From lm at bitmover.com Thu Sep 20 12:20:17 2007 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:20:17 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? Message-ID: <20070920022017.GE29956@bitmover.com> Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape? I'm looking for the lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc. I was pretty focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code that could port easily. These days nobody cares about that stuff but I'd like a copy of those lint libs. If you don't get why think about how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long. Thanks, --lm From steve at quintile.net Thu Sep 20 17:45:46 2007 From: steve at quintile.net (Steve Simon) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:45:46 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] cfront Message-ID: Cfront has been released as historic source by AT&T, though I haven't found the license, the code is here: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/c_plus_plus I am currently trying to awaken Cfront 3.03 - more an issue of understanding it than repairing bitrot. If anyone has any bugifxes or additional tools for cfront they would be willing to share I would be very interested. I will post again if/when I get it all to work. Thanks -Steve From asbesto at freaknet.org Thu Sep 20 17:58:49 2007 From: asbesto at freaknet.org (asbesto) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:58:49 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070920022017.GE29956@bitmover.com> References: <20070920022017.GE29956@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20070920075849.GD28343@freaknet.org> Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 07:20:17PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape? I'm looking for the > lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc. I was pretty > focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code > that could port easily. These days nobody cares about that stuff but > I'd like a copy of those lint libs. If you don't get why think about > how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long. maybe we can help us - let me search for this :) but - what about licensing ? those OLD operating systems are already covered by licenses :( -- [ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ] From andreww at datanet.ab.ca Thu Sep 20 23:48:29 2007 From: andreww at datanet.ab.ca (Andrew Warkentin) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:48:29 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> Message-ID: <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> lm at bitmover.com wrote: >Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape? I'm looking for the >lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc. I was pretty >focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code >that could port easily. These days nobody cares about that stuff but >I'd like a copy of those lint libs. If you don't get why think about >how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long. > >Thanks, > >--lm >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > > Old versions of SunOS from 2.0 to 4.1.1for Sun 2, 3, and 3x can be found at http://www.sun3arc.org and http://www.soupwizard.com/sun2/ From asbesto at freaknet.org Fri Sep 21 03:22:53 2007 From: asbesto at freaknet.org (asbesto) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:22:53 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:48:29AM -0600, Andrew Warkentin wrote: > >that could port easily. These days nobody cares about that stuff but > >I'd like a copy of those lint libs. If you don't get why think about > >how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long. > Old versions of SunOS from 2.0 to 4.1.1for Sun 2, 3, and 3x can be found > at http://www.sun3arc.org and http://www.soupwizard.com/sun2/ AH! and - what about their licenses ? are they free to use/install ? -- [ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ] From tfb at tfeb.org Sat Sep 22 00:44:59 2007 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:44:59 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> Message-ID: <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> On 20 Sep 2007, at 18:22, asbesto wrote: > > and - what about their licenses ? are they free to use/install ? > From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a license to run SunOS. This possibly applies only to smaller machines - certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors. Obviously that's not true any more. Of course you should check the license. --tim From cowan at ccil.org Sat Sep 22 00:58:06 2007 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:58:06 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> Message-ID: <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> Tim Bradshaw scripsit: > From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a > license to run SunOS. This possibly applies only to smaller machines > - certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra > licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors. > Obviously that's not true any more. The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same as an open source license). > Of course you should check the license. There's nothing to check -- in those days SunOS didn't come with a machine-readable license. -- LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan thou hast given away: cowan at ccil.org That thou wast born with. From asbesto at freaknet.org Sat Sep 22 02:41:12 2007 From: asbesto at freaknet.org (asbesto) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:41:12 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:58:06AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a > > license to run SunOS. This possibly applies only to smaller machines > > - certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra > > licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors. > > Obviously that's not true any more. > > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same > as an open source license). and ... what for older versions of SLOWlaris ? :) p.s. why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will always reply to the sender, not to the list :( -- [ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ] From cowan at ccil.org Sat Sep 22 02:46:29 2007 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:46:29 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> Message-ID: <20070921164629.GR26549@mercury.ccil.org> asbesto scripsit: > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will > always reply to the sender, not to the list :( http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto -- John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson From tfb at tfeb.org Sat Sep 22 02:48:50 2007 From: tfb at tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:48:50 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote: > > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same > as an open source license). I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun still have it?) > >> Of course you should check the license. > > There's nothing to check -- in those days SunOS didn't come > with a machine-readable license. I think I meant "ask someone at Sun", or rather: "don't take assume this is correct, but ask Sun if you care". I was just trying to absolve myself of responsibility, basically. --tim From cowan at ccil.org Sat Sep 22 03:12:36 2007 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:12:36 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> Message-ID: <20070921171235.GS26549@mercury.ccil.org> Tim Bradshaw scripsit: > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > still have it?) There are places where it can be found, he said darkly. > I think I meant "ask someone at Sun", or rather: "don't take assume > this is correct, but ask Sun if you care". I was just trying to > absolve myself of responsibility, basically. That was tried, but nobody at Sun would take responsibility, until finally someone at Sun Germany said "Okay to use it for non-commercial use". -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie From imp at bsdimp.com Sat Sep 22 03:14:35 2007 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:14:35 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> References: <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> Message-ID: <20070921.111435.-108811893.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org> Tim Bradshaw writes: : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote: : : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same : > as an open source license). : : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun : still have it?) SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be difficult at best. Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now). Warner From asbesto at freaknet.org Sat Sep 22 03:22:02 2007 From: asbesto at freaknet.org (asbesto) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:22:02 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921164629.GR26549@mercury.ccil.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> <20070921164629.GR26549@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <20070921172202.GB12148@freaknet.org> Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:46:29PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will > > always reply to the sender, not to the list :( > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto AH. So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that don't use Reply-To :D OK :) -- [ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ] From imp at bsdimp.com Sat Sep 22 03:29:42 2007 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:29:42 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921172202.GB12148@freaknet.org> References: <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> <20070921164629.GR26549@mercury.ccil.org> <20070921172202.GB12148@freaknet.org> Message-ID: <20070921.112942.43008475.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <20070921172202.GB12148 at freaknet.org> asbesto writes: : Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:46:29PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: : : > > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will : > > always reply to the sender, not to the list :( : > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto : : AH. : : So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that : don't use Reply-To :D : : OK :) All the FreeBSD lists lack a reply-to field. It is actually quite common. Warner From brantley at coraid.com Sat Sep 22 03:30:23 2007 From: brantley at coraid.com (Brantley Coile) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:30:23 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921.111435.-108811893.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693@coraid.com> BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III or System V license. The ancient Unix license would be fine for that. Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from System III and System V. To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license, which covers 32V and earlier. Berkeley never had a liscense for anything later than 32V. > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org> > Tim Bradshaw writes: > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote: > : > : > > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same > : > as an open source license). > : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > : still have it?) > > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be > difficult at best. > > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now). > > Warner > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From sethm at loomcom.com Sat Sep 22 03:23:26 2007 From: sethm at loomcom.com (Seth Morabito) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:23:26 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:41 AM, asbesto wrote: > p.s. > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will > always reply to the sender, not to the list :( Be careful! Only the great emacs vs. vi wars have caused more death and destruction than the debate over mailing list reply-to! [ob-smiley: ;) ] -Seth From brantley at coraid.com Sat Sep 22 03:47:55 2007 From: brantley at coraid.com (Brantley Coile) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:47:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <86cb4a106d02f5264369d8654df70fa1@coraid.com> A worthy warning. For those of us with more gray hair, the Unix/VMS battles of 1983 were very bloody. > On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:41 AM, asbesto wrote: >> p.s. >> why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will >> always reply to the sender, not to the list :( > > Be careful! Only the great emacs vs. vi wars have caused more death > and destruction than the debate over mailing list reply-to! > > [ob-smiley: ;) ] > > -Seth > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs From imp at bsdimp.com Sat Sep 22 04:24:19 2007 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:24:19 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693@coraid.com> References: <20070921.111435.-108811893.imp@bsdimp.com> <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693@coraid.com> Message-ID: <20070921.122419.1159135324.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693 at coraid.com> Brantley Coile writes: : BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III : or System V license. The ancient Unix license would be fine for that. : Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from : System III and System V. : : To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license, : which covers 32V and earlier. Berkeley never had a liscense : for anything later than 32V. True. When Sun took BSD 4.2, it had to buy a license from AT&T to distribute. With that license came the System V streams stuff, which Sun included in SunOS 4. There was much other technology from other third parties in SunOS. Just doing an audit of what came from where would be expensive and time consuming... It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix license or not given the code's derivation history. I don't know what their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate. Again, another topic for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver. Warner : > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org> : > Tim Bradshaw writes: : > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote: : > : : > : > : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't : > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same : > : > as an open source license). : > : : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun : > : still have it?) : > : > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of : > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because : > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be : > difficult at best. : > : > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still : > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for : > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now). : > : > Warner : > _______________________________________________ : > TUHS mailing list : > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : : _______________________________________________ : TUHS mailing list : TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org : https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs : : From asbesto at freaknet.org Sat Sep 22 05:11:06 2007 From: asbesto at freaknet.org (asbesto) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:11:06 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921.112942.43008475.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20070921164111.GA11393@freaknet.org> <20070921164629.GR26549@mercury.ccil.org> <20070921172202.GB12148@freaknet.org> <20070921.112942.43008475.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <20070921191106.GA14001@freaknet.org> Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:29:42AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto > : So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that > : don't use Reply-To :D > : OK :) > > All the FreeBSD lists lack a reply-to field. It is actually quite > common. ahahahah! :) I will *not* start a flame war on this list, please! :) -- [ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab] [ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ] [ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ] [ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ] From aek at bitsavers.org Sat Sep 22 08:33:18 2007 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:33:18 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] mini-unix distribution tape recovered Message-ID: <46F446AE.4040102@bitsavers.org> I beleive I have sucessfully read a Dec, 1979 mini-unix distribution tape yesterday evening. I've placed it for the next week or so under http://bitsavers.org/miniunix It is in .tap format, which should work with SIMH. It is a single large file blocked 512 bytes/record From pechter at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 06:58:30 2007 From: pechter at gmail.com (Bill Pechter) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:58:30 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070921.122419.1159135324.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20070921.111435.-108811893.imp@bsdimp.com> <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693@coraid.com> <20070921.122419.1159135324.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: On 9/21/07, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693 at coraid.com> > Brantley Coile writes: > : BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III > : or System V license. The ancient Unix license would be fine for that. > : Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from > : System III and System V. > : > : To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license, > : which covers 32V and earlier. Berkeley never had a liscense > : for anything later than 32V. > > True. When Sun took BSD 4.2, it had to buy a license from AT&T to > distribute. With that license came the System V streams stuff, which > Sun included in SunOS 4. There was much other technology from other > third parties in SunOS. Just doing an audit of what came from where > would be expensive and time consuming... > > It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix > license or not given the code's derivation history. I don't know what > their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate. Again, another topic > for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver. > > Warner > > > : > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org> > : > Tim Bradshaw writes: > : > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote: > : > : > : > : > > : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't > : > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same > : > : > as an open source license). > : > : > : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > : > : still have it?) > : > > : > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of > : > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because > : > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be > : > difficult at best. > : > > : > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still > : > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for > : > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now). > : > > : > Warner > : > _______________________________________________ > : > TUHS mailing list > : > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > : > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > : > : _______________________________________________ > : TUHS mailing list > : TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > : https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > : > : > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > Ah well, when the Novell SCO stuff winds down perhaps the folks from Utah will OpenSource it. (my second guess is sell it to Sun) -- -- d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wkt at tuhs.org Sat Sep 22 12:46:39 2007 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:46:39 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] mini-unix distribution tape recovered In-Reply-To: <46F446AE.4040102@bitsavers.org> References: <46F446AE.4040102@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <20070922024639.GA5588@minnie.tuhs.org> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:33:18PM -0700, Al Kossow wrote: > I beleive I have sucessfully read a Dec, 1979 mini-unix > distribution tape yesterday evening. I've placed it for > the next week or so under http://bitsavers.org/miniunix > > It is in .tap format, which should work with SIMH. > > It is a single large file blocked 512 bytes/record Thanks Al, I've snarfed a copy and put it in the Unix Archive here. Warren From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz Sat Sep 22 19:32:46 2007 From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:32:46 +1200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: References: <20070921.111435.-108811893.imp@bsdimp.com> <20070921.122419.1159135324.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <200709222132.47620.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> On Saturday 22 September 2007 08:58, Bill Pechter wrote: > On 9/21/07, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693 at coraid.com> > > > > It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix > > license or not given the code's derivation history. I don't know what > > their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate. Again, another topic > > for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver. > > > > Warner > > > > : > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org> > > : > > > : > Tim Bradshaw writes: > > : > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote: > > : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't > > : > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same > > : > : > as an open source license). > > : > : > > : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if > > : > : Sun still have it?) > > : > > > : > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of > > : > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because > > : > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be > > : > difficult at best. > > : > > > : > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still > > : > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for > > : > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now). > > : > > > : > Warner > Ah well, when the Novell SCO stuff winds down perhaps the folks from Utah > will OpenSource it. (my second guess is sell it to Sun) Well, FWIW, I asked them last year in relation to OSF/1 and the requirement for an AT&T license, and I got a reply from Bill Dunford. I think the best thing to do would be to approach (semi-officially) the relevant companies and ask (politely ;). Wesley Parish This is my email and the reply: Hi Wesley, I have no immediate answer to this, but I've directed your question to people who will be able to respond. If for some reason you don't find out what you're looking for, please let me know. Bill     >>> Wesley Parish 07/23/06 11:01 PM >>> Hi. I understand that Novell's background actions helped The Unix Heritage Society preserve and distribute the Ancient Unix and *BSD code, by permitting the Santa Cruz Operation to waive the System V license requirement in the earlier pre- 4.4BSD- Lite BSD distributions. I'm interested in getting hold of the OSF/1 June 1994 source code release for The Unix Heritage Society, being a member of that amorphous body.  I have been informed by the Open Group that it requires the OSF/1 licensee to have a System V license. Would it be possible for Novell at some stage, maybe when this farce with The SCO Group has run its course, to direct the Open Group to waive the System V license requirement for OSF/1? Thanks Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Gaul is quartered into three halves. Things which are impossible are equal to each other. Guerrilla warfare means up to their monkey tricks. Extracts from "Schoolboy Howlers" - the collective wisdom of the foolish. ----- 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 vasco at icpnet.pl Sun Sep 23 01:33:53 2007 From: vasco at icpnet.pl (Andrzej Popielewicz) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:33:53 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] x3270 Message-ID: <46F535E1.30109@icpnet.pl> Hi, Does anyone of You know of any public mainframe/as400 offering public service with 3270 interface, I mean which can be contacted via x3270 running in Unix X. locis.loc.gov, serving in Library of Congress for 2 or 3 decades, seems to be gone, but perhaps there are still some survived in USA . Andrzej From cowan at ccil.org Tue Sep 25 11:52:47 2007 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> Message-ID: <20070925015247.GD25048@mercury.ccil.org> Tim Bradshaw scripsit: > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > still have it?) It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available. Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML. -- We call nothing profound cowan at ccil.org that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) From lm at bitmover.com Tue Sep 25 12:36:53 2007 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:36:53 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 41, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070925023653.GA12168@bitmover.com> > > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > > still have it?) > > It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available. As the guy who started this thread, I'm very grateful for the help. All I wanted was the lint libraries I wrote, those were like include files and it is hard to imagine Sun cares about those (I had to threaten to quit to get them included in the release, back in the day of 200MB disks). And while I really appreciate all the offers for the source of SunOS 4.x, I'm a CEO of a software company and it would be way over the line if I accepted any of those offers. So thanks, I appeciate it, but I hope you'll understand that I have to color inside the lines. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From aek at bitsavers.org Tue Sep 25 12:40:23 2007 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:40:23 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 780 System III tape images Message-ID: <46F87517.9060002@bitsavers.org> I've placed two sets of 800bpi 780 System III tape images temporarily under http://bitsavers.org/sysIII Curiously, they don't match. There were no dates on the tapes which are originals. From cowan at ccil.org Tue Sep 25 13:12:57 2007 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:12:57 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 41, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <20070925023653.GA12168@bitmover.com> References: <20070925023653.GA12168@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20070925031257.GF25048@mercury.ccil.org> Larry McVoy scripsit: > As the guy who started this thread, I'm very grateful for the help. > All I wanted was the lint libraries I wrote, those were like include files > and it is hard to imagine Sun cares about those (I had to threaten to > quit to get them included in the release, back in the day of 200MB disks). What do you plan to do with them? -- One art / There is John Cowan No less / No more http://www.ccil.org/~cowan All things / To do With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter From lm at bitmover.com Tue Sep 25 13:19:56 2007 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:19:56 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 41, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <20070925031257.GF25048@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20070925023653.GA12168@bitmover.com> <20070925031257.GF25048@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <20070925031956.GC12168@bitmover.com> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:12:57PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > As the guy who started this thread, I'm very grateful for the help. > > All I wanted was the lint libraries I wrote, those were like include files > > and it is hard to imagine Sun cares about those (I had to threaten to > > quit to get them included in the release, back in the day of 200MB disks). > > What do you plan to do with them? Nothing that interesting. I was just passing them on to my team here at BitMover as an example of a pile of work that was painstaking. And had to be exactly correct. I wrote those so that you could develop on SunOS but retarget your code for any other palatform and have it work. Apparently I cared about that more than most. I felt strongly at the time that you'd be an idiot to develop on any other platform, SunOS was way past being the best, it was without peer. So I felt safe in giving people a way to retarget their code. Little did I know that Solaris was waiting in the wings. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From jrvalverde at cnb.uam.es Wed Sep 26 00:06:47 2007 From: jrvalverde at cnb.uam.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:06:47 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070925015247.GD25048@mercury.ccil.org> References: <3367693331-1097@e4ward.com> <46F27A2D.2060006@datanet.ab.ca> <20070920172253.GD19245@freaknet.org> <1AEB5BCC-9C51-42E4-815C-0078248A1DA5@tfeb.org> <20070921145806.GF5036@mercury.ccil.org> <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> <20070925015247.GD25048@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <20070925160647.65053bd4@veda.cnb.uam.es> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400 John Cowan wrote: > Tim Bradshaw scripsit: > > > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > > still have it?) > > It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available. > Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML. > The funny thing, if I did read correctly the filings and agreements from Groklaw is that a legal third party could probably release this code *legally* if it is *acually* available. I'm talking about something that popped up in the SCO vs IBM case: as I remember, the agreement stated that IBM was required to held confidential all information except in the case it had been made widely available by some third party. >The exception is set forth in Section 7.06(a) of the standard software agreement: > > If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any >time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not >attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this >section shall not apply to such information after such time. Thus it seems possible that UNIX source code licensees would -in the case the code had been made available *by others* have no longer obligation to keep it confidential. But, and this is IMPORTANT, IANAL, so don't take my word for it. My guess is that even if so, most licensses will be reluctant to take any action without legal counsel, which is costly and unless they had a compelling reason to, they would therefore rather not ask, not act and not risk. 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From imp at bsdimp.com Wed Sep 26 00:38:19 2007 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:38:19 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070925160647.65053bd4@veda.cnb.uam.es> References: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> <20070925015247.GD25048@mercury.ccil.org> <20070925160647.65053bd4@veda.cnb.uam.es> Message-ID: <20070925.083819.163264799.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <20070925160647.65053bd4 at veda.cnb.uam.es> "Jose R. Valverde" writes: : On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400 : John Cowan wrote: : > Tim Bradshaw scripsit: : > : > > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun : > > still have it?) : > : > It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available. : > Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML. Chances are in this case copying just the lint libraries is completely legal. Why do I say this? First, the lint libraries are unlikely to qualify for copyright protection in the first place. Their contents are dictated almost entirely by external factors. This is the same reason that you can't effectively copyright header files or interfaces. Standard copyright infringement analysis requires removal of all portions that are dictated by external factors. Next, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection because there's not enough creative content in these files. While they may be pedantically correct, their contents may not be creative enough to qualify for copyright protection. The phone book doesn't qualify, even if it is correct, for example. This would be especially true after all those parts of the code which were dictated by external factors. Even if after these tests you discover that there could be copyright protection on this work, copying just these files likely would be fair use. First, these files are useless without a lint program. Second, these files are a tiny portion of the entire SunOS system. Third, they aren't being put to commercial use (at least not directly). Forth, they would be used for education purposes. These tests are the ones that educators are taught to apply when photocopying articles for use in the classroom. So I'm saying it would likely be completely legal for Larry to show these files to his colleges as an example of extreme attention to detail, and legal for him to copy them to do so. For other purposes, it is less clear. I've also grossly simplified things, and I'm not a lawyer, so if you are worried, competent legal advise should be obtained. Warner From cowan at ccil.org Wed Sep 26 01:37:25 2007 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:37:25 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20070925.083819.163264799.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198@tfeb.org> <20070925015247.GD25048@mercury.ccil.org> <20070925160647.65053bd4@veda.cnb.uam.es> <20070925.083819.163264799.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <20070925153725.GA26549@mercury.ccil.org> M. Warner Losh scripsit: > Next, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection because > there's not enough creative content in these files. While they may be > pedantically correct, their contents may not be creative enough to > qualify for copyright protection. The phone book doesn't qualify, > even if it is correct, for example. True in the U.S., which uses the "originality" standard; false in the U.K., which uses the "sweat of the brow" standard. IANAL; TINLA. -- Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan "Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? cowan at ccil.org Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused. --George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar From jrvalverde at cnb.uam.es Wed Sep 26 01:41:44 2007 From: jrvalverde at cnb.uam.es (Jose R. Valverde) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:41:44 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1? Message-ID: <20070925174144.13c196d7@veda.cnb.uam.es> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400 John Cowan wrote: > Tim Bradshaw scripsit: > > > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun > > still have it?) > > It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available. > Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML. > The funny thing, if I did read correctly the filings and agreements from Groklaw is that a legal third party could probably release this code *legally* if it is *acually* available. I'm talking about something that popped up in the SCO vs IBM case: as I remember, the agreement stated that IBM was required to held confidential all information except in the case it had been made widely available by some third party. >The exception is set forth in Section 7.06(a) of the standard software agreement: > > If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any >time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not >attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this >section shall not apply to such information after such time. Thus it seems possible that UNIX source code licensees would -in the case the code had been made available *by others* have no longer obligation to keep it confidential. But, and this is IMPORTANT, IANAL, so don't take my word for it. My guess is that even if so, most licensses will be reluctant to take any action without legal counsel, which is costly and unless they had a compelling reason to, they would therefore rather not ask, not act and not risk. 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andreww at datanet.ab.ca Thu Sep 27 09:42:21 2007 From: andreww at datanet.ab.ca (Andrew Warkentin) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:42:21 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] 780 System III tape images In-Reply-To: <3368126406-2252@localhost> References: <3368126406-2252@localhost> Message-ID: <46FAEE5D.70704@datanet.ab.ca> Al Kossow wrote: >I've placed two sets of 800bpi 780 System III tape images >temporarily under http://bitsavers.org/sysIII > >Curiously, they don't match. There were no dates on the tapes >which are originals. > >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > > > Why do I get read errors on the second file on the first tapes of both sets under SIMH? I didn't think it was even possible for tape I/O errors to occur under SIMH unless the image is corrupted. From aek at bitsavers.org Thu Sep 27 09:55:17 2007 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:55:17 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 780 System III tape images In-Reply-To: <46FAEE5D.70704@datanet.ab.ca> References: <3368126406-2252@localhost> <46FAEE5D.70704@datanet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <46FAF165.1060304@bitsavers.org> Andrew Warkentin wrote: > > Why do I get read errors on the second file on the first tapes of both > sets under SIMH? does it say which block number failed? From wkt at tuhs.org Thu Sep 27 10:53:15 2007 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:53:15 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] 780 System III tape images In-Reply-To: <46FAEE5D.70704@datanet.ab.ca> References: <3368126406-2252@localhost> <46FAEE5D.70704@datanet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <20070927005315.GA2805@minnie.tuhs.org> > Al Kossow wrote: > >I've placed two sets of 800bpi 780 System III tape images > >temporarily under http://bitsavers.org/sysIII On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:42:21PM -0600, Andrew Warkentin wrote: > Why do I get read errors on the second file on the first tapes of both > sets under SIMH? I didn't think it was even possible for tape I/O errors > to occur under SIMH unless the image is corrupted. Hmm, I seem to have lost the tools I used to use to manipulate tap files. Can someone e-mail in pointers to useful tap tools? Thanks, Warren From wkt at tuhs.org Thu Sep 27 12:24:14 2007 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:24:14 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] 780 System III tape images In-Reply-To: <46F87517.9060002@bitsavers.org> References: <46F87517.9060002@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <20070927022414.GA6359@minnie.tuhs.org> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 07:40:23PM -0700, Al Kossow wrote: > I've placed two sets of 800bpi 780 System III tape images > temporarily under http://bitsavers.org/sysIII > Curiously, they don't match. There were no dates on the tapes > which are originals. I've found tapcat.pl and used it to extract the records from the four tapes. Here's a quick table with truncated MD5s of the 7 records from tape 1 of each set, and of the cpio archive which is on tape 2 of each set. Tape Record What It Is Set 1 Set 2 --------------------------------------------------------- file0.dat boot record ce3dab ce3dab file1.dat mini-root 693861 1b9183 different file2.dat cpio binary 777632 777632 file3.cpio / 5b6ba5 5b6ba5 file4.cpio /usr/src/man 713ea0 713ea0 file5.cpio /usr/src/rje 8d146b 8d146b file6.cpio /usr/src/graf 7e2afa 7e2afa tape2.cpio /usr 51b5b1 a07403 different tape2.cpio in set 2 seems to be slightly corrupt; cpio -ivt on the file gives this warning: -rw-rw-r-- 1 operator kmem 1052 Apr 12 1980 src/games/trk/win.c -rw-rw-r-- 1 operator kmem 4147 Apr 12 1980 src/games/bj.s cpio: warning: skipped 840 bytes of junk -rw-rw-r-- 1 operator kmem 122 Apr 12 1980 src/games/us.s -rw-rw-r-- 1 operator kmem 10036 Apr 12 1980 src/games/mail.c Otherwise, the contents of the two tape2 files appears to be identical, i.e. the cpio timestamps on all the files match up. The two file1.dat records differ at position 721; I haven't attempted to dig any further with these files yet. Warren From andreww at datanet.ab.ca Wed Sep 26 22:22:54 2007 From: andreww at datanet.ab.ca (Andrew Warkentin) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:22:54 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] 780 System III tape images In-Reply-To: <3368126406-2252@localhost> References: <3368126406-2252@localhost> Message-ID: <46FA4F1E.6060107@datanet.ab.ca> Al Kossow wrote: >I've placed two sets of 800bpi 780 System III tape images >temporarily under http://bitsavers.org/sysIII > >Curiously, they don't match. There were no dates on the tapes >which are originals. > > Why do I get read errors on the second file on the first tapes of both sets under SIMH? I didn't think it was even possible for tape I/O errors to occur under SIMH unless the image is corrupted.