26 May
2016
26 May
'16
5:53 p.m.
From: Ethan O'Toole
Might not be a bad idea to make a wiki page somewhere
and ... source
generic replacements. This way vendor/part# of modern replacements can
be had for old belt drive floppys and computer tape drives?
I think the audio cassette deck enthusiasts do something like this
Excellent idea. The data can be put on the Computer History wiki; I've been
putting a lot of PDP-11 info up there. Let me know if you have data to post,
and can't get access.
From: Paul Koning
It clearly is not all that accurate. In a discussion
of "old" systems,
it mentions a system with "reported age 52 years" but it "runs on
windows server 2008 and is programmed in Java". ... A number of other
examples are similar. For example, a "56 year old" IRS system that
actually runs on an IBM z series machine from 2010.
Perhaps this is just sloppy writing, and they really 'the application is 52
years old, but it has been translated into Java'? And the latter one could
easily be System/360 code from 56 years ago, running on a z series.
Noel
26 May
26 May
6:24 p.m.
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
Back to the original story: there's another angle on this with government
work. I once tried to acquire a vintage system through an auction house.
We (LCM) won the auction, but the next day the auction house refunded our
money - apparently the machine was pushed into the wrong room and was not
to be auctioned off.
I begged for it anyway, and was told that because it was part of an active
program (testing for some fighter jet), it was still in use. When I
suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would require
*re-certifying the entire workflow*. In other words, it was far more
economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design, acquire/build
and certify a new system.
I suspect that "journalism" like this is prompted by (and likely paid for)
by companies who profit from getting people on the endless-upgrade
merry-go-round. But then I'm cantankerous that way. Cheers -- Ian
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu>
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens
Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org>
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org>
University of Washington
There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
From: Ethan
O'Toole
Might not be a bad idea to make a wiki page
somewhere and ... source
generic replacements. This way vendor/part# of modern replacements
can
be had for old belt drive floppys and computer
tape drives?
I think the audio cassette deck enthusiasts do something like this
Excellent idea. The data can be put on the Computer History wiki; I've been
putting a lot of PDP-11 info up there. Let me know if you have data to
post,
and can't get access.
From: Paul Koning
It clearly is not all that accurate. In a
discussion of "old"
systems,
it mentions a system with "reported age 52
years" but it "runs on
windows server 2008 and is programmed in Java". ... A number of other
examples are similar. For example, a "56 year old" IRS system that
actually runs on an IBM z series machine from 2010.
Perhaps this is just sloppy writing, and they really 'the application is 52
years old, but it has been translated into Java'? And the latter one could
easily be System/360 code from 56 years ago, running on a z series.
Noel
10:14 p.m.
I begged for it anyway, and was told that because it
was part of an active
program (testing for some fighter jet), it was still in use. When I
suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would require
*re-certifying the entire workflow*. In other words, it was far more
economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design, acquire/build
and certify a new system.
Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely
plausible. Consider that up until (at least) 1998, the F-15C's tactical
electronic warfare system was run by a 6800B. The person I was discussing
this with had designed a replacement that operated around a SoS 80386 and
could run rings around what the 6800B system could do. His company
dropped the project because they couldn't afford the certification
process just to build a test model.
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_!
27 May
27 May
9:34 a.m.
On May 26, 2016, at 10:14 PM, geneb <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
Not only plausible but reasonable. I've been doing embedded systems for a long time,
with a number of different real-time kernels at the bottom. At various times we looked
into upgrading our kernel to a newer release -- sometimes the release we were using was
6-8 years old. But unlike PCs where "the latest shiny toy" is the common
practice, in embedded systems it is best to stick with what is known, and not change it
unless there is a clear benefit to be had that outweighs the risk of introducing new
bugs.
It does of course mean that if you eventually end up upgrading, the jump is a bit large (a
few years ago, going from NetBSD 1.6.2 to NetBSD 5.0 was definitely an interesting
experience). But in any case, this is a sensible practice for embedded systems, and much
more so for safety critical ones.
paul
I begged for it anyway, and was told that because
it was part of an active
program (testing for some fighter jet), it was still in use. When I
suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would require
*re-certifying the entire workflow*. In other words, it was far more
economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design, acquire/build
and certify a new system.
Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely plausible.
Consider that up until (at least) 1998, the F-15C's tactical electronic warfare system
was run by a 6800B. The person I was discussing this with had designed a replacement that
operated around a SoS 80386 and could run rings around what the 6800B system could do.
His company dropped the project because they couldn't afford the certification process
just to build a test model. 
5:17 p.m.
Ian wrote....
-----
When I suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would
require *re-certifying the entire workflow*. In other words, it was far
more economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design,
acquire/build and certify a new system.
-----
Then Gene wrote...
-----
Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely plausible.
-----
Then Paul wrote...
-----
Not only plausible but reasonable.
-----
I can confirm first hand that it is not just plausible or reasonable - but
factual. On occasion I have sold or repaired HP 1000 stuff for DOD branches
and/or contractors. A time or two I discussed emulators or some type of
modern replacements, asking why those weren't considered. They flat out said
exactly what Ian said above: "When you're dealing with {insert name of
lethal weaponry}, control systems must be known to function identically in
every conceivable case and that certification process is exceedingly
expensive". Usually followed by "we'll do it, after no more boards or
repairs are to be had - but at that point those {weapon} systems may not be
around anymore."
Best,
J
5:48 p.m.
On 27/05/2016 22:17, Jay West wrote:
Ian wrote....
-----
When I suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would
require *re-certifying the entire workflow*. In other words, it was far
more economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design,
acquire/build and certify a new system.
-----
Then Gene wrote...
-----
Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely plausible.
-----
Then Paul wrote...
-----
Not only plausible but reasonable.
-----
I can confirm first hand that it is not just plausible or reasonable - but
factual. On occasion I have sold or repaired HP 1000 stuff for DOD branches
and/or contractors. A time or two I discussed emulators or some type of
modern replacements, asking why those weren't considered. They flat out said
exactly what Ian said above: "When you're dealing with {insert name of
lethal weaponry}, control systems must be known to function identically in
every conceivable case and that certification process is exceedingly
expensive". Usually followed by "we'll do it, after no more boards or
repairs are to be had - but at that point those {weapon} systems may not be
around anymore."
Best,
J
Its a great cover story. Our weapons are so out of date we have to use
computer systems of a similar age to look after
them.
R
2974
days inactive
2975
days old
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
isking＠uw.edu -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
rodsmallwood52＠btinternet.com