test-drb June 2000

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

160 participants
580 discussions

Arium, UNIX, and other strange things. . .

by jeff.kaneko＠juno.com

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:02:44 -0400 (EDT) "Merle K. Peirce" <at258(a)osfn.org> writes: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Jeffrey l Kaneko wrote: > > Yes, I expect it is. It's the only Unix portable I've seen. Very > blue, very heavy. Well you know, there a bunch of odd coincidences that revolve around Arium, American Automation (now American Arium), the Regulus OS, and the SS-50 bus (of all things). It goes like this: American Automation was a maker of ICE's and development stations in the early 1980's. One of their products was called the EZPro-- it was a general development system that could be equipped with a variety of ICE's (I own a processor unit; I never located the 68000 ICE that came with it originally). Anyways, The EZPro was based on the 6802 CPU, and it used the SS=50 bus! It is the only piece of test/development equipment I have ever seen or heard that used this bus. Around 1985, I contacted these guys, and got a full set of prints for my system, and a couple of 8" floppies with the OS, along with the source for the ROMs. They told me that most of their EZ-Pro hardware had been *thrown out* a few *weeks* earlier, that I could have had it, had I asked. Ever seen a grown man cry? They showed me their new product, I can't remember the name, but they mentioned that it still used the ss-50 bus. I remember now that it looked very similar to a product made by . . . Smoke Signal Broadcasting (SSB), which made a 68000 based product called the VAR. This thing ran Regulus, and was supposed to be very good for real-time processing. SSB, if anyone remembers, used to make a very nice line of SS-50 machines (The Chieftain). Fast foreward about ten years, and Arium merges with American Automation to become American Arium. I wonder if Arium based their earlier products on the SSB VAR. Spooky, huh? > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:22:05 -0400 (EDT) "Merle K. Peirce" > > <at258(a)osfn.org> writes: > > > We have an Arium machine running Aegis Regulus. Is this a > version of > > ^^^^^ > > Arium?!!? I wonder if it is the same Arium that made ICE's > > and development stations in the early-to-mid 80's. > > > > JUst curious: That wouldn't be a 680x0 machine, would it? > > > > I remember an OS that ran on 680x0 platforms that was > > marketed at about that time called 'Regulus'. > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! > > Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! > > Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. > > > > M. K. Peirce > Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc. > 215 Shady Lea Road, > North Kingstown, RI 02852 > > "Casta est qui nemo rogavit." > > - Ovid > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

25 years

Free: Apollo DOMAIN/OS Software Distribution Tapes

by jeff.kaneko＠juno.com

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:22:05 -0400 (EDT) "Merle K. Peirce" <at258(a)osfn.org> writes: > We have an Arium machine running Aegis Regulus. Is this a version of ^^^^^ Arium?!!? I wonder if it is the same Arium that made ICE's and development stations in the early-to-mid 80's. JUst curious: That wouldn't be a 680x0 machine, would it? I remember an OS that ran on 680x0 platforms that was marketed at about that time called 'Regulus'. Jeff ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

25 years

Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

> If you read the license of most software you will find that it says You > don't own it and that "you" are licensed to use it. Cars are bought > outright IE: they are property. Software for the most part is "rented" > for lack of a better word. What we need to know, is who (what corporate representative) was the first person to capitulate to the robber barons by being willing to sign a software license that granted only the right to use said software. Once one corporation capitulated, the rest were bound to follow. We could make that person number one in the Computing Hall of Shame. Hell hath no flames hot enough for that person... -dq

25 years

Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?

by mbg＠world.std.com

>This is not a problem. One just has to make sure that one has a >system in one's collection running Bob Subnik's emulator attached to >one's real PDP-11s. Have the one with the emulator monitoring >something on the real PDP-11 systems, or somesuch, then, you ARE using >the versions of RT-11 on the real PDP-11s with Bob Supnik's emulator. >:-) :-) :-) Sorry, the current license does NOT impart a right to run the software on *real hardware*. It only imparts a right to use it with the DEC pdp-11 emulator products and Bob Supnik's emulator. This means running it *on* the emulator, not what you mention above. >Ok, let's not make a big deal out of people using RT-11 on their >systems. If they don't have a copy, someone will probably clone them >a copy. No big deal, and DEC didn't care. I was actually told, by >someone in customer service at DEC, to go ahead and use it and not >worry about the license, a few years back, and, when a very pleasant >chap from DEC field service came to my house to investigate a melted >mains plug, no questions were asked. If they said that, they were *wrong*. >There, _in conjunction with the EMULATOR_ - it doesn't say to only use >it with the emulator, but in conjunction with the emulator. Maybe in your mind it means you don't have to run it on the emulator, but now you are properly informed -- it means that you may only run it on the *emulated machine*. >Also, that bit about the license being revocable; that's probably as >binding as a contract of ashesion. Let's say you spend a huge amount >of time on writing some software to control various things around your >house that runs under RT-11; you most likely have a right to continue >using your software running under RT-11. You can continue to use your software, you just can't run it under RT -- regardless of what it is written for, since you don't have a valid license for RT. Please, all this talk of ignoring licenses and the lack of need for them can only serve to hurt to rest of the community of pdp-11 collectors. Mentec is apparently close to allow us all to use the real software on the real hardware... *DON'T SCREW IT UP* 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 KB1FCA | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

25 years

Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?

by mbg＠world.std.com

>> Since when is/was RT-11 freeware? One of the hardest things about >>collecting >Don't know since when, but it is. I found it on many FTP-Sites, and I >asked around in Compaq (this time DEC), and they said, they made it >freely accessible. Saying it is doesn't make it so... it may be available on various sites, but that also doesn't make it legal. If it is the version which came originally from the ftp.digital.com site, then it should be packaged with the license from Mentec. If it does not come with the Mentec license, then it is essentially boot-legged software. >Hmmm... Then you should try the PUPS archive I think it is called. You >get a license for it for free. bzzzt, wrong... and thanks for playing. THe PUPS archive may be able to provide a license for *UNIX* of various flavors, but it does NOT provide one for RT, RSX or RSTS. The only source for a valid license for these software products is the *owner*, which is Mentec! 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 KB1FCA | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

25 years

Legal Question

by mbg＠world.std.com

>All this talk about RT-11, RSX-11M,RSTS/E licensing details is making me >wonder. If I acquired a PDP-11 of some kind, and it came with RSX-11M >and/or RT-11 and or/ RSTS/E, would I have to have a license? I know a Legally, yes, you would need a license. This step is accomplished by either buying one yourself or having the prior owner transfer theirs to you (assuming *they* had a license). >license is legally required, but is it essential in running the OS? Does >the OS have any way of checking for one? What is required for running the There is nothing in RT, RSTS or RSX which checks for a license, so it doesn't know you have or don't have one... >OS? I really don't know anything about the PDP-11 family. What is required is a complete distribution... 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 KB1FCA | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

25 years

How do you finance/afford your computer collection?

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Jun 23, 1:14, Geoff Roberts wrote: > > Maybe someday I'll replace OutlookExpress but for the time being it > > mostly does what I want. > > No need. Go into Tools. > Pick Options > Pick Read > Pick Fonts > Ensure encoding is set to Western European (Windows) I'm not sure that's quite ideal. I don't have Outlook here to check, but if that's what you normally do, you might be interested to know that *your* headers show: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit which is ridiculous, because "Windows-1252" is a unique Microsoft non-standard character set (meant to be similar to ISO 8859-1, but with a unique symbol order), and it's also an 8-bit character set which can't be represented in 7 bits without using base64, uuencode, quoted-printable, or similar. I'm not complaining, merely informing :-) -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

25 years

PDP-16 (register transfer modules)

by Anthony.Eros＠compaq.com

Does anyone have a PDP-16 (sort of a prototyping machine using register transfer modules) that they'd be willing to part with? I thought I'd made arrangements to snag one from "JohnB", but he appears to have disappeared from the face of the earth. This machine looks intriguing and I'd really like to find one. -- Tony

25 years

How do you finance/afford your computer collection?

by allisonp＠world.std.com

Dagnabbit marvin, you running RTF or some junk like that? -----Original Message----- From: Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:05 PM Subject: Re: How do you finance/afford your computer collection? > >> >I'm interested in hearing how others on this list afford to maintain and >> expand their collections. Especially people like John R. Keys. > >The problem is not cost, but rather time to play with this stuff and space >to keep it. Generally speaking, I have been given (and continue to be given) >quite a bit of stuff so acquiring is not the problem. I don't rent a storage >space, but rather keep everything here at the >house/garage/backporch/backyard/... >

25 years

Licenses (was Re: Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

>Sigh. Allison has this part of it wrong, and it is a common problem. > >The book *is* the license. The contents (words etc) are licensed to the >particular bits of paper and cover that you are holding in your hand. When >you transfer the paper, the words go with it. You are forbidden from No, the book is media (I didn't say paper, tape, or ???). >copying the words off the paper and putting them on to some other piece of >paper. What you *own* in the book case is some newsprint, some wax, and >some binder thread *and that is all*. You own media! Bay saying Book it's an implied bound paper media. > You license the software and it is licensed (bound) to your CPU. > You own the CPU and may dispose of it how you wish, however if you > give it away or burn it or throw it away, the software goes with it! > Intel tried to make this model possible with their serial number > scheme but the market rejected it. > >So software, unlike books, is licensed to _people_. (or corporations) >because people and corporations like to be able to change their CPU and not >bother with relicensing their software. If you throw away the corporation >then the license gets thrown away too, just like if you had thrown away the >book. It can be, but, I have an ODBC driver that is "per CPU, unlimited users" that happens to be for a server license. >> The copyright means you can't make copies >>of it (other than limited amounts for reference with attribution) to sell >>or give away without expressed permission. > >Again, this isn't quite correct. The rights to make copies of a "work" >initially rest with the creator of that work. The creator (author what have >you) can then choose to grant limited subsets of those rights (or not) to >other people. As an author I am the copyright holder, I can assign some or >all of those rights to a "publisher" who is allowed to make copies of my >work, provided they send me a fee. *EVERYTHING* works this way, everything >from books to software to music to DVDs and to ill fated Divx disks. I think I said exactly that. The YOU is the holder of the finished product not a LICENSED producer who by expressed permission (contract) can and does produce copies for profit. However My reference also goes to intended use. For example a Encylopedias, they are an information source as reference where wholesale copying is bad but, the contained compendium of knowledge is NOT the property but, the format and package is. >> Software is going the >>route of, you pay for the media, manuals and support(optional) and also >>for rights to use under specified conditions as a CONTRACT. There >>lies the difference. the manuals are property (usually) but the software is >>provided under some stipulation (even freeware!) regarding it's use. > >Manuals still have copyrights, you cannot make copies of them without >permission. This is particularly true of manuals that are distributed as >PDF files. Generally you only have the write to print one copy for you own >personal use! Irrelevent. As I've specified manuals to be as books but distinct from the software itself. It's the distinction between them that was to point being made even though logically they can be identical. >Book authors have traditionally sold the rights to publish their works >(create copies) in paper form, without stipulating a transfer fee when the >book changes owners. They did that not because they were generous, but >because there wasn't any way they could figure out how to do it. (The >e-book guys can identify change of ownership and guess what, you can't give >your ebook to another person without them having to rebuy the book!) You sure? there are such things as licensed copies, copies under NDA and restricted printings. the assumption is you do not retain a copy in both cases. There is the distinct difference. If I give a paper book(tape or other media) away I no longer retain a copy, electronic means allow me to give a COPY and keep the "original" that is a clear copyright violation. There is also the case of I have a music CD, I copy it (or parts) to tape for use in my car where CDs are not useful. This would be format translation and is usually allowed. >Just because you have a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" it only gives you the >right to read it, not aloud at some gathering, or to put it on as a school >play. Correct to a point as profit taking venture. If you used it for schooling or non profit as a out loud reading it is now out side that. >Anyway, I don't mean to pick on anyone, it is not unusual for people to >believe that by buying a record they somehow "own" the music that is on >that record (or CD), they don't. They have only secured the right to listen >to it as often as they would like without additional payments to the Cant find fault in that. Its the exact case. Also no person from the record company or author is allowed to take it from you. They can audit you to see if it's for profit (ASCAP!). DJs for instance! >author. For some really interesting insight into just how intellectual >property works, check out the Napster and MP3 cases that have a lot of >their material posted on various web sites. Can of worms. At the core is who "owns the original work", what that original work is and who is allowed to profit from distribution. The best case of this is I make a recording my arrangement of Bach using pots and PC and sell it on CD. Who owns what? For software, it's worse. I write a version of Basic for 8080, assemble it using MS-MAC, using a Z80 box, under cpm and sell it on a sony microfloppy. Does Darthmoth College get something for the basis of the language? Howabout MS for the use of the MAC asembler used to get a binary? does Sony share as it's their media? Howabout Zilog as it was their cpu design even though it was a Mostek chip? Oh and Intel for their cpu and nemonics? Oh and the company that owned the Z80 box for accounting? What is created?, Who did it, who has a legit share? In any case the license (contract) for RT-11 is specific and any misuse outside that permitted use is a violation subject to legal remedy. Allison

25 years

← Newer
1
...
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
...
58
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb June 2000