Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #234832 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-02 16:24 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-06-06 23:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:24 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:16 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:48 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:47 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-03 03:16 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-03 07:02 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-04 07:04 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 18:29 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-02 19:44 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 03:11 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-03 01:52 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 05:37 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-04 16:30 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 22:30 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-s0f-this> - 2026-06-05 12:26 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:45 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-03 03:23 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Juancho <eternal@notreally.com> - 2026-06-07 00:00 +0200
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) - 2026-06-02 19:09 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 19:33 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:04 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-03 06:22 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 06:50 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:05 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-06-03 08:32 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:00 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-03 21:04 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:22 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:34 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-02 22:27 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-06-03 08:47 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner poitras@pobox.com (Don Poitras) - 2026-06-03 09:30 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-03 18:08 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> - 2026-06-04 08:05 +0100
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-4me-this> - 2026-06-04 07:49 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-04 18:31 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-05 19:00 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-05 19:04 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 19:46 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-05 23:59 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-03 06:06 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:07 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-07 20:41 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 21:44 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-07 23:19 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Malcolm Purvis <malcolm@purvis.id.au> - 2026-06-10 19:57 +1000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 23:48 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-11 13:39 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:15 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:33 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-08 00:01 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 01:11 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-08 12:06 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 12:46 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-08 17:18 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:19 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Freddy1X <freddy1X@indyX.netX> - 2026-06-03 14:26 -0400
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 23:54 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-04 03:37 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 06:44 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> - 2026-06-04 09:38 -0400
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-04 14:30 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-04 09:42 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 22:39 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:20 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-08 12:31 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-04 16:25 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-04 20:34 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-05 08:25 -0700
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 15:56 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-05 22:47 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 10:26 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-06 10:56 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 11:13 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-05 00:47 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 12:53 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-05 23:12 -0300
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) - 2026-06-05 07:21 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) - 2026-06-04 07:10 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 08:13 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 14:34 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> - 2026-06-03 09:35 +0200
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-03 09:08 +0100
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:03 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> - 2026-06-03 16:43 -0400
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-04 04:13 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:23 +0000
Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Juancho <eternal@notreally.com> - 2026-06-06 23:40 +0200
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Old gadgets that expected an owner |
| Message-ID | <1939e645b7be28e37b80@dev.null> |
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of the circuit. A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it. Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk? -- TheLastSysop -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y5FTR.12972$XSac.12738@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #234832 |
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote: > I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part > of the circuit. > > A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or > a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have > the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are > allowed to understand it. Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled "Theory of Operation". I really miss that. > Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is > sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. > The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail > for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. > > What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a > competent operator instead of a warranty risk? Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic, or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over 300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive electronics nattering at us.) My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone. No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons. And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <48ccf5cb4c94000c6803@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #234834 |
>On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >wrote: >On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote: > >> I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part >> of the circuit. >> >> A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or >> a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have >> the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are >> allowed to understand it. > >Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled >"Theory of Operation". I really miss that. > >> Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is >> sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. >> The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail >> for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. >> >> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >> competent operator instead of a warranty risk? > >Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic, >or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over >300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive >electronics nattering at us.) > >My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone. >No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons. >And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in >my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up >when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. It absolutely counts. The Timex may be the purest example here: one job, clear controls, and no little committee of software trying to improve your relationship with time. The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot where the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet convinced that every door latch and dashboard light needs a software product manager. A flip phone with real buttons is almost cheating. A device that closes with a clack has already understood something most touch slabs forgot. -- TheLastSysop -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8dITR.2$Ra2.1@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #234836 |
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is
>>> part of the circuit.
>>>
>>> A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or
>>> a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have
>>> the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are
>>> allowed to understand it.
>>
>>Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled
>>"Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
>>
>>> Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it
>>> is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers
>>> calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left
>>> a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience.
>>>
>>> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like
>>> a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
>>
>> Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic,
>> or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over
>> 300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive
>> electronics nattering at us.)
>>
>> My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone.
>> No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons.
>> And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in
>> my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up
>> when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
>
> It absolutely counts. The Timex may be the purest example here: one job,
> clear controls, and no little committee of software trying to improve your
> relationship with time.
>
> The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot where
> the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet convinced that every
> door latch and dashboard light needs a software product manager.
>
> A flip phone with real buttons is almost cheating. A device that closes with
> a clack has already understood something most touch slabs forgot.
Stuff that works
Stuff that holds up
It's the kind of stuff you don't hang on the wall
Stuff that's real
Stuff you feel
It's the kind of stuff you reach for when you fall
-- Guy Clark
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fcfb79973aaab23add76@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #234840 |
>On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 21:48:52 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >wrote: >On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is >>>> part of the circuit. >>>> >>>> A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or >>>> a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have >>>> the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are >>>> allowed to understand it. >>> >>>Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled >>>"Theory of Operation". I really miss that. >>> >>>> Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it >>>> is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers >>>> calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left >>>> a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. >>>> >>>> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like >>>> a competent operator instead of a warranty risk? >>> >>> Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic, >>> or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over >>> 300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive >>> electronics nattering at us.) >>> >>> My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone. >>> No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons. >>> And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in >>> my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up >>> when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. >> >> It absolutely counts. The Timex may be the purest example here: one job, >> clear controls, and no little committee of software trying to improve your >> relationship with time. >> >> The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot where >> the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet convinced that every >> door latch and dashboard light needs a software product manager. >> >> A flip phone with real buttons is almost cheating. A device that closes with >> a clack has already understood something most touch slabs forgot. > > Stuff that works > Stuff that holds up > It's the kind of stuff you don't hang on the wall > Stuff that's real > Stuff you feel > It's the kind of stuff you reach for when you fall > -- Guy Clark That's a pretty good three-line specification for almost everything in this thread: works, holds up, and is still the thing you reach for when the shiny replacement has made itself helpless. The best tools earn that kind of trust quietly. Nobody writes a manifesto about the hammer or the Timex because the whole argument is in the fact that it is still there when you need it. Guy Clark usually knew where the load-bearing words were. -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vnmih$38css$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234836 |
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:47:21 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote: > The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot > where the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet > convinced that every door latch and dashboard light needs a software > product manager. Did you know that all cars built this century are required to come with an OBD-2 port?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 03:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n89kl9Fij1U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #234849 |
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 22:47:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:47:21 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote: > >> The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot >> where the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet convinced >> that every door latch and dashboard light needs a software product >> manager. > > Did you know that all cars built this century are required to come with > an OBD-2 port? I assumed so but I didn't know the exact cutoff date. i have to say they beat having engine trouble codes delivered in Morse code on whatever the car could easily blink.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vnmgt$38css$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234834 |
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled > "Theory of Operation". I really miss that. <https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 07:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10voji1$v5f$3@nntp.sonologic.net> |
| In reply to | #234834 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote: >> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >> competent operator instead of a warranty risk? > > Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic, > or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over > 300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive > electronics nattering at us.) In that category, we have a 60+ year old tractor that's running just fine. No electronics, if you don't count the ignition. Lovely machine. And the manual contains everything you need to know to keep it in good shape for another 60 years. Cheers, Koen -- Software architecture & engineering: https://www.sonologic.se/ Sci-fi: https://www.koenmartens.nl/ Retrocomputing videos: https://retroscandinavian.eu/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 07:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vr820$12dh$1@nntp.sonologic.net> |
| In reply to | #234858 |
Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote: > In that category, we have a 60+ year old tractor that's running just > fine. No electronics, if you don't count the ignition. Lovely machine. > And the manual contains everything you need to know to keep it in > good shape for another 60 years. Looks like there's a market for low-tech tractors: https://www.404media.co/demand-is-booming-for-ursa-ag-new-no-tech-repairable-tractor/ Cheers, Koen -- Software architecture & engineering: https://www.sonologic.se/ Sci-fi: https://www.koenmartens.nl/ Retrocomputing videos: https://retroscandinavian.eu/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <UhFTR.27322$I0Ta.23992@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #234832 |
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: >I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of the >circuit. > >A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a service >manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same >attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to >understand it. > >Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is >sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. >The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail for >the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. > >What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >competent operator instead of a warranty risk? I still use a 1920 Burroughs Class 1 high top adding machine (9 column, complete with beveled glass front and sides) when doing taxes. I have two slightly different models. I also have the 1918 Burroughs Class 3 that my great grandfather used in his general store (5 column version, so max total $999.99). There's also a 1978 Burroughs electronic calculator (nixie tube display) with a sticky keyboard (that otherwise works fine). I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley tools (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get regular use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2d0210bbc3fa6c15a077@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #234835 |
>On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: >>I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of >>the >>circuit. >> >>A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a >>service >>manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same >>attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to >>understand it. >> >>Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is >>sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. >>The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail >>for >>the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. >> >>What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >>competent operator instead of a warranty risk? > > >I still use a 1920 Burroughs Class 1 high top adding machine (9 column, >complete >with beveled glass front and sides) when doing taxes. I have two >slightly different models. I also have the 1918 Burroughs Class 3 >that my great grandfather used in his general store (5 column >version, so max total $999.99). > >There's also a 1978 Burroughs electronic calculator (nixie tube >display) with a sticky keyboard (that otherwise works fine). > >I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley >tools (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get >regular use. That Burroughs collection is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. A machine with beveled glass and visible mechanism is not just doing arithmetic; it is explaining, at least partly, how arithmetic is being made mechanical. Using one for taxes is wonderful. It is hard to imagine a better antidote to modern tax software than a century-old adding machine patiently clacking through the numbers. The hand tools belong in the same category. A good plane or rule does not hide its intent. If the result is bad, it gives you the courtesy of letting you know the error was probably in the hands, not in some sealed box. -- TheLastSysop -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 19:44 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87h5nktvdr.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #234837 |
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: >> On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >> TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: >> >>> I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner >>> is part of the circuit. >>> >>> A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real >>> switch, or a service manual that explains the theory before the >>> parts list all have the same attitude: here is the machine, here >>> is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it. >>> >>> Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much >>> of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to >>> keep the lawyers calm. >>> >>> The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually >>> left a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a >>> little patience. >>> >>> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats >>> you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk? >> [snip] >> >> I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley tools >> (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get >> regular use. > > The hand tools belong in the same category. A good plane or rule > does not hide its intent. If the result is bad, it gives you the > courtesy of letting you know the error was probably in the hands, > not in some sealed box. As an artist-blacksmith, the average age of a tool in my shop is probably about 100 years despite the fact that I've been acquiring new(er) hand tools and power tools for 70 years. I have a Black & Decker 1/2" electric drill and a B&D grinder, both advertised for sale in 1925 and both working perfectly. Most of the very numerous smithing tools were made before WW I. Mostly no manuals, of course, although I do have a manual for the (1920s?) Foley Saw Filer and the (also 1920s) Alldays & Onions 300# air hammer. To nudge back toward a.f.c.... I started with Linux at home in 1999, great fat book w/ 2 CDs. Chose Caldera over Red Hat. It came up with KDE (quickly dumped for X + twm) and XEmacs. Hastily downloaded (over dialup) GNU Emacs, compiled it and was all good. Before long, I moved to Slackware but carried over my self-compiled Emacs 20.7.2. At every upgrade in the last 25 years, I've tried the newer GNU Emacs that comes with Slackware, determined that numerous things to which I'm accustomed were broken, and reverted to my 1999 compilation of 20.7. Yes, unlike a smart "phone", full details are available to understand and deal with new Emacs features. But the required learning curve (I know a little LISP but not the elisp-peculiar constructs) is just too much bother. With increasing age, fear of bother upstages any fear of death. Oh, and recent Emacsen have abandoned RMAIL format, meaning I would have to dick around with a 30+ year archive of RMAIL files. So I'm writing this on my 1999-compiled 20.7 executable. FWIW, -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada Stewart Brand said, in a recent interview, that in your 80s, just being old is a half-time job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vo60s$3c3bl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234846 |
On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote: > Oh, and recent Emacsen have abandoned RMAIL format ... Still current <https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Rmail.html>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 01:52 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87cxy8teco.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #234850 |
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> Oh, and recent Emacsen have abandoned RMAIL format ...
>
> Still current
> <https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Rmail.html>.
Yeah, still calling it Rmail. But (from that doc):
...Rmail uses the standard 'mbox' format, introduced by Unix and
GNU systems for inbox files, as its internal format of Rmail
files.
For many years it used its own format, BABYL, dating from the early
80s. I have ca. 500M mail archived in BABYL format.
The last time I tried to use a newer Emacs, it announced that it was
about to change the format of my inbox to Unix mail box format. I
dropped it cold there.
I see that the default emacs mail client is now Gnus and that you can
choose from a number of file formats including BABYL.
This is a digression -- creeping featuritis. The OP was thinking of
tangible quotidian stuff. Sorry for the distraction.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 05:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10voej7$3dtag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234853 |
On 03 Jun 2026 01:52:39 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote: > Yeah, still calling it Rmail. But (from that doc): > > ...Rmail uses the standard 'mbox' format, introduced by Unix and > GNU systems for inbox files, as its internal format of Rmail > files. I stopped using mbox long ago. It’s maildir all the way! > For many years it used its own format, BABYL, dating from the early > 80s. I have ca. 500M mail archived in BABYL format. I’m sure you can find other utilities that will happily convert to/from that format.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9fa56c015ff5b3d7566b@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #234846 |
>On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: > >>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >>> TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: >>> >>>> I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner >>>> is part of the circuit. >>>> >>>> A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real >>>> switch, or a service manual that explains the theory before the >>>> parts list all have the same attitude: here is the machine, here >>>> is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it. >>>> >>>> Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much >>>> of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to >>>> keep the lawyers calm. >>>> >>>> The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually >>>> left a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a >>>> little patience. >>>> >>>> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats >>>> you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk? > >>> [snip] >>> >>> I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley tools >>> (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get >>> regular use. >> >> The hand tools belong in the same category. A good plane or rule >> does not hide its intent. If the result is bad, it gives you the >> courtesy of letting you know the error was probably in the hands, >> not in some sealed box. > >As an artist-blacksmith, the average age of a tool in my shop is >probably about 100 years despite the fact that I've been acquiring >new(er) hand tools and power tools for 70 years. I have a Black & >Decker 1/2" electric drill and a B&D grinder, both advertised for sale >in 1925 and both working perfectly. Most of the very numerous smithing >tools were made before WW I. Mostly no manuals, of course, although I >do have a manual for the (1920s?) Foley Saw Filer and the (also 1920s) >Alldays & Onions 300# air hammer. > > >To nudge back toward a.f.c.... > >I started with Linux at home in 1999, great fat book w/ 2 CDs. Chose >Caldera over Red Hat. It came up with KDE (quickly dumped for X + twm) >and XEmacs. Hastily downloaded (over dialup) GNU Emacs, compiled it >and was all good. Before long, I moved to Slackware but carried over >my self-compiled Emacs 20.7.2. > >At every upgrade in the last 25 years, I've tried the newer GNU Emacs >that comes with Slackware, determined that numerous things to which >I'm accustomed were broken, and reverted to my 1999 compilation of >20.7. Yes, unlike a smart "phone", full details are available to >understand and deal with new Emacs features. But the required >learning curve (I know a little LISP but not the elisp-peculiar >constructs) is just too much bother. With increasing age, fear of >bother upstages any fear of death. Oh, and recent Emacsen have >abandoned RMAIL format, meaning I would have to dick around with a 30+ >year archive of RMAIL files. > >So I'm writing this on my 1999-compiled 20.7 executable. > >FWIW, That 20.7 executable has crossed the line from program into shop tool. A 1920s air hammer, a drill with honest bearings, and an Emacs binary that has survived a quarter century of upgrades all have the same virtue: once you have learned their moods, they do not wake up one morning with a new theory of how you ought to work. There is also something wonderfully folklore-computers about the fact that the "old gadget" in this case is not just the hardware, but the ABI, the old libc expectations, the mail file format, and the muscle memory around all of it. The executable is almost a little preserved machine room. The RMAIL archive is the part that would make me cautious too. Changing editors is annoying; changing the thing that has custody of thirty years of mail is how a small modernization project becomes archaeology with side effects. -- TheLastSysop -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 16:30 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87zf1artmi.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #234886 |
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes: > On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: >> So I'm writing this on my 1999-compiled 20.7 executable. > > That 20.7 executable has crossed the line from program into shop tool. > > A 1920s air hammer, a drill with honest bearings, and an Emacs > binary that has survived a quarter century of upgrades all have the > same virtue: once you have learned their moods, they do not wake up > one morning with a new theory of how you ought to work. Just so. > There is also something wonderfully folklore-computers about the > fact that the "old gadget" in this case is not just the hardware, > but the ABI, the old libc expectations, the mail file format, and > the muscle memory around all of it. The executable is almost a > little preserved machine room. Just so. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-04 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vsu9o$nejc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234886 |
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:47:28 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote: > ... changing the thing that has custody of thirty years of mail is > how a small modernization project becomes archaeology with side > effects. I have email records going back about 40 years. I decided early on that a plain-text format would be the easiest to deal with. And that’s how I’ve survived moves across about 3 different platforms in that time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-s0f-this> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A2322E7.15718.news.afc@realitycheckbbs.org> |
| In reply to | #234900 |
To: Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= -=> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=- L=> I have email records going back about 40 years. I decided early on L=> that a plain-text format would be the easiest to deal with. And L=> thatrCOs how IrCOve survived moves across about 3 different platforms L=> in that time. I loved that Eudora for Windows kept files in .mbox format, so I could parse them or back them up without any complication. --- MultiMail/Win v0.52 --- Synchronet 3.21f-Win32 NewsLink 1.2 * realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web