That was EXTREMELY inappropiate and uncalled for!!!
I have called the admin of the list and he is removing that post...that is
so uncalled for!!!
As for my 68kmla request, what's wrong with requesting help with preserving
a archive that the admin has made difficult to archive? The goal of this
whole vintage community is to preserve vintage data isn't it?
Julian Wolfe wrote:
>Time to kill both of these threads. Obviously tempers have gotten out of
control. Let's keep it on topic and courteous.
>
>Jay
Funny how this got ignored completely.
Billy:
Not ignored, but I read messages date code sequential and replied until I
saw Jay's message.
I apologize to the list and to Jay for dragging this out, even if it was
unintentional.
Billy
Hex Star wrote:
Isn't the idea of doing that such that it will get downloaded by
others and thus preserved? But then with all the limitations these people
put on downloaders this purpose no longer exists which essentially makes the
archive useless.
Billy:
No, that is NOT the purpose of an archive.
You miss the point that the purpose of an archive is to download a piece of
software or a manual that you need. No everyone wants to accumulate massive
files that they don't use.
So the limitations DO NOT make an archive useless to someone who actually
uses the information.
The limitations only affect the mass accumulators, who really don't use the
information - they are not users of an archive but rather data farmers.
Billy
Well, I was tinkering around with my ASR33 today, and
I must have supplied a little too much loop current to
it, because it stopped running open. Normally, if
nothing is connected to it, it rattles away, printing
nothing. I had found in the past that if I connected
the RX lines together, it stopped, and I was trying to
supply it with a current so I could interface it to
something, and it stopped rattling, and removing the
current didn't make it go back to rattling. When you
unplug it, it rattles a couple times as it loses
power.
I immediately assumed that I must have blown up one of
the probably two or thee transistors in the entire
device, so I pulled out the selector magnet driver
card to have a look. The diode at the bottom of the
card, CR2, is cracked apart! Also, I am noticing that
R7 at the top of the card has managed to unsolder
itself due to the heat it generates.
What is a suitable replacement for CR2? It's hard to
read seeming as though it is missing a chunk. CR1
looks to be the same - but I read it as a 1N4smudge3,
which is rather hard to cross reference. I found the
schematic in the manual, but not a parts list. I'll
keep looking, but I figured I would ask the experts
here.
Unless this was some kind of coincidence, I think I
need to double check my 20ma power supply.
Thanks!
-Ian
On 3/20/07, Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> (Actually, there's an interesting issue here: "modern" computer users
> generally seem to have very little concept of "how big" some piece of data is.
> We were all taught to know the limits of the medium, but that seems to have
> gone out the window these days. It actually wouldn't surprise me to find that
> half the people out there trying to suck down whole sites aren't driven by
> greed or lack of consideration, but simply because they don't appreciate that
> it's a *lot* of data they're dealing with)
Like the time (10 years ago ;-) that a user tried to vi a 30MB file on
an old Sun box... he was astonished that he couldn't do it. The
problem was that vi wanted to buffer the edits in /var/tmp which had
about 10MB free. Things did not go well.
He couldn't understand why that failed when editing 1MB-2MB files
worked just fine. He just didn't see the difference. A file was a
file.
-ethan
Hi All,
Just a heads up that tonight (Tuesday 3/20/07) the show, Ancient
Discoveries, on the History Channel at 9:00PM Eastern and repeated around
12:00am - 1:00am Wednesday Morning, will be on. It is titled "Ancient
Computer?" and deals with the Antikythera Mechanism.
Should be an interesting show.
Greg Manuel
gmanuel at gmconsulting.net
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:36:06 -0400
> From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
> Subject: Re: ftp archives disappearing?
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
> Message-ID: <D8CAA477-9A46-4B00-8447-CAC38C4AC832 at neurotica.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
>>> apophis$ which finger
>>> /bin/finger
>>> apophis$ which talk
>>> /bin/talk
>>> ...looks to me like they're still there.
>>
>> Yes, actually try to use them across networks. There are these
>> funny little things on the outside of most organizations called
>> "firewalls", maybe you've heard of them.
>
> There is absolutely no need to be a smartass. I make a living
> running fairly large networks...and not for clueless organizations
> who depend on the crutch of a firewall to implement a secure
> network. I use "talk" fairly frequently, it works just fine.
>
> -Dave
>
> --
> Dave McGuire
> Port Charlotte, FL
I have seen some ontopic books (UNIX, 10 years old now) that strongly
recommend disabling finger to prevent unauthorized types from finding
likely targets among the accounts. Since then, finger services (such as
cfingerd) have become less of an issue because you can limit some
information, but it's likely that the old maxim still holds, as well as
the new one: if you don't positively need it than don't turn it on. Too
bad, though: 'finger' was nice when you wanted to get an e-mail address
that you weren't certain of. (after the demise of finger in general
circulation I used to connect to port 25 and try a couple of vrfys-
can't do that anymore in most places, but it's a "legitimate" need for
port 25, right?)
Against my better judgment, I'll reply to this, since it is a point not
heretofore addressed. Dave McGuire wrote,
> If someone is contemplating setting up a server to disseminate
> information publicly but is going to be cheap about it, just don't
> bother. Give the data to someone who knows how to make it available
> in a reasonable way. Unless, of course, the goal *is* really for
> that person to see himself doing it.
This argument doesn't scale, particularly in our very narrow field of
interest. How would you get the (to use an example on my mind) simtel.nets
or the download.coms of the world to be interested in Don Maslin's boot
disk archive? How would you *find* someone with that kind of interest *and*
the needed (per your claim) disk space and network investment?
The kneejerk answer to b) is, natch, this list. And look at how *few* on this
list would actually measure up to your criteria for the network alone, let
alone interest level. So, by your argument, someone like that would therefore
have no recourse but to let their collection rot because they shouldn't make
it available at all. It also makes the corollary that those who spend money
on some sort of hosting are therefore not spending enough, something
proponents of this view have not adequately addressed and have no right to
assert. This is the kind of thing that makes mega-archives, and mega-archives
collapse under their own weight.
What this really boils down to is elitism, that people aren't allowed to
contribute in *any* way to the community if their method of contribution
isn't (per the arbitrary criteria of you, Jim and others of like mind) 100%.
Baloney. This isn't a "bad neighbour" situation like open proxies, badly
configured mailhosts or Trojanned boxes where such machines cause damage
and *should* be excluded: this is someone offering their files for the
uptake of the community. If people used your yardstick to determine if they
could make such offerings, then there would be tremendously fewer avenues of
of such contribution.
I'll return to my regularly scheduled lurk.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Test-tube babies shouldn't throw stones. -----------------------------------
This is the old 'Apple Box' issue:
If you have surplus apples and put a box with 'Please take one' by your
gate
is that different to a box with 'Help yourself on it'
Rod
-----Original Message-----
From: cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of der Mouse
Sent: 19 March 2007 04:19
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: ftp archives disappearing?
>> Perhaps some DOLT leeching the entire site causes them to be shut
>> down by their provider due to bandwidth. Perhaps some selfabsorbed
>> arrogant miscreant sucking down the entire site, costs this guy a
>> sudden $200 bill that he wasn't expecting due to bandwidth. How RUDE
>> not to respect the site owners wishes.
> 1. If the person didn't want to share the files, then why are they up
> on the 'net in the first place?
Perhaps the person was interested in helping people who actually ahve a
need for them, instead of feeding leeches.
> 2. QoS has been around for over a decade, both software and hardware.
> Put bandwidth controls on your stuff if you fear it will cost you
> money. My FTP server limits to 16KB/s because I pay for my bandwidth.
Bully for you. So now it's the victim's fault? I don't have any easy
way to place bandwidth limits on my FTP server. If I get hit with a
leech who ends up costing me bandwidth overage charges, do you think I'm
going to go spend money to keep it from happening again? No; I'm far
more likely to either shut it down entirely or just report the abuser to
the provider used (and quite likely ban access from that provider in the
interim, with the ban made permanent if they don't consider it abuse).
I have trouble thinking any of us who run anon FTP sites are likely to
react otherwise.
I've had the same discussion, basically, with qmail fans. They too seem
to think that it's sane to take the stance "I should be able to grab all
I want, and if you don't want me to you should make sure I can't". The
concept that computers are used by humans and that politeness is
important to humans seems completely lost on them. (And yes, I've had
to put automated defenses in place against qmail's commonest form of
abuse - connection-bombing receiving mailservers.)
> 3. Not everyone has to host their files on a plan that will cost them
> crazy money if abused.
Great. Therefore it's OK to abuse those who don't?
Look. It's really quite simple: please respect the archive provider's
wishes. If you don't know what they are, either ask or be conservative.
Anything else risks destroying the resource you are abusing.
>> Sorry, touched a nerve.
> Sorry, but you still haven't proven your point.
There is nothing to prove.
You are asked to not abuse something provided free. You are arguing
"you should make it impossible to abuse". True or false, that does not,
repeat DOES NOT, excuse your abusing it, or attempting to.
> Offering files online for the good of the community, then putting
> arbitrary limits on access, doesn't make sense. You either want to
> help people, or you don't.
If you can't see the difference between helping people and feeding
leeches...*boggle*
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B