Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #32855 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SixOverFive <hae274b.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400 |
| Last post | 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 00:34 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-08-26 05:05 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:57 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:12 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 02:43 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 09:28 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-01 00:13 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-01 08:52 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:29 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:49 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2021-09-09 21:56 +0200
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:36 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:08 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 01:32 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-26 12:26 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-08-26 19:49 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 21:06 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:58 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-27 13:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-27 11:26 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 01:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 09:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 02:08 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-28 12:11 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 01:08 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-29 04:01 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 23:32 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 00:51 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-30 00:06 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 14:03 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:25 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:37 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 09:40 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-28 12:20 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2021-08-29 00:55 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:58 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-31 06:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 23:47 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-01 07:52 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2021-09-02 01:49 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2021-09-02 02:39 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 01:29 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 01:10 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-02 14:51 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-02 13:25 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-02 21:24 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 03:38 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:14 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:01 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 12:13 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 01:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 03:19 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-03 14:00 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-03 17:44 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 14:11 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-03 19:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-03 13:59 -0700
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 20:18 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 02:14 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:47 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-09-05 10:00 -0500
Re: real programmers, was HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-05 22:16 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-09-05 12:05 -0400
Re: fine old languages, HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-05 22:20 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 23:00 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 20:12 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 16:27 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 18:30 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 00:17 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:50 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-09-06 11:16 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-09-06 15:04 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2021-09-09 02:04 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 01:40 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:38 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-05 10:49 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 11:22 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 11:31 +0100
OT : Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 11:38 +0100
Re: OT : Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 12:15 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 20:12 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-07 22:05 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-09-05 10:13 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 09:50 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:18 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 22:38 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-06 08:53 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-05 12:22 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-09-03 19:34 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 19:57 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-03 08:27 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 01:03 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-09-05 15:25 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 14:03 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-05 19:27 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:14 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-06 00:53 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:58 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-06 12:36 +0300
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 00:44 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-26 17:51 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-28 01:48 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-28 10:16 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-29 00:21 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-08-26 19:53 +0200
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274b.net> - 2021-08-26 20:33 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-08-27 02:01 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-27 04:40 +0100
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-02 00:15 -0400
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 06:02 +0000
Re: HA - Found a CP/M-86 image and C compiler for VBox SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 02:37 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 13:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87wno6yf89.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #32913 |
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:58:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: > > Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) > >> This is useful information. >> The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* >> "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities >> of biz/science software was written for it. > First micro word processors and (among the first) > spreadsheets. Accounting software too. Wasn't VISICALC the first commercial successful spreadsheet, which (first) only ran on an Apple ][? That was the first "killer app". Some people bought an Apple ][, only to have access to a spreadsheet! Crazy times. -- Andreas https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-27 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sgbanq$o8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32924 |
On 8/27/21 10:22, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:58:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: >> >> Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) >> >>> This is useful information. >>> The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* >>> "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities >>> of biz/science software was written for it. >> First micro word processors and (among the first) >> spreadsheets. Accounting software too. > > Wasn't VISICALC the first commercial successful spreadsheet, which > (first) only ran on an Apple ][? That was the first "killer app". Some > people bought an Apple ][, only to have access to a spreadsheet! Crazy > times. > Pioneering times for digital workers. CPM machines were rife and quite disk bound with only floppy drives, only about 64 K of memory so any application had to fit, pull in data from floppies and manipulate it. Priced for business, one of my girlfriends tried to build her own. Don't know if she succeeded as she moved away. Visicalc was the killer app for Apple. My first software buy was Paper Clip for the Commodore 64. I learned about inserting formatting codes and enjoyed the heck out of being able to express myself in newsletters and other media. Using a Gorilla Monitor with 3 shades of greenish yellow called Amber in the advertising. Got a 80 column card and was buzzing along. Looking in Computer Shopper for Commodore stuff and tripping over 4 floppy drives in CPM machines at every other page. The Osbourne Computer started with only two drives which made it luggable way then went out of business because everyone was waiting on the new model Osbourne Executive That is why some companies maintain a good deal of caution about revealing the latest things in their works. I used to spend quite some time and as little money as possible at Computer Shows which were generally weekend events. The Commodore when it was coming out with the Amiga had a show at the old Jack Tar Hotel (now long gone with a Hospital built on the site). I won a drawing for a C=64 database from Batteries Included. Decided as the Amiga was coming out that I MUST have one but it took me years to make that happen. bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After all here I am... -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 01:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m6CdnZ3vy6C5VbT8nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32926 |
On 08/27/2021 02:26 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 8/27/21 10:22, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:58:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: >>> >>> Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) >>> >>>> This is useful information. >>>> The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* >>>> "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities >>>> of biz/science software was written for it. >>> First micro word processors and (among the first) >>> spreadsheets. Accounting software too. >> >> Wasn't VISICALC the first commercial successful spreadsheet, which >> (first) only ran on an Apple ][? That was the first "killer app". Some >> people bought an Apple ][, only to have access to a spreadsheet! Crazy >> times. >> > > Pioneering times for digital workers. CPM machines were rife and > quite disk bound with only floppy drives, only about 64 K of memory > so any application had to fit, pull in data from floppies and manipulate > it. Priced for business, one of my girlfriends tried to build her own. > Don't know if she succeeded as she moved away. Better Z80 systems used a few extra pins to implement paged memory (in a clunky fashion). So, at least 128k was not out of the picture. With programs often writ mostly in assembler, that was enough to do a LOT of neat stuff. > Visicalc was the killer app for Apple. > My first software buy was Paper Clip for the Commodore 64. > I learned about inserting formatting codes and enjoyed the heck out > of being able to express myself in newsletters and other media. Using > a Gorilla Monitor with 3 shades of greenish yellow called Amber in > the advertising. Got a 80 column card and was buzzing along. I liked the VIC-20 ... it was a simpler memory model than in the C-64. Really good for learning the nuances of assembler. Couldn't afford an Apple back then ... > Looking in Computer Shopper for Commodore stuff and tripping > over 4 floppy drives in CPM machines at every other page. The > Osbourne Computer started with only two drives which made it luggable > way then went out of business because everyone was waiting on the new > model Osbourne Executive That is why some companies maintain a good > deal of caution about revealing the latest things in their works. I actually wrote some practical software on an Osbourne "portable". A mix of 'C' and assembler - my only real experience with CP/M Z80. Oh well, they paid pretty good ... Ever see the IBM "Portable PC" ... the same idea - weighed about 30 pounds ..... used one of THOSE for a practical field project too. Best there was at the time. There was an "alternate" 88 chip at the time, fewer cycles per instruction, and even had a 8087 ! Some day I may tell about porting a FORTRAN program to IBM-BASIC and using POKE/PEEK to write stuff the 8087 could use ... horrible ! Despite the close numbers, the '87 has a whole different programming philosophy. This is made invisible these days, but ONCE ... > I used to spend quite some time and as little money as possible > at Computer Shows which were generally weekend events. The Commodore > when it was coming out with the Amiga had a show at the old Jack Tar > Hotel (now long gone with a Hospital built on the site). I won a > drawing for a C=64 database from Batteries Included. Decided as the > Amiga was coming out that I MUST have one but it took me years to > make that happen. I bought an Amiga-1000 ... SO many "Guru Meditation" error messages that I shelved the expensive thing. > bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After all > here I am... Even early Linux was "advanced" over the CP/M and even DOS worlds. Some DID sell UNIX for the early PCs though - but the PRICE was ridiculous. Santa-Cruz Operation Unix ... I remember now. Anyway, I'll be trying out my Aztec-C on the CP/M-86 soon now. Aztec was, as I remember, a pretty decent app back in the day. The manual is loaded with ASM examples ... they really wanted you to know what the compiler generated. In-Line assembler was also possible. A relic of a real Hack-It-Together past. But it was SO fun !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgcti2$6j7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32928 |
On 28/08/2021 06:22, SixOverFive wrote: > >> bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After all >> here I am... > > Even early Linux was "advanced" over the CP/M and even DOS worlds. > > Some DID sell UNIX for the early PCs though - but the PRICE was > ridiculous. Santa-Cruz Operation Unix ... I remember now. When you have seen and helped maintain one 386 PC running SCO unix with 30 serial terminals wired to it, run an entire company including spreadsheet, word processing database and accounts, you wouldnt baulk at the price. To replace that - generally kept going by one person in the firm or an occasional visit from elsewhere - by 35 PCS, novell netware, flaky coaxial Ethernet, and a full time support person, pushed the cost per desktop up 10x. I was quoted the cost of running a Windows desktop in the city of London as £3500 per annum, - capital and depreciation, software licenses training and IT staff. Bill Gates pushed the cost of computing through the ROOF. I vividly remember being involved in a very minor way with the upgrade of a glue covered IBM system 38 running 10 terminal in a bookbinding factory, to a PC running AIX 'because we want to run the same COBOL code that has worked so well for the last 20 years' > > Anyway, I'll be trying out my Aztec-C on the CP/M-86 soon now. > Aztec was, as I remember, a pretty decent app back in the day. > The manual is loaded with ASM examples ... they really wanted > you to know what the compiler generated. In-Line assembler was > also possible. A relic of a real Hack-It-Together past. > > But it was SO fun ! Aztec was indeed pretty decent. I taught myself 'C' using the BDS (Brain Dead Software) compiler - it wasn't very good at all - simply didn't understand complex statements - and a z80 wasnt very good at using the deafult integer types - it preferred 8 bits, but nevertheless it all could be made to work. Then onwards and upwards to MSDOS DR and IIRC MS C compilers. -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 02:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RtWdnX0rAurlubb8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32935 |
On 08/28/2021 04:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/08/2021 06:22, SixOverFive wrote: >> >>> bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After >>> all here I am... >> >> Even early Linux was "advanced" over the CP/M and even DOS worlds. >> >> Some DID sell UNIX for the early PCs though - but the PRICE was >> ridiculous. Santa-Cruz Operation Unix ... I remember now. > > When you have seen and helped maintain one 386 PC running SCO unix with > 30 serial terminals wired to it, run an entire company including > spreadsheet, word processing database and accounts, you wouldnt baulk at > the price. I'm sure it DID have its uses, was VERY tempted in fact ... However my client at the time did NOT like the up-front costs - and only had about ten employees that would use it. The cost/benefit ratio wasn't good enough. Sometimes the opposite approach worked better for smaller operations. I did work for a doctor who was paying $1000 80's bucks a months to some ultra-geek who ran a datacenter in the building. Apparently a proprietary DB and accounting system - can't knock his skills - but it was ALWAYS quirky and he wouldn't actually TALK to anyone. You had to write your issues and put them in the mail slot in the door, really. They were sick and tired of serial terminals and being hostage. SO, I climbed through the ceiling (I was young back then) and set them up with LANTASTIC and early versions of PeachTree accounting and Access. They felt so liberated - and only had to pay me once in awhile. It was all DOS/Win3/Win95 in that timeframe. > To replace that - generally kept going by one person in the firm or an > occasional visit from elsewhere - by 35 PCS, novell netware, flaky > coaxial Ethernet, and a full time support person, pushed the cost per > desktop up 10x. Oh yea, I remember NetWare ... EXPENSIVE. That's why I jumped on LanTastic. EVENTUALLY the coax network cables went away ... > > I was quoted the cost of running a Windows desktop in the city of London > as £3500 per annum, - capital and depreciation, software licenses > training and IT staff. > > Bill Gates pushed the cost of computing through the ROOF. Well, he IS in it for the money after all ... > I vividly remember being involved in a very minor way with the upgrade > of a glue covered IBM system 38 running 10 terminal in a bookbinding > factory, to a PC running AIX 'because we want to run the same COBOL code > that has worked so well for the last 20 years' You'd be surprised. I know a guy who went to work for a govt org just five years back. He had to learn COBOL because they had some big COBOL programs that organized everything and were NOT going to pay to have it all re-written. Cheaper to re-program the employees. The wealth of the 60s has been replaced by the more Spartan realities of the 21st century. I was never involved in big-city-scale stuff, and it's probably a good thing. My niche was always specialty software (and some hardware). Sometimes nobody/nothing does exactly what you want, so ... >> >> Anyway, I'll be trying out my Aztec-C on the CP/M-86 soon now. >> Aztec was, as I remember, a pretty decent app back in the day. >> The manual is loaded with ASM examples ... they really wanted >> you to know what the compiler generated. In-Line assembler was >> also possible. A relic of a real Hack-It-Together past. >> >> But it was SO fun ! > Aztec was indeed pretty decent. I remembered the name from the Old Days. It was an expensive compiler, but did pretty much anything you could imagine. MS eventually killed it. > I taught myself 'C' using the BDS (Brain Dead Software) compiler - it > wasn't very good at all - simply didn't understand complex statements - > and a z80 wasnt very good at using the deafult integer types - it > preferred 8 bits, but nevertheless it all could be made to work. Well, that was part of the FUN - bashing the things into doing what YOU wanted :-) I mostly learned from IBM-C, a little from an old PDP-11 system. Edit, compile, link, repeat, repeat, repeat. Even Turbo-C was a massive improvement. Then there was a lot of PIC microcontroller work - mostly RISC ASM. Did you know some of those things couldn't subtract ? You had to use overflow addition ... > Then onwards and upwards to MSDOS DR and IIRC MS C compilers. Well, I GUESS it's "upwards" .... but sometimes I'm not so sure. A bulldozer is usually "upwards", but a ten-buck shovel always WORKS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 12:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87a6l1y2fz.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #32928 |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:22:43 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > > I actually wrote some practical software on an Osbourne "portable". > A mix of 'C' and assembler - my only real experience with CP/M Z80. > Oh well, they paid pretty good ... Does this software still exist? Never had any (now vintage) hardware other than a Commodore 64 and Amiga. But thanks to emulation I can catch up with the past on machines I never owned but were a big part of the late 70s/early 80s (micro) computer revolution. For the Osborne I found their "Office Suite" on Bitsavers or Archive.org so can play with it. Nice to be able to run some of the first word processors and spreadsheets. Also uploaded my clumsy attempts to write a text and doing some "table calculations" on Youtube. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 01:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yMadnUAxcLv_i7b8nZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32942 |
On 08/28/2021 12:11 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:22:43 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: >> >> I actually wrote some practical software on an Osbourne "portable". >> A mix of 'C' and assembler - my only real experience with CP/M Z80. >> Oh well, they paid pretty good ... > > Does this software still exist? Shit NO ! That was WAY Back In The Day and they were convinced DOS was just Flash-In-The-Pan fad. CP/M Forever And Always ! Besides, the contract stated that they, or their heirs/creditors, owned the source. Haven't you ever done contract work ? Couldn't publish it if I wanted to - SOMEONE would sue. Everybody is looking for an excuse these days - even the nekked swimming baby on the Nirvana cover is trying to sue, claims it was 'child pornography'. Beats working for a living I guess. > Never had any (now vintage) hardware other than a Commodore 64 and > Amiga. But thanks to emulation I can catch up with the past on machines I > never owned but were a big part of the late 70s/early 80s (micro) > computer revolution. Emulators ARE great - and very smart software. But it's not QUITE like the bad old days. There were no gigahertz processors back then, no gigabyte RAM backing things up. You had what you had and had to push it to the max. > For the Osborne I found their "Office Suite" on Bitsavers or Archive.org > so can play with it. Nice to be able to run some of the first word > processors and spreadsheets. "Electric Pencil" and such ... not to mention VisiCalc. GOOD, very VERY good, programmers back in the day. What they could squeeze out of an 8-bit universe was extremely impressive. I was never more than a "fair" programmer, came along a few years late, had to live in their shadow. However there was (is) a niche for specialty software. The commercial stuff still may not be up to YOUR exact need. Oh, looking at all this old stuff, I found "EDLIN" - a program even WORSE than 'vi'. I hated it SO much that I wrote the equivalent of NotePad instead, in 86 assembler, for one client mostly so I wouldn't go nuts. The old-tyme IBM/BIOS routines were extensive and you could accomplish a lot in a little code by using them. > Also uploaded my clumsy attempts to write a text and doing some "table > calculations" on Youtube. "Table calculations" can be hard, or easy - depending on how you set up your data structures. Too often when you begin a program you're not entirely sure how to set things up ... and then you get stuck with the imperfect structure because you've already invested so much time/code in in. Awhile back I was working on dealing with records from and old PICK-like multi-value database - ascii records with ascii field/subfield/subsubfield/etc delimters. Some dataloggers still use such records because they are easy to build-up in-line. READING them is very easy, but I discovered EDITING them was a nightmare. If you go TOO "generic" the special cases will lead to huge fat UGLY code. Is a field still a field if it's also broken into sub-fields ? It's too often a matter of how what you THINK it's supposed to be. Deal with the beginning/endings of ascii strings ... and so on. A pain in the ass even with Python string-slicing and even worse in 'C'. Something like VisiCalc was a major excercise in "table calculations". Fit it all in 64kb too !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 04:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87sfyswufs.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #32955 |
On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 01:08:48 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > > On 08/28/2021 12:11 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:22:43 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: >>> >>> I actually wrote some practical software on an Osbourne "portable". >>> A mix of 'C' and assembler - my only real experience with CP/M Z80. >>> Oh well, they paid pretty good ... >> Does this software still exist? > > Shit NO ! That was WAY Back In The Day and they > were convinced DOS was just Flash-In-The-Pan fad. > CP/M Forever And Always ! > > Besides, the contract stated that they, or their > heirs/creditors, owned the source. Haven't you > ever done contract work ? Couldn't publish it > if I wanted to - SOMEONE would sue. Everybody > is looking for an excuse these days - even the > nekked swimming baby on the Nirvana cover is > trying to sue, claims it was 'child pornography'. > Beats working for a living I guess. Yes, but some software became "abandonware". Thus I assumed the software you wrote (and most importantly the company you did it for) is long out of business, thus no one would claim a copyright, as it seems to be the case for Wordstar by MicroPro International. MicroPro seems o longer to exist; there is not even a Wikipedia page for them. >> Never had any (now vintage) hardware other than a Commodore 64 and >> Amiga. But thanks to emulation I can catch up with the past on machines I >> never owned but were a big part of the late 70s/early 80s (micro) >> computer revolution. > > Emulators ARE great - and very smart software. > > But it's not QUITE like the bad old days. There were > no gigahertz processors back then, no gigabyte RAM > backing things up. You had what you had and had to > push it to the max. Emulators limit the speed to the original machine. Not like a C64 emulated runs at +1000 times the speed of its 6510 (6502) of around 1 MHz modern CPUs run today. Emulators are the closest thing you can get today not owning the original hardware. [...] -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 23:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oaudnaxmb6nGzLH8nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32959 |
On 08/29/2021 04:01 AM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 01:08:48 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: >> >> On 08/28/2021 12:11 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:22:43 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I actually wrote some practical software on an Osbourne "portable". >>>> A mix of 'C' and assembler - my only real experience with CP/M Z80. >>>> Oh well, they paid pretty good ... >>> Does this software still exist? >> >> Shit NO ! That was WAY Back In The Day and they >> were convinced DOS was just Flash-In-The-Pan fad. >> CP/M Forever And Always ! >> >> Besides, the contract stated that they, or their >> heirs/creditors, owned the source. Haven't you >> ever done contract work ? Couldn't publish it >> if I wanted to - SOMEONE would sue. Everybody >> is looking for an excuse these days - even the >> nekked swimming baby on the Nirvana cover is >> trying to sue, claims it was 'child pornography'. >> Beats working for a living I guess. > > Yes, but some software became "abandonware". Thus I assumed the software > you wrote (and most importantly the company you did it for) is long out > of business, thus no one would claim a copyright, as it seems to be the > case for Wordstar by MicroPro International. MicroPro seems o longer to > exist; there is not even a Wikipedia page for them. Won't risk it. Besides, I'm pretty sure I don't have a copy anymore. If there is one at the bottom of the stack it's on a 5 1/4 SS/SD floppy formatted in the CP/M-80 fashion. Fortunately I only had the briefest experiences with the 8" floppies. >>> Never had any (now vintage) hardware other than a Commodore 64 and >>> Amiga. But thanks to emulation I can catch up with the past on machines I >>> never owned but were a big part of the late 70s/early 80s (micro) >>> computer revolution. >> >> Emulators ARE great - and very smart software. >> >> But it's not QUITE like the bad old days. There were >> no gigahertz processors back then, no gigabyte RAM >> backing things up. You had what you had and had to >> push it to the max. > > Emulators limit the speed to the original machine. Not like a C64 emulated > runs at +1000 times the speed of its 6510 (6502) of around 1 MHz modern > CPUs run today. Emulators are the closest thing you can get today not > owning the original hardware. > > [...] It IS for sale ... but at a $$$ And you'd better replace ALL the old capacitors or you'll have magic smoke escaping everywhere when you power it up. Another issue with a lot of the old CPU units is that is pretty much ALL they were. A huge amount was farmed-out to semi-intelligent add-on devices. The CPU simply "managed" them. So, you can buy a PDP-11 box, but it won't DO much. Gotta have a bunch of add-on boxes/boards too. Microprocessor chips have spoiled us. Find some pix of IBM 360 setups. The box with the neat lights and switches was the CPU, but next to it would be about a meter-cube box - that was the memory, a few K of magnetic core RAM. The 360s CPU box was packed with boards with zillions of metallic chips on them - but they weren't actually 'chips' in the modern meaning. Pry one open and you'd find a discrete transistor, maybe with a diode or a few resistors inside. They were discrete logic gates, ANDs/ORs/INVERTERS/etc. The 'cpu' was the sum total of all those. Got us to the moon ... Once came across a pic of a guy with too much time on his hands - he built a Z-80 out of discrete components. Used up three whole walls in his house. Somewhere in this thread I was talking about having to use a serial port to get data in/out of the VM - and how I was fresh out of TTY terminals. This is too often the case with old computer hardware, you can find some, but not all, of the necessary parts to actually make them DO anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sgha270160i@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #32955 |
On 2021-08-29, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote:
> "Table calculations" can be hard, or easy - depending
> on how you set up your data structures. Too often when
> you begin a program you're not entirely sure how to
> set things up ... and then you get stuck with the
> imperfect structure because you've already invested
> so much time/code in in.
"If at first you don't succeed, you might as well forget it."
That's why I agonize over design so much before I cast things
in concrete. My translation of the above saying is:
Consider your every move to be irrevocable.
It usually is, whether you realize it or not.
That's not to say I won't bust my ass evolving my work into
something more reasonable once I figure out what really needs
to be done - if that's at all possible.
If all else fails, you can always re-write it.
As another old saying goes:
There's never time to do it right,
but always time to do it over.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 00:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qcGdnZ0HsfXRxLH8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32994 |
On 08/29/2021 08:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-08-29, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > >> "Table calculations" can be hard, or easy - depending >> on how you set up your data structures. Too often when >> you begin a program you're not entirely sure how to >> set things up ... and then you get stuck with the >> imperfect structure because you've already invested >> so much time/code in in. > > "If at first you don't succeed, you might as well forget it." Sometimes that IS the case. However if you're young and don't need sleep or food, sometimes you just start from scratch again, or again, assuming the boss is clueless as to what you're busy with. > > That's why I agonize over design so much before I cast things > in concrete. My translation of the above saying is: There IS value in trying to think it all through before you write the first line of code. Alas the real world environment doesn't always give you the time, you just have to go for it. Also, it's a lot more FUN .. Now in the 50s/60s the butch-cut Dilberts in their white shirts, little black ties and pocket-protectors DID rule the computing universe. Every program was a MAJOR PROJECT and they'd plan it all out in detail like a precision military campaign. Computers were ungodly expensive and relatively few - and getting software writ was also very expensive. They DID turn out good software, no question, some is STILL in use by big orgs. However the microprocessor changed all that. Now you suddenly had weirdo geeks taking the lead. The start of so much software we're still using often was the product of mostly ONE geek living in a basement. They "just went for it". A change in the hardware environment spawned a change in the "programmer" demographic. I'll split 50/50 here. Thinking-through does save a lot of time and generally results in superior software that will stand the test of time. However The Plan can also shove odd alternatives into the toilet, approaches that might be very useful to many later on. I once knew a guy who owned a small local computer shop in the Atari/Commodore/RS era. One way he made extra money was to write clones (often improved) of the popular arcade games of the day for the 6809/6502 universe. Did he write them in 'C' ? Nope. ASM ? Nope. He wrote them in HEXADECIMAL/BINARY machine code - said it "gave him a buzz" - and then burned them into eproms. He was a VERY odd guy, like some 'hacker geek' from a movie. People like him displaced the Dilberts. > Consider your every move to be irrevocable. > It usually is, whether you realize it or not. > > That's not to say I won't bust my ass evolving my work into > something more reasonable once I figure out what really needs > to be done - if that's at all possible. It's a matter of the "investment". Sometimes you've just gone too far in an imperfect direction and it's easier to just cludge your existing code than to redesign from scratch. I suspect Windows is an example ... > > If all else fails, you can always re-write it. > As another old saying goes: > > There's never time to do it right, > but always time to do it over. > Only if you live in Mom's basement. In a pay-by-the-hour environment you CAN'T do it over and over and over again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 14:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sgiog202co4@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #32996 |
On 2021-08-30, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > On 08/29/2021 08:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> If all else fails, you can always re-write it. >> As another old saying goes: >> >> There's never time to do it right, >> but always time to do it over. > > Only if you live in Mom's basement. > > In a pay-by-the-hour environment you CAN'T do it > over and over and over again. Not over and over and over, perhaps. But given a sufficiently crappy design, vague and/or conflicting specs, and a steady stream of ill-conceived change requests, the system will eventually fall apart, at which time even the dumbest managers will realize that a re-write is in order. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 01:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0NydnW8qGf3TILD8nZ2dnUU7-SHNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33004 |
On 08/30/2021 10:03 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-08-30, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > >> On 08/29/2021 08:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> If all else fails, you can always re-write it. >>> As another old saying goes: >>> >>> There's never time to do it right, >>> but always time to do it over. >> >> Only if you live in Mom's basement. >> >> In a pay-by-the-hour environment you CAN'T do it >> over and over and over again. > > Not over and over and over, perhaps. But given a > sufficiently crappy design, vague and/or conflicting > specs, and a steady stream of ill-conceived change > requests, the system will eventually fall apart, > at which time even the dumbest managers will realize > that a re-write is in order. The Boss wants PRODUCT, PROFIT - and he/she/it wants it NOW. Doesn't MATTER if it's a crappy un-extensible un-supportable design, just has to LOOK GOOD so the advertisers can SELL it. And that's The Truth about far far more software than you'd like to believe. Wonder how those eastern-bloc teenagers keep getting into all our stuff ? NOW you know why. If you want GOOD software (and hardware) look to the people who design NASA planetary probes. Ultra-resistant to corruption, always ways to get around damage. Those systems are a marvel. They're also part of the reason those probes COST so much and take a decade+ to design. "Dilbert" is a LOT more true than most think. The writer spend a long time at IBM and similar houses until he just couldn't take the BS anymore .....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sgmv3c0jto@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #33014 |
On 2021-08-31, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote:
> On 08/30/2021 10:03 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2021-08-30, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/29/2021 08:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> If all else fails, you can always re-write it.
>>>> As another old saying goes:
>>>>
>>>> There's never time to do it right,
>>>> but always time to do it over.
>>>
>>> Only if you live in Mom's basement.
>>>
>>> In a pay-by-the-hour environment you CAN'T do it
>>> over and over and over again.
>>
>> Not over and over and over, perhaps. But given a
>> sufficiently crappy design, vague and/or conflicting
>> specs, and a steady stream of ill-conceived change
>> requests, the system will eventually fall apart,
>> at which time even the dumbest managers will realize
>> that a re-write is in order.
>
> The Boss wants PRODUCT, PROFIT - and he/she/it
> wants it NOW. Doesn't MATTER if it's a crappy
> un-extensible un-supportable design, just has
> to LOOK GOOD so the advertisers can SELL it.
And that will work until that crappy un-extensible
un-supportable design can't keep up with requirements.
But that's next year's problem, over the event horizon
for companies interested solely in the current quarter's
bottom line. If everything crashes next year... well,
if the boss is really clever he'll have his golden
parachute packed and ready for use.
> And that's The Truth about far far more software
> than you'd like to believe. Wonder how those
> eastern-bloc teenagers keep getting into all
> our stuff ? NOW you know why.
Not just eastern-bloc teenagers? Windows looks great,
works crappy, and has security holes you can drive a
truck through - some of them by design.
> If you want GOOD software (and hardware) look
> to the people who design NASA planetary probes.
> Ultra-resistant to corruption, always ways to
> get around damage. Those systems are a marvel.
> They're also part of the reason those probes
> COST so much and take a decade+ to design.
Yes, but that software is so _boring_! No fancy but
meaningless graphics, no futzing around behind your
back - just columns of numbers that are meaningless
to those who don't know what they're doing, but
priceless to those who do.
My philosophy is that systems should be ugly and boring.
Ugly because they have no glitzy graphics that get in the
way, and boring because they just do what they're supposed
to do without unpleasant surprises.
> "Dilbert" is a LOT more true than most think.
> The writer spend a long time at IBM and similar
> houses until he just couldn't take the BS
> anymore .....
Paraphrasing Voltaire:
If Dilbert did not exist, it would
be necessary to invent him.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 01:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sqOdnSja5Jm0m678nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33047 |
On 9/1/21 12:21 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-08-31, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > >> On 08/30/2021 10:03 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2021-08-30, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/29/2021 08:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> If all else fails, you can always re-write it. >>>>> As another old saying goes: >>>>> >>>>> There's never time to do it right, >>>>> but always time to do it over. >>>> >>>> Only if you live in Mom's basement. >>>> >>>> In a pay-by-the-hour environment you CAN'T do it >>>> over and over and over again. >>> >>> Not over and over and over, perhaps. But given a >>> sufficiently crappy design, vague and/or conflicting >>> specs, and a steady stream of ill-conceived change >>> requests, the system will eventually fall apart, >>> at which time even the dumbest managers will realize >>> that a re-write is in order. >> >> The Boss wants PRODUCT, PROFIT - and he/she/it >> wants it NOW. Doesn't MATTER if it's a crappy >> un-extensible un-supportable design, just has >> to LOOK GOOD so the advertisers can SELL it. > > And that will work until that crappy un-extensible > un-supportable design can't keep up with requirements. > But that's next year's problem, over the event horizon > for companies interested solely in the current quarter's > bottom line. If everything crashes next year... well, > if the boss is really clever he'll have his golden > parachute packed and ready for use. > >> And that's The Truth about far far more software >> than you'd like to believe. Wonder how those >> eastern-bloc teenagers keep getting into all >> our stuff ? NOW you know why. > > Not just eastern-bloc teenagers? Windows looks great, > works crappy, and has security holes you can drive a > truck through - some of them by design. > >> If you want GOOD software (and hardware) look >> to the people who design NASA planetary probes. >> Ultra-resistant to corruption, always ways to >> get around damage. Those systems are a marvel. >> They're also part of the reason those probes >> COST so much and take a decade+ to design. > > Yes, but that software is so _boring_! No fancy but > meaningless graphics, no futzing around behind your > back - just columns of numbers that are meaningless > to those who don't know what they're doing, but > priceless to those who do. Yea ! SUBSTANCE over Style ... what BARBARIANS !!! > My philosophy is that systems should be ugly and boring. > Ugly because they have no glitzy graphics that get in the > way, and boring because they just do what they're supposed > to do without unpleasant surprise Then the Real World has little left for you (and I) ... >> "Dilbert" is a LOT more true than most think. >> The writer spend a long time at IBM and similar >> houses until he just couldn't take the BS >> anymore ..... > > Paraphrasing Voltaire: > > If Dilbert did not exist, it would > be necessary to invent him. Unfortunately, VERY unfortunately, there are a LOT of Dilberts, caught in the SAME jungle of pointy-haired bosses, suffering out there .. But fear not, the Style-over-Substance cadre WILL soon take their places ... I'll all LOOK so Great !!! Last month the Hubble telescope went down, hard. The main computer just CROAKED - probably bad memory chips. Radiation can do that. But, a few weeks later, the NASA types had the thing running again - because there were ways to redirect connections to a few other little computers on the thing that were never designed to manage the whole scope. Now it works. AMAZING.*These* are the kinds of programmers/engineers I really respect. I know I'm not even in their league. I've been actively persueing VMs lately - DOS, CP/M - Some cross-compiling and you can burn it into actual chips. Sometimes you need to revisit the past so you can construct a better future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 09:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sgcsq6$ovu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32924 |
On 27/08/2021 18:22, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:58:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: >> >> Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) >> >>> This is useful information. >>> The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* >>> "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities >>> of biz/science software was written for it. >> First micro word processors and (among the first) >> spreadsheets. Accounting software too. > > Wasn't VISICALC the first commercial successful spreadsheet, which > (first) only ran on an Apple ][? That was the first "killer app". Some > people bought an Apple ][, only to have access to a spreadsheet! Crazy > times. > Cue why I said 'among the first' spreadsheets. Yes, visicalc was the killer app on Apple II and Quark Xpress with Photoshop was the killer app on MacOS 9 Supercalc was the CP/M clone. With Wordstar and Supercalc and a dot matrix printer, you were in business on two floppy drives - one for programs, one for data, We had to wait for Novell Netware on MSDOS to really improve the office beyond that. -- The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-28 12:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877dg5y20j.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #32934 |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:40:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > On 27/08/2021 18:22, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:58:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> On 27/08/2021 02:06, SixOverFive wrote: >>> >>> Files as such were a bit of a new fangled luxury :-) >>> >>>> This is useful information. >>>> The young people do not realize how CP/M was *the* >>>> "business system" for quite a long time. Mass quantities >>>> of biz/science software was written for it. >>> First micro word processors and (among the first) >>> spreadsheets. Accounting software too. >> Wasn't VISICALC the first commercial successful spreadsheet, which >> (first) only ran on an Apple ][? That was the first "killer app". Some >> people bought an Apple ][, only to have access to a spreadsheet! Crazy >> times. >> > Cue why I said 'among the first' spreadsheets. Yes, visicalc was the > killer app on Apple II and Quark Xpress with Photoshop was the killer > app on MacOS 9 I didn't question that. :-) > Supercalc was the CP/M clone. > > With Wordstar and Supercalc and a dot matrix printer, you were in > business on two floppy drives - one for programs, one for data, That was what Adam Osborn knew and put into reality. I think the first word processor was Electronic Pencil. "Everything" after are a clones. ;-) <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html> [...] -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-29 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsilmof.12qs.trepidation@vps.jonz.net> |
| In reply to | #32943 |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:20:28 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:40:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> With Wordstar and Supercalc and a dot matrix printer, you were in
>> business on two floppy drives - one for programs, one for data,
>
> I think the first word processor was Electronic Pencil.
> "Everything" after are a clones. ;-)
heh...
I still have WordStar 6.0 running in DosBox on my Ubuntu system.
I have it running both for a curiosity exercise and for the ability
to print some old, specially crafted PCL files.
I'll see if I can drag it along to its half-century mark...
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | Marvin | W3DHJ.net | linux
38.238N 104.547W | @ jonz.net | Jonesy | FreeBSD
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 01:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fvCdnYI1nve7WLD8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #32952 |
On 08/28/2021 08:55 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:20:28 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:40:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> With Wordstar and Supercalc and a dot matrix printer, you were in >>> business on two floppy drives - one for programs, one for data, >> >> I think the first word processor was Electronic Pencil. >> "Everything" after are a clones. ;-) > > heh... > I still have WordStar 6.0 running in DosBox on my Ubuntu system. > I have it running both for a curiosity exercise and for the ability > to print some old, specially crafted PCL files. > > I'll see if I can drag it along to its half-century mark... WordStar was OK ... basic, but GOT IT DONE. Just had to learn those shortcut commands :-) I used early Turbo Pascal a lot ... it used WordStar shortcuts. Got used to them pretty quick. And yes, you could use WordStar on a 2-disk, actually one-disk, system. Full OS *and* a word processor all in 360kb ! :-) As far as I know, "Electric Pencil" WAS the first "word processor" ... though it's more akin to the later MS Notepad/Wordpad it was GREAT at the time. Search for an article entitled "TV typewriter" for fun - I think it was Radio & Electronics or something similar. That was the start. Of the DOS-based WPs though, WordPerfect was probably the best (the latest WIN versions still kick WORD in the 'nads actually). A lot of those 80s WPs were writ with the intention of preparing newspaper typesets - remember seeing the term "microkerning" a lot ? These days newspapers that still use printing plates just basically make an etched image - a photograph. If it looks good in the GUI it looks good in print. Oh, and 90% of what I write, even for the bosses, these days is on Leafpad/MousePad/FeatherPad or, if color is good, Pluma. Even lesser programs than WordStar. OpenOffice is only for if photos or charts are required.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 06:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877dg1vs0c.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #33015 |
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 01:58:53 -0400, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote: > > On 08/28/2021 08:55 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:20:28 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:40:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>> With Wordstar and Supercalc and a dot matrix printer, you were in >>>> business on two floppy drives - one for programs, one for data, >>> >>> I think the first word processor was Electronic Pencil. >>> "Everything" after are a clones. ;-) >> heh... >> I still have WordStar 6.0 running in DosBox on my Ubuntu system. >> I have it running both for a curiosity exercise and for the ability >> to print some old, specially crafted PCL files. >> I'll see if I can drag it along to its half-century mark... > > WordStar was OK ... basic, but GOT IT DONE. Just had > to learn those shortcut commands :-) /me hugs the WordStar Diamond As I mentioned I love running vintage machines in an emulator I never owned to relive early micro computer history. For fun I did some word editing with WordStar on a Osborn I. Its keyboard doesn't has cursor keys (so the real cursor keys on the host machine have no function when emulating the Osborn), thus I had to use the "WordStar Diamond" instead. Also had to learn the WordStar shortcuts ^K. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web