Bootstrap ancestry
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Ian McCall on 20 Jun 2010 07:17 On 2010-06-20 00:08:43 +0100, richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) said: > In article > <634779192298680850.843587usenet-alienrat.co.uk(a)news.individual.net>, > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Lancaster University at the time I was there ran an experimental Dynix >>> machine that used 16 386 chips (I forget the megahertz) - this was >>> considered advanced stuff. > >> Wow, 16,386 is a lot :) > > Probably a typo for 16,384. Nope - 16 physical 386 chips, on a Sequent Symmetry. I believe I've remembered now that they were running at 16Mhz. cent1.lancs.ac.uk, although of course then it was uk.ac.lancs.cent1 - the JANET way of addressing still makes more sense from a routing point of view to me, but I accept that battle is long gone and also from a memory point of view the internet way of doing things might be better (as it mimics how addresses work in the real world - most specific bit of info first). Cheers, Ian
From: Chris Ridd on 20 Jun 2010 07:49 On 2010-06-20 12:17:52 +0100, Ian McCall said: > On 2010-06-20 00:08:43 +0100, richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) said: > >> In article >> <634779192298680850.843587usenet-alienrat.co.uk(a)news.individual.net>, >> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> Lancaster University at the time I was there ran an experimental Dynix >>>> machine that used 16 386 chips (I forget the megahertz) - this was >>>> considered advanced stuff. >> >>> Wow, 16,386 is a lot :) >> >> Probably a typo for 16,384. > > Nope - 16 physical 386 chips, on a Sequent Symmetry. I believe I've > remembered now that they were running at 16Mhz. cent1.lancs.ac.uk, > although of course then it was uk.ac.lancs.cent1 - the JANET way of > addressing still makes more sense from a routing point of view to me, > but I accept that battle is long gone and also from a memory point of > view the internet way of doing things might be better (as it mimics how > addresses work in the real world - most specific bit of info first). Was it the red book or grey book that defined this addressing style? -- Chris
From: Richard Tobin on 20 Jun 2010 13:09 In article <886bn0FpqjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: >>>> Lancaster University at the time I was there ran an experimental Dynix >>>> machine that used 16 386 chips (I forget the megahertz) - this was >>>> considered advanced stuff. >>> Wow, 16,386 is a lot :) >> Probably a typo for 16,384. >Nope - 16 physical 386 chips, on a Sequent Symmetry. I had assumed a smiley would be superfluous. >I believe I've >remembered now that they were running at 16Mhz. cent1.lancs.ac.uk, >although of course then it was uk.ac.lancs.cent1 - the JANET way of >addressing still makes more sense from a routing point of view to me, >but I accept that battle is long gone and also from a memory point of >view the internet way of doing things might be better (as it mimics how >addresses work in the real world - most specific bit of info first). The internet uses the other order for the underlying numberic addresses, though. -- Richard
From: Ian McCall on 20 Jun 2010 15:58 On 2010-06-20 18:09:27 +0100, richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) said: > In article <886bn0FpqjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > >>>>> Lancaster University at the time I was there ran an experimental Dynix >>>>> machine that used 16 386 chips (I forget the megahertz) - this was >>>>> considered advanced stuff. > >>>> Wow, 16,386 is a lot :) > >>> Probably a typo for 16,384. > >> Nope - 16 physical 386 chips, on a Sequent Symmetry. > > I had assumed a smiley would be superfluous. It -should- have been. More coffee on my part required. I shall go back to my 'Humour for Elementary Students' studies, apparently I need a refresher. > >> I believe I've >> remembered now that they were running at 16Mhz. cent1.lancs.ac.uk, >> although of course then it was uk.ac.lancs.cent1 - the JANET way of >> addressing still makes more sense from a routing point of view to me, >> but I accept that battle is long gone and also from a memory point of >> view the internet way of doing things might be better (as it mimics how >> addresses work in the real world - most specific bit of info first). > > The internet uses the other order for the underlying numberic > addresses, though. Yep - only sensible way to do it. And it does makes more sense to humans the other other way round really, where the more specific part of the address tends to get mentioned first. Cheers, Ian
From: Justin C on 20 Jun 2010 18:05
In article <1jkcosv.19d89vdxuereiN%adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: > Justin C <justin.1006(a)purestblue.com> wrote: > >> In article <1jkccm4.e9jku21v9uwpsN%adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>, >> Adrian Tuddenham wrote: >> > Justin C <justin.1006(a)purestblue.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In article <883cceFgicU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd wrote: >> >> > What sort of blind alleys would we avoid? >> >> >> >> Copper telephone lines to each house - we'd put fibre optic in from the >> >> outset! >> > >> > ...and when the mains fails during an emergency situation...? >> >> Oh, you really are a glass-half-empty kinda guy, aren't you?! > > This is not something to be dismissed with "It'll never happen". Power > cuts aren't all that frequent, but sometimes they occur as the result of > something catastrophic - that is not the time to discover that the > 'phone doesn't work when the mains is off. There is a legal requirement > for one telephone per line to work independently of the mains and there > is a good reason for that rule. The OP was wildly speculating, and I put forward an unlikely idea. Do you not have an imagination, or are all your fantasies dark? Justin. -- Justin C, by the sea. |