Fred <fcoffey at misernet.net> writes:
Hi all:
Sent a message from Alpha (woops) and wondered why it didn't make it to
the list. ;)
Let's try again. Was wondering if anyone had kit for Language Sensitive
Editor. I notice the hobbyist licenses contain a PAK for it, and was
curious it would be a "better" (1) solution for editing code other than
using TPU.
LSE is in the DECSET tool kit. If you find a kit for DECSET, you can then
selectively install the pieces in it that you desire.
LSE is built on/with TPU, BTW.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
Hi all:
Sent a message from Alpha (woops) and wondered why it didn't make it to the list. ;)
Let's try again. Was wondering if anyone had kit for Language Sensitive Editor. I notice the hobbyist licenses contain a PAK for it, and was curious it would be a "better" (1) solution for editing code other than using TPU.
(1) for various definitions of better
Thanks,
Fred
----
Lets call it for what it is - "legacy" is a term that people use in a
polite but derogatory manner to imply that the future direction they
prefer is not that which they view as the current direction.
----- Original Message -----
| From: "Johnny Billquist" <bqt at softjar.se>
| To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
| Sent: Sunday, 17 February, 2013 6:55:47 PM
| Subject: [HECnet] IRC
|
| I think I mentioned writing an IRC robot for RSX quite a while ago.
| Well, tonight I was bored after the last week of major rewrite of
| parts
| of the TCP layer in RSX, so I write a small bot.
|
| It is really stupid, but it works, and is running right now.
|
| You can find it on the #update channel on efnet. It's called
| cookiejar,
| and it responds if you send a message in the form of "cookiejar:
| cookie".
| (It do have some more tricks in there, but essentially that's it.)
|
| The source can be found on MIM::DU:[IRCBOT]IRCBOT.B2S, and is a total
| of
| 163 lines of code.
|
| Now I need some new project. :-)
Want to patch a linux kernel module for me? ;)
|
| Johnny
|
| --
| Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
| || on a psychedelic trip
| email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
| pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
|
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
http://dev.gimme-sympathy.org Home experiments
I think I mentioned writing an IRC robot for RSX quite a while ago. Well, tonight I was bored after the last week of major rewrite of parts of the TCP layer in RSX, so I write a small bot.
It is really stupid, but it works, and is running right now.
You can find it on the #update channel on efnet. It's called cookiejar, and it responds if you send a message in the form of "cookiejar: cookie".
(It do have some more tricks in there, but essentially that's it.)
The source can be found on MIM::DU:[IRCBOT]IRCBOT.B2S, and is a total of 163 lines of code.
Now I need some new project. :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 02/17/2013 02:38 AM, Dan B wrote:
Heh. C'mon. It's a GIGANTIC commercial platform. People who aren't
porting to OS X now will be porting to OS X later.
Dave, I would not be so sure. I'm more inclined to think that Apple
may bail out entirely from that market, like HP seems to be
evaluating, for Apple, the iLine of gadgets is the bread and butter.
Could be, we'll see.
For now if you "have to" run on OSX, I would stick to VAX, on Simh and
GXEmul, both supported, the future may bring better news and options,
QEMU-KVM maybe one.
"Have to"? I've never understood that particular concept in
computing. Nobody tells me what to run, ever.
But either way...OS X is becoming easier to port to, but more
difficult at the same time...the latter only for developers who lack
discipline. On one hand, it's becoming more "standard" UNIX-like, while
on the other, they keep adding these weird proprietary extensions.
Let's just say I dumped OS X after 10.6 for some very good reasons. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Heh. C'mon. It's a GIGANTIC commercial platform. People who aren't
porting to OS X now will be porting to OS X later.
Dave, I would not be so sure. I'm more inclined to think that Apple
may bail out entirely from that market, like HP seems to be
evaluating, for Apple, the iLine of gadgets is the bread and butter.
For now if you "have to" run on OSX, I would stick to VAX, on Simh and
GXEmul, both supported, the future may bring better news and options,
QEMU-KVM maybe one.
On 2/16/13, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 02/16/2013 01:36 PM, Michael Holmes wrote:
Just looked like there wasn't any more efforts focusing on Mac OS X,
since its not a large commercial platform.
Heh. C'mon. It's a GIGANTIC commercial platform. People who aren't
porting to OS X now will be porting to OS X later.
Better yet, though, would be to write the software in a portable
fashion in the first place, and avoid using OS X's hokey whiz-bang
"extensions" to UNIX. Then, very litte "porting" will be necessary,
whichever direction you're going. It's readily possible; I've been
doing it for years.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Well, to be honest Gosling's Emacs is just a rewrite of the TENEX TECO Emacs, which returns us back to RMS again...
(And I was never very fond of Gosmacs with it's Mocklisp. Pretty awful.)
:-)
Yes but a very different code base (and different keyboard bindings). I remember when he wrote it. We had rms's emacs on the 10s and 20s. Gosling lands at CMU as a grad student/research from his Canadian University (IIRC Calgory) and he wants something like for UNIX. He is a C hacker (not a BLISS hacker like much of CMU at the time) and he writes Gosling EMACS. It lands at Berkeley and actually replaces vi with many people, including vi's author (joy).
Yes, rms' can claim that he just started with a reimplementation of his work etc...
Steve Zimmerman wrote an emacs in C at MIT at the same time. But for reasons I never really understood, Steve's version never caught on nor do I understand why rms did not use it.
On 2013-02-17 02:41, Clem Cole wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se
<mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
I honestly don't know for sure, but this is the first I've ever
heard of that.
Doing a "portable" stack for RSX would probably be very hard, by the
way.
Actually doing a portable stack was hard for any OS, but that was idea.
True. Portable do have its advantages. But it always comes at a price, and for something like RSX, that price is probably way too high. There are big discrepancies in the I/O model, memory management as well as process handling and god knows what else...
It was written originally in C by Rob Gurweitz and some other ??Bob
Walsh maybe?? - I want to say in 1978/79 time frame, using the original
Ritchie compiler. There were a ton of tools developed in the UNIX
community to move code at the assembler lever from V6/V7 to RT11 & RSX.
Look at the old Harvard tape that I think Warren has in his archives
if you are interested. I do not remember how it moved the HP's, but
there must have been an 3000 or 1000 hack for the Ritchie compiler at HP
and/or Berkeley.
C would definitely not been an option at that point. Not in the RSX world. I don't even think DECUS C had been published, and that compiler have some serious limitations.
As for the BBN portable IP/TCP stack, it is where the famous "mbuf"
structure came from. Rob needed an OS independent memory system for
incoming packets. The BBN IP/TCP was written to call it, and then on a
kernel for kernel basis the mbuf system was written for the native OS.
mbufs makes a lot of sense. I did something similar for my TCP/IP.
...
you want really bad performance, you want to be close to the kernel,
That was not an goal. You have to remember that at the time of IP's
development, every computer firm had it's own proprietary networking
scheme. DARPA wanted something that worked on all them, so they paid
to have it created and implemented. But it also meant that DARPA
needed those implementations of IP/TCP for the system that their primary
folks were using - the PDP-10, Multics, UNIX. In some labs (like US
Army's BRL if IIRC), there were realtime systems doing specific tasks.
HP and DEC were the two firms selling those systems. So BBN needed
an implementation of IP that >>worked<< that allowed those systems to
connect.
Right. But thinking a bit more, I'm pretty sure there was no TCP/IP for RSX. You even have all those old RFCs with comments and lists about systems available, and implementations... I've been over them a few times. I'm pretty sure RSX is not in there.
When we finished it, some of my friends/former colleagues at CMU/CS
asked me for it, we made it available (no stinking GPL, or calling it
"open source" - we just shared it). They wrote the mail 11 interface
and cleaned the whole thing up a great deal.
Open source and free software is not what it used to be. I know... :-(
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
below . . .
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
Glad you did actually get credit, what license was your stuff released under?
License?? we did need no stinking license. We shared it. It was a cute hack I wrote one weekend when I was a grad student. Klein was an old friend from CMU, he wanted it. I sent it to him. ....
I would agree there. I was referring to the current FSF-lead RMS army, not the older project.
rms was who I was refering too at the time (late 1970s, early 1980s). He seems to be the one that took Gosling EMACs and rerouted it and he did not have a debugger for his C compiler. Mark finished up pdx and dbx (and graduated). They started with it and forked it.
below..
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
I honestly don't know for sure, but this is the first I've ever heard of that.
Doing a "portable" stack for RSX would probably be very hard, by the way.
Actually doing a portable stack was hard for any OS, but that was idea. It was written originally in C by Rob Gurweitz and some other ??Bob Walsh maybe?? - I want to say in 1978/79 time frame, using the original Ritchie compiler. There were a ton of tools developed in the UNIX community to move code at the assembler lever from V6/V7 to RT11 & RSX. Look at the old Harvard tape that I think Warren has in his archives if you are interested. I do not remember how it moved the HP's, but there must have been an 3000 or 1000 hack for the Ritchie compiler at HP and/or Berkeley.
As for the BBN portable IP/TCP stack, it is where the famous "mbuf" structure came from. Rob needed an OS independent memory system for incoming packets. The BBN IP/TCP was written to call it, and then on a kernel for kernel basis the mbuf system was written for the native OS.
BTW: for UNIX there was no socket call. It used open and an interesting trick, BBN stole from the MIT Chaos-Net guys.
... you want really bad performance, you want to be close to the kernel,
That was not an goal. You have to remember that at the time of IP's development, every computer firm had it's own proprietary networking scheme. DARPA wanted something that worked on all them, so they paid to have it created and implemented. But it also meant that DARPA needed those implementations of IP/TCP for the system that their primary folks were using - the PDP-10, Multics, UNIX. In some labs (like US Army's BRL if IIRC), there were realtime systems doing specific tasks. HP and DEC were the two firms selling those systems. So BBN needed an implementation of IP that >>worked<< that allowed those systems to connect.
Also remember at the time many of the IMPs are being connected by 9600 baud leased lines - T1s are still not something even DoD would pay to support. So the original BBN stack was to connected to the system via BBN custom created IMP interfaces (which I think I still have the documentation for in my archives for the Unibus version).
But I really thought one of the targets DARPA had for the stack was
RSX-11.
It would be interesting to find out more.
Low, priority for me, but if I come across some of the old doc / mail messages, I'll try to make said available. There is an Internet Protocol Implementors guide circa 1978 I think I still have, and I think it might be in there.
I do remember VMS was not a target, and thus we wrote the original
implementation at Tektronix in 1979, which we gave to CMU via my
connections and would become the basis for the VMS versions.
Is that the Multinet IP for VMS? Never looked at it, but it's been around for a long time. (And several people here are running it.)
Maybe. It was known for years as the CMU/Tektronix IP/TCP stack. Written a combination of BLISS and Macro32. DEC was also use it as their basis much, much later. The original version supported the HyperChannel and the original 3COM adapter. I've forgotten, we might have written the FTP in FORTRAN, I remember we had do some sort of horsing around with FTN. I have vivid memories at the time being the only BLISS programmer at Tek and teach Stan and a few others why I loved and hated it (I had already been turned to the dark side of C - I missed the BLISS optimizer, but definitely preferred the C tools chain).
When we finished it, some of my friends/former colleagues at CMU/CS asked me for it, we made it available (no stinking GPL, or calling it "open source" - we just shared it). They wrote the mail 11 interface and cleaned the whole thing up a great deal.
Clem
