Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235174 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Mix <tommix@mixmin.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-25 17:19 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-07 16:00 -1000 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 76 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Remember when discussions were worth reading? Tom Mix <tommix@mixmin.net> - 2026-07-25 17:19 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 15:06 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-25 23:26 +0100
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 01:29 +0100
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 22:43 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 11:30 +0100
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2026-08-06 14:02 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-06 20:55 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:46 +0800
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 09:25 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-07-26 01:02 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Caffeine Canidae <samuel.common@hotmail.com> - 2026-07-26 16:43 +0100
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-07-26 17:28 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:38 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 16:13 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 10:17 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-30 12:41 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 16:38 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:45 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:05 +0800
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 20:53 +0000
CorelDRAW! on S.C.O. Unix (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:12 +0800
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:27 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-08-01 08:45 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:50 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-3f9-this> - 2026-08-01 07:30 -0700
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-03 21:59 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 08:29 -0700
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 02:54 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-08-05 10:31 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:14 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 09:36 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 08:36 -0700
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 20:16 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:00 +0000
Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-06 09:27 +0100
Re: Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-06 09:37 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:12 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-06 03:27 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-08-07 21:23 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-5ex-this> - 2026-08-08 08:06 -0700
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-08 23:41 +0000
"spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 00:03 +0000
Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 02:22 +0000
Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 02:31 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:04 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-08-08 17:34 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-10 00:52 +0100
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:11 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:58 +0800
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-31 12:45 +0100
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:16 -0400
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-07-31 17:25 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:24 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 23:02 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 12:47 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:48 +0000
The Weave (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:52 +0800
Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 09:29 +0100
Re: The Weave ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 09:39 +0000
Re: The Weave Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 07:03 -0700
Re: The Weave Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:12 +0800
Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 16:28 +0100
Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 13:13 -0700
Re: Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 22:02 +0000
Re: The Weave drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-08-09 21:04 +0000
IBM Channel Interface (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:29 -0700
Re: The Weave Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 20:29 +0000
MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:20 +0000
Re: The Weave "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-10 09:27 +0100
Re: The Weave Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> - 2026-08-10 09:02 +0200
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-07-28 18:01 +0000
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:33 -0300
Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-08-07 16:00 -1000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 09:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <IEEE-20260809103402@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #235270 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted: >You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle >of computer interfaces. The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488, and the Pet 2001 supported it. Originally engineered as Hewlett-Packard's instrumentation bus (HP-IB), it pioneered a highly reliable, hardware-driven three-wire handshake that guarantees zero data loss by automatically throttling communication to the speed of the slowest device on the line. Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks. Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 07:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <115a1c5$2c0oe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235275 |
On 2026-08-09 02:39, Stefan Ram wrote: > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted: >> You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle >> of computer interfaces. > > The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488, > and the Pet 2001 supported it. > > Originally engineered as Hewlett-Packard's instrumentation bus > (HP-IB), it pioneered a highly reliable, hardware-driven three-wire > handshake that guarantees zero data loss by automatically throttling > communication to the speed of the slowest device on the line. > > Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over rugged, > shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it bypasses > the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software overhead that > plague modern USB and network stacks. > > Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical > noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need > for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary > interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in > high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide. Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down IBM channel connector? -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 23:12 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <8N0eS.81337$DOD1.69018@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #235276 |
On 09/08/2026 10:03 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 2026-08-09 02:39, Stefan Ram wrote: >> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or >> quoted: >>> You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle >>> of computer interfaces. >> >> The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488, >> and the Pet 2001 supported it. >> >> Originally engineered as Hewlett-Packard's instrumentation bus >> (HP-IB), it pioneered a highly reliable, hardware-driven three-wire >> handshake that guarantees zero data loss by automatically throttling >> communication to the speed of the slowest device on the line. >> >> Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over rugged, >> shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it bypasses >> the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software overhead that >> plague modern USB and network stacks. >> >> Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical >> noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need >> for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary >> interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in >> high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide. That is indeed impressive. I however prefer /creature computer inter- faces/, rather than direct hardware connectors. I have put my finger in an oscilloscope, and set the switches to interpret the signal. I was able to see my finger's so called /static electricity/ but it was far from static, and writhed on the screen. I have no idea what that setting was, nor if I can replicate the feat. As I don't have an oscilloscope at all, and especially not one made in the 1970s. I was never able to control the writhing on my screen with my mind. I'm not that kind of creature. So how exactly do you communicate with computers through the I.E.E.E.- 488 interface? > > Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down > IBM channel connector? I wouldn't know, as I've never been in the I.B.M. channel. Happy creature comforts in the weave! -- 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 ( ;; ) _:;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 16:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <ndrkj5Fld2hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #235276 |
Lars Poulsen wrote: > Stefan Ram wrote: > >> The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488, >> and the Pet 2001 supported it. Yes, I remember the PET at school having them for the printer (we didn't have disc drives but they use them too). [snip] > Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down > IBM channel connector? Surely you remember 36 pin PC parallel printer cables? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ribbon_connector>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 13:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) |
| Message-ID | <115an22$2jtor$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235278 |
On 2026-08-09 08:28, Andy Burns wrote: > Lars Poulsen wrote: > >> Stefan Ram wrote: >> >>> The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488, >>> and the Pet 2001 supported it. > > Yes, I remember the PET at school having them for the printer (we didn't > have disc drives but they use them too). > > [snip] >> Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down >> IBM channel connector? > > Surely you remember 36 pin PC parallel printer cables? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ribbon_connector> Popularly called a "Centronics" connector - or for the category as a whole with multiple choices of pin counts, the Amphenol connector. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 22:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) |
| Message-ID | <printer-20260809225915@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #235279 |
Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote or quoted:
>Popularly called a "Centronics" connector - or for the category as a
>whole with multiple choices of pin counts, the Amphenol connector.
Centronics is not just a connector to me. I visited them in 1981 in
Frankfurt to kind of present a printer to them, their own Centronics
737-2 that has been customized by us on their demand for additional
single-pin control. My more advanced colleagues did the customization
involving a Motorola Exorset development system IIRC while I just
wrote a demo client for a Pet / CBM computer. I guess I might have
shown them my demo program which produced various outputs, maybe with
an 8-needle pattern like
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
******** ******** ******** ********
**************** ****************
********************************
********
. The secretary who fetched me from the station drove a Triumph Spit-
fire, and a colleague of her showed me some local pubs later in that
day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 21:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <Gpqdnc_D2vDlduX3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #235278 |
> Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down > IBM channel connector? I'm not familiar with a channel connector that's anything like the common micro-ribbon (Amphenol series 57) connector often used for GPIB and Centronics printer interfaces. The PET end didn't use a standard connector; it was a card edge, 0.1" pitch I think. De
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 15:29 -0700 |
| Subject | IBM Channel Interface (Re: The Weave) |
| Message-ID | <115av0s$2m4p8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235281 |
On 2026-08-09 14:04, Dennis Boone wrote: > > Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down > > IBM channel connector? > > I'm not familiar with a channel connector that's anything like the > common micro-ribbon (Amphenol series 57) connector often used for > GPIB and Centronics printer interfaces. > > The PET end didn't use a standard connector; it was a card edge, 0.1" > pitch I think. Sorry, I got two images mixed up in my mind; indeed, the stackable 2-pin Amphenol connectors is what I have on the programmable RF attenuators in my lab at work. Unfortunately, another picture popped up in my memory at the mention of GPIB: A rectangular connector roughly 25 x 35 mm with pins in multiple row, where every other row is offset half the pin distance. The photograph in my mind probably has somewhere around 35 pins. And now I have no idea where I remember seeing this. And as I look up the bus and tag connectors on the IBM channel on Wikipedia, they don't look like that either. I did get to play with attaching IBM style peripherals to a VAX Unibus via a Z80 microcontroller back in 1984 or so, when I wrote the Z80 program to drive a Xerox 9700 printer from the VAX. But not having written channel programs for an actual S/360 machine, my mind was not nearly twisted enough to understand the need to support certain devices like a 2703 communications controller, that was heavily dependent on the TIC (Transfer In Channel) channel commands. All my device could do was a crude selector channel, that could drive a printer or a tape drive, or probably (though we never got to try it) a disk drive. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 20:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <115anur$2k6t1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235275 |
On 9 Aug 2026 09:39:19 GMT, Stefan Ram regurgitates more AI slop: > Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over > rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it > bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software > overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks. Back in the early 1980s, big companies like Boeing and GM proposed protocols called “MAP” and “TOP” to handle real-time communication on the factory floor. They didn’t trust Ethernet, you see, because it didn’t seem like it could guarantee reasonable bounds on latency, throughput etc. People still laughed at collision-based protocols then. Who’s laughing now? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 15:39 -0700 |
| Subject | MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) |
| Message-ID | <115avia$2m4p8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235280 |
On 2026-08-09 13:29, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On 9 Aug 2026 09:39:19 GMT, Stefan Ram regurgitates more AI slop: > >> Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over >> rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it >> bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software >> overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks. > > Back in the early 1980s, big companies like Boeing and GM proposed > protocols called “MAP” and “TOP” to handle real-time communication on > the factory floor. They didn’t trust Ethernet, you see, because it > didn’t seem like it could guarantee reasonable bounds on latency, > throughput etc. > > People still laughed at collision-based protocols then. Who’s laughing > now? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol> Back in those days, I worked at ACC. While we made all our money from systems and devices to support BBN-1822, ARPAnet, MILnet, DISnet etc, our commercial marketing people insisted that the future belonged to the OSI protocol (Open Systems Interconnection) family. MAP/TOP was a framework to build engineering and manufacturing systems on that foundation. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce prototypes of "intelligent front-ends" to match every year's evolving specifications, and never sold a penny's worth of any of it. Our hardware used ethernet for this, but I'm sure others used FDDI, because in those days, ethernet was still 10Mbps. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 23:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) |
| Message-ID | <115b20k$2n463$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235284 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 15:39:06 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote: > Our hardware used ethernet for this, but I'm sure others used FDDI, > because in those days, ethernet was still 10Mbps. Meanwhile, IBM was still pushing 4Mb/s Token Ring, which I think they claimed was just as good as 10Mb/s Ethernet. Because collisions. A colleague of mine told me about a demo Sun did, involving two pairs of its workstations sharing the same cable segment, with heavy data transfers going on between the two members of each pair. In other words, a scenario calculated to maximize the collision losses. Apparently they measured something like 98% bandwidth utilization. In other words, collisions and other overhead lost only 2%. Sun were also known for creating Ethernet interfaces that were right on the limits of the spec. Put them on the same cable as some cheapo (for the time) PC interfaces (not helped by MS-DOS driver limitations), and with the Suns running flat out, the poor PCs would be struggling to get a frame in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 09:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <20260810092717.6f7b66d5c116058d43adad96@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #235280 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 20:29:15 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On 9 Aug 2026 09:39:19 GMT, Stefan Ram regurgitates more AI slop: > > > Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over > > rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it > > bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software > > overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks. > > Back in the early 1980s, big companies like Boeing and GM proposed > protocols called “MAP” and “TOP” to handle real-time communication on > the factory floor. They didn’t trust Ethernet, you see, because it > didn’t seem like it could guarantee reasonable bounds on latency, > throughput etc. > > People still laughed at collision-based protocols then. Who’s laughing > now? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol> Vote Betamax! -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 09:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Weave |
| Message-ID | <crti7l12nqsc6mns02h2c65hhb5jafe41a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #235275 |
On 9 Aug 2026 09:39:19 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: >Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical > noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need > for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary > interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in > high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide. The cable also known as the "garden hose"... "rock-solid" applies to the cable as well! Thomas Prufer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-28 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <O76aS.1319$xXcd.451@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #235178 |
In article <1143mb1$1uena$1@xy0.dont-email.me>, Ted W. <ted@xy0.dont-email.me> wrote: >Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that >already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise >it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others. ...and even that isn't exactly new. One iteration of the BBS I ran in the early-to-mid-'90s was on a Linux box with a menu interface implemented as a shell for users. It participated in the local FidoNet, which also had a Usenet gateway. I carried some newsgroups (comp.sys.apple2, rec.arts.startrek, and probably some others I don't recall), gatewayed through FidoNet back into a local NNTP server, and the menu interface was set to run trn to read them (the same trn I'm using right now :-) ). The FidoNet echoes I also carried were shoehorned into a Usenet-ish hierarchy, which sounds like what this Root Badger (?) site is doing. -- _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-29 14:33 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87y0etaef9.fsf@safunu.org> |
| In reply to | #235178 |
"Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> writes: > On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote: >> >>> So do we. >>> >>> https://rootbadger.com >> >> Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to >> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being >> advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P >> > > Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that > already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise > it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others. > > If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media > it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data. > Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long > before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will > remain long after they're gone. > > I'll stick to the original, warts and all. I think you're correct or mostly correct. Long live the USENET. It was the usenet-like group hierarchy that gave the impression the system could be decentralized, which I think would be a good idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-07 16:00 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <87fr0pgylk.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #235174 |
Some of the MIT CTSS/7094 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Time-Sharing_System people went to the 5th flr and MULTICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics others went to the 4th flr and IBM Cambridge Science Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Scientific_Center CTSS RUNOFF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TYPSET_and_RUNOFF was redone for CMS as "SCRIPT" One of the 1969 GML (GML tag processing added to SCRIPT, later morphs into SGML and HTML) inventors, CSC had originally hired to promote the Scientific Center wide-area network; https://web.archive.org/web/20230402212558/http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/jasis.htm Actually, the law office application was the original motivation for the project, something I was allowed to do part-time because of my knowledge of the user requirements. My real job was to encourage the staffs of the various scientific centers to make use of the CP-67-based Wide Area Network that was centered in Cambridge. which becomes RSCs/VNET, used for the internal corporate network (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the beginning until sometimed mid/late 80s about the time forced to convert SNA/VTAM) ... also used for the corporate sponsored univ. BITNET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BITNET ... CSC CP/67 was precursor to VM370. Edson was responsible for CP67 wide-area network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Hendricks In June 1975, MIT Professor Jerry Saltzer accompanied Hendricks to DARPA, where Hendricks described his innovations to the principal scientist, Dr. Vinton Cerf. Later that year in September 15-19 of 75, Cerf and Hendricks were the only two delegates from the United States, to attend a workshop on Data Communications at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2361 Laxenburg Austria where again, Hendricks spoke publicly about his innovative design which paved the way to the Internet as we know it today. SJMerc article about Edson (he passed aug2020) and "IBM'S MISSED OPPORTUNITY WITH THE INTERNET" (gone behind paywall but lives free at wayback machine) https://web.archive.org/web/20000124004147/http://www1.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg092499.htm Also from wayback machine, some additional (IBM missed internet) references from Ed's website https://web.archive.org/web/20000115185349/http://www.edh.net/bungle.htm 2nd half 70s, Ed and I transfer out to SJR on the west coast and I get to wander around IBM mainframe datacenters in silicon valley ... including TYMSHARE TYMSHARE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tymshare in Aug1976, started offering their (IBM mainframe) VM370/CMS-based computer conferencing, free to the (user group) SHARE organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) archives here: http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare I cut a deal with TYMSHARE for a monthly tape dump of all VMSHARE files for puting up on the internal network and systems. Late 70s and early 80s, I'm also blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network. It really took off spring 1981 when I distributed trip report to visit Jim Gray at Tandem. We packaged up six copies of 300 pages in Tandem 3-ring binders and set them to corperate executive committee (folklore is that 5of6 wanted to fire me). Early 80s, I got "HSDT", T1 and faster computer links (terrestrial and satellite) and battles with the communication group (60s had 2701 that supported T1 links, 70s issues with VTAM capped controllers at 56kbits). Funding was predicated on being able to show some IBM content, was able to find FSD S/1 T1 Zirpel cards (for gov. agency 2701s that were failing). Also working with NSF director and was suppose to get $20M to interconnect the NSF supercomputer centers. Then congress cuts the budget, some other things happened and eventually there was RFP released (in part based on what we already had running). NSF 28Mar1986 Preliminary Announcement https://web.archive.org/web/20260311074443/https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#12 The OASC has initiated three programs: The Supercomputer Centers Program to provide Supercomputer cycles; the New Technologies Program to foster new supercomputer software and hardware developments; and the Networking Program to build a National Supercomputer Access Network - NSFnet. ... IBM internal politics was not allowing us to bid. The NSF director tried to help by writing the company a letter (3Apr1986, NSF Director to IBM Chief Scientist and IBM Senior VP and director of Research, copying IBM CEO) with support from other gov. agencies ... but that just made the internal politics worse (as did claims that what we already had operational was at least 5yrs ahead of the winning bid), as regional networks connect in, NSFnet becomes the NSFNET backbone, precursor to modern internet. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web