Re: I finally got to see a LMI Lambda in real life...

A worthy detour on the way to Midwest in the Conmega-bus! Good to meet you as well as seeing these machines get another shot at life! Thanks, Jonathan On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:20 AM Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > I finally dug up the link to the CADR stuff

Re: I finally got to see a LMI Lambda in real life...

I finally dug up the link to the CADR stuff (there’s probably some other useful links there as well). http://www.unlambda.com/index.php?n=Main.Symbolics . The CADR emulator and all of the microcode and OS (disk) images are in the download

Re: I finally got to see a LMI Lambda in real life...

> From: Daniel Seagraves > Two of them in fact, and a CADR - In my garage, no less! Neat! Can you say anything about how they came to you? > and I have a working PDP-11 to debug the CADR with Was that part of the package, or did you already have it? Noel

Re: I finally got to see a LMI Lambda in real life...

Without the console doing much with the CADR is going to be tough. Not having the disk isn’t too terrible as the basic contents (uCode and system code) are available. There’s even an emulator for the CADR though I don’t have the link handy at the moment. Ping me if you have trouble finding

I finally got to see a LMI Lambda in real life...

Two of them in fact, and a CADR - In my garage, no less! The Lambdas are in bad shape, and the CADR is in very bad shape and missing its console and disk. It’s going to take awhile to get them cleaned up and see how viable they are. On the plus side, I got a some spares and debugging

Re: LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad

> On Feb 17, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Marc Holz via cctech <cct...@classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have the keyboard for a LMI Lambda Lispmachine but I'm missing the > computer itself. Where’d you get this from, and do you have any idea what hap

Re: LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad

On 2/17/18 9:45 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote: > Really though, you should find someone with an LMI Lambda to give the > keyboard to. It belongs with its mate. CHM has two Lambdas, but no keyboards or monitors. http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10266804

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: LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad

Marc, Probably the best bet for an LMI Lambda emulator is Daniel Seagrave's LD GitHub project. See: https://github.com/dseagrav/ld It has directions on where to get the LMI code (bitsavers) and how to set up the emulator. I use it quite a bit and it works quite well. Of course, it has mappings

Re: LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad

There’s an emulator called LambdaDelta by Daniel Seagraves: https://github.com/dseagrav/ld/ Really though, you should find someone with an LMI Lambda to give the keyboard to. It belongs with its mate. — Chris Sent from my iPad > On Feb 17, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Marc Holz via cctalk <

Re: LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad

> > > > I have the keyboard for a LMI Lambda Lispmachine but I'm missing the > computer itself. > > Is there a simulator or similar available? > > > > The keyboard is similar like here > http://world.std.com/~jdostale/kbd/SpaceCadet.html. > > On the l

LMI Lambda Lispmachine Keyboard aka Space Cadet Keyboad

Hello, I have the keyboard for a LMI Lambda Lispmachine but I'm missing the computer itself. Is there a simulator or similar available? The keyboard is similar like here http://world.std.com/~jdostale/kbd/SpaceCadet.html. On the left side there is lable with "LMI" and

LMI Lambda - Software this time

Great progress has been made in running the Lambda firmware and diagnostics. A way has been found to structure things such that the emulator is releasable without infringing on anyone’s copyrights. Now what we need is software tapes, specifically a Lisp distribution tape of any version. If

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:24:55AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates >> that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is >> somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been >>

Re: LMI Lambda?

I assume that the shutdown of Slysoft (ANYDVD) was facilitated by DMCA. On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Eric Smith wrote: I don't know, but I rather doubt it. The MPAA and/or studios would have publicized a victory against Slysoft. That would make sense. At least as far as I understand it, and would

Re: LMI Lambda?

> > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates > > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is > > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been > > relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors. > >

RE: LMI Lambda?

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Eric Smith > Sent: 11 February 2017 07:12 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: LMI Lambda? > > On Fri, Feb 10

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > I assume that the shutdown of Slysoft (ANYDVD) was facilitated by DMCA. > I don't know, but I rather doubt it. The MPAA and/or studios would have publicized a victory against Slysoft.

Re: LMI Lambda?

I'd love to see more info on when one was successfully enforced on an end-user. On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Wikipedia is a good start. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, geneb wrote: Interesting read, thanks. That case upheld the click-through/shrinkwrap

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: I think also that whatever your decision is, that people should simply respect that. Better be safe than sorry after all. Absolutely! Whether or not WE think that there is a danger is not the point. And, whether we think that the LAW would rule

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates > > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is > > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been > > relaxed

Re: LMI Lambda?

I think also that whatever your decision is, that people should simply respect that. Better be safe than sorry after all.

Re: LMI Lambda?

> > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates > > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is > > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been > > relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors. > >

Re: LMI Lambda?

> Remember that Sony purchased the rights to the Virtual Game Station > emulator from Connectix because they lost in court. It's a really cool emulator, too. Works well. *pats G4* -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Chris Hanson wrote: > >> It doesn’t matter if the company hasn’t existed since the late 80s - Someone >> somewhere owns the IP rights and as soon as they see interest in it they’re >> going to see potential dollar signs. > > As near

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:34 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote: > Absent a license from the rightsholder, emulators are illegal. Full stop, end > of sentence. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. As others have pointed out, this is not the case. Remember

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Alfred M. Szmidt > >> System 46 for the MIT CADR is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license -- >> start hacking. ;-) You even have an emulator for the MIT CADR. > > Everyone seems to have blown right past

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Liam Proven wrote: "Here's the code. To use it, you'll need ROM images and images of software. These are not provided and won't be, so don't ask. Get your own and it is your problem to ensure that you are legal." Is there a QUALITATIVE difference between FREE distribution

Re: LMI Lambda?

> From: Alfred M. Szmidt > System 46 for the MIT CADR is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license -- > start hacking. ;-) You even have an emulator for the MIT CADR. Everyone seems to have blown right past this, but it might be important. Does anyone know if the Lambda matches the

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > OK, so, if the community can have a collective search down behind the > sofa cushions and provide you with original kit and software -- would > you want that? Would it help? Oh, I meant to include that if someone did

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Warner Losh wrote: Speaking in absolutes in the IP field is often unwise. Only: "Don't mess with the mouse." In addition to occasional changes in the laws and in their interpretation, there is always the issue, as mentioned in one of the early posts, that annoying the

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 9 February 2017 at 18:37, Daniel Seagraves > wrote: >> I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from >> hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been > relaxed slightly to permit use

Re: LMI Lambda?

On 9 February 2017 at 18:37, Daniel Seagraves wrote: > I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from > hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the hypothetical ass. AIUI they are rather complex machines, yes. > Well, unless

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > Ah, now, yes, then there we have a problem. :-) I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the hypothetical ass. > OK, so, if the

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Liam Proven wrote: >> >> On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote: >>> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then >>>

Re: LMI Lambda?

On 9 February 2017 at 18:30, Daniel Seagraves wrote: >> But otherwise, so long as you own the software or a licence thereto, >> you can run it on whatever you want, in most cases. > > And there’s the rub, because... > >> Do you own at least 1 of the original machine? > >

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote: >> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then >> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense. I started

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote: >> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then >> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense. > > > AIUI

Re: LMI Lambda?

> Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been > relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors. EULAs have the same

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Liam Proven wrote: Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.

Re: LMI Lambda?

On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote: > If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then > TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense. AIUI -- and IANAL -- this is correct, yes. The issue here is not running the software,

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Daniel Seagraves wrote: On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Mouse wrote: Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted code. If that's what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and I retract my question. Yeah, I

Re: LMI Lambda?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Daniel Seagraves wrote: Absent a license from the rightsholder, emulators are illegal. Full stop, end of sentence. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Barring actual evidence to the contrary, I call bullshit. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007

Re: LMI Lambda?

As for a LispM emulator, personally, what I'd like to do (but don't have the resources to do and have other things I'd prefer to put my time into) would be to develop an emulator - with a legitimate copy of the software to test it against - then work on developing an alternative,

Re: LMI Lambda?

However, doesn’t developing the emulator make you an accessory to the violation? Emulators are fully legal to write, maintain and develop in the US and EU. What is illegal is the distribution of copyrighted material. For example, any boot ROM would have to be stripped, software to get

Re: LMI Lambda?

>> Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run >> copyrighted code. If that's what you were talking about, then I >> misunderstood, and I retract my question. > Yeah, I should have clarified - Using an emulator to run copyrighted code. I$ > However, doesnâ??t developing the

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Mouse wrote: > > Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted > code. If that's what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and > I retract my question. Yeah, I should have clarified - Using an

Re: LMI Lambda?

> Absent a license from the rightsholder, emulators are illegal. Full stop, en$ I think this is the first time I've seen this claimed. What is the basis for it? That is, what law would be violated by such a thing? Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted code.

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Chris Hanson <cmhan...@eschatologist.net> wrote: > > No. :) > > I presume you’re working on something related to CADR, LMI Lambda, and TI > Explorer emulation. Why not do so in the open? Presume all you want, but I can’t confirm or de

Re: LMI Lambda?

No. :) I presume you’re working on something related to CADR, LMI Lambda, and TI Explorer emulation. Why not do so in the open? -- Chris > On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Daniel Seagraves <dseag...@lunar-tokyo.net> wrote: > > Everyone point and laugh; I am ten kinds of stu

Re: LMI Lambda?

Everyone point and laugh; I am ten kinds of stupid. Would everyone who isn’t Al pretend you did not see the previous email please? :) > On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote: > > >> On Feb 5, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Al Kossow wrote: >>

Re: LMI Lambda?

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Al Kossow wrote: > > pictures and firmware now uploaded to > http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/lmi/ > > does anyone still have schematics for the Lambda? would be nice to archive a > set for the artifacts in CHM's collection. Not that we

Re: LMI Lambda?

ess to or knows someone who has > access to an LMI Lambda in any condition or > configuration, please contact me. >

Re: LMI Lambda?

r knows someone who has >> access to an LMI Lambda in any condition or >> configuration, please contact me. >> >

Re: LMI Lambda?

http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102668040 On 1/25/17 5:43 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote: > If there is anyone out there who has access to or knows someone who has > access to an LMI Lambda in any condition or > configuration, please contact me. >

LMI Lambda?

If there is anyone out there who has access to or knows someone who has access to an LMI Lambda in any condition or configuration, please contact me.