someone smarter than Dave Cutler
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 2 Apr 2010 01:22 Pat Farrell <pfarrell(a)pfarrell.com> writes: > Charles Richmond wrote: >> How can a university with a business school *not* have an IBM 370 or >> clone back in the 1970's??? That is the computer that the COBOL >> programmers would be *most* likely to use out in the business world. > > I'm baffled by this statement. Folks getting a Business degree are not > likely to be programming in any language. Sure, lots of business used > Cobol, that is one of the reasons Cobol was designed. > > I see no connection between business degrees and the details of how the > business programs were implemented. That was left to the geeks while the > business majors became a "Master of The Universe" The various degrees dealing with either programming or administering business computers are typically in the College of Business, not whereever the CS department is. And, frankly, both the CS department and the COB are normally happier with this arrangement. -- 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: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2010 09:12 Patrick Scheible wrote: > scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Lawrence Statton/XE1-N1GAK <yankeeinexile(a)gmail.com> writes: >>> In article <w19tn.962024$L8.407411(a)news.usenetserver.com>, >>> scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >>>> Mark Crispin <mrc(a)panda.com> writes: >>>>> Columbia was also a big DEC-20 shop starting in the mid 1970s. >>>>> >>>>> Clearly the IBM gear did not address all their computing needs. >>>>> >>>> The second doesn't follow from the first. >>>> >>> Well, in a tautological way, it does. >>> >>> P: Columbia bought computers other than IBM >>> Q: IBM Gear did not address all of Columbia's computing needs >>> >>> That IBM gear COULD not have addressed their needs cannot be inferred. >>> >>> Another thing that can't be inferred is WHY did IBM gear not address all >>> of their needs. >>> >>> One possible interpretation, perhaps that favored by MRC is "IBM Gear >>> was so bletcherous and cretinous that it could not have possibly met >>> their needs" >>> >>> Another interpretation is "Columbia's computing needs include exposure >>> to non-IBM kit" >>> >>> Yet another is: "The PDP-10 Architecture was so clearly and obviously >>> winning that not having it around was inconceivable", or, less spun >>> "There were things afoot in the PDP-10 community that Columbia had to be >>> a part of" >>> >>> A combination of the second and third seem (in my arrogant opinion) the >>> most salient. >> A fourth is 'DEC gave us a good deal' and 'IBM didn't'. > > Aren't affordable computers among Columbia's needs? > > I suspect the truth is more like, Columbia needed a system that was > good at timesharing, user-friendly for undergrads and novice computer > users, and DEC-20s were the obvious choice. > Self-training is another reason TOPS-20 was a good choice. All you had to do was teach each student how to login and how to type ? and $. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2010 09:19 Mark Crispin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, jmfbahciv posted: >>> Although I have little doubt that the same hackers who implemented >>> Kermit on the PDP-8 could figure out how to do an NCP, AFAIK nobody >>> ever did. An ARPAnet connection also required a special hardware >>> interface (described in BBN Report 1822, hence an "1822 interface") >>> but once again AFAIK nobody ever did that for a PDP-8. >> An 8 would be a tad small for NCP. But I'll bet that the developers >> accessed the system they worked on through an 8 ;-). > > I don't remember any of the ARPAnet-connected KA10s using X680/i or any > of other PDP-8 based front ends. I was thinking of the first time anybody typed MAKE FOO.MAC. > > By the way, "NCP" in the context of ARPAnet refers to "Network Control > Protocol", a predecessor to TCP/IP that was specific to 1822-format > networks. > That's how I read NCP. Sounds a tad simpler than DECnet. I don't know what ANF-10's looked like. > NCP was a very simple protocol, with a 40-bit header of which 32-bits > was the destination socket number. Transmitting sockets were always > odd, receiving sockets were always even; and a socket uniquely > identified the connection on the system (there could be only one > connection to a socket). The connection protocol (ICP) involved > connecting to a well-known socket, reading 32-bits for a new socket to > actually use, closing the connection to the well-known socket (so others > could use it), then opening a pair of connections to get a bidirectional > link. > > TCP's design was highly influenced by lessons learned from NCP, and > especially NCP's complex and fragile ICP. Are those lessons being relearned these days? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2010 09:23 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > 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. I think a lot of schools had those kinds of systems. One for the data processing schools had to do w.r.t. scheduling kids and classes and other bookkeeping things. The profs and students had to make do with whatever the computer center could provide. In my school, the systems were separated by miles and in separate buildings. Even DEC used a Burroughs for its business processing for a long time until somebody (probably KO) noticed. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2010 09:26
Patrick Scheible wrote: > 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. Yea, I know. But it was still a funny answer. > But > the academic and research markets were a lot more fun and interesting, > and they were dominated by PDP-10s. > Where else could a kiddie shoot himself, and only himself, in the foot as often as he wanted? Machine language was fun. DDT was funner. And TECO was a pleasure. /BAH |