22 Nov
2022
22 Nov
'22
5:32 p.m.
OK, thanks. I’ll take a look.
John.
On Nov 21, 2022, at 8:32 PM, Paul Koning
<paulkoning(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2022, at 8:27 PM, John Forecast
<john(a)forecast.name> wrote:
Here you go:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/vax/microfiche/vms-source-listings/AH-BT13…
The .bw scans are much smaller than the .gray scans; the conversion to bitonal seems to
be quite good so the .bw ones are the ones to use.
paul
_______________________________________________
HECnet mailing list -- hecnet(a)lists.dfupdate.se
To unsubscribe send an email to hecnet-leave(a)lists.dfupdate.se On Nov 21, 2022, at 7:44 PM, Paul Koning
<paulkoning(a)comcast.net> wrote:
I don’t remember seeing anything about a VMS microfiche, do you have a pointer? On Nov 21, 2022, at 5:47 PM, John Forecast
<john(a)forecast.name> wrote:
>
> On Nov 21, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Thomas DeBellis <tommytimesharing(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Interesting; I was wondering why you picked a special number? I would imagine that
most implementation wouldn't know it and maybe Ultrix-32 (OS$U32==^D18) might have
been a better choice? Ultrix-32 is of interest as its NRT is compatible with
Tops-10/Tops-20 and has the same OS type number.
I wanted to quickly find out how much, if any, code was dependent on the OS type. One
other area of incompatibility is that TOPS-10 and the Linux dndir require a DAP-level ACK
after the attributes during directory listings.
I think that's a DAP protocol version issue; it shouldn't be tied to OS type.
There are some incompatibilities like that between DAP 5.6 and DAP 7.0. The VMS
microfiche that were posted a while ago give some clues; just enough that I could beat my
Python implementation of NFT into behaving. You could use that for reference.