HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lmy@ncn.UUCP (Lars Myraas)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Alternative UNIX for 486
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:22:28 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Inf. A/S
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

vagle@hsr.no (Laban Seigemann) writes:
: I am very interested in running a full 32 bits UNIX system on my
: beautiful Intel486DX.
: 
: What do you recommend ?
: 
: What about Solaris 2.0 from SunSoft ? or INTERACTIVE UNIX from Sun ?
: Or what about the newest COHERENT ?
: I want a cheap one, which do not take 50MB hard disk and 8MB RAM.
: Help me, let`s discuss this.
: 
: -- 
:  Lars Vagle.  E-mail: vagle@hsr.no  Phone: +47-4-874220

Try Coherent, small and cheap ($100). Min. requierments: 1Mb/10Mb
(Du kan ringe Ravenholm Computing i Oslo, de selger Coh for 800-900,-kr)

Lars
-- 
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Lars Myraas | E-mail: lmy@siemens-nixdorf.no  |
+------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky comp.os.misc:1009 comp.os.rsts:92 vmsnet.pdp-11:924
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Help on RT-11 macro language
Followup-To: comp.os.misc,comp.os.rsts,vmsnet.pdp-11
Keywords: RT-11, macro
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:45:15 GMT

PDP-11 hackers hang around on comp.os.rsts and vmsnet.pdp-11. I've directed
followups there...

In article <93Jan04.223305.29354@acs.ucalgary.ca> morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca (Bill Morrow) writes:
> I'm a bit confused by the unconditional branch instruction -
> where does this code end up after the 'BR 10$+2' step?

All of the following assumes I'm not psychotic:

Two bytes after the label marked "10$".

Assume .=1000 (octal)

Address	Data		  Code
1000	0		> DR3INT: 0
1002	<branch>	> 	BR	10$+2		<--- branch to where ?
1004	<branch>	> 	BR	20$+2
1006	<mov>		> 10$:	MOV	#107,DMACSR
	107
	DMACSR
1014	<tst>		> 	TST	ADCO		<--- here ?
	ADCO
1020	<branch>	> 	BEQ	11$
1022	<mov>		> 	MOV	#113,KWREG
	113
	KWREG
1030	<mov>		> 11$:	MOV	DR3INT+4,DR3INT
	DR3INT+4
	DR3INT
1036			> 	TR			<--- or here ?
			> 12$:    et cetera ad nauseum

Since the MOV is a three-word instruction, it's branching into the middle
of the move instruction. Are you sure this isn't some sort of table being
interpreted as code?

> My intuitive guess is that it ends up at 'TST ADCO',
> but the manual seems to be telling me it branches to
> the indicated address.

I don't see how.

> While you're here, does the 'MOV' instruction at 11$ really move
> the label 'DR3INT' to the same address as 10$?

No, it moves the BR 20$+1 *instruction* to DR3INT. DEC's assemblers all
use "MOV <src>,<dst>".

> What does 'TR' do? I can't find it in the instruction set
> or the macro language reference manual.

I don't know offhand. Maybe a macro.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
From: mikesw@microsoft.com (Mike Swift)
Subject: Re: More Windows NT
Date: 04 Jan 93 20:24:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <C06HKy.4qI@research.canon.oz.au> andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:
>>Is Microsoft going to user(for lack of a better term)-written servers
>>or publish the interface between the servers and the NT executive.  Is
>>the interface well-defined or was it determined in an ad-hoc fashion
>>that arose as Microsft implemented their servers?
>
>I and several others posted this question to one of the comp.sys.windows
>groups frequented by Microsoft staffers. No answer was forthcoming. It
>would be nice to get at the kernel, seems quite reasonable underneath.
>
>-- 
>Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)

I've heard it rumored that Microsoft wants NT to replace Mach in academia,
and might be willing to release the source code to academic sites.  

I'm not a spokeperson for Microsoft, though, and don't have any idea what
the official plans are.

- Mike

Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.os.vms
From: morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca (Bill Morrow)
Subject: Help on RT-11 macro language
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 22:33:05 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary
Keywords: RT-11, macro

Hello all you old fellows,

I have been forced to update some of the PDP-11 assembler acquisition
software running on our old RT-11 system. Of course,
there are no comments in the source, to save on disk space.
A week ago, I knew absolutely nothing about PDP-11 macro language.
I have been wading through the "Orange Wall", but
I'm a bit confused by the unconditional branch instruction -
where does this code end up after the 'BR 10$+2' step?

DR3INT: 0
	BR	10$+2		<--- branch to where ?
	BR	20$+2
10$:	MOV	#107,DMACSR
	TST	ADCO		<--- here ?
	BEQ	11$
	MOV	#113,KWREG
11$:	MOV	DR3INT+4,DR3INT
	TR			<--- or here ?
12$:    et cetera ad nauseum

My intuitive guess is that it ends up at 'TST ADCO',
but the manual seems to be telling me it branches to
the indicated address.

While you're here, does the 'MOV' instruction at 11$ really move
the label 'DR3INT' to the same address as 10$? Why is the 
'BR 20$+2' there then?

What does 'TR' do? I can't find it in the instruction set
or the macro language reference manual.

Thanks for the help.
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Bill Morrow                    voice: (403) 220-6275
Clinical Neurosciences         fax: (403) 283-4740
University of Calgary          e-mail: morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca
Xref: sparky comp.os.misc:1013 comp.theory:2827 comp.lang.misc:4097 alt.lang.asm:536
From: ol@aiguemarine.unice.fr (Olivier Lecarme)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.theory,comp.lang.misc,alt.lang.asm
Subject: Re: PROTOLO A FUTURISTIC OBJECT-CODE FORMAT
Keywords: languages,objectcode
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:17:45 GMT
Reply-To: ol@unice.fr
Organization: University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis, France
NNTP-Posting-Host: aiguemarine.unice.fr

In article <1993Jan6.185513.15335@csi.uottawa.ca>, cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
|> 
     .....

|> 2) Some European compiler project involving A. Tanembaum
|> 
    ... Here was an outdated description of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit. ...

ACK is a present project, a production-quality kit for building very efficient
compiler back-ends for present computers. It is distributed and maintained.

See CACM, 26(9):654-660 for a description of the whole project, and SIGPLAN
Notices, 24(11):125-131 for recent developments.

-- 


			Olivier Lecarme
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.theory,comp.lang.misc,alt.lang.asm
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: PROTOLO A FUTURISTIC OBJECT-CODE FORMAT
Keywords: languages,objectcode
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:55:13 GMT


This sounds very much like some languages that already exist:

1) The GNU Project internal language called RTL

The compiler front end generates code in RTL.  An internal optimizer
then wrenches it apart, puts it back together again, and translates it
into the assembly language of the target computer.  There's then some
further peephole optimization, and eventually you get executable
object code.

There's this theory that they're going to eventually have a whole
family of front ends.  Right now, there are front ends for C, C++ and
Objective C.  There may be an alpha version of a FORTRAN front end.
There has been talk about Pascal, Modula-2, COBOL (!) and Ada front
ends, but this seems to be just talk at this point.

RTL seems to be fairly LISP-like.

2) Some European compiler project involving A. Tanembaum

In an old SIGPlan, I've got an article on a project that Tanembaum (of
Minix/Amoeba fame) worked on a few years ago.

The basic idea was that they generated compiler front ends (very
similar to the GCC idea described above) that would produce as output
a "machine independent" language.  In this case, it was a "stack
oriented" language.  (FORTH and PostScript are examples of stack
oriented languages, but have many more op-codes than Tanembaum's
system.)

A second program would then generate code for the actual CPU.

Much of the paper talked about how they had to do some pipelining to
it, combining multiple passes into one in order to improve the speed
of compilation.

For BOTH of these systems, the advantages to the "internal language"
were:

a) It makes it easy to use "multiple front ends," which means that you
can more easily produce compilers for SEVERAL languages, targetted
towards SEVERAL platforms.

I.e.:  If you want compilers for three languages that will run on 6
different computers, you only need to write 9 programs.  The
conventional "monolithic" method would require 18 compilers.

It gets REALLY worthwhile if you look at having a dozen computers, and
a dozen languages.  It cuts the work by a factor of about 6.

b) Optimization can take place at THREE levels:
1) Language level
2) Internal pseudo-machine level
3) Object code level

which can be very helpful.  It may be possible to do MORE
optimizations, and at the least, it means that each optimizer is
simpler, and is targetted at ONE of those levels.  You're not doing
variable folding simultaneously with peephole optimization, which cuts
down on bugs.

Your idea is fairly well understood; I suggest you check out the way
one of these implementations does things, and try to find ways of
making it BETTER.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
From: jcb@hood (Jim Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: X11 and Windows NT (was: Windows NT Report)
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:03:32 GMT
	<C0Do0q.pn@alsvid.une.edu.au>
	<1993Jan5.151421.24773@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: jcb@bachelor
Return-Path: <jcb@hood>
To: williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov


   Subject: X11 and Windows NT (was: Windows NT Report)
   From: williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Williams)
   Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
   
   I wrote:
   
   >From article <>, by williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Williams):
   > 
   > How do you mean this?  Will they actively try to stop 3rd parties from
   > porting X to NT?  I don't think so...
   
   Mark wrote:
   
   In article <> mark@alsvid.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett Internet:) writes:>
   >	For various technical reasons due to the way the screen is controlled
   >by NT porting X11 seems out of the question.. It does require MS to do some
   >work to the standard system to allow X11 to become possible..
   >
   
   I've gotten several responses that all say similar things; the screen
   is very special under NT and no X11 server is possible unless MS
   cooperates.    

running  two  windowing  systems  at  once is always tricky. i haven't
heard any "can't do it's" around here though. we have shown X  running
on NT at trade shows already.

   I've not heard any statement from MS with respect to X,
   but given that they are supporting TCP/IP and Posix, it seems to me
   they have at least a token interest in interoperability.  Thus,
   providing at least some support for X clients seems to be in their
   interests.
   
the  last i heard they were directing people to talk to NCD, as that's
part  of  our  main  business.  they  are counting on third parties to
provide this, as i assume they have their hands full with NT itself.

   Consider this: Now that Novell has bought USL, they have an OS (Unix)
   that is comparable to NT in many ways, superior is some, and much much
   more mature.  The "native" window system for that OS is X11.  For DOS
   boxes connected to Novell/USL servers, Desqview/X suddenly looks
   attractive.  (Indeed, I'd not be at all surprised if Novell bought
   Desqview.)   

the Desqview technology was initially licensed from GSS.  GSS  is  now
the NCD-PCX Division.  i don't know where that agreement  stands  now.
meaning  if  Novell bought Desqview i don't know what happens with the
original license.

   IBM has said that they will offer X11  support  in  a  future  version
   of   OS/2.   Suddenly,  Microsoft  is  the  only  player  without  X11
   support.   In  my  opinion, if they shun X11, they will do so at their
   own peril.
   
they are counting on 3rd party support for a lot of  things,  this  is
one of them.

   Spoken: James W. Williams			Company: Hughes STX
   Internet: williams@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov		Phone: +1 301 286-1131

i'm  not  an  official spokesperson at all for this, but wanted to let
people know that X11 and NT will be getting along one way or the other.

-jim

--

 -Jim Becker / jcb@pcx.ncd.com / Network Computing Devices, Inc. (NCD)
Xref: sparky comp.os.misc:1005 comp.os.vms:20413
From: gezelter@rlgsc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Help on RT-11 macro languagereply
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:30:33 GMT
Organization: Robert Gezelter Software Consultant, Flushing, NY

In article <93Jan04.223305.29354@acs.ucalgary.ca>, morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca (Bill Morrow) writes:
> Hello all you old fellows,
> 
> I have been forced to update some of the PDP-11 assembler acquisition
> software running on our old RT-11 system. Of course,
> there are no comments in the source, to save on disk space.
> A week ago, I knew absolutely nothing about PDP-11 macro language.
> I have been wading through the "Orange Wall", but
> I'm a bit confused by the unconditional branch instruction -
> where does this code end up after the 'BR 10$+2' step?
> 
> DR3INT: 0
> 	BR	10$+2		<--- branch to where ?
> 	BR	20$+2
> 10$:	MOV	#107,DMACSR
> 	TST	ADCO		<--- here ?
> 	BEQ	11$
> 	MOV	#113,KWREG
> 11$:	MOV	DR3INT+4,DR3INT
> 	TR			<--- or here ?
> 12$:    et cetera ad nauseum
> 
> My intuitive guess is that it ends up at 'TST ADCO',
> but the manual seems to be telling me it branches to
> the indicated address.
> 
> While you're here, does the 'MOV' instruction at 11$ really move
> the label 'DR3INT' to the same address as 10$? Why is the 
> 'BR 20$+2' there then?
> 
> What does 'TR' do? I can't find it in the instruction set
> or the macro language reference manual.
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> -- 
> __________________________________________________________
> Bill Morrow                    voice: (403) 220-6275
> Clinical Neurosciences         fax: (403) 283-4740
> University of Calgary          e-mail: morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca
-- 
Bill,
 
It appears that you have encountered a bit of a "curse", self 
modifying code.
 
First, the MOV located at 10$ will assemble into a three word (6 
byte) sequence, so the BR 10$+2 would branch into the middle of 
an instruction. However, from the code fragment that you 
included, it would appear that those branch instructions are 
being used as "sources" for the move instruction.
 
The instruction:
> 11$:	MOV	DR3INT+4,DR3INT
moves the CONTENTS of DR3INT+4 (which I believe is the assembled 
value of BR 20$+2) to location DR3INT (which is the word set to 
0).
 
In general, it is important to read this type of code in extreme 
detail, as things are often not what they seem.
 
I hope that this information is helpful. If I can be of further 
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
 
- Bob
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert "Bob" Gezelter                       E-Mail:  gezelter@rlgsc.com  |
| Robert Gezelter Software Consultant         Voice:   +1 718 463 1079     |
| 35-20 167th Street, Suite 215               Fax:       (on Request)      |
| Flushing, New York  11358-1731                                           |
| United States of America                                                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jtk@netcom.com (Jane Valencia)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: More Windows NT
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:46:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:

>I and several others posted this question [user-written filesystems]
> to one of the comp.sys.windows
>groups frequented by Microsoft staffers. No answer was forthcoming. It
>would be nice to get at the kernel, seems quite reasonable underneath.

I heard this question posed by someone who was pretty clearly planning
on putting the OS/2 filesystem onto NT as a migration path.  The
Microsoft guy said that they didn't have documentation for doing that
available "yet".  Got a chuckle from the group since it was obvious that
"yet" is going to be as far away as they can make it, at least from
this particular Microsoft guy's perspective.

				Andy Valencia
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.os.vms
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: Help on RT-11 macro language
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: RT-11, macro
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:24:00 GMT

In article <93Jan04.223305.29354@acs.ucalgary.ca>, morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca (Bill Morrow) writes...
>Hello all you old fellows,
> 				(plea for help here)

>DR3INT: 0

	from the naming convention, this looks like the entry point for
	an ISR (Interrupt service routine.) It gets filled in later on by
	code which moves one of the following 2 instructions into the
	location DRINT3: n.b. this means that the code never executes the
	following 2 instructions AT THEIR CURRENT LOCATION

>	BR	10$+2		<--- branch to where ?
>	BR	20$+2

	One must know that a branch instruction contains the branch code in
	the upper byte, plus a word offset in the lower byte. To get the new
	pc, you do the following:

	1/ Take the absolute address of the branch instruction.
	2/ Add 2, (because the pc is 2 higher after reading the instruction.
	3/ Add 2 times the value of the lower byte.

	So as a result, the BR	10$+2 instruction, WHEN MOVED 2 bytes further
	upstream, will branch to location 10$. (Catch on? The +2 is added to
	the branch instruction 2 make up for the fact that the instruction
	is being moved, but the assembler doesn't know it.)

>10$:	MOV	#107,DMACSR
>	TST	ADCO		<--- here ?
>	BEQ	11$
>	MOV	#113,KWREG
>11$:	MOV	DR3INT+4,DR3INT
>	TR			<--- or here ?
>12$:    et cetera ad nauseum
> 
	One other point, because we are moving DRINT+4 to DR3INT, the
	final adjustment+4, -2 is off by 2, so the BR 20$+2 will eventually

>While you're here, does the 'MOV' instruction at 11$ really move
>the label 'DR3INT' to the same address as 10$? Why is the 
>'BR 20$+2' there then?

	MOVs are simple.	MOVE DR3INT+4 moves the CONTENTS of
				location DR3INT+4

				MOV #nnn moves a number nnn to xxx

> 
>What does 'TR' do? I can't find it in the instruction set
>or the macro language reference manual.

	There should be code in the start of the source stating items
	of the form	.MACRO	TR.

	Check your manual and you should be able to do a compile with
	the listing expanding the macro, so you see what it actually does.
   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   
                                   | \|_)  By the time we've made it, we've 
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  had it. - Malcom Forbes
Xref: sparky comp.os.misc:998 comp.os.vms:20327
From: zbang@access.digex.com (Carl P. Zwanzig)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Help on RT-11 macro language
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:57:14 GMT
Organization: The Midnite Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: RT-11, macro

In article <93Jan04.223305.29354@acs.ucalgary.ca> morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca (Bill Morrow) writes:
>Hello all you old fellows,
>
>I have been forced to update some of the PDP-11 assembler acquisition
>software running on our old RT-11 system. Of course,
>there are no comments in the source, to save on disk space.
>A week ago, I knew absolutely nothing about PDP-11 macro language.
>I have been wading through the "Orange Wall", but
Oh, the NEW books :-).

>I'm a bit confused by the unconditional branch instruction -
>where does this code end up after the 'BR 10$+2' step?


>DR3INT: 0
>	BR	10$+2		<--- branch to where ?
this would branch to the "107 operand on the move instruction but is
probably a parameter, value=402

>	BR	20$+2
this would branch to somewhere after 20$, but is probably also a parameter

>10$:	MOV	#107,DMACSR
the instruction "107 is JMP PC, this is also illegal (mode 0 on a jmp)
>	TST	ADCO		<--- here ?
..not here..
>	BEQ	11$
>	MOV	#113,KWREG
>11$:	MOV	DR3INT+4,DR3INT
>	TR			<--- or here ?
..or here..
>12$:    et cetera ad nauseum

I'd guess that this is an interupt routine for a DR11-B DMA parrallel
interface, but the manuals are buried.

>My intuitive guess is that it ends up at 'TST ADCO',
>but the manual seems to be telling me it branches to
>the indicated address.
Trust the manual ;-)

>
>While you're here, does the 'MOV' instruction at 11$ really move
>the label 'DR3INT' to the same address as 10$? Why is the 
>'BR 20$+2' there then?
The MOV gets the data "br 20$+2".

>What does 'TR' do? I can't find it in the instruction set
>or the macro language reference manual.

Probably a macro written by the code developers.

>Thanks for the help.
>-- 
>__________________________________________________________
>Bill Morrow                    voice: (403) 220-6275
>Clinical Neurosciences         fax: (403) 283-4740
>University of Calgary          e-mail: morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca

Good luck with it,

Carl Zwanzig
zbang@access.digex.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: More Windows NT
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:50:08 GMT

jtk@netcom.com (Jane Valencia) writes:
>andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>
>>I and several others posted this question [user-written filesystems]
>> to one of the comp.sys.windows
>>groups frequented by Microsoft staffers. No answer was forthcoming. It
>>would be nice to get at the kernel, seems quite reasonable underneath.

Not [filesystems] but [subsystems] ... things that implement OS
services atop the base kernel, just like the Windows sub-system
or the POSIX sub-system (now there's a thought :-).

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
From: drew@ophelia.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Alternative UNIX for 486
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:38:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.150745.9573@hsr.no> vagle@hsr.no (Laban Seigemann) writes:
>I am very interested in running a full 32 bits UNIX system on my
>beautiful Intel486DX.
>
>What do you recommend ?

How about Linux?  With a 300K kernel, shared libraries, dynamically 
allocated kernel structures like PTYs, etc, memory and disk usage 
is minimal.  You can fit an entire installation, with X11R5 (As in 
the full set of MIT fonts and clients), 'C' / C++, etc into 40M of 
disk. 

Best of all, its free. Available via anonymous ftp from tsx-11.mit.edu:
/pub/linux.  Try the SLS distribution, under /pub/linux/packages/SLS.
Also available on floppy disks (ie, SLS distribution) or CDROM.

>What about Solaris 2.0 from SunSoft ? or INTERACTIVE UNIX from Sun ?

$$$$

>Or what about the newest COHERENT ?

It doesn't run 'X', many applications don't compile out of the box, 
it has poor support for wierd hardware like multi-port and SCSI boards, 
etc.

-- 
Boycott AT&T for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit. | Drew Eckhardt
Condemn Colorado for Amendment Two.		 | drew@cs.colorado.edu
Use Linux, the fast, flexible, and free 386 unix |  
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc