On June 16, Chuck McManis wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Dave McGuire wrote:
> > > 1) It's just not necessary for effective communications.
>
> No, smoke signals work as well. Everyone on this knows that THIS IS
> SHOUTING and *this* is an emphatic point. HTML gives you better markup than
> case and punctuation symbols. Sending :-) is not as intuitive as sending
> the smiley face symbol.
It's just as intuitive to me...and to you as well, I'm sure, Chuck.
It's all a matter of what one is used to.
Sure, one summer day about nineteen years ago I asked a friend what
that strange-looking colon-hyphen-closeparen deal was that I was
seeing all over the place. He grabbed my head and wrenched it
sideways and I learned what a "smiley" was all about. Sure, it wasn't
immediately intuitive...but nowadays, I can't see a colon anywhere near a
paren without my mind converting it into some sort of face!
> > > 2) It's a waste of bandwidth and system resources.
>
> Again false. There is less waste due to the <html>/</html> and
> <font></font> tags than there is from idiots that include a 600 line rant
> and tag "I agree" on to the end. To steal a phrase, HTML doesn't waste
> bandwidth, people do. :-) Correctly constructed, HTML is pretty efficient
> at capturing added typographical information. Mailers that insist on
> sending both an HTML version and a plain version are broken in my opinion.
I agree with the "people do" point...but the HTML mail that I see is
typically bloated by 20-50% past the original text. Sure, if it were
all nice, efficient hand-coded HTML it could be a lot better...but
it's NOT. It's coming out of dumbass Windows software and is bloated
as hell.
> > > 3) Technical people generally want genuine functionality to
> > > prevail over "flash"...which is why many (most) technical people
> > > in the industry (Visual Basic programmers don't count) don't
> > > have Windows boxes on their desks if they have anything to say
> > > about it.
>
> HTML and windows are not tied as closely as you might think. Since HTML was
> developed at CERN on Sun UNIX boxes it was tied at the time more closely to
> UNIX. However, it is genuinely functional if I can include a diagram
> in-line with my text that is _not_ composed of ascii characters and thus
> won't be gobbledy gook when you see it.
I'm quite intimately familiar with the history of HTML & HTTP...and
while I do agree with your statement of functionality, using HTML
for any sort of diagramming is a stretch at best.
Formatting/coloring/sizing text, sure...but diagramming??
> > > 4) It's a clear outgrowth of the overcommercialization of the Internet,
> > > in which uneducated users think the World Wide Web *IS* the
> > > Internet, thus they try to cram the World Wide Web into
> > > everything they do, and conversely, cram everything they do into
> > > the World Wide Web.
>
> You are confusing HTTP with HTML. HTML was explicitly designed so that a
> "modern" computer (one that had a bitmapped screen rather than a terminal)
> could be taken advantage of when you were *exchanging* documents. It was a
> lot simpler than the printer description languages of the day, (and PDF
> today) and, when tied with a convention (the URL) and a network protocol,
> it could "link" related documents rather than include them and thus waste
> precious bandwidth.
Not at all. As I mentioned above I'm quite familiar with the
history of both. Please reread my #4 point above with this in mind:
I'm speaking completely from the standpoint of the *current* popular
use of this technology...not the original reasons for its development.
I apologize for not being more clear about that originally.
-Dave McGuire
> sheesh, just because it wasnt the greatest of designs doesnt
> give you carte blanche to disparage the person wanting to fix
> one. I have a /// that still boots off its profile drive, but
> i wonder when it will stop working. 2 years ago i gave a
> nonworking /// to a friend who ebayed it. he actually got $60 for it.
Nothing I wrote was disparaging to Louis.
I never had trouble getting one to boot, I had trouble with
it working as any reasonable person with programming skills
would expect a computer to operate.
Let me elaborate. I was developing a job costing package
for a small local construction firm. We didn't have one
to do development on, so I had to work on the customer's
machine. While I understand that SOS (wasn't that the
name of the OS, Apple SOS, pronounced "Applesauce"?)
did have other development environments available, Pascal
coming to mind, I was directed to use the native Basic
interpreter.
Well, I'd be typing in my code, when randomly, without
warning or notification, the /// would pick a point in
my source code, and either delete a chunk out of the
middle, or from a point to the end of the code.
And I mean randomly; it would truncate in the middle
of a line number! Clearly, what was happening is that
I was overflowing the interpreter's symbol table. But
nuking my source code is not an acceptable way of
informing me as a user that it could not handle what I
was asking of it. Hell, at least it could have started
beeping when I'd try to enter a new line of code. So
I'd start saving to disk every 5 lines. Since I compose
to paper (and still do and cannot understand why some
programmers compose directly into thr machine), at
least I didn't _really_ lose anything except peace of
mind.
As I said, I had to work at the customer site, and since
they had to use the machine during the work day, that
meant I had to work the remaining hours. It became
customary for me to still be there in the morning when
they'd come in, although I tried like hell to be out
by 6am. One morning around 8am, one of the owners asked
me "how much longer it would take", to which I replied
"it would've been done by now if you'd bought a different
computer." That was my last day on the project and if
I could do it all over again, I'd have defenestrated
the computer before his very eyes.
'Nuff said; I intended and maintain committed no disparagement
of Louis, only of the Apple ///. I was this very day going
to compose and post a message about Computers I Love to Hate,
but the timing of his posting changed the opportunity.
cheers,
-doug q
Carlos Murillo-Sanchez <cem14(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
> I guess that the first thing that I have to do now that I tested the
> power supply and verified that the machine (seems to) turn on,
> is to build a serial console cable for this. I have several cables
> that will fit the BACI boards, but the connectors at the other
> end have been cut off. Does anybody have the pin out for the
> finger pads in the front of the BACI boards?
OK, so this morning I have in front of me a couple different versions of
HP part number 12966-90001: HP 12966A Buffered Asynchronous Data
Communications Interface Installation, Service, and Reference Manual.
The datacomm card-edge connector is called P1 in this manual, and
it's described in terms of letter codes A-F, H, J-N, P, R-Z, AA, and BB;
and then numbers 1-24. I'm guessing that these correspond to sides of
the board/connector but I'm not sure which side is the letters and which
is the numbers. Some help I am, huh?
It looks like HP typically shipped one of several cables with the board,
depending on what option the board was ordered with. What's copied below
is the configuration of the "default" cable, p/n 12966-60004, and which
I think is appropriate for a DTE-flavored RS-232 device (like a terminal)
with no hardware flow control.
pin Signal name Device pin RS-232C ckt Source
A Signal Ground (EIA) 7 AB Common
B F
C CA Inhibit
D Transmit Data (EIA) 3 BA Intfc
E Request to Send (EIA) CA
F Data Terminal Ready (EIA) CD
H Ext Freq
J F/4
K F/8
L F/16
M F/2
N P/Ext
P BSBA
R Ext Clock 16 Device
S Received Data (EIA) 2 BB Device
T Secondary Line Sig Det (EIA) SCF
U (spare) (EIA)
V Secondary Receive Data (EIA) SBB
W BSCA
X Clear to Send (EIA) CB
Y Data Set Ready (EIA) CC
Z Ring Indicator (EIA) CE
AA Receive Line Signal Detect (EIA) CF
BB Signal Ground
1 Signal Ground
2 CCNT 7
3 SXX (Secondary Chan) (EIA) SBA/SCA
4 BSCF
5 SIN
6 Xmit Data In
7 TTY OUT
8 +5 volts
9 TTY IN
10 +12 volts 5,6 Intfc
11 UCLK0
12 CLKP2
13 CLKP1
14 CLKP0
15 CLKP3
16 Recd Data Out
17 BSBB
18 DIAG
19 Spare
20 Run Disable
21 BSXX
22 UCLK
23 -12 volts
24 Signal Ground
There's a rather complex set of cross-connects in the card-edge
connector's hood:
(A, N, 1)
(F, X, Y, AA)
(J, K)
(W, 5)
(4, 21)
(11, 22)
Other cables described in the manual:
12966-60008, for HP 264X terminal
12966-60006, for modem
12966-60007, for HP 2749B teleprinter
12966-60010, for HP 2621 terminal
12966-60011, for HP 7221 plotter
12966-60012, for HP 264X terminal to HP 7221A plotter (???)
The cables for modem, 2749B, and 7221 look like they are intended to
go to something like a DB25 connector. The cables for 264X and 2621
terminal look like they're intended to go to the datacomm connectors
on those devices (264X would be a different card-edge, 2621 would be
an Amphenol 50-pin connector that looks like the "Centronics" SCSI
connector).
The cables can be wired to provide for an external clock source
(-60008 does this) or to provide a fixed? baud rate for the interface.
If you see connections to pins 12-15 and/or N that is what is going on
here. The -60004, -60006, and -60007 cables are shipped configured
for program control (i.e. code running on the processor can set the
interface's baud rate). I'm going to be lazy for now and not key that
table in. Maybe later if you want it.
How's that for too much info?
-Frank McConnell
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
>
> > machine. While I understand that SOS (wasn't that the
> > name of the OS, Apple SOS, pronounced "Applesauce"?)
>
> Sophisticated Operating System
>
> > I'd start saving to disk every 5 lines. Since I compose
> > to paper (and still do and cannot understand why some
> > programmers compose directly into thr machine), at
>
> Um, speed and efficiency?
Haste makes waste.
The speed and effeciency people I've known get the job
done quicker but with a higher load of bugs. They (or
someone) have to re-work it until it's right. By
composing to paper, I catch everything except conceived-
of-the-wrong-solution-for-this-problem. All syntax
errors and all flow-of-logic errors show up on paper.
Of course, they show up during execution, too. Along
with hair that either disappears or turns grey.
Then again, people vote with their checkbooks, and over
and over, buggy software that's available NOW sells better
than the bug-free software that's just-around the-corner.
Talk about being trapped on the wheel of Karma!
> > 'Nuff said; I intended and maintain committed no disparagement
> > of Louis, only of the Apple ///. I was this very day going
> > to compose and post a message about Computers I Love to Hate,
> > but the timing of his posting changed the opportunity.
>
> Do it! Do it!
Not today, but soon...
> My vote is for the Commodore 64. Whenever you find one, if the
> motherboard isn't dead, the power supply is! And if it does
> work, it will die quite more readily than any other computer
> I've ever used. I've never had as many other computers up
> and die on me as the C64.
I once tried to help a friend stuck working on a C64- once,
and never again. ;-)
-dq
In a message dated Fri, 16 Jun 2000 8:33:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Douglas Quebbeman <dhquebbeman(a)theestopinalgroup.com> writes:
<<
> Speaking of searches, I have been searching and searching
> for an Apple III motherboard. Mein ist kaput, I am afraid.
> Anyone have a spare they would like to part with?
Louis-
Not meaning to be rude, but even when they work, an
Apple /// is kaput.
Are you aware of how buggy those things were? Did you
ever do any extensive programming for one?
Again, sorry, I truly mean no offense, but I grew to
loathe Apple for making this machine, and it's a wonder
that I was able to overcome that loathing and buy a Mac.
-doug quebbeman
>>
sheesh, just because it wasnt the greatest of designs doesnt give you carte blanche to disparage the person wanting to fix one. I have a /// that still boots off its profile drive, but i wonder when it will stop working. 2 years ago i gave a nonworking /// to a friend who ebayed it. he actually got $60 for it.
On June 15, R. D. Davis wrote:
> > I would add to this another pet dislike I have for E-bilk (much better
> > name, BTW). To my eyes, they are in large part (sheer unmitigated greed
> > makes up the other part) responsible for the decline in quality and
> > quantity of equipment that used to show up at hamfests and other
> > electronic-oriented swap meets.
>
> You've noticed this decline as well? :-( Interesting hackish things
> seem to be getting more and more difficult to find a hamfests. The
> last one I went to had very little, and most I've been to, I've seen
...but this has been going on for years! I've always attributed it
to the unfortunate proliferation of PCs. Most of the good hamfests
have turned into new-windoze-hardwarefests.
I don't know about you...but when I go to a hamfest, I want to see
rows and rows of 70-year-old guys selling cool old
Heathkit/Collins/Hallicrafters transceivers, HUGE RF power
amplifiers, and commercial-quality (but homebrewed) yagi
antennas...not row after row of taiwanese folks selling new, cheap-ass
windoze hardware that would better be sold via mail-order...which is all I
see at hamfests nowadays.
I, for one, absolutely LOVE eBay. That's where I find all the radio
gear I'm looking for that doesn't show up at hamfests anymore because
of the damned windoze lemmings!!
-Dave McGuire
-----Original Message-----
From: William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: A Great Find & A Defense of E-Bay
>
>Ebay does not want keep all of the auctions as a publicly accessable
>database, simply because it is not their job. After a few months, they
>can "wash their hands" of the deal, and with it, any disputes that may
>come up afterwards (problems in the car auctions leap to mind). They don't
>want the legal hassles, basically.
>
Given that collecting (of anything) is a very large industry, they're
missing a chance to _make_ a lot of money.
Every bookstore has dozens of price guides to collectibles in it, which
sell for upwards of $40 each. A lot of those are based on the results of a
few hundred auctions a year. eBay could "publish" (whether in print or
electronically) guides based on thousands of auctions a year.
If they published electronically, they could charge a nominal fee for
access to the price guide - say 5 cents per successful search. They already
have a structure in place to bill all of their sellers. It would be easy to
require that anyone searching the price guides register as a seller (and
provide credit card info) first. Then you bill them for their accumulated
search charges monthly, or whenever they have another sales transaction.
I don't understand your point about eBay wanting to avoid "legal hassles"
over auctions gone bad. They are just the middleman, all of their contracts
state that they are not responsible for the authenticity, condition,
delivery, etc. of the items. The buyer and seller voluntarily assume all
the risk. I don't see how providing a database of past transactions
involves them any further in a legal sense.
Just my 2 cents (Cdn).
Mark Gregory
On June 16, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> > I don't know about you...but when I go to a hamfest, I want to see
> > rows and rows of 70-year-old guys selling cool old
> > Heathkit/Collins/Hallicrafters transceivers, HUGE RF power
> > amplifiers, and commercial-quality (but homebrewed) yagi
> > antennas...not row after row of taiwanese folks selling new, cheap-ass
>
> Sorry to have to break it to you, but those guys sold all their stuff and
> then died.
>
> :)
8-< NOOOOO!!!
-Dave McGuire
> You can't beat the variety. I look for the Yogi Bear doll I had
> in the 60s, and presto, there it is for $40, in several permutations.
For me, it's the Big Bruiser(tm) tow truck by Marx. Haven't yet
seen one with a) all the parts and b) the same color pickup
truck (towed vehicle) that I had, but sooner ot later...
-dq
