15 Mar
2017
15 Mar
'17
8:37 a.m.
From: Raymond Wiker
Steve Jobs ... was also a stickler for perfection and
largely unwilling
to make compromises.
Absolutely; and that's a large part of the reason for the success of Apple.
His products were just really well done.
It's also, I think, a big part of the causality for another Apple
characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted
to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple
stuff) - and when the 'system' includes pieces being independently sourced
from multiple entities, it's hard to make that
happen - there will be
glitches, etc. So that's why he usually wanted to bring
the entire thing
inside the Apple envelope.
So, Steve Jobs ... should get some of the credit for
the fact that
we're not all running Windows on variations of crappy PC hardware.
I think that's not accurate; Linux may not have a large user base among
non-technical people in the laptop area, but it does show that there are other
alternatives. And when it gets to smart-phones, of course, things which are
neither Apple nor uSloth are the majority there, no?
From: Chris Hanson
What the Apple folks saw and what was implemented for
Lisa and then
Macintosh were vastly different.
I don't agree with the "vastly". (Having said that, I salute the Lisa/Mac
people for doing a very good job of producing a excellent user interface.)
The changes in the interface (menu bar, etc) are not that large; they are
mostly minor refinements to the basic image/pointing-based interface
pioneered by Xerox.
The biggest improvement, IMO, was not in the details of the window system, but
that everything used a common user interface - and the lack of that on the
Alto was not planned, but more a result of the fact that the Alto was so far
into new territory, and not done as an integrated system, but as a platform
for research.
- The one-button mouse.
Err, some of us don't see that as an 'improvement'... :-)
If you sit someone who knows how to use a Mac in front
of a circa-1979
Xerox Alto, they'll be pretty mystified.
Yeah, but that's in good part because the Alto user interface is such a dog's
breakfast - Draw is nothing like Bravo is nothing like etc, etc. But, like I
said, that was inevitable, given the process that produced the Alto.
Noel
15 Mar
15 Mar
10:50 a.m.
On 15 Mar 2017, at 16:37 , Noel Chiappa via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I was hoping, for the longest time, that Linux or the various BSDs would break the Windows
dominance. That never happened, except for in certain areas, like server and HPC
applications.
As for smart-phones, it was Apple that introduced the idea of having smart-phones that
were almost all battery and display, and using a purely graphical/touch interface. That
class of device might have emerged eventually without Apple, but it's a fact that most
of the mobile phone vendors had to do a lot of redesign in a short time after the iPhone
was introduced (or a few months before, in the case of Google).
If you haven't guessed, I like Apple ? for several reasons, but mainly because they
make good, solid products that work well, and they actually work well for both ordinary
users and enthusiasts. I have absolutely no problem with paying a little extra for a
computer that lasts a little longer, keeps its value longer and works better in many ways,
both subtle and obvious.
From: Raymond Wiker
Steve Jobs ... was also a stickler for perfection
and largely unwilling
to make compromises.
Absolutely; and that's a large part of the reason for the success of Apple.
His products were just really well done.
It's also, I think, a big part of the causality for another Apple
characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted
to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple
stuff) - and when the 'system' includes pieces being independently sourced
from multiple entities, it's hard to make that happen - there will be
glitches, etc. So that's why he usually wanted to bring the entire thing
inside the Apple envelope.
So, Steve Jobs ... should get some of the credit
for the fact that
we're not all running Windows on variations of crappy PC hardware.
I think that's not accurate; Linux may not have a large user base among
non-technical people in the laptop area, but it does show that there are other
alternatives. And when it gets to smart-phones, of course, things which are
neither Apple nor uSloth are the majority there, no?
11:48 a.m.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
"copied from" V "based on" V "inspired by"?
Apple didn't "steal" it; the PARC researchers encouraged them to go with
it.
Apple was not that open when it was their turn to be copied from, when
DRI produced GEM, or MICROS~1 produced Windoze 2.
(There was a conflict, that keeps recurring in this industry! Apple had
agreed to let MICROS~1 use certain stuff in Windoze; but then felt that
Windoze 2 was a different product (citing "ALL NEW!" marketing) that
wasn't included in the agreement.
But, that is not the only time. Seattle Computer Products was
"grandfathered" royalty free unlimited license to MS-DOS. When SCP was
on the rocks and considering selling out to AT&T, etc. ("assets include
unlimited license to MS-DOS"), MICROS~1 took the stance that that would
not apply to anything but Verion 1. In an uncharacteristically
reasonable move, MICROS~1 bought SCP, keeping it off the market without a
battle.)
some point to "cognitive delay"
some point to simpler instructions in documentation
I loved the Logitech 3 button mouse.
For a while, I even velcro'ed the PCJr keyboard on top of its mouse!
It's also, I think, a big part of the causality
for another Apple
characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted
to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple
stuff) - and when the 'system' includes pieces being independently sourced
from multiple entities, it's hard to make that happen - there will be
glitches, etc. So that's why he usually wanted to bring the entire thing
inside the Apple envelope.
A closed system (aka "monopoly") has significant characteristics.
1) lack of difficulty integrating "other" peripheral stuff, through
greater quality control, and INABILITY to add "other" peripheral stuff.
Examples: a) MFM V RLL V ESDI V SCSI hard disks - much more struggle for
users than "here is THE drive. Buy it. It JUST works."
(Q: which meaning of "just" is that? simply? or barely?)
b) specific example: Sunshine EPROM programmer (ISA almost free)
specific example: ECC memory board (I don't think that Apple was even
using parity)
2) MAJOR hurdles to development of an after-market industry.
I've heard that Jobs was displeased when he was shown the numbers of what
percentage of Apple2 disk drives were being purchased from vendors other
than Apple.
Woz ENCOURAGED an after-market ("open" system)
Jobs sought to eliminate or at least rein it in.
A closed system tends to be more profitable to the controller of it, but
can be presented to the public as a means of quality control.
Check out the "right to repair" link that Chuck gave us!
"Replacing a bad screen on an iPhone must be prevented, because it is TOO
DANGEROUS, and a consumer could cut a finger on the broken glass!"
I think that's not accurate; Linux may not have a
large user base among
non-technical people in the laptop area, but it does show that there are other
alternatives. And when it gets to smart-phones, of course, things which are
neither Apple nor uSloth are the majority there, no?
On computers, the OS is predominantly Windoze and Apple, with Linux and
Chrome as less common, but present alternatives.
on Phones, the OS is predominantly Android and Apple.
How successful will Microsoft's tablet OS be?
Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?
What the Apple
folks saw and what was implemented for Lisa and then
Macintosh were vastly different.
I don't agree with the "vastly".
(Having said that, I salute the Lisa/Mac
people for doing a very good job of producing a excellent user interface.) - The
one-button mouse.
Err, some of us don't see that as an 'improvement'...
:-) > If you sit someone who knows how to use a Mac in
front of a circa-1979
> Xerox Alto, they'll be pretty mystified.
"Hello, computer"
"Use the mouse."
"Hello, computer" (into mouse)
Yeah, but that's in good part because the Alto
user interface is such a dog's
breakfast - Draw is nothing like Bravo is nothing like etc, etc. But, like I
said, that was inevitable, given the process that produced the Alto.
early attempt/prototype/proof of concept V later evolved/refined product
I only played with a Lisa once. My cousin, David Ungar, was working on
Smalltalk, and had a pre-release one in his office in Evans Hall. I bet
him that they could not find ANY of their floppies that did not yet have a
thumbprint on the media. When he put on gloves to open a fresh box, did
that count?
I tried to make an extra floppy for it, but 300 Oersted ("360K") did not
work.
"'Maserati of the mind'? Yeah. Fantastic toy! I want one! But
way too expensive for me, and unusable for my rush-hour commute with no
place to put a sack of groceries or a bunch of computers."
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:10 p.m.
* Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> [170315 14:48]:
[..SNIP..]
Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?
[..SNIP..]
I'd argue that the OS used by Android *is* Linux (with some small
modifications.)
Of course the user interface and lots of other functions is a huge
amount of code running in user space.
Todd
1:40 p.m.
On 03/15/2017 12:10 PM, Todd Goodman via cctalk wrote:
* Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk at
classiccmp.org> [170315 14:48]:
[..SNIP..]
The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
I recall that back in the days of Windows 95, MS defended it as an
"operating system" (re: the default inclusion of MSIE in the same),
rather than a user interface built on top of MSDOS.
I once had a fellow proclaim that his group had constructed an entire
operating system in COBOL. When I asked him about his file management,
he said that it was handled by the kernel and not the operating system.
One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.
I always wondered about the wisdom of single-sourcing storage devices
such as the Next optical drive, the Twiggy or the SuperDrive of the
early Macs.
--Chuck
Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?
[..SNIP..]
I'd argue that the OS used by Android *is* Linux (with some small
modifications.)
Of course the user interface and lots of other functions is a huge
amount of code running in user space. 
2:17 p.m.
The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.
Agreed.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan
3:55 p.m.
On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
1983. All the world's a VAX.
1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.
--T
The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.
Agreed.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan
4:02 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
wrote:
1983. All the world's a VAX.
Running BSD
The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
Running Solaris
2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.
Running Linux
I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
Warner
--T
One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.
Agreed.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan
4:27 p.m.
On 3/15/2017 5:02 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Raspberry Pi seems to be the TREND with embedded things.
I bring you THE PDP 8/I KIT. 1 PI with Front Panel.
http://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence
And for you OLD PEOPLE you GET MEL's Computer.
http://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence
No Vacuum tubes have been harmed in this FPGA replica of the
LPG-30 - Desk Optional.
well 6502 people, this is your DAY.
MOnSter Cpu ... discreet transistors.
http://monster6502.com/
Ben.
On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
wrote:
1983. All the world's a VAX.
Running BSD
The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
Running Solaris
2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.
Running Linux
I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
Warner
5:15 p.m.
On 2017-03-15 7:02 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
Yep.
--T
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Yeah, or SunOS 4 was the reference platform for a while.
On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
wrote:
1983. All the world's a VAX.
Running BSD
The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
Running Solaris 2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.
Running Linux
I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
Warner
--T
One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.
Agreed.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan
16 Mar
16 Mar
8:28 a.m.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make
it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
....on Linux. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
9:49 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:28 AM, geneb via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
Kinda... It's a forked Linux kernel today, but BSD / Java userland.
And there's been persistent rumors of a next gen OS that will replace
Linux that Google has been working on that's BSD licensed.
Warner
I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to
make it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
....on Linux. :) 
12:08 p.m.
New subject: Android rumors [Was: Pair of Twiggys]
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:49:56AM -0600, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:28 AM, geneb via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Plan9 rewritten in Go? that would make my day :)
/P
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk
wrote:
Kinda... It's a forked Linux kernel today, but BSD / Java userland.
And there's been persistent rumors of a next gen OS that will replace
Linux that Google has been working on that's BSD licensed.
Warner I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to
make it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
....on Linux. :) 
21 Mar
21 Mar
10:32 a.m.
On 03/16/2017 11:28 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
Actually goog's trying to get rid of the linux and
replacing it with
another OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia
Whether they use it to replace Android remains to be seen.
(And meanwhile AAPL is busy, or was, getting rid of all GPL stuff in its
OS.)
I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to
make it
202x All the world's an ARM running Android
....on Linux. :) 
22 Mar
22 Mar
7:04 a.m.
On 21 March 2017 at 18:32, Ray Arachelian via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
(And meanwhile AAPL is busy, or was, getting rid of
all GPL stuff in its
OS.)
Darwin is mostly BSD-licensed and includes significant quantities of
code from FreeBSD, which is why Apple hired Jordan Hubbard.
I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux
has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping
the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven ? Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 ? ?R/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053
7:09 a.m.
On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux
has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping
the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK.
I think taking BSD code and releasing a copy under GPL is technically permitted, though
silly because the original BSD release would still apply so the GPL virus doesn't
stick. Of course, if you modify the original and license those mods under GPL, that makes
a difference, that limits access to the mods (but only the mods).
paul
7:46 a.m.
________________________________________
From: cctalk [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk
[cctalk at classiccmp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:09 AM
To: Liam Proven; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux
has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping
the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK.
I think taking BSD code and releasing a copy under GPL is technically permitted, though
silly because the original BSD release would still apply so the GPL virus doesn't
stick. Of course, if you modify the original and license those mods under GPL, that makes
a difference, that limits access to the mods (but only the mods).
______________________________________
As long as they retain the original Copyright notice as required by that Copyright
which seems to me to be a direct conflict if you then tried to put the GPL in there
too.
bill
16 Mar
16 Mar
2:09 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
wrote:
And about 2 years later, I learned C on a VAX...
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of
"portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
1983. All the world's a VAX. 1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.
From 1997-1999, I worked at Lucent where we ran SPARC,
NCR x86 boxes,
DEC Alpha, and a couple of lonely VAXen... One of the interesting
episodes in that transitional time was when some app/utility program
written by the group "worked on the NCR" but "failed on the SPARC",
which was proof to some of them that something was wrong with the
SPARC or at least "better" about the x86... what was really going on
was someone did a strlen() of a pointer which was NULL, and really
didn't understand that when the man page says that behavior is
"undefined", that *both* machines were doing the right thing (they
figured it should act only like strlen() of a pointer to a NULL and
return 0, rather than segfault for attempting to dereference a pointer
to 0x00000000...)
I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what
"undefined" means and then go fix their code...
-ethan
2:37 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 2017-03-16 5:09 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Toby Thain via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.
--Toby
On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
wrote:
And about 2 years later, I learned C on a VAX...
Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of
"portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
1983. All the world's a VAX. 1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.
From 1997-1999, I worked at Lucent where we ran
SPARC, NCR x86 boxes,
DEC Alpha, and a couple of lonely VAXen... One of the
interesting
episodes in that transitional time was when some app/utility program
written by the group "worked on the NCR" but "failed on the SPARC",
which was proof to some of them that something was wrong with the
SPARC or at least "better" about the x86... what was really going on
was someone did a strlen() of a pointer which was NULL, and really
didn't understand that when the man page says that behavior is
"undefined", that *both* machines were doing the right thing (they
figured it should act only like strlen() of a pointer to a NULL and
return 0, rather than segfault for attempting to dereference a pointer
to 0x00000000...)
I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what
"undefined" means and then go fix their code...
-ethan
2:42 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
I politely
suggested they should go back and read up on what
"undefined" means and then go fix their code...
Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.
2:54 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc. Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet another
Linux box". Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's going to
work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's going to
be the one thing that gets fixed first.
-ethan
Porting to
diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.
Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*,
let alone architectures.
3:08 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc. Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
another Linux box". Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.
Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be. Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...
And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...
--Chuck
Porting
to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
latent bugs.
Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
systems*, let alone architectures.
4:16 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
________________________________________
From: cctalk [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk
[cctalk at classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc. Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
another Linux box". Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.
Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be. Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...
And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...
__________________________________________
Not even close to COBOL. :-)
bill
Porting
to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
latent bugs.
Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
systems*, let alone architectures.
6:28 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
________________________________________
From: cctalk [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk
[cctalk at classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser
via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc. Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
another Linux box". Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.
Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be. Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...
And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...
__________________________________________
Not even close to COBOL. :-)
bill
Porting
to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
latent bugs.
Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
systems*, let alone architectures.
7:16 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, ben via cctalk wrote:
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis"
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small
computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
1401
1620 (if you count PDQ)
In 1983, I was called in as a long-term substitute to take over teaching a
Fortran class using IBM PCs with Microsoft/IBM Fortran.
7:26 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable
than syphilis"
I found it!
I thought Djikstra, but it turned out to be Stan Kelly-Bootle:
"The definition of FORTRAN from the "Devil's DP Dictionary", by
Stan Kelly-Bootle:
"FORTRAN n. [Acronym for FORmula TRANslating system.]
One of the earliest languages of any real height, level-wise, developed
out
of Speedcoding by Backus and Ziller for the IBM/704 in the mid 1950s in
order to boost the sale of 80-column cards to engineers.
In spite of regular improvements(including a recent option called
'STRUCTURE'), it remains popular among engineers but despised elsewhere.
Many rivals, with the benefit of hindsight, have crossed swords with
the old workhorse ! Yet FORTRAN gallops on, warts and all, more
transportable than syphilis, fired by a bottomless pit of working
subprograms. Lacking the compact power of APL, the intellectually
satisfying
elegance of ALGOL 68, the didactic incision of Pascal, and the spurned
universality of PL/I, FORTRAN survives, nay, FLOURISHES, thanks to a
superior investmental inertia."
7:28 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
________________________________________
From: cctalk [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] on behalf of ben via cctalk [cctalk at
classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:28 PM
To: computer talk
Subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
________________________________________
From: cctalk [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk
[cctalk at classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.
_____________________________________
Ummmm... I ran Fortran on a TRS-80 with no problems. I also ran it
on an LSI-11/02 under UCSD-Pascal. Of course, I ran COBOL on the
same systems. :-)
As for Universities. I worked on the academic systems at the Military
Academy at West Point. While the G&CS (Geography and Computer
Science) Department did have a VAX 11/750 running VMS (and Eunice)
the main academic machine when I got there was a Univac-1100 later
replaced by a bunch of Prime 850's.
bill
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser
via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc. Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
another Linux box". Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.
Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be. Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...
And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...
__________________________________________
Not even close to COBOL. :-)
bill
Porting
to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
latent bugs.
Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
systems*, let alone architectures.
7:30 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/16/2017 06:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
But was FORTRAN that portable? Other than the IBM 1130
I cannot think
of a small computer that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile
FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O. I
suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems.
A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.
Oh, dear--time for a history lesson.
1. Even the IBM 650 had a FORTRAN of sorts
2. One thing that was a sales point for the PDP-8 back in the day was
that for about $5K, you could get a computer that would run 4K FORTRAN:
http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/dec/pdp8/software/DEC-08-A…
3. FORTRAN was originally released, IIRC for the IBM 709, and was a
card-only system; versions for the 704, and, as previously mentioned,
the 650. I've used card-only FORTRANs on the 1620 and 1401.
4. The 8080/Z80 had FORTRAN, and I suspect there was also a FORTRAN for
the 8008 (if APL on the 8008 was possible, surely FORTRAN was).
5. I've never heard of a COBOL for the IBM 650.
--Chuck
8:19 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
Oh, dear--time for a history lesson.
Not quite on a par with:
In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN,
guy who insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN
'course he also had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and
a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment disks, . . .
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:59:17 -0400
From: Dan G
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in Valtrep back in the 80s
. . .
8:31 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
In response to a question of who provided the Lisa
FORTRAN, guy who
insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also
had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment
disks, . . .
Oh jeez, not that again! I'd hoped that I'd forgotten about him...
Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?
--Chuck
17 Mar
17 Mar
6:46 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?
It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres
and Valdres march.
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
10:06 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/17/2017 06:46 AM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Oh, I know--I was making a joke. It's a fine march and I've performed
it in convert bands many times.
--Chuck
On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?
It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres and Valdres
march.
11:09 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
In response to
a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who
insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also
had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment
disks, . . .
Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?
11:26 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
and, although we don't know when YOU were playing
it, the march had
been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
inspire Backus. Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
being the predecessor to FORTRAN?
Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
years old.
So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.
It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.
--Chuck
11:41 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.
Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of architectures: Electrologica
X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes. And I supposed you could claim that status for
Bliss in the case of VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture envisioned all of them (and
any combination of them).
paul
11:56 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a
couple of
architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).
Well, okay--the European-American divide must be taken into account--and
the Burroughs B5000 architecture was sui generis.
But by and large, FORTRAN, at least in North America, was the first
language of choice in implementation--after assembly, if one can call
assembly a language--many would call it "symbolic coding"; using symbols
instead of numeric addresses.
--Chuck
19 Mar
19 Mar
2:14 p.m.
New subject: Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 2017-03-17 2:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I came across a typical example of how Fortran was used as lingua
franca, just yesterday, in a book titled "Knapsack Problems - Algorithms
and Computer Implementations" (Silvano Martello, Paolo Toth), published
1990.
The Preface includes the words:
"The Fortran codes implementing the most effective methods are
provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually
any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use."
--Toby
Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a
couple of
architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).
Well, okay--the European-American divide must be taken into account--and
the Burroughs B5000 architecture was sui generis.
But by and large, FORTRAN, at least in North America, was the first
language of choice in implementation--after assembly, if one can call
assembly a language--many would call it "symbolic coding"; using symbols
instead of numeric addresses.
--Chuck
3:34 p.m.
New subject: Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/19/2017 02:14 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
"The Fortran codes implementing the most
effective methods are
provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually
any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use."
Take a look at early ACM CALGO (collected algorithms). Algorithm 1
dates from 1960 and is in Algol; indeed all of Volume I and a good part
of Volume II are exclusively Algol. You don't hit FORTRAN until about
1968 (somewhere around Algorithm 330). After that, you'll see pages and
pages of FORTRAN.
I do think that Algol is far more elegant for describing algorithms than
FORTRAN; but the sad fact is that many (US-based) programmers didn't
speak Algol.
--Chuck
17 Mar
17 Mar
noon
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a
couple of
architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).
I'll also consider that there are probably other exceptions. Did
FORTRAN or RPG have the honor of "first implemented" on the S/360 Model
20? My gut says RPG.
--Chuck
12:19 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM
On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> and, although we don't know when YOU were
playing it, the march had
> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
> inspire Backus. Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
> being the predecessor to FORTRAN?
Valdres March has been around for more than a
century--it's at least 113
years old.
So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.
It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC,
I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.
"I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know
it will be called Fortran."
--Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award,
in 1982.
19 Mar
19 Mar
2:07 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 2017-03-17 3:19 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM
Depressingly prescient...
--T
On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> and, although we don't know when YOU were
playing it, the march had
> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
> inspire Backus. Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
> being the predecessor to FORTRAN?
Valdres March has been around for more than a
century--it's at least 113
years old.
So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.
It wasn't until the microcomputer era with
BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.
"I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know
it will be called Fortran."
--Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award,
in 1982.
17 Mar
17 Mar
6:05 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk <cctalk
at classiccmp.org> wrote:
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.
I know of FORTRAN implementations for one's complement machines with word length of
24, 27, and 60 bits, decimal machines (IBM 1620), two's complement machines of 12, 16,
48 bit words, just to pick a few. FORTRAN implementations tended not to be all that
demanding of resources: 4k words is a typical minimum.
I think a lot of high level languages are quite portable. ALGOL is not as widely ported
but not because it's inherently harder. PASCAL was ported to many different machines
too. C is a bit of an anomaly because it's more like a high level assembly language,
so it has portability limitations that many other high level languages don't run
into.
paul
8:16 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I just released a new version of the CDC 1700 simulator for SIMH. This is a one?s
complement, 16-bit machine and the Fortran compiler is now functional in 16KW of available
space (a smaller version (12KW) was available but I don?t know if any copies survived).
The source code for the compiler is available on Bitsavers - it?s written mostly in
Fortran.
John.
On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.
I know of FORTRAN implementations for one's complement machines with word length of
24, 27, and 60 bits, decimal machines (IBM 1620), two's complement machines of 12, 16,
48 bit words, just to pick a few. FORTRAN implementations tended not to be all that
demanding of resources: 4k words is a typical minimum.
I think a lot of high level languages are quite portable. ALGOL is not as widely ported
but not because it's inherently harder. PASCAL was ported to many different machines
too. C is a bit of an anomaly because it's more like a high level assembly language,
so it has portability limitations that many other high level languages don't run
into.
paul
20 Mar
20 Mar
1:07 a.m.
New subject: CDC 1700 Fortran [Was: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:16:20AM -0400, John Forecast via cctalk wrote:
I just released a new version of the CDC 1700 simulator for SIMH. This
is a one?s complement, 16-bit machine and the Fortran compiler is now
functional in 16KW of available space (a smaller version (12KW) was
available but I don?t know if any copies survived). The source code
for the compiler is available on Bitsavers - it?s written mostly in
Fortran.
How did you bootstrap the compiler? Or did you have a binary to start
with?
/P
17 Mar
17 Mar
12:07 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
From: ben
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM
On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
> From: Chuck Guzis
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
>> And people who weren't there can't
understand why FORTRAN was the closest
>> thing to a "portable" language...
> Not even close to COBOL. :-)
Preach it, brother!
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Yes.
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small
computer that had ample I/O
and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more
paper tape I/O.
The PDP-8 family has compilers for both FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV. 16 bits?
What could we possibly do with all that address space? ;-)
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as
IBM 360 systems. A few
ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.
FORTRAN. FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN IV
compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66"). VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except most VAXen of
the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and Fortran was handled by
f2c.
I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before moving on to
PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.
FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look anything like
itself these days.
Rich
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputers.org
http://www.LivingComputers.org/
19 Mar
19 Mar
8:04 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
________________________________________
From: cctalk [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] on behalf of Rich Alderson via cctalk
[cctalk at classiccmp.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:07 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
From: ben
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM
On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
> From: Chuck Guzis
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
>> And people who weren't there can't
understand why FORTRAN was the closest
>> thing to a "portable" language...
> Not even close to COBOL. :-)
Preach it, brother!
But was FORTRAN that portable?
Yes.
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small
computer that had ample I/O
and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more
paper tape I/O.
The PDP-8 family has compilers for both FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV. 16 bits?
What could we possibly do with all that address space? ;-)
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as
IBM 360 systems. A few
ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.
FORTRAN. FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN IV
compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66"). VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except most VAXen of
the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and Fortran was handled by
f2c.
I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before moving on to
PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.
FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look anything like
itself these days.
____________________________________________
That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
the OO KoolAid.
Oh, and my 1401 only did Autocoder. I didn't start using Fortran until my
Univac-1100
days.
bill
8:14 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
the OO KoolAid.
Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 1 TO
COBOL".
paul
10:42 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 19 Mar 2017, at 16:14 , Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Given that C++ is the object-oriented descendant of C, one might expect object-oriented
COBOL to be named "ADD 1 TO COBOL". In my opinion, the object-oriented successor
to COBOL is called Java - it's similarly verbose, and like COBOL, originally intended
for average, fungible programmers.
On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
the OO KoolAid.
Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 1 TO
COBOL".
paul
9:36 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
> FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it
doesn't look
> anything like itself these days.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals,
the Fortran people drank
from the OO KoolAid.
Yes, there does exist an Object Oriented COBOL!
Oh, and my 1401 only did Autocoder. I didn't
start using Fortran until
my Univac-1100 days.
There wasn't a Fortran compiler for the 1401, but
how much did they charge for the FORTRAN compiler?
11:36 a.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On 03/19/2017 08:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
FORTRAN. FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which
were FORTRAN
IV compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66"). VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except
most VAXen of the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and
Fortran was handled by f2c.
I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before
moving on to PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.
There was another FORTRAN 66 available fro the S/360, but you usually
saw it on the lower models (25, 30, 40). It was called "Basic FORTRAN
IV" or sometimes "USA Basic FORTRAN". There doesn't seem to be a
manual
in S/360 section for this on bitsavers. I recall that it was a slim
little packet.
It was brutal--basic INTEGER, REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION data
declarations; blank COMMON only; arithmetic IF only, computed and
unconditional GO TO--and the bugbear of many programmers: strict
enforcement of "mixed mode" prohibitions. File I/O was reasonable, I
suppose. A maximum of 6 characters in a variable name, stuff like that.
Better than some of the stripped-down FORTRAN II versions, which often
didn't even include type declarations.
FORTRAN IV was a step forward--vendor "extensions" of FORTRAN II were
getting out of hand--contrast some of the conventions of, say, 7090 FMS
II/IBSYS fORTRAN with other vendors. For example, punching a 'B" in
column 1 indicated a "logical/Boolean" expression and so on...
Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs. I think I remarked on
a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an
ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the meaning.
I believe that Univac, at one point, boasted an 1100 "FORTRAN V". That's
chutzpah for you. "FORTRAN VI", of course, was PL/I.
F77 tightened that up and brought out the notion of having to flag any
non-ANSI syntax. F90 was clear in that vendor extensions were to be
disabled by default; i.e., the user must explicitly enable them.
F90 was, to me, the point of departure. Many statement types were
deprecated; since the world was no longer coding on cards, free-format
input was standardized. Extensions for high-end supercomputers were
codified, etc. Reserved words made their appearance--in previous
versions, the notion of "whitespace" was introduced. It was perfectly
legitimate to name a variable "FORMAT" or "REAL" and write it as
"F OR M
AT", though I suspect that few ever did.
The Fortran of today resembles FORTRAN II in the same way that COBOL
2014 resembles IBM COMTRAN.
But, mutatis mutandis, Fortran/FORTRAN still lives.
--Chuck
12:36 p.m.
New subject: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
On Mar 19, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs. I think I remarked on
a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an
ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the meaning.
I'm reminded of a T-shirt sold while I was in college (mid 1970s) with this text:
(.)(.)
IKF4084I
I looked that up in Messages and Codes, found a pointer to the IBM COBOL messages manual,
where I found this message text: "Questionable use of parentheses accepted with
doubts as to meaning". So I think CDC was not alone in that bad practice.
paul
17 Mar
17 Mar
12:56 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
We need to move our business and I have about a ton of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a 5100)
many Vaxstations 3100s mostly
Vax 4000 300?
5" DEC hard drives
Many DEC mice
Small Alphas
Dec/HP CRT monitors
HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts
Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly)
Symbolics 3645? (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back)
HP 2115? mini
PDP 11
Couple 3 KW UPSs with bad batterys
SR22 calculator
Altos 5 15
etc
Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can take all
and sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but that may be
optimistic...
Peter Wallace
1:08 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
My Plate is full but I?m sure others would like to know the location of this stuff.
On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
We need to move our business and I have about a ton of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a 5100)
many Vaxstations 3100s mostly
Vax 4000 300?
5" DEC hard drives
Many DEC mice
Small Alphas
Dec/HP CRT monitors
HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts
Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly)
Symbolics 3645? (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back)
HP 2115? mini
PDP 11
Couple 3 KW UPSs with bad batterys
SR22 calculator
Altos 5 15
etc
Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can take all and
sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but that may be optimistic...
Peter Wallace
1:14 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Kirk Davis wrote:
Peter Wallace
Mesa Electronics
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:08:31 -0700
From: Kirk Davis <kirkbdavis at me.com>
To: Peter C. Wallace <pcw at mesanet.com>,
"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
My Plate is full but I??m sure others would like to know the location of this stuff.
Richmond CA (Hilltop business park)
On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace
via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
We need to move our business and I have about a ton of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a 5100)
many Vaxstations 3100s mostly
Vax 4000 300?
5" DEC hard drives
Many DEC mice
Small Alphas
Dec/HP CRT monitors
HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts
Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly)
Symbolics 3645? (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back)
HP 2115? mini
PDP 11
Couple 3 KW UPSs with bad batterys
SR22 calculator
Altos 5 15
etc
Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can take all and
sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but that may be optimistic...
Peter Wallace
2:04 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I would love to get a PDP-11 & I'm in the Bay Area.
Marc Howard
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:14 PM Peter C. Wallace via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Kirk Davis wrote:
Richmond CA (Hilltop business park)
Peter Wallace
Mesa Electronics
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:08:31 -0700
From: Kirk Davis <kirkbdavis at me.com>
To: Peter C. Wallace <pcw at mesanet.com>,
"General Discussion: On-Topic and
Off-Topic Posts" <
cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc
Classic computer hardware
My Plate is full but I??m sure others would like
to know the location of
this stuff.
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Peter C.
Wallace via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> We need to move our business and I have about
a ton of
> classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need
to go or get scrapped:
>
> Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and
5000/240/260s series even a 5100)
> many Vaxstations 3100s mostly
> Vax 4000 300?
> 5" DEC hard drives
> Many DEC mice
> Small Alphas
> Dec/HP CRT monitors
> HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts
> Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
> test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins
mainly)
> Symbolics 3645? (from Guy Sotomayer a few
years back)
> HP 2115? mini
> PDP 11
> Couple 3 KW UPSs with bad batterys
> SR22 calculator
> Altos 5 15
> etc
>
> Would really like all to go to someone in the
CC community who can take
all and sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry
pick but that may be
optimistic...
>
>
>
> Peter Wallace
>
6 May
6 May
9:01 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I stopped by and picked up some stuff from Peter today. There?s a lot of stuff
but I was only prepared to take a few items (I ended up taking a couple of tek
?scopes too).
I didn?t have time to sort through everything that was available but there?s a lot!
He did mention that he has to be out of his space by May 31st and anything that isn?t
picked up will be scrapped. I did take some pictures that I?ll put up sometime
tomorrow but what Pete has on his list below seems pretty accurate.
Pete is located in Richmond CA. I can forward his contact information to anyone
that is interested in acquiring some/all of the remaining stuff.
TTFN - Guy
On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Peter C. Wallace via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Richmond CA (Hilltop business park)
Peter Wallace
Mesa Electronics
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace
via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
We need to move our business and I have about a ton of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a 5100)
many Vaxstations 3100s mostly
Vax 4000 300?
5" DEC hard drives
Many DEC mice
Small Alphas
Dec/HP CRT monitors
HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts
Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly)
Symbolics 3645? (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back)
HP 2115? mini
PDP 11
Couple 3 KW UPSs with bad batterys
SR22 calculator
Altos 5 15
etc
Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can take all and
sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but that may be optimistic...
Peter Wallace
11:18 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
A pity this is the wrong the side of the pond and shipping is so expensive, otherwise I
would love to get a 5000/240 or 5000/260 and some 5" drives.
Regards
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Guy
Sotomayor Jr via cctalk
Sent: 07 May 2017 05:01
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I stopped by and picked up some stuff from Peter today. There?s a lot of stuff
but I was only prepared to take a few items (I ended up taking a couple of tek
?scopes too).
I didn?t have time to sort through everything that was available but there?s a
lot!
He did mention that he has to be out of his space by May 31st and anything that
isn?t picked up will be scrapped. I did take some pictures that I?ll put up
sometime tomorrow but what Pete has on his list below seems pretty accurate.
Pete is located in Richmond CA. I can forward his contact information to
anyone that is interested in acquiring some/all of the remaining stuff.
TTFN - Guy
On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Peter C. Wallace via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Richmond CA (Hilltop business park)
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace via cctalk
<cctalk at
classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> We need to move our business and I have about a ton of classic
>> cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
>>
>> Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a
>> 5100) many Vaxstations 3100s mostly Vax 4000 300?
>> 5" DEC hard drives
>> Many DEC mice
>> Small Alphas
>> Dec/HP CRT monitors
>> HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
>> test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly) Symbolics 3645?
>> (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back) HP 2115? mini PDP 11 Couple 3
>> KW UPSs with bad batterys
>> SR22 calculator
>> Altos 5 15
>> etc
>>
>> Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can take
all and sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but that may be
optimistic...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Wallace
>>>
>>
>
> Peter Wallace
> Mesa Electronics
>
> (\__/)
> (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
> (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination. 
7 May
7 May
2:43 a.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On 7 May 2017, at 07:18, Rob Jarratt via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
A pity this is the wrong the side of the pond and shipping is so expensive, otherwise I
would love to get a 5000/240 or 5000/260 and some 5" drives.
Regards
Rob
Hi Rob,
I?ve been told about reship.com who I guess are like a US equivalent of parcel2go over
here. You pay domestic US shipping to them and they add a surcharge to forward it over to
you, presumably by boat. What I don?t know is how that affects import duty etc but it
might be worth looking into.
A
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Guy
Sotomayor Jr via cctalk
Sent: 07 May 2017 05:01
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I stopped by and picked up some stuff from Peter today. There?s a lot of stuff
but I was only prepared to take a few items (I ended up taking a couple of tek
?scopes too).
I didn?t have time to sort through everything that was available but there?s a
lot!
He did mention that he has to be out of his space by May 31st and anything that
isn?t picked up will be scrapped. I did take some pictures that I?ll put up
sometime tomorrow but what Pete has on his list below seems pretty accurate.
Pete is located in Richmond CA. I can forward his contact information to
anyone that is interested in acquiring some/all of the remaining stuff.
TTFN - Guy
On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Peter C. Wallace via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Richmond CA (Hilltop business park)
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace via cctalk
<cctalk at
classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> We need to move our business and I have about a ton of classic
>> cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
>>
>> Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a
>> 5100) many Vaxstations 3100s mostly Vax 4000 300?
>> 5" DEC hard drives
>> Many DEC mice
>> Small Alphas
>> Dec/HP CRT monitors
>> HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
>> test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly) Symbolics 3645?
>> (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back) HP 2115? mini PDP 11 Couple 3
>> KW UPSs with bad batterys
>> SR22 calculator
>> Altos 5 15
>> etc
>>
>> Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can take
all and sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but that may be
optimistic...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Wallace
>>>
>>
>
> Peter Wallace
> Mesa Electronics
>
> (\__/)
> (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
> (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
10:21 a.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I?ve been told about reship.com who I guess are like a
US equivalent of
parcel2go over here. You pay domestic US shipping to them and they add a
surcharge to forward it over to you, presumably by boat. What I don?t know is
how that affects import duty etc but it might be worth looking into.
A
Interesting. I just checked the site. It looks to be mostly about giving you a US mailing
address, but then it just ships to you using a normal carrier such as USPS, UPS, Fedex
etc., so it doesn't seem likely that it would be a cheaper way, or am I missing
something?
Regards
Rob
11:05 a.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On 7 May 2017, at 18:21, Rob Jarratt
<robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com> wrote:
This is the reason I mentioned parcel2go - they send thousands of parcels daily so can
negotiate a cheaper rate for shipping with the same companies thee and me use. I assume
ReShip do the same thing.
Cheers
A
I?ve been told about reship.com who I guess are
like a US equivalent of
parcel2go over here. You pay domestic US shipping to them and they add a
surcharge to forward it over to you, presumably by boat. What I don?t know is
how that affects import duty etc but it might be worth looking into.
A
Interesting. I just checked the site. It looks to be mostly about giving you a US mailing
address, but then it just ships to you using a normal carrier such as USPS, UPS, Fedex
etc., so it doesn't seem likely that it would be a cheaper way, or am I missing
something?
8 May
8 May
12:40 a.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
Ah I see. I will have to look further into this.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
From: Adrian Graham via cctalk
Sent: 08 May 2017 05:47
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On 7 May 2017, at 18:21, Rob Jarratt
<robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com> wrote:
This is the reason I mentioned parcel2go - they send thousands of parcels daily so can
negotiate a cheaper rate for shipping with the same companies thee and me use. I assume
ReShip do the same thing.
Cheers
A
I?ve been told about reship.com who I guess are
like a US equivalent of
parcel2go over here. You pay domestic US shipping to them and they add a
surcharge to forward it over to you, presumably by boat. What I don?t know is
how that affects import duty etc but it might be worth looking into.
A
Interesting. I just checked the site. It looks to be mostly about giving you a US mailing
address, but then it just ships to you using a normal carrier such as USPS, UPS, Fedex
etc., so it doesn't seem likely that it would be a cheaper way, or am I missing
something?
7 May
7 May
1:14 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rob Jarratt
via cctalk
Sent: 07 May 2017 18:21
To: 'Adrian Graham' <binarydinosaurs at icloud.com>; 'General
Discussion: On-
Topic and Off-Topic Posts' <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: RE: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I think its more about being able to ship things were the vendor doesn't ship to the
UK, or where you want to consolidate multiple shipments.
Dave
I?ve been told about reship.com who I guess are
like a US equivalent
of parcel2go over here. You pay domestic US shipping to them and they
add a surcharge to forward it over to you, presumably by boat. What I
don?t know is how that affects import duty etc but it might be worth
looking
into.
A
Interesting. I just checked the site. It looks to be mostly about giving you a US
mailing address, but then it just ships to you using a normal carrier such as
USPS, UPS, Fedex etc., so it doesn't seem likely that it would be a cheaper
way, or am I missing something?
Regards
Rob 
4:04 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
Dave said:
Here's my experience with US re-shipping agents. Their charges vary in skewed ways
not
always easy to guage. With the one I decided to use, I've had a 1 ounce packet of
LEGO
bricks reposted at an outrageous cost of $40+ USD to Australia. On the other hand, they
shipped my mainframe console from NJ to Oz at an entirely reasonable rate, and looked
after it pretty well. If you have to use them make sure the seller attaches copies of the
invoice or eBay sale page etc. to the inside and outside and also posts a signed or
initialled one to you seperately as it really helps with customs.
In summary they are a lifesaver if the seller has pulled up the drawbridge (as some of
them have) to get an item shipped internationally. There are a lot of them to choose from
and to be honest I just went with the one that looked to have the friendliest website and
offered some extra services (repack item, photos of received item, amalgamation of
shipments etc.) but you could certainly do some comparisons on their re-postage rates.
Steve.
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rob Jarratt
via cctalk
Sent: 07 May 2017 18:21
To: 'Adrian Graham' <binarydinosaurs at icloud.com>; 'General
Discussion: On-
Topic and Off-Topic Posts' <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: RE: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
I think its more about being able to ship things were the vendor doesn't ship to the
UK, or where you want to consolidate multiple shipments.
Dave I?ve been told about reship.com who I guess are
like a US equivalent
of parcel2go over here. You pay domestic US shipping to them and they
add a surcharge to forward it over to you, presumably by boat. What I
don?t know is how that affects import duty etc but it might be worth
looking
into.
A
Interesting. I just checked the site. It looks to be mostly about giving you a US
mailing address, but then it just ships to you using a normal carrier such as
USPS, UPS, Fedex etc., so it doesn't seem likely that it would be a cheaper
way, or am I missing something?
Regards
Rob 
17 Mar
17 Mar
7:02 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On 03/17/2017 02:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace via cctalk wrote:
We need to move our business and I have about a ton
of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get
scrapped:
You, too, Peter? Wow, this is sure a small world! I'm
still getting rid of a few VAX items.
Jon
9:01 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Jon Elson wrote:
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:02:34 -0500
From: Jon Elson <elson at pico-systems.com>
To: Peter C. Wallace <pcw at mesanet.com>,
General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
;
Subject: Re: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On 03/17/2017 02:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace via cctalk wrote:
Yeah we have a new place but less storage room at least for a couple of years
I also thought I would be playing around with my old computer stuff when I
retired, but I really dont see that happening (retiring soon or playing with
old electronics for fun when I do) also significant pressure from SO to
"get rid of that junk"
Peter Wallace
We need to move our business and I have about a
ton of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
You, too, Peter? Wow, this is sure a small world! I'm still getting rid of
a few VAX items.
Jon
18 Mar
18 Mar
1:38 a.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
On 3/17/2017 9:01 PM, Peter C. Wallace via cctalk wrote:
but I really dont see that happening (retiring soon or
playing with
old electronics for fun when I do) also significant pressure from SO to
"get rid of that junk"
So far noone that matters has said anything that
dumb to me. Why would
I save things at significant expense and continue to collect them for 20
to 40 years then "get rid of that junk".
I am lucky not o have such a person in a significant place.
I'm glad you are good with yours, but I'd not be there. It does mean I
don't have an Architecture Digest presentable house as well. And am
starting to "play with it".
Thanks for sharing it with the list too. I'm in southern CA and not
able to help with your offload. My own pile is as big as yours and is
hard to deal with.
thanks
Jim
21 May
21 May
8:21 p.m.
New subject: FTGH Large amount of DEC/Misc Classic computer hardware
Original post for Steve / everyone's reference
On 3/17/2017 12:56 PM, Peter C. Wallace via cctalk wrote:
We need to move our business and I have about a ton
of
classic cimputer junk in the SFBA that need to go or get scrapped:
Many Decstations (3100, 5000/1xx and 5000/240/260s series even a 5100)
many Vaxstations 3100s mostly
Vax 4000 300?
5" DEC hard drives
Many DEC mice
Small Alphas
Dec/HP CRT monitors
HP ~1990s Unix workstations and parts
Versatec CE3000 plotter (huge)
test equipment (misc Tek scopes and plugins mainly)
Symbolics 3645? (from Guy Sotomayer a few years back)
HP 2115? mini
PDP 11
Couple 3 KW UPSs with bad batterys
SR22 calculator
Altos 5 15
etc
Would really like all to go to someone in the CC community who can
take all and sort/distribute themselves rather than cherry pick but
that may be optimistic...
Peter Wallace
Richmond CA (Hilltop business park) From this I googled the approximate
location below
https://goo.gl/maps/PNiZHq7UDES2
I'm too far away to make a significant run, but would love some of the
mentioned things if someone could arrange for me (contact off list).
thanks
Jim
15 Mar
15 Mar
2:28 p.m.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
The whole idea of an "operating system"
seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
I recall that back in the days of Windows 95, MS defended it as an
"operating system" (re: the default inclusion of MSIE in the same),
rather than a user interface built on top of MSDOS.
I once had a fellow proclaim that his group had constructed an entire
operating system in COBOL. When I asked him about his file management,
he said that it was handled by the kernel and not the operating system.
I used to teach a beginning microcomputer operating system class.
The administration wanted it to be remedial job training for the digital
sweatshop, and never go past what commands do you do to format a disk,
etc., and called for discontinuing the class once Windoze95 came out.
I tried, instead, to create an understanding of what an OS was, as well as
how to use it, and how to deal with problems. I dealt with
sector editing repair of directories, etc.
(In creatively handling user interface problems, I had a test question of:
"You have a PC-DOS 3.30 PS/2 with a damaged keyboard (Pepsi Syndrome).
There are other computers handy, but no other keyboards with the right
connector. The 'A', 'C', and 'D' keys won't work! List some
ways that
you can copy files from the hard disk onto floppies")
Among the answers that I would accept were: using <Alt> and the numeric
pad, creating a batch file on another computer, even "REN X?OPY.EXE
XBOPY.EXE". One fellow included enough detail about cleaning key contacts
and/or splicing the keyboard cable onto another one that I accepted that.
I even accepted a moderately detailed description of how to remove the
hard disk and connect it as temporary second HDD on another computer.
(definitely a question of come up with a way, not "single right answer")
I started the internals discussions with "DOS est omnis divisa in
partes tres", and wrote on the board:
BIOS(usually ROM)/BDOS/CCP (Console Command Processor)
ROM&IO.SYS/MSDOS.SYS/COMMAND.COM
ROM&IBMBIO.COM/IBMDOS.COM/COMMAND.COM
hardware interface/file management/user interface
We then spent some time on what each of those parts was.
It doesn't HAVE TO be three parts, but those are a reasonable division.
I loved how PC-DOS 1.00 documentation included partial description of what
was needed to write a replacement command processor!
One thing you can depend upon in this field is the
inconstancy of
definitions.
Sometimes I think that it is NIH ("Not Invented Here"), but it seems as
though a lot of people invent new names for the same things.
block/cluster/granule, etc.
I always wondered about the wisdom of single-sourcing
storage devices
such as the Next optical drive, the Twiggy or the SuperDrive of the
early Macs.
I was surprised that Jobs didn't make the Lisa floppy 5.0 or 5.5 inches,
and used a relatively standard drive for the Mac. I would have thought
that he would want people to buy even their media from Apple.
For people who think that that is absurd, remember that there have been
more than one machine that was capable of formatting it's own diskettes,
but was not supplied with a FORMAT program.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
9:22 p.m.
On Mar 15, 2017 3:28 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I was surprised that Jobs didn't make the Lisa
floppy 5.0 or 5.5 inches,
I assume that Apple wanted to get at least a small benefit of economy of
scale from media manufacturers not having to retool for a different size,
even though they had to use a higher coercivity coating and a different
punch for the jacket.
and used a relatively standard drive for the Mac.
The Mac used a Twiggy drive (AKA FileWare, AKA Apple 871 drive) until very
late in development. Twiggy drives were intended for use on the Apple II
and III as well, though they didn't go into production. The decision to use
Sony 3.5" drives was a response to the huge problems Apple had with the
Twiggy.
I would have thought that he would want people to buy
even their media
from Apple.
Other vendors sold Twiggy media under the FileWare trademark, presumably
under license. I have no idea whether a per-disk royalty was involved. I
have unopened boxes of Verbatim FileWare diskettes.
3:17 p.m.
Superdrives (floppy drives) are starting to be a problem on 68k Mac systems
because they fail (motors die, heads get ripped off, etc). The later ones
with the black flap (cost reduced) found on PPC systems seem to last. Same
problems with the IBM PS/2 floppy drives.
Twiggy drives seemed to be junk even new, which is why they changed the
model to use the Sony 3.5" drives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:40 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys
I always wondered about the wisdom of single-sourcing storage devices
such as the Next optical drive, the Twiggy or the SuperDrive of the
early Macs.
--Chuck
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
12:13 p.m.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Below the user interface, is Android very similar to
Linux?
I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
12:15 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel.
Warner
Below the user interface, is Android very similar
to Linux?
I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.
12:23 p.m.
>> Below the user interface, is Android very
similar to Linux?
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner
Losh via cctalk wrote:
Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux
kernel.
Thank you very much for confirming that
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
1:42 p.m.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Thus "on top of Linux".
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel. Below the user interface, is Android very similar
to Linux?
I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.
1:52 p.m.
New subject: Mac HFS file recovery; was: Pair of Twiggys
Folks,
I was asked to recover files from an old Apple Hard Disk 20 drive
(Miniscribe 20MB SCSI). I've been able to read all but two
widely-spaced sectors, but no Mac HFS file recovery tool that I've been
able to find works.
Anyone want to take a crack at it before I resort to extracting strings
from the raw drive? The funny thing is that I can see
the data, but
nothing seems to be able to recover it.
The zipped-up dd image is here:
https://expirebox.com/download/d40c6...cba107b8b.html
Thanks,
Chuck
20 Mar
20 Mar
1:05 p.m.
On 15 March 2017 at 20:15, Warner Losh via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux
kernel.
More than a bit of an oversimplification.
Android has its own libc. It contains some portions from the BSD one,
but is not a modified version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_(software)
That's my reading, anyway.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven ? Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 ? ?R/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053
2539
days inactive
2607
days old
76 comments
33 participants
participants (33)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bill.gunshannon＠hotmail.com -
binarydinosaurs＠icloud.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctalk＠beyondthepale.ie -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cramcram＠gmail.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
imp＠bsdimp.com -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
john＠forecast.name -
jws-gmail＠jwsss.com -
jwsmail＠jwsss.com -
kirkbdavis＠me.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
pcw＠mesanet.com -
pontus＠Update.UU.SE -
ray＠arachelian.com -
RichA＠livingcomputers.org -
robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com -
rwiker＠gmail.com -
spacewar＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
steven＠malikoff.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
tingox＠gmail.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
tsg＠bonedaddy.net