On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Tony Duell wrote: Seeing as he said 'the parallel port' I would assume he meant _THE_ parallel port as in 'the D-25 female connector with the pinout that was used on the IBM 5150'. When was this port introduced, btw? --Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)

Once upon a midnight dreary, Tony Duell had spoken clearly: The Atari ST falls under this category. You can use a PC's printer cable, but the actual lines weren't reprogrammable (or accessable) like the PC's were, so parallel Zip drives and their ilk are not usable thru the built-in printer port on them. HTH, "Merch" -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig. If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Tony Duell wrote: There were those 34-pin edge connectors on a number of Tandy systems, and the remarkably compatible header connectors on some others. -- Ward Griffiths "the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor

I was searching the web for a picture of a Honeywell IMP (DDP-516), and I found one sitting on the home page of Leonard Kleinrock, self-proclaimed Inventor of the Internet: http://millennium.cs.ucla.edu/LK/Inet/birth.html I've heard that UCLA hosted Arpanet node #1 (I've also heard that BBN was supposed to host node #0, but their IMP didn't work), but I've never heard of Kleinrock.... -- Doug

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Marvin wrote: Node 0: BBN (non-functional?) Node 1: UCLA (30 August) Function: Network Measurement Center System,OS: SDS SIGMA 7, SEX Node 2: Stanford Research Institute (SRI) (1 October) Network Information Center (NIC) SDS940/Genie Doug Engelbart's project on "Augmentation of Human Intellect" Node 3: University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) (1 November) Culler-Fried Interactive Mathematics IBM 360/75, OS/MVT Node 4: University of Utah (December) Graphics DEC PDP-10, Tenex See Hobbes' Internet Timeline for more info: http://info.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html -- Doug

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Zane H. Healy wrote: I noticed it. I also noticed him mentioned in the brief history written by Vinton Cerf. But his name had been completely erased from my memory. "Leonard Kleinrock." It just doesn't stick. I'm sure I'll forget him again. Pretty good. There was actually quite a bit of poetry in the early RFC's. I'm sure the history of the internet will be one of the best documented histories, and probably the most fun to read :-) -- Doug

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Doug wrote: Whaddya know? Kleinrock is the second entry in this timeline: 1961 Leonard Kleinrock, MIT: "Information Flow in Large Communication Nets" (July) First paper on packet-switching (PS) theory I'd still like to know on what he bases his claim of having single-handedly invented the internet. Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Always hasslin' the man. Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0 See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! [Last web site update: 02/15/99]

It's accurate as far as my recollection goes back and Klienrock was a part of the team of ARPAnet.. Really though, all sorts of thing, to include FidoNet and the old BBS's made up what we have today, each with it's own unique contribution. The net is not the last I feel either, it's just more popular than the others and more commonplace. Doug wrote:

No but they were all steps in what makes the net what it is. Doug wrote:

Russ Blakeman <rhblake(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: I believe that it probably *IS* the last, for a long time (but not forever). When Al Gore was still agressively promoting his Information Superhighway (officially called the NII, National Information Infrastructure), a bunch of people brought up the subject of whether the Internet would be "allowed" to operate over the NII. [*] To me, this seemed like an absurd question. It's like asking, "If there was a new service to send packages between cities for one tenth the cost of the current carriers, would people use that to send christmas presents?" Any publicly available and cost-effective means of transporting IP traffic *will* be used as part of the Internet. The Internet *will* be the last public data network because each new form of telecommunication will be absorbed into it (e.g., ISDN, Frame Relay, cable modems, ADSL, none of which were around when the Internet was invented). And new services are added to the Internet all the time. The World Wide Web is now one of the biggest uses of the Internet, and it hasn't been around that long. The only way I can see the Internet getting replaced by something else is if it finally hits a limit where it won't scale to provide a new service that is very much in demand. And I can't imagine what kind of service that would be. But that's the nature of innovation. Note that I'm not saying that the Internet 25 or 50 years from now will necessarily much resemble what we have now, except in a general sense. What I am saying, though, is that there won't be a conscious decision made at some point to "start over" with something different. Even the "Internet 2" is simply a high-speed Internet backbone that has tighter access control. But for all that, it is still part of the Internet, just as there are many other private backbones with access control (i.e., MCI/Worldcom won't carry packets on their backbone for customers of Joe's Internet Emporium, unless Joe's and MCI/W have a peering arrangement). I expect that this kind of analysis is what led Microsoft to their "Embrace and Extent" policy regarding Internet protocols, rather than their earlier position of pushing proprietary protocols. They figured out that the Internet isn't going away. Eric [*] NIST is developing new standards for the NII; apparently someone in the government didn't think TCP/IP was adequate [**]. Apparently they have a severe case of "IH" syndrome, as they did back when they tried to mandate use of the OSI protocols. Even if NIST does invent new protocols, and they are deployed in a new NII, almost the first use to which they are put will be to encapsulate TCP/IP traffic. [**] Or perhaps, as usual, they simply have too much money to throw around, and can't figure out a *useful* way to spend it.

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 939 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990217/be4215d6/at…