On 3 Oct 2013, at 20:51, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> 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'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.
What I would LOVE is a VT180, basically VT102 + 8080 CPU running CP/M.
I've always been a CP/M fan for some odd reason :)
Come to think of it, I'd probably buy a DEC Rainbow if I came across on
that has three modes I think (VT100/8080/8088)..
sampsa
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/03/2013 02:58 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/03/2013 02:54 PM, Cory Smelosky 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.
Those would be serial cables.
I was thinking of adding a terminal server to the desk, too. So that'd
need an ethernet cable as well.
Oh! Good idea.
-Dave
Thanks! If I shove the VT420 here I run out of room for the IP phone without a handset. ;)
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 10/03/2013 02:58 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/03/2013 02:54 PM, Cory Smelosky 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.
Those would be serial cables.
I was thinking of adding a terminal server to the desk, too. So that'd
need an ethernet cable as well.
Oh! Good idea.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/03/2013 02:54 PM, Cory Smelosky 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.
Those would be serial cables.
I was thinking of adding a terminal server to the desk, too. So that'd need an ethernet cable as well.
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 10/03/2013 02:54 PM, Cory Smelosky 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.
Those would be serial cables.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
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.
