"Jerome H. Fine" scrisse:

> Jerome Fine replies:
>
> The correct command is:
>
> SET TT NOCRLF

thanks

> Why do you want to use this command?


because if a program use escape code it goes down every 132 char .

> If I may ask, why are you running such an old version of RT-11?

because it is installed in pdp11:
http://museum.freaknet.org/index.php/PDP-11/34A

Jerome H. Fine wrote:
(snip)

> If I may ask, why are you running such an old version of RT-11?

> V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
> http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/

What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.

-- glen

In article ,
glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
> Jerome H. Fine wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> If I may ask, why are you running such an old version of RT-11?
>
>> V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>> http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>
> What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
> version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.

A license just kike the older versions.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> In article ,
> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:

>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>(snip)

>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/

>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.

> A license just kike the older versions.

Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
usage only.

Would a SCSI CD-ROM drive be able to read such a file,
if transferred to a CD? I only have floppies.

It would be nice to be able to do a sysgen of 5.03, too.

-- glen

In article ,
glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>
>>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>>(snip)
>
>>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>
>>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.
>
>> A license just kike the older versions.
>
> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
> usage only.

There has never been a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program that allowed the use
of any PDP-11 OS other than Unix and Ultrix-11 on real hardware.
There is a "Mentec Hobbyist License" that allowed the use of certain
older versions of the OSes on a DEC Emulator. But any reasonable
interpretation would make its current validity very much in question.

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

>>> >Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>
>>>> V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>> http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>>>
>>> What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>> version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03
>>
>> A license just like the older versions.
>
> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
> usage only.

Jerome Fine replies:

While V05.03 (and prior) versions of RT-11 may be legally run
by hobby users under SIMH (actually a DEC emulator, but
SIMH is understood to have now been included), there is NO
provision for anyone (including hobby users) to legally run on
real DEC CPUs except by having a license from DEC or now
Mentec. Sorry - I don't make the laws in the US!

The last release from Mentec was in October 1988 which will
be 10 years ago next month. Many software manufacturers
have decided to place their very old software releases up on
their web sites for distribution as a recognition of past usage
and support by their old customers. While Mentec seems to
have allowed such for releases prior to 1986 (V05.03 of
RT-11 was released in December 1985), there is no such
availability for public download for RT-11 releases which
follow V05.03 of RT-11.

Alternatively, it is technically possible to make V05.03 of
RT-11 Y2K compliant, but no hobby user that I know of
is even interested. And any commercial user that is willing
to purchase an RT-11 license seems to prefer V05.07 from
Mentec - which is Y2K compliant - although many bugs
still remain in V05.07 of RT-11. At the moment, the chances
of Mentec correcting the bugs seem to range from nil to
vanishingly small. There seems to be the same interest (in
having the bugs fixed) from hobby users - at least as far as
the contacts that I have and the information that I have
received up to the end of August 2008. And commercial
users which have managed to continue using their software
are not interested in fixing bugs which don't seem to be
causing a problem or for which there is a work around.

Indeed, I seem to be the only RT-11 addict who still writes
any new programs which run under RT-11, fixes bugs in
RT-11 software and writes enhancements for RT-11.
I welcome anyone who wishes to prove me wrong and
wants to participate in making RT-11 Y9K compliant.

> Would a SCSI CD-ROM drive be able to read such a file,
> if transferred to a CD? I only have floppies.

I understand that a CD-ROM drive with 512 byte blocks are
able to read the files under an RT-11 operating system on real
DEC hardware. I know of more than one person who has the
required hardware / software configuration.

On a PC, I have a DVD drive which accepts CDs that is also
able to read the files. It can read the files either as a CD under
Windows 98SE (there is an ISO file structure) or under RT-11
since each of the 4 RT-11 partitions also has an RT-11 file
structure.

Alternately, it is possible to use the RT11DV10.ISO file directly
under SIMH as an RT-11 device. I strongly urge anyone who
does so to make the device READ ONLY since very destructive
errors can occur otherwise.

In addition, PUTR (also from dbit) can be used to copy the RT-11
files to 3 1/2" RX23 media - or 5 1/4" RX50 or RX33 media.
You may want some help with the latter media

>
> It would be nice to be able to do a sysgen of 5.03, too.
>
> -- glen

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any other questions.

Sincerely yours,

Jerome Fine

Jerome H. Fine wrote:

> While V05.03 (and prior) versions of RT-11 may be legally run
> by hobby users under SIMH (actually a DEC emulator, but
> SIMH is understood to have now been included), there is NO
> provision for anyone (including hobby users) to legally run on
> real DEC CPUs except by having a license from DEC or now
> Mentec. Sorry - I don't make the laws in the US!

Actually, my 11/03 is licensed to V5.1C, as it says on
the RL-01 disk pack that I have for it. I don't have a
running RL-01 to read it, though, and I am not very interested
in trying to get one to run. It originally had a Q-bus
expansion chassis such that it would have enough slots
to run the RL-01, but I don't have that one anymore.

I wouldn't mind a SCSI hard disk or CDROM drive for it.

-- glen

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt
wrote:
> Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>
>> While V05.03 (and prior) versions of RT-11 may be legally run
>> by hobby users under SIMH (actually a DEC emulator, but
>> SIMH is understood to have now been included), there is NO
>> provision for anyone (including hobby users) to legally run on
>> real DEC CPUs except by having a license from DEC or now
>> Mentec. Sorry - I don't make the laws in the US!
>
> Actually, my 11/03 is licensed to V5.1C, as it says on
> the RL-01 disk pack that I have for it. I don't have a
> running RL-01 to read it, though, and I am not very interested
> in trying to get one to run. It originally had a Q-bus
> expansion chassis such that it would have enough slots
> to run the RL-01, but I don't have that one anymore.
>
> I wouldn't mind a SCSI hard disk or CDROM drive for it.

Unfortunately, the eras of SCSI and Qbus did not overlap by very much.
So Qbus SCSI controllers were not made in large volume, and the
scarce few that remain in the world fetch rather exorbitant prices.

carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenstein@ucsd.edu

On 8 Sep 2008 23:56:50 GMT, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

>In article ,
> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>
>>>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>>>(snip)
>>
>>>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>>
>>>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.
>>
>>> A license just kike the older versions.
>>
>> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
>> usage only.
>
>There has never been a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program that allowed the use
>of any PDP-11 OS other than Unix and Ultrix-11 on real hardware.

I released a (beta) hobbyist version of RUST/SJ in June this year. It
has most of RT-11 V5.3 (rewritten) plus a lot of other stuff.
http://www.geocities.com/~hammodotcom/pdp/rust1.zip


Ian

In article <6ilse2FratvqU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>In article ,
> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>
>>>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>>>(snip)
>>
>>>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>>
>>>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.
>>
>>> A license just kike the older versions.
>>
>> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
>> usage only.
>
>There has never been a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program that allowed the use
>of any PDP-11 OS other than Unix and Ultrix-11 on real hardware.
>There is a "Mentec Hobbyist License" that allowed the use of certain
>older versions of the OSes on a DEC Emulator. But any reasonable
>interpretation would make its current validity very much in question.
>
>bill
>
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


Actually, there's a real question if Ultrix-11 is legal since AFAIK
DEC had now hobbyist program for it (you can get V7 through PUPS/TUHS
due to Caldera making it available -- but I'm not sure if the DEC
license would still be required for their modified V7 -- I know
there's probably noone at HP who knows or cares about making it
available.)

Bill


--
--
Be comforted that in the face of all erridity and disallusionment, and
despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in
computer maintainance. --Deteriorata (pechter-at-gmail-dot-com)

In article ,
pechter@pcp09822625pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net (Bill Pechter) writes:
> In article <6ilse2FratvqU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>In article ,
>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article ,
>>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>>
>>>>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>>>
>>>>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>>>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.
>>>
>>>> A license just kike the older versions.
>>>
>>> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
>>> usage only.
>>
>>There has never been a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program that allowed the use
>>of any PDP-11 OS other than Unix and Ultrix-11 on real hardware.
>>There is a "Mentec Hobbyist License" that allowed the use of certain
>>older versions of the OSes on a DEC Emulator. But any reasonable
>>interpretation would make its current validity very much in question.
>>
>
> Actually, there's a real question if Ultrix-11 is legal since AFAIK
> DEC had now hobbyist program for it (you can get V7 through PUPS/TUHS
> due to Caldera making it available -- but I'm not sure if the DEC
> license would still be required for their modified V7 -- I know
> there's probably noone at HP who knows or cares about making it
> available.)

There is no question that I have ever seen raised, Who has expressed
a problem? The only problem I can remember was before the Caldera
license you needed an AT&T license. But I don't remember DEC ever
being involved and Ultrix-11 was dead before they went out of business
so I doubt it was passed on to Compaq or HP.

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

I think Ultrix-11 certainly fits the class of "abandonware"!

It was retired before I joined DEC Canada in 1987. So it was
retired for over 8 years before DEC went to Compaq.

In the 6 years I was in PDP-11 Software Support with DEC
Canada, we had 1 call for help from a licensed customer and
none thereafter when I went to DEC in Colorado.

If anyone holds the rights, it's HP, but there are precious few
there who know what a PDP-11 is any more ... I would
imagine there are precious few there who even know that HP
sold minis that were in direct competition with DEC!

I would have no qualms about using Ultrix-11 for hobbyist
purposes, and if somebody complained, I'd then stop, but at
this juncture it can't have any commercial value other than
some nominal $1 to identify that there's IP rights!

In article <48C8FE2D.31330.1F8F3C2E@stuart.brook.ca>,
"Stuart Brook" writes:
> I think Ultrix-11 certainly fits the class of "abandonware"!

There is no such legal concept as "abandonware".

>
> It was retired before I joined DEC Canada in 1987. So it was
> retired for over 8 years before DEC went to Compaq.
>
> In the 6 years I was in PDP-11 Software Support with DEC
> Canada, we had 1 call for help from a licensed customer and
> none thereafter when I went to DEC in Colorado.
>
> If anyone holds the rights, it's HP, but there are precious few
> there who know what a PDP-11 is any more ... I would
> imagine there are precious few there who even know that HP
> sold minis that were in direct competition with DEC!
>
> I would have no qualms about using Ultrix-11 for hobbyist
> purposes, and if somebody complained, I'd then stop, but at
> this juncture it can't have any commercial value other than
> some nominal $1 to identify that there's IP rights!

I don't remember when (it was quite some time ago) but I do remember
Ultrix-11 being specifically mentioned as covered by the Cladera
License. Prior to that one had to have a real AT&T license (yes, I
have one here at the University) to even get it from PUPS.

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

There's an interesting treatise on the concept of
abandonware in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

and you are quite right that there is no such legal status.

That said, I think it's come down to a case of "Is the copyright
holder traceable?"

It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to violate
the copyright that exists (particularly since the copyright
holder probably is not identifiable and there has been no
evidence that a copyright holder has enforced copyright in
years and whether there's any real commercial value in the
product) and risk any attempt at enforcement.

With a product like Ultrix-11 (as opposed to Ultrix-32) which
was retired over 20 years ago, the risks look pretty minimal.

If one chooses to use an unlicensed product that appears
abandoned (and I don't HAVE a copy of Ultrix-11 to use
anyway) then clearly the best policy would be don't admit to
its use in public!

Note that I'm not advocating using other PDP-11 products
whose ownership is more clearly defined and was obviously
supported until recently. i.e. the Mentec suite or MUMPS or
IAS.

In article <48C9200C.29685.20138B46@stuart.brook.ca>,
"Stuart Brook" writes:
> There's an interesting treatise on the concept of
> abandonware in Wikipedia
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

And we all know if it's in Wikipedia it has to be true. :-)

>
> and you are quite right that there is no such legal status.
>
> That said, I think it's come down to a case of "Is the copyright
> holder traceable?"

But in a court of law, the only place that matters, the onus is not
on the copyright holder but on the user.

>
> It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to violate
> the copyright that exists (particularly since the copyright
> holder probably is not identifiable and there has been no
> evidence that a copyright holder has enforced copyright in
> years and whether there's any real commercial value in the
> product) and risk any attempt at enforcement.

I know it was a patent and not a copyright, but I think the courts
would see them the same, do you remember LZWS and the great Unix
"compress" debacle. After years of ignoring it the owner suddenly
shows up and wants it enforced. the courst ruled in their favor.

>
> With a product like Ultrix-11 (as opposed to Ultrix-32) which
> was retired over 20 years ago, the risks look pretty minimal.
>
> If one chooses to use an unlicensed product that appears
> abandoned (and I don't HAVE a copy of Ultrix-11 to use
> anyway) then clearly the best policy would be don't admit to
> its use in public!

Too late for that. A number of us have admited to running it
and even Y2King it. As I said, until I see otherwise, I was
told it was covered by the Caldera license.

>
> Note that I'm not advocating using other PDP-11 products
> whose ownership is more clearly defined and was obviously
> supported until recently. i.e. the Mentec suite or MUMPS or
> IAS.

I wasn't aware that MUMPS or IAS have been supported on the PDP-11
since the time of Ultrix-11. Mentec got the others, but I always
thought the rest just died. (Well, MUMPS didn't die, it morphed, but
PDP-11 support for the product died.)

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:37:34 -0400, "Jerome H. Fine"
wrote:



>While V05.03 (and prior) versions of RT-11 may be legally run
>by hobby users under SIMH (actually a DEC emulator, but
>SIMH is understood to have now been included),

Understood by whom? No-one here subscribes to that 'understanding' AFAIK; the
license is specific and unequivocal: if the emulator isn't owned by DEC, you
can't use the license. DEC (or Compaq or HP) doesn't own SIMH or any other
emulator, so the license is useless.

>there is NO
>provision for anyone (including hobby users) to legally run on
>real DEC CPUs except by having a license from DEC or now
>Mentec...

Or from the previous owner, if you buy/inherit/rescue a system complete with
software.

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

In article <6isppgFc3sfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>In article ,
> pechter@pcp09822625pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net (Bill Pechter) writes:
>> In article <6ilse2FratvqU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article ,
>>>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>>>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>>>>
>>>>>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>>>>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.
>>>>
>>>>> A license just kike the older versions.
>>>>
>>>> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
>>>> usage only.
>>>
>>>There has never been a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program that allowed the use
>>>of any PDP-11 OS other than Unix and Ultrix-11 on real hardware.
>>>There is a "Mentec Hobbyist License" that allowed the use of certain
>>>older versions of the OSes on a DEC Emulator. But any reasonable
>>>interpretation would make its current validity very much in question.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, there's a real question if Ultrix-11 is legal since AFAIK
>> DEC had now hobbyist program for it (you can get V7 through PUPS/TUHS
>> due to Caldera making it available -- but I'm not sure if the DEC
>> license would still be required for their modified V7 -- I know
>> there's probably noone at HP who knows or cares about making it
>> available.)
>
>There is no question that I have ever seen raised, Who has expressed
>a problem? The only problem I can remember was before the Caldera
>license you needed an AT&T license. But I don't remember DEC ever
>being involved and Ultrix-11 was dead before they went out of business
>so I doubt it was passed on to Compaq or HP.
>
>bill
>
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

Ultrix-11 was originally V7-M11 (modified Edition VII) and you needed
to purchase it from DEC. In addition to the AT&T copyrights were
DEC copyrights -- so unless they allow it's use and reprotion...
it's a violation. The name change happened later to allow
more marketing similarity with Ultrix-32.

IIRC, DEC sold licenses for it and it wasn't free if you had an AT&T
source license... It had a support for number of DEC hardware
drivers and items that weren't in V7...

That's the problem with abandonware...

Same thing exists with RT11, RSX11, etc.

I know your feelings about that, I'm surprised you would recommend
using Ultrix11.

Bill
--
--
Be comforted that in the face of all erridity and disallusionment, and
despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in
computer maintainance. --Deteriorata (pechter-at-gmail-dot-com)

In article ,
pechter@pcp09822625pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net (Bill Pechter) writes:
> In article <6isppgFc3sfU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>In article ,
>> pechter@pcp09822625pcs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net (Bill Pechter) writes:
>>> In article <6ilse2FratvqU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>V05.03 is legally available to hobby users and may be downloaded at:
>>>>>>>>http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What do I need to run this on a real LSI-11? I have some older
>>>>>>>version on floppies, but it would be nice to run 5.03.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A license just kike the older versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following the previous post, this would be for hobby
>>>>> usage only.
>>>>
>>>>There has never been a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program that allowed the use
>>>>of any PDP-11 OS other than Unix and Ultrix-11 on real hardware.
>>>>There is a "Mentec Hobbyist License" that allowed the use of certain
>>>>older versions of the OSes on a DEC Emulator. But any reasonable
>>>>interpretation would make its current validity very much in question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, there's a real question if Ultrix-11 is legal since AFAIK
>>> DEC had now hobbyist program for it (you can get V7 through PUPS/TUHS
>>> due to Caldera making it available -- but I'm not sure if the DEC
>>> license would still be required for their modified V7 -- I know
>>> there's probably noone at HP who knows or cares about making it
>>> available.)
>>
>>There is no question that I have ever seen raised, Who has expressed
>>a problem? The only problem I can remember was before the Caldera
>>license you needed an AT&T license. But I don't remember DEC ever
>>being involved and Ultrix-11 was dead before they went out of business
>>so I doubt it was passed on to Compaq or HP.
>>
>>bill
>>
>>
>>--
>>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>>billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>>University of Scranton |
>>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include
>
> Ultrix-11 was originally V7-M11 (modified Edition VII) and you needed
> to purchase it from DEC. In addition to the AT&T copyrights were
> DEC copyrights -- so unless they allow it's use and reprotion...
> it's a violation. The name change happened later to allow
> more marketing similarity with Ultrix-32.
>
> IIRC, DEC sold licenses for it and it wasn't free if you had an AT&T
> source license... It had a support for number of DEC hardware
> drivers and items that weren't in V7...
>
> That's the problem with abandonware...
>
> Same thing exists with RT11, RSX11, etc.
>
> I know your feelings about that, I'm surprised you would recommend
> using Ultrix11.

Well, maybe they were mistaken, but according to PUPS (several yearfs ago)
Ultrix-11 was declared as covered by the Caldera License. Maybe they
spoke with the DEC/Compaq/HP whoever was in charge at the time and were
told they could do this. Probably worth going back and asking Warren
for a clarification.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

On 13 Sep 2008 13:18:57 GMT, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
[RE Ultrix-11]
>
>Well, maybe they were mistaken, but according to PUPS (several yearfs ago)
>Ultrix-11 was declared as covered by the Caldera License. Maybe they
>spoke with the DEC/Compaq/HP whoever was in charge at the time and were
>told they could do this. Probably worth going back and asking Warren
>for a clarification.

The Caldera license I have says:

32-bit 32V UNIX
16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

No mention of Ultrix.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr t-bone .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com

The future was never like this!