I was wondering if there is a simple way of tranfering cp/m files from
the original Osborne 1 format to something a Commodore 1574 drive can
read. I see it does Osborne SSDD, but not SSSD. I'm also wondering
about downloading software of the net on my Linux box, as I can get
either a 360k or 1.2M 5.25" floppy (MS-DOS format???)
i'm open for suggestions . . don't want to do a serial poert transfer.
Gary Hildebrand
St. Joseph, MO
In a message dated 3/29/02 12:50:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
menadeau(a)attbi.com writes:
> The classic computing hobby aside, The CBDTPA is stupid on a number of
> levels. Most electronics manufacturers are against it, for example. They say
> it will discourage innovation and slow the development of new products.
> Civil libertarians oppose it for potential privacy issues and its likelihood
> of impeding the free flow of information.
>
> By all means, contact your Congress critter if you want to express your
> opposition. I suggest, however, that you bring up some of the more high
> profile arguments against the bill as well as its impact on the hobby.
>
> The CBDTPA is not a done deal. Powerful forces are lined up on both sides,
>
OK, I just read the CBDTPA.. It'll never work even if it were to be passed
and here's why...
The act specifically says the security measures *shall not* prevent a legal
owner from making a personal copy (presumably for backup perposes,etc..). If
you can make a backup, you can trade it, etc, just like it is happening now...
The second good reason it'll never work is they can't possibly enforce it.
You can't subject other countries to US rules policies, and the act doesn't
have any provision for open source or freeware, or PD goodies. The US nor
any other country can effectively poliece/control the internet.
Thirdly, you can't use a hardware decryption because there is no feasable way
of that method working on all available platforms (and imagine the US saying
to companies that they can't make such and such a product unless they install
"our pre-approved security gizmo"), so you would have to use software..
There's no way a software encryption/decryption would work because you could
not possibly keep the code from leaking out or being reverse engineered.
Lastly (at least how I see it) the act would invariably violate freedom of
speach by dictating how and where we could express information.
-Linc.
In The Beginning there was nothing, which exploded - Yeah right...
Calculating in binary code is as easy as 01,10,11.
>From reading the Wired article, it looks like the biggest backers are the
big movie studios and record companies, so it makes sense that the bill is
clueless about open source and PD software.
Scary nonetheless.
-----Original Message-----
From: LFessen106(a)aol.com [mailto:LFessen106@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:29 PM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: The Future End of Classic Computing
<snip>
OK, I just read the CBDTPA.. It'll never work even if it were to be passed
and here's why... <snip> the act doesn't have any provision for open source
or freeware, or PD goodies. The US nor any other country can effectively
poliece/control the internet.<snip>
There's no way a software encryption/decryption would work because you could
not possibly keep the code from leaking out or being reverse engineered.
<snip>
> Mitch Wright wrote:
>
>Does anyone know how to park(lock) the heads on RK07 drives for
moving?
The RK06/RK07 User's Manual is available at:
http://208.190.133.201/decimages/moremanuals.htm
I don't see anywhere that mentions locking
or unlocking heads, but I only skimmed
through quite quickly.
Antonio
Forwarded from alt.sys.pdp8,10,&11:
(contact the originak poster, please)
From: "Betty Sparks CIRT-IRC" <bsparks(a)unm.edu>
To: <bsparks(a)unm.edu>
Subject: pdp-11 availalbe
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:21 AM
Is there any interest in a pdp-11...maybe an e with all the associated
DEC documentation?
Also, any other group that you migh know of that would be interested and I
will send info to them
thanks Betty
--
-Douglas Hurst Quebbeman (dougq(a)iglou.com) [Call me "Doug"]
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." -Tom Waits
> A friend was claiming that with the UCSD P-System, one could "compile
once"
> and then "run anywhere" (where "anywhere" means different kinds of
> computers running the P-System, not different instances of
> the same computer).
>
> Was this true?
I've never seen it contradicted.
> Did users commonly compile on system A and then take the P-Code to
> system B and run it successfully?
It wasn't likely common.
> I'd have thought that media incompatibility would have tended to
> limit this capability.
Serial ports and modems would more or less get around this problem.
> Was any commerical P-System software sold that was a single binary,
> but the vendor expected the user to be able to install/run it on
> any brand/model of P-System? (Or, did vendors have to produce a version
> for every platform?)
The Smalltalk-80 System also used an interpreter, called the bytecode
interpreter, and it was in fact common to take an application compiled
on, say, a Xerox Dorado and run it on a Xerox Magnolia, or even a
Tektronix box. I've seen references recently to an Alto version of
Smalltalk-80 2.2, so the apps crafted at XSIS (Xerox Special Information
Systems) like The Analyst(tm), might have been worked out on Altos
then run at the The Company on Magnolias.
-dq
--
-Douglas Hurst Quebbeman (dougq(a)iglou.com) [Call me "Doug"]
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." -Tom Waits
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Franke [mailto:Hans.Franke@mch20.sbs.de]
> We all know there's only one real high level language :)
German?
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
I wrote:
> > After checking the schematic I find that there is a link. "Use L1 for
1K
> > RAM, use L2 for 2K RAM." This tells me that when a 4118 or two 2114s
are
> > used (or a 6116???) there is no need to change the jumper -- it's only
> > required when using a 2KB 2016 or equivalent.
Tony replied:
> What is this link connected to? What does it reconnect?
Ok -- I have yet another version of the schematic here, and it agrees with
the first -- L1 for 1K and L2 for 2K but does NOT specify what this means
in terms of the actual number of RAM ICs onboard.
>From looking at the schematic from the ZX-TEAM web site, I can't see how
either jumper would affect a two-chip configuration. L1 ties the single
RAM chip's A10 to +5V, while L2 ties the single chip's A10 to the A10 line
on the system bus.
Can you make any sense out of this, or is it necessary to be Clive Sinclair
in order to understand it?
As mentioned in a previous post, the 2-RAM-chip ZX81 PCBs I have at hand
have NEITHER L1 or L2 installed.
I would consider experimentally changing the links L1 and L2 and seeing if
this made a difference in the amount of RAM present, except that we're
talking about +5V and I don't want to toast any ICs, even common ones, if I
can avoid it.
Any insight you can provide will be helpful.
Glen
0/0
Anybody know what Manesa is? Is it an IBM facility? The 9577 I just
bought has sticker, and a stamping on it that says "Manesa".
--
Chad Fernandez
Michigan, USA
