Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #234452 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lev <thresh3@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-03-30 19:12 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-03-31 22:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lev <thresh3@fastmail.com> - 2026-03-30 19:12 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-03-30 21:01 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-30 21:02 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-03-31 00:44 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-31 19:46 +0000
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-03-31 20:48 +0000
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-01 23:23 +0000
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-02 10:53 +0000
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-02 07:29 -0700
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-04-02 16:58 +0000
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-02 20:34 +0000
Re: TSS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-04-02 20:53 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-31 21:01 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-03 16:53 -1000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 03:57 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-04 07:37 -0700
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-04 21:55 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-04 15:48 -0700
Re: ancient time sharingSelf-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-05 02:27 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:03 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-04 12:31 -1000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-04 07:40 -1000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-04 13:44 -0700
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 (VSCP) ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-04-05 20:23 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-04 12:53 -1000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-05 09:29 +0100
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-05 19:22 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-05 14:30 -1000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-05 20:02 -0700
history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-11 09:05 -0300
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-11 16:49 +0200
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-11 15:58 +0100
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-11 13:38 -0300
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-11 19:41 +0200
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-11 19:18 +0100
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-11 21:27 +0200
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-11 21:13 +0000
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-12 14:47 -1000
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-09-13 15:02 -0700
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 16:27 -0700
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-14 15:11 -1000
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 04:19 +0000
Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-09-13 14:56 -0700
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 04:10 +0000
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-09-15 05:46 -0700
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-15 07:51 -0700
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 23:22 +0000
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 23:13 +0000
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-15 16:48 +0200
Re: Computes at CERN (Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX ) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-15 08:19 -0700
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-12 14:13 -1000
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-12 14:12 -1000
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-13 14:02 -0300
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-13 18:55 +0100
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-13 19:03 +0100
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-13 19:07 +0100
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 16:21 -0700
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 00:37 +0100
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 20:56 -0700
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-14 04:12 +0000
Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-14 15:06 -1000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-06 01:42 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-05 20:05 -0700
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-06 07:03 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-05 22:19 -1000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-06 08:20 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-06 12:03 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-06 07:30 -0700
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-06 07:39 -1000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-06 12:05 -0700
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-04-06 17:41 -1000
position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-11 09:42 -0300
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-12 15:12 -1000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-13 01:57 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-12 21:14 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-09-17 17:06 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-17 17:56 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-09-18 14:08 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-18 19:29 +0100
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 12:00 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-18 20:35 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-09-17 11:32 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-13 07:31 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 07:45 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-13 16:50 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 16:18 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 04:21 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-15 14:33 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-15 07:37 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 23:35 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-09-14 14:41 -1000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-13 01:54 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-13 14:53 -0300
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-13 22:18 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 16:24 -0700
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-14 01:51 +0000
Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 14:53 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-06 19:21 +0000
Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-31 02:32 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2026-03-31 04:06 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-03-31 08:52 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2026-03-31 18:07 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-03-30 13:51 -0700
Re: TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-03-31 00:58 +0000
Re: TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-03-31 07:35 -0700
Re: TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2026-03-31 14:54 +0000
Re: TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-03-31 13:01 -0700
Re: TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-03-31 22:14 +0000
Re: TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2026-03-31 22:32 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-01 02:06 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2026-04-01 09:53 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-01 16:07 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2026-04-01 16:27 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-01 16:10 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2026-04-01 17:15 +0100
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2026-04-01 16:28 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-01 16:48 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-01 17:44 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-04-01 14:21 -0700
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-01 20:40 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-01 22:02 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2026-04-02 15:28 +0100
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-02 15:36 +0000
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2026-04-02 17:15 +0100
Re: linkers, TSS arcana, Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-02 16:44 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-03-30 23:28 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-30 23:36 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-03-31 07:46 -0700
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-03-31 15:54 +0100
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-31 19:03 +0000
Re: VM history, was Self-hosting and the 6502 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-03-31 01:04 +0000
Re: VM history, was Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-03-31 22:17 +0000
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-03-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-03-31 22:19 +0000
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 04:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <puKpS.5109$iUXd.4015@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #235619 |
On 2026-09-13, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > On 9/13/26 10:02, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote: > >> Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: >> >>> Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> writes: >>> >>>> [Lynn Wheeler wrote:] >>>> >>>>> https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#0 >>>> >>>> Sad to say, garlic.com seems to have broken your link here. >>> >>> ... PCs & PC browser seem to work ... it seems to be mostly cellphone >>> and tablet for which it has disappeared. >> >> If you send an HTTPS request for "/~lynn/2002f.html" to www.garlic.com >> (77.37.114.68), it responds, saying, “South Valley Internet. >> Garlic.com. [Check Availability]. The page can’t be found. It looks >> like nothing was found at this location,” and giving the addresses and >> phone numbers of a company in Morgan Hill, California, rather than your >> archived posts. >> >> This unlikely to be related to which browser you’re using, but in case >> it is, I'm using Firefox 128.3.1esr for Linux. > > It works for me. FF155.0.1, Ubuntu 24.04.4 64-bit It fails for me, both on Seamonkey 2.53.23 and Firefox 153.0 under Debian Bookworm. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 15:06 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: history of ASCII and IBM ratfucking, and the VAX (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <87jyon9vcy.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #235608 |
Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> writes: > This unlikely to be related to which browser you’re using, but in case > it is, I'm using Firefox 128.3.1esr for Linux. firefox/nightly158 w/fedora44 ... it gives me https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ and https://mycloud.garlic.com/~lynn ... but neither worked with tablet or cellphone. just retried with cellphone firefox and mycloud.garlic.com worked but not www.garlic.com. I've had discussions with garlic tech guy and he says he had been working on getting something fixed (after recent site revamp). just double checked wayback machine (archive.org) which had www.garlic.com/~lynn up until about may2026 but nothing since ... and nothing at all for mycloud.garlic.com. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 01:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10qv31u$1l5fk$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #234620 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>:
>>On 05/04/2026 00:44, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> I wonder how many people at DEC worked on TOPS-10 ... remember, they
>>> were able to provide true multiuser support from the get-go, which CMS
>>> could not.
>>
>>No but CMS is still in use today, and it still doesn't provide true
>>multi user support whatever that is
>
> No matter what it is, it would make no sense since it only runs under VM which provides
> quite a lot of multi-user support.
>
> I would also note that any VM system that can run CMS can also run several flavors of linux,
> all at the same time, if that's what you want.
VM6 runs in 370 mode and runs CMS. IIUC Linux needs at least s390 mode
so can not run under VM6.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-05 20:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10qv7t7$1re07$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234624 |
On 4/5/26 18:42, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >> According to David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>: >>> On 05/04/2026 00:44, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> I wonder how many people at DEC worked on TOPS-10 ... remember, they >>>> were able to provide true multiuser support from the get-go, which CMS >>>> could not. >>> >>> No but CMS is still in use today, and it still doesn't provide true >>> multi user support whatever that is >> >> No matter what it is, it would make no sense since it only runs under VM which provides >> quite a lot of multi-user support. >> >> I would also note that any VM system that can run CMS can also run several flavors of linux, >> all at the same time, if that's what you want. > > VM6 runs in 370 mode and runs CMS. IIUC Linux needs at least s390 mode > so can not run under VM6. > One of the colleges, probably Marist, had an unofficial version of Linux running on a 370. I understand GCC wanted a PC-relative branch instruction, so they had to code around that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 07:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10qvlrb$1uf62$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234626 |
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 20:05:11 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: > On 4/5/26 18:42, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> >> VM6 runs in 370 mode and runs CMS. IIUC Linux needs at least s390 >> mode so can not run under VM6. > > One of the colleges, probably Marist, had an unofficial version of > Linux running on a 370. I understand GCC wanted a PC-relative branch > instruction, so they had to code around that. Did it really take that many decades for IBM to understand the concept of position-independent code?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-05 22:19 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <87pl4c1oy3.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #234627 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> Did it really take that many decades for IBM to understand the concept
> of position-independent code?
TSS/360 supported position independent code .... could have same shared
segments across different virtual address spaces at different address
locations.
OS/360 languages generated executable with "relocatable" addresses and
loader, loading the executable images when loaded, the relocable
addresses were updated for the ("fix") loaded address locations (aka
"relocatable" until loaded for execution).
after joining IBM CSC ... with competition from TSS/360 and MULTICS up
on the 5th flr ... I did a page-mapped filesystem for CP67's CMS
(nominal filesystem workload about 3times faster (and degrading much
more gracefully as load increased) and since CMS used OS/360 language
processors ... it had fixed addresses as part of loading. I had to do a
lot of code fiddling in order to emulate TSS/360 being able to load
shared segments at independent locations.
With TSS/360 decommitted and all the 360 systems (MVT, MFT, DOS) having
to support 370 virtual memory .... the wide-spread implementation of the
"relocatable addresses" updating to correspond to the loaded address
... sort of negated any position-independent orientation.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 08:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10qvqcg$1vku7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234628 |
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 22:19:00 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>> Did it really take that many decades for IBM to understand the
>> concept of position-independent code?
>
> TSS/360 supported position independent code .... could have same
> shared segments across different virtual address spaces at different
> address locations.
>
> OS/360 languages generated executable with "relocatable" addresses
> and loader, loading the executable images when loaded, the relocable
> addresses were updated for the ("fix") loaded address locations (aka
> "relocatable" until loaded for execution).
So the code itself was not position-independent? Instead, extra
information had to be provided in the object format to fix things up
based on where in memory it was loaded?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 12:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10r07fa$ghe$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #234628 |
In article <87pl4c1oy3.fsf@localhost>, Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote: >Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> Did it really take that many decades for IBM to understand the concept >> of position-independent code? > >TSS/360 supported position independent code .... could have same shared >segments across different virtual address spaces at different address >locations. Lynn, sadly, you are arguing with an idiot. Lawrence is not interested in how things actually work. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 07:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10r0g2r$25l0l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234627 |
On 4/6/26 00:03, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 20:05:11 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: > >> On 4/5/26 18:42, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>> >>> VM6 runs in 370 mode and runs CMS. IIUC Linux needs at least s390 >>> mode so can not run under VM6. >> >> One of the colleges, probably Marist, had an unofficial version of >> Linux running on a 370. I understand GCC wanted a PC-relative branch >> instruction, so they had to code around that. > > Did it really take that many decades for IBM to understand the concept > of position-independent code? 360 was all position-independent. In theory there were no absolute addresses, everything was base-displacement. Change the base register and Bob's your uncle. Unfortunately there were a couple of gotchas, address constants being the worst. Also the small range of addresses available from a single base became limiting as programs got larger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 07:39 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <875x64ugxl.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #234631 |
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes: > 360 was all position-independent. In theory there were no absolute > addresses, everything was base-displacement. Change the base register > and Bob's your uncle. Unfortunately there were a couple of gotchas, > address constants being the worst. Also the small range of addresses > available from a single base became limiting as programs got larger. OS/360, etc ... large programs required addresses ... on disk the addresses were relative to position within the program ... but loaders were required to modify the addresses to fixed real addresses in real storage. tss/360 and support for multiple virtual memory address spaces and shared segments wanted the image in memory be exactly the same as the image on disk ... w/o requiring all addresses to be modified as the whole program was swapped into real memory ... but allowing for demand paged in w/o requiring for executable images to be preloaded (and addresses modified for their loaded position). Also not requiring for shared segments to have the same addresses in different virtual addresses spaces. OS/360 MVT in transition to VS2/MVS kept the OS/360 preloading/swapping in executable image and changing location addresses (making the affected pages of the executing image changed). TSS/360 just mapped portions of the virtual address space to the executable image on disk ... and in case of shared segments could just change segment table pointer to that of same shared segment concurrently in use by multiple other virtual address spaces. W/o location independence and requiring executable image to be otherwise preloaded to have address constants to be modified to their executing position ... would have required every executing program image to have unique address across the whole system (or have restricted only have certain executables to be concurrently mapped into the same address space). That is what got me providing page-mapped filesystem for CMS ... and CMS was using OS/360 compilers and assemblers which assumed address constants had to be modified as executables were loaded (had to fiddle the programs so the executables images on disk were identical to the same as executable images mapped to virtual address spaces). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 12:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <10r105k$2aq4c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #234632 |
On 4/6/26 10:39, Lynn Wheeler wrote: > > W/o location independence and requiring executable image to be otherwise > preloaded to have address constants to be modified to their executing > position ... would have required every executing program image to have > unique address across the whole system windows (or have restricted only have > certain executables to be concurrently mapped into the same address > space). VM DCSS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-06 17:41 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502 |
| Message-ID | <87ika3qvwd.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #234633 |
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes: > VM DCSS A lot of the page-mapped filesystem and advanced shared-segments, I updated from CP67 to VM370R2 for my internal CSC/VM ... and very small subset was added to VM370R3 as DCSS. VM370 had been restricted to "IPL by-name" where images were saved in locations defined and disk location specified in DMKSNT. For DCSS a special API interfacing to entires in DMKSNT using several of the things I had extended for page-mapped filesystem shared-segments (some that I had twiddled for location independent ... but wasn't supported by the small subset used for DCSS). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 09:42 -0300 |
| Subject | position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <87ld98c634.fsf_-_@debian> |
| In reply to | #234632 |
Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes: > W/o location independence and requiring executable image to be otherwise > preloaded to have address constants to be modified to their executing > position ... would have required every executing program image to have > unique address across the whole system I’ve never programmed the PDP-8, but, as I understand it, its 7-bit address field in the 12-bit instruction format effectively divides the 4096-word address space into 128-word “pages”. An 8th bit specifies which page the address field is interpreted relative to: either a 6502-like zero page, or the current page. So, in effect, you have two 5-bit “base registers”: one hardwired to 00000, and the other one that’s the high 5 bits of the program counter. (Later PDP-8s extended the address bus to the left and needed additional registers to select which 12-bit memory space you were running in.) To reference words in other pages (again, as I understand it), you would store their absolute 12-bit address in a word in either the zero page or your current page, and set the indirection bit in your instructions to use that address as a pointer. But often you would receive that pointer at run time, for example as a return address or an argument. Mark Smotherman’s PDP-8 background/reference, for afc: <https://mark.people.clemson.edu/subroutines/pdp8.html> It occurred to me that a subroutine or set of related subroutines that fit into a single 128-word page could be “position-independent” merely by containing no absolute 12-bit addresses when loaded. This would not require a PC-relative addressing mode, which would have required an expensive addition operation before the memory access. On a machine with a larger word size, you might be able to fit a whole library on such a “page”, which would act more like a segment. On such a machine, a loader could load libraries onto whatever page it felt like, without requiring any of load-time relocations, globally unique addresses, or PC-relative addressing. Of course, the PDP-8 wasn’t available as an example to follow when the IBM 360 was being designed, and I don’t know of any pre-360 machines that offered such a mechanism. The LINC, in particular, had 12-bit instruction words and 10-bit addresses, and the address field in the three Full Address Class instructions (STC, ADD, and JUMP) was 10 bits, according to <https://mirrors.meulie.net/bitsavers.org/pdf/washingtonUniversity/linc/Programming_the_LINC_Second_Edition_Jan69.pdf>. The Data General Nova, IIRC, expanded the PDP-8’s global/current page bit to a two-bit fields which selected which of four base registers you used as the base address. Smalltalk, originally written on Xerox’s “Alto” clone of the Nova, has a very similar structure in its bytecode — there are bytecodes for fetching constants, local variables, global variables, and instance variables of the current object, and corresponding bytecodes for storing (except for the constants). John Cowan’s 32-bit extension of the PDP-8, the PDP-8/X <https://github.com/johnwcowan/pdp8x/blob/master/arch.md>, has pages of 2048 words instead of 128 words, as well as a BASE register to relocate the zero page to wherever you like and a STACK register so that the standard subroutine call mechanism can become reentrant. You might be able to do some variant of this randomly-placed-page mechanism on a PDP-8/X, but the potential program linkage table (for one page of code to find another) would be huge. Kragen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 15:12 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <874ifu0x9j.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #235573 |
Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> writes:
> I’ve never programmed the PDP-8, but, as I understand it, its 7-bit
> address field in the 12-bit instruction format effectively divides the
> 4096-word address space into 128-word “pages”. An 8th bit specifies
> which page the address field is interpreted relative to: either a
> 6502-like zero page, or the current page. So, in effect, you have two
> 5-bit “base registers”: one hardwired to 00000, and the other one that’s
> the high 5 bits of the program counter. (Later PDP-8s extended the
> address bus to the left and needed additional registers to select which
> 12-bit memory space you were running in.)
OS/360 compilers generated TXT decks that had RLD (relocation directory)
unresolved addresses for other programs that were being loaded in one
large group (their "ESD" entry, the ID of program being referenced and
displacement within the program). The "loader" would resolve the "fixed"
desired addresses (from combination of ESD and displacement) before execution.
CP67/CMS adopted OS/360 compilers (and later VM370/CMS the OS/370
compilers).
By comparison TSS/360 kept an external map for each virtual address
space .... where its programs were loaded. Issue was initially virtual
address space was 16 1mbyte virtual address segments. Somebody might 1st
load the fortran compiler into its segment one and somebody else might
have first loaded something else into segment one and then also wanted
to load the ("same") fortran compiler image into its virtual address
space.
The OS/360 paradigm wouldn't support it ... it needed either
1) a different copy of the fortran compiler image loaded, if it was to
run at different address or
2) had a predefined location for every application in the system (in
order to have virtual address space to have a single shared application
image). With only 16 shared segments, would only be able to have 16
locations for predefined "shared image" application copies.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 01:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <1184vv2$pfs$2@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #235596 |
According to Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>:
>By comparison TSS/360 kept an external map for each virtual address
>space .... where its programs were loaded. Issue was initially virtual
>address space was 16 1mbyte virtual address segments. Somebody might 1st
>load the fortran compiler into its segment one and somebody else might
>have first loaded something else into segment one and then also wanted
>to load the ("same") fortran compiler image into its virtual address
>space.
>
>The OS/360 paradigm wouldn't support it ... it needed either
>
>1) a different copy of the fortran compiler image loaded, if it was to
>run at different address or
>
>2) had a predefined location for every application in the system (in
>order to have virtual address space to have a single shared application
>image). With only 16 shared segments, would only be able to have 16
>locations for predefined "shared image" application copies.
What TSS actually did was to divide each module into position independent
read-only CSECTs and relocatable read-write PSECTs, and extend the calling
sequence so each routine had a pair of addresses, the code address in its
CSECT and the base of its data PSECT. So all of the CSECT pages were
shared, and the PSECT pages had a separate copy in each process.
See my book for more details.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 21:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <11857v2$ar7k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235598 |
On 9/12/26 18:57, John Levine wrote:
> According to Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>:
>> By comparison TSS/360 kept an external map for each virtual address
>> space .... where its programs were loaded. Issue was initially virtual
>> address space was 16 1mbyte virtual address segments. Somebody might 1st
>> load the fortran compiler into its segment one and somebody else might
>> have first loaded something else into segment one and then also wanted
>> to load the ("same") fortran compiler image into its virtual address
>> space.
>>
>> The OS/360 paradigm wouldn't support it ... it needed either
>>
>> 1) a different copy of the fortran compiler image loaded, if it was to
>> run at different address or
>>
>> 2) had a predefined location for every application in the system (in
>> order to have virtual address space to have a single shared application
>> image). With only 16 shared segments, would only be able to have 16
>> locations for predefined "shared image" application copies.
>
> What TSS actually did was to divide each module into position independent
> read-only CSECTs and relocatable read-write PSECTs, and extend the calling
> sequence so each routine had a pair of addresses, the code address in its
> CSECT and the base of its data PSECT. So all of the CSECT pages were
> shared, and the PSECT pages had a separate copy in each process.
>
> See my book for more details.
>
I was going to say something, but I couldn't remember exactly how this
worked. Unfortunately none of the TSS compilers have source available.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 17:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <118h6mn$3icrv$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #235598 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> spake the secret code
<1184vv2$pfs$2@gal.iecc.com> thusly:
>What TSS actually did was to divide each module into position independent
>read-only CSECTs and relocatable read-write PSECTs, and extend the calling
>sequence so each routine had a pair of addresses, the code address in its
>CSECT and the base of its data PSECT. So all of the CSECT pages were
>shared, and the PSECT pages had a separate copy in each process.
>
>See my book for more details.
Which book is that?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 17:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <6RVqS.32437$Sh34.6744@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #235662 |
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes: >John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> spake the secret code ><1184vv2$pfs$2@gal.iecc.com> thusly: > >>What TSS actually did was to divide each module into position independent >>read-only CSECTs and relocatable read-write PSECTs, and extend the calling >>sequence so each routine had a pair of addresses, the code address in its >>CSECT and the base of its data PSECT. So all of the CSECT pages were >>shared, and the PSECT pages had a separate copy in each process. >> >>See my book for more details. > >Which book is that? Why not ask google? Takes about 5 seconds to get the answer. Hint: program loader
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 14:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <118jgl4$3n6t9$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #235663 |
slp53@pacbell.net spake the secret code
<6RVqS.32437$Sh34.6744@fx03.iad> thusly:
>legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:
>>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> spake the secret code
>><1184vv2$pfs$2@gal.iecc.com> thusly:
>>
>>>What TSS actually did was to divide each module into position independent
>>>read-only CSECTs and relocatable read-write PSECTs, and extend the calling
>>>sequence so each routine had a pair of addresses, the code address in its
>>>CSECT and the base of its data PSECT. So all of the CSECT pages were
>>>shared, and the PSECT pages had a separate copy in each process.
>>>
>>>See my book for more details.
>>
>>Which book is that?
>
>Why not ask google?
Because I'm having a conversation with a human being?
>Takes about 5 seconds to get the answer.
It took you longer to scold me than it would've taken you to share the
answer to my question.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 19:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: position-independent code (was Re: CMS, Self-hosting and the 6502) |
| Message-ID | <118jvuk$1g32n$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235665 |
On 2026-09-18, Richard wrote: > slp53@pacbell.net spake the secret code > <6RVqS.32437$Sh34.6744@fx03.iad> thusly: > >>legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes: >>>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> spake the secret code >>><1184vv2$pfs$2@gal.iecc.com> thusly: >>> >>>>What TSS actually did was to divide each module into position independent >>>>read-only CSECTs and relocatable read-write PSECTs, and extend the calling >>>>sequence so each routine had a pair of addresses, the code address in its >>>>CSECT and the base of its data PSECT. So all of the CSECT pages were >>>>shared, and the PSECT pages had a separate copy in each process. >>>> >>>>See my book for more details. >>> >>>Which book is that? >> >>Why not ask google? > > Because I'm having a conversation with a human being? > >>Takes about 5 seconds to get the answer. > > It took you longer to scold me than it would've taken you to share the > answer to my question. +1, and also I think you're putting too much faith in Google Web Search being able to provide relevant results. I can't see how well does it fare myself because Google really really wants search users to run Javascript. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web