Compaq SPD for RT-11 5.7
Tim Shoppa
effective Thursday, 29-Oct-1998:
http://www.digital.com/info/SP1201/
It begins:
*RT-11, Version 5.7 (Single-User Operating System)
*
* SPD 12.01.41
*
* DESCRIPTION
*
* RT-11 is a software product of Mentec, Inc.
* and is licensed under Compaq Computer
* Corporation's Standard Terms and Conditions.
Is this the first PDP-11 SPD issued with the Compaq (and
Digital and Mentec) brand name on it?
--
Tim Shoppa Email: sho...@trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology Voice: 301-767-5917
7328 Bradley Blvd Fax: 301-767-5927
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817
Bob Schor
Bob Schor
>
> Cool - Compaq has evidently released the SPD for RT-11 5.7,
> effective Thursday, 29-Oct-1998:
>
> http://www.digital.com/info/SP1201/
>
some kind soul please tell me how this differs from the 5.6 SPD? As
near as I could tell, most (if not all) of the "features" on this
document are also present on 5.6.
I have heard "reliable rumors" that one "feature" of 5.7 is that
it is designed to be Y2K-compliant (at least for a century more). Is
this (presumably quite important and relevant) fact noted in the SPD?
Bob Schor
RT-11/TSX+ User/Abuser
Tim Shoppa
> I have heard "reliable rumors" that one "feature" of 5.7 is that
> it is designed to be Y2K-compliant (at least for a century more). Is
> this (presumably quite important and relevant) fact noted in the SPD?
The format of the SPD precludes the listing of many "features" -
it's more of a list of guaranteed supported hardware and
configurations.
I would guess that the new features are well documented in the
RT-11 5.7 Release Notes, but it's not clear when (or if)
these will be available on-line. One would certainly hope that
there'd be a way to see these before purchasing the software,
otherwise this is a true example of a Catch-22!
Tim.
bi...@mix.com
> The format of the SPD precludes the listing of many "features" -
For what it's worth VMS's SPD doesn't say anything about when it may
no longer be able to handle the current date either...
> I would guess that the new features are well documented in the
> RT-11 5.7 Release Notes, but it's not clear when (or if)
> these will be available on-line. One would certainly hope that
> there'd be a way to see these before purchasing the software,
> otherwise this is a true example of a Catch-22!
My vote is for something like www.openvms.digital.com:81 - very nice.
Billy Y..
shb...@my-dejanews.com
Highlights from the release notes are now available on the web at
http://www.mentec.com/PDP/rthilite.html
Stuart
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bob Kaplow
> RT-11 Version 5.7 is now available.
Any chance of a hobbyist license for RT and other PDP-11 software along the
lines of the VMS license? Before 1/1/00?
Bob Kaplow
Jerome Fine
Jerome Fine replies:
As you have already mentioned in your previous post
(Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:30:02 GMT), you are aware
of the hobby status of V5.3 of RT-11. PLUS, what
you really seem to want are safe Y2K patches for an
even more recent version of RT-11, perhaps even
for V5.6 of RT-11. AND, I presume you do not
wish to pay the prices Mentec/DEC/Compaq are
charging for the V5.7 H-kit. Incidentally, does anyone
want to post the official prices that Mentec is charging
for the V5.7 H-kit along with the other RT-11 products
being offered by Mentec? I had the impression
that Mentec was also offering a V5.7 distribution
without the full DOCS for those sites which already
have the V5.6 DOCS since V5.7 release notes
are the only changed documentation from V5.6 of
RT-11.
However, I did not notice your response to my
resent posts with regard to safe Y2K patches being
available for both commercial and hobby users
for V5.4G of RT-11. I also mentioned that if
there was sufficient interest, I would consider
producing a set of Y2K patches for V5.3 of
RT-11 which is already available for use by
hobby users as long as V5.3 is used only under
the Bob Supnik emulator from DEC, not with
a real DEC CPU and not with the other hobby
emulator, E11, produced by John Wilson.
So, in response to your question, the simple
answer is: "YES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there sufficient interest to justify producing
the Y2K patches for V5.3 in addition to the
ones already done for V5.4G of RT-11?
If only Bob Kaplow wants these patches,
along with a few other hobby users, then
I doubt that it would be worth while. So if
there are many more hobby users who would
like Y2K patches for V5.3 of RT-11, it
would be helpful to reply. Note that at present,
the safe Y2K V5.4G patches are available only for
commercial users since V5.4G will not be available
to hobby users until V5.4G is placed into the
hobby category.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
Year 2000 Solutions for RT-11 and Applications
(Sources not always required)
Alex
Friends! Let ask Jerome Fine to make hobby license for Y2k patches for
RT-11 5.3.
--
+------------------------+
| "I WAS living, |
| I AM living and |
| I WILL BE living!" |
| |
| DEC PDP-11... |
+------------------------+
Bob Schor
> a real DEC CPU and not with the other hobby
> emulator, E11, produced by John Wilson.
I have just purchased the E11 software, which I do not think of
as a "hobby emulator" (and I certainly do not plan to use it as a
"hobby"). It IS an emulator, there is a demo version available at
a reduced price, but I believe this is intended as a serious piece
of production software. Hobbyists can, of course, purchase this, as
they can purchase RT-11 Version 5.7 ...
Bob Schor
Not Yet Y2K-Compatible
Megan
Bob, no... the point is that the versions of RT, V5.3, (and RSX and RSTS
which are/may become available for hobbyist use) are to be used (by terms
of the license) ONLY with the *supnik* emulator. It may not be used with
any other emulator, nor with any real -11 hardware.
If we as hobbyists want any chance that Mentec will someday allow
hobbyist use of later versions, we have to demonstrate that we can
adhere to the license they *have* allowed...
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
John Wilson
Bob Schor <bsc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu> wrote:
[quoting someone, I lost the ref]
>> not with the other hobby
>> emulator, E11,
> I have just purchased the E11 software, which I do not think of
>as a "hobby emulator" (and I certainly do not plan to use it as a
>"hobby").
This can be a little confusing, because demo/beta test versions of E11 were
released for several years during development before the first commercial
releases shipped. The Demo version still exists as a feature-restricted
demo of the commercial versions, and may also be used for unlimited hobby
use but *not* using the hobby OS licenses issued by DEC since they're only
for Bob Supnik's emulators.
Anyway the full version of E11 is a commercial product with far more features
(and better speed) than the Demo version. Also there's a half-priced "Lite"
version of E11 which has similar features to the Demo version with a few
extras and of course no limit on commercial use. This is all explained on
http://www.dbit.com/products.html, I'll leave it at that rather than listing
differences here since this is a non-commercial NG.
So to sum up, there is a hobby version of E11, but E11 in general is not a
hobby emulator.
John Wilson
D Bit
Bob Schor
>
> Bob Schor <bsc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu> writes:
>
> >> the Bob Supnik emulator from DEC, not with
> >> emulator, E11, produced by John Wilson.
>
> > I have just purchased the E11 software, which I do not think of
> >as a "hobby emulator" (and I certainly do not plan to use it as a
> >a reduced price, but I believe this is intended as a serious piece
> >of production software. Hobbyists can, of course, purchase this, as
> >they can purchase RT-11 Version 5.7 ...
>
> Bob, no... the point is that the versions of RT, V5.3, (and RSX and RSTS
> which are/may become available for hobbyist use) are to be used (by terms
> of the license) ONLY with the *supnik* emulator. It may not be used with
> any other emulator, nor with any real -11 hardware.
>
> If we as hobbyists want any chance that Mentec will someday allow
> hobbyist use of later versions, we have to demonstrate that we can
> adhere to the license they *have* allowed...
>
I'm not saying "Use 5.3 with E11". What I said, and thought I
meant, was "Even a hobbyist can buy RT-11 Version 5.7". As I understand
it, if you purchase RT-11 (purchase, like spend money, like have a
legal license), then you can run it on a PDP-11, and, as far as I know,
on a PDP-11 emulator, either the Supnik emulator or on E11.
Are there is a restriction on running a licensed version of RT-11
(the non-hobbyist versions) on particular hardware?
What are the restrictions on the Hobbyist Version of RT-11 Version
5.3? [I assume, given its name, that it can be legally run on a
"hobbyist" PDP-11, which I assume includes any of the various members
of the PDP-11 family, from the 11/03 to the 11/94]. I gather that there
is a restriction on running this software on non-DEC hardware, and
have no intention of violating these restrictions, nor advocating that
others do so. My comment, once again, ONLY related to purchased
versions
of RT-11.
Bob Schor
Tim Shoppa
> I'm not saying "Use 5.3 with E11". What I said, and thought I
> meant, was "Even a hobbyist can buy RT-11 Version 5.7".
I think Megan misattributed the "Use 5.3 with E11" sentiment to
you Bob - there have been several folks who mistakenly posted
this idea in the past few weeks, and I took Megan's reply to be
towards them, not to you.
> Are there is a restriction on running a licensed version of RT-11
> (the non-hobbyist versions) on particular hardware?
Yes, there are "H-class" and "L-class" licenses. The H-class
licenses cover all Unibus systems, and the L-class licenses cover
all Q-bus systems. For some reason that escapes all current
logic (except perhaps my favorite kind, circular!) it costs
more to license RT-11 on a PDP-11/04 running from RX01 floppies
than it costs to license it for a PDP-11/93 fully decked out
with modern disks and tapes.
I have no idea which license covers PC-clones running an emulator
running RT-11 - you'd have to ask one of Compaq's/DEC's/Mentec's
lawyers.
I'm not going to dare try to answer the question about what
the Supnik emulator license covers except to say that everyone
who's spoken on the subject so far, with the exception of
John Wilson and Megan Gentry, has greatly misunderstood the
terms. Instead, you should download the software and license
packages for Bob Supnik's emulator (from
ftp://ftp.digital.com/pub/DEC/sim/software/ ) and read it
yourself.
Tim.
Eric Smith
> it costs more to license RT-11 on a PDP-11/04 running from RX01 floppies
> than it costs to license it for a PDP-11/93 fully decked out
> with modern disks and tapes.
> I have no idea which license covers PC-clones running an emulator
> running RT-11 - you'd have to ask one of Compaq's/DEC's/Mentec's
> lawyers.
So perhaps people running (or writing) emulators would be well advised to
emulate fully decked out 11/93 systems, in order to get the less expensive
software licenses from Mentec? :-)
I've completely given up on the idea of running genuine DEC software on my
real PDP-11s. It's possible to get a legitimate license for 7th edition Unix
(and other versions) for $100, and for another $100 you can get BSD 2.11.
AFAIK there's no genuine DEC OS that I can get for anything even close to
$200.
Of course, BSD 2.11 won't run on "small" 11s. But it should be great on
my 11/44 and 11/84.
It's ironic that the licensing situation for VMS for hobbyists is MUCH better
than for any of the PDP-11 operating systems. Maybe COMPAQ and Mentec will
eventually work something out.
By the way, I don't want anyone to think that I'm not grateful for the efforts
of Bob Supnik (and everyone else involved) to get licenses for PDP-11 software
for use with Bob's emulator. I'm definitely happy about that. It's just
that I'd like to be able to run DEC software on my real 11s also.
Eric
John Wilson
>Yes, there are "H-class" and "L-class" licenses. The H-class
>licenses cover all Unibus systems, and the L-class licenses cover
>all Q-bus systems. For some reason that escapes all current
>logic (except perhaps my favorite kind, circular!) it costs
>more to license RT-11 on a PDP-11/04 running from RX01 floppies
>than it costs to license it for a PDP-11/93 fully decked out
>with modern disks and tapes.
I remember seeing a much more sensible split in a DECdirect catalog ages
ago (something like, 11/40 and lower were L and 11/44 and higher were H), but
evidently that fell by the wayside. Too bad, it's ridiculous the way it is
(although I like the implicit acknowledgement that the Q-bus is a toy bus!).
>I have no idea which license covers PC-clones running an emulator
>running RT-11 - you'd have to ask one of Compaq's/DEC's/Mentec's
>lawyers.
I'm not sure how much serious thought has been given to this by the higher
ups at Mentec, but last time I bought a license from Mentec I was told that
the current thinking was that an emulator running on a PC with a Unibus
adapter attached needs an H license, and anything else (Q-bus adapter or
just PCI etc.) needs an L license.
>I'm not going to dare try to answer the question about what
>the Supnik emulator license covers
[...]
One interesting thing is that it doesn't mention Bob Supnik's emulator by
name, it just says emulation software owned by DEC. If that's right, then
you can use the hobby license with Viking and CHARON too, but, uh, WHY?
John Wilson
D Bit
Megan
> I'm not saying "Use 5.3 with E11". What I said, and thought I
>meant, was "Even a hobbyist can buy RT-11 Version 5.7". As I understand
>it, if you purchase RT-11 (purchase, like spend money, like have a
>legal license), then you can run it on a PDP-11, and, as far as I know,
>on a PDP-11 emulator, either the Supnik emulator or on E11.
Absolutely. If you buy it, you can use it on anything (so long as you
don't violate the terms of the license).
> Are there is a restriction on running a licensed version of RT-11
>(the non-hobbyist versions) on particular hardware?
Only such restrictions as are in the license (like running on only one
cpu, etc...)
> What are the restrictions on the Hobbyist Version of RT-11 Version
>5.3? [I assume, given its name, that it can be legally run on a
>"hobbyist" PDP-11, which I assume includes any of the various members
>of the PDP-11 family, from the 11/03 to the 11/94]. I gather that there
>is a restriction on running this software on non-DEC hardware, and
>have no intention of violating these restrictions, nor advocating that
>others do so. My comment, once again, ONLY related to purchased
>versions of RT-11.
No. The hobbyist license does not impart ANY right to run the available
software (for example, RT-11 V5.3 and earlier) on ANY actual hardware,
hobbyist or not. It only gives one the right to use the software on
the *supnik* emulator. No other emulator is allowed. So, whether
hardware is DEC or not, hobbyist or not, the hobbyist license does not
grants rights to run on it. Period.
Jerome Fine
> > the Bob Supnik emulator from DEC, not with
> > a real DEC CPU and not with the other hobby
> > emulator, E11, produced by John Wilson.
>
> I have just purchased the E11 software, which I do not think of
> as a "hobby emulator" (and I certainly do not plan to use it as a
> "hobby"). It IS an emulator, there is a demo version available at
> a reduced price, but I believe this is intended as a serious piece
> of production software. Hobbyists can, of course, purchase this, as
> they can purchase RT-11 Version 5.7 ...
>
> Bob Schor
> Not Yet Y2K-Compatible
Jerome Fine replies:
If I understand the conditions under which the demo E11 emulator by
John Wilson may be used, it is OK for indefinite, non-commercial use.
In my terms, I think that is equivalent to a hobby use. Please correct
me, John Wilson, if I am incorrect in any manner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see you have already posted a clarification to the post by
Bob Schor, But I thought I would add mine as well.
Now quality wise, the hobby version is anything but hobby level.
In fact, from what I understand, all the things that the hobby version
can do are also duplicated by the commercial versions. About the
only thing the E11 demo version can't do is legally run V5.3 of RT-11
as a hobby version under the hobby license from Mentec. Of
course, anyone can run V5.3 of RT-11 on any of the E11 versions,
including obviously the hobby version, but only if they have a commercial
license for RT-11. It does seem a bit strange that the hobby license
from Mentec for V5.3 of RT-11 can run on one hobby emulator,
but not on the other hobby emulator, let alone real DEC hardware.
However, as Megan Gentry has pointed out, the hobby users are
being asked to trust Mentec to allow future improvements or
something to the Mentec hobby license agreement. Actually,
there does not seem to be much demand for the hobby use of RT-11
from users who do not have access to most of the current versions
of RT-11 since there is very little in the way of interest for Y2K
patches for V5.3 of RT-11. When I need more than both hands
to count the number of hobby users who are interested in Y2K
patches for V5.3 of RT-11, I will change my appraisal of hobby
interest in RT-11. What I suspect is that most interest in RT-11
comes from old users of RT-11 (most of whom were commercial
users at one time or another) and that current new hobby users
don't do much more than try to run the hardware (at least under
RT-11) just to see if it can be done. I would be very interested
to hear from any new (the last 5 years) hobby users who actually
write any of their own programs.
There are a few restrictions within the hobby version of E11
which no hobby user would complain about:
(a) The total hard disk drive capacity (all MOUNTed container
files is 32 MBytes.
(b) 4 Mbytes of memory is not supported.
(c) Currently, there is no MSCP support.
As Bob Schor has said, a commercial or improved version of E11
can be purchased. The price is reasonable compared to any DEC
OS like RSX-11 or RT-11. Actually, there are two levels of
commercial versions:
(a) A Lite (half-price) version which is OK for commercial use
and has a few extra features over the hobby version, and
(b) The Full version with all the extra features which John Wilson
has bench marked at a faster speed than the demo version.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
Been RT-11 Y2K Compatible for many years
John Wilson
>It only gives one the right to use the software on
>the *supnik* emulator. No other emulator is allowed.
Actually it looks to me like the hobby license allows use on any emulator
owned by DEC, it doesn't specifically name Bob's emulator. But that's the
only one that hobby users are likely to have, DEC's other emulators are
expensive products...
John Wilson
D Bit
David C. Jenner
that covers both V7 and 2.11BSD. Once you have the license, the
CD-ROM costs $5.
On the other hand, I'll gladly be your agent if you want to pay $200! :)
Dave
Stuart Brook
Jerome Fine wrote:
> It does seem a bit strange that the hobby license
> from Mentec for V5.3 of RT-11 can run on one hobby emulator,
> but not on the other hobby emulator, let alone real DEC hardware.
Let's get this clear ... this is not a general hobbyist license. It was
a request by Bob Supnik to allow certain versions of software to be used
on a non-commercial basis on his emulator. The request originated back
when the software was entirely Digital's and progressed from there.
It is not and never was intended as a GP hobbyist license that people
think.
> However, as Megan Gentry has pointed out, the hobby users are
> being asked to trust Mentec to allow future improvements or
> something to the Mentec hobby license agreement.
From all that you write Jerome, I'd have to question your personal
intent when it comes to a hobbyist license, since you seem to want to
use it to SELL Y2K upgrade work for V5.3.
> Actually,
> there does not seem to be much demand for the hobby use of RT-11
> from users who do not have access to most of the current versions
> of RT-11 since there is very little in the way of interest for Y2K
> patches for V5.3 of RT-11.
This is correct ... a full 99% of the calls we receive are related to
the full commercial use of RT-11 on a global basis.
> There are a few restrictions within the hobby version of E11
> which no hobby user would complain about:
> (a) The total hard disk drive capacity (all MOUNTed container
> files is 32 MBytes.
> (b) 4 Mbytes of memory is not supported.
> (c) Currently, there is no MSCP support.
It IS a HOBBYIST version for goodness sake. John has to make some money
to recoup his money somewhere! Of course there's no MSCP support ...
That costs a royalty every time he sells one! He's not going to give it
away and pay royalties himself.
You seem so incredibly naive about the royalty and licensing issues
related to the sale and ownership of intellectual rights Jerome!
Stuart
Steven M. Schultz
> "David C. Jenner" <dje...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > I don't see how it takes $200? The Ancient Unix license is $100, and
> > that covers both V7 and 2.11BSD. Once you have the license, the
> > CD-ROM costs $5.
>
> CSRG Archive CD-ROM, $99:
> http://www.mckusick.com/csrg/
>
> Where do I get 2.x BSD on a CD-ROM for $5?
It's actually 2.xBSD on a CD-ROM for $105 ;)
The CSRG CD has 2.x as well as all of the 4.x BSD (not the "Lite"
versions either - the honest to CSRG releases)
The 2.x BSD (noteably 2.11) for "$5" comes from being a PUPS
member and having the $100 SCO license. At that point you ask
the PUPS CD volunteers to burn you a CD of the PUPS archives. While
that archive started out as a PDP-11 only venture it has expanded
and includes a number of Vax releases as well. Volunteers don't
make any money on sending out CDs as it's media and postage cost
recovery.
The CSRG archive is a valuable reference and professionally packaged
4 CD set (pressed, not "burned", and with good artwork, etc). Well
worth the money.
Steven Schultz
s...@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com
Eric Smith
David C. Jenner
I don't see 2.11BSD on the CSRG CDs (especially ala Schultz).
Am I not looking carefully enough? (Lots of earlier versions
are there.)
Thanks,
Dave
"Steven M. Schultz" wrote:
>
> Hi -
Alex
VMS is much more applicable for commercial use with the same
unibus/q-bus
systems. There is an paradoxal setiation: VMS is good free-licensed OS
while RSX not.
Alex
Steven M. Schultz
> I don't see 2.11BSD on the CSRG CDs (especially ala Schultz).
> Am I not looking carefully enough? (Lots of earlier versions
> are there.)
Oops - did I goof? Sigh - guess so. There's a 2.10 there and I
could have sworn I saw 2.11 but that might have been the brain
seeing what it expected rather than what was actually there.
Oh well.
The price of 2.11 is still $105 though - the SCO license plus a
volunteer's CD
Steve
max and Marisa
>
>Mentec cap off ... What I am writing has nothing to do with Mentec.
>
>Jerome Fine wrote:
>
>> It does seem a bit strange that the hobby license
>> from Mentec for V5.3 of RT-11 can run on one hobby emulator,
>> but not on the other hobby emulator, let alone real DEC hardware.
>
>Let's get this clear ... this is not a general hobbyist license. It was
>a request by Bob Supnik to allow certain versions of software to be used
>on a non-commercial basis on his emulator. The request originated back
>when the software was entirely Digital's and progressed from there.
>
>It is not and never was intended as a GP hobbyist license that people
>think.
>
>> However, as Megan Gentry has pointed out, the hobby users are
>> being asked to trust Mentec to allow future improvements or
>> something to the Mentec hobby license agreement.
>
>> Actually,
>> there does not seem to be much demand for the hobby use of RT-11
>> from users who do not have access to most of the current versions
>> of RT-11 since there is very little in the way of interest for Y2K
>> patches for V5.3 of RT-11.
>
Most Hobby users could do without Y2K. We can live in the 70s or 80s ...
>This is correct ... a full 99% of the calls we receive are related to
>the full commercial use of RT-11 on a global basis.
Stuart:
No need to call when there is not a hobbiest version. The commercial
version is priced out of the hobbiest range. I myself wouldn't
mind a up-to-date non Y2K version (5.6?) as a hobbiest license.
As you know due to the differculties and expenses in transferring licenses,
many hobbiest keep whatever left on the drives. This typically is not a
complete distribution. I wouldn't call these people pirates, since
the software was licensed and paid for. Just gray zone.
A large expense in software is in development and support, if a hobbiest
license was released for one of the older versions without support, that
would eliminate those expenses.
If it (software) was put on the net, then distribution expenses would be
minimalized.
The only other thing is would this cut into sales of RT-11 V5.7? I don't
think so. Most hobbiest can't justify the expense now, and most commercial
users need Y2K and support.
Max
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Max Froedge Two wrongs do not |
| l.l...@worldnet.att.net make a right |
| m...@testmark.com But three lefts |
| HTTP://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/5517 Do! |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
bi...@mix.com
> As you know due to the differculties and expenses in transferring licenses,
> many hobbiest keep whatever left on the drives. This typically is not a
> complete distribution.
This is the biggest problem I see - someone wants either timer or
spcps support for Kermit but can't sysgen it in because they don't
have enough of the distribution to do it.
How about something like SCO is now doing for Unix? US$100 for the
license is probably all one can expect considering most hobbyists get
their systems for nothing beyond the hassle of picking it all up and
hauling it home. In fact for those who want to run Unix this solves
your problem - it'd be nice if it was also available for older copies
of RT/RSTS/RSX.
Billy Y..
Zane H. Healy
> How about something like SCO is now doing for Unix? US$100 for the
> license is probably all one can expect considering most hobbyists get
> their systems for nothing beyond the hassle of picking it all up and
> hauling it home. In fact for those who want to run Unix this solves
> your problem - it'd be nice if it was also available for older copies
> of RT/RSTS/RSX.
Personally I feel that something like this would work great. If set up
right they could conceivably make more, charge the $100 for the basic
Hobbiest license, and then extra for media kits or documentation. Some
people would only need/want the license, others would want everything.
Zane
Bill Gunshannon
it that no one has ever tried to develop a free OS for it?? It seems
that one could probably take one of the small unix clones (Minix or
maybe the small Linux) and develop a free Unix clone for the PDP. Or
even write one from scratch, maybe using something like OS9 as the model.
Here's an OS that did multi-user/multi-tasking in as little as 64K of
memory with no real problem.
If it truly is hobby use, then existing applications could hardly be
an argument against it.
Comments??
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.uofs.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Chris Ward
SCO.
Bill Gunshannon wrote in message <7470ss$s32$1...@info.cs.uofs.edu>...
John Wilson
Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>With all the people who are interested in hobby use of PDP-11's why is
>it that no one has ever tried to develop a free OS for it??
Well, there's always Fuzzball. But in that case there need to be free
utilities written, since Fuzzball expects to borrow them from RT-11. And there
were a few other things floating around too (Xinu etc.). I wrote a little
multi-user FORTH OS ages ago for my PDT-11/150, and later converted it to
support other CPUs and peripherals, but FORTH is definitely an acquired taste.
I've said this before, I think a really smart thing to do would be to write
a simple-minded OS with just enough RSX emulation to run the utilities that
come with P/OS, which is free these days. At least that way you'd get an
assembler and linker and other goodies, I don't know how much of the TTY
driver would need to be there for EDT to work but TECO-11 is free, right?
Another acquired taste but it *used* to be popular.
John Wilson
D Bit
Megan
You're absolutely right... I've not mentioned Viking and Charon since
I doubt *any* hobby users would have them, and if they do, they can
afford a real license...
ian hammond
>
>I've said this before, I think a really smart thing to do would be to write
>a simple-minded OS with just enough RSX emulation to run the utilities that
>come with P/OS, which is free these days. At least that way you'd get an
>assembler and linker and other goodies, I don't know how much of the TTY
>driver would need to be there for EDT to work but TECO-11 is free, right?
>Another acquired taste but it *used* to be popular.
I didn't know that. Where's the P/OS package available at. I actually
did an RSX emulator for SHAREplus many years ago. Just enough to run
the basic utilities. It didn't work all that well, but I seem to
recall being able to run the TKB. Oops. Well, we could use MACRO, and
it should be compatible, but not the TKB. I also did some TSX
emulation.
I ran up SHAREplus on E11 a couple of Xmas's ago. Worked first pop.
Fastest PDP-11 I ever used. I did an 11/03 emulator that Xmas. Kind of
magic -- only took a few days. It runs some old version of RT-11 I
have lying around. But I haven't done the MMU stuff.
I have my rewritten versions of most of the utilities on decaying 5"
floppies. No DUP. It's MACRO and LINK that are the real problems for
me in license-land.
I'll have another look this Xmas. Yes, RT-11 is a Xmas-kind-of-thing.
ian
Tim Shoppa
>
> On 3 Dec 1998 18:36:39 -0500, wil...@dbit.com (John Wilson) wrote:
> >
> >I've said this before, I think a really smart thing to do would be to write
> >a simple-minded OS with just enough RSX emulation to run the utilities that
> >come with P/OS, which is free these days. At least that way you'd get an
> >assembler and linker and other goodies, I don't know how much of the TTY
> >driver would need to be there for EDT to work but TECO-11 is free, right?
> >Another acquired taste but it *used* to be popular.
>
> I didn't know that. Where's the P/OS package available at.
DEC contributed all the POS-specific volumes - including many otherwise
"commercial" things like BASIC, etc., - to DECUS many years ago
in the form of RX50's. The list is available as volumes beginning
with "PRO" at the end of the DECUS PDP-11 software list at
http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/decus/
Unfortunately, DECUS apparently destroyed all PDP-11 software
in its posession several years ago (or at least is unwilling to
admit that they still have any.) Several of the more important
volumes in the list above are available for anonymous FTP as
RX50 teledisk images from
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/professional/
--
Tim Shoppa Email: sho...@trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Bob Schor
> Unfortunately, DECUS apparently destroyed all PDP-11 software
> in its posession several years ago (or at least is unwilling to
> admit that they still have any.) Several of the more important
> volumes in the list above are available for anonymous FTP as
> RX50 teledisk images from
>
> ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/professional/
I'd say "You're kidding, right?", but it sounds believable.
I (and, I'm sure, others, such as Billy Y.) have a bunch of
uncatalogged,
unexamined even, DECUS offering, often from Symposium Tapes. Is there
a way to compile these at a single FTP site? Is there a "site listing"
somewhere
that we can use to check against our holdings, and then send on items
that
appear to be missing? [Seems to me I looked at SunSite, and it looked
pretty
complete, with things listed by DECUS Library number. I should probably
go
back and look again and try to identify "holes". Only problem is I
don't know
what the "top end" number is supposed to be ...].
Bob Schor
Still using these old monsters (and liking them ...)
Tim Shoppa
> Tim Shoppa wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, DECUS apparently destroyed all PDP-11 software
> > in its posession several years ago (or at least is unwilling to
> > admit that they still have any.) Several of the more important
> > volumes in the list above are available for anonymous FTP as
> > RX50 teledisk images from
> >
> > ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/professional/
>
> I'd say "You're kidding, right?", but it sounds believable.
>
> I (and, I'm sure, others, such as Billy Y.) have a bunch of
> uncatalogged,
> unexamined even, DECUS offering, often from Symposium Tapes. Is there
> a way to compile these at a single FTP site?
Well, about 95% of the RT-11 stuff at Sunsite came from Billy,
though not all of it has been cross indexed under the "11-xxx" DECUS
numbers yet. While not a complete set of all the RT-11 DECUS
submissions, what Billy got me does a pretty good job of covering
the latest editions of the really good stuff!
As far as RSX stuff goes, several good folks (most notably
Tom Wyantt, Don Arrowsmith, and Alan Frisbie) were nice enough
to get me .TPC images of the RSX symposia tapes, and these are currently
at sunsite as well.
Where we're really hurting is in RSTS/E. Terry Kennedy got me
a half-dozen symposia tapes, as well as some other random stuff,
but this just barely scratches the surface of what was once
available from DECUS.
> Is there a "site listing"
> somewhere
> that we can use to check against our holdings, and then send on items
> that
> appear to be missing? [Seems to me I looked at SunSite, and it looked
> pretty
> complete, with things listed by DECUS Library number. I should probably
> go
> back and look again and try to identify "holes".
The page you're talking about at sunsite,
http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/decus/
doesn't actually tell you yet whether the software is available
anywhere. It's just what I got by scrounging through all the
old DECUS catalogs I had available (starting, roughly speaking,
around 1977 or 1978, so software that had been destroyed by then
aren't in the table.) The job of linking entires in this table
with software already at sunsite, most likely in various symposium
tapes, is a large one that I'm completing in my copious free
time :-).
Terry Kennedy
> Where we're really hurting is in RSTS/E. Terry Kennedy got me
> a half-dozen symposia tapes, as well as some other random stuff,
> but this just barely scratches the surface of what was once
> available from DECUS.
A lot of "RSTS stuff" is either relabeling of RSX and RT material (remember
that RSTS can run many/most user-mode programs for those 2 operating systems)
or is older material for pre-modern RSTS versions. During the time I ran my
RSTS systems as the major systems here, I bought most of the DECUS stuff re-
lated to languages and utilities that was available. Of course, I came to the
RSTS scene relatively late (1982 was our first RSTS system).
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
te...@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
Tim Shoppa
>
> In alt.sys.pdp11 Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
> > Where we're really hurting is in RSTS/E. Terry Kennedy got me
> > a half-dozen symposia tapes, as well as some other random stuff,
> > but this just barely scratches the surface of what was once
> > available from DECUS.
>
> A lot of "RSTS stuff" is either relabeling of RSX and RT material (remember
> that RSTS can run many/most user-mode programs for those 2 operating systems)
> or is older material for pre-modern RSTS versions.
I'll agree that a fair chunk of the DECUS submissions that
list "RSTS/E" as the operating system are actually RT-11 packages
or RSX-11 packages that also happen to run under RSTS/E - and
these are often available on the RT and/or RSX SIG tapes.
Still, my (rough) search of the DECUS PDP-11 library shows about 80
titles that were unique to RSTS.
> Of course, I came to the
> RSTS scene relatively late (1982 was our first RSTS system).
And I'll readily admit to knowing very little about RSTS[/E] or
the availability of the various tools for it - which is why I'm
asking here for help!
I do have many DECUS catalog entries, without abstracts, which
undoubtedly fall under the "pre-modern RSTS versions" umbrella.
A quick search of the DECUS titles that I have abstracts for
shows that 99 mention RSTS or RSTS/E in the Operating System section.
Of these, 10 are symposium tapes. 14 mention "RT-11", 12 mention
"RSX", 2 mention "VMS", and 4 mention "IAS". After eliminating
these, there are still 66 entries left which are candidates for
RSTS-only titles:
110025 TUTR: BASIC Tutoring Programs Version: November 1973
110030 COSAP: Conversationally Oriented Statistical Analysis Package
Version: J
110032 INRAN, OUTRAN: Computerized Question Generation #2 Version:
January 1974
110056 Management Case Studies Version: March 1974
110160 Fiscal Accounting Version: July 1974
110199 RSTS Performance Measurement Package Version: June 1975
110271 STAT-11: Statistical Package Version: October 1977
110278 LEADS: An Interactive Data Base Management System for Education
Version:
110287 MAIL: Mail/Message System Version: January 1980
110326 The MAIL Package Version: V06A-02, June 1980
110332 UNITAP/UNIWRI Version: V2.5, June 1981
110347 LISP11 for RSTS Version: December l980
110353 DISASO: Object Module Disassembler Version: July 1981
110504 PLOT-11/RSTS Version: V1.2, May 1980
110583 SURFAC: Graphics Representation of Surfaces by Contour and
Crosshatched
110597 Reminder Version: 1.1, October 1989
110602 RSTS Libraries for Swedish PASCAL Version: July 1984
110607 MEMO Version: V1a, February 1983
110610 DCW Menu for RSTS/E Systems Version: December 1982
110622 MONITR: A Display Program for RSTS/E Version: V1.0, March 1983
110633 TREK: A Space Game for RSTS/E Version: May 1983, V1.0-02
110637 DIBOL String-interpreting Subroutines Version: June 1983
110653 RENUM/PRENUM BASIC Renumberer Version: V1.0, July 1983
110673 MAIL: Electronic Mail Package for RSTS/E Version: V1.6, August
1983
110696 CAI: Computer Assisted Instruction Package Version: V1.0, January
1984
110702 SIMQU: Simulated Line Printer Queue Version: V1, January 1984
110706 SELECT Version: V1A, February 1984
110708 RSTS System Utilities from the University of Tennessee Version:
June 1984
110712 SKIPAG: File Utility to Skip Blocks/Pages Version: February 1984
110713 SYMBUG: Symbolic Debugger for Use with MACRO Programs Version:
V2.0, Feb
110715 FILEDT Version: V4.1, February 1984
110722 Grade Book Version: February 1984
110730 Steinmetz High School Card Reader Monitor Version: V8.0, December
1983
110733 PLIBR: A Library Control Program Version: V2.1, April 1984
110734 ASCII Driven MENU for RSTS/E Version: V1.0, April 1984
110735 RSTS/E File List and Scan Utilities Version: April 1984
110737 EDMACS: A Screen Editor Program Version: April 1984
110738 GRADES: A Program to Facilitate the Administrative Aspect of
Grading Ver
110739 GRADES: Course Management Program Version: V1, April 1984
110742 LEAP: Library Electronic Acquisition Program Version: V3,
February 1984
110753 RSTS/E Whittier College Package, Part I Version: July 1984
110754 RSTS/E Whittier College Package, Part II Version: July 1984
110763 PLOTXY.BAS: GIGI/Houston Instruments DMP29R X-Y Plotter Graphics
Utiliti
110764 PLOTPR.BAS: GIGI/DECwriter IV LA34 Graphic Printer Graphics,
Utilities P
110770 DECAL: Digital Equipment Corporation Author Language Version:
V2.1, Octo
110771 CB-User Communication Utility Version: V2.5, November 1984
110773 JOBDSP/JOBDMP: Job Core Image Dumper Version: November 1984
110786 PARLEZ Communication Package Version: V1.0, February 1985
110796 FDIR: Fast Directory Program for RSTS/E Version: V2.2, April 1985
110805 Six Video Games for RSTS/E Version: March 1985
110806 SYSCOM: RSTS to RSTS Communications Utility Version: V1.5, March
1985
110807 SCAN: A Directory Scan Utility Version: V1, March 1985
110816 Update Suite Version: 8.0-03Q, January 1986
110833 Management Tools Version: 8.705, May 1987
110838 SMARTMAILER for RSTS/E, Binary Version Version: V1.1, July 1986
110839 SMARTMAILER for RSTS/E Version: V1.1, July 1986
110851 Extended Character Set Version: V1, July 1986
110875 RSTS/E 2780 Version: 3.0, May 1987
110876 RSTS/E 3271 Protocol Emulator Version: 2.1, May 1987
110877 RSTS/E HPE 2780/3780 Version: 1.1 May 1987
110895 VTCALC: Calculator for VT100 or VT220 Terminals Version: 1.0,
October 19
110921 Finger for RSTS/E Version: 1.0-08, September 1989
110927 DECserver Load/Dump Support for RSTS/E Version: 1.0-08
110933 Data PBX Version: May 1991
11S043 APL-11 for RSTS/E Version: 1.0, June 1981
11S058 DECtalk Application Support Library Version: February 1984
Of the titles listed above, some are almost certainly on the RSTS
symposia tapes you've already gotten for me, but I have yet
to thoroughly search through for them.
Terry Kennedy
> 110347 LISP11 for RSTS Version: December l980
> 110839 SMARTMAILER for RSTS/E Version: V1.1, July 1986
I'm pretty sure I gave you all of these.
> 110921 Finger for RSTS/E Version: 1.0-08, September 1989
> 110927 DECserver Load/Dump Support for RSTS/E Version: 1.0-08
These are both mine, and later versions can be had from ftp.spc.edu.
Tim Shoppa
>
> In alt.sys.pdp11 Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
> > 110347 LISP11 for RSTS Version: December l980
> > 110839 SMARTMAILER for RSTS/E Version: V1.1, July 1986
>
The Smartmailer volumes came through, but you were evidently
having trouble reading the 800 BPI tapes, which included
11-347 - Lisp for RSTS
11SP43 - APL for RSTS
11-422 - computer picture collection
If you could get me the physical tapes and/or the .TPC's for these,
I'd greatly appreciate it!
There were a couple other 800 BPI tapes that you didn't read, but
these (Adventure, Dungeon, DECUS C) are already present on Sunsite.
John A. Santos
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> 110706 SELECT Version: V1A, February 1984
Not to be confused with the EGH product SELECT. I think this Select was
a spreadsheet. EGH's Select is a program that scan files for records
matching certain criteria and writes them to an output file (written in
MACRO and wicked fast.) Still a supported product! (I think - if it breaks,
I'm the guy who has to fix it....)
> 110770 DECAL: Digital Equipment Corporation Author Language Version:
> V2.1, Octo
> 110875 RSTS/E 2780 Version: 3.0, May 1987
> 110876 RSTS/E 3271 Protocol Emulator Version: 2.1, May 1987
> 110877 RSTS/E HPE 2780/3780 Version: 1.1 May 1987
> 11S043 APL-11 for RSTS/E Version: 1.0, June 1981
> 11S058 DECtalk Application Support Library Version: February 1984
I think these are all defunct DEC products that they released to the
public domain and submitted to the DECUS library. If DECUS doesn't
have them anymore, perhaps someone at TCFKAD still has them.
I have 2 tapes that might be of interest. One is the 1988 RSTS SIG tape
(1600 bpi) I could send it to you if you don't already have it.
The other tape is labeled "DECUS C from DEC", 20-Aug-80, 800 bpi.
I don't have an 800-bpi capable tape drive anymore, and have no idea
if it is readable. If want this tape, I'm sure I could send it to
you, too. (But I'd have to check... This tape belongs to EGH, the
other one I won in a drawing at DECUS in 1988, so it is mine and I don't
have to ask anybody!)
John Santos
Kevin Handy
Tim Shoppa wrote:
> Terry Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > In alt.sys.pdp11 Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
> > > Where we're really hurting is in RSTS/E. Terry Kennedy got me
> > > a half-dozen symposia tapes, as well as some other random stuff,
> > > but this just barely scratches the surface of what was once
> > > available from DECUS.
> >
> > A lot of "RSTS stuff" is either relabeling of RSX and RT material (remember
> > that RSTS can run many/most user-mode programs for those 2 operating systems)
> > or is older material for pre-modern RSTS versions.
>
> I'll agree that a fair chunk of the DECUS submissions that
> list "RSTS/E" as the operating system are actually RT-11 packages
> or RSX-11 packages that also happen to run under RSTS/E - and
> these are often available on the RT and/or RSX SIG tapes.
Where are copies of any of the decus tapes available from?I've seen the list at
sunsite, but it only lists titles, but no pointers to
images.
I have a few decus tapes (but can only read 1600 tapes any more).
I don't have a copy of TPC for rsts that works, but if you can point me
at the source code/format definition I could do something up for these.
LOG, DECUS#, DENSITY, TITLE
045510, 11-346, 800BPI, Pascal Compiler, Ver Oct 81
121964, 11-SP-47, 1600BPI, Portacalc V10-09A, may 1984
120468, 11-615, 800BPI, CPMDEC: CPM to DECDSK, 2.1Nov84 (2 reels)
048687, 11-SP-18, 800BPI and 1600BPI, C Langusage System, Nov 83
????, 11-SP-16, 800BPI and 1600BPI, Sym Tape, PASCAL, US Spring 80
Let me know if any of these would fill in missing holes.
The 800BPI tapes I would have to send to someone to read, but the
1600BPI tapes I could create an image myself (given the program), on a
RSTS/E 9.7 system.
John Wilson
Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>110786 PARLEZ Communication Package Version: V1.0, February 1985
Yeah, that was definitely RSTS-specific, written by Eugene Kosarovich whom
I knew at RPI. I haven't seen him in a few years though, no idea how hard it
would be to find him and ask if he still has a copy, if it doesn't show up on
any of the existing tapes.
Also, #11,772 "RAID" included both RSTS and RT versions but there wasn't much
difference.
BTW just a sanity check -- I'm probably the only one who can no longer read
comp.os.rsts right? My ISP had some kind of news server disaster recently
but now everything's back to normal *except* that one group, which is giving
the same kind of freaky behavior I usually get when I misspell a newsgroup,
that one's pretty easy though.
John Wilson
D Bit
bi...@mix.com
> I (and, I'm sure, others, such as Billy Y.) have a bunch of
> uncatalogged, unexamined even, DECUS offering, often from Symposium
> Tapes.
Actually Tim Shoppa put most all of what I have on Sunsite and I
also copied it to Uppsala University. I may have a few very old
things left but most of those have newer versions on newer tapes
and at this point both sites are fairly complete. When my work
slows down (around next February or March) I'll go though what's
left (hundreds of floppies) looking for anything that's not
already available.
Billy Y..
bi...@mix.com
> 11-422 - computer picture collection
This is on my system in Los Angeles as DU2:PICPAK.DSK with all the images
LZ compressed, along with an LZD RT-11 executable program to decode them.
I can make it ftp-able or send you the actual tape (800bpi) which is not
compressed - these are line printer pictures that do lots of over-striking
so the files are huge but they should be uncompressed before putting them
up where non-RT users can access them. TSX's 1000 block default limit
isn't big enough for some of these so uncompressing under RT is best...
Billy Y..
ian hammond
<sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>ian hammond wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Dec 1998 18:36:39 -0500, wil...@dbit.com (John Wilson) wrote:
>> >
>> >I've said this before, I think a really smart thing to do would be to write
>> >a simple-minded OS with just enough RSX emulation to run the utilities that
>> >come with P/OS, which is free these days. At least that way you'd get an
>> >assembler and linker and other goodies, I don't know how much of the TTY
>> >driver would need to be there for EDT to work but TECO-11 is free, right?
>> >Another acquired taste but it *used* to be popular.
I guess the cruel bit is not doing the RSX emulation (RSX has a
remarkably clean system API) but rather doing the text file formats
and using a file system that maintains that information. I did manage
to do it off RT-11 directories once, but it was less than perfect.
>> I didn't know that. Where's the P/OS package available at.
>
>DEC contributed all the POS-specific volumes - including many otherwise
>"commercial" things like BASIC, etc., - to DECUS many years ago
>in the form of RX50's. The list is available as volumes beginning
>with "PRO" at the end of the DECUS PDP-11 software list at
>
>http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/decus/
>
>Unfortunately, DECUS apparently destroyed all PDP-11 software
>in its posession several years ago (or at least is unwilling to
>admit that they still have any.) Several of the more important
>volumes in the list above are available for anonymous FTP as
>RX50 teledisk images from
>
>ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/professional/
Many thanks. I had seen the sites before, but I hadn't examined the
"Pro" files.
I had a look but I couldn't see a MACRO assembler among those. The Pro
VLINK was there. But MACRO is the killer item I guess.
ian
John Wilson
ian hammond <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>I had a look but I couldn't see a MACRO assembler among those. The Pro
>VLINK was there. But MACRO is the killer item I guess.
I'm pretty sure they're in the Pro Toolkit. P/OS renames MAC and TKB to
PMA and PAB, just to be annoying.
John Wilson
D Bit
Tim Shoppa
>
> Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> writes:
>
> > 11-422 - computer picture collection
>
> This is on my system in Los Angeles as DU2:PICPAK.DSK
And, thanks to Billy's efforts, it's now at Sunsite. See
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/picpak/
Billy makes the very good point that these files should be
transferred only in binary mode, as they contain many CR's that
should be executed without LF's to do overstrikes on line printers,
and if moved in ASCII mode betwen machines these sequences
would get messed up.
John Wilson
Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>Billy makes the very good point that these files should be
>transferred only in binary mode, as they contain many CR's that
>should be executed without LF's to do overstrikes on line printers,
>and if moved in ASCII mode betwen machines these sequences
>would get messed up.
This would be less of a problem if programs like C-Kermit wouldn't be so dumb
about it. Maybe they've fixed it since the last time I checked, but it used to
be that in text mode it would strip *all* CRs from the file, instead of just
the ones that come before a LF. But fixing that only helps with transferring
files like this between LF-terminating OSes like UNIX and CRLF-terminating
OSes like DOS and most of the PDP-11 OSes, and doesn't help with bare LFs,
or OSes (like MacOS I think?) that use bare CRs to terminate lines. What a
pain, it's obvious what the ASCII code is supposed to do, why do so many
systems feel the need to change it?
John Wilson
D Bit