On Nov 15, 2014, at 9:17 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
...
Anyway, K11.TSK is probably not what you want, since all the TSK files on MIM are RSX images. You probably want to grab all the sources, and the command files, and build it yourself.
I checked, and there are definitely RSTS/E build files in there.
I haven t tried it, at least not much, with RSX images. But the emulation in RSTS is often able to run unmodified images from the other operating systems. It certainly works that way for RT11 emulation. It is true that using a RSTS/E build is preferable, if you can find one, because that will enable some RSTS-specific things. But if all you can find is an RSX image, it s worth a try.
paul
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014, Jim Carpenter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
See if they've gotten anywhere with getting the rights to release the
CompuServe Monitor source, too.
Does this still exist??? I begged Gerry Moersdorf for a dump of the
SCSI drives in the CompuServe SC-40s. He was unable to do it. I really
wanted it too. :( And LCM will never give me a copy of theirs. :(((
I'm betting the LCM is just stuck on copyright...I'm hoping anyway. It's certainly their style to release it.
BTW, anybody know if TYMCOM-X survives anywhere? (That's the
Tymshare/Tymnet one.)
I hope so! I've tracked down TENEX, WAITS, TOPS-10/20, evidence of the CompuServe monitor, and FOONEX but never TYMCOM-X.
Jim
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
See if they've gotten anywhere with getting the rights to release the
CompuServe Monitor source, too.
Does this still exist??? I begged Gerry Moersdorf for a dump of the
SCSI drives in the CompuServe SC-40s. He was unable to do it. I really
wanted it too. :( And LCM will never give me a copy of theirs. :(((
BTW, anybody know if TYMCOM-X survives anywhere? (That's the
Tymshare/Tymnet one.)
Jim
On 2014-11-15 15:10, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
I'll grab it and see if it works. I do however need to find out why
my cluster boot node keeps rebooting on DECnet/LAT accesses. More
reason to get the 4000 up I guess. ;)
Yup, that works...except on the VAX but it likely crashed shortly
after attempted login. Terminal powered back on.
Johnny
$ copy 9.1::sys$specific:[decnet]k11.tsk k11.tsk
Node: 9.1
User: csmelosky
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Bad RFM field in FAB
What a helpful error message.
:-)
Anyway, K11.TSK is probably not what you want, since all the TSK files on MIM are RSX images. You probably want to grab all the sources, and the command files, and build it yourself.
I checked, and there are definitely RSTS/E build files in there.
As for the error message, knowing RMS helps. FAB is the File Access Block. RFM is (if I remember right) Record Format. Probably RSTS/E cannot just grok the record format of that file. You can give switches to NFT under RSX at least, to tell what the format should be when copying...
On MIM:
.nft help mode
NFT has three modes of transfering the file data (BLOCK, RECORD and
AUTOMATIC) and two file data types (IMAGE and ASCII).
The default mode of transfer is AUTOMATIC (/AX). NFT selects either
BLOCK or RECORD mode to copy the file data depending on the remote
system type and the device involved.
In BLOCK mode (/BK), the file data is copied in 512. byte blocks.
Block mode allows more efficient transfer of Sequential Variable format
files, And it is the only way NFT will transfer RMS Relative and
Indexed Sequential files. The remote file system must be able to
understand your file organizations, or the resultant files are useless.
In RECORD mode, the file data is copied in records. The remote system
can store the data in the manner used on that system. This less
efficient since the individual records must be read and written to the
file.
The default data type, IMAGE (/IM), specifies that the file is to be
transfered as 8 bit bytes and with no changes to the format.
If the remote node does not support the current format or attributes
the transfer will be rejected.
The ASCII data type (/AS), specifies that the file contains ASCII
text and can be converted to an appropriate format for the remote
file system. In particular NFT will convert Variable format files
to Stream format when transfering to an RT-11, RSTS/E, or TOPS-20
systems. In order to properly convert these files, the ASCII switch
will select RECORD mode transfer.
Johnny
On 11/15/2014 05:34 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Yes, they are running TOPS-20. But exactly how much of it, I can't tell.
I'm no expert on TOPS-20, and mostly go on what I can recall Rich
Alderson telling me.
That's absolutely amazing. I have a few strings I can pull in that
crowd; I will see what I can find out, and what I can get ahold of.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
I'll grab it and see if it works. I do however need to find out why my cluster boot node keeps rebooting on DECnet/LAT accesses. More reason to get the 4000 up I guess. ;)
Yup, that works...except on the VAX but it likely crashed shortly after attempted login. Terminal powered back on.
Johnny
$ copy 9.1::sys$specific:[decnet]k11.tsk k11.tsk
Node: 9.1
User: csmelosky
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Bad RFM field in FAB
What a helpful error message.
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
As for KERMIT - For what system? :-)
RSTS/E 10.1, 11/23+ 512K(bytes) of memory.
Yeah. Sorry. I should pay closer attention... On MIM, you have the latest KERMIT-11 that was generic for all OSes. But I know that someone (at the moment the name escapes me) wrote some further development that only worked on RT-11 and I think RSTS/E, which I do not have on MIM.
But check MIM::DU:[KERMIT]
I'll grab it and see if it works. I do however need to find out why my cluster boot node keeps rebooting on DECnet/LAT accesses. More reason to get the 4000 up I guess. ;)
As for accessing MIM, just enable outgoing proxy in NCP. Or else use
GUEST/GUEST.
I should probably definitely figure out ncp on RSTS/E
Somewhere in the back of my head is a brain cell saying that proxy access was not supported on RSTS/E... But RSTS/E is not my field of expertise. For now, just use GUEST/GUEST, and you should atleast have access.
Yup, that works...except on the VAX but it likely crashed shortly after attempted login. Terminal powered back on.
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 2014-11-15 14:29, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-11-15 14:04, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Uh...this is gonna seem a little strange...
Does anyone have a copy of Kermit somewhere DECNET accessible...along
with how I can get
$ dir 1.13::
Node: 1.13
User: decnet\
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Connection rejected to node 1.13
?NFT -- Access not permitted
to behave happily for guest access?
As for KERMIT - For what system? :-)
RSTS/E 10.1, 11/23+ 512K(bytes) of memory.
Yeah. Sorry. I should pay closer attention... On MIM, you have the latest KERMIT-11 that was generic for all OSes. But I know that someone (at the moment the name escapes me) wrote some further development that only worked on RT-11 and I think RSTS/E, which I do not have on MIM.
But check MIM::DU:[KERMIT]
As for accessing MIM, just enable outgoing proxy in NCP. Or else use
GUEST/GUEST.
I should probably definitely figure out ncp on RSTS/E
Somewhere in the back of my head is a brain cell saying that proxy access was not supported on RSTS/E... But RSTS/E is not my field of expertise. For now, just use GUEST/GUEST, and you should atleast have access.
Johnny
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Doh! That was in the subject line... Sorry...
No worries.
Hmm. I could probably help with that, if you haven't figured something out. Later today...
I'm stumped on exactly which binary/source files I'd need to copy. ;)
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 2014-11-15 14:28, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-11-15 14:04, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Uh...this is gonna seem a little strange...
Does anyone have a copy of Kermit somewhere DECNET accessible...along
with how I can get
$ dir 1.13::
Node: 1.13
User: decnet\
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Connection rejected to node 1.13
?NFT -- Access not permitted
to behave happily for guest access?
As for KERMIT - For what system? :-)
Doh! That was in the subject line... Sorry...
Hmm. I could probably help with that, if you haven't figured something out. Later today...
Johnny
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Unfortunately I do not have much details. I was at the Living Computer Museum and talked with RIch Alderson, who used to work at XKL. And he showed me a newer generation router from XKL, opened up, at LCM. And they use a PDP-10 on a chip, and it was actually running TOPS-20, and I could play around at the EXEC level in there.
Very, very interesting!
But for normal usage, customers would just see this as a router from XKL, with a command interface, in addition to SNMP. No way they would ever know that it's actually TOPS-20 in there.
Huh. Dave and I'll need to pull some strings...;)
I do not know if they use this same setup in all their products, or just some. And I don't remember exactly what product LCM at on display. But I can check that up next week, as I am in Seattle then.
Please do! I am very interested!
See if they've gotten anywhere with getting the rights to release the CompuServe Monitor source, too.
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 2014-11-15 14:19, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 11/15/2014 05:10 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
It's certainly possible (IMO) that it could be brought into this era
technologically, as it has a good base to build on, but I don't know of
any companies or investors who would support such work. I think it
should happen, but it likely will not.
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
Analogies are always problematic.
Consider this - a piece of software used in embedded applications is a
piece of software you will probably never hear of. Might not even be
possible to buy if you tried.
Well yes, I understand that. I am an embedded systems developer. But
see below.
Does that mean it is dead, or have no value?
This is the state of TOPS-20 at the moment. It is being used as embedded
software, that you'll never see, or hear of. But it's still alive.
I'm aware of the use of the XKL chipset's application in the network
switches, but I was unaware of their use of TOPS-20. I thought they
were running a bare-metal firmware load written for that purpose. Is
this not the case, are they actually running TOPS-20, or at least some
part(s) of it, on those embedded processors?
If so, I need to pull a few strings and get my hands on one. Or several.
Yes, they are running TOPS-20. But exactly how much of it, I can't tell. I'm no expert on TOPS-20, and mostly go on what I can recall Rich Alderson telling me.
Johnny
On 2014-11-15 14:13, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
This is the state of TOPS-20 at the moment. It is being used as
embedded software, that you'll never see, or hear of. But it's still
alive.
I am very interested in the embedded use of TOPS-20, do you happen to
know of a specific (documented...I want to know all about the thing if
it runs TOPS-20!) product using it?
Unfortunately I do not have much details. I was at the Living Computer Museum and talked with RIch Alderson, who used to work at XKL. And he showed me a newer generation router from XKL, opened up, at LCM. And they use a PDP-10 on a chip, and it was actually running TOPS-20, and I could play around at the EXEC level in there.
But for normal usage, customers would just see this as a router from XKL, with a command interface, in addition to SNMP. No way they would ever know that it's actually TOPS-20 in there.
I do not know if they use this same setup in all their products, or just some. And I don't remember exactly what product LCM at on display. But I can check that up next week, as I am in Seattle then.
Johnny
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-11-15 14:04, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Uh...this is gonna seem a little strange...
Does anyone have a copy of Kermit somewhere DECNET accessible...along
with how I can get
$ dir 1.13::
Node: 1.13
User: decnet\
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Connection rejected to node 1.13
?NFT -- Access not permitted
to behave happily for guest access?
As for KERMIT - For what system? :-)
RSTS/E 10.1, 11/23+ 512K(bytes) of memory.
As for accessing MIM, just enable outgoing proxy in NCP. Or else use GUEST/GUEST.
I should probably definitely figure out ncp on RSTS/E
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 2014-11-15 14:04, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Uh...this is gonna seem a little strange...
Does anyone have a copy of Kermit somewhere DECNET accessible...along
with how I can get
$ dir 1.13::
Node: 1.13
User: decnet\
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Connection rejected to node 1.13
?NFT -- Access not permitted
to behave happily for guest access?
As for KERMIT - For what system? :-)
As for accessing MIM, just enable outgoing proxy in NCP. Or else use GUEST/GUEST.
Johnny
Hello!
That's my job.
Seriously though Johnny, the problem behind the problem that Cory is
worried about is simple. Being sued by some <DELETED!> individual with
less common sense concerning the OS he wants to use properly.
And that <DELETED!> individual insists otherwise hence the silly lawsuit.
And incidentally only here in this country can this happen.
Preposterous! isn't it?
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 11/15/2014 04:45 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
I think the washboard would've gone the way of the Audion...the patent
expired if it WAS patented.
Yes, but surely you see my point.
I do, I'm just being a smartass. ;)
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 11/15/2014 05:10 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
It's certainly possible (IMO) that it could be brought into this era
technologically, as it has a good base to build on, but I don't know of
any companies or investors who would support such work. I think it
should happen, but it likely will not.
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
Analogies are always problematic.
Consider this - a piece of software used in embedded applications is a
piece of software you will probably never hear of. Might not even be
possible to buy if you tried.
Well yes, I understand that. I am an embedded systems developer. But
see below.
Does that mean it is dead, or have no value?
This is the state of TOPS-20 at the moment. It is being used as embedded
software, that you'll never see, or hear of. But it's still alive.
I'm aware of the use of the XKL chipset's application in the network
switches, but I was unaware of their use of TOPS-20. I thought they
were running a bare-metal firmware load written for that purpose. Is
this not the case, are they actually running TOPS-20, or at least some
part(s) of it, on those embedded processors?
If so, I need to pull a few strings and get my hands on one. Or several.
But more broadly speaking, any kind of software have the same issue.
Just because you do not see it used anywhere does not mean this is not
the case. Assuming noone cares anymore just because you cannot find it
used anywhere does not work. And even when noone actually do not care
anymore, it is still sad when it is assumed that you can take liberties
based on that assumption.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not condemning those who want to run cool
software, or play with odd technology, and feel that there is no legal
way of doing that. I just dislike when people try to present it in a way
that make it sound like it was actually legal/ok/right.
Understood and agreed.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Johnny Billquist wrote:
This is the state of TOPS-20 at the moment. It is being used as embedded software, that you'll never see, or hear of. But it's still alive.
I am very interested in the embedded use of TOPS-20, do you happen to know of a specific (documented...I want to know all about the thing if it runs TOPS-20!) product using it?
But more broadly speaking, any kind of software have the same issue. Just because you do not see it used anywhere does not mean this is not the case. Assuming noone cares anymore just because you cannot find it used anywhere does not work. And even when noone actually do not care anymore, it is still sad when it is assumed that you can take liberties based on that assumption.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not condemning those who want to run cool software, or play with odd technology, and feel that there is no legal way of doing that. I just dislike when people try to present it in a way that make it sound like it was actually legal/ok/right.
Johnny
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 2014-11-15 13:38, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 11/15/2014 04:31 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
By the way - why do people assume that people would not want to protect
their rights?
This whole attitude scares me a little.
In this case, it's because the rights are to a decades-old OS that is
viewed by the business world as being nothing more than a long-dead
historical curiosity.
That is a mistaken assumption. Just because most have long since
forgotten it does not mean it is dead.
Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I love those OSs too. But
that's not the point.
Agreed.
We know it's awesome, and we understand why, but let's put it this
way...Windows is fast disappearing, and it's not exactly TOPS-10/20
that's killing it.
Yeah. Not sure how relevant that is, though.
It's very relevant. TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 are great OSs, I will never
dispute that, but they are no longer commercially viable in the
mainstream. We will never see TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 for sale to the
public in retail packages. Further, it's highly unlikely that we'll see
it making serious inroads in data center use.
Neither Dell, Apple, IBM, nor HP will be selling TOPS-10/TOPS-20
machines anytime soon. That's really all it boils down to. It *is* a
dead platform, commercially speaking.
No. You are making the wrong assumption that it has to be a generic OS for sale to the public in order for it to have any commercial value, or to be a viable product of any sort.
It's certainly possible (IMO) that it could be brought into this era
technologically, as it has a good base to build on, but I don't know of
any companies or investors who would support such work. I think it
should happen, but it likely will not.
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
Analogies are always problematic.
Consider this - a piece of software used in embedded applications is a piece of software you will probably never hear of. Might not even be possible to buy if you tried. Does that mean it is dead, or have no value?
This is the state of TOPS-20 at the moment. It is being used as embedded software, that you'll never see, or hear of. But it's still alive.
But more broadly speaking, any kind of software have the same issue. Just because you do not see it used anywhere does not mean this is not the case. Assuming noone cares anymore just because you cannot find it used anywhere does not work. And even when noone actually do not care anymore, it is still sad when it is assumed that you can take liberties based on that assumption.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not condemning those who want to run cool software, or play with odd technology, and feel that there is no legal way of doing that. I just dislike when people try to present it in a way that make it sound like it was actually legal/ok/right.
Johnny
Uh...this is gonna seem a little strange...
Does anyone have a copy of Kermit somewhere DECNET accessible...along with how I can get
$ dir 1.13::
Node: 1.13
User: decnet\
Password:
System Password:
?NFT -- Connection rejected to node 1.13
?NFT -- Access not permitted
to behave happily for guest access?
I'd copy it locally...but for some strange reason LAT to my VAXstation 4000/60 results in a reboot...it also appears confused about its license status.
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 11/15/2014 04:45 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
I think the washboard would've gone the way of the Audion...the patent
expired if it WAS patented.
Yes, but surely you see my point.
I do, I'm just being a smartass. ;)
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 11/15/2014 04:45 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
I think the washboard would've gone the way of the Audion...the patent
expired if it WAS patented.
Yes, but surely you see my point.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Dave McGuire wrote:
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
I think the washboard would've gone the way of the Audion...the patent expired if it WAS patented.
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 11/15/2014 04:31 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
By the way - why do people assume that people would not want to protect
their rights?
This whole attitude scares me a little.
In this case, it's because the rights are to a decades-old OS that is
viewed by the business world as being nothing more than a long-dead
historical curiosity.
That is a mistaken assumption. Just because most have long since
forgotten it does not mean it is dead.
Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I love those OSs too. But
that's not the point.
We know it's awesome, and we understand why, but let's put it this
way...Windows is fast disappearing, and it's not exactly TOPS-10/20
that's killing it.
Yeah. Not sure how relevant that is, though.
It's very relevant. TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 are great OSs, I will never
dispute that, but they are no longer commercially viable in the
mainstream. We will never see TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 for sale to the
public in retail packages. Further, it's highly unlikely that we'll see
it making serious inroads in data center use.
Neither Dell, Apple, IBM, nor HP will be selling TOPS-10/TOPS-20
machines anytime soon. That's really all it boils down to. It *is* a
dead platform, commercially speaking.
It's certainly possible (IMO) that it could be brought into this era
technologically, as it has a good base to build on, but I don't know of
any companies or investors who would support such work. I think it
should happen, but it likely will not.
Think of it this way. Remember "wash boards"? I don't know if you
have a different term for them in Sweden, but they are how we washed
clothes a century ago, before automated washing machines. It's a rough
metal plate in a wooden frame that sticks out of a bucket of soapy
water, and you rub the clothes on it to flush out the dirt. If the wash
board is patented, and someone still owns that patent, it's very
unlikely that anyone in the business world would consider that patent to
be worth anything, for the obvious reason.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 2014-11-15 12:55, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 11/15/2014 03:49 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2014-11-14 16:43, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Evening,
What IS the current copyright status on TOPS-10/20? Who owns it? I
assume it's still copyrighted I assume...and I doubt the current
copyright owner would bother to enforce their rights to it.
By the way - why do people assume that people would not want to protect
their rights?
This whole attitude scares me a little.
In this case, it's because the rights are to a decades-old OS that is
viewed by the business world as being nothing more than a long-dead
historical curiosity.
That is a mistaken assumption. Just because most have long since forgotten it does not mean it is dead.
We know it's awesome, and we understand why, but let's put it this
way...Windows is fast disappearing, and it's not exactly TOPS-10/20
that's killing it.
Yeah. Not sure how relevant that is, though.
Johnny
