Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #66786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-02 05:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-04-05 20:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 58 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-02 05:34 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-02 11:42 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-02 19:08 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-03 06:26 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-03 18:42 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-03 16:34 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-04 00:50 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-04 19:11 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 04:39 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 20:20 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 18:46 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:48 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 23:01 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:08 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:31 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-06 00:32 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-04-07 03:09 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-06 23:47 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:06 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-07 15:53 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:02 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 07:13 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:26 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 07:42 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-07 12:55 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:47 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:34 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 22:49 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 02:00 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 07:46 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 04:21 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-05 11:37 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 20:05 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 19:47 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-04-06 00:14 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:53 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 23:42 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 22:13 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:27 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 11:57 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 22:47 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-07 07:47 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 05:13 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-07 17:50 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 01:52 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-05 23:34 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 22:29 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-06 22:18 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 02:25 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-04-07 03:16 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-07 00:35 -0400
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-07 06:09 +0000
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-05 11:20 +0100
Re: Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-05 20:09 +0000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 05:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Past Blast - "Wonder Woman 1984" - Corp Guy Using PET |
| Message-ID | <3LScnf6o-ddHmXD6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Blast from the past ... "Wonder Woman 1984" - the old moneybags corp guy is seen using a COMPUTER ... a Commodore PET, looks like 40 column display, with a crude spreadsheet :-) PETs weren't terrible PCs ... 1Mhz 6502, not much diff from the Apple-II performance-wise. Kinda always wanted one. I've got an A2, with floppies, but don't dare turn it on lest old capacitors pop. Knew one of those guys ... remember that Val Kilmer movie called "Real Genius" ... the guy was a LOT like the movie guy who lived in the walls. He used a PET to write cloned popular video games - IN *MACHINE LANG*, HEX codes - and burned them to ROM cartridges. Watched him do it, easy as writing a post-it note. Said it gave him a buzz ....... NOT sure what became of him - maybe went nuts - IQ 200+ fer sure - those guys ain't always stable, "Sheldon+" ... but DID love his little computer shop. Remember when there were LOTS of those ??? Well WORTH driving 50 miles ...... Heh heh ... one more local shop, the guy wondered why anyone would possibly want more than 8-bit/ 64K ... I told him "graphics" ....... this was C-64/Atari-800 days ...........
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 11:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vsj4af$1jt3k$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66786 |
On 02/04/2025 10:34, c186282 wrote: > He used a PET to > write cloned popular video games - IN *MACHINE LANG*, > HEX codes - and burned them to ROM cartridges. Older computers just gave you a set of front panel SWITCHES to enter machine code, one line at a time... No assemblers for THOSE! -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m55g9gF1fe1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66786 |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 05:34:59 -0400, c186282 wrote: > PETs weren't terrible PCs ... 1Mhz 6502, not much diff from the Apple-II > performance-wise. Kinda always wanted one. I've got an A2, with > floppies, but don't dare turn it on lest old capacitors pop. Sprague Electric, which was a major manufacturer of tantalum capacitors, had a number of PETs. They used the HP-IB (GPIB) for their peripherals which made them very convenient for connecting to HP instrumentation at about a quarter the cost of a HP computer. Besides, you could play 'snake' on them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 06:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PrWcnfSsir_Q_3P6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66810 |
On 4/2/25 3:08 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 05:34:59 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> PETs weren't terrible PCs ... 1Mhz 6502, not much diff from the Apple-II >> performance-wise. Kinda always wanted one. I've got an A2, with >> floppies, but don't dare turn it on lest old capacitors pop. > > Sprague Electric, which was a major manufacturer of tantalum capacitors, > had a number of PETs. They used the HP-IB (GPIB) for their peripherals > which made them very convenient for connecting to HP instrumentation at > about a quarter the cost of a HP computer. > > Besides, you could play 'snake' on them. Heh heh :-) The A2 was a good model for the IBM-PC in having on-board plug-in cards. The competition stuck to external "serial" periphs. Also always wanted a good S-100 system ... but could not afford one way back then. THINK they hung on all the way to the 68k chips, but after that the bus was too slow. NOW I can't afford a working re-sell :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m5834aFe093U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66832 |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 06:26:16 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Also always wanted a good S-100 system ... but could not afford one > way back then. THINK they hung on all the way to the 68k chips, but > after that the bus was too slow. NOW I can't afford a working re-sell The rumor back then was the S-100 bus came from someone finding a great deal on milsurp edge connectors. There were a number of alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STD_Bus Despite the name, the STD bus wasn't a standard. Sprague Electric had a severe case of NIH so I designed a bus for them that used a Z80 processor, memory cards, and I/O cards. You could get away with a lot with 3.57 MHz. It was fun and they were willing to pay for the project but a COTS solution would have made more sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 16:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vLqdnVb4yaZObXP6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66853 |
On 4/3/25 2:42 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 06:26:16 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Also always wanted a good S-100 system ... but could not afford one >> way back then. THINK they hung on all the way to the 68k chips, but >> after that the bus was too slow. NOW I can't afford a working re-sell > > The rumor back then was the S-100 bus came from someone finding a great > deal on milsurp edge connectors. There were a number of alternatives. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STD_Bus I can believe it ... hey, why use EXPENSIVE custom edge connectors ? :-) > Despite the name, the STD bus wasn't a standard. Sprague Electric had a > severe case of NIH so I designed a bus for them that used a Z80 processor, > memory cards, and I/O cards. You could get away with a lot with 3.57 MHz. > It was fun and they were willing to pay for the project but a COTS > solution would have made more sense. Sounds like you went further into custom electronics than I ever did. However, back in the day, DIY was much more common and NEEDED. I'll have to check ... I think S-100 was solid up to four or five MHz. The Z80s were the most common CPU but I'd seen them with lots of others. The main reason to stick with S-100 was all the ready-made periph cards back in the days when the CPU board did NOT have built- in everything. Had to have a sep serial board, sep printer card(s), sep drive interface card(s) ..... indeed I think on some even the CPU was not all on one board. According to one source, Cromeco sold a 16.7 MHz 68020 board for S-100 ... but that'd be pushing things. Alas the biggest problem was that the use of those 100 lines tended to 'evolve' over time, which could increase incompatibility issues. Anyway, I'd be happy with a Cromeco Z80 with a floppy and serial board and maybe 128kb. Good solid CP/M system blast from the past. Yes, you can buy TINY Z80 SBCs now, even seen kits ... but that's not as fun or impressive :-) Hey, the earlier versions of Turbo Pascal came with a CP/M variant ... don't remember if that was just CP/M-86 or actually for Z80s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m58omiFguqjU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66859 |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:34:04 -0400, c186282 wrote: > I'll have to check ... I think S-100 was solid up to four or five > MHz. The Z80s were the most common CPU but I'd seen them with lots of > others. The main reason to stick with S-100 was all the ready-made > periph cards back in the days when the CPU board did NOT have built- > in everything. Had to have a sep serial board, sep printer card(s), > sep drive interface card(s) ..... indeed I think on some even the CPU > was not all on one board. The later Z80s were good for 6 MHz but 3.57 MHz was good enough for me and color burst crystals were dirt cheap. For the one I did the SRAM was a separate card. The price wasn't a problem and it s a lot easier to deal with than the DRAM refresh cycles. > Hey, the earlier versions of Turbo Pascal came with a CP/M variant > ... don't remember if that was just CP/M-86 or actually for Z80s. The version I bought was for CP/M. TBH I wasn't all that interested in Pascal but I wanted to see what you could possibly get for $49.95. The BDS C compiler I was using was $110. http://gaby.de/ftp/pub/cpm/znode51/articles/int4.htm The article talks about how fast it was but it wasn't all that speedy for non-trivial code. However that was my experience with the first Hello World TP app. "Damn thing doesn't work; nothing happened. Oops, that looks like an executable. Let's see what it does." I never warmed up to Pascal but the TP experience biased me towards Borland's OWL when I got around to Windows. Then the 500 pound gorilla stomped it into the ground.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250404075333.000000fc@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #66868 |
On 4 Apr 2025 00:50:26 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > The version I bought was for CP/M. TBH I wasn't all that interested > in Pascal but I wanted to see what you could possibly get for $49.95. That was the key: fast, usable, and *way* cheaper than anything else on the market. (Microsoft C - really just a re-branded Lattice C - cost *ten times as much,* the same year TP rolled out.) Whether Pascal was your favorite programming language or not, that made a *big* difference to scrappy independent developers and prospective enterpreneurs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m5ap7fFr19rU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66877 |
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:53:33 -0700, John Ames wrote: > On 4 Apr 2025 00:50:26 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> The version I bought was for CP/M. TBH I wasn't all that interested in >> Pascal but I wanted to see what you could possibly get for $49.95. > > That was the key: fast, usable, and *way* cheaper than anything else on > the market. (Microsoft C - really just a re-branded Lattice C - cost > *ten times as much,* the same year TP rolled out.) Whether Pascal was > your favorite programming language or not, that made a *big* difference > to scrappy independent developers and prospective enterpreneurs. Microsoft C 3.0 was a polished product for its day with printed manuals and everything. GE paid for it so I don't know what it cost. Before they got into Windows I thought of MS more as a tool provider, with MSDOS as an afterthought. It was third party TSRs and, iirc, Quaterdeck's memory manager that made DOS on an AT usable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 04:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <-UadnYX0z-bYcW36nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66881 |
On 4/4/25 3:11 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 07:53:33 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> On 4 Apr 2025 00:50:26 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> >>> The version I bought was for CP/M. TBH I wasn't all that interested in >>> Pascal but I wanted to see what you could possibly get for $49.95. >> >> That was the key: fast, usable, and *way* cheaper than anything else on >> the market. (Microsoft C - really just a re-branded Lattice C - cost >> *ten times as much,* the same year TP rolled out.) Whether Pascal was >> your favorite programming language or not, that made a *big* difference >> to scrappy independent developers and prospective enterpreneurs. > > Microsoft C 3.0 was a polished product for its day with printed manuals > and everything. GE paid for it so I don't know what it cost. Before they > got into Windows I thought of MS more as a tool provider, with MSDOS as an > afterthought. It was third party TSRs and, iirc, Quaterdeck's memory > manager that made DOS on an AT usable. Ah, I remember QEMM ... a big improvement, could actually use a LOT of RAM. The compilers offered by IBM/(M$) were very good. We kinda though of M$ as a hero company back then, all the good tools. Then ......... As I recall ... there was 'C' and Pascal and FORTRAN along with a MASM. A BASIC compiler was also to be had (and I used it). Of course those were all the typical multi-pass compilers - two, three, four steps to get an executable of even a short simple pgm. BUT, they worked. Still have those in a DOS VM and mess with them from time to time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m5dhkmF9mvkU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66890 |
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 04:39:30 -0400, c186282 wrote: > The compilers offered by IBM/(M$) were very good. We kinda though of > M$ as a hero company back then, > all the good tools. Then ......... PCs were thought of as an IBM product. It wasn't until Windows that they sort of became associated with M$ even if MS's forays into hardware didn't always turn out well. IBM seems to be shuffling out the door. They sold their fabs to Global and are 'rebalancing'. https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/27/ibm_cuts_jobs_in_us/ Funny how IBM can fire 12,000 people and it gets a brief headline on the tech sites. Fire 12,000 government drones and it's the end of the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cg6dnfOMv8UxL2z6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66913 |
On 4/5/25 4:20 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 04:39:30 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> The compilers offered by IBM/(M$) were very good. We kinda though of >> M$ as a hero company back then, >> all the good tools. Then ......... > > PCs were thought of as an IBM product. It wasn't until Windows that they > sort of became associated with M$ even if MS's forays into hardware didn't > always turn out well. > > IBM seems to be shuffling out the door. They sold their fabs to Global and > are 'rebalancing'. > > https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/27/ibm_cuts_jobs_in_us/ > > Funny how IBM can fire 12,000 people and it gets a brief headline on the > tech sites. Fire 12,000 government drones and it's the end of the world. IBM has proven itself to be resilient - shifting focus back and forth depending on the current global needs. If it fires 12,000 today it MAY hire 20,000 a few years from now to exploit some new markets. As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be 'probationary' employees yet getting all the perks) well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 01:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vssj12$3ki2e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66920 |
On 05/04/2025 23:46, c186282 wrote: > On 4/5/25 4:20 PM, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 04:39:30 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> The compilers offered by IBM/(M$) were very good. We kinda though of >>> M$ as a hero company back then, >>> all the good tools. Then ......... >> >> PCs were thought of as an IBM product. It wasn't until Windows that they >> sort of became associated with M$ even if MS's forays into hardware >> didn't >> always turn out well. >> >> IBM seems to be shuffling out the door. They sold their fabs to Global >> and >> are 'rebalancing'. >> >> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/27/ibm_cuts_jobs_in_us/ >> >> Funny how IBM can fire 12,000 people and it gets a brief headline on the >> tech sites. Fire 12,000 government drones and it's the end of the world. > > IBM has proven itself to be resilient - shifting > focus back and forth depending on the current global > needs. If it fires 12,000 today it MAY hire 20,000 > a few years from now to exploit some new markets. > > As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be > 'probationary' employees yet getting all the perks) > well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE > CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in > charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff How much did the Lone Skunk get in Subsidies eh? -- There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons that sound good. Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-05 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1_2cnX5g4J3nc2z6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66928 |
On 4/5/25 8:48 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/04/2025 23:46, c186282 wrote: >> On 4/5/25 4:20 PM, rbowman wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 04:39:30 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> The compilers offered by IBM/(M$) were very good. We kinda >>>> though of >>>> M$ as a hero company back then, >>>> all the good tools. Then ......... >>> >>> PCs were thought of as an IBM product. It wasn't until Windows that they >>> sort of became associated with M$ even if MS's forays into hardware >>> didn't >>> always turn out well. >>> >>> IBM seems to be shuffling out the door. They sold their fabs to >>> Global and >>> are 'rebalancing'. >>> >>> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/27/ibm_cuts_jobs_in_us/ >>> >>> Funny how IBM can fire 12,000 people and it gets a brief headline on the >>> tech sites. Fire 12,000 government drones and it's the end of the world. >> >> IBM has proven itself to be resilient - shifting >> focus back and forth depending on the current global >> needs. If it fires 12,000 today it MAY hire 20,000 >> a few years from now to exploit some new markets. >> >> As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be >> 'probationary' employees yet getting all the perks) >> well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE >> CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in >> charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff > > How much did the Lone Skunk get in Subsidies eh? Dunno. Will have to search around. A big feature of 'govt-funded' is the ability to get in on, and siphon from, the CASH FLOW. Kick a little back to yer pols, keep the rest. It's been this way for a long LONG time. In the USA, the "Spruce Goose" was kinda one of those cash-dip projects. Yea, yea, he made it fly in ground-effect for half a minute ... big deal ..... TOTAL WarBucks scam. There are the 'elected officials' and then there are the REAL people in charge, the 'oligarchs' by one name. This is exactly how things were done in Machiavelli's day and STILL done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vssk6t$3llaq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66920 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be > 'probationary' employees yet getting all the perks) Do note that in the US federal govt, the meaning of a "probationary employee" is very different from the normal private sector usage (it is unfortunate the statue writers chose 'probationary' for their word, but here we are). It simply means they have been on the job for less than one year, and what is different for 'probationary' employess is they don't have all of the usual protections from arbitrary and capricious firings as those who have been on the job for more than one year. The purpose is to give the govt a one year window to see if the employee actually can do the job, and allow an easier time of laying them off if it turns out they can't do the job. > well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE > CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in > charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff. The federal employees never were the "deep state". If indeed there ever was a "deep state" it was the political appointed cabinet heads. The employees just do what they are told by their managers, within the bounds of whatever laws congress enacted that created their given areas. If a deep state exists, it is the political appointees who are part of it, not the day to day employees that just keep things running day to day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 02:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m5e7b6Fd990U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66933 |
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 01:08:45 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > It simply means they have been on the job for less than one year, and > what is different for 'probationary' employess is they don't have all of > the usual protections from arbitrary and capricious firings as those who > have been on the job for more than one year. The purpose is to give the > govt a one year window to see if the employee actually can do the job, > and allow an easier time of laying them off if it turns out they can't > do the job. I don't know if it is still the case but that was Boeing's model in the '50s. Hire 100 engineers and fire 97 of them in the first year. My brother was one of the 3 lucky ones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uXyIP.18295$j2D.16342@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #66937 |
On 2025-04-06, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 01:08:45 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > >> It simply means they have been on the job for less than one year, and >> what is different for 'probationary' employess is they don't have all of >> the usual protections from arbitrary and capricious firings as those who >> have been on the job for more than one year. The purpose is to give the >> govt a one year window to see if the employee actually can do the job, >> and allow an easier time of laying them off if it turns out they can't >> do the job. > > I don't know if it is still the case but that was Boeing's model in the > '50s. Hire 100 engineers and fire 97 of them in the first year. My brother > was one of the 3 lucky ones. The way things are going now, it seems they've switched to firing the 3. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 00:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <IYCcnfTNk_tFnm_6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66933 |
On 4/5/25 9:08 PM, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be >> 'probationary' employees yet getting all the perks) > > Do note that in the US federal govt, the meaning of a "probationary > employee" is very different from the normal private sector usage (it is > unfortunate the statue writers chose 'probationary' for their word, but > here we are). Well ... HERE WE ARE ....... Politics is about *appearances* more than any realities. If I hear "probationary" I think some Gen-Z/A2 dink kinda part-time drones who don't deserve any consideration. > It simply means they have been on the job for less than one year, and > what is different for 'probationary' employess is they don't have all > of the usual protections from arbitrary and capricious firings as those > who have been on the job for more than one year. The purpose is to > give the govt a one year window to see if the employee actually can do > the job, and allow an easier time of laying them off if it turns out > they can't do the job. Um, WHY so many <1yr people ??? Sounds like a Joe initiative to reinforce the bureaucracy/deep-state. So, FIRE them all ! >> well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE >> CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in >> charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff. > > The federal employees never were the "deep state". Oh, please !!! If not 'part', then 'pawns'. It's ENDING, rather rudely. > If indeed there > ever was a "deep state" it was the political appointed cabinet heads. > The employees just do what they are told by their managers, within the > bounds of whatever laws congress enacted that created their given > areas. If a deep state exists, it is the political appointees who are > part of it, not the day to day employees that just keep things running > day to day. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-07 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsvflb$2ima9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66946 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 4/5/25 9:08 PM, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be 'probationary' >>> employees yet getting all the perks) >> >> Do note that in the US federal govt, the meaning of a "probationary >> employee" is very different from the normal private sector usage (it >> is unfortunate the statue writers chose 'probationary' for their >> word, but here we are). > > Well ... HERE WE ARE ....... > > Politics is about *appearances* more than any realities. > > If I hear "probationary" I think some Gen-Z/A2 dink kinda part-time > drones who don't deserve any consideration. Yes, and that's probably what the rest of the country thinks, since unless they've been a govt. employee at some point, they would never have had a chance to learn the "government" meaning. As I said, it is unfortunate the statute writers chose the word "probationary", but they did, so it is the word used. >> It simply means they have been on the job for less than one year, >> and what is different for 'probationary' employess is they don't >> have all of the usual protections from arbitrary and capricious >> firings as those who have been on the job for more than one year. >> The purpose is to give the govt a one year window to see if the >> employee actually can do the job, and allow an easier time of laying >> them off if it turns out they can't do the job. > > Um, WHY so many <1yr people ??? Sounds like a Joe > initiative to reinforce the bureaucracy/deep-state. Most realistic reason, given the number of people employed by the fed: there is a constant churn of old workers retiring (or dying) off and others who quit to go elsewhere with the accompanyng new hires being hired to replace those that have left. Just that, given size size of the fed, without any "joe initiatives" would produce a quite large count of folks in "probationary" status, more than enough for the numbers being quoted in the press. Another quirk of the govt. "probationary" status is if one changes jobs within the govt, one becomes "probationary" for the first year of the new job. So a portion of the "probationary" workers have more than a year total govt experience, but are "probationary" because they switched jobs within the fed. > So, FIRE them all ! And with that, the workers that make sure your prescription drugs won't accidentally poison you, or those that make sure your steak does not include a deadly does of salmonella, or those that make sure you get your social security check (if one is drawing one), or those who make sure one's medicare payments go through for medical services (for those old enough to be forced to be on medicare), or the forest service workers rescuing hikers who get themselves hopelessly lost in the woods, or a whole host of other services that many have no idea is being provided by the federal workforce. >>> well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE >>> CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in >>> charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff. >> >> The federal employees never were the "deep state". > > Oh, please !!! > > If not 'part', then 'pawns'. One could argue 'pawns' convincingly. And as well, no 'pawn' (on a chessboard or in the fed) is "calling the shots" either. The "deep state" would be the ones "calling the shots" rather than the lowly pieces on the board that are being moved about by the "shot caller". Right now, the 'pawns' are being fired, while the 'chess players' remain around. That's hardly clearing the "deep state", to leave around the ones that were calling the shots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 23:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kyKdnacRdeQh1276nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66984 |
On 4/6/25 11:09 PM, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 4/5/25 9:08 PM, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> As for the govt drones (half of which seem to be 'probationary' >>>> employees yet getting all the perks) >>> >>> Do note that in the US federal govt, the meaning of a "probationary >>> employee" is very different from the normal private sector usage (it >>> is unfortunate the statue writers chose 'probationary' for their >>> word, but here we are). >> >> Well ... HERE WE ARE ....... >> >> Politics is about *appearances* more than any realities. >> >> If I hear "probationary" I think some Gen-Z/A2 dink kinda part-time >> drones who don't deserve any consideration. > > Yes, and that's probably what the rest of the country thinks, since > unless they've been a govt. employee at some point, they would never > have had a chance to learn the "government" meaning. As I said, it is > unfortunate the statute writers chose the word "probationary", but they > did, so it is the word used. > >>> It simply means they have been on the job for less than one year, >>> and what is different for 'probationary' employess is they don't >>> have all of the usual protections from arbitrary and capricious >>> firings as those who have been on the job for more than one year. >>> The purpose is to give the govt a one year window to see if the >>> employee actually can do the job, and allow an easier time of laying >>> them off if it turns out they can't do the job. >> >> Um, WHY so many <1yr people ??? Sounds like a Joe >> initiative to reinforce the bureaucracy/deep-state. > > Most realistic reason, given the number of people employed by the fed: > there is a constant churn of old workers retiring (or dying) off and > others who quit to go elsewhere with the accompanyng new hires being > hired to replace those that have left. Just that, given size size of > the fed, without any "joe initiatives" would produce a quite large > count of folks in "probationary" status, more than enough for the > numbers being quoted in the press. Another quirk of the govt. > "probationary" status is if one changes jobs within the govt, one > becomes "probationary" for the first year of the new job. So a portion > of the "probationary" workers have more than a year total govt > experience, but are "probationary" because they switched jobs within > the fed. > >> So, FIRE them all ! > > And with that, the workers that make sure your prescription drugs won't > accidentally poison you, or those that make sure your steak does not > include a deadly does of salmonella, or those that make sure you get > your social security check (if one is drawing one), or those who make > sure one's medicare payments go through for medical services (for those > old enough to be forced to be on medicare), or the forest service > workers rescuing hikers who get themselves hopelessly lost in the > woods, or a whole host of other services that many have no idea is > being provided by the federal workforce. > >>>> well, big/deep state is a POWER BASE and TAPPABLE >>>> CASH FLOW for some of the people who are REALLY in >>>> charge, so they DO freak about that kind of stuff. >>> >>> The federal employees never were the "deep state". >> >> Oh, please !!! >> >> If not 'part', then 'pawns'. > > One could argue 'pawns' convincingly. And as well, no 'pawn' (on a > chessboard or in the fed) is "calling the shots" either. The "deep > state" would be the ones "calling the shots" rather than the lowly > pieces on the board that are being moved about by the "shot caller". > > Right now, the 'pawns' are being fired, while the 'chess players' > remain around. That's hardly clearing the "deep state", to leave > around the ones that were calling the shots. Hey, NEXT step, go after the OTHER players ... but you've gotta strip them of their shield of pawns first ........ Some like to think Trump and friends don't understand all this - but it's self-delusion. Trump is playing HARD, real, politics here. He was fucked-over by the WokieComs ... NOW he's gonna destroy them. Doing kinda well so far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web