TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

16 participants
6536 discussions

[pups] PDP-11 hardware & software usage poll

by Fred N. van Kempen

Hi All, For those of you who don't follow alt.sys.pdp11: I set up a simple web page to start an inventory poll on the number and types of PDP-11 systems used by hobbyists, the operating systems in use on them, and what, if any, licenses are being used for those systems. All this has to do with the whole Mentec not having a license program for the PDP-11 R* operaing systems (RT, RSX and RSTS). After some discussion with Mentec, the site was set up to do the gathering of numbers so we can convince their Management that there are many systems in hobby use, and that there's enough people willing to aquire such a license. Please check out http://www.pdp11.nl/poll.htm and do your magic. None of the information provided will be transferred to anyone- only the summarized info will be made available in a report to Mentec - a copy of which you can request by requesting the 'feedbeck' stuff in the poll. Thanks, and spread the word ! Fred

22 years

[pups] LSI-11? And different versions of E-11

by Gregg C Levine

Hello from Gregg C Levine Here's a question. Does anyone on this list, know where I could obtain an LSI-11? Or even a Heathkit, H-11? And the other question, is: Has anyone gotten the different versions of E-11 to boot the operating systems that are available on the file server? These are versions that are stored on the file server itself. Older then 3.1 is what I am thinking of. For my first question, please reply directly to me. That is, only positive ones. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )

22 years

[TUHS] Ransom Love's Speech that claims SCO will "Add Components" to Linux Kernel To Make It Scale

by Kenneth Stailey

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/08.html __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

22 years

Comparing Linux code

by Jos� R. Valverde

Pardon me for posting not being a subscriber, I already subscribe to too many lists and I prefer to readd the archives at Minnie. I've used the procedures described in http://www.rickbradley.com/chron/20030619/ to compare the code in Linux with the code of Solaris. There are a few striking comments shared by .c files, some actually containing "jokes". However. Note that I'll NOT comment on anything I've seen in the Solaris code. I'll only talk of my own experience and what LINUX/BSD code says. Matches for [argh urg not set but urp changed a sensible implementation should n ever do this but rfc793 doesnt prohibit the change so we have to deal with it]: ***SOLARIS SOURCE ID REMOVED*** ./drivers/net/slhc.c Looks like the possible 'joke' shared code. Code inspection confirms. Linux code states that slhc code is (c) by BSD. 4.4BSD-Lite contains the code in ./sys/net/slcompress.c The same code appears first in 4.3BSD in the same file. This is NOT therefore SUN/ATT/SCO code, so I guess I can safely comment on it. This looks like one of those infamous source files from BSD whose copyright comments where stripped before the BSD/ATT lawsuit. SCO might preserve the original, pre-lawsuit ATT code (without the (c) notice) and _believe_ it to be theirs. Actually it makes sense in the UNIX sellout turmoil after the lawsuit that the BSD copyrights were forgotten to be merged back in the code. Should it be so, then perhaps SCO zealots did the so much aired comparison UNIX/Linux but did not care to check their own source code against BSD, thus slipping on this one? There is another source file which _might_ be contaminated, but I can't tell in which direction this might have happened. I won't venture breaking confidentiality agreements, but this I believe I can say: I know from experinece this file has suffered extense enhancements during the '90s, most of which were done by independent developers for Suns. The LINUX comments identify the author as an independent developer of world fame in the area indicating the routines were originally developed for SUN and DEC, so if SCO has any claims it might only be by "license contamination" (i.e. any independent addition must belong to me no matter how indirect because I say so). Actually it might be that Sun and DEC added the changes contributed to them and provided them back to the UNIX reference source. In that case, SCO will have a hard time to claim the code belongs to them and they are not stealing other people's contributed code. Furthermore, if they still claim it's theirs 'cos of license contamination, they will put a hard stress on UNIX vendors: in the '90s some vendors survived mainly because of specialized market niches (e.g. MBONE on Sun, graphics on SGI, etc..): everybody in some field would use the same system, users would contribute fixes to them, and this gave them an advantage. Now, if people see that contributing to any system will make them lose rights over their own code, in the future they won't tie themselves to any specific vendor, and vendors will lose the opportunity of taking advantage of specialized user groups to increase their competitivity. Now, imagine where would Sun be if they had never been able to differentiate themselves as, say, the 'dot com' company during the Internet boom. Were I SCO I'd think twice before hampering licensees ability to capitalize on market niche differentiations because of claims on independent, free code developed by _their_ users. All this, assuming, of course, these are the files in dispute. So far, and assuming these are the files, it mostly looks like external additions to SCO code that lost the original copyright references. It is understandable that SCO modern engineers ignore what happened before the ATT/BSD trial, or even ignore the original author of code reverted back by UNIX licensees, and that ignoring who wrote what, they may believe it is all theirs. But, if these were the files, they'll have a hard time. First for not checking correctly their claims (agains say, BSD code), second for not acknowledging nor keeping track of original authors of contributed code, and finally for claiming ownership of code that does not belong to them. Other files share some odd small comment, often it looks like pure chance, machine/vendor dependent code (probably not ATT/SCO therefore) or common sense, so I didn't investigate those any further. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural

22 years

Re: Re: RE: [TUHS] v6on286

by Steve Nickolas

>From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 05:37:09 -0700 (PDT) >To: Steve Nickolas <usagi.tsukino(a)pinku.zzn.com> >Subject: Re: RE: [TUHS] v6on286 >The README says: ><< The kernel makes heavy use of the special 286 protected mode >features >> >Try bochs set to be a 286. I figure that a Celeron is a superset of the 386 - ergo, of the 286 also - so there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe I'll do that though, it's safer in a sandbox. >I am wondering if Cygwin could be used to build the code. I see that >ancient C stuff like "=+" was eliminated already. !! I think if you converted the ASM to some other format, you could use Turbo C++ to build it, though...haven't tried that, I don't grok ASM. >Plus check this site out: > >http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml LOL, I have 6 working C compilers on the Windows/DOS side of my box already :) (Turbo C++ 1, Borland C++ 3, Watcom C 11, djgpp, MinGW32, Cygwin) -uso. kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito ___________________________________________________________ Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com

22 years

v6on286

by Steve Nickolas

I was finally able to download a good copy of v6on286 from minnie... I have Borland C++ 3.1, the existing version was built with 3.0. There are no binaries in the v6on286 package for the Unix itself, AFAICT, but I did get a successful MAKE. This is the weird thing, and I'm not sure if it's pilot error, the fact I'm running Windoze, or a glitch in the code. C:\UNIX>un Screen goes blank except for a block flashing cursor. The keyboard does not respond - not even the lights - indicating that the machine is either in a PM loop or completely hung. Has anyone had better luck than me? Or have I had better luck than everyone else (author excluded)? Thx. BTW...I wonder, could some old C compiler be bootstrapped on v6on286 and then V7 ported on it? -uso. kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito ___________________________________________________________ Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com

22 years

RE: [TUHS] v6on286

by Maciek Bieszczad

Ah, silly of me. If I used FTP, that could have saved a couple wasted hours compiling v6on286 :) -- Maciek (macbiesz(a)optonline.net) -----Original Message----- From: Warren Toomey [mailto:wkt@tuhs.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:25 PM To: Maciek Bieszczad Subject: Re: [TUHS] v6on286 ?! It's still here at ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Other/V6on286/ but I'm not sure why Apache hides the README when the same directory is viewed with http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Other/V6on286/, I'd better check that out. Warren

22 years

Re: [TUHS] OT: Patternless Encryption

by Carl Lowenstein

> From: "Joel Martinez" <president(a)coherent-logic.com> > To: <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> > Subject: Re: [TUHS] OT: Patternless Encryption > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:35:24 -0600 > > Is it possible to do this with a fixed length key? > > > Such a thing exists, it is called a one-time pad. Generate a > > completely random key as long as the plaintext, and then XOR each > > successive bit of the key with the corresponding bit of the plaintext. > > The result is indistinguishable from random noise; only someone with > > an identical copy of the key can decrypt it (using precisely the same > > method of course). For various degrees of security, depending on the length of the key. Keys are not used directly for encryption, but are used to generate cryptographically secure pseudo-random sequences. As a starting point, look at < http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/crypto/faq.htm > carl -- carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego clowenst(a)ucsd.edu

22 years

Re: [TUHS] OT: Patternless Encryption

by Carl Lowenstein

> X-From: mirian(a)trantor.cosmic.com (Mirian Crzig Lennox) > Subject: Re: [TUHS] OT: Patternless Encryption > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:29:59 +0000 (UTC) > > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:31:08 GMT, John P. Willis <jwillis(a)coherent-logic.com> wrote: > > > >Just curious to hear the opinions of the many wise people here... > >What is the likelihood of an encryption system in which the resulting data > >has no pattern, > > Such a thing exists, it is called a one-time pad. Generate a > completely random key as long as the plaintext, and then XOR each > successive bit of the key with the corresponding bit of the plaintext. > The result is indistinguishable from random noise; only someone with > an identical copy of the key can decrypt it (using precisely the same > method of course). > > > and one character of encrypted data may stand for many > >different characters when decrypted? > > Assuming you mean "one character of encrypted data might represent any > one of several different characters of plaintext" (not "one > character's worth of encrypted data represents multiple characters > worth of plaintext), this is indeed the effect of a one-time pad. > Just don't ever reuse that key; promptly destroy both copies after > use. > > --Mirian This is hardly the place for a long discussion on such topics, but one might want to look at the FAQ for the net news group sci.crypt. carl -- carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego clowenst(a)ucsd.edu

22 years

OT: Patternless Encryption

by John P. Willis

Just curious to hear the opinions of the many wise people here... What is the likelihood of an encryption system in which the resulting data has no pattern, and one character of encrypted data may stand for many different characters when decrypted?

22 years

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS