On 21 June 2015 at 18:21, Tapley, Mark wrote:
> It’s actually full V10 Mathematica, which was the thing that pushed me into
> getting it. It does depend on the web-link for lots of the help features, but
> I think is otherwise complete. It is also SLOW compared to most Mathematica
> platforms.
Christian et al,
sorry for the somewhat off-topicness:
On Jun 21, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove
wrote:
> The RPi comes with a free full version of Mathematica? That intrigues
> me; I've never used it before but I hear it's similar to MAPLE? (Then
> again in terms of CAS's
So, tony, if I'm correct, you just called "bullshit", right?
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech -http://certification.comptia.org/--- HDI
Certified Support Center Analyst -http://www.ThinkHDI.com/Registered Linux user
number 464583
"Computers have lots of m
>
> So, tony, if I'm correct, you just called "bullshit", right?
I assume this relates to my comments on static damage of PDP11 PSUs,
I am not sure I would quite put it that way (not on a public list :-)) but (a)
I have never seen a DEC
PSU (in a PDP11 or elsewhere) damaged by static, certainl
On 8/28/2015 3:14 AM, P Gebhardt wrote:
We all KNOW the government people still have one running
for your tax . After all the bribes and shady dealings
it gets turned on twice a year. Too old to have the Y2000 bug.
Ben.
Cool. Wonder what it will go for.
JRJ
On 8/28/2015 4:14 AM, P Gebhardt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> (Rumor was that there was also a CDC-160A in somebody's basement here in
>> town, as well).
>>
>
>
> Speaking of which:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Control-Data-160-Computer-System-Vintage-
Which government agency?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 AM, ben wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2015 3:14 AM, P Gebhardt wrote:
> We all KNOW the government people still have one running
> for your tax . After all the bribes and shady dealings
> it gets turned on twice a year. Too old
On 8/28/2015 2:00 PM, Kevin Tikker wrote:
> Which government agency?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:15 AM, ben wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2015 3:14 AM, P Gebhardt wrote:
>> We all KNOW the government people still have one running
>> for your tax . After all the bribes and s
On 8/28/2015 3:17 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
I expect that Ben's posting was a joke directed at the IRS.
Just the US goverment in general. Try area 51 next.
The 1980's was the last use I suspect of the 1965's machines.
So if you want a vintage computer, the last finds are about 15
years later from
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, ben wrote:
Just the US goverment in general. Try area 51 next.
There are lots of 1620s there. Many have seriously upgraded RAM and
storage, to run Linux, Windoze 12, and Apple System 11. They have
interplanetary WiFi.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:57 PM, ben wrote:
> Just the US goverment in general. Try area 51 next.
Don't bother. There's nothing interesting in Area 51 any more; due to
all the publicity Area 51 has gotten, they've long since moved all the
good stuff to Area 52, which still has a low profile.
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, ben wrote:
On 8/28/2015 3:17 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
I expect that Ben's posting was a joke directed at the IRS.
Just the US goverment in general. Try area 51 next.
The 1980's was the last use I suspect of the 1965's machines.
The military used 1950's machines into t
Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but only a
few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who have probably
produced at least a gigabyte of original pictures each by now. And
people into video produ
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:32:27PM -0400, et...@757.org wrote:
>
> I would cut multiple tapes of anything you care about!
>
It's not simply enough to cut multiple tapes (backups) of anything you
care about --- you must periodically *read* and *verify* those tapes
(backups), so t
ng you
> care about --- you must periodically *read* and *verify* those tapes
> (backups), so that you can re-copy from a known good other copy if it is
> damaged.
>
Same goes for disks that you park backups of other systems on. I've
had several develop wonky spots that have put some of my old
On 09/15/2015 12:32 PM, et...@757.org wrote:
Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but
only a few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who
have probably produced at least a gigabyte of original pict
On 9/15/15 1:02 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
In the case of spinning rust, what brand is most reliable? I've seen dreadful
reports of DOA drives from Western Digital, fewer from Seagate, but I don't
know about Hitachi, Samsung, etc.
CHM has been having good luck with 3 and 4tb (mostly) Hitachi a
> In the case of spinning rust, what brand is most reliable? I've seen
> dreadful reports of DOA drives from Western Digital, fewer from
> Seagate,
> but I don't know about Hitachi, Samsung, etc.
Caveat: my experience is as a home "power user"
In my experience it all depends: I have a set of Sea
I ride herd on maybe three or four thousand Hitachi Ultrastar A7K{2,3,4}000
2 TB and 3 TB disks and they take a real pounding with the workload here
and they have just been fantastic ... great drives; very solid ... Also
used the WDC RE4 when Thailand got flooded out a few years ago and we were
in
Windows?
On 16-09-15 14:41, Jay West wrote:
I took on a brand new client a while back, and before doing any real work for them they
were hit by cryptolocker. I hadn't yet even done a "IT Review" for them, so
didn't yet know what systems they had in place.
Thus, under the gun, I started lookin
On 9/16/2015 5:41 AM, Jay West wrote:
ZFS is a good solution:)
Is it a versioning file system? I know it handles large data sets. Does
versioning or such as time machine setups (Mac OS type of backup) defeat
the problem. I know you don't have time machine with PC's that get hit,
are othe
>From: Mouse
>
>> I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS
> >to you keep around?"
>
>For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's
>something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent
>seven backups, the oldest backup in each of t
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, jwsmobile wrote:
One system, or did it propagate thru the organization?
Did you eradicate it, then get a tool for the decrypt?
Not very hard to stop it, but the damage that it does to the files (RSA
encryption) is irreparable, unless you pay the ransom. A significant
per
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Robert Feldman wrote:
There is a ramsomware variant that encrypts the files but silently
decrypts them when they are accessed. It does this for six months before
deactivating the on-demand decryption and displaying the ransom message,
the theory being that by that time all
This brings up something that's always baffled me.
Why does a user's (or worse, the entire system's) files have to be
immediately accessible to any application wanting to take a look.
Take a legacy example, SCOPE or NOS on a CDC mainframe. At start of
job, you start out with a null file set
We have 10 years of backups.ed#
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original message
From: Robert Feldman
Date: 09/16/2015 10:40 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>From: Mouse
>
>> I
On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote:
We have 10 years of backups.ed#
ever verified them?
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> ...
> Neither AVG (resident), nor McAfee (manually run weekly) detected my
> infection of Cryptowall. What WILL detect it?
Linux? :-)
paul
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> This brings up something that's always baffled me.
>
> Why does a user's (or worse, the entire system's) files have to be
> immediately accessible to any application wanting to take a look.
>
> Take a legacy example, SCOPE or NOS on a CDC
On 09/16/2015 11:20 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote:
We have 10 years of backups.ed#
ever verified them?
Mine go back to sometime around 1980. I have customer records that go
back to 1987. Curiously, we got a note from a fellow needing an update
to CopyQM. He
worry about but also the news service stuff we
do.Ed# www.smecc.orgSent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original message
From: Al Kossow
Date: 09/16/2015 11:20 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
On 9/16
/2015 11:54 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
On 09/16/2015 11:20 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
> On 9/16/15 11:15 AM, couryhouse wrote:
>
>> We have 10 years of backups.ed#
>>
> ever verified
On 09/16/2015 11:29 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I never had any incentive to look for holes in CDC operating systems,
but I still remember a simple hole I found in OS/360, about a month
after I first wrote a program for that OS. It allowed anyone to run
supervisor mode code with a couple dozen lines
Cyber systems didn't get much love from the H/P kids back in the day :O
http://phrack.org/issues/18/5.html
That said; NOS is one of the few mainframe systems ever really discussed in
Phrack... MVS/TSO and VM/CMS you also see occasionally, but beyond that, it
seems like most of the G-files were fo
And I actually got to play with NOS ... many years after the fact ... never
thought I'd see that! What the cray-cyber.org guys are doing is remarkable.
Best,
Sean
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
> Cyber systems didn't get much love from the H/P kids back in the day :O
>
> h
considerably more CP-involved than SCOPE. So, for the interactive stuff
like PLATO, MACE was re-named KRONOS and launched as a separate official
product. At the user level, the two were pretty much compatible, but
internally, they were very different. For example, SCOPE had a rather
elaborate
On 09/16/2015 01:10 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Has cryptolocker ever invaded the world of Unix/Linux/BSD?
It would be much harder. In general, browsers do not
activate just any file you would download. There are
weaknesses in various graphical/video add-ons to browsers
that may cause vulnerab
On 09/16/2015 01:29 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I never had any incentive to look for holes in CDC
operating systems, but I still remember a simple hole I
found in OS/360, about a month after I first wrote a
program for that OS. It allowed anyone to run supervisor
mode code with a couple dozen line
There were / are bugs in the mpg and jpg libraries that allow for remote
execution that may or may not have been fixed.
If it can screw over cell phones running on Linux, it can screw you over
if you are running on garden variety Linux.
Since we are all users on an ongoing basis of fossilized
e double word in which it
stored a "scrambled" version of the password for use by jobs that needed
authentication (way before RACF or such) and could verify w/o
re-prompting a lot for the password. However when you entered your
password the first 8 characters, which were all that were u
many Linux users are rather more blasé about the
security of the OS that they should be
Dave Wade
G4UGM
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of jwsmobile
> Sent: 17 September 2015 04:49
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> On 09/16/2015 12:23 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
>> And I actually got to play with NOS ... many years after the fact ...
>> never thought I'd see that! What the cray-cyber.org guys are doing is
>> remarkable.
>
> Sad that they don't have any early
On 09/17/2015 12:49 AM, Dave G4UGM wrote:
"Security" isn't just about secure software, it’s a total mind set.
One slip and you are doomed. I am pretty careful but even I managed
to install the d@mmed Ask tool bar whilst updating Java... .. in my
humble opinion many Linux users are rather more bl
On 09/17/2015 09:04 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
They may not run those, but those certainly have been preserved as
part of the "controlfreaks" effort. COS, Scope, MACE, Kronos, NOS,
NOS/BE -- all those have been run on the DtCyber emulator. In fact,
a copy of a production PLATO system, on NOS 2.8.7
On 09/17/2015 12:49 AM, Dave G4UGM wrote:
in my
humble opinion many Linux users are rather more blasé
about the
security of the OS that they should be
Absolutely true, and I will admit that I have fallen into
the trap, too. But, it has worked well so far!
Jon
> On Sep 17, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> On 09/17/2015 09:04 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> They may not run those, but those certainly have been preserved as
>> part of the "controlfreaks" effort. COS, Scope, MACE, Kronos, NOS,
>> NOS/BE -- all those have been run on the DtCyber em
On 09/17/2015 09:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
It turns out my memory was faulty. I remember discussions about
SCOPE, but I don't actually see a copy. There's COS, SMM 4.0, Kronos
1.0 and 2.1.2, lots of NOS from 1.2 through 2.8.7 and about 8 in
between, NOS/BE 1.2 and 1.5.
No 64 bit, no 7600 -- D
On 9/17/15 9:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
DtCyber is open source
but their OS collection is not.
they're called "controlfreaks" for a reason.
Chuck,
It sounds like you might enjoy the Controlfreaks group. It's controlled
access but basically you just need to ask. http://www.controlfreaks.org has a
pointer.
paul
> On Sep 17, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> On 9/17/15 9:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>> DtCyber is open source
>
> but their OS collection is not.
> they're called "controlfreaks" for a reason.
Yes, because they like Control Data products.
From what I understand, COS is in fact ge
At 01:01 PM 9/16/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
>But, those still require a gullibility error on the part of the user, don't
>they? Do the ads actually load and run the ransomware, or just present the
>fraudulent upgrade offer to bring it in?
The bad guys are slipping silent-install vulnerability expl
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, John Foust wrote:
As to why your antivirus didn't see it... there's always a few days
before the latest infection mechanisms are documented and added to
the AV updates.
CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor
AVG see it. "Well, it's not a V
On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin wrote:
> CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG
> see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ."
Former AVG employee here. I quit; this is not an official statement.
CryptoLocker/CryptoWall/etc are *not* a single program.
Of Liam
> Proven
> Sent: 18 September 2015 17:17
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>
> On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin wrote:
> > CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think
On 18 September 2015 at 18:25, Dave G4UGM wrote:
> Are you 100 % sure you don't need anti-malware...
>
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/05/apple-to-patch-actively-exploited-privilege-escalation-bug-in-os-x-10105---report
>
> from what I have seen the fix from Apple isn't a fix...
>
> http:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote:
However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running
something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered.
Absolutely.
I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player"
or maybe "Java update"
But, I never got
On 18 September 2015 at 18:49, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Absolutely.
> I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player"
> or maybe "Java update"
I can see how one of those, done well, might fool most of us. I am not
one of those daredevil ascetics who runs Windows without anti
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Liam
> Proven
> Sent: 18 September 2015 17:47
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>
> On 18 Septembe
On 09/18/2015 09:49 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote:
However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running
something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered.
Absolutely. I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to
update Flash Playe
On 18 September 2015 at 19:10, Dave G4UGM wrote:
> But you do use a browser and all of those have holes...
True, but they do on any OS. There are far fewer 'sploits for OS X or
for Linux than for Windows (e.g. the famed WMF decoder one) -- andf by
avoiding IE or anything that embeds or wraps
At 09:55 AM 9/18/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
>CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG
>see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ."
Yes and no. The bad guys work very hard to evade detection.
They're always developing new wrappers to deliver the old payloads.
The o
On 20 September 2015 at 05:58, John Foust wrote:
> Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives.
And access the hypervisor layer of an OS in various ways from programs
executing inside a VM.
So, for instance, much malware self-inactivates if it detects that
it's running ins
At 05:57 AM 9/20/2015, Liam Proven wrote:
>On 20 September 2015 at 05:58, John Foust wrote:
>> Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives.
>
>And access the hypervisor layer of an OS in various ways from programs
>executing inside a VM.
Yeah, that too. The easy recombinat
On 09/19/2015 10:58 PM, John Foust wrote:
The other recent development that makes me want to quit?
Someone's demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of
hard drives.
https://blog.kaspersky.com/equation-hdd-malware/7623/ - John
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would
guess i
On 9/20/2015 11:53 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
On 09/19/2015 10:58 PM, John Foust wrote:
The other recent development that makes me want to quit? Someone's
demonstrated you can hide in the firmware of hard drives.
https://blog.kaspersky.com/equation-hdd-malware/7623/ - John
Well, one would assume this
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would be
incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly differing
OS's like Linux AND Windows. No telling what would happen if one of these
disk viruses got onto a hard d
> It is possible to create an executable file that identifies the OS that it
> is running on and does a conditional jump to different code, assuming that
> the processor uses the same instruction set.
In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program that
executes
on 2 processo
>> I would guess it would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus
>> that would work on greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows.
This is actually a good reason to encrypt your whole disk. The disk
can't serve up working malware if the bits it returns get mangled by
decryption with an unkn
>Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it
would be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on
greatly differing OS's like Linux AND Windows. No telling what would
happen if one of these disk vir
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:15:13AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: tony duell
>
> > In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> > that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
>
> I have this bit set that I was told (or something,
> On Sep 20, 2015, at 8:55 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> I used the above example when I created a CD which had files to be used
> with RT-11 in addition to being a normal CD under Windows. I found that
> for a normal CD under Windows, sectors 0 to 15 (hard disk blocks 0 to 63)
> on t
On 2015-09-21 15:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_
vague)
On 21 September 2015 at 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>>Fred Cisin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
>>
>>> Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would
>>> be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on greatly
>>> differing OS's like Linux
On 2015-09-21 23:32, David Brownlee wrote:
On 21 September 2015 at 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Jon Elson wrote:
Well, one would assume this is also OS specific. I would guess it would
be incredibly hard to make a "disk" virus that would work on grea
On 21/09/15 14:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton sets.
I have this bit set that I was told (or something, the memory is _very_
vague) t
On 21/09/15 01:55, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I used the above example when I created a CD which had files to be used
with RT-11 in addition to being a normal CD under Windows. I found that
for a normal CD under Windows, sectors 0 to 15 (hard disk blocks 0 to 63)
on the CD were empty. I don't know
On 2015-09-24 01:15, Antonio Carlini wrote:
On 21/09/15 14:15, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: tony duell
> In some cases it should be possible to write a machine code
program
> that executes on 2 processors with wildly different instruciton
sets.
I have this bit set that I was told
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:19:27PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > I think a more important issue in backing up is "How many GENERATIONS
> > to you keep around?"
>
> For many purposes, that's an important consideration, yes. There's
> something (small) I back up weekly for which I keep the most recent
>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:32:27PM -0400, et...@757.org wrote:
> >Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
> >certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but only a
> >few), but I know graphic designers and photographers who have probably
> >produced at least
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:02:03PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 12:32 PM, et...@757.org wrote:
> >>Pictures and movies can be original work - perhaps not for you,
> >>certainly mostly not for me (I have a few original pictures, but
> >>only a few), but I know graphic designers and phot
Up until now, I've confined my purchasing to 500GB drives on the
hope that they're more reliable than the 3-5TB monsters. Is this a
mistake?
1tb was the transition to vertical recording. They had the tech down by 2tb.
Seagate 1 and 1.5s are utter crap. I had a dozen 1.5s that NEVER worked.
On 9/24/15 4:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Google for the Blackblaze reports.
Backblaze
On 9/24/2015 6:16 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
Word on the street is stay away from WD for the near future. They've had
massive
QC problems.
I wonder what is happening in the clouds?
Ben.
On 9/24/15 5:31 PM, ben wrote:
I wonder what is happening in the clouds?
Mere mortals will never know.
Backblaze is the closest you will ever hear a peep from,
any they are teeny beany in terms of buying drives.
On 9/24/15 5:45 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
Backblaze is the closest you will ever hear a peep from,
any they are teeny beany in terms of buying drives.
Thinking about it, Jason/IA could say something wrt drive
reliability. They are running similar chassis to us (24/36
drive Supermicros) just a LO
On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max
capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that
one.
So, if you were to move up from the 500GB SATA drives to the "next
generation", which would you choose?
--Ch
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/24/2015 04:30 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
IMHO, you want to buy at one generation below the current max
capacity on the assumption that they ironed out the bugs on that
one.
So, if you were to move up from the 500GB SATA drives to the "next
g
again on access). In a typical light
loaded environment, that is likely to run up the load cycles sky high
in a hurry. So I recommended completely disabling that (note: after
changing this setting, the drives need a power cycle).
Older ones: I'm quite fond of WD RE series drives, a bit mor
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 06:31:46PM -0600, ben wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 6:16 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> >Word on the street is stay away from WD for the near future. They've had
> >massive
> >QC problems.
> >
> I wonder what is happening in the clouds?
They pay very close attention and are _very_ picky
ning on those: by default
> they spin down on idle (and spin up again on access). In a typical light
> loaded environment, that is likely to run up the load cycles sky high
> in a hurry. So I recommended completely disabling that (note: after
> changing this setting, the driv
ord of warning on those: by default
>> they spin down on idle (and spin up again on access). In a typical light
>> loaded environment, that is likely to run up the load cycles sky high
>> in a hurry. So I recommended completely disabling that (note: after
>> changing thi
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:55:02PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote:
> since the old Quantum Bigfoot
There's no need to swear :-)
mcl
On 09/25/2015 07:04 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:55:02PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote:
since the old Quantum Bigfoot
There's no need to swear :-)
I know it's strange, but I still have a couple of systems that
occasionally get used for some legacy bit of hardware or another
> From: Sean Caron
> the worst thing on the market since the old Quantum Bigfoot
Just out of curiousity, what was so bad about the Bigfoot?
Noel
I began my first job ever working at a computer repair shop not soon after
those drives first hit the market and I recall them being pretty dodgy. I
replaced many Bigfoot drives when I was in high school! They were also dog
slow ... 3600 RPM, I think ...
The quality got better as time went on, if
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:27 AM, supervinx wrote:
> Decent... well...
> Hard to tell...
> If you use an external USB mini keyboard they're decent :)
> There's the free version of Mocha TN5250, just for an example...
>
I remember using a 5250 emulator to check prices and inventory and submit
label
On 2015-12-20 23:43, Dave Wade wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of
ste...@malikoff.com
Sent: 20 December 2015 22:23
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: EAI TR-10 Patch Plugs
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jonas
> Otter
> Sent: 22 December 2015 21:35
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: RE: EAI TR-10 Patch Plugs
>
> On 2015-12-20 23:43, Dave Wade wrote:
> &
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Mouse wrote:
As I understand the term, the rights owner has to be nonexistent or to
have proved unidentifiable or uncontactable (re which see below). The
case where the owner clearly exists but demonstrably does not care
about the software is, to my mind, a grey area
at 1:08 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Mouse wrote:
>
>> As I understand the term, the rights owner has to be nonexistent or to
>> have proved unidentifiable or uncontactable (re which see below). The
>> case where the owner clearly exists but demonstrably does
501 - 600 of 49517 matches
Mail list logo
