7 May
2007
7 May
'07
6:31 p.m.
Hi, Rod.
Jerome makes some interesting, if strange and faulty assumptions.
Such as assuming that since Mentec hasn't complained although people
"appear" to have been using and posting about RT-11 on classiccmp list
for a long time.
First of all, we don't even know if Mentec knows about the classiccmp
list, neither if they scan it (which perhaps some people should be happy
about).
Second, I can't remember that many people actually coming out saying
that they are using RT-11 without a license.
So I would somewhat ignore Jeromes view on the legality of things.
That said, I'll answer some of your questions.
"Rod Smallwood" <RodSmallwood at mail.ediconsulting.co.uk> skrev:
Hi Jerome
We seem to be converging on our views. The simulator is a simple
issue. I want to see the old systems run and live again. If I had spent
years restoring an old aircraft to flying condition I would not park it
and use MS flight simulator instead!
I agree with you. It's fun to actually run the real hardware, and not
just play with a simulator. Not the same feel of satisfaction. I still
play with an 11/70 here, even though we also have E11.
RT-11, RSX-11M & RSX11-D, and RSTS were all
current when I joined DEC in
1975. The hardware to support them (Mentec excepted) has not been made
for at least ten years. The answer may lie a little deeper. I think what
may lie at the back of it is if they provide it they may be liable for
any damage it does. Licenses do not change laws and the law of the land
will always take precedence. It might be a risk based decision.
That is probably one part of it.
Another part is that they have paying customers (still) and probably
don't think it's a good idea to start giving it all away for free, which
means they need to draw up some sort of license that will limit things
in a useful way. Doing that costs money, and they probably can't see any
profit from it. So why spend that money?
However I'd still like to know what are the
answers to the fundimental
questions:
1. Are Mentec still selling PDP-11 operating system licenses?
Yes. As someone who have customers who still buy from Mentec I can
definitely confirm that they were still selling ten months ago. Can't
see a reason why they should have stopped since then. This is RSX and
layered products, by the way.
2. Are they still making PDP-11 hardware?
No. I think they stopped manufacturing "real" PDP-11 hardware, and are
now pushing for emulators. However, that is a grey zone. We haven't had
a real "true" PDP-11 CPU since the 11/20. All the rest are microcoded.
Microcode is also software. :-)
3. Why have Mentec removed all mention of PDP-11
products from
their web sites.
That is a really good question, and one which I don't have an answer to.
But I'd like to know if someone else have.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
8 May
8 May
1:35 a.m.
Johnny Billquist wrote:
One man's opinion, I guess.
www.mentec.com is the corporate site I haven't seen mention of
anything
PDP-11 related on it for quite some time. OTOH www.mentec-inc.com is the
US-based PDP-11 site that up until last year was up and running, and had
info on all their RT/RSX/RSTS products. For the last year or so
www.mentec-inc.com has been offline and 'under construction' (and still is).
All of this is just my opinion, of course.
Don North
PDP-11/44 owner running 2.11BSD since nuthin' else is legit.
[...snipped...]
"Rod Smallwood" <RodSmallwood at mail.ediconsulting.co.uk> skrev:
[...snipped...]
> 1. Are Mentec still selling
PDP-11 operating system licenses?
Yes. As someone who have customers who still buy from Mentec I can
definitely confirm that they were still selling ten months ago. Can't
see a reason why they should have stopped since then. This is RSX and
layered products, by the way.
I can understand that Mentec might be making money
from ongoing monthly
support contracts, but I fail to be convinced that Mentec is making any
money from selling *new* PDP-11 software licenses. Do do so would assume
the deployment of 'new' currently unlicensed PDP-11 systems, which I
would think is highly unlikely at this point. Where would the hardware
come from, other that used equipment liquidators selling old systems?
The only other application would be running PDP-11 applications on new
E11 (or Charon) or SIMH platforms, which to me seems laughable from a
business perspective.
If I went into *any* vendor at this point and saw they were running
their computing environment on PDP-8s/PDP-11s I'd immediately run for
the nearest exit.
However I'd still like to know what are the
answers to the
fundimental questions:
2. Are they still making PDP-11 hardware?
No. I think they stopped manufacturing "real" PDP-11 hardware, and are
now pushing for emulators. However, that is a grey zone. We haven't
had a real "true" PDP-11 CPU since the 11/20. All the rest are
microcoded. Microcode is also software. :-) 3. Why have Mentec removed all mention of
PDP-11 products from
their web sites.
That is a really good question, and one which I don't have an answer
to. But I'd like to know if someone else have.
Johnny 
2:36 a.m.
At 10:35 PM -0700 5/7/07, Don North wrote:
I can understand that Mentec might be making money from
ongoing
monthly support contracts, but I fail to be convinced that Mentec is
making any money from selling *new* PDP-11 software licenses. Do do
so would assume the deployment of 'new' currently unlicensed PDP-11
systems, which I would think is highly unlikely at this point. Where
would the hardware come from, other that used equipment liquidators
selling old systems? The only other application would be running
PDP-11 applications on new E11 (or Charon) or SIMH platforms, which
to me seems laughable from a business perspective.
I know for a fact there are new installations going on periodically.
I also know someone who purchased a new license from them in the last
two months.
If I went into *any* vendor at this point and saw they
were running
their computing environment on PDP-8s/PDP-11s I'd immediately run
for the nearest exit.
Then you don't want to know who I sold a couple PDP-11's to a few
years ago. :^)
As I and others have mentioned here before there are reasons for
this. In some cases it works, so why mess with it. Those are the
ones that will typically move to an emulation based solution when the
hardware breaks, at least they do if they can't easily obtain
replacement hardware.
In other cases there are requirements to recertify any new hardware
or software. Such certifications can cost in excess of a Million
Dollars (yes, US Dollars). Situations such as this are why things
such as working RD53's and RA81's command a premium.
In other cases the computer is connected via very specialized
interfaces to very expensive equipment. This is where companies like
Strobe Data and their PCI-to-QBus/Unibus expansions come into play.
This likely falls at least partially into the second example, some
manufacturing processes specify a certain configuration with zero
changes for "X" years. New plants designed to manufacture the same
item have to be built exactly the same.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
8:23 a.m.
Johnny wrote...
Jerome makes some interesting, if strange and faulty
assumptions.
Such as assuming that since Mentec hasn't complained although people
"appear" to have been using and posting about RT-11 on classiccmp list
for a long time.
...and...
So I would somewhat ignore Jeromes view on the
legality of things.
No, actually, Jerome's points are valid and his views are worth far more
than an admonishment to ignore them.
I should point out something that you dont seem to be aware of (at least
based on your statement above) - a demonstrable pattern of non-enforcement
of license does in fact weaken the ability to enforce it. That is why often
a company will act to notify, issue a cease & desist, etc. an infringing
entity about an infraction of license that they actually in fact don't
really care about - because it can then be argued that they didn't enforce
it in case xyz, so how can they selectively enforce it in another instance.
This is also one of several reasons that some - not all - companies are wary
of creating a hobbyist license, because there is some amount of perception
that it will put their ability to enforce a license at peril - or at the
least possibly cloud the issue.
On a separate and unrelated point, I believe Johnny (or someone) questioned
whether Mentec is aware of this list, various archives, etc. I can assure
you that they are, just as Jerome intoned.
Best regards,
Jay West
2:09 p.m.
[...] - a demonstrable pattern of non-enforcement of
license does in
fact weaken the ability to enforce it. That is why often a company
will act to notify, issue a cease & desist, etc. an infringing entity
about an infraction of license that they actually in fact don't
really care about
This is also part of the reason why it's often worth asking, because if
they don't care about your case they may well give you a license for
"nothing" - doing so does not produce a weakening of their ability to
slap down infringement they *do* care about.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:31 p.m.
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:09 -0400, der Mouse wrote:
That is *exactly* why I asked them. I figured they'd either say "Yes,
here's a licence, don't use it for commercial stuff", in which has I'd
be fine happy, or they would say "Absolutely not, you need to buy a new
copy", or they'd say nothing at all, which I would take to mean "We
don't care and we don't want to know. Please don't make us care.".
Gordon
[...] - a
demonstrable pattern of non-enforcement of license does in
fact weaken the ability to enforce it. That is why often a company
will act to notify, issue a cease & desist, etc. an infringing entity
about an infraction of license that they actually in fact don't
really care about
This is also part of the reason why it's often worth asking, because if
they don't care about your case they may well give you a license for
"nothing" - doing so does not produce a weakening of their ability to
slap down infringement they *do* care about.
6262
days inactive
6263
days old
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ak6dn＠mindspring.com -
bqt＠softjar.se -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA