26 Apr
2009
26 Apr
'09
8:21 a.m.
Subject: Re: Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar
From: Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:07:38 -0400
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I had no problem with a Mac and Firefox getting a PDF to download.
I went to the mac using safari and that worked. Firfox on the NT4 box,
Ubuntu8.04 and even Ubuntu 9.04 however clicking the down load button
was a do nothing from Firefox.
Hi! ?Steve
and Sean generously released BYOZ80C to allow online publishing.
I very much enjoyed his book and commend him for both writing it in the
first place and also releasing it so as to help keep the home brew computing
tradition alive.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13388965/Build-Your-Own-Z80-Computer
Also a most useless site. ?Despite all claims of down loadable document
it plain doesnt do it. Sites like
this have a habit of disappearing and
taking the content with it. Far too much stuff has gone lost over the
years.
Too true. 
28 Apr
28 Apr
3:40 a.m.
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 11:21 -0400, Allison wrote:
I went to the mac using safari and that worked.
Firfox on the NT4 box,
Ubuntu8.04 and even Ubuntu 9.04 however clicking the down load button
was a do nothing from Firefox.
Firefox on Linux, the "download" link works but the box with the actual
link is rendered "under" the Flash window. If you block the Flash
player then you can download it.
Maybe we should throw a copy on bitsavers?
Gordon
8:55 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 08:27 -0700, Al Kossow wrote:
Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
Okay, I guess it's your server, and you make the rules.
I suppose one publication that's scanned, PDFed and available online
with the author's blessing would look odd alongside gigabytes of
questionably-legal scans.
Gordon
Maybe we should throw a copy on bitsavers?
nope..
9:18 a.m.
Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 08:27 -0700, Al Kossow wrote:
Gordon,
Just because you have an interest in it doesn't mean Al has to do your
bidding. He collects what he wants to collect. He has no obligation to
collect things he isn't interested in.
And I suppose you have refrained from ever taking advantage of Al's hard
work and have never used information from his site or its mirrors,
seeing as how you have a sincere concern about the legal status of the
documents there.
If you have availed yourself of the docs there, then you are simply a
snarky putz to have said what you just did.
Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
Okay, I guess it's your server, and you make the rules.
I suppose one publication that's scanned, PDFed and available online
with the author's blessing would look odd alongside gigabytes of
questionably-legal scans. Maybe we should throw a copy on bitsavers?
nope..
9:42 a.m.
My apologies for the previous post.
I've found in the past it is generally best
not to comment at all on what should or shouldn't
be on bitsavers in a public forum.
10:31 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:18 -0500, Jim Battle wrote:
If you have availed yourself of the docs there, then you are simply a
snarky putz to have said what you just did.
The comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek, although I suppose it's hard
to express that in 7-bit ASCII.
As it happens, I don't think I've ever used any of the docs from
bitsavers.org - I've been fortunate enough to have usable manuals with
the classics I've had.
Gordon
5498
days inactive
5500
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
frustum＠pacbell.net -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net