search

PDP-10 / its

Incompatible Timesharing System
Other
841 stars 80 forks source link

KA ITS shows "D63 TARAKA" with "who" command #2184

Open eswenson1 opened 1 year ago

eswenson1 commented 1 year ago

On non-KA systems, when you run the WHO command, you see only interactive, top-level HACTRNs. However, in KA ITS, running WHO gives output like this:

KA>who↑K!
T53 EJS
D63 TARAKA

:KILL

Why is TARAKA listed here? Note the program knows that the terminal is not an interactive terminal (D63). This doesn't happen on other architecture ITS systems.

eswenson1 commented 1 year ago

KA defines 1 console, 16 TK TTYs, 10 MTY TTYs, 16 Datapoint TTYs, 8 STYs, and 10 TVs. "D63" appears to be the entry for the first of these TVs.

Seems that the isn't with WHO (WHOJ), but rather with the TTY: device. WHO reads: TTY:.file. (dir) and gets back a buffer with:

TTY UNAME  JNAME  CORE  TOTAL IDX
T53 EJS    HACTRN   30   110  12
D63 TARAKA NAMDRG   29    79  7
FREE CORE  496 OUT 25

So this buffer already contains D63. The "D", according to SYSTEM; ITS >, is for "device" (not "daemon").
I compared the data returned by reading from TTY:.file. (dir) on KA versus DB (KS), and as expected, it is the KA version that includes TARAKA NAMDRG, but DB(KS) doesn't. Of course, DB isn't running NAMDRG since it doesn't have TVs.

So maybe this entry for D63 is expected, since perhaps D63 is actually the first TV. @larsbrinkhoff ?

larsbrinkhoff commented 1 year ago

I'm not sure, really. I always assumed it was related to the Name Dragon. I do think it first popped up when we added the Knight TV support.

eswenson1 commented 1 year ago

It is certainly related to the name dragon and TV. What I don’t know is whether it was historically there and whether some bug/misconfiguration is causing it to show up.

larsbrinkhoff commented 1 year ago

I guess the only way we could check is to build a genuine AI KA configuration and see what happens.

larsbrinkhoff commented 1 year ago

From looking at the code, I'm inclined to believe it's working as intended.

eswenson1 commented 1 year ago

Yeah, it may be. I too didn’t see anything that would have prevented it’s inclusion.