someone smarter than Dave Cutler
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 1 Apr 2010 11:58 jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> writes: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> Jim Stewart wrote: >>>>> Mark Crispin wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jim Stewart posted: >>>>>>> Anyone that takes the time to leaf through some >>>>>>> Datamation magazines of that era would be lucky >>>>>>> to find any reference to PDP-10's. >>>>>> Using Datamation as an historical reference is like using the >>>>>> National Enquirier. >>>>> A circular religious argument not unexpected from >>>>> someone that believed that PDP-10's dominated the >>>>> era. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You, obviously, have had no experience in non-IBM niches. >>>> >>>> /BAH >>> Bill Clinton would love this. I guess it depends on what your >>> definition of "dominated" is. Certainly -10's were popular in >>> universities and research organizations. On the other hand, in 40 >>> years I encountered exactly *one* -10, at a timesharing outfit. >>> Naturally I loved it, but there weren't many out in the real world. >> >> I'm a little bit reminded of the days when just about everybody used >> ASCII except IBM -- which meant something like 90% of the computers in >> the world used EBCDIC. >> >> To the best of my recollection, I never saw an IBM computer when I was >> an undergrad. DEC-10, VAX, PDP-11, DG Nova, CDC, Harris... yes. IBM, >> no. It would be easy to forget how big IBM was, if I were to go from my >> own university recollections. > > Schools, who couldn't afford to buy^Wrent an IBM system had to buy > time on another university's IBM system. That was real money instead > of funny money; so computer time was parceled out with great care. > Only a few "users" would have access to that mainframe. UW did have its own mainframe for business operations -- a Burroughs. It was used for *nothing* else. The CDC was the academic-side big computer. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 Apr 2010 12:42 Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> writes: > Mark Crispin wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Pat Farrell posted: > >> Jim Stewart wrote: > >>> Setting that aside, and it's a big set-aside, I question > >>> how much the PDP-10 was responsible for building the > >>> internet. My understanding is that PDP-11's, Vaxen and > >>> IMP's built the early internet. > > > > When it comes to Internet history, Jim Stewart is blowing farts out his > > anus and claiming that they are facts. > > > > I was there in the 1970s. > > Yeah, but I try hard not to be an arrogant > jerk. > > And if you'll reread my post, you'll see that > it might be my understanding is incorrect, not > my claim of fact. > > In any case, I thought about this whole thread > long and hard last night. What really mattered > was the people, not the processor. Was the PDP-10 > itself critical to the the accomplishments that > you listed, or was it clever people that had easy > access to good computing hardware? > > Could the AI groups have done their work on a > pair of 360/67's? IBMs were leased. Would IBM continue to support a computer that had some academics' experimental hardware hooked up to it? Could new and experimental device drivers be added to IBM's OS? These might be as important as the machine's architecture. -- Patrick
From: Patrick Scheible on 1 Apr 2010 12:50 jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> writes: > Mark Crispin wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jim Stewart posted: > >> Anyone that takes the time to leaf through some > >> Datamation magazines of that era would be lucky > >> to find any reference to PDP-10's. > > > > Using Datamation as an historical reference is like using the National > > Enquirier. > > ROTFLMAO. Much better answer than the one I just wrote. The National Enquirer just makes stuff up for (dubious) entertainment value. Datamation didn't. Datamation just concentrated on the corporate data processing market, where IBM did indeed dominate. But the academic and research markets were a lot more fun and interesting, and they were dominated by PDP-10s. -- Patrick
From: Dave on 1 Apr 2010 13:08 "Patrick Scheible" <kkt(a)zipcon.net> wrote in message news:w9zfx3fktul.fsf(a)zipcon.net... > Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> writes: > >> Mark Crispin wrote: >> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Pat Farrell posted: >> >> Jim Stewart wrote: >> >>> Setting that aside, and it's a big set-aside, I question >> >>> how much the PDP-10 was responsible for building the >> >>> internet. My understanding is that PDP-11's, Vaxen and >> >>> IMP's built the early internet. >> > >> > When it comes to Internet history, Jim Stewart is blowing farts out his >> > anus and claiming that they are facts. >> > >> > I was there in the 1970s. >> >> Yeah, but I try hard not to be an arrogant >> jerk. >> >> And if you'll reread my post, you'll see that >> it might be my understanding is incorrect, not >> my claim of fact. >> >> In any case, I thought about this whole thread >> long and hard last night. What really mattered >> was the people, not the processor. Was the PDP-10 >> itself critical to the the accomplishments that >> you listed, or was it clever people that had easy >> access to good computing hardware? >> >> Could the AI groups have done their work on a >> pair of 360/67's? > > IBMs were leased. Would IBM continue to support a computer that had > some academics' experimental hardware hooked up to it? Could new and > experimental device drivers be added to IBM's OS? These might be as > important as the machine's architecture. Well post anti-trust they had too. And I know certainly in the UK, we had lots of weird kit hooked into various University mainframes using a wide variety of interfaces. The oldest I remember NUNET/NUMAC (I think) used PDP/11s acting as IBM2708/3708 concentrators. There were "Browns Boxes" for X.25 and some how Cambridge Ring got connected in at Leeds but I think that was actually an Amdahl at that time... > > -- Patrick
From: Jim Stewart on 1 Apr 2010 13:12
Patrick Scheible wrote: > Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> writes: > >> Mark Crispin wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Pat Farrell posted: >>>> Jim Stewart wrote: >>>>> Setting that aside, and it's a big set-aside, I question >>>>> how much the PDP-10 was responsible for building the >>>>> internet. My understanding is that PDP-11's, Vaxen and >>>>> IMP's built the early internet. >>> When it comes to Internet history, Jim Stewart is blowing farts out his >>> anus and claiming that they are facts. >>> >>> I was there in the 1970s. >> Yeah, but I try hard not to be an arrogant >> jerk. >> >> And if you'll reread my post, you'll see that >> it might be my understanding is incorrect, not >> my claim of fact. >> >> In any case, I thought about this whole thread >> long and hard last night. What really mattered >> was the people, not the processor. Was the PDP-10 >> itself critical to the the accomplishments that >> you listed, or was it clever people that had easy >> access to good computing hardware? >> >> Could the AI groups have done their work on a >> pair of 360/67's? > > IBMs were leased. Would IBM continue to support a computer that had > some academics' experimental hardware hooked up to it? Could new and > experimental device drivers be added to IBM's OS? These might be as > important as the machine's architecture. I guess I wasn't clear. Suppose that IBM was willing to supply machines with roughly the same performance as a PDP-10, under the same terms and conditions as DEC would. And assume the machines would be given to the CS department where they would be available to the students and researchers under the same conditions. |