Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13769 > unrolled thread
| Started by | not.socialnetwork@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 49 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 12:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 06:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 13:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 07:59 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-02-28 21:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-02-28 22:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-02-28 18:01 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 01:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 07:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 10:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 17:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:33 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-02 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 09:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-02 17:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-02 16:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> - 2015-03-05 08:36 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. cl@isbd.net - 2015-03-01 11:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:40 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-01 17:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-01 19:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-03 22:27 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 00:50 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 01:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-03-04 17:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-06 00:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-06 06:55 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 07:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 22:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 01:07 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-05 10:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 10:51 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-05 15:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 17:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-05 11:49 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-05 23:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-04 22:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-04 17:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-03-04 09:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:11 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-04 08:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 13:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 09:14 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-02-28 08:52 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-02-28 21:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-02-28 19:48 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 09:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-03-01 07:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-01 16:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:28 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. not.socialnetwork@gmail.com - 2015-03-01 11:00 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-01 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 07:37 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-03 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 10:44 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-01 19:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-03-01 20:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:12 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:07 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 14:49 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-02-28 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-02-28 19:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-01 14:22 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-01 21:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-02 16:12 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-03-02 19:57 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-03 10:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-03 19:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 10:43 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 11:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:39 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 16:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-04 08:52 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:23 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-04 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-05 20:16 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-05 22:38 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-03-06 18:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-03-06 08:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-06 10:02 -0800
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-07 00:34 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 06:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 11:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-06 14:56 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 02:38 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-03-07 21:15 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-03-07 21:44 -0600
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-03-08 16:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-03-08 09:42 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-03 23:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 08:52 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-05 09:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-05 09:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 04:53 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-11 05:24 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-03-11 07:58 -0700
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-03-11 19:01 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-03-11 13:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-12 13:50 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-13 13:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 15:10 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-04-14 00:30 +1000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-04-15 22:37 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-17 02:32 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 23:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-04-27 13:13 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-13 16:22 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-13 21:14 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-13 21:55 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 09:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:12 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:29 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:11 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-04-14 05:25 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-16 20:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-04 03:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 04:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-05-04 07:54 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2015-05-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> - 2015-05-04 22:31 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-04 19:13 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 02:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Baeuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> - 2015-05-05 08:04 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-05 09:22 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-05 18:08 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 23:16 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-11 17:52 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 07:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:47 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 08:27 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 15:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:08 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 17:21 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 12:41 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:03 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 19:59 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:05 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 22:58 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-13 01:15 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-13 08:14 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 09:24 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-05-12 11:50 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 18:52 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:29 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 18:36 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:00 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 20:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:14 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 06:09 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-05-12 06:44 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. c28f62@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) - 2015-05-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-14 23:18 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-04-14 20:58 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-15 06:20 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2015-04-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 05:21 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-04-16 11:42 +0200
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 12:10 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 13:42 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-16 15:06 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 23:09 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 09:56 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-04-16 06:13 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-04-16 16:32 -0400
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-04-17 01:54 +0000
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-17 06:34 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-04-18 23:13 +0100
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-04-13 20:39 -0500
Re: Keeping 'order' without RTC. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-04-14 06:46 +0000
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 13:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ransil-5B5668.13124201032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #13833 |
In article <mcvtr4$ln4$1@dont-email.me>, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 19:08:12 +0000, mm0fmf wrote: > > > On 01/03/2015 18:44, RRansil wrote: > >> What is the installed software? > > > > cp or dd > > > > man dd or man cp for more info. If you don't have man installed, then > > type "man dd" into Google. > > Or rsync - may not be installed out of the box, but its definitely > included in the standard package set (use apt-get or the equivalent GUI > command to install it. Its my favourite backup because, after the initial > run, its fast. > > Speed ups of around 30-70 times are typical: it does the minimum work > needed to make a backup disk or SD card identical to the current state of > the source device and has clever tricks for doing minimal work on large > files (databases, binaries etc). You'll probably want to use a cycle of > at least two backup cards: I do exactly that using a cycle of two USB > hard drives which are kept offline in a fireproof safe when not being > used to make a backup or (much more rarely) to recover after an old disk > has died. Good information. I'll look at rsync too. Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 13:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ransil-42CA44.13073901032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #13827 |
In article <xsJIw.201476$SK1.103005@fx17.am4>, mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote: > On 01/03/2015 18:44, RRansil wrote: > > What is the installed software? > > cp or dd> Ah...I see. Thanks! > man dd or man cp for more info. If you don't have man installed, then > type "man dd" into Google.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md01th$8nt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13825 |
On 2015-03-01, RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> wrote: > In article <mcuu0a$e9t$2@dont-email.me>, > Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > > [snip] > >> All you need to make backups on an RPi is a USB SD card reader - the software is already installed. > > What is the installed software? Would you please elaborate? I'm new to > the RPi and linux and am interested in knowing how to backup the RPi > using a Mac. ??? You backup a RPi using the rpi. There are many ways of doing so. rsync, tar, .... > > Thank you for any information you may provide. > > Ray
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 14:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ransil-4BB73E.14494301032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #13837 |
In article <md01th$8nt$2@dont-email.me>, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > On 2015-03-01, RRansil <ransil@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > In article <mcuu0a$e9t$2@dont-email.me>, > > Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> All you need to make backups on an RPi is a USB SD card reader - the > >> software is already installed. > > > > What is the installed software? Would you please elaborate? I'm new to > > the RPi and linux and am interested in knowing how to backup the RPi > > using a Mac. > > ??? You backup a RPi using the rpi. There are many ways of doing so. > rsync, tar, .... Thanks. My earlier web searches led me to tutorials using a backup application for Windows, so I thought maybe there was a Mac-OS counterpart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-28 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mct186$je3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13769 |
On 2015-02-28, not.socialnetwork@gmail.com <not.socialnetwork@gmail.com> wrote: > When you transfer a dir of script/s & data-files to rPi from your PC, > via USBstik, there's a problem, since the rPi has no RealTimeClock. > > So the important abilty to 'evaluate' files by their recentcy is lost. > It's a universal truth that you'll want to get the most-recent > cup-of-coffee and not the 17th most-recent that you put-down. > That's why stacks are used. > > What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? chrony. ntp would do as well (assuming of course that you are on the net, or have a gps timing receiver plugged in). Otherwise you can set the time by hand with chrony, or even with just adjtimex. > >==TIA. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-28 19:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mct4t2$2e1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13769 |
On 28/02/2015 12:13, not.socialnetwork@gmail.com wrote: > When you transfer a dir of script/s & data-files to rPi from your PC, > via USBstik, there's a problem, since the rPi has no RealTimeClock. > > So the important abilty to 'evaluate' files by their recentcy is lost. > It's a universal truth that you'll want to get the most-recent > cup-of-coffee and not the 17th most-recent that you put-down. > That's why stacks are used. > > What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? > > ==TIA. I use NTP so that my Raspberry Pi cards keep the correct time. I believe you can buy an RTC card for the RPi as well. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1503011413590.23399@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #13769 |
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, not.socialnetwork@gmail.com wrote:
> When you transfer a dir of script/s & data-files to rPi from your PC,
> via USBstik, there's a problem, since the rPi has no RealTimeClock.
>
Is ths one of those questions where you ask a nominally valid question,
but since you don't know what you are talking about you get lots of
repsonses?
A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so
often, and the software that counts those interruptions.
In the old days, you had to set the time when you started the computer,
because it didn't know what time it was, just the time relative from that
starting point.
Later, a hardware clock was added, so the computer could poll that clock
and get the time by itself. This actually keeps time by a clock and a
bunch of counters, so the computer reads the absolute time. But the
computer only reads the hardware clock on booting up, or when you tell it
to read the hardware clock, otherwise it uses the RTC to keep track of the
time. That's why I'd lose time on my Radio Shack Color Computer decades
ago when reading floppy disks; disk operations turned off the interrupts
because the routine needed to work fast, so the clock would lose time due
to lack of updates.
Since Linux is very interrupt driven, I find it hard to believe that Linux
can run without also keeping track of the time.
If the Raspberry Pi really does not have a hardware clock to keep track of
the time when it's turned off, then all you need to do is manually set the
time once you turn on the computer. The utility has to be there, it has
other uses
Michael
> So the important abilty to 'evaluate' files by their recentcy
is lost. > It's a universal truth that you'll want to get the most-recent
> cup-of-coffee and not the 17th most-recent that you put-down.
> That's why stacks are used.
>
> What algorithm do you use to solve this problem?
>
> ==TIA.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-01 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md01qv$8nt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13828 |
On 2015-03-01, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, not.socialnetwork@gmail.com wrote: > >> When you transfer a dir of script/s & data-files to rPi from your PC, >> via USBstik, there's a problem, since the rPi has no RealTimeClock. >> > Is ths one of those questions where you ask a nominally valid question, > but since you don't know what you are talking about you get lots of > repsonses? > > A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so > often, and the software that counts those interruptions. No. A real time clock is a little clock chip on the computer which actually counts the seconds and keeps track of the actual date and time as well. It is run off a battery and still works even if the computer is shut off, unplugged and (for a laptop) the main battery removed. > > In the old days, you had to set the time when you started the computer, > because it didn't know what time it was, just the time relative from that > starting point. PCs have had RTC for a long long time now. > > Later, a hardware clock was added, so the computer could poll that clock > and get the time by itself. This actually keeps time by a clock and a > bunch of counters, so the computer reads the absolute time. But the > computer only reads the hardware clock on booting up, or when you tell it > to read the hardware clock, otherwise it uses the RTC to keep track of the What you call the hardware clock is more usually called the RTC. The system clock is what you seem to call the RTC. The rPi has a system clock. It has no RTC. > time. That's why I'd lose time on my Radio Shack Color Computer decades > ago when reading floppy disks; disk operations turned off the interrupts > because the routine needed to work fast, so the clock would lose time due > to lack of updates. > > Since Linux is very interrupt driven, I find it hard to believe that Linux > can run without also keeping track of the time. > > If the Raspberry Pi really does not have a hardware clock to keep track of > the time when it's turned off, then all you need to do is manually set the > time once you turn on the computer. The utility has to be there, it has > other uses Yes. Unfortunately linux (usually) does not have a program which asks for the current time when switched on. > > Michael > >> So the important abilty to 'evaluate' files by their recentcy > is lost. > It's a universal truth that you'll want to get the most-recent >> cup-of-coffee and not the 17th most-recent that you put-down. >> That's why stacks are used. >> >> What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? >> >> ==TIA. >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-02 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mks8falhap8rcm1ebjn5m6n9pr6khsa20b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #13836 |
On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:54:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >On 2015-03-01, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, not.socialnetwork@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> When you transfer a dir of script/s & data-files to rPi from your PC, >>> via USBstik, there's a problem, since the rPi has no RealTimeClock. >>> >> Is ths one of those questions where you ask a nominally valid question, >> but since you don't know what you are talking about you get lots of >> repsonses? >> >> A "real time clock" is the thing that interrupts the computer every so >> often, and the software that counts those interruptions. > >No. A real time clock is a little clock chip on the computer which >actually counts the seconds and keeps track of the actual date and time >as well. It is run off a battery and still works even if the computer is >shut off, unplugged and (for a laptop) the main battery removed. > >> >> In the old days, you had to set the time when you started the computer, >> because it didn't know what time it was, just the time relative from that >> starting point. > >PCs have had RTC for a long long time now. Only from August 1984 when IBM introduced the AT (successor to the XT and the earlier PC) based on the 80286 CPU with the expansion bus slots extended from 8 bit to 16 bit data buses and an extra 4 bits on top of the existing 20 bit address bus. Prior to the AT, the original PC and XT motherboards didn't include a RTC. However, a lot of add in peripherals such as CGA and VGA, memory expansion cards and Multi-I/O adapters (required to connect floppy disks, modems, printers and hard disks) started appearing with RTC chips included, along with, typically, a lithium coin cell holder). The RTC became such a ubiquitous feature of add on adapter cards that it wasn't unusual to see a PC or XT with as many as 3 such RTCs to choose from! In fact I myself reached such a state of 'surplus RTCs' with my early home assembled PC (made from 'scrapped' parts) around 1984/85 due to this proliferation of RTCs being "Free with every 8 bit adapter!" effect. :-) IBM put paid to this by including the RTC on-board in their then latest AT motherboard specification. The CMOS RTC with its 70 odd spare 8 bit registers were able to amply serve the needs previously supplied by the three or four 8 way dip switches required to configure the hardware (presence and number of floppy disk drives, the amount of installed ram and other junk) which freed up a significant chunk of MoBo real estate as well as allow "The CMOS" to be configured via software, initially from a special setup program on a floppy but very swiftly incorporated into the BIOS rom via a hot key during the POST sequence so that all PCs _except_ the crap made by Compaq, could be configured _without_ the need for a special floppy disk setup program. In the meantime, MSDOS would always prompt for the date and time on every boot _unless_ an AUTOEXEC.BAT file was found on the boot disk. It was enough for such a file of that name to be present, even if it was empty, to suppress MSDOS's ever present request for the date and time. This quite neatly saved the early users of PCs who weren't bothered about date/time stamps from having to type these details in after every crash or install induced reboot, typically games players, whilst at the same time, allowing this question to be explicitly re-submitted and then answered by the RTC supplied interface software when such an RTC module was available. > >> >> Later, a hardware clock was added, so the computer could poll that clock >> and get the time by itself. This actually keeps time by a clock and a >> bunch of counters, so the computer reads the absolute time. But the >> computer only reads the hardware clock on booting up, or when you tell it >> to read the hardware clock, otherwise it uses the RTC to keep track of the > >What you call the hardware clock is more usually called the RTC. >The system clock is what you seem to call the RTC. The rPi has a system >clock. It has no RTC. All subsequent PCs (essentially AT and the ATX variant) retained timer chip compatability with the original PC where the OS would program a timer to produce a timer interrupt (18.1818 times per second for the OS's system time function, AFAICR). The hardware RTC merely supplied the initial settings on each reboot and was normally never consulted again unless a specific software request was made (manually inputting the date and time from a dos prompt would automatically update the RTC as well as the system time (at least for the AT class of PC hardware - I'm not so sure about the earlier PC standard with its add-on RTC though). > > >> time. That's why I'd lose time on my Radio Shack Color Computer decades >> ago when reading floppy disks; disk operations turned off the interrupts >> because the routine needed to work fast, so the clock would lose time due >> to lack of updates. >> >> Since Linux is very interrupt driven, I find it hard to believe that Linux >> can't run without also keeping track of the time. Well, since Linus didn't attempt to port a version of Unix onto a PC until Intel finally got off their fat backsides to produce their first decent CPU in the form of the 80386 (which every subsequent intel CPU has been based upon), the integrated RTC has always existed in the history of X86 versions of Linux. The lack of such an integrated RTC would seem to be unique to the ARM SoC processors used by R-Pis and similar SBCs. >> >> If the Raspberry Pi really does not have a hardware clock to keep track of >> the time when it's turned off, then all you need to do is manually set the >> time once you turn on the computer. The utility has to be there, it has >> other uses > >Yes. Unfortunately linux (usually) does not have a program which asks >for the current time when switched on. Historically, for all the PC versions at least, there hasn't been any need to automatically prompt for such user information on every reboot as was the case with MSDOS. However, it's quite simple to include such a request in a startup script, including initiating a date/time update from an externally added RTC module. > >> >> Michael >> >>> So the important abilty to 'evaluate' files by their recentcy >> is lost. > It's a universal truth that you'll want to get the most-recent >>> cup-of-coffee and not the 17th most-recent that you put-down. >>> That's why stacks are used. >>> >>> What algorithm do you use to solve this problem? >>> >>> ==TIA. >>> >>> IMO, the best "Algorithm" is to use an add on RTC module and add the appropriate time setting requests to the startup script if reasonably accurate time is required on a R-Pi that stands in total isolation from the internet or any other time setting source such as MSF Rugby or a GPS receiver. Relying on the latest date of a regularly updated file is a piss poor workaround at best, only being slightly better than nothing at all. If the system date/time has any importance at all (at least to the extent of asking this question), you really aught to fit an RTC module if no alternative source of accurate time setting is available. -- J B Good
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-02 19:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7928f02e2b82f3a8c693e3ca3004a409@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #13843 |
Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:54:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > > >PCs have had RTC for a long long time now. > > Only from August 1984 That was a long long time ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 10:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md41iv$naq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13847 |
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:<7928f02e2b82f3a8c693e3ca3004a409@dizum.com>... > Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:54:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh > > > > >PCs have had RTC for a long long time now. > > > > Only from August 1984 > > That was a long long time ago. > I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very long time ago in the eyes of a PC. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-03 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md52ka01bev@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #13850 |
On 2015-03-03, David B <askforemail@gmail.com> wrote: > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message > news:<7928f02e2b82f3a8c693e3ca3004a409@dizum.com>... > >> Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:54:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >>> >>>> PCs have had RTC for a long long time now. >>> >>> Only from August 1984 >> >> That was a long long time ago. > > I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very > long time ago in the eyes of a PC. That depends on your definition of PC. If you mean "IBM Personal Computer or clone", then yes, it's 1981. (The same applies, of course, if you take PC to mean "Politically Correct", since machines needed those magic three letters to be acceptable to the beancounters.) If, on the other hand, you take PC to mean "personal computer" without any political overtones, then you can go back even farther. And yes, some of those earlier machines had clocks too. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 10:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nKooGn.1pq@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #13850 |
"David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very
> long time ago in the eyes of a PC.
>
The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal
Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally
it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity.
The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old hands'
were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first IBM-PCs didn't
even have floppy drives at all.
Jack
--
"I'm a home-loving girl. And that's where I wish I was."
"At home ..."
"Loving."
- Laugh-In, 1968
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 11:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ei6jsb-m1e.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13865 |
On 04/03/15 10:43, Jack Strangio wrote: > "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes: >> >> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very >> long time ago in the eyes of a PC. >> > The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal > Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally > it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity. I was used to using minis and mainframes running unix and VAX/VMS. I recall looking at an early PC running DOS and thinking "what a primitive piece of crap" (aimed mostly at the barely-an-OS-more-of-a-monitor). For me PCs did not get useful until pentiums and linux and they matured with amd64 architecture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 11:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md6qcn$gvg$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13868 |
On 04/03/15 11:23, Tim Watts wrote: > On 04/03/15 10:43, Jack Strangio wrote: >> "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very >>> very very >>> long time ago in the eyes of a PC. >>> >> The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal >> Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally >> it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity. > > I was used to using minis and mainframes running unix and VAX/VMS. > > I recall looking at an early PC running DOS and thinking "what a > primitive piece of crap" (aimed mostly at the > barely-an-OS-more-of-a-monitor). IBM IIRC saw them as smart terminals - i.e 'thick clients'. > > For me PCs did not get useful until pentiums and linux and they matured > with amd64 architecture. > Ah well, no. For me, debveloping low level code they were useful from the word go. If for no other reason than worsdtar was just better than 'vi' -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6s4efa1qcden8sfuambfpl2ib34evo4i87@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #13865 |
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:43:35 GMT, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: >"David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes: >> >> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very >> long time ago in the eyes of a PC. >> >The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal >Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally >it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity. My first "PC" was a Transam Tuscan S100 Bus built from a kit. Unusually for an S100 Bus machine, it had a motherboard with 5 S100 bus slots rather reminiscent of the IBM PC which contained the equivilent of 5 S100 bus adapters (Z80 2MHz CPU, ROM, RAM, Graphics, and I/O (RS232, Modem for the tape storage interface, a parallel centronics printer port and a parallel keyboard interface)). I couldn't afford to add a floppy disk interface and disk drives since the additional cost, circa 300 quid at the time (when that was real money) would have more than doubled the cost of the whole system (which excluded the power supplies, keyboard, modulator or monitor and a case which, except for the case, I sourced locally from a government surplus shop - the case was initially just a square of chipboard I could screw the board and PSUs onto). > >The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old hands' >were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first IBM-PCs didn't >even have floppy drives at all. The base model came without floppy disk storage (such peripherals were still a horribly expensive option at the time) hence the second 5 pin DIN socket alongside the PC keyboard socket on the back edge of the main board to allow a tape recorder, typically cassette, to be used for data storage. The stand out reason as to why IBM's PC was initially so 'lacklustre' was their total lack of basic market research to disabuse them of their mis-perception of the value of such a product offering. This lead to a half assed underfunded "PC Division" that was forced to make some rather pragmatic and unfortunate decisions in its design. The most unfortunate of which was the choice of CPU supplier along with making the mistake of not keeping the OS design 'In House', electing instead to outsource this to an upstart 2 bit software company that didn't care 1 bit for their end user's well being. Apart from those two basic mistakes, the PC had a few important advantages going for it when compared to the other 8 bit Toy computers and the S100 Bus machines. Firstly, it was a 16 bit machine using 8 bit chips, secondly, it boasted a rather emotive (at that time) vast memory limit of a whole Megabyte rather than the poxy 64KB limit of the existing 'PCs' it was competing against but, most importantly, it boasted the IBM badge. Whilst the initial system clock speed was nothing to write home about (4.77MHz afaicr) it did promise to be a more enduring standard around which the third party manufacturers could rally around with some confidence of tapping into a sizeable market for their add-on adapters. That, along with the fact that IBM didn't patent or trademark the basic design, allowing third party manufacturers to build and sell "IBM PC Clones" just as long as they wrote their own BIOS code, excludingthe built in basic, is what led to the runaway success of the "IBM PC". In fact the success of this design was so 'All Conquering' that by the time IBM decided to make an upgraded version in the form of the PS/2 series, they, deservedly, failed (no backwards compatability with the vast investment in 8 bit and 16 bit adapter cards made by their customers). IBM learnt the hard way that they'd created an unstoppable monster that wasn't going to be sidelined by their half assed attempts at 'making a better PC' and the rest, as they say,is 'History'. The key to the success of the PC was simply due to the attention to backwards compatability and an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary approach to its ongoing development (and, of course, the vastly expanded consumer market leading to the cost savings by the use of mass production techniques required to service this demand). Whilst a high end S100 Bus PC was technically superior to the IBM PC, this didn't last very long once IBM had morphed their PC into the 8MHz clocked 80286 powered AT PC with its 8 bit backwards compatible 16 bit ISA slotted expansion bussed machine in August 1984 at which point the IBM AT PC became the equal of the S100 Bus swiftly leaving it choking in its dust a year or so later as further developments were evolved. We have IBM to thank for the arrival of cheap mass computing technology and the only mistakes we regret to this day are their poor choices over their OS and the CPU suppliers. :-( -- J B Good
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7avd$mtf$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13865 |
On 2015-03-04, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: > "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes: >> >> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very >> long time ago in the eyes of a PC. >> > The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal > Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally > it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity. Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape system. > > The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old hands' > were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first IBM-PCs didn't > even have floppy drives at all. > > Jack > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7c0k$iik$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13889 |
On 04/03/15 16:13, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-03-04, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> I think the first PC as we know it was 1981 (IBM) so it was a very very very >>> long time ago in the eyes of a PC. >>> >> The IBM-PC was a latecomer to the scene. Most of us who had 'Personal >> Computers' were quite disparaging of its early specifications.Originally >> it was very restricted in terms of memory, and disk capacity. > > Disk? You were a latecomer to the PC. The original had a cartridge tape > system. > No. Actually the originals were available from the get go with disk, *cassette* tape, or nothing. >> >> The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old hands' >> were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first IBM-PCs didn't >> even have floppy drives at all. >> I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option >> Jack >> >> -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7cdn$22s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13890 |
> 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option Quite possibly, but we had 8" 1.2mb discs where I used to work. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-04 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <md7cf0$27d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13890 |
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 17:31, The Natural Philosopher conveyed the
following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> On 04/03/15 16:13, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-04, Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The original IBM-PC floppy was only about 160 kb while we 'old
>>> hands' were used to 1200 kb floppies. I believe the very first
>>> IBM-PCs didn't even have floppy drives at all.
>
> I don't believe I ever saw a PC floppy with less than 360k
They were single-sided, and if you cut out a "write notch" on the
opposite side, you /could/ use them on the other side as well, or so I
was told.
> 1200kb was never a 5 1/4" format option
Yes it was. It was introduced for the AT. My first computer was a
Brother 386 with an internal 3.5" 1.44 MiB drive and an external 5.25"
1.2 MiB drive.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web