[cctalk] Re: Civility; Was Re: Re: LCM auction pre-notice

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

This whole thread is full of judgements and opinions and condemnations.
Sellam makes one flippant comment, in line with the prevailing opinion, not
attacking anyone on this list, and he is singled out for being uncivil? I
don't understand. No reply needed. Just stating my confusion.


> On 7/15/24 12:12, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
> > The only thing criminal here is Paul Allen's handling of LCM.
> >
>
> With all due respect, man, your noise:signal ratio is getting really
> awful.  Do you ever look at what you've typed and ask yourself if it's
> *useful*?
>
> The last I looked this mailing list was meant to be an exchange of
> information  and a source of support, not a Reddit clone.
>
>
> Doc
>

[cctalk] Re: IBM 360

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:36 AM Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I don’t think I truly realized the seminal work done at IBM then
> (60's&70's).


*Mandrake:*

Well of course the answer to that is, boy, no one ever *does*.

Re: Webinar: Ethernet's Emergence from Xerox PARC: 1975-1980

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

That was the ALOHA network, which inspired Ethernet but was not Ethernet.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:09 AM Nigel Johnson Ham via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> For years I taught my students that the Ethernet was invented at the
> University of Hawaii in 1971!
>
> OK, it was wireless, but that brings up another surprise, that wireless
> ethernet came before wired :-)
>
> cheers,
>
> Nigel
>
>
> Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
> Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
> Skype:  TILBURY2591
>
>
> On 2022-03-28 14:02, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
> > Ethernet invented in 1973-74 at Xerox PARC in Palo Alto, CA, evolved over
> > many years.
> >
> >
> >
> > This April 13th Webinar will trace the history and development of
> Ethernet
> > as a 10 Mb/s product up through the release of the DIX (DEC-Intel-Xerox)
> > spec in 1980. This was the starting point for the ongoing IEEE 802.3
> > Standard activities. Speakers include Gorden Bell, Dave Liddle, Bob
> Metcalfe
> > and seven other pioneers who were there for the transition.
> >
> >
> >
> > More detail at  SVTHC
> website
> >
> >
> >
> > Register
> > <
> https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ethernets-emergence-from-xerox-parc-1975-1980-
> > tickets-301085664327>
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Comp.lang.forth: banned on google groups?

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

P.S. I just downloaded (from the internet archive) and looked at the
comp.lang.forth archives and they seem to cover 2003 through 2014.


On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:42 PM Joseph S. Barrera III 
wrote:

> Right now it's (temporarily?) hidden, not deleted. Hopefully it will be
> restored. (I used to be a member of the Google Groups project.) Banned
> groups aren't deleted for some number of weeks in case the ban was a
> mistake.
>
> There are also some backups at
> https://archive.org/download/usenet-comp.lang
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:11 PM Dave via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
>> I was looking for an old post on comp.lang.forth, and was surprised to
>> discover that the group doesn't appear to be hosted on google groups any
>> more.  Searching the group pulls up a "banned group" message, and selecting
>> the "continue to the group" button shows 0 messages in the group.  This
>> appears to be due to spam showing up in the unmoderated group.
>>
>> Google bought Dejanews years ago, and, as I understand, was the defacto
>> main usenet repository.  Is is all really gone, or just temporarily
>> hidden?  How long ago did this happen?  Is the full comp.lang.forth archive
>> available anywhere?
>>
>> I wonder if it's time to set up some NNTP mirrors and gather as much
>> historical usenet content as possible.  Much of the overall content is
>> garbage, but there's some priceless stuff in there, and even more that will
>> become interesting in light of future developments.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>

Re: Comp.lang.forth: banned on google groups?

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

Right now it's (temporarily?) hidden, not deleted. Hopefully it will be
restored. (I used to be a member of the Google Groups project.) Banned
groups aren't deleted for some number of weeks in case the ban was a
mistake.

There are also some backups at https://archive.org/download/usenet-comp.lang


On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:11 PM Dave via cctalk 
wrote:

> I was looking for an old post on comp.lang.forth, and was surprised to
> discover that the group doesn't appear to be hosted on google groups any
> more.  Searching the group pulls up a "banned group" message, and selecting
> the "continue to the group" button shows 0 messages in the group.  This
> appears to be due to spam showing up in the unmoderated group.
>
> Google bought Dejanews years ago, and, as I understand, was the defacto
> main usenet repository.  Is is all really gone, or just temporarily
> hidden?  How long ago did this happen?  Is the full comp.lang.forth archive
> available anywhere?
>
> I wonder if it's time to set up some NNTP mirrors and gather as much
> historical usenet content as possible.  Much of the overall content is
> garbage, but there's some priceless stuff in there, and even more that will
> become interesting in light of future developments.
>
> Dave
>

Re: Tandem Minicomputers

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

Not obscure at all, at least not to me. I worked for Jim Gray circa 1996 -
1999 and he worked for Tandem during the NonStop era which informed his
knowledge of fault-tolerance that helped him advise the Windows NT
Clustering team.

Don't toss it!!! If you can't find

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:46 PM Jason T via cctalk 
wrote:

> Well I said no more computers I can't lift, but exotic systems keep
> finding me.  So today we pulled a Tandem CLX out of a basement, along
> with a few boxes of docs, 9-track tapes and random odd and ends:
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/m2N7RKN3JXcmVTUC8
>
> There's such as thing as "so obscure that no one knows/cares about
> it".  I've had those before.  Do I have another?  It sure is heavy.
>
> -j
>

Re: Test message

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

I received your post, but mercifully I haven't received any of the
pointless replies to your post.


On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:30 AM Mike Ross via cctalk 
wrote:

> I was banned for ages, I've been told I'm not any more; test post;
> disregard.
>
> Mike
>

Re: Sci-fi and science fiction [was Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral crime?)]

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

I am so tempted to claim that I had a signed first edition copy of
*Canticle* but that I tossed it when I got my kindle.


On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:36 AM U'll Be King of the Stars via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 21/07/2019 06:48, Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote:
> > I'm reminded a bit of "A Canticle for Leibowitz"!
>
> Thank you for the reference.
>
> Sci-fi and science fiction are very broad genres that I don't have any
> particular active fondness for.  I want to explore these genres more
> deeply because I am probably not looking in the places, or not looking
> in the right way.
>
> I like elements of the supernatural and elements of mysticism.  I
> particularly like explorations of character development and
> relationships as much I like "sci-" or "science".
>
> Please could you (Paul or anybody else on this list) recommend a forum
> or mailing list for fans of sci-fi or science fiction?   I'm sure there
> are many but I've no idea where to start.  I would be very grateful.
> Thank you!!
>
> Andrew
> --
> OpenPGP key: EB28 0338 28B7 19DA DAB0  B193 D21D 996E 883B E5B9
>

Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral crime?)

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable scans,
but they were made years or decades ago.

What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"? 300dpi? 400? 600?

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:00 PM Guy Dunphy via cctalk 
wrote:

> I'm posting a private email (anonymized) and my reply because it's a
> significant issue.
>
>
> >{Note private reply}
> >
> >> When the scanning process involves destruction of the original work
> >> ... But if it's a rare document, or even maybe so rare that it's the
> >> last one, then destroying it now just to produce a digital copy
> >> inadequate to the aims of cultural preservation - that's a crime.
> >> One right up there with genocide
> >
> >While I agree that making a non-optimal digital copy in such cases, is,
> >well, non-optimal (because for _many uses_, the basic information is still
> >available, wheras for many important documents, not even that remains),
> >there's no way it's "right up there with genocide" - and if you really
> >think so, you definitely need to examine your sense of scale, because it's
> >seriously defective.
> >
> >   [name removed]
>
> I agree that when historical documents are lost without even any kind of
> digital copy made, that's the worst.
>
> However I was pretty careful to preceded that quoted paragraph with
> conditionals.
>
> Specifically referring to a case where someone has a rare work, that isn't
> in danger of falling apart, and there's no good reason why they couldn't
> wait till better scanning methods became available, and they destroy it to
> produce a crappy quality digital image. Thus ensuring there can never be
> a high quality digital copy and the rare physical original is forever gone.
> That's criminal. A high level crime against humankind. Where it's done in
> bulk to entire collections, it _is_ the cultural equivalent of genocide.
>
> I don't care if you disagree.
> Could it be that you are upset because you do this (destroy docs), and
> don't
> like to be accused of being a criminal?
> I am sure that the future WON'T take your position on this. They are going
> to be sooo pissed, that so many old works were destroyed and all they have
> left is crappy quality horrible-looking two-tone scans.
>
> This is _already_ the case with many electronics instrument manuals. There
> are
> so many people who think that the physical manuscript is unimportant, and
> nothing
> matters other than posting a minimally readable smallest-possible-file
> online,
> with the least effort and so it's OK to destroy the original for
> convenience.
>
> Private reply noted. Still going to repost on the list, as from anon.
>
> Guy
>
>

Re: Latest Additions to the Virtual Warehouse of Computing, > Wonders Sale Inventory

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

Hear, hear. Sellam is one of the few good ones. You don't like the prices,
don't buy, but he's been a good member of the community for decades. Sellam
is a true collector and enthusiast and that's why he has such a huge
inventory. I helped him on one of his moves and it was massive at the time.
I'm really glad he's disbursing his inventory now, and grateful that he has
kept so many machines in good storage when so, so many other machines have
been recycled or just trashed.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:01 PM Marvin Johnston via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> FYI, it is unlikely there would have been a VCF without Sellam. He
> basically started it (with his own money) and continued through the
> first 10 years or so. Many others help support VCF (and continue to do
> so even though Sellam backed out some number of years ago.)
>
> I, for one, fully support Sellam in his effots to move out his
> inventory, and have never seen him sell anything at 10x prices.
>
> Marvin
>
> > From: Randy Dawson 
> >
> > Anybody try business with this guy?
> > His prices are 10X off the chart
>
>