Gods on Usenet?
Diversion (Jeff Rogers)
since I missed all the posts on it (I presume), I bring it up:
How many computer gods/demigods read usenet? By this, I mean people who have
done major projects like designing programming languages, operating systems,
major applications, etc. Two who I'm aware of are Linus Torvaldus (sp?)
(author of Linux) and Bjarne Strousup (sp? again) (designer of C++). I
thought of this because I just saw a bunch of posts from Bjarne in
comp.lang.c++\.
Of the (demi)gods on the net, do they read a pletherer (sp?) of groups, or
just the ones relevant to their subject matter? For example, of the two
above, does Linus just read/post to comp.os.linux, and does Bjarne just
read/post to comp.lang.c++? Will either of them see this post? (If they do
and get offended by my referencing them on a first-name basis (unlikely, in
my view), I apologize, but I can spell your first names better (more
confidently, in any case).)
People who I know of who aren't necessarily (demi)gods, but do read news:
Bert Tyler and/or Tim Wegner (I'm not sure which) - primary authors of
Fractint. (Also Ken Shirriff, who did the X port)
Joel Lord (responsible for X port of moria (I think he still reads news))
Eric Raymond (? I think) (Maintainer of online version of the Jargon File)
These give me a better idea of what may be my idea of a (demi)god - those
people whose work has wholly (or nearly wholly) created it's own independent
newsgroup in the big 7 (rec, misc, comp, sci, talk, soc) (oops - that's only
6), as opposed to those whose work is merely (!) the subject of frequent
discussions in such newsgroups. (Was that a run on sentence?)
----<totally unrelated>----
Calvin a hacker? Did anyone catch the C&H strip with Calvin talking about
"verbing"? Anyone notice the reference to the intro to the Jargon File (All
nouns can be verbed - How Jargon Works : Jargon Construction : Over-
generalization)
----<End totally unrelated>---
Diversion
--
"I can see 'em | "Want me to create a diversion?"
I can see 'em | Diversion
Someone wake me when it's over" | rog...@rpi.edu
Michael Rogero Brown
>I'm sure this is a subject that has been discussed at great length, but
>since I missed all the posts on it (I presume), I bring it up:
>
>How many computer gods/demigods read usenet? By this, I mean people who have
>done major projects like designing programming languages, operating systems,
>major applications, etc. Two who I'm aware of are Linus Torvaldus (sp?)
>(author of Linux) and Bjarne Strousup (sp? again) (designer of C++). I
>thought of this because I just saw a bunch of posts from Bjarne in
>comp.lang.c++\.
>
The neatest posting was one by Marvin Minsky to one of the SF (science-fiction)
groups commenting on Isaac Asimov's death. He said Asimov's robot stories
inspired him to get into robot/AI research.
--
<< Michael Rogero Brown | Any opinions expressed are my >>
<< CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ | own, and generally unpopular >>
<< Internet: mich...@sol.cse.fau.edu | with others. >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax | Ask me if I care. >>
Rob Elkins
>How many computer gods/demigods read usenet? By this, I mean people who have
>done major projects like designing programming languages, operating systems,
>major applications, etc.
I don't know if these folks consider themselves Gods or DemiGods, although
the rest of us might. Three that I know read news are:
Brian Kereigan(SP, I'm probably going to get it for the misspelling)
Dennis Richie
- Both of these guys had a lot to do with the language C.
THey have written the definitive reference text on C
(commonly reffered to as K&R). I'm not sure about my
history, but I think that Dennis Richie may have designed or
been one of the designers of C. Also, Richie was one of the
early unix wizards.
Marvin Minski - Big Professor at Mit, one of the fathers of AI, Credited
with landmark work on Neural Networks. Replied to one of my notes once,
I was awed.
I also heard that John McCarthy, the other father of AI and the author of
LISP reads news.
--
Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not an <insert occupation here>
Rob Elkins E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co, Inc., Newark, DE.
Email: elk...@eplrx7.es.dupont.com
Voice: 302-366-3125
Danny R. Faught
>Well I saw a posting by John McCarthy on one of the AI groups.
Yep, I've seen stuff from McCarthy a few times. He started the petition
that opposed some of the views of the report of that computer science committee
(can't remember the name). His efforts were reported in the _Communications
of the ACM_. How's that for the power of the Internet?
>The neatest posting was one by Marvin Minsky to one of the SF (science-fiction)
>groups commenting on Isaac Asimov's death. He said Asimov's robot stories
>inspired him to get into robot/AI research.
Cool! I missed that one. I have seen Minsky post several times in comp.ai.
It was really cool being able to cite a draft manuscript of Minsky's in
my research paper.
Is Larry Wall (he created the Perl programming language) considered a
god or demi-god? He posts *very* frequently to comp.lang.perl. It's
great having your questions answered straight from the horse's mouth,
and knowing that your suggestions may be incorporated into the next
release of the language.
-Danny (Internet junkie)
--
Danny Faught, Convex rookie
"Everything is deeply intertwingled." - Ted Nelson
Thomas Koenig
keeping his own alt.fan - newsgroup pretty busy.
--
Thomas Koenig, ig...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
lor...@fnalnk.fnal.gov
> the rest of us might. Three that I know read news are:
>
> Brian Kereigan(SP, I'm probably going to get it for the misspelling)
> Dennis Richie
Well, I don't know how they consider themselves - but if _you_ have
a minumum of respect for them and their work, take the care to look at
the cover of one of their books and spell their names correctly: ie
Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie .
From Italy, Maurizio
- Only my opinions (and I lie) - (programmer since 1968) - ETI018 - HAM I3NOO -
Maurizio Loreti - University of Padova - Department of Physics - Padova, Italy
Padova: LOR...@PADOVA.INFN.IT +-------------------------------------
Stanford: M...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU | I'm not bad; I'm just drawn that way
FermiLab: LOR...@FNALD.FNAL.GOV | (Jessica Rabbit)
Matthew Crosby
>
>I also heard that John McCarthy, the other father of AI and the author of
>LISP reads news.
>
Anyway, there is a list available of all net celebrities available on many
FTP sites. Of couse, it includes he-who-shall-not-be-invoked, so its
definition is somewhat loose :-)
--
-Matt cro...@cs.colorado.edu
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the net!
Kevin J. Jarnot
Are you kidding! Larry is definately a god. Life without Perl is not
life...
I wish it was possible to discuss such changes with ALL language
designers...
...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
is such a stupid idea...
Kevin
--
Kevin J. Jarnot (jar...@kin.lap.upenn.edu) | "The monkey-boys are evil -
Lead Programmer/Analyst/Keyboardist | Lord Whorfin is supreme..."
Univ. of Pennsylvania Language Analysis Center |
3700 Market St, Suite 202 Phila, PA 19104 | "Vita Non Jerk"
Shyamal Prasad
>the rest of us might. Three that I know read news are:
>
>Brian Kereigan(SP, I'm probably going to get it for the misspelling)
>Dennis Richie
> - Both of these guys had a lot to do with the language C.
> THey have written the definitive reference text on C
> (commonly reffered to as K&R). I'm not sure about my
> history, but I think that Dennis Richie may have designed or
> been one of the designers of C. Also, Richie was one of the
> early unix wizards.
>
Are you kidding. Dennis Ritchie *may* have been an early designer of C
and an early UNIX wizard?? Tell me your joking, please ....... :-?
I've seen Brian Kernighan post once to clear up views on early UNIX
development in this newsgroup, and Richard Stallman posts too (and I
think it would be unfair to not consider him a demi god even if the
word is so strong).
Shyamal
--
Shyamal Prasad, Department of Computer Science
Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX 72275
Diversion (Jeff Rogers)
>I've seen Brian Kernighan post once to clear up views on early UNIX
>development in this newsgroup, and Richard Stallman posts too (and I
>think it would be unfair to not consider him a demi god even if the
>word is so strong).
Yes, I think Stallman could be considered a demigod - at least by the second
condition I offered (that is, a group formed wholly or nearly wholly as a
result of their work), as would be the perl guy (sorry, forget his name) who
was mentioned a few articles back. (Note that this condition should/does
only apply to groups in major heirarchies (not alt, which is more of an
anarchy). For example, I'm sure the ceeation of the group alt.flame was
inspired by a small handful of individuals, and I'd place even money that
they are still posting (indeed, flaming). The definition is still somewhat
loose, tho.)
Rob Elkins
>> Brian Kereigan(SP, I'm probably going to get it for the misspelling)
>> Dennis Richie
>Well, I don't know how they consider themselves - but if _you_ have
>a minumum of respect for them and their work, take the care to look at
>the cover of one of their books and spell their names correctly: ie
I was right, I did get it! -))
Another important person who is heavilly involved (or was) is
Brian Reed, Turing Award Winner, Inventor of Scribe, originator
and moderator of alt.gormand and the usenet recipe book/server/pgm.
Tod McQuillin
to complain about emacs' behaviour while running a subprocess in a
buffer that was generating a lot of output. I took a second look when
I saw that posting.
And of course rms posts to the gnu.* groups quite frequently.
Joe Vigneau
result of their work), as would be the perl guy (sorry, forget his name) who
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think that's Larry Wall, but I may be mistaken.
Eric S. Raymond
> People who I know of who aren't necessarily (demi)gods, but do read news:
> Bert Tyler and/or Tim Wegner (I'm not sure which) - primary authors of
> Fractint. (Also Ken Shirriff, who did the X port)
> Joel Lord (responsible for X port of moria (I think he still reads news))
> Eric Raymond (? I think) (Maintainer of online version of the Jargon File)
>
> These give me a better idea of what may be my idea of a (demi)god - those
> people whose work has wholly (or nearly wholly) created it's own independent
> newsgroup in the big 7 (rec, misc, comp, sci, talk, soc) (oops - that's only
> 6), as opposed to those whose work is merely (!) the subject of frequent
> discussions in such newsgroups. (Was that a run on sentence?)
Hmmm. Well, someone created alt.lang.intercal after I wrote C-INTERCAL. How
many divinity points is that worth? :-) Probably some negative number...
Seriously, I do still read netnews every day. Just my way of not
forgetting all the little people who helped make me the sublimely radiant
superbeing I am today.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
--
Eric S. Raymond <e...@snark.thyrsus.com>
Eric S. Raymond
> ...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
> is such a stupid idea...
Hah. Don't you *like* having two extra erogenous zones? Your lovers must
have been unimaginative sorts...
Dwight Tuinstra
sci.space.news, and Stewart Brand (sp?) on the WELL (a commercial
service run by the Whole Earth folks).
+=====================================================================+
| dwight tuinstra tuin...@jackson.ece.clarkson.edu |
| tuin...@snypotva.bitnet |
| "There are no problems apart from the mind" -- Krishnamurti |
+=====================================================================+
Martin Pauley
J. Jarnot) wrote:
>...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
>is such a stupid idea...
Male nipples are not stupid! That's like saying that a clitoris on
women is a stupid idea because it's just a vestidual penis.
The `big-G' - not evolution - designed them so they have a purpose which
I'll try to explain.
Firstly, for all the genetics-people, allowing men to have nipples
reduces the need for extra genetic information. In programming terms,
we don't need extra code like:
if(gender==female) make_nipples(2);
Simple enough to express in C, but try the same thing in DNA!
A more important reason is the advantage of nipples: they are a type of
I/O interface for certain biochemical signals; lips can perform the same
I/O operations. This, again, was originally intended for mother and
child: the signals transfered between nipple and lip would aid in
mutual authentication. This authentication procedure can be carried out
using a lip to lip connection which is why kissing your mother and
kissing you SO are two completely different experiences.
From my (limited) experience, it appears that women enjoy kissing men's
nipples, so I don't think they are a stupid idea! :-)
--------------------------------
.Marty.!
Lost in Space! (or is it Japan?)
<pau...@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp>
Kevin J. Jarnot
> In article <109...@netnews.upenn.edu>, jar...@kin.lap.upenn.edu (Kevin
> J. Jarnot) wrote:
> >...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
> >is such a stupid idea...
>
> Male nipples are not stupid! That's like saying that a clitoris on
> women is a stupid idea because it's just a vestidual penis.
>
> The `big-G' - not evolution - designed them so they have a purpose which
> I'll try to explain.
>
After receiving several mail messages strongly in favor of male nipples,
I have decided to retract my comment and devote several hours a week
to promoting "nipple awareness". And possibly purchase a breast pump.
Anyways, back to the thread....
Eugene N. Miya
>In article <1993Feb16.1...@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
mich...@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown) writes:
>>Well I saw a posting by John McCarthy on one of the AI groups.
In article <1993Feb16....@news.eng.convex.com>
fau...@convex.com (Danny R. Faught) writes:
>Yep, I've seen stuff from McCarthy a few times. He started the petition
>that opposed some of the views of the report of that computer science committee
>(can't remember the name). His efforts were reported in the _Communications
>of the ACM_. How's that for the power of the Internet?
John is a local figure in the area, and it is possible to
run into him if you knew where he hung out. While my personal views
are 180 degrees from his in some areas, I have appreciation for his
intellect. I signed John's petition and have defended him from the NRC's
authors who was critical of John and the petition. John leant me his
copy of the NRC report to read. I was able to goad John to attend a
book reading by S. Dreyfus and his release of SD's anti-AI book.
That could have been an impressive meeting. Not friends, but consider
it "loyal opposition."
>>The neatest posting was one by Marvin Minsky to one of the SF
>>groups commenting on Isaac Asimov's death. He said Asimov's robot stories
>>inspired him to get into robot/AI research.
>
>Cool! I missed that one. I have seen Minsky post several times in comp.ai.
>It was really cool being able to cite a draft manuscript of Minsky's in
>my research paper.
My first contact with MM happened about 5 years before ARPAnet access.
I hd no interest in AI at the time nor who MM was. I was interested in
building lasers (then 5 years old). MM was cited as having built a
semiconductor laser using no cooling. He wrote back to avoid doing it
("Something he now admits wondering why he did that as he is usually more
positive about trying things.") The Net helps a lot (M's a space nut)
and we occasionally run into each other at Conferences [last year's
Hackers Conference was the last time, Mike Hawley's description/intro
to Marvin's house was precious]. We just had a communication about
Minsky's Conjecture (on parallelism) and his response will be posted in
comp.parallel. I get along with Marvin a little better than John.
But John is fun to poke at. If you really want to get on his
nerves, you want the sci.environment group.
>"Everything is deeply intertwingled." - Ted Nelson
Another interesting person. Remember all Gods still have to go to the
bathroom.
Back to debugging CSM.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Stefan Monnier
What about Bertrand Meyer (designer of the Eiffel language) ?
Stefan
Martin Emmerich
>Is Larry Wall (he created the Perl programming language) considered a
>god or demi-god? He posts *very* frequently to comp.lang.perl. It's
>great having your questions answered straight from the horse's mouth,
^^^^^^^
>and knowing that your suggestions may be incorporated into the next
>release of the language.
Probably the camel's mouth, eh?
--
Martin Emmerich
m...@grmbl.saar.de
Please keep that crap out of misc.jobs.offered!
Heikki T. Suopanki
> Of the (demi)gods on the net, do they read a pletherer (sp?) of groups, or
> just the ones relevant to their subject matter? For example, of the two
> above, does Linus just read/post to comp.os.linux, and does Bjarne just
You'll find Linus in alt.fan.warlord (and many other groups).
I think he might read this newsgroup too but he is too modest to answer.
-Heikki
--
*************************************
*** Linux is a sexy OS ***
*** FREE UN*X clone for 386/486 ***
*************************************
G. Wolfe Woodbury
is still reading and posting on the net (from his original account too!)
John Mashey (the Unix Mashey Shell) also posts regularly to comp.arch.
Eric Allman (author of Sendmail) just released a new version to the net
with commentary.
On rare occasions, Dennis Ritchie (dmr - author of Unix) will post
something.
Andy Tannenbaum of Minix Fame is a regular reader.
Jan Brunvand (Urban Legends) reads and posts to alt.folklore.urban on
occasion.
There are many more.
--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC [This site is NOT affiliated ]
wo...@wolves.durham.nc.us [with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe <Standard Disclaimers apply>
Above All, we celebrate! --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.
Rob Elkins
>Andy Tannenbaum of Minix Fame is a regular reader.
I consider Tannenbaum a personal god. In my UnderGraduate Networks and
O/S courses, we used Tannenbaum's textbooks. They were a godsend; he has
a entertaining writing style that makes very complex concepts easy to
understand (hard to believe in a CS text, huh???, don't believe me, try
reading Sanni for comparision). Dr. T is like the CS student's Peter
Norton.
Michael Bruckheimer
creator of REXX at IBM GB. He is current but with the popularity of REXX,
I think he is eligible.
>>>---> Mike
Lamar Owen
>In article <109...@netnews.upenn.edu>, jar...@kin.lap.upenn.edu (Kevin
>J. Jarnot) wrote:
>>...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
>>is such a stupid idea...
>nipples, so I don't think they are a stupid idea! :-)
From my own married experience, not only do women (at least my wife,
that is) enjoy kissing male nipples (in her case, mine :-)), but
I very much enjoy the experience.
And I KNOW that she likes her "vestigal penis"!! ;-)
[This portion of this thread should probably be in alt.sex... Which I do not
carry on lorc.eskimo.com due to bandwidth--thus, I have not redirected
followups...]
Now, to go on a slight tangent: the Big-G, as you put it, was a most
masterful Hacker (yes, CAPITAL-H). Look how He bummed down the DNA-RNA
coding for the proper development of a human being, complete with the
capability to produce a conscious, thinking, mind--all within just a few
molecules. I wonder how large a first revision would have been....
I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
I would love to take a look at His source... Wonder what language He programs
in?
No smileys.
--
Lamar Owen, Systems Consultant | If there were a tax on syn,
GE Lighting Systems, Hendersonville, NC, USA | we'd all be broke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are not those of GE and do not reflect GE policy in any way.
Lon Stowell
There is another class of superbeings who infest the 'net.
Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
o The inventor of ethernet's slide lock.
o The entire team who did the bit-ordering for Token Ring and
FDDI
o Anyone and everyone involved in the miscarriage of operating
systems known collectively as DOS and MS/DOS.
James Kibo Parry
>
> There is another class of superbeings who infest the 'net.
> Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
What about those beings who are more cursed than worshipped... and love it?
-- K.
Huge neon sign
pointing to above
initial.
CCS...@psuvm.psu.edu
Supream Net Op God
| (0) (0) : |
| o : |
| <------> : ^:^^^^^:^^^^^^:^^^^^^^:^^^^^^^^:
| : : : : : :
Sub-god Net-god Per.god OP.god indep.God..
Does anyone have a hierarchy of the NET Gods, or wish to make one up...
And what are the qualifications to become a God...or Net per God..etc..
anyone care to make a chart up? And where does Kibo fit in to all this...
And does Kibo ever look at alt.personals...a friend felt the legend
would have some interesting things to say about the group..
All for now..
The Fuzzy Bunny
****************************************************
: __ _/| Ashes to ashes, dust to dust :
: \ o.O' If you don't take it out and use it :
: =(___)= its going to rust. :
: U (highlander) :
:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*
:ccs105. psuvm.psu.edu. ! The mind is a terrible *
: ! thing to wasts, but the *
************************! heart is a terrible thing*
* to cripple... *
****************************
Stewart J. Stremler
: Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
What should they be (or what are they) called? Usenet devils?
: o Anyone and everyone involved in the miscarriage of operating
: systems known collectively as DOS and MS/DOS.
Strange thing... I've met people who *like* MS/DOS. They admire the, er,
_something_ about it....
Me? I do alright with Unix, AmigaDOS, or PRIMOS....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'll use my own pre-conceived ideas, | Stewart Stremler (Fido 1:202/1111)
Thank You very much!" | masc...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu
-L. Bill | sjst...@cnet577.cts.com
Alan Smith
>In article <185...@pyramid.pyramid.com> lsto...@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>> There is another class of superbeings who infest the 'net.
>> Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
>What about those beings who are more cursed than worshipped... and love it?
Well, doesn't that sorta belong on alt.sex.bondage? Or alt.evil?
Big Al. Who curses more than he worships.
David Fetrow
> followups...]
>
>Now, to go on a slight tangent: the Big-G, as you put it, was a most
>masterful Hacker (yes, CAPITAL-H). Look how He bummed down the DNA-RNA
>coding for the proper development of a human being, complete with the
>capability to produce a conscious, thinking, mind--all within just a few
>molecules. I wonder how large a first revision would have been....
>
>I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
>
>>>>>>>> NITPICK ALERT <<<<<<<<
Uh, actually, human DNA is not highly bummed. There seems to be a LOT of
garbage in there. A couple years ago it was a hot research topic as to WHY.
If someone has an answer; it probably doesn't belong here.
Serious admiration for something that small that can tolerate huge piles
of redundancy and garbage, parallel reads and other Hacks-of-first-order may
not be out of order; no matter how they came to be but that discussion doesn't
belong here either.
--
-dave fetrow- INTERNET: fet...@biostat.washington.edu
FAX: 206-543-3286 BITNET: fetrow@uwalocke
Dan Prener
> : There is another class of superbeings who infest the 'net.
> : Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
> :
> What should they be (or what are they) called? Usenet devils?
Daemons
--
Dan Prener (pre...@watson.ibm.com)
Ross Smith
>>In article <109...@netnews.upenn.edu>, jar...@kin.lap.upenn.edu (Kevin
>>J. Jarnot) wrote:
>>>...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
>>>is such a stupid idea...
>>From my (limited) experience, it appears that women enjoy kissing men's
>>nipples, so I don't think they are a stupid idea! :-)
>
>masterful Hacker (yes, CAPITAL-H). Look how He bummed down the DNA-RNA
>coding for the proper development of a human being, complete with the
>capability to produce a conscious, thinking, mind--all within just a few
>molecules. I wonder how large a first revision would have been....
>
>I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
>
>I would love to take a look at His source... Wonder what language He programs
>in?
BLASPHEMY!!! Obviously the Ultimate Hacker would write straight machine code;
Real Programmers don't use HLLs! (And as for suggesting that anything He
wrote would ever need OPTIMIZING...!)
--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
"I blame you for the moonlit sky and the dream that died with the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights when I wonder why are the seas still dry
Don't blame me, sleeping satellite" (Tasmin Archer)
--
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, masc...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu.sdsu.edu (Stewart J. Stremler) says:
>: o Anyone and everyone involved in the miscarriage of operating
>: systems known collectively as DOS and MS/DOS.
>
>Strange thing... I've met people who *like* MS/DOS. They admire the, er,
>_something_ about it....
Sure, MS-DOS is bad, if you do _EVERYTHING_ from the command line! With
XTree Gold, for instance, life is made much easier. And with Windows tacked
on to DOS, man, things get blazing! Windows provides true WYSIWYG and isn't
as slow as everyone makes it out to be. (Then again, I'm used to an ancient
Tandy 1000.)
But I'm still gonna try LINUX. Does LINUX take more than, say, 6MB of disk
space? Can it be dual-booted with DOS?
--
aj...@cleveland.freenet.edu (Pneumatic polyurethane)
/*
You are not expected to understand this.
*/
Michael T Pins
>In a previous article, masc...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu.sdsu.edu (Stewart J. Stremler) says:
>>: o Anyone and everyone involved in the miscarriage of operating
>>: systems known collectively as DOS and MS/DOS.
>>
>>Strange thing... I've met people who *like* MS/DOS. They admire the, er,
>>_something_ about it....
>Sure, MS-DOS is bad, if you do _EVERYTHING_ from the command line! With
>XTree Gold, for instance, life is made much easier. And with Windows tacked
>on to DOS, man, things get blazing! Windows provides true WYSIWYG and isn't
>as slow as everyone makes it out to be. (Then again, I'm used to an ancient
>Tandy 1000.)
Which, of course, goes a long way toward explaining the popularity of Windoze.
Compared to M$-DOG, it seems positively wonderful. On the other hand, I've yet
to find anyone who has spent real amounts of time with a real pc-based OS that
will have anything to do with it. Even the MacOS looks good in comparison with
the beast.
--
*****************************************************************************
* Michael Pins | Internet: ami...@isca.uiowa.edu *
* ISCA's Amiga & Unix Librarian | #include <std.disclaimer> *
*****************************************************************************
Anders Thulin
>...or to discuss evolutionary changes with the big-G. Nipples on men
>is such a stupid idea...
They're just stubs. Wait till you see the next release ...
--
Anders Thulin a...@linkoping.trab.se 013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
e...@talus.com
>
> In a previous article, masc...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu.sdsu.edu (Stewart J.
Stremler) says:
>
> >: o Anyone and everyone involved in the miscarriage of operating
> >: systems known collectively as DOS and MS/DOS.
> >
> >Strange thing... I've met people who *like* MS/DOS. They admire the, er,
> >_something_ about it....
>
>
> Sure, MS-DOS is bad, if you do _EVERYTHING_ from the command line! With
> XTree Gold, for instance, life is made much easier. And with Windows
tacked
> on to DOS, man, things get blazing! Windows provides true WYSIWYG and
isn't
> as slow as everyone makes it out to be. (Then again, I'm used to an
ancient
> Tandy 1000.)
>
> But I'm still gonna try LINUX. Does LINUX take more than, say, 6MB of disk
> space? Can it be dual-booted with DOS?
>
> --
Ahahahahahaha. That is a good one. No doubt.
Ed.
--
Erik Dasque "The French guy" Houston (713) 561-0700
V.P. R&D, Talus Corporation TeXT-mail/NeXTmail:e...@talus.com
Gothick
>In article <DfOirAS...@lorc.eskimo.com> lo...@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar
>Owen) writes:
>> capability to produce a conscious, thinking, mind--all within just a few
>> molecules. I wonder how large a first revision would have been....
>>
>> I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
>Not a very good one, since a very large part of the human genome consists
>of the genetic equivalent of NOP statements.
Heck, She's just allowing for future expansion.
Matt
--
Matthew B. M. Gibson:
got...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk - mgi...@nyx.cs.du.edu - cs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk
"Great. I'm a million miles from home, about to be killed, with a
gung-ho iguana who tells me to relax"
Dana H. Myers
>
> : Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
> :
>
> What should they be (or what are they) called? Usenet devils?
Aren't they called "John De Armond" ?
--
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ | Views expressed here are *
* (310) 337-5136 | mine and do not necessarily *
* da...@locus.com DoD #466 | reflect those of my employer *
* This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>In article <DfOirAS...@lorc.eskimo.com> lo...@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar
>Owen) writes:
>> Now, to go on a slight tangent: the Big-G, as you put it, was a most
>> masterful Hacker (yes, CAPITAL-H). Look how He bummed down the DNA-RNA
>> coding for the proper development of a human being, complete with the
>> capability to produce a conscious, thinking, mind--all within just a few
>> molecules. I wonder how large a first revision would have been....
>>
>> I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
>Not a very good one, since a very large part of the human genome consists
>of the genetic equivalent of NOP statements.
The ultimate inscrutable hacker! Not only doesn't most of the code have
an execution path leading to it, there are (at least) two even wierder
hacks
1) Each instruction consists of 3 digits. Some routines have overlapping
code, with an offset between the code starts that is not a multiple
of 3.
This is comparable to a computer with 2 byte words for instructions,
but without the requirement that instructions must start at an even
address. Imagine having two routines overlap, one with instructions
starting at odd addresses, one where they start at even addresses.
2) Each processor has several indepedent power supplies. These power
supplies have their own software. The instruction set is the same
as in the CPU, as are most of the opcodes, but a few opcodes are
different.
Klaus O K
Greg Maddog Knauss
>: There is another class of superbeings who infest the 'net.
>: Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
>:
>What should they be (or what are they) called? Usenet devils?
USENET deamons. Kibo is a constantly (_constantly_) running background
deamon, while BIFF is only spawned occasionally, when needed. And
RICHH has an X front-end that displays 256-color gifs.
--
Greg Knauss (gr...@quotron.com) "Llamas, dammit! Llamas!"
Henry Troup
(Lamar Owen) writes
|>masterful Hacker (yes, CAPITAL-H). Look how He bummed down the DNA-RNA
|>coding for the proper development of a human being, complete with the
I was reading recently (Scientific American?) about a bacterium that
does compression on its DNA. The transcribed RNA is up to twice the
length of the DNA sequence.
Henry Troup - H.T...@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
Get 'cha program! Can't tell the hardware from the firmware without a program!
Mark Delany
>In article <DfOirAS...@lorc.eskimo.com> lo...@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar
>Owen) writes:
>> Now, to go on a slight tangent: the Big-G, as you put it, was a most
>> masterful Hacker (yes, CAPITAL-H). Look how He bummed down the DNA-RNA
>> coding for the proper development of a human being, complete with the
>> capability to produce a conscious, thinking, mind--all within just a few
>> molecules. I wonder how large a first revision would have been....
>>
>> I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
>Not a very good one, since a very large part of the human genome consists
>of the genetic equivalent of NOP statements.
Ahem. It is the reckless who discard code they don't understand, only
to find that at some later stage that NOP *did* serve a useful
purpose.
I'm not sure that anyone would categorically want to say that these
*supposed* no-ops indeed serve no purpose. More accurately, they serve
no purpose that we (yet) understand.
--
Mark Delany ma...@werple.apana.org.au
Lamar Owen
>1) Each instruction consists of 3 digits. Some routines have overlapping
> code, with an offset between the code starts that is not a multiple
> of 3.
> This is comparable to a computer with 2 byte words for instructions,
> but without the requirement that instructions must start at an even
> address. Imagine having two routines overlap, one with instructions
> starting at odd addresses, one where they start at even addresses.
You can do this on the Z80. In fact, it is rather easy to do.
One of my favorite Z80 hacks is used in coding error printing routines
for the TRS-80 series. The line print routine in the following code
is called @VDLINE and takes one argument: register pair HL points
to a CR or ETX terminated ASCII string to display.
This is a trivial example.
ERROR1: LD HL,ERRMSG1
DEFB 0DDH
ERROR2: LD HL,ERRMSG2
DEFB 0DDH
ERROR3: LD HL,ERRMSG3
CALL @VDLINE
LD HL,ABRTCODE
JP @ABORT
If the entry point is ERROR1, here's what the machine executes:
LD HL,ERRMSG1
LD IX,ERRMSG2
LD IX,ERRMSG3
CALL @VDLINE
LD HL,ABRTCODE
JP @ABORT
Saves a byte for every error message used. Instead of using a JR
to the line that calls @VDLINE, simply induce a side-effect.
With large numbers of error messages, the savings add up quickly.
If you wanted to be real sneaky, you could use to your advantage the
fact that any non-zero return code in HL is an ABORT, and recode the
last portion of the routine as such. This also takes advantage of the
fact that a RET instruction under TRS-DOS returns to the OS handler.
[...]
ERRMSG3: LD HL,ERRMSG3
JP @VDLINE
Note that with this modification, this becomes a generic CALLable
message printing routine, and can save even more bytes. Instead of
using LD HL,message_tag_id CALL @VDLINE, you simply
CALL message_tag_id_routine. For a single invocation, the standard
display method takes six bytes; the alternate takes seven. For two
invocations, the standard takes 12 bytes, the alternate takes 10.
For 100 invocations, the standard takes 600 bytes, the alternate takes
304. 298 bytes saved for 100 invocations. Not alot, but it adds up for
lots of messages plus lots of invocations.
This routine has a drawback in that execution is significantly longer
for messages close to the top of the routine. To remedy this speed
penalty, simply sort the messages upon frequency of use and put the
most used messages at the bottom.
This routine also alters IX, so, if you do not want to disturb IX, it must
be saved beforehand, which eliminates the routine's per invocation size
advantage.
>Klaus O K
James Kibo Parry
> masc...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu.sdsu.edu (Stewart J. Stremler) writes:
>
> >: There is another class of superbeings who infest the 'net.
> >: Unlike gods, these beings are more cursed than worshipped.
>
> >What should they be (or what are they) called? Usenet devils?
>
> USENET deamons. Kibo is a constantly (_constantly_) running background
> deamon, while BIFF is only spawned occasionally, when needed. And
> RICHH has an X front-end that displays 256-color gifs.
As long as you're misspelling it, I'd prefer to be called a deaemon, as in
"Uncle Fegg's Encyclopeaedia of ALL World Knowledge". Mark & Jason
Dominus will explain that...
P.S. I'm pushing for the GIF standard to include a 257th color. All
they'd need to ad would be a fraction of a ninth bit.
-- K.
A waste of bandwidth originating
James "Kibo" Parry (ki...@world.std.com) wrote:
: As long as you're misspelling it, I'd prefer to be called a deaemon, as in
: Dominus will explain that...
Uncle Fegg! I almost forgot about him! I had that book 10 years ago...8)
Marlo
Lamar Owen
>In article <DfOirAS...@lorc.eskimo.com> lo...@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar Owen) writes:
>>I wonder what sort of optimizing compiler He uses....
>>
>>I would love to take a look at His source... Wonder what language He programs
>>in?
>BLASPHEMY!!! Obviously the Ultimate Hacker would write straight machine code;
>Real Programmers don't use HLLs! (And as for suggesting that anything He
>wrote would ever need OPTIMIZING...!)
I was waiting for that... :-)... [intentional jabs just to see who would
respond in kind...]
Of course He would write in machine code--but look at the architecture He
is writing for! Not only is the microcode (DNA/RNA) complex, but the multiple
architecture CPU's are not only complex but varigated. Look at the code
difference between the stomach and the brain, for instance.
Speaking of the brain, what a masterpiece of self-modifying code, running on
a self-modifying network of trillions of CPU's, incorporating full load
managment, combined symmetrical/assymetrical multiprocessing, and fault
tolerance of the highest magnitude.
And all of this programming is stored, in an obviously compressed form, in the
very microcode that the code runs on top of! Absolutely hackish! And people
wonder why there seems to be redundancy in DNA/RNA sequencing. The answer is
obvious to me: gotta have somewhere to store all that code. Also, given the
imperfect world we live in (by design, of course: the challenge to the Ultimate
Hacker who can code Perfect Programs every time is not to write a Perfect
Program, but to make an imperfect program perform as if it were Perfect),
there has to be redundancy and EDAC embedded in the all-important
microcode sequences.
Also note how reproduction is done. Two separate and disparate programs are
combined along a split line to produce another different, working program
that is different from either of its parents.
Note that the coding method used is the ultimate form of OOP, since the
same DNA sequences are reused in every module of the total program, and that
similar objects (cells) are used to form a unified code/data structure.
And to think that I would associate HLL's with Him... My most humble
apologies.
Just think, though: He wrote all this in a mere six days. Amazing...
[No irreverence of any kind is intended by this message, as I am what many
net.people term a "fundie".]
KESSNER ERIC M
Even more proof that God is a hacker:
God uses self modifying code!
RNA is modified AFTER it is "loaded" from the DNA.
Even worse there are DNA sequences called transposons that sometimes just
leave the part of the chromosome they are currently in and move somewhere else
As for data compression the gods obviously used some, the human genome is only
half the size of some salamanders. (or maybe there's more to them than is
obvious at first glance :)
Eric Kessner
kes...@rintintin.colorado.edu
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, kes...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (KESSNER ERIC M) says:
>
>Even worse there are DNA sequences called transposons that sometimes just
>leave the part of the chromosome they are currently in and move somewhere else
God uses gotos? What would Niclaus Wirth say?
--
Paul Tomblin (formerly p...@geovision.gvc.com)
National Capital Freenet: Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid...
"You'll have a national Philosopher's Strike on your hands"
"Who would that inconvenience?"
Ross Smith
Don't salamnders eat insects? They must contain a lot of debugging code then.
(sorry .. it's Sunday and I've got nothing intelligent to do ... it won't
happen again, I promise)
--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
"Tell ballistics they're fired."
--
Stewart J. Stremler
: God uses gotos? What would Niclaus Wirth say?
I would imagine he would say "Sir." :-)
Ross Smith
>
>In a previous article, kes...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (KESSNER ERIC M) says:
>
>>
>>Even worse there are DNA sequences called transposons that sometimes just
>>leave the part of the chromosome they are currently in and move somewhere else
>
>God uses gotos? What would Niclaus Wirth say?
But God didn't have to debug his code himself. That's *our* job, now that
we've discovered genetic engineering :-)
Lamar Owen
>lo...@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar Owen) writes:
[Bill Gates demon coding deleted to save bandwidth...]
>Anyone who wants to learn how to program like a demon is hereby pointed to
>MICROSOFT BASIC DECODED, written by James Farvour, published by IJG press
>(about ten years ago, I'm afraid) which documents the lovely quirks of
>Microsoft's BASIC. If only their DOS wasn't so horrible.
Ah, the IJG books... A hundred points to somebody who can tell me
what IJG stands for.... (This is bona-fide folklore/pseudohistory...)
I have most of the TRS-80 IJG books, including MicroSoft BASIC decoded
(which gave you the COMMENTS to the code, but YOU had to generate
the disassembly...)
YES, the TRS-80 BASIC was TIGHT in a serious sense: I wonder whether
Bill had anything to do with it... Although, since the TRS-80
BASIC was done in early 1977, he probably did the code single-handedly.
Much better hacker than Randy Cook, who wrote one of the most buggy
operating systems ever--although I can understand Randy's reasons.
David Librik
>Ah, the IJG books... A hundred points to somebody who can tell me
>what IJG stands for.... (This is bona-fide folklore/pseudohistory...)
What's an even more interesting question is why computer books were getting
published by the International Jeweller's Guild -- though I suspect Harv
Pennington, the master of disks who wrote the first IJG book, TRS-80 DISK
AND OTHER MYSTERIES, was a jeweller in real life. (TRS-80 DISK was a book
that was on the shelf of every serious TRS-80 owner. It told you how to
recover from all sorts of disk failures, missing sectors, trashed sector-
allocation-tables, etc. Many of these were caused by the DOS, of course,
which was garbage. But more on this later.)
>I have most of the TRS-80 IJG books, including MicroSoft BASIC decoded
>(which gave you the COMMENTS to the code, but YOU had to generate
>the disassembly...)
Fair play -- anything else would have violated copyright.
[Praise of Bill Gates deleted]
>Much better hacker than Randy Cook, who wrote one of the most buggy
>operating systems ever--although I can understand Randy's reasons.
Well, it's not really Randy Cook's fault. He started work on a DOS
for the TRS-80, and when he got a first, simple beta-version hacked out,
Radio Shack promptly shipped it as TRSDOS 2.1 (you don't want to know
about TRSDOS 1.1). Cook got annoyed; they fired him, stole his code,
changed the words "Randy Cook" to "Tandy Corp" in the easter-egg copyright
message, and released it as TRSDOS 2.2. Needless to say, it would still
randomly destroy the directory and dump garbage in your boot sector.
They fixed a lot of the bugs in TRSDOS 2.3, though if you deleted an
open file it would still trash the allocation tables. Cook went off,
finished writing the DOS he had started, and it was released as
VTOS, a fine system; later it became LDOS, and (in a true sign of
justice in the world) was bought by Tandy and released as TRSDOS 6 for the
Model IV.
And this brings us to the real point about the TRS-80 and the programmers
who loved it, and why it hasn't had the tenacity of the Apple 2 in the
intellectual market: Radio Shack didn't support it. This may be hard for
most of you to understand -- especially if you grew up in the IBM PC
era -- but except for the TRS-80 hardware itself, and the SCRIPSIT word
processor, EVERYTHING offered by Radio Shack was CRAP. If you were
a TRS-80 person, you threw out their DOS, and bought one of the many
compatible DOSes (such as Apparat's NEWDOS, Misosys's DOSPLUS, VTOS, etc.)
You had Harv Pennington's TRS-80 DISK AND OTHER MYSTERIES. Your editor/
assembler was Microsoft's EDTASM-PLUS, and your debugger was TASMON
by the Alternate Source. You subscribed to 80 MICROCOMPUTING, and if
you really knew what you were doing you got THE ALTERNATE SOURCE as well.
You played Big Five's arcade games and Scott Adams' Adventures.
Of course, this may sound a bit like the Apple world, where lots of
different companies made the best books, magazines, and software. But
in the Apple world, the computer store where you bought your Apple also
sold Nibble magazine, etc. Radio Shack *never acknowledged the existence
of any outside support for their machine* -- they certainly never sold
80 Micro in their stores. And most outside computer stores (Computerland,
etc.) didn't stock much TRS-80 stuff, since that was Radio Shack's machine.
So -- you just had to know. Had to read 80 Micro, do a lot of mail order,
and enthusiastically spread the word around when you had found a gem out
there. It was a world of user's groups, and of awesome special hardware
bought from all sorts of places. There's a reason that the great TRS-80
DOS, Newdos/80, supported twenty-five customizable options describing the
characteristics of every device attached to the system.
But if you went into your local Radio Shack, knowing nothing about the
machine, and wanted to get a computer, you got saddled with a good machine
and junk software. And so comp.sys.tandy is full of people selling off
stuff that nobody wants. (I'd still love to see someone offering a COMM-80
serial interface, an Alpha joystick, or an Orchestra-80... but then I always
suspected those of us "in the know" were few and far between.)
I don't think I've ever heard of this happening with any other machine.
The closest thing in the mainframe (er, mini) world is the way that people
bought AT&T UNIX and threw it out, stopping only to send their proof of
purchase registrations to Berkeley for BSD. Any more stories?
- David Librik
lib...@cory.Berkeley.edu
David A. Z.
writes:
)[Bill Gates demon coding deleted to save bandwidth...]
)
)YES, the TRS-80 BASIC was TIGHT in a serious sense: I wonder whether
)Bill had anything to do with it... Although, since the TRS-80
)BASIC was done in early 1977, he probably did the code single-handedly.
)
)Much better hacker than Randy Cook, who wrote one of the most buggy
)operating systems ever--although I can understand Randy's reasons.
Um, is this demon coding Bill Gates guy the same one that
let TRS-80 BASIC run out of memory if you hit [ENTER] too many times
at the "READY" prompt?
(Ie: It would push the stack and not pop it everytime you
entered a "null" command)
Just want to give credit where credit is due.
David Librik
Er, can you give me some more information about this? Are you sure this
was LEVEL II BASIC? The old LEVEL I BASIC for the TRS-80 was not written
by Microsoft; it was a TinyBASIC (anyone remember TinyBASICs? Dr. Dobb's
Journal?) clapped together by Radio Shack.
I kept up with the TRS-80 world for years and don't remember anything about
this bug in Level II.
- David Librik
lib...@cory.Berkeley.edu
Lamar Owen
>>Ah, the IJG books... A hundred points to somebody who can tell me
>>what IJG stands for.... (This is bona-fide folklore/pseudohistory...)
>What's an even more interesting question is why computer books were getting
>published by the International Jeweller's Guild -- though I suspect Harv
>Pennington, the master of disks who wrote the first IJG book, TRS-80 DISK
>AND OTHER MYSTERIES, was a jeweller in real life. (TRS-80 DISK was a book
>that was on the shelf of every serious TRS-80 owner. It told you how to
>recover from all sorts of disk failures, missing sectors, trashed sector-
>allocation-tables, etc. Many of these were caused by the DOS, of course,
>which was garbage. But more on this later.)
And you have received a hundred points! Harv had quite a few interests,
if I remember correctly.
>[Praise of Bill Gates deleted]
>>Much better hacker than Randy Cook, who wrote one of the most buggy
>>operating systems ever--although I can understand Randy's reasons.
>Well, it's not really Randy Cook's fault. He started work on a DOS
>for the TRS-80, and when he got a first, simple beta-version hacked out,
>Radio Shack promptly shipped it as TRSDOS 2.1 (you don't want to know
>about TRSDOS 1.1).
TRSDOS 1.1 was shipped with Model III. I have a copy. Don't
think that there was ever a DISTRIBUTED TRSDOS 1.1 for
Model I. I also have a couple of master TRSDOS 2.1 disks....
[Cook's story deleted for brevity...]
You are quite right: Randy figured Tandy was out to screw him.
How would any systems programmer/hacker behave in similar circumstances?
Thus the reason I included the "--although I can..." phrase above.
Public NOTE: this is in no way accusing Tandy of any wrongdoing against
Randy Cook, nor is it an accusation of Randy Cook in his dealings
with Tandy Corp.
[Real reason for TRS-80 success/failure deleted]
Although I deleted that paragraph, I would make this minor
correction: DOSPLUS was originally marketed by Micro-Systems Software,
not Misosys. Different companies.
Misosys now has the lion's share of the small TRS-80 market in that
it is the sole surviving TRS-80 DOS provider, along with MANY
utilities.
>But if you went into your local Radio Shack, knowing nothing about the
>machine, and wanted to get a computer, you got saddled with a good machine
>and junk software. And so comp.sys.tandy is full of people selling off
>stuff that nobody wants. (I'd still love to see someone offering a COMM-80
>serial interface, an Alpha joystick, or an Orchestra-80... but then I always
>suspected those of us "in the know" were few and far between.)
Few and far between is an understatment nowdays. This is why I no longer
depend on my old Model 4 in everyday use. In fact, I no longer own
a functional Model 4 system. My system was very custom: 20 meg internal
hard disk, double-sided 5.25 floppy AND a 3.5 floppy, 320K expanded RAM,
speedup kit, high resolution graphics board, Orchestra-90, and many
other things. I had LS-DOS 6.3.1, Misosys MC and MRAS, The Source, and
many other pieces of software, hardware, and books. Sold the whole lot
for $250. I was very pleased to get that much out of it. I still have a
few things left, like a service manual and some other parts, but I'm keeping
those for a rainy day when I want to be nostalgic.
Radio Shack's insistence of being the sole source of stuff is indeed the
reason TRS-80's failed. Shame on you, RS!
Bernd Meyer
>In article <1993Mar6.2...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>>God uses gotos? What would Niclaus Wirth say?
>But God didn't have to debug his code himself. That's *our* job, now that
>we've discovered genetic engineering :-)
No, we are the beta-testers. Poor old dinos were in this situation, too, but
they had the bad luck to have a really bad bug in their code :-)
Bernie
Ian Lartey
>In article <1993Mar6.2...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, kes...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (KESSNER ERIC M) says:
>>
>>>
>>>Even worse there are DNA sequences called transposons that sometimes just
>>>leave the part of the chromosome they are currently in and move somewhere else
>>
>>God uses gotos? What would Niclaus Wirth say?
>
>But God didn't have to debug his code himself. That's *our* job, now that
>we've discovered genetic engineering :-)
>
nah.... It's a _hardware-problem_
(initiate head-in-sand-sequence 11204 '&-) and no funny business with
that logic probe.
See'ya Ian.
--
Sorry: This .sig is inoperable. | Spider Systems Limited
Your nearest is located at: | Spider Park, Stanwell Street
Nerd%PaddedC...@GetALife.co.uk | Edinburgh, EH6 5NG, Scotland
Accessable by bogus TFTP | +44 31 554 9424 (Ext 4184)
Phill Hallam-Baker
|>I don't think I've ever heard of this happening with any other machine.
|>The closest thing in the mainframe (er, mini) world is the way that people
|>bought AT&T UNIX and threw it out, stopping only to send their proof of
|>purchase registrations to Berkeley for BSD. Any more stories?
Oh come off it, you obviously haven't heard about IBM and OS/360. This
O/S was such a disaster that IBM never released it. Instead they released
the stuff they had been using to attempt to write OS/360 with. The result
was the system from hell - MVS. This was rewritten by practically every
site that it was delivered to. There are thus a whole stream of MVS
configurations, including our own DESY version NEWLIB, each is practicaly
a complete O/S rewrite. HEP/VM was another.
The MVS linker even today is so awful that it only regards 8 characters
as significant. Instead of rewriting it properly they simply adjusted it
so that it can take longer labels, it just takes the first 4 characters
and the last 4 characters and concats them! thats not the only turkey
IBM produced!
Phill Hallam-Baker
Lamar Owen
>In article <rS1mrAy...@lorc.eskimo.com> lo...@lorc.eskimo.com (Lamar Owen)
>writes:
>)[Bill Gates demon coding deleted to save bandwidth...]
>)
>)YES, the TRS-80 BASIC was TIGHT in a serious sense: I wonder whether
>)Bill had anything to do with it... Although, since the TRS-80
>)BASIC was done in early 1977, he probably did the code single-handedly.
>)
>)Much better hacker than Randy Cook, who wrote one of the most buggy
>)operating systems ever--although I can understand Randy's reasons.
> Um, is this demon coding Bill Gates guy the same one that
>let TRS-80 BASIC run out of memory if you hit [ENTER] too many times
>at the "READY" prompt?
Which ROM version? I have never run across this problem.
You want to try to fit Level II BASIC, with its built-in support
for the non-existant DiskBASIC extensions, rich functions, full
string handling with dynamic allocation/deallocation, full I/O
capabilities, et al, in less than 12K of ROM? Add that to the
device-independent ROM operating system that made it easy for
the Disk operating system to hook itself in, and you have a
very elegant system. And, it worked--when a good DOS was
used. LDOS 5.1.3 is available for Model I, and is quite
robust.
You do it, and you can criticize it.
I rewrote the ROMs at one point... I left out BASIC, but put the disk
stuff inside the ROM--which, since I had a Model 4, I could do
this easily since the system allowed the ROM to be mapped out of
the address space, and RAM to be mapped into its place.
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, ro...@umibox.hanse.de (Bernd Meyer) says:
>al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Mar6.2...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>
>>>God uses gotos? What would Niclaus Wirth say?
>
>they had the bad luck to have a really bad bug in their code :-)
>
100 million years. We've only been around for 2 million years - and we've
come pretty damn close to doing a halt and catch fire recently. Keep that
in mind when you flame the quality of the dino code.
--
Paul Tomblin (formerly p...@geovision.gvc.com)
Favourite FreeNet message: "You have new mail"
Least Favourite FreeNet message: "ШЭЩШЧВЬШШШАДТУNO CARRIER"
`Grave' Dave Gymer
>The result was the system from hell - MVS.
Could some kind soul explain the relationship between VM/SP and MVS? I
used both for about 8 weeks a few summers ago, and never really
understood what was going on. (And didn't want to, what with a 386 PC
in front of me, a copy of FractInt, and my supervisor off on holiday...)
-- Dave
--
`Grave' Dave Gymer | ___ Home /\/ THISISONEOFTHOSECONFUSINGHORRIBLEUNR
42 St Mary's Park | / \ Sweet /\/ EADABLENOSPACESALLINUPPERCASEMESSAGES
Louth, Lincs | | RIP | Home /\/ THATPEOPLELIKETOPUTINTHEIRSIGNATURES!!
LN11 0EF, England |_|_____|______/\/____THE_BOTTOM_LINE_____________________
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>>But God didn't have to debug his code himself. That's *our* job, now that
>>we've discovered genetic engineering :-)
>No, we are the beta-testers. Poor old dinos were in this situation, too, but
>they had the bad luck to have a really bad bug in their code :-)
Right, a bug so bad that they dominated the earth for 100 000 000 years!
Klaus O K
Jim Davis
>In article <C3sME...@dscomsa.desy.de> hal...@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>The result was the system from hell - MVS.
>
>Could some kind soul explain the relationship between VM/SP and MVS? I
Well, if MVS is hell, then VM is... purgatory. Actually, they're two
different operating systems for IBM iron. MVS is the ultimate batch system,
and unless things have changed a lot since I last had to use it,
extraordinarily painful for interactive use. (They grafted something called
TSO onto MVS for interactive use -- though it of course was just another
batch job, under the hood -- and then a clumsy menu system called (I)SPF on
top of that. Didn't help.)
VM is built on a rather clever concept: the initials stand for 'Virtual
Machine', and the fiction was that each user had a 'virtual' 370 system, and
you were the only user on that virtual machine. (CP let you futz about with
your 'virtual punch', 'virtual reader', and such.)
In practice the difference was that VM supported CMS, a somewhat less
painful interactive environment. (And REXX, a decent scripting language,
much better than the native EXEC. Don't even mention TSO CLISTS to me.)
Though the extra multiplexing involved in the virtual machine fiction tended
to make it run slow.
APL seemed to have quite a hold on MVS/TSO systems, perhaps because you
could 'escape' into the APL environment to a large extent and have a
reasonably useful interactive session, ignoring the horrors underneath. If
you could make sense of APL, that is.
Some trade mag recently was talking about POSIX MVS. ("I don't have a joke
there, I just like saying 'POSIX MVS'".)
--
Jim Davis | "Blast these silly rules."
jda...@cs.arizona.edu | -- Moriarty Bonaparte
Steve VanDevender
(`Grave' Dave Gymer) writes:
In article <C3sME...@dscomsa.desy.de> hal...@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The result was the system from hell - MVS.
Could some kind soul explain the relationship between VM/SP and MVS? I
used both for about 8 weeks a few summers ago, and never really
understood what was going on. (And didn't want to, what with a 386 PC
in front of me, a copy of FractInt, and my supervisor off on holiday...)
VM/SP is an IBM mainframe product that provides multiple IBM 370
virtual machines on a single CPU. In each virtual machine you
can run a separate operating system. VM/SP is almost like an
operating system itself, although pretty much all it does is
provide a virtual console for you to handle your virtual machine
with. My experience with an IBM mainframe (thankfully not all
that much) was with a system that ran VM/CMS over VM/SP, with a
virtual machine for each user, except for one virtual machine
running OS/VS1 that was used for batch jobs.
I still chuckle over the idea of a virtual card reader and
virtual card punch. All your mail came in on the reader and went
out on the punch. What a wonderfully dated metaphor these days.
--
Steve VanDevender ste...@greylady.uoregon.edu
"Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population.
Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the
classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."
Ross Smith
But that's the worst kind of bug. The ones that show up straight away
are easy to fix...
--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
"You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi you can leave in a huff.
If that's too soon you can leave in a minute and a huff." (G. Marx)
--
Thomas Koenig
>I still chuckle over the idea of a virtual card reader and
>virtual card punch. All your mail came in on the reader and went
>out on the punch. What a wonderfully dated metaphor these days.
Of course, you forgot the most important virtual device of all:
the virtual shredder, for deleting your files.
--
Thomas Koenig, ig...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
David Brooks
>I still chuckle over the idea of a virtual card reader and
>virtual card punch. All your mail came in on the reader and went
>out on the punch. What a wonderfully dated metaphor these days.
Here, I think you must have dropped this:
:-)
Or maybe you can explain why you limited your post to less than 80
characters?
--
David Brooks dbr...@osf.org
Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
T. S. Eliot was forgetting about March.
Andy Newman
>used both for about 8 weeks a few summers ago, and never really
>understood what was going on. (And didn't want to, what with a 386 PC
>in front of me, a copy of FractInt, and my supervisor off on holiday...)
There's no real connection. MVS would of been running as a guest operating system
under VM/SP (the VM stands for Virtual Machine, the SP for System Product [a silly
IBM thing]). VM lets you divide the machine into lots of similar machines and run
different operating systems within each machine.
--
Andy Newman (an...@research.canon.oz.au)
Michael Covington
>ste...@miser.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes:
>>I still chuckle over the idea of a virtual card reader and
>>virtual card punch. All your mail came in on the reader and went
>>out on the punch. What a wonderfully dated metaphor these days.
>
>Here, I think you must have dropped this:
>:-)
>Or maybe you can explain why you limited your post to less than 80
>characters?
Columns 73-80 are the line numbers, of course!
(I'm not kidding. Use XEDIT to create an F80 format file...)
--
:- Michael A. Covington internet mcov...@ai.uga.edu : *****
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs phone 706 542-0358 : *********
:- The University of Georgia fax 706 542-0349 : * * *
:- Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A. amateur radio N4TMI : ** *** **
Jim Finnis
>>
>>Even more proof that God is a hacker:
>>
>>God uses self modifying code!
>>RNA is modified AFTER it is "loaded" from the DNA.
>>
>>Even worse there are DNA sequences called transposons that sometimes just
>>leave the part of the chromosome they are currently in and move somewhere else
>>
>>As for data compression the gods obviously used some, the human genome is only
>>half the size of some salamanders. (or maybe there's more to them than is
>>obvious at first glance :)
Even more bizarre, if you shift the frame of reference you're reading the
code with by one nucleotide (each instruction consists of three) you get
a *whole other program* which *still* does important stuff! This is like
writing a C program which compiles a news reader if you start compiling at the
beginning, but a trek game if you start at the second character... anyone
care to try that ? :-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Finnis, | Unit 6A, Science Park, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, SY23 3AH
Clef Digital Systems |
cl...@aber.ac.uk | Tel.: 0970 626601 Overseas: +44 970 626601
Greg Lehey
>O/S was such a disaster that IBM never released it.
Surely you jest.
>Instead they released
>the stuff they had been using to attempt to write OS/360 with. The result
>was the system from hell - MVS.
OK, my memory is hazy, but it goes something like this: the System/360
was introduced in 1963. MVS came out (for the 370 - it never ran on
the /360 because it was a virtual memory system) some time in the
mid-70s. In the meantime, presumably, all of IBMs /360 customers
(there weren't many, were there?) ran their machines in 1401 emulation
mode?
MVS was at least the second, if not the third iteration of OS (as they
called it in those days). The first was *very* flaky, agreed, but must
have hit the poor unsuspecting users round 1969. Came in 2 real memory
flavours: MFT (Multiple Fixed Task), where the partitions were fixed,
and MVT (Multiple Variable (?) Task), where the partitions could
change size.
2nd iteration was OS/VS 1 and OS/VS 2, basically virtual memory
versions of MFT and MVT respectively for the virtual memory 370.
3rd iteration (forget what happened to VS 1) was OS/VS 2 revision 3.0
(or was it 2.0). In the day, IBM claimed it was the best thing since
sliced bread, but I forget why. Maybe it was the first version to have
multiple 16 MB address spaces (this the acronym MVS). This must have
been round 1976, because I remember it happening, and I fortunately
didn't spend very much time with IBM kit.
> This was rewritten by practically every
>site that it was delivered to. There are thus a whole stream of MVS
>configurations, including our own DESY version NEWLIB, each is practicaly
>a complete O/S rewrite. HEP/VM was another.
Well, "rewritten" is a slight exaggeration. Possibly you will expand.
Looking at this from the positive point of view, it was supplied with
Full Source Code (wow! and that from IBM). So people could patch it,
and did. So they did with every other system of the day, including of
course Unix. I was *really* upset with the first machine (Tandem) I
got where they didn't supply the sources. I still am (not specifically
with Tandem, but with everybody who doesn't supply source).
--
Greg Lehey | Tel: +49-6637-1488
LEMIS | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Kees Goossens
>>>God uses self modifying code!
>>>RNA is modified AFTER it is "loaded" from the DNA.
>>>
>>>Even worse there are DNA sequences called transposons that sometimes just
>>>leave the part of the chromosome they are currently in and move somewhere else
>>>
>>>As for data compression the gods obviously used some, the human genome is only
>>>half the size of some salamanders. (or maybe there's more to them than is
>>>obvious at first glance :)
>
>Even more bizarre, if you shift the frame of reference you're reading the
>code with by one nucleotide (each instruction consists of three) you get
>a *whole other program* which *still* does important stuff! This is like
>writing a C program which compiles a news reader if you start compiling at the
>beginning, but a trek game if you start at the second character... anyone
>care to try that ? :-)
This is used only in very small organisms where space is at a premium --
the densest packing of data is indeed single nucleotide offsets.
In fact, DNA=turing tape, RNA=intermediate tape (unless in retrovirus), and
editing (removing useless strings of DNA)=editing, editor/turing
machine=enzymes. There are lots of parallels with computing and
information theory. Certainly one of the more interesting research fields
to emerge recently.
>Jim Finnis
Hi Jim!
--
Kees Goossens Keep in Touch with the Dutch:
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science JANET: k...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
University of Edinburgh, Scotland UUCP: ..!mcsun!uknet!dcs!kgg
Wiskunde is bouwen in de geest. --- Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer.
Rich Greenberg
[a bit of information and lots of mis-information on IBM's OS/360 & friends]
I have been working with IBM mainframes since before the S/360 came out.
Here is the sequence of the various flavors of operating systems that
preceeded the current "flagship" OS, MVS:
(nb: The dates shown may not be exact. My memory is dropping bits :-) )
Before there was a real S/360, there was a 360 emulator that ran on
the IBM 7094 (big iron of 2nd generation). This was used to develop
the early 360 software before the hardware was ready. ~1960.
The first software for the 360s was BPS, Basic Programming Support.
early 60's. This was not an OS, but was a series of utilities
and compilers that would self load from cards. To compile or assemble
you put pass 1 of the compiler in the reader followed by your source
deck. It punched intermediate text cards, which you put back in
the reader with the compiler pass 2 deck in front of it, and it
punched the object deck. Then you put a linking loader deck,
the object deck, and a library (basic IOCS and math functions) deck
and loaded it. There were no disks yet.
Then came the short lived TOS, Tape Operating System, which was the first
real(tm) 360 OS. Early 60's just after BPS. BPS was used to develop TOS.
Then disks came out (2311s, around 7 mb, about the size & shape of a
washing machine). There were two different OS's with the disks.
1964-65. DOS, Disk Operating System. Useable on a 4k machine,
single task. Also PCP, Primary Control Program. Needed 32k memory,
also single task. Introduced us to the wonderful world of JCL.
DOS begat several generations which today culminate in VSE/ESA.
I am not too familiar with this group as I mostly followed the other
path. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us on DOS.
After PCP came MFT-1 which ran several partitions of multiprogramming.
Multiprogramming with a Fixed number of Tasks.
There was only one scheduler (the part that started and ended jobs),
and it normally ran in the lowest partition. The higher ones
ran "never-ending" jobs. About this time 1965-66 HASP was introduced
and did spooling so that you didn't have to have card in and print out.
Many early MFT-1 systems ran HASP (Houston Automatic Spooling Program)
with one batch partition and perhaps a TP system.
Next was EMFT which was an improved MFT-1. Never used it so can't tell
anything else of it.
Then came MFT-2 (The -2 was soon dropped and forgotten) circa 1967.
All partitions (max of 15) were fixed size at sysgen. Later versions
could re-arrange the partitions on the fly as long as they were idle.
The scheduler could run in any partition as long as it was at least
64k. Smaller partitions needed an idle 64k or larger partition to
run the scheduler in to start and stop jobs.
The max of 15 partitions was a 360 hardware limit. There were 16
possible storage keys for protecting one job from another. Key 0
was reserved for the system and was the universal key. 1-15 were
the user jobs.
Then, around 1968-69 came MVT, Multiprogramming with a Variable number
of Tasks. You put the storage size needed in the JCL and it
would pack them into available free storage until there was no more
or you hit the max of 15. You started as many initiators (new name
for the scheduler) as you had storage for. 512k was a BIG machine
then. IBM dropped PCP shortly after MVT came out.
A side branch off this tree was a system for the 360/44 called 44PS.
(Nuf said about that weird machine). This branch was a dead end.
Around 1970, the S/370s were introduced with virtual storage capacity.
The software was VS-1 which was essentially MFT with paging and VS-2
which was essentially MVT with paging. VS-1 was the end of that
branch of the family tree.
VS-2 begat SVS (Single Virtual Storage). Single because there was
only one address space (16m) for all jobs. Still MVT with paging.
Early-mid 70s.
Then came MVS (Multiple Virtual Storage) where each job ran in
its own 16m address space. Mid-late 70s.
Both the hardware and the address spaces in the software were limited
to 16m of storage by the S/370 architecture. Some later hardware
kluges extended this to 64m. This was it until the XA architecture
was introduced in the mid-1980s. XA had 31 bit addressing instead
of the 24 bit in S/360 & 370. 2048 megs.
The OS was MVS/XA.
Then came the last architecture, ESA which added data spaces and
MVS/ESA to use it, and thats where we are today. Around 1990.
On another track was VM and friends. There was a special 360,
the 360/67 which had paging hardware and ran CP-67.
When S/370 came out, first there was VM/370 for 6 releases,
followed by VM/SP for 6 releases.
When the XA hardware was introduced, there was VM/MA (Migration Aid),
a limited function VM for 2 releases, then a bit more function in
VM/SF (System Facility) for 2 releases, and VM/XA which was almost
full useful function, also 2 releases. Total 6 releases of an XA
capable VM (See a pattern here?)
Then IBM started playing nameing games. What would have been VM/SP
rel 7 was called VM/ESA 370 feature and is the end of the VM family
for S/370 processors. Release 1.0 only.
What should have been (IMHO) called VM/XA rel 3 was VM/ESA rel 1.
This brought in the last bits of VM/SP function that were not
in VM/XA-2, with little else. The latest VM is VM/ESA rel 2,
which (IMHO) should have been VM/ESA rel 1. Major redesign and
new function.
Whew! Hope you enjoyed the history lesson.
--
Rich Greenberg Work: rm...@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 310-417-8999
N6LRT Play: ric...@netcom.com 310-649-0238
What? Me speak for Amdahl? Surely you jest....
Adam Justin Thornton
Adam
--
"And in the heartbreak years that lie ahead, |++| ad...@rice.edu |++| Cthulhu
Be true to yourself and the Grateful Dead." --Joan Baez | 64,928 | fthagn!
"Very often, a common stone, thrown away and despised, is worth more than
a cow." -- Paracelsus | If these were Rice's opinions I'd shoot myself.
Lon Stowell
>
>[a bit of information and lots of mis-information on IBM's OS/360 & friends]
>
>I have been working with IBM mainframes since before the S/360 came out.
>
You left off (ESA) hyperspace. How COULD you do that?