Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 645 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 00:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 21:53 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 01:31 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 06:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 05:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:31 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:05 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:46 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-17 08:26 -0500
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 12:19 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:30 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 14:40 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:17 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:30 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:19 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:10 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 15:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:37 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:03 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:02 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-23 18:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:12 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:24 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:50 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:17 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 17:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:03 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 12:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-23 18:31 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-24 00:17 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:58 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 03:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:37 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:59 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:20 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:09 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-20 13:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 09:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-21 14:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 19:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:22 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 14:02 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 15:17 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 20:06 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 11:49 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 15:09 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 10:37 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 09:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:04 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 20:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 02:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 10:51 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 14:18 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 17:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:20 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:46 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 09:01 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 20:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-20 19:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-20 18:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:27 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 03:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:25 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-23 18:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-24 00:47 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 16:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-22 07:18 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-22 13:44 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 15:59 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-22 13:48 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-23 07:08 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-23 14:11 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-23 09:28 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-23 14:49 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 15:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 15:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-22 20:04 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:15 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:36 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 14:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:16 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-16 08:41 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 23:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:31 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 13:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 11:39 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:58 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 20:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 22:30 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:50 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:41 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:00 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:57 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:24 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:27 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:41 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:45 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:05 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:25 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-10-19 17:18 -0300
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Helmut Waitzmann <nn.throttle@erine.email> - 2026-10-21 00:54 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-23 18:50 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-23 23:59 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:53 +0200
Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-24 12:10 +0000
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 00:28 -0400
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 06:20 +0100
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 03:38 -0400
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 05:01 +0100
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-27 12:24 -0400
[OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 01:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 05:26 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-28 19:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 00:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-29 12:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 03:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 19:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 23:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-31 04:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:40 +0100
Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 10:49 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-31 13:11 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 19:53 +0100
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0100
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 22:41 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 12:31 +0100
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-11-01 20:50 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-31 14:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 16:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 22:11 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 04:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:22 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 12:59 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) FF <fflud@linux.rocks> - 2026-11-01 18:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:32 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:24 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 04:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 08:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 22:29 +0000
Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 01:08 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 13:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-11-01 10:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 22:27 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:57 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 13:07 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 22:32 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:35 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:22 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 03:02 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:50 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:28 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:14 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:18 -0500
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 08:40 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:31 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 18:32 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 19:51 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 16:49 -0800
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Josef Möllers <josef@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-28 17:01 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 17:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-28 18:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-10-28 23:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 00:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 00:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 22:36 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 09:13 -0700
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-29 18:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 04:00 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-10-29 17:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-29 20:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-10-29 21:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-10-30 15:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 00:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-30 04:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-30 11:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-30 17:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-30 17:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-30 18:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-30 20:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 04:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-01 10:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:35 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:50 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 20:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-03 16:38 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 08:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:29 -0700
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 02:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 18:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 16:45 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 21:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 02:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 04:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 14:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 06:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-02 17:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 20:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 03:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:03 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-03 16:42 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 19:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 01:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:41 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:11 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 11:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:02 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 18:06 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 22:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 22:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-11-03 23:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:29 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 21:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:01 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 04:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 09:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 23:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 21:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 19:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:07 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-03 14:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-03 19:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-03 07:31 -0700
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-04 02:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-03 05:28 -0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:00 +0000
Re: [OT] what's a mini, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-03 23:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 17:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:36 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-03 07:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-03 21:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-02 15:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:16 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:49 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 16:42 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 20:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 12:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-31 18:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-31 18:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 04:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 03:58 -0400
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 00:57 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-24 13:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:31 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-25 23:49 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 06:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 03:15 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 04:42 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 12:06 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-25 23:59 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 06:41 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 03:50 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 02:44 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:16 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 02:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:37 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 22:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 09:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:01 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:59 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 01:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 22:25 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 11:29 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:34 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 18:51 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 19:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 22:24 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 15:47 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 18:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 03:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 11:31 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:09 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:58 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 21:43 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:22 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 10:42 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:09 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 16:28 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:30 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-21 06:24 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:38 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-18 23:44 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-19 09:54 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-19 10:55 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 00:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-20 08:08 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 07:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 18:06 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 02:59 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 07:16 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 02:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 19:47 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 00:22 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:14 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:17 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:47 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:47 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:25 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 09:01 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:17 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:31 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:55 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 02:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:06 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:36 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:35 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:18 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 12:12 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 13:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-16 23:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:54 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:58 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:25 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000
Page 20 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 33 Next page →
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 07:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11ccrfk$3r5mg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95010 |
On 11/3/26 06:26, David Wade wrote: > On 03/11/2026 12:02, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> On 2026-11-03 12:49, Pancho wrote: >>> On 11/3/26 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> >>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>> >>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>> >>>> What it is exactly they do, I don't know. >>>> >>> >>> I'm too young for mainframes, but I always assumed they were for >>> running legacy systems that people couldn't be bothered to port to >>> new hardware/ architectures. >>> >>> FWIW, my guess is that "high i/o" and "very large" is only by the >>> standards of mainframe programmers. >> >> No, it is really high i/o and very large databases. I saw some figures >> once and they were impressive. >> > > IBM built a lot of intelligence into the IO subsystem. There are > multiple IO processors, once known as channels, which move data to and > from devices. They are controlled by a channel program which can perform > multiple IOs so a single IO request can read or write multiple blocks of > data from a tape or disk to or from different locations in memory with > the main CPU only getting involved when they are all complete. > > So I don't know if this happens in practice but in theory if you want to > page out one chunk of store and page in another you can do that with a > single IO request. Lynne Wheeler could probably comment on this better than I, but I think that for years now (decades?) paging subsystems have been optimized to handle several operations in one I/O request.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 18:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkuikpFeeegU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95010 |
On 2026-11-03 14:26, David Wade wrote:
> On 03/11/2026 12:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-11-03 12:49, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 11/3/26 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me
>>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers.
>>>>
>>>> They need high i/o with very large databases.
>>>>
>>>> What it is exactly they do, I don't know.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm too young for mainframes, but I always assumed they were for
>>> running legacy systems that people couldn't be bothered to port to
>>> new hardware/ architectures.
>>>
>>> FWIW, my guess is that "high i/o" and "very large" is only by the
>>> standards of mainframe programmers.
>>
>> No, it is really high i/o and very large databases. I saw some figures
>> once and they were impressive.
>>
>
> IBM built a lot of intelligence into the IO subsystem. There are
> multiple IO processors, once known as channels, which move data to and
> from devices. They are controlled by a channel program which can perform
> multiple IOs so a single IO request can read or write multiple blocks of
> data from a tape or disk to or from different locations in memory with
> the main CPU only getting involved when they are all complete.
>
> So I don't know if this happens in practice but in theory if you want to
> page out one chunk of store and page in another you can do that with a
> single IO request.
>
> Just to tweak things a bit further, if you have multiple disks,
> controlled by a single controller, the controller can process multiple
> IO requests. To optimise this it also has Rotational Position Sensing so
> it can optimise the order in which they are processed.
>
> Modern machines, of course use Fibre to connect the IO devices but back
> in the day all this was connected via Bus and Tag channels which ran at
> 4Mbytes/sec, so 32Mbits with no contention.
>
> Oh and for terminal IO the link to the screen runs at 1.5MBits/sec so
> rather faster than any minicomputer link.
>
> of course this complexity cam at a cost...
And extra cost by ensuring it is reliable.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 21:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdl3c$63m2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95020 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 18:06:33 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > And extra cost by ensuring it is reliable. Very expensive way of ensuring reliability. Google ensures reliability by running (as of a count in a paper published a decade or two ago) about half a million servers. So, at any moment, a dozen or a hundred of them are down; so what? The customers don’t notice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 21:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdl0f$63m2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95010 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 13:26:01 +0000, David Wade wrote: > IBM built a lot of intelligence into the IO subsystem. There are > multiple IO processors, once known as channels, which move data to > and from devices. They are controlled by a channel program which can > perform multiple IOs so a single IO request can read or write > multiple blocks of data from a tape or disk to or from different > locations in memory with the main CPU only getting involved when > they are all complete. All about high throughput, at the expense of high latency. Also there was this assumption that CPU power was scarce and expensive, so the more the I/O devices could manage on their own without bothering the CPU, the better. This model stopped making sense in the 1980s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 14:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11ccr4q$3ql8a$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95008 |
On 03/11/2026 12:02, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-11-03 12:49, Pancho wrote: >> On 11/3/26 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>> >>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>> >>> What it is exactly they do, I don't know. >>> >> >> I'm too young for mainframes, but I always assumed they were for >> running legacy systems that people couldn't be bothered to port to new >> hardware/ architectures. >> >> FWIW, my guess is that "high i/o" and "very large" is only by the >> standards of mainframe programmers. > > No, it is really high i/o and very large databases. I saw some figures > once and they were impressive. > +1 TTT Trillions of Trivial Transactions ... -- “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 14:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11ccr33$3ql8a$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95006 |
On 03/11/2026 11:49, Pancho wrote: > On 11/3/26 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >> >> They need high i/o with very large databases. >> >> What it is exactly they do, I don't know. >> > > I'm too young for mainframes, but I always assumed they were for running > legacy systems that people couldn't be bothered to port to new > hardware/architectures. > > FWIW, my guess is that "high i/o" and "very large" is only by the > standards of mainframe programmers. You would guess wrong then Think about the number of people a second swiping their cards or applePay wotsits across terminals... Each transaction is trivial: post a debit, with details of where the debt is incurred, and check against customer balance and overdraft limits, and issue - or deny - authorisation, But you are talking millions per second. All of which demand instant response. All of which access centralised databases that cant be split across machines -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdmed$3jp2i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95012 |
On 11/3/26 14:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/11/2026 11:49, Pancho wrote: >> On 11/3/26 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>> >>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>> >>> What it is exactly they do, I don't know. >>> >> >> I'm too young for mainframes, but I always assumed they were for >> running legacy systems that people couldn't be bothered to port to new >> hardware/architectures. >> >> FWIW, my guess is that "high i/o" and "very large" is only by the >> standards of mainframe programmers. > > You would guess wrong then > Think about the number of people a second swiping their cards or > applePay wotsits across terminals... > Each transaction is trivial: post a debit, with details of where the > debt is incurred, and check against customer balance and overdraft > limits, and issue - or deny - authorisation, > But you are talking millions per second. All of which demand instant > response. All of which access centralised databases that cant be split > across machines > Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are nowadays. My impression was the old software worked reliably, throwing more modern hardware at it was the cheapest solution... But there are better ways to do things. Modern companies like Stripe, will be using the same modern hardware as everyone else. I can't see why financial transactions are a heavier burden than other computing transactions, webservers. If you want heavy usage, I would guess bank risk calcs, weather calcs, lots of science applications, running on compute grids, (or whatever the modern word is), blow this mainframe high i/o away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdo9b$1qa8$2@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #95046 |
According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>> >>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>> ... >Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, >to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are >nowadays. Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel is easy. Making the write part is not. If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example -- 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 | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Mainframes, Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdq3l$1g9ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95049 |
On 11/3/26 22:47, John Levine wrote: > According to Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>: >>>>> I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me >>>>> they are in high need of good assembler programmers. >>>>> >>>>> They need high i/o with very large databases. >>>>> ... > >> Traditional banking transactions almost certainly could be parallelised, >> to quite a high degree, whether they were or not, I don't know. They are >> nowadays. > > Only up to a point. Making the read part of databases run in parallel > is easy. Making the write part is not. > > If you have $100 in your bank account, and two $75 debit transactions > arrive at the same time, if the result is anything other than that one > succeeded and the other failed*, your bank has a problem. The reason they > need very fast very large databases is that updates have to be serialized > and there's no way to make them faster than the underlying system. Same > for airlines allocating seats and any other database reflecting a real world > application where there's a finite amount of something to be parcelled out. > > > > * - yes I know about overdrafts, this is an example Erm, yep, sequential transactions on my account, but why does everyone else's account need to be on the same database/compute server as my account? If A and B are doing a transaction, that has nothing to do with me, it can be done in parallel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 20:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdg7h$46jl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95005 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 12:45:09 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I know at least one guy working on IBM mainframes, and he tells me > they are in high need of good assembler programmers. > > They need high i/o with very large databases. Something not quite right there. Hand-coded assembly language only makes sense for minimizing CPU usage. If you’re doing lots of I/O, then the CPU is not the bottleneck, so trying to hand-tune assembly code is a waste of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 00:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cb55p$2e740$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94928 |
On 2026-11-02 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 02/11/2026 08:41, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-11-02 07:28, c186282 wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> WOULD love one or two of those big black IBM >>> mainframe units. Not sure what I'd DO with >>> them, but they'd be SO cool ! >> >> :-) >> >> There's a couple hardware types I'd have liked to have - >> and I'd also not know what to do with them but to wallow >> in memories. >> >>> Anyway they do >>> have plenty of customers - govt/uni and big >>> industry. Sometimes you NEED a 'mainframe'. >> >> Hmm.. - "need" - really? >> >> During the 1990's we switched our big telcos from mainframes >> to Unix servers. The huge sports halls where the mainframes >> had been running were almost empty then. It was just more >> economic to run Unix servers (mainframe support was costly, >> as was just running them), also more ecologic (though I'm >> not sure that this mattered that much in practice, but costs >> of electricity might have been an issue), and the much less >> required physical space as said. Basically all cost factors. >> >> Also computing centers switched. Our LRZ, formerly running >> a CDC 175, is meanwhile running various Unix clusters for >> "super computing". Our university also said goodbye to its >> TR440 and is providing mainly Linux systems to its students >> for the scientific oriented departments. >> > Yes. The transition from mainframe, to Unix clusters and then to blade > servers shrunk machine rooms to almost nothing, amnd high speed internet > moved them to cloud centres > >> The only "need" for a mainframe I observed in some financial >> business area, where they were still running their legacy >> software on mainframes obviously with "no chance" to migrate, >> or not wanting to take the risk and cost (as long as the old >> machinery is doing its task). But it's also difficult to get >> spares, and to find people who can and are willing to operate >> them. (But that information is now a bit dated and things may >> have meanwhile changed even in that business area.) >> > That's not quite true. What specifically are you referring to here? That I observed mainframes still in use in commercial contexts? Or my speculation that this might meanwhile have changed? Or that the reason for not having done a change was something else? I've worked in several business areas were mainframes had been used. * The computing centers I was aware of changed their architectures from mainframe architectures to clusters. * The telcos down-scaled the [amount of] metal, yet increased their throughput by switching away from mainframes. They made the change because they also needed a lot contemporary new functions supported and it was far too costly and much more effort to do that on legacy mainframe hardware. * The business area I worked in where there were still running some mainframes did so primarily because of the mentioned reasons. That was 20 years ago, so that's the reason why I said that things "may" have meanwhile changed. If they need to runs (similar to the telcos) significant amounts of new functions they have to do the calculation whether it pays to do that on the old systems. And they have to take into consideration whether they have (or can find) programmers for old legacy languages as far as the legacy software is concerned; two decades ago we didn't find any COBOL programmers for those tasks and I'd expect that the situation got even worse meanwhile. * Most (all?) internet providers I've heard of aren't using mainframes but built their systems architecture based on (often Linux-)clusters. There must be reasons to change a running mainframe system. As said, such a transition process can be risky and is costly (without instant gain of any new functions). The reasons I've heard from the financial sectors, i.e. not to switch, were exactly those. I'm also a bit astonished about your mention of using mainframes for efficient I/O. Networking clusters appear to me to be much better able than a single mainframe instance. The older mainframe architectures we used also had a lot of peripheral processors to specifically handle the I/O. (But of course I can, as I did, just report about the (certainly non- singular) cases I was involved in or heard from reliable sources.) Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 21:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <qG2dnU1Og6OE3nT3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94963 |
On 11/2/26 18:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-11-02 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 02/11/2026 08:41, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 2026-11-02 07:28, c186282 wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> WOULD love one or two of those big black IBM >>>> mainframe units. Not sure what I'd DO with >>>> them, but they'd be SO cool ! >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> There's a couple hardware types I'd have liked to have - >>> and I'd also not know what to do with them but to wallow >>> in memories. >>> >>>> Anyway they do >>>> have plenty of customers - govt/uni and big >>>> industry. Sometimes you NEED a 'mainframe'. >>> >>> Hmm.. - "need" - really? >>> >>> During the 1990's we switched our big telcos from mainframes >>> to Unix servers. The huge sports halls where the mainframes >>> had been running were almost empty then. It was just more >>> economic to run Unix servers (mainframe support was costly, >>> as was just running them), also more ecologic (though I'm >>> not sure that this mattered that much in practice, but costs >>> of electricity might have been an issue), and the much less >>> required physical space as said. Basically all cost factors. >>> >>> Also computing centers switched. Our LRZ, formerly running >>> a CDC 175, is meanwhile running various Unix clusters for >>> "super computing". Our university also said goodbye to its >>> TR440 and is providing mainly Linux systems to its students >>> for the scientific oriented departments. >>> >> Yes. The transition from mainframe, to Unix clusters and then to blade >> servers shrunk machine rooms to almost nothing, amnd high speed >> internet moved them to cloud centres >> >>> The only "need" for a mainframe I observed in some financial >>> business area, where they were still running their legacy >>> software on mainframes obviously with "no chance" to migrate, >>> or not wanting to take the risk and cost (as long as the old >>> machinery is doing its task). But it's also difficult to get >>> spares, and to find people who can and are willing to operate >>> them. (But that information is now a bit dated and things may >>> have meanwhile changed even in that business area.) >>> >> That's not quite true. > > What specifically are you referring to here? > That I observed mainframes still in use in commercial contexts? > Or my speculation that this might meanwhile have changed? > Or that the reason for not having done a change was something else? > > I've worked in several business areas were mainframes had been used. > * The computing centers I was aware of changed their architectures > from mainframe architectures to clusters. > * The telcos down-scaled the [amount of] metal, yet increased their > throughput by switching away from mainframes. They made the change > because they also needed a lot contemporary new functions supported > and it was far too costly and much more effort to do that on legacy > mainframe hardware. > * The business area I worked in where there were still running some > mainframes did so primarily because of the mentioned reasons. That > was 20 years ago, so that's the reason why I said that things "may" > have meanwhile changed. If they need to runs (similar to the telcos) > significant amounts of new functions they have to do the calculation > whether it pays to do that on the old systems. And they have to take > into consideration whether they have (or can find) programmers for > old legacy languages as far as the legacy software is concerned; two > decades ago we didn't find any COBOL programmers for those tasks and > I'd expect that the situation got even worse meanwhile. > * Most (all?) internet providers I've heard of aren't using mainframes > but built their systems architecture based on (often Linux-)clusters. > > There must be reasons to change a running mainframe system. As said, > such a transition process can be risky and is costly (without instant > gain of any new functions). The reasons I've heard from the financial > sectors, i.e. not to switch, were exactly those. > > I'm also a bit astonished about your mention of using mainframes for > efficient I/O. Networking clusters appear to me to be much better able > than a single mainframe instance. The older mainframe architectures we > used also had a lot of peripheral processors to specifically handle > the I/O. > > (But of course I can, as I did, just report about the (certainly non- > singular) cases I was involved in or heard from reliable sources.) > > Janis > >> [...] > "Mainframes" do still have their places - major computing/comm performance. Govt, science, big international biz. This may change sooner or later - all replaced by 'cluster' and "Global AI". But not yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 15:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <sSmGS.36642$8SW5.33648@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #94975 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >On 11/2/26 18:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 2026-11-02 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> I'm also a bit astonished about your mention of using mainframes for >> efficient I/O. Networking clusters appear to me to be much better able >> than a single mainframe instance. The older mainframe architectures we >> used also had a lot of peripheral processors to specifically handle >> the I/O. >> >> (But of course I can, as I did, just report about the (certainly non- >> singular) cases I was involved in or heard from reliable sources.) >> >> Janis >> >>> [...] >> > > "Mainframes" do still have their places - major > computing/comm performance. Govt, science, big > international biz. Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting mainframes of any flavor. > > This may change sooner or later - all replaced > by 'cluster' and "Global AI". Clusters were two decades ago. Today it is all virtualization, particularly in the cloud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 20:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdg33$47sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95018 |
On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are
> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys
> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting
> mainframes of any flavor.
"Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends
highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such
as the z16 and z17 cycles):
Global Mainframe Market Size:
Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025.
Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026.
Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by
2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly
5.95% to 7.05%.
IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations:
Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4
mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67%
year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture.
Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term
42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large
capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward
supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred
purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing
shortly after the quarter)."
So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident
armchair experts
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 21:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <lusGS.39243$p_X5.14705@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #95031 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are >> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys >> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting >> mainframes of any flavor. > >"Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends >highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such >as the z16 and z17 cycles): > >Global Mainframe Market Size: > > Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025. > Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026. > Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by >2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly >5.95% to 7.05%. > >IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations: > Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4 >mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67% >year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture. > Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term >42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large >capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward >supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred >purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing >shortly after the quarter)." > >So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >armchair experts Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing customers, not new customers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkv3t9FeeegU13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95038 |
On 2026-11-03 22:37, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are
>>> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys
>>> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting
>>> mainframes of any flavor.
>>
>> "Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends
>> highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such
>> as the z16 and z17 cycles):
>>
>> Global Mainframe Market Size:
>>
>> Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025.
>> Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026.
>> Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by
>> 2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly
>> 5.95% to 7.05%.
>>
>> IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations:
>> Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4
>> mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67%
>> year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture.
>> Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term
>> 42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large
>> capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward
>> supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred
>> purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing
>> shortly after the quarter)."
>>
>> So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident
>> armchair experts
>
> Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing
> customers, not new customers.
I don't expect new banks, either.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdmjs$63m2$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95043 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 23:01:13 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I don't expect new banks, either. New banks do keep coming along. <https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/361054511/rbnz-registers-revolut-nzs-first-digi-only-bank> Also, you think banks don’t use more modern tools, like Python? Yes, Python. <https://calpaterson.com/bank-python.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdohi$4hqr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95038 |
On 03/11/2026 21:37, Scott Lurndal wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >> On 03/11/2026 15:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Actually, the numbers decline every year. The vast majority are >>> legacy installations (particularly for the Burroughs/Univac/Unisys >>> mainframes) and there are very few, if any, new customers adopting >>> mainframes of any flavor. >> >> "Global mainframe market size and IBM Z mainframe revenue trends >> highlight a cyclical pattern dominated by multi-year refresh waves (such >> as the z16 and z17 cycles): >> >> Global Mainframe Market Size: >> >> Valued at approximately $5.33 billion to $5.71 billion in 2025. >> Projected to grow to $5.65 billion to $6.11 billion in 2026. >> Forecasted to reach $7.54 billion to $10.53 billion by >> 2031–2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly >> 5.95% to 7.05%. >> >> IBM Z Mainframe Performance & Fluctuations: >> Late 2025 (z17 Launch / Q4): IBM reported its strongest Q4 >> mainframe revenue in 20 years, with IBM Z sales surging 67% >> year-over-year as enterprises adopted the z17 architecture. >> Mid-2026 (Q2): IBM Z mainframe revenue experienced a short-term >> 42% year-over-year decline in fiscal Q2 2026 due to delayed large >> capital expenditure (capex) deals and client shifts toward >> supply-constrained servers, though management noted these were deferred >> purchases rather than lost contracts (with roughly one-third closing >> shortly after the quarter)." >> >> So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >> armchair experts > > Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing > customers, not new customers. I think all this shows is that IBM is able to force expensive hardware refresh by ending support for old machines and old versions of software so if you need Payment Card Industry compliance you need supported software. I would say most users need PCI compliance so have no choice other than to upgrade or migrate and most feel migration will be more expensive and carry more risk... .. mind I seem to remember that the recent price rises in VMWare meant that migration from there to Linux on "Z" would be a cost effective move... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdp62$7e97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95050 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 22:51:30 +0000, David Wade wrote: > I think all this shows is that IBM is able to force expensive > hardware refresh by ending support for old machines and old versions > of software so if you need Payment Card Industry compliance you need > supported software. I don’t think that’s true. I have hooked up various clients to various payment systems over the years, and there was never a need for any particular piece of proprietary software at our end. (Well, the very first time I looked at a payment system, over a quarter century ago, SSL/TLS had not yet become popular, and this bank required a connection via the proprietary “Firewall/1” package, which only ran on Windows NT/Server. But I never heard back about proceeding with that, and that kind of thing is ancient history now.) In fact, the last one I set up, the payment company offered example code for implementing their protocol in a range of languages. They had kept things quite simple, while being careful about security, all credit to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 23:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11cdp6v$1qa8$3@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #95038 |
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>: >>So, as usual, the facts are not correctly represented by the resident >>armchair experts > >Dig into a bit and you'll find that those are refreshes for existing >customers, not new customers. IBM has two markets for z mainframes, the legacy S/360/370/390 market and high performance linux servers which they call LinuxONE. I agree they're not likely to have new legacy customers but I'd be surprised that they put all that effort into LinuxONE without expecting to get new customers out of it. They just announced that the next generation of z will have a partnership with ARM so the processors can run ARM64 code as well as the three legacy 360 modes. That tells me they're trying to get customers who already have the ARM code running in the cloud at AWS or Azure. -- 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]
Page 20 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web