Re: LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad
Really though, you should find someone with an LMI Lambda to give the keyboard to. It belongs with its mate. Indeed! And if you do find a Lambda, then there would be quite a few people interested in learning more gnarly details about the architecture.
Re: Powering Sun 3/60 without a chassis was Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor
> I think this is a 3/60 processor. Not 3/50. I said 3/50 because that is what the silkscreen says. The silkscreen clearly says 3/60, you have a clear serial with a 5 right beside it to compare and any other marked component. I know nothing about Sun hardware. But an expert on Some Online schematics? :-)
Re: Aaron Nabil & pdp-8.org
> >> Anyone who still has access to it should down-load the entire thing promptly. > > > I am > > wget -r -np -nc -U lynx -w 2 -l 0 http://pdp-8.org/ > > right now. > > Did you get it all? Anyone else download it? I have got - probably - all. Did you get /scans/ and /test-scans/?
Re: Aaron Nabil & pdp-8.org
Might be obvious, but since we know the IP, and that seems to be stable one can just modify /etc/hosts to have a pdp-8.org address and just mirror the result that way.
Re: NASA Computers and Tapes found in dead engineer's basement YEAASS!!!
>Yes indeed! Still treasures to be found > > "There is no evidence that suggests this material is historically > significant... I recommend disposal through the immediate destruction > of all magnetic tapes." Well, the semi-good news is that copies were made of most of it and so there's a pretty good chance of it existing elsewhere--maybe. Where do/did you read that? For all anyone knows, they might have gone Apollo 11.
Re: NASA Computers and Tapes found in dead engineer's basement YEAASS!!!
Yes indeed! Still treasures to be found "There is no evidence that suggests this material is historically significant... I recommend disposal through the immediate destruction of all magnetic tapes." Indeed
Re: Dobbertin 4003 Eprommer driver, moldy floppy rescue in .de?
Specially, http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Universeller_EPROM_Programmer_4004 Contains both manual and software, and according to different sources the 4003 and 4004 should be very similar.
Re: Dobbertin 4003 Eprommer driver, moldy floppy rescue in .de?
Except of course be if someone already had the driver software available :-) One probably also needs the manual as I've read there is a memory address selection feature on the interface and you need to supply the correct address to the driver upon installation. Tried contacting Dobbertin directly and seeing if they might still have those bits? A quickly oogle shows that they are still in business, and some random links to various models of the thing.
Re: CFL (was: Re: BBS software for the PDP 11)
You don't even need call the law if you break a mercury thermometer, which is about 3-4 grams of mercury. A bulb has what, a few miligrams?
Re: BBS software for the PDP 11
And if you break one you have to call HAZMAT. You did realize that, didn't you? They contain mercury and any breakage requires professional remediation by law!! Uhm... No you don't. Stop the fearmongering please ...
Re: Oscilloscope Recommendation
The RICM just received $1,000 to buy a new oscilloscope. I would like a four channel. and color would also be nice. The bandwidth doesn't need to be high because we usually work on ancient equipment. What would you suggest? Siglent or Rigol are good bang for the buck. Rigol has a four channel one, and they are far below 1000 USD. I think Keysight made some cheap-er scope recently too. Or if you are in the states, get a old Tek -- you can get those really cheap.
Re: test, please ignore
This isn't a response, do not ignore.
Re: LOD bands for MIT CADR
http://www.unlambda.com/index.php?n=Main.Cadr I mean other LOD bands, for later versions.
Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk once stated:
>
>> From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>
>> No even the following program:
>> int main (void) { return 0; }
>> is guaranteed to work
>
>I'm missing something: why not?
>
> It boils down to pedantism. The encoding of the above is ASCII, and
> the encoding type of a C program is implementation defined.
Name *ONE* computer langauge where this *ISN'T* the case. Until then,
I'll consider this a completely bogus claim. Meanwhile, is *this* better?
The input alphabet is implementation defined, if you want portable you
cannot depend on implementation defined behaviour. But you clearly
haven't bothered reading the C standard, so you probobly should do
that now.
Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt once stated:
>It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
>> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>>
>> > No even the following program:
>> > int main (void) { return 0; }
>> > is guaranteed to work
>>
>> I'm missing something: why not?
>
> Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
>should be:
>
>
> #include
> int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
>
> Pedantically, it does not matter -- a return from main is equivalent
> to an exit(), and exit(0) is sensibly defined, and EXIT_SUCCESS can
> also be different from 0 (even though I don't think such a platform
> exists).
>
> Similiarly for EXIT_FAILURE ...
There's this
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8867871/should-i-return-exit-success-or-0-from-main/8868139#8868139):
Somebody asked about OpenVMS. I haven't used it in a long time, but
as I recall odd status values generally denote success while even
values denote failure. The C implementation maps 0 to 1, so that
return 0; indicates successful termination. Other values are passed
unchanged, so return 1; also indicates successful termination.
EXIT_FAILURE would have a non-zero even value.
And certainly VMS is on topic for this list.
-spc (So ... pedantically speaking, who's correct?)
The standard, from 7.20.4.3:
Finally, control is returned to the host environment. If the value
of status is zero or EXIT_SUCCESS, an implementation-defined form of
the status successful termination is returned. If the value of
status is EXIT_FAILURE, an implementation-defined form of the status
unsuccessful termination is returned. Otherwise the status returned
is implementation-defined.
Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>
> > No even the following program:
> > int main (void) { return 0; }
> > is guaranteed to work
>
> I'm missing something: why not?
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
Pedantically, it does not matter -- a return from main is equivalent
to an exit(), and exit(0) is sensibly defined, and EXIT_SUCCESS can
also be different from 0 (even though I don't think such a platform
exists).
Similiarly for EXIT_FAILURE ...
Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
> From: Alfred M. Szmidt
> No even the following program:
> int main (void) { return 0; }
> is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
It boils down to pedantism. The encoding of the above is ASCII, and
the encoding type of a C program is implementation defined. The other
thing is that the abstract machine defined in C can be utterly bogus,
i.e. not capable of executing anything due to various implementation
specified environment limitations.
Ofcourse, this is all academic ... and I don't know any such idiotic
implementation.
LOD bands for MIT CADR
Anyone seen or got any?
Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
> if it's not portable then it might as well be assembly and get the
> benefits that come with that.
Sorry, I don't agree. It _is_ possible to write portable code, but even
ignoring that, the benfits of writing in a higher-level language (good
control structures, complex expressions, etc, etc) are well worth it.
Well... No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work, so much for portablility, huh?
Re: Not Getting Emails
I have not had any emails from cctalk for 2 or 3 weeks. I went to my subscription details and saw that emails were disabled for me. I re-enabled them a few days ago but I still have not received any new emails. I can see that there is traffic by looking at the archives, and if I am not getting emails I hope to at least see this one appear in the archive and hopefully read replies there too. Is it just me? No.
Re: Pair of Twiggys
> Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than > Apple's though) in the mid 70s. Right. The typical desktop scroll bar as thought of today, however, like typical desktop windows and menus, are largely an Apple refinement if not invention. Those where already available on the Xerox Star.
Re: Pair of Twiggys
Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds of utterly basic stuff were invented at Apple. Well, other than that it wasn't.
Re: I hate the new mail system
>> No, Mouse is right, it's broken: > > Works for me (also from different networks outside the university network): Interesting... I still get the same errors. Could it be location-dependant in some way? Tried from Boston, and Stockholm, so I don't think so. Are you using the standard whois port 43/TCP? Yes.
Re: I hate the new mail system
> No, Mouse is right, it's broken: Works for me Ditto FWIW.
Re: I hate the new mail system
That seems to be peculiar to GNU. I haven't had any on GMAIL Read the archive, it isn't peculiar to the gnu.org.
Re: I hate the new mail system
Two of the four ipv4 nameservers for gnu.org are broken. By those odds, I would expect anything up to 50% of any mail you receive via ipv4 to bounce. Which has nothing to do with anything. I gave you some hints in this direction the last time you mentioned you were getting bounces but maybe you didn't see my posting due to your problem with your nameservers? Uhm, it has nothing to do with "nameservers". Just the fact that this is the _only_ list in the whole world that sends bounces like this should tell you something. Just the fact that multiple people have complained about bounces should tell you something.
Re: I hate the new mail system
> The whole "foo via cctalk" is *really* annoying... What is wrong with > a half default mailman setup? There is no Reply-To header there, From > is set to the person actually sending the message (as it should be). Yes, that is most annoying. My complaint (and I guess many more from other users will follow) is, that if you reply to a message on the list, the author of that message gets a private mail, too, as he is listed in the Reply-To:-field. This is *wrong* and must be corrected (i.e. removed)! (BTW this reply to Alfed's mail is to one sent to me privately because of that error). Indeed, the Reply-To header should be nuked. > And all the bounce addresses are set to > cctalk-bounces+foo=b...@classiccmp.org where foo=bar is the user > sending the message. No, the Envelope-From: only has "cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org", there's no "+foo=bar" in it. And yes, the change in the address fields don't cure the bounce problem because the envelope from field is unchanged (and *that* field is used for bounces, not the header fields *within* the mail). I meant that it should have the +foo=bar thing in it, the example I was showing was how it _should_ look like, not what it currently looks like. Was a bit unclear there I suppose.
Re: I hate the new mail system
And for what it is worth, continued bounces. From: cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org To: a...@gnu.org Subject: confirm Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:28:13 -0600 Your membership in the mailing list cctalk has been disabled due to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated 05-Mar-2017. You will not get any more messages from this list until you re-enable your membership. You will receive 3 more reminders like this before your membership in the list is deleted.
Re: I hate the new mail system
The whole "foo via cctalk" is *really* annoying... What is wrong with a half default mailman setup? There is no Reply-To header there, From is set to the person actually sending the message (as it should be). And all the bounce addresses are set to cctalk-bounces+foo=b...@classiccmp.org where foo=bar is the user sending the message.
