Does anyone have this file?
(Sorry if this is a duplicate, I sent the request from the wrong address and I don t know if it actually made it to the list)
Regards
Rob
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Gregg Levine wrote:
Hello!
I mean where did you find it.
Bitsavers.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Hello!
I mean where did you find it.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Gregg Levine wrote:
Hello!
And where was it hiding?
SRC:<BBN-MONITOR>
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Gregg Levine wrote:
Hello!
And where was it hiding?
SRC:<BBN-MONITOR>
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Hello!
And where was it hiding?
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
Afternoon,
To the probably 0 other people interested...I think I managed to stumble
across a later version of the BBN monitor...not sure if it's TENEX, just
patches to the networking stack. It was (not really) hidden within the
SRI-NIC SRC: structure dump.
The source contains a copy of BBN Report 5925
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Afternoon,
To the probably 0 other people interested...I think I managed to stumble across a later version of the BBN monitor...not sure if it's TENEX, just patches to the networking stack. It was (not really) hidden within the SRI-NIC SRC: structure dump.
The source contains a copy of BBN Report 5925
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Verzonden vanaf mijn BlackBerry 10-smartphone.
Van: Mark Abene
Verzonden: woensdag 19 november 2014 04:42
Aan: hecnet at update.uu.se
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] TOPS-10/20 copyright status
You're likely right, and I had it backwards (SC versus Foonly).
On the other note, it would be really cool to revive TYMCOM-X and its dev environment (excluding the Tymnet Engine node-code generation tools). But it's very possible that British Telecom wouldn't allow that to happen, if in fact they still hold all the copyrights that they absorbed from acquiring Tymnet and Tymshare.
-M
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at update.uu.se> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:23:38PM -0800, Mark Abene wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, Compuserve was using Foonlys towards the end,
> since they were much more economical to run than the Systems Concepts
> machines. Maybe someone can comment.
That sounds backwards. At least the F1 was a very complex
machine even requiring a DeC PDP-10 to even boot. The SC-40 was
comparatively nimble. Lpok at gerrys youtibe videos.
I don't know much about the later foonlys. I'd like to know
more.
/P
You're likely right, and I had it backwards (SC versus Foonly).
On the other note, it would be really cool to revive TYMCOM-X and its dev environment (excluding the Tymnet Engine node-code generation tools). But it's very possible that British Telecom wouldn't allow that to happen, if in fact they still hold all the copyrights that they absorbed from acquiring Tymnet and Tymshare.
-M
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at update.uu.se> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:23:38PM -0800, Mark Abene wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, Compuserve was using Foonlys towards the end,
> since they were much more economical to run than the Systems Concepts
> machines. Maybe someone can comment.
That sounds backwards. At least the F1 was a very complex
machine even requiring a DeC PDP-10 to even boot. The SC-40 was
comparatively nimble. Lpok at gerrys youtibe videos.
I don't know much about the later foonlys. I'd like to know
more.
/P
On 2014-11-17 07:55, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
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.
Yes, many RSX images will work. And I have not checked if KERMIT do something tricky or not. If it's just plain RSX code, then it could work just fine under RSTS/E. If they use ASTs to actually deal with things in an asynchronous manner, or more odd RSX stuff, then the RSTS/E emulation layer might not be enough.
I know that there are separate build files and pieces for RSTS/E in KERMIT-11, and since those files are available, I would just grab it all (from MIM:: for example) and built it myself.
Johnny
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:23:38PM -0800, Mark Abene wrote:
If I remember correctly, Compuserve was using Foonlys towards the end,
since they were much more economical to run than the Systems Concepts
machines. Maybe someone can comment.
That sounds backwards. At least the F1 was a very complex
machine even requiring a DeC PDP-10 to even boot. The SC-40 was
comparatively nimble. Lpok at gerrys youtibe videos.
I don't know much about the later foonlys. I'd like to know
more.
/P
