OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? - VMS

This is a discussion on OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? - VMS ; On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:28:19 -0800, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > "Tom Linden" writes: >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:40 -0800, Bill Gunshannon >> >> wrote: >> >>> In article , >>> "Tom Linden" writes: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 80 of 80

Thread: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

  1. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:28:19 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:40 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> "Tom Linden" writes:
    >>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even
    >>>>>> understand
    >>>>>> them.
    >>>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade
    >>>>>> as
    >>>>>> they
    >>>>>> say.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a
    >>>>> 10
    >>>>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one
    >>>>> can
    >>>>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to
    >>>>> become
    >>>>> available)
    >>>>
    >>>> I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone
    >>>> had
    >>>> used the
    >>>> compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had
    >>>> preemptive
    >>>> rights
    >>>> for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.
    >>> I have been using Suns since the M68K Sun3 days and have never seen a
    >>> compiler that was not just wide open. Well, that may have happened
    >>> when
    >>> they moved to the first Solaris versions (much less than 20 years ago
    >>> and
    >>> when we stopped being a Sun shop) when I seem to remember Sun
    >>> unbundling
    >>> the compiler but even then GNU-C was already available and had no such
    >>> limitation.
    >>> bill
    >>>

    >> This was in 1994 Sun had asked me to write an IMS multiplexor with 3270
    >> screens for Hughes. It may be that you used educational license? The

    >
    > SunOS had no kind of license manager. You sure you weren't using a third
    > party product? I do remember things like FrameMaker and Rational Rose
    > all
    > using license managers (and some even had dongles) but nothing I ever saw
    > from Sun prior to the existence of Solaris.


    It wasn't SunOS, it was Solaris.

    >
    >> 3270 emulator, BTW, was not reentrant so had to fork and spawn a lot,
    >> all because some implementor did not have the experience to avoid the
    >> use
    >> of static storage. The license did behave as I said until it was
    >> expanded.
    >> The original IMS front-end had been written in PL/I for a Stratus
    >> machine,
    >> which explains my involvement (in case you wonder) used named stream
    >> pipes
    >> to communicate between client and server

    > bill
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  2. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article <6nr5lgFf2ikU3@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article <00A82514.67CBCF1B@sendspamhere.org>,
    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >> In article <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>,
    >>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >>>> In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>>>>John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >>>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >>>>>> say.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>>>compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>>>gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>>>>second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>>>try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>>>>begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>>>value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>>>>available)
    >>>>
    >>>> Polling? How unixy.
    >>>
    >>>Since when? Version 6?

    >>
    >> Bill, you never cease to amaze me in the lack of humor department.

    >
    >Oh, I have humor. But that was yet another of the typical Unix type
    >comments here and based on the demonstrated level of real Unix knowledge
    >in this group there is little if any reason to assume it isn's a serious
    >comment requiring an answer. I mean would be the response here if I
    >constantly complained about SOS being the only VMS editor. :-)


    How much blood do you lose through your nose from being at that altitude
    on your high horse? I tossed up a smiley when I said that; it was clear
    that it was humor.

    BTW, we all know that TECO is the only VMS editor.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  3. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article ,
    "Tom Linden" writes:
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:28:19 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> "Tom Linden" writes:
    >>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:40 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    >>>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> "Tom Linden" writes:
    >>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even
    >>>>>>> understand
    >>>>>>> them.
    >>>>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade
    >>>>>>> as
    >>>>>>> they
    >>>>>>> say.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>>>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>>>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a
    >>>>>> 10
    >>>>>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>>>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one
    >>>>>> can
    >>>>>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>>>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to
    >>>>>> become
    >>>>>> available)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone
    >>>>> had
    >>>>> used the
    >>>>> compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had
    >>>>> preemptive
    >>>>> rights
    >>>>> for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.
    >>>> I have been using Suns since the M68K Sun3 days and have never seen a
    >>>> compiler that was not just wide open. Well, that may have happened
    >>>> when
    >>>> they moved to the first Solaris versions (much less than 20 years ago
    >>>> and
    >>>> when we stopped being a Sun shop) when I seem to remember Sun
    >>>> unbundling
    >>>> the compiler but even then GNU-C was already available and had no such
    >>>> limitation.
    >>>> bill
    >>>>
    >>> This was in 1994 Sun had asked me to write an IMS multiplexor with 3270
    >>> screens for Hughes. It may be that you used educational license? The

    >>
    >> SunOS had no kind of license manager. You sure you weren't using a third
    >> party product? I do remember things like FrameMaker and Rational Rose
    >> all
    >> using license managers (and some even had dongles) but nothing I ever saw
    >> from Sun prior to the existence of Solaris.

    >
    > It wasn't SunOS, it was Solaris.


    OK, a bit clearer. Solaris 2.0 is the first version not identified as
    SunOS and it was released in June of 1992, not quite 20 years ago. And
    calling SunOS 4.1.x as Solaris 1 was an after the fact re-branding for
    marketing reasons so they really weren't known as Solaris.

    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

  4. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:57:16 UTC, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

    > BTW, we all know that TECO is the only VMS editor.


    Hear, hear!

    (user of TECO since 1973...)

    --
    Bob Eager
    Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
    http://www.mirrorservice.org


  5. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???


    "yyyc186" wrote in message
    news:11ec677e-e607-4133-b206-17f008687d7c@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
    On Nov 10, 8:03 am, "John Reagan" wrote:
    >>
    >> I am a US-born citizen (born in Indiana) and I have a birth certificate
    >> to
    >> prove it. There are other US-born/US-based folks working on compilers
    >> besides me.


    >How many non-US developers are working on the compilers and the OS?
    >It only takes one to no longer meet ITAR standards.



    Well, that isn't my understanding of how it works. As for the legal status
    of my co-workers, that isn't something I can talk about is it?




  6. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    John Reagan wrote:

    > Well, that isn't my understanding of how it works. As for the legal status
    > of my co-workers, that isn't something I can talk about is it?


    Is there any harm in revealing whether certain employees are married or
    not ?

    I can understand you not wanting to announce that FredK is an illegal
    alien from outer space as it may send immigration officials after him
    (as was shown in the documentary "Coneheads" done some years ago).


    Seriously though, does ITAR still make sense ? I recall that during the
    clinton era, clinton relaxed the encryption export restrictions since
    the USA realised that USA companies were being hurt, unable to export
    their products and foreign companies were getting worldwide market share
    with equal or better encryption. (he also got the military to stop the
    degradation of the general GPS signals since it was pointless to do that
    just to please the military).

  7. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >>>> them.
    >>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as
    >>>> they
    >>>> say.
    >>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>
    >>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>> available)

    >> I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone had
    >> used the
    >> compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had preemptive
    >> rights
    >> for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.

    >
    > I have been using Suns since the M68K Sun3 days and have never seen a
    > compiler that was not just wide open. Well, that may have happened when
    > they moved to the first Solaris versions (much less than 20 years ago and
    > when we stopped being a Sun shop) when I seem to remember Sun unbundling
    > the compiler but even then GNU-C was already available and had no such
    > limitation.
    >
    > bill
    >
    >


    For the past three years or so, Sun has been allowing free use of
    Solaris 10 and the development tools. You can just buy a media kit and
    go. The price of the media kit can range from free to $???. I got my
    last media kit for free. You can also download the software from a Sun
    web site. Sun's current business model is to give away the software and
    charge for support.

    If you are a hobbyist, it doesn't cost you a dime. If you are using the
    software for business critical systems, you probably need some level of
    support!

  8. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <00A82514.67CBCF1B@sendspamhere.org>,
    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >> In article <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>> In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>,
    >>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >>>> In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>>>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >>>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >>>>>> say.
    >>>>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>>>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>>>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>>>> available)
    >>>> Polling? How unixy.
    >>> Since when? Version 6?

    >> Bill, you never cease to amaze me in the lack of humor department.

    >
    > Oh, I have humor. But that was yet another of the typical Unix type
    > comments here and based on the demonstrated level of real Unix knowledge
    > in this group there is little if any reason to assume it isn's a serious
    > comment requiring an answer. I mean would be the response here if I
    > constantly complained about SOS being the only VMS editor. :-)
    >
    > bill
    >
    >


    Hey! I used SOS ca. 1984. It was OK as editors go and about the only
    usable choice if you didn't have a VT100 compliant terminal. I wouldn't
    put up with it NOW but expectations have changed over the last
    twenty-five years! It took a while but Princeton finally caved in and
    bought some VT terminals; AIRC they were VT-220s.

    Bit of ancient trivia: SOS stood for Son Of Stopgap. Stopgap was
    apparently an early editor but I arrived on the scene a little too late
    to have any experience with it.

  9. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <6nr5lgFf2ikU3@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >> In article <00A82514.67CBCF1B@sendspamhere.org>,
    >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >>> In article <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>> In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>,
    >>>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >>>>> In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>>>>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >>>>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >>>>>>> say.
    >>>>>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>>>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>>>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>>>>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>>>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>>>>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>>>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>>>>> available)
    >>>>> Polling? How unixy.
    >>>> Since when? Version 6?
    >>> Bill, you never cease to amaze me in the lack of humor department.

    >> Oh, I have humor. But that was yet another of the typical Unix type
    >> comments here and based on the demonstrated level of real Unix knowledge
    >> in this group there is little if any reason to assume it isn's a serious
    >> comment requiring an answer. I mean would be the response here if I
    >> constantly complained about SOS being the only VMS editor. :-)

    >
    > How much blood do you lose through your nose from being at that altitude
    > on your high horse? I tossed up a smiley when I said that; it was clear
    > that it was humor.
    >
    > BTW, we all know that TECO is the only VMS editor.
    >


    There is no editor but EDT and Mohammed is his prophet! ;-)

  10. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > For the past three years or so, Sun has been allowing free use of
    > Solaris 10 and the development tools. You can just buy a media kit and
    > go. The price of the media kit can range from free to $???. I got my
    > last media kit for free. You can also download the software from a Sun
    > web site. Sun's current business model is to give away the software and
    > charge for support.
    >
    > If you are a hobbyist, it doesn't cost you a dime. If you are using the
    > software for business critical systems, you probably need some level of
    > support!


    That has become a very popular business model today. It is not just SUN.

    Arne


  11. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:28:19 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    >> wrote:
    >>> SunOS had no kind of license manager. You sure you weren't using a third
    >>> party product? I do remember things like FrameMaker and Rational Rose
    >>> all
    >>> using license managers (and some even had dongles) but nothing I ever saw
    >>> from Sun prior to the existence of Solaris.

    >> It wasn't SunOS, it was Solaris.

    >
    > OK, a bit clearer. Solaris 2.0 is the first version not identified as
    > SunOS and it was released in June of 1992, not quite 20 years ago. And
    > calling SunOS 4.1.x as Solaris 1 was an after the fact re-branding for
    > marketing reasons so they really weren't known as Solaris.


    I believe Solaris 2.x was also called (or included) SunOS 5.x (that was
    until they completely messed up the versioning and started only having
    a major version number like MS).

    Arne

  12. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    yyyc186 wrote:
    > On Nov 10, 8:03 am, "John Reagan" wrote:
    >> I am a US-born citizen (born in Indiana) and I have a birth certificate to
    >> prove it. There are other US-born/US-based folks working on compilers
    >> besides me.

    >
    > How many non-US developers are working on the compilers and the OS?
    > It only takes one to no longer meet ITAR standards.


    1) I don't think OS and compilers fall under ITAR.

    2) It is not only US citizens that are allowed. Green card
    holders are also allowed.

    Arne


  13. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of$2400.00???

    On Nov 4, 7:09*pm, Len Whitwer wrote:
    > Ordered HP Basic LTU for integrity BA347AC "concurrent license" at a
    > list price of $2400.00. Installed on rx2620 system and can only get
    > "ONE
    > USER" on system.
    >
    > Get following error when second user tries to use basic.
    >
    > $ BAS OE001A
    >
    > %LICENSE-F-NOAUTH, DEC BASIC use is not authorized on this node
    >
    > -LICENSE-F-NOLICENSE, no license is active for this software product
    >
    > -LICENSE-I-SYSMGR, please see your system manager
    >
    > %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows
    >
    > image * * module * *routine * * * * * * * line * * *rel PC
    > abs PC
    >
    > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *0 FFFFFFFF80BBEA10
    > FFFFFFFF80BBEA10
    >
    > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *0 FFFFFFFF80BC3960
    > FFFFFFFF80BC3960
    >
    > BASIC *BASICLICENSE *BASIC$LICENSE * * * * 250 0000000000000420
    > 00000000002C1380
    >
    > BASIC *BASTARTUP *ENV_BASIC_INIT * * * * *1185 0000000000000030
    > 0000000000280650
    >
    > BASIC *DBASIC_DRIVER *GEM_XX_INIT * * * * *639 0000000000000140
    > 0000000000280140
    >
    > BASIC *GEM_CP_VMS *GEM_CP_MAIN * * * * * *2505 0000000000002270
    > 0000000000641F40
    >
    > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *0 FFFFFFFF80C03700
    > FFFFFFFF80C03700
    >
    > DCL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *0 000000000006BA90
    > 000000007AE27A90
    >
    > %TRACE-I-END, end of TRACE stack dump
    >
    > Having hard time believing that cost for ONE USER basic license is
    > $2400.00.
    >
    > Has anyone ever seen this??? Say it isn't so!!!!
    >
    > -Len Whitwer
    > Puget Sound Data Systems, Inc.
    > 19501 144th Ave. NE Suite D-100
    > Woodinville, WA *98072
    > e-mail * *mailto:l...@psds.com
    > Internet:http://www.psds.com
    > Toll Free: (866)857-0710
    > Tel: (425) 488-0710
    > Fax: (425) 488-6414


    IIRC, in 2003 we purchased 3 concurrent BASIC licences for our Alpha
    AS20e and the total price was $8k. Now that Sun is giving away
    compilers (as part of Sun Studio) just to keep developers on their
    hardware, it makes you wonder if HP shouldn't drop a zero off the one-
    time price of OpenVMS software. In today's world it makes more sense
    to get the stuff for low cost while only charging for support
    contracts (OS as well as layered products)

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

  14. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:29:59 -0800, Arne Vajh°j wrote:

    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >> For the past three years or so, Sun has been allowing free use of
    >> Solaris 10 and the development tools. You can just buy a media kit and
    >> go. The price of the media kit can range from free to $???. I got my
    >> last media kit for free. You can also download the software from a Sun
    >> web site. Sun's current business model is to give away the software
    >> and charge for support.
    >> If you are a hobbyist, it doesn't cost you a dime. If you are using
    >> the software for business critical systems, you probably need some
    >> level of support!

    >
    > That has become a very popular business model today. It is not just SUN.
    >

    It has been around for a long time, it is the Gilette razor blade model

    > Arne
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  15. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    (snip)

    > Hey! I used SOS ca. 1984. It was OK as editors go and about the only
    > usable choice if you didn't have a VT100 compliant terminal. I wouldn't
    > put up with it NOW but expectations have changed over the last
    > twenty-five years! It took a while but Princeton finally caved in and
    > bought some VT terminals; AIRC they were VT-220s.


    I remember SOS from about 1976. Most of my friends were using TECO,
    but SOS was more like editors I had used before (WYLBUR).
    Also, it had line numbers like WYLBUR, though I would save files
    without numbers if I had to send them to someone using TECO.

    I finally learned TECO when using RT-11.

    -- glen


  16. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of

    In article <11ec677e-e607-4133-b206-17f008687d7c@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, yyyc186 writes:
    >
    > How many non-US developers are working on the compilers and the OS?
    > It only takes one to no longer meet ITAR standards.


    IIRC the compilers and OS have been granted license for export to
    China et. al. They have probably been ruled not ITAR sensitive.

    Even under the Bush administration, not all technology is ITAR
    sensitive technology.


  17. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > (snip)
    >
    >> Hey! I used SOS ca. 1984. It was OK as editors go and about the only
    >> usable choice if you didn't have a VT100 compliant terminal. I
    >> wouldn't put up with it NOW but expectations have changed over the
    >> last twenty-five years! It took a while but Princeton finally caved
    >> in and bought some VT terminals; AIRC they were VT-220s.

    >
    > I remember SOS from about 1976. Most of my friends were using TECO,
    > but SOS was more like editors I had used before (WYLBUR).
    > Also, it had line numbers like WYLBUR, though I would save files
    > without numbers if I had to send them to someone using TECO.
    >
    > I finally learned TECO when using RT-11.
    >
    > -- glen
    >


    I've used TECO only ONCE in my career. It could easily do something,
    I've forgotten what, that other editors could not. I prefer blade
    guards on my power tools!!!

  18. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:05:30 UTC, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    wrote:

    > Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:
    > > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > > (snip)
    > >
    > >> Hey! I used SOS ca. 1984. It was OK as editors go and about the only
    > >> usable choice if you didn't have a VT100 compliant terminal. I
    > >> wouldn't put up with it NOW but expectations have changed over the
    > >> last twenty-five years! It took a while but Princeton finally caved
    > >> in and bought some VT terminals; AIRC they were VT-220s.

    > >
    > > I remember SOS from about 1976. Most of my friends were using TECO,
    > > but SOS was more like editors I had used before (WYLBUR).
    > > Also, it had line numbers like WYLBUR, though I would save files
    > > without numbers if I had to send them to someone using TECO.
    > >
    > > I finally learned TECO when using RT-11.
    > >

    > I've used TECO only ONCE in my career. It could easily do something,
    > I've forgotten what, that other editors could not. I prefer blade
    > guards on my power tools!!!


    I learned it on the DECSystem-10, seeming a better bet than the 'local'
    editor as it would be a transferable skill. I was right...RT-11 and VMS
    years later! Not to mention (for those who have heard of it) the BBC
    Microcomputer - the assembler ROM option had an embedded subset of
    TECO...
    --
    Bob Eager
    Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
    http://www.mirrorservice.org


  19. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of$2400.00???

    On Nov 10, 8:35*pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > yyyc186 wrote:
    > > On Nov 10, 8:03 am, "John Reagan" wrote:
    > >> I am a US-born citizen (born in Indiana) and I have a birth certificate to
    > >> prove it. *There are other US-born/US-based folks working on compilers
    > >> besides me.

    >
    > > How many non-US developers are working on the compilers and the OS?
    > > It only takes one to no longer meet ITAR standards.

    >
    > 1) I don't think OS and compilers fall under ITAR.
    >
    > 2) It is not only US citizens that are allowed. Green card
    > * * holders are also allowed.
    >
    > Arne


    Used to have to be natural or naturalized. H1 is not allowed.

  20. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    yyyc186 wrote:
    > On Nov 10, 8:35 pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    >> yyyc186 wrote:
    >>> On Nov 10, 8:03 am, "John Reagan" wrote:
    >>>> I am a US-born citizen (born in Indiana) and I have a birth certificate to
    >>>> prove it. There are other US-born/US-based folks working on compilers
    >>>> besides me.
    >>> How many non-US developers are working on the compilers and the OS?
    >>> It only takes one to no longer meet ITAR standards.

    >> 1) I don't think OS and compilers fall under ITAR.
    >>
    >> 2) It is not only US citizens that are allowed. Green card
    >> holders are also allowed.

    >
    > Used to have to be natural or naturalized. H1 is not allowed.


    H1 and L1 are still not good.

    But Green Card is according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR !

    Arne

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4