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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #213748 > unrolled thread

When did mainframes lose commercial dominance?

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

Contents

  When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-05 10:12 +0000
    Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 06:55 -0400
      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-05 11:19 +0000
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-05 12:31 +0000
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 09:26 -0400
            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 12:04 -0400
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 12:26 -0400
                Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 12:57 -0400
                  Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 14:03 -0400
                    Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 15:15 -0400
                      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:34 -0400
                        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 17:02 -0400
                          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 17:27 -0400
                            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 20:02 -0400
                              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 21:50 -0400
                Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-09-05 12:03 -0500
                  Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 14:07 -0400
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:53 -0700
                Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 20:57 -0400
            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:38 -0700
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 21:58 -0400
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-06 07:10 +0100
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-06 20:05 +0000
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-08 21:10 +0000
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-05 13:30 +0000
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-05 19:17 +0000
            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:20 -0400
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-11-19 07:15 +0000
            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:41 -0400
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-05 18:59 +0000
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-05 20:01 +0000
            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-05 22:06 +0100
              Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-06 08:21 +0000
                Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-06 10:26 +0100
            Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-11-14 08:58 +0000
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:38 -0700
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-06 08:20 +0000
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-08 21:10 +0000
          Re: X et al, When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-08 22:29 +0000
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-09 19:20 +0000
      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 09:44 -0400
      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-05 16:59 +0100
    Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> - 2020-09-05 14:20 +0000
      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-05 16:27 +0000
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 12:58 -0400
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 13:01 -0400
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-05 19:38 +0000
          Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 16:24 -0400
    Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Rick Umali <rickumali@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 19:40 +0000
    Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-08 11:22 -0700
      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-09 16:02 +0000
        Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-09 16:56 +0000
    Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? massimo79m@gmail.com - 2020-09-12 01:39 -0700
      Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-09-17 13:28 -0700

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

#213824

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>> 
>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>> change with every release.  My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>> my configuration file.  Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>> change with every release.  My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>> was 20 years ago.  That's consistent.
>
> People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.
> As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from
> Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake. I installed a new release and it was
> hate at first sight. I hunted around and found Mate, which is still Gnome2,
> although I guess there are several, like Mint, that are as well. Mate seems
> to stay the dame from release to release.
>
> Developers seem to like to change things, maybe not “just because they
> can”, but maybe just because someone thinks they have a better idea without
> considering how users actually work.

I agree, I just don't see the constant change.
I don't see a problem with new features, but I'd expect to only see the
new feature if I turn it on.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#213828

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:38:37 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.

	It is if you can find one you like - I did a long time ago and I'm
still using it today.

> As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from

	I don't get frequent changes, because the environment I choose is
stable.

> Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake. I installed a new release and it was

	Following fashion is usually a big mistake.

> hate at first sight. I hunted around and found Mate, which is still
> Gnome2, although I guess there are several, like Mint, that are as well.

	Mint is a distribution, Mate is a desktop. One option for Mint is
Mate.

> Mate seems to stay the dame from release to release.

	I don't like having the installation decide on my window manager, I
like to choose it.

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

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

#213856

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>> 
>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>> change with every release.  My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>> my configuration file.  Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>> change with every release.  My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>> was 20 years ago.  That's consistent.
>> 
>
>People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.

I don't.

>As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from
>Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake.

I've been using TWM since 1989.  It still works just
fine, even with modern distro's;  one simply needs to discover
how each distro fires up the X session (~/.xsession or ~/.xinitrc)

scott

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

#213975

On 2020-09-06, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>> 
>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>> change with every release.  My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>> my configuration file.  Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>> change with every release.  My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>> was 20 years ago.  That's consistent.
>
> People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.
> As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from
> Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake. I installed a new release and it was
> hate at first sight. I hunted around and found Mate, which is still Gnome2,
> although I guess there are several, like Mint, that are as well. Mate seems
> to stay the dame from release to release.

What made me dump Ubuntu was their move to Unity.  Plus I found that
Gnome was a bit too touchy-feely and I preferred something lean and mean.
I went with Blackbox for a while, but that was a bit _too_ lean, and
have since settled on xfce.

> Developers seem to like to change things, maybe not “just because they
> can”, but maybe just because someone thinks they have a better idea without
> considering how users actually work.

And that's why I believe that having a choice of window managers is
a Good Thing.  When some developer decides to pull the rug out from
under you, you can tell him to get stuffed.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

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

#213756

On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:31:55 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>> command prompt windows it could display).
> 
> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
> 
> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
> yet.
> 
> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.

I'm happy enough with Xfce and my choice of mail client, browser and news 
client.

But I spend most of my time (other than that) at the command prompt.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#213783

On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many 
>> command prompt windows it could display).
>
> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>
> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
> etc.

Too many different projects fiddling with it and adding layers on top,
from Motif in the 1990s to Gnome and whatever is hot today.  I ignore
all that and use just an old window manager (ctwm). Works fine so far;
nothing important really /depends/ on Gnome and friends.

Many others successfully use tiling window managers, which are (see
above) optimized for displaying a bunch of terminal emulators.

> Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
> yet.
>
> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
> pretty agreeable these days.

I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it.  All
windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
another one ends, and which one has focus.

I kind of like the UI of Windows 2000 though; I've run all later
versions until now in some "classic mode" which looks and works like
that one.  It's simple and functional.

> And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to)

You must mean something more than PuTTY's "Saved sessions".  Those are
in the Windows Registry; a coworker talked about a fork of PuTTY which
puts them in a text file.

> or ssh in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of
> course, in the case of macOS, you actually ARE.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#213790

On 5 Sep 2020 19:17:58 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many 
>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>
>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>
>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>> etc.
>
>Too many different projects fiddling with it and adding layers on top,
>from Motif in the 1990s to Gnome and whatever is hot today.  I ignore
>all that and use just an old window manager (ctwm). Works fine so far;
>nothing important really /depends/ on Gnome and friends.
>
>Many others successfully use tiling window managers, which are (see
>above) optimized for displaying a bunch of terminal emulators.
>
>> Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>> yet.
>>
>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>> pretty agreeable these days.
>
>I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it.  All
>windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
>to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
>manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
>another one ends, and which one has focus.

Lower right corner--left click once, you should get a display in the
lower right with a bunch of little boxes.  One of them is "tablet
mode".  Turn it off.  There may be other tweaks you need to get to a
reasonable desktop.
>
>I kind of like the UI of Windows 2000 though; I've run all later
>versions until now in some "classic mode" which looks and works like
>that one.  It's simple and functional.

Windows 10 on a non-tablet, unless some genius in IT has decided to
"help" you by tweaking the settings, should look kind of like Windows
2000 only with squared corners.
>
>> And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to)
>
>You must mean something more than PuTTY's "Saved sessions".  Those are
>in the Windows Registry; a coworker talked about a fork of PuTTY which
>puts them in a text file.
>
>> or ssh in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of
>> course, in the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>
>/Jorgen

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

#215368

On Sat, 2020-09-05, J  Clarke wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2020 19:17:58 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
...
>>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>> pretty agreeable these days.
>>
>>I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it.  All
>>windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
>>to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
>>manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
>>another one ends, and which one has focus.
>
> Lower right corner--left click once, you should get a display in the
> lower right with a bunch of little boxes.  One of them is "tablet
> mode".  Turn it off.  There may be other tweaks you need to get to a
> reasonable desktop.

I read this several months late, but thanks!  Turns out that I was in
non-tablet mode already.  And indeed it /is/ possible to arrange the
windows as I want them on my desktop; it's just that you can tell that
Windows would rather want them arranged differently.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#213797

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:

> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many 
>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>
>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>
>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>> etc.
>
> Too many different projects fiddling with it and adding layers on top,
> from Motif in the 1990s to Gnome and whatever is hot today.  I ignore
> all that and use just an old window manager (ctwm). Works fine so far;
> nothing important really /depends/ on Gnome and friends.

I was using cvtwm when I stumbled on Fvwm.
The "Style" command did it for me.
Much more logical way to organize your settings.

> Many others successfully use tiling window managers, which are (see
> above) optimized for displaying a bunch of terminal emulators.
>
>> Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>> yet.
>>
>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>> pretty agreeable these days.
>
> I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it.  All
> windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
> to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
> manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
> another one ends, and which one has focus.
>
> I kind of like the UI of Windows 2000 though; I've run all later
> versions until now in some "classic mode" which looks and works like
> that one.  It's simple and functional.

I never could get Windows to stop creating new windows under the window
I was working in.  Also it's autoraise would drive me nuts.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#213780

On Sat, 2020-09-05, Bob Eager wrote:
...
> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech guys 
> gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to catch on 
> in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was X 
> terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.

That worked really well at university for me.  We had a mix of X
terminals and netbooting Sun workstations.  It didn't matter which
machine you sat down at, and you didn't have to administer anything,
except make sure I didn't exceed my quotas.  All kinds of useful
software was made available.

At workplaces I've only seen that kind of setup once or twice.  It's
common though to do all useful work on a set of central servers; then
the computer on your desk becomes more or less an expensive X
terminal.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#213789

On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 18:59:39 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Bob Eager wrote:
> ...
>> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech
>> guys gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to
>> catch on in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was
>> X terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
> 
> That worked really well at university for me.  We had a mix of X
> terminals and netbooting Sun workstations.  It didn't matter which
> machine you sat down at, and you didn't have to administer anything,
> except make sure I didn't exceed my quotas.  All kinds of useful
> software was made available.

Never used roaming profiles on Windows? Hell, we have those at home!

Not to mention UNIX with a central NFS server.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#213803

On 5 Sep 2020 20:01:05 GMT
Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:

> Never used roaming profiles on Windows? Hell, we have those at home!

	I don't.

> Not to mention UNIX with a central NFS server.

	I do have that at home.

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

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

#213831

On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:06:52 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2020 20:01:05 GMT Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> Never used roaming profiles on Windows? Hell, we have those at home!
> 
> 	I don't.
> 
>> Not to mention UNIX with a central NFS server.
> 
> 	I do have that at home.

Well, of course. The UNIX server also serves via SMB, of course.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#213834

On 6 Sep 2020 08:21:37 GMT
Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:06:52 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
> > On 5 Sep 2020 20:01:05 GMT Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
> > 
> >> Never used roaming profiles on Windows? Hell, we have those at home!
> > 
> > 	I don't.
> > 
> >> Not to mention UNIX with a central NFS server.
> > 
> > 	I do have that at home.
> 
> Well, of course. The UNIX server also serves via SMB, of course.

	Of course.

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

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

#215243

On Sat, 2020-09-05, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 18:59:39 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Bob Eager wrote:
>> ...
>>> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech
>>> guys gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to
>>> catch on in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was
>>> X terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
>> 
>> That worked really well at university for me.  We had a mix of X
>> terminals and netbooting Sun workstations.  It didn't matter which
>> machine you sat down at, and you didn't have to administer anything,
>> except make sure I didn't exceed my quotas.  All kinds of useful
>> software was made available.
>
> Never used roaming profiles on Windows? Hell, we have those at home!

We may have had them, but the only effect I saw was a slowdown of my
work.  I never saw them used so that you could sit down at any
computer and not tell a difference.

That may have been the administrators' fault rather than Microsoft's.

> Not to mention UNIX with a central NFS server.

That would be "netbooting Sun workstations", so it's mentioned
already.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#213812

Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> 
>> We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at computing
>> history through.
>> 
>> I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
>> gas stations, etc. there was  a huge untapped market there, but S/360
>> was priced way out of that market.  Then in the 90s PCs started to enter
>> that market.  That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
>> 
>> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant movement off
>> the mainframe.  But of course there are plenty of large companies that
>> are still on mainframes and will remain there for the foreseeable
>> future.
> 
> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech guys 
> gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to catch on 
> in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was X 
> terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
> 
> The only reason there weren't many PCs in that place was the director. 
> Nice guy, but he'd taken against PCs for soem reason. He retired a year 
> later, and the tech guy suddenly found PCs everywhere. Not many X 
> terminals, even as PCs.
> 
> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many 
> command prompt windows it could display).
> 

That’s about half of the way I operate.

-- 
Pete

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

#213830

On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:38:36 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>> 
>>> We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at
>>> computing history through.
>>> 
>>> I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
>>> gas stations, etc. there was  a huge untapped market there, but S/360
>>> was priced way out of that market.  Then in the 90s PCs started to
>>> enter that market.  That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
>>> 
>>> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant movement
>>> off the mainframe.  But of course there are plenty of large companies
>>> that are still on mainframes and will remain there for the foreseeable
>>> future.
>> 
>> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech
>> guys gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to
>> catch on in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was
>> X terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
>> 
>> The only reason there weren't many PCs in that place was the director.
>> Nice guy, but he'd taken against PCs for soem reason. He retired a year
>> later, and the tech guy suddenly found PCs everywhere. Not many X
>> terminals, even as PCs.
>> 
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>> command prompt windows it could display).
>> 
>> 
> That’s about half of the way I operate.

And me, actually. But not totally. Much as I was happy enough with mh and 
rn, I prefer Claws and Pan!



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#213974

On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant movement off
>> the mainframe.  But of course there are plenty of large companies that
>> are still on mainframes and will remain there for the foreseeable
>> future.
>
> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech guys 
> gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to catch on 
> in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was X 
> terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.

Nowadays, you can replace "X terminal" with "personal computer running
a web browser", or "smart terminal" with "smartphone running an app".
We've come full circle with the computing model, and are once again
using computers as terminals on a centralized server, just like we
did in the '60s and '70s.  The operation is the same, only the
terminology has changed.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

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

#213985 — Re: X et al, When did mainframes lose commercial dominance?

In article <rj8s0i62ab8@news2.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>Nowadays, you can replace "X terminal" with "personal computer running
>a web browser", or "smart terminal" with "smartphone running an app".
>We've come full circle with the computing model, and are once again
>using computers as terminals on a centralized server, just like we
>did in the '60s and '70s.  The operation is the same, only the
>terminology has changed.

Sometimes not even that. The Mac on which I am typing this message
literally functions as an X terminal (among other things), displaying
application windows from X clients running on other computers. I edit
text files on my server in Epsilon, an emacs clone, talking through an
ssh tunnel to XQuartz on my laptop.

Web browsers started as thin clients but with HTML5 and Javascript
they're getting a lot thicker.
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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

#214027

On 2020-09-08, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
> Nowadays, you can replace "X terminal" with "personal computer running
> a web browser", or "smart terminal" with "smartphone running an app".
> We've come full circle with the computing model, and are once again
> using computers as terminals on a centralized server, just like we
> did in the '60s and '70s.  The operation is the same, only the
> terminology has changed.

These days, yes. The outfit I'm about to start at takes this to the next
level - there's actually a huge computing resource (a Cray XC40) that
people are clamoring for time on.

That's going to be interesting.

Niklas
-- 
I hereby wish to register the band name "rm -rf /".
                       -- Jim

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

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

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

csiph-web