Mentec US is gone! - DEC

This is a discussion on Mentec US is gone! - DEC ; In article , kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > wrote: >>In article , >> >>>On an 8 it's even simpler: A dozen instructions or so from the toggles, and >>>you can boot whatever medium you like. I think the 18-bit family ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 187

Thread: Mentec US is gone!

  1. Re: Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    In article ,
    kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    > wrote:
    >>In article ,
    >>
    >>>On an 8 it's even simpler: A dozen instructions or so from the toggles,

    and
    >>>you can boot whatever medium you like. I think the 18-bit family were more
    >>>like the 8 than like the 11, but I could be wrong.

    >>
    >>But this stuff is just setting hardware bits to look for bit
    >>streams else where and setting up the basic I/O rules for
    >>those hardware paths.

    >
    >Setting hardware bits in a _copyrighted_ manner.


    The code is copyrighted. Anybody can write their own code to
    push the gear they own around.

    > Who owns the rights to those dozen words?


    Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?

    /BAH


  2. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>What is the part number of...say...the OS license in your box?
    >>>
    >>>Well, the one on the top of the box is an Ultrix license, QL-VV1AC-BC.

    >
    >>Is the part number QL-VV1AC-BC the order number for the whole Ultrix
    >>package or is it the part number of the piece of paper that the
    >>license wording is written on. There is a difference. If this number
    >>is the Ultrix package, then SDC would expand the order list by
    >>entering that part number and the expansion would generate a list
    >>of other part numbers. The Picker-Packers would then start to
    >>fill a box and tick off each part number of that list.

    >
    >I don't know. That's the question.


    Well, one of the questions :-).

    > But on the license agreement sheet
    >there is a field saying "Part Number:" and that is the number there. I
    >_believe_ this is the part number that I would use to order an operating
    >system without the media kit as well.


    But you couldn't do that (order an OS without the media kit).
    There is no infrastructure that allowed this.
    >
    >>Now, if a license agreement had a part number, it would be
    >>on the list. On the -10 side, including its -11 business,
    >>I don't recall ever reviewing our BoM paperwork containing
    >>a part number that was piece of paper called a license.

    >
    >For some of the operating systems that is indeed the case. You ordered
    >the operating system media and they came with a shrinkwrap-style contract
    >on the first page of the manual. In that case, I assume the media includes
    >the right to use since the media comes with the contract.


    You ordered the PDP-11 plus gear. One of the parts that were
    listed under the PDP-11 hardware BoM was the general BoM number
    of the operating system you wanted to have delivered with that
    hardware on your loading dock.
    >
    >>>There are probably fifty or so other different OS licenses in there.

    >>
    >>They can't be licenses for the OS. They must be application
    >>licenses or compiler licenses such as FORTRAN or DECnet.

    >
    >No, they are mostly Ultrix licenses.


    I do not understand this. I am not sure you are looking at
    licenses. Just picking an off-the-wall guess of what you are
    really looking at is update cover letters. Those have nothing
    to do with licensing.

    > I have a couple hundred Fortran,
    >DVNETEND, etc. licenses in boxes around here also.


    No, you are look at update cover letters. There is no
    way that one ulitrix ship could generate hundreds of
    license agreements. That would need at least 100 people
    just dealing with that customer's licensing.



    >
    >>> Some
    >>>are transferrable PAKs but most are not.

    >>
    >>I don't know the biz changed after DEC became Digital.
    >>I can't imagine that the whole SDC infrastructure was changed.
    >>Digital wouldn't have shipped anything and I know they shipped
    >>JMF's stuff.

    >
    >I don't either, and I also don't know what happened when Compaq took
    >over.


    I do. Compaq only wanted to buy DEC's equivalent to a help desk
    and nothing else.

    What did we call that center? I've been trying to recall our
    internal name for it but those memory bits seem to be just gone.


    >Part of the problem was that DEC started out as a hardware vendor,
    >only selling software because it ran on their hardware and was required
    >to make their hardware useful. Their original aims changed, of course,
    >as the software became more valuable and clone systems appeared so that
    >the software could be run without their hardware.


    WE never sold software. One of the reasons DEC imploded is because
    Bell wanted to eliminate all software development costs. He could
    not because most of our gear was uninteresting with the OSes.

    /BAH


  3. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <74Oih.9966$HT5.372@trnddc02>, John Santos wrote:
    >Mike Ross wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Dec 06 12:22:09 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article ,
    >>> Mike Ross wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 19 Dec 06 12:28:50 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Barb, I think what especially rankles is that people who *only* want
    >>>>to run *vintage* (i.e. pre-Mentec) software on vintage hardware which
    >>>>they've rescued (where they already own the hardware, media, and docs)
    >>>>are *still* expected to pay enormous license fees to Mentec for the
    >>>>privilege.
    >>>
    >>>AFAICT, these people want Mentec to provide all materials and bits.
    >>>That is not free to Mentec. I don't see how any of DEC's old
    >>>packaging could have survived.

    >>
    >>
    >> That's *not* what I'm saying. I don't expect *anything* from Mentec.
    >> Let's say I aquire an obsolete 11/45 with a couple of RM03s, a bunch
    >> of RM03 packs, some containing an *old* RSTS, and a shelf full of
    >> manuals. All bought from DEC 25 years ago. I clean it up and get it
    >> going and boot it. I don't want or need *anything* from Mentec - I
    >> just want to play with what I already have.
    >>
    >>
    >>>AFAIK, the "old" docs are all available online. The manuals I have
    >>>are there. If these people are really looking for the old stuff,
    >>>I don't see how they expect Mentec to resurrect what was destroyed
    >>>15+ years ago.

    >>
    >>
    >> No, see above - I got a bunch of dusty old manuals with the 11/45 - I
    >> don't expect Mentec to do *anything* for me.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Morals don't count in business. Grow up. Property is bought
    >>>and sold everyday. If an exception is made to the -11 stuff,
    >>>perhsps this can be extended to the house or car you think you own.

    >>
    >>
    >> Well the situation with software licenses is like, a developer builds
    >> a house. You buy it. 20 years later you decide to give it to your
    >> daughter - but the developer comes along and says 'hold on there, you
    >> can't give it to her - she has to buy it from me again'. It is odd how
    >> some people are happy to tolerate business practices with software
    >> that we never would with cars or houses.
    >>

    >
    >I think a better analogy would be the architect says the buyer needs
    >to re-license the design or he won't be allowed to move in. The
    >house is like the hardware; there are no issues with that, you can
    >buy it and use it for anything you want (paper weight, boat anchor,
    >foot warmer, computer, spare parts), you just can't run any of the
    >originally-licensed software on it.


    This analogy isn't even wrong.



    /BAH

  4. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    "Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
    news:4v242iF1a5eemU2@mid.individual.net...
    >
    > Ultrix-11 had no built-in licensing system. I don't think much
    > of anything did. RT-11 and RSTS don't and I am fairly certain
    > RSX doesn't either but haven't run a recent version. Ultrix-32
    > did, however. And pretty much everything since then.
    >

    Even the latest RSX version (RSX-11M-PLUS V4.6) does not have a built-in
    licensing system.



  5. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >
    > What I don't understand is why these people have to run the
    > hardware as if it were the old system. If they got the gear
    > out of a dumpster, there shouldn't any emotional attachment
    > to the installed software. So all they have to do is zero
    > the disk and install something they can get permission to run.
    >
    > I don't understand this mentality.


    I think it is because we both come from a bery different era in the
    computing industry. :-)

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  6. Re: Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    wrote:
    >> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?

    >
    >Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    >EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    >source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?


    I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
    the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by DEC,
    and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very short
    piece, but it's still software.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  7. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    wrote:
    >>>>There are probably fifty or so other different OS licenses in there.
    >>>
    >>>They can't be licenses for the OS. They must be application
    >>>licenses or compiler licenses such as FORTRAN or DECnet.

    >>
    >>No, they are mostly Ultrix licenses.

    >
    >I do not understand this. I am not sure you are looking at
    >licenses. Just picking an off-the-wall guess of what you are
    >really looking at is update cover letters. Those have nothing
    >to do with licensing.


    I am not looking at update cover letters.

    >> I have a couple hundred Fortran,
    >>DVNETEND, etc. licenses in boxes around here also.

    >
    >No, you are look at update cover letters. There is no
    >way that one ulitrix ship could generate hundreds of
    >license agreements. That would need at least 100 people
    >just dealing with that customer's licensing.


    No, I am looking at licenses. And this is not from one Ultrix shipment,
    this is from hundreds of systems over the years, all stacked together in
    a box. I have, well, I have a lot of junk here.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  8. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Giorgio Ungarelli wrote:
    >"Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
    >news:4v242iF1a5eemU2@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> Ultrix-11 had no built-in licensing system. I don't think much
    >> of anything did. RT-11 and RSTS don't and I am fairly certain
    >> RSX doesn't either but haven't run a recent version. Ultrix-32
    >> did, however. And pretty much everything since then.
    >>

    >Even the latest RSX version (RSX-11M-PLUS V4.6) does not have a built-in
    >licensing system.


    And the Ultrix-32 licensing system is kind of silly. As far as I know,
    nobody ever actually bothered to install the PAKs on them and they would
    run fine without them, save an occasional warning message. Very much
    unlike VMS, which took license control more seriously.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  9. Re: Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    Don't give the HP/Compaq/DEC lawyers any ideas here. Lawyers already do enough
    damage with frivilous copyright and patent lawsuits that stand up in a court
    full of people fairly ignorant of technology... Ben Myers

    On 22 Dec 2006 10:33:04 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    > wrote:
    >>> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?

    >>
    >>Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    >>EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    >>source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?

    >
    >I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
    >the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by DEC,
    >and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very short
    >piece, but it's still software.
    >--scott


  10. Re: Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    In article ,
    kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
    > wrote:
    >>> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?

    >>
    >>Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    >>EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    >>source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?

    >
    > I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
    > the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by DEC,
    > and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very short
    > piece, but it's still software.


    Most of the ones I have are a bit more than 12 words. I am sure that
    the ones contained in things like the RT-11 Pocket Guide are technically
    copyrighted as a part of the book but being as there is really no other
    way to boot from one of these devices I doubt they can stop anyone from
    using them. Nor, I imagine would anyone want to. Afterall, they are
    published works.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  11. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
    > Giorgio Ungarelli wrote:
    >>"Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
    >>news:4v242iF1a5eemU2@mid.individual.net...
    >>>
    >>> Ultrix-11 had no built-in licensing system. I don't think much
    >>> of anything did. RT-11 and RSTS don't and I am fairly certain
    >>> RSX doesn't either but haven't run a recent version. Ultrix-32
    >>> did, however. And pretty much everything since then.
    >>>

    >>Even the latest RSX version (RSX-11M-PLUS V4.6) does not have a built-in
    >>licensing system.

    >
    > And the Ultrix-32 licensing system is kind of silly. As far as I know,
    > nobody ever actually bothered to install the PAKs on them and they would
    > run fine without them, save an occasional warning message. Very much
    > unlike VMS, which took license control more seriously.


    Not any later versions of Ultrix-32. You needed a license (not really
    PAKs at that point, came as a TK50 you had to install as software) just
    to get more than 3 simultaneous logins. The only application I remember
    needing a license at the time I stopped using it at the University was
    DECNET.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  12. pussification of newsgroups

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
    > > wrote:
    > >>> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?
    > >>
    > >>Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    > >>EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    > >>source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?

    > >
    > > I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
    > > the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by DEC,
    > > and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very short
    > > piece, but it's still software.

    >
    > Most of the ones I have are a bit more than 12 words. I am sure that
    > the ones contained in things like the RT-11 Pocket Guide are technically
    > copyrighted as a part of the book but being as there is really no other
    > way to boot from one of these devices I doubt they can stop anyone from
    > using them. Nor, I imagine would anyone want to. Afterall, they are
    > published works.


    A bootstrap as copyright property ? You gotta be kidding !

    I'm sure China and India IT types must be laughing their butts off
    at these postings, as they copy OS's and IP by the thousands
    everyday.
    Or how much revenue did DEC receive, during the cold war, as
    Russia or Eastern Europe countries cloned DEC products by the
    Thousands ?

    Trying to "pussify" young DEC collectors for licensing fees on old
    DEC products. Give me a break.

    As best you can, young collectors should know there is an alternative,
    Successful, commonly used risky method, and that is to follow the
    Chinese, India, Russian and Eastern Europe models. It's "do what
    you need
    to do", accumulate profits, then later, if needed, hire the ambulance
    chasers
    and slog thru the boring, illogical, never ending IP arguments .

    The "pussification of the silicon valley" as detailed in the old
    "Upside"
    article, has now spread to newsgroups and everywhere in the IT world.
    If it's not politically correct, than it's illegal or a violation
    of someone's
    IP rights. Give me a break.

    Take me back to the 1960/70's......

    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include



  13. Re: pussification of newsgroups

    In article <1166817985.184860.16850@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.co m>,
    bob.birch@gmail.com writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
    >> > wrote:
    >> >>> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?
    >> >>
    >> >>Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    >> >>EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    >> >>source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?
    >> >
    >> > I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
    >> > the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by DEC,
    >> > and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very short
    >> > piece, but it's still software.

    >>
    >> Most of the ones I have are a bit more than 12 words. I am sure that
    >> the ones contained in things like the RT-11 Pocket Guide are technically
    >> copyrighted as a part of the book but being as there is really no other
    >> way to boot from one of these devices I doubt they can stop anyone from
    >> using them. Nor, I imagine would anyone want to. Afterall, they are
    >> published works.

    >
    > A bootstrap as copyright property ? You gotta be kidding !


    The question was, "Is it copyrighted?". The answer is yes. Don't blame
    me, I am not the one who signed us up to the Berne convention (I mistakenly
    said Basel in an earlier post). Everything created is now automatically
    copyrighted. But you ignored the point I made about it being published
    which means you are free to use it. Of course, you could always write
    your own, but it would end being nearly if not exactly the same. :-)

    >
    > I'm sure China and India IT types must be laughing their butts off
    > at these postings, as they copy OS's and IP by the thousands
    > everyday.


    Yeah, well they copy DVD's and music CD's and anything else they can
    steal so I doubt they even care.

    > Or how much revenue did DEC receive, during the cold war, as
    > Russia or Eastern Europe countries cloned DEC products by the
    > Thousands ?


    Actually, they bought more than they cloned. Did you ever see the
    Russian clone of the Apple II. It took up the whole top of a desk
    just for the CPU box. And the Z80 was cloned by using industrial
    espionage to get copies of the real chip masks from Zilog. They
    were never bright enough or ambitious enough to truly "clone" anything.

    >
    > Trying to "pussify" young DEC collectors for licensing fees on old
    > DEC products. Give me a break.


    Hey, the law is the law. And morals don't change because someone sees
    the product as old.

    >
    > As best you can, young collectors should know there is an alternative,
    > Successful, commonly used risky method, and that is to follow the
    > Chinese, India, Russian and Eastern Europe models. It's "do what
    > you need
    > to do", accumulate profits, then later, if needed, hire the ambulance
    > chasers
    > and slog thru the boring, illogical, never ending IP arguments .
    >
    > The "pussification of the silicon valley" as detailed in the old
    > "Upside"
    > article, has now spread to newsgroups and everywhere in the IT world.
    > If it's not politically correct, than it's illegal or a violation
    > of someone's
    > IP rights. Give me a break.
    >
    > Take me back to the 1960/70's......


    The only difference int hese matters between then and now is then people
    had the moral gumption to not steal other people's property.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  14. Re: Mentec US is gone!


    "Giorgio Ungarelli" wrote in message
    news:458af6b1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
    > "Bob Koehler" wrote in message
    > newsMZqv9a1utoh@eisner.encompasserve.org...
    >> In article <45892e4d$1_4@news.bluewin.ch>, "Giorgio Ungarelli" >> at ungarelli dot net> writes:
    >>
    >>> Americans (especially the ones that have never lived anywhere except in
    >>> the
    >>> USA) seem to think that the laws in the USA apply to all countries in
    >>> the
    >>> world. It is truly sad.

    >>
    >> Hm. Must be some place we haven't invaded recently. Fortunatly
    >> the administration will probably change before we can get around to
    >> all of them.
    >>

    >
    > Put one of the following bumper stickers (they are all actually in
    > available) on your car(s) then:
    >
    > 2008: End of an Error
    > If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
    > That's OK. I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
    > Bush Never Exhaled
    > Cheney/Satan '08
    > Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
    > You want a nation ruled by religion? Move to Iran.
    > George W. Bush: Like a rock (only dumber)
    > George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
    > America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
    > They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
    > Jail to the Chief
    > Bad President! No Banana.
    > We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
    > We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
    > Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
    > When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
    > The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
    > At Least Nixon Resigned
    >
    >


    IMHO, people who live in European houses shouldn't throw stones... The
    problems may be different; the severity is at least as bad.

    --
    Kelvin Smith



  15. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <4v242iF1a5eemU2@mid.individual.net>,
    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >In article ,
    > John Santos writes:
    >>
    >> Did Ultrix-11 use PAKs? I'm pretty sure neither RSTS/E nor RSX
    >> nor RT11 ever did. The PAK is not a license and the license
    >> should not be confused with the PAK.

    >
    >Ultrix-11 had no built-in licensing system. I don't think much
    >of anything did. RT-11 and RSTS don't and I am fairly certain
    >RSX doesn't either but haven't run a recent version. Ultrix-32
    >did, however. And pretty much everything since then.
    >
    >bill
    >
    >--
    >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >University of Scranton |
    >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


    If you want to run Unix on a 32 bit Vax legally there's always BSD or 32V for
    the historic types and NetBSD and OpenBSD for the more security conscious.


    Bill
    --
    --
    "When I think back on all the crap I learned in Vax school
    It's a wonder I fixed anything at all." (to the tune of Kodachrome)
    pechter-at-ureach.com

  16. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    On Fri, 22 Dec 06 14:32:54 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



    >What I don't understand is why these people have to run the
    >hardware as if it were the old system. If they got the gear
    >out of a dumpster, there shouldn't any emotional attachment
    >to the installed software. So all they have to do is zero
    >the disk and install something they can get permission to run.
    >
    >I don't understand this mentality.


    It's a matter of historical accuracy; wherever possible you keep the
    system as close to the working configuration as possible. 'this was
    system x, running jobs y and z at company a from 1977-1998'. You don't
    mess with the installed OS or anything else. If you can get every
    record right back to the original invoices and make a paper trail so
    much the better.

    When a museum digs an ancient pot out of the ground, do they take
    fresh paint and paint it up nicely so it looks like new? Exactly the
    same situation and motivation.

    This is where I have an issue with people like Bill and Johnny who
    talk about theft and stealing and make a song and dance about taking
    the extreme moral high ground; to me it's a very debateable question
    as to whether doing posterity a favour by preserving computing's past
    in as much detail as possible is not a more *moral* act than
    scrupulously obeying the somewhat artificial dictates of IP law as
    presently understood in our society. In terms of benefit to society
    and posterity I mean.

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  17. Re: pussification of newsgroups

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    (snip)

    > Actually, they bought more than they cloned. Did you ever see the
    > Russian clone of the Apple II. It took up the whole top of a desk
    > just for the CPU box. And the Z80 was cloned by using industrial
    > espionage to get copies of the real chip masks from Zilog. They
    > were never bright enough or ambitious enough to truly "clone" anything.


    There was a story of a Russian 8080 with masks made from pictures
    of real 8080 chips. That is, directly from images with a little
    enlargement.

    -- glen


  18. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    fOn 21 Dec 2006 01:38:20 GMT in alt.sys.pdp11, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
    Gunshannon) wrote:

    >In article ,
    > John Santos writes:


    >Add tot hat the fact that thre are a lot of machines out
    >there that were never licensed to run any of these OSes as they ran
    >Ultrix, BSD or UCSD-Pascal.


    Most (smaller) PDP-11s were likely used for jobs like controlling
    valve actuators and sensing valve positions, so possibly did not even
    run RSX-11S or RT-11.

    --
    Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
    fake address use address above to reply

  19. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    "Kelvin Smith" wrote in message
    news:SFXih.12$dw6.8@trndny02...
    >
    > IMHO, people who live in European houses shouldn't throw stones... The
    > problems may be different; the severity is at least as bad.
    >

    That's a matter of opinion. I think the severity is no way near as bad.



  20. Re: pussification of newsgroups

    In article <1166817985.184860.16850@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.co m>,
    bob.birch@gmail.com wrote:
    >Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
    >> > wrote:
    >> >>> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?
    >> >>
    >> >>Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
    >> >>EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
    >> >>source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?
    >> >
    >> > I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
    >> > the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by DEC,
    >> > and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very short
    >> > piece, but it's still software.

    >>
    >> Most of the ones I have are a bit more than 12 words. I am sure that
    >> the ones contained in things like the RT-11 Pocket Guide are technically
    >> copyrighted as a part of the book but being as there is really no other
    >> way to boot from one of these devices I doubt they can stop anyone from
    >> using them. Nor, I imagine would anyone want to. Afterall, they are
    >> published works.

    >
    >A bootstrap as copyright property ? You gotta be kidding !


    If it's an EXE, yes. We had to throw a copyright into all EXEs...
    talk about a FRPITA.
    >
    >I'm sure China and India IT types must be laughing their butts off
    >at these postings, as they copy OS's and IP by the thousands
    >everyday.
    >Or how much revenue did DEC receive, during the cold war, as
    >Russia or Eastern Europe countries cloned DEC products by the
    >Thousands ?
    >
    >Trying to "pussify" young DEC collectors for licensing fees on old
    >DEC products. Give me a break.


    But these collectors don't want to run the old software. They
    want to run an OS that somebody owns and is using for revenue.
    There is a difference here.
    >
    >As best you can, young collectors should know there is an alternative,
    >Successful, commonly used risky method, and that is to follow the
    >Chinese, India, Russian and Eastern Europe models. It's "do what
    >you need
    >to do", accumulate profits, then later, if needed, hire the ambulance
    >chasers
    >and slog thru the boring, illogical, never ending IP arguments .


    Fine. As a result, the world will be stuck with Mic****.

    >
    >The "pussification of the silicon valley" as detailed in the old
    >"Upside"
    >article, has now spread to newsgroups and everywhere in the IT world.
    >If it's not politically correct, than it's illegal or a violation
    >of someone's
    >IP rights. Give me a break.
    >
    >Take me back to the 1960/70's......


    You would not be able to post your drivel here. I would not
    choose to go back to those decades and have to relearn what
    we took man-centuries to work out.

    /BAH

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast