------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/3/2019 11:36 AM, Robert Armstrong wrote: I've no idea what TOPS20 does, but ... On VMS the NETCONFIG script creates a default account for FAL called FAL$SERVER. Anonymous access to FAL just logs in using this account and you can see whatever files are in the associated login directory, typically SYS$SPECIFIC:[FAL$SERVER]. TOPS20 probably uses different names, but I imagine that the basic idea is similar... Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Thomas DeBellis Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 5:15 AM To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE Subject: [HECnet] Anonymous FAL (Tops-20) I have some software that I'd like to post, but don't recall how to configure FAL to allow for an anonymous connection; to download from a restricted directory. I know how to do it for the FTP server (seeing as I wrote it), but ... different code base. I can only vaguely remember what we did for CCnet at Columbia University in the 1980's, but I think it was kind of a hack.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/3/2019 5:34 PM, Robert Armstrong wrote: account It?s probably handled by NETACP, or whatever passes for that on TOPS20.? Does your NCP understand the command DEFINE OBJECT FAL USER <whatever> PASSWORD <whatever> Bob

Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote: NETACP in RSX (and I suspect VMS) is just the process/program that implements a lot of the DECnet protocols. It is actually pretty much not

On Jul 4, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Robert Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote: <related to anything here. When somebody tries to connect to, say, FAL, it's NETACP that receives the incoming connection request. NETACP creates a process and runs FAL in that process to handle the rest of the job, BUT since NETACP creates the process it's also the one that decides what username to use and logs in the process (if necessary). It's the one that handles the default account; FAL doesn't have to worry about that.

Oh, is that how it works?? Is NETACP perhaps more like inetd in that regard?

Like Unix, Tops-20 can have it both ways.? There is something like inetd called NETSRV, which handles incoming TCP connections for TELNET, Daytime, Finger, FTP, IMAP, TIME and TTYTST.?? It either uses subforks or spawns entire jobs (TELNET, FTP and IMAP); a Tops-20 job is a very different thing than a Unix process group. For SMTP, SMTJFN handles the incoming requests, forking MAISER.? There are some others. For DECnet, there is no NETSRV, so everybody handles their own. NMLT20 handles NCU. FAL handles FAL. VMAIL (Vax Mail) handles MAIL11, PHONE handles PHONE.? Nebula handles Galaxy cluster messages.? FAL is checking ids and passwords with ACCES%.

I don't believe PANDA provides a DECnet finger server.? Clearly the supplied finger knows nothing about it.? Probably about 1/4 could be chucked to simply use NTMAN%, which would also get you LAT.? Porting NETSRV to DECnet would be straightforward due to the JFN interface, but I have mixed feelings about that.? Pity I can't ask MRC; he had a rather exceptional talent for telling me (and everybody else) what to do.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 7/4/2019 3:39 PM, Robert Armstrong wrote: >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote: >> >> NETACP in RSX (and I suspect VMS) is just the process/program that >> implements a lot of the DECnet protocols. It is actually pretty much >> not related to anything here. > ? When somebody tries to connect to, say, FAL, it's NETACP that > receives the incoming connection request.? NETACP creates a process > and runs FAL in that process to handle the rest of the job, BUT since > NETACP creates the process it's also the one that decides what > username to use and logs in the process (if necessary).? It's the one > that handles the default account; FAL doesn't have to worry about that. > > Bob

Yes and No.? Some of the design concepts are quite similar which is unsurprising. The NICE task on Tops-20 has a named object called NCU.? The (fork) listener is NMLT20 which will also accept local (and cluster) IPCF% communications.? In OPR, you enter NCP submode, which parses nearly the exact same command set as NCPACP. ? It then (via Orion) sends this to NMLT20 which performs the action (or crashes) or sends it to another NCU (or crashes). So that sounds analogous to NCPACP to NICE.TSK architecture. Remind me how RSX does the inter-task communication?? I haven't programmed it since 1977...? I remember it being different from IPCF%, but still thought it was neat. There is no permanent store in Tops-20 for this DECnet information.? It is scattered through various configuration files that are swallowed depending on criticality during boot up an operation.? Tops-20 does *not* like having either the MAC address nor the local DECnet node number numbers changed, ever and configuration for router and local area must be done 'early' and once only; so all that stuff is in SYSTEM:7-1-CONFIG.CMD.? You have to reboot to get changes updated. Other stuff (like setting the executor identification) and enabling services goes into SYSTEM:SYSTEM.CMD where OPR hands it to NMLT20. There is much to be learned by comparing the architectures. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 7/4/2019 2:37 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > NETACP in RSX (and I suspect VMS) is just the process/program that > implements a lot of the DECnet protocols. It is actually pretty much > not related to anything here. > > At least in RSX, the NICE protocol is handled by a separate task > called NICE.TSK. > > And when you run NCP under RSX, it pretty much talks to NICE for any > operations requested, also for the local node. > > I know that this is very different from how things work under TOPS-20. > There are no handling of objects from NCP using NICE in TOPS-20, and > there is no permanent database (as far as I know), compared to RSX or > VMS. > > ? Johnny >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> On 2019-07-04 03:06, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >> >> Tops-20 has a subtly different architecture, in part perhaps >> reflective of the previously described 'bolt on'. >> >> The closest thing to NETACP is NMLT20, which implments NCU. Parts of >> that are in written BLISS and at one point, it had a shared a partly >> common code base with some RSX/VAX stuff. Interfacing to Galaxy (the >> Tops-10/Tops-20 Operator Interface and Queuing system), NMLT20 was >> /notorious/ for crashing in early (Phase III) releases.? I wrote many >> SPR's... >> >> I can't define objects. FAL itself puts up the FAL object and speaks >> DAP over it.? Communication with it is either over a DECnet FAL >> object (via DAP) or with Tops-20 IPCF.? The only messages that gets >> are (the largely useless) logging messages from inferior FAL >> processes and checkpoint messages from Quasar, the queue manager.? It >> doesn't process any other messages from Galaxy, so it doesn't seem >> that it would know how to swallow anything that NMLT20 might hand off. >> >> I can define the following: >> >> ??? CIRCUIT >> ??? EXECUTOR >> ??? KNOWN >> ??? LINE >> ??? LOGGING >> ??? MODULE >> ??? NODE >> >> I'll see what I turn up when I finish polishing off that pesky DAP >> bug (after I finish the VIKING OCR). >> >> Lots for you to look forward when you get back into it, eh? :-D >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> On 7/3/2019 5:34 PM, Robert Armstrong wrote: >>> >>> > I'll have a look at FAL; at first glance it has no hooks for a >>> default account >>> >>> It?s probably handled by NETACP, or whatever passes for that on >>> TOPS20.? Does your NCP understand the command >>> >>> DEFINE OBJECT FAL USER <whatever> PASSWORD <whatever> >>> >>> Bob >>> > >

Mostly true. Prior to the executor state being ?on?, NCP can?t establish a DECnet connection to NICE so it starts up NTINIT which knows enough to orchestrate loading the networking code into memory via the network loader NTL? - certainly that was the case through Phase III.

The split between the DECnet device driver and NETACP is mostly around performance - the driver handles data transmit and receive while NETACP handles the slower connect/disconnect logic. Doing it this way allowed us to overlay NETACP on unmapped 11M systems and save some physical memory (shudder!!).

Don?t forget VNP which allows NCP setup commands to be applied to the saved image so that they will take effect the next time the system is booted.

John.

NETACP isn?t even running when DECnet starts loading. CEXBF.MAC is compiled with the M+ kernel but in earlier versions it was distributed with the DECnet kit and loaded into memory by ?NCP SET SYS?. NTINIT reads CETAB.TSK I think and then kicks off NTL to load each CEX module into memory. If you look at the .DAT file for a particular module you?ll see it?s in a limited assembler syntax. NTL has a mini assembler/linker included to hook modules and drivers into CEX and the interrupt system.

Right. Unfortunately it had to be there to make DECnet-11S viable.

John.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/5/2019 7:57 PM, John Forecast wrote: What you see in CEXBF.MAC is all there ever was for CEX. When I joined the development team in Jan ?77, an implementation of Phase II NSP was running standalone under a ?Communications Executive?. The decision was made to ?port? this ?Communications Executive? into each of the RSX-11 Decnet implementation (11M/11S/11D and IAS) and they would all use this NSP implementation. As a side benefit we would get all the device drivers that had been implemented as well. [...] that would be too expensive if every packet had to flow through NETACP. When a packet is queued to a process (asynchronous rather than direct call) it is queued to the NS: fork block. When NS: driver runs as a result it peeks at the request and may queue it to NETACP or process it immediately.

On Jul 14, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Thomas DeBellis <tommytimesharing at gmail.com> wrote: I had been wondering about the RSX DECnet packaging. Pre-CI DECSYSTEM-20's may be modeled according to a loosely coupled multi-processor paradigm, with the main KL being communicated with DTE20's, the master one having additional rights. These were connected to either a front end communications processor (which handled the communications, unit record equipment and I believe the ANF10) and other networking. These were packaged in separate cabinets as DN20's. The DN20 subsystems were 11/34 - 11/40 class machines, which might now be better thought of as ancillary processors or even embedded systems, but sometimes were running cut down versions of full blown operating systems. The front end ran a version of RSX called RSX20F and was somewhat stripped down, not having a login. A DN20 was termed a DN20 if it ran the 2780/3780/HASP communications code that IBMSPL talked to. Since I was Columbia Galaxy nerd and knew PDP-11 assember, I also maintained that code (and worked with our VM/MVS folks to fix a pesky bug in the multi-leaving implementation). As I recall, this was embedded code and precisely RSX based (but it's been at least 35 years since I assembled any of that). I think I used a 20 based cross assembler to do it. We did have an RSX20F pack, but I don't recall as I ever looked at source on that. Or maybe it was on microfiche. Do you know how DECnet would have been packaged for the DN20 and DN200 (the DECnet based RJE station)? One assumes it would have been built off of RSX.

I can't remember whether the DN20 would do anything past Phase III.

> On 7/5/2019 7:57 PM, John Forecast wrote: > What you see in CEXBF.MAC is all there ever was for CEX. When I joined the development team in Jan ?77, an implementation of Phase II NSP was running standalone under a ?Communications Executive?. The decision was made to ?port? this ?Communications Executive? into each of the RSX-11 Decnet implementation (11M/11S/11D and IAS) and they would all use this NSP implementation. As a side benefit we would get all the device drivers that had been implemented as well. > > [...] that would be too expensive if every packet had to flow through NETACP. When a packet is queued to a process (asynchronous rather than direct call) it is queued to the NS: fork block. When NS: driver runs as a result it peeks at the request and may queue it to NETACP or process it immediately.

Thanks, this isn't quite everything that I was wondering about, but let me elaborate. When a DN20 (PDP-11/34) is running embedded bi-sync to speak to an IBM host (via a KMC), it is generically called a DN60 (the name for packaging software being DN62 or DN65).? I wonder how marketing came up with those numbers?? I'm certain it provided significant value-add while cost effectively thinking out of the box to /somebody/ over there... All communications to the KL from RSX20F, DN20's and DN60's come through DTE20's.?? But this question was not about DN60's, which I won't care about until such time as I have a Hercules emulator I feel like getting busy with.

I can't remember what RSX20F had grown out, but what I had heard was that the base was 11M as this had the smaller footprint (at the time). That effort may have been headed by Ron McLean.?? It is a true statement that DTE20 driver development would have been done in Marlboro.

However, there was a pretty vast commonality in the RSX code base.

Specifically, I was wondering about two things: 1. What is the latest Phase DECnet that 11M will run?? I guess the last release was 93?

2. MCB; what was developed on it past your snapshot (Phase II).

At least in Marlboro on the 36 bit line, while there was competition, there wasn't always an intense amount of NIH.? So the DECnet transport code was originally developed in user mode in Tops-10.? After debugging, it got merged into the Tops-10 monitor.? Once (or while) that was being done, the same code code base got merged into Tops-20. The KL router code will do level 1.? I don't remember what the DN20 would do.? I guess maybe Shoppa's site might have the latest MCB. Some higher level code was written in BLISS.? I have yet to chase NMLT20 down (the Tops-20 NICE implementation). The front end (RSX20F) code have run DECnet transport in theory, but not in practice by Tops-20 version 4.? Once they shut off 'aggregating' on the DH11's to accommodate the VT100 smooth scrolling lossage, that poor 11 didn't have time for a blessed thing.? You could really tell the difference on the front panel between 3A (not so much blinky) and 4 (plenty blinky!!)? One site that I am aware of (CW) actually used an additional DN20 to run RSX20F in order to put lines on it to share the load.? Pretty cool.

They really should have fixed the ^S/^Q padding issue for smooth scroll, though...

On Jul 14, 2019, at 11:55 PM, Thomas DeBellis <tommytimesharing at gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, this isn't quite everything that I was wondering about, but let me elaborate. When a DN20 (PDP-11/34) is running embedded bi-sync to speak to an IBM host (via a KMC), it is generically called a DN60 (the name for packaging software being DN62 or DN65). I wonder how marketing came up with those numbers? I'm certain it provided significant value-add while cost effectively thinking out of the box to somebody over there... All communications to the KL from RSX20F, DN20's and DN60's come through DTE20's. But this question was not about DN60's, which I won't care about until such time as I have a Hercules emulator I feel like getting busy with. I can't remember what RSX20F had grown out, but what I had heard was that the base was 11M as this had the smaller footprint (at the time). That effort may have been headed by Ron McLean. It is a true statement that DTE20 driver development would have been done in Marlboro.

However, there was a pretty vast commonality in the RSX code base. Specifically, I was wondering about two things:

What is the latest Phase DECnet that 11M will run? I guess the last release was 93?

MCB; what was developed on it past your snapshot (Phase II)

At least in Marlboro on the 36 bit line, while there was competition, there wasn't always an intense amount of NIH. So the DECnet transport code was originally developed in user mode in Tops-10. After debugging, it got merged into the Tops-10 monitor. Once (or while) that was being done, the same code code base got merged into Tops-20. The KL router code will do level 1. I don't remember what the DN20 would do. I guess maybe Shoppa's site might have the latest MCB.

Some higher level code was written in BLISS. I have yet to chase NMLT20 down (the Tops-20 NICE implementation). The front end (RSX20F) code have run DECnet transport in theory, but not in practice by Tops-20 version 4. Once they shut off 'aggregating' on the DH11's to accommodate the VT100 smooth scrolling lossage, that poor 11 didn't have time for a blessed thing. You could really tell the difference on the front panel between 3A (not so much blinky) and 4 (plenty blinky!!) One site that I am aware of (CW) actually used an additional DN20 to run RSX20F in order to put lines on it to share the load. Pretty cool. They really should have fixed the ^S/^Q padding issue for smooth scroll, though... > On 7/14/2019 3:16 PM, John Forecast wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Thomas DeBellis <tommytimesharing at gmail.com <mailto:tommytimesharing at gmail.com>> wrote: >> I had been wondering about the RSX DECnet packaging. >> >> Pre-CI DECSYSTEM-20's may be modeled according to a loosely coupled multi-processor paradigm, with the main KL being communicated with DTE20's, the master one having additional rights. These were connected to either a front end communications processor (which handled the communications, unit record equipment and I believe the ANF10) and other networking. These were packaged in separate cabinets as DN20's. >> >> The DN20 subsystems were 11/34 - 11/40 class machines, which might now be better thought of as ancillary processors or even embedded systems, but sometimes were running cut down versions of full blown operating systems. The front end ran a version of RSX called RSX20F and was somewhat stripped down, not having a login. >> >> A DN20 was termed a DN20 if it ran the 2780/3780/HASP communications code that IBMSPL talked to. Since I was Columbia Galaxy nerd and knew PDP-11 assember, I also maintained that code (and worked with our VM/MVS folks to fix a pesky bug in the multi-leaving implementation). As I recall, this was embedded code and precisely RSX based (but it's been at least 35 years since I assembled any of that). I think I used a 20 based cross assembler to do it. >> >> We did have an RSX20F pack, but I don't recall as I ever looked at source on that. Or maybe it was on microfiche. >> >> Do you know how DECnet would have been packaged for the DN20 and DN200 (the DECnet based RJE station)? One assumes it would have been built off of RSX. >> > If the DN20 used DTE20?s to communicate with the KL, I would expect the code would have been developed out of Marlboro. We (as in RSX DECnet development) had no PDP-10 hardware in our labs and would have found it difficult to code and test such software. The only IBM communication product that I remember is RSX-2780 which ran on both 11M and 11D as standalone applications - I believe there was some attempt to integrate it with CEX but I don?t know if that succeeded. > > The prevailing wisdom is that RSX20F is based on RSX-11D. > > Around the end of Phase II development (late ?79, early ?80) we provided a snapshot of our current development tree to Marlboro which was used to develop the MCB front end. Looking at the code on Tim Shoppa?s site it looks like this is based on RSX-11S. >> I can't remember whether the DN20 would do anything past Phase III. >> > I was never involved in the IBM communications side so, unfortunately, I can?t help there. > > John. >> >>> On 7/5/2019 7:57 PM, John Forecast wrote: >>> What you see in CEXBF.MAC is all there ever was for CEX. When I joined the development team in Jan ?77, an implementation of Phase II NSP was running standalone under a ?Communications Executive?. The decision was made to ?port? this ?Communications Executive? into each of the RSX-11 Decnet implementation (11M/11S/11D and IAS) and they would all use this NSP implementation. As a side benefit we would get all the device drivers that had been implemented as well. >>> >>> [...] that would be too expensive if every packet had to flow through NETACP. When a packet is queued to a process (asynchronous rather than direct call) it is queued to the NS: fork block. When NS: driver runs as a result it peeks at the request and may queue it to NETACP or process it immediately.

On Jul 15, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote: On 2019-07-15 17:36, John Forecast wrote: Not only that. Device drivers were expected to manipulate event flags of other tasks directly, and then inform the OS that a significant even happened, which could force rescheduling of tasks. And it seems every driver had the code to do this work inline in the driver. So all kind of I/O completion becomes sortof messy. I think the driver is still expected to switch to kernel mode before doing this work, and also copy the IOSB data to the requesting task. Not sure exactly how a think like a swapped out process was handled in this case, but maybe the task was always locked in memory if I/O was active. Right. And I/O completion is normally handled by a couple of routines in the kernel, so the driver itself can be pretty minimal. Nah. 11M+ is really very similar to 11M. They pretty much share the same codebase, but M+ extends some data structures with a bit more information, and also adds a couple of more structures to make the system more flexible. The splitting of I/D space, as well as supervisor mode actually have very little impact on the kernel. There is obviously a bit more work at a context switch, and there are a couple of details around ASTs, which can switch between user and supervisor, but much of the rest don't know or care. And drivers can pretty much be moved straight over, although you normally would want to modify them to take advantage of some nifty additional capabilities provided by M+.

No. Last/latest release was in 1998/1999 (depends on whether you look at 11M or 11M+). But it was still all just phase IV.

Latest 11M is V4.8, and latest 11M+ is V4.6. I think they are even available to trailing-edge?

Johnny -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

On Jul 16, 2019, at 1:08 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote: On 2019-07-16 17:50, John Forecast wrote: Ah, yes, I tend to skim over the mP changes, but you are right. DECnet is one of those things that got hit because of that, as well as some kernel parts. It's still fairly contained. It's just that CEX knows a little too much to not get affected. Most device drivers are totally unaware of mP aspects.

Interesting that you think you might have improved DECnet with a bit more work. As it stands, it works fine today. But I haven't looked into how much might be running without cache enabled. But I am running a simulated 11/74. That is Mim.Update.UU.SE. You can both browse to it, and telnet to it. Usually I only have two CPUs online, since there are still some issues with the emulation. But otherwise it works fine.

I also had to figure out some issues with TCP/IP and multiprocessor support. That was interesting. :-) Yes. Mentec released both 4.5 and 4.6 of M+. The last DEC release was V4.4, in 1993 or 1994. Right before it was sold off to Mentec. (Corresponding 11M was 4.7 and 4.8, with the last DEC release being 4.6.) The M+ 4.6 disk image at trailing-edge actually contains the DECnet code as well. And yes, DECnet-11M-PLUS V4.5 and V4.6 was released in parallel with RSX-11M-PLUS V4.5 and V4.6.

Johnny -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

I had been wondering about the RSX DECnet packaging. Pre-CI DECSYSTEM-20's may be modeled according to a loosely coupled multi-processor paradigm, with the main KL being communicated with DTE20's, the master one having additional rights.? These were connected to either a front end communications processor (which handled the communications, unit record equipment and I believe the ANF10) and other networking.? These were packaged in separate cabinets as DN20's. The DN20 subsystems were 11/34 - 11/40 class machines, which might now be better thought of as ancillary processors or even embedded systems, but sometimes were running cut down versions of full blown operating systems.?? The front end ran a version of RSX called RSX20F and was somewhat stripped down, not having a login. A DN20 was termed a DN20 if it ran the 2780/3780/HASP communications code that IBMSPL talked to.? Since I was Columbia Galaxy nerd and knew PDP-11 assember, I also maintained that code (and worked with our VM/MVS folks to fix a pesky bug in the multi-leaving implementation).?? As I recall, this was embedded code and precisely RSX based (but it's been at least 35 years since I assembled any of that).? I think I used a 20 based cross assembler to do it. We did have an RSX20F pack, but I don't recall as I ever looked at source on that.? Or maybe it was on microfiche. Do you know how DECnet would have been packaged for the DN20 and DN200 (the DECnet based RJE station)?? One assumes it would have been built off of RSX. I can't remember whether the DN20 would do anything past Phase III. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 7/5/2019 7:57 PM, John Forecast wrote: > What you see in CEXBF.MAC is all there ever was for CEX. When I joined the development team in Jan ?77, an implementation of Phase II NSP was running standalone under a ?Communications Executive?. The decision was made to ?port? this ?Communications Executive? into each of the RSX-11 Decnet implementation (11M/11S/11D and IAS) and they would all use this NSP implementation. As a side benefit we would get all the device drivers that had been implemented as well. > > [...] that would be too expensive if every packet had to flow through NETACP. When a packet is queued to a process (asynchronous rather than direct call) it is queued to the NS: fork block. When NS: driver runs as a result it peeks at the request and may queue it to NETACP or process it immediately.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/3/2019 7:21 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: VMS, as someone else mentioned, have a default account for FAL. RSX does not have that.? However, you can use proxy access in RSX to achieve something similar.? Enable incoming and outgoing proxy, and define a default account that incoming requests should be using that way. If TOPS-20 can do this I don't know.? But it's a suggestion for something else/more to check. ? Johnny > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 2019-07-03 14:15, Thomas DeBellis wrote: > > I have some software that I'd like to post, but don't recall how to > configure FAL to allow for an anonymous connection; to download from > a restricted directory. > > I know how to do it for the FTP server (seeing as I wrote it), but > ... different code base. > > I can only vaguely remember what we did for CCnet at Columbia > University in the 1980's, but I think it was kind of a hack.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/4/2019 2:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: The one annoying detail of the account system in TOPS-20 is that user disk quotas are on a per directory basis. So you have to manually move your disk quota around for your subdirectories. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 2019-07-04 04:01, Thomas DeBellis wrote: > > Tops-20 is vastly different from Unix (and I believe also VMS) as to > how it manages user ids and accounts.? Parts of the authentication > paradigm are very tightly woven into the the file system.? Briefly, > > * A user id is a login-able directory (I.E., one that doesn't have > apassword and is not set FILES-ONLY).? In addition to basic OS > restrictions which prevent you from viewing file system meta-data > unless you have appropriate authorization, an access control job > (ACJ) is layered on top of this which can even restrict > privileged users. > * Accounts are either validated out of a binary accounting file in > monitor space (which is compiled from ASCII source) or via the > ACJ. ??? Accounts can have multiple users or systems processes > (such as spoolers) creating billing records. Users can switch > between accounts on a per-job, per-fork and intra-program basis > (a program can decide to bill certain portions of its activity to > different accounts). > * The obvious benefit is that there is no password file to attack > or steal and you can't even tell that there is an accounting > file; probing passwords is monitored and a certain amount of > intervention is done.? It is /extremely/ fast. No /etc/passwd to > grovel. > > However, a deleterious side-effect is that once an id is created, it > can be used for _anything_, including online interactive login. > > On a PANDA monitor, is possible to specify a user id as FTP-ONLY, but > neither the supplied 5 series ACJ nor the EXEC do anything with it.? > Historically, the Tops-20 FTP server implemented ANONYMOUS usage by > parsing for the login user atom ANONYMOUS and then swallowing > anything for the password (what was typically supplied was an email > addresses). This was then hardwired into a local id. > > Artifacts of this still exist in certain browers.? Guess who supplies > IEUSER@ as the email address password for ANONYOUS usage? > > I recall that this is the approach that we had to use with Tops-20 > FAL.? The Extended? Mode FTP server that I wrote is configurable via > a file to specify the underlying id and password.? More > productization would probably including having the ACJ enforce > FTP-ONLY on LOGIN% or CRJOB% and having the EXEC parse for and > display FTP-ONLY.? Probably about two weeks' part time work as I > recall.? Might have to consider Batch policy. > > One approach here could be to lift the ANONYMOUS code out of EFTPSR > and drop it into FAL and then do the changes to the ACJ and EXEC. I'm > just surprised none of the HECnet Tops-10 or Tops-20 nerds have done > it (there is some commonality in some of the sources). > > Since Tops-20 has a BLISS compiler which implements BLISS COMMON (my > first training at DEC as an employee was to write code that would > cross compile under VMS, RSX, Tops-10 and Tops-20).? I think it might > be useful to review some of the VMS DECnet source, if any of that is > available.? It might be possible to lift some functionality, which > could be fun. > > Does the VMS hobbiest license get you source code? >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> On 7/3/2019 7:21 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> >> VMS, as someone else mentioned, have a default account for FAL. >> >> RSX does not have that.? However, you can use proxy access in RSX to >> achieve something similar.? Enable incoming and outgoing proxy, and >> define a default account that incoming requests should be using that >> way. >> >> If TOPS-20 can do this I don't know.? But it's a suggestion for >> something else/more to check. >> >> ? Johnny >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> On 2019-07-03 14:15, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >>> >>> I have some software that I'd like to post, but don't recall how to >>> configure FAL to allow for an anonymous connection; to download >>> from a restricted directory. >>> >>> I know how to do it for the FTP server (seeing as I wrote it), but >>> ... different code base. >>> >>> I can only vaguely remember what we did for CCnet at Columbia >>> University in the 1980's, but I think it was kind of a hack.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 7/5/2019 3:40 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: Well, accounts and directories are not clearly separated things under TOPS-20, as you yourself noted. And disk quotas were annoying to deal with. Back around the same time, I was using RSTS/E at school, and there you had disk quotas too, and no subdirectories. Also, the default quota was 20 blocks (10 Kbyte). Felt quite acceptable at the time. One RM03 for four schools sharing one PDP-11/70. But creating directories under TOPS-20 was not *that* hard. There was the BUILD command, which sorted out most things rather simply. But I don't know how you'd do it programmatically. The fact that you could have sub-users on the other hand was one of the most beautiful things of TOPS-20. And it implicitly already gave you groups. At university, each course there was a user, and all students were sub-user to that, belonging thus to the same group. Managed by the teacher, who had the parent account. As for maximum disk, well... You could have RP07 disks. At half a gig, that was pretty decent. Each of our -2060 had one RP07. And one had one RP06, while the other one had three RP06 drives. And Unix is older than TOPS-20, and ran on more limited resources, and still handled subdirectories and quotas cleaner. So I don't think it's fair to just blame old age or limited resources. A PDP-10 had vast resources compared to many other things... ? Johnny On 2019-07-05 20:57, Thomas DeBellis wrote:

Unix on PDP-7 is 1969. On a PDP-11, more or less 1970(ish). But I admit that I didn't fully think about TENEX, which I guess actually makes them about the same age. And yeah, mkdir is simpler. Creating a subdirectory in TOPS-20 is more complicated, but it isn't hell. :-) And everyone is always screaming for more disk, memory and CPU. Nothing new there... Also, yes, emulation makes it rather nice to run these old systems. Plenty of resources available (from their perspective). I have about 8GB of stuff on RSX here. Talk about wasting disk. :-) And that is by just using two disk drives... Such disks didn't even exist back then. And my network screams. ftp transfer from RSX at about 1.5MB/s, which is way more than the bandwidth of a Unibus, or even good old 10Mbit/s ethernet. (Not to mention I have a multiprocessor PDP-11/74...) Those are the moments when I really appreciate emulations... ? Johnny On 2019-07-07 03:15, Thomas DeBellis wrote:

Yes, and it would probably be interesting to compare Multics' directory creation paradigm, what with it's B2 rating and everything. Unix, Windows and OS/2 are just plain easy peasy lemon squeezy. ITS and MVS are straightforward, if arcane. I can't remember RSX or VMS. Tops-20 just really wants a candy wrapper to cover up all that nasty hair. On 7/6/2019 10:29 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > (And you could of course trace Unix back into Multics as well...) > > ? Johnny > > On 2019-07-07 04:06, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> Unix on PDP-7 is 1969. On a PDP-11, more or less 1970(ish). >> But I admit that I didn't fully think about TENEX, which I guess >> actually makes them about the same age. >> >> And yeah, mkdir is simpler. Creating a subdirectory in TOPS-20 is >> more complicated, but it isn't hell. :-) >> >> And everyone is always screaming for more disk, memory and CPU. >> Nothing new there... >> >> Also, yes, emulation makes it rather nice to run these old systems. >> Plenty of resources available (from their perspective). >> >> I have about 8GB of stuff on RSX here. Talk about wasting disk. :-) >> And that is by just using two disk drives... Such disks didn't even >> exist back then. And my network screams. ftp transfer from RSX at >> about 1.5MB/s, which is way more than the bandwidth of a Unibus, or >> even good old 10Mbit/s ethernet. >> (Not to mention I have a multiprocessor PDP-11/74...) >> >> Those are the moments when I really appreciate emulations... >> >> ?? Johnny >> >> >> On 2019-07-07 03:15, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >>> Yes, perhaps I wrote that poorly; my apologies.? Accounts and >>> directories are quite clearly separated; you can run Tops-20 without >>> _any_ accounts whatsoever.? PANDA does this as does the standard DEC >>> distribution.? We (Columbia) didn't because we had to do charge back >>> and sold time and you can use the account functionality to do some >>> nifty things, like set your scheduler class. >>> >>> We also had a RSTS/E System, running on a PDP-11/70 (possibly one of >>> the finest computers /ever///).? I don't remember what we were using >>> for DASD, but it wasn't RM03.? That was an white platter disk that I >>> remember remember mounting when we switching between RT-11, RSX and >>> a very early version of Unix on a PDP-11/40 in the CS lap at WPI. I >>> think maybe Columbia had something larger like an RP04.? Anyway, I >>> remember it being separate, whereas the RM03 is in the tower. We >>> sadly unplugged the RSTS system when we got our fourth 20.? The only >>> Basic that I ever saw that had RSTS muscle was on the DTSS. >>> >>> Doing sub-dirs on the 20 /is/ beautiful and there are features that >>> I appreciate today over everything else I've seen.? The grammar was >>> extremely well thought out.? But under the covers, if you had 20 to >>> 30 thousand users ids to run after and frequent turn over, you had >>> to write custom software to do the group management and id >>> creation.? I know, I wrote some of it. BUILD /is /dandy, but >>> consider all the confusing options you have to do get the access >>> right, viz: >>> >>> ??ABORT DEFAULT-FILE-PROTECTION DIRECTORY-GROUP FILES-ONLY >>> GENERATIONS KILL?????? LIST MAXIMUM-SUBDIRECTORIES >>> ??PASSWORD??? PERMANENT PROTECTION????????????? PUSH >>> ??SECURESUBDIRECTORY-USER-GROUPTOPS10-PROJECT-PROGRAMMER-NUMBER >>> USER-OF-GROUP WORKING >>> >>> See that PUSH command?? That's so you can go recursive when (not if) >>> something breaks and come back and try it again. Groups are far more >>> powerful than Unix's laughable excuse, but they are not >>> straightforward to implement as clash is not a bug, but rather a >>> feature.? And you can't just have a user of a group unless it's >>> allowed in the sub-directory user group. Get any of that wrong and >>> you just created a sub-directory that the user can't use and they're >>> ... not happy ... >>> >>> The quotas are just plain tedious because unless you set the magic >>> bit, you have to grab it from the superior and then guess how much >>> (which is never right) or ask the user (who has no idea or wants >>> everything).? And then you have to explain why SECURE isn't >>> necessary... >>> >>> And then there are all these other goofy things that they should >>> have just ditched and put into in ^ECREATE so your phone doesn't ring. >>> >>> ??ABSOLUTE-INTERNET-SOCKETS ACCOUNT-DEFAULT?? ADMINISTRATOR >>> ARCHIVE-ONLINE-EXPIRED-FILES >>> ??CHARGE-LIMITED???? CONFIDENTIAL????? DECNET-ACCESS DISABLE >>> ??ENABLE???? ENQ-DEQ?????????? EXPIRATION-OF-PASSWORDEXPIRE >>> ??FROZEN???????????????????? INTERNET-ACCESS INTERNET-WIZARD???? IPCF >>> ??MAINTENANCE MUST-RUN-PROGRAM NUMBEROFFLINE-EXPIRATION-DEFAULT >>> ??ONLINE-EXPIRATION-DEFAULTOPERATOR PRESERVE REPEAT-LOGIN-MESSAGES >>> ??SEMI-OPERATOR WHEEL >>> >>> This is visible list and t it guarantees your phone rings because if >>> they try the BUILD and of them, it will break.? As a matter of fact, >>> except for a very limited subset (which does not include creating >>> sub-directories), it is going to break. So that's fine if you feel >>> like chatting, but it's almost never a short call. >>> >>> ??? Why isn't secure /secure/? >>> ???? ??? Because our ACJ doesn't need enable the hooks. >>> ??? Why? >>> ???? ??? Because we don't need them. >>> ??? Well, shouldn't */I/* be secure? >>> ???? ??? Yes, you should be... I mean, you are.? (he sighs) >>> >>> And, my favorite: >>> >>> ??? What's a WHEEL?? >>> ???? ??? "Blessed are they who run around in circles" (he begins >>> intoning) >>> ??? /??/ >>> ???? ??? "For they shall be known as Wheels" (he finishes intoning) >>> ??? /????/ >>> ???? ??? It means you have complete unfettered and limited system >>> ??? access.? Beyond root or administrator. >>> ??? Oh!!? Well I should have that. >>> ???? ??? Indeed?? Why? >>> ??? Because my: (pick one) >>> >>> ???? 1. Thesis Advisor >>> ???? 2. Dean >>> ???? 3. Manager >>> ???? 4. Mother >>> ???? 5. Spiritual Advisor >>> ???? 6. Boyfriend >>> ???? 7. Dog >>> >>> ??? thinks I should... >>> >>> ???? ??? And yet I remain unconvinced. However, don't let that stop >>> them >>> ??? from hiring you. >>> >>> Now, let's compare that whole saga with the effortlessness of mkdir >>> or md--boom you're done and no phone call.? Of course you have a >>> point that BUILD isn't *that* hard in theory. However, in practice >>> as compared with the former two, was a serious pain in the ass and I >>> think it annoying in this day and age.? It was that complicated >>> because it had to be because of the huge user populations. >>> >>> Yes, we had bunches of disks, too; we had at least one RP07, a >>> number of RA81's on an HSC50 (clustered) and I believe something on >>> the order of 20 RP06's (I'd have to look at my copy of the machine >>> room diagram), 8 tape drives to back everything up and printers and >>> ...? Remember that population? It still wasn't enough.? It's one >>> thing to write a small program for an introductory class, but when >>> you really start getting on it; writing papers, simulators or >>> compilers.? You just swallow disk space and that's before you even >>> talk about anything remotely approaching multimedia, which was >>> unthinkable. >>> >>> Perhaps the following example is illustrative: In order to validate >>> my FTP server, I needed some 'decent' sized data sets--things I >>> could look at and immediately notice any obvious problems.? So I >>> downloaded some of my favorite Sherlock Holmes and Oscar Wilde >>> novels from Project Gutenberg along with some other goodies.? All >>> told, over 9,000 pages. >>> >>> Now, let's suppose you wanted to do a longitudinal textual analysis >>> of stylistic changes in Abraham Lincoln's speeches. It is >>> instructive to compare the first and second inaugural addresses >>> using the Gettysburg address as a linking document. Well, that's 12 >>> pages right there before you've written anything, over 10% of your >>> quota.? We were always screaming for more disk.? And CPU.? And memory. >>> >>> My KLH10 is over 200 times faster than a KL and I have 5 RP07's, >>> with one piggy user (me), two medium users (my wife and brother) and >>> some assorted guests.? If you compare that with a KL10B with 70 >>> signed on and 20,000 trying to sign on, you can see why those disk >>> drives simply weren't enough. Nothing but a 3850 would have been and >>> we weren't allowed to use that.? We have one holding the 1980 >>> census, the equivalent of 4,720 RP06's (on the order of a >>> terabyte).? There was a lot of drooling on the floor, but it was >>> dedicated to research. >>> >>> I wasn't aware that Unix was older than Tops-20. ? What basis do you >>> have for making this statement?? I had though it younger.? The >>> initial Unix release date is November 3, 1971 whereas TENEX came on >>> the air in June 15, 1970, more than a year beforehand. >>> Unfortunately, I don't have my Bell System Technical Journals handy >>> (still in boxes), so I don't immediately recall the period between >>> Bell pulling the plug on Multics and Thompson began playing with >>> that cast off PDP-7. Clearly however, BBN was working on TENEX in >>> the late 1960's and sold the page box as a commercial product. >>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> On 7/5/2019 3:40 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, accounts and directories are not clearly separated things >>>> under TOPS-20, as you yourself noted. >>>> And disk quotas were annoying to deal with. >>>> >>>> Back around the same time, I was using RSTS/E at school, and there >>>> you had disk quotas too, and no subdirectories. Also, the default >>>> quota was 20 blocks (10 Kbyte). Felt quite acceptable at the time. >>>> One RM03 for four schools sharing one PDP-11/70. >>>> >>>> But creating directories under TOPS-20 was not *that* hard. There >>>> was the BUILD command, which sorted out most things rather simply. >>>> But I don't know how you'd do it programmatically. >>>> >>>> The fact that you could have sub-users on the other hand was one of >>>> the most beautiful things of TOPS-20. And it implicitly already >>>> gave you groups. At university, each course there was a user, and >>>> all students were sub-user to that, belonging thus to the same >>>> group. Managed by the teacher, who had the parent account. >>>> >>>> As for maximum disk, well... You could have RP07 disks. At half a >>>> gig, that was pretty decent. Each of our -2060 had one RP07. And >>>> one had one RP06, while the other one had three RP06 drives. >>>> >>>> And Unix is older than TOPS-20, and ran on more limited resources, >>>> and still handled subdirectories and quotas cleaner. So I don't >>>> think it's fair to just blame old age or limited resources. A >>>> PDP-10 had vast resources compared to many other things... >>>> >>>> ? Johnny >>>> >>>> On 2019-07-05 20:57, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >>>>> Oh, it's something beyond annoying, but it's not the accounting >>>>> system confounding you; that can be completely disabled (I have it >>>>> off on my systems). The policy is actually built into the Tops-20 >>>>> file system itself. >>>>> >>>>> Directories under Tops-20 are vastly different--both in concept >>>>> and implementation--from anything else that I've seen (and I did a >>>>> lot of research into file system design at one particular job). >>>>> Directory creation is cumbersome, typically requiring expert level >>>>> intervention or significant programming.? However, it's whaay >>>>> better than what Tops-10 had at the time (nothing), ITS (don't >>>>> ask), WAITS (nothing) or MVS (partitioned data sets, a true hack). >>>>> >>>>> Create a directory under Unix? mkdir.? Easyn? peasy. Windows? md, >>>>> unless you are running quotas.? Also no heavy lift. >>>>> >>>>> Tops-20 got more and more complex.? In addition to having to take >>>>> quota away from the superior and hand it over to the >>>>> sub-directory, unless you are running PANDA modifications, you >>>>> have to create an access group and allocate it or the poor user >>>>> can't see his own sub-directory. ? Group management can be >>>>> confusing if you are running super-domestic structures and >>>>> downright tedious for regular structures, otherwise.? There was >>>>> more; Yeesh... ? Instead of trying to check for every possible >>>>> problem beforehand, it was sometimes easier to catch errors from >>>>> the CRDIR%, go recursive and modify the superior (and on up). >>>>> >>>>> You can defeat some of this.? Setting CD%NSQ will cause CRDIR% to >>>>> no update the the superior, but you need rights to do it.? I >>>>> always thought that there was a better way to do this, perhaps >>>>> with an IPCF% based client/server application, coupled with some >>>>> changes to the access control job. >>>>> >>>>> Why all this hair?? Directories were considered precious >>>>> resources. Why would that be?? Consider what happens when you try >>>>> to fit (or cram) a user population of over 25,000 students onto >>>>> the triple 180 MB disk structures of the time (the maximum you >>>>> could do in 1980's). You get measly user permanent quotas of 100 >>>>> pages (250KB), working of 1,000.? Not much. >>>>> >>>>> It's a vastly different world now.? So Tops-20 needs a mkdir, but >>>>> that would need to talk to a privileged backend with policy and >>>>> directory creation smarts.? I think that would be pretty friendly; >>>>> definitely easier than trying to suss out BUILD or ^ECREATE. >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/4/2019 2:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The one annoying detail of the account system in TOPS-20 is that >>>>>> user disk quotas are on a per directory basis. So you have to >>>>>> manually move your disk quota around for your subdirectories. >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-07-04 04:01, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tops-20 is vastly different from Unix (and I believe also VMS) >>>>>>> as to how it manages user ids and accounts. Parts of the >>>>>>> authentication paradigm are very tightly woven into the the file >>>>>>> system.? Briefly, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? * A user id is a login-able directory (I.E., one that doesn't >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> ??? apassword and is not set FILES-ONLY).? In addition to basic OS >>>>>>> ??? restrictions which prevent you from viewing file system >>>>>>> meta-data >>>>>>> ??? unless you have appropriate authorization, an access control >>>>>>> job >>>>>>> ??? (ACJ) is layered on top of this which can even restrict >>>>>>> ??? privileged users. >>>>>>> ? * Accounts are either validated out of a binary accounting >>>>>>> file in >>>>>>> ??? monitor space (which is compiled from ASCII source) or via the >>>>>>> ??? ACJ. ??? Accounts can have multiple users or systems processes >>>>>>> ??? (such as spoolers) creating billing records. Users can switch >>>>>>> ??? between accounts on a per-job, per-fork and intra-program basis >>>>>>> ??? (a program can decide to bill certain portions of its >>>>>>> activity to >>>>>>> ??? different accounts). >>>>>>> ? * The obvious benefit is that there is no password file to attack >>>>>>> ??? or steal and you can't even tell that there is an accounting >>>>>>> ??? file; probing passwords is monitored and a certain amount of >>>>>>> ??? intervention is done.? It is /extremely/ fast. No >>>>>>> /etc/passwd to >>>>>>> ??? grovel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, a deleterious side-effect is that once an id is >>>>>>> created, it can be used for _anything_, including online >>>>>>> interactive login. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On a PANDA monitor, is possible to specify a user id as >>>>>>> FTP-ONLY, but neither the supplied 5 series ACJ nor the EXEC do >>>>>>> anything with it.? Historically, the Tops-20 FTP server >>>>>>> implemented ANONYMOUS usage by parsing for the login user atom >>>>>>> ANONYMOUS and then swallowing anything for the password (what >>>>>>> was typically supplied was an email addresses). This was then >>>>>>> hardwired into a local id. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Artifacts of this still exist in certain browers. Guess who >>>>>>> supplies IEUSER@ as the email address password for ANONYOUS usage? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I recall that this is the approach that we had to use with >>>>>>> Tops-20 FAL.? The Extended? Mode FTP server that I wrote is >>>>>>> configurable via a file to specify the underlying id and >>>>>>> password.? More productization would probably including having >>>>>>> the ACJ enforce FTP-ONLY on LOGIN% or CRJOB% and having the EXEC >>>>>>> parse for and display FTP-ONLY.? Probably about two weeks' part >>>>>>> time work as I recall.? Might have to consider Batch policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One approach here could be to lift the ANONYMOUS code out of >>>>>>> EFTPSR and drop it into FAL and then do the changes to the ACJ >>>>>>> and EXEC. I'm just surprised none of the HECnet Tops-10 or >>>>>>> Tops-20 nerds have done it (there is some commonality in some of >>>>>>> the sources). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Tops-20 has a BLISS compiler which implements BLISS COMMON >>>>>>> (my first training at DEC as an employee was to write code that >>>>>>> would cross compile under VMS, RSX, Tops-10 and Tops-20).? I >>>>>>> think it might be useful to review some of the VMS DECnet >>>>>>> source, if any of that is available.? It might be possible to >>>>>>> lift some functionality, which could be fun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does the VMS hobbiest license get you source code? >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2019 7:21 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> VMS, as someone else mentioned, have a default account for FAL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RSX does not have that.? However, you can use proxy access in >>>>>>>> RSX to achieve something similar.? Enable incoming and outgoing >>>>>>>> proxy, and define a default account that incoming requests >>>>>>>> should be using that way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If TOPS-20 can do this I don't know.? But it's a suggestion for >>>>>>>> something else/more to check. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Johnny >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-07-03 14:15, Thomas DeBellis wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have some software that I'd like to post, but don't recall >>>>>>>>> how to configure FAL to allow for an anonymous connection; to >>>>>>>>> download from a restricted directory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know how to do it for the FTP server (seeing as I wrote it), >>>>>>>>> but ... different code base. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can only vaguely remember what we did for CCnet at Columbia >>>>>>>>> University in the 1980's, but I think it was kind of a hack. >>>> >>>> >> >

At one point, I do remember seeing certain VMS sources, but I don't recall the context.? It might have been when I was still with DEC.? I guess you can't even threaten to pay them to get any, huh?? Bummer...

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:17 PM John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt at thereinhardts.org <mailto:johnhreinhardt at thereinhardts.org>> wrote: On 7/5/2019 1:57 PM, Thomas DeBellis wrote: OpenVMS source is/was available for a price.? The price was *somewhat* lower if you were an employee.? As I was of HP between 2006 and 2008.? One of the last things I did when I knew I was being laid off on 31-Dec-2008 was order from internal sources a bunch of OpenVMS CD sets.? I got VAX V7.3,? AXP V8.2, V8.3, IA64 V8.2 and V8.3 source sets.? Cost me under $200 and I ordered a few other bits and pieces along with.? I imagine if you were non-HP/Compaq/DEC then the prices were much, much higher.? I wish I had been around when V8.4 came out but I wasn't.? I had a line on someone that had the V8.4 but it fell through. There is a great tool for processing those listings called CVTLIS.? Written by Hunter Goatley at Process Software.? You can find it here: http://vms.process.com/scripts/fileserv/fileserv_search.exe?package=cvtlis&… I'm pretty sure I made some changes to my local copy that recognises Compaq and HP C.? Nothing major, just names. Regards, Tim.