From brad at heeltoe.com Mon Mar 15 10:25:51 2004 From: brad at heeltoe.com (Brad Parker) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:25:51 -0500 Subject: [pups] ultrix-3.x install using simh? Message-ID: <200403150025.i2F0PpJ22311@mwave.heeltoe.com> Hi, Has anyone tried to install the ultrix-3.x distribution using simh? I hacked a little program to build a tape image. It boots fine. I told the ultrix install I wanted to install for an 11/34 on a RL02. It seems to install fine and then reboot on the RL02 but hang in the shell after the boot (see below). I know using an RL02 with an 34 is optimistic :-) it's just that what I have for actual hardware. any idea if this is an simh problem or an ultrix problem or user error? -brad output: ... ****** BOOTING ULTRIX-11 SYSTEM TO SINGLE-USER MODE ****** Sizing Memory... Boot: rl(0,0)unix (CTRL/C will abort auto-boot) rl(0,0)unix: 14784+17026+8192+8000+8064+8192+8128+8128+8128+8192+8192+8064+7744+ 6976 ULTRIX-11 Kernel V3.0 realmem = 253952 buffers = 25600 clists = 1600 usermem = 95232 maxumem = 95232 erase = delete, kill = ^U, intr = ^C From asmodai at ao.mine.nu Mon Mar 1 00:48:30 2004 From: asmodai at ao.mine.nu (Paul Ward) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:48:30 +0000 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <197818621475.20040229144830@ao.mine.nu> Wes ðu hal Wesley, On Sunday, February 29, 2004, 7:34:03 AM, ure freond feorran awrat: WP> I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about WP> the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU WP> (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name, WP> is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of WP> the Windows kernel and Win32 API. WP> The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of WP> the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley? If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and WP> Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people, WP> isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt? Found in "ls": Copyright (c) 1991, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Softway Systems Inc. $OpenBSD: strlen.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:19 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: strcpy.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:14 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: strncpy.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:22 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: strncmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:21 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: strlcpy.c,v 1.4 1999/05/01 18:56:41 millert Exp $ $OpenBSD: fts.c,v 1.15 1998/03/19 00:30:01 millert Exp $ $OpenBSD: strcmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:12 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: memset.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:07 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: strcat.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:10 tholo Exp $ $OpenBSD: memchr.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:04 tholo Exp $ There are a few OpenBSD CVS tags in libc.a as well. However, there are no BSD-style copyright notices in any of the header files, only this: $ pwd ; grep -i OpenBSD * /usr/include string.h:/* strncat(), strncpy() replacements from OpenBSD/FreeBsd */ This leads me to suspect that BSD isn't the base for libc or the include files. Maybe BSD is the base for /bin, /usr/bin etc. As SFU doesn't have a kernel, this is probably either based on Xenix, or some other companies attempt at a UNIX emulation layer (note the copyrights to Softway Systems Inc.) -- Best regards, Paul mailto:asmodai at ao.mine.nu From jsnader at ix.netcom.com Mon Mar 1 02:25:49 2004 From: jsnader at ix.netcom.com (Jon Snader) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:25:49 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <20040229075430.GD49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> <20040229075430.GD49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20040229162549.GA90365@ix.netcom.com> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 06:24:30PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from > OpenBSD. This sounds very unlikely to me. If it were the case, why > would they pay anything to SCO? > I have no idea whether Microsoft based SFU on OpenBSD or not, but the conventional wisdom on Groklaw, the SCOX Yahoo Finance Board, and similar domains that are following the SCO issue is that Microsoft's purchase of the license was a backdoor way of financing an attack on Linux. I don't whether that's true either, but it does provide an answer to your question. jcs From grog at lemis.com Mon Mar 1 09:28:10 2004 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:58:10 +1030 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <197818621475.20040229144830@ao.mine.nu> References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> <197818621475.20040229144830@ao.mine.nu> Message-ID: <20040229232810.GI49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> On Sunday, 29 February 2004 at 14:48:30 +0000, Paul Ward wrote: > Wes ðu hal Wesley, > > On Sunday, February 29, 2004, 7:34:03 AM, ure freond feorran awrat: > > WP> I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about > WP> the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU > WP> (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name, > WP> is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of > WP> the Windows kernel and Win32 API. > > WP> The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of > WP> the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley? If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and > WP> Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people, > WP> isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt? > > Found in "ls": > Copyright (c) 1991, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All > rights reserved. Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Softway Systems Inc. > > $OpenBSD: strlen.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:19 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: strcpy.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:14 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: strncpy.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:22 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: strncmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:21 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: strlcpy.c,v 1.4 1999/05/01 18:56:41 millert Exp $ > $OpenBSD: fts.c,v 1.15 1998/03/19 00:30:01 millert Exp $ > $OpenBSD: strcmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:12 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: memset.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:07 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: strcat.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:10 tholo Exp $ > $OpenBSD: memchr.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:04 tholo Exp $ > > There are a few OpenBSD CVS tags in libc.a as well. Hmm. In that case, Microsoft *is* abusing the OpenBSD license by not stating clearly that the code is derived in part from OpenBSD. Greg -- Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwall at kurtwerks.com Mon Mar 1 09:54:28 2004 From: kwall at kurtwerks.com (Kurt Wall) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:54:28 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <20040229162549.GA90365@ix.netcom.com> References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> <20040229075430.GD49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20040229162549.GA90365@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20040229235428.GV533@kurtwerks.com> In a 0.7K blaze of typing glory, Jon Snader wrote: > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 06:24:30PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > > The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from > > OpenBSD. This sounds very unlikely to me. If it were the case, why > > would they pay anything to SCO? > > > > I have no idea whether Microsoft based SFU on OpenBSD or not, but > the conventional wisdom on Groklaw, the SCOX Yahoo Finance Board, > and similar domains that are following the SCO issue is that Microsoft's > purchase of the license was a backdoor way of financing an attack on > Linux. I don't whether that's true either, but it does provide an > answer to your question. That was my initial thought, too. I decided that the idea that Microsfot would purchase a license as a business tactic was just too paranoid or perverse and lumped it in the same category as lining my hat with aluminum foil to disrupt the government's mind control experiments. Lately, I'm not so sure. If Ronald Reagan can call ketchup a vegetable, Bill Clinton can debate the meaning of the word "is", then Microsoft could well have purchased a license from SCO, insofar as the $10 or $20 million is pocket change for them. Kurt -- Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else -- unless it is an enemy. -- Albert Einstein From tuhs at rops.org Mon Mar 1 10:46:35 2004 From: tuhs at rops.org (Roger Willcocks) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 00:46:35 -0000 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz><197818621475.20040229144830@ao.mine.nu> <20040229232810.GI49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: <005701c3ff26$a6425130$2301a8c0@burton> > Hmm. In that case, Microsoft *is* abusing the OpenBSD license by not > stating clearly that the code is derived in part from OpenBSD. See Q306819 - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q306819 - Release Notes for Windows XP Contained in the Relnotes.htm File: ---snip--- This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Portions of this product are based in part on the work of the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Because Microsoft has included the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, software in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that accompanied such software: Copyright 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ---snip--- although I would question whether there's an acknowledgement in all related advertising materials... -- Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" To: "Paul Ward" Cc: "Wesley Parish" ; Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" To: "Paul Ward" Cc: "Wesley Parish" ; Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > From grog at lemis.com Mon Mar 1 10:53:42 2004 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:23:42 +1030 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <005701c3ff26$a6425130$2301a8c0@burton> References: <20040229232810.GI49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> <005701c3ff26$a6425130$2301a8c0@burton> Message-ID: <20040301005342.GR49757@wantadilla.lemis.com> On Monday, 1 March 2004 at 0:46:35 -0000, Roger Willcocks wrote: >> Hmm. In that case, Microsoft *is* abusing the OpenBSD license by not >> stating clearly that the code is derived in part from OpenBSD. > > See Q306819 - > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q306819 - Release > Notes for Windows XP Contained in the Relnotes.htm File: > > ---snip--- > This product includes software developed by the University of California, > Berkeley and its contributors. > > ... > ---snip--- > > although I would question whether there's an acknowledgement in all > related advertising materials... I suspect that that's sufficient. The advertising clause has always been a bone of contention. Greg -- Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Mon Mar 1 18:52:15 2004 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:52:15 +1300 Subject: [TUHS] As of this moment ... Message-ID: <200403012152.15627.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> I am a bona fide BSD user, running 4.3BSD Quasijarus0c on my copy of the SIMH VAX. (Mind you - just to set the cat amongst the pigeons - running on my Linux box ... :-) Thanks to everybody for all your help. It's been greatly appreciated. -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people." From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Tue Mar 2 18:25:27 2004 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:25:27 +1300 Subject: [TUHS] Just a bit of (Intel BSD) history Message-ID: <200403022125.27722.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Michael Sokolov, I notice you're quite fond of the 4.3BSD family, and regard it as the One True Un*x. If you'll go to http://masalai.free.fr/386BSD.tar.gz, you'll find Bill Jolitz's 386BSD 1.0 - mostly the source code. (I've also got the 386BSD 0.0 source files on my machine - about a decade after I almost got them downloaded but decided not to because Linux was marginally cheaper in terms of disk numbers. I'll have to mount them loopback and copy the files off them.) And perhaps it can be placed with the other 4.3BSD family members in the appropriate minnie.tuhs directory, Warren? -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people." From wkt at tuhs.org Tue Mar 2 18:32:22 2004 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:32:22 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Just a bit of (Intel BSD) history In-Reply-To: <200403022125.27722.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> References: <200403022125.27722.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <20040302083222.GA78955@minnie.tuhs.org> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:25:27PM +1300, Wesley Parish wrote: > Michael Sokolov, I notice you're quite fond of the 4.3BSD family, and regard > it as the One True Un*x. > > If you'll go to http://masalai.free.fr/386BSD.tar.gz, you'll find Bill > Jolitz's 386BSD 1.0 - mostly the source code. (I've also got the 386BSD 0.0 > source files on my machine - about a decade after I almost got them > downloaded but decided not to because Linux was marginally cheaper in terms > of disk numbers. I'll have to mount them loopback and copy the files off > them.) > > And perhaps it can be placed with the other 4.3BSD family members in the > appropriate minnie.tuhs directory, Warren? It's at ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/BSD and I suppose I should move these into the archive. Warren From kstailey at yahoo.com Sat Mar 6 00:08:02 2004 From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 06:08:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [TUHS] FWD: Is SCO beneficial? Message-ID: <20040305140802.52568.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com> SCO's whole story is just TOO bizarre... (Score:3, Interesting) by cozziewozzie (344246) on Friday March 05, @08:24AM (#8474219) I mean, who could have thought of a worse, more stupid way to piss off the whole tech sector and drive yourself into bankruptcy. The more I think about it, the more this strange idea develops that SCO (Caldera) is actually doing all this rubbish to help the Linux community. OK, it is way out there, but in some perverted way, it makes sense. First of all, you have a Linux company (Caldera) who, despite their best efforts, has trouble staying afloat. At this time, there is no corporate support for Linux, the big vendors are running away from it, and the "GPL has never been tested in court" is touted as an argument all over the place. Big UNIX vendors only see Linux as a way to get people into their more proprietary solutions. So, Caldera buys out a UNIX vendor and does the most ridiculous thing imaginable: sues everybody, proclaims that Linux is communist and all that bullshit. Fast forward to the current situation: IBM, HP, Novell and other big players are squarely behind Linux and protecting it. Microsoft is exposed as a greedy monopolist who uses underhand tactics (yet again). GPL gets tested in court and it is under such circumstances that guarantee a strong precedent in GPL's favour. The UNIX heritage is cleared once and for all. Linux wins, in a BSD fashion, and is free from corporate FUD. And who pays the bill? Greedy investors. This could turn out the be the best thing for the corporate image of Linux ever. --- Join the Society Against Raping the Word "Definitely". __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From ljb at merit.edu Sat Mar 6 01:40:14 2004 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: 05 Mar 2004 10:40:14 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Message-ID: <1078501214.3788.20.camel@ablate.merit.edu> On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 02:34, Wesley Parish wrote: > I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about > the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU > (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name, > is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of > the Windows kernel and Win32 API. > > The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of > the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley? If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and > Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people, > isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt? > > This isn't definite, of course - some details I'm not sure of. But I think if > this is so, we have some very interesting few years to look forward to. Microsoft and SCO have been very coy about what it is that Microsoft actually licensed. I believe the closest they have come to explaining it can be found in a Byte interview by Trevor Marshall -- http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html where Chris Sontag of SCO is quoted as saying that Microsoft merely licensed an "applications interface layer." I take this to mean they are probably talking about header files like errno.h, signal.h, etc. I believe that Microsoft development products have iterations of these and they only have Microsoft copyright notices in them (no AT&T or BSD notices). SFU would have them as well, although I'm not sure what copyright notices are on those. SCO claims that the lack of a copyright notices violates the USL vs. BSDi settlement. Of course, this claim is extremely tenuous (since Microsoft's headers files origination likely predates the settlement and were derived independently from public sources). In the end, I strongly suspect this was a way for Microsoft to funnel money to SCO to attack Linux as opposed to Microsoft claims of "respecting Intellectual Property Rights." From jcapp at anteil.com Sat Mar 6 01:50:22 2004 From: jcapp at anteil.com (Jim Capp) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:50:22 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License In-Reply-To: <1078501214.3788.20.camel@ablate.merit.edu> References: <200402292034.03414.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> <1078501214.3788.20.camel@ablate.merit.edu> Message-ID: <20040305155022.GA24027@anteil.com> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 10:40:14AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > Microsoft and SCO have been very coy about what it is that Microsoft > actually licensed. I believe the closest they have come to explaining > it can be found in a Byte interview by Trevor Marshall -- > http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html > where Chris Sontag of SCO is quoted as saying that Microsoft merely > licensed an "applications interface layer." > > I take this to mean they are probably talking about header files > like errno.h, signal.h, etc. I believe that Microsoft development > products have iterations of these and they only have Microsoft copyright > notices in them (no AT&T or BSD notices). SFU would have them > as well, although I'm not sure what copyright notices are on those. > SCO claims that the lack of a copyright notices violates the USL vs. > BSDi settlement. Of course, this claim is extremely tenuous (since > Microsoft's headers files origination likely predates the settlement > and were derived independently from public sources). > > In the end, I strongly suspect this was a way for Microsoft to funnel > money to SCO to attack Linux as opposed to Microsoft claims of > "respecting Intellectual Property Rights." > I think it's very odd that Microsoft would need a license from SCO at all. Isn't it true that before there was SCO, there was Microsoft XENIX? I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would have divested itself of all rights in XENIX (including the headers above) when spinning off SCO. From zme at hush.ai Sat Mar 6 07:36:39 2004 From: zme at hush.ai (zme at hush.ai) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:36:39 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft,SCO,and a certain License Message-ID: <200403052136.i25LadIo096256@mailserver1.hushmail.com> I find it interesting how Microsoft's name seems to pop up in Unix software. There are quite a few times when Microsoft's name appears on the same line as SCO's. $ strings svr4.tar | grep -i microsoft | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn [output attached] -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: microsoft.txt URL: From grog at lemis.com Sat Mar 6 09:38:42 2004 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 10:08:42 +1030 Subject: [TUHS] Microsoft,SCO,and a certain License In-Reply-To: <200403052136.i25LadIo096256@mailserver1.hushmail.com> References: <200403052136.i25LadIo096256@mailserver1.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <20040305233842.GP67801@wantadilla.lemis.com> On Friday, 5 March 2004 at 13:36:39 -0800, zme at hush.ai wrote: > I find it interesting how Microsoft's name seems to pop up in Unix software. > There are quite a few times when Microsoft's name appears on the same > line as SCO's. > > $ strings svr4.tar | grep -i microsoft | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > > [output attached] > > ?? ^@ ^@ ^@ ^@1^@7^@8^@ ^@/^@*^@ ^@C^@o^@p^@y^@r^@i^@g^@h^@t^@ ^@(^@c^@)^@ ^@1^@9^@8^@7^@,^@ ^@1^@9^@8^@8^@ ^@M^@i^@c^@r^@o^@s^@o^@f^@t^@ ^@C^@o^@r^@p^@o^@r^@a^@t^@i^@o^@n^@ ^@*^@/^@ ^@ > ^@ ^@ ^@ ^@ ^@1^@7^@0^@ ^@/^@*^@ ^@T^@h^@i^@s^@ ^@M^@o^@d^@u^@l^@e^@ ^@c^@o^@n^@t^@a^@i^@n^@s^@ ^@P^@r^@o^@p^@r^@i^@e^@t^@a^@r^@y^@ ^@I^@n^@f^@o^@r^@m^@a^@t^@i^@o^@n^@ ^@o^@f^@ ^@M^@i^@c^@r^@o^@s^@o^@f^@t^@ ^@ ^@*^@/^@ ^@ Is this unicode? It would look better converted: > 178 /* Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation */ > 170 /* This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft */ > 63 / Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation > 53 # Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation > 47 / This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 41 # This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 16 / This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 13 # This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 10 * The Santa Cruz Operation, Microsoft Corporation SVR4 contains XENIX compatibility code. XENIX was written for Microsoft by SCO. > 6 #ifdef MICROSOFT > 6 * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987. > 3 Copyright (C) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.\nAll Rights Reserved\n", > 3 /* This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft */ > 2 mcs -a "@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp." unix > 2 echo " This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft" > 2 echo " Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation" > 2 * request from a node that wants to talk Microsoft's MS-NET Core > 2 Copyright (C) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp. > 1 echo " This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft" > 1 echo " Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation" > 1 0 short 0x206 Microsoft a.out > 1 0 short 0x140 old Microsoft 8086 x.out > 1 0 long 0x140 old Microsoft 8086 x.out > 1 0 byte 0x80 8086 relocatable (Microsoft) > 1 /* This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft */ > 1 /* Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation */ > 1 ** modified by Hans Spiller, Microsoft to handle \r better July 23, 82 > 1 * This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 1 * Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation > 1 * This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 1 * Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation > 1 #define V86VI_MOUSE 0x00000020 /* Microsoft mouse */ > 1 # This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 1 # Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation > 1 * Definitions for Lotus/Intel/Microsoft Expanded Memory Emulation > 1 * some extension are requested to consult with Microsoft to see > 1 * made a part of standard OS. Microsoft feels that this is > 1 * Microsoft's policy is to minimize the incompatibilities between > 1 * This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft > 1 * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1984-7. > 1 * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1983 > 1 * 7-05-85 Rich Patterson Added support for Microsoft > 1 * 6-20-85 Rich Patterson Added support for Microsoft > 1 signal (SIGFPE,bswap_sig); /* needed if fp is microsoft */ > 1 cmn_err(CE_CONT, "Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.\n"); > 1 MS-DOS is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation > 1 Copyright (C) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp > 1 * CAVEAT: Microsoft changed rename for Microsoft C V3.0. Greg -- Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Sat Mar 6 08:01:09 2004 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 11:01:09 +1300 Subject: [TUHS] making VAX disk file images Message-ID: <200403061101.09485.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> I've got OpenVMS 7.3 and am planning on installing it under the SIMH/TS10 VAX. How do I go about making disk file images? None of the SIMH/TS10 files seem to include a Linux utility for making such a creature - does anyone have any pointers? Thanks -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people." From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Mon Mar 8 21:01:55 2004 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:01:55 +1300 Subject: [TUHS] making VAX disk file images Message-ID: <200403090001.55544.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> Thanks to everybody who replied. And thanks to Markus Weber for pointing me to http://www.wherry.com/gadgets/retrocomputing/vax-simh.html I've got OpenVMS 7.3 installed now, I just haven't got it fully setup. That makes me a user of, let's see, how many Operating Systems? And I used to think being able to install MS-DOS 5.0 was a mark of the fully-capable and highly-skilled computer-user! <(;^) (Took me ages to work out I needed to fdisk the C: partition to install OS/2 2.0; SLS Linux 0.99pl?? took ages to work out how to make partitions _and_ file systems, and I was nowhere near game enough to try extfs; Maybe I'm getting there - or at least, somewhere! ;) -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people." From arnold at skeeve.com Wed Mar 10 19:17:49 2004 From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:17:49 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] so MS is behind SCO Message-ID: <200403100917.i2A9HnUE020368@skeeve.com> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html 'nuff said. --Arnold From kstailey at yahoo.com Wed Mar 10 23:54:55 2004 From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:54:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [TUHS] so MS is behind SCO In-Reply-To: <200403100917.i2A9HnUE020368@skeeve.com> Message-ID: <20040310135455.20867.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=SCOX&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=rhat --- Aharon Robbins wrote: > http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html > > 'nuff said. --Arnold > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From grog at lemis.com Thu Mar 11 09:11:27 2004 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:41:27 +1030 Subject: [TUHS] so MS is behind SCO In-Reply-To: <20040310135455.20867.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200403100917.i2A9HnUE020368@skeeve.com> <20040310135455.20867.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040310231127.GE87996@wantadilla.lemis.com> On Wednesday, 10 March 2004 at 5:54:55 -0800, Kenneth Stailey wrote: > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=SCOX&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=rhat A more interesting chart is http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=rhat . It looks as if nobody's taking SCO too seriously any more, not even the market. Greg -- Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kstailey at yahoo.com Thu Mar 11 09:50:29 2004 From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:50:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [TUHS] so MS is behind SCO In-Reply-To: <20040310231127.GE87996@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20040310235029.46890.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> --- Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 March 2004 at 5:54:55 -0800, Kenneth Stailey wrote: > > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=SCOX&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=rhat > > A more interesting chart is > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=rhat . It > looks as if nobody's taking SCO too seriously any more, not even the > market. > > Greg > -- Back when they were just sueing IBM they appeared more legitimate to someone who could not understand the techinical aspects. Now that they are sueing everybody and losing money doing it they're bonafide cranks. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From kstailey at yahoo.com Tue Mar 16 04:09:10 2004 From: kstailey at yahoo.com (Kenneth Stailey) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:09:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [TUHS] BSD family tree with Quasijarus in it Message-ID: <20040315180910.76757.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> I found this while playing with AmphetaDesk for the very first time. http://www.tribug.org/img/bsd-family-tree.gif Offhand I think the very top of the graphic is terribly misleading. It insinuates that UNIX is derived from Multics. It would be just as true to say it was derived from Project Genie or to say that Linux is derived from UNIX. They are independant systems with similarities, nothing more. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com