On 05/26/2016 09:48 AM, Fred Cisin wrote: Assembly is still used on many lower-end MCUs. It still offers a big bang for the buck, particularly on minimal hardware. "typically tied to hardware"? Can anyone cite a case where it was not? Not to be confused with "machine language", which was also used--i.e. direct coding of instructions without the aid of mnemonics or symbols. Doesn't the Series/1 use magazine-fed floppies? Not exactly the same as handling the disks individually. --Chuck

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote: I'm going to loudly agree here. While I find assembly coding somewhat tedious, I wonder what kind of Jedi mind trick "Clancy and Harvey" used to make themselves believe that asm was not only dead but also no longer useful. *eye roll* Whatever, geniuses. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the quote? Are they serious? Is this out of context and I'm just not "getting" what they really meant? There are all kinds of seemingly instinctual reactions that some folks have to questions of programming style and efficiency. My *least* favorites are: 1. The "GUI programming" or "natural language" folks who think that programming really isn't that hard, the problem is that we haven't given folks Fischer-Price icons for control structures, or allowed people "simply tell the computer what to do." I simply call BS. 2. Languages that are supposed to "enlighten" students to some incredible new programming paradigm, or bolt-ons that to older languages with the same claims. They almost always start their pitch by telling you how some irritating or tedious aspect of coding in other languages can be eliminated or minimized. I'm more and more skeptical of this claim all the time. It rarely works out and generally making things "safer" or "easier" runs a big risk of neutering their usefulness, too. Those languages who successfully walk the line between power and ease of use are the ones that survive and thrive (and sometimes it's just chance/luck as Dennis Ritchie said about C). The bottom line is that coding is work. It takes creativity, analytical and critical thinking ability, and probably most important of all: practice. IMHO, there aren't any shortcuts. You work and you get results. As tedious as it is, I can think of several contexts were ASM is downright required. Folks who think there is a magic bullet or shortcut seem to fall into the same mistakes while calling them something new. Folks who resent the work & sweat that others do to get those skills are generally the ones who are screaming the loudest about how programming is really easy, but it's the geeks who are just overcomplicating things and are making it "so hard". Then they or folks with the same mindset generally start talking about Agile, XP, or some "methodology" that's going to somehow free them from the basic fact that good experienced coders write the best code and deliver. You can't simply iron on a methodology and turn a team full of lazy or careless coders into something else. At best, you can catch more of their errors and report on the ones that aren't being productive and hope your management pays attention. I've worked under Agile and XP regimes and I hate both with a passion. They were both a *huge* productivity drag (ever actually tried "pair programming"?) and seemed to me to be an effort to make business weasels feel more comfortable that their coders were "communicating" and other social crapola they think is important since most of what they do is sit around and run their mouths in meetings all day. I'm sure some folks will disagree, but I've *actually worked* under these schemes. In my experience (and the vast majority of my co-workers) they were awful. It also seems to me that all the "greats" (incredible coders) and software projects or companies I loved or respected weren't "Agile". They simply hired the right people and got out of the way. Give me the "wizard in a cave" methodology anyday over "1000 H1Bs writing Shakespeare using Agile". Results matter more than mollycottled business majors and project manager feelings... uhh, IHMO. Who would you want helping you finish your project, Dr. Jeff Sutherland or John Carmack? Which do you think is going to get you there sooner and with better results? I know how I'd answer... This mentality I dislike is a bit like saying the only reason you can't play violin is, not because you don't practice and are too lazy to work at it.... noooo it's because the violin is poorly designed, the wrong brand, and because you aren't practicing in the right order with your head turned in the proper direction. Yeah. Right. I'm not saying the state of the art can't be improved. I only assert that there are some strategies for doing so that seem flawed from the start because they start with unrealistic (or downright silly) founding principles. -Swift

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Mouse wrote: Well, as you suspected, I wasn't really thinking about that. That's the convenience of not having to run a business, I suppose. However, I do see your point. I feel sorry for the folks who have to live at the tip of the customer spear, so to speak. You definitely have me nailed on this one, too. That's exactly who I'm thinking of. I mentioned Carmak. He's sort of the poster child. No degree, no management BS, and has actual successful releases and REAL code that works extremely well and is very well written. However, yes, he's a wizard in a cave (and nowadays seems more interested in rockets anyway). Yes, you are right. That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of, not customer driven, customer facing type of projects. While I've been a part of those types of efforts, I think for myself personally, it's definitely not the right place for me. However, I certainly won't gainsay you on the benefits of certain methods of interacting with them. It's just not something high on my personal value-system. That's where I'm coming from, exactly. I know it's not the only perspective, it's just mine. That's probably why you have a more nuanced and mature philosophy on such things. Jobs I've had which were more "customer facing" generally didn't last long. I have a truth and directness problem (read: lack of subtlety) that doesn't usually endear me to those types of gigs. So, I mostly ignore those types of "opportunities". Nonetheless, I'm probably poorer for it. I can appreciate some of the elements, also. It's just irritating when they start turning it into meeting (oh wait... scrumm) hell and folks are more focused on pushing the methodology than completing the project. That and the forced social interaction are negatives for me, personally. However, I might be describing my own "issues" here more than any formal argument or philosophy. -Swift

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Swift Griggs <swiftgriggs at gmail.com> wrote: Oh, I see what's going on. See, this is the "cctalk" (Classic Computing Talk) mailing list. I think what you're meaning to send this to is the "ccctalk" (Cranky C Curmudgeons Talk) mailing list. Could we maybe talk about classic computing rather than go on endlessly about the lazy kids these days with their saggy pants and their terrible loud programming languages? - Josh

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Josh Dersch wrote: Ah, but the Crazy Cranky C Curmudgeons Classic Computer Talk list is a subset of cctalk. But, there was a big crash a while back, and separation of the lists hasn't been completely successful.

[top posted, with Swift's remarks below] The Clancy and Harvey topic is about curriculum, and teaching of "computer science". Clancy and Harvey were/are two lecturers at UC Berkeley, who ended up in charge of lower division under-graduate CS. First, I'll explain OUR curriculum at the community college, since that is what I know. We had a varied mix of re-entry of dropouts, job training, AA degrees, preparation for transfer to 4 year colleges, skills enhancement for people employed in related jobs ("I want to take a course in C"), and adult enrichment. We started off with an extremely simple introductory course that did not assume that the student had ever seen a computer. (In 1980 or so, that was a necessary assumption). Offered as a 6 week drive-by, but generally a full semester for those who intended to go further. It had just enough programming in it that a student would successfully create a program. (often done with BASIC) Then an Introduction To Programming, with basic principles and concepts. Illustrated with multiple languages, but concentrating on a language of the instructor's choice for some minor projects. Then choices of courses in multiple languages: COBOL (2 semester levels), FORTRAN, BASIC, Pascal, RPG, C, Mainframe Assembly (360/370), Microcomputer Assembly (X86), and occasional ones for only a few years each including RPG, ADA, etc. Not all classes offered every semester. Also work skills classes in using Microsoft Office, etc. Data Structures And Algorithms, with a prerequisite of at least one programming language, and taught in language of instructor's choice (I used C, but I let students substitute other languages). When I taught it, I included iterative V recursive tree algorithms. I also taught "Microcomputer Disk Operating Systems" (heavy on MS-DOS, but trying to actually teach the principles applicable to ANY), and "Advanced Microcomputer Programming" (prerequisite of C and Assembly) which included TSRs, device drivers, walking directory trees, mixed language programming and stackframe structure, etc. One of the assignments was to write a program that would display a complete directory of the disk. I taught with C, X86 ASM, and MS-DOS, but students were free to substitute other languages and unix, Mac, or whatever, for their assignments. I tried to implement a basic information science course on access to online information resources, but our curriculum committee vetoed it and rewrote it into how to surf the web. We had constant struggles with the administration, who wanted to, and eventually succeeded at, removal of all advanced courses and anything with a prerequisite. They REALLY wanted our department to be nothing but remedial job training for the digital sweatshop. They killed EVERYTHING that had been worthwhile! By 2013, when I finally told them to take my 33 year job and shovel it, I had still been unable to get them to let me try to do a basic beginning Information Science course (DIK/W/E, relevance ranking, economics and legalities of IP, recall/precision interaction, social impact of access, search engine algorithms, SEO, etc.) Anyway, back to, . . . Clancy and Harvey reworked the UC undergraduate lower division (first two years) curriculum. They setup a three course sequence at the core, consisting of "Abstraction", "Data Structures", and "Demystification". They called a meeting of local CS departments to tell us what we should switch over to teaching. They chose Scheme (a LISP derivative) for the first course. They thought that recursion should be the fundamental basis of computer programming, even down to COUNTING from 1 to 10. I used to usually give an assignment of Fibonacci numbers as an exercise in loop controls, etc. - I was a little taken aback when somebody from UC thought that it meant that I was starting my students off with recursion! They gave a small example, which they declared CAN NOT (not "must not") be done with anything except recursion. While they were putting it on the board, I coded it on my notepad as a two dimensional array with a nested loop in C, BASIC, Fortran, and got partway through COBOL. (I take offense at being told things are "impossible" to do in other languages - "difficult" or "inappropriate" are acceptable). Their "Data Structures" class was to be taught using C. I asked about their C class. They didn't have one, and declared that all students are assumed to already know C before they arrived there! Their "Demystification" would be the first time that the students would be made aware of existence of anything under the hood. They declared, "Nobody programs in Assembly language any more, nor ever will again." I asked about timeline for implementation of the new curriculum. They stated that it had been in place for a couple of years. I pointed out that it was not reflected in the current catalog, and asked when they expected the catalog to catch up. They insisted that that must just be a glitch in the printing of that years catalog, that it had been updated for a few years. (THAT was a lie. I went over to Doe Library and xeroxed the pages from the last five years of catalogs) They had a brilliant visionary concept of CS education. Which I don't agree with. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com On Fri, 27 May 2016, Swift Griggs wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Paul Koning wrote: ["Demystification"] A touchy-feely nickname applied by those who personally wouldn't have anything to do with it. "insane"? "out of touch with reality"? sarcasm is always risky here. They tried to change the entire paradigm of beginning CS education into their image. an infra structure that may promote such, or may put "out of the way" in something uncared about, such as undergraduate lower-division. To be fair, I haven't heard anything from them in decades, so I have no idea how successful they were, nor whether their goals have changed. UC for awhile accepted our "Data Structures And Algorithms" class and our "Advanced Microcomputer Programming" for transfer as a substitute for their "Demystification" course, but then suddenly dropped them with a stated reason of "The CATALOG description of them does not mention interrupt handlers". (no, their catalog is also not a complete list of course content) Later, for a few years, they accepted my "Microcomputer Assembly Language" and my "Computer Math" as substitutes for other reasonably irrelevant courses. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

MIX would be another example. Or Alan Kay's "cuneiform tablets" project (https://archive.org/details/tr2015004_cuneiform) paul

Chuck wrote... -------- Meh, I'll not too willingly concede that one. P-code is also a made-up machine language. -------- But one difference I'll toss out there... p-code wasn't meant to be written in directly. Pick assembler was; so it included the full suite of ORG, EQU, MACRO, LIST, NOLIST type directives. I doubt most pcode does. Interesting to note - pick basic used p-code. The basic "compiler" (written in pick assembler) turned basic source into a byte oriented p-code. It was stack oriented, used RPN for expressions; each basic language statement generated a set of stack operations to perform the statement such that at the end of that statement everything was back as was before the code stream for that statement was executed. Of course, this p-code was executed interpretively. By missionary instructions ;) J

On 5/26/2016 2:25 PM, Jay West wrote: On the microcoded machines, the 1600 and Ultimate (honeywell level 6, and also custom bit slice microengines) systems in particular, the interpreter was assisted by a macro instruction which essentially implemented the jump to a table based on the next p instruction pointed at by the p-code instruction counter. At the end of the pick assembly code (which was executed by firmware) the special instruction was executed in the stream of pick assembly instructions. Later versions implemented execution of 8 or 10 instructions directly in the firmware, so sometimes when some versions of the firmware came out it was not just a branch to code to execute all the p-code, but sometimes a lot of pcode would be executed by the firmware, eventually coming up for air and back to some pick firmware when a non firmware instruction was encountered. A very interesting mix of executing code at both the macro level and micro level. for completeness of this, if I've not lost you, there was a machine built by Pick which was also microcoded, and as far as I know those were the only microcoded machines for pick. The above concept worked in varying degrees with the cross compiled systems which ran on 68000 and other machines as well. Thanks jim

It is interesting that the military may not be able to use W10. I doubt it can meet tempest requirements without major changes. Dwight ________________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Rod Smallwood <rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:19:51 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: vintage computers in active use On 26/05/2016 17:48, Fred Cisin wrote: Sounds like good security to me. Try hacking that lot. R

<cctalk at classiccmp.org> not the in W10. some There But it generally uses 443 and 80 so it can get through firewalls. It also tends to use "normal" Microsoft server addresses. It is also often on port 443. There is wasting my time, and wasting my time. the erased Pentagon they went

On 05/26/2016 05:57 PM, Jon Elson wrote: I believe that some old DEC gear may still be in use at Warner-Robbins to maintain C130 transports. I used to have some RX02 floppies for that stuff (probably still do, but I don't know where I put them.) --Chuck

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:19:51PM +0100, Rod Smallwood wrote: A friend of mine had a collection of PDP-8s years ago during the 70s. Ontario Hydro asked him if he could sell them a few. I always wondered what they were doing with them, today I think I found out. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/01/000/10000… -- - db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db

On 26/05/2016 19:03, Brent Hilpert wrote: Not as long ago as that I was reacquainted with someone I first came across dropping hints on Usenet in the late 1990s, who worked at a large power station not far from here. The upshot was an exploratory trip in which we filled two large cars, then subsequently overfilled a 3-ton truck with PDP-11 equipment and related goodies. -- Pete

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:31:42PM -0300, Paul Berger wrote: ... Wow! Thanks! I always wondered why Ontario Hydro wanted Craig's PDP-8's ;) Diane -- - db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db

morning support systems, initially military, But doesn't that be an implementation of the famous "don't ask don't tell strategy" ? -Rik

Cisin <cctalk at classiccmp.org> support The problem with old kit is the same problems we have. How do you know you have working spares to fix it. You might have a box of 8" floppies but what condition are they in? Do you need to bake them? What about rubber belts for floppy drives? Spares will have perished as well... If the disks are in a Magazine what happens if someone drops the magazine and breaks it. Where on earth do you get one of those these days.... When the PSU pops is it the PSU or something died within the works. It might be working today but I wouldn't trust a Series/1 to manage my door locks today, even though in the day IBM used them for that. Let's face it assembler on the IBM360 or many systems isn't a problem. Lots of emulators around and it is only a Tax database so timings are not a problem. Assembler on a Series/1 is a problem as it's a closed system. Can't be run under emulation. No modern replacements available. Dave G4UGM

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Dave Wade wrote: You make some excellent points about the hardware and the difficulty of emulation et al. When it comes to firing nuclear weapons, personally I'd like to see computers *removed* from the equation as much as is practical. The protocols for firing should be as embedded as much as possible in human chain of command and the Missileers, not the computers. The controls are currently physically isolated and require simultainous key-turns by two individuals etc.. I have much more faith in something like that than in software or computer hardware. Anatoli Bugorski can tell you all about the effectiveness of "safety software". If they putting Windows boxes in missile silos, well... Prepare for WWIII. It's a bit like the last time I was in an ER and they couldn't accept patients because their Windows machines kept blue-screening due to a virus. Windows in an ER? Yep. This insanity is now the norm. -Swift

When I left full-time IT work at the university in 1999, at that time the wacky network admin used an NT 4 desktop because it was (in his opinion) the best Windows money could buy and he wouldn't deign to use 98 like the rest of us hoi polloi. Recall that Windows 2000 wasn't RTM until December of that year. (I was already notorious for refusing to switch to Microsoft Outlook; I read my mail on-spool, as God intended, over a terminal window.) Fast-forward to fall 2003, when I was now a starving medical intern and had my ob/gyn rotation at the county hospital. The fetal monitoring system on every bed in the delivery suite was NT 3.51. I could tell at a glance it had not been updated since the day it was installed. I pretended not to notice. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Backup not found. Abort, Retry, Vomit, Panic, Write Resume File? -----------

get just breathtaking to speak... What would you expect. Properly maintained, managed enterprise and locked down Windows/7 is solid and reliable. In the UK it is hard to use Linux in the "Public Sector" and in the UK most Hospitals are Public Sector. You can use Linux BUT you must have a support contract in place and run a supported distro. Having costed this it brings the price up way beyond that of a Windows desktop. patients paper I can't remember getting a blue screen on Windows/7. I used to run a 200 server windows infrastructure. It all down to how you manage it. Our Linux appliances were the most unreliable servers BECAUSE we did not know How to manage them. > -Swift Dave G4UGM

Cisin <cctalk at classiccmp.org> active like On an Active Directory domain, such as most corporate users have, it doesn't quite work like that, and automatic updates to Windows/10 don't happen... If you wait till its activated and then roll back , you can re-install at a later date if you so desire. I like Windows/7, always have. I am running the rolling Window/10 previews on this, so it updates frequently, Its like the weather in Manchester (UK). If I don't like what it is doing today a new build will be along soon and it will behave differently... Dave G4UGM

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Dave Wade wrote: You can surely get a proper Linux support contract -- proper as in: if you trigger a bug (which may be anything from a protocol violation, through a security hole, to a crash) in the kernel or other core component, then you can log it with your support provider's bug tracking system and get it fixed with an update release of the offending component provided within an agreed reasonable time frame, having live access to the bug status throughout the cycle. Now can you get it with Windows? This is a serious question -- I've been asking various IT people about it many times over the years, and only got evasive answers (if any), but perhaps I asked the wrong people. Maciej

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Dave Wade wrote: Of course, that's the kind of arrangement I had in mind. Thanks, good to know. Might be useful to adjust some people's attitude ("you need to live with that") in the future. :) Maciej

And nobody - *ever* - plugs a USB stick into them. Or puts them on a LAN with machines that people shove USB sticks into.

On 27/05/2016 22:04, Ali wrote: Please can we have some specific instances of Windows causing problems. Not unqualified people at home or students but real production environments with qualified support on hand. I used every version of windows from 1 to 10. yes XP and millennium too I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for the ten years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo) I would have seen just about every possible bug in windows and in developing applications under it. Lets hear what others experienced. Rod

On 27/05/2016 23:11, Swift Griggs wrote: The main issue I had was migrating code to the next version of windows or the development environment. We had a lot of code that talked to accounting systems. In particular a UK product called Sage. Imagine having to take care of version changes in windows, visual basic and Sage all at the same time. The big change was the move from vb to vb.net. That is to say to object oriented programming. Microsoft were a little naughty in saying it was the next version of vb. It wasn't. It was a whole new ball game. In my part of the industry over half of the commercial vb programmers took one look and retired on the spot. Me ? well I loved it. Once you grasped the ideas then you could do so much more. Microsoft support was very good if a little distant. They gave away the development environment because the code only ran under windows and therefore leveraged windows sales. Rod

s/Code Red/Nimda/ They got hit by Code Red, too, but I wasn't around at the time. :) -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- "Logan! You renewed!" ------------------------------------------------------

crypto locker on linux would work if someone exicuted it but then that would be a user fail like most people who get infected from going to the wrong sites and clicking crap... On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dave Wade <dave.g4ugm at gmail.com> wrote:

On 2016-05-27 5:04 PM, Ali wrote: After all, what could possibly go wrong? http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/faulty-av-scan-disrupts-patients-he…

On 2016-05-27 7:37 PM, Ali wrote: Oh, I know this resulted from *people* not thinking it through. One of the results of not thinking it through was picking Windows. --Toby

On 2016-05-27 8:38 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: Therac is not the same threat at all. What seems to be missing from the process that leads to specifying Windows is, indeed, threat modelling. The threat of a virus scanner disabling the machine is not the same as a virus disabling the machine, and so on (a proper enumeration of threats would be quite long). The point is that the threat model for a "discrete stupid device" is VERY different from the threat model for Windows. Human error obviously appears in both lists (and can be mitigated!) And these aren't the only 2 options, either... I think we can all agree that when the outcomes are as bad as this, then the engineering process was faulty. A virus scanner (or virus) is a very easily foreseen problem. --Toby

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Toby Thain wrote: What I don't understand is why Windows is being used on these devices at all. It specifically states in the license that it's not to be used with life-critical systems or infrastructure (like nuclear plants). I wish I could find a reference - I can't recall where I read that... The funny thing is, I've been using Windows since Windows 95 and the only issues I've ever had with it were all self-inflicted. I've never understood all the hate it gets. (Well except for Windows ME and Windows 8.0 - those were shit-shows. :) ) 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_!

Yes! -Ali

You know, they made a movie about that. "Sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks." -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- LOAD"STANDARD DISCLAIMER",8,1 ----------------------------------------------

On 2016-05-26 2:39 PM, Geoffrey Oltmans wrote: We're pretty much already there. Audits of the F35 software found: * single points of failure (grounding global fleet) * security issues * that software is the single biggest risk to the project It's not clear how much Microsoft is already in that loop. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-04-21/gao-questions-dep… etc While the existence of such projects is ... questionable to begin with, one might think the continual under-delivery (across all military boondoggles) might give taxpayers pause. --Toby

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Toby Thain wrote: Agreed. You should hear one of my buddies talk about the air traffic control software he wrote which was replaced with some horror. One of the principles of Unix: KISS, has been nearly completely lost. Nobody calls a meeting anymore to say "What can we get rid of? How can we simplify this? What is the *right* thing to do here?" It's more like "how big of a kickback will I get if I put in this nasty thing this vendor wants to sell?" or "Does the new system have buzz?" I worked on a gaming system one time (gambling) for embedded Linux systems. I recognized a few really critical bugs that might have even been exploitable. Neither the code shop or the clients gave a hoot. They responded with platitudes when I said "Can we go back and fix the most critical of our 300 bugs before we move on to new features?" The answer: "Not now, maybe later." That's one more lesson at the school of hard knocks, I guess. My guess is "a lot". The military seemed to have drank nearly the entire bottle of M$ kool aid, especially the Army. 1 TRILLION (with big fat "T") dollars went into the F35 development (that's nearly half of one years tax revenue for the entire country), the results thus far have been pathetic if the news is to be believed. At least most of that money, boondoggle or not, is spent in the USA, I guess. However, I pine for the days when modest efforts produced the incredible SR-71 Blackbird (my all-time favorite aircraft). It was produced relatively quickly compared to the F35. Wikipedia says they started designing it in 1960 and it was flying by 1962. I'm no aviation expert by a long shot, but still that seems infinitely better than the current circus around the F35. I know that they aren't the same type of aircraft, and that the F35 is more "sophisticated" (but still way slower). I also understand that they had a zillion different design goals and basically were trying to please too many masters. I'm not sure who the blame rests with, but I'm right there with you calling the F35 a boondoggle. It hasn't seen battle yet (and I hope it doesn't have to) but I'm a little worried about the fact that it's beaten (badly) in simulations and exercises with much older fighter aircraft with much more "primitive" tech, including Russian aircraft, too. Aviation guys, am I all wet about the F35? -Swift

On 2016-05-27 12:16 PM, Alan Perry wrote: It seems that Texas could take some lessons in "reducing costs": https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/01/cost-overruns-and-bungles-state-con… But, "Since fiscal 2008, Texas has paid Accenture more than $6.3 billion for a range of projects, including Medicaid payment services, according to the state comptroller?s office." http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/a-trouble… It's almost like there's something else going on, when billing gets into the 8-11 figure range! Oh, wait, what if we google "accenture kickbacks"??? --Toby

On 05/27/2016 08:18 PM, Paul Anderson wrote: OK, the whole concept with the F35, if they can ever get it all working, is that is is NOT an airplane (singular). It is a SYSTEM of planes. So, each pilot can see what ALL the other aircraft in the region see. If one guy spots a new SAM site, he can mark it, and they ALL now know it is there. Some F35s can go "dark" and shut off their RADAR transmitter, and use other aircraft's transmitters to illuminate their target. All sorts of advanced stuff like that will make it a formidable system, but it all depends on a huge amount of software and communications systems to all work together. Jon

?and that was the issue with the F4 Phantom during Vietnam. The F4 was designed to take out aircraft with its missiles. Except that didn?t work too well. The USAF decided after Vietnam that all ?fighters? would have a ?gun? of some sort. I guess they forgot that lesson. TTFN - Guy

The AR12 wasn't supposed to be called a SR71. Somebody messed that one up too. On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Alan Perry <aperry at snowmoose.com> wrote:

Fred Cisin wrote: Since Windows 10 is out, many security aware people here in germany dropping Microsoft Software if they can and you think it would be a good idea to control nuclear wheapons with this kind of crap? Nothanks. This game is over. ..and guys, since Snowden and Manning the Worlds point of view about the United States and it's "No Such Agency" has changed..entirely. Don't know if it would be an good idea to additional elect Trump.. Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583 www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741

Toby Thain wrote: Yes, this is only one of the reasons I don't like Windows, but the germanys government has decided to shut down any nuclear plant anyways after the fukushima desaster. But controlling weapons wth Windoze would be another story. Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583 www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741

Toby Thain wrote: [..] " of Defence systems that co-ordinated intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft" Oh, I think those will do. ..but I have no problem with IBM Series 1 Computers, I habe a problem with Microsoft Windows. Regards Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583 www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741

On 5/27/16 5:03 AM, Rod Smallwood wrote: It became too popular, and created a monoculture that was a prime target for malware. It also didn't start out that way, but it evolved into an OS that would only run on one architecture, with one preferred CPU vendor; Intel. There is a core of hardware that is required, but almost no one runs with that anymore, and the drivers for video, audio, and networking come from different companies with varying quality and stability. Finding those drivers for anything other than the most recent releases can be difficult. Then, there is the history of the business practices of the company that produces it.

Mouse wrote: Couldn't have sayed it better, thanks. Besides of that, it is only the german version of the Windows 10 End User Licence Agreement that gives Mikeysoft the righs to do with the users data what ever they want todo? That in conjunction with the agressive update mechanism used ist the main cause why people think it is time now to change to linux. (think thy are right, but don't use linux for myselves, prefer BSDs). Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583 www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741

I did work in UNIX on a Series-1 in the telecom space. It probably still is in use. About like an AS/400. They were built like tanks and never seemed to break. Thanks, Bryan On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jay West <jwest at classiccmp.org> wrote:

Series/1 used either EDX ( Event Driven Executive) or RPS (Realtime Programming Systems) Could be programmed in a variety of languages. I think I used COBOL on EDX. The app was a Transaction -processing Newspaper Classified Order Entry system supporting 300 seats. The project started in 1976 well before PC's were around. The architecture was Zentec programmable 8080 based Terminal for the user interface, data sent to Series/1 via BI-SYNC protocol, then forwarded to IBM 3032. I did the programming for the Zentec. It was fun! It had no operating system at all. Just 8080 interupts. Basically you wrote assembly language to grab the character from the kb interupt and figure out what to do with it. (like store the character on the screen, move the cursor left (or right if delete char) ) and a bunch of other stuff. -Wayne -----Original Message----- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Swift Griggs Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 8:53 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: vintage computers in active use On Thu, 26 May 2016, Bryan C. Everly wrote: What kind of Unix did they run? There is almost no information on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I'm just curious because I've heard of PC/IX, IX/370, and of course I'm *very* famililar with "Ain't Unix" uhhh, I mean AIX. :-P I work with it nearly every day. However, I don't know squat about the Unix that ran on a Series-1. -Swift (a guy with a ZOO full of Unix boxes).

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote: That sounds very much like IBM. I was there for @ four years (from 2000 to the end of 2003). When people ask me about it, I tell them "IBM is 300,000 employees. That's like a large city. In a city you have a nice part of town (Watson) where people can more or less follow their dreams and make all kinds of neat/crazy stuff. Then there is the slums (IBM GS) where folks are treated like crap and act like animals." Man, they destroyed the materials.... daaaamn. That's some hatin' -Swift (a guy with enough hubris to quote himself, har har)

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote: It was the Boulder site the whole time for me. Used to be a printer and tape drive manufacturing site. Then they converted the manufacturing floors to hosted data centers for Global Services by and large. Nothing changed when I was there. It was the second-most political place I've ever worked in. The only reason I've seen worse is that I've lived through a couple of apocalyptic H1B wipe-outs in large companies. I wasn't around for the bulk of IBM's offshoring. You wanna see some depressed computing experts, tell them: 1. You are fired. 2. You can stay around for time-and-a-half plus a modest bonus if you train your barely-speaks-english-and-is-here-illegally B1 or B2 visa holder. They uhm, *might* get H1B visas later, but for now we'll just thumb our nose at the law. We are fat cat corporations with lawyers. We don't have to care. You won't either, since you won't be here but for another 60-90 days. (lived through two of those, watched people cry a lot at work, have nervous breakdowns, develop stress-related issues they'd never had, etc... no fun) 3. Okay... now you are fired. BTW, the jobs are "going to India" but staying right, here. We know that just adds insult to injury but what are you going to do, get *our* pet congressperson / senator to help you? Buwuhahahah. We gave them $3,000,000 bucks last year. You gave them $25. Good luck. BTW, we really value you as an employee and appreciate your contribution. Kthxbye. Sounds pretty typical. Customers were never #1. When I was there, the worst I saw them: 1. Pirate/steal huge amounts of software from other vendors and use it in their hosted environments. I had to tell my boss point blank: "I'm not your felony pirate boy." on more than one occasion. 2. Fire people who found security problems. I watched a couple genius-level guys who were just young-and-curious get whacked this way. 3. Hire managers who were barely *literate* much less competent. My manager once asked me as he was banging away on a Lotus Notes document "What is the difference between y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e [you're] and your?" Seriously. -Swift

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Jon Elson <elson at pico-systems.com> wrote: Another CHM volunteer (from the PDP-1 Restoration Project) and I pushed for an IBM 360/30 Restoration Project, and the ability to build replacements for failed SLT modules was part of our plan. I donated a 2540 Reader Punch to CHM with the hope that it would be used on the 360/30, but unfortunately I missed out on getting the 2821 Control Unit that went with it. Unfortunately, for various reasons it is unlikely that the CHM 360/30 will be restored.

I wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:40 PM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote: As far as I can tell, if I suddenly need a specific SLT module, the odds of finding that specific module at any given time on eBay is essentially zero. Obviously if we could find an authentic replacement, we'd prefer that. We didn't want the entire restoration to be dependent on having to find authentic replacements. Some SLT modules are far more common than others. I don't know how many different SLT modules are used in the 360/30, nor what percentage of the SLT modules in that machine are common ones. When we restored the DEC PDP-1, it contained quite a few DEC System Modules from DEC's standard catalog and that we had spares of, but it also contained a non-trivial number of specialized modules that are much harder to find, if not impossible. I'm guessing that IBM machines were probably similar.

Yes, a remarkably few number of modules make up a huge bulk of the population. Of course there are some rare types, like the high speed versions or the ones that IBM farmed out, but they can mostly be ignored. Yes, those are the things that are really pretty common. Chip, module, card, board, gate. I suppose chip level repair might be possible with today's SOTs, but I would not want to do it! -- Will

On 05/26/2016 10:40 PM, William Donzelli wrote: OK, where can you buy some? They haven't been made since about 1970. IBM sent out a letter to all 360 users who had machines under contract, giving a date when they would no longer guarantee that any particular machine could be repaired, due to lack of spare modules, and a second (later) date when they would drop all contracts and no longer make ANY parts available, due to the need to keep the National Airspace System running. The IBM 9020 system was composed of slightly modified 360/50 and 360/65 processors, and attempts to replace them with more modern technology had several notable failures. These systems were in use until ** 1989 **! They were finally replaced with IBM 3083 processors. I suppose somebody may have a warehouse full of old SLT cards, but I've certainly never heard of it. SLT modules were NOT terribly reliable, as compared to MST or newer technologies. Remember, SLT is DISCRETE transistors and diodes on ceramic hybrid substrates. At least in my experience, mid-size 360's would need a card replaced every few months. I have no idea what the failure rate would be in cold storage rather than in power-on 24/7, which is what they did at Wash U. (ISTR that maybe Rolla shut their 360/50 down every night. I don't know if that is worse due to thermal cycling or better due to less power-on hours.) But, I'll bet that oxygen and moisture will continue to take their toll at a slower rate. Remember, all this gear is now about 50 years old! Jon

On 05/27/2016 11:45 AM, William Donzelli wrote: Yes, IBM was cranking out SLT at an absolutely amazing rate! In fact, before there was Silicon Valley, upstate New York was a huge technology center, and most of it was churning out all the myriad assemblies of IBM 360 systems, processors, channels, memory, peripherals, etc. Well, it was pretty much commanded by the US government. Remember, they had to keep 360s running until 1989! YIKES! (Although I'm sure at the time they had no idea the replacement would drag on for that long.) Yes, but I'm sure once they DID get manufacturing of of SLT working, they had a way to make lots of logic at a cost much lower than all the other computer makers who were still stuck with little metal-can transistors and glass diodes on PC boards. I looked at some stuff from the disk lab in Rochester, MN. (I think) that was given to Washington University some years ago. It had all been stored in good conditions. WU wanted the air bearing fixtures and a few other things, but had no interest in all the gear that ran it, Series/1 and racks of SLT boards. Some of the aluminum covers could be flicked off with your fingernail..The green epoxy that held them on had started to go bad, I guess. Some of the guys who reported earlier on 1800 systems seemed to think they were a LOT more reliable than my experiences watching 360/50 and 360/65 reliability. It might be that the 1800 had shorter stacks of boards to be cooled in the same airflow. I know the /65 had a tall stack, and some of the areas of the CPU had pretty hot air coming out the top. Jon