university in the "olden days", an OS course was taught to CS
> students. I often wondered if *any* of the professors teaching these
> courses ever actually *wrote* an OS themselves.
Of course not. Most of them have never been anything but college
professors. That has always been one of my pet peeves with the
education system. People who staqnd up and say "And this is what
you will see when you get out int he real world" who have never
been "out in the real world".
> I know... Andrew Tanenbaum
> wrote the MINIX operating system... but then he's a "big time" professor who
> also wrote an OS book.
Thus the purpose of the MINIX System. :-)
> I think it's safe to say... that most who taught OS
> courses *never* wrote their own book, much less their own OS.
Or had a real job either.....
"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> "Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> news:b45bkd...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>>
>
> Why don't you guys in the PDP-11 "brain trust"... write your own OS to run
> on your PDP-11's??? It could be a "work alike" or *not*. Then you can
> release it under GPL or copyright it and let HP ask *you* for permission to
> use it!
There are lots of other OSes available. If someone writes their own
> "Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> news:b45bkd...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>>
>
> Why don't you guys in the PDP-11 "brain trust"... write your own OS to run
> on your PDP-11's??? It could be a "work alike" or *not*. Then you can
> release it under GPL or copyright it and let HP ask *you* for permission to
> use it!
it is just another. Some of us spent many moons working with the DEC
OSes and would ike to be able to play with them, too.
>
> I know... it's *not* that easy, it's easier said than done, it'll take a
> long time, it's a very difficult task, etc. But you must admit... it's
> easier than getting HP to approve anything!!! :-) And the OS could be
> written to be used in two different modes... in one mode, the OS would only
> accept "vintage" devices and disks, in mode two the OS might interface with
> newer things like USB3, SATA hard disks, etc.
>
> I saw a picture on the 'net of a fat guy jogging in a sweat suit. The
> caption read: "You may *not* run very far and you may *not* be excercising
> the right way... but you are running circles around the guys just sitting on
> the couch!!!"
>
> Back at the university in the "olden days", an OS course was taught to CS
> students. I often wondered if *any* of the professors teaching these
> courses ever actually *wrote* an OS themselves.
professors. That has always been one of my pet peeves with the
education system. People who staqnd up and say "And this is what
you will see when you get out int he real world" who have never
been "out in the real world".
> I know... Andrew Tanenbaum
> wrote the MINIX operating system... but then he's a "big time" professor who
> also wrote an OS book.
> I think it's safe to say... that most who taught OS
> courses *never* wrote their own book, much less their own OS.
Bill Pechter
Jul 10, 2013, 5:12:57 PM7/10/13
to
In article <b45bkd...@mid.individual.net>,
I'd love to see that and a full RT11 clone (with sources). (Although
I hate x86 assembler compared to PDP11 and Z80/8080).
One thing I never got to play with was IAS. (Big here at local
newspapers for classified and such). Looked neater than RSX11M and M+
which never impressed me. Seemed bulky compared to RT11 and not as
friendly as RSTS/E.
As far as getting rid of the hardware --
Oh no!! I've never had an Alpha and missed the window on cheap ones.
I'm shocked what my VAXstation 3100M38 would cost on Ebay now.
I paid less than $50 for it including shipping when I got it.
I think it was University of Michigan surplus that a student picked up
for $5.00 and unloaded it to me on ebay for $50 or so.
I'm thinking of selling the Sparcs and the VAXstation since
I'm not using them much these days. I'd like to find an Xterminal for
the house since it's diskless and I always have a Linux box up to drive
it.
Let us know what you're getting rid of. I've still got a couple of
Sparcs, including a rare Sparcstation1 or 2 clone... and an ELC...
Both have Sparc-Up upgrades in them and at least 48mb. I'd love to have
64 in the ELC... but the parity memory is hard to find these days.
I'm looking to unload a Rainbow and probably a VT180 with 4 drives as well.
I'm still keeping my Zorba CP/M box and my UltraSparc 1e.
My Ultra5 can go...It's boring and runs IDE disks. 8-(
>
>But, life goes on. Maybe I really should just take up fishing or
I'm going to keep using emulators where possible, since VMware and the
faster cheaper to run machines can do a whole subnet of toys with the
right emulator.
Bill
--
--
Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-pechter.dyndns.org http://xkcd.com/705/
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
>I think everyone knows where I stand on this. Although I am going
>to be getting rid of just about all my PDP-11 (and VAX and Alpha
>and Sparc and etc...) stuff in the very near future I still plan
>to do some playing and there are good emulators around. But I
>would also still like to see source code released under a BSD style
>or even (worst case) a GPL style license because I still have this
>warped idea of porting RSTS to other architectures. x86 for sure
>but lately I have even been thinking about how much fun it would
>be to run it on one of my Z80 or 6809 boxes. :-)
Wouldn't RSTS on non-PDP require a decent Basic as well?
>
>I think everyone knows where I stand on this. Although I am going
>to be getting rid of just about all my PDP-11 (and VAX and Alpha
>and Sparc and etc...) stuff in the very near future I still plan
>to do some playing and there are good emulators around. But I
>would also still like to see source code released under a BSD style
>or even (worst case) a GPL style license because I still have this
>warped idea of porting RSTS to other architectures. x86 for sure
>but lately I have even been thinking about how much fun it would
>be to run it on one of my Z80 or 6809 boxes. :-)
I'd love to see that and a full RT11 clone (with sources). (Although
I hate x86 assembler compared to PDP11 and Z80/8080).
One thing I never got to play with was IAS. (Big here at local
newspapers for classified and such). Looked neater than RSX11M and M+
which never impressed me. Seemed bulky compared to RT11 and not as
friendly as RSTS/E.
As far as getting rid of the hardware --
Oh no!! I've never had an Alpha and missed the window on cheap ones.
I'm shocked what my VAXstation 3100M38 would cost on Ebay now.
I paid less than $50 for it including shipping when I got it.
I think it was University of Michigan surplus that a student picked up
for $5.00 and unloaded it to me on ebay for $50 or so.
I'm thinking of selling the Sparcs and the VAXstation since
I'm not using them much these days. I'd like to find an Xterminal for
the house since it's diskless and I always have a Linux box up to drive
it.
Let us know what you're getting rid of. I've still got a couple of
Sparcs, including a rare Sparcstation1 or 2 clone... and an ELC...
Both have Sparc-Up upgrades in them and at least 48mb. I'd love to have
64 in the ELC... but the parity memory is hard to find these days.
I'm looking to unload a Rainbow and probably a VT180 with 4 drives as well.
I'm still keeping my Zorba CP/M box and my UltraSparc 1e.
My Ultra5 can go...It's boring and runs IDE disks. 8-(
>
>But, life goes on. Maybe I really should just take up fishing or
>something. :-)
>
>bill
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Fishing isn't as much fun as hacking around on the software.
>
>bill
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
I'm going to keep using emulators where possible, since VMware and the
faster cheaper to run machines can do a whole subnet of toys with the
right emulator.
Bill
--
--
Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-pechter.dyndns.org http://xkcd.com/705/
Bill Pechter
Jul 10, 2013, 5:32:23 PM7/10/13
to
In article <b46022...@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
lots of [snip...snip...snip]
>
>And you are going to put USB3 and SATA on a PDP-11 how? :-)
>
Well... I wonder if there's any J11 chips still available for purchase
anywhere.
Add a memory interface and 4gb of RAM, a boot flash for bootstraps and
diags... I know there are good hardware hackers out in the community.
Imagine an 11/70 motherboard with a Unibus to PCI or PCIe bus adapter...
Hell... on a J11 a USB3 port for expansion,a standard USB3 disk etc would
seem fast...
Perhaps a USB to MSCP adapter would be possible as a Qbus/Unibus
peripheral.
Wonder how much of this can be done with modern add-ons.
Probably an 11/70-like verilog pdp11 is now doable.
The problem is the testing against all the varied PDP11 bus configs and
peripherals (but if it's not a commercial product and it's an
open-source hardware goodie with community support...)
http://www.heeltoe.com/index.php?n=Cpus.Pdp11
http://www.heeltoe.com/index.php?n=Retro.Udisk
>
>
>bill
>
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
I can't wait until I retire. 8-)
Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
lots of [snip...snip...snip]
>
>And you are going to put USB3 and SATA on a PDP-11 how? :-)
>
anywhere.
Add a memory interface and 4gb of RAM, a boot flash for bootstraps and
diags... I know there are good hardware hackers out in the community.
Imagine an 11/70 motherboard with a Unibus to PCI or PCIe bus adapter...
Hell... on a J11 a USB3 port for expansion,a standard USB3 disk etc would
seem fast...
Perhaps a USB to MSCP adapter would be possible as a Qbus/Unibus
peripheral.
Wonder how much of this can be done with modern add-ons.
Probably an 11/70-like verilog pdp11 is now doable.
The problem is the testing against all the varied PDP11 bus configs and
peripherals (but if it's not a commercial product and it's an
open-source hardware goodie with community support...)
http://www.heeltoe.com/index.php?n=Cpus.Pdp11
http://www.heeltoe.com/index.php?n=Retro.Udisk
>
>
>bill
>
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Johnny Billquist
Jul 10, 2013, 6:26:33 PM7/10/13
to
not there. Not even if you go for some extended version like the Z180.
Not that I've poked extensively inside RSTS/E, but I know the memory
management abilities of the Z80, and things that RSTS/E expects to be
able to just do not work. You atleast require a page based MMU, and a
different mapping for different CPU modes, or you are looking at
completely redesigning the whole system.
Don't know much about the 6809, but I suspect similar issues would show
up there.
The x86 would be possible, I guess, but even so, you are looking at
rewriting much of it anyway.
> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
here. However, I'll never give up hoping...
Johnny Billquist
Jul 10, 2013, 6:29:25 PM7/10/13
to
That said, yes, I have written my own kernel, for real time
applications, which have been used in a commercial product (Z80-based).
However, I also happen to like RSX, and do not have a desire to
reimplement it. So I'll continue to work on it instead, since I only
have one lifetime.
I can still hope that HP release it all one day, so that we can produce
RSX-11M-PLUS V5.0... :-)
Bill Gunshannon
Jul 10, 2013, 6:59:39 PM7/10/13
to
In article <krkiop$he0$1...@pechter.motzarella.org>,
RSTS be ported, too. :-)
> I'd love to see that and a full RT11 clone (with sources).
I really don't think that a clone of RT-11 would be all that difficult.
Just time consuming. If there really was interest there is definitely
enough skilled people here to do it. But I would rather see CP/M
on a PDP-11 than RT-11 on a Z-80. :-)
> (Although
> I hate x86 assembler compared to PDP11 and Z80/8080).
For any port/clone to the x86 use of a higher level language that
dupicated the functions of the assembler would be he only way to
go. Putting RSTS on a 6809 would be much more fun.
>
> One thing I never got to play with was IAS. (Big here at local
> newspapers for classified and such). Looked neater than RSX11M and M+
> which never impressed me. Seemed bulky compared to RT11 and not as
> friendly as RSTS/E.
>
> As far as getting rid of the hardware --
>
> Oh no!! I've never had an Alpha and missed the window on cheap ones.
> I'm shocked what my VAXstation 3100M38 would cost on Ebay now.
That all depends on who is selling them. I have seen PDP-11's on eBay
listed in the 10's and 20's of thousands of dollars. The last time I
tried to sell anything PDP-11 on eBay I didn't even get one bid and
it started at $10.
>
> I paid less than $50 for it including shipping when I got it.
> I think it was University of Michigan surplus that a student picked up
> for $5.00 and unloaded it to me on ebay for $50 or so.
>
>
> I'm thinking of selling the Sparcs and the VAXstation since
> I'm not using them much these days. I'd like to find an Xterminal for
> the house since it's diskless and I always have a Linux box up to drive
> it.
They are getting rare, too. I have a couple of HP's and one VXT. They
are still fun to play with. Try looking at HP Thin Clients. They are
really just Linux based X-terminals that can run CITRIX, RDP and other
protocols as applications.
>
> Let us know what you're getting rid of. I've still got a couple of
> Sparcs, including a rare Sparcstation1 or 2 clone... and an ELC...
I got someone who is supposed to come and get everything (it was a
package deal, I have some stuiff he really wants and the price for
them was to take everything.) I do need to get rid of all of this,
though. Need to move out of this really large house (three floors,
more than 14 rooms not counting bathrooms) and move into something
more practical for the two of us.
>
>
> Both have Sparc-Up upgrades in them and at least 48mb. I'd love to have
> 64 in the ELC... but the parity memory is hard to find these days.
>
> I'm looking to unload a Rainbow and probably a VT180 with 4 drives as well.
> I'm still keeping my Zorba CP/M box and my UltraSparc 1e.
>
> My Ultra5 can go...It's boring and runs IDE disks. 8-(
>
>>
>>But, life goes on. Maybe I really should just take up fishing or
>>something. :-)
>>
>>bill
>>
>>--
>>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>>bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>>University of Scranton |
>>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
>
>
> Fishing isn't as much fun as hacking around on the software.
I thought fishing was sleeping with a stick in your hand?
> I'm going to keep using emulators where possible, since VMware and the
> faster cheaper to run machines can do a whole subnet of toys with the
> right emulator.
I'm going to stay with emulators for the DEC stuff. I have 6809 and
Z80 systems that I am playing with again. And, of course, rasberryPi.
And I am getting back into amateur radio, probably mostly QRP CW (I
actually snagged a coupld of decent HW-8's on eBay) and while I told
the University I would stsy there for 4-7 years, computers are beginning
to take a backseat in my life. It's been fun and it paid the bills
but I don't enjoy it nearly as much as I used to. Now, if the sources
to all of RSTS and it's layered products got released..... :-)
pec...@pechter.dyndns.org (Bill Pechter) writes:
> In article <b45bkd...@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I think everyone knows where I stand on this. Although I am going
>>to be getting rid of just about all my PDP-11 (and VAX and Alpha
>>and Sparc and etc...) stuff in the very near future I still plan
>>to do some playing and there are good emulators around. But I
>>would also still like to see source code released under a BSD style
>>or even (worst case) a GPL style license because I still have this
>>warped idea of porting RSTS to other architectures. x86 for sure
>>but lately I have even been thinking about how much fun it would
>>be to run it on one of my Z80 or 6809 boxes. :-)
>
> Wouldn't RSTS on non-PDP require a decent Basic as well?
It would require that tyhe BASIC that is so deeply ingrained in
> In article <b45bkd...@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I think everyone knows where I stand on this. Although I am going
>>to be getting rid of just about all my PDP-11 (and VAX and Alpha
>>and Sparc and etc...) stuff in the very near future I still plan
>>to do some playing and there are good emulators around. But I
>>would also still like to see source code released under a BSD style
>>or even (worst case) a GPL style license because I still have this
>>warped idea of porting RSTS to other architectures. x86 for sure
>>but lately I have even been thinking about how much fun it would
>>be to run it on one of my Z80 or 6809 boxes. :-)
>
> Wouldn't RSTS on non-PDP require a decent Basic as well?
RSTS be ported, too. :-)
> I'd love to see that and a full RT11 clone (with sources).
Just time consuming. If there really was interest there is definitely
enough skilled people here to do it. But I would rather see CP/M
on a PDP-11 than RT-11 on a Z-80. :-)
> (Although
> I hate x86 assembler compared to PDP11 and Z80/8080).
dupicated the functions of the assembler would be he only way to
go. Putting RSTS on a 6809 would be much more fun.
>
> One thing I never got to play with was IAS. (Big here at local
> newspapers for classified and such). Looked neater than RSX11M and M+
> which never impressed me. Seemed bulky compared to RT11 and not as
> friendly as RSTS/E.
>
> As far as getting rid of the hardware --
>
> Oh no!! I've never had an Alpha and missed the window on cheap ones.
> I'm shocked what my VAXstation 3100M38 would cost on Ebay now.
listed in the 10's and 20's of thousands of dollars. The last time I
tried to sell anything PDP-11 on eBay I didn't even get one bid and
it started at $10.
>
> I paid less than $50 for it including shipping when I got it.
> I think it was University of Michigan surplus that a student picked up
> for $5.00 and unloaded it to me on ebay for $50 or so.
>
>
> I'm thinking of selling the Sparcs and the VAXstation since
> I'm not using them much these days. I'd like to find an Xterminal for
> the house since it's diskless and I always have a Linux box up to drive
> it.
are still fun to play with. Try looking at HP Thin Clients. They are
really just Linux based X-terminals that can run CITRIX, RDP and other
protocols as applications.
>
> Let us know what you're getting rid of. I've still got a couple of
> Sparcs, including a rare Sparcstation1 or 2 clone... and an ELC...
package deal, I have some stuiff he really wants and the price for
them was to take everything.) I do need to get rid of all of this,
though. Need to move out of this really large house (three floors,
more than 14 rooms not counting bathrooms) and move into something
more practical for the two of us.
>
>
> Both have Sparc-Up upgrades in them and at least 48mb. I'd love to have
> 64 in the ELC... but the parity memory is hard to find these days.
>
> I'm looking to unload a Rainbow and probably a VT180 with 4 drives as well.
> I'm still keeping my Zorba CP/M box and my UltraSparc 1e.
>
> My Ultra5 can go...It's boring and runs IDE disks. 8-(
>
>>
>>But, life goes on. Maybe I really should just take up fishing or
>>something. :-)
>>
>>bill
>>
>>--
>>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>>bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>>University of Scranton |
>>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
>
>
> Fishing isn't as much fun as hacking around on the software.
> I'm going to keep using emulators where possible, since VMware and the
> faster cheaper to run machines can do a whole subnet of toys with the
> right emulator.
Z80 systems that I am playing with again. And, of course, rasberryPi.
And I am getting back into amateur radio, probably mostly QRP CW (I
actually snagged a coupld of decent HW-8's on eBay) and while I told
the University I would stsy there for 4-7 years, computers are beginning
to take a backseat in my life. It's been fun and it paid the bills
but I don't enjoy it nearly as much as I used to. Now, if the sources
to all of RSTS and it's layered products got released..... :-)
Bill Gunshannon
Jul 10, 2013, 7:06:07 PM7/10/13
to
In article <krkn2p$232$1...@iltempo.update.uu.se>,
Yeah, RSTS on the Z-80 would be a stretch, but the 6809, now there is
a different story. I have 512K of memory and could put as much as 4Meg
in if I wanted to. (I have seen commercial 4 Meg cards but don;t know
anyone who has done it in a really long time.) I currently run a multi-
tasking, multi-user OS called OS9 on it and have had as many as 3
interactive users and background processes running at one time. Limit
on the number of users is terminal connections, not horsepower. A
greatly under-estimated processor.
>
> The x86 would be possible, I guess, but even so, you are looking at
> rewriting much of it anyway.
Yeah, but a rewrite wouldbe easier if you could see how it was done
in the first place rather than trying to guess what the internals
actually look like.
>
>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>
> Oh, I agree that the VMS people are showing totally unfounded optimism
> here. However, I'll never give up hoping...
>
Always the optimist.
a different story. I have 512K of memory and could put as much as 4Meg
in if I wanted to. (I have seen commercial 4 Meg cards but don;t know
anyone who has done it in a really long time.) I currently run a multi-
tasking, multi-user OS called OS9 on it and have had as many as 3
interactive users and background processes running at one time. Limit
on the number of users is terminal connections, not horsepower. A
greatly under-estimated processor.
>
> The x86 would be possible, I guess, but even so, you are looking at
> rewriting much of it anyway.
in the first place rather than trying to guess what the internals
actually look like.
>
>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>
> Oh, I agree that the VMS people are showing totally unfounded optimism
> here. However, I'll never give up hoping...
>
Johnny Billquist
Jul 10, 2013, 8:43:03 PM7/10/13
to
>>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>>
>> Oh, I agree that the VMS people are showing totally unfounded optimism
>> here. However, I'll never give up hoping...
>>
>
> Always the optimist.
But the VMS folks really seem to believe in fairy tales.
Roger Ivie
Jul 10, 2013, 9:17:55 PM7/10/13
to
On 2013-07-10, Bill Pechter <pec...@pechter.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Probably an 11/70-like verilog pdp11 is now doable.
http://opencores.org/project,w11
> Probably an 11/70-like verilog pdp11 is now doable.
--
roger ivie
ri...@ridgenet.net
Rob Doyle
Jul 10, 2013, 9:23:38 PM7/10/13
to
On 7/10/2013 6:17 PM, Roger Ivie wrote:
> On 2013-07-10, Bill Pechter <pec...@pechter.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> Probably an 11/70-like verilog pdp11 is now doable.
>
> http://opencores.org/project,w11
I think this is even better -
> On 2013-07-10, Bill Pechter <pec...@pechter.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> Probably an 11/70-like verilog pdp11 is now doable.
>
> http://opencores.org/project,w11
http://pdp2011.sytse.net/wordpress/
Rob.
Roger Ivie
Jul 10, 2013, 9:27:43 PM7/10/13
to
On 2013-07-10, Bill Gunshannon <bi...@server2.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
> I really don't think that a clone of RT-11 would be all that difficult.
> Just time consuming. If there really was interest there is definitely
> enough skilled people here to do it. But I would rather see CP/M
> on a PDP-11 than RT-11 on a Z-80. :-)
Well, CP/M-68K is written in C. I've run it on a MicroVAX 2000 and
> I really don't think that a clone of RT-11 would be all that difficult.
> Just time consuming. If there really was interest there is definitely
> enough skilled people here to do it. But I would rather see CP/M
> on a PDP-11 than RT-11 on a Z-80. :-)
a couple of ARM boxes. My ARM port occupies about 20KB. The nascent
Cortex-M3 (Thumb2) version (for which I've not yet written a BIOS)
looks like it'll be about the same size.
--
roger ivie
ri...@ridgenet.net
paramucho
Jul 11, 2013, 10:47:05 AM7/11/13
to
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:47:57 -0500, "Charles Richmond"
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>news:b45bkd...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>>
>
>Why don't you guys in the PDP-11 "brain trust"... write your own OS to run
>on your PDP-11's??? It could be a "work alike" or *not*. Then you can
>release it under GPL or copyright it and let HP ask *you* for permission to
>use it!
>
>I know... it's *not* that easy, it's easier said than done, it'll take a
>long time, it's a very difficult task, etc. But you must admit... it's
>easier than getting HP to approve anything!!! :-) And the OS could be
>written to be used in two different modes... in one mode, the OS would only
>accept "vintage" devices and disks, in mode two the OS might interface with
>newer things like USB3, SATA hard disks, etc.
I'm quite happy to put all the source for RUST into the public domain
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>news:b45bkd...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> But in the end, it's just dreaming because I don't think there will
>> ever be a binary release, much less a source release. Of course,
>> that's why I always laugh when I see the VMS guys pipedreams about
>> an OpenSource version based on the existing software.
>>
>
>Why don't you guys in the PDP-11 "brain trust"... write your own OS to run
>on your PDP-11's??? It could be a "work alike" or *not*. Then you can
>release it under GPL or copyright it and let HP ask *you* for permission to
>use it!
>
>I know... it's *not* that easy, it's easier said than done, it'll take a
>long time, it's a very difficult task, etc. But you must admit... it's
>easier than getting HP to approve anything!!! :-) And the OS could be
>written to be used in two different modes... in one mode, the OS would only
>accept "vintage" devices and disks, in mode two the OS might interface with
>newer things like USB3, SATA hard disks, etc.
and have planned to do so for years. RUST provides an almost complete
RT-11 environment (the major missing items are MACRO, LINK and LIBR).
RUST/SJ provides a single-user RT-11/FB-like environment. RUST/XM
provides a multi-process RT-11 environment and some support for RSX
apps. The RUST kits contain no DEC source code. The system code,
drivers and utilities are fully rewritten--most of the code originated
in the 1980s as SHAREplus etc.
I haven't got around uploading the sources in the past because there
hasn't been much interest in RUST out there and it's actually quite a
bit of work to take the sources out of my private development
environment, and which relies heavily on my PDP-11 emulator's access
to native Windows directories.
That said, perhaps I'll start putting some modules up and follow-up if
some sort of interest is shown.
Ian
Ian
Stan Barr
Jul 11, 2013, 11:40:04 AM7/11/13
to
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:47:05 GMT, paramucho <para...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm quite happy to put all the source for RUST into the public domain
> and have planned to do so for years.
Great! I use RUST under Eratz-11 for FigForth among other things.
>
> I'm quite happy to put all the source for RUST into the public domain
> and have planned to do so for years.
>
> That said, perhaps I'll start putting some modules up and follow-up if
> some sort of interest is shown.
--
Stan Barr pla...@dsl.pipex.com
0 new messages