On April 13, Charles P. Hobbs (SoCalTip) wrote:
> This was a rather neat little graphics terminal (CRT). You could draw all
> sorts of shapes on the screen by issuing commands such as "Square
> 0,0,10,10" or "Line 4,4,20,20", etc.
Cool!
> They were pretty exciting back in 1984 or so (when I first saw one), but
> probably long since outdone by VGA/SVGA graphics ...
...but since VGA/SVGA graphics are usually attached to PeeCees, I'd
take the 4107 any day. ;)
-Dave McGuire
Happy with 960 MFLOPS on an SGI Max Impact
Unhappy with PCs
...and finally getting over this damned cold.
From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" <rutledge(a)cx47646-a.phnx1.az.home.com>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:38:12PM -0500, Eros, Anthony wrote:
> > I'd like to set up more of my systems in a home network environment, but I
> > don't really properly understand routing and am looking for some help.
> > [...]
> > So, any suggestions on how I should set up the two NICs on the Alpha under
> > NT 4.0?
>
> May be possible with NT but this is screaming for Linux... what you need
> is IP masquerading, which will let all the machines hide behind one IP
> address, that of the gateway machine. [...]
Or a suitable cable modem/router. I have DSL service using a Cisco
675, routing, with a single IP address. It can do DHCP, but I don't use
it. I set static NAT entries for the popular ports to pass through to
my AlphaStation (running VMS), which acts as the (only) server.
Everyone else on the home network has a static (internal-only) IP
address (10.0.0.*) and gets client access to the network using the Cisco
box's dynamic NAT, so I can do Web browsing from my Mac Plus, if I wish.
What's your box, and what can it do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Schweda (+1) 651-699-9818 (voice, home)
382 South Warwick Street (+1) 763-781-0308 (voice, work)
Saint Paul MN 55105-2547 (+1) 763-781-0309 (facsimile, work)
sms(a)antinode.org sms(a)provis.com (work)
Any list members near Kent, UK? The fellow who wrote the attached
message has some nice Fujitsus available.
Please reply directly to him if interested.
Attachment follows.
-=-=- <snip> -=-=-
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:22:35 +0000, in comp.sys.dec you wrote:
>>Hello.
>>I have three pairs of SMD drives available. they are Fujitsu
>>M2344K (690MB) and each pair is fitted into a 19" rackmount
>>tray 3U high. I have all of the slidemounts and frontplates
>>and also some cables too. all of the drives spin-up O.K. and
>>become ready, and until a few days ago they were fitted into
>>a Sequent Minicomputer. The system was last used a month ago,
>>and has now been removed from service. the system dates from
>>1990 and has had minimal use for the past five years. so the
>>drives should be good for a few years yet. I'm open to offers
>>on these drives, as I haven't got a clue what they're worth.
>>Be warned though, they are big and heavy, and I'm in North
>>Kent U.K. and they'll need to be collected, although, if
>>you're local (within a couple of hundred miles) I may be able
>>to deliver.
>>
>>please e-mail or fax if you're interested. All The Best.
>>--
>>Tim Bluck. TB565 http://www.planet-tharg.demon.co.uk
>>'Phone.01322-409955 Fax. 01322-410111 Dartford. Kent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho,
Blue Feather Technologies -- kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech [dot] com
Web: http://www.bluefeathertech.com
"...No matter how we may wish otherwise, our science can only describe an object,
event, or living thing in our own human terms. It cannot possibly define any of them..."
Here's another computer up for sell. Good Luck John
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Johnsen <pjj(a)sgi.com>
To: <jrkeys(a)concentric.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:11 AM
Subject: Sony microcomputer
> Hello,
>
> Saw the write-up in the Pioneer Press about
> your collection. I have a circa 1982 Sony
> SMC-70 CP/M machine I'd like to part with and
> I was wondering if you might be interested in
> buying it.
>
> No manuals but it does boot from ROM and runs
> Basic just fine.
>
> Peter
>
>
> --
> Peter Johnsen Tel 651-683-5462
> Applications Engineer FAX 651-683-7482
> SGI pjj(a)sgi.com
> 655F Lone Oak Drive
> Eagan, MN 55121 USA
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
Hi,
I want to start scanning some of the transputer books and manuals that I
have. A lot if not all are out-of-print. If I scan them and put them on
the net, do I have to worry about copyright laws, etc. Would I get into any
trouble?? What is the current policy on this?? I know several of you guys
scanned several books/documentation/manuals etc for various machines. Any
help in this would be appreciated. Oh, what about old software too.
Thanks.
Ram
While not exactly on topic for this list, it does have some relavance I
think. I just got done talking with a friend about the lack of
documentation in this industry. I mentioned the arguments I thought for it:
the ``our competition will steal our ideas'' or ``our hardware/software is
so bad we don't want anyone to know about it.''
My friend had another reason: companies are afraid to release
documentation because most of it is inaccurate, incomplete, confusing, or
just doesn't exist within the company. Or their products use third party
vendor parts that themselves, are not documented or require thick layers of
NDAs to even see (``I work here and I was told to get a copy of our business
procedures.'' ``Are you a manager?'' ``No. I'm an engineer.'' ``Then I'm
sorry, but you are not allowed to see our business procedures.'' ``But I
work here!'' ``I'm sorry, but they're proprietary, and with proper
management approval, you can't have them.'' ``But I was told I have to
follow them!'' ``Yes, you do.'' ``But what are they?'' ``I'm sorry, but
that's proprietary information.'')
My friend even went on to relate a story that happened within his company:
FRIEND: Yes, I'd like to use our XYZ chip.
COW-ORKER: I'm sorry, but the engineer responsible for the XYZ chip
died last year and no one knows how it works or even how to
make it anymore.
FRIEND: There was no documentation?
COW-ORKER: Hahahahahahaha! You haven't worked here that long, have
you?
-spc (We're doomed! We're doomed I say!)
On Apr 12, 12:45, Pat Barron wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Roger Ivie wrote:
> >
> > One document that I'm fairly certain is not covered by the blanket
permission
> > is a copy of the MSCP specification (!) that I have tucked away in a
drawer
> > somewhere. Is DEC still making MSCP hardware? Everything I've used
> > recently has been SCSI.
> >
>
> This is from John Wilson's FTP site, at
> ftp://ftp.dbit.com/pub/pdp8/doc/README:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> >From the January 1985 Software Documentation Products Directory
(EJ-26361-78),
> first page:
>
> 3. RIGHT TO COPY
>
> Beginning January 1, 1985, Digital customers are given a right to
copy, at
> no charge, any Digital Archival Software Documentation Publication
> (excluding restricted or third party owned) that we no longer offer
for
> sale. However, the copyright is retained as the exclusive property of
> Digital Equipment Corporation.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm pretty sure the MSCP spec would have fallen under "restricted" ...
I'm not at all sure it is. My copy is "MSCP Basic Disk Functions Manual
AA-L619A-TK Version 1.2 A part of UDA50 Programmer's Doc. Kit QP-905-GZ",
and it has no restrictions indicated, apart from the usual copyright notice
(1982). On the other hand, Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, and 6.10 are listed in
the table of contents as "This section deliberately omitted" :-)
I think the Doc Kit was just two parts. Anyone know for sure? The other
part I have is "Storage Systems Diadnostics and Utility Protocol
AA-L620A-TK Version 1.2 A part of UDA50 Programmer's Doc. Kit QP-905-GZ".
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
For the heck of it, I've tried to design an electro-mechanical binary
adder that can automatically do the carry of the one that arises in 1 +
1 = 10. Of course, you reply, "George Stibitz's already did that in
1937 as you see here..."
http://www.toronto-montessori.on.ca/bsutherland/electricity/stibitz.html
But hey: this is retrocomputing, after all, and I'm not trying to
duplicate Stibitz--my aim is to come up with an electro-mechanical
binary adder architecture that's even simpler than his 2 switches, 2
bulbs, 2 batteries, and 2 relays version.
I think I've done it using 3 switches, 4 bulbs, and 1 battery. Yes,
still eight components but because it lacks the relays, I think it's
definitely simpler and therefore a kind of retro-breakthrough. And yes,
mine does carry the one for 1 + 1 = 10. Feel free to try building this
(or better it if you can with even fewer components).
But I do have a stupid question for everyone that exposes the holes in
my education: if my adder can successfully do all of the below
calculations but no more
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 1 = 1
0 + 10 = 10
0 + 11 = 11
1 + 0 = 1
1 + 1 = 10
1 + 10 = 11
10 + 0 = 10
10 + 1 = 11
11 + 0 = 11
have I constructed a 1-bit binary adder or a 2-bit binary adder?
Thanks,
S.F. Hall
Forgive me for asking, but would someone please reply OFFLINE
to me with an answer to this question --
what is this Dallas battery replacement that a bunch of notes
were about?
I somehow missed (did not read) the start of it, and just to
educate my mind (put it at rest), I would like to know what you
are in fact talking about. Why should I know about this?
Thank you.
Cheers. Kevin
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kevin L. Anderson Ph.D., Geography Department, Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois 61201-2296, USA phone: (309) 794-7325
e-mail: kla(a)helios.augustana.edu -or- gganderson(a)augustana.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent
the administration of Augustana College.
This is clearly off-topic compared to 10-year+ old computers,
so reply off-line if so inclined. (An observation -- since
this list moved to its new site, the topics of discussion, plus
the volume, has clearly taken a turn -- much for off-topic
notes, such as my own, plus much more opinionated notes. A
trend I've observed on other lists that moved their location.
I wonder why that is so....)
My few opinions include:
While I was never a VMS or other DEC programmer, and hence never
saw the "orange" or "gray" walls of documentation, I was for a
time a Sun/Unix programmer. So I did see Sun's "green and white"
wall of SunOS documentation -- about 3-4 four feet long of four-
inch binders. It was a very good resource that was quickly
augmented by a selected few Unix administration third-party books.
With later version of SunOS, as well as the early Solaris releases,
this same material was on a CD as postscript files -- another
useful source (their so-called AnswerBook, which I never did
actually install per se, but just read it directly using pageview
PS viewing software). They mucked it up however with the release
of Solaris 2.6, changing the AnswerBook format and making it much
less useful. At the same time they significantly modified the Unix
install procedure, using instead of a quick-loading mini-root from
CD a very slow loading graphic shell -- yuck. Moves by Sun that I
was thrilled about, despite their making Solaris cheaper for so-
called developers.
I have RedHat Linux 6 and I am not happy. I was very dismayed to
see how big the loaded version was, which very quickly filled
400+ MB of material onto my 540MB hard drive with just basic
stuff, and it seems to run slow to boot (including very slow to
boot-up). In contrast, when I earlier played with FreeBSD (2.2.5),
that seemed to be a lean and mean, fast running system on a
comparable 486-33 that I have the Linux on. Software bloat is
most definitely an issue -- and unless you REALLY KNOW Unix, it is
tough (like for Win9x) to know which files can be trimmed away.
And reliance on package installs/removes doesn't help, as they
don't tell you of Unix dependencies in their documentation, hence
a growing problem like for WinDoze. Not good I think.
Now to my question --
Has anyone actually done an speed comparison between Linux, FreeBSD,
and NetBSD?
My impression (from limited exposure) is that BSD-based kernel
versions run much faster (and are generally smaller in size) than
comparable SYS-V or Linux systems. That comment stems from
comparisons of SunOS and Solaris on comparable Sun systems, followed
by FreeBSD and Linux on comparable 486 systems.
In particular, I would like to know how FreeBSD compares to the
more open (cross-platform) implementation in NetBSD.
This is clearly off-topic, so reply offline. Thanks.
Cheers. Kevin
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kevin L. Anderson Ph.D., Geography Department, Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois 61201-2296, USA phone: (309) 794-7325
e-mail: kla(a)helios.augustana.edu -or- gganderson(a)augustana.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent
the administration of Augustana College.