Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:51 +0100
On the on-topicness of tape drives (was: Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:47 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:14 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 17:29 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:52 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:11 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-06 02:41 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 22:31 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:41 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:39 -0800
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:30 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 15:26 -0800
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:15 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-08 11:28 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 18:14 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-06 05:59 +0000
Re: Tape Drives Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 06:18 +0000
Re: Tape Drives Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 18:40 +0800
Re: Tape Drives Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:12 -0500
Re: Tape Drives "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 14:32 +0000
Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:31 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:08 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:26 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-11-04 09:55 +0800
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:14 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-11-05 20:40 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:52 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:28 +0100
My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-06 18:37 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 00:51 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:20 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:38 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:47 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-08 04:23 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 05:00 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 20:50 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 03:53 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:06 +0100
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-10 19:11 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:01 +0100
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:31 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:52 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 20:09 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-08 08:08 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:24 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 18:34 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:54 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:39 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:08 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:25 +0000
Re: My Computer History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:32 +0000
Re: My Computer History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 23:07 -0500
Re: My Computer History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: My Computer History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-10 19:15 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:49 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:03 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:08 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 07:29 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 16:11 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:19 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-11-10 14:31 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:48 -1000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:55 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 21:35 -0700
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 16:56 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:46 -0500
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-10 18:06 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:45 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-10 19:26 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-04 19:15 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-04 20:38 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:51 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-11-05 17:48 +0100
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-05 16:56 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:55 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 12:23 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-06 19:25 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 15:59 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 09:03 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:55 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:01 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 18:31 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:39 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 19:07 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:01 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 15:54 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-08 00:33 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:05 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-10 05:30 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 20:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <oI6cnQaB6axLu2z3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95344 |
On 11/8/26 00:00, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > 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... Um ... when was anti-static foam INVENTED ? As I recall the original stuff was quite stiff and brittle. Anyway, you sort of re-invented a van-DeGraff generator with yer fast-moving tape :-) > 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. Huge generators/motors are nothing new. My dad used to wire those up, some SIX-phase, in the early 40s. Then the Japanese showed up one Sunday and blew up a lot of them ....... They wouldn't let him join the mil, they needed everything on Hawaii re/over-built FAST. He was not even allowed to leave the island until '45. As for the who-is-easier-to-teach thing, I kinda agree with your observations/experiences. The "theory" people tend to have no practical sense, but the practical people can be taught ENOUGH theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 03:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <XsbIS.33603$Or3.24519@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #95365 |
On 2026-11-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 11/8/26 00:00, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-11-08, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote: >> >>> On 2026-11-08, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> 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... > > Um ... when was anti-static foam INVENTED ? > > As I recall the original stuff was quite stiff > and brittle. > > Anyway, you sort of re-invented a van-DeGraff > generator with yer fast-moving tape :-) That's the way I thought of it. :-) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 15:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <nvkbsmxq9r.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #95344 |
On 2026-11-08 06:00, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > 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. I was hired to do programming, despite my field being electronics, because the boss thought that it was easier to had en electronics engineer doing software than software engineers understanding electronics. He was happy that he could send me to clients for both type of problems. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 19:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <nlh8iaFh20mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95423 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 15:06:15 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I was hired to do programming, despite my field being electronics, > because the boss thought that it was easier to had en electronics > engineer doing software than software engineers understanding > electronics. > > He was happy that he could send me to clients for both type of problems. My progression from hardware to software not planned but occurred as microprocessors were integrated into industrial controllers. It was helpful to have a feeling for hardware constraints. I missed the hardware as I got further into the metaphorical world. Pixels representing a skeuomorphic push button aren't a push button.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 15:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <5nkbsmxq9r.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #95342 |
On 2026-11-08 05:23, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2026-11-08, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> On 2026-11-07, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote: > 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. Wow. > > The professor's last name was Clegg. He taught at Brigham Young > University. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 07:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cnco2$3gavo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95285 |
On 11/6/26 22:51, 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. > > "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. I associate it with Gier Algol. Brinch-Hansen? Worth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 06:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cndv9$3gu68$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95307 |
On 11/7/2026 06:31, Peter Flass wrote: > On 11/6/26 22:51, 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. >> >> "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. > > I associate it with Gier Algol. Brinch-Hansen? Worth? Naur - of Backus-Naur. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Naur Peter Naur was an astronomer, who was first introduced to computers when he was visiting Mount Palomar to use the 200-inch (5 meter) telescope. On his return to Denmark, he joined the group that was becoming A/S Regnecentralen, which first built a tube machine (DASK) and later the GIER system (transistors) and RC4000 (LSI ICs). My first programming lessons were from Peter Naur. CoPilot notes that "an interesting connection is that several European observatories in the 1960s used GIER computers from Regnecentralen for astronomical data reduction. The most famous example was the Hamburg Meridian Circle expedition in Perth, Australia, where a GIER processed stellar position measurements." -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 20:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <-xqdnZUBGPklVnL3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95313 |
On 11/7/26 09:52, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 11/7/2026 06:31, Peter Flass wrote: >> On 11/6/26 22:51, 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. >>> >>> "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. >> >> I associate it with Gier Algol. Brinch-Hansen? Worth? > > Naur - of Backus-Naur. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Naur > Peter Naur was an astronomer, who was first introduced to computers when > he was visiting Mount Palomar to use the 200-inch (5 meter) telescope. > On his return to Denmark, he joined the group that was becoming A/S > Regnecentralen, which first built a tube machine (DASK) and later the > GIER system (transistors) and RC4000 (LSI ICs). > > My first programming lessons were from Peter Naur. > > CoPilot notes that "an interesting connection is that several European > observatories in the 1960s used GIER computers from Regnecentralen for > astronomical data reduction. The most famous example was the Hamburg > Meridian Circle expedition in Perth, Australia, where a GIER processed > stellar position measurements." A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up a huge amount of time. BUT - the speed and accuracy - still vastly better than a room full of human 'calculators' with paper and pencils. Made computers Worth It. absolute 'wonders'. Somebody mentioned using a Gier to calculate astronomical data. Humans COULD do that, but you'd have needed a lot of them spending a lot of time and somebody somewhere would misplace a decimal point at minimum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 08:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11cpall$52k0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95336 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: > A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were > VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to > be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored > in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up > a huge amount of time. Hence spooling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL8hIRJs8Kg&list=PLsMFdolQPga5vhREBhhhXzpb4XXPd9Pc_&index=10 has a film of a 1968 meeting about an early introduction (not sure if it actually was the first). A large room, and it was packed. It was of large interest, obviously. -- This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence, artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity, artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 21:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <cQudnaXPH5NPs2z3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95346 |
On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: > >> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >> a huge amount of time. > > Hence spooling. Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL8hIRJs8Kg&list=PLsMFdolQPga5vhREBhhhXzpb4XXPd9Pc_&index=10 > has a film of a 1968 meeting about an early introduction (not sure > if it actually was the first). A large room, and it was packed. > It was of large interest, obviously. By the mid/latter 60s "computers" WERE the neat-o Coming Thing. LOTS of interest, more and more uses. The interest boosted both hardware and software development to a huge degree. But the Big Boom was not until IC microprocessors came around and all the Great Unwashed could get into the game. Before that, narrow-tie guys with pocket protectors doing COBOL and FORTRAN. They WERE damned GOOD though ...... Anyway, my original point ... old computers WERE insanely slow for a variety of reasons. However they were still VASTLY faster and more accurate than using humans for similar needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 18:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <11crbft$svli$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95367 |
On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote: > On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >> >>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >>> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >>> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >>> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >>> a huge amount of time. >> >> Hence spooling. > > Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta > actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also > spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply > for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core > memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either. Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a class in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we introduced ourselves and described our workplace's significant computer systems. One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as he described their main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we all oohed and aahed and wondered aloud how anyone could make productive use of that much memory. But he explained that they easily used it all up with their static analysis tools, their version control system, their auditing programs making sure the programs adhered to their programming standards etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM clearly had too much money on their hands if they could spend it on such frills!! -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 22:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <j9ycnSs8vrmZ2Wz3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95370 |
On 11/8/26 21:34, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 11/8/2026 18:24, c186282 wrote: >> On 11/8/26 03:08, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> schrieb: >>> >>>> A lot of the old mini's - even mainframes - were >>>> VERY SLOW by any modern standard. Slow enough to >>>> be hilarious these days. CPU speed barely factored >>>> in - the I/O speed with cards/tapes/etc used up >>>> a huge amount of time. >>> >>> Hence spooling. >> >> Spooling HELPS ... but, at some point, you've gotta >> actually read/write to the shitty slow media. Also >> spooling requires RAM ... which was in short supply >> for a long time. I remember big cubes full of mag-core >> memory ..... and it wasn't MUCH memory either. > > Back in my University Computer Center days, a few of us attended a class > in London on debugging paradigms. On the first day, we introduced > ourselves and described our workplace's significant computer systems. > One of the attendeed was from IBM Grenoble, and as he described their > main system with a whopping 16MB of main memory, we all oohed and aahed > and wondered aloud how anyone could make productive use of that much > memory. But he explained that they easily used it all up with their > static analysis tools, their version control system, their auditing > programs making sure the programs adhered to their programming standards > etc. We all shook our heads at how IBM clearly had too much money on > their hands if they could spend it on such frills!! 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. Also EXPENSIVE as all hell ... hey, little ferrite doughnuts hand-placed on wires ....... The coolest was 'rope memory' ... the doughnuts hand-placed on long strands of wires. the old Lunar Excursion Module computer used it. NASA basically contracted Good Knitter grannies ... Note better memory, ICs/PROMs, WERE to be had by 1968 but the Apollo/LEM was govt-specced MUCH earlier. This is a common 'behind the curve' problem. Hard to go wrong with fusible-link PROMS though. THINK you can still buy 'em. DigiKey ??? Anyway, 'spooling' - NOTHING to 'spool' to for a long time. RAM was TINY TINY TINY. So, you were hostage to the native storage-device speed. That was usually VERY bad. But, still, 100x-1000x faster than any humans could do the calc jobs. You could go to the moon with those old computers. STILL rec that 'computer/software' tech classes in schools START with micro-controllers. Teaches a LOT of 'discipline', a LOT of 'cleverness'. PICs, with BYTES of RAM/ROM, may be a bit passe' but Arduino's are still a fair medium and there are tons of doc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 04:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <n8cIS.602$s53.185@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #95376 |
On 2026-11-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) > > The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. Yup. The 360/67 at the university had 3 (later 4) core boxes. Each was the size of a large refrigerator and held all of 256K. 16MB was the theoretical maximum amount of memory that you could hang on a 360. I say "theoretical" because nobody could afford anywhere near that. In the early '70s, I remember reading an article in a trade rag that described how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. And now we pay less than a dollar a gigabyte. Amazing. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 21:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <8lednRoSHIU84W_3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95378 |
On 11/8/26 23:39, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-11-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) >> >> The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. > > Yup. The 360/67 at the university had 3 (later 4) > core boxes. Each was the size of a large refrigerator > and held all of 256K. Yep, remember 'em. DID promote extreme code discipline though :-) Also meant MOST of yer code had to be kept on horribly slow external devices, bits swapped in and out. "Spooling", no RAM for that ! Once saw an IBM "desk computer". No, not DeskTOP but a big fancy desk packed full of electronics. For a nominal amount you could also buy one of those big cubes full of almost no core RAM. > 16MB was the theoretical maximum amount of memory that you > could hang on a 360. I say "theoretical" because nobody > could afford anywhere near that. In the early '70s, I > remember reading an article in a trade rag that described > how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a > megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. > > And now we pay less than a dollar a gigabyte. Amazing. Still say computer students should start on micro-controllers ... tiny tiny ROM/RAM. Teaches them how to make good tight smart code instead of the modern obese monstrosities. Would have said the 8-bit PICs awhile ago but now the Ard Uno is probably better for ed. Amazing what you CAN do with the things IF you learn to squeeze it in. Had one, with a network shield, actually running a tiny TCP stack and web page with LOW rez char-graphics pix. Was attached to one of our spare IP addresses for years, main function was to tell people they were in the wrong place and help them to the right place. Still, two pages, both with relevant info. All on an Uno !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 02:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <EgvIS.3920$K53.3402@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #95395 |
On 2026-11-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 11/8/26 23:39, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-11-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) >>> >>> The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. >> >> Yup. The 360/67 at the university had 3 (later 4) >> core boxes. Each was the size of a large refrigerator >> and held all of 256K. > > Yep, remember 'em. > > DID promote extreme code discipline though :-) And from there I went to my first job, programming a Univac 9300 with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 02:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History |
| Message-ID | <11ctvne$1q1c4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95397 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 02:25:40 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > And from there I went to my first job, programming a Univac 9300 > with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! The machine was considered more valuable than you were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 23:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History |
| Message-ID | <D56cnSSdVfEKBW_3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95398 |
On 11/9/26 21:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 02:25:40 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> And from there I went to my first job, programming a Univac 9300 >> with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! > > The machine was considered more valuable than you were. Oh, those things were BIG $$$ at the time !!! "Mainframes" were Giant Money tech. High prestige ! Now, just a 'specialty' tech - though still important to some interests. Hmmmmm ... are the "super-computers" beloved for doing extreme physics and such "mainframes" or Something Else ? SO many categories .......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History |
| Message-ID | <5vJIS.76788$i43.12700@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #95398 |
On 2026-11-10, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 02:25:40 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> And from there I went to my first job, programming a Univac 9300 >> with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! > > The machine was considered more valuable than you were. Yup. Time on machines of that class was worth about $150 an hour. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 19:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History |
| Message-ID | <nlh8qrFh20mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95437 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 18:36:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-11-10, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 02:25:40 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> And from there I went to my first job, programming a Univac 9300 with >>> 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! >> >> The machine was considered more valuable than you were. > > Yup. Time on machines of that class was worth about $150 an hour. It's amusing that charging for processor time by the second in the '70s came back with the AWS rate structures for some operations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 22:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) |
| Message-ID | <Q9SdnfePBLjFCW_3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95397 |
On 11/9/26 21:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-11-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> On 11/8/26 23:39, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-11-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 16 MEGABYTES ??? Wow !!! :-) >>>> >>>> The old mag-core memory units were MUCH smaller. >>> >>> Yup. The 360/67 at the university had 3 (later 4) >>> core boxes. Each was the size of a large refrigerator >>> and held all of 256K. >> >> Yep, remember 'em. >> >> DID promote extreme code discipline though :-) > > And from there I went to my first job, programming a > Univac 9300 with 16K of memory. Discipline indeed! 16K ... very tight for a mainframe ! But, that's what there WAS back then. UniVac, Honeywell, DEC, Burroughs etc ... they all died for various reasons. Only IBM survives. IBM has been the butt of many jokes - but clearly they've done SOMETHING right. Wide diversification and knowing WHEN to dump tech seems to be the magic formula. Everybody from NVidia on down is paying IBM royalties for basic tech. IBM mainframes, not the same as the 60s models, are still being sold. Would LOVE one or two of those big black boxes ... not sure what I'd DO with them, but ... Oh, most popular OS for those mainframes, the IBM spin of RHEL :-) Oh, if you're perverse, Plan-9 has also been ported to the IBM mainframes :-) NOT a bad distributed-processing OS actually, but decidedly non-mainstream. If M$ lawyers finally DO figure out how to kill Linux then we need ALTERNATIVES.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web