Mentec US is gone! - DEC

This is a discussion on Mentec US is gone! - DEC ; Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:32:24 GMT > ChrisQuayle wrote: > > >>I quite agree - learning at least one assembler to fluency level >>should be required for anyone becoming a programmer. If you start ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 187

Thread: Mentec US is gone!

  1. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:32:24 GMT
    > ChrisQuayle wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I quite agree - learning at least one assembler to fluency level
    >>should be required for anyone becoming a programmer. If you start off
    >>with a hardware background, even better...

    >
    >
    > Actually, some of the worst programmers I've encountered were
    > ex-hardware engineers. I do agree though that writing a substantial
    > program in assembler (preferably with interrupt handling and device
    > control), and getting it to work for Joe Average User should be a
    > mandatory graduation "paper" for programmers.
    >


    That's a common sentiment, but hardware engineer turned programmers are
    of two main types ime: Those who get hooked and see a whole new world of
    possibilities, go out and buy books on cs, data structures, os
    principles etc and those who just see micros as hardwired logic
    replacement and never really get to grips with programming as an art in
    itself...

    Chris

  2. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <2EBjh.19652$Qa6.646@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
    ChrisQuayle wrote:
    >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >
    >>>I don't know, but every subject mushrooms over the years. If you go a
    >>>long way bay to the forties, a book like Terman's Electronic and Radio
    >>>Engineering could devote a little material within the one book to every
    >>>topic in the field. Now, all is specialisation, because modern systems
    >>>have become complex to the point of needing specialists in more than a
    >>>single discipline and few individuals have the time and motivation to
    >>>cover all of it.
    >>>
    >>>What's important is for educators to stimulate interest and develop a
    >>>passion for the subject in students, because that's the only way to
    >>>generate the curiosity to think outside the specialist box. A college
    >>>course really only teaches the basics and how to learn, not to know
    >>>everything, but where to find it and how to analyse a problem. A job as
    >>>a gig isn't enough, it's got to be a lifelong passion for the subject if
    >>>you are to become really good.
    >>>
    >>>What did they say at dec ?, "enquiring minds want to know"...

    >>
    >>
    >> Say about what? People at DEC were given a task to do and
    >> they got it done. But then, this was before the disease known
    >> as careeritis set in.
    >>
    >> /BAH

    >
    >It was just a common expression at CSS Reading (uk, 1980's) during the
    >time I worked there. Dec culture was a bit more than just "given a job
    >to do" though. I'm not sure if I even still have a copy, but there was a
    >company culture / dec way of doing business document at the time as well...


    Are you talking about the project book?

    /BAH

  3. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    Brian Inglis wrote:
    >On Sun, 24 Dec 06 12:22:56 GMT in vmsnet.pdp-11, jmfbahciv@aol.com
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <8ldso2hjsr6ervogs4u3rvv347rttfa4d9@4ax.com>,
    >> Brian Inglis wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 23 Dec 06 13:04:03 GMT in vmsnet.pdp-11, jmfbahciv@aol.com
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <4v2b6dF1aducbU1@mid.individual.net>,
    >>>> bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >>>>>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. :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>oh...[blushing emoticon here]
    >>>>
    >>>>So the work that has to be done is training the youngsters how
    >>>>to be a real systems programmer and not the foo-foos that are
    >>>>showing up in today's biz.
    >>>>
    >>>>HMM....I don't think I would know how to get that project started.
    >>>
    >>>Linus started it.
    >>>

    >>One of the reasons knowledge about how bare machine works is
    >>because noone codes in machines language nor assembler anymore.

    >
    >Linus and his cohorts understand architectures and instructions quite
    >well:


    I'm sure they do. But do they have a formal way of handing down
    their knowledge to kiddies? One of the reasons a manufacturer
    who also shipped the gear's software could make progress in the
    computer biz is because of the way knowledge couldn't be lost.
    This is the item that I'll be interested in seeing how it works
    out over the next two decades.


    > why he was hired by TransMeta as a consultant for their machine
    >to run x86 code, and why Linux now runs on a variety of architectures
    >that MS used to, hasn't yet, and will never support.


    I'm thinking long term, not short term, where long is measured
    in decades.

    /BAH


  4. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
    >Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >
    >(I wrote)
    >
    >>>Also, there is no reason that fair use wouldn't apply to software,
    >>>in addition to other copyright materials. I don't know that it
    >>>has been tested very well, though.

    >
    >> Well, "fair use" when it comes to things like copyrighted books means
    >> a paragraph or two from the entire book. so I guess in this case it
    >> would bean you are free to pull out 12 words from anywhere in the soft-
    >> ware package in question and use it wiothout paying for a license. Hey,
    >> I'll bet that covers the boot code! :-)

    >
    >Well, that is one way to look at it, but another is on the loss of
    >revenue to the copyright holder, and/or revenue gain to the user.
    >For non-commercial/hobby usage both should be pretty close to zero.
    >
    >Both would likely come up in any actual court case.


    The act of toggling is NOT copyrighted, licensed, nor owned
    by anybody but the one who has the body with the fingers attached.
    The device is part of the hardware spec that comes when you buy
    (or whatever) the gear. If the device code (of the boot device)
    isn't documented anywhere, you can use a scope and backengineer it.

    hm...I think I just an incoorrect term but can't rememberr the right
    one.

    /BAH


    /BAH

  5. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    > In article <2EBjh.19652$Qa6.646@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
    > ChrisQuayle wrote:
    >
    >>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I don't know, but every subject mushrooms over the years. If you go a
    >>>>long way bay to the forties, a book like Terman's Electronic and Radio
    >>>>Engineering could devote a little material within the one book to every
    >>>>topic in the field. Now, all is specialisation, because modern systems
    >>>>have become complex to the point of needing specialists in more than a
    >>>>single discipline and few individuals have the time and motivation to
    >>>>cover all of it.
    >>>>
    >>>>What's important is for educators to stimulate interest and develop a
    >>>>passion for the subject in students, because that's the only way to
    >>>>generate the curiosity to think outside the specialist box. A college
    >>>>course really only teaches the basics and how to learn, not to know
    >>>>everything, but where to find it and how to analyse a problem. A job as
    >>>>a gig isn't enough, it's got to be a lifelong passion for the subject if
    >>>>you are to become really good.
    >>>>
    >>>>What did they say at dec ?, "enquiring minds want to know"...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Say about what? People at DEC were given a task to do and
    >>>they got it done. But then, this was before the disease known
    >>>as careeritis set in.
    >>>
    >>>/BAH

    >>
    >>It was just a common expression at CSS Reading (uk, 1980's) during the
    >>time I worked there. Dec culture was a bit more than just "given a job
    >>to do" though. I'm not sure if I even still have a copy, but there was a
    >>company culture / dec way of doing business document at the time as well...

    >
    >
    > Are you talking about the project book?
    >
    > /BAH


    No, the projects went to a standard plan, at least in terms of document
    tree and their individual structure, but there was a document in
    circulation about dec culture - not the employee handbook and it may
    have been unofficial. I used to have a printout somewhere, but all the
    stuff from that period is buried in the loft somewhere.

    One thing I do remember from the docs was the requirement to put in non
    goals as well as goals. That is, what's not going to be delivered as
    well as that which will be.

    Chris





  6. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    ChrisQuayle wrote:
    >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >> In article <2EBjh.19652$Qa6.646@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
    >> ChrisQuayle wrote:
    >>
    >>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I don't know, but every subject mushrooms over the years. If you go a
    >>>>>long way bay to the forties, a book like Terman's Electronic and Radio
    >>>>>Engineering could devote a little material within the one book to every
    >>>>>topic in the field. Now, all is specialisation, because modern systems
    >>>>>have become complex to the point of needing specialists in more than a
    >>>>>single discipline and few individuals have the time and motivation to
    >>>>>cover all of it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>What's important is for educators to stimulate interest and develop a
    >>>>>passion for the subject in students, because that's the only way to
    >>>>>generate the curiosity to think outside the specialist box. A college
    >>>>>course really only teaches the basics and how to learn, not to know
    >>>>>everything, but where to find it and how to analyse a problem. A job as
    >>>>>a gig isn't enough, it's got to be a lifelong passion for the subject if
    >>>>>you are to become really good.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>What did they say at dec ?, "enquiring minds want to know"...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Say about what? People at DEC were given a task to do and
    >>>>they got it done. But then, this was before the disease known
    >>>>as careeritis set in.
    >>>>
    >>>>/BAH
    >>>
    >>>It was just a common expression at CSS Reading (uk, 1980's) during the
    >>>time I worked there. Dec culture was a bit more than just "given a job
    >>>to do" though. I'm not sure if I even still have a copy, but there was a
    >>>company culture / dec way of doing business document at the time as well...

    >>
    >>
    >> Are you talking about the project book?
    >>
    >> /BAH

    >
    >No, the projects went to a standard plan, at least in terms of document
    >tree and their individual structure, but there was a document in
    >circulation about dec culture - not the employee handbook and it may
    >have been unofficial. I used to have a printout somewhere, but all the
    >stuff from that period is buried in the loft somewhere.


    I never saw one unless you're talking about the project notebook.
    >
    >One thing I do remember from the docs was the requirement to put in non
    >goals as well as goals. That is, what's not going to be delivered as
    >well as that which will be.


    Listing the non-goals was the most important item. It kept marketing
    from selling something you weren't making and didn't intend to make.
    It sure sound like you're talking about the project notebook. I
    don't remember ever seeing anything on DEC culture; frankly,
    we had no idea what our culture was--we just kept working at
    making stuff that worked.

    /BAH

  7. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Brian Inglis wrote:
    > 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.

    >


    I did not write the above. Probably Bill did, but I don't know that for
    a fact.

    >
    > 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.
    >



    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

  8. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article , John Santos wrote:
    >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >> In article <8l%ih.239$511.97@trnddc06>, John Santos wrote:
    >>
    >>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <4v23s5F1a5eemU1@mid.individual.net>,
    >>>> bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <74Oih.9966$HT5.372@trnddc02>,
    >>>>> John Santos writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>I personally feel it would be nice if Mentec set up a hobbyist
    >>>>>>program to allow non-commercial use of all their software.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Considering that the prevailing atitude among hobbyists hasn't changed
    >>>>>since the last time this was tried I would think the chances are about
    >>>>>zero.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>And that is very sad. The hobbyists essentially caused reasonable
    >>>>businesses to ignore them.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I don't
    >>>>>>really think it would be all that hard to do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Anytime lawyers get involved (and they would have to be) the simplest
    >>>>>of tasks becomes difficult.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Now that is an understatement. :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> They would basically
    >>>>>>need to set up a web page with a boiler-plate license, and an "I
    >>>>>>agree" button that would send then an email saying John Doe at
    >>>>>>some address had accepted the terms of the license. This kind
    >>>>>>of license should be fairly cheap to set up;
    >>>>>
    >>>>>And totally worthless as licenses go. If you don't have my signature
    >>>>>you can't even prove it was me that agreed.
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>>If totally worthless, why are so many companies relying on it to
    >>>protect their property?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>> HP/Montagar did it,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Don't give HP credit for something they inherited. The only thing
    >>>>>you can credit to HP is not killing the program when they took over.
    >>>>>And for this I and many others are eternally grateful.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I didn't understand this one. I think you have to be enternally
    >>>>grateful to one unnamed person who fiercely protected the program.
    >>>>I'd guess it was well-hidden and noone told anybody. A little
    >>>>bit of DEC still thrived among that mess.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Thank you, whoever you are.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I even think
    >>>>>>it might be possible to get a bunch of us to chip in to fund the
    >>>>>>legal fees for this (as a one-time thing.) Or maybe we could
    >>>>>>get Encompass to spend some of the $90 I send them every year
    >>>>>>on this project. (After all, Encompass was originally DECUS,
    >>>>>>which dealt with PDP-11's before VAXes were a glint in Gordon
    >>>>>>Bell's eye.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I would bet that Encompass would get a real belly-laugh out of
    >>>>>that request. :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Especially since he is completely, utterly wrong about DECUS...
    >>>>in 1975.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If your point is that DECUS dealt with PDP-10's (and 1's, 4's,
    >>>5's, 6's and 8's) long before it dealt with PDP-11's, I'm perfectly
    >>>aware of that and nothing I said contradicts it.

    >>
    >>
    >> No. DECUS was the way our customers met with all the bits gods
    >> and some of the management. DECUS was the way our customers
    >> found out what we were doing, going to ship and how to use.
    >> DECUS had nothing to do with buying/selling. It had everything
    >> to do with finding out how to use the hard/software. DECUS was
    >> a regular meeting of everybody so they could exchange ideas,
    >> errors (gawd, especially the errors) and complaints.
    >>

    >
    >"Dealt with" does *NOT* mean "bought and/or sold".
    >
    >Deal v. dealt ... - intr. 1. To be occupied with or concerned:
    >"The book deals with the Middle Ages." - The American Heritage
    >College Dictionary, 4th Edition, copyright 2002, Houghton Mifflin
    >Company. (Note: This is fair use. I did *not* violate
    >copyright by quoting this.)
    >
    >I've been a member of DECUS/Encompass since the late 1970's.
    >I know what they do.


    Son, I started working at DEC in 1971. By the late 70s,
    DEC had started to morph to Digital. By the very early
    80s, no "workers" were sent to DECUS to mingle with their
    customers and learn what was happening on the other side
    of the SDC (software distribution center) walls. Before
    your time, the product lines were not separated into different
    DECUSes...how do spell the plural? DECUSa.


    >>> In fact, in my
    >>>original phrasing of that paragraph, I explicitly mentioned PDP-10's,
    >>>but edited it out because it was irrelevant, in a minimal and
    >>>obviously unsuccessful attempt to try to keep this thread on topic.

    >>
    >>
    >> Oh, sire. Thou dost stab me in thine heart. You have no idea what
    >> DECUS was.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Clues for sale. Cheap. 1 dollar.


    I'll take the dollar. I just gave you a very large explanation
    intead of a clue.



    >> Why do you have to run /E?
    >>
    >> /BAH
    >>

    >
    >Because I want to. Because I want to do networking. Because I
    >have a valid license. Because...
    >

    Which network software do you think you should be able to get?
    How about an earlier RSTS?

    /BAH


  9. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    > In article , John Santos wrote:
    >>
    >>Because I want to. Because I want to do networking. Because I
    >>have a valid license. Because...
    >>

    > Which network software do you think you should be able to get?
    > How about an earlier RSTS?


    I don't mean to sound obtuse or anything, but if he has a "valid license"
    this whole discussion isn't geared at him. The discussion was about
    people without licenses who insist they have the right to run the
    software anyway. If you have a license, go to it and have fun!!

    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

  10. Re: Mentec US is gone!


    wrote in message
    news:en0flo$8qk_001@s763.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.co m...

    > Son, I started working at DEC in 1971. By the late 70s,
    > DEC had started to morph to Digital. By the very early
    > 80s, no "workers" were sent to DECUS to mingle with their
    > customers and learn what was happening on the other side
    > of the SDC (software distribution center) walls. Before
    > your time, the product lines were not separated into different
    > DECUSes...how do spell the plural? DECUSa.


    Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s. (Full
    disclosure: I worked for EG&H, John's company, in the mid-80s.) He's hardly
    ignorant of DEC, DECUS, or PDP-11s, and probably dates back about as far as
    you do.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "no "workers" ", but there were certainly
    plenty of DEC employees at the 1988 Anaheim symposium I attended, and I
    talked in person with most of the RSTS team, among others. (The session
    notes included pictures of the whole team, and I thought all were there.)

    --
    Kelvin Smith
    remove "1111" from address for email



  11. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >
    >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.


    Yes, unless you set a variable when you built the kernal to shut off
    the licensing, which everybody did. Somewhere around here I have a DECUS
    thing on doing it still.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  12. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <4vi0imF1cclgtU1@mid.individual.net>,
    bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >In article ,
    > jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >> In article , John Santos

    wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Because I want to. Because I want to do networking. Because I
    >>>have a valid license. Because...
    >>>

    >> Which network software do you think you should be able to get?
    >> How about an earlier RSTS?

    >
    >I don't mean to sound obtuse or anything,


    You aren't. :-) The fact that he said he had a license
    seeped into my logic about five minutes after I sent my post.

    > but if he has a "valid license"
    >this whole discussion isn't geared at him. The discussion was about
    >people without licenses who insist they have the right to run the
    >software anyway. If you have a license, go to it and have fun!!


    Yes. I guess I assumed that he was having similar problems because
    the tenor of his post protrayed that. I misread the post entirely.
    My apologies.

    /BAH

  13. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    "Kelvin Smith" wrote:
    >
    > wrote in message
    >news:en0flo$8qk_001@s763.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.co m...
    >
    >> Son, I started working at DEC in 1971. By the late 70s,
    >> DEC had started to morph to Digital. By the very early
    >> 80s, no "workers" were sent to DECUS to mingle with their
    >> customers and learn what was happening on the other side
    >> of the SDC (software distribution center) walls. Before
    >> your time, the product lines were not separated into different
    >> DECUSes...how do spell the plural? DECUSa.

    >
    >Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    >wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s. (Full
    >disclosure: I worked for EG&H, John's company, in the mid-80s.) He's hardly
    >ignorant of DEC, DECUS, or PDP-11s, and probably dates back about as far as
    >you do.


    He is ignorant of DEC, DECUS and the PDP-11 biz before the late
    70s and early 80s. He said so. A DECUS used to deal with the
    whole spectrum of DEC's product lines. When this person started,
    the splits had started to happen. Go read his original statements.

    >
    >I'm not sure what you mean by "no "workers" ", but there were certainly
    >plenty of DEC employees at the 1988 Anaheim symposium I attended, and I
    >talked in person with most of the RSTS team, among others. (The session
    >notes included pictures of the whole team, and I thought all were there.)


    You said 1988. I was talking about Digital policies earlier than
    that. It was in 88 or 89 that the company decided to stop
    sending the team JMF was in to customer sites. The project was to
    send our brightest and most experienced to find out customer
    needs for the next decade. This is not an easy thing to do
    because a customer tends to be too focused, rightly, on certain
    aspects. The point was to be able to produce a general guideline
    for planning future Digital products.

    Were the people on the RSTS team part of the display or did they
    do real work? Real work is give instructive sessions, Q&A sessions,
    work intensely in the hospitality suites, and attend the
    "emergency meetings" that always seemed to pop up.


    /BAH


  14. Re: Mentec US is gone!


    wrote in message
    news:en34is$8qk_001@s803.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.co m...
    > In article ,
    > "Kelvin Smith" wrote:
    >>
    >> wrote in message
    >>news:en0flo$8qk_001@s763.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.co m...
    >>
    >>> Son, I started working at DEC in 1971. By the late 70s,
    >>> DEC had started to morph to Digital. By the very early
    >>> 80s, no "workers" were sent to DECUS to mingle with their
    >>> customers and learn what was happening on the other side
    >>> of the SDC (software distribution center) walls. Before
    >>> your time, the product lines were not separated into different
    >>> DECUSes...how do spell the plural? DECUSa.

    >>
    >>Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    >>wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s. (Full
    >>disclosure: I worked for EG&H, John's company, in the mid-80s.) He's
    >>hardly
    >>ignorant of DEC, DECUS, or PDP-11s, and probably dates back about as far
    >>as
    >>you do.

    >
    > He is ignorant of DEC, DECUS and the PDP-11 biz before the late
    > 70s and early 80s. He said so. A DECUS used to deal with the
    > whole spectrum of DEC's product lines. When this person started,
    > the splits had started to happen. Go read his original statements.


    You're overstating what John said. He said he became a member of DECUS in
    the late 1970s. That doesn't mean he's ignorant of what happened before.
    EG&H has been a premier programming house for the PDP-11 since the PDP-11
    first existed; do you know who wrote Basic-Plus? (Hint: it wasn't DEC.)

    >>I'm not sure what you mean by "no "workers" ", but there were certainly
    >>plenty of DEC employees at the 1988 Anaheim symposium I attended, and I
    >>talked in person with most of the RSTS team, among others. (The session
    >>notes included pictures of the whole team, and I thought all were there.)

    >
    > You said 1988. I was talking about Digital policies earlier than
    > that. It was in 88 or 89 that the company decided to stop
    > sending the team JMF was in to customer sites. The project was to
    > send our brightest and most experienced to find out customer
    > needs for the next decade. This is not an easy thing to do
    > because a customer tends to be too focused, rightly, on certain
    > aspects. The point was to be able to produce a general guideline
    > for planning future Digital products.
    >
    > Were the people on the RSTS team part of the display or did they
    > do real work? Real work is give instructive sessions, Q&A sessions,
    > work intensely in the hospitality suites, and attend the
    > "emergency meetings" that always seemed to pop up.


    Both the RSTS and the Basic-Plus-2 teams presented sessions that I attended,
    giving information on internals, programming, etc., as well as running Q&As.
    (Since I'm still running both RSTS and BP2 commercially, I'm probably still
    using some of the ideas I got there, though switching to an emulator on a
    2.4GHz PC means that speed tweaks aren't as crucial.) If your earlier
    comment wasn't meant to refer to the late 1980s, then fine; it sounded to me
    like you were saying that in the 1970s DEC was one way, then starting in the
    early 1980s and from then on, it was another way, and my experience was
    quite different from what you were describing. But perhaps the pendulum
    swung back and forth, at least in some areas.

    --
    Kelvin Smith
    Financial Computer Systems, Inc.



  15. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    "Kelvin Smith" writes:
    >
    > Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    > wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s.


    Wow. I'll bet there isn't much chance of that being OpenSourced. :-(

    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

  16. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    William Pechter wrote:

    > 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.


    Know of any fully functional Unix other than Ultrix for a Vax 6000 and
    it's peripherals?

    --
    The CO

  17. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Kelvin Smith" writes:
    >
    >>Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    >>wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s.

    >
    >
    > Wow. I'll bet there isn't much chance of that being OpenSourced. :-(
    >
    > bill
    >




    I could be convinced, but that isn't the issue. To be useful, it
    almost requires a RSTS/E license for the VAX, in order to acquire
    BASIC+, RT11 emulation (needed for PIP and various other utilities,
    and for MACRO-11 and Fortran IV), RSX emulation (needed for BP2,
    COBOL, RMS, MAC assembler, TKB, F4P, DIBOL (I think), PDP-11 C),
    plus whatever layered products you need (BP2, Fortran, COBOL, etc.)

    For any VAX without PDP-11 compatibility mode (all except 11/7xx's
    and 86x0's), you also need the VAX-11 RSX product in order to acquire
    the software PDP-11 emulator (SYS$LIBRARY:CEM$EMULATOR.EXE).

    From the late 1970's to the late 1980's, when we were actively
    marketing ROSS/V, DEC was happy to sell our customers the appropriate
    RSTS/E licenses for their VAXes.

    It is theoretically possible to use ROSS/V without any RSTS/E software,
    but you either need to figure out how to poke binary code into memory
    and execute it or have the executables of a program or set of programs
    that were compiled and linked on a properly licensed PDP-11 or on a
    VAX with ROSS/V and all the RSTS/E licenses. (This wouldn't work for
    BASIC-PLUS, since you need the B+ run time system to execute them.)
    BP2 and other higher-level languages raise some "interesting" licensing
    issues, since they would include routines from the BP2 object libraries
    in the task files. Macro-11, assuming it's all your code, is fine.
    You would of course need a RSTS/E license on the system on which you
    compiled and linked the Macro source code, but the resulting .TSK or
    ..SAV file belongs to the author, not to DEC.


    (P.S. Thanks, Kelvin :-)

    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

  18. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    John Santos writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> "Kelvin Smith" writes:
    >>
    >>>Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    >>>wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s.

    >>
    >>
    >> Wow. I'll bet there isn't much chance of that being OpenSourced. :-(
    >>
    >> bill
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > I could be convinced, but that isn't the issue. To be useful, it
    > almost requires a RSTS/E license for the VAX, in order to acquire
    > BASIC+, RT11 emulation (needed for PIP and various other utilities,
    > and for MACRO-11 and Fortran IV), RSX emulation (needed for BP2,
    > COBOL, RMS, MAC assembler, TKB, F4P, DIBOL (I think), PDP-11 C),
    > plus whatever layered products you need (BP2, Fortran, COBOL, etc.)
    >
    > For any VAX without PDP-11 compatibility mode (all except 11/7xx's
    > and 86x0's), you also need the VAX-11 RSX product in order to acquire
    > the software PDP-11 emulator (SYS$LIBRARY:CEM$EMULATOR.EXE).
    >
    > From the late 1970's to the late 1980's, when we were actively
    > marketing ROSS/V, DEC was happy to sell our customers the appropriate
    > RSTS/E licenses for their VAXes.
    >
    > It is theoretically possible to use ROSS/V without any RSTS/E software,
    > but you either need to figure out how to poke binary code into memory
    > and execute it or have the executables of a program or set of programs
    > that were compiled and linked on a properly licensed PDP-11 or on a
    > VAX with ROSS/V and all the RSTS/E licenses. (This wouldn't work for
    > BASIC-PLUS, since you need the B+ run time system to execute them.)
    > BP2 and other higher-level languages raise some "interesting" licensing
    > issues, since they would include routines from the BP2 object libraries
    > in the task files. Macro-11, assuming it's all your code, is fine.
    > You would of course need a RSTS/E license on the system on which you
    > compiled and linked the Macro source code, but the resulting .TSK or
    > .SAV file belongs to the author, not to DEC.
    >
    >
    > (P.S. Thanks, Kelvin :-)
    >


    All very interesting and not totally unexpected. However....

    Assuming this package does what I read into it, which is, allow RSTS
    stuff to run on what is really a none RSTS machine and, assuming it
    is totally yours and does not contain any DEC code that is tied to
    real RSTS, then, it might prove very useful as an example of the
    various RSTS interfaces that might be needed to write a RSTS clone
    which would be capable of running not only on the PDP-11 but perhaps
    also on other architectures.

    So you see, we are back to my old idea of cloning the PDP-11 OSes
    that can not be run legally by hobbyists. :-) My personal favorite
    was always RSTS so I see it as the best place to start although I
    am sure RT-11 would be much easier to do. But, you gotta start
    somewhere. :-)

    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

  19. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Kelvin Smith" wrote:
    >
    >> wrote in message
    >>news:en0flo$8qk_001@s763.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.co m...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Son, I started working at DEC in 1971. By the late 70s,
    >>>DEC had started to morph to Digital. By the very early
    >>>80s, no "workers" were sent to DECUS to mingle with their
    >>>customers and learn what was happening on the other side
    >>>of the SDC (software distribution center) walls. Before
    >>>your time, the product lines were not separated into different
    >>>DECUSes...how do spell the plural? DECUSa.

    >>
    >>Your patronizing reveals your own ignorance. John almost single-handedly
    >>wrote a RSTS emulator for the VAX (ROSS/V) in the early 1980s. (Full
    >>disclosure: I worked for EG&H, John's company, in the mid-80s.) He's hardly
    >>ignorant of DEC, DECUS, or PDP-11s, and probably dates back about as far as
    >>you do.

    >
    >
    > He is ignorant of DEC, DECUS and the PDP-11 biz before the late
    > 70s and early 80s. He said so. A DECUS used to deal with the
    > whole spectrum of DEC's product lines. When this person started,
    > the splits had started to happen. Go read his original statements.
    >


    I didn't say any such thing. I first attended a DECUS symposium
    (and joined DECUS) some time in the late 1970's 1977 or 1978, I
    think. (There were 2 Fall DECUSes at the Town & Country Hotel in
    San Diego, and a Spring one at the New Orleans Convention Center
    another at O'Hare, and one at the Miami Convention Center. I
    don't remember which was first. I still have the mug from the
    2nd San Diego DECUS, which says "Fall 1980" on it.)

    I started programming professionally, on RSTS/E, in the fall of
    1975. I first used a computer (a PDP-10) as part of an "Introduction
    to Programming" unit in a math course in the spring of 1972. By the
    time I graduated from college, I was quite familiar with DEC, knew
    several people who worked there, and had programmed (at least to
    some minimal extent) PDP-1's, PDP-4's, PDP-8's, PDP-10's, PDP-11's
    and PDP-15's. I'm sure I first heard of DECUS during this time
    and was quite familiar with it several years before I first attended
    a symposium, since my company sent 2 or 3 people to each symposium,

    I don't get your point about "splits". When I first attended
    a symposium, there were hundreds of sessions, and there were
    many tracks. 36-bits, VAX, PDP-11, real time, system management,
    programming, Unix, business issues (i.e. about dealing with DEC,
    not about business applications), hardware, networking (computer
    networking, not the "old boy network"), etc. etc. No one
    could attend everything, you had to pick and choose. If that's
    what you mean by "splits", then what else would you expect?

    >>I'm not sure what you mean by "no "workers" ", but there were certainly
    >>plenty of DEC employees at the 1988 Anaheim symposium I attended, and I
    >>talked in person with most of the RSTS team, among others. (The session
    >>notes included pictures of the whole team, and I thought all were there.)

    >


    There were loads of developers, both hardware and software engineers,
    support people (and way too many salesmen and PHBs) at all the DECUSes
    (DECII?) I attended during this time period. I do remember that there
    was one infamous DECUS in Boston shortly before I started attending, which
    *all* the developers went to, resulting in no work at all getting done
    that week (at least in the view of the PHBs), so rumor had it that as a
    result there would never be another DECUS held in New England. Maybe
    this was the watershed event you are referring to?

    >
    > You said 1988. I was talking about Digital policies earlier than
    > that. It was in 88 or 89 that the company decided to stop
    > sending the team JMF was in to customer sites. The project was to
    > send our brightest and most experienced to find out customer
    > needs for the next decade. This is not an easy thing to do
    > because a customer tends to be too focused, rightly, on certain
    > aspects. The point was to be able to produce a general guideline
    > for planning future Digital products.
    >
    > Were the people on the RSTS team part of the display or did they
    > do real work? Real work is give instructive sessions, Q&A sessions,
    > work intensely in the hospitality suites, and attend the
    > "emergency meetings" that always seemed to pop up.
    >


    All was still going on at all the early DECUSes I attended. (At
    least for the RSTS and VMS people.) Don't know about LCG.


    >
    > /BAH
    >



    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

  20. USSR Gold Ceramic Clones of DEC PDP-11



    On Dec 22 2006, 12:31 pm, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <1166817985.184860.16...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.co m>,
    > bob.bi...@gmail.com writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > >> In article ,
    > >> klu...@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.


    Never "bright enuff to clone anything, eh?"
    How about these three PDP-11 clone chips the
    Ruskies are selling on Ebay?

    "......1801VM1,2,3 CPUs USSR Gold Ceramic
    Clones of DEC PDP-11
    Item number: 120080129559
    3pcs. different 1801 USSR Gold Ceramic
    Clone DEC PDP-11

    Short Description
    Auction of 3 rare USSR CPUs:
    K1801VM1 in Gold Pink Ceramic Planal 42-pin body
    (Angstrem plant, 1989)
    KM1801VM2 in Gold Ceramic Silver top 40-pin body
    (Angstrem plant, 1991)
    KM1801VM3 in Gold ceramic Gold top 64-pin body
    (Angstrem plant, 1988).."

    Scroll down the page on Ebay and this is one of the better
    descriptions/history of DEC clone behind the iron curtain
    I ever read.

    Says they shipped "hundreds of thousands" of these

    Man the DEC newsgroup DEC IP police better hop to it
    and warn these guys, like you do the young DEC
    collectors ;-)




    >
    >
    >
    > > 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
    > b...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include



+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 LastLast