From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 30883 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2020 00:55:53 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 27 Sep 2020 00:55:53 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 301959CE75; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:55:47 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31C8945A9; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:55:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E916894552; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:59 +1000 (AEST) Received: from viclamta13p.bpe.bigpond.com (viclamta13p.bpe.bigpond.com [203.38.21.77]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B11993D65 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.telstra.com ([10.10.26.4]) by viclafep13p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au with ESMTP id <20200927005455.THKD21101.viclafep13p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au@smtp.telstra.com> for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:55 +1000 X-RG-Spam: Unknown X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdefgdefgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfupfevtfgpvffgnffuvffttedpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecugedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfgggtgesmhdttdertderuhenucfhrhhomhepffgrvhgvucfjohhrshhfrghllhcuoegurghvvgeshhhorhhsfhgrlhhlrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhuedvlefgieejkedvkeeiudfgffffudevgfejleelhffgudehtdegtdevveefvdenucfkphepuddutddrudeguddrudelfedrvdeffeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegrnhgvuhhrihhnrdhhohhrshhfrghllhdrohhrghdpihhnvghtpeduuddtrddugedurdduleefrddvfeefpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepoegurghvvgeshhhorhhsfhgrlhhlrdhorhhgqecuuefqffgjpeekuefkvffokffogfdprhgtphhtthhopeeothhuhhhssehtuhhhshdrohhrgheq X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean X-RG-VS-CLASS: clean Received: from aneurin.horsfall.org (110.141.193.233) by smtp.telstra.com (5.8.420) id 5F020FEA0DCA1185 for tuhs@tuhs.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:54 +1000 Received: from aneurin.horsfall.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aneurin.horsfall.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08R0srZA031020 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:54 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from dave@horsfall.org) Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by aneurin.horsfall.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 08R0spdi031017 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:53 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from dave@horsfall.org) X-Authentication-Warning: aneurin.horsfall.org: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:54:51 +1000 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (BSF 287 2018-06-16) X-GPG-Public-Key: http://www.horsfall.org/gpgkey.pub X-GPG-Fingerprint: 05B4 FFBC 0218 B438 66E0 587B EF46 7357 EF5E F58B X-Home-Page: http://www.horsfall.org/ X-Witty-Saying: "chmod 666 the_mode_of_the_beast" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1483753691-1312780968-1601168093=:30450" Subject: [TUHS] How accurate are those AUUGN scans? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1483753691-1312780968-1601168093=:30450 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT When someone mentioned that they'd ported V6 to the 11/23, I recalled that I did the same thing (well, V6 + the bits of AUSAM that I liked + the bits of V7 that I could shoe-horn in), and went looking for the article that I could've sworn I'd published, using "pdfgrep 23 AUUGN*" in my TUHS mirror. And yes, I recall some hardware peculiarity which had to be worked around, but I've forgotten the details (which is why I went looking). I didn't find it (is there an index of articles anywhere?), but I did find some peculiar typos, and I was wondering whether they were a result of Google's (destructive) scanning, or were in the originals. Here's a quick sample: AUUGN-V04.5.pdf: tailored for smaller. PDP11s (such as the 11/23 or 11/34) in an A period after "smaller". AUUGN-V04.6.pdf: Unfortunately. the clever Code comes unstuck as the LSI-II/23 doesn'tąt The phrase "Unfortunately. the clever Code" looks wrong. AUUGN-V04.6.pdf:LSI-II/23 was changing the value of r! if the V-bit gets set. It seemed "r!" should be "r1" (a possible typo, as they are the same key).. AUUGN-V04.6.pdf: bio23 (662 2668) Elec. Eng., UNSW, This is a weirdie; "bio23" (one of my clients) was never a part of Elec Eng (they were their own school), so I suspect a mistake here; it's possible, however, that they were in the same building. AUUGN-V04.6.pdf: PDP 11/23 + FPU. RK05, RL02, DRIIb I believe that "DR11b" should be "DR11B". AUUGN-V05.1.pdf: PDP 11/23 - System III (Ausam)., 256k, 2xR102, 16 lines AUSAM under System III, on a mere 11/23? I very much doubt it... Also, "R102" should probably be "RL02". AUUGN-V05.1.pdf: PDP 11/23, Q bus + qniverter, RK05, Pertec dual RK05, DEC dual cassette, I suspect that "qniverter" was a typo on the part of the author. As a bit of a Unix historian it would be a shame if those AUUGN scans were less than accurate; I no longer have my hard copies (lost in a house move), so perhaps someone could check their copies? Thanks. -- Dave --1483753691-1312780968-1601168093=:30450--