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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94962 > unrolled thread

Is This An Old Folks Home?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:51 +0100
      On the on-topicness of tape drives (was: Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:47 +0000
        Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:14 +0000
          Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 17:29 -0500
            Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:52 +0000
              Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:11 -0500
                Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-06 02:41 +0000
                  Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 22:31 -0500
                    Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
                      Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:41 +0000
                        Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:39 -0800
                          Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:30 +0000
                            Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 15:26 -0800
                              Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:15 +0000
                              Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-08 11:28 +0000
                                Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 18:14 +0000
            Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-06 05:59 +0000
              Re: Tape Drives Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 06:18 +0000
                Re: Tape Drives Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 18:40 +0800
                  Re: Tape Drives Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:33 -0700
                    Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:12 -0500
                  Re: Tape Drives "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 14:32 +0000
                    Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:31 -0500
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:08 -0500
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:26 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-11-04 09:55 +0800
      Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:14 -0500
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
            Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-11-05 20:40 -0500
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:52 -0500
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:28 +0100
            My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-06 18:37 -0800
              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 00:51 -0500
                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:20 -0800
                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:38 -0700
                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:47 +0000
                    Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-08 04:23 +0000
                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 05:00 +0000
                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 20:50 -0500
                          Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 03:53 +0000
                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:06 +0100
                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:01 +0100
                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:31 -0700
                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:52 -0800
                    Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 20:09 -0500
                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-08 08:08 +0000
                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:24 -0500
                          Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 18:34 -0800
                            Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:54 -0500
                              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:39 +0000
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:08 -0500
                                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:25 +0000
                                    Re: My Computer History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:32 +0000
                                      Re: My Computer History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 23:07 -0500
                                      Re: My Computer History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
                                    Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:49 -0500
                                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:03 -0800
                                        Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
                                      Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:08 +0000
                              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 07:29 -0700
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 16:11 +0000
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:19 -0500
                                  Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-11-10 14:31 +0000
                            Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:48 -1000
                              Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:55 -0500
                                Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 21:35 -0700
                          Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 16:56 +0000
                            Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:46 -0500
                              Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-10 18:06 +0000
                                Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:45 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-04 19:15 +0000
      Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-04 20:38 +0000
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:51 +0000
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-11-05 17:48 +0100
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-05 16:56 +0000
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:55 +0000
    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 12:23 -0500
      Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-06 19:25 +0000
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 15:59 -0500
          Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:50 +0000
            Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 09:03 +0000
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:55 +0000
                  Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:01 +0000
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 18:31 +0000
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:39 -0500
                  Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 19:07 +0000
                    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 14:30 -0500
            Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:01 -0500
              Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 15:54 -0500
                Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-08 00:33 -0500
                  Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:05 -0500
                    Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-10 05:30 -0500
        Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500

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

#95308 — Re: Tape Drives

On 11/7/26 03:40, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> 
> Now now Lawrence, don't act like it's all gone.  You can still get it,
> and use it, at
> 
>    https://www.kermitproject.org/index.html
> 
> and
> 
>    https://davidrg.github.io/ckwin/
> 
> to transfer files with all kinds of protocols.  I used it in recent
> years to transfer files between FreeDOS computer and Windows 10, so
> it's definitely still useful.
> 

I just used it the other day to transfer files from my Multics system to 
Linux.

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

#95319 — Re: Tape Drives

On 11/7/26 09:33, Peter Flass wrote:
> On 11/7/26 03:40, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
>>
>> Now now Lawrence, don't act like it's all gone.  You can still get it,
>> and use it, at
>>
>>    https://www.kermitproject.org/index.html
>>
>> and
>>
>>    https://davidrg.github.io/ckwin/
>>
>> to transfer files with all kinds of protocols.  I used it in recent
>> years to transfer files between FreeDOS computer and Windows 10, so
>> it's definitely still useful.
>>
> 
> I just used it the other day to transfer files from my Multics system to 
> Linux.

   Still rockin' Multics ???

   Thought that had totally faded away.

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

#95351 — Re: Tape Drives

On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 18:40:54 +0800
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/6/2026 2:18 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 05:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen wrote:
> > 
> >> We had one 9-track when I worked as a computer operator in 1992. It
> >> was used to send financial records to the bank. That was the first
> >> and last one I saw in use.
> > 
> > A decade earlier, it was a slightly different story.
> > 
> > Also, back then, it was still the fashion in movies and TV to portray
> > a computer as having lots of tape drives with the reels spinning
> > busily, as though such heavy tape usage was characteristic of normal
> > computer operation. That would have been true a decade before that,
> > but by the time the 1980s came along, tapes were primarily used for
> > backup and data interchange between installations.
> > 
> > Furthermore, back then, there was real difficulty in getting data
> > between different brands of personal computers, because of
> > incompatible floppy disk formats, and many machines not even having
> > floppy drives. But there was this open protocol called “Kermit”, which
> > ran on serial lines (or modem connections), for which implementations
> > were available for just about every kind of computer under the sun,
> > big and small.
> > 
> > And you could get copies free, just by sending a blank reel of tape to
> > the University of Columbia; they would put all the latest versions of
> > all the releases on that, and send it back.
> 
> Now now Lawrence, don't act like it's all gone.  You can still get it,
> and use it, at
> 
>    https://www.kermitproject.org/index.html
> 

Rivetting stuff!

> and
> 
>    https://davidrg.github.io/ckwin/
> 
> to transfer files with all kinds of protocols.  I used it in recent
> years to transfer files between FreeDOS computer and Windows 10, so
> it's definitely still useful.
> 
I trust it supports Xmodem?

Procomm plus is the only way!

> Information and download links for MS-DOS Kermit can be found here,
> 
>    https://www.kermitproject.org/mskermit.html
> 
> and you can even download and read the book /Using MS-DOS Kermit/, 2nd
> edition from that website.
> 
> I'm sure someone in the retrocomputing hobby at alt.folklore.computers
> can make use of these software packages, perhaps after two hundred
> years; so it's definitely worth mentioning.
> 
> 
> Best wishes and happy Kermit!
> -- 
> Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
> I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
> https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
> Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social


-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#95369 — Re: Tape Drives

On 11/8/26 09:32, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 18:40:54 +0800
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/6/2026 2:18 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 05:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen wrote:
>>>
>>>> We had one 9-track when I worked as a computer operator in 1992. It
>>>> was used to send financial records to the bank. That was the first
>>>> and last one I saw in use.
>>>
>>> A decade earlier, it was a slightly different story.
>>>
>>> Also, back then, it was still the fashion in movies and TV to portray
>>> a computer as having lots of tape drives with the reels spinning
>>> busily, as though such heavy tape usage was characteristic of normal
>>> computer operation. That would have been true a decade before that,
>>> but by the time the 1980s came along, tapes were primarily used for
>>> backup and data interchange between installations.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, back then, there was real difficulty in getting data
>>> between different brands of personal computers, because of
>>> incompatible floppy disk formats, and many machines not even having
>>> floppy drives. But there was this open protocol called “Kermit”, which
>>> ran on serial lines (or modem connections), for which implementations
>>> were available for just about every kind of computer under the sun,
>>> big and small.
>>>
>>> And you could get copies free, just by sending a blank reel of tape to
>>> the University of Columbia; they would put all the latest versions of
>>> all the releases on that, and send it back.
>>
>> Now now Lawrence, don't act like it's all gone.  You can still get it,
>> and use it, at
>>
>>     https://www.kermitproject.org/index.html
>>
> 
> Rivetting stuff!
> 
>> and
>>
>>     https://davidrg.github.io/ckwin/
>>
>> to transfer files with all kinds of protocols.  I used it in recent
>> years to transfer files between FreeDOS computer and Windows 10, so
>> it's definitely still useful.
>>
> I trust it supports Xmodem?
> 
> Procomm plus is the only way!


   Used Procomm a LOT. Great app !!!

   Kermit IS pretty good though.

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

#94974

Well, IS an "old folks home" to a DEGREE.

Or don't you think 40-50+ years of computing
experiences are worth anything ?

If so, go play Candy Crush and leave us 'old
folks' alone. WE will Know How It Works And
Why and you won't.

Be civil.

We ARE stronger together.

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

#94978

On Mon, 02 Nov 2026 23:08:32 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid home for
> decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens?
> 
> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers.
> 
> I, and many others, want cutting edge philosophy on GNU/Linux/FOSS.

https://fossforce.com/2026/08/the-foss-force-interview-with-richard-
stallman/

Stallman objects vigorously to 'free' and 'open source' sharing the same 
line. 

I'd never heard of Foss Force but Lunduke found Chrissie's rant amusing.

https://fossforce.com/2026/11/lunduke-releases-his-own-devuan-based-linux-
distro/

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

#95063

Farley Flud wrote:
> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid
> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens?
> 
> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers.
> 
> I, and many others, want cutting edge philosophy on GNU/Linux/FOSS.
> 
> Otherwise, go bury yourselves, grandpas.
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
> 

Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so 
presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track 
tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.

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

#95069

On 11/3/26 20:55, Woozy Song wrote:
> Farley Flud wrote:
>> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid
>> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens?
>>
>> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers.
>>
>> I, and many others, want cutting edge philosophy on GNU/Linux/FOSS.
>>
>> Otherwise, go bury yourselves, grandpas.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
> 
> Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so 
> presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track 
> tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.

   Umm ... they were EIGHT-track tapes :-)

   Not terrible actually, great for car audio.
   Tended to get mangled alas. Cassettes came
   to rule until cheap CDs arrived.

   "Flies all green and buzzin' in this
   dungeon of despair ..." ........

   Did my years with punch-cards. Had more than
   one 'acoustic coupler' for 300-baud-or-less
   connections. Hey, CUTTING EDGE at the time !

   Still have a Tandy/RS "laptop" from WAY back
   that can do acoustic net OR connect direct
   to an old hard-line phone. News reporters
   loved them. Much of the ROM code, last thing
   done by Bill Gates himself. Had a VIC-20 with
   an acoustic modem too but the C-64 did it better.
   Bulletin-Board-Systems (BBS) in the day.

   In any case, the "old guys" bring a LOT of
   practical experience/sensibility. Don't
   cuss - LEARN. The Future is built-on, guided-
   by, the past. Computer Tech is evolutionary.

   The "sensibility" aspect may be the most important.
   SO many, publicity/profit-driven, flashes in the
   proverbial pan over the years. The "old guys" have
   Been There, Done That, KNOW bullshit when they
   see it.

   Oh wait - the recent gen is SO much smarter :-)

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

#95074

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 11/3/26 20:55, Woozy Song wrote:
>> Farley Flud wrote:
>>> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid
>>> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens?
>>>
>>> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers.
>>>
>>> I, and many others, want cutting edge philosophy on GNU/Linux/FOSS.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, go bury yourselves, grandpas.
>>>
>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>>
>> 
>> Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so 
>> presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track 
>> tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.
> 
>   Umm ... they were EIGHT-track tapes :-)

Idiot.  Woozy's not referring to "8-track audio tapes".  He's referring 
to 9-track digital computer tapes used on old IBM mainframes.  They 
were 9-tracks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-track_tape

Eight data bits plus one parity bit per byte makes for a "9-track" 
tape.

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

#95084

On 2026-11-04, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/3/26 20:55, Woozy Song wrote:
>>
>>> Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so 
>>> presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track 
>>> tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.

<waves hand> Me too!

>>   Umm ... they were EIGHT-track tapes :-)
>
> Idiot.  Woozy's not referring to "8-track audio tapes".

Uh, I think he was pulling our legs - note the smiley.

> He's referring to 9-track digital computer tapes used on
> old IBM mainframes.  They were 9-tracks:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-track_tape
>
> Eight data bits plus one parity bit per byte makes for a "9-track" 
> tape.

If you're really old you'll remember 7-track tapes (6 data bits
plus one parity bit, popular before 8-bit bytes came along).
I don't think I ever actually used one of them, but I did read
about them.  I think some units even had a hardware converter
option that let you attach them to a machine that did 8-bit
bytes; for every three 8-bit bytes you sent them they'd write
four 6-bit bytes to the tape.  Good for converting your old
tapes...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#95216

On 2026-11-04 01:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-11-04, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/3/26 20:55, Woozy Song wrote:
>>>
>>>> Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so
>>>> presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track
>>>> tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.
> 
> <waves hand> Me too!
> 
>>>    Umm ... they were EIGHT-track tapes :-)
>>
>> Idiot.  Woozy's not referring to "8-track audio tapes".
> 
> Uh, I think he was pulling our legs - note the smiley.
> 
>> He's referring to 9-track digital computer tapes used on
>> old IBM mainframes.  They were 9-tracks:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-track_tape
>>
>> Eight data bits plus one parity bit per byte makes for a "9-track"
>> tape.
> 
> If you're really old you'll remember 7-track tapes (6 data bits
> plus one parity bit, popular before 8-bit bytes came along).
> I don't think I ever actually used one of them, but I did read
> about them.  I think some units even had a hardware converter
> option that let you attach them to a machine that did 8-bit
> bytes; for every three 8-bit bytes you sent them they'd write
> four 6-bit bytes to the tape.  Good for converting your old
> tapes...
> 
Guess that makes me really old. I was drafted during the Nixon 
administration, and assigned to run a HP 2116 minicomputer system at a 
research facility. When I got there, it was using a couple of 7-track 
tape drives, and was booted up with a strip of paper tape. Soon after, 
it was upgraded to a then newfangled "moving head disk drive" that had 
one fixed disk and one bay for cartridges about 15 inches in diameter, 
and a revised boot program eliminated the paper tape boot procedure.

TJ

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

#95221

On 11/5/26 20:40, TJ wrote:
> On 2026-11-04 01:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-11-04, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/3/26 20:55, Woozy Song wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so
>>>>> presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track
>>>>> tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.
>>
>> <waves hand> Me too!
>>
>>>>    Umm ... they were EIGHT-track tapes :-)
>>>
>>> Idiot.  Woozy's not referring to "8-track audio tapes".
>>
>> Uh, I think he was pulling our legs - note the smiley.
>>
>>> He's referring to 9-track digital computer tapes used on
>>> old IBM mainframes.  They were 9-tracks:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-track_tape
>>>
>>> Eight data bits plus one parity bit per byte makes for a "9-track"
>>> tape.
>>
>> If you're really old you'll remember 7-track tapes (6 data bits
>> plus one parity bit, popular before 8-bit bytes came along).
>> I don't think I ever actually used one of them, but I did read
>> about them.  I think some units even had a hardware converter
>> option that let you attach them to a machine that did 8-bit
>> bytes; for every three 8-bit bytes you sent them they'd write
>> four 6-bit bytes to the tape.  Good for converting your old
>> tapes...
>>
> Guess that makes me really old. I was drafted during the Nixon 
> administration, and assigned to run a HP 2116 minicomputer system at a 
> research facility. When I got there, it was using a couple of 7-track 
> tape drives, and was booted up with a strip of paper tape. Soon after, 
> it was upgraded to a then newfangled "moving head disk drive" that had 
> one fixed disk and one bay for cartridges about 15 inches in diameter, 
> and a revised boot program eliminated the paper tape boot procedure.

   Hey, STATE-OF-THE-ART !  :-)

   Kinda miss the drive units with the
   removable platters. Do NOT pull them
   before they stop spinning, saw the
   result of that once !

   Odd fact, had a tour of a US submarine in
   the mid 80s ... the sonar niche had a "mini"
   and one removable-platter drive. Probably
   officially specced a decade before. Govt/mil
   stuff is often like that. The Apollo/LEM
   spacecraft were already well behind the
   curve when it came to computer shit ... but
   it'd all been specced, set in stone, in the
   early 60s. "ROPE MEMORY" for the LEM !

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

#95239

On 2026-11-06 03:52, c186282 wrote:
> On 11/5/26 20:40, TJ wrote:
>> On 2026-11-04 01:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2026-11-04, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:


>> Guess that makes me really old. I was drafted during the Nixon 
>> administration, and assigned to run a HP 2116 minicomputer system at a 
>> research facility. When I got there, it was using a couple of 7-track 
>> tape drives, and was booted up with a strip of paper tape. Soon after, 
>> it was upgraded to a then newfangled "moving head disk drive" that had 
>> one fixed disk and one bay for cartridges about 15 inches in diameter, 
>> and a revised boot program eliminated the paper tape boot procedure.
> 
>    Hey, STATE-OF-THE-ART !  :-)
> 
>    Kinda miss the drive units with the
>    removable platters. Do NOT pull them
>    before they stop spinning, saw the
>    result of that once !

Please tell!

> 
>    Odd fact, had a tour of a US submarine in
>    the mid 80s ... the sonar niche had a "mini"
>    and one removable-platter drive. Probably
>    officially specced a decade before. Govt/mil
>    stuff is often like that. The Apollo/LEM
>    spacecraft were already well behind the
>    curve when it came to computer shit ... but
>    it'd all been specced, set in stone, in the
>    early 60s. "ROPE MEMORY" for the LEM !

It is a big problem to maintain those for years, if they are 
industry-obsolete when they start service.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

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

#95270 — My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/3/2026 22:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-11-04, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/3/26 20:55, Woozy Song wrote:
>>>
>>>> Usenet has a lot of people who have been using it since the 1990s, so
>>>> presumably over 50 years old.  I am a bit older, I remember 9-track
>>>> tapes, punch cards and acoustic coupler modems.
> 
> <waves hand> Me too!
> 
>>>    Umm ... they were EIGHT-track tapes :-)
>>
>> Idiot.  Woozy's not referring to "8-track audio tapes".
> 
> Uh, I think he was pulling our legs - note the smiley.
> 
>> He's referring to 9-track digital computer tapes used on
>> old IBM mainframes.  They were 9-tracks:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-track_tape
>>
>> Eight data bits plus one parity bit per byte makes for a "9-track"
>> tape.
> 
> If you're really old you'll remember 7-track tapes (6 data bits
> plus one parity bit, popular before 8-bit bytes came along).
> I don't think I ever actually used one of them, but I did read
> about them.  I think some units even had a hardware converter
> option that let you attach them to a machine that did 8-bit
> bytes; for every three 8-bit bytes you sent them they'd write
> four 6-bit bytes to the tape.  Good for converting your old
> tapes...

1964: Junior High School. Getting simple computer architecture books 
(written for a general "Popular Mechanics" audience) and Fortran 
beginning textbooks from the library. Writing FORTRAN IV programs in a 
comp book. No access to any computers, but reading about GE (BASIC) 
time-sharing systems in newspapers.

1969: Enrolling in University Math department with the goal of learning 
computer science (and dropping out after 6 months). While there, played 
with GIER minicomputer, "2st generation comp[uter" (first transistor 
generation), 1024 words of 42 bits each, plus 4KW of "extended storage" 
(buffer memory with fast block transfer in and out). Fixed head drum 
with 960 tracks of 40 words each; programmed in Algol-60, paper tape 
in/out with 2000 char/sec optical paper tape reader, 150 cps punch.

1970: Leaving studies at Uni, taking job at physics dept of uni, with 
another GIER, plus IBM 1130 with 1MB disk cartridge drive (2311) and 2 
tape drives, 1 7-track 800 bpi, one 9-track 1600 bpi, 600 cpm card 
reader / 200 (?) cpm punch (1442), 150 (?) lpm printer. The 1130 
eventually became a HASP RJE terminal. Access to NEUCC data center with 
IBM 7494 (36 bit tape oriented IBSYS/IBJOB OS) and IBM 360/65 
(OS-360/MVT/HASP/WITS) with tapes, disks and 2260 CRJE terminal on-site.

1972: Job transitions to startup of RECKU data center with UNIVAC-1106 
(EXEC-8) with mix of Fastrand huge drum, 7-track tape, 9-track tape, 
UNIVAC 9300 for card/printer I/O spool. Gradually building out a row of 
80 MB removable disk storage units.

The UNIVAC was 36 bits, mostly using 6-bit FIELDATA for text, but 
gradually growing into 9-bit bytes and printing 7-bit ASCII text.
The 7-track tapes were a natural fit for 36-bit words, but the 9-track 
was faster and at 1600 bpi held more data. When moounting the 9-track 
tape, one could select whether to use "packed binary" mode (5 8-bit 
bytes in 2 36-bit words) or "byte mode" (4 8-bit bytes in the 4 9-bit 
quarter words of a 36-bit word).

Just before I left the university in 1972, someone had brought in a 
bare-bones PDP-11/20 mini with a TTY which they also used for papertape 
I/O. But that did not catch my interest.

In 1974, we got a couple PDP-11/10, which we used to develop a terminal 
concentrator that allowed "glass TTYs" to emulate a multi-dropped 
cluster of Univac's expensive keyboard/printer terminals or Uniscope
display terminals over a synchronous comms line. I hung around enough to 
understand the building blocks and the instruction set.

In 1975, I moved to a small private engineering company which used PDP-8 
and PDP-11 barebones systems to build various industrial systems. The 
larger PDP-11 systems ran RSX-11M, and used the 2MB cartridge disk 
drives. I also wrote a customer data acquisition device driver for a 
Nord-10 minicomputer running SINTRAN.

Around 1977, my coworker talked me into a side project to write terminal 
emulator code to run on a Z80 multi-microprocessor system that plugged 
into a UNIBUS on a PDP-11 or a VAX too emulate UNIVAC or IBM display 
terminals.

Around 1978, our little company became the Danish distributor for Wang 
Labs word processing systems. As part of the deal, we got a Wang VS-10 
which was sort of like a 370/125 with a stupid terminal system, that 
could be programmed in RPG or COBOL, but the terminals were Z80 
processors attached with twinax cables like IBM3270, and could run the 
word processing system, using the VS-10 as a boot device and central 
disk storage.

In 1980, I moved to California to work for ACC and got introduced to a 
PDP-11/70 running Univ v6, later BSD, VMS, 4.2BSD and Ultrix. My group 
mostly developed "smart communication boards" for Unibus, some Z80 
based, some MC68000 based. Later with did rack-sized communication 
systems on a VersaBus chassis. All of this connected first to ARPAnet, 
then we landed on the MILnet side in the ARPAnet split (26.x.y.z). Most 
of our customers were in 21.a.b.c (some of you know what that was, the 
rest of you are not supposed to ask). Our first network connection was
a VDH link as 1200 bps; later we got an IMP in our computer room. Our 
East coast office was connected via a 2400 bps X.25 trunk.

Beginning in 1989, I worked on "remote telnet clusters" with 10 async 
TTY ports on one side, an ethernet port on the other side and an MC68000 
in the middle.

 From 1995 to 1997, I tried to build a small-business modular edge 
router on a PCI (ATX) x86 motherboard with "smart peripherals". When 
that collapsed, I finally found the people I still work with. We do 
industrial radio modems at low speed and high reliability.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

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

#95285 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

GIER ? Dansk.

Remembered the name but not the particulars. Had
to look it up.

48-bit words, mag-core 'main memory', DRUM
storage drive.

"The standard equipment comprises an 8-channel
paper tape reader reading 1000 characters per second,
an 8-channel paper tape punch punching 150 characters
per second, and a typewriter which is used for both
input and output"

https://datamuseum.dk/bits/30002477

Barely more than a glorified programmable calculator.

But, for the time ........

I'm sure it was of good use for science and industry.

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

#95305 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/6/2026 21:51, c186282 wrote:
> GIER ? Dansk.
> 
> Remembered the name but not the particulars. Had
> to look it up.
> 
> 48-bit words, mag-core 'main memory', DRUM
> storage drive.

Actually 42 bits: 40 data bits, plus 2 flag bits.
In instruction words, the flag bits were named h (for half-word; i.e. 
the word contained 2 instructions; the shorter instruction format did 
not have an "index" part) and f (for floating; i.e. the instruction 
would be addf/mulf/divf/subf rather than add/mul/div/sub).

The drum was organized in 40-word tracks, and was available in 320 track 
or 960 track versions.

> "The standard equipment comprises an 8-channel
> paper tape reader reading 1000 characters per second,
> an 8-channel paper tape punch punching 150 characters
> per second, and a typewriter which is used for both
> input and output"
> 
> https://datamuseum.dk/bits/30002477

The RC2000 paper tape reader actually could read up to 2000 characters 
per second. It contained a 512 byte buffer memory. The more open space 
in the buffer, the faster the paper tape would advance. It was very 
impressive to see it  running at full speed!

The console included a small loudspeaker wired to the overflow bit in 
the main accumulator register. This allowed the programmer/operator to 
track the progress of the program as it worked it way through a set of 
loops.

Someone at RC wrote a music compiler that translated to finely tuned 
small loops to generate the specific pitch for each note. It used the 
typewriter for percussion. The music rolls in our library spanned from 
"Für Elise" to "Horst Wessel Lied".

> Barely more than a glorified programmable calculator.
> 
> But, for the time ........
> 
> I'm sure it was of good use for science and industry.

Yes it was puny, but for 1961, it was very impressive. It had a full 
Algol-60 compiler (in 9 passes), written by Peter Naur (of Backus-Naur 
fame). 56 machines were built, a few are still running.

"You never forget your first!"

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

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

#95310 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 11/7/26 07:20, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 11/6/2026 21:51, c186282 wrote:
>> GIER ? Dansk.
>>
>> Remembered the name but not the particulars. Had
>> to look it up.
>>
>> 48-bit words, mag-core 'main memory', DRUM
>> storage drive.
> 
> Actually 42 bits: 40 data bits, plus 2 flag bits.
> In instruction words, the flag bits were named h (for half-word; i.e. 
> the word contained 2 instructions; the shorter instruction format did 
> not have an "index" part) and f (for floating; i.e. the instruction 
> would be addf/mulf/divf/subf rather than add/mul/div/sub).
> 
> The drum was organized in 40-word tracks, and was available in 320 track 
> or 960 track versions.
> 
>> "The standard equipment comprises an 8-channel
>> paper tape reader reading 1000 characters per second,
>> an 8-channel paper tape punch punching 150 characters
>> per second, and a typewriter which is used for both
>> input and output"
>>
>> https://datamuseum.dk/bits/30002477
> 
> The RC2000 paper tape reader actually could read up to 2000 characters 
> per second. It contained a 512 byte buffer memory. The more open space 
> in the buffer, the faster the paper tape would advance. It was very 
> impressive to see it  running at full speed!
> 
> The console included a small loudspeaker wired to the overflow bit in 
> the main accumulator register. This allowed the programmer/operator to 
> track the progress of the program as it worked it way through a set of 
> loops.
> 
> Someone at RC wrote a music compiler that translated to finely tuned 
> small loops to generate the specific pitch for each note. It used the 
> typewriter for percussion. The music rolls in our library spanned from 
> "Für Elise" to "Horst Wessel Lied".
> 
>> Barely more than a glorified programmable calculator.
>>
>> But, for the time ........
>>
>> I'm sure it was of good use for science and industry.
> 
> Yes it was puny, but for 1961, it was very impressive. It had a full 
> Algol-60 compiler (in 9 passes), written by Peter Naur (of Backus-Naur 
> fame). 56 machines were built, a few are still running.
> 
> "You never forget your first!"
> 

Naur! Both of my guesses were wrong.

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

#95341 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 2026-11-07, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:

> The RC2000 paper tape reader actually could read up to 2000 characters 
> per second. It contained a 512 byte buffer memory. The more open space 
> in the buffer, the faster the paper tape would advance. It was very 
> impressive to see it  running at full speed!

My first job was programming a Univac 9300 which had an RC2000
interfaced to it.  Most of our jobs didn't need data fast enough
to make it really wind up, so I added a summary option to one
program to make it show its stuff.

Later we came up with an application that needed to read lots of
tape at full speed.  A big roll of tape shooting through the machine
at 200 inches per second built enough of a static charge to create
a fat spark - which crashed the machine.  I rigged up a chain of
paper clips (grounded, of course) that hung where the tape would
hit it on its way out of the reader.  Even then, we have to get
a kettle boiling in the machine room to get the humidity up enough
to help the charge bleed off.

> "You never forget your first!"

Amen, brother.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#95342 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 2026-11-08, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-11-07, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>
>> The RC2000 paper tape reader actually could read up to 2000 characters 
>> per second. It contained a 512 byte buffer memory. The more open space 
>> in the buffer, the faster the paper tape would advance. It was very 
>> impressive to see it  running at full speed!
>
> My first job was programming a Univac 9300 which had an RC2000
> interfaced to it.  Most of our jobs didn't need data fast enough
> to make it really wind up, so I added a summary option to one
> program to make it show its stuff.
>
> Later we came up with an application that needed to read lots of
> tape at full speed.  A big roll of tape shooting through the machine
> at 200 inches per second built enough of a static charge to create
> a fat spark - which crashed the machine.  I rigged up a chain of
> paper clips (grounded, of course) that hung where the tape would
> hit it on its way out of the reader.  Even then, we have to get
> a kettle boiling in the machine room to get the humidity up enough
> to help the charge bleed off.

A piece of (grounded) anti-ESD foam from an integrated circuit
order might have drained off the charge with perhaps less risk of
even small sparks.  One of the advantages of the carbon-based
black back-coating Ampex put on their higher-end audio recording
tapes back in the day was prevention of static build-up.

Within a few years either side of 1980, a professor in an EE
class told a story from early in his career.  He was hired by GE
to work on _BIG_ (as in 8 feet to 16 feet diameter) motors and
generators.  He said GE would hire EEs and teach them mechanical
stuff, because that worked better than hiring MEs and teaching
them electrical stuff.

He was tasked with solving a problem with premature bearing
failure.  When a failed machine was torn down, basically all the
failed bearings were found to be coated with varnish.  It turns
out the moving parts within the bearing assembly were building up
a static electric charge, which would eventually arc through the
oil, creating a small spot of varnish.  Eventually, the varnish
would build up, and the bearing would fail.

The solution was to add something to the oil to make it slightly
conductive to electricity.  Management told him he had just
earned his salary for his entire career--and to go do it again.

The professor's last name was Clegg.  He taught at Brigham Young
University.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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

#95344 — Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?)

On 2026-11-08, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:

> On 2026-11-08, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-11-07, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The RC2000 paper tape reader actually could read up to 2000 characters 
>>> per second. It contained a 512 byte buffer memory. The more open space 
>>> in the buffer, the faster the paper tape would advance. It was very 
>>> impressive to see it  running at full speed!
>>
>> My first job was programming a Univac 9300 which had an RC2000
>> interfaced to it.  Most of our jobs didn't need data fast enough
>> to make it really wind up, so I added a summary option to one
>> program to make it show its stuff.
>>
>> Later we came up with an application that needed to read lots of
>> tape at full speed.  A big roll of tape shooting through the machine
>> at 200 inches per second built enough of a static charge to create
>> a fat spark - which crashed the machine.  I rigged up a chain of
>> paper clips (grounded, of course) that hung where the tape would
>> hit it on its way out of the reader.  Even then, we have to get
>> a kettle boiling in the machine room to get the humidity up enough
>> to help the charge bleed off.
>
> A piece of (grounded) anti-ESD foam from an integrated circuit
> order might have drained off the charge with perhaps less risk of
> even small sparks.  One of the advantages of the carbon-based
> black back-coating Ampex put on their higher-end audio recording
> tapes back in the day was prevention of static build-up.

We didn't think of that.  Hmmm...

Speaking of back-coated tapes, we had a few back-coated 9-track
tapes in our shop.  A customer who was leaving us asked to have
his data written onto a tape, and we happened to grab one of the
back-coated tapes.  A few days later we got an angry call from
said [ex-]customer accusing us of sabotaging them.  They didn't
know about back-coated tapes, so they automatically assumed that
the back of the tape was always shiny Mylar.  When they saw the
dull backing of the back-coated tape, they assumed we had wound it
onto a spool back-to-front to screw them up.  Without even trying
to read the tape first, they-respooled it so it really was on the
reel back-to-front.  Naturally, it didn't read too well.  Once we
got them to re-spool it properly (i.e. they way we gave it to them)
all went well.

> Within a few years either side of 1980, a professor in an EE
> class told a story from early in his career.  He was hired by GE
> to work on _BIG_ (as in 8 feet to 16 feet diameter) motors and
> generators.  He said GE would hire EEs and teach them mechanical
> stuff, because that worked better than hiring MEs and teaching
> them electrical stuff.

Interesting.  As part of my commercial pilot course, our instructor
arranged a tour of our local area control center.  We were shown all
the computer equipment (mostly DEC in those days).  Our tour guide
said much the same thing: it was easier to teach controllers about
computers than to teach computer people about air traffic control.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web