Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule. - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

26 Jan 1999

"Help!  I've started replying and I can't stop!"

(Last one, I promise!)

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, "Hans Franke" &lt;Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de&gt; wrote:
] > ] I personally feel the 10 year "rule" is useful as a guide, however, I
also
] > ] consider that there are several machines that rightly qualify as "Classic
] > ] Computers" that are less than 10 years old.   There is a particular
"grey"
] > ... snippage ...
] 
] > Unless the list-maintainer gets active, "on-topic" is by concensus.
] 
] If I may add here - he _is_ active - not acting as teh big boo-boo
] doesn't mean beeing non existent - After all, I guess nobody wants
] a dictatoric on/of topic thing.

And being existant doesn't mean active either.  Has he nipped any
single thread, ever?  If he never acts to control off-topic messages,
then I feel safe in saying he is not active, at least in defining
"on-topic".  I'm not bitching about that, BTW.  Just pointing out
that it is up to us as a group to define that.

] > 1. Ten years is just a guideline.  If something is only 9 years old,
] >    I won't much mind hearing about it.  I might even like it.  But if
] >    it is only two or three years old, there must be a surviving
] >    users-group or something.  Go find it, or start your own, but please
] >    don't clutter up my mailbox with it.
] 
] THere are 'surviving' user groups for machines that are
] _way_ older than 9 years - and before getting deeper into,
] this is not a user group !
] 
] And for the mailbox thing - what about a filter ? No, serious,
] from my simple point, all this /11/ stuff is useless (help, no,
] no, I didn't mean is - pleeeeease :) and just adds trafic. But
] I also read them, or at least open them and have a look, since
] sometimes, beside stupid facts, how to configure a special card,
] or device, there are beautiful insights and stories - and BTW,
] the 11 is not classic (since still available new, or at least
] have been sold new less than 10 years ago) nor there is no other
] support - there are _plenty_ of specialised lists, user groups
] and news areas. I even learned to love this PERQ thing (now I
] just need to get one :).

Yup, someday I'll have to figure out mail filters.  As of now I'm
still using plain old Unix (UCB) mail (a classic!).  And while
there is plenty of on-topic stuff that I skim over (like you, I
don't own a PDP-11), there is also plenty of stuff that really
doesn't belong here.  It is easy enough to skim over.  But it
would be easier and better to just post messages on the right
lists.

] > 2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic.  Sorry, that's
] >    just an indisputable fact.  :-)
] 
] Boooo - shuld I throw my Apple II PC into the garbage ?

Um, I meant PC as in "IBM PC".  You know, the same way everybody
else has meant it for the past fifteen years or so.  :-)
Besides, even if it were not a classic computer (which I won't
dispute), you could still treasure it.

... snippage ...

] > 3. Guns, cars, schools, Star Trek, and politics are not classic computers.
] >    (This is not to disparage people interested in those things, just to
] >    point out that those discussions belong on other mailing lists.)
] 
] Guns ? Depending.

Okay, I'll bite.  Give me an example of a gun that is a classic
computer.  And I don't want to hear about computers controlling
guns, or computers designing guns, or computers owned by gun
companies, or computers used in anti-gun legislation.  In those
cases it is the computer, and not the gun, that could be relevant
here.

] Cars ? At least related somewhat.

Okay, by that measure, everything on Earth (and almost everything
not on Earth) is related somewhat.  Shall we make this into the
"everything" mailing list?  Absolutely everything is on-topic,
because we can always stretch far enough to find _some_ relation?
<sarcasm>
Heck, we are *people* talking about those things, and *people* made
those classic computers, therefore everything anyone says is related.
Cancel all the other mailing lists!  Route all their traffic here!
It is all on-topic now!
</sarcasm>

] Schools ? Hey, this discusion was _very_ on topic at all !
] Thats where our next collectors generation is growing, and
] it's part of our mission to take our idea of old technik
] use and preseravion to them. Themes like that is waht this
] list makes so different - it's not just 'put this IC into
] that socket' type of mails, it's about real people doing the
] real thing in the real world, with all interactions. Not just
] technik dummys.

Nope, MOST of this was way off-topic.  How bad teachers are,
how great Uncle Roger's girlfriend is as a teacher, how the
schools are underfunded, how funding isn't the problem, blah,
blah, blah...  Maybe your filter saved you from it?

] And for the Star Trek part - Of course, ST had no infuence
] to the idea of computers et all - you're right (BTW1: when
] was the last occurance of ST in this list ? BTW2: OT: I'm
] still searching on data for the Star Wars premiere)

*Everything* has influence on everything else.  It is not all
on-topic.

] > 4. Simply having origins in something that is classic does not make a
] >    thing classic.  Otherwise *everything* would be classic.
] 
] But looking at the origins visible in a new product is still
] a _very_ on topic thing - otherwise we would just ignore the
] world of the last 10 years. And it's one of the most interesting
] things about this hoby, to see how the things have evolved,
] how small and insignificant (at this time possibly good) decisions
] have breed new monsters (see A20 gate :). The advantage of an
] historian is not only to review a specifig period, but also
] trace the ways leading there, AND leading from there to 'now'.

Yes, it is very interesting.  There are thousands of other mailing
lists full of interesting stuff too.  But they are not classic
computers.  I suspect you'd like comp.arch more than this list.
Which is not a bad thing, as long as you don't confuse the two.
If I wanted to read comp.arch (as I sometimes do), I would just
subscribe to it (as I also sometimes do).  But despite some overlap,
there is a clear difference between the two.

] > 5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off
] >    in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is
] >    not yet classic.  (Justification: if it is still in common use,
] >    there will be other places to discuss it.)
] 
] If we go for an 'exact' date, I think the mfg date of the
] specific unit is the only possible anchor - just think of
] machines like the A2 - acording to your definition it wont
] qualify. I would even go one step further and use the date
] of first production as base for the rule (as often done
] within the list - best practice rule). Just remember that
] new machines always have been escorted by a increased
] attention and speculation (no, not today :). This event
] itself is classic and part of the history, and the acording

So the release of any new machine is automatically a classic
event?  I hope I'm misunderstanding you here.

] machine. No mater if the Mac is still in production or not,
] the small guy, saying "I'm glad to be out of this bag"
] _is_ classic, without any doubt.

Er... huh?

] > 6. Do I really need to add "IMHO" here?  :-)
] 
] No, as always, we interprete anything we want into your
] words :)

Very convenient.  It will save me a lot of typing.  :-)

] To get to an end: I still think the 10 year thing is a
] thump rule, not a law - and as rule we don't need _exact_
] fixings, since this would just force the development of
] pseudo exact exemptions (Do I have to mention all these
] laws, where our beloved politicians want to do is best,
] and most exact as possible, and then spend the next 10
] years to add sub laws without even touching the problem ?).

I wasn't suggesting an extreme policy.  Going a little off
topic is fine.  Going way off topic is okay once in a while.
But we should at least be aware when we've done that, so
we can exert a little self-control, and not go way off-topic
all the time.

] And, to say it once more, I don't think this list
] 'unmaintained' - our 'boss' is just _not_ one of
] the I-know-it-all-and-I-will-rule-them guys.

That's what I meant by "not active".  He is not ruling with an
iron fist (or with any sort of fist at all) so we define what we
want to talk about, by consensus.  I didn't mean to disparage
him.  After all, he pulled our collective niblets out of the fire,
n'est ce pas?

] Gruss
] H.
] 
] --
] Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
] HRK

And
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, "Hans Franke" &lt;Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de&gt; wrote:
] > As for the rule itself, I agree that ten years after last manufacture
] > implies classic status - that is, the item is an antique.  However,
] > that requirement of time is not necessarily the most prudent for some
] > items.  In some cases, classic status might be applied to an item
] > available only two or three years ago.  Such cases might be
] > rare but, justified by the circumstances.
] 
] To look at similar things, what about cars: wasn't the
] VW Käfer already a classic, _years_ befor the production
] in Germany ended (and in fact, he is still in production
] in Mexico!).
] 
] So, when is a classic car classic ? Basicly there is a
] 20 year rule (at least over here), that applies on the
] date of first usage of this particular unit.

Yes, let's look at cars.

A 1979 Pinto is classic, but a 1980 Pinto won't be until next year.
(Pardon my ignorance here; I have almost no idea when Pintos were
actually made.)

By that logic, your Apple 2 may or may not be classic, based on
its exact date of manufacture.  Is this the position you want to
take?

Okay, I'm falling asleep at the wheel here.  I'd better go nap.

... lots of snippage ...

	Good night all,
	Bill.

] Gruss
] H.
] 
] --
] Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
] HRK