And not a word about how lovely and mature Dave is to take his marbles and go home in a snit - reneging on his earlier statement (I'd even say "commitment") that he'd make the source available when he was no longer able or willing to maintain it himself, I might note - because someone points out that he's _wrong_ in thinking that no harm is done by ivory-tower "you'll get it when I think it's good and ready" development? I went back and reread the note that Dave is (apparently) reacting to: < I am not sure you've done no harm by so doing... I know for a fact < that at least one person was working on an open-source disk archiver, < but has dropped that project, at least for the moment, because he < doesn't want to create yet another incompatible file format, and < would have wanted to see how you did things (not wasting time < re-inventing the wheel and all that). We'd all better hope his pile < of hard-to-find disks [...] remain[s] readable a little longer. This hardly qualifies as bitching and moaning to me, with the *possible* exception of the last sentence. Of course, Dave's choice of reaction to this information is up to him. But really, after rereading the full note I quoted from (there's a good deal more to it, but I don't think the above is unrepresentative - I'd call it all fair and polite criticism), and rereading Dave's reaction, it's pretty clear to me which one is more "bitching and moaning". Yes, I too hope Dave reconsiders. But I don't think stifling fair criticism - and that's what I think it was - because its target reacts badly to it is ever a good idea. /~\ 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

Since you chose my message to respond to, I reply - but I can speak only for myself. I think the only thing I've ever said that's even vaguely like that is that your release policy diminished my opinion of you somewhat. I don't know what you've received privately, of course. I've just gone back and reread, again, the message I quoted an excerpt from. its author mentions the GPL, but, at least to my reading, is not pressuring you to use the GPL; indeed, it seems to me that he was trying to collaborate with you to find ways for you to get certain good effects of the GPL without having to take the whole thing. I'm no fan of the GPL either; I find it hypocritical, in large part inappropriate, and accompanied by a rabid fan culture I find repellent. But it does have some good aspects, and I think anyone contemplating writing a license for source-code release should at least have a look at it for things to adopt, adapt, and avoid. I saw fragments of one message that mentioned fear of legal action, in an off-list response you Cc:ed me in on (and which I wrote a response to, but couldn't send to you). In today's legal climate, unfortunately, such fear is well-founded. The only really effective way to assuage it is a clear copyright license (or statement of public domain status). I'm not sure whom "you" refers to here. If it's me, you have a very badly mistaken impression, but since I haven't been saying any of the things you seem to be basing this on, I suspect it's more aimed at the unnamed person from whom you've been getting GPL badgering. I'm sure that will help matters immensely. /~\ 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

Sometimes Metcalf and his 'open sores' metaphor really starts to make sense. Would you guys have kicked Michaelangeo off his scaffold? He was doing his work in a Cathederal, you know, not a Bazzar.

Well, you know, he *might* even actually *listen* to some of it. When all else fails, of course. Not all criticism is pointless mudsliging. There *are* reactions other than "well then I'm going to take my marbles and go home, so there!" and just sitting there and "taking" (more accurately, "ignoring") it. For example, he could have said "thanks for pointing that out; I still come down on the side of not releasing source". Or he could have said "thanks for pointing that out; it tips the balance the other way for me". Or he could have composed a rebuttal. Or.... Or, of course, he could have just deleted the mail and quietly gone ahead and done what he was going to do anyway. What we say and think about him matters to him only as much as he lets it. His *right*, feh. People have a right to do a huge variety of things, a number of them positively antisocial. This isn't about rights and never has been; everyone who's mentioned rights, as far as I've seen, agrees on them. It's about our various opinions of Dave, or more precisely of his release policy for IamgeDisk, and his reactions to them. /~\ 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

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:42:13AM +0000, Jules Richardson wrote: You don't get it - that's exactly what GPL protects against. -- Christer O. Andersson Odensbacken

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:25:00PM +0000, Jules Richardson wrote: I was trying to make a point - the GPL is not a good license if you want to rip off somebodys code. It protects against that. Dave shouldn't pick a license he doesn't like, of course. There are a lot of licenses available. I think ImageDisk would be more spread and used if the source was public, and I would believe that is a kind of reward to the author. I cannot really see any drawback in publishing the source. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to. Publishing the code helps the program to survive, long after the original author gives up on it. That way, you can trust that it will still be available when you need it next time. -- Christer O. Andersson Odensbacken

der Mouse wrote: Even if Dave hadn't made it clear that the source is privately available now, and will be publicly available in the future, there's one glaring point here. It's HIS freakin' code. Where's your code, Mr. Mouse? And the rest of whoever's having an issue with this? What are YOU doing for the community? Dave Dunfield is producing working tools, *free of charge*. He's taking suggestions for features and fixes, he's made his image format freely available. But it's his, to do with and to distribute as he pleases. I'm a HUGE fan of Open Source development. I believe it's changed the face and the future of computing. Still, I don't believe that the GPL is the Be-All and End-All of OSS, and first and foremost, I believe in this: The SOB who does the work gets to choose what he does with it. Period. Doc

Christer O. Andersson wrote: It *is* available. It's just not downloadable from any website because it's not considered by the author to yet be polished enough for people to be adding their own features and working on collaborative development. To be honest, I expect the most successful OSS projects are the ones where a reasonable first release is done in relative isolation by one or more people in order to get things rolling, before it being flung open to a wider audience. Otherwise you end up with everyone who wishes to contribute having a different and often conflicting idea of what are desirable features, and the whole thing degenerates into a mess where nothing gets done. But, yet again, source *is* available, and Dave made that clear early on. I really don't get why so many people seem to be missing that point.

Christer O. Andersson wrote: Yep, but there's a difference between merely reading it, and with making changes to it in the form of additional features which then get released - all when the author doesn't consider the 'core' of the application to yet be in some form of 'production' state. That could lead to all sorts of nasty branching issues as time goes on. Yep. But Dave doesn't strike me as the sort of person who'd be against incorporating features / bugfixes back into the core code if they benefit the project - he just wanted *for now* to try and maintain the direction in which the project was heading to avoid any fragmentation. When the software works with a file format that's hoped to become sort of standard, that probably becomes even more important.

Jim Battle wrote: Ditto. ID was on track to be an almost perfect solution to a problem that's been plaguing a lot of us for several years, and now it's no more. I'm just going to go and fume off-list for a few days I think. Grrr. :-(

At 8:59 AM -0600 12/20/05, Jim Battle wrote: So far I've stayed out of all of this. I've been tempted to point out as others have, that Dave's code, and that he can do whatever he wants with it. At the same time, I've not been interested in his software, as far as I know, it's mainly targeted at systems that I don't have much interest in, HOWEVER, I do see the value in it. Group #3 really ticks me off, and as far as I'm concerned they *always* do more harm than good. Zane -- -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | | 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/ |

"Zane H. Healy" wrote: [aside: no offense taken or ment by quoting the above. I actually agree with it. but it also made me ponder the bigger question] It might be slightly unfair to paint all "pro open source" folks with the same brush. And 'polemic' has an agressive part to it which I guess I have not seen here. Maybe I was not watching for it. I would just argue that greater good can come from releasing the source code to pretty much any utility. Most of the fears/problems I have seen stated here have not come true in my experience. Most of the time a small group remains in control of the releases and incorporates changes as they see fit. There are rarely "renigade" branches, but when there are, it's often a good thing, as they add a feature which at least some constituancy wants. This rarely turns into a bad thing. Generally the good stuff flourishes. I agree that an author can do as he/she pleases and should always have that right. But I'd also say that a community benefits when the source for their utilities is freely available. I can site some obvious examples where not having the source has held back a more-than-willing community. Recently an author of a lisp machine emulator got frustrated and released his un-working code saying he was done and could do no more. Immediately several other people tried a bunch of things and the whole project jumped forward in a flurry of activity culminating, several months later, in *two* different emulators both workinng and running lisp code. The two projects helped each other and co-debugged and in the end made much more progress than any single project would have made. All I can say is this would not have happened if the author had not decided to release his code. As I said before, it's a Zen thing - you get what you resist. -brad

On 20/12/05 23:40, "Scott Stevens" <chenmel at earthlink.net> wrote: Bollocks to that, I'm out of here until the dust settles. I managed to avoid the original threads but the recent spat disgusts me. This hobby is supposed to be fun, hey, anyone remember the fun word? Happy fuckin' christmas. -- Adrian/Witchy Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer collection?

This thread is like a soap opera. If you offer to program a utility for the "comunity" you should expect a decent amount of email in reply that runs from praise to ridicule. People will be bugging you to add features you probably dont have time for. Others will want to see the sourcecode because they want to see how it is done, to take the guts and modify the interface, just to have it, or maybe even to modify and sell. You should think about what you are getting into before going public. The reason there are not alot of multi platform disk archivers is because the person doing the programming on their own gets bored with the project, or quits in the middle of it when somebody gets on their nerves. The tools I use for backing up and restoring disk images are platform dependant and that is fine with me. I find groups of programmers for specific platforms tend to finish their utilities because they need them for their hobby, and if one person loses motivation another takes his place. I am not criticising anybody for attempting to go it alone, but it is easy for the developer to get a bruised ego because they take any criticism personally while a team of developers (with a smaller platform specific project) tend to ignore the chatter and turn out a project they are happy with. There are pitfalls to going public with a project, if being in the spotlight and everything associated with that is not your thing then think twice about going public in the first place.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: Re: ImageDisk project is canceled some bad - xyz which all regardless don't far easy happy issue, past Well lets be honest here, people do not do anything for "free". Some people like the attention, some people use a free service to get their name out there to built contacts or interest in other things, some people just have the need to contribute period because it makes them feel good inside. Once you step up to the plate you will have people cheering you on, a few will boo, and an even smaller minority will do anything to sabotage you so that you fail for no other reason then they are just evil. Why get peoples hopes up releasing anything and then pull the rug out from under them because of a few rotten apples? If people take you at your word that eventually the program source code will be released and they start actually dumping disk images with it you end up wasting their time. I agree people should be able to do whatever they want with their code up until the point they get others involved in either helping out with the code or depending on the semi finished product. Once you start making promises you do not keep expect some people to voice their disapproval, that is the price you pay for attempting anything in public and having it not work out.

Over the past few years, a friend of mine wrote an HTTP server [1] in C++, intended mainly for use in embedded systems, where something like Apache would be too large or too difficult to use. When he was comfortable enough with the code, he released it under the GPL license, but also provided an alternative license for pure commercial use [2]. Over time, be became aware that multiple companies in China were downloading his webserver and embedding the software into commerical products. Since these companies did not negotiate an alternative license to the GPL, they were then bound to the GPL license and my friend would have been within his rights to buy a unit and demand the source code. His chances of actually *getting* said source code were nil. The Chinese companies don't care and it would have been prohibitively expensive for him to sue. Since his intent was to make money off the codebase (and he spent a few years working on the software [3]---following the HTTP spec [4] isn't easy and there are some rather interesting corner cases). So what did he do? The next release was no longer under the GPL. You want the code, you have to buy it [5]. It was thus said that the Great der Mouse once stated: Some interesting stuff there, but without a clear license what can I do with the code? For me, he should not be criticized for making his source code unavailable. I've seen freeware that came as binary only, no source code. Shareware too (in fact, I've rarely seen shareware come with source code). By the same token, if he wants to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and die of lung cancer, more power to him (not that I want him to, just making a point). Dave's a grown-up, and if he makes a bad choice, well ... that's his decision (as long as it doesn't negatively impact others). One more story. A while back for a project I had in mind (which I didn't do for other reasons) I took a look at existing blogging software, the most popular of which (at the time) was Moveable Type. Written in Perl, but the license wasn't an open license at all. Couldn't copy it. Couldn't transfer it (licensing wise). Major restrictions on the number of authors and blogs a single instance could do. Couldn't redistribute. Couldn't really modify. But you got the source code! I rejected that codebase as soon as I finished reading the licensing. Didn't bitch to Mena or Ben Trott though. They wrote the code. They licensed it as they saw fit. I just deleted my copy and went on. -spc (Oh, by the way, I have this GREAT text based digital clock program, uses a large font so one can view it from across the room ... anyone interested?) [1] http://www.gladesoft.com/products/seminole/index.shtml [2] I'm told, by my friend, that due to the way embedded systems are typically constructed (from a software point of view) that the GPL licensed code practically never used if at all possible. Since his webserver (which could be compiled for standalone use) was meant to be used in embedded systems (and it was quite easy to embed into larger programs), he was willing to offer the code under a different license to those companies so interested. The other programmers that helped him in this (myself, one other, and a few people that provided a few patches for various real time operating systems) were okay with this. [3] With some help. I mainly helped with interpreting the HTTP spec [4] but did write a bit of code (MD5 hash, some date-manipulation routines, and making sure his code could understand HTTP/0.9 requests). [4] HTTP/1.1 - RFC-2616 Authentication for HTTP/1.1 - RFC-2617 [5] Not that I have a problem with him doing this---not only did he fund the development himself, but I did get paid for my work, along with the other developer that helped him.

It was thus said that the Great der Mouse once stated: Of the four programs I downloaded, only one had a clear license stated. The three that didn't: hacks/bigclk.c (the one I mentioned as having 8-) hacks/cmpstream.c hacks/distmult.c -spc

It was thus said that the Great Cameron Kaiser once stated: He felt he was safe with the GPL, in this case, since most embedded systems link everything---the operating system, device drivers and applications, into one large binary program, and as such, if an embedded company used his GPLed version of the code, it would taint the rest of the code and customers of the company could demand the source code to everything. That's why he was willing to license it under a non-GPL license. I'm unaware of any other open source but non-commercial type license, but you have to remember---the GPL was written not only by Stallman, but by a lawyer that specializes in intellectual property [1], so it's strong enough to stand up in court [2]. That is true. -spc (I've released stuff under the GPL, and if you can make money with my code ... more power to you ... I certainly haven't ... ) [1] My friend spent about $5k getting a custom written license which stands a chance of holding up on court. [2] If the GPL as a license fails, then the case falls to a copyright infringement---a rather clever legal hack if I do say so myself. [3] (not included here) [4] (not included here) [5] (not included here)

On 12/20/05 11:45 AM, "der Mouse" <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote: You know, this thread is reminding me of highschool.... Heck, today, me and the programming teacher were fighting, and she screamed "SINCE YOU KNOW SO MUCH, uh... ADD TWO NUMBERS IN ASSEMBLER" So I put down MV AL,2 MV BL,2 ADD AL,BL And, you can guess, that's no where near perfectly valid, but in all her supreme knowledge, she said it was correct, proceded to shut up, and let me work on my project (Trying to get linux to boot on my MyPal A620 pda..) For some reason, that whole incident was very childish seeming to me. Just like this thread.

On 12/20/05 5:50 PM, "Kevin Handy" <kth at srv.net> wrote: .... Didn't you read? The format is said to be HEAVILY documented. His program was one way to access the format, the format itself was the true value in his work! And that format was what he readily gave away for free!

It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated: Then you must be a better programmer than I, to be able to tell if a program has such a weird bug just by visual inspection. Can I hire you do debug some PHP code? We have tons of it ... Now, did you *bother* to read the spec? Did you bother to write a program that will read .IMD files? I did. Perhaps an hour or two (didn't keep track of time) and I now have a program that will read .IMD files---at least the ones I found on the net so far. And no surprises. Sheesh! So two questions Tony: 1. Do you have the source code to every operating system for every computer you own? I also know you have PCs, so what in the world did you do prior to Linux? Refuse to use MS|PC-DOS? 2. (might as well ask, as long as I'm asking) I know you dislike the whole "board swap" mentality and that you prefer replacing blown chips over replacing a whole board. But why not repair those non-functioning chips? I mean, one blown gate and you toss the *whole* chip? What's with that? [2] -spc (And you actually trust chips to do what they say?) [1] Not my footnote [2] Or in other words---the "components" in today's computers are bigger than yesterday's computers. Right now, the "components" are boards/cards and I can certainly see it being whole computers in the not so distant future.

It's taken me several days to mull on this and the inevitable progression of computers. Anyway, the subject line only comes up rather deep into this reply to Tony about his "I don't replace boards" stance: It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated: The first computers were designed and built out of discreet components, which gave away to integrated circuits. Not only did it become cheaper to build computers, but easier as well, but I'm sure there were guys out there who ridiculed those that couldn't hack a computer with discreet compoments. "What? You have to replace an *entire* chip because a single transitor inside blew?" they might say. "How can you detect which chip is bad? With components, I can place probes *anywhere*, trace the fault down to the precise transistor and relatively quickly replace it. See?" But over time, the nature of a "component" changed yet again, this time to a larger unit---the card (or motherboard). The functional units are now larger. Whereas there are multiple companies that make a quad two-input NAND 7400, there are also multiple companies that produce (or rather, produced) two port serial cards for the PC. Sure, it's may be just as easy to replace a chip as a card, but then again, it should be easy to replace a blown gate, right? The 7400 chip is documented to work under certain conditions, with these inputs and output. Just as a two port serial card for the PC is documented to work with the ports at such-n-such address with so-n-so IRQ and what not (or else, not many people will buy the thing). Discreet components -> IC -> boards -> computers "Here" being your house? Or England? Because it's certainly a reality here in the States, and I can name one company that does this as a standard operating proceedure---Google [1] (heck, even the company I work for does that to some degree). With 60,000 machines [2] it's probably more cost effective to let the machines die and work around them than to attempt to fix them (they probably do pull the dead machines, but only if there are enough to justify the expense of doing so). Even more amazing, Google is going further---not only does it consider a computer a mere component to be replaced, they're trying to make *data centers* a component! [3] A 40'x8'x8' data center, ready to be shipped anywhere in the world, the ultimate in plug-n-play. And thus we come to the subject line. In 10 years time (or heck, say 20) when Google starts to decomission some of these "data center containers" for pennies (maybe even mills [4]) on the dollar, what are we to make of such a system? It's about the size of the early computers, but with *way* more functionality and equipment. And its components are today's commodity PCs running a commodity operating system. Maybe we should start saving those Wintel boxes after all ... -spc (The technical specs on Google are very interesting ... ) [1] Ever since the early 90s I've felt that there were no more systems for a hacker (in the good, exploratory sense) to get into. TOPS-10, TOPS-20, ITS, heck, even VMS, were all dead or seriously on the decline, with the only multiuser systems left running Unix (how boring). It wasn't until last year I realized that there *is* a system that I would love to get into and play around with---Google. Sure, it's built on top of Linux, but only because it's easier that way. [2] http://www.tnl.net/blog/entry/How_many_Google_machines [3] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051117.html [4] 1/10 of a cent.

Am donderdag, 29.12.05, um 06:17 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner: Some classes of failures can be repaired with a FIB ( focused ion beam ) machine. We used it extensivly when debugging new chips. Very handy for rewiring and probing. With current processes (65nm and 6 or 7 metallayers) it is becoming rapidly impossible to do anything on the chip level. At operating costs of 600 USD / hour a FIB machine is probably not for the avarage hobbyist. And we wont go into space issues and the rather nasty chemicals that are used in the FIB or in opening up plastic packages. This list will not convince Tony otherwise, I also tried ... But keep in mind that Tony is unemployed, so for him the timey vs. money thing looks different. I also understand the desire to have everything under control (i.e. understanding your machine to the last bit ), but the price for that is becoming higher and higher as technology develops. Jos Dreesen

Am donderdag, 29.12.05, um 13:50 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Tony Duell: Me, and the others probably also, are basically only pointing out that there is a place for modern, non-hobbyist friendly technology too. There will never be a hacker-friendly mobile phone for instance. Component level repair on those is impossible, even though I have the full schematics on mine.... Does that mean all mobile phones are bad and not worth having ? In the same line of thought, there is a place for a non-hacker friendly modern PC, I do use mine as storage for all the PDF's releated to my Classiccmp gear and my digital photos. Zippy response is nice to have for these usage cases. Also economics are important : my (limited) skills in (modern non-hacker technology) GSM IC design enable me a comfortable living, my skills in desiging TTL CPU's or repairing PDP8's are basically worthless, even though I find them more interesting. It is a case of using the right tools for the job : old machines when you want to hack ,modern machine for productive use. Regards, Jos

Rumor has it that Jos Dreesen may have mentioned these words: [snippage] "Build your own" isn't hacker-friendly??? ;-) http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/categories.php?cPath=66_68&osCsid=9a72… Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers zmerch at 30below.com What do you do when Life gives you lemons, and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????

I don;t dispute that. I do dispute that I have to use it. Anyther thread has been pointing out that typewriters still have uses. I agree. As do pens and pieces of paper. And as, of course, do woed processors. I use all 3 for different jobs. Well, maybe I am the only person here to still use a pen and paper notebook, but I've yet to find a portable computer that's as useful. Yes, I do use a palmtop comptuer (OK, an ancient one I just about understnad -- an HP95LX), but the pen and paper still has uses too... When i have a problem I look at various possible solutions, and take into account the fact that I will have to maintain the equipment, etc. Is it going to be better to get some new device (with all the attendant support provlems, learning-to-use-it problems, etc), it is better to modify something I have, to make something, or to go on with what I already have. So far, I've not ever found a problem that's needed a hacker-unfriendly computer to solve it. Why? OK, I'd not want to work on the RF side (too many risks of sending out spurious signals), but what is the prroblem, say, with replacing compoentns in the control circuit. They look like normal SMDs. I was given one, I use it very occasionally. And to be honest, I could easily live without it (and I could certianly live without those idiots on public transport who talk about nothing-of-significance for hours on end). Hmmm.. Neither of those would be applicable to me. I much prefer manuals on paper (I can't accomodate a reasonable display _and the device being repaired_ on my bench at the same time, I can't take a PC to bed and read manuals there (yes, I do read service manuals as bedtime reading). And I've said many times that I will consider a digital camera when it gives better results than my current camera. Please don't tell me how your camera is better than the Point-and-Shoot 35mm it replaced. I am not talking about that sort of camera. I am talking about a 5*4" sheet film camers. And yes, I can see the point of digital cameras, this does not mean I want one. If you are claiming you can't do productive work with classic computers, then I cannot agree with you. In fact I suspect I've done more prodctive work with my old machines than most people have with their latest-and-greatest PCs. -tony

But of course, in a few years some nut is going to have one operating in his garage for a lot less! William Donzelli aw288 at osfn.org

I would bet there are a few nuts with stuff like this in garages as well. But there is NO POINT in making new TTL. William Donzelli aw288 at osfn.org

Patrick Finnegan wrote: Well I guess it is rather hard to make OLD TTL. Well I want LDL logic... Light emiting diode logic ... The diodes in the chip glow when active. The DIP even has the Nand Symbols and conections printed on it. Heck, you can't even have a DIY web page up even as a JOKE. Lighting a BBQ with LOX was a great page! The chemicals would be the bitch -- all trade secrets, not the fab itself. But I do expect there is a list of often needed old TTL,RTL & DTL to keep classic hardware running.

FWIW, I have little time for a so-called electronic designer who can't handle discrete components. Just as I have little time for a digital designer who doesn't understand analogue stuff. Even today the are times when a few discrete components are the best solution, particularly for 1-off stuff. And there your analogy breaks down. I have the Texas Instruments data sheet foe the 7400. It's several pages long (I can go and get it if you like), it includes a component-level schematic of that NAND gate, it contains a lot of electrical specifications. And that's for a very simple chip. If a Texas Instruments SN7400 fails, I can use those specs to work out that I don't _have_ to get the exact same part most of the time. Many other comapanies made chips with similar, if not indentical, specs. There wrre other families of TTL logic -- say 74S00,74LS00, etc that have different specs, also documented. Again, in some applications I can use those, in some I can't. The specs let me be sure. I might be happier treating a board -- a motherboard or an I/O card -- as a component if I could get proper documetation and specs for it. When was the last time you saw a motherboard that came with pinout and timing diagrams? With a bit-level description of every I/O register used on that board? and so on. Without that information, if my motherboard fails and that particular one is no longer in production, how do I know that the one I replace it with is going to behave in the same way under all conditions. I keep on seeing PC-related products that come with drivers for the current version of Windows, but nothing else, and no available specifications to write drivers for other OSes. That's like supplying a chip withot a data sheet, just a sort-of applications circuit. Totally useless if you actually want to do something different with the product. And to return to the PC serial port card. Can you please tell me where to find a clone serial card that is exactly compatible in all respects with the IBM one in my PC/XT system [1]? [1] Note for the uninitiated. The IBM serial card has 2 odd features that were not present in most, if not all, clones. The first is that it can pull pin B8 (IIRS) low during I/O reads, needed if the card is used in slot 8 of the IBM PC/XT. The second is that it has a current loop interface as well as RS232 . My workshop... -tony

On Thursday 29 December 2005 04:32 pm, woodelf wrote: First ever "hands on" computer for me was a Heathkit H11 system that I got to build. The "terminal" for it was a Decwriter, which used current loop, if I'm remembering right. -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin

Well, it looks like the Open Source NAZIS around here won't rest until Dave Dunfield is painted as some kind of HITLER. And that's all I have to say about it. Doc

Rumor has it that Teo Zenios may have mentioned these words: But unforch, you didn't this time. :-) <--- Note Smiley! Doc's post was a thinly-veiled attempt at trying to look like he's not intentionally invoking Godwin's Law. More than you'd *ever* want to know about Godwin's Law is here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=158290 Read it and be amazed. ;-) <--- Note Winkey! Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy... zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"

I think you're comparing Apples and IBMs here :-). It is one thing to expect _you_ to make changes to your program (and that arguably should be charged for), it's another to want to make those changes themselves... Are you seriously suggesting you think that the Internet would be better if everything was charged for? No free downloads of old manuals like on bitsavers, for example (somebody spent time scanning those, converting them to pdf, etc). No free schematics on hpmuseum.net (I spent hundreds, no make that thousands. of hours drawing those out), etc. I have written a few (OK, very few) utilities, and have never charged for any of them, and nor do I ever intend to. Next time somebody here asks for a sevice manual, or a schematic, or a pinout, or... I will not bother to look it up for them. I will simply point out that you can deduce the necessary information from the machine, them) and a few hours with a mulitmeter. I won't bother pointing out useful repair tricks, it took me time to discrover them, why should I help you. So now you're claiming that all users of linux and *BSD are plagarists. Yes, I will admit I've used ideas from open-source programs in my own programs. Yes, I will also admit that I've looked at published schematics and thought 'hey, that's a neat trick to save a few ns of delay', and used something similar in my own design. If the trick is significant, it gets an acknowledgement of the form 'Using a mux to decode the signals {foo...barr} was inspired by the DEC KT11-C schematic' That, IMHO, is a far cry from ripping off somebody's work. Or do you want to re-invent the wheel every time. Can any programmer or electronic designer honestly claim to have never read somebody else's code/schematics and taken ideas from it? Because I would doubt it. To get back to disk imaging, I may be stupid, but I do wonder if it's actually possible to write such a program to run under linux or any other multi-tasking system. It is relatively easy to write a program to dump an image back to a physical disk. I've done similar things several times for specific disk formats (in particular TRS-80 M2/M4 and HP LIF). To do the reverse -- to imagge a disk _once the format is known_ is also easy. The problem comes with discovering the format. I've read and re-read the 8272 and 765 data sheets. From what I can see the only way to see what sectors are on the current track is to use the ReadID command. This returns the ID bytes from the next sector header to pass under the head. There is no way to automatically dump all the IDs from all the sectors please enlighten me). On a single-tasking OS, you could submit another ReadID command as soon as you get the reuslts from the current one, and keep on going until you read the same ID again. That way you will hopefully have read all the headers on a track (hope you don't miss any ;-)). On a multi-tasking machine it seems to be hopeless. Your task could be switched out during this operation, you will then miss some sectors, you will not discover all the IDs. If I am missing something, please enlighten me (point me to the appropriate section of the Intel or NEC datasheets, for example. I have both). If not, then why did nobody point this out <n> days ago, in which case this whole flamefest could have been seriously reduced. -tony

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:26:34PM -0500, Teo Zenios wrote: You are really funny. Do you think reading the source to a program turns somebody into a programmer?! OTOH, last time I paid a plumber to do some work in my house, I had to make corrections to what he did afterwards. His work was clearly visible, not hidden in a black box. I won't say this made me a plumber though... I am also pretty sure I will hire a plumber next time I need something done to my plumbing. Thing is, it is always good to be able to fix things. I think my plumber agrees, by the way. -- Christer O. Andersson Odensbacken

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:26:44 +0000 (GMT) ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote: Since it's possible under Linux or one of the BSD Unixes to completely compile out support for the floppy controller, it should also be possible to pull said kernel code out, and create a (super)user-mode module application out of it to do whatever you want with the disk controller. More of this sort of thing should be done, in my estimation. (my two cent opinion, I know, since I should do-it-myself).

You don't even need to go to that low a level. There is an ioctl() call (at least in this old kernel) to talk to the floppy controller at the register level. That's the problem. To determine the sector layout there _are_ critical timing issues. To read or write a given sector there are no real problems. You load the floppy controller (and DMA chip) registers with the right values, it goes off and does it. It doesn't matter if your task is switched out at the end of that, the data will be there when your task runs again, etc. But to read the IDs, it appears you _have_ to submit the next command as soon as you get the results from the current one, or risk missing a sector. And as far as I can see there's no way to be sure of doing that on a multitasking system. I have, it's not that hard (well, it can't be if I can manage it). It shouldn't matter. IIRC the linux driver supports 2 controllers and up to 4 drives on each controller. Since you can get the floppy controller to do anything that it's capable of, there shouldn't be a problem with any size of drive (I assume, BTW, you mean 3.5" drives, 3" drives do exist but a not common on PCs). -tony

On 12/22/2005 at 10:24 PM ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk wrote: Okay, I'll drop another hint (geez, you guys really need to read the data sheets). Let's assume that the disk contains something other than format pattern in all sectors; i.e., assume that the contents sector-to-sector differ. If you're not sure about the latter bit, you could always read the sectors up and save them, write your own pattern, do your ordering determination, then write the original data back. Read a bunch of ID's repeatedly so that you're relatively sure that you've got them all. Based on the number of different sector ID's you have, figure out how many sectors are on the track. Now, issue a Read Track for the appropriate sector count--stash the data away for a bit. Now, read each sector individually and hang onto the data. Using a good checksum or hash, compute a sum for each sector in each of the two buffers. Use the Read Track buffer to tell you what the order of sectors is on the track. Here's the thing about Read Track--it starts at the index and reads sectors without regard to what's in the IDAMs--so you get the sector data in the order that it occurs on the track--and so you can figure out how things are ordered. It's not perfect, but it will work pretty well. Cheers, Chuck

On 12/23/2005 at 12:17 AM ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk wrote: You're welcome. :) But Fred has said this--and I'll repeat it. You're not guaranteed an accurate analysis using a 765-based anything--and that's a problem if what you're trying to do is establish some sort of archival-grade repository of images. You can get a bunch of hints issuing a one-sector Read Track using a very large sector size, but you run the risk of missing a lot. Cheers, Chuck

Tony Duell declared on Thursday 22 December 2005 15:36: Why can't you just write a kernel module that does its ReadID with interrupts turned off... there's ways to keep the OS from task switching during the critical section of your code that does the sector layout determination - writing a kernel module or using realtime priority (nice -20 might work on Linux) of the OS if it's got it. Assuming you're using a machine with a real PIC interrupt controller, not new enough to have an APIC of some sort, under Linux/x86 you can always do an iopl(3), and turn off the interrupt controller by hand, from userland, if you're running as root. Just Be Careful when you try that. and don't leave it off for too long... :) Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

FWIW, I've tried out Eric's dumpids program, and it behaves as I suspected. Using a disk I know the format of (OK, a plain MS-DOS 1.44M disk), it does, indeed, miss some sectors on my machine. It is particularly noticeable that a given sector number is not always followed by the same sector number. Becuase 'just writing a kernel module' is not something I do for fun :-). Tracking down a fautly component in some bit of hardware, now that is fun.... [In other words, we can't all be good at everything, OK] Which of course I am. In fact it is a real 8259, it's not even hidden inside some part of a chipset. That sounds like a very good way to stop all sorts of things from working. In fact I susepct the floppy driver depends on interrupts to work (even for the FDRAWCMD ioctl()). Yes, I could disable all others, I guess and hope... -tony

Rumor has it that der Mouse may have mentioned these words: It is. However, what if said 'farter' had a heart condition that was detrimental to one's health (including the possibility of death) if he/she *did not fart* to relieve the pressure? Yes, this exists, yes, *I've Had It*, and yes, despite the fact that I was exceptionally apologetic, no-one seemed to believe my "excuse" of "doctor's orders." And - Dave's software and his personal choice to do with as he pleases has absolutely nothing to do with the release of methane in tight spaces. I see the argument that it's OK to think less of a person due to his personal preference of software release no less ridiculous than to think less of a person due to their personal preference of religion. 'Nuff Said. Regards, Roger Merchberger -- Roger Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy... zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"

In article <200512200506.AAA00329 at Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>, der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> writes: "I don't like the taste of this free beer!" Such arguments do not persuade me to your point of view. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>

Jim Leonard wrote: What help file? Or should we violate his wishes, and pirate the software? That would make me uncomfortable. It's his right to make it available (or not) with whatever restrictions he wants on it, and I would prefer not to violate those restrictions. Remember, he pulled the binary package, and insisted that all copies be destroyed. Thus no program, thus no help file. He later allowed those who have already used it to create images the right to use it, but I didn't see him give them any rights to pass the program, or the right to use it, on. I might feel better if the licensing of whatever is left were made clearer, and included in the package, but until then, it is (to me) just another undocumented format.

Gary Sparkes wrote: Must have missed that one. After the package was pulled (and request for destruction of same), I'd still prefer a clearer license than: "search through the messages in these newsgroups, and find all those that revise the copyright on this package." I'd rather not have something seak up behind me and bite off any important bits because I missed one message. Copyright via newsgroup doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. It's too easy to mess with the messages in a newsgroup (forged posts, etc.). Legally, the rights should be whatever is described in the supplied package, but I'd still like to honor the authors current intent. With both copyrights and patents being applied to software nowadays, and all the fun we've had with the Linux vs. SCO, the GIF patent, etc., I'd prefer to have a clear license to avoid future problems. Lawyers are *not* fun to deal with.

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 01:53 am, Jim Battle wrote: That name sounds real familiar to me for some reason, but I can't quite place it... -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin

It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated: Here you go Tony, and any other person that bitched about the Imagedisk format being undocumented. If Dave allows, I can include the actual format open---I suppose someone can write up the format, but I've already more time on this than I cared to). -spc (Now maybe this will shut up the people that claim the format isn't documented ... ) /********************************************************************* * * Copyright 2001 by Sean Conner. All Rights Reserved. * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 * of the License, or (at your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. * * Comments, questions and criticisms can be sent to: sean at conman.org * *********************************************************************/ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <assert.h> /***********************************************************************/ typedef unsigned char t_byte; enum { TH_MODE, TH_CYLINDER, TH_HEAD, TH_SECTORS, TH_SECTORSIZE, TH_SIZE }; typedef t_byte t_trackheader[5]; struct track { int mode; int cylinder; int head; int sectors; int sectorsize; t_byte *sectormap; t_byte *cylindermap; t_byte *headmap; int *validsector; t_byte **data; }; /**********************************************************************/ static void *my_malloc (size_t); static void *my_realloc (void *,size_t); static void my_fread (void *,size_t,FILE *,int); static int my_feof (FILE *); static void imd_track_header_check (t_trackheader,int,long); char *imd_header (FILE *); struct track *imd_track (FILE *,int); void imd_track_free (struct track *); /**************************************************************************/ int main(int argc,char *argv[]) { int i; int j; FILE *fpin; char *header; struct track *track; static char *modes[] = { "500 kbps FM", "300 kbps FM", "250 kbps FM", "500 kbps MFM", "300 kbps MFM", "250 kbps MFM" }; if (argc == 1) { fprintf(stderr,"usage: %s <imd files>\n",argv[0]); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } for (i = 1 ; i < argc ; i++) { fpin = fopen(argv[i],"rb"); if (fpin == NULL) { perror(argv[i]); continue; } header = imd_header(fpin); printf("HEADER:\n%s\n",header); free(header); for (j = 0 ; !my_feof(fpin) ; j++) { track = imd_track(fpin,j); printf( "Track: %d\n" "\tMode: %s\n" "\tCylinder: %d\n" "\tHead: %d\n" "\tSectors: %d\n" "\tSector Size: %d\n" "\tCylinder Map: %s\n" "\tHead Map: %s\n", j, modes[track->mode], track->cylinder, track->head, track->sectors, track->sectorsize, (track->cylindermap == NULL) ? "no" : "yes", (track->headmap == NULL) ? "no" : "yes" ); imd_track_free(track); } fclose(fpin); } return(EXIT_SUCCESS); } /*************************************************************************/ static void *my_malloc(size_t size) { void *mem; assert(size > 0); mem = malloc(size); if (mem == NULL) { perror("out of memory"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } return(mem); } /*************************************************************************/ static void *my_realloc(void *ptr,size_t size) { void *mem; mem = realloc(ptr,size); if (mem == NULL) { perror("out of memory"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } return(mem); } /************************************************************************/ static void my_fread(void *ptr,size_t size,FILE *fpin,int track) { size_t r; r = fread(ptr,1,size,fpin); if (r != size) { fprintf(stderr,"corrupt track %04d - reading error\n",track); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } } /***************************************************************************/ static int my_feof(FILE *fp) { int c; c = fgetc(fp); if (c == EOF) return(1); ungetc(c,fp); return(0); } /***************************************************************************/ char *imd_header(FILE *fpin) { char *text = NULL; size_t size = 0; size_t i = 0; int c; assert(fpin != NULL); while(!feof(fpin)) { c = fgetc(fpin); if (c == 0x1A) break; if (c == EOF) { fprintf(stderr,"unexpected end of input in header\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } if (i == size) { size += 1024; text = my_realloc(text,size); } text[i++] = c; } if (text) text[i] = '\0'; return(text); } /************************************************************************/ static void imd_track_header_check(t_trackheader th,int track,long pos) { if (th[TH_MODE] > 5) { fprintf( stderr, "corrupt track %04d - non-supported mode %d @ %08lX\n", track, th[TH_MODE], pos ); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } if ((th[TH_HEAD] & 0x3F) > 1) { fprintf( stderr, "corrupt track %04d - non-supported # heads %d @ %08lX\n", track, th[TH_HEAD], pos ); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } if (th[TH_SECTORSIZE] > 6) { fprintf( stderr, "corrupt track %04d - non-supported sector size %d @ %08lX\n", track, th[TH_SECTORSIZE], pos ); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } } /*************************************************************************/ struct track *imd_track(FILE *fpin,int tr) { struct track *track; t_trackheader thead; int i; t_byte sectype; t_byte fill; assert(fpin != NULL); assert(tr > -1); track = my_malloc(sizeof(struct track)); memset(track,0,sizeof(struct track)); my_fread(&thead,sizeof(t_trackheader),fpin,tr); imd_track_header_check(thead,tr,ftell(fpin)); track->mode = thead[TH_MODE]; track->cylinder = thead[TH_CYLINDER]; track->head = thead[TH_HEAD] & 0x3F; track->sectors = thead[TH_SECTORS]; track->sectorsize = 128 << (thead[TH_SECTORSIZE]); assert( (track->sectorsize == 128) || (track->sectorsize == 256) || (track->sectorsize == 512) || (track->sectorsize == 1024) || (track->sectorsize == 2048) || (track->sectorsize == 4096) || (track->sectorsize == 8192) ); track->sectormap = my_malloc(track->sectors); my_fread(track->sectormap,track->sectors,fpin,tr); if (thead[TH_HEAD] & 0x80) { track->cylindermap = my_malloc(track->sectors); my_fread(track->cylindermap,track->sectors,fpin,tr); } if (thead[TH_HEAD] & 0x40) { track->headmap = my_malloc(track->sectors); my_fread(track->headmap,track->sectors,fpin,tr); } track->validsector = my_malloc(track->sectors * sizeof(int)); track->data = my_malloc(track->sectors * sizeof(t_byte *)); for (i = 0 ; i < track->sectors ; i++) { track->data[i] = my_malloc(track->sectorsize); my_fread(&sectype,1,fpin,tr); if (sectype == 0) { track->validsector[i] = 0; memset(track->data[i],0,track->sectorsize); } else if (sectype == 1) { track->validsector[i] = 1; my_fread(track->data[i],track->sectorsize,fpin,tr); } else if (sectype == 2) { my_fread(&fill,1,fpin,tr); memset(track->data[i],fill,track->sectorsize); } } return(track); } /************************************************************************/ void imd_track_free(struct track *track) { int i; assert(track != NULL); assert(track->sectormap != NULL); assert(track->data != NULL); for (i = 0 ; i < track->sectors ; i++) { assert(track->data[i] != NULL); free(track->data[i]); } free(track->data); if (track->headmap) free(track->headmap); if (track->cylindermap) free(track->cylindermap); free(track->validsector); free(track->sectormap); free(track); } /**************************************************************************/

woodelf wrote: Not all disks contain operating system software. Many of us have disks with our own software/data/writings on them, which should be legal for us to read no matter what copywrite is in place (you don't usually copyright against yourself).

At 05:24 PM 12/20/05 -0800, Gene wrote: You tell 'em, Gene! I've been reading this crap for the last two days. What a bunch of Open-Source Nazis. Dave was doing something worthwhile for this hobby but you guys weren't happy with it and now you've ruined it for everyone. Dave wrote ImageDisk himself and it was his to license or not license as he saw fit and no one else had the right to demand how, when or if he released the source or what features he included or didn't include. If you want Open Source then get off your sorry asses and go write it yourselves. Joe