1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 20 Jul 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 398       Contents:  Re: Custom Separator Page [DCPS]! dismounting disks during shutdown  Re: Does anyone remember IAS?  Re: Does anyone remember IAS? G Re: Does RT-11 run on the PDP-11/70?  (was Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates) G Re: Does RT-11 run on the PDP-11/70?  (was Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates) F Re: Does RT-11 run on the PDP-11/70? (was Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates) duplicating system disks Re: HP FUDBusting  Re: HP FUDBusting  Re: OpenVMS I64, a proposal  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2003 10:12:51 -0700$ From: tpercy23@hotmail.com (BigBarr)) Subject: Re: Custom Separator Page [DCPS] = Message-ID: <421ab8b7.0307200912.2da8d8c3@posting.google.com>   p "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> wrote in message news:<_9oSa.5539$KZ.2330795@news1.news.adelphia.net>... > BigBarr wrote: > D > > I have created a custom separator page that I would like printedG > > before each print job. My queues are already set to use a form with  > > the /setup= qualifier.I > > My question is how do I set the flag page to use the custom separator B > > page? I can set the flag in the dcps$startup.com but I get theJ > > standard flag page printed. I'm sure this is a simple task, but I am aJ > > beginner and I do not have any documentation available.  This site has8 > > been very helpful in the past.  Thanks for any help. >  > I am a bit rusty on DCPS.  > G > With DCPS, setup modules that are to be used with all types of print  % > jobs need to be done in PostScript.  > I > I seem to remember that you can set up DCPS to use different libraries  . > of modules for the different printing types. > F > I never looked into if the default flag pages could be modified.  I H > would not be surprised if they could be, as DCPS has a number of ways / > that the documentation allows customizations.  > H > Knowledge of PostScript is required for many of them.  For PostScript ( > information, see http://www.adobe.com. >  > -John  > wb8tyw@qsl.network > Personal Opinion Only         B I thank you for the quick response.  I have a postscript separatorC page that I am using for the Windows print driver.  I would like to C use the same for the Vax queues.  I am using a PS1.tbl that has the E setup form listed.  Could I use this same tbl to insert the flag page A file?  Or do you know of any good documentation available on this  issue?   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:28 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)* Subject: dismounting disks during shutdown$ Message-ID: <bfed1k$oj3$1@online.de>  E What is the recommended procedure for dismounting (members of) shadow C sets which are mounted by more than one node and which have members D connected physically to more than one node?  Goal is to avoid (mini)H merges as much as possible.  Obviously, if one node goes down, taking a I member with it, but the other member is still mounted, then a merge will  I be necessary when the member rejoins.  But this won't be the case if all  A members dismount the shadow set first (which might not always be   desirable, of course).  D It seems to me that in the site-specific shutdown procedure, a node I should DISMOUNT/SYSTEM all shadow sets and DISMOUNT/CLUSTER non-shadowed  I disks which might be mounted by other nodes.  That will leave only those  G physically connected disks which are parts of shadow sets mounted from  F another node.  Obviously, these will be dismounted in some sense when 3 the node shuts down, and a merge will be necessary.   H What will happen---what will get dismounted in what order---if there is * no site-specific dismounting taking place?  G A related question: is it possible from one specific node to dismount a F disk on other nodes but not on the specific node in question (without  going through SYSMAN etc)?      ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:35:24 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>& Subject: Re: Does anyone remember IAS?- Message-ID: <878yqulebn.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   " wmr282@hotmail.com (w m r) writes:  F > Oh yeah, then we got another 11/70 and we cross-connected them usingD > the dual ports of the RP07's.  I used DR-11C's to lock between the> > two and chopped up the F11ACP to share access on the drives.  E Was it you who did the stuff that was on the RSX SIG tape to do this?    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:23:21 -0400 . From: Glenn Everhart <Everhart-nospam@gce.com>& Subject: Re: Does anyone remember IAS?+ Message-ID: <bfeh33$eb4$1@bob.news.rcn.net>   ? IAS was sysgenned from RSX11D compatible sources, and by V3 you @ could generate IAS V3 or RSX11D V7 from the same kit. RSX11D wasC interesting from an I/O point of view in that every driver was also B a task and had user mode code. You could concoct drivers that wereC doing normal file level I/O on one side and talking as devices from < the other. This made it possible to concoct spooling drivers> that had all the file i/o overhead in a separate task from the@ caller, and still have the i/o go thru the filesystem. Given theD pdp11 tightness of address space this was for some things a Godsend.@ (I recall the early RT11 under RSX implementations for example.)  C DCL was there, and the RSX11D and IAS privilege sets prefigured the A VMS set. (RSX11M had privileged or nonprivileged TT UCBs, nothing D else pretty much.) I suspect some of the 11D experience fed into theH VMS privilege set design, since they are not THAT close. Still, the idea@ was there that an application that was allowed to do kernel modeI functions should not necessarily also be able to ignore file protections.   H During the time RSX11D was around, DEC's common response to security wasD to do what they could but claim "DEC software does not operate in a G hostile environment". Sounds odd today, but even then they were telling D it as it is, not attempting to claim protections they knew were not  fully reliable.    Glenn Everhart   w m r wrote: > I used IAS back in late 70's.  > D > IIRC, it was a klunk that run under RSX-11D that added timesharingE > (dynamic priorities).  It also came with DCL that converted the DCL 0 > commands to the equivalent RSX-style commands. > H > I had it on an 11/70 with 1MB MOS memory, two RP07's.  That was living > high on the hog back then. > G > We used it for graphics applications.  We had a funky 3D vector-style G > graphics scope that plugged into the unibus, and DMA'd the phigs-like F > display list instructions from the PDP's memory.  I wrote the driver, > for it and a low-level subroutine library. > E > I think the manuals came in dark blue notebooks.  The manual covers H > were white with a purple and red stripe on them.  I chucked the few of) > them I had left out a couple years ago.  >  > Mike   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 20 Jul 03 10:13:56 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com P Subject: Re: Does RT-11 run on the PDP-11/70?  (was Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates)+ Message-ID: <bfdthn$p6n$3@bob.news.rcn.net>   , In article <3f19da65_1@news.iprimus.com.au>,G    "Christine Ricketts/Andrew Stewart" <u1276a@uxnxixtxe.com.au> wrote: 5 >"Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message + >news:4b2dndNoSs4WUYWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com...  >> Rob Warnock wrote: G >> > And OS-8 could even run with *only* DECtape as the "system disk",   too!!  >>7 >> I once ran RT-11 off DECtape on a PDP-11/70 in DEC's & >> Marlboro facility.  It was amusing. >> > @ >Interesting.  The RT-11 V5.5 SPD does not mention the PDP-11/70? >yet p257 of the RT-11 V5.5 Mini Reference Manual has bit 14 of @ >the Configuration Word 2 is set if it is a PDP-11/70 processor. > ? >Was this used for the RT-11 Emulation under RSTS/E and/or RSX, ' >or did RT-11 run native on this beast?   D I thought I was running native RT-11 when I did DECnet certification< for PDP-10s.  There was an RT-11 disk pack that I mounted on= the 11/70 and it booted up just fine.  It also ran just fine. A IIRC, I didn't have to do the full suite of certification against A RT-11.  Things are hazy, but I think I only had to do the DTR/DTS > stuff (whatever the hell that means ;-)).  I didn't do the NCP suite.   <snip>   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:57:44 +1000 ! From: ken <katie@terrigal.net.au> P Subject: Re: Does RT-11 run on the PDP-11/70?  (was Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates)+ Message-ID: <3F1A9FD8.240F@terrigal.net.au>    Paul Sture wrote:  > t > In article <3f19da65_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Christine Ricketts/Andrew Stewart" <u1276a@uxnxixtxe.com.au> writes:8 > > "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message. > > news:4b2dndNoSs4WUYWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com... > >> Rob Warnock wrote: N > >> > And OS-8 could even run with *only* DECtape as the "system disk", too!! > >>9 > >> I once ran RT-11 off DECtape on a PDP-11/70 in DEC's ( > >> Marlboro facility.  It was amusing. > >> > > C > > Interesting.  The RT-11 V5.5 SPD does not mention the PDP-11/70 B > > yet p257 of the RT-11 V5.5 Mini Reference Manual has bit 14 ofC > > the Configuration Word 2 is set if it is a PDP-11/70 processor.  > > B > > Was this used for the RT-11 Emulation under RSTS/E and/or RSX,* > > or did RT-11 run native on this beast? > >  > > Thanks, Andy.  > > 1 > > PS.  I was told RT-11 runs on the VAX-11/780, 0 > > very easily on the LSI-11 console processor,B > > at least once in compatability mode for testing purposes.  :-) > >  > 0 > The 11/780 console floppy was an RT-11 volume.  G RT11 runs fine on LSI/11's both in a standalone, but also in some third D party networked applications. A company in the Netherlands, Techlan,G made redundant token passing network cards for Unibus and Qbus, booting G them of a central RT11 server. They went very well indeed in a diskless D environment, used for process control by companies such as OutokumpuF the Finish mining comglomerate and in conjuction with Gamma 11 systemsA from DEC/Philips.... so should have run fine on an console LSI-11   
 Ken Kirkby K. J. Kirkby and Associates P/L    ------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2003 10:50:04 -04007 From: pechter@shell.monmouth.com (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) O Subject: Re: Does RT-11 run on the PDP-11/70? (was Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates) - Message-ID: <bfea6s$fku$1@shell.monmouth.com>   I In article <bfcqoj$s8j$1@pcls4.std.com>, Megan  <mbg@TheWorld.com> wrote:  > K >I never tried running [RT11] it on the Console of the VAX, though it would E >probably work just fine (though one drive is a bit cramped).  As for 8 >running on a VAX, only on one which has RTEM installed. > 5 >                                        Megan Gentry ? >                                        Former RT-11 Developer   " The RT11 console was on the 86x0.   @ I don't think the stuff that ran on the 11/780 was RT11 although it used that disk format.   J RT11 worked best on 11/785's which had more memory than the 11/780... IIRCF The 11/780 had only 16k or was it 12k.  I don't think it was just 8k..  F The 11/785 IIRC had 24k of memory on the 11/03 (on the upgraded boxes)" New ones used to use the LSI 11/2.   Bill   --  M +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ M | Bill and/or Carolyn Pechter    |        pechter@shell.monmouth.com        | M |   Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in  | N |   a James Bond movie              -- Dennis Miller                        | M +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+    ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:56:23 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)! Subject: duplicating system disks $ Message-ID: <bfee37$phj$1@online.de>  H I always come back to this subject every few months, as my knowledge of  VMS increases.  H There must be many folks who have multiple system disks for redundancy, G which should be identical except for NODE-SPECIFIC stuff.  Rather than  G upgrading, installing layered products on etc ALL disks, it would make  G more sense to do it just on one "master disk" then make copies of this  B for other system disks (quite comfortably if all system disks are 
 shadowed).   Does anyone actually do this?   E Apart from the stuff one needs to do when changing the node name etc, B there is the stuff in the system-specific roots one needs to worryI about.  Actually, even the changing-the-nodename-stuff can be avoided if  G one has many roots on all system disks, while on any given system disk  B only a few would be used, the consoles being set to boot from the  appropriate root.   H Naively, it seems I should backup the roots which are used on any given C system disk and copy them back after the disk is upgraded by being  $ copied from an upgraded master disk.  A A relatively fresh system in my hobbyist cluster looks like this:   G    $ dir/gra/siz sys$sysdevice:[...];/exc=([.syscommon...],*.sys,*.dmp)   7    Grand total of 11 directories, 65 files, 808 blocks.    That's not too bad.   F Is there anything wrong with this approach?  In particular, can a VMS G upgrade affect stuff in the specific roots so that this approach would  G overwrite any changes?  (I'm not talking about stuff related to system   parameters and AUTOGEN.)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:05:03 +0200 ) From: Stefaan A Eeckels <hoendech@ecc.lu>  Subject: Re: HP FUDBusting5 Message-ID: <20030719230503.29ba5ecc.hoendech@ecc.lu>    On 19 Jul 2003 09:25:46 -0700 ) bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote:   5 > > Isn't VMS a case of "security through obscurity"?  > > ( > > Just to make sure people get it: :-) > = > no, vms is security through security ... and we all get it, 8 > we get that you don't know what you are talking about!   Oh my, are we grumpy today.   3 I'm pleased for you you feel Compaq/HP's management  of VMS entirely satisfactory.    --   Stefaan  --  C "What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:25:22 +0200 5 From: Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de>  Subject: Re: HP FUDBusting+ Message-ID: <26ndfb.o7p.ln@news.heiming.de>   < In comp.unix.admin Schmuck <yamahasw40@latinmail.com> wrote: ... F > There is a lot of FUD coming out of various vendors about the futureH > of HPs "other OSs". Ie.. if its not HP-UX, it will die with the switch
 > to Itanium.   I HP wants to port some features from Tru64 to HP-UX, including AdvFS, lsm  D and of course TruCluster. Which is IMHO deep in the kernel, so we'llB probably never know what there is really left from HP-UX once they started "porting". ;)  H > What is the real deal? If I buy an Alphaserver today will I be dealing+ > with HP Techs who can't even spell Tru64?   J Nope, there are the same knowledgeable people around, some have been thereF since the company was called Digital Unix and really know their stuff.   --   Michael Heiming   : Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for % inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:52:27 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>$ Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64, a proposal- Message-ID: <874r1ildj8.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   % hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) writes:   E >   OpenVMS I64 V8.0 is exceedingly unlikely to become available as a F >   hobbyist release for various -- and very good -- reasons.  I would< >   not expect to see V8.0 made available to hobbyist users.   Any specific reason why?  C >   Accordingly, the V8.1 release would be an obvious candidate for B >   the first release that *might* be made available as a hobbyistB >   release or that *might* be as part of a hobbyist distribution.F >   (Emphasis added here on the word *might* is entirely intentional.)  C >   Mark Gorham has previously indicated that we will offer OpenVMS C >   I64 to hobbyist users, but the specifics of the version and the C >   program -- and the various and sundry program and adminstrative > >   details -- all need to be determined before details can be1 >   provided and announcements can be made.  Etc.   B >   There will be an internal proposal circulating around this, soF >   that we can start incorporating some consistency in our statementsD >   and -- of course -- some mention of these hobbyist plans and theC >   expected details around the target release, packaging, etc., in 4 >   the various presentations and related materials.  F >   As is so often the case, the decision is the easy part.  The "how"F >   and "when" parts are (as usual) more involved and far more effort.  = >   And to paraphrase the comment Fred includes in a response C >   elsewhere in this thread: "hold that thought".  (And thanks for  >   the reminder, Bob!)   F Seems that taking a "What part of `VMS' don't you understand?"* across) the board from day one would be a winner.   F Also the hobiest users are I suspect a bit more clued up that average,E and far more forgiving of "oh shit, I thought I fixed that..." And to D twist it into odd corners that `real' users try to stay away from :)   --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------    Date: 20 Jul 2003 06:58:02 -05004 From: kaplow_r@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow)$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates3 Message-ID: <3YBAmkv22lwi@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <4b2dndNoSs4WUYWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: > Rob Warnock wrote:J >> And OS-8 could even run with *only* DECtape as the "system disk", too!! > 6 > I once ran RT-11 off DECtape on a PDP-11/70 in DEC's% > Marlboro facility.  It was amusing.   J REAL DecTape, or that hightmare that was TU58? I always wanted to meet theE engineer that came up with the TU58, with sharp impliments in hand...   1 	Bob Kaplow	NAR # 18L	TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" & 		>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<K Kaplow Klips & Baffle:	http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf L     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org  O  Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!   http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:29 GMT 2 From: Bob WIllard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net>$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates4 Message-ID: <3F1AB60F.9090501@TrashThis.comcast.net>   Thomas Dickey wrote:5 > Bob WIllard <BobwBSGS@trashthis.comcast.net> wrote:  >  >>Thomas Dickey wrote: >>K >>>That's still much later (approaching 10 years) than the design of BASIC. H >>>According to what I'm reading, BASIC was designed around 1964 (my ownJ >>>recollection was that it was a little later, e.g., 1967, but that mightI >>>be tainted with some recollection about where it was adopted for use).  >>> R >>>("bipolar" probably refers in this context to an SSI or MSI technology, perhapsD >>>not what I would have meant by semiconductor, e.g., LSI or VLSI). >>>  >> > G >>And the winner is -- 1964.  See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DartmouthBasic  >  > K > I was reading something like that (skimmed several hits from google).  My Q > reference to recollection was what I was told about BASIC back in the mid-70's.  > M > However, just because I read it on the web - or in a professional journal - Q > doesn't make it true.  I have in mind an article which appeared 10-15 years ago R > in one of the latter which was a recap of the early history of microprocessors. K > Most of the dates cited were wrong, as much as 2 years.  For instance, it K > quoted the release date for the Intel 8008 as that of the 8080.  Not even 
 > close... >   G By the summer of '65, we had a TTY terminal in my office tied through a B Bell (103?) modem over dial-up lines to a time-shared GE system inD Phoenix running a version of Dartmouth Basic.  So, 1964 seems pretty credible to me.   G   {In the same time frame, we had a "terminal" used to dial into an IBM L    host (7044?) in upstate New York running the version du jour of Quiktran;D    that "terminal" (IBM 1030?) included a card reader and a printer.  H    Basic was primitive, but pretty reliable; Quiktran was more ambitiousF    and not at all reliable.  Phone lines were extremely unreliable andH    protocols were, by current standards, nonexistent:  for Basic, if theI    character echoed did not match what you'd typed, delete it and retype   it.} --   Cheers, Bob    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:31:28 -0400 . From: Glenn Everhart <Everhart-nospam@gce.com>$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates+ Message-ID: <bfehid$fc2$1@bob.news.rcn.net>   B OS/8 booted from real DECtape. So did RT11. I had a DOS-11 version@ that booted and ran from DECtape also, though DOS had a built inA limit to the number of files it allowed to be opened on a DECtape @ at any one time that limited its usefulness there. It could have> been lifted but DOS swapped so much that I ran out of patience< trying to use it.   Many other machines also could boot from? DECtape; I believe even some of the old pdp10s did this. I used ) to boot KM9/15 off DECtape every day too.   A By modern standards 576 blocks of 512 bytes isn't much space, but , somehow we got a lot done with it back then.   Glenn Everhart   Bob Kaplow wrote:   ^ > In article <4b2dndNoSs4WUYWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: >  >>Rob Warnock wrote: >>J >>>And OS-8 could even run with *only* DECtape as the "system disk", too!! >>6 >>I once ran RT-11 off DECtape on a PDP-11/70 in DEC's% >>Marlboro facility.  It was amusing.  >  > L > REAL DecTape, or that hightmare that was TU58? I always wanted to meet theG > engineer that came up with the TU58, with sharp impliments in hand...  > 3 > 	Bob Kaplow	NAR # 18L	TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" ( > 		>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<M > Kaplow Klips & Baffle:	http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf N >     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org > Q >  Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!   http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.398 ************************