Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Vindication of Barb
93 views
Skip to first unread message
Quadibloc
May 7, 2013, 8:38:17 PM5/7/13
to
I was looking through a copy of "A History of Modern Computing" by
Paul Ceruzzi, and I noticed a passage in it which noted that when
Robert Palmer succeeded Kenneth Olsen as the head of the Digital
Equipment Corporation, he insisted that the company should be known as
"Digital" instead of "DEC", and this was considered by many in the
company as a watershed.
So Barb's characterization of the DEC era and the Digital era over
there is corroborated - as an outsider, I thought those had always
been two names for the company all along, and hadn't known of this
change of emphasis, at least internally at the company.
John Savard
Paul Ceruzzi, and I noticed a passage in it which noted that when
Robert Palmer succeeded Kenneth Olsen as the head of the Digital
Equipment Corporation, he insisted that the company should be known as
"Digital" instead of "DEC", and this was considered by many in the
company as a watershed.
So Barb's characterization of the DEC era and the Digital era over
there is corroborated - as an outsider, I thought those had always
been two names for the company all along, and hadn't known of this
change of emphasis, at least internally at the company.
John Savard
Elliott Roper
May 8, 2013, 4:02:55 AM5/8/13
to
In article
<a3206279-02d0-4e12...@v3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
If you were dealing with DEC at the time, it was a ruby sign that the
loonies had taken over the asylum. The blithering fools who had pushed
Ken aside really got started after that.
Their tombstone was an illuminated sign in the foyer of Digital's High
Holborn office in London. "Our Product Is Our Share Price"
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
<a3206279-02d0-4e12...@v3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
loonies had taken over the asylum. The blithering fools who had pushed
Ken aside really got started after that.
Their tombstone was an illuminated sign in the foyer of Digital's High
Holborn office in London. "Our Product Is Our Share Price"
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Quadibloc
May 8, 2013, 7:40:07 AM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 2:02 am, Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> If you were dealing with DEC at the time, it was a ruby sign that the
> loonies had taken over the asylum.
Well, not everyone reads the fine print. Even agate would have been
> If you were dealing with DEC at the time, it was a ruby sign that the
> loonies had taken over the asylum.
easier to see.
John Savard
Quadibloc
May 8, 2013, 7:43:21 AM5/8/13
to
point type, and Agate as the name for 5 1/2 point type, the British
used the name Ruby for 5 1/2 point type, the same size as what the
Americans called Agate.
Then there's always the 6 1/2 point type on the Tablets of Hermes...
John Savard
Elliott Roper
May 8, 2013, 8:29:37 AM5/8/13
to
In article
<97b497c2-6054-4e47...@k5g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Well swerved! You made a folio me. Ruby was my guess at the colour
change of d|i|g|i|a|l.
<97b497c2-6054-4e47...@k5g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
change of d|i|g|i|a|l.
jmfbahciv
May 8, 2013, 9:16:52 AM5/8/13
to
Quadibloc wrote:
> I was looking through a copy of "A History of Modern Computing" by
> Paul Ceruzzi, and I noticed a passage in it which noted that when
> Robert Palmer succeeded Kenneth Olsen as the head of the Digital
> Equipment Corporation, he insisted that the company should be known as
> "Digital" instead of "DEC", and this was considered by many in the
> company as a watershed.
You could get fired for saying DEC in front of that asshole.
> I was looking through a copy of "A History of Modern Computing" by
> Paul Ceruzzi, and I noticed a passage in it which noted that when
> Robert Palmer succeeded Kenneth Olsen as the head of the Digital
> Equipment Corporation, he insisted that the company should be known as
> "Digital" instead of "DEC", and this was considered by many in the
> company as a watershed.
Palmer tried to get rid of anything that he viewed as having the
taint of KO. This included issuing the edict that everyone had
to have their calling cards reprinted with the new company color
instead of the old blue. This was at a time when DEC was struggling
w.r.t. profits/losses. yet he insisted money be wasted just to
remove a color that he thought KO chose. KO didn't choose it;
we all did.
>
> So Barb's characterization of the DEC era and the Digital era over
> there is corroborated - as an outsider, I thought those had always
> been two names for the company all along, and hadn't known of this
> change of emphasis, at least internally at the company.
started telling them what they were going to buy and run as the
watershed. Plamer was just the crowning of the idiocy.
/BAH
Patrick Scheible
May 8, 2013, 1:25:29 PM5/8/13
to
-- Patrick
Andrew Swallow
May 8, 2013, 11:29:08 PM5/8/13
to
computing. Only very old customers would consider analog computing a
viable alternative. If the management was so out of touch that they
worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder the company had problems.
Andrew Swallow
sdrat
May 9, 2013, 12:18:21 AM5/9/13
to
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h46dnRSL3rechRbM...@bt.com...
Charlie Gibbs
May 9, 2013, 1:05:31 PM5/9/13
to
In article <h46dnRSL3rechRbM...@bt.com>,
the "digital" was already there, just a bit less visible.
As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?" If you look
at names of corporations, you'll see that the answer often
is "almost nothing". This is part of corporate marketing
strategy: something that means nothing can mean anything.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
am.sw...@btinternet.com (Andrew Swallow) writes:
> DEC was a simple and useful name. DIGITAL is the alternative to
> analog computing. Only very old customers would consider analog
> computing a viable alternative. If the management was so out of
> touch that they worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder
> the company had problems.
Non-sequitur. DEC stands for "Digital Equipment Corporation" -
> DEC was a simple and useful name. DIGITAL is the alternative to
> analog computing. Only very old customers would consider analog
> computing a viable alternative. If the management was so out of
> touch that they worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder
> the company had problems.
the "digital" was already there, just a bit less visible.
As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?" If you look
at names of corporations, you'll see that the answer often
is "almost nothing". This is part of corporate marketing
strategy: something that means nothing can mean anything.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Patrick Scheible
May 9, 2013, 1:25:54 PM5/9/13
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> In article <h46dnRSL3rechRbM...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com (Andrew Swallow) writes:
>
>> DEC was a simple and useful name. DIGITAL is the alternative to
>> analog computing. Only very old customers would consider analog
>> computing a viable alternative. If the management was so out of
>> touch that they worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder
>> the company had problems.
>
> Non-sequitur. DEC stands for "Digital Equipment Corporation" -
> the "digital" was already there, just a bit less visible.
>
> As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?" If you look
> at names of corporations, you'll see that the answer often
> is "almost nothing". This is part of corporate marketing
> strategy: something that means nothing can mean anything.
The significance of DEC was that early in its history, DEC made
> In article <h46dnRSL3rechRbM...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com (Andrew Swallow) writes:
>
>> DEC was a simple and useful name. DIGITAL is the alternative to
>> analog computing. Only very old customers would consider analog
>> computing a viable alternative. If the management was so out of
>> touch that they worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder
>> the company had problems.
>
> Non-sequitur. DEC stands for "Digital Equipment Corporation" -
> the "digital" was already there, just a bit less visible.
>
> As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?" If you look
> at names of corporations, you'll see that the answer often
> is "almost nothing". This is part of corporate marketing
> strategy: something that means nothing can mean anything.
minicomputers. In many possible customers' sites, "computers" meant
mainframes, and had to go through corporate data processing department
for approval to purchase, and usually mean IBM. By calling what they
made "digital equipment", a department or laboratory could buy them
without having to involve many layers of approval by an outside
department.
-- Patrick
Rich Alderson
May 9, 2013, 3:16:47 PM5/9/13
to
Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:
> The significance of DEC was that early in its history, DEC made
> minicomputers. In many possible customers' sites, "computers" meant
> mainframes, and had to go through corporate data processing department
> for approval to purchase, and usually mean IBM. By calling what they
> made "digital equipment", a department or laboratory could buy them
> without having to involve many layers of approval by an outside
> department.
Sort of mish-moshed version of the history, there.
> The significance of DEC was that early in its history, DEC made
> minicomputers. In many possible customers' sites, "computers" meant
> mainframes, and had to go through corporate data processing department
> for approval to purchase, and usually mean IBM. By calling what they
> made "digital equipment", a department or laboratory could buy them
> without having to involve many layers of approval by an outside
> department.
DEC was founded in 1957. Their first products were System Modules(TM, maybe
R), which were predefined logic cards from which end users could build (wait
for it) *digital* *equipment*. Prior to that innovation, if you wanted to
build a piece of digital equipment, you had to begin from first principles,
deciding on what voltage levels would represent 0 and 1, design all your own
circuitry from the ground up, etc. k.t.l. usw.
So "Digital Equipment Corporation" made perfect sense as a name, even before
they built their first computer (which, as it happens, involved putting
together several hundred System Modules).
What you are remembering above is why that first computer from DEC, introduced
in 1960, was called a Programmed Data Processor-1, to wit, avoiding GAO rules
on acquisition of computers that would have precluded individual government
labs from purchasing such a device.
--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
Patrick Scheible
May 9, 2013, 4:54:12 PM5/9/13
to
Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:
>
>> The significance of DEC was that early in its history, DEC made
>> minicomputers. In many possible customers' sites, "computers" meant
>> mainframes, and had to go through corporate data processing department
>> for approval to purchase, and usually mean IBM. By calling what they
>> made "digital equipment", a department or laboratory could buy them
>> without having to involve many layers of approval by an outside
>> department.
>
> Sort of mish-moshed version of the history, there.
Thanks for corrections.
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:
>
>> The significance of DEC was that early in its history, DEC made
>> minicomputers. In many possible customers' sites, "computers" meant
>> mainframes, and had to go through corporate data processing department
>> for approval to purchase, and usually mean IBM. By calling what they
>> made "digital equipment", a department or laboratory could buy them
>> without having to involve many layers of approval by an outside
>> department.
>
> Sort of mish-moshed version of the history, there.
> DEC was founded in 1957. Their first products were System Modules(TM, maybe
> R), which were predefined logic cards from which end users could build (wait
> for it) *digital* *equipment*. Prior to that innovation, if you wanted to
> build a piece of digital equipment, you had to begin from first principles,
> deciding on what voltage levels would represent 0 and 1, design all your own
> circuitry from the ground up, etc. k.t.l. usw.
(remainder deleted)
-- Patrick
Scott Lurndal
May 9, 2013, 6:07:53 PM5/9/13
to
Don't know ktl.
s
Andrew Swallow
May 9, 2013, 11:53:58 PM5/9/13
to
On 09/05/2013 18:05, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article <h46dnRSL3rechRbM...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com (Andrew Swallow) writes:
>
>> DEC was a simple and useful name. DIGITAL is the alternative to
>> analog computing. Only very old customers would consider analog
>> computing a viable alternative. If the management was so out of
>> touch that they worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder
>> the company had problems.
>
> Non-sequitur. DEC stands for "Digital Equipment Corporation" -
> the "digital" was already there, just a bit less visible.
>
> As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?" If you look
> at names of corporations, you'll see that the answer often
> is "almost nothing". This is part of corporate marketing
> strategy: something that means nothing can mean anything.
>
There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
> In article <h46dnRSL3rechRbM...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com (Andrew Swallow) writes:
>
>> DEC was a simple and useful name. DIGITAL is the alternative to
>> analog computing. Only very old customers would consider analog
>> computing a viable alternative. If the management was so out of
>> touch that they worried about 1930s competitors it is no wonder
>> the company had problems.
>
> Non-sequitur. DEC stands for "Digital Equipment Corporation" -
> the "digital" was already there, just a bit less visible.
>
> As Shakespeare once asked, "What's in a name?" If you look
> at names of corporations, you'll see that the answer often
> is "almost nothing". This is part of corporate marketing
> strategy: something that means nothing can mean anything.
>
Andrew Swallow
Quadibloc
May 10, 2013, 8:42:15 AM5/10/13
to
On May 9, 9:53 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
True enough.
> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying from
the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell and SDS.
IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like. And when IBM
changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
John Savard
Rich Alderson
May 10, 2013, 3:25:14 PM5/10/13
to
"etc. etc."
ktl. (or k.t.l.) is the abbreviation for Greek _kai ta loipa_ "and the
things-left(over)". This is used in Classical Greek; I have no idea whether it
is used on the modern language.
usw. is the abbreviation for German _und so weiter_ "and thus further".
I picked up the habit in grad school nearly 40 years ago. Sorry.
("NO! BAD habit! No biscuit!!!")
ktl. (or k.t.l.) is the abbreviation for Greek _kai ta loipa_ "and the
things-left(over)". This is used in Classical Greek; I have no idea whether it
is used on the modern language.
usw. is the abbreviation for German _und so weiter_ "and thus further".
I picked up the habit in grad school nearly 40 years ago. Sorry.
("NO! BAD habit! No biscuit!!!")
Rich Alderson
May 10, 2013, 3:27:11 PM5/10/13
to
Not for a good 5 years, and only after an important engineering manager left to
start his own company.
start his own company.
Christian Brunschen
May 10, 2013, 3:28:35 PM5/10/13
to
In article <mddip2q...@panix5.panix.com>,
"o.s.v." for "och sa vidare" (where the "a" of "sa" should be an a with a
ring on top, HTML å ).
Best wishes,
// Christian
Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>"etc. etc."
>
>ktl. (or k.t.l.) is the abbreviation for Greek _kai ta loipa_ "and the
>things-left(over)". This is used in Classical Greek; I have no idea whether it
>is used on the modern language.
>
>usw. is the abbreviation for German _und so weiter_ "and thus further".
If you would like to add Swedish to that list, the equivalent would be
>
>"etc. etc."
>
>ktl. (or k.t.l.) is the abbreviation for Greek _kai ta loipa_ "and the
>things-left(over)". This is used in Classical Greek; I have no idea whether it
>is used on the modern language.
>
>usw. is the abbreviation for German _und so weiter_ "and thus further".
"o.s.v." for "och sa vidare" (where the "a" of "sa" should be an a with a
ring on top, HTML å ).
Best wishes,
// Christian
Nick Spalding
May 10, 2013, 4:03:35 PM5/10/13
to
Christian Brunschen wrote, in <kmjhp3$ceh$1...@dont-email.me>
on Fri, 10 May 2013 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC):
Alt-0229 in Windows or Ctrl a o if you have AllChars installed.
--
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 10 May 2013 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC):
--
Nick Spalding
Quadibloc
May 10, 2013, 4:21:19 PM5/10/13
to
On May 10, 1:27 pm, Rich Alderson <n...@alderson.users.panix.com>
wrote:
limited splash in the great scheme of things, Data General did have a
period of great success. They even made one of the earliest modern
laptop computers, as opposed to the old-style laptop computers that
preceded it.
Look at an SDS 940, or a Honeywell 316, or an HP 2116, or a Datacraft
6024... they're _all_ pretending to be IBM 7090 computers in the sense
of slavishly copying some of the details of how that computer
presented itself to the programmer.
Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
John Savard
wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> > And when IBM changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
>
> Not for a good 5 years, and only after an important engineering manager left to
> start his own company.
And the rest is history... although the new company only made a
> > And when IBM changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
>
> Not for a good 5 years, and only after an important engineering manager left to
> start his own company.
limited splash in the great scheme of things, Data General did have a
period of great success. They even made one of the earliest modern
laptop computers, as opposed to the old-style laptop computers that
preceded it.
Look at an SDS 940, or a Honeywell 316, or an HP 2116, or a Datacraft
6024... they're _all_ pretending to be IBM 7090 computers in the sense
of slavishly copying some of the details of how that computer
presented itself to the programmer.
Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
John Savard
Rod Speed
May 10, 2013, 6:18:11 PM5/10/13
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 11, 2013, 5:10:05 AM5/11/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:03:35 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:
Alt-a in OSX/Mac OS. Or opt-a if you have an older keyboard.
When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Mr Death?" - e e cummings/Tom Baker
wrote:
When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Mr Death?" - e e cummings/Tom Baker
Quadibloc
May 11, 2013, 7:26:38 AM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 3:10 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
wrote:
> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
IBM World Trade did make print trains with accented characters for
French to sell in France and so on quite some time ago. Thus, on the
web, there's an illustration of the Hebrew alphabet character set for
Israeli use on the 1401.
But 3277 display stations sold in the U.S. had the default U.S.
character set; the lower-case TN print train didn't have accented
characters, although there was one you could get with foreign accents
for printing library index cards.
Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
John Savard
wrote:
> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
French to sell in France and so on quite some time ago. Thus, on the
web, there's an illustration of the Hebrew alphabet character set for
Israeli use on the 1401.
But 3277 display stations sold in the U.S. had the default U.S.
character set; the lower-case TN print train didn't have accented
characters, although there was one you could get with foreign accents
for printing library index cards.
Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
John Savard
Walter Bushell
May 11, 2013, 8:21:32 AM5/11/13
to
In article
<f9fb025e-9ad9-4e62...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the person
showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud of the
device and his cleverness in having it.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
<f9fb025e-9ad9-4e62...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the person
showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud of the
device and his cleverness in having it.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Nick Spalding
May 11, 2013, 9:05:57 AM5/11/13
to
Walter Bushell wrote, in <proto-08CDB4....@news.panix.com>
on Sat, 11 May 2013 08:21:32 -0400:
I first heard the term 'word processing' in IBM ca. 1967 when the Office
Products division were selling a tape based machine incorporating a
Selectric for the purpose.
--
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 11 May 2013 08:21:32 -0400:
Products division were selling a tape based machine incorporating a
Selectric for the purpose.
--
Nick Spalding
jmfbahciv
May 11, 2013, 10:01:56 AM5/11/13
to
Quadibloc wrote:
> On May 9, 9:53 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
>
> True enough.
>
> Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
> was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
that style of logo was the thing which was prepended on all of our
> On May 9, 9:53 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
>
> True enough.
>
> Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
> was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
internal memos. Later it became a public thing.
>
> There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying from
> the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell and SDS.
> IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like. And when IBM
> changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
We had to be careful. Some things we did just a tad differntly so
> There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying from
> the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell and SDS.
> IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like. And when IBM
> changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
that DEC didn't end up in court with IBM on the other side. The
thing I remember the best is we had to spell disk with a k and never
a c. That was one of the rules Tape Prep had when typing up docs,
memos or code for the programmers, writers, etc.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
May 11, 2013, 10:02:15 AM5/11/13
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article
> <f9fb025e-9ad9-4e62...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 3:10Â am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> In article
> <f9fb025e-9ad9-4e62...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> > etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>> > EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>> > remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>>
>> IBM World Trade did make print trains with accented characters for
>> French to sell in France and so on quite some time ago. Thus, on the
>> web, there's an illustration of the Hebrew alphabet character set for
>> Israeli use on the 1401.
>>
>> But 3277 display stations sold in the U.S. had the default U.S.
>> character set; the lower-case TN print train didn't have accented
>> characters, although there was one you could get with foreign accents
>> for printing library index cards.
>>
>> Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
> microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
> word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the person
> showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud of the
> device and his cleverness in having it.
>
Typeset-10. Newspapers liked it. Customer I can recall was
>>
>> > When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> > etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>> > EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>> > remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>>
>> IBM World Trade did make print trains with accented characters for
>> French to sell in France and so on quite some time ago. Thus, on the
>> web, there's an illustration of the Hebrew alphabet character set for
>> Israeli use on the 1401.
>>
>> But 3277 display stations sold in the U.S. had the default U.S.
>> character set; the lower-case TN print train didn't have accented
>> characters, although there was one you could get with foreign accents
>> for printing library index cards.
>>
>> Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
> microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
> word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the person
> showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud of the
> device and his cleverness in having it.
>
Kansas City Star. There was also Typeset-8. One of my first
"outside the job" projects was to work a programmer to design
and create a typesetting language and production process so
we could improve the stuff we did in RUNOFF.
/BAH
Walter Bushell
May 11, 2013, 10:14:24 AM5/11/13
to
In article <edgso85fferlaj12e...@4ax.com>,
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote, in <proto-08CDB4....@news.panix.com>
> on Sat, 11 May 2013 08:21:32 -0400:
>
> > In article
> > <f9fb025e-9ad9-4e62...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 11, 3:10Â am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> Walter Bushell wrote, in <proto-08CDB4....@news.panix.com>
> on Sat, 11 May 2013 08:21:32 -0400:
>
> > In article
> > <f9fb025e-9ad9-4e62...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> > > > etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> > > > EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> > > > remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
> > >
> > > IBM World Trade did make print trains with accented characters for
> > > French to sell in France and so on quite some time ago. Thus, on the
> > > web, there's an illustration of the Hebrew alphabet character set for
> > > Israeli use on the 1401.
> > >
> > > But 3277 display stations sold in the U.S. had the default U.S.
> > > character set; the lower-case TN print train didn't have accented
> > > characters, although there was one you could get with foreign accents
> > > for printing library index cards.
> > >
> > > Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
> > >
> > > John Savard
> >
> > When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
> > microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
> > word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the person
> > showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud of the
> > device and his cleverness in having it.
>
> I first heard the term 'word processing' in IBM ca. 1967 when the Office
> Products division were selling a tape based machine incorporating a
> Selectric for the purpose.
Could have been what I saw.
> > >
> > > > When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> > > > etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> > > > EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> > > > remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
> > >
> > > IBM World Trade did make print trains with accented characters for
> > > French to sell in France and so on quite some time ago. Thus, on the
> > > web, there's an illustration of the Hebrew alphabet character set for
> > > Israeli use on the 1401.
> > >
> > > But 3277 display stations sold in the U.S. had the default U.S.
> > > character set; the lower-case TN print train didn't have accented
> > > characters, although there was one you could get with foreign accents
> > > for printing library index cards.
> > >
> > > Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
> > >
> > > John Savard
> >
> > When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
> > microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
> > word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the person
> > showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud of the
> > device and his cleverness in having it.
>
> I first heard the term 'word processing' in IBM ca. 1967 when the Office
> Products division were selling a tape based machine incorporating a
> Selectric for the purpose.
Bill Leary
May 11, 2013, 12:12:51 PM5/11/13
to
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> ((..omitted..))
and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
> Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
"All the worlds a VAX" ?
- Bill
news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> ((..omitted..))
> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the 8080
and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
> Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
- Bill
Rod Speed
May 11, 2013, 2:27:31 PM5/11/13
to
"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004DC7...@aca249ab.ipt.aol.com...
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On May 9, 9:53 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
>>
>> True enough.
>>
>> Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
>> was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
>
> that style of logo was the thing which was prepended on all of our
> internal memos. Later it became a public thing.
>>
>> There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying from
>> the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell and SDS.
>> IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like. And when IBM
>> changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
>
> We had to be careful. Some things we did just a tad differntly so
> that DEC didn't end up in court with IBM on the other side. The thing
> I remember the best is we had to spell disk with a k and never a c.
That was never going to end up in court.
>> On May 9, 9:53 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
>>
>> True enough.
>>
>> Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
>> was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
>
> that style of logo was the thing which was prepended on all of our
> internal memos. Later it became a public thing.
>>
>> There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying from
>> the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell and SDS.
>> IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like. And when IBM
>> changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
>
> We had to be careful. Some things we did just a tad differntly so
> that DEC didn't end up in court with IBM on the other side. The thing
> I remember the best is we had to spell disk with a k and never a c.
That was always just the mindlessly silly line some fool ran.
> That was one of the rules Tape Prep had when typing up
> docs, memos or code for the programmers, writers, etc.
Elliott Roper
May 11, 2013, 4:35:00 PM5/11/13
to
In article <NIednTxTutWe8xPM...@giganews.com>, Bill Leary
instruction set with slightly different assembler mnemonics. The
nearest early micro to the PDP-11 might have been a Motorola 6809.
Anyway it felt much less chundersome going from PDP-11 to 6809 than it
was sinking down to the level of a Z80.
> On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
The Nova was a PDP-8 with four more bits per word. It was the design
alluded to upthread that delayed the PDP-11 until Ed DeCastro left DEC
to start DG
set department, but who writes assembler any more?
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
<Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" wrote in message
> news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> > ((..omitted..))
> > Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
>
> I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the 8080
> and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
The 8080 was just plain horrible, and the Z80 was almost the same
> "Quadibloc" wrote in message
> news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> > ((..omitted..))
> > Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
>
> I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the 8080
> and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
instruction set with slightly different assembler mnemonics. The
nearest early micro to the PDP-11 might have been a Motorola 6809.
Anyway it felt much less chundersome going from PDP-11 to 6809 than it
was sinking down to the level of a Z80.
> On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
alluded to upthread that delayed the PDP-11 until Ed DeCastro left DEC
to start DG
>
> > Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
>
> "All the worlds a VAX" ?
That's a long gone world. Things have gone downhill in the instruction
> > Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
>
> "All the worlds a VAX" ?
set department, but who writes assembler any more?
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Peter Flass
May 11, 2013, 8:01:05 PM5/11/13
to
starting in the late 60s. RUNOFF is even earlier, going back to CTSS.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
May 11, 2013, 8:03:56 PM5/11/13
to
On 5/11/2013 12:12 PM, Bill Leary wrote:
> "Quadibloc" wrote in message
> news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>> ((..omitted..))
>> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
>
> I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the
> 8080 and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
I didn't notice the resemblance myself, but I have only a passing
> "Quadibloc" wrote in message
> news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>> ((..omitted..))
>> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
>
> I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the
> 8080 and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
acquaintance with both. Both were little-endian, but the 8080 was 8-bit
and the PDL-11 16.
>
> On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
>
>> Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
>
> "All the worlds a VAX" ?
>
> - Bill
>
Pete
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 11, 2013, 8:02:07 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On May 11, 3:10�am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>wrote:
>
>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
[snips]
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On May 11, 3:10�am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>wrote:
>
>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
On diving in UK waters:
'Sharp edges? Must be the wreck.'
'It's moving? Must be supper.'
'Too big to go in the goodie bag? Must be my buddy.' - nigelH, ukrs
Quadibloc
May 11, 2013, 11:02:07 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 6:02 pm, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
wrote:
> I was thinking more names and addresses (I've spend a lot of time
> working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
> many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
Generally speaking, enterprises using computers to send out things
like utility bills, credit card statements, and so on, did not even
trouble themselves to use *lower case* in people's addresses and
names, never mind properly handling accented characters.
They used a set of 64 characters - or they even used a 48-character
print train on their printers to make them go 25% faster, at the cost
of some punctuation marks. And people put up with that, because that's
what tab equipment provided before computers.
"Codepages", of course, are a technical MS-DOS computing term. IBM did
have versions of EBCDIC for foreign markets, called by some other
name, I think, but as I noted, one didn't really mix them on a single
mainframe in the U.S., even if the foreign version was likely used
alongside the U.S. version overseas in the country to which the
foreign version applied.
John Savard
wrote:
> I was thinking more names and addresses (I've spend a lot of time
> working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
> many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
like utility bills, credit card statements, and so on, did not even
trouble themselves to use *lower case* in people's addresses and
names, never mind properly handling accented characters.
They used a set of 64 characters - or they even used a 48-character
print train on their printers to make them go 25% faster, at the cost
of some punctuation marks. And people put up with that, because that's
what tab equipment provided before computers.
"Codepages", of course, are a technical MS-DOS computing term. IBM did
have versions of EBCDIC for foreign markets, called by some other
name, I think, but as I noted, one didn't really mix them on a single
mainframe in the U.S., even if the foreign version was likely used
alongside the U.S. version overseas in the country to which the
foreign version applied.
John Savard
Peter Flass
May 12, 2013, 8:08:48 AM5/12/13
to
On 5/11/2013 8:02 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 3:10 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
> [snips]
>
>> Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
>
> I was thinking more names and addresses (I've spend a lot of time
> working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
> many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
>
I'm not sure when the term "codepage" was invented, but I don't think it
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 3:10 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
> [snips]
>
>> Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
>
> I was thinking more names and addresses (I've spend a lot of time
> working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
> many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
>
goes back before the late 70s or so. The first time I head the term was
with OS/2 in 1987.
OTOH the earliest 3270s had "internationalization" with French, German,
UK English, etc. character sets back in 71, and earlier terminals such
as 2741 probably offered this in the 60s.
I never worked anywhere that worried about such things. It was just not
a consideration for most small companies, colleges, etc. I did a lot of
mailing lists, etc., but it was all standard EBCDIC straight from the
Green Card and/or whatever 1403 print train we were using. If a name
contained "�" it simply became "n".
I excepct this was similar for everyone. For example a French user
probably wouldn't be able to handle "�".
--
Pete
Shmuel Metz
May 11, 2013, 11:31:46 PM5/11/13
to
In <r72so85297hn2mq2k...@4ax.com>, on 05/11/2013
at 10:10 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
said:
>When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>etc characters?
Certainly by the time the 3800-3 came out, since it let you define
your own characters.
>Earliest internationalised EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986,
The sixth edition (November 1975) of GA27-2749 lists a dozen European
keyboards and associated code pages.
>Wikipedia is remarkably obscure on this,
Try bitsavers.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
at 10:10 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
said:
>When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>etc characters?
your own characters.
>Earliest internationalised EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986,
keyboards and associated code pages.
>Wikipedia is remarkably obscure on this,
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel Metz
May 11, 2013, 11:13:27 PM5/11/13
to
In <proto-08CDB4....@news.panix.com>, on 05/11/2013
The earliest I know of was in the 1960's. My recollection is that the
MT/ST was in the same time frame, but it was a lot cruder than what
was available of the 14440/1460 and S/360.
The earliest I know of was in the 1960's. My recollection is that the
MT/ST was in the same time frame, but it was a lot cruder than what
was available of the 14440/1460 and S/360.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 12, 2013, 9:26:00 AM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:08:48 -0400, Peter Flass
<Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 5/11/2013 8:02 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 11, 3:10 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>>>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>>>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>>>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>> [snips]
>>
>>> Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
>>
>> I was thinking more names and addresses (I've spend a lot of time
>> working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
>> many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
>>
>
>I'm not sure when the term "codepage" was invented, but I don't think it
>goes back before the late 70s or so. The first time I head the term was
>with OS/2 in 1987.
Yeah, I'm showing my lack of age with that! Apologies for any
<Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 5/11/2013 8:02 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 11, 3:10 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>>>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>>>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>>>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>> [snips]
>>
>>> Word processing wasn't a big application on million-dollar mainframes.
>>
>> I was thinking more names and addresses (I've spend a lot of time
>> working with name+address datasets), which will apply to very, very
>> many systems. Were they just encoded in ASCII-equivalent US codepages?
>>
>
>I'm not sure when the term "codepage" was invented, but I don't think it
>goes back before the late 70s or so. The first time I head the term was
>with OS/2 in 1987.
confusion potential.
>OTOH the earliest 3270s had "internationalization" with French, German,
>UK English, etc. character sets back in 71, and earlier terminals such
>as 2741 probably offered this in the 60s.
>
>I never worked anywhere that worried about such things. It was just not
>a consideration for most small companies, colleges, etc. I did a lot of
>mailing lists, etc., but it was all standard EBCDIC straight from the
>Green Card and/or whatever 1403 print train we were using. If a name
>contained "�" it simply became "n".
>
>I excepct this was similar for everyone. For example a French user
>probably wouldn't be able to handle "�".
are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
parting with their cash, particularly the French.
Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The weirder you're going to behave, the more normal you should look. It works
in reverse, too. When I see a kid with three or four rings in his nose, I know
there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that person. -- P J O'Rourke
Bill Leary
May 12, 2013, 10:23:49 AM5/12/13
to
"Elliott Roper" wrote in message
news:110520132135003736%nos...@yrl.co.uk...
I'd started on Nova's before that and, at the time, I pretty much just
accepted that micro's, as opposed to mini's, had weird instruction sets.
Then I started working on MC68000's and "saw the light," as it were.
> The nearest early micro to the PDP-11 might have been a Motorola 6809.
Another architecture I only know by reading about it. But, if memory
serves, I see your point.
> Anyway it felt much less chundersome going from PDP-11 to 6809 than it
> was sinking down to the level of a Z80.
>> On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
>
> The Nova was a PDP-8 with four more bits per word. It was the design
> alluded to upthread that delayed the PDP-11 until Ed DeCastro left DEC
> to start DG
I know even less about the PDP-8 than the PDP-11. I'll take you word for
it.
>>> Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
>>
>> "All the worlds a VAX" ?
>
> That's a long gone world.
Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
> Things have gone downhill in the instruction set department,
> but who writes assembler any more?
I do. I was doing some Itanium assembler recently. But I'll concede it's
very special circumstances.
- Bill
news:110520132135003736%nos...@yrl.co.uk...
> In article <NIednTxTutWe8xPM...@giganews.com>, Bill Leary
> <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Quadibloc" wrote in message
>> news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>> ((..omitted..))
>>> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
>>
>> I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the
>> 8080
>> and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
>
> The 8080 was just plain horrible, and the Z80 was almost the same
> instruction set with slightly different assembler mnemonics.
I programmed 8080's and Z80's for a long, long time. Often in assembler.
> <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Quadibloc" wrote in message
>> news:b4eedaa6-4b60-4a77...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>> ((..omitted..))
>>> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
>>
>> I can't say about the 8080 vs. PDP-11. I did a lot of assembly on the
>> 8080
>> and Z80, but only read about the PDP-11.
>
> The 8080 was just plain horrible, and the Z80 was almost the same
> instruction set with slightly different assembler mnemonics.
I'd started on Nova's before that and, at the time, I pretty much just
accepted that micro's, as opposed to mini's, had weird instruction sets.
Then I started working on MC68000's and "saw the light," as it were.
> The nearest early micro to the PDP-11 might have been a Motorola 6809.
serves, I see your point.
> Anyway it felt much less chundersome going from PDP-11 to 6809 than it
> was sinking down to the level of a Z80.
>> On the other hand, the 6502 reminded a lot of the DG Nova.
>
> The Nova was a PDP-8 with four more bits per word. It was the design
> alluded to upthread that delayed the PDP-11 until Ed DeCastro left DEC
> to start DG
it.
>>> Some architectures have just been so immensely influential.
>>
>> "All the worlds a VAX" ?
>
> That's a long gone world.
whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
> Things have gone downhill in the instruction set department,
> but who writes assembler any more?
very special circumstances.
- Bill
jmfbahciv
May 12, 2013, 10:46:48 AM5/12/13
to
>>
>>I excepct this was similar for everyone. For example a French user
>>probably wouldn't be able to handle "å".
>>I excepct this was similar for everyone. For example a French user
>
> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>
> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
Very definitely. There was an uproar in-house when somebody found a VAX
> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>
> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
on a shipping dock in Europe with a USSR address on it.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
May 12, 2013, 10:46:46 AM5/12/13
to
not use any IBM words which had been tradmarked, copyrighted, or
reserved. We weren't rich enough to want to attract the wrath of
IBM. IBM liked to have us in business, at that time, because noone
could accuse them of having a monopoly; all IBM had to do is point
at DEC and the monopoly sniffing went away.
/BAH
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
May 12, 2013, 12:49:08 PM5/12/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:35:00 +0100
Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> That's a long gone world. Things have gone downhill in the instruction
> set department, but who writes assembler any more?
The only people these days who care about assembler are the
Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> That's a long gone world. Things have gone downhill in the instruction
> set department, but who writes assembler any more?
compiler writers and they care more about it being possible to optimise
than being comprehensible to human programmers. I expect this trend to end
in truly incomprehensible instruction sets that are extremely efficient.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
May 12, 2013, 12:46:34 PM5/12/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 04:53:58 +0100
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
There are still analog comuters today - http://www.comdyna.com/ for
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
example.
Charlie Gibbs
May 12, 2013, 2:35:21 PM5/12/13
to
In article <r72so85297hn2mq2k...@4ax.com>,
had a Katakana option. And I remember reading something about support
for Farsi somewhere around that time.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org (Jaimie Vandenbergh) writes:
> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
The Univac UTS 400 intelligent terminal, introduced in the late '70s,
> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
had a Katakana option. And I remember reading something about support
for Farsi somewhere around that time.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
sdrat
May 12, 2013, 2:37:57 PM5/12/13
to
"Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:518f08d7$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net...
> In <proto-08CDB4....@news.panix.com>, on 05/11/2013
> at 08:21 AM, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:
>
>>When did word processing come in?
>
> The earliest I know of was in the 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor#History
> at 08:21 AM, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:
>
>>When did word processing come in?
>
> The earliest I know of was in the 1960's.
sdrat
May 12, 2013, 2:52:59 PM5/12/13
to
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
news:gs5vo85jkle1q02vp...@4ax.com...
Rod Speed
May 12, 2013, 3:05:57 PM5/12/13
to
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
> We could not use any IBM words which had
> been tradmarked, copyrighted, or reserved.
That was not the case with the word disk. It had been around
for a hell of a long time before IBM was even invented.
> We weren't rich enough to want to attract the wrath of IBM.
That was never going to happen with the spelling of disk.
> IBM liked to have us in business, at that time, because
> noone could accuse them of having a monopoly;
Even sillier. DEC wasn’t the only alternative to IBM.
> all IBM had to do is point at DEC and
> the monopoly sniffing went away.
Bullshit it did.
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote
>>>>> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
>>>> True enough.
>>>> Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
>>>> was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
>>> that style of logo was the thing which was prepended on
>>> all of our internal memos. Later it became a public thing.
>>>> There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying
>>>> from the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell
>>>> and SDS. IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like.
>>>> And when IBM changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
>>> We had to be careful. Some things we did just a tad differntly so
>>> that DEC didn't end up in court with IBM on the other side. The thing
>>> I remember the best is we had to spell disk with a k and never a c.
>> That was never going to end up in court.
>> That was always just the mindlessly silly line some fool ran.
>>> That was one of the rules Tape Prep had when typing up
>>> docs, memos or code for the programmers, writers, etc.
>> Because some fool who didn’t have a fucking clue made that rule.
> You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
We'll see...
>>>>> There were still analog computers around when DEC was formed.
>>>> True enough.
>>>> Maybe the idea was that their logo said "d|i|g|i|t|a|l", or maybe it
>>>> was that using initials made it look like they were copying IBM.
>>> that style of logo was the thing which was prepended on
>>> all of our internal memos. Later it became a public thing.
>>>> There are ways in which the earliest DEC computers were copying
>>>> from the IBM 704 - other companies did this too, like Honeywell
>>>> and SDS. IBM sort of defined what a computer should look like.
>>>> And when IBM changed its mind, DEC followed with the PDP-11.
>>> We had to be careful. Some things we did just a tad differntly so
>>> that DEC didn't end up in court with IBM on the other side. The thing
>>> I remember the best is we had to spell disk with a k and never a c.
>> That was never going to end up in court.
>> That was always just the mindlessly silly line some fool ran.
>>> That was one of the rules Tape Prep had when typing up
>>> docs, memos or code for the programmers, writers, etc.
>> Because some fool who didn’t have a fucking clue made that rule.
> You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> We could not use any IBM words which had
> been tradmarked, copyrighted, or reserved.
for a hell of a long time before IBM was even invented.
> We weren't rich enough to want to attract the wrath of IBM.
> IBM liked to have us in business, at that time, because
> noone could accuse them of having a monopoly;
> all IBM had to do is point at DEC and
> the monopoly sniffing went away.
Patrick Scheible
May 12, 2013, 4:21:06 PM5/12/13
to
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> writes:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:03:35 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>Christian Brunschen wrote, in <kmjhp3$ceh$1...@dont-email.me>
>> on Fri, 10 May 2013 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC):
>>
>>> In article <mddip2q...@panix5.panix.com>,
>>> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"etc. etc."
>>> >
>>> >ktl. (or k.t.l.) is the abbreviation for Greek _kai ta loipa_ "and the
>>> >things-left(over)". This is used in Classical Greek; I have no
>>> > idea whether it
>>> >is used on the modern language.
>>> >
>>> >usw. is the abbreviation for German _und so weiter_ "and thus further".
>>>
>>> If you would like to add Swedish to that list, the equivalent would be
>>> "o.s.v." for "och sa vidare" (where the "a" of "sa" should be an a with a
>>> ring on top, HTML å ).
>>
>>Alt-0229 in Windows or Ctrl a o if you have AllChars installed.
>
> Alt-a in OSX/Mac OS. Or opt-a if you have an older keyboard.
separate diacritical marks that overlay in the 1960s. The character
encoding wasn't widely adopted outside of libraries and geneological
databases, though.
-- Patrick
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:03:35 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>Christian Brunschen wrote, in <kmjhp3$ceh$1...@dont-email.me>
>> on Fri, 10 May 2013 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC):
>>
>>> In article <mddip2q...@panix5.panix.com>,
>>> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"etc. etc."
>>> >
>>> >ktl. (or k.t.l.) is the abbreviation for Greek _kai ta loipa_ "and the
>>> >things-left(over)". This is used in Classical Greek; I have no
>>> > idea whether it
>>> >is used on the modern language.
>>> >
>>> >usw. is the abbreviation for German _und so weiter_ "and thus further".
>>>
>>> If you would like to add Swedish to that list, the equivalent would be
>>> "o.s.v." for "och sa vidare" (where the "a" of "sa" should be an a with a
>>> ring on top, HTML å ).
>>
>>Alt-0229 in Windows or Ctrl a o if you have AllChars installed.
>
> Alt-a in OSX/Mac OS. Or opt-a if you have an older keyboard.
>
> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
The larger American libraries started implementing characters with
> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
separate diacritical marks that overlay in the 1960s. The character
encoding wasn't widely adopted outside of libraries and geneological
databases, though.
-- Patrick
brian
May 12, 2013, 11:07:44 PM5/12/13
to
On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>
>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>
>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>
> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
Crypto was treated as munitions. There was the famous T-shirt with a
>
>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>
>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>
> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
3-line perl RSA program on it, that could not legally be exported from
the US.
See cypherspace.org/rsa.
--brian
--
Where's my sig gone?
sdrat
May 12, 2013, 11:28:48 PM5/12/13
to
"brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>
>
>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>
>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>
>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
> Crypto was treated as munitions.
Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
>>
>
>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>
>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>
>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
> Crypto was treated as munitions.
> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program
> on it, that could not legally be exported from the US.
> See cypherspace.org/rsa.
Rob Doyle
May 13, 2013, 1:28:17 AM5/13/13
to
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
There are a lot of google hits on "ITAR and Crypto".
At one time, exporting any kind of crypto was problematic.
Rob.
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 1:53:08 AM5/13/13
to
"Rob Doyle" <radi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmptll$2g2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 5/12/2013 8:28 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>
>>
>> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message
>> news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>>
>>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>>
>> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>>
>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>> See cypherspace.org/rsa.
> There is only one type of export control
That is just plain wrong.
>>
>>
>> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message
>> news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>>
>>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>>
>> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>>
>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>> See cypherspace.org/rsa.
> There is only one type of export control
> - the industry acronym is ITAR. See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
> There are a lot of google hits on "ITAR and Crypto".
> At one time, exporting any kind of crypto was problematic.
brian
May 13, 2013, 2:30:51 AM5/13/13
to
On 13/05/13 3:28 PM, sdrat wrote:
>
>
> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>
>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>
>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>
>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>
> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
"Computers" includes both hardware and software. "Crypto" may be software.
>
>
> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>
>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>
>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>
>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>
> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>
> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of maintaining
secrecy or confidentiality of information or information systems". It's
less restrictive than it used to be, probably because it used to allow
books to be exported, but not the same text on disk, and other stupidity.
>> See cypherspace.org/rsa.
>
--brian
Tom Hardy
May 13, 2013, 3:43:34 AM5/13/13
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
> When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
> microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
> word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the
> person showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud
> of the device and his cleverness in having it.
I had a castoff Freidan electromechanical word processor ca 1980 or
> When did word processing come in? AFAIK, it wasn't big until
> microprocessors became present. I remember an early word pre-micro
> word processor that used two cassette tapes for memory and the
> person showing me was a headhunter (computer field) and very proud
> of the device and his cleverness in having it.
so, with tape punch and reader. It had mailmerge capability and
could type form letters with customized fields.
--
Tom Hardy <rhar...@gmail.com>
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 6:18:27 AM5/13/13
to
"brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmq13s$4hl$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 13/05/13 3:28 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>
>>
>> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message
>> news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>>
>>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>>
>> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
> "Computers" includes both hardware and software.
Yes, but barb was talking about hardware, not software.
>>
>>
>> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message
>> news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>>
>>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>>
>> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
> "Computers" includes both hardware and software.
> "Crypto" may be software.
Yes, but barb was talking about computer hardware, not software.
>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it, that
>>> could not legally be exported from the US.
>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
> systems".
Peter Flass
May 13, 2013, 8:49:52 AM5/13/13
to
On 5/11/2013 11:31 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <r72so85297hn2mq2k...@4ax.com>, on 05/11/2013
> at 10:10 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> said:
>
>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> etc characters?
>
> Certainly by the time the 3800-3 came out, since it let you define
> your own characters.
Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you were
> In <r72so85297hn2mq2k...@4ax.com>, on 05/11/2013
> at 10:10 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> said:
>
>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> etc characters?
>
> Certainly by the time the 3800-3 came out, since it let you define
> your own characters.
limited by the characters your printer could generate. I believe the
2741 could type 88 different characters. Occasionally people played
games switching typeballs (AFAIK) or printed accented characters by
overprinting, but this was enough of a pain that most people wouldn't
bother unless there was some major requirement. The laser printer's
ability to print anything really opened up the field.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
May 13, 2013, 8:53:58 AM5/13/13
to
On 5/12/2013 9:26 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>
This type of "internationalization" was common, but still limited.
>
> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>
There were UK keyboards (and character generators), French Keyboards,
etc. but the equipment was too limited to handle a truly "universal"
character set.
--
Pete
Morten Reistad
May 13, 2013, 3:08:53 AM5/13/13
to
certain speed were regarded as munitions, or similar.
-- mrr
Scott Lurndal
May 13, 2013, 9:41:58 AM5/13/13
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>In article <r72so85297hn2mq2k...@4ax.com>,
>jai...@sometimes.sessile.org (Jaimie Vandenbergh) writes:
>
>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>
>The Univac UTS 400 intelligent terminal, introduced in the late '70s,
>had a Katakana option. And I remember reading something about support
>for Farsi somewhere around that time.
The Burroughs TD7xx/TD8xx terminals had optional character ROMs that
>In article <r72so85297hn2mq2k...@4ax.com>,
>jai...@sometimes.sessile.org (Jaimie Vandenbergh) writes:
>
>> When did the big American computer companies first implement accented
>> etc characters? Terminal and/or printheads? Earliest internationalised
>> EBCDIC I can find is (c) 1986, which seems way too late. Wikipedia is
>> remarkably obscure on this, I expected easier-to-find info...
>
>The Univac UTS 400 intelligent terminal, introduced in the late '70s,
>had a Katakana option. And I remember reading something about support
>for Farsi somewhere around that time.
provided most of the (western) european language character sets (albeit
the terminals were ASCII) in the mid-70's. There was katakana and kanji
support as well, IIRC.
scott
Scott Lurndal
May 13, 2013, 9:47:17 AM5/13/13
to
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>
>Very definitely. There was an uproar in-house when somebody found a VAX
>on a shipping dock in Europe with a USSR address on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremvax
>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>
>Very definitely. There was an uproar in-house when somebody found a VAX
>on a shipping dock in Europe with a USSR address on it.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
May 13, 2013, 10:03:50 AM5/13/13
to
brian <fa...@fake.nz> writes:
> Crypto was treated as munitions. There was the famous T-shirt with a
> 3-line perl RSA program on it, that could not legally be exported from
> the US.
don't care about, those you can't do, and those you can only do for
them.
in hsdt ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
with T1 and fast speed links ... also working with some of the
institutions and organizations that would eventually make up NSFNET
backbone ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet
links on internal network were all required to be encrypted ... mid-80s
there were claims that the internal network had more than half of all
link encryptors in the world ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
off-the-shelf T1 encryptors were really expensive and finding faster
encryptors was really hard (almost forced to run telco multiplexors with
multiple T1 links, each having their individual encryptors). I got
involved in design for much faster encryptor ... that was DES adapted
for packet (aka could resynch on packet boundary) ... would support
1-3mbyte/sec ... and cost less than $100 a board (was also working on
board supporting Reed-Soloman FEC running at similar speed ... fortunate
to have an engineer who had done a lot of the work on Reed-Soloman when
he was Reed's graduate student)
The crypto group in the company then claimed that couldn't make/use the
boards because it severaly compromised DES encryption (mostly because of
provision for being able to resynch on packet boundary). I spent 3months
learning enough of the right words to convince them that rather than
much weaker than standard DES, it was actually much stronger than
standard DES. It was somewhat hollow victory since they then said I
could make as many boards as I wanted to, but there was only one
customer in the world for the boards (address somewhere in maryland).
some old crypto related email from the period ... mentions that software
DES runs at about 150kbytes/sec on 3081k processor ... would need both
processors in 3081k dedicated to handling a single full-duplex T1 line
... also has discussion of proposal to do PGP-like public key
implementation ... a decade before PGP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#crypto
misc. past posts mentioning realizing there was 3-kinds of crypto:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008h.html#87 New test attempt
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#86 Own a piece of the crypto wars
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008j.html#43 What is "timesharing" (Re: OS X Finder windows vs terminal window weirdness)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#32 Getting Out Hard Drive in Real Old Computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010i.html#27 Favourite computer history books?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#43 Internet Evolution - Part I: Encryption basics
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#19 The IETF is probably the single element in the global equation of technology competition than has resulted in the INTERNET
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#20 TELSTAR satellite experiment
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#60 Is the magic and romance killed by Windows (and Linux)?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#69 Is the magic and romance killed by Windows (and Linux)?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#0 We list every company in the world that has a mainframe computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#63 ARPANET's coming out party: when the Internet first took center stage
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#85 Key Escrow from a Safe Distance: Looking back at the Clipper Chip
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#63 Reject gmail
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#70 Operating System, what is it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#47 T-carrier
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#1 IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
May 13, 2013, 10:19:52 AM5/13/13
to
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
> Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
> were limited by the characters your printer could generate. I believe
> the 2741 could type 88 different characters. Occasionally people
> played games switching typeballs (AFAIK) or printed accented
> characters by overprinting, but this was enough of a pain that most
> people wouldn't bother unless there was some major requirement. The
> laser printer's ability to print anything really opened up the field.
a lot of the 3800 font stuff for script was originally done to support
> Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
> were limited by the characters your printer could generate. I believe
> the 2741 could type 88 different characters. Occasionally people
> played games switching typeballs (AFAIK) or printed accented
> characters by overprinting, but this was enough of a pain that most
> people wouldn't bother unless there was some major requirement. The
> laser printer's ability to print anything really opened up the field.
changing typeballs with 2741 ... as well as pause to change ribbon; some
amount of final copy involved swapping out fabric ribbon and replacing
with fresh film ribbon (as well as changing typeball).
script was port of ctss runoff to cp67/cms at the science center in the
mid-60s ... misc. past posts mentioning science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
then in 1969, GML was invented at the science center (letters chosen
because they are the first letters of the inventors' last names) ... and
GML processing was added to script. another decade, and GML morphs into
ISO standard SGML. misc. past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#sgml
recent references mentioning RUNOFF/script heritage ... back to PDP-1
around 1962
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011c.html#73 IBM and the Computer Revolution
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#49 OT The inventor of Email - Tom Van Vleck
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011j.html#37 First Website Launched 20 Years Ago Today
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#64 Has anyone successfully migrated off mainframes?
other past posts mentioning 3800 laser printer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#1 What good and old text formatter are there ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#50 IBM 705 computer manual
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#31 Hercules etc. IBM not just missing a great opportunity...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#8 Security Proportional to Risk (was: IBM Mainframe at home)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#52 Spotting BAH Claims to Fame
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#42 MVS 3.8J and NJE via CTC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#50 Microsoft's innovations [was:the rtf format]
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#45 text character based diagrams in technical documentation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#52 dissassembled code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#1 Oldest running code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#13 JSX 328x printing (portrait)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#17 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#18 Infiniband - practicalities for small clusters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#25 360POO
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#48 1403 printers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005f.html#52 1403 printers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005k.html#58 Book on computer architecture for beginners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005l.html#0 Book on computer architecture for beginners
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#0 The System/360 Model 20 Wasn't As Bad As All That
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#4 The System/360 Model 20 Wasn't As Bad As All That
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#44 Materiel and graft
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#49 Materiel and graft
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#51 It has been a long time since Ihave seen a printer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#15 Code Page 1047 vs 037 - Green card confusion
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#79 Book: "Everyone Else Must Fail" --Larry Ellison and Oracle ???
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#24 Processes' memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#69 Apple iPad -- this merges with folklore
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#74 Apple iPad -- this merges with folklore
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#85 Apple iPad -- this merges with folklore
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#2 Apple iPad -- this merges with folklore
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#23 Apple iPad -- this merges with folklore
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#60 LPARs: More or Less?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#57 IBM 029 service manual
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#18 Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#60 Daisywheel Question: 192-character Printwheel Types
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#84 If IBM Hadn't Bet the Company
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#19 program coding pads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#26 program coding pads
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#77 Just for a laugh... How to spot an old IBMer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#95 Burroughs B5000, B5500, B6500 videos
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#97 Just for a laugh ... How to spot an old IBMer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#18 VM Workshop 2012
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#25 X86 server
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#55 Dualcase vs monocase. Was: Article for the boss
jmfbahciv
May 13, 2013, 10:20:40 AM5/13/13
to
/BAH
jmfbahciv
May 13, 2013, 10:20:56 AM5/13/13
to
producing the stuff.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
May 13, 2013, 10:20:55 AM5/13/13
to
sdrat wrote:
>
>
> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmq13s$4hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/05/13 3:28 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>>>
>>>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>>>
>>> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
>
>> "Computers" includes both hardware and software.
>
> Yes, but barb was talking about hardware, not software.
Barb was talking about both.
>
>
> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmq13s$4hl$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/05/13 3:28 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:kmpl71$ora$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 13/05/13 6:52 AM, sdrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't surprise me for sales within the USA, where such things
>>>>>> are famously disregarded. But I'm pretty sure IBM, DEC and the others
>>>>>> sold kit to Europe as well, and I'm reasonably sure that some European
>>>>>> governments would insist on correct internationalisation before
>>>>>> parting with their cash, particularly the French.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further afield I don't know - was a lot of this DP stuff
>>>>>> export-controlled as munitions, or am I misremembering?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there were export controls, but not really like munitions.
>>>
>>>> Crypto was treated as munitions.
>>>
>>> Barb was talking about computers, not crypto.
>
>> "Computers" includes both hardware and software.
>
> Yes, but barb was talking about hardware, not software.
/BAH
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 10:34:05 AM5/13/13
to
and the OS they came with - there ain't much i18n on bare metal!
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by infinity is
to contemplate the extent of human stupidity." -- Voltaire
Shmuel Metz
May 13, 2013, 10:44:58 AM5/13/13
to
In <20130512174908.5c93...@eircom.net>, on 05/12/2013
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
at 05:49 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:
>The only people these days who care about assembler are the compiler
>writers
Not so.
>The only people these days who care about assembler are the compiler
>writers
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel Metz
May 13, 2013, 10:01:00 AM5/13/13
to
In <kmo062$aa$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/12/2013
Rendering ￜ as "nn" would be acceptable, but rendering it as "n" seems
dubious.
at 08:08 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>I never worked anywhere that worried about such things. It was just
>not a consideration for most small companies, colleges, etc. I did
>a lot of mailing lists, etc., but it was all standard EBCDIC
>straight from the Green Card and/or whatever 1403 print train we
>were using. If a name contained "ￜ" it simply became "n".
>I never worked anywhere that worried about such things. It was just
>not a consideration for most small companies, colleges, etc. I did
>a lot of mailing lists, etc., but it was all standard EBCDIC
>straight from the Green Card and/or whatever 1403 print train we
Rendering ￜ as "nn" would be acceptable, but rendering it as "n" seems
dubious.
Shmuel Metz
May 13, 2013, 11:10:22 AM5/13/13
to
In <ava5ss...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/13/2013
at 04:37 AM, "sdrat" <sd...@gfr.com> said:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor#History
That section seems to be missing early examples from the main article,
e.g., RUNOFF. It seems to be concerned with the history of the word
more than with the history of the application.
at 04:37 AM, "sdrat" <sd...@gfr.com> said:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor#History
That section seems to be missing early examples from the main article,
e.g., RUNOFF. It seems to be concerned with the history of the word
more than with the history of the application.
Shmuel Metz
May 13, 2013, 11:36:00 AM5/13/13
to
In <kmqmtu$g5b$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/13/2013
photocompositers were available before then. When did troff become
available?
at 08:49 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
>were limited by the characters your printer could generate.
LASER printers *are* dot matrix printers. More to the point,
>Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
>were limited by the characters your printer could generate.
photocompositers were available before then. When did troff become
available?
Patrick Scheible
May 13, 2013, 11:50:00 AM5/13/13
to
are exactly four characters per word, and characters are stored
little-endian.
-- Patrick
Bill Leary
May 13, 2013, 12:15:00 PM5/13/13
to
"jmfbahciv" wrote in message
news:PM0004DC9...@ac8103bd.ipt.aol.com...
The serious answer is because there were a lot of C programs written which
assumed the underlying architecture of the VAX.
- Bill
news:PM0004DC9...@ac8103bd.ipt.aol.com...
> Bill Leary wrote:
>> Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
>> whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
>> experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
>
> <grin> BEcuase it was full of bliss?
Wouldn't that have been "BLISS"?
>> Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
>> whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
>> experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
>
> <grin> BEcuase it was full of bliss?
The serious answer is because there were a lot of C programs written which
assumed the underlying architecture of the VAX.
- Bill
Andrew Swallow
May 13, 2013, 12:44:50 PM5/13/13
to
strategic military secrets. Which is why banks used it.
Andrew Swallow
Morten Reistad
May 13, 2013, 12:39:11 PM5/13/13
to
In article <86r4hak...@chai.my.domain>,
http://catb.org/jargon/html/V/vaxocentrism.html
-- mrr
who fought 1,2,5,6,8,9,13,14 in the above regularly.
Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Leary wrote:
>>> "Elliott Roper" wrote in message
>>> news:110520132135003736%nos...@yrl.co.uk...
>>>> In article <NIednTxTutWe8xPM...@giganews.com>, Bill Leary
>>>> <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> I programmed 8080's and Z80's for a long, long time. Often in assembler.
>>> I'd started on Nova's before that and, at the time, I pretty much just
>>> accepted that micro's, as opposed to mini's, had weird instruction sets.
>>> Then I started working on MC68000's and "saw the light," as it were.
>>>
>>>> The nearest early micro to the PDP-11 might have been a Motorola 6809.
>>>
>>> Another architecture I only know by reading about it. But, if memory
>>> serves, I see your point.
*snip*
>jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Leary wrote:
>>> "Elliott Roper" wrote in message
>>> news:110520132135003736%nos...@yrl.co.uk...
>>>> In article <NIednTxTutWe8xPM...@giganews.com>, Bill Leary
>>>> <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> I programmed 8080's and Z80's for a long, long time. Often in assembler.
>>> I'd started on Nova's before that and, at the time, I pretty much just
>>> accepted that micro's, as opposed to mini's, had weird instruction sets.
>>> Then I started working on MC68000's and "saw the light," as it were.
>>>
>>>> The nearest early micro to the PDP-11 might have been a Motorola 6809.
>>>
>>> Another architecture I only know by reading about it. But, if memory
>>> serves, I see your point.
>>> I know even less about the PDP-8 than the PDP-11. I'll take you word for
>>> it.
>>>
*snip*
>>> it.
>>>
>>>>> "All the worlds a VAX" ?
>>>>
>>>> That's a long gone world.
>>>
>>> Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
>>> whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
>>> experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
>>
>> <grin> BEcuase it was full of bliss?
>
>Probably full of assumptions that all characters are 8 bits, and there
>are exactly four characters per word, and characters are stored
>little-endian.
Vax-O-Centric code.
>>>>
>>>> That's a long gone world.
>>>
>>> Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
>>> whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
>>> experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
>>
>> <grin> BEcuase it was full of bliss?
>
>Probably full of assumptions that all characters are 8 bits, and there
>are exactly four characters per word, and characters are stored
>little-endian.
http://catb.org/jargon/html/V/vaxocentrism.html
-- mrr
who fought 1,2,5,6,8,9,13,14 in the above regularly.
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 1:53:54 PM5/13/13
to
"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004DC9...@ac8103bd.ipt.aol.com...
Rod Speed
May 13, 2013, 1:58:06 PM5/13/13
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Laboratories#Word_processors
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 2:00:52 PM5/13/13
to
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
news:eau1p85l25hau7grk...@4ax.com...
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 2:11:50 PM5/13/13
to
"Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:51910860$28$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net...
> In <kmqmtu$g5b$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/13/2013
> at 08:49 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
>>were limited by the characters your printer could generate.
>
> LASER printers *are* dot matrix printers. More to the point,
> photocompositers were available before then. When did troff become
> available?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troff#History
> at 08:49 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
>>were limited by the characters your printer could generate.
>
> LASER printers *are* dot matrix printers. More to the point,
> photocompositers were available before then. When did troff become
> available?
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 4:02:07 PM5/13/13
to
was all sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto
software being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable
length keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being
forbidden. Lotus Notes was a poster child of this, and I'm sure HTTPS
was affected too amongst other things.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways.
-- Mark Edwards, asr
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 4:25:34 PM5/13/13
to
news:mch2p8hp65j042ukg...@4ax.com...
That was always the case, not just early on.
> but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there was all
> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
That's an entirely different matter to EXPORT controls.
And they were not forbidden, you could use anything you liked.
> Lotus Notes was a poster child of this,
But you could use any length keys you liked with
your own code. No goons would show up and frog
march you off to the prison if you used longer ones.
> and I'm sure HTTPS was affected too amongst other things.
But not the EXPORT of that technology.
> but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there was all
> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
And they were not forbidden, you could use anything you liked.
> Lotus Notes was a poster child of this,
your own code. No goons would show up and frog
march you off to the prison if you used longer ones.
> and I'm sure HTTPS was affected too amongst other things.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 4:36:13 PM5/13/13
to
attention it was software too".
>> but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there was all
>> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
>> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
>> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
>
>That's an entirely different matter to EXPORT controls.
American and hold no beef in this fight, so whatever's correct.
>And they were not forbidden, you could use anything you liked.
>
>> Lotus Notes was a poster child of this,
exporting software that used encryption keys longer than 40 bits."
"US export regulations were changed in 2001, so current versions of
Lotus products can use longer keys"
That's Wikipedia's Lotus Notes article, admittedly. Fact check that if
you like.
>But you could use any length keys you liked with
>your own code. No goons would show up and frog
>march you off to the prison if you used longer ones.
>> and I'm sure HTTPS was affected too amongst other things.
>
>But not the EXPORT of that technology.
foreigners", if you prefer.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"But people have always eaten people!
What else is there to eat?
If the Juju had meant us not to eat people
He wouldn't have made us of meat!" -- Flanders & Swann
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
May 13, 2013, 4:52:02 PM5/13/13
to
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> writes:
> Perhaps early on, but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there
> was all sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto
> software being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable
> length keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being
> forbidden. Lotus Notes was a poster child of this, and I'm sure HTTPS
> was affected too amongst other things.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#31 The Vindication of Barb
recently mentioned in this post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#22 What Makes code storage management so cool?
this reference to early jan1992 meeting in Ellison's conference room
on ha/cmp cluster scaleup
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13
and end of jan1992, after scaleup is transferred, we decide to leave.
two other people mentioned at the same meeting also leave and join small
client/server startup where they are responsible for something called
commerce server. We are brought in as consultants because they want to
do payment transactions on the server; the startup has also invented
this technology called "SSL" they want to use; the result is now
frequently called "electronic commerce".
as part of the effort, we have to map out SSL technology for payment
business process ... we also have to do some end-to-end walk-thrus
... including the operations calling themselves "certification
authorities" ... that are selling SSL digital certificates. past
posts discussing SSL digital certificates
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subpubkey.html#sslcert
we also some up with several requirements for the deployment and use of
SSL ... some of which are almost immediately violated and contributed to
various of the exploits that continue to this day.
there are also lots of industry meetings about what level/strength
encryption that can be used ... and we also get sucked into the industry
"key escrow" meetings (i.e. stronger encryption can be used if the keys
are registered and available to gov. agencies and legal authorities).
as a result of having done "electronic commerce" ... in the mid-90s, we
get invited to participate in the x9a10 financial standards working
group ... which has been given the requirement to preserve the integrity
of the financial infrastructure for all retail payments. we do
end-to-end threat and vulnerability studies and eventually come up with
the x9.59 financial transaction standard ... some references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/x959.html#x959
in part because of being involved with past issues related to encryption
... and in part because the enormous numbers of business processes that
require financial transaction information ... x9.59 solution is to
slightly tweak the current paradigm ... and eliminate the requirement to
hide (and/or encrypt) the financial information ... purely relying on
public key technology for strong authentication (but eliminating any
requirement for encryption for information hiding). x9.59 doesn't
eliminate skimming and/or breach vulnerabilities ... but it eliminates
the ability for crooks to use the information for fraudulent financial
transactions (and therefor any risk related to such skimming and/or
breaches). Now since the largest use of SSL in the world today ... is
this early stuff for "electronic commerce" and hiding payment
transactions information, X9.59 no longer requires the information to be
hidden ... and therefor eliminates the major use of SSL in the world
today. past posts mentioning x9.59
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subpubkey.html#x959
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 5:21:25 PM5/13/13
to
news:vej2p8tg42tuo29r2...@4ax.com...
Yeah, I realised that's what you meant, but I don't
believe that its true of any software other than crypto.
Barb was actually talking about OSs, not crypto.
>>> but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there was all
>>> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
>>> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
>>> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
>> That's an entirely different matter to EXPORT controls.
> Are we just getting hung up on the exact legal jargon?
No, it was export controls that were being discussed.
> I'm not American and hold no beef in this fight, so whatever's correct.
>> And they were not forbidden, you could use anything you liked.
>>> Lotus Notes was a poster child of this,
> "Before 1997 Lotus had been restricted by United States law from
> exporting software that used encryption keys longer than 40 bits."
Yes, that is certainly the export controls that were being discussed.
> "US export regulations were changed in 2001, so
> current versions of Lotus products can use longer keys"
> That's Wikipedia's Lotus Notes article, admittedly.
> Fact check that if you like.
I don't doubt that claim.
I was just commenting on your claim that longer keys were
illegal. That's is not correct and anyone doing software
outside the US could use any length keys they liked.
>> But you could use any length keys you liked with
>> your own code. No goons would show up and frog
>> march you off to the prison if you used longer ones.
> Unless you tried to sell it to the Foreigners?
You could still do that, just get the foreigners
to do their own keys of any length they liked.
>>> and I'm sure HTTPS was affected too amongst other things.
>> But not the EXPORT of that technology.
> YES, the export.
I don't believe that with HTTPS.
> Or some other term that means "selling it to foreigners", if you prefer.
I wasn't talking about the term there, clearly the foreigners
can do anything they like length of keys wise, because the US
gets no say whatever on anything they do key length wise.
believe that its true of any software other than crypto.
Barb was actually talking about OSs, not crypto.
>>> but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there was all
>>> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
>>> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
>>> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
>> That's an entirely different matter to EXPORT controls.
> Are we just getting hung up on the exact legal jargon?
> I'm not American and hold no beef in this fight, so whatever's correct.
>> And they were not forbidden, you could use anything you liked.
>>> Lotus Notes was a poster child of this,
> "Before 1997 Lotus had been restricted by United States law from
> exporting software that used encryption keys longer than 40 bits."
> "US export regulations were changed in 2001, so
> current versions of Lotus products can use longer keys"
> That's Wikipedia's Lotus Notes article, admittedly.
> Fact check that if you like.
I was just commenting on your claim that longer keys were
illegal. That's is not correct and anyone doing software
outside the US could use any length keys they liked.
>> But you could use any length keys you liked with
>> your own code. No goons would show up and frog
>> march you off to the prison if you used longer ones.
> Unless you tried to sell it to the Foreigners?
to do their own keys of any length they liked.
>>> and I'm sure HTTPS was affected too amongst other things.
>> But not the EXPORT of that technology.
> YES, the export.
> Or some other term that means "selling it to foreigners", if you prefer.
can do anything they like length of keys wise, because the US
gets no say whatever on anything they do key length wise.
Patrick Scheible
May 13, 2013, 5:31:39 PM5/13/13
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
> In <kmqmtu$g5b$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/13/2013
> at 08:49 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
>>were limited by the characters your printer could generate.
>
> LASER printers *are* dot matrix printers. More to the point,
> photocompositers were available before then. When did troff become
> available?
From wikipedia under "troff":
> In <kmqmtu$g5b$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/13/2013
> at 08:49 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Until laser printers came in, more so than dot-matrix printers, you
>>were limited by the characters your printer could generate.
>
> LASER printers *are* dot matrix printers. More to the point,
> photocompositers were available before then. When did troff become
> available?
troff can trace its origins back to a text formatting program called
RUNOFF, written by Jerome H. Saltzer for MIT's CTSS operating system in
the mid-1960s. (The name allegedly came from the phrase at the time,
I'll run off a document.)
Bob Morris ported it to the GE 635 architecture and called the program
roff (an abbreviation of runoff). It was rewritten as rf for the PDP-7,
and at the same time (1969), Doug McIlroy rewrote an extended and
simplified version of roff in the BCPL programming language.
The first version of Unix was developed on a PDP-7 which was sitting
around Bell Labs. In 1971 the developers wanted to get a PDP-11 for
further work on the operating system. In order to justify the cost for
this system, they proposed that they would implement a
document-formatting system for the AT&T patents division. This first
formatting program was a reimplementation of McIllroy's roff, written by
Joe F. Ossanna.
When they needed a more flexible language, a new version of roff called
nroff (newer 'roff' ) was written. It had a much more complicated
syntax, and provided the basis for all future versions. When they got a
Graphic Systems CAT phototypesetter, Ossanna wrote a version of nroff
that would drive it. It was dubbed troff, for typesetter 'roff'.[1] As
such, the name troff is pronounced /ˈtiː.rɒf/ rather than */ˈtrɒf/.
With troff came nroff (they were actually almost the same program),
which was for producing output for line printers and character
terminals. It understood everything troff did, and ignored the commands
which were not applicable (e.g. font changes).
Unfortunately, Ossanna's troff was written in PDP-11 assembly language
and produced output specifically for the CAT phototypesetter. He rewrote
it in C, although it was now 7000 lines of uncommented code and still
dependent on the CAT. As the CAT became less common, and was no longer
supported by the manufacturer, the need to make it support other devices
became a priority. Unfortunately, Ossanna died before this task was
completed.
So, Brian Kernighan took on the task of rewriting troff. The newly
rewritten version produced a device-independent code which was very easy
for postprocessors to read and translate to the appropriate printer
codes. Also, this new version of troff (often called ditroff for device
independent troff) had several extensions, which included drawing
functions.[2] The program's documentation defines the output format of
ditroff, which is used by many modern troff clones like GNU groff.
-- Patrick
brian
May 13, 2013, 6:12:23 PM5/13/13
to
On 13/05/13 10:18 PM, sdrat wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>
>> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
>
> But not T shirts.
>
>> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
>> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
>> systems".
>
> Doesn’t include a T shirt.
>
If the export of crypto software is restricted, then that may include a
source listing. If the source listing is printed on a T-shirt, then
export of the T-shirt is restricted. The T-shirt and a mail-label
containing the source were made just to demonstrate how stupid the rules
were.
--brian
>
>
[snip]
>
>>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>
>>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>
>
>> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
>
> But not T shirts.
>
>> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
>> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
>> systems".
>
> Doesn’t include a T shirt.
>
If the export of crypto software is restricted, then that may include a
source listing. If the source listing is printed on a T-shirt, then
export of the T-shirt is restricted. The T-shirt and a mail-label
containing the source were made just to demonstrate how stupid the rules
were.
--brian
Lawrence Statton
May 13, 2013, 6:42:53 PM5/13/13
to
brian <fa...@fake.nz> writes:
> On 13/05/13 10:18 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>
>>
>
> [snip]
>>
>>>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>>
>>>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>
>>> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
>>
>> But not T shirts.
>>
>>> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
>>> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
>>> systems".
>>
>> Doesn’t include a T shirt.
>>
>
> If the export of crypto software is restricted, then that may include
> a source listing.
At the time the T-Shirt was popular, the export of printed source code
> On 13/05/13 10:18 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>
>>
>
> [snip]
>>
>>>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>>
>>>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>
>>> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
>>
>> But not T shirts.
>>
>>> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
>>> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
>>> systems".
>>
>> Doesn’t include a T shirt.
>>
>
> If the export of crypto software is restricted, then that may include
> a source listing.
was not prohibited, but the export of machine-readable code was.
Which is why the T-Shirt was printed in a machine-readable font
(OCR-A, IIRC) and included a bar-code. Here is a photo of me wearing
one in 1995
http://trex.org/pix/picnic-950923/z.jpg
--
NK1G
echo 'lawre...@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
Jon Elson
May 13, 2013, 7:09:48 PM5/13/13
to
Quadibloc wrote:
> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
Um, really, not even close. The PDP-11 had a rich variety
> Just as the 8080 and the 6502 pretended to be PDP-11s.
of register modes, such as indirect, indirect with autoincrement/
autodecrement, etc. which allowed things like stack push/pop
to be done all in one instruction, with a register dedicated
to be stack pointer. To do similar stuff on an 8080 or 6502
took several instructions, and the index registers were way
too precious to be dedicated as stack pointers. The Z-80
was a bit better, but still nowhere near the capabilities of
a PDP-11. Even the 68000 was only approaching the well thought-
out PDP-11 instruction set.
Jon
Dave Garland
May 13, 2013, 7:46:23 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:36 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:25:34 +1000, "sdrat" <sd...@gfr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:25:34 +1000, "sdrat" <sd...@gfr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
>>> but in my earlish days with PC-class machines there was all
>>> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
>>> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
>>> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
>>
>> That's an entirely different matter to EXPORT controls.
>
> Are we just getting hung up on the exact legal jargon? I'm not
> American and hold no beef in this fight, so whatever's correct.
Neither is Rod/sdrat. He's Australian.
>>> sorts of fuss. I recall dissemination of stronger crypto software
>>> being problematic in the early 90s, with short breakable length
>>> keys being okay (56 bit rings a bell) but longer ones being forbidden.
>>
>> That's an entirely different matter to EXPORT controls.
>
> Are we just getting hung up on the exact legal jargon? I'm not
> American and hold no beef in this fight, so whatever's correct.
sdrat
May 13, 2013, 8:12:50 PM5/13/13
to
"brian" <fa...@fake.nz> wrote in message news:kmro97$uuh$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 13/05/13 10:18 PM, sdrat wrote:
>>
>>
>
> [snip]
>>
>>>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>>
>>>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>
>>> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
>>
>> But not T shirts.
>>
>>> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
>>> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
>>> systems".
>>
>> Doesn’t include a T shirt.
> If the export of crypto software is restricted, then that may include a
> source listing. If the source listing is printed on a T-shirt, then export
> of the T-shirt is restricted.
No, because that would be protected by the constitution.
>>
>>
>
> [snip]
>>
>>>>> There was the famous T-shirt with a 3-line perl RSA program on it,
>>>>> that could not legally be exported from the US.
>>
>>>> And that was nothing like how munitions were treated.
>>
>>> The ITAR Munitions list still includes some crypto software.
>>
>> But not T shirts.
>>
>>> Category XIII (b) (1) includes "...software with the capability of
>>> maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information
>>> systems".
>>
>> Doesn’t include a T shirt.
> If the export of crypto software is restricted, then that may include a
> source listing. If the source listing is printed on a T-shirt, then export
> of the T-shirt is restricted.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
May 13, 2013, 11:24:54 PM5/13/13
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:
> DES encryption was strong enough to protect money transfers but not
> strategic military secrets. Which is why banks used it.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#40 The Vindication of Barb
> DES encryption was strong enough to protect money transfers but not
> strategic military secrets. Which is why banks used it.
military secrets (the encrypted information) are suppose to be protected
for 30yrs or something (claim is that hollywood wants 50yrs DRM
protection, longer/more protection than military secrets).
much of financial crypto is more like authentication ... having
knowledge of the key can enable being able to perform new fraudulent
transactions ... changing key and/or account number is countermeasure
financial DES was "strengthened" with triple-DES (x9.52)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_DES
x9 also did dukpt (derived unique key per transaction) as countermeasure
against brute force attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_unique_key_per_transaction
attacker gets encrypted transaction tries all possible keys to decrypt
the message ... when finally reconizable message is found, they now have
the encrypting ... in standard single key scenario they could inject
fraudulent financial transactions in the network. however, in dukpt
... all they have is the key for that specific transaction and the
contents of that one transaction. every transaction and every key
requires its own brute force attack.
in dukpt scenario ... brute force attack only needs to take somewhat
longer than lifetime of the transaction. in military secrets scenario
... brute force attack needs to take longer than the required lifetime
of the encrypted information.
if brute force DUKPT DES 56bit can be done in 24hrs, then 30yr needs
another 14 bits ... if brute force DUKPT DES 56bit can be done in 1hr
then 30yr needs another 18bits. Add several more bits assuming hardware
gets faster (in some predictable manner) ... during the 30yr period.
Say after 15yrs, the key still has to protect for additional 15yrs
... but the hardware might be 1000 times faster (10bits) or million
times faster (20bits)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack
DES brute force machine
http://www.cryptography.com/technology/applied-research/research-efforts/des-key-search.html
disclaimer: i have a souvenir chip from the machine
attack on AES 5times faster than straight brute-force
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/19/aes_crypto_attack/
hollywood DRM only wants twice as long as military secrets ... single
additional bit ... but hardware may get billion times faster during the
additional interval ... possibly another 30bits.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 13, 2013, 11:56:19 PM5/13/13
to
things.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
L33t 5p3@|< 1s f0R R3t4rds
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Peter Flass
May 14, 2013, 7:58:55 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/2013 7:09 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
...
following article that looks interesting, though I confess I haven't had
time to do more than skim a little.
http://www.krsaborio.net/dec/research/1970/05.htm
If everyone else has read it but me, I retract the link.
--
Pete
...
> The PDP-11 had a rich variety
> of register modes, such as indirect, indirect with autoincrement/
> autodecrement, etc. which allowed things like stack push/pop
> to be done all in one instruction, with a register dedicated
> to be stack pointer.
This comment got me looking for more information. I came across the
> of register modes, such as indirect, indirect with autoincrement/
> autodecrement, etc. which allowed things like stack push/pop
> to be done all in one instruction, with a register dedicated
> to be stack pointer.
following article that looks interesting, though I confess I haven't had
time to do more than skim a little.
http://www.krsaborio.net/dec/research/1970/05.htm
If everyone else has read it but me, I retract the link.
--
Pete
jmfbahciv
May 14, 2013, 10:12:04 AM5/14/13
to
Bill Leary wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" wrote in message
> news:PM0004DC9...@ac8103bd.ipt.aol.com...
>> Bill Leary wrote:
>>> Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
>>> whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
>>> experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
>>
>> <grin> BEcuase it was full of bliss?
>
> Wouldn't that have been "BLISS"?
I thought about spelling it correctly but got lazy and didn't correct the
> "jmfbahciv" wrote in message
> news:PM0004DC9...@ac8103bd.ipt.aol.com...
>> Bill Leary wrote:
>>> Of course. I was alluding to the philosophy at the time more than to
>>> whether it was factually accurate or not. I do recall more than a few
>>> experiences of "de-VAX-ing" C code so it would run on other platforms.
>>
>> <grin> BEcuase it was full of bliss?
>
> Wouldn't that have been "BLISS"?
typo.
>
> The serious answer is because there were a lot of C programs written which
> assumed the underlying architecture of the VAX.
hmmm...another danger of using HLLs which aren't.
> The serious answer is because there were a lot of C programs written which
> assumed the underlying architecture of the VAX.
/BAH
Bill Leary
May 14, 2013, 12:16:16 PM5/14/13
to
"jmfbahciv" wrote in message
news:PM0004DCA...@ac8125f1.ipt.aol.com...
That was more indicative of the period than of C itself. I worked with
FORTRAN and ALGOL compilers which also had platform dependencies in them.
The only language I recall from the period (mid- to late-70's) which
supposedly didn't was COBOL, though I never programmed any COBOL myself, so
I can't say from my own experience.
- Bill
news:PM0004DCA...@ac8125f1.ipt.aol.com...
FORTRAN and ALGOL compilers which also had platform dependencies in them.
The only language I recall from the period (mid- to late-70's) which
supposedly didn't was COBOL, though I never programmed any COBOL myself, so
I can't say from my own experience.
- Bill
Patrick Scheible
May 14, 2013, 12:11:43 PM5/14/13
to
Nick Spalding
May 14, 2013, 1:07:36 PM5/14/13
to
Patrick Scheible wrote, in <86d2st1...@chai.my.domain>
on Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700:
It's there for me in Vista/IE8.
--
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700:
--
Nick Spalding
Charlton Wilbur
May 14, 2013, 12:19:28 PM5/14/13
to
>>>>> "b" == brian <fa...@fake.nz> writes:
b> Crypto was treated as munitions. There was the famous T-shirt
b> with a 3-line perl RSA program on it, that could not legally be
b> exported from the US.
And the situation with regard to SSL in the mid-1990s was a real
clusterfuck: the patent on RSA was only valid in the US, and Verisign
was making that goose lay as many golden eggs as it could (a signed
certificate ran upwards of $250, while alternatives from outside the US
ran around $100); and because it was cryptography, open-source
implementations couldn't be developed in the US. The thing that made
SSL possible was an implementation by (Eric Young?) released freely in
Australia, SSLeay, which needed only the merest non-cryptographic
tweaking to make SSL possible in Apache.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
b> Crypto was treated as munitions. There was the famous T-shirt
b> with a 3-line perl RSA program on it, that could not legally be
b> exported from the US.
And the situation with regard to SSL in the mid-1990s was a real
clusterfuck: the patent on RSA was only valid in the US, and Verisign
was making that goose lay as many golden eggs as it could (a signed
certificate ran upwards of $250, while alternatives from outside the US
ran around $100); and because it was cryptography, open-source
implementations couldn't be developed in the US. The thing that made
SSL possible was an implementation by (Eric Young?) released freely in
Australia, SSLeay, which needed only the merest non-cryptographic
tweaking to make SSL possible in Apache.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Morten Reistad
May 14, 2013, 3:38:58 PM5/14/13
to
In article <877gj1r...@new.chromatico.net>,
It hasn't gone away completely. OpenBSD takes great care to
assure that the originals of their system sources or binaries
never originate in the US. They have a core operation in Canada,
with affiliates in various other jurisdictions.
Also, France, Russia, the UK are off-limits for originals.
-- mrr
assure that the originals of their system sources or binaries
never originate in the US. They have a core operation in Canada,
with affiliates in various other jurisdictions.
Also, France, Russia, the UK are off-limits for originals.
-- mrr
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages