----- Original Message -----
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>
>>> PS: why cant you scroll down to the bottom of the message and type
>>> there?
>>
>> three reasons.
>
> Those were reasons why you don't want to.
> They were not reasons why you "can't".
Although I had actually posted at the bottom of the original post, I agree
with Jim and think they were valid reasons why top posting is more
efficient, at least with much of today's hardware and software...
> Top-posting is a TINY amount less work for the poster, and more work for
> the system and every one of its readers. It DISCOURAGES trimming.
Please exempt me from "every one"; I find reading bottom posts a useless
waste of my time, since I've already previously read everything being
replied to and don't need/want to have to wade through it again. Many posts
on this list could express all they have to say with only the subject line
and "Me too" or "+1".
Trimming is a good thing no matter which end you're posting on. As is
in-line quoting IF the context justifies it.
> Most people will gladly make work for a lot of others to save themselves a
> miniscule amount of effort. (the "litter principle")
Again, I actually appreciate the consideration shown me by top posters who
don't make me wade once again through the same dreck I've been reading in
the last ten posts in the same thread.
> "'e-mail' is bottom posting, plain text, poor spellinq, and insufficient
> trimming of the old crap, which is set off by chevrons.
> 'email' is top posting, colors,
Poor spelling, insufficient trimming, etc. are a PITA that has nothing
whatsoever to do with the issue of top- vs. bottom-posting.
As regards colour, I hugely prefer the clarity of messages where the new and
quoted text are different colours instead of ever-longer lines of >>>>>s.
A chacun son gout, as they say, but it seems to be a characteristic of many
members of this hobby to cling fiercely to the old ways and waste bandwidth
over and over again complaining about the same tired issues and judging and
criticizing anyone who does things differently for what he/she considers
valid reasons.
m
Its also possible the Manchester University Medical Computing Unit archives will have such a request. They used both a 7040 And 7090. The also made a number of software requests to other institutions. The archives are deposited with the UK's National Museum of Computing. I'm involved with their initial conservation, so this is something I can check, though there may be a little lead time to do so as its mostly uncatalogued, and not at all digitised yet.
Are you looking for the compiler, information about its historic distribution and licensing patterns, or something else?
--Colin
SPC <spedraja at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello.
>
>Im' playing actually with diverse emulators for the IBM 709x and the
>software available for them (IBSYS and CTSS). Fun and instructive (I'm
>using it to play with COBOL and FORTRAN at present).
>
>Now I should like to go one step beyond.
>
>I have doubts about the compatibility but I should like to know if
>exists some request for the WATFOR compiler for the IBM 7040 to the
>Waterloo University or whoever would be the owner of the rights of
>this software..
>
>--
>Gracias | Regards
>
>Saludos - Greetings - Freundliche Gr??e - Salutations
>--
>Sergio Pedraja
>
>twitter: @sergio_pedraja
>-----
>No crea todo lo que ve, ni crea que est? vi?ndolo todo
>
>
Top posted thread. I see no problem with it.
BTW is anyone here familiar with the Cisco 2612? It is mentioned below
for those who wish to read further.
Jim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [H390-MVS] connecting real terminals
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:03:25 +0100
From: Dave <snip>
Reply-To: H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com
To: <H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com>
Rob,
Which cable do you need. The token ring DB-9 -> RJ45 media filter to go
>from the 3174 to the 8226?
There are some here on E-bay:-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/390474238769
Dave Wade G4UGM
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
-----Original Message-----
*From:* H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com [mailto:H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com]
*On Behalf Of *Bob Brown
*Sent:* 13 October 2012 20:17
*To:* 'H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com'
*Subject:* RE: [H390-MVS] connecting real terminals
Where can I either find this cable or a pinout?
-Bob
bbrown at harpercollege.edu <mailto:bbrown at harpercollege.edu> ####
#### Bob Brown - KB9LFR
Harper Community College ## ## ## Supervisor of Operations
Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace
*From:*H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com [mailto:H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com]
*On Behalf Of *Harold Bell
*Sent:* Monday, September 17, 2012 12:53 PM
*To:* H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [H390-MVS] connecting real terminals
I use a Cisco 2612 in my setup. There needs to be a Token Ring
concentrator between the 3174 and the Cisco. I use an IBM 8226-001
from ebay. I forget what I paid but it could not have been over $40
I don't think. The 3174 Token Ring output connector is a 9 pin
D-sub like a serial port and I use a small converter that has a 9
pin D-sub connector and an RJ-45 socket. It is a generic item that
you have to open up and connect the two connectors however you want
for your application. The connection diagram was on the internet at
one time. I got this at a local hobby electronnics store that
burned about a year ago and I have no idea where to order such a
thing. Using standard ethernet cables to go from the 3174/converter
to the concentrator to the Cisco is not the perfect way but it works
if the cables are kept as short as possible so the impedance
mis-match is not to bad. Good luck.
Buddy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Bob Brown <bbrown at harper.cc.il.us>
*To:* "H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com" <H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com>
*Sent:* Mon, September 17, 2012 1:19:07 PM
*Subject:* [H390-MVS] connecting real terminals
Is a cisco 2612 what I need to bridge the token ring/Ethernet
networks? (it sounds like it comes standard with
Ethernet and token ring ports)...
Do I need something else also or does it go:
Terminal --> 3174 --> cisco 2612 --> Ethernet network --> Hercules?
-Bob
bbrown at harpercollege.edu <mailto:bbrown%40harpercollege.edu> ####
#### Bob Brown - KB9LFR
Harper Community College ## ## ## Supervisor of Operations
Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace
-----Original Message-----
From: H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com <mailto:H390-MVS%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com
<mailto:H390-MVS%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of scott
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:45 AM
To: H390-MVS at yahoogroups.com <mailto:H390-MVS%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [H390-MVS] Re: Real 3278 won't work with turnkey
Bob,
I can check with my source on Monday to ensure the card will work in
a -51r.
Scott
On 09/13/2012 12:58 PM, Bob Brown wrote:
> How much do you want for the 3174 T/r card (and is it supposed to
work with a 51R)?
> -Bob
>
> bbrown at harpercollege.edu <mailto:bbrown%40harpercollege.edu> ####
#### Bob Brown - KB9LFR
> Harper Community College ## ## ## Supervisor of Operations
> Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace
>
------------------------------------
__._,_.___
__,_._,___
I seem to be getting a lot of posts in my cctalk inbox coming from what
appears to be the Curmudgeons Who Are Pretty Sure They're Smarter Than
Everyone Else mailing list as of late -- has anyone else been seeing
this, or is there something wrong with my mail filter?
- Josh
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:30:12 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net>
>
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Mouse wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, MikeS wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Tothwolf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, MikeS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As regards colour, I hugely prefer the clarity of messages where the
>>>>> new and quoted text are different colours instead of ever-longer
>>>>> lines of >>>>>s.
>>
>>>> I think this reply deserves a screenshot. [...]
>>
>>> Yup, looks nice; I'm glad you agree.
>>
>> In context, I think that was a disagreement.
>
> You are correct. It was a disagreement, and for the reasons you stated.
>
----- Reply:
Sorry that you also missed the irony; I thought it was obvious that I'd
probably fall off my chair if you ever agreed with one of my posts ...
I was explicitly replying to (and specifically quoting) Fred's post
including the use of colour in the email no-nos like yodelling jellyfish
etc., and I think that your screenshot actually does make my point (no doubt
unintentionally) that colour can be useful (as opposed to the jellyfish).
That Mouse and you obviously chose to ignore the explicit (con)text of my
post and instead "*read into*" my post that "the colour in question was
*supposed to be* encoded into the on-the-wire form of the email" (*s mine)
prompted my ironic, "glad you agree".
If I receive an email appropriately and tastefully using colour and/or HTML
then I prefer it to the limitations of chevrons, plain-text-only, etc.; if
it mattered enough to me to justify installing a reader and/or plugin to
convert plain incoming mail then I would.
But I don't tell anyone how they are "supposed to" format their email; I'm
much more interested in the content than whatever format they chose or had
to use. If there's an issue that they may be unaware of I'll ask; otherwise
if it matters I'll do what's required at my end in order to read it.
Conversely, although I bristle a bit at people telling me how I'm *supposed
to* format *my* email and with whatever favourite client of theirs I should
replace my obviously defective one, I generally go along with whatever
prevailing standards are on mail lists like this one, even when I don't
agree with them as in the case of the top-posting 'standard'.
And yes, I will occasionally register a vote in support of letting people
post however they prefer or have to, without chastising them whenever they
top-post (especially when they didn't). With clients that hide the quoted
text by default why does it even matter?
m
Who is bidding for the DMC11 at Ebay?
I'd just like to know who else (besides me of course) is interested in
that very special old DDCMP communication adapter. I cannot imagine
that any DMCs are still in productive use today, so there's probably
another collector out there somewhere ...
I would be nice to get in contact with that special person (no matter
who wins the auction) to exchange experience.
My motivation to own a DMC11 is to run DDCMP DECnet under VMS V2.x
(no Ethernet support with VMS V2.0 yet) on my VAX-11/750. There are
still some lesser problems to overcome, e.g. obtaining DECnet for VMS
V2.x ;-))
I know the bidder might as well (or even with greater probability)
want the DMC11 for his/her PDP-11 rather than for a VAX.
Maybe one day some crazy collectors will connect their VAXen or
PDP-11s via DMC11s and dial-up lines every now and then?
Regards,
Ulli
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 02:26:24 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
>>>> As regards colour, I hugely prefer the clarity of messages where
>>>> the new and quoted text are different colours instead of
>>>> ever-longer lines of >>>>>s.
>
>>> I think this reply deserves a screenshot. [...]
>
>> Yup, looks nice; I'm glad you agree.
>
> In context, I think that was a disagreement.
>
----- Reply:
Almost certainly, since exchanges in this sort of thread are almost always
argumentative; rather than sprinkle smileys throughout my posts I prefer to
let the reader decide whether I'm being ironic or not.
I mentally append smileys to most posts in a thread like this, on the
assumption that intelligent men (women presumably having better things to
do) would not spend time and energy every few months or so *seriously*
arguing *once again* about where to place an e-mail reply; the humour really
becomes apparent when you show a thread like this to a 'normal' person...
But I wasn't saying anything about how, when or where it's done to disagree
with anyway, merely stating that IMO using colour for clarity when possible
and appropriate doesn't necessarily belong in the same category as Fred's
wallpaper, dancing kangaroos or yodelling jellyfish; it's just one more
often useful option that's come along since the text-only monochrome screens
that many of us started with and seem to want to hang on to (at least in
this context).
m
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:26:41 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net>
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, MikeS wrote:
>> From: Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>
>>
>>> "'e-mail' is bottom posting, plain text, poor spellinq, and
>>> insufficient trimming of the old crap, which is set off by chevrons.
>>> 'email' is top posting, colors,
>
> <snip>
>
>> As regards colour, I hugely prefer the clarity of messages where the new
>> and quoted text are different colours instead of ever-longer lines of
>> >>>>>s.
>
> I think this reply deserves a screenshot.
>
> http://strudel.ignorelist (dot)
> com/~tothwolf/classiccmp/screenshot_alpine.png
----- Reply:
Yup, looks nice; I'm glad you agree.
m
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:55:39 +0100
> From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>
I was wondering when we'd hear from you ;-)
> ... then you're using a poor email client.
Of course ;-)
> Smarter ones can (optionally) collapse or expand levels of
> previously-quote text. Gmail does this automatically...
I didn't realize that works with the digest versions; guess I'd better start
using gmail...
> In this case, actually, I think it's a sign that those who favour
> top-posting are clinging on to poor-quality MUAs when they should update
> to something better.
Of course! After all, there are so many different e-mail clients to choose
>from for my smartphone and PDA...
And why should we show any respect or consideration for those folks who for
whatever reason don't have a choice at all...
m
