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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040301/7a359a68/attachment.sig>

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" <grog at lemis.com>
To: "Paul Ward" <asmodai at ao.mine.nu>
Cc: "Wesley Parish" <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>; <TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com>
To: "Paul Ward" <asmodai at ao.mine.nu>
Cc: "Wesley Parish" <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>; <TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org>
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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040301/bee44c87/attachment.sig>

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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040305/548b83ef/attachment.txt>

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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040306/14f0e850/attachment.sig>

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 <arnold at skeeve.com> 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: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040311/b28f6c9e/attachment.sig>

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 <grog at lemis.com> 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

