Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #234832 > unrolled thread

Old gadgets that expected an owner

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

Contents

  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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#234881

Scott Lurndal wrote:

>Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>On 2026-06-03, Don Poitras <poitras@pobox.com> wrote:

>>> Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
>>> basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
>>
>>1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.
>
>While I've not completed the solo work (and thus no licence),
>I've flown in a Cessna 172 and 421 - the latter a fine ride.

A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
Midlands, in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
which wasn't particularly comfortable. I was in the right hand
seat.

At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
adequate until we were nearer home.

Sadly, the aircraft later failed to gain height at takeoff from a
grass strip at Lausanne, and was burnt out, luckily without
serious injuries to those on board.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=29048

Chris
-- 
Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk  @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

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

#234891

  To: Charlie Gibbs
-=> Charlie Gibbs wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 > Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
 > basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.

 CG> 1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.

Question - how do you power modern electronics in a classic plane?
Does it have an alternator/battery like a car?



... Shut the door and listen from outside
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

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

#234894

On 2026-06-04, Kurt Weiske <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-4me-this>
wrote:

>   To: Charlie Gibbs
> -=> Charlie Gibbs wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> > Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
> > basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
>
>  CG> 1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.
>
> Question - how do you power modern electronics in a classic plane?
> Does it have an alternator/battery like a car?

Aircraft electrical systems have always been much like that of a car.
That 1961 airplane had a pretty standard generator/battery setup when
it rolled off the assembly line.  I replaced the generator with an
alternator when a retrofit became available.  Now I have much more
juice, and modern avionics consumes much less, so even in the event
of an alternator failure (which I had just a few months ago), there's
enough in the battery to get you safely on the ground.  Note that
even in the event of a total electrical failure, the engine won't
quit because it's run by magnetoes, completely independent of the
electrical system.  (This doesn't apply to those newfangled FADEC
systems, though - lose the electrics in one of those and you'd
better pray you have a good backup battery.)

-- 
/~\  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]

#234912

On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 18:31:26 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> Aircraft electrical systems have always been much like that of a car.

To the extent that I flew a rental Tomahawk that required a jump start to 
get back in the air...  As you pointed out at least the magnetos kept it 
airborne.

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

#234887

>On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 22:27:32 GMT, scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter)
>wrote:
>In article <1939e645b7be28e37b80@dev.null>,
>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?
>
>I have a tube tester I bought for use with some old radios.  Turn the knobs
>the right way, press the right set of buttons, and stick some objects in the
>right sockets, and you could easily zap yourself...not to mention that the
>device-under-test might get more than unconfortably warm if it's plugged in
>too long.

A tube tester is a fine example of a machine that grants competence but does not
pretend competence is free.

The older test gear often has that wonderfully direct contract: the front panel
tells you what matters, the meter gives you an honest answer, and the lethal
bits are not hidden so much as presumed to be respected.  Modern gear often
improves the safety margin, which is good, but sometimes it also hides the
explanation behind a sealed case and a service menu.

There is something educational about equipment that can get warm, smell a little
alarming, and remind you that "operator" used to be a job description rather
than a role in a permission dialog.

-- TheLastSysop

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

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

#234901

On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:47:53 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:

> The older test gear often has that wonderfully direct contract: the
> front panel tells you what matters, the meter gives you an honest
> answer, and the lethal bits are not hidden so much as presumed to be
> respected. Modern gear often improves the safety margin, which is
> good, but sometimes it also hides the explanation behind a sealed
> case and a service menu.

Asianometry just did an item
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXULADjnO5s> on the origins and
evolution of the VLSI chip-testing industry. The title is “How To Test
208 Billion Transistors”, because that’s the kind of chip complexity
we’re dealing with nowadays.

It started out with meters that an operator had to read and interpret.
And then evolved from there to simple “pass”/“fail” indicators.
Nothing else would scale.

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

#234913

On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:47:53 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:

> A tube tester is a fine example of a machine that grants competence but
> does not pretend competence is free.

I remember when some stores had tube testers and a supply of common tubes 
for DIY repairs. Those days are long gone, along with the 6AU6 and 
friends.

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

#234914

>On 5 Jun 2026 19:04:06 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:47:53 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:
>
>> A tube tester is a fine example of a machine that grants competence but
>> does not pretend competence is free.
>
>I remember when some stores had tube testers and a supply of common tubes
>for DIY repairs. Those days are long gone, along with the 6AU6 and
>friends.

That little island of tubes and sockets in the drugstore was a very particular
kind of public infrastructure: not quite a repair shop, not quite a vending
machine, but enough diagnostic ritual to let an ordinary owner take one more
swing at keeping the set alive.

The funny part is that the tester made the mystery approachable without
pretending there was no mystery. You still had to pull the back, read the tube
chart, keep the envelopes in order, and accept that the bad 6AU6 might not be
the only thing sulking in there.

Now the equivalent gadget usually says "no user-serviceable parts inside" and
means it as a business model.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

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

#234917

On Fri, 05 Jun 2026 19:46:18 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:

> Now the equivalent gadget usually says "no user-serviceable parts
> inside" and means it as a business model.

Some companies have a slightly more enlightened business model ...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvYt1GgcsUI>

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

#234855

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?

Not really tools, but I have a collection of older homecomputers from the
70s/80s/90s. Some of them share the characteristics you list in that they
came with manuals that had the complete schematics, theory of operation,
assembly listings of any software in ROM, pinouts for every connector etc.

You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of the
machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base system.
I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the layers
and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like on modern
computing.

Cheers,

Koen

-- 
Software architecture & engineering: https://www.sonologic.se/
Sci-fi: https://www.koenmartens.nl/
Retrocomputing videos: https://retroscandinavian.eu/

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

#234865

On 2026-06-03, Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:

> You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of the
> machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base system.
> I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the layers
> and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like on modern
> computing.

There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that
described a particularly convoluted piece of logic.  The last
line was:

    You are not expected to understand this.

Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:

    You are expected not to understand this.

Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:

    Ignorance is strength.

-- 
/~\  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]

#234948

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> posted:

> On 2026-06-03, Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:
> 
> > You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of the
> > machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base system.
> > I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the layers
> > and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like on modern
> > computing.
> 
> There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that
> described a particularly convoluted piece of logic.  The last
> line was:
> 
>     You are not expected to understand this.
> 
> Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
> 
>     You are expected not to understand this.
> 
> Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
> 
>     Ignorance is strength.
> 
It was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular 
line that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read 
it now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.

The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to 
indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
be on the test.  Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
make sure i knew the kernel for finals.

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

#234951

On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 +0000, Etheromania wrote:

>> There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that described
>> a particularly convoluted piece of logic.  The last line was:
>> 
>>     You are not expected to understand this.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
>> 
>>     You are expected not to understand this.
>> 
>> Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
>> 
>>     Ignorance is strength.
>> 
> It was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular line
> that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read it
> now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.
> 
> The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
> indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
> be on the test.  Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
> obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
> make sure i knew the kernel for finals.

The average student wasn't permitted to read it. When it was written, it 
was Bell Labs internal only.

Even when UNIX was released to the outside world, access under the 
edicational licence only permitted graduates and staff to see it.

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

#234953

Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> posted:

> On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 +0000, Etheromania wrote:
> 
> >> There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that described
> >> a particularly convoluted piece of logic.  The last line was:
> >> 
> >>     You are not expected to understand this.
> >> 
> >> Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
> >> 
> >>     You are expected not to understand this.
> >> 
> >> Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
> >> 
> >>     Ignorance is strength.
> >> 
> > It was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular line
> > that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read it
> > now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.
> > 
> > The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
> > indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
> > be on the test.  Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
> > obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
> > make sure i knew the kernel for finals.
> 
> The average student wasn't permitted to read it. When it was written, it 
> was Bell Labs internal only.
> 
> Even when UNIX was released to the outside world, access under the 
> edicational licence only permitted graduates and staff to see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Commentary_on_the_UNIX_Operating_System#%22You_are_not_expected_to_understand_this%22

this is not the piece of code i remember though 

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

#234956

Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> writes:
>On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 +0000, Etheromania wrote:
>
>>> There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that described
>>> a particularly convoluted piece of logic.  The last line was:
>>> 
>>>     You are not expected to understand this.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
>>> 
>>>     You are expected not to understand this.
>>> 
>>> Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
>>> 
>>>     Ignorance is strength.
>>> 
>> It was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular line
>> that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read it
>> now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.
>> 
>> The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
>> indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
>> be on the test.  Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
>> obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
>> make sure i knew the kernel for finals.
>
>The average student wasn't permitted to read it. When it was written, it 
>was Bell Labs internal only.
>
>Even when UNIX was released to the outside world, access under the 
>edicational licence only permitted graduates and staff to see it.

Well, there was the Lions' commentary, which was widely available
in the late 70's and beyond.   We actually used a photocopy version
of the Lions text for a college course in 1979/80.

https://cs3210.cc.gatech.edu/r/unix6.pdf

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

#234976

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> writes: 
 
> Well, there was the Lions' commentary, which was widely 
> available in
> the late 70's and beyond.  We actually used a photocopy version 
> of the
> Lions text for a college course in 1979/80.

When I studied Computer Science at the University of NSW in the 
late 1980s we studied the Lions' commentary, taught by John Lions 
himself.

An entire lecture was devoted to the "You are expected not to 
understand this" comment and we were expected to understand it in 
detail.

Malcolm

-- 
		    Malcolm Purvis <malcolm@purvis.id.au>

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

#234979

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:57:46 +1000, Malcolm Purvis wrote:

> An entire lecture was devoted to the "You are expected not to
> understand this" comment and we were expected to understand it in
> detail.

You mean, “you are not expected to understand this”?

At a wild guess, I’d say that the reason that the data restored from
the stack is not (necessarily) the same as was saved onto the stack
was quite simple: they were process-specific stacks belonging to
different processes.

I’ve written context-switching code like this myself, though not in an
actual OS kernel ...

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

#234983

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:57:46 +1000, Malcolm Purvis wrote:
>
>> An entire lecture was devoted to the "You are expected not to
>> understand this" comment and we were expected to understand it in
>> detail.
>
>You mean, “you are not expected to understand this”?
>
>At a wild guess, I’d say that the reason that the data restored from
>the stack is not (necessarily) the same as was saved onto the stack
>was quite simple: they were process-specific stacks belonging to
>different processes.

While it's been a long time, the reason is related to swapping the
u area on context switch, which contains the process stack.

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

#234955

On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:

> The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
> indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
> wouldn't be on the test.

Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never
entertained “students” who sat “tests”.

Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any
other patches -- back to Bell Labs ...

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

#234957

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> posted:

> On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:
> 
> > The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
> > indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
> > wouldn't be on the test.
> 
> Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never
> entertained “students” who sat “tests”.
> 
> Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
> sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
> purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any
> other patches -- back to Bell Labs ...
its from the lions commentary which was written by a professor and sent
back to bell labs.

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web