Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218654 > unrolled thread

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Started by	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
First post	2021-09-05 09:55 +0000
Last post	2021-10-08 07:27 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 224 — 41 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →

#218654 — What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

From	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
Date	2021-09-05 09:55 +0000
Subject	What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?
Message-ID	<sh246e$9kp$1@theuse.news.theuse.net>

I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.

First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD 
system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is 
the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?

For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64 
to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command 
line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?

These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.

Jason

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#218659

From	gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-09-05 11:35 +0100
Message-ID	<sh26hc$57s$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218654

On 05/09/2021 10:55, Jason Evans wrote:
> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>
> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>
> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command
> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>
> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.

Well, by jerking the slide from the middle of your slide rule, you could 
use it to move the pebbles of your abacus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218669

From	Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date	2021-09-05 10:28 -0600
Message-ID	<sh2rdc$tbl$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to	#218654

On 9/5/21 3:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a 
> Linux/Unix/BSD system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the 
> command line. What is the oldest computer that he could get by with 
> to do his job?

The problem is the remaining 10%.  (I'm re-using your numbers.)

IMM/RSA/iLO/LOM/iDRAC/etc consoles that are inherently GUI which are 
invaluable when recovering systems during outages.

Don't forget that email clients /almost/ *need* to be GUI to display 
more than simple text ~> attachments.  --  We can't forget the venerable 
Power Point slides that we need to look at before the next meeting.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention video chat, especially with work 
from home that is quite common for the last ~18 months.  Not to mention 
conference rooms for geographically disperse team meetings.

I don't know about you, but I would have a problem justifying my 
employment if I didn't participate in that 10%.  And I'm quite sure that 
CLI /only/ is not sufficient to do so.

I leave you with ...

Link - Terminal forever | CommitStrip
  - https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/12/22/terminal-forever/

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218957

From	"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2021-09-24 03:31 +0200
Message-ID	<0dmv1ixgjv.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>
In reply to	#218669

On 05/09/2021 18.28, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 9/5/21 3:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a
>> Linux/Unix/BSD system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the
>> command line. What is the oldest computer that he could get by with to
>> do his job?
> 
> The problem is the remaining 10%.  (I'm re-using your numbers.)
> 
> IMM/RSA/iLO/LOM/iDRAC/etc consoles that are inherently GUI which are
> invaluable when recovering systems during outages.
> 
> Don't forget that email clients /almost/ *need* to be GUI to display
> more than simple text ~> attachments.  --  We can't forget the venerable
> Power Point slides that we need to look at before the next meeting.

I use a pure text mail client a lot of the time.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219278

From	Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
Date	2021-10-04 11:12 -0400
Message-ID	<kRE6J.138786$lC6.15664@fx41.iad>
In reply to	#218957

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

> On 05/09/2021 18.28, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> On 9/5/21 3:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a
>>> Linux/Unix/BSD system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the
>>> command line. What is the oldest computer that he could get by with to
>>> do his job?
>> 
>> The problem is the remaining 10%.  (I'm re-using your numbers.)
>> 
>> IMM/RSA/iLO/LOM/iDRAC/etc consoles that are inherently GUI which are
>> invaluable when recovering systems during outages.
>> 
>> Don't forget that email clients /almost/ *need* to be GUI to display
>> more than simple text ~> attachments.  --  We can't forget the venerable
>> Power Point slides that we need to look at before the next meeting.
>
> I use a pure text mail client a lot of the time.

I use mutt sometimes, but I couldn't really do so for work. There are a
lot of times when clients send me screen captures so I can see the issue
they're running into. I need a way of displaying those or I can't
effectively do my job. A text-only display like was common years ago
just wouldn't work.

Yes, I suppose I could force my clients to decribe what they're seeing
instead of sending a screen capture, but I think they'd find it
frustrating and I don't know how long I'd retain them as clients. (I'd
find it frustrating too, but they're the ones that are paying so I want
to avoid making things awkward of difficult for them.)

I also work a lot with an app suite that has a web GUI with plenty of
graphics and javascript. You can do some management and configuration of
it from a CLI, and I do so. You can even use it to some extent with only
CLI tools. However, my clients don't use it that way - they use the web
GUI.

It might be possible to control the VOIP service I use via the CLI, but
I haven't seen any tools for doing so. (I haven't really looked, but I
did look for ways of accessing it from a Linux system. Someone had
created a very basic app with Electron, but I didn't see anything for
CLI.)

The problem with a lot of this is that, while I might be able to do more
than I am with the CLI, it might not be supported by the vendors I work
with. If there's a DDoS against bandwidth.com and the VOIP service we
use is not working as a result of that, my boss will understand why I
couldn't answer the phone. If I don't or can't answer the phone because
of some unsupported CLI client I insist on using, he's going to be mad
at me because there's a GUI client that runs fine on the computer he
provides me with, and that all the other employees are using on the
computers he provides us with - and I wasn't using it!

I don't mind using a GUI for many things, and I've actually become quite
comfortable and pretty productive in this environment (macOS). I can use
the CLI when I need to, I have most of the same Unix tools at my
fingertips that I would on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. It's pretty
usable and livable. I've found that I like it enough that I bought a Mac
for myself and use it about half the time for my personal
computing. (The rest of the time I use Linux Mint MATE, or I'm doing
something on one of the handful of Raspberry Pis I have.)

Some days at work I spend most of my time in a terminal, writing scripts
(vim is my preferred editor for most things) or connected to a remote
system via SSH and doing various tasks. 

Yes, I am sometimes nostalgic for when I was sitting in front of a
terminal in college using VM/370, or using an Apple ][, dialed into a
BBS using Telix or {Commo}, using one of the Freenets, or Linux at a time
when I didn't have a good video card in the PC I used for Linux and thus
used virtual consoles instead of X. I did have a friend who had a Timex
Sinclair, and we did some learning to use BASIC on it. I've only used
the C64 in an emulator. A former employer used a TRS-80, and I used it a
little. So I do feel a yearning to remind myself of what looking back
seem like simpler times. (They often didn't seem that simple then.)

I can't really get too retro for work though, and when I'm not working,
there are so many things to do - more than I have time for. I tend to do
more modern things. If I want a more simple computing experience, I use
the Raspberry Pi. It feels to me like a hobby computer from when I was
first using personal computers. It's far more powerful than those old
8-bit computers were, but still not nearly as poweful as the servers I
typically work with that have dozens of cores, etc. Sometimes it feels
really nice to be working on a limited system though. It feels like
sometimes I have to be more creative to work within those limits and
still get what I want done.

One thing I do regularly that's pretty retro is read and post to
Usenet. :-) I've moved on from the newsreaders I used in the past, but
gnus is still pretty venerable (it's evidently 34 years old now). I
hadn't really thought about how long it's been around before, or checked
to see when it was first released. From that perspective, almost all of
the newsreaders I used previously were younger than gnus. IIRC, the
Freenets provided rn or nn, or maybe both. Those are both a bit older
than gnus.

Getting back to the topic of the thread... I suppose that the oldest
computer I could use would be something that supports modern
cryptographic software and a modern browser. I'd actually need two
browsers, firefox and chrom[e|ium]. I very occasionally need to try
using the browser that my client is using, and I can reasonably suggest
that they try using either firefox or chrome if they're using something
else. I use chrome for work since it better supports some other software
we use. I do have to fire up firefox from time to time to try to see
what a client is experiencing. I need to be able to run various VPN
clients, need to be able to securely access various things via HTTPS,
need to be able to use ssh and scp to remote systems, and I also need a
mail client that can connect securely to the mail server and I sign all
my messages with PGP and encrypt some of them.

Given that I would also need to be running a current and fully-patched
OS, even if I were able to use Linux for work, I'd probably be looking
at an x86_64 machine. (I'm not sure what the state of 32-bit x86 is for
Linux distros these days. I see that Ubuntu is only x86_64 now.) Even if
I were able to use something older that's 32-bit, the days of that are
probably limited.

I'm not that familiar with the various Intel CPUs for personal computers
since I've typically gone with AMD when possible. I see that AMD64 came
out in 2003 with the Opteron and Athlon64. I guess that would tend to
place a limit of ≥ 2003 for my use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219290

From	scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date	2021-10-04 16:50 +0000
Message-ID	<_gG6J.34877$j52.20008@fx18.iad>
In reply to	#219278

Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 05/09/2021 18.28, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> On 9/5/21 3:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>>>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a
>>>> Linux/Unix/BSD system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the
>>>> command line. What is the oldest computer that he could get by with to
>>>> do his job?
>>> 
>>> The problem is the remaining 10%.  (I'm re-using your numbers.)
>>> 
>>> IMM/RSA/iLO/LOM/iDRAC/etc consoles that are inherently GUI which are
>>> invaluable when recovering systems during outages.
>>> 
>>> Don't forget that email clients /almost/ *need* to be GUI to display
>>> more than simple text ~> attachments.  --  We can't forget the venerable
>>> Power Point slides that we need to look at before the next meeting.
>>
>> I use a pure text mail client a lot of the time.
>
>I use mutt sometimes, but I couldn't really do so for work. There are a
>lot of times when clients send me screen captures so I can see the issue
>they're running into. I need a way of displaying those or I can't
>effectively do my job. A text-only display like was common years ago
>just wouldn't work.

mutt works for that.   From the 'v' screen, just hit enter on the attached
image and if your .mailcap is setup correctly, it will fire up lynx/firefox (for html)
or your favorite image viewer for jpg.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219293

From	Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
Date	2021-10-04 14:25 -0400
Message-ID	<lGH6J.61398$2B4.40664@fx04.iad>
In reply to	#219290

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2021 18.28, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/21 3:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>>>>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a
>>>>> Linux/Unix/BSD system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the
>>>>> command line. What is the oldest computer that he could get by with to
>>>>> do his job?
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is the remaining 10%.Â  (I'm re-using your numbers.)
>>>> 
>>>> IMM/RSA/iLO/LOM/iDRAC/etc consoles that are inherently GUI which are
>>>> invaluable when recovering systems during outages.
>>>> 
>>>> Don't forget that email clients /almost/ *need* to be GUI to display
>>>> more than simple text ~> attachments.Â  --Â  We can't forget the venerable
>>>> Power Point slides that we need to look at before the next meeting.
>>>
>>> I use a pure text mail client a lot of the time.
>>
>>I use mutt sometimes, but I couldn't really do so for work. There are a
>>lot of times when clients send me screen captures so I can see the issue
>>they're running into. I need a way of displaying those or I can't
>>effectively do my job. A text-only display like was common years ago
>>just wouldn't work.
>
> mutt works for that.   From the 'v' screen, just hit enter on the attached
> image and if your .mailcap is setup correctly, it will fire up lynx/firefox (for html)
> or your favorite image viewer for jpg.

I was thinking about a system without X or any other framework for a
GUI. For instance, virtual consoles on Linux. I could fire up lynx, but
are there image viewers that don't need X? I know there were for DOS,
but can't remember if I used anything like that on Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219297

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-10-04 19:52 +0100
Message-ID	<20211004195247.7ddfc3670b01bdba2cb3039e@eircom.net>
In reply to	#219293

On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 14:25:20 -0400
Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I was thinking about a system without X or any other framework for a
> GUI. For instance, virtual consoles on Linux. I could fire up lynx, but
> are there image viewers that don't need X? 

	There were last time I looked - some years back.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219291

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-10-04 17:00 +0000
Message-ID	<6rG6J.165560$o45.33328@fx46.iad>
In reply to	#219278

On 2021-10-04, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I don't mind using a GUI for many things, and I've actually become quite
> comfortable and pretty productive in this environment (macOS). I can use
> the CLI when I need to, I have most of the same Unix tools at my
> fingertips that I would on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. It's pretty
> usable and livable.

And that's the point.  Use the tool that gets the job done for you.
Sometimes I use a GUI because it works better.  At other times a CLI
will do the job more easily.

If you're talking about the tools you use to do your own work,
it doesn't matter whether Joe Blow can do it better with a GUI.
He might need 10 minutes using a CLI and 5 minutes using a GUI -
but if you need 5 minutes using a GUI when you can do it in 30
seconds with a CLI, then the CLI is a win for you.

A well-designed GUI will offer keyboard shortcuts so you don't
have to move your hands from the home position (and move them
back afterwards).

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219294

From	Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
Date	2021-10-04 14:32 -0400
Message-ID	<XMH6J.64392$6U3.13563@fx43.iad>
In reply to	#219291

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2021-10-04, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't mind using a GUI for many things, and I've actually become quite
>> comfortable and pretty productive in this environment (macOS). I can use
>> the CLI when I need to, I have most of the same Unix tools at my
>> fingertips that I would on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. It's pretty
>> usable and livable.
>
> And that's the point.  Use the tool that gets the job done for you.
> Sometimes I use a GUI because it works better.  At other times a CLI
> will do the job more easily.
>
> If you're talking about the tools you use to do your own work,
> it doesn't matter whether Joe Blow can do it better with a GUI.
> He might need 10 minutes using a CLI and 5 minutes using a GUI -
> but if you need 5 minutes using a GUI when you can do it in 30
> seconds with a CLI, then the CLI is a win for you.
>
> A well-designed GUI will offer keyboard shortcuts so you don't
> have to move your hands from the home position (and move them
> back afterwards).

I try to pay at least some attention to when I'm using the keyboard and
when I'm using the mouse. Then I try to find ways I can avoid using the
mouse when that makes sense. I get thrown off a bit sometimes because
the Mac and my Linux desktop of preference (MATE) do things differently,
but I'm managing.

It's been a process of some years to do this, but it's very satisfying
to learn a new keyboard shortcut and get myself to start using it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218672

From	Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date	2021-09-05 13:11 -0400
Message-ID	<877dfvoskz.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to	#218654

On Sun, 05 Sep 2021 09:55:25 +0000, Jason Evans wrote:
>
> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>
> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD 
> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is 
> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>
> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64 
> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command 
> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?

You can hook up the C64 to the internet today and for example browse the
web. Sure this is text based (almost like as if you would use a
text-based browser like lynx on a modern PC). It might need additional
modern hardware (WIFI cards exist fir the C64). Could be also done if
there is some kind of BBS which "sources" access to the internet without
the need of additional hardware, if you have a modem for the C64.

You can probably go back to 1977 and use an Apple 2 to do some simple word
processing or spreadsheets.
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218682

From	Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net>
Date	2021-09-05 22:54 -0400
Message-ID	<sh3vsp$1fa$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218654

On 9/5/2021 5:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>
> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>
> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command
> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>
> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.
>
> Jason


I have an IBM Datamaster/System 23 in my basement that is functional 
with its original dot matrix printer.  I'd have to imagine it can still 
do some basic functions like some kind of word processing.  I have boxes 
and boxes of 8" floppies as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218686

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-06 00:06 -0400
Message-ID	<un4bjg9ta33ecql3dqp9c9f5mq382qj1fv@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218682

On Sun, 05 Sep 2021 22:54:18 -0400, Michael Trew
<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:

>On 9/5/2021 5:55 AM, Jason Evans wrote:
>> I know this is an odd question, so let me explain what I'm thinking.
>>
>> First of all, what is "real work"? Let's say that you're a Linux/Unix/BSD
>> system administrator who spends 90% of his day on the command line. What is
>> the oldest computer that he could get by with to do his job?
>>
>> For example: Could you rig up a serial connection from a modern PC to a C64
>> to get a command prompt on the C64 to use as the interface for the command
>> line? Sure, it would demote the C64 to a "dumb terminal" but could it work?
>>
>> These are the kinds of things that I would like to hear about on this group.
>>
>> Jason
>
>
>I have an IBM Datamaster/System 23 in my basement that is functional 
>with its original dot matrix printer.  I'd have to imagine it can still 
>do some basic functions like some kind of word processing.  I have boxes 
>and boxes of 8" floppies as well.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster

You can run Unix from a teletype.  Not something anyone in their right
mind wants to do these days but you can do it.

The real work in this case is running the Unix system and you already
have a computer if you do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218688

From	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
Date	2021-09-06 06:30 +0000
Message-ID	<sh4cim$psv$1@theuse.news.theuse.net>
In reply to	#218686

On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:06:43 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> You can run Unix from a teletype.  Not something anyone in their right
> mind wants to do these days but you can do it.

Linux via ham radio RTTY would be stupid and awesome, lol.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218692

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-09-06 09:14 +0100
Message-ID	<20210906091441.dbd351f2d273dd43d9378b08@eircom.net>
In reply to	#218688

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 06:30:46 -0000 (UTC)
Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:06:43 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> > You can run Unix from a teletype.  Not something anyone in their right
> > mind wants to do these days but you can do it.
> 
> Linux via ham radio RTTY would be stupid and awesome, lol.

	Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet
radio) was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future) but
it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to run them
under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is awfully tight for
TCP/IP.

	It was awesome and far from stupid.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218693

From	gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com>
Date	2021-09-06 11:55 +0100
Message-ID	<sh4s3o$tc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218692

On 06/09/2021 09:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 06:30:46 -0000 (UTC)
> Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:06:43 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> You can run Unix from a teletype.  Not something anyone in their right
>>> mind wants to do these days but you can do it.
>>
>> Linux via ham radio RTTY would be stupid and awesome, lol.
>
> 	Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet
> radio) was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future) but
> it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to run them
> under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is awfully tight for
> TCP/IP.
>
> 	It was awesome and far from stupid.
>

One needs to be careful about terminology.

RTTY in Ham Radio terms means ITA No2, 5-unit start-stop stuff with
the awkward Figure Shift and Letter Shift keys.

Packet Radio was something else, I know not what, but certainly
8-bit character transmissions.

Gareth G4SDW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218694

From	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
Date	2021-09-06 11:12 +0000
Message-ID	<sh4t2o$psv$2@theuse.news.theuse.net>
In reply to	#218693

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:55:48 +0100, gareth evans wrote:

>>>> You can run Unix from a teletype.  Not something anyone in their
> 
> RTTY in Ham Radio terms means ITA No2, 5-unit start-stop stuff with the
> awkward Figure Shift and Letter Shift keys.
> 
> Packet Radio was something else, I know not what, but certainly 8-bit
> character transmissions.
> 
> Gareth G4SDW

When J Clarke mentioned teletype, I immediately thought of radioteletype 
i.e.  RTTY and that's why I mentioned it. 

Jason KI4GMX

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218695

From	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
Date	2021-09-06 11:16 +0000
Message-ID	<sh4tal$psv$3@theuse.news.theuse.net>
In reply to	#218692

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 09:14:41 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> 	Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet
> radio) was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future)
> but it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to
> run them under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is
> awfully tight for TCP/IP.
> 
> 	It was awesome and far from stupid.

I meanth "stupid" only in the amount of time and effort it would take to 
use an old radioteletype machine as an interface with as a linux console. 
It does sound very awesome, though!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218701

From	Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date	2021-09-06 11:44 -0600
Message-ID	<sh5k96$hnc$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to	#218692

On 9/6/21 2:14 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet radio) 
> was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future) but 
> it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to 
> run them under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is 
> awfully tight for TCP/IP.

Was it Usenet (UUCP / NNTP) or FTP proper?  Or was it other non-standard 
services that provided similar function to the proper services?

Many BBSs, both radio and non-radio, of the time provided similar 
functionality without using /Internet/ standard protocols for doing so.

> It was awesome and far from stupid.

~chuckle~

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218710

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-09-06 20:07 +0100
Message-ID	<20210906200753.03c8c1362d8265d0cc2763d3@eircom.net>
In reply to	#218701

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:44:57 -0600
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

> On 9/6/21 2:14 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > Erm KA9Q was originally TCP/IP over souped up RTTY (aka packet radio) 
> > was it not. OK it was not Linux (that was still in the future) but 
> > it did come with email, usenet, ftp and a multi-tasking kernel to 
> > run them under messy dos - I never saw the CP/M version but 64K is 
> > awfully tight for TCP/IP.
> 
> Was it Usenet (UUCP / NNTP) or FTP proper?  Or was it other non-standard 
> services that provided similar function to the proper services?

	It was the real thing, there was a pretty good TCP/IP stack in there
and a multi-tasking kernel, the applications were pluggable at build time
but most settled on a variant of Elm for email backed by an SMTP server,
Tin for USENET (NNRP) and I forget where the usual ftp client originated.
When Demon Internet first started offering dial up connections with a
static IP address KA9Q was the standard offering for messy dos.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →

csiph-web

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Contents

#218654 — What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

#218659

#218669

#218957

#219278

#219290

#219293

#219297

#219291

#219294

#218672

#218682

#218686

#218688

#218692

#218693

#218694

#218695

#218701

#218710