From the MC humor vaults...
Tim Shoppa
From the HUMOR directory on MC, sflvrs.hacker:
>> A Beautiful obsession with the binary world <<
>> By Steven Levy <<
She can kill all your files;
She can freeze with a frown.
And a wave of her hand brings the
whole system down.
And she works on her code until ten
after three.
She lives like a bat but she's always a
hacker to me.
- from the LOTS
Hacker songbook
THE LOW OVERHEAD Time-Sharing (LOTS) facility at Stanford University
is blanketed with an eerie calm. There are more than a hundred
students here, but they speak in whispers, as though they were in the
presence of something godlike. The cavernous main lobby, which reaches
up to a fourth-floor skylight (the building is the architectural soul
mate of the recently collapsed Kansas City Hyatt), holds a lounge in
which a dozen or so students are scattered, some pacing impatiently,
others snoozing, their heads resting on textbooks. The names of these
students are on a computer queue; they are waiting for a free computer
terminal at the north end of the lobby, where each of perhaps fifty
cubicles is equipped with a keyboard and display screen. Staring at
each of these terminals is a Stanford student, or someone posing as a
Stanford student in order to use the computer. In an adjoing room,
there are approximately sixty more terminals, also in use. The hushed
voices give the occasional beeps of the computer an odd prominence,
and you can often hear the methodical, somewhat screechy churn of the
computer's printer in the other room. But most of the noise is lost
because of the enormity of the lobby. To the ear, this is an
electronic cathedral.
It's well past midnight.
Most of the students are under the whip of academic
discipline. Siting in a rather formal posture, they tentatively key
in data and watch for the results on the display screen with skeptical
frowns. They often consult their books before making another move.
These are the users. For them, computers are functional, if over
complex, tools: necessary evils.
But to a small society that convenes here at LOTS, computers
are much more. The big, orange-topped, million-dollar DECSYSTEM-20
(DEC-20) computer, visible behind a glass partition, looks no more
spectacular than a line of file cabinets, but it is the dominant icon
of these devotees' existence, the secret sharer of their dreams, their
instrument of power and creativity, their medium of communication,
their companion in merrymaking. This is the society of hackers.
Hackers are the mutant offspring of the eggheads who once
prowled throught engineering buildings with slide rules attached to
their belts. The computer's power has made the hackers a subculture
to be reckoned with. Their fellow students may consider them creepy,
but among themselves they are risk takers, exploreres, artists. They
communicate with one another by intricate computer networks, speak in
their own jargon and qualify for lucrative jobs in which they will
create the complex programs essential for the everyday functioning of
our nation, our world. They have the potential to be supercriminals,
to use digital skeleton keys to electronic vaults holding money,
confidential personal data and national security secrets. But the
power is not without a price: an addiction to computing, a conpulsion
to program. And they think it's fun.
I leave Newell to his PCL. There are about forty people still
using the computer. Each seems to be a self-sufficient system of man
and machine. It is almost four a.m.--the hour of the hacker.
"WITHIN THE NEXT twenty years, culture will be divided between those
who know something about the computer and those who don't. It's like
knowing how to read when the printing press was invented," says James
Milojkovic, a Stanford psychologist working toward a doctorate.
Milojkovic, a cheery Australian who studies "psychological issues in
computer interaction," has been watching hackers closely. He thinks
it's essential that we study them. "They are looked upon as sick and
strange; they see themselves as doing what everyone will be doing in
the future. There's a real mystery to them, because they know things
that we don't. They believe they have total control of what's going
on, because when you understand what the computer does, you can have
it do almost anything. Once you learn how, you're part of the
priesthood. It's a priesthood of the young. I've heard stories of
elementary school kids breaking into schools at night so they can use
the computer."
Ernest Adams never figured to be a hacker. True, he like
computing, which he'd been doing since he was twelve; then he
experienced his first epiphany: "Here I was typing things, and the
machine was typing things back at me, and we're imagining we're
playing a space war!" Adams had a natural talent for computers, but he
thought he got it all out of his system in high school, when he hung
out with a group who would stay late tapping into the computer at the
nearby University of Kentucky. He came to Stanford to major in
physics--until sometime in his first quarter, when he wandered into
LOTS.
Low Overhead Time-Sharing began at Stanford five years ago as
a twenty-four-hour self-service operation designed to encourage
student computer use. It was too successful. "The first student
coordinator dropped out of school because he got to involved with the
computer," says LOTS programmer J.Q. Johnson, "and several more got
pretty close."
The Stanford community has witnessed previous generations of
hackers, mostly in the Artificial Intelligence Lab. But that group was
unique and pioneering. LOTS hackers are indicative of a new wave
haunting computing centers in colleges throughout the country. In many
cases, these new hackers, like Adams, have been raised on computers.
They have little experience with anything but computers. They often
don't care to learn about anything else. They associate only with
other hackers, speaking in the own strange jargon, always complaining
about some "bagbiting kluge," whistling in awe over some "winner's
cuspy, yet nontrivial" program. These words are delivered in a
high-pitched, goofy burst of verbiage that assumes the listener is
inputting data as quickly as a PDP-11. Uninformed non-hackers (called
users, often modified to lusers) have a word for these creatures:
nerd. But their attitude is also touched with a trace of envy, since
hackers know something the users don't.
Five weeks away from home, Ernest Adams was unhappy. He
disliked dorm life. He was also suffering thorugh the tortuous throes
of unrequited love known only to seventeen-year-old males. Physics was
not going to solve his problems, so he came to LOTS. He sat down at a
terminal, opened an account, and for the next few hours, had a long
talk with the computer about its operating system. He'd found a
friend.
"I became involved with LOTS to the exclusion of other
things," Ernest says. "I would come to drown my sorrows." His
expertise grew, and his programming ideas became grandiose. You could
do anything with a program. As Ralph Gorin, the director of LOTS, puts
it: "Who else do you know who will do whatever you tell it to?" Adams
has his own explanation: "It's knowing you can start from scratch,
create an object called a program, hand it to the computer and have
the computer start plotting beautiful graphs across the screen--and
you are personally responsible!" He smiles demonically beneath his
beard. "It's a little like playing God."
The world that Adams has entered is based entirely on the
computer. In this world, participants are asked to choose a new name,
and they often identify themselves with such fantasy monikers as
Gandalf or Bombadil. With its multimillion-character memory, the
DEC-20 is sort of a home, an office, a babysitter and a best friend.
It will handle the most elaborate programs you can conceive of. It
will play chekcers and robot war with you, and it will remind you,
with an accompanying bell, when it's time for dinner. <Somewhere in
the computer memory is a list of pizzerias that deliver.> It will tell
you when your friends have logged into the system, and allow you to
send messages to them without leaving your terminal. It will
entertain you with lewd limericks stored in its core. It will type
your paper for you, help you with homework and, with its electronic
bulletin board, help you sell your roller skates. If you get
restless, you can go exploring in the nooks and crannies of the
DEC-20's labyrinthine operating system, looking for stray bugs.
The computer generates a closely knit community of disciples.
Hackers hang out with fellow hackers, meeting one another in
late-night sessions where they may crowd around the terminal of
someone who is preparing a hack that will, upon reaching "winnitude,"
be placed in the computer's operating system. On six a.m. excursions
to breakfast, the talk is of the machine's new PASCAL language
compiler, or the upcoming trade of a program written at SCORE (another
computer facility at Stanford) for a digital electronic memory cache.
Violent arguments erupt over the relative virtues of LISP programming
language and PCL. The arguments are fought in the weird, coldly
logical syntax that comes from working in the rigid linear protocol of
programming.
Though some hackers won't socialize at all, most love to talk
computers. On slight provocation they will overwhelm users with
arcanely detailed explanations of computer protocol. But inevitably,
they return to their terminals. Only rarely does the hacker community
gather together for special occasions, such as the recent fifth
anniversary of LOTS, when hackers faced the glass window of the
computer room and sang "Happy Birthday" to the DEC-20. Otherwise, the
most social moments at LOTS come toward the end of each quarter, when
the lobby is packed with students waiting their turns at the computer.
Those waiting for terminals swill beer to the accompaniment of a
guitar-toting crooner singing hacker lyrics to the tunes of popular
songs. Sing-along selections include "Fifty Ways to Write Your
Program," "LOTS Is Painless," "I Wonder How the System Is Doing
Tonight," "I Don't Know How to Log In" and "Fun Fun Fun Till Her Daddy
Took the Keyboard Away."
To understand what hackers really >do< when they sit at
terminals until rough stubble emerges on their chins, you must
understand something about high-level computer programming. You must
also set aside suspicions that computers are vile, impersonal
manipulators of numbers, and enemies of individuality. To hackers,
programming is the mental equivalent of supersonic test piloting, and
the computer is a bottomless font of spirituality.
A program is a set of instructions to the computer. It
consists of lines of code usually written in a specific language that
the computer, equipped with suitable microprocessing translators, can
understand. By telling the computer how to rearrange and access its
binary contents, each program allows the computer to perform a set of
functions, and the results might be anything from a Space Invaders
game to a mailing list.
A program must be scrupulously constructed to perform its
function. Former IBM software manager Frederick Brooks wrote in "The
Mythical Man-Month": "If one character, one pause of the incantation
is not in stricly proper form, the magic doesn't work." But even
after it seems to work, there might be bugs in the program that will
affect performance. A maniacal perfectionism is called for in
debugging. While it may seem workaday, hackers think otherwise."
"Debugging is like laying a long railroad track," says John
Levy, a software manager for Apple Computers. "There's a little piece
you want to test, so you back up the locomotive five miles down the
road and at ninety miles an hour, you bring it across the track yo're
testing. If everyting is perfect, it flies right over, but if there's
one flaw, the engine rools off, flying and crashing until it comes to
rest a mile down the track. Only at that point do you get to see the
pieces."
The ones who take the greatest programming challenges, who
fearlessly construct miles of fragile track and race the hugest
engines acrosss them, are hackers. Just as the early astronauts
achieved legendary status, there is a hacker elite whose wizardry has
set them apart as digital daredevils.
Don Woods is acknowledged to have the Right Stuff. With long,
stringy black hair and a bearish grin, he looks somewhat older than
his twenty-nine years. He works at Xerox and wears a dark GAMES
T-shirt that contrasts with his almost chalk-colored skin. Pinned
next to the Xerox employee badge on his shirt is a button that reads
QUESTION AUTHORITY. Wood is known as a classic, or canonical, hacker.
"Here's a quick hack I've been working on," he says. He types a few
characters on his keyboard, and from the computer come the
calliopelike sounds of a rousing, Sousa-style marching song. "I put
it together in a couple of days," he says.
One of the results of Woods' epic hacks is Adventure, a
collaboration with Will Crowther. Ostensibly a game, Adventure is a
metaphor for hacking. When you begin Adventure, the computer tells
you your location: at a stream, near a forest, within sight of a small
brick building. From there you embark on a Tolkeinesque journey
through the caverns and glens of a medieval land, encountering
murderous midgets, poisonous snakes, treacherous rapids, thieving
pirates and magazines written in dwarf language. By telling the
computer the direction you wish to move (typeing N for north or U for
up, for example), the computer calculates where, on the unseen map
created in Woods' imaginations, you will wind up next, and displays a
written description of your next location. You go deeper and deeper
into this netherworld, hoping to emerge by the same path with treasure
in hand. There are almost 200 rooms you pass through on your way to
the treasure, many dotted with hazards, and the path crosses and
intertwines in ways impossible to divine without hours of exploration.
Adventure is the most popular game at LOTS, and indeed it is a
national craze among those with access to computers. "I would show it
to people on a Fraday afternoon," Woods says, "and they wouldn't leave
their terminals until they finished it, maybe on Monday.
Adventure is a kind of litmus test for hackers: if you can
lose yourself in the gullies and misty caverns, you might be
susceptible to computer addiction. Just as the plot of Adventure is a
world unto itself, the vast memory and operating system of a mainframe
computer is a gigantic landscape, seeming impenetrable but eventually
accessible to the most devoted seekers. Just as everything in the
physical world is constructed of atoms, everything a computer
processes or reads is ultimately reduced to bits of either one or
zero. Like treasure seekers in the subterranean Adventure world,
hackers are elcetronic spelunkers who have developed the skill to
burrow down from the more superficial programming languages to the
bedrock machine language of digits. Woods call this "going down and
doing the grudgies." To get involved this deeply, you must be able to
think in dizzyingly abstract terms. Your mental concentration is so
intense that your conciousness is subsumed by the computer.
When a hacker programs, he creates worlds. A well-crafted
program - a good hack - is elegant, doing the most work in the fewest
lines of code. If it displays wizardry and is fairly sophisticated,
hackers call it a nontrivial program, even though what the program
>does< might be absurdly frivolous. Hackers judge themselves not on
criteria of compassion, wit, altruism or even the results of their
programs. If your program cures cancer, fine. If it helps a credit
bureau track down your uncle, tough. What's important is the
brilliance of the program itself.
"My level of judgment is technically oriented, one that would
disqualify many who consider themselves hackers," says Mark Crispin, a
systems programmer at SCORE. "That is, what nontrivial program have
you written? As opposed to logging in and sending bug reports and
flaming [translation: bullshitting] on the bulletin board. I
consider a nontrivial program to be something above a hundred lines of
text, and it depends on what language it is. It requires some design,
a user interface, a significant amount of time to develop. It doesn't
matter if the program itself is a great idea."
Crispin has been holding court for me in the living room of
his condominium, which is decorated in middle-period graduate student
and distinguished only by a half-dozen hand-held computer games and a
terminal hooked up to the telephone. Crispin is tall, pale, and
though he looks like he's never shaved, he's twenty-five. He shares
the condo with his finacee, who had been a member of a hacking club at
Columbia University when she spotted a bug in one of Crispin's
programs she was using. She sent him transcontinental computer mail,
he replied, and the digital correspondence led to a meeting and
eventually a proposal. She listens approvingly as he speak in a nasal
voice that grows louder when he has a particular point to make.
Crispin wants to show me something. He bounds out of his
chair, heads for his terminal and calls the LOTS computer. He types
in his password, ignores the computer message that tells him he has
electronic mail and demonstrates a program that generates sexual
quips. Typing its name, Tingle, brings this to the screen:
"I'm back in the saddle again, again!..." shrieked the quadriplegic as
the lurid sabra savagely tossed away his well-cut pants and munched on
his spunk-filled pepperoni.
Crispin admires the hell out of this hack. "Tingle is
definitely a nontrivial program," he says. "It has its own concept of
structured English sentences. It is completely computer-generated.
Everything Tingle points out makes literal sense. Tingle builds
scripts of what it's going to do; it remembers male and female
characteristics. Only then does it randomly choose from vocabulary
columns."
With all this hoopla, you'd think the program was perfect.
But no program is. "The program can always work, but you can always
make it better," says Crispin. "You can always have it do something
new, make it perform faster, give it more structure, make it >do<
more!" Crispin's voice is a high whine, and he's almost out of his
chair. ">You can always think of ways to make it better!<" You're
never at the point where you stop. Just when you say, 'It's totally
perfect,' you say, 'Gee, but I can make it do >this<!'"
Is a computer program a work of art? Mark Crispin thinks so,
and other hackers agree. Hackers insist that each programmer wirtes
code in an individual, recognizable style. Programmers work at a
level of creativity, they say, that is comparable to writing poetry,
composing, painting. "You can express yourself by writing code," says
Marc LeBrun, a twenty-nine year-old hacker who never aytended college
but spent his teen years at Stanford's Artificial Intelligence Lab.
"And you begin to judge programs on high-level things like style. You
say, is this a flavorful way to do this? And people will often get
into huge arguemtnst about something that will ultimately make a
difference of a small microsecond but will have profound stylistic
implications."
Hackers as artists! Can it happen? Will hackers give
dramatic renditions of their latest COBOL hacks? Will we curl up on
the beach with a good, long word-processing program? It seems
impossible, because the programmer's art is so self-contained,
esoterically personal, agressively elitist and void of the stuff of
human experience. "People don't read programs like novels, that's
true," says Stanford computer scientis Dennis Allison. "And it's a
shame."
DON PARKER IS NO FAN of hackers. Author of "Crime by Computer",
resident expert of computer abuse at the Stanford Research Institute
(SRI) and a lanky, three-piece-suited man who resembles an elongated
Donald Pleasance, Parker thinks that hackers promote an attitude that
could lead to disastrous results.
Computers are highly prone to being tampered with by knowl-
edgeable intruders. When a large computer is used in a time-sharing
system, safeguards are installed to prevent users from getting access
to the digital files of other users. If a troublemaker succeeds in
getting these files, he not only can read the private notes but can
change and even erase them. Parker fears hackers because they not
only have the know-how to crack security, but they regard these
safeguards as mountaineers regard Mount McKinley. "The more barriers
you put up, the more compelling the incentive is to break them down,"
Parker says. Marc LeBrun agrees: "I think the hacker viewpoint is
that the world exists to hack," he says, "and there aren't any angels
with flaming swords standing over the world saying, 'Thou shalt not
push these buttons.'"
If those angels existed, hackers would finds programs to dull
their swords. Despite the best efforts of the business and military
establishment, the hacker-proof security system has yet to be devised.
When SRI gathered a team of crack programmers to test the
inviolability of military defense computers, the programmers were
shocked to find that it took them only one telephone call and a few
minutes to break into files containing top-secret information.
"What we have to do is change the cultural values in this
[hacker] subculture," says Parker. "there are instructors in high
school and universities who encourage people to attack security
systems as a means to learn more about computers. There are people
who think of this a a matter of fun and games, a stimulating thing to
do."
One idle form of hacker amusement is causing the computer to
crash, or temporarily break down. I've asked at least six hackers to
explain the thrill of this, and I've received only inarticulate
sentence fragments to the effect of, well, it's >there<. Maybe they
do it to show the computer who's boss. One hacker bragged how he set
a few hundred programs into motion that constantly forked into other
programs, which begat even more programs, growing at a logarithmic
rate until the overloaded DEC-20 was brought to its knees. "I guess
it's a phase everyone goes through," explains another hacker.
Hackers everywhere delight in these tricks, the more harrowing
the better. Take Julius Smith's Seppuku program. Smith is a grad
student who hacks at Stanford's Computer Music Center; he has long
been engaged in a search for the algorithm of the violin. Smith knows
the old hacker trick of giving an enticing name to a rogue program:
when a user peruses a system's menu and sees something call Seppuku,
he'll access it. (All hackers have insatiable curiosity about other
programs.) On the screen the user sees:
Seppuku is not a program for honorable users. Do not
run Seppuku unless you can live with your shame. Type
y if you must run it.
As soon as the poor sucker types 'y', the screen becomes
ablaze with six-inch letters shouting, "GOMEN NASAI!!" This is
approximate Japanese for "Now you've done it." The screen immediately
begins to list the titles of every file the user has ever stored in
the computer memory. These files represent years of work. "Do you
really want to delete all your files?" the computer asks. DELETE?
Before the stunned user can fully comprehend the catastropghic
implications of this message, the computer answers with a 'Yes'. One
by one the files are wiped off the screen.
"Your every file directory has been deleted," says the
computer. "Goodbye - have a good life." Then the user is logged out.
Screen blank.
"Seppuku doesn't REALLY delete the files," says Smith. "It
just looks like it does. You see, hackers really don't hurt anyone."
But once a hacker has the knowledge to crack security, he
simply has to be trusted.
At a terminal sits a hacker and a wheel by his prompt
And his screen shows the reminders
Of every bug that broke his code or
halted
Till he cried out, in his anger and his shame
I am leaving, logout, killjob, but the hacker still
remains....
After a few quarters at Stanford, Ernest Adams began to
reassess hacking: what had it done for him? What had it done TO him?
He had learned an incredible amount about computers but felt cut off
from the mainstream. He had top grades in this programming courses
but had failed calculus because he spent too much time at LOTS. He
looked at some of his fellow hackers and decided that their devotion
to computers was eroding their humanity. Was he turning into a
maching himself?
Stored within the LOTS computer memory is a computer bulletin
board that is open to comment and response from any user in the
system. Items on B-Board range from lonely-hearts messages to offers
to sell bicycles, to long-winded debates about issues of school
politics, world affairs and computing ("If a computer had a voice,
which sex would it be?").
One intense B-Board exchange dealt with the concerns Adams had
about excessive hacking. The opening salvo was launced by a
disgruntled hacker who flamed about the narrowness, inhumanity and
addictiveness of hacking - he called LOTS an "alien culture" whose
inhabitans' personalities are irreversibly shaped by machine. This
kicked off a running debate between those like Adams who agreed with
the gist of the attack, and hackers who defended their long hours of
interfacing with "the infinite tool."
A Stanford psychology professor named Philip Zimbardo acquired
a printout of this debate and sent it to "Psychology Today", which
presented it as "The Hacker Papers," accompanied by Zimbardo's
commentary. He suggested basically, that hackers would be well
advised to join the human race. The article made many of the LOTS
hackers self conscious. "I sometimes try to hide the fact that I'm a
hacker," says Dan Newell. Others are now defensive at the least sign
of disapproval, charging their critis with "computerphobia." "Why
single >us< out?" says one. "Why not talk about how much time the
Stanford marching band practices?"
All hackers, though, have a hedge against insecurity: they
are needed. "The computer field is growing at a termendous rate,"
says Dennis Allison, "and it's going to take a concentrated amount of
wizardy to bring it about." As our dependence on computers increases,
it will be the hackers who can best create the supersoftware that will
keep society from imploding into a mass of jumbled bits. An industry
study showed that one good programmer is as productive a ten merely
competent ones; a wizard-level programmer can almost name his price.
The viciously competitive computer firms are desparate for hackers,
who ask only for flexible working hours, no dress or etiquette
requirements, and, above all, nontrivial, trailblazing tasks. Then
the hackers proceed to work sixteen-hour days until the project is
completed. "There're lots of opportunities to make an obscene amount
of money," says LOTS staffer Bob Knight.
Such "real world" pursuits (along with other distractions like
marriage and family) have the potential of eventually turning a hacker
from his computer extremism. So, many of the LOTS hackers see
Stanford - and possibly graduate school - as a last chance to run amok
with the DEC-20. As Julius Smith puts it: "My [student] funding runs
out in a year. This is my last chance to do something pure in my
life."
Some hackers find ways of remaining "pure": taking on
temporary programming stints at Silicon Valley's high-tech operations,
keeping a connection with other hackers by illegal accounts on
university computers.
But Ernest Adams prefers a more conventional existence. He
wants to be counted among those who have hacked intensely for a year
or two, then managed to grow out of it. He took off a quarter of his
sophomore year to work computers for the Viking Mars Landing Project,
and later took off more time to do some professional programming. He
made a conscious effort to pay more attention to his other studies and
get back into the mainstream of users, nonwinners, and even people who
don't know a byte form an escape key. He once was convince that
hacking was transitory, that society need not worry about it
proliferation. Now he sees more hackers than ever, and he's not so
sure. Still, he believes he has freed himself from computer
addiction.
But old obsessions die hard. Recently, at six in the morning,
Adams was at LOTS working at a terminal. "Just editing a paper" was
his excuse. But he offered no apologies for speaking in rapturous
tones about his planned thesis for a computer doctorate.
"I would like to write a program that reproduces, that reacts
negatively or positively to its environment and, most important of
all, could be mutated by its environment. I would like to see if I
could start several of these programs running, and start some sort of
superior program that watches them mutating, and see if they evolve.
That's the God program. It invents the environment, reates the data
that the programs read, and will mutate the programs...."
Adams flames on rabidly, his face lit up like a display for a
well-hacked game. The God program will create hot spots to control
the motions of the one-celled programs. A maturation factor will
control the growth and adolescence of the one-cells. The program
might well duplicate the theory of natural selection, and be a kind of
vindication of Darwinian theory ....>I am leaving, logout, killjob,
but the hacker still remains.<
[end of article from April Rolling Stone by Steven Levy]
Tim Shoppa
Again from the HUMOR directory, SIXTY.MINS:
/**********************************************************************/
IMPORTANT NOTICE !!!!
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS PURELY SATIRICAL IN NATURE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE ACTUAL OPINIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION.
MANY FACTS HAVE BEEN ALTERED TO CREATE THIS SATIRE, AND NOTHING YOU ARE
ABOUT TO READ HAS ANY REAL BEARING ON REALITY.
ANY RESEMBLANCE TO REAL PEOPLE OR ORGANIZATIONS IS PURELY FOR SATIRIC
PURPOSES AND ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD BE COMPLETELY IN ERROR.
/**********************************************************************/
THIS IS CBS. (Booooooong)
TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK ...
CUT TO:
Man being strapped into electric chair: But those boys all WANTED to die!
I could tell by looking into their eyes. I was just trying to be
NICE to them!
CUT TO:
Airline mechanic: Sure, we use Will Hold all the time for these here
engine mounts. Save a fortune that way...
CUT TO:
Man at computer terminal being jumped by twelve policemen:
But all I was doing was playing ZORK! I don't unders...
CUT TO:
Dan Rather: I'm Dan Rather.
Morley Safer: And I'm Morley Safer. Welcome to another edition
of Sixty Minutes.
TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK ...
Announcer voiceover: Sixty Minutes, brought to you tonight by:
Voiceover 2: IBM, putting ideas to work for people.
AV: And by:
Voiceover 3: Stay-Free Maxi Pads, for the ultimate in feminine protection.
--- COMMERCIALS ---
Morley Safer: Good Evening.
Tonight Sixty Minutes is breaking with our usual free-form
format to present a special edition concerning the truly heinious
crimes that have come to our attention in recent months.
Dan Rather: We will look at the story of Billy Joe Kupertino, who murdered
27 young boys after sexually molesting them with Tootsie Roll
Pops and Trix cereal.
MS: And the story of shoddy workmanship at Herb's Airlines, which was
responsible for the deaths of more than 3000 people at the recent
Hollywood Bowl crash of a elongated jumbo jet.
DR: But first, a story so unbelievable, so incredibly bizarre and hideous,
that the Sixty Minutes staff, used to horror in real life, was
completely shocked by what we learned. It involves a massive
Department of Defense computer network, national security, and
high school students. It also strikes right to the bone of the
American way and apple pie.
MS: We call this story, the ARPANET TERROR, and you'll soon see why...
CUT TO:
Extreme closeup up IMP display register. Lights flashing. Gradually
the camera pulls back to reveal the entire unit. There is scribbled
graffiti all over the gray outside cover, including such anecdotes as
"CBS SUCKS" and "FREE PAT PAULSON".
MS: This is an IMP. Not the sprightly little character you read about
as a child, this IMP is Satan incarnate himself.
DR: Standing for Interface Message Processor, the IMP is a specialized
minicomputer, with ENORMOUS processing power.
MS: Yes, this device could add up a series of 200 fourteen digit numbers
faster than you could say "Neilson Rating".
DR: At least one of these devices sits in every Missile Base, Military
Research Establishment, and many private firms, universities,
and other subversive organizations.
MS: And they are all linked together by these thin cables here (holds up
twisted pair of red and white cable leading to clock radio on desk)
to form the most insidious NETWORK of computers ever dreamt
of in the worst of our nightmares.
DR: This is the ARPANET. Operated by a little known organization in the
Dept. of Defense, this network, originally designed as a research
and development tool, has become the toy of high school students
and the right hand of subversive organizations throughout the country.
We first learned of this incredible story when a boy, twelve
year old Racal Prentiss, called the Sixty Minutes staff complaining
that he was no longer able to play his favorite computer game,
called ZORK, due to the implementation of something called TIP LOGIN
in his area. We sensed a big story immediately, and put the full
resources of CBS behind the investigation.
MS: And what we learned was truly incredible. After a series of
interviews with high school students around the country, we learned
that 83% of the computer club high school students in the United
States regularly use and abuse the ARPANET. This was a larger
percentage, by the way, than had passed puberty.
DR: And their power and influence over the Dept. of Defense could hardly
be underestimated. This tape should demonstrate:
CUT TO VIDEO TAPE
Wimpy High School Kid: Yeah, I've just dialed the TIP phone number.
Now I put the phone into this modem.
DR: What is a "MODEM"?
Kid: It stands for Modus Operandi Device for Evil Motives.
DR: Oh.
Kid: Now I have to login to the TIP. Let's see now, which name should
I use? Oh, here's a good one (as he refers to long list written
on back of bubblegum wrapper).
KID TYPES ON MODEL 33 TTY:
Login Carter,Peanut
TIP SERVER replies: @
Kid: There. All done.
DR: That's all there is to it?
Kid: Yep. Now we can have some REAL fun!
DR: What are you going to do?
Kid: Well, watch this!
@O 2827300098000-C
Open T R
NORAD-TENEX 1.32.1
@log guest
(Password) arpa
(Account) arpa
GUEST logged in.
@LAUNCH
NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENSE COMMAND MISSLE LAUNCHING CONTROL PROGRAM.
ENTER ? FOR HELP.
-> S(ET TARGET): NYC
-> M(EGATONS): 50
-> L(AUCH TIME): NOW
[CONFIRM]
READY FOR LAUNCH
DR: Uh, you are kidding with this aren't you?
Kid: What? Me worry?
[ENTER CLEARANCE CODE FOR LAUNCH]
--> FOO
Launch proceeding.
Missile in Position
Ignition Successful
Bird is Away!
THANK YOU FOR A SUCCESSFUL LAUNCH. WHILE YOU ARE WAITING FOR
IMPACT, HOW ABOUT A GAME OF ADVENTURE?
DR: What is this "Adventure"?
Kid: We won't bother with that, I already got all the points.
DR: Uh, this is some sort of simulation, right?
Kid: Oh no, this is real. I never DID like New York.
DR: Well, this is horrible. Is there any way to stop it?
Kid: Well, yeah. If you really want me to.
DR: Please. My paychecks come from New York.
Kid: Aw shucks, OK.
IMPACT IN 15 SECONDS
10 9 8 7 6
^C
^C
@k
GUEST logged out.
Kid: There, all over.
DR: Excuse me, I think I wet my pants.
CUT TO DAN RATHER
DR: Well folks, you saw it. A twelve year old boy almost obliterated
New York City with a 50 Megaton nuclear blast.
MS: Yes, and imagine what he might have done if he were angry!
DR: Too bad he can't just hit ABC with a small tactical nuclear...
MS: DAN!
DR: I was just kidding, Morley. Haw haw haw.
MS: You sound like Tom Snyder.
DR: Maybe we could get HIM with the same blast.
MS: Let's be serious, Dan.
DR: Yes. Well. Ahem. We decided to go directly to the top when we
realized how serious this situation was. We went directly to
the home of Senator Proxmire in Washington D.C.
CUT TO VIDEO TAPE
MS: Here we are at the home of Senator Proxmire, the developer of
the famous "Golden Fleece" award, given to those government
agencies that have done the most to waste the taxpayers' money.
(Dan and Morley walk up to door and ring doorbell)
(Doorbell rings to tune of the "Funeral Dirge")
Seven Year Old Child: Hello?
DR: Hello. We're here from Sixty Minutes. Is your Daddy home?
Child: Yeah, he's home, come on in.
(They enter)
(Senator Proxmire is sitting at the kitchen table hunched before
a Silent 700 terminal. He is cursing under his breath...)
Proxmire: God DAMN IT! I just DON'T see how to get around this snake.
Child: Daddy! Someone's here for yo...
P: Shut up, squirt. Can't you see I'm busy? Hmmm. Now, maybe if I
eat the bird as a snack...
DR: Senator? This is Dan Rather of Sixty Minutes...
MS: And I'm his lovable sidekick, Morley Safer.
P: HUH? OH. Yes. Uh. (He reaches behind his back and attempts to
covertly remove the phone from a Radio Shack modem and hang
it up.)
DR: We're here in connection with our ARPANET inquiry, Sir.
P: Oh yes. Well, since your office called, I've had my staff
investigating this whole matter. And I was shocked. Simply
shocked! (As he speaks, he is rolling up the output from the
terminal and crumpling it into a little ball).
MS: Sir, what do you intend to do about this situation?
P: Well, uh, it appears to be a very, very complex matter. Uh, we
don't want to jump to any, uh, conclusions about this
type of thing. After all, National Security IS at stake here
ya' know.
DR: Yes, Sir. But I thought you said you were shocked?
P: Well, er, yes.
Child: Daddy, can I play ZORK now?
P: Get the HELL away from here kid; you bother me.
DR: Did he say ZORK?
MS: Did he say ZOOORRRRRRKKKKK?
P: No, he said, uh, Mork. That's it, he said "Mork". It's a new game
based on the "Mork and Mindy" show. You've seen it?
MS: I'm afraid not, sir. I believe it's on a competing network.
P: Oh. Well. Whatever. I don't ...
Child: Daddy! I want to get more ZORKmids!
P: Will you PLEASE get away from here. Go to your room and play with
your blue box.
Child: OK, Daddy. (Child exits)
DR: Now, Senator, if you will...
P: My how time flies. I just realized I have an important meeting on the
hill. Can't waste the taxpayers' money you know. Gotta get
going.
MS: But Senator. What about this ARPANET issue? We are very concerned.
P: Oh yes. Well, I suggest you just drop the whole issue. You know,
hush it up.
DR: You can't be serious? ARPANETGATE?
P: Well, whatever you want to call it. I have to leave now, gentlemen,
let me show you to the door.
CUT TO DAN AND MORLEY
DR: Confused? Not half as much as we were. Our meeting with the
Senator caused more questions than it answered.
MS: And we were no closer to understanding this issue than we were at
the beginning.
DR: We've decided to continue this investigation at another time, when
more information is available. We certainly do not want
to unjustly condemn a whole project simply based on a few minor
transgressions such as those we've seen.
MS: (whispers) Dan, C'mon. It's time for today's SF-LOVERS digest.
DR: (whispers) Right, Morley.
DR: We'll be back in the near future with more on this important issue.
(Both rush from stage. Dan's lapel microphone rips off and falls to
the floor, taking a chunk of his lapel with it. Stage is empty.
Stagehand rushes out, stares incredulously at camera for a moment,
then starts waving his arms madly. We see a burst of color bars
accompanied by a steady tone, then...)
TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK ...
-------
Tom Van Vleck
In article <6cqsul$og7$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, sho...@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim
Shoppa) wrote:
> Circa 1983 or so, REAL PROGRS from the MC vaults.
I wrote this in 1982, after I had left the Multics group
and was working in Calfornia. I was thinking of particular
colleagues and former colleagues for several of the paragraphs.
For example, "pipe stress" refers to a large FORTRAN program
at Universal Oil Products in Des Plaines Ill,
and I was thining of Noel Morris when I wrote
> Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are
> around at 9 AM, it's because they were up all night.
David Horvath, CCP
In article <6cptmg$8dt$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, sho...@alph02.triumf.ca says...
>
>Again from the HUMOR directory, SIXTY.MINS:
>
>
>/**********************************************************************/
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE !!!!
>
>THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS PURELY SATIRICAL IN NATURE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
>DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE ACTUAL OPINIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION.
>MANY FACTS HAVE BEEN ALTERED TO CREATE THIS SATIRE, AND NOTHING YOU ARE
>ABOUT TO READ HAS ANY REAL BEARING ON REALITY.
>
>ANY RESEMBLANCE TO REAL PEOPLE OR ORGANIZATIONS IS PURELY FOR SATIRIC
>PURPOSES AND ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD BE COMPLETELY IN ERROR.
>
>/**********************************************************************/
Wow! The classic! ca. 1980. Where did you find this?
--
David B. Horvath, CCP dhor...@nosuch.cobs.com
Consultant, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor
Author of "UNIX for the Mainframer" and other books.
*** remove "nosuch." when replying ***
Tim Shoppa
In article <34f0e...@news.dca.net>,
David Horvath, CCP <dhor...@nosuch.cobs.com> wrote:
>In article <6cptmg$8dt$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, sho...@alph02.triumf.ca says...
Copies I made from an archive of MC before it went down.
It pays to keep your archives in order - while the computer industry
may decide that everything is obsolete every 6 months, some of us have
decided to go for the long haul, and are carefully maintaining
card readers, paper tape punches, and 7-track tape drives :-). I
regularly read media up to 40 years old for my customers.
Tim. (sho...@triumf.ca)
Tim Shoppa
Circa 1983 or so, REAL PROGRS from the MC vaults. Was this really -
as the line at the bottom seems to indicate - once James Gosling's
finger plan?
Return-path: <rsl@SPA-NIMBUS>
Received: from SPA-NIMBUS by SCRC-TENEX with CHAOS; Tue 3-May-83 22:07:09-EDT
Date: Tuesday, 3 May 1983, 19:23-PDT
From: Richard Lamson <rsl at SPA-Nimbus>
Subject: Found in Gloria (apologies to those who get this again)
To: Info-Cobol at mc
Bcc: Fun at scrc
Real Programmers Don't Write Specs
Real Programmers don't write specs -- users should consider themselves
lucky to get any programs at all and take what they get.
Real Programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write,
it should be hard to understand.
Real Programmers don't write application programs; they program right
down on the bare metal. Application programming is for feebs who
can't do systems programming.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. In fact, real programmers don't
know how to SPELL quiche. They eat Twinkies, and Szechwan food.
Real Programmers don't write in COBOL. COBOL is for wimpy
applications programmers.
Real Programmers' programs never work right the first time. But if
you throw them on the machine they can be patched into working in
"only a few" 30-hour debugging sessions.
Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress
freaks and crystallography weenies.
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are
around at 9 AM, it's because they were up all night.
Real Programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write
in BASIC, after the age of 12.
Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who
can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.
Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport that requires
you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and real programmers
wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly
spring up in the middle of the machine room.
Real Programmers don't document. Documentation is for simps who can't
read the listings or the object deck.
Real Programmers don't write in PASCAL, or BLISS, or ADA, or any of
those pinko computer science languages. Strong typing is for people
with weak memories.
-- From Peter Capek @ YKTVMV
via Mark Seiden @ dagobah
**==> That was James Gosling's plan file.
Keith Lynch
In article <6cqrfj$nnl$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Tim Shoppa <sho...@alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
> It pays to keep your archives in order - while the computer industry
> may decide that everything is obsolete every 6 months, some of us
> have decided to go for the long haul, and are carefully maintaining
> card readers, paper tape punches, and 7-track tape drives :-).
Do you have the HUMAN-NETS archives, by any chance? Thanks.
(Posted and mailed.)
--
Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I boycott all spammers.
Tim Shoppa
Date: Fri 21 Dec 84 19:44:11-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <J...@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: DEC verbiage
>From seismo!hao!hplabs!oliveb!ios!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!Glacier!reid
Article 670 of net.general:
Digital Equipment Corporation publishes a newsletter entitled DECWORLD,
which is sent to all employees. The November 1984 (Volume 8/Number 5) issue
of DECWORLD contains a transcript of the State of the Company address given
by Ken Olsen (president of DEC) at the DEC annual meeting. The date of that
meeting is not given in the newsletter.
Here is an exact quote, not particularly taken out of context, from that
address. I have proofread this text fairly carefully, and I believe
that there are no errors in my transcription below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic is
our support for UNIX?
Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago.
Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our
VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand,
easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual
users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines.
And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have
good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out
of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end up
doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly
check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no
matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference
-- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all
there.
-------
------- End of Forwarded Message
1, recent,, tojokers,
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 26 Dec 84 11:41-EST
Received: from DEC-RHEA.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA29760; Wed, 26 Dec 84 06:30:16 pst
Message-Id: <841226143...@decwrl.ARPA>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Dec 1984 06:25:41-PST
From: callas%meteo...@decwrl.ARPA (Hardware is just a mathematical abstraction)
To: Band...@Mit-MC.ARPA, bandykin%meteo...@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: Re: Oh Really?
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, 26 Dec 1984 06:25:41-PST
From: callas%meteor.DEC at decwrl.ARPA (Hardware is just a mathematical abstraction)
To: BandyKin at Mit-MC.ARPA, bandykin%meteor.DEC at decwrl.ARPA
Re: Oh Really?
Well, obviously, the beauty of Ken Olsen's
brain is much the same as the "beauty" of UNIX.
Keith
Also, remember that KO was the person who said (in 1974), "I don't know
why *anyone* would want a computer in their home."
Tim Shoppa
Date: 7 October 1980 00:29 edt
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-Multics (SAS at SAI-Prime)
Subject: network bugs?
Sender: COMSAT.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
To: dlw at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <801007042955.031045 at MIT-Multics>
I think BBN must have been trying out a new algorithm which optimizes
space time geodisics because this wound up in my mailbox. It seems
like you sent (or rather will send) this in the late 80's but otherwise
I don't know what to make of it. Feel free to retransmit it since you
obviously transmitted (will transmitted) it the first time?
*** SPOILER WARNING ***
The following messages contain information from the future which by
basic causality we aren't supposed to be able to know about so if you
are at all worried about the fabric of the universe do not read on.
*** SPOILER WARNING ***
Lauren Digest Friday, October 8, 1988 Volume 2: Number 37
Today's Topics: DOE Hearings, Latin SF,
BankNet-Protocols and the Third World,
New Host - My Summer Home, SW17,
Raising My Quota, Undercover Software
________________________________________________________________
Date: 8 October 1988 0211-PDT (Friday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Dirac goes to D.C.
I was in D.C. the other week and right after the 3AM Quick Death
Chiller Feature about a used car salesman who takes over Miami Beach
with a group of crazed gas guzzlers (which had been pronounced
extinct by an eminent scientist who wore a Johnny Seven helmet and
Saran Wrap) I was able to pick up some reruns on the internal
Congressional TV Network by pouring a coke with ice into the motel
TV set. Sure enough it was a classified DOE hearing with some crazy
physicist muttering about changing little c and big G. Apparantly a
change of big G by as little as 0.0000001% would immediately end our
need to import oil and a change of about 0.000001% would end our
need to pump any oil, drill coal, chop wood or anything except eat
about a teaspoon of sugar a day. Dirac claimed that $37.8 billion
dollars would allow him to change G enough to test out the basic
hypothesis. The next witness was a big red guy with pointy ears
who kept jumping up and down pointing at things with his pitchfork.
Does anyone know if Dirac has finally gone bonkers or if his numbers
correct. My calculations show that the local Ricci tensor changes
would probably cost closer to $573.2 billion dollars and would only
last for about 50 years before everything settled down again.
________________
Date: 8 October 1988 0211-PDT (Friday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: SF and the old school
I was reading Timon's latest book "Who Watches These ..." which
is a eerie negative utopian story about three people who try to
escape from a world in which rational events occur. Apparantly
they become incapable of predicting the future which drives the
ruling hierarchy to send the feared gladiators after them. They
manage to escape to modern New York City where they are accused
of stealing several priceless artifacts and become celebrities.
It is kind of an ordinary story but very well written in Modern
Church Latin. It is published by Cave de Vatican Press and is
a bit hard to find as are most of Timon's books. Does anyone
have any idea where I could get a copy of his "Nothing Begets
Nothing"? Also, why does he choose English titles? One
story I heard is that he is a shoe salesman in Detroit.
________________
Date: 7 October 1988 1751-PDT (Thursday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: BankNet
A friend of mine has just gotten a hookup to the new BankNet
which now covers Bolivia where she works and is interested in knowing
if anyone has ever used their new Cash Transfer Protocol which is
unlike anything she or anyone else in Bolivia has ever seen.
She sent me a copy of the 4 pages of documentation in Spanish
and it seems to be related to the CMU Cheese Transfer Protocol
except with lots of security stuff added. The virtual lawyer feature
is kind of obscure.
________________
Date: 7 October 1988 1134-PDT (Thursday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Growing the ARPANET
I have finally gotten an ARPANET connection in my summer home in
Arizona! My friend and I have finally figured out how to use the
reverse carrier on the 1.8M-volt lines they ran from downtown LA
to Pacific's newest solar power collector. You can send me net
mail directly via socket 3616257652\4686815.00001 or to
Lauren@SOLPOWHACK. (Thanks to Brian Lloyd and Dr. Forward for figuring
out how big a capacitor I needed and Jake Feinler for helping to
spread the word.
________________
Date: 6 October 1988 0334-PDT (Thursday):
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: SW17
I was waiting on line at the MegaMart down the block behind some turkey
trying to cash a $3.5E6 IMF Non-Imfundable Security and as usual the
checkout guy couldn't figure out the redemption form so they ran off
to the back room while I cooled my heels and watched my ice cream melt.
I noticed this guy had left a folder marked only SW17 on the counter
along with the head of lettuce and can of pork and beans he was buying.
I couldn't resist and managed to read most of the Star Wars Number 17
script which is being produced by the Paramount Division of LucasFilms.
Starting with the next newsletter I will offer a serialized plot summary
along with an appropriate SPOILER WARNING.
________________
Date: 6 October 1988 1034-PDT (Thursday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: More packet quota!
I need more quota - 1.6M-bytes per day is not enough. How can
I answer my net mail?
________________
Date: 6 October 1988 0627-PDT (Thursday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Undercover Software
Anyone know anything about this NET-Reuters frobbie:
WASHINGTON DC - Mid-level officials in the recently revealed
XCT super-secret security and intelligence branch which was
created when the CIA was being gutted revealed that IBM's
OS/370 releases 4542.97A and up were sent to the Soviet Union
along with an undercover package known only as "The Program
With a Thousand Phases". This package was used to smuggle out
military secrets and civil data by means which have not yet
been revealed.
I have heard that the program they were talking about started out
as an overlay in the SYSGEN module and was capable of disguising
itself as a COBOL or Fortran 77 compiler. Furthermore it could
run on any 360 series machine or any American, French, British or
West German PBX! Did it use reference counts for register optimization?
________________
Peter da Silva
In article <6ctki5$fd3$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Tim Shoppa <sho...@alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
>Date: 6 October 1988 1034-PDT (Thursday)
>From: Lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
>Subject: More packet quota!
>
>I need more quota - 1.6M-bytes per day is not enough. How can
>I answer my net mail?
Sadly, that would be one reasonably-sized Word attachment these days.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Sarr J. Blumson
In article <6cst84$27k$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Tim Shoppa <sho...@alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
>
>Digital Equipment Corporation publishes a newsletter entitled DECWORLD,
>which is sent to all employees. The November 1984 (Volume 8/Number 5) issue
>of DECWORLD contains a transcript of the State of the Company address given
>by Ken Olsen (president of DEC) at the DEC annual meeting. The date of that
>meeting is not given in the newsletter.
[...]
> It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out
>of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end up
>doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
And, of course, given the state of UNIX in 1984, he was right. In the
ensuing decade and a half UNIX systems have grown a lot of the baggage (I
am _not_ trying to get into an argument about how much of) that turns an
elegant operating system into a full blown development environment. What
KO missed was all the reasons why that happened.
Think how much more true it would have been if he'd said the same things
about MS DOS in 1984 (he probably did). He would have been even more right.
And it would have mattered even less.
My news reader asked me if I _really_ wanted to do this, but I didn't listen.
--
--------
Sarr Blumson sa...@umich.edu
voice: +1 734 764 0253 home: +1 734 665 9591
ITD, University of Michigan http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sarr/
519 W William, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
Jens-Uwe Schluetter
Thats the way of evolution. At the beginning everything is simple and easy
to understand. Then more an more features are added and nobody understands
it any more.
Simple systems tend to produce simple problems complex systems tend to
produce complex problems...
-Jens.
[snip]
>Think how much more true it would have been if he'd said the same things
>about MS DOS in 1984 (he probably did). He would have been even more
right.
Gregory Travis
In article <6cvvem$p...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>In article <zADI.2759$N4.16...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
>Sarr J. Blumson <sa...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>> It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out
>>>of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end up
>>>doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
>
>>And, of course, given the state of UNIX in 1984, he was right.
>
>blossomed into Xenix and Venix and everything in between, with clones
>like Regulus and Idris and OS/9. You could get single-user boxes and
>realtime boxes and workstations and small office systems... Xenix'
>descendent SCO OpenServer is still the premier small business automation
>box.
>
>I think we even had Big Iron UNIX by then, running on real mainframes,
>peers to the 10s and 20s let alone VAX/VMS.
IIRC, Peter, Amdahl was selling UNIX on mainframes, as UTS, in that
timeframe. I remember someone posting somewhere that they were serving
over 1,000 online 3270 users with it.
greg
Kaz Kylheku
>check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no
>matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
>documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference
>-- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all
>there.
Of course, UNIX systems then went on to acquire five feet of documentation.
:)
Henry W. Miller
That's two CD-ROM's in today's technology...
-HWM
Robert Schuldenfrei
"Jens-Uwe Schluetter" <jens.schluetter@!!trading-technologies.com> wrote:
>Thats the way of evolution. At the beginning everything is simple and easy
>to understand.
Except for OS/360 :)
Robert Schuldenfrei
S. I. Inc.
32 Ridley Road
Dedham, MA 02026
Voice: (781) 329-4828
FAX: (781) 329-1696
E-Mail: b...@s-i-inc.com
WWW: http://www.tiac.net/users/tangaroa/index.html
Robert D. Keys
> :)
But, that is indeed the beauty of unix...... you HAVE that fiverfooter
shelf of docs, and somewhere in there there usually IS the answer
(between that and the 10 feet shelf of source code listings run out
on a model 40 chain printer.....(:+}}..... to go with your model 37).
Bob
Robert D. Keys
In comp.unix.advocacy Henry W. Miller <hmi...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> >
> > In article <6cst84$27k$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
> > Tim Shoppa <sho...@alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
> > > With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly
> > >check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no
> > >matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
> > >documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference
> > >-- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all
> > >there.
> >
> > Of course, UNIX systems then went on to acquire five feet of documentation.
> >
> > :)
> That's two CD-ROM's in today's technology...
> -HWM
I much prefer the 5 footer shelf if possible, because, when the beast
dips its nose at you, the CD is mostly useless.
RDK
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1998-02-25 k...@cafe.net said:
:Tim Shoppa <sho...@alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
:> With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and
:>quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there.
:>With VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a
:>five-foot shelf of documentation -- if you look long enough it's
:>there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple;
:>and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there.
:Of course, UNIX systems then went on to acquire five feet of
:documentation. :)
and no matter how long you look, there are *still* things that aren't
there. :> ;> :>
-- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling
you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her...
Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive
bland
gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) writes:
> IIRC, Peter, Amdahl was selling UNIX on mainframes, as UTS, in that
> timeframe. I remember someone posting somewhere that they were serving
> over 1,000 online 3270 users with it.
Perhaps this quote is what started tihs thread (I came in late; sorry), but in
one of my many "hey, I need to save this" files, a quote exists:
"One of the main advantages of Unix over, say, MVS, is the tremendous number of
features Unix lacks." -- Chris Torek
Robert Billing
> and no matter how long you look, there are *still* things that aren't
> there. :> ;> :>
When I used to hack on VMS, I worked on the assumption that (a)
everything worked and (b) everything was documented somewhere.
Now I hack on Linux and the assumptions that (a) everything can be
made to work and (b) I can always find the source, seem to serve me as
well.
Assumption (b) seems to be very useful. I have now three times got to
situations where I just *couldn't* see what to do when something didn't
work, and in each case reading the source has got things moving again.
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
George Cornelius
In article <6cst84$27k$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, sho...@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa) writes:
> The November 1984 (Volume 8/Number 5) issue
> of DECWORLD contains a transcript of the State of the Company address given
> With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly
> check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no
> matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
> documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference
> -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all
> there.
And Olson was just echoing, perhaps unknowingly, the words of someone
higher up in the OS food chain at the time:
"Operating System/360 is hailed by its builders as the finest ever built,
because it indisputably has the most function. [...] On the other hand,
the Time-Sharing System for the PDP-10 is hailed by its builders as the
finest, because of its simplicity and the spareness of its concepts. By
any measure, however, its function is not even in the same class as that
of OS/360".
- Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., known as the "father of the IBM System/
360", in _The Mythical Man Month_, Addison-Wesley, c1972, 1975.
Mature systems are high-functioning but complex, and are often lacking
in beauty compared to newer designs, which can be planned from the outset
to seamlessly accommodate features which had to be painstakingly added
to their predecessors.
--
George Cornelius corn...@eisner.decus.org
corn...@mayo.edu
Peter da Silva
In article <888483...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> When I used to hack on VMS, I worked on the assumption that (a)
>everything worked
Except when you actually tried to use the SMG library and discovered that
while you could *write* programs that would work right on non-DEC terminals
none of the system software used it. *sigh*
What did TOPS do here? I seem to remember that the screen handling was at
a pretty low level. I was very impressed when I hit ^U after messing up a
multi-line command and it used pretty much optimal cursor codes to erase
the text.
John Wilson
In article <6d3tbl$2...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>a pretty low level. I was very impressed when I hit ^U after messing up a
>multi-line command and it used pretty much optimal cursor codes to erase
>the text.
I remember the VTSOP% call on Oz which did this kind of thing, but I don't
know if that was a local hack or a stock T20ism. Anyway that was rolled into
the TTY driver (or at least, somewhere in the OS), I can't believe that the
Weenix folks ever convinced themselves that it was a good idea for every
single program that does fancy terminal handling to have its own copy of the
termcap parser... Of course now they use shared libs to justify atrocities
like that.
John Wilson
D Bit
Robert Billing
In article <6d1srj$9dk$2...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>
rdk...@seedlab1.cropsci.ncsu.edu "Robert D. Keys" writes:
> I much prefer the 5 footer shelf if possible, because, when the beast
> dips its nose at you, the CD is mostly useless.
Another reason for having a bootable emergency cartridge- with all
the man files on it.
Bob Koehler
In article <6d3tbl$2...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>What did TOPS do here? I seem to remember that the screen handling was at
>a pretty low level. I was very impressed when I hit ^U after messing up a
>multi-line command and it used pretty much optimal cursor codes to erase
>the text.
I think it was done on an application by application basis. We had a copy of
TV (visual TECO) which only understood VT52s. We had a copy of sed (a screen
editor from Columbia), which understood VT52s and VT100s. We had a large
application which used the Traffic-20 screen formatting system, and only
understood VT52s. Due to that application most of the VT100s connected to our
DECSYSTEM 20s were set to VT52 emulation mode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Koehler | Computer Sciences Corporation
Hubble Space Telescope Payload | System Sciences Division
Flight Software Team | please remove ".aspm" when replying
jmfb...@ma.ultranet.com
[newsgroups snipped]
In article <6d3tbl$2...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>In article <888483...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
>Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> When I used to hack on VMS, I worked on the assumption that (a)
>>everything worked
>
>Except when you actually tried to use the SMG library and discovered that
>while you could *write* programs that would work right on non-DEC
terminals
>none of the system software used it. *sigh*
>
>What did TOPS do here? I seem to remember that the screen handling was at
>a pretty low level. I was very impressed when I hit ^U after messing up a
>multi-line command and it used pretty much optimal cursor codes to erase
>the text.
>
Chuckle. IIR, the only one who dared tread within SCNSER was Spider.
/BAH
Smith and O'Halloran
>a pretty low level. I was very impressed when I hit ^U after messing up a
>multi-line command and it used pretty much optimal cursor codes to erase
>the text.
To add support for a new terminal type required recompiling the Monitor. The
strings defined were for: nondestructive cursor-right, destructive backspace
(backspace-space-backspace for everything but ADM3A), go to column 1 and erase
to end of line.
On a VT100, Control-U at the "." prompt was echoed as CR, ESC, [, C,
ESC, [, K. If the prompt was longer than one character, then ESC [ C would
be repeated as many time as needed.
The length of the prompt was assumed to be the terminal position when a
character was received while in line mode and the input buffer was empty.
This assumption was wrong if the output buffer was in the process of being
emptyed when the user typed ahead. But for most cases, where the user
does not start typing until output was finished, this worked OK.
So, support for terminal ESCape sequences in the TOPS-10 monitor was
pretty limited. For full-screen editors, adding support for a new type
of terminal meant recompiling the editor sources.
-Joe
--
INWAP.COM is Joe and Sally Smith, John and Chris O'Halloran and our cats
See http://www.inwap.com/ for "ReBoot", PDP-10, and Clan MacLeod.
Peter da Silva
In article <6d8gnn$jjj$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Smith and O'Halloran <in...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>To add support for a new terminal type required recompiling the Monitor. The
>strings defined were for: nondestructive cursor-right, destructive backspace
>(backspace-space-backspace for everything but ADM3A), go to column 1 and erase
>to end of line.
You sure that was all? I'm sure I recall seeing TOPS-20 erase multiple
lines of text that way, when the mistaken line extended past 80 columns or
a student pulling an all-nighter had dozed off on the keyboard.
>This assumption was wrong if the output buffer was in the process of being
>emptyed when the user typed ahead. But for most cases, where the user
>does not start typing until output was finished, this worked OK.
Ah-ha. I remember running into a related problem with the RSX-11 IO$RPR
flag on QIO$, if the prompt contained escape sequences (color changes on
an Aydin video terminal, for example) so the system's idea of the prompt
length was wrong.
>So, support for terminal ESCape sequences in the TOPS-10 monitor was
>pretty limited. For full-screen editors, adding support for a new type
>of terminal meant recompiling the editor sources.
Ah. I was wondering how much had been stuffed into the kernel. In the early
'80s Cromemco did a Z-80 based UNIX-alike on top of their CP/M clone that
was quite nice... it resolved the UNIX-versus-CP/M-flag issue by allowing
you to define logical names in the filesystem, so you could run a CP/M
program that used "/" as a flag option by predefining drive names to point
to strategic directories... much better than Microsoft's "let's just plop
pathwas\like\this on top of CP/M volumes" approach... anyway, to get back
to the point... Cromix included most of stdio (including printf) in the
O/S to save space in programs.
Tim Shoppa
The lurker in the inter-record gap
The occasional visitor to Miskatonic University's
Information Science Department can hardly help but remark on
the contrast between the lowering, inbred looks of the head
porter, as he unloads the visitor's portmanteaux from the
railroad station, and the comparatively frank and open
expression of your average Yankee university student.
Certainly Edwin, returning to the involuted and
claustrophobic region of his upbringing in the belief that
the creatures of the deep were quiescent again, suspected
that the man who carried his disk packs was one of his
Arkham half brothers, possibly a three-quaters brother.
"Did they seal up the window in the granite tower above
Arkham?" he asked by way of experiment. As a consequence of
the man's multiple speach defects, the answer was
unintelligible, but Edwin caught the sense from the livid
patches that sprang up on the fellow's forehead and from his
letting fall six volumes of operating manuals. Clearer than
words came the message that one could still--if imprudent
enough--look out the window that faced no point of the
compass, and that certain things could still look in.
Medlers might still give Cthulhu and the Old Ones their
opportunity.
In contrast, Dr. James Pendline was like a breath of
fresh air when Edwin sat down with him to plan how they
would generate the new operating system on the Miskatonic
computer. Young, hair trimmed in the en brosse style
affected by New York academics, he stuck but one faint,
discordant note: His tie-tack was fashioned into a shape
familiar to those who have studied the abominable writings
of the satanic Arab, el Oufkr aft.
The main problem was to get rid of the old Arkham
monitor, Reptilian 13. Into the dusk they worked, poring
over the vellum sheets.
Once a student came in to report slimy things creeping
out of the multiplex channel. James Pendine looked at him
levelly. "Did you invoke a recursive procedure?" He at last
admitted it, was given a temporary fix, and sent away.
They went into the computer room just after midnight.
Little by little they cut away parts of the Arkham monitor,
trying to leave only an amount sufficient for the reading in
of the clean new code. Edwin heard a muted scream as the
job scheduler went. There were toads everywhere.
Grim-faced they continued.
At two o'clock the telephone rang.
"That's project MAC" said James Pendine. "We let them
hook into our processor when theirs is down for
maintenance." The telephone stopped ringing and a light came
on to show that the line had been connected automatically
to the computer.
Edwin shrieked and pulled the cable, fizzing and
sparking, out of the communications front-end. Pendine had
not moved.
"Pray Heaven I was quick enough," said Edwin. "Why had
you not disconnected that telephone?" Pendine smiled. "You
are fearful that somehow the remnants of the Reptilian might
have fled down the line to Massachusetts?"
"I hardly know what I feared," answered Edwin, and he
began loading the disks and tapes and cards that would make
the Miskatonic computer a healthy thing again.
Rosy-fingered Dawn broke, cloudless, serene. The
computer was compileing Algol, working much more slowly
than it used to under the old monitor, but at least there
were no more toads. Edwin and Pendine had some kidneys
brought in on a salver for breakfast.
Across the dewy campus lawn the porter was seen
approaching. Absently Edwin noticed he left the prints of
three feet behind him. He proffered a telegram.
TO PENDINE MISKATONIC STOP SINCE CONNECTION YOUR CPU LAST
NIGHT OUR GRAPH PLOTTER WONT DRAW PENTACLES STOP ALSO TOADS
EVERYWHERE STOP HOWEVER WELL WORTH IT STOP EXECUTION SPEEDS
MUCH IMPROVED STOP THANKS MIT ENDS
As is the case with many telegrams, the text was
followed by a few meaningless characters--random ripples on
Mr. Bell's fluid that appended themselves as parasites to
the real symbols of human intercourse. For the sake of this
narrative's completeness they are given below:
CTHULU...CTHULHU...HAHA...CTHULHU.....
Mark H. Wood
Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <6d28jb$4ah$1...@irk.zetnet.co.uk> lis...@zetnet.co.uk writes:
:
: > and no matter how long you look, there are *still* things that aren't
: > there. :> ;> :>
: When I used to hack on VMS, I worked on the assumption that (a)
: everything worked and (b) everything was documented somewhere.
Precisely. And precisely why I want to go back to VMS hacking.
: Now I hack on Linux and the assumptions that (a) everything can be
: made to work and (b) I can always find the source, seem to serve me as
: well.
Yeah, I have Linux systems in my office to remind me, in a small way,
what REAL OSes are like. What I'm currently paid to do is tame
various flavors of MS Windows, where the safest assumptions are that
(a) everything *sometimes* works on a freshly-booted system and (b)
there's no point in looking for documentation because, while there is
much writing there, all it says is "Microsoft is soooo cool!"
But in 15 years on Digital OSes I never felt that I needed the source
just to understand how to use something.
--
Mark H. Wood Speaking, as always, for himself MW...@IUPUI.EDU
We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Robert Billing
In article <Ep8r1...@woodshed.iupui.edu>
mw...@woodshed.iupui.edu "Mark H. Wood" writes:
> But in 15 years on Digital OSes I never felt that I needed the source
> just to understand how to use something.
Exactly, this is called good documentation. OTOH, given the patchy
(but improving) state of Linux documentation, I have from time to time
gone back to the source when I just *couldn't* sort out how to do
something.
One thing that DEC had, that Linux would do well to copy, is a lot of
example program fragments in the manuals.
Robert D. Keys
In comp.unix.advocacy Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6d1srj$9dk$2...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>
> rdk...@seedlab1.cropsci.ncsu.edu "Robert D. Keys" writes:
> > I much prefer the 5 footer shelf if possible, because, when the beast
> > dips its nose at you, the CD is mostly useless.
> Another reason for having a bootable emergency cartridge- with all
> the man files on it.
Yer right.... it is a tad constraining to put many manpages on the
boot/root floppies.....(:+}}.... But, manpages are the first thing
that goes on after the initial boot install, everytime, and they
always go along in any pet ports I keep handy.
RDK
Mike Albaugh
Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <Ep8r1...@woodshed.iupui.edu>
: mw...@woodshed.iupui.edu "Mark H. Wood" writes:
: > But in 15 years on Digital OSes I never felt that I needed the source
: > just to understand how to use something.
: Exactly, this is called good documentation. OTOH, given the patchy
: (but improving) state of Linux documentation, I have from time to time
: gone back to the source when I just *couldn't* sort out how to do
: something.
Of course, Linux started on the PC, where documentation is
often voluminous, and as often completely incorrect. Why do you think
there is such a huge industry devoted to "Secrets of ... on the PC"?
Even (especially?) the hardware is only tenuously related to the
docs, unless you count BIOS and driver source code (_if_ you can get it)
as "docs". Remember, the machine reads the code, not the manual :-)
Mike
| alb...@agames.com, speaking only for myself
Peter da Silva
In article <889105...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Exactly, this is called good documentation. OTOH, given the patchy
>(but improving) state of Linux documentation, I have from time to time
>gone back to the source when I just *couldn't* sort out how to do
>something.
Oddly I never felt the need to do that on real UNIX systems from 1979 through
to the present, and since in the main I never HAD soource that's a good thing.
I wonder if my difficulties with Linux stem from my reluctance to "Use The
Source, Luke"...
Personally my favorite DEC operating system is still RSX-11. VMS just
requires TOO MUCH documentation and all too often I didn't have that
documentation available.
Alan Bowler
In article <6dn50e$a...@bonkers.taronga.com> pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>Personally my favorite DEC operating system is still RSX-11. VMS just
>requires TOO MUCH documentation and all too often I didn't have that
>documentation available.
Ditto
RSX-11 was so elegant. I remember writing device drivers for it and
Unix (V6). It was interesting to find that it took fewer lines of
assembler to write a driver for RSX than it did to write a driver
in C for Unix. An RSX driver did a strange dance with the rest of the
OS, but it worked out very nicely.
Peter da Silva
In article <6dn6ur$4pl$1...@nntp3.uunet.ca>,
Alan Bowler <atbo...@thinkage.on.ca> wrote:
>RSX-11 was so elegant. I remember writing device drivers for it and
>Unix (V6). It was interesting to find that it took fewer lines of
>assembler to write a driver for RSX than it did to write a driver
>in C for Unix. An RSX driver did a strange dance with the rest of the
>OS, but it worked out very nicely.
Besides, you couldn't do something like RMD on a VM based system.
I wrote one for the Amiga that was cute, just plowed through the free list
and marked busy everything it didn't find, but I couldn't assign used memory
to processes reliably because they weren't contiguous.
Edward Rice
In article <1998Feb26.052702.1@eisner>,
corn...@eisner.decus.org (George Cornelius) wrote:
> "Operating System/360 is hailed by its builders as the finest ever
built,
> because it indisputably has the most function. [...] On the other hand,
> the Time-Sharing System for the PDP-10 is hailed by its builders as the
> finest, because of its simplicity and the spareness of its concepts. By
> any measure, however, its function is not even in the same class as that
> of OS/360".
>
> - Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., known as the "father of the IBM System/
> 360", in _The Mythical Man Month_, Addison-Wesley, c1972, 1975.
No offense to Fred, and I loved the book, but the love and respect of its
builders and absolute hatred by every other human being on the planet is
not /precisely/ a description of a universal success in operating systems.
We're now roughly 35 years after OS got training wheels, and people are
/still/ referring to it as the example of just how bad an operating system
can be.
Landon Dyer
In alt.folklore.computers Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
:>
:>Personally my favorite DEC operating system is still RSX-11. VMS just
:>requires TOO MUCH documentation and all too often I didn't have that
:>documentation available.
remember, it's not a *real* OS until there is at least six
linear feet of documentation making the bookshelf beside
your workstation sag... :-)
i don't recall that having the VMS source on microfiche was
ever really useful to me, but wading through it (and the "black"
book on VMS internals) was a lot of fun
--
"Sundial with a great hand, sweeping dust across the floor,
Puts a strain on a sane man, 'til he knows what he's looking for."
-- Kim Carnes
Robert Billing
In article <6dn50e$a...@bonkers.taronga.com>
pe...@taronga.com "Peter da Silva" writes:
> Personally my favorite DEC operating system is still RSX-11. VMS just
> requires TOO MUCH documentation and all too often I didn't have that
> documentation available.
It is rather wonderful. I used it for many years before I got my paws
on a VAX, and I never found anything I couldn't do with it, as long as
I wasn't in too much of a hurry.
There was a phase at one company where the stock answer to "how do we
interface X to Y?" was "connect both to the RSX system."
Peter da Silva
In article <889170...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There was a phase at one company where the stock answer to "how do we
>interface X to Y?" was "connect both to the RSX system."
Followed by a period of intimacy with the more obscure options to QIO$?
Bill Vermillion
In article <6dn23g$q5d$1...@void.agames.com>,
Mike Albaugh <alb...@agames.com> wrote:
>Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <Ep8r1...@woodshed.iupui.edu>
>: mw...@woodshed.iupui.edu "Mark H. Wood" writes:
>
>: > But in 15 years on Digital OSes I never felt that I needed the source
>: > just to understand how to use something.
>
>: (but improving) state of Linux documentation, I have from time to time
>: gone back to the source when I just *couldn't* sort out how to do
>: something.
> Of course, Linux started on the PC, where documentation is
>often voluminous, and as often completely incorrect. Why do you think
>there is such a huge industry devoted to "Secrets of ... on the PC"?
Why is it that some of those 'secrets' seem more like
unsubstantiated rumors ?
--
bi...@bilver.magicnet.netREMOVETHIS | bi...@bilver.comREMOVETHIS
(Remove the anti-spam section from the address on a mail reply)
Lee K. Gleason
In article <6dooe2$o...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <889170...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> There was a phase at one company where the stock answer to "how do we
>>interface X to Y?" was "connect both to the RSX system."
>
> Followed by a period of intimacy with the more obscure options to QIO$?
>
> --
>
handler talk to something that connected by RS-232, but did not very
closely resemble a human at a terminal - this usually produced a
widely varying spectrum of results...
Then there were people who, instead of writing a driver, would
bang away at a device common with Fortran (back then FORTRAN), or
try to use Connect to interrupt instead, because it seemed easier...
again, these approaches produced a wide range of satisfaction...
Ahh...good times.
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
gle...@mwk.com
R!ch
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Edward Rice wrote:
> We're now roughly 35 years after OS got training wheels, and people are
> /still/ referring to it as the example of just how bad an operating system
> can be.
I take it, then, than NT is the System/360 of the 90's? ;-)
--
R!ch (Email is flakey at present: use rich...@keaton.uk.sun.com)
If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.
#include <disclaimer.h> \\|// - ?
(o o)
/==================================oOOo=(_)=oOOo========\
| Richard Teer richar...@uk.sun.com |
| |
| |
| WWW: www.rkdltd.demon.co.uk |
| .oooO |
| ( ) Oooo. |
\===================================\ (==( )==========/
\_) ) /
(_/
Jerry Leichter
| >Personally my favorite DEC operating system is still RSX-11. VMS just
| >requires TOO MUCH documentation and all too often I didn't have that
| >documentation available.
|
|
| RSX-11 was so elegant. I remember writing device drivers for it and
| Unix (V6). It was interesting to find that it took fewer lines of
| assembler to write a driver for RSX than it did to write a driver
| in C for Unix. An RSX driver did a strange dance with the rest of the
| OS, but it worked out very nicely.
All the old DEC -11 OS's were very nice, in different ways.
RSX had a very nice internal design, but MCR has to take some kind of
prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in general.
There were also some really odd glitches in the RSX programming
interfaces. One I recall was that the channel number was hard-coded
into the $QIO call (passed by immediate value). You practically needed
self-modifying code to choose your channel on the fly. FCS was nothing
to write home about - and who can forget the Task Builder? Best CPU
load tester (and disk I/O tester, if you used the appropriate options)
for PDP-11's every written. RSX was the only system I ever used where
link (Task Build) times were typically twice or more compilation times.
RT-11 was also small - *very* small - simple, and elegant - and had a
much simpler and cleaner interface. There was an RT-11 manual, the
title of which I forget, that documented all the internal interfaces.
It was one of the best-written OS descriptions I've ever seen. I
actually considered using it as the text in an Operating Systems course.
RSTS and BASIC PLUS provided one of the most productive programming
environments I've ever used. It's astounding how much we managed to do
with multiple users on an 11/40. And RSTS's Run Time System interface
was a really elegant design - what was called "multiple personalities"
for OS's a couple of years back, before efforts in that direction seemed
to disappear.
-- Jerry
Peter da Silva
In article <350025...@smarts.com>,
Jerry Leichter <leic...@smarts.com> wrote:
>RSX had a very nice internal design, but MCR has to take some kind of
>prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in general.
No, I think DCL takes the prize there.
I was dissapointed when they dropped the RSX emulation on the VAX because
it meant that MCR went as well. It meant I had to actually learn how to find
my way through the maze of twisty options to SET.
>There were also some really odd glitches in the RSX programming
>interfaces. One I recall was that the channel number was hard-coded
>into the $QIO call (passed by immediate value). You practically needed
>self-modifying code to choose your channel on the fly.
Writing ASTs was often an entertaining challenge, too.
I remember at one point calling the Fortran runtime from Forth rather than
trying to deal with the OS interface in RSX. When I ported that PDP-11 Forth
from RSX to Version 7 the runtime dropped to a fraction of its former size.
I need to learn RT at some point, since it's the only OS I have on my 11, but
I never really looked into it because an O/S without a scheduler didn't really
appeal to me. I guess I could dust off my lightweight user-level threads code
if I could get a Forth for it...
Mike Schilling
In a previous life, we did this with the (I think) architecurally
correct approach of writing a simple DZ11 driver to send and receive
buffers, and an ACP on top of that to implement a networking protocol.
We couldn't use DDCMP, because (believe it or not) the computer on the
other end of the wire couldn't do a CRC checksum:-)
Other than having to write the whole thing in assembler and crashing RSX
often during debugging, it wasn't really difficult.
Stephen H. Westin
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <350025...@smarts.com>,
> Jerry Leichter <leic...@smarts.com> wrote:
> >RSX had a very nice internal design, but MCR has to take some kind of
> >prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in general.
>
> No, I think DCL takes the prize there.
>
> I was dissapointed when they dropped the RSX emulation on the VAX because
> it meant that MCR went as well. It meant I had to actually learn how to find
> my way through the maze of twisty options to SET.
Well, there were different difficulties. The joy of RSX was being
able, sometimes without realizing it, to run multiple tasks, with no
real way of knowing which one was receiving your input at the
moment. :)
<snip>
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
John Wilson
In article <s0lnunz...@blynken.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Stephen H. Westin <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Well, there were different difficulties. The joy of RSX was being
>able, sometimes without realizing it, to run multiple tasks, with no
>real way of knowing which one was receiving your input at the
>moment. :)
I've accidentally done that with VMS too (SPAWN/NOWAIT if I remember right?)
and it was very confusing. Actually it didn't look like there was *no*
way to know who was getting the input, it seemed to be pretty consistant
about dishing out each line of input to the next task in sequence. Which is
sensible, if not particularly useful. Things may have changed, this was a
while ago (V4ish).
John Wilson
D Bit
Mike Schilling
Stephen H. Westin <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Well, there were different difficulties. The joy of RSX was being
>able, sometimes without realizing it, to run multiple tasks, with no
>real way of knowing which one was receiving your input at the
>moment. :)
I had the opposite reaction. In RSX, I was used to starting up a few
compilations, a taskbuild, and perhaps a few PIPs listing directories or
copying files, and counting the '>' lines to see when it was all done.
My first impression of VMS (version 2, before SPAWN and ATTACH, and long
before windowing systems) was "What? You can only do one thing at a
time?"
Peter da Silva
In article <s0lnunz...@blynken.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Stephen H. Westin <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Well, there were different difficulties. The joy of RSX was being
>able, sometimes without realizing it, to run multiple tasks, with no
>real way of knowing which one was receiving your input at the
>moment. :)
Well, if the tasks used QIO$W IO.RPR then you could request a redraw
and get the right prompt (TKB>, FOR>, etc). I often used IO.ATA to
attach the terminal for the duration of my program... though then
I had to add a shell escape (implemented with SPWN$ ...MCR) so you could
get back to the monitor.
I will note that this model of I/O was pretty common on mainframes. I remember
using a Honeywell Level 6 console with a similar interface.
Ramon L. Tate
> In article <1998Feb26.052702.1@eisner>,
> corn...@eisner.decus.org (George Cornelius) wrote:
>
> > "Operating System/360 is hailed by its builders as the finest ever
> built,
> > because it indisputably has the most function. [...] On the other hand,
> > the Time-Sharing System for the PDP-10 is hailed by its builders as the
> > finest, because of its simplicity and the spareness of its concepts. By
> > any measure, however, its function is not even in the same class as that
> > of OS/360".
> >
> > - Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., known as the "father of the IBM System/
> > 360", in _The Mythical Man Month_, Addison-Wesley, c1972, 1975.
>
> No offense to Fred, and I loved the book, but the love and respect of its
> builders and absolute hatred by every other human being on the planet is
> not /precisely/ a description of a universal success in operating systems.
> We're now roughly 35 years after OS got training wheels, and people are
> /still/ referring to it as the example of just how bad an operating system
> can be.
I used to work with a guy who was one of Fred's students and who had his
hands on the very early pre-release OS/360 stuff. He had some very
interesting/scary stories to tell...wish I could remember them! :-) The
gist of them was that there was a awful lot of fudging and finagling
involved in getting it out the door. There's also the issue of the
underlying hardware design, which *does* have something to do with how much
quality you can build into the OS.
--
Been there, forgot whether I've done that.........
Ramon L. Tate in another time warp
tater...@patriot.net NOTE: skin that 'tater' before you reply :-}
George Cornelius
In article <350025...@smarts.com>, Jerry Leichter <leic...@smarts.com> writes:
> There were also some really odd glitches in the RSX programming
> interfaces. One I recall was that the channel number was hard-coded
> into the $QIO call (passed by immediate value). You practically needed
> self-modifying code to choose your channel on the fly.
Actually the RSX QIO looked very much like the VMS QIO, right
down to having the same number of parameters (although the
first few had slight differences and occurred in different
order, they were the same from the iosb parameter on).
There was no channel number. You passed the LUN, or logical
unit number. Certain LUN's were by default preassigned by the
linker to correspond with normal Fortan usage, but these could
be reassigned at link time, or at run time via an ALUN$ call.
Below is some sample code in which the directive parameter
block (DPB) for a QIO is declared in read/write storage, with
LUN and event flag set up at run time ahead of the DIR$ macro
used to actually invoke the DPB.
ERRABO:
MOV .MOLUN,ERRQIO+Q.IOLU
MOV XMEVF,ERRQIO+Q.IOEF
DIR$ #ERRQIO
[...]
ERRQIO: QIOW$ IO.WVB,0,0,,,,<ERRTXT,ERRTXL> ; Write virtual block DPB
I don't have an example of it handy, but what I tended to use was QIOW$S,
a nearly exact parallel to $QIOW_S.
Unlike VMS, the high-level language access was via jacketing routines
instead of being identical to the assembler interface, and as I recall,
Fortran's lack of a call by value, and the fact that P1-6 were passed
as a Fortran array, made for some ugly high-level language manipulations
just to do a simple QIO. When I got DECUS C I believe I wrote my own
jacketing routine that looked much more like VMS' SYS$QIOW().
--
George Cornelius corn...@eisner.decus.org
corn...@mayo.edu
Rick Hawkins
In article <6d1srj$9dk$2...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
Robert D. Keys <rdk...@seedlab1.cropsci.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>In comp.unix.advocacy Henry W. Miller <hmi...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course, UNIX systems then went on to acquire five feet of documentation.
>
>> That's two CD-ROM's in today's technology...
>I much prefer the 5 footer shelf if possible, because, when the beast
>dips its nose at you, the CD is mostly useless.
Of course, when the 5 foot shelf dips it's books on you, your nose is
mostly useless :)
rick
--
R E HAWKINS
rhaw...@iastate.edu
These opinions will not be those of ISU until they pay my retainer.
Robert Billing
In article <350025...@smarts.com>
leic...@smarts.com "Jerry Leichter" writes:
> RSX had a very nice internal design, but MCR has to take some kind of
> prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in general.
Eh? What? Pardon?
Once you mastered the basic trick of how MCR worked, you could do
*anything* with it. I regarded the move to DCL as a distinctly
retrograde step.
Robert Billing
In article <1998Mar7.005939.1@eisner>
corn...@eisner.decus.org "George Cornelius" writes:
> Actually the RSX QIO looked very much like the VMS QIO, right
The trick with the RSX QIO was that you could either push the
directive block itself on the stack, or its address. Since the first
byte of a directive block is the directive itself, and the second byte
is the size of the directive block, and all directives are odd, the OS
simply had to lock at the first bit on the stack to determine where the
directive block was.
In either case the directive block was the same, either constructed
dynamically at run time, or assembled in. There was no need for
anything to be self modifying.
It was of course possible to pass the wrong number of parameters to a
directive, so that the DIC and size bytes didn't match. This could
result in the error
INVALID DIC, SIZE
which sounds rude if you read it out loud.
Robert Billing
In article <6dooe2$o...@bonkers.taronga.com>
pe...@taronga.com "Peter da Silva" writes:
> Followed by a period of intimacy with the more obscure options to QIO$?
....followed by its working perfectly. There was one episode where I
had to busk a little (2" square) board into the back of Gladys (as the
PDP-11 was known) to get something very odd to work.
Lee K. Gleason
In article <889308...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>, Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <350025...@smarts.com>
> leic...@smarts.com "Jerry Leichter" writes:
>
>> RSX had a very nice internal design, but MCR has to take some kind of
>> prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in general.
>
> Eh? What? Pardon?
>
> Once you mastered the basic trick of how MCR worked, you could do
> *anything* with it. I regarded the move to DCL as a distinctly
> retrograde step.
>
the knowledge to most any other program that used it.
It also had support in the development environment that made it
easy to use - using gcml, csi$1 and csi$2, you could get the command
line, parse it for switches and negated switches, parse the filenames
into the data blocks needed to open them, and away you'd go...a lot
more standardized and powerful than the handful of lines of C that
are duplicated in every UNIX program to half heartedly look for a few
cryptic command switches...
Another good thing about MCR...any DEC utility would use these
constructs for command parsing, so it was fun to dump out the CSI
switch tables in new programs form DEC (and others) looking for the
undocuemnted goodies...
Bob Koehler
In article <35007A...@forte.com>, Mike Schilling <mi...@forte.com> writes:
>
>I had the opposite reaction. In RSX, I was used to starting up a few
>compilations, a taskbuild, and perhaps a few PIPs listing directories or
The RSX I used always had a PIP which would attach to the terminal, preventing
other tasks from being started once PIP was started. But it was nice to
start several tasks (of our own writing), just by entering them one after
the other.
It was the only OS I've ever used that would do this, but it was a bit
confusing at first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Koehler | Computer Sciences Corporation
Hubble Space Telescope Payload | System Sciences Division
Flight Software Team | please remove ".aspm" when replying
Brian Kantor
> There was a phase at one company where the stock answer to "how do we
>interface X to Y?" was "connect both to the RSX system."
And later, "E Unibus Plurum"
- Brian
Jerry Leichter
| >RSX had a very nice internal design, but MCR has to take some kind of
| >prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in
| >general.
|
|
| I was dissapointed when they dropped the RSX emulation on the VAX
| because it meant that MCR went as well. It meant I had to actually
If all you used was the VMS MCR, then you never used MCR. It was a very
small subset - and it left out the more, err, "interesting" features.
You could, indeed, do some amazing things in MCR. The original MAIL
program on RSX (at least within DEC - I don't know at what point it
shipped) was written as an MCR command file. (Well, in effect the user
agent was an MCR command file; there was a program to talk MAIL-11.) It
worked quite well. I modified it to support something very like what
appeared as folders in VMS MAIL a couple of years later (I called them
TOPIC's). That worked fine, too. When I say "worked fine", I mean it:
These mailers were pretty reliable, and quite fast enough to be usuable
on machines too slow and memory-poor to compete with, oh, a low-end Palm
Pilot - *and* they were being shared by multiple users.
-- Jerry
Jim Jennis
Jerry Leichter wrote:
>
> | >Personally my favorite DEC operating system is still RSX-11. VMS just
> | >requires TOO MUCH documentation and all too often I didn't have that
> | >documentation available.
> |
> | Ditto
> |
> | RSX-11 was so elegant. I remember writing device drivers for it and
> | Unix (V6). It was interesting to find that it took fewer lines of
> | assembler to write a driver for RSX than it did to write a driver
> | in C for Unix. An RSX driver did a strange dance with the rest of the
> | OS, but it worked out very nicely.
>
> All the old DEC -11 OS's were very nice, in different ways.
>
> prize as the worst-designed command line, or human interface in general.
> interfaces. One I recall was that the channel number was hard-coded
> into the $QIO call (passed by immediate value). You practically needed
> to write home about - and who can forget the Task Builder? Best CPU
> load tester (and disk I/O tester, if you used the appropriate options)
> for PDP-11's every written. RSX was the only system I ever used where
> link (Task Build) times were typically twice or more compilation times.
>
> RT-11 was also small - *very* small - simple, and elegant - and had a
> much simpler and cleaner interface. There was an RT-11 manual, the
> title of which I forget, that documented all the internal interfaces.
> It was one of the best-written OS descriptions I've ever seen. I
> actually considered using it as the text in an Operating Systems course.
>
> RSTS and BASIC PLUS provided one of the most productive programming
> environments I've ever used. It's astounding how much we managed to do
> with multiple users on an 11/40. And RSTS's Run Time System interface
> was a really elegant design - what was called "multiple personalities"
> for OS's a couple of years back, before efforts in that direction seemed
> to disappear.
> -- Jerry
much fun it was doing real time data acquisition/ machine control of a
laser scanner generating data at 20Mhz bandwidth while also running full
multitasking a/d & d/a conversion. All written in pdp-11 macro assembly
running on a micro pdp11/23 with RSX-11M+ v2.1 128k memory and a 10Mb
RD-51 HDD! The system ran for 17 years without a single failure and
helped generate about $800,000,000 in profits... All this before Bill
Gates figured out where the bathroom was in his school!
Thanks for the memories!
Jim Jennis
--
Regards,
Jim Jennis, Senior Specialist/Manufacturing & Information Technology
Imation Corp.
Printing & Publishing Systems
Systems/Networking/Internet Services
200 Brucetown Road
Kearneysville, WV. 25430 USA.
Internet: jhje...@imation.com
------<OpenVMS!--When it Absolutely Positively HAS to Run!>
------<Linux!--The Choice of the "GNU" Generation!-------->
------<NT?--In Manufacturing translate "Not Today"!-------->
Disclaimer:
My opinions belong to me!
Any similarities between my personal views
and the corporate views or policies of
Imation are purely coincidental!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gilley
Unix lost it's beauty when it was flushed down the toilet about 5 years ago
Bill Vermillion wrote in message ...
Per Lindqvist
>RSTS and BASIC PLUS provided one of the most productive programming
>environments I've ever used. It's astounding how much we managed to do
>with multiple users on an 11/40. And RSTS's Run Time System interface
>was a really elegant design - what was called "multiple personalities"
>for OS's a couple of years back, before efforts in that direction seemed
>to disappear.
My favourite was RSTS/E. It indeed had multiple personalities, in that
it had emulation for the two other popular operating systems
RT11 and RSX. For a very long time the only native development tool
was basic, fortran and macro-11 was running under RT11 emulation.
I think RSTS was originally developed on a DEC-10.
I once had my hands on a RSTS version 2(?) source listing, and it was
full of witty comments, and I think it was assembled with MACY11.
In any case, the devices where called DSK:, TTY: LPT: etc.
Rumours said it was originally made as a holiday/semester project or
something by one or two programmers.
The RSTS run time systems was in my opinion DEC-10 hi-segs in
disguise. That is, a program had two segments, the low segment,
and the high segment. You executed the low segment, and the
high segment followed with it. What was not DEC-10'ish was that
the keyboard command interpreter was an ordinary user program.
That is, RSTS had no actual native keyboard command interpreter.
(Except for the very early versions)
-- Per Lindqvist, p...@algonet.se
Tim Shoppa
Again, from the MC archives:
Date: 17 May 83 1:51:43-PDT (Tue)
From: Bi...@sri-unix.arpa
To: info-...@brl.arpa
Redistributed-by: Dave Mankins <dm at BBN-UNIX>
Redistributed-to: info-cobol@mc,.../list:@BBN-UNIX
Redistributed-date: 17 May 1983 10:49:53 EDT (Tuesday)
To: info-micro@brl
Subject: CACM to merge with Byte
***** sri-unix:net.misc / parsec!Anonymous / 11:46 pm May 7, 1983
a074 0226 29 Apr 83
PM-CACM Folds, Fkr,237
America's Finest Computer Journal to Fall
Eds: Human interest for computer related Sunday supplement
By V. K. Rokofu
Unassociated Press Writer
SILICONE VALLEY (UP) - The world of academic computer science was rocked
today by an announcement by Peter J. Denning that the foremost journal
of computer science (The Communications of the ACM: CACM) will cease
publication with its March issue. The publication is merging with Byte
magazine, a popular hobbyist computer rag. Readers of the CACM knew
something was amiss when they received their recent March issue
which contained almost no technical matter whatsoever. The journal
which formerly published papers pushing forward the state of art
in computer had resorted to articles such as "Comparing Two Microcomputer
Systems: CP/M and HDOS" and "Remote Office Work: Changing Work Patterns
in Space and Time". Advertisements for such state-of-the-art companies
as Macmillan publishing (books on BASIC-80 and CP/M) appear in the March
issue. The March issue also featured children and Apple microcomputers
on its cover.
"We're simply delighted that CACM has seen the light", exclaimed Mark
Haas, managing editor of Byte magazine. "We saw their editorial content
deteriorating over the last year and figured that 1983 was going to be
the year of hobbyist computing for CACM!"
Dr. Denning, former chairman of Purdue University's Computer Science
Department, announced Dr. D. Dobbs as his replacement editor. He also
named Dr. Portia Isaacson as Technology Trends and Fashion Editor.
Feature editors include Adam Osborne (architecture and aesthetics),
David Ahl (software for the masses), and Steve Ciarcia (logic design
and hardware).
"It's just too damn much work to keep trying to think up new
material every month", Dr. Denning sighed. "It's a lot easier to
recycle stuff from the earlier years of computing and peddle it as
''state of the art microcomputer research''. I've made a bundle
consulting on just that kind of stuff."
In keeping with the academic bent, the new CACM/Byte magazine's
next issue will have articles by key researchers and authors in the
field. "BASIC Not Considered Harmful At All" by Edsgar Dijkstra
headlines the issue, guest edited by Steven Jobs, founder and genius
behind Apple Computer Corporation. The issue includes a program in
which every line is either the source or sink of a "goto" command.
"Assembler Programming For Fun and Profit" leads the new "home entrepreneur"
section, edited this month by Adele Goldberg, a reformed high level
language programmer. Dr. Goldberg, who recently joined the staff of CACM/Byte
after hearing of the merger, explained that "Peter's right. It's just a
real hassle designing new languages and systems all the time. Assembler
is where it's always been: speed, power, ego. I've been a closet 'asm'
programmer for years and I've finally decided to share my joy with the world."
Some of the surprises in the next issue include a non-bitter article
by Dr. Niklaus Wirth: "Why Real Men Program in Fortran". When contacted
at his bank in Zurich, Dr. Wirth commented, "Peter's got a real winner
here all right. Ever since I designed and constructed that turkey called
the Lilith, I've known that microcomputers were the home of the fast buck.
I figure I can recycle all my old crap in about two years and make maybe
ten times as much money as I did the first time around."
One disappointment to many universities will be the removal of the
old "Position Announcements" section and its replacement by a "Personal
Advertisements" section. Typical personal ads resemble: "Straight White
FORTH programmer desires to meet Female with BASIC background that is
stacked well..."
The new CACM/Byte will no longer contain the "Calls for Papers" for
most of the high-technology computer conferences. "They were boring,
anyway" says young Mortimer Antiluchee, 10 year old APPLE computer owner,
whose picture was featured on the cover of the March, 1983 CACM issue.
The cover also shows geriatric computing, a house for former Algol
programmers, and scores of cars fleeing Boston's minicomputer manufacturers
for the greener pastures of microcomputing.
In a related announcement, ACM Associate Editor in Chief Lloyd
Fosdick explained that CACM will now stand for "Childrens' & Adolescents'
Computer Magazine". He elaborated, "We've known this was coming since
the first budget shortage. Byte has been making bucketfuls of money and
it's time we cashed in before the industry is overrun by teenage computer
hackers."
When contacted for comment, Yoko Sunoto, High Technology Minister
for Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project, stated, "Ha ha. Isn't
technology wonderful? Last year most of those guys couldn't even spell
computer. We will bury you."
----------