Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #236265 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-31 21:38 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-11-02 13:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 307 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 04:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-01 10:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:35 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:50 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 20:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-03 16:38 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 08:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 02:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 18:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 16:45 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 21:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 02:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 04:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 14:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 06:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 19:37 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 04:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 23:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-06 08:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-06 07:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 06:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-07 01:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 03:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:03 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-04 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 01:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:41 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:11 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 11:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:02 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 18:06 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 22:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 22:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 23:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-04 08:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 01:20 +0000
[OT] Fujitsu Horizon (was: Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fujitsu Horizon Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-05 09:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 09:09 -0700
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 22:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 19:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 16:57 +0800
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:48 +0800
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-06 06:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 09:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-06 06:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 10:43 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-04 19:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 19:04 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 03:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-05 06:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-06 15:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 11:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:40 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 19:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-05 15:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 03:23 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 10:53 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 22:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 00:14 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 01:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 12:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:22 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 15:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-06 06:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 11:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:37 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 22:49 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-07 14:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:56 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 21:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 20:03 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 20:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 19:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 03:33 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 21:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:01 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-07 16:04 -1000
NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 05:59 -0800
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 08:11 -1000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 21:31 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 13:45 -0800
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 12:21 -1000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 23:51 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-08 20:33 -0700
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:59 -0500
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:32 -1000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 21:20 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:07 -0500
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2026-11-10 10:37 +0100
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-10 12:22 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:31 -0800
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:14 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 07:35 -0700
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-10 07:29 -1000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-10 07:55 -1000
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 12:19 -0700
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 12:16 -0700
Re: what's a mainframe, NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-10 07:09 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 07:27 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2026-11-10 10:50 +0100
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-10 07:37 -0700
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:18 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-10 10:45 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:16 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:42 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 10:01 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 11:08 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-09 15:59 +0000
Re: NYT and Stratus (Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-09 09:38 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 08:32 -1000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-08 21:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-08 11:55 -1000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 00:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 04:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 10:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-05 00:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 01:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-05 15:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 09:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-04 11:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 09:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:52 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:42 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:43 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 21:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-11-04 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 18:52 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-05 05:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-05 18:43 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-06 06:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-11-06 21:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 04:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-11-06 21:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-07 05:00 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-07 04:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-07 05:39 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 06:25 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 22:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 19:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-04 01:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-03 19:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 02:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-03 05:28 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 03:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 04:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 04:05 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 23:05 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 04:15 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-04 00:14 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 18:24 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 07:10 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-04 07:00 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 18:28 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-11-04 16:50 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-06 03:02 +0100
Re: [OT] what's a byte, was mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-06 02:44 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-05 19:57 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-05 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 16:01 -0700
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:06 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-06 02:50 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-06 15:25 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-11-04 16:44 -0500
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-06 17:30 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 04:33 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:30 -0700
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 19:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:59 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 03:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-04 19:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 03:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 02:07 +0000
Re: [OT] highly reliable upgradable mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-04 15:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 17:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:36 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-03 07:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-03 05:44 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:38 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-03 22:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-04 07:58 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-05 17:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-03 21:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-02 15:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:16 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:58 +0000
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdmed$3jp2i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236370 |
On 11/3/26 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/11/2026 11:49, Pancho wrote: >> On 11/3/26 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>> >>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>> >>> What it is exactly they do, I don't know. >>> >> >> I'm too young for mainframes, but I always assumed they were for >> running legacy systems that people couldn't be bothered to port to new >> hardware/architectures. >> >> FWIW, my guess is that "high i/o" and "very large" is only by the >> standards of mainframe programmers. > > You would guess wrong then > Think about the number of people a second swiping their cards or > applePay wotsits across terminals... > Each transaction is trivial: post a debit, with details of where the > debt is incurred, and check against customer balance and overdraft > limits, and issue - or deny - authorisation, > But you are talking millions per second. All of which demand instant > response. All of which access centralised databases that cant be split > across machines > Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are nowadays. My impression was the old software worked reliably, throwing more modern hardware at it was the cheapest solution... But there are better ways to do things. Modern companies like Stripe, will be using the same modern hardware as everyone else. I can't see why financial transactions are a heavier burden than other computing transactions, webservers. If you want heavy usage, I would guess bank risk calcs, weather calcs, lots of science applications, running on compute grids, (or whatever the modern word is), blow this mainframe high i/o away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdo9b$1qa8$2@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #236405 |
According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>> >>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>> ... >Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, >to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are >nowadays. Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel is easy. Making the write part is not. If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdq3l$1g9ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236410 |
On 11/3/26 22:47, John Levine wrote: > According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>>> >>>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>>> ... > >> Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, >> to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are >> nowadays. > > Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel > is easy. Making the write part is not. > > If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions > arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one > succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they > need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized > and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same > for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world > application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. > > > > * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with me, it can be done in parallel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 03:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11ce7r7$17a6$4@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #236416 |
According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >> is easy. Making the write part is not. >> >> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they >> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized >> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world >> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. >> >> >> >> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example > >Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >me, it can be done in parallel. Sure, but you're not going to put every account on a different disk. Real transactions are more complicated than that -- when they take the $75 out of my account they have to credit it somewhere else, and that debit/credit pair has to be atomic, both work or both fail. Banks are conservative but they are not stupid. There's a lot of stuff they can push out onto cheap micro based servers, but there's a certain amount of key business logic that Absolutely Has To Work. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 08:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11ceq8h$1gr35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236428 |
On 11/4/26 03:12, John Levine wrote: > According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >>> is easy. Making the write part is not. >>> >>> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >>> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >>> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they >>> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized >>> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >>> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world >>> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. >>> >>> >>> >>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >> >> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >> me, it can be done in parallel. > > Sure, but you're not going to put every account on a different disk. Real > transactions are more complicated than that -- when they take the $75 out of my > account they have to credit it somewhere else, and that debit/credit pair has to > be atomic, both work or both fail. > Not something I ever did, but I strongly suspect it is message queues, including acknowledgements. Tricky to get perfect, but standard IT stuff. > Banks are conservative but they are not stupid. There's a lot of stuff they can > push out onto cheap micro based servers, but there's a certain amount of key > business logic that Absolutely Has To Work. > Absolutely has to work, means testing. That is why they keep the old stuff, it has been tested, in production. Newer system reliability will be almost entirely about software design, better techniques, but testing is difficult. We recently had a scandal in the UK, the Post Office, shocking flaws in design, from the mid 1990s, but over the years they caught most of the bugs and made it work. A superficial look at the news reports showed they weren't using things like idempotent operations. Modern systems are designed to be much more tolerant of hardware glitches.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 01:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cgll2$16hl5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236446 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 08:26:56 +0000, Pancho wrote: > Not something I ever did, but I strongly suspect it is message > queues, including acknowledgements. Tricky to get perfect, but > standard IT stuff. <https://kafka.apache.org/44/design/design/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 08:19 +0000 |
| Subject | [OT] Fujitsu Horizon (was: Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times) |
| Message-ID | <11che7e$1cvin$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236446 |
On 2026-11-04, Pancho wrote: > On 11/4/26 03:12, John Levine wrote: >> According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >>>> is easy. Making the write part is not. >>>> >>>> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >>>> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >>>> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they >>>> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized >>>> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >>>> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world >>>> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >>> >>> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >>> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >>> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >>> me, it can be done in parallel. >> >> Sure, but you're not going to put every account on a different disk. Real >> transactions are more complicated than that -- when they take the $75 out of my >> account they have to credit it somewhere else, and that debit/credit pair has to >> be atomic, both work or both fail. >> > > Not something I ever did, but I strongly suspect it is message queues, > including acknowledgements. Tricky to get perfect, but standard IT > stuff. > >> Banks are conservative but they are not stupid. There's a lot of stuff they can >> push out onto cheap micro based servers, but there's a certain amount of key >> business logic that Absolutely Has To Work. >> > > Absolutely has to work, means testing. That is why they keep the old > stuff, it has been tested, in production. > > Newer system reliability will be almost entirely about software > design, better techniques, but testing is difficult. > > We recently had a scandal in the UK, the Post Office, shocking flaws > in design, from the mid 1990s, but over the years they caught most of > the bugs and made it work. At the same time they kept prosecuting innocent people for it, right? > A superficial look at the news reports > showed they weren't using things like idempotent operations. Modern > systems are designed to be much more tolerant of hardware glitches. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 09:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Fujitsu Horizon |
| Message-ID | <11chjga$1ida9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236539 |
On 11/5/26 08:19, Nuno Silva wrote: >> >> We recently had a scandal in the UK, the Post Office, shocking flaws >> in design, from the mid 1990s, but over the years they caught most of >> the bugs and made it work. > > At the same time they kept prosecuting innocent people for it, right? > Yes and no. The software was shit, so gave false figures. Pragmatic users fudged their accounts to allow themselves to keep working, (if they disputed the software figures their shops were prevented from opening). They were then prosecuted for false accounting, which was true. So technically they were guilty, but in a Dilbert sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 09:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cflc3$qkur$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236428 |
On 11/3/26 20:12, John Levine wrote: > According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >>> is easy. Making the write part is not. >>> >>> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >>> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >>> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they >>> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized >>> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >>> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world >>> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. >>> >>> >>> >>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >> >> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >> me, it can be done in parallel. > > Sure, but you're not going to put every account on a different disk. Real > transactions are more complicated than that -- when they take the $75 out of my > account they have to credit it somewhere else, and that debit/credit pair has to > be atomic, both work or both fail. > > Banks are conservative but they are not stupid. There's a lot of stuff they can > push out onto cheap micro based servers, but there's a certain amount of key > business logic that Absolutely Has To Work. > Banking is a simplistic application anyhow. Most applications need to update multiple records in a database atomically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 22:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cgdc2$2b28o$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #236428 |
In alt.folklore.computers John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>:
>>> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel
>>> is easy. Making the write part is not.
>>>
>>> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions
>>> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one
>>> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they
>>> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized
>>> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same
>>> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world
>>> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example
>>
>>Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone
>>else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my
>>account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with
>>me, it can be done in parallel.
>
> Sure, but you're not going to put every account on a different disk. Real
> transactions are more complicated than that -- when they take the $75 out of my
> account they have to credit it somewhere else, and that debit/credit pair has to
> be atomic, both work or both fail.
This is somewhat different for credit cards. I have a debit card and
when I look at my account I see that some payment are done while
other show "blocked" status. AFAIK "blocked" means that transation
was authorised, but there was no money transfer. All what needs
to be done in real time is authorisation, once transation is
authorised merchant is assured of payment so can treat is a
finished. But actual transfer of money happens with some delay
and could be done by high latency high bandwidth process
(say "nightly batch window").
The only thing which must happen in real time is updating
status of my account and confirmation of autorisation (possibly
with some magic tokens) to the merchant, which involves only
merchant system and machine handling my account. So my bank
could split accounts between several machines (or rather sets
of machines as data almost surely is replicated to ensure
reliablity).
BTW: AFAIK all interbank transfers by law much go trough
national bank and this introduces some delay. IIUC in the
past this used to be something like hours or a day, now
it seem to be down to minutes. Way too slow for credit
card transaction, so that may be one of reasons for
splitting them into authorisation part and actual transfer.
> Banks are conservative but they are not stupid. There's a lot of stuff they can
> push out onto cheap micro based servers, but there's a certain amount of key
> business logic that Absolutely Has To Work.
Machines that handle critcal things in banks may be
significantly cheaper than IBM mainframes, but they are not
exactly cheap. Those are server class machines choosen for
high reliability and high performance. I would be not
surprised if they used similar machines even for not
critical task, as having single/few kinds of server machines
simplifies logistic.
BTW2: I have read that banking system of Ukraine is now in
the cloud outside of Ukraine (and similar for many government
services). I have not heard of mainframe cloud offerings
from major cloud vendors (IIRC Ukraine contracted service
from one of major cloud vendors) so it is quite likely that
they use no mainframes.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 19:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cgohu$178cd$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236519 |
On 11/4/26 15:59, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > In alt.folklore.computers John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >> According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >>>> is easy. Making the write part is not. >>>> >>>> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >>>> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >>>> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they >>>> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized >>>> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >>>> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world >>>> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >>> >>> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >>> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >>> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >>> me, it can be done in parallel. >> >> Sure, but you're not going to put every account on a different disk. Real >> transactions are more complicated than that -- when they take the $75 out of my >> account they have to credit it somewhere else, and that debit/credit pair has to >> be atomic, both work or both fail. > > This is somewhat different for credit cards. I have a debit card and > when I look at my account I see that some payment are done while > other show "blocked" status. AFAIK "blocked" means that transation > was authorised, but there was no money transfer. All what needs > to be done in real time is authorisation, once transation is > authorised merchant is assured of payment so can treat is a > finished. But actual transfer of money happens with some delay > and could be done by high latency high bandwidth process > (say "nightly batch window"). > > The only thing which must happen in real time is updating > status of my account and confirmation of autorisation (possibly > with some magic tokens) to the merchant, which involves only > merchant system and machine handling my account. So my bank > could split accounts between several machines (or rather sets > of machines as data almost surely is replicated to ensure > reliablity). > > BTW: AFAIK all interbank transfers by law much go trough > national bank and this introduces some delay. IIUC in the > past this used to be something like hours or a day, now > it seem to be down to minutes. Way too slow for credit > card transaction, so that may be one of reasons for > splitting them into authorisation part and actual transfer. > >> Banks are conservative but they are not stupid. There's a lot of stuff they can >> push out onto cheap micro based servers, but there's a certain amount of key >> business logic that Absolutely Has To Work. > > Machines that handle critcal things in banks may be > significantly cheaper than IBM mainframes, but they are not > exactly cheap. Those are server class machines choosen for > high reliability and high performance. I would be not > surprised if they used similar machines even for not > critical task, as having single/few kinds of server machines > simplifies logistic. > > BTW2: I have read that banking system of Ukraine is now in > the cloud outside of Ukraine (and similar for many government > services). I have not heard of mainframe cloud offerings > from major cloud vendors (IIRC Ukraine contracted service > from one of major cloud vendors) so it is quite likely that > they use no mainframes. > Could be a virtual mainframe in the cloud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <MjWdndf8wrCcOnf3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #236416 |
On 11/3/26 18:18, Pancho wrote: > On 11/3/26 22:47, John Levine wrote: >> According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>>>> >>>>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>>>> ... >> >>> Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, >>> to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are >>> nowadays. >> >> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >> is easy. Making the write part is not. >> >> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason >> they >> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized >> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real >> world >> application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled >> out. >> >> >> >> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example > > Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone > else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my > account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with > me, it can be done in parallel. NOTICED - my principal bank - a LOT of transactions come up with a "pending" label. Might take DAYS. This is not some 3rd-tier bank either. Two or more larger credit/debit card charges, not sure HOW they 'compete' in that system. If too near each other one MIGHT get bumped. Problem ! In short, even 'online/instant' banking may not be THAT instant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 03:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11ceafb$1kij$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #236432 |
According to c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>: >>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >> >> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >> me, it can be done in parallel. > > NOTICED - my principal bank - a LOT of transactions > come up with a "pending" label. Might take DAYS. This > is not some 3rd-tier bank either. That has nothing to do with your bank's database and everything to do with the way that credit card charges work. First the charge is approved for an approximate amount which is pretty quick, then the actual charge is posted which can take anywhere from moments to days. The amounts are often different, e.g., when you pump gas it approves an amount big enough to cover the largest plausible fill-up, then when you're done it posts the final amount. Or at a restaurant, it approves the amount on the check, then posts that plus whatever tip you add. For historic reasons it's common to wait to post all of a day's charges at the end of the day, or even later which is why they can sit there pending for a while. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 16:57 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <FrCGS.24757$Sdo6.3537@fx07.ams4> |
| In reply to | #236435 |
On 11/4/2026 11:57 AM, John Levine wrote: > According to c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>: >>>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >>> >>> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >>> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >>> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >>> me, it can be done in parallel. >> >> NOTICED - my principal bank - a LOT of transactions >> come up with a "pending" label. Might take DAYS. This >> is not some 3rd-tier bank either. > > That has nothing to do with your bank's database and everything to do > with the way that credit card charges work. First the charge is > approved for an approximate amount which is pretty quick, then the > actual charge is posted which can take anywhere from moments to days. > The amounts are often different, e.g., when you pump gas it approves > an amount big enough to cover the largest plausible fill-up, then when > you're done it posts the final amount. Or at a restaurant, it approves > the amount on the check, then posts that plus whatever tip you add. > > For historic reasons it's common to wait to post all of a day's > charges at the end of the day, or even later which is why they can sit > there pending for a while. > I believe most credit card transactions [1] are batch processed during night time. For instance, Wise marks transactions as "pending" until the nightly batch process has run through; based on unscientific obser- vations. So they'll take the money out of my balance immediately, but probably not deposit it on the other end -- whatever that means for Wise -- until the nightly batch job. Which can fail -- I guess. And sometimes things are even weirder. By casual observation, if I pay some subscriptions in advance, they'll still withdraw the monthly amount, /then/ discover the balance was already in plus, and refund it. That's the website payment processing system, though; not my bank. And add in the fact that I can at any moment re-number my card [2] so it is anybody's guess whether a pending transaction with that card number will go through or not. And that's not touching upon the weirdness that is Microsoft's payment processing system, which can accept my card number, verify it with the zero dollar transaction -- and /then/ -- decide I'm in some fraud cate- gory and refuse to make the actual transaction. I suspect the billing address and geoIP didn't match, but my bank doesn't care so why does Microsoft? And if you think the fruit vendor is better, you can rest easy, because at one time they refused to update my card number. Actually refused. After reaching the /right/ support person, that person could not help figure out why the website told me the card number had been updated, but then the TV application always tried to use the old card number. I gave up, and haven't given the fruit vendor a card number since. And what does that have to do with mainframes? Not much, I'm sad to say I have never worked with payment processing systems at the batch pro- cessing level, and don't know which of these shenanigans happen there, or if much of this happens at the front end -- namely the web payment processing before it reaches the mainframe. All I can say is that payment processing is complex, and it's getting more complex by the minute. Right now, someone is brainstorming some method to reduce fraud, or try to make a part of it just a little more reliable. Thank you for coming to my payment processing rant in alt.folklore.com- puters. [1] Full disclosure, I don't have a credit card, so my experience is exclusively based on debit cards for the past fifteen or more years. [2] Even the physical card, the card number changes, but I can still keep using it; I'll just have to read the number from the app or web- site. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 19:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <61MGS.199927$MmU5.181858@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #236450 |
On 2026-11-04, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: > And if you think the fruit vendor is better, you can rest easy, because > at one time they refused to update my card number. Actually refused. > After reaching the /right/ support person, that person could not help > figure out why the website told me the card number had been updated, but > then the TV application always tried to use the old card number. Ah, you've been around the mulberry bush with Netflix too, I presume. We recently found we couldn't log in to Netflix because they didn't like our card number - and quoted the last four digits and date of a card that expired seven years ago. I wonder how they had managed to bill us the previous month. I called their customer support line, and the droid became downright belligerent, claiming that it wasn't their fault but our bank's. I wound up hanging up on him, and we cancelled our Netflix account. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 04:48 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <SSMGS.20810$1WK1.20140@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #236498 |
On 11/5/2026 3:51 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-11-04, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: > >> And if you think the fruit vendor is better, you can rest easy, because >> at one time they refused to update my card number. Actually refused. >> After reaching the /right/ support person, that person could not help >> figure out why the website told me the card number had been updated, but >> then the TV application always tried to use the old card number. > > Ah, you've been around the mulberry bush with Netflix too, I presume. > We recently found we couldn't log in to Netflix because they didn't > like our card number - and quoted the last four digits and date of > a card that expired seven years ago. I wonder how they had managed > to bill us the previous month. > > I called their customer support line, and the droid became downright > belligerent, claiming that it wasn't their fault but our bank's. > I wound up hanging up on him, and we cancelled our Netflix account. > I have not had that experience with Netflix to my recollection, but I have /scolded/ customer service representatives when they try to gas- light me about my card being at fault, when I can clearly see the zero dollar verification, and then /nothing/ in my bank statement. Their customer service spiel is not at all willing to admit their pay- ment processing service can possibly be at fault. They /will/ gaslight you that your card is somehow out of balance or expired, or something. Full disclosure: I'm not sure if I had that experience with Netflix. And for some reason, the "big merchants" -- I believe last time for me was Microsoft -- are able to continue to bill expired card numbers. I don't know how they get away with it. Then, of course, Microsoft re- fused to update the card number. The customer service was of no help. That was several years ago, with a subscription I sort of happily "un- subscribed" because they didn't want it anyway. My previous gripe was more recent. Thank you for coming to my extended payment processing rant here in alt. folklore.computers! -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 06:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cjsk8$29mft$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236498 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> schrieb: > On 2026-11-04, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: > >> And if you think the fruit vendor is better, you can rest easy, because >> at one time they refused to update my card number. Actually refused. >> After reaching the /right/ support person, that person could not help >> figure out why the website told me the card number had been updated, but >> then the TV application always tried to use the old card number. > > Ah, you've been around the mulberry bush with Netflix too, I presume. > We recently found we couldn't log in to Netflix because they didn't > like our card number - and quoted the last four digits and date of > a card that expired seven years ago. I wonder how they had managed > to bill us the previous month. > > I called their customer support line, and the droid became downright > belligerent, claiming that it wasn't their fault but our bank's. > I wound up hanging up on him, and we cancelled our Netflix account. So whoever was at fault for the issue did you a huge favor. -- This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence, artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity, artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 08:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11chell$1cvin$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236435 |
On 2026-11-04, John Levine wrote: > According to c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>: >>>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >>> >>> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >>> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >>> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with >>> me, it can be done in parallel. >> >> NOTICED - my principal bank - a LOT of transactions >> come up with a "pending" label. Might take DAYS. This >> is not some 3rd-tier bank either. > > That has nothing to do with your bank's database and everything to do > with the way that credit card charges work. First the charge is > approved for an approximate amount which is pretty quick, then the > actual charge is posted which can take anywhere from moments to days. > The amounts are often different, e.g., when you pump gas it approves > an amount big enough to cover the largest plausible fill-up, then when > you're done it posts the final amount. Or at a restaurant, it approves > the amount on the check, then posts that plus whatever tip you add. Possibly all off-line cards and not just credit cards? Although I've also seen purportedly on-line cards behave in similar ways. Or maybe it's the *initial* approval that may be deferred for off-line cards? > For historic reasons it's common to wait to post all of a day's > charges at the end of the day, or even later which is why they can sit > there pending for a while. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 09:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cflge$qkur$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236432 |
On 11/3/26 20:30, c186282 wrote: > On 11/3/26 18:18, Pancho wrote: >> On 11/3/26 22:47, John Levine wrote: >>> According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>>>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>>>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>>>>> ... >>> >>>> Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be >>>> parallelised, >>>> to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They >>>> are >>>> nowadays. >>> >>> Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel >>> is easy. Making the write part is not. >>> >>> If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions >>> arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one >>> succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason >>> they >>> need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be >>> serialized >>> and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same >>> for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a >>> real world >>> application where there's a finite amount of something to be >>> parcelled out. >>> >>> >>> >>> * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example >> >> Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone >> else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my >> account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do >> with me, it can be done in parallel. > > NOTICED - my principal bank - a LOT of transactions > come up with a "pending" label. Might take DAYS. This > is not some 3rd-tier bank either. > > Two or more larger credit/debit card charges, not > sure HOW they 'compete' in that system. If too > near each other one MIGHT get bumped. Problem ! > > In short, even 'online/instant' banking may not > be THAT instant. Some of this is communication between banks, and some is your bank milking the float for as long as is legally allowed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 06:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cjspb$29mft$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236483 |
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> schrieb: > On 11/3/26 20:30, c186282 wrote: >> NOTICED - my principal bank - a LOT of transactions >> come up with a "pending" label. Might take DAYS. This >> is not some 3rd-tier bank either. >> >> Two or more larger credit/debit card charges, not >> sure HOW they 'compete' in that system. If too >> near each other one MIGHT get bumped. Problem ! >> >> In short, even 'online/instant' banking may not >> be THAT instant. > > Some of this is communication between banks, and some is your bank > milking the float for as long as is legally allowed. In Europe, you can do "immediate" bank transfers for free. Takes a few seconds. Banks are required by law to provide this, but they differ in the amount that they allow. In principle, this is good. But it also allows scammers to clean out accounts more easily, because otherwise you could cancel an order if you noticed anything is amiss. -- This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence, artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity, artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web