On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/03/2013 01:20 PM, lee.gleason at comcast.net wrote:
The terminals themselves were just largish monitors and keyboard with
an LSI11 system built in (an 11/03 or 11/2 - wasn't an 11/23, they were
too new).
Yup. That's why I'm drooling. I like that idea a lot.
I like the idea, too. I'd put something else on my desk if I had the space. Or the ethernet cables.
Even if you had one now, the magic was in the software that was
downloaded from the TMS system, and the server side stuff that ran on
the host 11. Without a TMS11 system to attach to, it would just be a
bulky LSI11 system with no disk. Now, if you added a disk, and upgraded
the processor, it would be the basis for an interesting desktop system -
but it wouldn't provide the real VT71/72 experience.
I'm not too interested in that very-vertical-market-sounding
experience. I just like the idea of a small PDP-11 inside a rather
iconic terminal that I can download arbitrary code into. It'd be fun.
It'd be very neat.
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 10/03/2013 01:20 PM, lee.gleason at comcast.net wrote:
The terminals themselves were just largish monitors and keyboard with
an LSI11 system built in (an 11/03 or 11/2 - wasn't an 11/23, they were
too new).
Yup. That's why I'm drooling. I like that idea a lot.
Even if you had one now, the magic was in the software that was
downloaded from the TMS system, and the server side stuff that ran on
the host 11. Without a TMS11 system to attach to, it would just be a
bulky LSI11 system with no disk. Now, if you added a disk, and upgraded
the processor, it would be the basis for an interesting desktop system -
but it wouldn't provide the real VT71/72 experience.
I'm not too interested in that very-vertical-market-sounding
experience. I just like the idea of a small PDP-11 inside a rather
iconic terminal that I can download arbitrary code into. It'd be fun.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> writes:
Therefore, without the same RIGHTSLIST.DAT file on the remote node, =
the ACL
information is meaningless and, since there's no way to enforce having =
the
same RIGHTSLIST.DAT information on the remote, remote ACLs is not =
supported.=20
Shame, granular security like that is some times very useful, but I can =
see
why it won't over DECNET
In a VMScluster, it will work but across DECnet, which has loosely defined
nodes agreeing to communicate, it's not really feasible.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
Therefore, without the same RIGHTSLIST.DAT file on the remote node, the ACL
information is meaningless and, since there's no way to enforce having the
same RIGHTSLIST.DAT information on the remote, remote ACLs is not supported.
Shame, granular security like that is some times very useful, but I can see
why it won't over DECNET
sampsa
Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> writes:
Do VMS ACLs work over DECNET?
Let's say I'm on CHIMPY and want to edit the ACL of a file on GORVAX - =
will that work?
CHIMPY$ EDITT/ACL GORVAX::LOGIN.COM
%SYSTEM-E_INVFILFOROP, invalid file specification for operation.
ACLs are stored in the file header. Identifiers are stored as their binary
equivalent from their definition in the local system's RIGHTSLIST.DAT file.
Therefore, without the same RIGHTSLIST.DAT file on the remote node, the ACL
information is meaningless and, since there's no way to enforce having the
same RIGHTSLIST.DAT information on the remote, remote ACLs is not supported.
$ DIRECTORY/SECURITY will display SOGR protections and ownershit UIC but it
will not display the rights identifier names even IF they exists within the
RIGHTSLIST.DAT of the local node.
HERE$ DIRECTORY/SECURITY THERE::LOGIN.COM
LOGIN.COM;1 [1,4] (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)
THERE$ DIRECTORY/SECURITY LOGIN.COM
LOGIN.COM;1 [HEGEMONY,SYSTEM] (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)
If there were ACLs on the LOGIN.COM, you would not see them in the remote
DIRECTORY listing.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:20 PM, <lee.gleason at comcast.net> wrote:
The terminals themselves were just largish monitors and keyboard with an LSI11 system built in (an 11/03 or 11/2 - wasn't an 11/23, they were too new).
Even if you had one now, the magic was in the software that was downloaded from the TMS system, and the server side stuff that ran on the host 11. Without a TMS11 system to attach to, it would just be a bulky LSI11 system with no disk. Now, if you added a disk, and upgraded the processor, it would be the basis for an interesting desktop system - but it wouldn't provide the real VT71/72 experience.
Indeed. Then again, the download image would be the big thing -- the OS support for send/receive of files wouldn't be that big a deal. But unfortunately the odds of ever finding it would be very slim indeed; I think TMS-11 had a total customer base of perhaps 100 sites, maybe a little more. And I assume those things all shut down quite a long time ago.
paul
The terminals themselves were just largish monitors and keyboard with an LSI11 system built in (an 11/03 or 11/2 - wasn't an 11/23, they were too new).
Even if you had one now, the magic was in the software that was downloaded from the TMS system, and the server side stuff that ran on the host 11. Without a TMS11 system to attach to, it would just be a bulky LSI11 system with no disk. Now, if you added a disk, and upgraded the processor, it would be the basis for an interesting desktop system - but it wouldn't provide the real VT71/72 experience.
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.gleason at comcast.net
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 12:07:06 PM
Subject: Re: [HECnet] VT-62?
On 10/03/2013 11:40 AM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
> A VT71 is an LSI-11 based local editing terminal -- the host would
> send the entire document to it, you'd edit it locally (very nice fast
> response editor) and send back the result.
Oh my I'd very much like to get my hands on one of those. I'd never
even heard of it.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 10/03/2013 11:40 AM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
A VT71 is an LSI-11 based local editing terminal -- the host would
send the entire document to it, you'd edit it locally (very nice fast
response editor) and send back the result.
Oh my I'd very much like to get my hands on one of those. I'd never
even heard of it.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 2013-10-03 17:24, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-09-29 14:48, Sampsa Laine wrote:
I noticed that the SIMH PDP-11 distribution contains emulation of TC11/TU56 DECtape drives. My questions are:
- How hard would these be to port to the VAX SIMH emulation?
- Do modern VMS (e.g > 7.0) OSes support DECtapes?
I figure it would be a nice way to transfer files between a PDP-11 and VAX system for example..
VMS have never supported DECtape, as far as I know
Not officially. But I know it was done as a "midnight project", by Andy Goldstein if I remember correctly. That supposedly even included overlapped seek support, just as TOPS-10 did.
Why am I not surprised he would be involved...
You might just turn it on and see if it works "out of the box".
I would assume the file structure used is the same as what RSX uses, whatever that is.
That would be normal Files-11 in that case. It might be a single directory file structure, though. Like for floppies.
Johnny
