COBOL Trends
in [Cobol]
|
From: Ken on 20 Oct 2009 16:48 On Sep 17, 7:45 pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-16 11:40:25 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> said: > > E-mail was certainly one of the first client/server applications that entered > in the general awareness of people. Decades ago. And believe me, > when it was developed and first started being used, it was striking, > innovative, > *and totally non obvious to most users*. I was there. :) > Silly me. I thought that E-mail originated as a "store-and-forward" application. That's why they called it "mail", right? Just like the USPS still does today with their paper letters - collect them, store them, sort them, and forward them. Wasn't the first widespread "electronic transport" for E-mail the uucp (unix-to-unix copy program, I believe it is) protocol? Didn't uucp pre- date TCP/IP and Arpanet? Store-and-forward seems to me to be much more closely aligned to Michael's peer-to-peer than client/server. Who was the client and who was the server on Usenet? Remarkable that Michael is getting such resistance when the very Forum that we are using has a Usenet legacy; Usenet discussion groups likewise were originally store-and-forward. For those old enuf or dumb enuf to care. :-) And for those who bothered to notice I've been MIA... Yeah, posters here are entirely missing the point on where the software cycles are! I've been watching satellite TV and working up my home theatre system. Anybody else spent $3000-$5000 on video elecronics lately? Just what _processors_ are in those components! Sheesh! Surely enough to rival the auto electronics. Seems peer-to-peer to me - oh wait! Maybe the satellite is the server, and the DirecTV receiver is the client! Or maybe the BluRay DVD player is the server and the remote clicker is the client? Or is it X- Windows type of client/server "inversion" whereby the TV is the Display Server and the VHS player is the application client??? I'm soooooooo confused! That's why I'm doing a computer paradigm shift to electronic synthesizers and MIDI. Enough of ya'll arguing about what Antoine de St. Exupery would aurely say are matters of no consequence. Ken P.S. Didja miss me DD? It is so comforting to me to read CLC after a hiatus and see that the more things change the more they stay the same.
From: Pete Dashwood on 20 Oct 2009 18:35 Ken wrote: > On Sep 17, 7:45 pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: >> On 2009-09-16 11:40:25 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> >> said: >> <snip> > Yeah, posters here are entirely missing the point on where the > software cycles are! I've been watching satellite TV and working up > my home theatre system. Yeah, me too. (Not satellite or SKY, though... no need. I get 139 channels from 32 countries directly off the internet. My SONY Vaio (soon to be retired, when it will become a full time entertainment centre, providing TiVO like facilities, connects directly on a HDMI port to my LCD TV.). The Vaio has an internal HDMI drive and an external BluRay (which I have used maybe 3 times...). Digital TV will be arriving in NZ in the next 5 years or so but you can buy satellite dishes and set top boxes for services like SKYand Freeview right now. I can't see the point if I can pull it off the internet for a very moderate one-time charge. (Less than the SKY or Freeview installation cost, never mind the monthly fees for SKY.) I have a fourteen speaker Dolby 5.2 (very unobtrusive; most of my friends don't even know they are there) surround sound system, which I built myself for a cost of $NZ100. It gives superb full surround for movies etc., however, I don't have remote control for it so it must be switched on manually. :-)) Anybody else spent $3000-$5000 on video > elecronics lately? My total replacement value, includng the written down TV (it is 3 years old now) and Vaio driving it, is around $NZ2000 ($US1492.00 funny, that... :-)) on today's exchange rate. Just what _processors_ are in those components! Mine is dual core Intel Centrino Duo :-) I like to recycle old computers into other uses. I have a Windows 98 Pentium 3 which drives my LAN printer and will become a PABX when I get the time... :-) It also handles NAS and all the LAN backups are driven through it. The people at Seagate (Malaysia) told me it was not possible to drive their drive with Windows 98; funny, it has been working perfectly for over a year now (I did have to do some driver "tweaking" when I set it up). I think we just discard stuff because we get blinded by what is "newer! better!" and forget that hardware still functions and has capabiliites it always had, no matter what the new software is doing. I do have some notebooks which are packed away in storage and it bugs me that I don't use them. I kind of justify it by thinking of them as "living archives" to a time when things were arguably simpler (although I have no desire to go back to 16 bit COBOL on DOS 3.2). At least the Vaio (appropriately running XP Media Edition), which has served me very well for just over 3 years now, will serve a very useful full-time purpose when it is retired in February. <snip>> Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Richard on 20 Oct 2009 19:21 On Oct 21, 9:48 am, Ken <klsha...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sep 17, 7:45 pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: > > > On 2009-09-16 11:40:25 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> said: > > > E-mail was certainly one of the first client/server applications that entered > > in the general awareness of people. Decades ago. And believe me, > > when it was developed and first started being used, it was striking, > > innovative, > > *and totally non obvious to most users*. I was there. :) > > Silly me. I thought that E-mail originated as a "store-and-forward" > application. That's why they called it "mail", right? Just like the > USPS still does today with their paper letters - collect them, store > them, sort them, and forward them. > > Wasn't the first widespread "electronic transport" for E-mail the uucp > (unix-to-unix copy program, I believe it is) protocol? Didn't uucp pre- > date TCP/IP and Arpanet? > > Store-and-forward seems to me to be much more closely aligned to > Michael's peer-to-peer than client/server. Who was the client and who > was the server on Usenet? My first emails certainly were server/server with no 'client' at all. A dumb terminal and a 300 baud modem (later I had 1200/75) connected me and everything ran on the server. I later had my own server still using a dumb terminal (I still have an ADM-3a somewhere around here) and used uucp to collect and distribute. > Remarkable that Michael is getting such resistance when the very Forum > that we are using has a Usenet legacy; Usenet discussion groups > likewise were originally store-and-forward. > > For those old enuf or dumb enuf to care. :-) > > And for those who bothered to notice I've been MIA... > > Yeah, posters here are entirely missing the point on where the > software cycles are! I've been watching satellite TV and working up > my home theatre system. Anybody else spent $3000-$5000 on video > elecronics lately? Just what _processors_ are in those components! > Sheesh! Surely enough to rival the auto electronics. > > Seems peer-to-peer to me - oh wait! Maybe the satellite is the server, > and the DirecTV receiver is the client! Or maybe the BluRay DVD > player is the server and the remote clicker is the client? Or is it X- > Windows type of client/server "inversion" whereby the TV is the > Display Server and the VHS player is the application client??? > > I'm soooooooo confused! > > That's why I'm doing a computer paradigm shift to electronic > synthesizers and MIDI. Enough of ya'll arguing about what Antoine de > St. Exupery would aurely say are matters of no consequence. > > Ken > > P.S. Didja miss me DD? It is so comforting to me to read CLC after a > hiatus and see that the more things change the more they stay the > same.
From: Clark F Morris on 20 Oct 2009 20:06 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:48:39 -0700 (PDT), Ken <klshafer(a)att.net> wrote: >On Sep 17, 7:45�pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: >> On 2009-09-16 11:40:25 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> said: >> >> E-mail was certainly one of the first client/server applications that entered >> in the general awareness of people. Decades ago. �And believe me, >> when it was developed and first started being used, it was striking, >> innovative, >> *and totally non obvious to most users*. I was there. :) >> > >Silly me. I thought that E-mail originated as a "store-and-forward" >application. That's why they called it "mail", right? Just like the >USPS still does today with their paper letters - collect them, store >them, sort them, and forward them. > >Wasn't the first widespread "electronic transport" for E-mail the uucp >(unix-to-unix copy program, I believe it is) protocol? Didn't uucp pre- >date TCP/IP and Arpanet? IBM's internal network and BITNET under the various IBM spoolers also did e-mail and this was at least in the 1980's if not the 1970's. > >Store-and-forward seems to me to be much more closely aligned to >Michael's peer-to-peer than client/server. Who was the client and who >was the server on Usenet? > >Remarkable that Michael is getting such resistance when the very Forum >that we are using has a Usenet legacy; Usenet discussion groups >likewise were originally store-and-forward. > >For those old enuf or dumb enuf to care. :-) > >And for those who bothered to notice I've been MIA... > >Yeah, posters here are entirely missing the point on where the >software cycles are! I've been watching satellite TV and working up >my home theatre system. Anybody else spent $3000-$5000 on video >elecronics lately? Just what _processors_ are in those components! >Sheesh! Surely enough to rival the auto electronics. > >Seems peer-to-peer to me - oh wait! Maybe the satellite is the server, >and the DirecTV receiver is the client! Or maybe the BluRay DVD >player is the server and the remote clicker is the client? Or is it X- >Windows type of client/server "inversion" whereby the TV is the >Display Server and the VHS player is the application client??? > >I'm soooooooo confused! > >That's why I'm doing a computer paradigm shift to electronic >synthesizers and MIDI. Enough of ya'll arguing about what Antoine de >St. Exupery would aurely say are matters of no consequence. > >Ken > >P.S. Didja miss me DD? It is so comforting to me to read CLC after a >hiatus and see that the more things change the more they stay the >same.
From: Anonymous on 21 Oct 2009 10:39
In article <22c48c85-188c-4ebe-a8ce-7e2de48c7a68(a)m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, Ken <klshafer(a)att.net> wrote: [snip] >P.S. Didja miss me DD? I ain't paid to keep your timesheets, Mr Shafer... but it is pleasant to be informed that you're in good enough health to attempt the Technical Marvels you've described. (since most of the television I watch is Old, Bad Movies - in black-and-white, with dead people in them - I've missed out on the delights you've described... but last year I finally purchased a videocassette recorder) >It is so comforting to me to read CLC after a >hiatus and see that the more things change the more they stay the >same. I truss you didn't need surgery for that hiatal. (note to non-native English speakers: a joke explained is a joke lost) DD |