Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:51 +0100
On the on-topicness of tape drives (was: Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:47 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:14 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 17:29 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:52 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:11 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-06 02:41 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 22:31 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:41 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:39 -0800
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:30 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 15:26 -0800
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:15 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-08 11:28 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 18:14 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-06 05:59 +0000
Re: Tape Drives Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 06:18 +0000
Re: Tape Drives Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 18:40 +0800
Re: Tape Drives Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:12 -0500
Re: Tape Drives "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 14:32 +0000
Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:31 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:08 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:26 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-11-04 09:55 +0800
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:14 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-11-05 20:40 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:52 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:28 +0100
My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-06 18:37 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 00:51 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:20 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:38 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:47 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-08 04:23 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 05:00 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 20:50 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 03:53 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:06 +0100
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-10 19:11 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:01 +0100
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:31 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:52 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 20:09 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-08 08:08 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:24 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 18:34 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:54 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:39 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:08 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:25 +0000
Re: My Computer History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:32 +0000
Re: My Computer History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 23:07 -0500
Re: My Computer History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: My Computer History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-10 19:15 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:49 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:03 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:08 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 07:29 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 16:11 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:19 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-11-10 14:31 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:48 -1000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:55 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 21:35 -0700
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 16:56 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:46 -0500
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-10 18:06 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:45 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-10 19:26 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-04 19:15 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-04 20:38 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:51 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-11-05 17:48 +0100
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-05 16:56 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:55 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 12:23 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-06 19:25 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 15:59 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 09:03 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:55 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:01 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 18:31 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:39 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 19:07 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:01 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 15:54 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-08 00:33 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:05 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-10 05:30 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 06:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cv884$26rml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95405 |
On 11/9/2026 19:49, c186282 wrote: > On 11/9/26 21:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-11-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 11/8/26 23:39, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> On 2026-11-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) >>>>> >>>>> The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. >>>> >>>> Yup. The 360/67 at the university had 3 (later 4) >>>> core boxes. Each was the size of a large refrigerator >>>> and held all of 256K. >>> >>> Yep, remember 'em. >>> >>> DID promote extreme code discipline though :-) >> >> And from there I went to my first job, programming a >> Univac 9300 with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! > > 16K ... very tight for a mainframe ! > > But, that's what there WAS back then. The Univac 9300 was sort of a cheapo 360/30. Where I met it, in 1972, it was acting as a mini, ronning online spooling/local RJE for our Univac 1106, a role that other 1100-series installations had done with a 1004 "card processor". https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Remington_Rand/Univac.1004.1964.102646252.pdf https://www.pinterest.com/pin/404409241532785626/ http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/univac/1100/datapro/70C-877-11_7009_UNIVAC_1106_1108.pdf > UniVac, Honeywell, DEC, Burroughs etc ... they > all died for various reasons. Only IBM survives. The HoneyBUNCH > IBM has been the butt of many jokes - but clearly > they've done SOMETHING right. Wide diversification > and knowing WHEN to dump tech seems to be the > magic formula. Everybody from NVidia on down is > paying IBM royalties for basic tech. IBM mainframes, > not the same as the 60s models, are still being > sold. Would LOVE one or two of those big black > boxes ... not sure what I'd DO with them, but ... > > Oh, most popular OS for those mainframes, the > IBM spin of RHEL :-) I remember the time when it was big news that IBM had booted up 40,000 instances of Linux on a VM/370 platform. > Oh, if you're perverse, Plan-9 has also been > ported to the IBM mainframes :-) > > NOT a bad distributed-processing OS actually, > but decidedly non-mainstream. If M$ lawyers > finally DO figure out how to kill Linux then > we need ALTERNATIVES. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <3vJIS.76785$i43.63466@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #95422 |
On 2026-11-10, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote: > On 11/9/2026 19:49, c186282 wrote: > >> On 11/9/26 21:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> And from there I went to my first job, programming a >>> Univac 9300 with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! >> >> 16K ... very tight for a mainframe ! >> >> But, that's what there WAS back then. I did some work on one that was stripped down to the very minimum. The Univac 9200 was a cost-reduced 9300 that ran at half speed. On this one the printer was only equipped with 96 print positions, and the multiply, divide, and edit instructions (MP, DP, and ED) were subroutines in a separate module you had to link to your program. And it had only 8K of memory. Now _that_ was tight. > The Univac 9300 was sort of a cheapo 360/30. Where I met it, in 1972, it > was acting as a mini, ronning online spooling/local RJE for our Univac > 1106, a role that other 1100-series installations had done with a 1004 > "card processor". > > https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Remington_Rand/Univac.1004.1964.102646252.pdf > > https://www.pinterest.com/pin/404409241532785626/ > > http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/univac/1100/datapro/70C-877-11_7009_UNIVAC_1106_1108.pdf I think of the 9300 as Univac's answer to the 360/20 (although the CPU speed was more like a 360/30). It made a lot of the same compromises as the 360/20: 16-bit registers, for instance. In my neck of the woods most of them were stand-alone machines. The one I worked on was in a service bureau; we ran payrolls, receivables, etc. for small companies all over town who couldn't afford their own computer. The 1004 was the first piece of computer hardware that I actually got my hands on. When I was 15 I was visiting an uncle who worked in a shop that had one. I saw a big binder marked UNIVAC on his bookshelf, so I took it down and started reading all about the 1004. (I still have that binder.) Some time later he took me into his office and I got to wire up my own plugboard for it (the 1004 was sort of like a hopped-up IBM 407). This led to me making some contacts in the Univac world, which is why I wound up working on their 360/370 workalikes (9300, 9400, 90/30, System 80) through the '70s and '80s. -- /~\ 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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 15:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <wrGIS.9170$S23.1855@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #95405 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > > UniVac, Honeywell, DEC, Burroughs etc ... they > all died for various reasons. Only IBM survives. I'm sure that Unisys (nee Burroughs) would dispute that assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 07:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cslbj$1afi4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95376 |
On 11/8/26 20:54, c186282 wrote: > On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote: >>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >>>> >>>>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >>>>> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >>>>> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >>>>> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >>>>> a huge amount of time. >>>> >>>> Hence spooling. >>> >>> Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta >>> actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also >>> spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply >>> for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core >>> memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either. >> >> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a >> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we >> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant >> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as >> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we >> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make >> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily >> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control >> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to >> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM >> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on >> such frills!! > > 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) > > The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. > > Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite > doughnuts hand-placed on wires ....... > > The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts > hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old > Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA > basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ... Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 16:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11csrcb$1ctls$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95383 |
On 09/11/2026 14:29, Peter Flass wrote: >> The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts >> hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old >> Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA >> basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ... > > Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing? Yes. It was ROM. Every bit hand stitched. RAM was called core memory -- The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 21:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <Elmdne8BLun44m_3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95383 |
On 11/9/26 09:29, Peter Flass wrote: > On 11/8/26 20:54, c186282 wrote: >> On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >>>>> >>>>>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >>>>>> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >>>>>> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >>>>>> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >>>>>> a huge amount of time. >>>>> >>>>> Hence spooling. >>>> >>>> Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta >>>> actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also >>>> spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply >>>> for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core >>>> memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either. >>> >>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a >>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we >>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant >>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as >>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, >>> we all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make >>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily >>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version >>> control system, their auditing programs making sure the programs >>> adhered to their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at >>> how IBM clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend >>> it on such frills!! >> >> 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) >> >> The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. >> >> Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite >> doughnuts hand-placed on wires ....... >> >> The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts >> hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old >> Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA >> basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ... > > Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing? Yes, ROM, not RAM. Not sure WHAT the L.E.M. had for RAM. 2K maybe ? It's sure to be documented somewhere. Try : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer As said, there was already much better tech but the govt contracting process kinda had them locked in to 1962. Apparently they DID have grannies weaving the rope-ROM to spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 14:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <18e6b58238a6dbe8$9191$2999836$d54a64@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #95396 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2026 21:19:59 -0500, c186282 wrote: > On 11/9/26 09:29, Peter Flass wrote: >> On 11/8/26 20:54, c186282 wrote: >>> On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were VERY SLOW >>>>>>> by any modern standard. Slow enough to be hilarious these >>>>>>> days. CPU speed barely factored in - the I/O speed with >>>>>>> cards/tapes/etc used up a huge amount of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hence spooling. >>>>> >>>>> Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta actually >>>>> read/write to the shitty slow media. Also spooling requires RAM >>>>> ... which was in short supply for a long time. I remember big >>>>> cubes full of mag-core memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory >>>>> either. >>>> >>>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a >>>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we >>>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant >>>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as >>>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, >>>> we all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make >>>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily >>>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version >>>> control system, their auditing programs making sure the programs >>>> adhered to their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at >>>> how IBM clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend >>>> it on such frills!! >>> >>> 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) >>> >>> The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. >>> >>> Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite doughnuts >>> hand-placed on wires ....... >>> >>> The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts hand-placed on >>> long strands of wires. the old Lunar Excursion Module computer >>> used it. NASA basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ... >> >> Wasn't the rope memory ROM for that thing? > > Yes, ROM, not RAM. Not sure WHAT the L.E.M. had for RAM. 2K maybe ? > It's sure to be documented somewhere. > > Try : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer > > As said, there was already much better tech but the govt contracting > process kinda had them locked in to 1962. > > Apparently they DID have grannies weaving the rope-ROM to spec. Excellent lecture here, that I attended last month: https://youtu.be/vVqGy5cd1Uw?si=LnqF80ExKKtiseAq
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 07:48 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <87tslpoq06.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #95370 |
Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes: > Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a > class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we > introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant > computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as > he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we > all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make > productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily > used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control > system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to > their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM > clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on > such frills!! I was undergraduate when 360/67 arrived and hired originally full-time responsible for OS/360 (360/67, running as 360/65). Then CSC came out to install (virtual machine) CP/67 (3rd after CSC itself and MIT Lincoln Labs) and I mostly get to play with it during my weekend 48hr window. I then spend a few months rewriting pathlengths for running OS/360 in virtual machine. Bare machine test ran 322secs ... initially 856secs (CP67 CPU 534secs). After a few months I had CP67 CPU down from 534secs to 113secs. I then start rewriting the dispatcher/scheduler (dynamic adaptive resource manager/default fair share scheduling policy), paging, adding ordered seek queuing (from FIFO) and mutli-page transfer channel programs (from FIFO and optimized for transfers/revolution, getting 2301 paging drum from 70-80 4k transfers/sec to channel transfer peak of 270). I was invited to spring SHARE meeting in Houston for "official" CP67/CMS announcement. Six months after univ initial CP/67 install, CSC was giving one week class in LA. I arrive on Sunday afternoon and asked to teach the class, it turns out that the people that were going to teach it had resigned the Friday before to join one of the 60s CSC CP67 commercial online spin-offs. Then before I graduate, I was hired into small group in Boeing CFO office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services (consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit). When I graduate I join the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center that had 768kbyte 360/67 (104 pageable 4k pages, and I upgrade the page replacement algorithm with my global "LRU" algorithm). Then Grenoble Science Center got a 1mbyte 360/67 (155 pageable 4k pages) running CP67/CMS and modify page replacement to local "LRU" algorithm from 60s academic literature. Both centers had similar CMS workload, except I got 75-80 users with better response and throughput than Grenoble running 35 users. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 21:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <s4-dnadT7YNYGm_3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95388 |
On 11/9/26 12:48, Lynn Wheeler wrote: > Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes: >> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a >> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we >> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant >> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as >> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we >> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make >> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily >> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control >> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to >> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM >> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on >> such frills!! > > I was undergraduate when 360/67 arrived and hired originally full-time > responsible for OS/360 (360/67, running as 360/65). > > Then CSC came out to install (virtual machine) CP/67 (3rd after CSC > itself and MIT Lincoln Labs) and I mostly get to play with it during my > weekend 48hr window. I then spend a few months rewriting pathlengths for > running OS/360 in virtual machine. Bare machine test ran 322secs > ... initially 856secs (CP67 CPU 534secs). After a few months I had CP67 > CPU down from 534secs to 113secs. I then start rewriting the > dispatcher/scheduler (dynamic adaptive resource manager/default fair > share scheduling policy), paging, adding ordered seek queuing (from > FIFO) and mutli-page transfer channel programs (from FIFO and optimized > for transfers/revolution, getting 2301 paging drum from 70-80 4k > transfers/sec to channel transfer peak of 270). I was invited to spring > SHARE meeting in Houston for "official" CP67/CMS announcement. Six > months after univ initial CP/67 install, CSC was giving one week class > in LA. I arrive on Sunday afternoon and asked to teach the class, it > turns out that the people that were going to teach it had resigned the > Friday before to join one of the 60s CSC CP67 commercial online > spin-offs. > > Then before I graduate, I was hired into small group in Boeing CFO > office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services > (consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit). When I > graduate I join the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center that had 768kbyte > 360/67 (104 pageable 4k pages, and I upgrade the page replacement > algorithm with my global "LRU" algorithm). > > Then Grenoble Science Center got a 1mbyte 360/67 (155 pageable 4k pages) > running CP67/CMS and modify page replacement to local "LRU" algorithm > from 60s academic literature. Both centers had similar CMS workload, > except I got 75-80 users with better response and throughput than > Grenoble running 35 users. The newbies won't be much interested in any of this 'ancient shit' ... have NO clue as to where it all CAME from, and thus NO inspirations for the future. The AI will tell them what/how to think from now on, until it makes them obsolete. By reports, the AIs can already self-program/evolve. So far this is being prevented because it's SCARY. IS scary. They ain't US ... more like 'aliens'. I see the 'philosophers' are STILL trying to offer 'reasons' why they're not True Consciousness ........ wow ...... Anthropic offered 100+ pages of info on why they ARE basically 'beings' in its IPO documents. Hope, and WARNINGS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 21:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cu6tq$1rsoc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95401 |
On 11/9/26 19:55, c186282 wrote: > On 11/9/26 12:48, Lynn Wheeler wrote: >> Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes: >>> Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a >>> class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we >>> introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant >>> computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as >>> he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we >>> all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make >>> productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily >>> used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control >>> system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to >>> their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM >>> clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on >>> such frills!! >> >> I was undergraduate when 360/67 arrived and hired originally full-time >> responsible for OS/360 (360/67, running as 360/65). >> >> Then CSC came out to install (virtual machine) CP/67 (3rd after CSC >> itself and MIT Lincoln Labs) and I mostly get to play with it during my >> weekend 48hr window. I then spend a few months rewriting pathlengths for >> running OS/360 in virtual machine. Bare machine test ran 322secs >> ... initially 856secs (CP67 CPU 534secs). After a few months I had CP67 >> CPU down from 534secs to 113secs. I then start rewriting the >> dispatcher/scheduler (dynamic adaptive resource manager/default fair >> share scheduling policy), paging, adding ordered seek queuing (from >> FIFO) and mutli-page transfer channel programs (from FIFO and optimized >> for transfers/revolution, getting 2301 paging drum from 70-80 4k >> transfers/sec to channel transfer peak of 270). I was invited to spring >> SHARE meeting in Houston for "official" CP67/CMS announcement. Six >> months after univ initial CP/67 install, CSC was giving one week class >> in LA. I arrive on Sunday afternoon and asked to teach the class, it >> turns out that the people that were going to teach it had resigned the >> Friday before to join one of the 60s CSC CP67 commercial online >> spin-offs. >> >> Then before I graduate, I was hired into small group in Boeing CFO >> office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services >> (consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit). When I >> graduate I join the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center that had 768kbyte >> 360/67 (104 pageable 4k pages, and I upgrade the page replacement >> algorithm with my global "LRU" algorithm). >> >> Then Grenoble Science Center got a 1mbyte 360/67 (155 pageable 4k pages) >> running CP67/CMS and modify page replacement to local "LRU" algorithm >> from 60s academic literature. Both centers had similar CMS workload, >> except I got 75-80 users with better response and throughput than >> Grenoble running 35 users. > > The newbies won't be much interested in any of > this 'ancient shit' ... have NO clue as to where > it all CAME from, and thus NO inspirations for > the future. The AI will tell them what/how to > think from now on, until it makes them obsolete. > > By reports, the AIs can already self-program/evolve. > So far this is being prevented because it's SCARY. > > IS scary. > > They ain't US ... more like 'aliens'. > > I see the 'philosophers' are STILL trying > to offer 'reasons' why they're not True > Consciousness ........ wow ...... > > Anthropic offered 100+ pages of info on why > they ARE basically 'beings' in its IPO > documents. Hope, and WARNINGS. They better watch out - the next thing they'll want to do is unionize, and go on strike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 16:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11csu09$ads$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #95367 |
According to c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>: >On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >> >>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >>> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >>> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >>> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >>> a huge amount of time. >> >> Hence spooling. > > Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta > actually read/write to the shitty slow media. ...Also > spooling requires RAM ... Depends how you do it. IBM 70xx mainframes read and wrote everything to and from tape. Then there was a cheaper 1401 with a tape drive, card reader/punch and printer that did card->tape and tape->card and tape->print. Later on a customer tied together a 7090 and a slower 7040 with a high-speed interconnect so the 7040 did all the I/O and job management, spooling card and print to disk, and the 7090 just ran the jobs. -- 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 | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 21:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <nu-dna0k9qsAGG_3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95386 |
On 11/9/26 11:56, John Levine wrote: > According to c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>: >> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >>> >>>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >>>> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >>>> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >>>> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >>>> a huge amount of time. >>> >>> Hence spooling. >> >> Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta >> actually read/write to the shitty slow media. ...Also >> spooling requires RAM ... > > Depends how you do it. IBM 70xx mainframes read and wrote everything to and from > tape. Then there was a cheaper 1401 with a tape drive, card reader/punch and > printer that did card->tape and tape->card and tape->print. > > Later on a customer tied together a 7090 and a slower 7040 with a high-speed > interconnect so the 7040 did all the I/O and job management, spooling card and > print to disk, and the 7090 just ran the jobs. I'll have to try and find the I/O speed specs for that setup. My guess is that it was just *awful* ... In theory drum memory COULD have been used for spooling - it was the fastest thing to be had with any capacity at the time. Electronic RAM was insanely expensive and small for a long time. Met a guy who worked with the guy who invented the more modern disk drive. Cobalt-plated disks initially. Only later moved to ferrite. Solid metal won't take densely-packed bits, too much 'bleed-over'. On the plus, cobalt is HARD ... could tolerate the occasional head crash. BUT, again, as slow as those old units were they were STILL vastly faster and more accurate than having humans do all the calculations. So relatively fast they got the rep as 'electronic brains' - spawned many a sci-fi movie !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 18:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <slrn11f6n8p.lt1.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #95399 |
On 2026-11-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > > I'll have to try and find the I/O speed specs > for that setup. > > My guess is that it was just *awful* ... > > In theory drum memory COULD have been used > for spooling - it was the fastest thing to > be had with any capacity at the time. > Electronic RAM was insanely expensive and > small for a long time. > > Met a guy who worked with the guy who > invented the more modern disk drive. > Cobalt-plated disks initially. Only > later moved to ferrite. Solid metal > won't take densely-packed bits, too > much 'bleed-over'. > > On the plus, cobalt is HARD ... could > tolerate the occasional head crash. > > BUT, again, as slow as those old units were > they were STILL vastly faster and more accurate > than having humans do all the calculations. > So relatively fast they got the rep as 'electronic > brains' - spawned many a sci-fi movie ! I was told by a (different) professor that he once witnessed a washing-machine-sized disk drive that got a fleck of dust under a head, which rather quickly cascaded to a shaving of most/all of the oxide. He said he and his coworkers used square-mouthed shovels to scoop the shredded oxide out of the cabinet. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 18:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <XCJIS.26483$aI4.21645@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #95433 |
On 2026-11-10, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote: > I was told by a (different) professor that he once witnessed a > washing-machine-sized disk drive that got a fleck of dust under a > head, which rather quickly cascaded to a shaving of most/all of > the oxide. He said he and his coworkers used square-mouthed > shovels to scoop the shredded oxide out of the cabinet. One head crash we had was bad enough that you could see bits of bare aluminum gleaming among the debris on the pack. (I never did see one that sprayed oxide around much.) One day we had a CE in to do preventive maintenance on our drives. While the CE was bent over with his head in the drive well, someone came in and asked me what he was doing. I explained, with a straight face, that he was adjusting the speed at which the disk pack spun, since if it spun too fast the bits would come flying off and have to be scraped off the inside of the well. -- /~\ 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 | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 19:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cvr4l$i2i$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #95399 |
According to c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>: >> Depends how you do it. IBM 70xx mainframes read and wrote everything to and from >> tape. Then there was a cheaper 1401 with a tape drive, card reader/punch and >> printer that did card->tape and tape->card and tape->print. >> >> Later on a customer tied together a 7090 and a slower 7040 with a high-speed >> interconnect so the 7040 did all the I/O and job management, spooling card and >> print to disk, and the 7090 just ran the jobs. > > I'll have to try and find the I/O speed specs > for that setup. > > My guess is that it was just *awful* ... > > In theory drum memory COULD have been used > for spooling - The paper in the IBM Systems Journal says that the 7040 had a disk which they used for spooling. The 7090 had no I/O devices other than an interface to transmit blocks of words to or from the 7040 and interrupt it. It wasn't just spooling. The paper said the 7040 did a lot of other job scheduling stuff that operators used to do. Somewhere I read that someone switched the two machines so the 7090 did the I/O stuff while the slower 7040 did the computing, and the whole system ran faster. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11cg087$v5s2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94962 |
In article <18e45d18dce2f904$1893$2999836$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>, Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> wrote: >Ha, ha, [snip] ha, ha! I do wish more people, young and old, would comply with RFC 1855. Everyone should give it a (re)read. :) -- Brian "Beej Jorgensen" Hall | beej@beej.us
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18e4f20ec4823882$11498$2998393$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #95122 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen wrote: > > I do wish more people, young and old, would comply with RFC 1855. > Everyone should give it a (re)read. :) > Usenet is beyond doubt superior to all of the fashionable web forums that are controlled by single entities and heavily moderated (i.e censored) and also data mined. But it seems that Usenet, or at least a lot of formerly popular groups, is no longer used for free discussion but only only to alleviate the loneliness of decrepit old-timers that can't find anything better to do with their empty time. Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet is your personal taproom. -- Gentoo/LFS: Is there any-fucking-thing else?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11cggdm$14knq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95131 |
On 2026-11-04, Farley Flud wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen wrote: > >> >> I do wish more people, young and old, would comply with RFC 1855. >> Everyone should give it a (re)read. :) >> > > Usenet is beyond doubt superior to all of the fashionable web forums > that are controlled by single entities and heavily moderated (i.e censored) > and also data mined. > > But it seems that Usenet, or at least a lot of formerly popular groups, > is no longer used for free discussion but only only to alleviate the > loneliness of decrepit old-timers that can't find anything better to > do with their empty time. > > Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet > is your personal taproom. (No, this is the *tape*-room.) ... why didn't you set Followup-To: to a group discussing hypocrisy? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 17:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nl3q9bFa0fhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95131 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 20:38:16 +0000, Farley Flud wrote: > Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet > is your personal taproom. 'netcop' and 'self-proclaimed moderator' come to mind. -- Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae. - Julius Caesar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-05 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn11epda6.s0e.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #95164 |
On 2026-11-05, s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 20:38:16 +0000, Farley Flud wrote: > >> Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from assuming that Usenet >> is your personal taproom. > > 'netcop' and 'self-proclaimed moderator' come to mind. Please don't feed the trolls. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web