Richard wrote.... Not ideally it wouldn't be. Jay

Jay West wrote: Oh come on, a heavyweight GUI is indispensable when it comes to archival/backup/mirroring activities! ;-)

On 3/10/07, Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote: I've got some space I can dedicate to archiving classic software archives and I'd be glad to put my internet bandwidth to work for this great cause...however I never really was around sadly back when these bbses and 'ol ftp archives were popular and sadly don't know of any (except for some good vintage mac archives which I've already pretty much archived to its entirety ^_^ )...perhaps one or more of you guys would be so kind as to share with me your list of still existent ftp archives either on or off list? Thanks! :-)

On 3/10/07, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote: I've archived http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/ in its entirety, I've also archived most of retromac68k.dyndns.org and 68k.dyndns.org (both of those are hotline servers, neither of which are easy to fully archive because due to their foreign location their download speeds are very slow and they disallow folder downloading however I have archived from them what I feel is the most important stuff worth archiving)..all of this adding up to 10gb of vintage software being archived (not including the OS's) ^_^ ...so what other vintage software archives are there that are worth archiving before they're gone forever? :-)

On 3/10/07, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote: ah I see now...well I don't currently have that as of right now, mainly because I don't have the bandwidth (my ISP, Comcast blocks the server ports on the home broadband service and requires signing up for one of the $100 a month business broadband plans in order to host a server publicly...I was doing that a while ago in a feeble attempt to be a small host but due to my small budget and me being mercilessly DOS'd by Chinese zombies (reversed the many many IP's...er those that I could capture in the rapidly changing access log) which could not be stopped because Comcast did not handle such attacks and my small budget did not allow for the purchase of the necessary DOS stopping equipment I had to give up the biz for a while as even when I changed IP's they'd just use my host name instead...ugh!...but if you had asked me back then I would've been glad to host my archive on what bandwidth was available-the dos (which was close to 0 :-( ))...the idea I had was that I'd help download the stuff and hold onto it so that when someone else has a server that they'd like to host the files on I'll always have the files and be able to say to that person at any time "hey, I have those files in my archive and would be more then happy to upload them your server at any time"...you see? so perhaps someone would be so kind as to please share with me their list of still up archives? please? I really want to help archive and I can't do that without knowing any of the archives...please help me help you, thanks! :-)

On 3/10/07, Teo Zenios <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote: I mirrored this one in its entirety: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/ I've mirrored a good chunk (minus all the huge game ISO's since the server is so damn slow (meh, it's in china on a abused internet pipe so what do you expect? ;-) :-P ) of retromac68k.dyndns.org (a hotline server) as well as 68k.dyndns.org (another hotline server)...so while I may not have _everything_ vintage mac (due to limitations in that the only real good vintage mac archives I know of minus the mit one are those hotline ones which don't allow folder downloading and have very slow download speeds making it very difficult to grab everything off of them so I've grabbed what I feel is most important from them), I do have 99% of the vintage mac OS's (most of the major releases, some of the minor .x releases I can't find though) and a total of 10GB of vintage mac software archived...if you know of more http/ftp vintage mac archive please do let me know as I'll gladly download everything from it :-) ...I'd also like to know of the other vintage software archives you guys apparently know of as I'd like to help archive the archives before they all disappear forever so if you could let me know where those archives are I'd greatly appreciate it...thanks! :-)

Richard wrote: Why Windows? Why not something that people can just stick on a server and leave? Gordon

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:33:25PM -0500, Jay West wrote: Dave, just use a mirror, for example: computer-refuge.org:/bitsavers :) Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

J. David Bryan wrote: Not any more. You can now use bitsavers.vt100.net as well. That delay is under 24 hours. -- Paul

On 13 Mar 2007 at 23:12, Paul Williams wrote: Super, thanks! "Typically under 24 hours." :-) -- Dave

Will you kindly cut that out, please? -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Let us live! Let us love! Let us share our darkest secrets! ... you first. -

a. You posted it four times in the space of about as many minutes when once would have done. I don't think people, even if they wanted to respond, are likely to respond that quickly. b. Has it ever occurred to you that putting your leechbot on download is going to cramp the bandwidth allowance of whatever sites you point it at? You're not willing to host it and contribute, so why should those sites risk their ability to serve other people? -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Traditionally, most of Australia's imports come from overseas. -K. Enderbery

so yeah, tell me what to archive that'd be useful to keep around and I'll archive away, and then when someone wants the files I'll be able to give 'em the files right away :-D

On 3/15/07, Teo Zenios <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote: er, I have over 10GB of vintage software already and gladly share it with people who request it(already have)...I do not just disappear after leeching files like you claim (where did that come from?)...I have already uploaded multi GBs to peoples vintage archives and will continue to do so as requested as long as I have the files requested in my archive...however if I don't know of archives that should be archived I can't archive them and that's where I'd appreciate help from you guys, you helping me in the end results in everyone else benefiting...I'm like a p2p node, people input upload requests (downloads for me) and I fulfill them, people later request downloads (uploads for me) and I fulfill them then on demand...I do not know how you came up with the conclusion that I leech and run away as I'm sure you have no proof for that as there is no proof of that because I've never done that...help me help you

On 3/15/07, Teo Zenios <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote: Well I am a teen... :P ...no one has to take me seriously, but if one gave me a chance they'd see that I'm telling the truth...all it takes is one chance...as for why download and be able to distribute things already online, the reason would be that I'd be one more person with the files so that if the current sites with the files go offline I'd still have the files and would be able to give whoever would want to continue hosting the files for peoples enjoyment the files for their online archive, afterall the more places a file exists the great chance a file has of staying around ;-) :-)

On 3/17/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: I already have every Mac OS version, give me a try, name a Mac OS and I'll tell you if I have it or not (you can even request to see a Get Info window on its image for proof) :-)

Fred Cisin wrote: [ questions snipped :-) ] I'm not going to disagree and say that there aren't archivists who can answer things like that within some narrow area of expertise - but I suspect the vast majority out there make no claim to know everything; the bulk of them will simply archive material in a responsible fashion. I mean, even the Mac is a pretty big field - I doubt any archivist is going to know all there is to know about the Mac, and unless they're paid for their work they likely won't have the time or inclination to research every question that gets asked. What they *can* do though is present their archive material in as flexible form as possible so that in the majority of cases users who do need a specific piece of material can easily find what they need for themselves. cheers Jules

On 3/17/07, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: Ah *sigh*...those questions make me wish yet again that I was alive during those times...if only, if only... :-( But at least googling around should get me somewhere with at least some of those questions (it did with the format question...didn't try the others), as for developer manuals and programming IDE's, I have many of those so I defintly feel prepared to help people with that :-) :-) ...other files, I have lots of those, screensavers, apps, games, you name it I've either got it or can get it which'll then help preserve the file and make it more accessible for others quicker next time it's requested :-)

der Mouse wrote: Finally made it to this message... I have LodeRunner on my Treo600. :) I wonder how much of it is really the original levels? -- --- Dave Woyciesjes --- ICQ# 905818 --- AIM - woyciesjes "From there to here, From here to there, Funny things are everywhere." --- Dr. Seuss

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Jim Leonard wrote: Mac (but it COULD have been a defective copy) All of the levels between the PC and Mac copy were identical with the exception of one unit of ladder in one of the levels on the Mac copy. Other than that one, every level was easier to complete on the Mac (128K), than on the 5150.

[Lode-Runner] On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Jim Leonard wrote: It was slightly slower on the Mac than on the 5150.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Hex Star" <hexstar at gmail.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:28 PM Subject: Re: ftp archives disappearing? sound files more Tell you what, have your parents and relatives send me all their money, valuables, and title to all their cars and houses. I will keep it all in my Swiss account, and if they need something they can ask ME for it and I will see what I can do. Honest, just give me a chance.

Hex Star wrote: Being a teen, you will indeed have to work a bit to gain some respect. However, I hope you continue to work at it, since it is rare that someone would take an interest in hardware older than them. There is a curmudgeon-y vibe to most old computer restorers; they make things available online, but get mad when people leech the entire site. I don't understand that mentality, because doing so ensures another offline backup. Saying that people should only take one or two things as needed doesn't help when the site suddenly goes away due to illness or death, especially if it was the only repository for certain things. There will never be one giant repository for this stuff, so it is vital everyone mirror what they can. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

Ethan Dicks wrote: Indeed. The one sure way of ensuring that people take you seriously is to make yourself worthy of being taken seriously. Peace... Sridhar

Gordon JC Pearce wrote: I always wonder what happened to the other 13, and were they in fact any worse than the one which became commercial? ;-) I'm forever in awe of emulator writers. I don't know why, there's just something cool about simulating hardware in software...

On 3/18/07, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote: Exactly, that is my point that these people with their archives unfortunately don't seem to understand and is the very reason why I want to backup the files :-( ...like there's one archive that has many many GBs of stuff, but the server is in asia and thus download speeds are slow and to make matters worse they have many levels of folders and have disallowed downloading of whole folders which means anyone who wants to download the many GBs of rare mac software in the archive will have to do so by hand one by one at a max of 40 kbps...and one would have to sit at the computer as well because they boot anyone who is marked inactive...*sigh*...and it just saddens me because there is at least 40GB or so of rare mac stuff on the server but they make it so hard to get to because they have the belief that you should only get what you need at the time...but all it takes is for the owner to get tired of running the server and *poof!* there goes all the many GBs of rare mac files and they don't seem to care (they do say there are a couple who did it by hand including one moderator who said that it took many many months to do...but even so that moderator is hardly ever on and it is unknown who the other people are or if they even really have access to those people to get a backup from them when the time comes, if I was given a full backup of everything on the server I'd gladly give them my phone # to call me if they needed my backup at any time so I and they would know that I could restore the files at a moments notice instead of relying on some somebodies somewhere)...I think people just get full of themselves because they have files others want and so they let their ego get in their way thus preventing them from making easy access to the files for the good of keeping them around For peet sakes these aren't common day files people! Therfore the more backups of 'em there are the better! But perhaps there is hope for getting those mac files...does anyone have experience coding a hotline client? An idea would be to hack an open source one to always tell the server the user is active, and to instead of rely on the server for folder downloading, the client would create the folders and download the files itself, moving through the folders by sending the commands to the server that would be sent as if it was a actual user moving through the folders and files so that the stupid server side restriction could be bypassed...this would be for the good of the mac community, it would be a backup and would be availible to anyone who requests the files to be uploaded at any time, if you have experience coding a hotline client please help (contacting off list may be most appropiate for this)! :-(

Jay West wrote: 1. If the person didn't want to share the files, then why are they up on the 'net in the first place? 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. 3. Not everyone has to host their files on a plan that will cost them crazy money if abused. There are $8/month plans with gigabytes of space and bandwidth that will automatically throttle if abused (or shut off temporarily if exhausted, then re-enable at the next billing cycle). That analogy doesn't make any sense and isn't mappable to a file archive/repository. Sorry, but you still haven't proven your point. See points #1-#3 above, especially #2 (which I am surprised you are ignoring, especially given that you run an ISP). QoS solves the cost problem, at which point there aren't any problems left. 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. I administered a multi-gigabyte archive on ftp.cdrom.com from 1994 to 1998, and a Tandy archive from 1998 to present, and I have never ever once told people they couldn't mirror. What if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and the archives disappear? All my work (gathering, organizing, etc.) would have been for naught! Hasn't anyone learned anything from the Don Maslin incident? -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

On 3/18/07, Teo Zenios <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote: My employer lets me host my site of their bandwidth. I do throttle downloads at 1.8kbps and limit connections to two from any IP address. -- www.blackcube.org - The Texas State Home for Wayward and Orphaned Computers

On 3/18/07, der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote: I agree with Jim, why is someone uploading big sized files for people to download when at the same time they don't expect to spend lots of monthly bandwidth? That just doesn't make sense...any file archive and just file hosting in general is going to involve investing alot of monthly bandwidth to keep th site going and if someone isn't willing to invest the necessary funds then they shouldn't be hosting the files at all really...putting roadblocks in the way of users interested in the archive just defeats the purpose of having the files up in the first place, to help keep them around and give them to people who need and/or want them...people should be able to get them piece by piece if they want and people should be able to take everything if they want because either way is going to help ensure that the files stay around and don't just disappear and if people want to archive everything then that means that the archive is of value and should be preserved and all the roadblocks do is prevent the archive from being preserved instead causing it to be in a state where at any time it can just go *poof!*...people should either be willing to invest some good money in monthly bandwidth for their archive and not add in stupid roadblocks or they should not publicize their archive at all and instead go my route of uploading the files to people who request it for their archives IMO

On 3/18/07, Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote: No, no need for a large hosting facility, all I'm saying is that someone who does any kind of file hosting should not come into it expecting it to be cheap, they should expect to have to pay some good monthly money to do it yet unfortunately there are people who feel they can actively help the community and share their files while paying very little but really they fail because with their roadblocks they implement they make it very hard for people to enjoy the contents of their archive ... so really all I'm saying is that if someone plans to host their archive online, or do any kind of file hosting at all they should not do it and expect to pay $10 or $20 a month or some silly figure like that but something like maybe $45-$80+ a month depending on how popular their archive is and whether or not they're able to score a unmetered connection to the internet ya know? :-)

On 3/19/07, Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote: I think we've miscommunicated, let me try and clarify my point. :-) I agree with everyone here who has stated that people who put their archive online should not discourage any forms of downloading the archive. They should ahead of time realize that hosting the archive (and this goes for any kind of file hosting for that matter) will cost some good money and if they don't think they'll have that much money to put into hosting their archive then they really shouldn't put it online at all. Why? Because people who don't have that much money to put into their hosting of their archive but put it online anyways always put too many limitations on downloaders. This causes downloaders to be required to download piece by piece only as needed for the time being often. This is not good for the future as people who are willing to mirror the archive cannot and often the owner of the archive is unfortunately not willing to give people a copy of the whole archive in many cases. So what exactly is the point of the archive being online in the first place? 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. Thus people who don't have much money to put into the hosting of their archive shouldn't put it online because it won't matter if they do or don't, it'll have the same useless outcome unless the person has and is willing to put forward some good money to host the archive without download limitations so that the true purpose of hosting the archive can be had and everyone can enjoy it and preserve it for generations to come. That is the point I've been trying to get across, perhaps this typing of my point is more clear then my past typings and hopefully people will now more clearly see where I'm coming from and maybe even (hopefully) agree with me. :-)

At 07:27 AM 3/19/2007, Jay West wrote: It's clearly a common view - apart from right or wrong. How many users today expect all their movies for free, all their music for free? And that they should be able to download and upload all day long, as much as their pipe can handle? To many, an open ftp or web site is a free resource. Without any previous indoctrination in an earlier culture that might prevent wholesale downloading, they'll sap it until they're tired of it. - John

At 09:25 AM 3/19/2007, Jay West wrote: Yes, and when I was a kid, we had 30 chars per second, both ways, and we were glad for it! There's plenty of confusion to go around, though. How can anyone make sense of music and video distribution models that want to resell you the same production in different arrangement of bits? Of crash-and-burn Web business models that do give away the milk for free? Of consumers who intend to strain and break the asymmetric oversubscription model of ISPs? - John

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 10:25 -0500, Jay West wrote: I don't think it is; I just don't think that bandwidth is as limited as it was back then, and the frugal use of it thus becomes less of an issue of courtesy. A few years back, I'd have agreed with you one hundred percent, but it's 2007, you get multi-terabit hosting plans for $6 a month, without bandwidth fines... -Tore :)

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:24:02 +0100, Tore Sinding Bekkedal wrote: "without bandwidth fines... " is not true! I called and got a quote to build a Computer Collectables site along the lines of what has been talked about. Now I have some real numbers to work with, I am considering doing something in that direction, but more about that in a future muttering. I will poll the list as a go/no-go dcisions get closer .... In the mean time here is a short somewhat educational rant relating to several postings on teh subject of late. I love the way GBytes per month and GbitsPerSecond are bounced around by sails people. Lets take a moment to do some basic math. Using the old 10bits per byte (startbit/8 data/stopbit or parity). ok, I know IP overhead often works out a bit less than 80/20, but as a rule, is not far off the mark and is easy to work with, when the numbers get real big. Given the fact that Bandwidth at the server level is sold based on "bps" Bits per second. Billed monthly, based on 95% of the peek flow rate recorded usually using MRTG using either the 5 or 30 minute average. And at the website level Bandwidth is sold retail to webmasters based on total Bytes transfered per month. This is because total bytes transfered per website can be easily extracted from the logs, breaking out the bps flowrate per website on a multihomed server is not so easy. In the hosting world time is not your friend, it is but a multiplier in respects to costs. Five gallons at one gallen per hour is not the same as five gallons at one gallon per hour, either in billing or to the guy using the pump! A 5gph pump has a much higher cost associated with it than a little 1gph pump.The other thing to keep in mind is that multiple connections ADD to the current flowrate because the pipe is serial in nature. Back to time... There are 60x60x24x30 = or about 2.5m seconds in a month. The conversion from Mbps to MB does not scale well at all, well not for the retail customer that is. The first example I will use is a talk radio audio stream, at typical Talk Radio / NO Music works out to about 20kbps per stream or about 2 KBps. Over 30 days running 24/7 that one stream burns up about 5 GB of data a month. That is just one stream each streams adds to the total flow, and yes I have traced the IP addresses of a few 24/7 listeners to guard shacks and production offices that run 24/7. In a few cases to a repeater that takes a single stream through and mirrors it internally to others, which are the only truely free listeners. Ok we all know bandwidth is cheep... right! My new 3G cell phone will transfer data at close toT1 speed for $39.95 per month for unlimited data. For a short period of time when I first got the phone and did not have a data plan in effect, ATT was charged me 10 Cents per KByte transfered for about 5 days, but that is a different mutterings. So lets use 1.5mb T1 speed as both the average and max load for a month of slurping of our test server with: T1 = 1.5mbs = 150KBs * 2.5M seconds per month = 375TeraBytes per month. That works out to a load of 540MB per hour, on the average 200 GB per month hosting plan, we would be building charges in a bit over 15 days. A cable modem or fast DSL will move a little over 1GB per hour on the average connection. One of those will burn through the 200GB in about 12 days 24/7. So exactly what am I getting for my $6 per month at Powerweb? 3TB MAX transfer ! At ~$6 per month they are selling me about 7.5mbps based on a 95th% billing system or about what I can expect to pull through a 10base eithernet connection with a single server. I'm sold, so what is the catch? I gave them a call and talked a bit. It turns out that as long as you do not go over your 3,000GB limit, it is great a great deal! BUT that and wxpect to be charges are billed at $1.00 per GB, that right only One dollar per GB transfered. Wow that is lot cheeper than AT&T's 10 cents per KB! So what happens if your site makes the news or gets mentioned on a late night talk shows, or it just goes Viral on it's own. Or worse yet you piss off some Dweeb and his friends DDOS you for cutting him off from his rant. The next thing you know you have tens of thousands visitors/bots hit you all at once from evertwhere and it may not let up hours or in some cases days. Now the ethernet connection the server you are on is running at about 80mbs and the seconds are ticking,,, tick tick tick. Remember our host Jay has reported seeing 80mbs peeks in normal traffic on his server without any malus involved . At 80Mbs your overage charges work out to be about $28 per hour after you burn up your 3TB. and at 80mbs you will do that in about 4 or 5 days if it does not let up at night. Now we all know, deep in out hearts, that Collecting classic computers is going to go viral any day now. Not to mention the increase in normal usage over time. To help keep things in perspective, I work with a data center that in addition to very fat pipe to Level 3, I keeps a GigE, now thats a 1,000mbps link to TimeWarner running about 60 to 70% on AVERAGE 24/7 for local traffic. If my peek bandwidth bounces 10mbs or 20mbs it only affects my bill not theirs, they are paying a huge fixed cost for their fiber connections. The real cost these days is power, it takes an almost equal amount of power used to power the servera as it takes to cool the data center it not a bit more! Not to mention the cost of maintaining the backup generator. Hell, pumping out hundreds of gal of old fuel and replacing it every few years is not a trivial expense. Because there was no highway tax collected on the fuel, it can't be burned off in trucks, it has to be recycled. It cost about the same to truck off and dispose of the old fuel as it does to purchase the new stuff...... Free unlimited hosting is a dream, it is only through the Generosity of people like Jay that sites and lists like this continue from year to year. I chose the 80mbs number because Jay has mentions seeing 80mbs spikes on the "off the books" server that runs his hobby related sites. In addition I know from sad experiance that 80meg on a 5 minute averages is where my Windows server flattops when DDOSED by a pissed off dwebe. My life was hell untill he screwed up and got caught. He lost his job as a result of his tirade. (sidenote to Jay, is there an mrtg page for that box we could get a glimpse of ? It might help some to visualize flowrate vs overall volume ? I am sure many on this list has never seen an MRTG chart and may be interested in the flow of a 24/7 server over time in a world where it is always noon somewhere on the net...) Tonights, ASU dinner meeting is about running PHP with webaccess on the AS400 platform. I look forward to picking some brains on the subject. IBMcollectables.com should not be hosted on a Compaq Proliant server, even if it is an old almost classic, Dual Slot 1 PII-400's, SCSI RAID, 512 ECC Ram, in a rackmount case with dual supplies, there is something just wrong about it :-) Just some Food for thought ... Comments are always welcome, sometimes ignored :) Bob Bradlee The Cave Mutterer

Most places that sell bandwidth by the GB/mo, that is also how they meter it. Once you hit the limit, you site is automatically at that moment replaced by a "Sorry, this site has used all it's bandwidth, check back next month" page. Lot of good that does. These type of arrangements are dirt cheap, long as you don't use much. When you start paying for symmetric Gbps (note lower case b) that is when you are more realistically paying for what you are using. And it ain't $6/mo. It is thousands of dollars per month. But I digress... what exactly does this have to do with classic computing? Jay

On 20 Mar 2007 at 16:04, Jim Leonard wrote: Jay West wrote: Makes me wonder if one can find a hosting service that will perform a redirection to a web site of your choice when the transfer allocation has been exhausted? A few $6/month accounts might be cheaper than a single high-bandwidth one. Cheers, Chuck

Chuck Guzis wrote: Well I think a DVD rom of bitsavers is your best buy for your $$$. When I was pirating software, that idea was used a lot by the pirates. As far as remember you where luck to get any sized downloads as the sevice was so poor or the limit for the day was exausted. I don't think any file was larger than about 4 meg and it took forever to download.

Jay West wrote: Can you easily handle other formats - DLT, hard disk etc.? (with a "mail me the media first + pay postage" clause :-) That might be far less hassle on both sides in certain situations. cheers Jules

Jules wrote... I have done USB hard disk dumps of bitsavers for people. I'd certainly prefer that to burning CD/DVD media :) Just send me the USB hard drive (70gb+) and I'll send it back with bitsavers on it. Jay

Ethan Dicks wrote: Sure beats a station wagon full of 2400' 9 track tapes. :) g.

woodelf wrote... Overall that's up to Al, but each mirror may have some preferences as well. My own advice is download any manuals you need when you need them. You do not need to download entire copies of bitsavers just to preserve the files for posterity. There are currently 9 mirrors and they are around the globe. I think it's safe to say bitsavers will be around. Al and 9 mirrors make that likely :) Jay

On Tuesday 20 March 2007 17:47, Zane H. Healy wrote: Running MySQL on an AS/400 seems to be missing the point of running on an AS/400... Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:20:12 -0500, Julian Wolfe wrote: Sound like it, the purest approach would be to make an AS400 version of Gallery or put linux on an IBM box and saving a lot of trouble..... But then again ..... Later Bob

Patrick Finnegan wrote: What is the standard database for running with RPG (that's the right language for an AS/400, no?) on an AS/400? IMS? That's for mainframes, no? Pardon me, but I'm not really familiar with IBM minis. Peace... Sridhar

On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:54 AM, John Foust wrote: I've been trying to avoid this thread, but I'm having a hard time ignoring this. I find the idea somewhat idiotic that someone puts up a web server, or an *anonymous* ftp server, and then gets all bent out of shape when people actually use it. I mean, sure, it's rude to just scrape the hell out of someone's server all at once, but part of the responsibility must lie with the people putting the material out there. We KNOW the Internet is an overgrown TV for probably 75% of its current users. We KNOW that, for a decade and a half now, the Internet has been facing a huge influx of largely nontechnical people who don't know the first thing about etiquette, and refuse to learn. We KNOW there is FTP and web server software that is readily available that can handle rate- and connection-limiting to prevent abuse. And still people whine when people slurp all the bits that have been made available to slurp? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

der Mouse wrote: If you thought this conversation was to convince you to "roll over" for abusers, you've missed the point. The point of this conversation was to use technology to prevent abuse in the first place, and/or make smarter choices when it comes to hosting files such that *everyone* wins. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

woodelf wrote: Proper FTP server setup not only limits bandwidth but also limits the number of concurrent connections. I have mine set up such that every user is guaranteed a minimum of 16KB/s and will not grant more connections if 1. it will get me over my monthly bandwidth allotment or 2. impact performance for the other users. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

John Foust wrote: Yes. No. The former is archiving/mirroring/backup. The latter is abuse. At no point was I advocating abuse. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

On Mar 19, 2007, at 9:40 PM, John Foust wrote: Yes, absolutely. It's beginning to look like many people want to make stuff available online just to see themselves do it. For that reason, no, I think that's a crappy thing to do. But to take a "snapshot" of an important archive in case it disappears, I fully advocate it. Again I call attention to Don Maslin's archive. There'd be twenty copies of that entire archive floating around today if it had been publicly available in "pile o' bits" form. If someone sets up a public server in such a way that excessive use by others costs them money, fails to put into place any way to control such use, and then a user runs their bill up by using their public server, then it's pretty easy to see who the fool is in that scenario...it's not the user. Public archives are just that...public. If someone doesn't want that information to be downloaded, they shouldn't make it available for download. Part of the point behind our activities is historic preservation, and in terms of bits, that means making copies...as many copies as possible, to keep things from disappearing. The "lemon tree in the front yard" analogy does not work. That's on private property, in someone's yard. A public server is just that...public. If it's not intended to be, don't make it so. 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. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

I don't think this can be underestimated. People like to be personally invested in a project. It *is* work to do imaging and cataloguing and I think people do want to see their names attached. I know *I* like it. But here's an angle I haven't heard people suggest. If the issue really is just "contributing to the community," then why not put 20 bucks/euros/zlotych in an envelope to cover media, shipping and inconvenience, and ask them to send you a physical copy. It won't wallop their bandwidth that way, and you get your "backup." If this isn't good enough for you, then maybe the argument isn't really simply about making such resources available. -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- In youth we learn; in age we understand. -- Von Ebner-Eschenbach -----------

Jay West wrote: It's not entitlement, it's courtesy. I contribute to the community as best I can, and I would assume that others would do the same. I *want* many different mirrors of my work in case I perish tomorrow. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

On 3/19/07, Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote: it's only right that I minimize my use of their bandwidth. I have had several people inform me that I should either speed up the download for them or pay for hosting to make downloads faster to avoid wasting their time. Most of those Id10T's end up on the ban list. -- www.blackcube.org - The Texas State Home for Wayward and Orphaned Computers

Darn tootin'. Fortunately I wrote my own server software to limit it, but I don't think this should be expected, nay demanded, of people. So, once again, you are an elitist fool. -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- "The ants are my friends/They're blowing in the wind" ----------------------

So nobody's allowed to put up an anonymous FTP server without such facilities? Or that it's somehow acceptable to gobble all the resources the remote site will let you without consideration for its admins, often in direct defiance of their express wishes? Furrfu. For you, maybe. Bully for you. Here we are again, decreeing that people who don't happen to be running your idea of suitably recent software are not worthy of running FTP sites. So someone's doing you a free service, and you're calling him stingy and parsimonious because he's not prepared to offer this service to you on exactly the terms you want? Which appear to be "I can grab as much as I like whenever I like and the effects this has on other users of the service or the computers behind it make no difference"?! I'm ashamed to be on the same net as you. I don't *have* a webserver, and this obscene culture of entitlement that says it's okay to grab everything the server will let you grab without consideration for what it may be doing to the remote host or other users of it is one of the reasons why! /~\ 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

At 06:44 PM 3/19/2007, Jim Leonard wrote: I asked the question as to whether his archive has actually hit the Dumpster or not. At 06:56 PM 3/19/2007, Jim Leonard wrote: Mirroring usually involves some cooperation between the various hosts. I think we agree that's "nice". The other distinctions get more nebulous, don't they? Certainly the archiving community has benefited from people who've squirreled away long-lost archives of old collections. The way Google Groups benefited from 9-track archives of 80s Usenet posts comes to mind. - John

der Mouse wrote: The leeches have a need as well. Yes you do. Don't feed me that line without backing it up. proftpd has had bandwidth controls for years; Linux has had them for almost a decade, and I would imagine that BSD does too. Hell, I host stuff out of my house, and my $40 router has QoS. I've run FTP archives since 1994, including a portion of the world's largest for a few years, and at no time did we prevent leeches. We limited connections such that the maximum number of users were all guaranteed a modicum of bandwidth (such as 10KB/s) but we didn't take any other steps than that. I am repeatedly flabbergasted that people intentionally limit archives they host. What is the damn point of hosting files if you don't want them downloaded? I repeat, has nobody learned anything from the Don Maslin incident? I have always wanted as many copies of my archives in the hands of other people as possible, because when I go away, my archives go away, and if there are no other mirrors then all of my cataloging work would have been for nothing. That is not the same thing as downloading files from an archive or repository. The only connecting thread is bandwidth utilization; otherwise that analogy does not apply. Downloading files from the archive is not abuse!! Repeatedly connecting and locking other people out -- that's abuse. That is not the same thing. It is entirely possible to mirror a site without bringing it to its knees. Not all leechers are abusive. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

Cameron Kaiser wrote: No, but people should not act surprised when someone wants to mirror the site. It has nothing to do with what they are paying. I am paying too. It is a matter of expectations. I choose to put my archive in a location that 1. I can afford monetarily, and 2. I can control. I do this because I *want* people to actually *download* my files. What a concept. The only place you can put files without QoS (or crazy amounts of bandwidth to cover every single person mirroring) are places which cost less than $6 a month. So there is no cost involved at all (monthly cost is fixed). Yes, you used that analogy last time and I still don't understand it. A keg of beer is not a historical archive. Archives are meant to be accessed. Are you saying that the library gets mad when someone checks out every single book at once? Oh, right, you can't do that, because they have CONTROLS IN PLACE TO PREVENT THE SHELVES FROM BEING EMPTY ALL AT ONCE. Which cost them NOTHING. People *are* allowed -- and even encouraged -- to systematically goes through the shelves and check out 3 books at a time. And that is what my archives have always done. People can still mirror, bandwidth is reasonable, my cost is fixed per month, and everyone is happy. We are hosting *technology* archives. Use the damn technology. And you are a curmudgeon. If you don't want people actually downloading files, don't offer them. Get off of *your* high horse. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out. -- Will

I will be happy to backup your site, over and over, repeatedly, every single file, to make sure that your site will never go down. I will also ask all my friends to do so. That way we will all have a backup. -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Don't Be Evil. -- Paul Buchheit --------------------------------------------

Now that you've demonstrated you're a wiseguy, kindly tell the rest of the people on commercial hosting programs offering such files how they can do that without root access to the box. Or is it their responsibility to pay more for that, or own their own hardware? -- --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out. ----------------------

Hex Star wrote: I can't speak for anyone else, but I deleted your email because there were three copies of it. That's annoying enough to be ignored. Peace... Sridhar

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Jules Richardson wrote: My spam filter deletes all duplicates, and their original. doesn't everybody's?

If anybody here wants to start a website or FTP for Mac 68K drivers and PDF Manuals I would be willing to fill it up with what is out on the net and what I have that is not. It probably would not consume that much bandwidth considering most of the stuff is just a floppy or two.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: ftp archives disappearing? bandwidth such How much bandwidth and space would be accessible without causing you too much pain? I can't see 68K related driver disks and files taking up too much space, or getting heavily leached. What do you think about PDFs of copyrighted manuals (even if the company went under or still exists but has dumped support years ago)?

I'm hosting around 120gb of stuff mostly concerning NeXT but with some Sgi, Sun, Mac and Tandy thrown in. ftp.blackcube.org -- www.blackcube.org - The Texas State Home for Wayward and Orphaned Computers

Ted wrote.... I'm at the top of one of those "stairsteps" that I mentioned. Disk is tight at the moment as is bandwidth. But given that: 1) 68K files aren't going to take much space or get leeched much AND 2) That it will not be very long before we add disk space (and bandwidth) and then it won't be tight at all.... I'd be happy to create a spot for you. Jay