Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160014 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 23:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 15:24 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 30 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: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 23:29 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 22:48 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 19:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-21 09:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-18 18:04 -0400
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:59 -0500
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:34 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 21:03 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:53 -0500
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:27 +1100
Re: Qbasic JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 12:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:17 +1100
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:03 +1100
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 06:18 -0600
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 06:53 -0700
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 08:45 -0600
Re: Qbasic mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-25 15:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-25 18:19 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-25 16:07 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-25 16:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-25 16:01 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-25 18:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-26 15:42 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-26 10:15 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-27 10:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-27 13:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-26 19:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-26 20:49 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 14:33 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-26 21:46 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 10:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-28 12:58 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 16:34 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-28 17:47 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:40 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 09:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:46 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 14:31 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:23 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 18:13 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-28 20:14 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-28 21:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-29 09:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 08:21 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-29 17:35 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-29 14:19 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:19 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-01 06:02 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-02 10:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-01 14:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:33 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 08:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:21 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-03 16:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-03 16:23 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:58 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-02 15:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 15:57 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-04 09:58 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 11:11 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-04 16:22 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 03:05 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-04 19:25 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-05 11:14 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 09:50 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-05 17:41 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 22:08 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-06 09:46 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-06 09:59 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-06 18:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-06 17:26 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 18:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-07 14:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-07 11:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-07 11:57 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-08 08:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 11:40 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-13 10:14 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:34 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:14 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare pechter@mongo.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-03-07 02:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:47 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-06 19:54 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-05 12:02 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 14:53 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 23:42 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 21:57 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-06 00:26 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 17:29 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-06 02:52 -0400
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:16 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-06 17:37 -0400
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:12 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 19:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:39 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:59 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-07 14:12 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 03:11 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-08 13:16 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:07 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-08 14:58 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-09 00:32 +0000
Re: Basic - lies about Medicare "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:58 +1100
Re: Basic - lies about Medicare mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-09 11:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-09 11:25 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-08 15:01 -0800
Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 07:18 -0700
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-08 15:06 -0400
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:44 +1100
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 05:09 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-03-08 11:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-06 09:54 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:57 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:35 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:51 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-07 14:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 10:38 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-04 12:57 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 12:08 -0700
Re: computer security hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-04 14:36 -0800
Re: computer security Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-05 15:37 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 00:35 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:34 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-17 14:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-02 10:37 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-27 00:28 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-28 14:03 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 10:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-29 14:52 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 09:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 14:33 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-27 08:32 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-27 11:21 -0500
Re: Qbasic pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-25 15:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 10:22 -0600
Re: Qbasic pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-25 17:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-25 08:11 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:40 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-23 12:29 -0600
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-24 13:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-24 15:24 -0600
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 11:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <tj3oqc-2c1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160547 |
In article <a9OdnSpZDrV9xkTLnZ2dnUU78W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 03/03/2016 13:39, jmfbahciv wrote:
>{snip}
>
>>
>> Why does an app have to have superuser privs? The only reasons I
>> can think of is to change access parameters to the system and
>> have unlimited access to disk data files. Both can be done
>> in a non-priv'ed account with OS/kernal support.
>>
>> /BAH
>>
>Device handlers in general can need privileges to access the hardware
>ports. They may run under interrupts and need a process to permit
>polling. However a device handler should not be performing applications
>processing.
>
>The operating system should provide a non-privileged way for the two
>programs to communicate.
They generally do.
Windows is halfway sane when it comes to device drivers. They have
upper and lower parts like they should, but there are significant
quality issues with the third party developed ones. This is something
Microsoft is pretty restricted in doing something about for business
reasons. You seem, the organisations that make these problematic
drivers are their main customers.
Otherwise, I like the OpenBSD way of going one step further, and
have the priviliged code in a separate process on a need to have
basis, and a transparent communication with this process from
the bulk of the code.
-- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 16:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <8rCdndezrZyJK0TLnZ2dnUU78SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160549 |
On 04/03/2016 10:11, Morten Reistad wrote:
{snip}
> Windows is halfway sane when it comes to device drivers. They have
> upper and lower parts like they should, but there are significant
> quality issues with the third party developed ones. This is something
> Microsoft is pretty restricted in doing something about for business
> reasons. You seem, the organisations that make these problematic
> drivers are their main customers.
In Britain the organisation that reviews household items is called Which
after its monthly magazine. It is a registered charity. Setting up a
charity to review software like device handlers would not be hard.
Source of funding can be hidden.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 03:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <5grpqc-tf4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160552 |
In article <8rCdndezrZyJK0TLnZ2dnUU78SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 04/03/2016 10:11, Morten Reistad wrote:
>{snip}
>
>> Windows is halfway sane when it comes to device drivers. They have
>> upper and lower parts like they should, but there are significant
>> quality issues with the third party developed ones. This is something
>> Microsoft is pretty restricted in doing something about for business
>> reasons. You seem, the organisations that make these problematic
>> drivers are their main customers.
>
>In Britain the organisation that reviews household items is called Which
>after its monthly magazine. It is a registered charity. Setting up a
>charity to review software like device handlers would not be hard.
>Source of funding can be hidden.
If you want to do a kind of consumer validation of the whole
windows device driver menagerie from the outside you have your work
cut out for you. There are over 20 000 third party windows drivers
out there. (Linux has at least 17000, but lots of them are coalesced
from several similar devices).
The problem about this driver menagerie has been stated many times
by core windows maintainers as the main problem affecting windows
operatonal stability. The problem isn't so much the stability of the
drivers as they are initially developed, but the maintenence along
subsequent windows releases.
For an external party in "outside looking in" mode (i.e. no access
to the source code of the juicy bits of the device docs) to make
any real headway into this matter I would guess they would need
around a thousand people capable of writing device driver code.
This is way more than the regular set of people writing and maintaining
the Linux driver code.
If anyone would endeavour on such an undertaking I can only wish
them good luck. They would need it.
-- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <325025497.478837501.533736.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160569 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8rCdndezrZyJK0TLnZ2dnUU78SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2016 10:11, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>> Windows is halfway sane when it comes to device drivers. They have
>>> upper and lower parts like they should, but there are significant
>>> quality issues with the third party developed ones. This is something
>>> Microsoft is pretty restricted in doing something about for business
>>> reasons. You seem, the organisations that make these problematic
>>> drivers are their main customers.
>>
>> In Britain the organisation that reviews household items is called Which
>> after its monthly magazine. It is a registered charity. Setting up a
>> charity to review software like device handlers would not be hard.
>> Source of funding can be hidden.
>
> If you want to do a kind of consumer validation of the whole
> windows device driver menagerie from the outside you have your work
> cut out for you. There are over 20 000 third party windows drivers
> out there. (Linux has at least 17000, but lots of them are coalesced
> from several similar devices).
>
> The problem about this driver menagerie has been stated many times
> by core windows maintainers as the main problem affecting windows
> operatonal stability. The problem isn't so much the stability of the
> drivers as they are initially developed, but the maintenence along
> subsequent windows releases.
Why would the driver interface have to change from release to release.
That has always seemed to me to be the biggest weakness/problem of windows:
the developers seem to change stuff just for the sake of changing stuff.
Look at zOS, where the basic OS/360 interface is still there, though
buried. Users have no need to change their code for each release.
>
> For an external party in "outside looking in" mode (i.e. no access
> to the source code of the juicy bits of the device docs) to make
> any real headway into this matter I would guess they would need
> around a thousand people capable of writing device driver code.
> This is way more than the regular set of people writing and maintaining
> the Linux driver code.
>
> If anyone would endeavour on such an undertaking I can only wish
> them good luck. They would need it.
>
> -- mrr
>
>
>
>
--
Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 19:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <3504c866-f549-42e0-ad9e-38c4bd843953@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160570 |
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > Why would the driver interface have to change from release to release. > That has always seemed to me to be the biggest weakness/problem of windows: > the developers seem to change stuff just for the sake of changing stuff. > Look at zOS, where the basic OS/360 interface is still there, though > buried. Users have no need to change their code for each release. I'm not sure of this, but I think there was one point that programs _had_ to be recompiled from 'old COBOL' to "COBOL-for-MVS" in order to obtain a new MVS release. We did it as part of the Y2K conversion. There were some minor program changes that were necessary. On the flip side, IIRC, the new COBOL had some nice features, such as being able to easily reference selected characters within a string, a good block IF, and built-in date conversion statements. But otherwise, we were running a few rather old programs COBOL and assembler programs, at least 35 years old. I think the engineering unit still has some equally old FORTRAN stuff. Today, some stuff of mine 30 years old is still in service. As mentioned, one unit ran 1401 emulation until about 1999. But as mentioned, Microsoft and the others clearly have studied the old Alfred Sloan GM business model very well: Planned Obsolescence. Just like consumers were hoodwinked into getting the latest car and biggest tail fins, so are I.T. types who just HAVE to load up their web page with the latest crap. Tough sh** to those with an old PC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 11:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbf0fl$5hb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160570 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <8rCdndezrZyJK0TLnZ2dnUU78SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2016 10:11, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>> Windows is halfway sane when it comes to device drivers. They have
>>>> upper and lower parts like they should, but there are significant
>>>> quality issues with the third party developed ones. This is something
>>>> Microsoft is pretty restricted in doing something about for business
>>>> reasons. You seem, the organisations that make these problematic
>>>> drivers are their main customers.
>>>
>>> In Britain the organisation that reviews household items is called Which
>>> after its monthly magazine. It is a registered charity. Setting up a
>>> charity to review software like device handlers would not be hard.
>>> Source of funding can be hidden.
>>
>> If you want to do a kind of consumer validation of the whole
>> windows device driver menagerie from the outside you have your work
>> cut out for you. There are over 20 000 third party windows drivers
>> out there. (Linux has at least 17000, but lots of them are coalesced
>> from several similar devices).
>>
>> The problem about this driver menagerie has been stated many times
>> by core windows maintainers as the main problem affecting windows
>> operatonal stability. The problem isn't so much the stability of the
>> drivers as they are initially developed, but the maintenence along
>> subsequent windows releases.
>
> Why would the driver interface have to change from release to release.
> That has always seemed to me to be the biggest weakness/problem of windows:
> the developers seem to change stuff just for the sake of changing stuff.
> Look at zOS, where the basic OS/360 interface is still there, though
> buried. Users have no need to change their code for each release.
I'm not aware of any 3rd party device drivers for OS/360.
Even still, I believe I've heard of 3rd party software incompatible
with new z/OS releases.
--
Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 09:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <ccd026ed-b837-4dad-a8fe-30ec9f492777@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160582 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:14:37 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: > I'm not aware of any 3rd party device drivers for OS/360. > Even still, I believe I've heard of 3rd party software incompatible > with new z/OS releases. When independent companies began to develop their own peripherals for S/360, didn't they also have to develop device drivers for their devices? Or, were their devices exact clones of IBM devices, so they looked the same to the machine and program? Also, when independents, for example Syncsort, develop mainframe utilities, don't they do fancy stuff at a low level in order to optimize performance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 17:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbfn4a$ac8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160583 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:14:37 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: > >> I'm not aware of any 3rd party device drivers for OS/360. >> Even still, I believe I've heard of 3rd party software incompatible >> with new z/OS releases. > > When independent companies began to develop their own peripherals for > S/360, didn't they also have to develop device drivers for their > devices? Or, were their devices exact clones of IBM devices, so > they looked the same to the machine and program? Based on my experience the devices are usually compatible with the existing IBM software. My first consulting assignment was to apply a tiny patch to BTAM to make it compatible with a device from Singer. > Also, when independents, for example Syncsort, develop mainframe > utilities, don't they do fancy stuff at a low level in order to > optimize performance? Yes, I believe they do. But as far as I know, Syncsort doesn't need to write device drivers. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <1942643009.478926211.478723.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160588 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:14:37 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: >> >>> I'm not aware of any 3rd party device drivers for OS/360. >>> Even still, I believe I've heard of 3rd party software incompatible >>> with new z/OS releases. >> >> When independent companies began to develop their own peripherals for >> S/360, didn't they also have to develop device drivers for their >> devices? Or, were their devices exact clones of IBM devices, so >> they looked the same to the machine and program? > > Based on my experience the devices are usually compatible with > the existing IBM software. > > My first consulting assignment was to apply a tiny patch to > BTAM to make it compatible with a device from Singer. > BTAM was a bitch, since it was so device-dependent. >> Also, when independents, for example Syncsort, develop mainframe >> utilities, don't they do fancy stuff at a low level in order to >> optimize performance? > > Yes, I believe they do. > But as far as I know, Syncsort doesn't need to write device drivers. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <1810898753.478925908.684126.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160583 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:14:37 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: > >> I'm not aware of any 3rd party device drivers for OS/360. >> Even still, I believe I've heard of 3rd party software incompatible >> with new z/OS releases. > > When independent companies began to develop their own peripherals for > S/360, didn't they also have to develop device drivers for their > devices? Or, were their devices exact clones of IBM devices, so > they looked the same to the machine and program? > > Also, when independents, for example Syncsort, develop mainframe > utilities, don't they do fancy stuff at a low level in order to > optimize performance? > Because of the channel interface there isn't usually a need for specialized drivers. I do believe that some similar software made heavy use of appendages and such that would run in supervisor state (I'm vague on the details). I do think some database stuff ran at auite a liw level. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87twkkb4ui.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160583 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > When independent companies began to develop their own peripherals for > S/360, didn't they also have to develop device drivers for their > devices? Or, were their devices exact clones of IBM devices, so > they looked the same to the machine and program? > > Also, when independents, for example Syncsort, develop mainframe > utilities, don't they do fancy stuff at a low level in order to > optimize performance? CP67 was installed at the univ. in jan 1968 ... it had 1052 and 2741 terminal support and did automatic terminal identification ... using the terminal controller SAD (CCW) command to switch the line-scanner for a port ... as part of automatic terminal identification for each port. The univ. had a number of TTY/ascii terminals ... so one of my tasks was to add TTY support to CP67 ... including extending the automatic terminal identification (using SAD command to select between the three different types of linescanners for each port). I then wanted to have single dialup phone number with "hunt group" allowing any kind of terminal come into any line. It turns out that IBM had taken a shortcut ... while it was possible to switch the linescanner for every port/line ... but the line speed for a a port/line was hardwired. So some ports/lines would be hard wired for 110baud and other lines for 134baud ... and could switch 2741 linescanner for 110baud line ... but couldn't change the line speed. As a result had to have one dialup number with pool of lines for 134baud hunt group and a different dialup number with pool of lines for 110baud hunt group. Somewhat as a result, the univ. started a clone controller project built a channel interface board for a Interdata/3 programmed to emulate the IBM terminal controller ... but the Interdata/3 could dynamically determine terminal speed for each line and adjust accordingly. Later it evolved into an Interdata/4 for the channel interface and a cluster of Interdata/3s for the port/line interfaces. Four of us get written up as responsible for (some part of) clone controller business. Later Perkin-Elmer buys interdata and sells the boxes under the PE logo. In the late 90s, I ran into one of these boxes in a large datacenter handling majority of the dial-up point-of-sale terminals for the eastern part of the country. some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 22:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <66aa4d94-aa84-4e69-85e7-68aafa0b9854@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160596 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:36:09 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > ... As a result had to have one > dialup number with pool of lines for 134baud hunt group and a different > dialup number with pool of lines for 110baud hunt group. I remember years ago that if a timesharing system supported different types of terminals, e.g. ASCII vs 2741 or different speeds, there were always different phone numbers, and one had to be careful to use the number. In 1975 we had a GE Terminent terminal that ran at 30 chars/second, but we used special access numbers. That was a neat machine, but plenty of people were still using Teletype 33's at that date. (FWIW, Bell would rent you one at $100/month, but WU would rent you one at only $65/month.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 09:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbhfmv$man$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160596 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> When independent companies began to develop their own peripherals for >> S/360, didn't they also have to develop device drivers for their >> devices? Or, were their devices exact clones of IBM devices, so >> they looked the same to the machine and program? >> >> Also, when independents, for example Syncsort, develop mainframe >> utilities, don't they do fancy stuff at a low level in order to >> optimize performance? > > CP67 was installed at the univ. in jan 1968 ... it had 1052 and 2741 > terminal support and did automatic terminal identification ... using the > terminal controller SAD (CCW) command to switch the line-scanner for a > port ... as part of automatic terminal identification for each port. > > The univ. had a number of TTY/ascii terminals ... so one of my tasks was > to add TTY support to CP67 ... including extending the automatic > terminal identification (using SAD command to select between the three > different types of linescanners for each port). > > I then wanted to have single dialup phone number with "hunt group" > allowing any kind of terminal come into any line. It turns out that IBM > had taken a shortcut ... while it was possible to switch the linescanner > for every port/line ... but the line speed for a a port/line was > hardwired. So some ports/lines would be hard wired for 110baud and other > lines for 134baud ... and could switch 2741 linescanner for 110baud line > ... but couldn't change the line speed. As a result had to have one > dialup number with pool of lines for 134baud hunt group and a different > dialup number with pool of lines for 110baud hunt group. > > Somewhat as a result, the univ. started a clone controller project built > a channel interface board for a Interdata/3 programmed to emulate the > IBM terminal controller ... but the Interdata/3 could dynamically > determine terminal speed for each line and adjust accordingly. Later it > evolved into an Interdata/4 for the channel interface and a cluster of > Interdata/3s for the port/line interfaces. Four of us get written up as > responsible for (some part of) clone controller business. Later > Perkin-Elmer buys interdata and sells the boxes under the PE logo. In > the late 90s, I ran into one of these boxes in a large datacenter > handling majority of the dial-up point-of-sale terminals for the eastern > part of the country. Any decent company would have written you up as the discoverer of a short coming in the existing product line that needed to be corrected ASAP. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 09:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87mvqb5vys.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160608 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > Any decent company would have written you up as the discoverer of > a short coming in the existing product line that needed to be > corrected ASAP. I was still undergraduate at the univ (before I joined Boeing and then IBM). Close as I can tell they hardwired the line speed to each port on purpose ... because there was no easy way to dynamically change line speed. The interdata was programmed to strobe the signal rise/fall to determine terminal speed. standard IBM operating system support (other than cp67) didn't even bother with dynamic termeinal type identification ... "sysgen" required terminal type explicitly defined for each line/port. getting written up as responsible for (some part of) the clone controller business. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm note that the description of ibm's (failed) future system project here http://www.ecole.org/en/seances/CM07 says that the major motivation for FS, was the rise of clone controllers. internal politics during the FS era was shutting down 370 efforts, which is credited with given clone processors market foothold http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys Then as FS was failing, Ferguson/Morris 1993 "Computer Wars: The Post-IBM World" http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Wars-The-Post-IBM-World/dp/1587981394 has account of the effects of the failure of the future system effort in the 70s resulted in shift in the culture with top executives trying to save face (make no waves and sycophancy under Opel and Akers, in place of open debate of the Watsons), thereafter IBM lived in the shadow of that defeat. After the failure of FS, there was mad rush to get stuff back into the 370 product pipelines, including some of the 360/370 stuff that I had been doing all during the FS period (including periodically ridiculing FS activities, which wasn't exactly career enhancing) some old email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430 The 23Jun1969 unbundling announcement started charging for software (and other things). However they made the case with the government that kernel software should be free. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle The rise of clone processors then first results in starting to charge for kernel software and then later object-code-only (eliminating community access to source, a long time major source of innovation and growth) trying to protect the status quo (a combination of trying to protect both executive and corporate status quo). Some of my stuff went into standard product release, put the dynamic adaptive resource manager was selected to be separately packaged as kernel add-on and guinea pig to start charging for kernel softare. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare For a period kernel software was the "free base" with increasing amount of charged-for kernel add-ons ... until they finished the transition and all kernel software was charged-for. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 18:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbieus$jg5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160613 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >> Any decent company would have written you up as the discoverer of >> a short coming in the existing product line that needed to be >> corrected ASAP. > > I was still undergraduate at the univ (before I joined Boeing and then > IBM). Close as I can tell they hardwired the line speed to each port on > purpose ... because there was no easy way to dynamically change line > speed. The interdata was programmed to strobe the signal rise/fall to > determine terminal speed. > > standard IBM operating system support (other than cp67) didn't even > bother with dynamic termeinal type identification ... "sysgen" required > terminal type explicitly defined for each line/port. One of the BTAM systems I supported matched up S/360 UCBs and remote printers based on line speed (and other things). If customers want something you're not selling, whose fault is that? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <387524344.479002593.526926.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160626 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>> Any decent company would have written you up as the discoverer of >>> a short coming in the existing product line that needed to be >>> corrected ASAP. >> >> I was still undergraduate at the univ (before I joined Boeing and then >> IBM). Close as I can tell they hardwired the line speed to each port on >> purpose ... because there was no easy way to dynamically change line >> speed. The interdata was programmed to strobe the signal rise/fall to >> determine terminal speed. >> >> standard IBM operating system support (other than cp67) didn't even >> bother with dynamic termeinal type identification ... "sysgen" required >> terminal type explicitly defined for each line/port. > > One of the BTAM systems I supported matched up S/360 UCBs and remote > printers based on line speed (and other things). > > If customers want something you're not selling, whose fault is that? > Maybe if one customer wants it, it's their fault. If a lot of customers want it, and you don't supply it, it's yours. 370x controllers were prigrammed, while 270x were hardwired, so they may have fixed this problem, but anyone who has had to support a number of dial-up terminals with different speeds will attest that this was a common problem. I don't think IBM was very interested in dial-up for a long time. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbikj4213ig@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160626 |
On 2016-03-06, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> Any decent company would have written you up as the discoverer of >>> a short coming in the existing product line that needed to be >>> corrected ASAP. >> >> I was still undergraduate at the univ (before I joined Boeing and then >> IBM). Close as I can tell they hardwired the line speed to each port on >> purpose ... because there was no easy way to dynamically change line >> speed. The interdata was programmed to strobe the signal rise/fall to >> determine terminal speed. >> >> standard IBM operating system support (other than cp67) didn't even >> bother with dynamic termeinal type identification ... "sysgen" required >> terminal type explicitly defined for each line/port. > > One of the BTAM systems I supported matched up S/360 UCBs and remote > printers based on line speed (and other things). > > If customers want something you're not selling, whose fault is that? Your marketing department, which hasn't convinced the customers to want what you're selling. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 17:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87h9gj5b9s.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160631 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > Your marketing department, which hasn't convinced the customers to > want what you're selling. part of recent thread over in facebook ibm retiree group 270x boxes were precursor to 3705. Up thread I refer to having done clone controller box as undergraduate in the 60s using interdata minicomputers. "UC" processor selected for 3705 was really slow and lacked feature/function. Science center suggested that they use (series/1) Peachtree processor for 3705 ... 3705 announced Mar1972 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3705_Communications_Controller which was well before series/1 was announced in nov1976 https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV4024.html I also had a project started in the early 80s that I called HSDT ... that was doing T1 and faster speed links ... while 37x5 boxes were limited to 56kbit links. In 1986 I was having some equipment built on the other side of the pacific, the friday before I was leave for a visit, CPD sent out announcement for new online "high-speed" discussion group with the following definitions: low-speed <9.6kbits medium-speed 19.2kbits high-speed 56kbits very high-speed 1.5mbits the following monday morning on the wall of conference room low-speed <20mbits medium-speed 100mbits high-speed 200-300mbits very high-speed >600mbits hsdt postings http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt CPD had generated a report for corporate executive committee that customers wouldn't be needing T1 speeds until well into the 90s. Their report was based on survey of customers using 37x5 "fat pipes" multiple 56kbit lines operated in parallel as single logical link. They found no customers using more than five 56kbit links in a "fat pipe". What they didn't know (or conveniently ignored) was that typical telco tariff for T1 was about the same as 5 or 6 56kbit links. By the time customer needed more than 5*56kbit, they would switch to full T1 and use a non-IBM controller. HSDT did trivial customer survey that found 200 T1 links connected to IBM mainframes. HSDT was also working with the director of NSF and was supposed to get $20M to interconnect the NSF supercomputer centers. Then congress cuts the budget, some other things happens and finally they release an RFP (largely based on what HSDT already had running, including requirement for T1 links). Internal IBM politics prevents us from bidding, the director of NSF tries to help writing the company a letter (copying the CEO) including references to what we already have running is at least 5yrs ahead of all RFP responses, but that just makes the internal politics worse. As regional networks connect into the centers, it morphs into the NSFNET backbone (precursor to the modern internet). As an aside the "winning" RFP response puts in 440kbit/sec links (not full T1/1.5mbit/sec). nsfnet postings http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet communication group was generating lots of mis-information internally ... they were also generating mis-information that sna/vtam could be used for tying together the NSF supercomputer centers. Somebody collected their mis-information about SNA/VTAM and forwarded it to us (heavily snipped and redacted to protect the guilty) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email870109 communication group issues don't just stop with 37x5 boxes limited to 56kbit/sec speed links. VTAM processing had significant issue with only allowing a limited number of bits in transit/flight. They eventually come out with 3737 to support a T1 link that spoofs VTAM as local channel-to-channel box. A 3737 has several 68k microprocessors and a whole boatload of buffer memory. The 3737 is constantly spoofing the local VTAM that the data has arrived so it will keep feeding it data. The local 3737 then is transmitting the data over the T1 link to remote 3737 (while the local VTAM thinks it has already arrived). The remote 3737 then is doing the spoof in reverse for the remote VTAM. A US T1 @1.5mbits/sec is aggregate full-duplex 3mbits/sec, A EU T1 @2mbits/sec is aggregate full-duplex 4mbits/sec. The enormous 3737 spoofing overhead limits it to about 2mbits/sec aggregate ... even with all the 68k processors. old 3737 reference http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#75 We list every company in the world that has a mainframe computer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#77 Is the magic and romance killed by Windows (and Linux)? with http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email880130 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email880606 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email881005 -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87fuvrr0yh.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160634 |
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > nsfnet postings > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet some old NSFNET email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1989 11:40:09 PST From: wheeler re: g'burg 2/17; Oh, I almost forgot. The big upcoming NSA bid was also discussed. Anne has talked to NSA several times before on the HSDT subject and I had gone over some of the HSDT plus the pitch that was the predecessor to the current software/system's "middle layer" pitch. The NSA situation is going to require follow-up. About a month ago one of the people that report to the chief scientist at NSA came by and we talked informally for several hours on the various subjects related to leading edge technical computing; high performance workstations, high-speed interconnect, management facilities, etc (and what we were doing in those areas; RIOS, AIXNET, HSDT, "middle layer", etc). Also, during the G'burg meeting, the Ethernet Myths and Reality subject came up. A couple of the SID people don't appear to be up-to-date on the latest information regarding T/R & Ethernet (i.e. Ethernet performance, degree of degradation caused by collisions, good & bad Ethernet controller chips, most recent articles and published reports, use of Ethernet over IBM wiring, as well as hiearchial scale-up of Ethernet networks using high performance ip-routers). ... snip ... past HSDT posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt past 3tier posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#3tier Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 15:15:29 -0700 From: wheeler We had a high-speed, high-performance pilot backbone system (major traffic included the original rs/6000 chip design multi-mbyte files being shipped from austin to san jose to a custom-built, one-of-its-kind, 50,000* faster, logic simulator). We had been working with NSF and were suppose to get $20M to interconnect NSF supercomputer centers. Then congress cut the budget, some other things happened and finally they release RFP. Internal politcs prevent us from bidding. Director of NSF then wrote a letter to president of IBM research copying IBM chariman of the board (he had backing of chief scientest at NSA and the former chief scientest at IBM) but that just made the internal politics worse. A technical review by NSF people said our technology was at least five years ahead of all RFP responses. ... to paraphrase, you can tell the people 5-10 years ahead of their time by the arrows in their back??? ... snip ... -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 18:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <7cac89f0-e253-4212-be82-dfcf259bc197@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160631 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 8:13:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > If customers want something you're not selling, whose fault is that? > > Your marketing department, which hasn't convinced the customers to > want what you're selling. Well, I have to say I think IBM's marketing people of the 1930s deserve a lot of credit. Tabulating machines were an expensive niche product back then, but they managed to convince lots of businesses that they'd be more productive with them. Today, we take IBM's reputation for granted, but before WW II, IBM wasn't particularly well known. Conversely, in the late 1960s, computers were so fashionable and popular, especially System/360, that, AFAIK, the 'selling' aspect of the job was relatively easy--the hard part was getting the customer up and running. Switching industries, the steel industry was basically booming from 1940 to 1974 for the most part. After 1974, foreign competition, both in raw steel and finished goods, really hammered the industry, and it was a big adjustment to take (likewise with autos, too). I must admit that being a salesman was not a job I wanted. (I was a clerk in a store and sold newspapers, but that was different; it wasn't actually 'selling'; I just took the money and delivered the item.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web