Give me some time (tomorrow perhaps), and I'll check in the manuals. I think the RSX manuals also holds how to install on RSTS/E.
Johnny
Bob Armstrong skrev:
Does anybody know the procedure for installing F77 v5.4 on RSTS/E 10.1?
@[0,1]INSTAL doesn't seem to work for that. There's a F77 v5.2 manual on
Bitsavers, but the RUN $BUILD procedure that it recommends also doesn't seem
to work for F77 v5.4.
Thanks,
Bob
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 7:34 PM -0700 3/31/08, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Does anybody know the procedure for installing F77 v5.4 on RSTS/E
10.1? @[0,1]INSTAL doesn't seem to work for that. There's a F77
v5.2 manual on Bitsavers, but the RUN $BUILD procedure that it
recommends also doesn't seem to work for F77 v5.4.
What is the media that you're trying to install from? TK50? Are you
going to get a RSTS/E 10.1 system up on HECnet? I don't have the
necessary cooling to run mine. :^(
Zane
Zane, I'll most likely put up a V8 and a V9.6 system, but like you, I'm
not willing to put my my 11/53 10.1 system online without adequate air
to keep things cool and my 11/73 is still in the hands of my nephew. I
never had ethernet cards for either one so I would put up simh boxes.
Bob I haven't done an F77 install in over 20 years, but as I recall you
can most likely put the executables in [1,2] and the libraries in LB:
and just put in the CCL for F77 to be up and running. I never did like
the DCL install routines as they always messed up the logical tables.
Brett
What is the media that you're trying to install from? TK50?
Actually right now I'm doing it on simh - it's faster for "trial and
error" experiments than the real hardware. But I do have a 11/53+ w/ 3.5MB,
2xRA73s and a TK70 that I plan to eventually install it all on.
Are you going to get a RSTS/E 10.1 system up on HECnet?
Eventually, yes, although it probably won't run 24x7.
I don't have the necessary cooling to run mine. :^(
In the Pacific Northwest electricity is cheap - here in CA I can't afford
the power to feed all these machines!
Bob
At 7:34 PM -0700 3/31/08, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Does anybody know the procedure for installing F77 v5.4 on RSTS/E 10.1? @[0,1]INSTAL doesn't seem to work for that. There's a F77 v5.2 manual on Bitsavers, but the RUN $BUILD procedure that it recommends also doesn't seem to work for F77 v5.4.
What is the media that you're trying to install from? TK50? Are you going to get a RSTS/E 10.1 system up on HECnet? I don't have the necessary cooling to run mine. :^(
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Does anybody know the procedure for installing F77 v5.4 on RSTS/E 10.1? @[0,1]INSTAL doesn t seem to work for that. There s a F77 v5.2 manual on Bitsavers, but the RUN $BUILD procedure that it recommends also doesn t seem to work for F77 v5.4.
Thanks,
Bob
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 7:02 PM -0700 3/30/08, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Would it also solve his Firewall problem, if he's the one initiating
the connection?
I don't think so - he'll still have to configure his router to accept
incoming UDP packets on port 700 and forward them to his VAX.
Ugh, you're right, I forgot what a nightmare that was with my Firewall.
If it were to use TCP, things would be a lot easier in this regard.
However, with UDP, you need to set things up more explicitly, since the
incoming and outgoing traffic isn't really related from the UDP protocol
point of view. UDP don't have the concept of a connection.
Johnny
Ok, I guess it would be best to use the bridge program. I should be
able to get a port forwarded to my laptop; I'll have to look a little
deeper to see what I need to do to get the laptop to re-forward that
port on to the Alpha (should just be an iptables command, I hope,
which I could add to the current gateway setup script).
Johnny, since nobody else has offerred to be the other end of my
tunnel, I guess I'll be making the hop to Uppsala.
John
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Bob Armstrong wrote:
It could be more complicated than that... here's my setup, tell me
what you think:
[Internet]----[router]~~~wireless~~~[laptop]-----[Alpha and VAX]
You'll have to get all those gateways to pass packets on port 700, for sure. I don't think Johnny's program will be any different, though, except for the port number. I could be wrong, though.
Nope. You're absolutely right.
Johnny
Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 7:02 PM -0700 3/30/08, Bob Armstrong wrote:
>Would it also solve his Firewall problem, if he's the one initiating
the connection?
I don't think so - he'll still have to configure his router to accept
incoming UDP packets on port 700 and forward them to his VAX.
Ugh, you're right, I forgot what a nightmare that was with my Firewall.
If it were to use TCP, things would be a lot easier in this regard. However, with UDP, you need to set things up more explicitly, since the incoming and outgoing traffic isn't really related from the UDP protocol point of view. UDP don't have the concept of a connection.
Johnny
John Floren wrote:
On 3/30/08, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
Would it also solve his Firewall problem, if he's the one initiating
>the connection?
I don't think so - he'll still have to configure his router to accept
incoming UDP packets on port 700 and forward them to his VAX.
Bob
It could be more complicated than that... here's my setup, tell me
what you think:
[Internet]----[router]~~~wireless~~~[laptop]-----[Alpha and VAX]
There's a wireless router downstairs connected to the Internet. My
laptop has a wireless card and is configured to act as a gateway for
the wired LAN in my room, to which the laptop, the Alpha, and the VAX
are all connected.
I don't see any problems with that. In fact, what is beyond your laptop is rather irrelevant. As long as your laptop acts like a router, it isolates your local network from whatever might be used outside.
All that is needed is for packets from the Internet to be able to reach your laptop, which means that either your laptop must have an IP address which is public, or your router must do NAT, and be able to forward packets addressed to a specific UDP port on towards your laptop.
This is for bridges outside to be able to send packets to you. Of course, you will also send packets to them, but most firewalls and routers don't have a problem with allowing and handling outgoing traffic by default.
Johnny
Bob Armstrong wrote:
I am willing to switch to Multinet, I'd just like to know why I
should.
Well, it can do the DECnet over IP tunneling without any additional machines or software.
Using DECnet over TCP/IP instead of my bridge also reduces the bandwith you need.
DECnet isn't extremely bandwith hungry, but doing a bridge means that all broadcasts from all nodes needs to get everywhere. And as the bridged net (and machines on that net) grows, so does the broadcasts...
And all direct traffic between nodes at this moment passes though the same needle eye, which is my bridge, since noone else is acting as a relay between segments...
There probably is an upper limit to what is realistic to bridge together. After that we need to split the bridging up into two (or more) separate ethernet segments.
Johnny
