HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

5 participants
15580 discussions

by wonko＠4amlunch.net

Multinet to Steve, Cisco to the GRE mesh or Rob's router. I believe those are your only three choices at the moment. -brian On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:23, Mark Benson <md.benson at gmail.com> wrote: Due to the limits on our ability to get internet service of any decent speed, we're having to change packages meaning we will lose out fixed IP in November. I'd like to work towards being able to stay on HECnet before then using STAR69 to maintain my connection. I have had a couple of people make suggestions about how to, but it was a while ago and my brain's fogged over since then ;) -- Mark Benson http://DECtec.info Twitter: @DECtecInfo HECnet: STAR69::MARK Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.

12 years, 3 months

Losing my fixed IP

by md.benson＠gmail.com

Due to the limits on our ability to get internet service of any decent speed, we're having to change packages meaning we will lose out fixed IP in November. I'd like to work towards being able to stay on HECnet before then using STAR69 to maintain my connection. I have had a couple of people make suggestions about how to, but it was a while ago and my brain's fogged over since then ;) -- Mark Benson http://DECtec.info Twitter: @DECtecInfo HECnet: STAR69::MARK Online Resource & Mailing List for DEC Enthusiasts.

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by b4＠gewt.net

On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:26, "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: On 06/12/2013 02:59 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: On the contrary. The design of X is very clean. (yes, I've been "all up in there".) There are some things about its innards that I do not like, but overall, it's extremely well-done. Ohhh. We're talking protocol design and that stuff. Yes, THAT is clean. I've just had experience with very bad implementations I guess. Like the one I'm currently running that likes to use 100% CPU doing nothing for no reason. This wouldn't happen on a properly-implemented workstation I would admit. However on a PeeCee where politics is more important than doing things well...issues arise. Well XFree86 (which is what I assume you're talking about), while amazing in some ways, is a real piece of crap in others. Yes. I 100% agree with that. X decided to randomly restart when I was pulling ethernet cables... I'm still a fan of NeWS myself. ;) It was a neat idea. Very! The fact that we're still using it three decades later on completely, totally different hardware, in completely different ways, tells a lot. That does say a lot. I'd still argue that the implementations still need work though. I will not disagree with that. Smart man. ;) Some parts of how we're using it now, though (like client-side font rendering) are extremely kludgy. But that's not the fault of X. I'd agree. I didn't know we were discussing the protocol. ;) Well you said "X", which is a protocol, not a piece of software. Yeah, I have a habit of doing that. The executed binary being named X sometimes confuses me. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/12/2013 02:59 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: On the contrary. The design of X is very clean. (yes, I've been "all up in there".) There are some things about its innards that I do not like, but overall, it's extremely well-done. Ohhh. We're talking protocol design and that stuff. Yes, THAT is clean. I've just had experience with very bad implementations I guess. Like the one I'm currently running that likes to use 100% CPU doing nothing for no reason. This wouldn't happen on a properly-implemented workstation I would admit. However on a PeeCee where politics is more important than doing things well...issues arise. Well XFree86 (which is what I assume you're talking about), while amazing in some ways, is a real piece of crap in others. I'm still a fan of NeWS myself. ;) It was a neat idea. The fact that we're still using it three decades later on completely, totally different hardware, in completely different ways, tells a lot. That does say a lot. I'd still argue that the implementations still need work though. I will not disagree with that. Some parts of how we're using it now, though (like client-side font rendering) are extremely kludgy. But that's not the fault of X. I'd agree. I didn't know we were discussing the protocol. ;) Well you said "X", which is a protocol, not a piece of software. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by hvlems＠zonnet.nl

VWS Van: Paul_Koning at Dell.com Verzonden: woensdag 12 juni 2013 20:33 PM Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run? On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On 06/12/2013 02:03 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: >>> I remember discussing with a DEC sales 'droid regarding a supposed non >>> Intel running variety of Windows that was coming really soon now. It >>> was supposed to become Windows NT. The first release was on an Alpha. >>> Not the blue skinned variety of machines, but the classic white box >>> one as demo. That came about as I was studying a MIPS based >>> workstation running Ultrix on it. And remember this was at UNIX World >>> a really long time ago. And that demo surfaced some time later. The >>> big complaint was that when too many windows were open the system >>> started dragging its feet. >>> >> >> I blame X for that. ;) I still have that happen...on modern intel crap. > > X never did that on far, far slower hardware. X was pretty good even on very slow hardware, though the first VAXstation with its one bit per pixel dumb bitmap display was iffy. But it was far better than its predecessor (VAXwindows? I forgot what it was called -- a VMS-specific windowing system developed at DEC, and dumped after a year in favor of X. paul

12 years, 3 months

Couple of Unix/DECnet questions

by wonko＠4amlunch.net

On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote: ust run a sed command such as "s/^def/set/" and you have what you need as well. But using awk has higher geek creds. Then again, I don't think any one solved the Tower of Hanoi in Awk, but it was done in a sed script. ;-) There would be no challenge to doing it in awk. It would be no more complicated than writing it in C or Java. :) -brian

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by b4＠gewt.net

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Dave McGuire wrote: On 06/12/2013 02:44 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: Unfortunately X on modern OSes is a little more of a kludge. ;) On the contrary. The design of X is very clean. (yes, I've been "all up in there".) There are some things about its innards that I do not like, but overall, it's extremely well-done. Ohhh. We're talking protocol design and that stuff. Yes, THAT is clean. I've just had experience with very bad implementations I guess. Like the one I'm currently running that likes to use 100% CPU doing nothing for no reason. This wouldn't happen on a properly-implemented workstation I would admit. However on a PeeCee where politics is more important than doing things well...issues arise. I'm still a fan of NeWS myself. ;) The fact that we're still using it three decades later on completely, totally different hardware, in completely different ways, tells a lot. That does say a lot. I'd still argue that the implementations still need work though. Some parts of how we're using it now, though (like client-side font rendering) are extremely kludgy. But that's not the fault of X. I'd agree. I didn't know we were discussing the protocol. ;) I suppose if you tweak it enough and force it to bend over to serve you it can be quite nice...but It's not my friend. Much like many other UNIX/Linux apps...X DOES choose its friends very carefully. ;) I cannot agree. It has always been a snap for me. But then (until the past year or so) I've always run it on real workstations, not PC garbage. (who the hell ever heard of multiple resolutions and sync rates?! WTF?!!) Yeah, that would explain it being a snap for you. I've had to use it on PeeCee hardware. It is "literally worse than Hitler" on PC garbage. ;) (It's one of the few UNIX-HATERS chapters I completely agree with...I just think X has wasted potential and could've been better implemented.) The UNIX-HATERS crowd needs to find a better hobby. That they do, I just agree with some of their points. Like some of the standards organisations being nuts and X having been poorly implemented by many vendors. (I also would've liked an X consortium standardising on a UI paradigm...or if people had followed OPEN LOOK) -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/12/2013 02:50 PM, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote: But it was far better than its predecessor (VAXwindows? I forgot what it was called -- a VMS-specific windowing system developed at DEC, and dumped after a year in favor of X. DECwindows. I loved it, but then I loved X more. =) (and Hmmm IIRC DECWindows IS Xwindows (just a commercial moniker for it). I think the name we are looking for is VWM. Correcting myself: VWS Yes that. :) Then there was, if memory serves (but these are VERY dusty neurons!) UWS, for the Ultrix version, but it might've been something different. (I know I've seen, have installed, and probably still have TK50s that say "UWS" on them, or "Ultrix with UWS") -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/12/2013 02:46 PM, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote: DECwindows. I loved it, but then I loved X more. =) (and Hmmm IIRC DECWindows IS Xwindows (just a commercial moniker for it). I think the name we are looking for is VWM. Oh crap, YES I had forgotten all about that one. We're both wrong; it's "VWS", the VAX Workstation Software (or System, something)...Yes that one was very short-lived. DECwindows itself is built atop X, but it had its own X server with (properly-done, registered) extensions. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 3 months

Anyone got TOPS-20 / Ultrix with DECNET SIMH image ready to run?

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

On 06/12/2013 02:44 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: Unfortunately X on modern OSes is a little more of a kludge. ;) On the contrary. The design of X is very clean. (yes, I've been "all up in there".) There are some things about its innards that I do not like, but overall, it's extremely well-done. The fact that we're still using it three decades later on completely, totally different hardware, in completely different ways, tells a lot. Some parts of how we're using it now, though (like client-side font rendering) are extremely kludgy. But that's not the fault of X. I suppose if you tweak it enough and force it to bend over to serve you it can be quite nice...but It's not my friend. Much like many other UNIX/Linux apps...X DOES choose its friends very carefully. ;) I cannot agree. It has always been a snap for me. But then (until the past year or so) I've always run it on real workstations, not PC garbage. (who the hell ever heard of multiple resolutions and sync rates?! WTF?!!) (It's one of the few UNIX-HATERS chapters I completely agree with...I just think X has wasted potential and could've been better implemented.) The UNIX-HATERS crowd needs to find a better hobby. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

12 years, 3 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet