Talk:RSTS/E

message: Should RSTS-11 be a separate article?  I'm not sure.  The RSTS/E article basically describes the final version of the OS, while the RSTS-11 article describes V4A.  The path from one to the other is really just the usual software product evolution.  There was a name change from V4 to V5, and a major added feature (extended memory support).  But there were other releases with new features of similar magnitude.  
I would suggest merging RSTS-11 back into this article by discussing the history of RSTS.
Some points on history: 
# Sysgen using RT-11 appeared in V6B (from V4 to V6A it was done with DOS).
# Runtime systems existed around V5B but weren't really visible until V6B.
# DCL appeared in V8.0 if I remember right
and so on...
Paul Koning 14:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RSTS-11 and RSTS/E

message: #Commercial and Non-commercial information on sites that used RSTS.  I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the Citibank systems could help provide some insight in the HISTORY section.  Banks, insurance, universities etc.
#Development history from 1990-1992.  Anyone?
#Run-Time Section (too much?/not enough?), someone want to compose a nice TECO example?
#Trivia Section is currently unfinished (but you can see where I was heading with it).
#Current status of Mentec-inc (still selling PDP-11 software)?  Their website is still down, phone disconnected and no replies to emails.
Bbump (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you sure did a lot of work on this.  It looks very good.  Opportunities for cleanup, of course, but this really moves things ahead. Paul Koning (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks Paul.  I'm glad you cleaned up the RSX memory section.  I debated about that one but tried to leave as much content as possible (not wanting to step on anyones toes). Bbump (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RSTS Merged, Items Needed

message: It might be worth mentioning that when installing or upgrading RSTS (i.e. during SYSGEN), during the configuration process it was necessary to edit several configuration files.  At that point the half-installed OS was unable to load any normal program; TECO was the only editor that could be run.  At the same time, TECO was always officially "unsupported" by DEC, although at various points in the voluminous system documentation one would find little footprints -- a file open mode, say, or a bit in the keyboard status word -- marked "Reserved for TECO".  This was also true of RSX.  So DEC's premier operating systems in the 1970s could not be installed on DEC hardware without an "unsupported" chunk of code... -- Craig Goodrich 206.39.12.241 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: TECO

message: Because it might be misleading, the text talking about Mentec issuing a no cost hobbyist license should probably be removed because it is still being actively pursued in an official fashion.  It was actually DEC who granted this to Bob Supnik and only for use on emulation products, not on a general scale like the article would suggest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.133.124 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbyist license status unknown 

message: If my memory serves me correctly, the original author of BASIC Plus was Mark Bramhall, who, allegedly, wrote the first version during a transatlantic flight... I still have a whole bunch of tapes of this stuff, including, I believe, some source code. I do recall using the DECOMP package that Dave Garrod & I wrote to decompile most of the RSTS utilities. As you might have guessed, the DECOMP package would not decompile itself ;-) We sold a separate utility that would make BAC files undecompilable...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickds1 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author of BASIC Plus... 

message: I remember someone figured a way to patch a BAC file to change the running name of a program, a guy was using (what we would now call) a hex editor on a Basic-Plus program (since the PDP-11 was octal, it was probably either an octal editor or decimal byte editor) so that if you did a control-T for the terminal running it, or a SYSTAT elsewhere, instead of the program being "MYPROG" it would show up as "..OHNO". Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More hacks 

message: In the article Symbolic Link it is mentioned that symbolic links were already present in 1978 minicomputer OSs from DEC. Since I knew RT-11 quite well I'm shure that RT-11 did not have smbolic links. I guess that it must have referred to RSTS. But also there I found only a kind of command aliases, which are far from symbolic links.
Is there anybody around who used RSTS and can confirm that symbolic links did not exits on a file system level in RSTS? Treutwein (talk contribs) 08:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic Links or Aliases? 

message: Hi, I'm reading the autobiography of Kevin Mitnick who, in his teenage years, became an expert of RSTS/E. In the book he states "RSTS/E (spoken as 'RIS-tisEE')". This pronunciation conflicts with the two we have in the lead sentence of the article. I am not familiar enough with the subject to change it. Could someone who knows a bit more about the subject confirm this and change it? --Oldak Quill 18:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I worked for DEC (in the UK & Europe) we pronounced it more as 'RIS-tusEE', but its literally a semantic point. The above is close enough. Nickds1 (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RSTS/E" pronunciation 

message: An image used in this article, File:MicroPDP-11 53wRSTSDocs.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:MicroPDP-11 53wRSTSDocs.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion