[HECnet] Re: Tops-20 NFT limited parse types for RSX systems?

On Nov 22, 2022, at 11:32 AM, John Forecast <john(a)forecast.name> wrote: 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: >> >> >>> On Nov 21, 2022, at 7:44 PM, Paul Koning <paulkoning(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> I don’t remember seeing anything about a VMS microfiche, do you have a pointer? > > 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