subject:"Re\: vintage computers in active use"

> On May 27, 2016, at 7:17 PM, Jon Elson  wrote:
> 
> 
>   It hasn't
>   seen battle yet (and I hope it doesn't have to) but I'm a little worried
>   about the fact that it's beaten (badly) in simulations and exercises with
>   much older fighter aircraft with much more "primitive" tech, including
>   Russian aircraft, too.
> 
> 
> Oh, just to add more, the F35 is not a "fighter" despite its designation.  It 
> is an air superiority platform that is never supposed to get into a dogfight. 
>  It is supposed to be in a network of planes, and agressors will be shot down 
> by missile from 50 miles away.  The F22 is supposed to be the dogfighter.

…and that was the issue with the F4 Phantom during Vietnam.  The F4 was 
designed to take out aircraft with its missiles.  Except that didn’t work too 
well.  The USAF decided after Vietnam that all “fighters” would have a “gun” of 
some sort.  I guess they forgot that lesson.

TTFN - Guy

Re: vintage computers in active use



   It hasn't
   seen battle yet (and I hope it doesn't have to) but I'm a little worried
   about the fact that it's beaten (badly) in simulations and exercises with
   much older fighter aircraft with much more "primitive" tech, including
   Russian aircraft, too.


Oh, just to add more, the F35 is not a "fighter" despite its 
designation.  It is an air superiority platform that is 
never supposed to get into a dogfight.  It is supposed to be 
in a network of planes, and agressors will be shot down by 
missile from 50 miles away.  The F22 is supposed to be the 
dogfighter.


Jon

Re: vintage computers in active use


On 05/27/2016 08:18 PM, Paul Anderson wrote:

Aviation guys, am I all wet about the F35?


OK, the whole concept with the F35, if they can ever get it 
all working, is that is is NOT an airplane (singular).
It is a SYSTEM of planes.  So, each pilot can see what ALL 
the other aircraft in the region see.  If one guy spots a 
new SAM site, he can mark it, and they ALL now know it is 
there.  Some F35s can go "dark" and shut off their RADAR 
transmitter, and use other aircraft's transmitters to 
illuminate their target.  All sorts of advanced stuff like 
that will make it a formidable system, but it all depends on 
a huge amount of software and communications systems to all 
work together.


Jon

Re: vintage computers in active use


On 05/27/2016 11:55 AM, William Donzelli wrote:
I suppose chip level repair might be possible with today's 
SOTs, but I would not want to do it! -- Will 
Yes, ONLY to keep a museum system working, but if spares are 
actually available, that would not only be easier, but more 
original!


Jon

Re: vintage computers in active use


On 05/27/2016 11:45 AM, William Donzelli wrote:

OK, where can you buy some?

You ask the community. You ask on the list or elsewhere. "Hey, I need
a 361459. Anyone have one?".


They haven't been made since about 1970.

But in those six or seven years - wow, did they make a lot of them. In
Binghamton, we have some of those dumb desk ornament things that suits
like to hand out. One of them is has the 100 Millionth (!) SLT module
Yes, IBM was cranking out SLT at an absolutely amazing 
rate!  In fact, before there was Silicon Valley, upstate New 
York was a huge technology center, and most of it was 
churning out all the myriad assemblies of IBM 360 systems, 
processors, channels, memory, peripherals, etc.

(OK, we know that being a dumb desk ornament, they probably made some
number of 100 Millionth SLT module, but the point is clear). Oh, and
the desk ornament is dated fairly early in the game!


IBM
sent out a letter to all 360 users who had machines under contract, giving a
date when they would no longer guarantee that any particular machine could
be repaired, due to lack of spare modules, and a second (later) date when

Typical IBM.
Well, it was pretty much commanded by the US government.  
Remember, they had to keep 360s running until 1989!  YIKES!  
(Although I'm sure at the time they had no idea the 
replacement would drag on for that long.)
SLT and S/360s did indeed have teething problems. It took 
a while to get the bugs out of the system. 
Yes, but I'm sure once they DID get manufacturing of of SLT 
working, they had a way to make lots of logic at a cost much 
lower than all the other computer makers who were still 
stuck with little metal-can transistors and glass diodes on 
PC boards.

But, I'll bet that oxygen and moisture will continue to take their toll at a
slower rate.  Remember, all this gear is now about 50 years old!

IBM SLT cards and modules seem to do well - I have picked up more than
a few that were exposed to the elements, and if they are not beaten up
(curse those crappy thin aluminum covers they used!), moisture tends
to not be a big issue, thanks to the silicone goop underneath.

I looked at some stuff from the disk lab in Rochester, MN. 
(I think) that was given to Washington University some years 
ago.  It had all been stored in good conditions.  WU wanted 
the air bearing fixtures and a few other things, but had no 
interest in all the gear that ran it, Series/1 and racks of 
SLT boards.  Some of the aluminum covers could be flicked 
off with your fingernail..The green epoxy that held them on 
had started to go bad, I guess.


Some of the guys who reported earlier on 1800 systems seemed 
to think they were a LOT more reliable than my experiences 
watching 360/50 and 360/65 reliability.  It might be that 
the 1800 had shorter stacks of boards to be cooled in the 
same airflow.  I know the /65 had a tall stack, and some of 
the areas of the CPU had pretty hot air coming out the top.


Jon

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Paul Anderson

Those were the days when Kelly came up with an idea that was needed now,
and most things were done at the Skunkworks. If something was farmed out,
the company probably had no idea what the product was for. Everything was
done quickly and efficiently, without most of congress knowing. I heard,
but never verified, that right out of school he designed the P38, and who
knows what else before the U2.

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Swift Griggs 
wrote:

> On Thu, 26 May 2016, Toby Thain wrote:
> > We're pretty much already there.
>
> Agreed. You should hear one of my buddies talk about the air traffic
> control software he wrote which was replaced with some horror.
>
> > Audits of the F35 software found:
> >  * single points of failure (grounding global fleet)
> >  * security issues
> >  * that software is the single biggest risk to the project
>
> One of the principles of Unix: KISS, has been nearly completely lost.
> Nobody calls a meeting anymore to say "What can we get rid of? How can we
> simplify this? What is the *right* thing to do here?" It's more like "how
> big of a kickback will I get if I put in this nasty thing this vendor
> wants to sell?" or "Does the new system have buzz?"
>
> I worked on a gaming system one time (gambling) for embedded Linux
> systems. I recognized a few really critical bugs that might have even been
> exploitable. Neither the code shop or the clients gave a hoot. They
> responded with platitudes when I said "Can we go back and fix the most
> critical of our 300 bugs before we move on to new features?" The answer:
> "Not now, maybe later." That's one more lesson at the school of hard
> knocks, I guess.
>
> > It's not clear how much Microsoft is already in that loop.
>
> My guess is "a lot". The military seemed to have drank nearly the entire
> bottle of M$ kool aid, especially the Army.
>
> > While the existence of such projects is ... questionable to begin with,
> > one might think the continual under-delivery (across all military
> > boondoggles) might give taxpayers pause.
>
> 1 TRILLION (with big fat "T") dollars went into the F35 development
> (that's nearly half of one years tax revenue for the entire country), the
> results thus far have been pathetic if the news is to be believed. At
> least most of that money, boondoggle or not, is spent in the USA, I guess.
>
> However, I pine for the days when modest efforts produced the incredible
> SR-71 Blackbird (my all-time favorite aircraft). It was produced
> relatively quickly compared to the F35. Wikipedia says they started
> designing it in 1960 and it was flying by 1962. I'm no aviation expert by
> a long shot, but still that seems infinitely better than the current
> circus around the F35. I know that they aren't the same type of aircraft,
> and that the F35 is more "sophisticated" (but still way slower). I also
> understand that they had a zillion different design goals and basically
> were trying to please too many masters. I'm not sure who the blame rests
> with, but I'm right there with you calling the F35 a boondoggle. It hasn't
> seen battle yet (and I hope it doesn't have to) but I'm a little worried
> about the fact that it's beaten (badly) in simulations and exercises with
> much older fighter aircraft with much more "primitive" tech, including
> Russian aircraft, too.
>
> Aviation guys, am I all wet about the F35?
>
> -Swift
>

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> > (I was already notorious for refusing to switch to Microsoft Outlook; I 
> > read my mail on-spool, as God intended, over a terminal window.)
> 
> Damn straight! Check my mail headers and you'll find Alpine :-)

I still use the same Elm binary I built on the admin RS/6000 and used on my
Apple Network Server 500 on this POWER6.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Why, I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse! -- Groucho Marx ---

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> > You can hardly blame windows for the stupidity of people. This could
> > also happen w/ discreet stupid devices
> 
> One word: Therac.

Yes!

-Ali

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)


On 2016-05-27 8:38 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:

You can hardly blame windows for the stupidity of people. This could also
happen w/ discreet stupid devices


One word: Therac.



Therac is not the same threat at all. What seems to be missing from the 
process that leads to specifying Windows is, indeed, threat modelling. 
The threat of a virus scanner disabling the machine is not the same as a 
virus disabling the machine, and so on (a proper enumeration of threats 
would be quite long).


The point is that the threat model for a "discrete stupid device" is 
VERY different from the threat model for Windows. Human error obviously 
appears in both lists (and can be mitigated!) And these aren't the only 
2 options, either...


I think we can all agree that when the outcomes are as bad as this, then 
the engineering process was faulty. A virus scanner (or virus) is a very 
easily foreseen problem.


--Toby

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> During my consultant slut days, I was tasked with building the ODBC backend
> for a campus resource management system and the vendor specified SQL Server,
> so that's what I did. After I hung up my hat on that job, Code Red blew

s/Code Red/Nimda/

They got hit by Code Red, too, but I wasn't around at the time. :)

> through and knocked off all the Windows servers on the administrative
> network ... except that one. They did a forensic analysis and discovered
> the reason "my" box didn't fall victim was I had written a very restrictive
> set of file-sharing permissions instead of accepting the Windows default.
> The worm couldn't get in.
> 
> It never occurred to the other admins to do that.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- "Logan! You renewed!" --

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> > I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for 
> > the ten years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo)  I would have 
> > seen just about every possible bug in windows and in developing 
> > applications under it.
> 
> You are probably a good coder who knows how to tweak Windows and make it 
> do what you need. I don't doubt that's possible. However, there are still 
> other factors (like the ones I mentioned earlier) that can make it less 
> desirable. Plus, there is a ton of absolutely horrible Win32, MFC, and VB 
> code. Not that I write on those APIs, admittedly, but I've experienced 
> plenty of the application failures that result.

There's also a lot of "bad practices" and for whatever reason I see them
more with Windows installations. Microsoft, to its credit, is making it
harder for people to screw up by default.

During my consultant slut days, I was tasked with building the ODBC backend
for a campus resource management system and the vendor specified SQL Server,
so that's what I did. After I hung up my hat on that job, Code Red blew
through and knocked off all the Windows servers on the administrative
network ... except that one. They did a forensic analysis and discovered
the reason "my" box didn't fall victim was I had written a very restrictive
set of file-sharing permissions instead of accepting the Windows default.
The worm couldn't get in.

It never occurred to the other admins to do that.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- We shoulda bought a squirrel. -- "Rat Race"

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> You can hardly blame windows for the stupidity of people. This could also
> happen w/ discreet stupid devices

One word: Therac.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- The only thing to fear is fearlessness -- R. E. M. -

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)




On 27/05/2016 23:11, Swift Griggs wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rod Smallwood wrote:

Please can we have some specific instances of Windows causing problems.

Windows 95 - 98 either blue screened or locked up daily, no matter what
you did. In fact, IIRC, there was a timer bug that would _insure_ the
system couldn't stay up for more than 49 days
(https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/216641). That's an eyeblink in the
kind of uptimes I'm used to in the Unix world.  Don't even get my started
on Windows 3.x with Trumpet Winsock I could write a Ph.D thesis on
stupidity with that much material.


Not unqualified people at home or students but real production
environments with qualified support on hand. I used every version of
windows from 1 to 10.  yes XP and millennium too

My dad used to tell me how he thought Windows was great too. He worked for
a company that designed and built chemical refineries (some in the US, but
mostly small plants in remote parts of the world). They had to stop using
Windows in any man-machine interfaces, because:

(this was XP and win2k)>

1. People in Iraq or Siberia would put games on them and of course that
broke them.

2. They got tired of flying out engineers to fix issues that were windows
centric, like a NIC bug that kept kicking machines off the ethernet.

They moved to QNX and they absolutely love it now.

At this point in the life of Windows, I can believe it's MUCH more stable
than those old Win95 based DOS-predicated systems. However, being a Unix
zealot, I'd refer you to the same list Mouse posted earlier about why he's
not a Windows booster. I'm totally on the same page with him. It's not
only the reputation for lower stability, it's all the other heinous crap
M$ has pulled over the years. Trust == nonexistent.


I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for
the ten years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo)  I would have
seen just about every possible bug in windows and in developing
applications under it.

You are probably a good coder who knows how to tweak Windows and make it
do what you need. I don't doubt that's possible. However, there are still
other factors (like the ones I mentioned earlier) that can make it less
desirable. Plus, there is a ton of absolutely horrible Win32, MFC, and VB
code. Not that I write on those APIs, admittedly, but I've experienced
plenty of the application failures that result.

-Swift
The main issue I had was migrating code to the next version of windows 
or the development environment.
We had a lot of code that talked to accounting systems. In particular a 
UK product called Sage.
Imagine having to take care of  version changes in windows, visual basic 
and Sage all at the same time.


The big change was the move from vb to vb.net. That is to say to object  
oriented programming.
Microsoft were a little naughty in saying it was the next version of vb. 
It wasn't. It was a whole new ball game.
In my part of the industry over half of the commercial  vb programmers 
took one look and retired on the spot.


Me ? well I loved it.  Once you grasped the ideas then you could do so 
much more. Microsoft support was very good if a little distant.
They gave away the development environment because the code only ran 
under windows and therefore leveraged windows sales.


Rod

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)


On 2016-05-27 7:37 PM, Ali wrote:

After all, what could possibly go wrong?

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/faulty-av-scan-disrupts-
patients-heart-procedure-when-monitor-goes-black/


To quote your article:

"Based upon the available information, the cause for the reported event was due to 
the customer not following instructions concerning the installation of anti-virus 
software; therefore, there is no indication that the reported event was related to 
product malfunction or defect"

You can hardly blame windows for the stupidity of people. This could also 
happen w/ discreet stupid devices - say a fluro machine. If the RN picks up the 
10K/cc heparin instead of 1K/cc vial and gives you four ccs you are pretty SOL.



Oh, I know this resulted from *people* not thinking it through.

One of the results of not thinking it through was picking Windows.

--Toby



-Ali

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Adrian Stoness

crypto locker on linux would work if someone exicuted it but then that
would be a user fail like most people who get infected from going to the
wrong sites and clicking crap...




On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dave Wade  wrote:

> > Please can we have some specific instances of  Windows causing problems.
> > Not unqualified people at home or students but real production
> environments
> > with qualified support on hand.
> > I used every version of windows from 1 to 10.  yes XP and millennium too
> >
>
> It is susceptible to MalWare of all types. We had some XP embedded thin
> clients that got attacked by Confiker but of course they were clean after a
> re-boot
>
> but the main reason Linux and Apple isn't attacked is because there are
> many
> more window systems, although I read somewhere Apple devices were being
> targeted because Apple users had more cash..
> I see Apple has been hit by Ransom Ware...
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/07/apple-targeted-by-kerange
> r-ransom-malware-for-first-time
>
> I can't see why Crypto Locker could work on ANY Linux or BSD box
>
> > I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for
> the ten
> > years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo)  I would have seen
> just
> about
> > every possible bug in windows and in developing applications under it.
> >
> > Lets hear what others experienced.
>
> Sorry I know I have already said but generally very reliable. Some issues
> where call centre staff on XP were allowed to surf the web as
> administrators...
> ... conficker was a real problem
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker
>
>
>
> >
> > Rod
> >
> >
> Dave
> G4UGM
>
>

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> After all, what could possibly go wrong?
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/faulty-av-scan-disrupts-
> patients-heart-procedure-when-monitor-goes-black/

To quote your article:

"Based upon the available information, the cause for the reported event was due 
to the customer not following instructions concerning the installation of 
anti-virus software; therefore, there is no indication that the reported event 
was related to product malfunction or defect"

You can hardly blame windows for the stupidity of people. This could also 
happen w/ discreet stupid devices - say a fluro machine. If the RN picks up the 
10K/cc heparin instead of 1K/cc vial and gives you four ccs you are pretty SOL. 

-Ali

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On 2016-05-27 5:04 PM, Ali wrote:

It makes me wonder how many patients have had to wait on care or didn't
get proper care because of an IT screwup related to Windows. I have to
say just _seeing_ Windows on machines in the ER made me livid. I found
it breathtaking they were that caviler about getting people checked in,
keeping records straight, etc... I guess I shouldn't have visited the
sausage factory, so to speak...

Then again, folks in hospitals probably should be more concerned with
patients than with their IT tools. Ugh. Still. Windows? I'd have felt
better about paper forms. At least they don't blue screen.

I would say very few. You have to remember critical systems are not running
a general windows system i.e. people are not surfing the web on them and
installing the latest games recommended by friends from facebook. ...

The more specialized equipment (fluoro machines, MRI/CT, etc.) usually have
their own OS although I am seeing C-Arms w/ windows back bones now a days as
well. As the focus is going toward cost saving more and more generalized
HW/SW is being used. After all why re-invent everything for each device when
you can use windows to run the HW, network, input, etc. and just have the
medical device (e.g. ultrasound probe) act like a peripheral with its own
drivers.

After all, what could possibly go wrong?

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/faulty-av-scan-disrupts-patients-heart-procedure-when-monitor-goes-black/

Where windows causes an issue for the hospital is in the general business
areas (HR, accounting, administration, etc.).

-Ali

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Dave Wade

> Please can we have some specific instances of  Windows causing problems.
> Not unqualified people at home or students but real production
environments
> with qualified support on hand.
> I used every version of windows from 1 to 10.  yes XP and millennium too
> 

It is susceptible to MalWare of all types. We had some XP embedded thin
clients that got attacked by Confiker but of course they were clean after a
re-boot

but the main reason Linux and Apple isn't attacked is because there are many
more window systems, although I read somewhere Apple devices were being
targeted because Apple users had more cash..
I see Apple has been hit by Ransom Ware...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/07/apple-targeted-by-kerange
r-ransom-malware-for-first-time

I can't see why Crypto Locker could work on ANY Linux or BSD box

> I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for
the ten
> years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo)  I would have seen just
about
> every possible bug in windows and in developing applications under it.
> 
> Lets hear what others experienced.

Sorry I know I have already said but generally very reliable. Some issues
where call centre staff on XP were allowed to surf the web as
administrators...
... conficker was a real problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker


 
> 
> Rod
> 
> 
Dave
G4UGM

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Rod Smallwood wrote:
> Please can we have some specific instances of Windows causing problems. 

Windows 95 - 98 either blue screened or locked up daily, no matter what 
you did. In fact, IIRC, there was a timer bug that would _insure_ the 
system couldn't stay up for more than 49 days 
(https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/216641). That's an eyeblink in the 
kind of uptimes I'm used to in the Unix world.  Don't even get my started 
on Windows 3.x with Trumpet Winsock I could write a Ph.D thesis on 
stupidity with that much material.

> Not unqualified people at home or students but real production 
> environments with qualified support on hand. I used every version of 
> windows from 1 to 10.  yes XP and millennium too

My dad used to tell me how he thought Windows was great too. He worked for 
a company that designed and built chemical refineries (some in the US, but 
mostly small plants in remote parts of the world). They had to stop using 
Windows in any man-machine interfaces, because:

(this was XP and win2k)> 

1. People in Iraq or Siberia would put games on them and of course that 
broke them. 

2. They got tired of flying out engineers to fix issues that were windows 
centric, like a NIC bug that kept kicking machines off the ethernet. 

They moved to QNX and they absolutely love it now.

At this point in the life of Windows, I can believe it's MUCH more stable 
than those old Win95 based DOS-predicated systems. However, being a Unix 
zealot, I'd refer you to the same list Mouse posted earlier about why he's 
not a Windows booster. I'm totally on the same page with him. It's not 
only the reputation for lower stability, it's all the other heinous crap 
M$ has pulled over the years. Trust == nonexistent.

> I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for 
> the ten years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo)  I would have 
> seen just about every possible bug in windows and in developing 
> applications under it.

You are probably a good coder who knows how to tweak Windows and make it 
do what you need. I don't doubt that's possible. However, there are still 
other factors (like the ones I mentioned earlier) that can make it less 
desirable. Plus, there is a ton of absolutely horrible Win32, MFC, and VB 
code. Not that I write on those APIs, admittedly, but I've experienced 
plenty of the application failures that result.

-Swift

Re: vintage computers in active use




On 27/05/2016 22:17, Jay West wrote:

Ian wrote
-
When I suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would
require *re-certifying the entire workflow*.  In other words, it was far
more economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design,
acquire/build and certify a new system.
-

Then Gene wrote...
-
Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely plausible.
-

Then Paul wrote...
-
Not only plausible but reasonable.
-

I can confirm first hand that it is not just plausible or reasonable - but
factual. On occasion I have sold or repaired HP 1000 stuff for DOD branches
and/or contractors. A time or two I discussed emulators or some type of
modern replacements, asking why those weren't considered. They flat out said
exactly what Ian said above: "When you're dealing with {insert name of
lethal weaponry}, control systems must be known to function identically in
every conceivable case and that certification process is exceedingly
expensive". Usually followed by "we'll do it, after no more boards or
repairs are to be had - but at that point those {weapon} systems may not be
around anymore."

Best,

J



Its a great cover story.  Our weapons are so out of date we have to use 
computer systems of a similar age to look after

them.

R

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)




On 27/05/2016 22:04, Ali wrote:
  

It makes me wonder how many patients have had to wait on care or didn't
get proper care because of an IT screwup related to Windows. I have to
say just _seeing_ Windows on machines in the ER made me livid. I found
it breathtaking they were that caviler about getting people checked in,
keeping records straight, etc... I guess I shouldn't have visited the
sausage factory, so to speak...

Then again, folks in hospitals probably should be more concerned with
patients than with their IT tools. Ugh. Still. Windows? I'd have felt
better about paper forms. At least they don't blue screen.


I would say very few. You have to remember critical systems are not running
a general windows system i.e. people are not surfing the web on them and
installing the latest games recommended by friends from facebook. Windows on
its own is very stable. I.E. if you take a clean install of windows SW on
recommended HW and just use the built in apps and never go on the internet
it will run without any issues. Medical HW makers are basically using
recommended HW, building one application on top of the OS, and test the hell
out of it. Since they limit the HW, SW, and modality of use it runs stable.

Almost all (maybe 80%) of your medical HW is probably running some flavor of
windows.

Pyxis/Omnicell: Windows CE
Sonosite: Windows 2K or XP
EMRs: Windows XP or 7 (usually virtualized through Citrix).

Heck DOS is still around too!

The more specialized equipment (fluoro machines, MRI/CT, etc.) usually have
their own OS although I am seeing C-Arms w/ windows back bones now a days as
well. As the focus is going toward cost saving more and more generalized
HW/SW is being used. After all why re-invent everything for each device when
you can use windows to run the HW, network, input, etc. and just have the
medical device (e.g. ultrasound probe) act like a peripheral with its own
drivers.

Where windows causes an issue for the hospital is in the general business
areas (HR, accounting, administration, etc.).

-Ali


Please can we have some specific instances of  Windows causing problems.
Not unqualified people at home or students but real production 
environments with qualified support on hand.

I used every version of windows from 1 to 10.  yes XP and millennium too

I wrote time and mission critical food distribution related software for 
the ten years before I retired in vb and then vb.net (oo)  I would have 
seen just about every possible bug in windows and in developing 
applications under it.


Lets hear what others experienced.

Rod

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Dave Wade



> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Cisin
> Sent: 27 May 2016 22:05
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts

> Subject: RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in
active
> use)
> 
> In the ER, they handed me a tiny tablet (2" x 6"?) and asked me to sign my
> name.
> "Why?"
> "So that we can paste your signature into all of the documents.  Would you
like
> a copy of the papers that we sign your name to?"
> 
> After that, Windows seems perfectly suited.
> 
> > What would you expect. Properly maintained, managed enterprise and
> > locked down Windows/7 is solid and reliable.
> 
> Until it does an unauthorized "upgrade" to Windoze10.
> 

On an Active Directory domain, such as most corporate users have, it doesn't
quite work like that, and automatic updates to Windows/10 don't happen...

> Turned on the machine one morning, and it told me to wait for updates to
> be configured.   Fortunately, it does save the files for changing it back.
> 

If you wait till its activated and then roll back , you can re-install at a
later date if you so desire.


> 
> The more that I use Windows 7, the less that I dislike it.
> 
> 

I like Windows/7, always have. I am running the rolling Window/10 previews
on this, so it updates frequently, 
Its like the weather in Manchester (UK). If I don't like what it is doing
today a new build will be along soon and it will behave differently...

> 
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred   ci...@xenosoft.com

Dave
G4UGM

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> And nobody - *ever* - plugs a USB stick into them.  Or puts them on a
> LAN with machines that people shove USB sticks into.

No they don't because they don't have LAN ports or USB ports - at least not
one's easily accessible by RNs/MDs/etc. They are single purpose machines
that are locked down very well and they are being used by people who are not
interested in getting them to do things they are not designed for. Again, I
have not seen a blue screen on a critical piece of equipment in 14 years.
Walking by the RN station and looking at the computers they use to chart -
well that is a different story.

Re: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg


> On May 27, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Ali  wrote:
> 
> I would say very few. You have to remember critical systems are not running
> a general windows system i.e. people are not surfing the web on them and
> installing the latest games recommended by friends from facebook. Windows on
> its own is very stable.

And nobody - *ever* - plugs a USB stick into them.  Or puts them on a LAN with 
machines that people shove USB sticks into.

RE: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Jay West


Ian wrote
-
When I suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would
require *re-certifying the entire workflow*.  In other words, it was far
more economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design,
acquire/build and certify a new system.
-

Then Gene wrote...
-
Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely plausible.
-

Then Paul wrote...
-
Not only plausible but reasonable.  
-

I can confirm first hand that it is not just plausible or reasonable - but
factual. On occasion I have sold or repaired HP 1000 stuff for DOD branches
and/or contractors. A time or two I discussed emulators or some type of
modern replacements, asking why those weren't considered. They flat out said
exactly what Ian said above: "When you're dealing with {insert name of
lethal weaponry}, control systems must be known to function identically in
every conceivable case and that certification process is exceedingly
expensive". Usually followed by "we'll do it, after no more boards or
repairs are to be had - but at that point those {weapon} systems may not be
around anymore."

Best,

J

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Dave Wade wrote:
> What would you expect. Properly maintained, managed enterprise and 
> locked down Windows/7 is solid and reliable.

My ER experience was back in the Windows XP days. I have noticed 7 seems 
pretty stable if you can keep M$ from tricking you into upgrading to 
Windows 10. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/05/23/windows-10-dirty-trick-hits-windows-7-and-windows-8-users/

> In the UK it is hard to use Linux in the "Public Sector" and in the UK 
> most Hospitals are Public Sector.

Hmm, well you do make a good point. I'm not sure Linux would give better 
results, but it certainly has a better reputation for stability and that's 
been mirrored in my experiences, also. However, to be honest what I'd be 
most impressed by seeing would be either thin clients running Windows CE 
or (even better) modern terminals connected back to a 
redundant-as-all-heck mainframe or overbuilt server (think high end HP DL 
boxes) in a fully clustered or redundant system. People might complain 
that the only thing they can do on the terminals is their job, but uhm, 
isn't that why they are there?

> You can use Linux BUT you must have a support contract in place and run 
> a supported distro. Having costed this it brings the price up way beyond 
> that of a Windows desktop.

Hmm, that's not my experience, but I'm not a sales guy. IIRC, the last 
time I saw Windows Server and RHEL pricing compared side by side, it was 
either close in many cases or quite a bit cheaper on the RHEL side. I'm 
not a RHEL shill by any stretch, but just sharing what I've seen. Maybe 
you mean desktop machines? That could make sense, I suppose. 

> I can't remember getting a blue screen on Windows/7. I used to run a 200 
> server windows infrastructure. It all down to how you manage it.

Well, let me focus on that last sentence. I really couldn't agree more on 
that. I'm sure one could take something like OS/2 and, even though it's 
completely out of support, you could easily make it work if you put the 
right plans in place (spares, 3rd party support, adequate staff with good 
shift coverage and high morale). It's really hard to overstate how 
important those "other" things are, versus just the choice of OS.

> Our Linux appliances were the most unreliable servers BECAUSE we did not 
> know How to manage them.

It's a good point. I don't doubt you. 

-Swift

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

In the ER, they handed me a tiny tablet (2" x 6"?) and asked me to sign my 
name.

"Why?"
"So that we can paste your signature into all of the documents.  Would you 
like a copy of the papers that we sign your name to?"


After that, Windows seems perfectly suited.


What would you expect. Properly maintained, managed enterprise and locked
down Windows/7 is solid and reliable.


Until it does an unauthorized "upgrade" to Windoze10.

Turned on the machine one morning, and it told me to wait for updates to 
be configured.   Fortunately, it does save the files for changing it back.



The more that I use Windows 7, the less that I dislike it.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

 
> It makes me wonder how many patients have had to wait on care or didn't
> get proper care because of an IT screwup related to Windows. I have to
> say just _seeing_ Windows on machines in the ER made me livid. I found
> it breathtaking they were that caviler about getting people checked in,
> keeping records straight, etc... I guess I shouldn't have visited the
> sausage factory, so to speak...
> 
> Then again, folks in hospitals probably should be more concerned with
> patients than with their IT tools. Ugh. Still. Windows? I'd have felt
> better about paper forms. At least they don't blue screen.


I would say very few. You have to remember critical systems are not running
a general windows system i.e. people are not surfing the web on them and
installing the latest games recommended by friends from facebook. Windows on
its own is very stable. I.E. if you take a clean install of windows SW on
recommended HW and just use the built in apps and never go on the internet
it will run without any issues. Medical HW makers are basically using
recommended HW, building one application on top of the OS, and test the hell
out of it. Since they limit the HW, SW, and modality of use it runs stable.

Almost all (maybe 80%) of your medical HW is probably running some flavor of
windows. 

Pyxis/Omnicell: Windows CE
Sonosite: Windows 2K or XP
EMRs: Windows XP or 7 (usually virtualized through Citrix).

Heck DOS is still around too!

The more specialized equipment (fluoro machines, MRI/CT, etc.) usually have
their own OS although I am seeing C-Arms w/ windows back bones now a days as
well. As the focus is going toward cost saving more and more generalized
HW/SW is being used. After all why re-invent everything for each device when
you can use windows to run the HW, network, input, etc. and just have the
medical device (e.g. ultrasound probe) act like a peripheral with its own
drivers.

Where windows causes an issue for the hospital is in the general business
areas (HR, accounting, administration, etc.). 

-Ali

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Ah, but the Crazy Cranky C Curmudgeons Classic Computer Talk list is a 
> subset of cctalk. But, there was a big crash a while back, and 
> separation of the lists hasn't been completely successful.

Yes, quite correct and the tagline for the list is:

"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

I'm going to call discussions of the relative merits of C coding "general 
discussion" and we'll say the curmudgeon bits are "off topic" if you like. 
It still seems to fit the list quite nicely. 

Also, to be fair:

1. Some of that discussion spawns other threads about classic hardware. 
Observe folks talking about hardware memory tagging features in classic 
systems to aid with GC and other items of discussion. 

2. Programming and computers are a bit hard to separate. Classic computers 
had classic languages, too. Witness the discussions on BLISS, BCPL, and 
older implementations of FORTRAN and COBOL that runs on classic machines. 
My point is that it's not really all that off-topic. 

curmudgeon (noun):
a bad-tempered or surly person.

Wouldn't complaining that people are going off the rails qualify as surly? 
Just sayin'  :-)  

-Swift

RE: Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Dave Wade

> 
> It makes me wonder how many patients have had to wait on care or didn't
get
> proper care because of an IT screwup related to Windows. I have to say
just
> _seeing_ Windows on machines in the ER made me livid. I found it
breathtaking
> they were that caviler about getting people checked in, keeping records
> straight, etc... I guess I shouldn't have visited the sausage factory, so
to speak...
> 

What would you expect. Properly maintained, managed enterprise and locked
down Windows/7 is solid and reliable. 
In the UK it is hard to use Linux in the "Public Sector" and in the UK most
Hospitals are Public Sector.
You can use Linux BUT you must have a support contract in place and run a
supported distro.
Having costed this it brings the price up way beyond that of a Windows
desktop.

> Then again, folks in hospitals probably should be more concerned with
patients
> than with their IT tools. Ugh. Still. Windows? I'd have felt better about
paper
> forms. At least they don't blue screen.

I can't remember getting a blue screen on Windows/7. I used to run a 200
server windows infrastructure.
It all down to how you manage it. Our Linux appliances were the most
unreliable servers BECAUSE we did not know
How to manage them.

> 
> -Swift

Dave
G4UGM

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)


On Fri, 27 May 2016, Josh Dersch wrote:

Oh, I see what's going on.  See, this is the "cctalk" (Classic Computing
Talk) mailing list.  I think what you're meaning to send this to is the
"ccctalk" (Cranky C Curmudgeons Talk) mailing list.  Could we maybe talk
about classic computing rather than go on endlessly about the lazy kids
these days with their saggy pants and their terrible loud programming
languages?


Ah, but the Crazy Cranky C Curmudgeons Classic Computer Talk list is a 
subset of cctalk.
But, there was a big crash a while back, and separation of the lists 
hasn't been completely successful.

Windows use in medical spaces (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> (I was already notorious for refusing to switch to Microsoft Outlook; I 
> read my mail on-spool, as God intended, over a terminal window.)

Damn straight! Check my mail headers and you'll find Alpine :-)

> Fast-forward to fall 2003, when I was now a starving medical intern and 
> had my ob/gyn rotation at the county hospital.

Congrats on getting through med school and making it happen, at least.

> The fetal monitoring system on every bed in the delivery suite was NT 
> 3.51. I could tell at a glance it had not been updated since the day it 
> was installed. I pretended not to notice.

It makes me wonder how many patients have had to wait on care or didn't 
get proper care because of an IT screwup related to Windows. I have to say 
just _seeing_ Windows on machines in the ER made me livid. I found it 
breathtaking they were that caviler about getting people checked in, 
keeping records straight, etc... I guess I shouldn't have visited the 
sausage factory, so to speak...

Then again, folks in hospitals probably should be more concerned with 
patients than with their IT tools. Ugh. Still. Windows? I'd have felt 
better about paper forms. At least they don't blue screen.

-Swift

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)


On Fri, 27 May 2016, Paul Koning wrote:
["Demystification"]
Those first two titles sound reasonable.  The third sounds strangely 
touchy-feely rather than like an engineering course.
A touchy-feely nickname applied by those who personally wouldn't have 
anything to do with it.



They had a brilliant visionary concept of CS education.
I would not put it that way.  "Brilliant" is a term of praise, as is 
"visionary".


"insane"?  "out of touch with reality"?
sarcasm is always risky here.

They tried to change the entire paradigm of beginning CS education into 
their image.



I'm surprised that such people would be working at a supposedly highly 
regarded outfit like Berkeley.
an infra structure that may promote such, or may put "out of the way" in 
something uncared about, such as undergraduate lower-division.



To be fair, I haven't heard anything from them in decades, so I have no 
idea how successful they were, nor whether their goals have changed.



UC for awhile accepted our "Data Structures And Algorithms" class and our 
"Advanced Microcomputer Programming" for transfer as a substitute for 
their "Demystification" course, but then suddenly dropped them with a 
stated reason of "The CATALOG description of them does not mention 
interrupt handlers".  (no, their catalog is also not a complete list of 
course content)


Later, for a few years, they accepted my "Microcomputer Assembly Language" 
and my "Computer Math" as substitutes for other reasonably irrelevant 
courses.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: vintage computers in active use

> > Assembler on a Series/1 is a problem as it's a closed system. Can't be 
> > run under emulation. No modern replacements available.
> 
> You make some excellent points about the hardware and the difficulty of 
> emulation et al. When it comes to firing nuclear weapons, personally I'd 
> like to see computers *removed* from the equation as much as is practical. 

You know, they made a movie about that.
"Sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks."

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- LOAD"STANDARD DISCLAIMER",8,1 --

Re: vintage computers in active use

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
> I was at IBM from 1979 through 1997.  Started in Boca Raton and finished 
> up in Austin.

It was the Boulder site the whole time for me. Used to be a printer and 
tape drive manufacturing site. Then they converted the manufacturing 
floors to hosted data centers for Global Services by and large.

> There was a lot of politics going on the entire time I was there.

Nothing changed when I was there. It was the second-most political place 
I've ever worked in. The only reason I've seen worse is that I've lived 
through a couple of apocalyptic H1B wipe-outs in large companies. I 
wasn't around for the bulk of IBM's offshoring.

You wanna see some depressed computing experts, tell them:

1. You are fired. 

2. You can stay around for time-and-a-half plus a modest bonus if you 
train your barely-speaks-english-and-is-here-illegally B1 or B2 visa 
holder. They uhm, *might* get H1B visas later, but for now we'll just 
thumb our nose at the law. We are fat cat corporations with lawyers. We 
don't have to care. You won't either, since you won't be here but for 
another 60-90 days. 

(lived through two of those, watched people cry a lot at work, have 
nervous breakdowns, develop stress-related issues they'd never had, etc... 
no fun)

3. Okay... now you are fired. BTW, the jobs are "going to India" but 
staying right, here. We know that just adds insult to injury but what are 
you going to do, get *our* pet congressperson / senator to help you? 
Buwuhahahah. We gave them $3,000,000 bucks last year. You gave them $25. 
Good luck. BTW, we really value you as an employee and appreciate your 
contribution. Kthxbye. 

> were considered the ?stars? of the division) would be better applied to 
> OS/2 (we cancelled SW that customers had already paid for). I don?t 
> think any of us who were ?drafted? into OS/2 stayed more than a year 
> after that.

Sounds pretty typical. Customers were never #1.

When I was there, the worst I saw them:

1. Pirate/steal huge amounts of software from other vendors and use it in 
their hosted environments. I had to tell my boss point blank: "I'm not 
your felony pirate boy." on more than one occasion.

2. Fire people who found security problems. I watched a couple 
genius-level guys who were just young-and-curious get whacked this way.

3. Hire managers who were barely *literate* much less competent. My 
manager once asked me as he was banging away on a Lotus Notes document 
"What is the difference between y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e [you're] and your?" 
Seriously.

-Swift

Re: vintage computers in active use

> For some reason Windows computers in Hospital seem especially prone to viral
> infections. 

When I left full-time IT work at the university in 1999, at that time the
wacky network admin used an NT 4 desktop because it was (in his opinion)
the best Windows money could buy and he wouldn't deign to use 98 like the
rest of us hoi polloi. Recall that Windows 2000 wasn't RTM until December
of that year. (I was already notorious for refusing to switch to Microsoft
Outlook; I read my mail on-spool, as God intended, over a terminal window.)

Fast-forward to fall 2003, when I was now a starving medical intern and had
my ob/gyn rotation at the county hospital. The fetal monitoring system
on every bed in the delivery suite was NT 3.51. I could tell at a glance it
had not been updated since the day it was installed.

I pretended not to notice.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Backup not found. Abort, Retry, Vomit, Panic, Write Resume File? ---

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Paul Koning

> On May 27, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Fred Cisin  wrote:
> 
> ...
> Anyway, back to, . . .
> Clancy and Harvey reworked the UC undergraduate lower division (first two 
> years) curriculum.  They setup a three course sequence at the core, 
> consisting of "Abstraction", "Data Structures", and "Demystification". They 
> called a meeting of local CS departments to tell us what we should switch 
> over to teaching.

Those first two titles sound reasonable.  The third sounds strangely 
touchy-feely rather than like an engineering course.

> ...
> They declared, "Nobody programs in Assembly language any more, nor ever will 
> again."
> ...
> They had a brilliant visionary concept of CS education.

I would not put it that way.  "Brilliant" is a term of praise, as is 
"visionary".

Someone who claims that "nobody programs in assembly language any more nor will 
ever again" does not merit those adjectives.  The correct adjectives would be 
"ignorant" and "myopic".  Those are the correct terms because their assertion 
is valid only if you limit yourself to a limited class of programmers, and 
ignore compiler writers, diagnostics programmers, BIOS engineers, bootloader 
programmers, or embedded systems developers, just to name a few.

I'm surprised that such people would be working at a supposedly highly regarded 
outfit like Berkeley.

paul

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

> I had words with Clancy and Harvey.  While need may be diminshed, 
> there is never a complete elimination of the need to pay attention to, 
> and optimize near, the level of hardware.


[top posted, with Swift's remarks below]

The Clancy and Harvey topic is about curriculum, and teaching of "computer 
science".  Clancy and Harvey were/are two lecturers at UC Berkeley, who 
ended up in charge of lower division under-graduate CS.



First, I'll explain OUR curriculum at the community college, since that is 
what I know.  We had a varied mix of re-entry of dropouts, job training, 
AA degrees, preparation for transfer to 4 year colleges, skills 
enhancement for people employed in related jobs ("I want to take a course 
in C"), and adult enrichment.


We started off with an extremely simple introductory course that did not 
assume that the student had ever seen a computer. (In 1980 or so, that was 
a necessary assumption).  Offered as a 6 week drive-by, but generally a 
full semester for those who intended to go further.  It had just enough 
programming in it that a student would successfully create a program. 
(often done with BASIC)


Then an Introduction To Programming, with basic principles and concepts. 
Illustrated with multiple languages, but concentrating on a language of 
the instructor's choice for some minor projects.


Then choices of courses in multiple languages: COBOL (2 semester levels), 
FORTRAN, BASIC, Pascal, RPG, C, Mainframe Assembly (360/370), 
Microcomputer Assembly (X86), and occasional ones for only a few years 
each including RPG, ADA, etc.  Not all classes offered every semester.

Also work skills classes in using Microsoft Office, etc.

Data Structures And Algorithms, with a prerequisite of at least one 
programming language, and taught in language of instructor's choice (I 
used C, but I let students substitute other languages).  When I taught it, 
I included iterative V recursive tree algorithms.


I also taught "Microcomputer Disk Operating Systems" (heavy on MS-DOS, but 
trying to actually teach the principles applicable to ANY), and "Advanced 
Microcomputer Programming" (prerequisite of C and Assembly) which included 
TSRs, device drivers, walking directory trees, mixed language programming 
and stackframe structure, etc.  One of the assignments was to write a 
program that would display a complete directory of the disk.  I taught 
with C, X86 ASM, and MS-DOS, but students were free to substitute 
other languages and unix, Mac, or whatever, for their assignments.


I tried to implement a basic information science course on access to 
online information resources, but our curriculum committee vetoed it and 
rewrote it into how to surf the web.
We had constant struggles with the administration, who wanted to, and 
eventually succeeded at, removal of all advanced courses and anything with 
a prerequisite.  They REALLY wanted our department to be nothing but 
remedial job training for the digital sweatshop.  They killed EVERYTHING 
that had been worthwhile!
By 2013, when I finally told them to take my 33 year job and shovel it, I 
had still been unable to get them to let me try to do a basic beginning 
Information Science course (DIK/W/E, relevance ranking, economics and 
legalities of IP, recall/precision interaction, social impact of access, 
search engine algorithms, SEO, etc.)




Anyway, back to, . . .
Clancy and Harvey reworked the UC undergraduate lower division (first two 
years) curriculum.  They setup a three course sequence at the core, 
consisting of "Abstraction", "Data Structures", and "Demystification". 
They called a meeting of local CS departments to tell us what we should 
switch over to teaching.


They chose Scheme (a LISP derivative) for the first course.  They thought 
that recursion should be the fundamental basis of computer programming, 
even down to COUNTING from 1 to 10.  I used to usually give an assignment 
of Fibonacci numbers as an exercise in loop controls, etc. - I was a 
little taken aback when somebody from UC thought that it meant that I was 
starting my students off with recursion!  They gave a small example, which 
they declared CAN NOT (not "must not") be done with anything except 
recursion.  While they were putting it on the board, I coded it on my 
notepad as a two dimensional array with a nested loop in C, BASIC, 
Fortran, and got partway through COBOL.  (I take offense at being told 
things are "impossible" to do in other languages - "difficult" or 
"inappropriate" are acceptable).


Their "Data Structures" class was to be taught using C.  I asked about 
their C class.  They didn't have one, and declared that all students are 
assumed to already know C before they arrived there!


Their "Demystification" would be the first time that the students would be 
made aware of existence of anything under the hood.


They declared, "Nobody programs in Assembly language any more, nor ever 
will again."


I asked about timeline for implementation

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Mark J. Blair


> On May 27, 2016, at 09:31 , Guy Sotomayor Jr  wrote:
> 
> 
> I don’t recall anyone who did but everyone was locked out of the labs until
> security came through and collected all the materials.

Wow, that's a legendary level of spite.

-- 
Mark J. Blair, NF6X 
http://www.nf6x.net/

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)


On 2016-05-27 12:54 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Swift Griggs  wrote:


On Thu, 26 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
...
I'm not saying the state of the art can't be improved. I only assert that
there are some strategies for doing so that seem flawed from the start
because they start with unrealistic (or downright silly) founding
principles.



Oh, I see what's going on.  See, this is the "cctalk" (Classic Computing
Talk) mailing list.  I think what you're meaning to send this to is the
"ccctalk" (Cranky C Curmudgeons Talk) mailing list.


I think what you are observing is the non trivial intersection. :)

--Toby

> Could we maybe talk

about classic computing ...

- Josh





-Swift

RE: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Wayne Sudol

Series/1 used  either EDX  ( Event Driven Executive) or RPS (Realtime 
Programming Systems)
Could be programmed in a variety of languages. I think I used COBOL on EDX. 
The app was a Transaction -processing Newspaper Classified Order Entry system 
supporting 300 seats. 
The project started in 1976  well before PC's were around.  
The architecture was Zentec programmable 8080 based Terminal for the user 
interface, data sent to Series/1 via BI-SYNC protocol, then forwarded to IBM 
3032.
I did the programming for the Zentec. It was fun! It had no operating system at 
all.   Just 8080 interupts. Basically you wrote assembly language to grab the 
character from the kb interupt and figure out what to do with it.  (like store 
the character on the screen, move the cursor left (or right if delete char) ) 
and a bunch of other stuff. 

-Wayne

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Swift Griggs
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 8:53 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: vintage computers in active use

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Bryan C. Everly wrote:
> I did work in UNIX on a Series-1 in the telecom space.  It probably 
> still is in use.

What kind of Unix did they run? There is almost no information on Wikipedia or 
elsewhere. I'm just curious because I've heard of PC/IX, IX/370, and of course 
I'm *very* famililar with "Ain't Unix" uhhh, I mean AIX. :-P I work with it 
nearly every day. However, I don't know squat about the Unix that ran on a 
Series-1.

-Swift (a guy with a ZOO full of Unix boxes).

RE: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Dave G4UGM

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Swift
> Griggs
> Sent: 27 May 2016 16:11
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> 
> Subject: RE: vintage computers in active use
> 
> On Thu, 26 May 2016, Dave Wade wrote:
> > Assembler on a Series/1 is a problem as it's a closed system. Can't be
> > run under emulation. No modern replacements available.
> 
> You make some excellent points about the hardware and the difficulty of
> emulation et al. When it comes to firing nuclear weapons, personally I'd
like
> to see computers *removed* from the equation as much as is practical.
> The protocols for firing should be as embedded as much as possible in
human
> chain of command and the Missileers, not the computers. The controls are
> currently physically isolated and require simultainous key-turns by two
> individuals etc.. I have much more faith in something like that than in
> software or computer hardware. Anatoli Bugorski can tell you all about the
> effectiveness of "safety software".
> 
> If they putting Windows boxes in missile silos, well... Prepare for WWIII.
> It's a bit like the last time I was in an ER and they couldn't accept
patients
> because their Windows machines kept blue-screening due to a virus.
> Windows in an ER? Yep. This insanity is now the norm.
> 

For some reason Windows computers in Hospital seem especially prone to viral
infections. 
When I worked in a Windows shop the usual source of nasties was down level
JAVA which was frequently needed for obsolete software..

> -Swift

As far as I know Computers have been managing missiles for a long time now.
I can see issues dating back a long time reported here:-

http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-
mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

I remember I was on a Honeywell course, must have been around 1980, when one
of these happened. 
The performance of the machine we were using on the course was somewhat less
than sparkling, or at least our batch jobs were being held in queues for a
long time.

We joked that if the WWMCCS 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Military_Command_and_Control_System

was running anything like as well as our GCOS systems (which were basically
the same) the US had no chance.

... wake the President, give him terminal, he logs in 

USER: Mr.President
Password" **
Ready;
Launch Missiles
Thank You Mr.President, your job L1A is at position 100 in queue .atest9...
Estimated time to execution 1 Day 4 Hours

Dave
G4UGM

Re: vintage computers in active use

> On May 27, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Swift Griggs  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
>> There was a political fight within IBM and the Unix center of competency 
>> moved from Boca Raton, FL to Austin, TX.  All of the Series/1 Unix 
>> materials were destroyed at that point (it was a *nasty* fight).
> 
> That sounds very much like IBM.  I was there for @ four years (from 2000 
> to the end of 2003). When people ask me about it, I tell them "IBM is 
> 300,000 employees. That's like a large city. In a city you have a nice 
> part of town (Watson) where people can more or less follow their dreams 
> and make all kinds of neat/crazy stuff. Then there is the slums (IBM GS) 
> where folks are treated like crap and act like animals." 
> 
> Man, they destroyed the materials dmn. That's some hatin’

I was at IBM from 1979 through 1997.  Started in Boca Raton and
finished up in Austin.

There was a lot of politics going on the entire time I was there.  One of the
reasons that I left was that the project that I helped start (and worked on for
5+ years) was cancelled because a director got himself into trouble with OS/2
(when was it *not* in trouble) and decided that the folks who were working on
the project I was on (who were considered the “stars” of the division) would be
better applied to OS/2 (we cancelled SW that customers had already paid for).
I don’t think any of us who were “drafted” into OS/2 stayed more than a year
after that.

TTFN - Guy

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Josh Dersch

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Swift Griggs  wrote:

> On Thu, 26 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
> > I had words with Clancy and Harvey.  While need may be diminshed, there
> > is never a complete elimination of the need to pay attention to, and
> > optimize near, the level of hardware.
>
> I'm going to loudly agree here. While I find assembly coding somewhat
> tedious, I wonder what kind of Jedi mind trick "Clancy and Harvey" used to
> make themselves believe that asm was not only dead but also no longer
> useful. *eye roll* Whatever, geniuses. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the
> quote? Are they serious? Is this out of context and I'm just not "getting"
> what they really meant?
>
> There are all kinds of seemingly instinctual reactions that some folks
> have to questions of programming style and efficiency. My *least*
> favorites are:
>
> 1. The "GUI programming" or "natural language" folks who think that
> programming really isn't that hard, the problem is that we haven't given
> folks Fischer-Price icons for control structures, or allowed people
> "simply tell the computer what to do."  I simply call BS.
>
> 2. Languages that are supposed to "enlighten" students to some incredible
> new programming paradigm, or bolt-ons that to older languages with the
> same claims. They almost always start their pitch by telling you how some
> irritating or tedious aspect of coding in other languages can be
> eliminated or minimized. I'm more and more skeptical of this claim all the
> time. It rarely works out and generally making things "safer" or "easier"
> runs a big risk of neutering their usefulness, too.
>

>
>
> Those languages who successfully walk the line between power and ease of
> use are the ones that survive and thrive (and sometimes it's just
> chance/luck as Dennis Ritchie said about C).
>
> The bottom line is that coding is work. It takes creativity, analytical
> and critical thinking ability, and probably most important of all:
> practice. IMHO, there aren't any shortcuts. You work and you get results.
> As tedious as it is, I can think of several contexts were ASM is downright
> required. Folks who think there is a magic bullet or shortcut seem to fall
> into the same mistakes while calling them something new. Folks who resent
> the work & sweat that others do to get those skills are generally the ones
> who are screaming the loudest about how programming is really easy, but
> it's the geeks who are just overcomplicating things and are making it "so
> hard".
>
> Then they or folks with the same mindset generally start talking about
> Agile, XP, or some "methodology" that's going to somehow free them from
> the basic fact that good experienced coders write the best code and
> deliver. You can't simply iron on a methodology and turn a team full of
> lazy or careless coders into something else. At best, you can catch more
> of their errors and report on the ones that aren't being productive and
> hope your management pays attention. I've worked under Agile and XP
> regimes and I hate both with a passion. They were both a *huge*
> productivity drag (ever actually tried "pair programming"?) and seemed to
> me to be an effort to make business weasels feel more comfortable that
> their coders were "communicating" and other social crapola they think is
> important since most of what they do is sit around and run their mouths in
> meetings all day. I'm sure some folks will disagree, but I've *actually
> worked* under these schemes. In my experience (and the vast majority of my
> co-workers) they were awful. It also seems to me that all the "greats"
> (incredible coders) and software projects or companies I loved or
> respected weren't "Agile". They simply hired the right people and got out
> of the way. Give me the "wizard in a cave" methodology anyday over "1000
> H1Bs writing Shakespeare using Agile". Results matter more than
> mollycottled business majors and project manager feelings... uhh, IHMO.
> Who would you want helping you finish your project, Dr. Jeff Sutherland or
> John Carmack? Which do you think is going to get you there sooner and with
> better results? I know how I'd answer...
>
> This mentality I dislike is a bit like saying the only reason you can't
> play violin is, not because you don't practice and are too lazy to work at
> it n it's because the violin is poorly designed, the wrong brand,
> and because you aren't practicing in the right order with your head turned
> in the proper direction. Yeah. Right.
>
> I'm not saying the state of the art can't be improved. I only assert that
> there are some strategies for doing so that seem flawed from the start
> because they start with unrealistic (or downright silly) founding
> principles.
>

Oh, I see what's going on.  See, this is the "cctalk" (Classic Computing
Talk) mailing list.  I think what you're meaning to send this to is the
"ccctalk" (Cranky C Curmudgeons Talk) mailing list.  Could we maybe talk
about classic computing rather th

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread William Donzelli

> OK, there are hundreds of different SLT "cards", ie. the PC boards. But,
> reading some FE docs on bitsavers, it seems that all SLT 360's were built
> with 95+ % of the SLT "modules" consisting of only 6 types.

Yes, a remarkably few number of modules make up a huge bulk of the
population. Of course there are some rare types, like the high speed
versions or the ones that IBM farmed out, but they can mostly be
ignored.

> So, when I was talking about making replacement SLT MODULES, I meant to
> fabricate tiny 1/2" x 1/2" PC boards with 12 leads, that could be mounted
> where the failed small SLT module had been.

Yes, those are the things that are really pretty common.

> In IBM terminology,

Chip, module, card, board, gate.

I suppose chip level repair might be possible with today's SOTs, but I
would not want to do it!

--
Will

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread jwsmobile

On 5/27/2016 9:08 AM, Swift Griggs wrote:

While I don't formally do agile, what I do do is in line with many of
>the principles behind agile - things like "release early, release
>often", short iterations, and constant customer involvement.

I can appreciate some of the elements, also. It's just irritating when
they start turning it into meeting (oh wait... scrumm) hell and folks are
more focused on pushing the methodology than completing the project.
I had the task of doing mouse firmware for a project that ws a huge 40 
person C++ object oriented mass of crap with all the stuff that goes 
with that.

Note Customer here means the entity that consumes or engages your end 
product.  In this case there were other bits involved that were also 
large blank page projects, since this was an aircraft product. The 
hardware, manufacturing, test program, and even business and marketing 
were all formal, with little of the bullshit you'd think of as random 
operations in especially marketing and sales.

But in my tiny corner they were all blockheads about what I had to do to 
be "agile" and I just basically said go f yourselves.  I was basically 
expanding a manufacturer supplied sample code set, and I always work 
iteratively, but a lot of the things I had to do had to respond to 
things that were not planned.

The model of formally planning out the stuff that Agile has sometimes 
doesn't work.  Especially in places where embedded programming is 
involved.  But if the managers would look at what you have to do, 
frequently it is a modified version of that.

In this case the manager had never touched low level programming which 
was part hardware and software ever, and didn't get how much had to be 
"tried" and modified.  Luckily there were people who got the problem and 
eventually it was a good project.

Thanks
jim

Re: vintage computers in active use

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
> There was a political fight within IBM and the Unix center of competency 
> moved from Boca Raton, FL to Austin, TX.  All of the Series/1 Unix 
> materials were destroyed at that point (it was a *nasty* fight).

That sounds very much like IBM.  I was there for @ four years (from 2000 
to the end of 2003). When people ask me about it, I tell them "IBM is 
300,000 employees. That's like a large city. In a city you have a nice 
part of town (Watson) where people can more or less follow their dreams 
and make all kinds of neat/crazy stuff. Then there is the slums (IBM GS) 
where folks are treated like crap and act like animals." 

Man, they destroyed the materials dmn. That's some hatin'

-Swift (a guy with enough hubris to quote himself, har har)

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread William Donzelli

> OK, where can you buy some?

You ask the community. You ask on the list or elsewhere. "Hey, I need
a 361459. Anyone have one?".

>They haven't been made since about 1970.

But in those six or seven years - wow, did they make a lot of them. In
Binghamton, we have some of those dumb desk ornament things that suits
like to hand out. One of them is has the 100 Millionth (!) SLT module
(OK, we know that being a dumb desk ornament, they probably made some
number of 100 Millionth SLT module, but the point is clear). Oh, and
the desk ornament is dated fairly early in the game!

> IBM
> sent out a letter to all 360 users who had machines under contract, giving a
> date when they would no longer guarantee that any particular machine could
> be repaired, due to lack of spare modules, and a second (later) date when

Typical IBM.

> Remember, SLT is DISCRETE transistors and diodes on ceramic
> hybrid substrates.  At least in my experience, mid-size 360's would need a
> card replaced every few months.

SLT and S/360s did indeed have teething problems. It took a while to
get the bugs out of the system.

> But, I'll bet that oxygen and moisture will continue to take their toll at a
> slower rate.  Remember, all this gear is now about 50 years old!

IBM SLT cards and modules seem to do well - I have picked up more than
a few that were exposed to the elements, and if they are not beaten up
(curse those crappy thin aluminum covers they used!), moisture tends
to not be a big issue, thanks to the silicone goop underneath.

--
Will

Re: vintage computers in active use


On 05/27/2016 01:30 AM, Eric Smith wrote:

I wrote:

Another CHM volunteer (from the PDP-1 Restoration Project) and I
pushed for an IBM 360/30 Restoration Project, and the ability to build
replacements for failed SLT modules was part of our plan.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:40 PM, William Donzelli  wrote:

I am still trying to figure in which universe are SLT modules so rare
that one needs to fabricate replacements.

As far as I can tell, if I suddenly need a specific SLT module, the
odds of finding that specific module at any given time on eBay is
essentially zero.

Obviously if we could find an authentic replacement, we'd prefer that.
We didn't want the entire restoration to be dependent on having to
find authentic replacements.

Some SLT modules are far more common than others. I don't know how
many different SLT modules are used in the 360/30, nor what percentage
of the SLT modules in that machine are common ones.  When we restored
the DEC PDP-1, it contained quite a few DEC System Modules from DEC's
standard catalog and that we had spares of, but it also contained a
non-trivial number of specialized modules that are much harder to
find, if not impossible. I'm guessing that IBM machines were probably
similar.

OK, there are hundreds of different SLT "cards", ie. the PC 
boards. But, reading some FE docs on bitsavers, it seems 
that all SLT 360's were built with 95+ % of the SLT 
"modules" consisting of only 6 types.  (I've never 
understood why the SLT modules had to have 8-digit or 
something part numbers if there were only 6 types.)


So, when I was talking about making replacement SLT MODULES, 
I meant to fabricate tiny 1/2" x 1/2" PC boards with 12 
leads, that could be mounted where the failed small SLT 
module had been.


In IBM terminology, they have SLT modules, which are 1/2" 
square ceramic substrates with thin-film resistors fired 
onto the ceramic, then silver-bearing conductors are printed 
on and fired, and finally bump-bonded transistors and diodes 
are soldered onto the conductors.  A drawn aluminum cover is 
epoxied to the ceramic.


Then, these modules are installed on boards, which can be 
single-side or double wide.  They have connectors on one 
edge, which plugs into a "BOARD".


The boards were roughly 9 x 12", I think, and had rows of 
pins on both sides.  The SLT cards plugged into one side of 
the board.  The boards were multilayer, and the inner layers 
distributed power and ground.  Surface layers had 
application-specific wiring.  Then, more wiring was added to 
the back side with wire-wrap wire.  Also, around the edges 
of the board, there were places where 18-signal transmission 
line cables could be plugged.
These had the same layout as the SLT card connectors, 24 
contacts on .125" spacing.


The transmission line cables were clear flat ribbons with 3 
wires per signal.  So, they went 
ground-signal-ground-ground-signal-ground, etc.  The 
neighboring ground wires were much closer together than the 
ground-signal spacing.  These had a characteristic impedance 
of 93 Ohms, I think.


On IBM 370's they split up these cables into individual 
signals to reduce crosstalk.  They retained the 
3-wire/signal scheme, and called them tri-lead.


Jon

Re: vintage computers in active use


> On May 27, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Noel Chiappa  wrote:
> 
>> From: Guy Sotomayor Jr
> 
>> There was a political fight within IBM and the Unix center of
>> competency moved .. All of the Series/1 Unix materials were destroyed
>> at that point
> 
> I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on it kept a copy at home (as
> engineers will often do)?
> 

I don’t recall anyone who did but everyone was locked out of the labs until
security came through and collected all the materials.

TTFN - Guy

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Noel Chiappa

> From: Guy Sotomayor Jr

> There was a political fight within IBM and the Unix center of
> competency moved .. All of the Series/1 Unix materials were destroyed
> at that point

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on it kept a copy at home (as
engineers will often do)?

Noel

Doomed, expensive IT projects billed to taxpayers - was Re: vintage computers in active use

On 2016-05-27 12:16 PM, Alan Perry wrote:

On May 27, 2016, at 08:41, Swift Griggs wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Toby Thain wrote:
We're pretty much already there.

Agreed. You should hear one of my buddies talk about the air traffic
control software he wrote which was replaced with some horror.

Audits of the F35 software found:
* single points of failure (grounding global fleet)
* security issues
* that software is the single biggest risk to the project

One of the principles of Unix: KISS, has been nearly completely lost.
Nobody calls a meeting anymore to say "What can we get rid of? How can we
simplify this? What is the *right* thing to do here?" It's more like "how
big of a kickback will I get if I put in this nasty thing this vendor
wants to sell?" or "Does the new system have buzz?"

I worked on F35 software 13 years ago. I am not an aviation systems guy, but I
was an expert in a technology being used, which is why I was on the project.

I am both shocked and not surprised that development of the plane has taken so
long. The software guys there experienced with military contract work said that
the project was typical at that point. I left being amazed that anything that
comes through the process ever flies.

The biggest problem that I saw then was technical choices made without
considering the implications of the choices, followed by kludge after kludge to
get around yet something else they hadn't considered. I see that all of the
time on other projects, but the prime contractor and sub-contractor (and
sub-sub-contractor) arrangement that stuff like the F-35 is designed and built
make it hard to change a poor technical choice made before the work is
subcontracted out.

BTW, the primary poor technical choice that I saw was made to reduce costs, not
for lock-in or to give some preferred company business.

It seems that Texas could take some lessons in "reducing costs":

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/01/cost-overruns-and-bungles-state-contracting/

But, "Since fiscal 2008, Texas has paid Accenture more than $6.3 billion
for a range of projects, including Medicaid payment services, according
to the state comptroller’s office."

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/a-troubled-state-contract-gets-renewed-scrutiny-bu/npC9Q/

It's almost like there's something else going on, when billing gets into
the 8-11 figure range! Oh, wait, what if we google "accenture kickbacks"???

--Toby

alan

Re: vintage computers in active use

> On May 27, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Swift Griggs  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 May 2016, Bryan C. Everly wrote:
>> I did work in UNIX on a Series-1 in the telecom space.  It probably 
>> still is in use. 
> 
> What kind of Unix did they run? There is almost no information on 
> Wikipedia or elsewhere. I'm just curious because I've heard of PC/IX, 
> IX/370, and of course I'm *very* famililar with "Ain't Unix" uhhh, I mean 
> AIX. :-P I work with it nearly every day. However, I don't know squat 
> about the Unix that ran on a Series-1.
> 

At this point, I don’t remember the version that IBM was working on (but it
was an early Unix version).  It was never shipped.  At the time IBM was 
developing Unix on the Series/1, it was in negotiations to *purchase* Unix
from AT&T (ie IBM would own Unix rather than AT&T).

There was a political fight within IBM and the Unix center of competency
moved from Boca Raton, FL to Austin, TX.  All of the Series/1 Unix
materials were destroyed at that point (it was a *nasty* fight).

TTFN - Guy

Re: vintage computers in active use


On 05/26/2016 10:40 PM, William Donzelli wrote:

Another CHM volunteer (from the PDP-1 Restoration Project) and I
pushed for an IBM 360/30 Restoration Project, and the ability to build
replacements for failed SLT modules was part of our plan.

I am still trying to figure in which universe are SLT modules so rare
that one needs to fabricate replacements.


OK, where can you buy some?  They haven't been made since 
about 1970.  IBM sent out a letter to all 360 users who had 
machines under contract, giving a date when they would no 
longer guarantee that any particular machine could be 
repaired, due to lack of spare modules, and a second (later) 
date when they would drop all contracts and no longer make 
ANY parts available, due to the need to keep the National 
Airspace System running.
The IBM 9020 system was composed of slightly modified 360/50 
and 360/65 processors, and attempts to replace them with 
more modern technology had several notable failures.  These 
systems were in use until ** 1989 **!

They were finally replaced with IBM 3083 processors.

I suppose somebody may have a warehouse full of old SLT 
cards, but I've certainly never heard of it.
SLT modules were NOT terribly reliable, as compared to MST 
or newer technologies.  Remember, SLT is DISCRETE 
transistors and diodes on ceramic hybrid substrates.  At 
least in my experience, mid-size 360's would need a card 
replaced every few months.  I have no idea what the failure 
rate would be in cold storage rather than in power-on 24/7, 
which is what they did at Wash U.  (ISTR that maybe Rolla 
shut their 360/50 down every night.  I don't know if that is 
worse due to thermal cycling or better due to less power-on 
hours.)
But, I'll bet that oxygen and moisture will continue to take 
their toll at a slower rate.  Remember, all this gear is now 
about 50 years old!


Jon

Re: vintage computers in active use and restoring them

2016-05-27 Thread William Donzelli

> As far as I can tell, if I suddenly need a specific SLT module, the
> odds of finding that specific module at any given time on eBay is
> essentially zero.

Stuff with standard SLT shows up on Ebay quite often. Not every day,
but one could build up a decent pile of SLT cards in time to harvest
from.

> Some SLT modules are far more common than others. I don't know how
> many different SLT modules are used in the 360/30, nor what percentage
> of the SLT modules in that machine are common ones.

For the standard (slower) families of SLT, their are only a few types
of modules - I might guess only 15 or 20 types in something like model
30. They would likely all be 361xxx parts.

Anyway, if one confines an S/360 restoration project to sources
limited to Ebay and Digikey, one will have a bad time. Look around.
IBM made a huge amount of this stuff, and a reasonable amount still
survives.

--
Will

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Alan Perry

> On May 27, 2016, at 08:41, Swift Griggs  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 26 May 2016, Toby Thain wrote:
>> We're pretty much already there.
> 
> Agreed. You should hear one of my buddies talk about the air traffic 
> control software he wrote which was replaced with some horror.
> 
>> Audits of the F35 software found:
>> * single points of failure (grounding global fleet)
>> * security issues
>> * that software is the single biggest risk to the project
> 
> One of the principles of Unix: KISS, has been nearly completely lost. 
> Nobody calls a meeting anymore to say "What can we get rid of? How can we 
> simplify this? What is the *right* thing to do here?" It's more like "how 
> big of a kickback will I get if I put in this nasty thing this vendor 
> wants to sell?" or "Does the new system have buzz?"

I worked on F35 software 13 years ago. I am not an aviation systems guy, but I 
was an expert in a technology being used, which is why I was on the project.

I am both shocked and not surprised that development of the plane has taken so 
long. The software guys there experienced with military contract work said that 
the project was typical at that point. I left being amazed that anything that 
comes through the process ever flies.

The biggest problem that I saw then was technical choices made without 
considering the implications of the choices, followed by kludge after kludge to 
get around yet something else they hadn't considered. I see that all of the 
time on other projects, but the prime contractor and sub-contractor (and 
sub-sub-contractor) arrangement that stuff like the F-35 is designed and built 
make it hard to change a poor technical choice made before the work is 
subcontracted out.

BTW, the primary poor technical choice that I saw was made to reduce costs, not 
for lock-in or to give some preferred company business.

alan

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Mouse wrote:
> Agile and XP are less about programming productivity in isolation and 
> more about customer interfacing - and therefore productivity in terms of 
> producing happy customers

Well, as you suspected, I wasn't really thinking about that. That's the 
convenience of not having to run a business, I suppose. However, I do see 
your point. I feel sorry for the folks who have to live at the tip of the 
customer spear, so to speak. 

> No, if you're idolzing lone-wolf coders producing one-person projects on 
> their own (or even very small teams, if they already know one another 
> well), agile will be somewhere between irrelevant and obstructionist.

You definitely have me nailed on this one, too. That's exactly who I'm 
thinking of. I mentioned Carmak. He's sort of the poster child. No degree, 
no management BS, and has actual successful releases and REAL code that 
works extremely well and is very well written. However, yes, he's a wizard 
in a cave (and nowadays seems more interested in rockets anyway).

> I will hazard a guess that the projects/companies you're talking about 
> were not producing code for a customer, but were producing something for 
> themselves which, once produced, turned out to be appreciated.

Yes, you are right. That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of, not customer 
driven, customer facing type of projects. While I've been a part of those 
types of efforts, I think for myself personally, it's definitely not the 
right place for me. However, I certainly won't gainsay you on the benefits 
of certain methods of interacting with them. It's just not something high 
on my personal value-system.

> There, too, because there is no customer during coding and thus no 
> changing requirements during coding, and no customer to be kept happy 
> during coding, agile and XP are irrelevant.  If that's the only kind of 
> coding you care about, or what to do, or whatever, yes, you should 
> ignore them.

That's where I'm coming from, exactly. I know it's not the only 
perspective, it's just mine.

> A nontrivial fraction of the code I write falls into such categories. 
> But there is also a nontrivial fraction of the code I write that _does_ 
> have a separate customer, with changing requirements.

That's probably why you have a more nuanced and mature philosophy on such 
things. Jobs I've had which were more "customer facing" generally didn't 
last long. I have a truth and directness problem (read: lack of subtlety) 
that doesn't usually endear me to those types of gigs. So, I mostly ignore 
those types of "opportunities". Nonetheless, I'm probably poorer for it.

> While I don't formally do agile, what I do do is in line with many of 
> the principles behind agile - things like "release early, release 
> often", short iterations, and constant customer involvement.

I can appreciate some of the elements, also. It's just irritating when 
they start turning it into meeting (oh wait... scrumm) hell and folks are 
more focused on pushing the methodology than completing the project. That 
and the forced social interaction are negatives for me, personally. 
However, I might be describing my own "issues" here more than any formal 
argument or philosophy.

-Swift

Re: vintage computers in active use

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Bryan C. Everly wrote:
> I did work in UNIX on a Series-1 in the telecom space.  It probably 
> still is in use. 

What kind of Unix did they run? There is almost no information on 
Wikipedia or elsewhere. I'm just curious because I've heard of PC/IX, 
IX/370, and of course I'm *very* famililar with "Ain't Unix" uhhh, I mean 
AIX. :-P I work with it nearly every day. However, I don't know squat 
about the Unix that ran on a Series-1.

-Swift (a guy with a ZOO full of Unix boxes).

Re: vintage computers in active use

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Toby Thain wrote:
> We're pretty much already there.

Agreed. You should hear one of my buddies talk about the air traffic 
control software he wrote which was replaced with some horror.

> Audits of the F35 software found:
>  * single points of failure (grounding global fleet)
>  * security issues
>  * that software is the single biggest risk to the project

One of the principles of Unix: KISS, has been nearly completely lost. 
Nobody calls a meeting anymore to say "What can we get rid of? How can we 
simplify this? What is the *right* thing to do here?" It's more like "how 
big of a kickback will I get if I put in this nasty thing this vendor 
wants to sell?" or "Does the new system have buzz?"

I worked on a gaming system one time (gambling) for embedded Linux 
systems. I recognized a few really critical bugs that might have even been 
exploitable. Neither the code shop or the clients gave a hoot. They 
responded with platitudes when I said "Can we go back and fix the most 
critical of our 300 bugs before we move on to new features?" The answer: 
"Not now, maybe later." That's one more lesson at the school of hard 
knocks, I guess.

> It's not clear how much Microsoft is already in that loop.

My guess is "a lot". The military seemed to have drank nearly the entire 
bottle of M$ kool aid, especially the Army.

> While the existence of such projects is ... questionable to begin with, 
> one might think the continual under-delivery (across all military 
> boondoggles) might give taxpayers pause.

1 TRILLION (with big fat "T") dollars went into the F35 development 
(that's nearly half of one years tax revenue for the entire country), the 
results thus far have been pathetic if the news is to be believed. At 
least most of that money, boondoggle or not, is spent in the USA, I guess. 

However, I pine for the days when modest efforts produced the incredible 
SR-71 Blackbird (my all-time favorite aircraft). It was produced 
relatively quickly compared to the F35. Wikipedia says they started 
designing it in 1960 and it was flying by 1962. I'm no aviation expert by 
a long shot, but still that seems infinitely better than the current 
circus around the F35. I know that they aren't the same type of aircraft, 
and that the F35 is more "sophisticated" (but still way slower). I also 
understand that they had a zillion different design goals and basically 
were trying to please too many masters. I'm not sure who the blame rests 
with, but I'm right there with you calling the F35 a boondoggle. It hasn't 
seen battle yet (and I hope it doesn't have to) but I'm a little worried 
about the fact that it's beaten (badly) in simulations and exercises with 
much older fighter aircraft with much more "primitive" tech, including 
Russian aircraft, too. 

Aviation guys, am I all wet about the F35?

-Swift

Re: ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

2016-05-27 Thread Mouse

> I've worked under Agile and XP regimes and I hate both with a
> passion.  They were both a *huge* productivity drag (ever actually
> tried "pair programming"?)

Yes.  I've done agile and XP and even a little pair programming.

And...I agree and I disagree.

If you have a small project, something one person can do and you are
content with the result being in only one person's head, agile and XP
and the like are exactly what you say: a significant productivity lose.

But if you need the result to be in more than one person's head, or if
the project is such that one person can't handle it (too big, needs to
be done too fast, whatever), pair programming is - well, can be - a
substantial win overall.  It impairs _individual_ productivity for the
sake of _overall_ productivity.

Agile and XP are less about programming productivity in isolation and
more about customer interfacing - and therefore productivity in terms
of producing happy customers (where "customer" should be interpreted
liberally, not necessarily as "arm's-length entity that pays money").
If you're building something for yourself, if you're doing a
well-defined and highly predictable "here's the task, go away and come
back when it's done" job, they are of little to no use.  But if you're
building something where there's a nontrivial chance of the
requirements changing mid-job, and the coders and the consumer are
different, I find them to be of significant value - and that's a larger
fraction of the coding jobs than one might wish.

> It also seems to me that all the "greats" (incredible coders)

No, if you're idolzing lone-wolf coders producing one-person projects
on their own (or even very small teams, if they already know one
another well), agile will be somewhere between irrelevant and
obstructionist.

> and software projects or companies I loved or respected weren't
> "Agile".

Possibly.  I'd have to know which ones you have in mind to have any
chance of saying anything of value - and probably not even then, as
it's unlikely that whatever you have in mind is something I know
anything about the internals of.

I will hazard a guess that the projects/companies you're talking about
were not producing code for a customer, but were producing something
for themselves which, once produced, turned out to be appreciated.
(Perhaps they did so expecting that result, perhaps not - the critical
point is that there was no customer before/during coding.)  There, too,
because there is no customer during coding and thus no changing
requirements during coding, and no customer to be kept happy during
coding, agile and XP are irrelevant.  If that's the only kind of coding
you care about, or what to do, or whatever, yes, you should ignore
them.

A nontrivial fraction of the code I write falls into such categories.
But there is also a nontrivial fraction of the code I write that _does_
have a separate customer, with changing requirements.  While I don't
formally do agile, what I do do is in line with many of the principles
behind agile - things like "release early, release often", short
iterations, and constant customer involvement.

/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!   7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

RE: vintage computers in active use

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Dave Wade wrote:
> Assembler on a Series/1 is a problem as it's a closed system. Can't be 
> run under emulation. No modern replacements available.

You make some excellent points about the hardware and the difficulty of 
emulation et al. When it comes to firing nuclear weapons, personally I'd 
like to see computers *removed* from the equation as much as is practical. 
The protocols for firing should be as embedded as much as possible in 
human chain of command and the Missileers, not the computers. The controls 
are currently physically isolated and require simultainous key-turns by 
two individuals etc.. I have much more faith in something like that than 
in software or computer hardware. Anatoli Bugorski can tell you all about 
the effectiveness of "safety software".

If they putting Windows boxes in missile silos, well... Prepare for WWIII. 
It's a bit like the last time I was in an ER and they couldn't accept 
patients because their Windows machines kept blue-screening due to a 
virus. Windows in an ER? Yep. This insanity is now the norm.

-Swift

ASM, Clancy & Harvey, and Agile (Re: vintage computers in active use)

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
> I had words with Clancy and Harvey.  While need may be diminshed, there 
> is never a complete elimination of the need to pay attention to, and 
> optimize near, the level of hardware.

I'm going to loudly agree here. While I find assembly coding somewhat 
tedious, I wonder what kind of Jedi mind trick "Clancy and Harvey" used to 
make themselves believe that asm was not only dead but also no longer 
useful. *eye roll* Whatever, geniuses. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the 
quote? Are they serious? Is this out of context and I'm just not "getting" 
what they really meant?

There are all kinds of seemingly instinctual reactions that some folks 
have to questions of programming style and efficiency. My *least* 
favorites are:

1. The "GUI programming" or "natural language" folks who think that 
programming really isn't that hard, the problem is that we haven't given 
folks Fischer-Price icons for control structures, or allowed people 
"simply tell the computer what to do."  I simply call BS. 

2. Languages that are supposed to "enlighten" students to some incredible 
new programming paradigm, or bolt-ons that to older languages with the 
same claims. They almost always start their pitch by telling you how some 
irritating or tedious aspect of coding in other languages can be 
eliminated or minimized. I'm more and more skeptical of this claim all the 
time. It rarely works out and generally making things "safer" or "easier" 
runs a big risk of neutering their usefulness, too.

Those languages who successfully walk the line between power and ease of 
use are the ones that survive and thrive (and sometimes it's just 
chance/luck as Dennis Ritchie said about C).

The bottom line is that coding is work. It takes creativity, analytical 
and critical thinking ability, and probably most important of all: 
practice. IMHO, there aren't any shortcuts. You work and you get results. 
As tedious as it is, I can think of several contexts were ASM is downright 
required. Folks who think there is a magic bullet or shortcut seem to fall 
into the same mistakes while calling them something new. Folks who resent 
the work & sweat that others do to get those skills are generally the ones 
who are screaming the loudest about how programming is really easy, but 
it's the geeks who are just overcomplicating things and are making it "so 
hard". 

Then they or folks with the same mindset generally start talking about 
Agile, XP, or some "methodology" that's going to somehow free them from 
the basic fact that good experienced coders write the best code and 
deliver. You can't simply iron on a methodology and turn a team full of 
lazy or careless coders into something else. At best, you can catch more 
of their errors and report on the ones that aren't being productive and 
hope your management pays attention. I've worked under Agile and XP 
regimes and I hate both with a passion. They were both a *huge* 
productivity drag (ever actually tried "pair programming"?) and seemed to 
me to be an effort to make business weasels feel more comfortable that 
their coders were "communicating" and other social crapola they think is 
important since most of what they do is sit around and run their mouths in 
meetings all day. I'm sure some folks will disagree, but I've *actually 
worked* under these schemes. In my experience (and the vast majority of my 
co-workers) they were awful. It also seems to me that all the "greats" 
(incredible coders) and software projects or companies I loved or 
respected weren't "Agile". They simply hired the right people and got out 
of the way. Give me the "wizard in a cave" methodology anyday over "1000 
H1Bs writing Shakespeare using Agile". Results matter more than 
mollycottled business majors and project manager feelings... uhh, IHMO. 
Who would you want helping you finish your project, Dr. Jeff Sutherland or 
John Carmack? Which do you think is going to get you there sooner and with 
better results? I know how I'd answer... 

This mentality I dislike is a bit like saying the only reason you can't 
play violin is, not because you don't practice and are too lazy to work at 
it n it's because the violin is poorly designed, the wrong brand, 
and because you aren't practicing in the right order with your head turned 
in the proper direction. Yeah. Right.

I'm not saying the state of the art can't be improved. I only assert that 
there are some strategies for doing so that seem flawed from the start 
because they start with unrealistic (or downright silly) founding 
principles.

-Swift

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Mouse

> I have used the following operating systems: [...]
> Now will somebody explain to me why windows  is considered not good.

There are, of course, almost as many answers to that as there are
people holding that opinion.

My own answers?

It's closed source.  It appears to put usefulness to users second to
separating them from their money.  It appears to be designed for users
who know nothing about computers - and designed to keep them in that
state.  It appears to be designed around the model of large companies
producing content which individual consumers consume (as opposed to
peers providing things to one another).  It is a monoculture.  It
drives the Intel ISA monoculture.  By requiring ridiculously
over-specced machines, it encourages the sloppy coder tendency to hide
sins with hardware.  It's full of gaping security holes - some by
culture, some by design, some by chance.

(Yes, I know some of these are easily explainable.)

/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!   7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Paul Koning

> On May 26, 2016, at 10:14 PM, geneb  wrote:
> 
>> I begged for it anyway, and was told that because it was part of an active
>> program (testing for some fighter jet), it was still in use.  When I
>> suggested modernizing, I was told that changing the hardware would require
>> *re-certifying the entire workflow*.  In other words, it was far more
>> economical to maintain a 70's era computer than spec, design, acquire/build
>> and certify a new system.
>> 
> Considering how military avionics systems work, this is entirely plausible.  
> Consider that up until (at least) 1998, the F-15C's tactical electronic 
> warfare system was run by a 6800B.  The person I was discussing this with had 
> designed a replacement that operated around a SoS 80386 and could run rings 
> around what the 6800B system could do.  His company dropped the project 
> because they couldn't afford the certification process just to build a test 
> model.

Not only plausible but reasonable.  I've been doing embedded systems for a long 
time, with a number of different real-time kernels at the bottom.  At various 
times we looked into upgrading our kernel to a newer release -- sometimes the 
release we were using was 6-8 years old.  But unlike PCs where "the latest 
shiny toy" is the common practice, in embedded systems it is best to stick with 
what is known, and not change it unless there is a clear benefit to be had that 
outweighs the risk of introducing new bugs.

It does of course mean that if you eventually end up upgrading, the jump is a 
bit large (a few years ago, going from NetBSD 1.6.2 to NetBSD 5.0 was 
definitely an interesting experience).  But in any case, this is a sensible 
practice for embedded systems, and much more so for safety critical ones.

paul

Re: vintage computers in active use

2016-05-27 Thread Al Kossow


On 5/27/16 5:03 AM, Rod Smallwood wrote:


Now will somebody explain to me why windows  is considered not good.



It became too popular, and created a monoculture that was a prime target
for malware. It also didn't start out that way, but it evolved into an
OS that would only run on one architecture, with one preferred CPU 
vendor; Intel. There is a core of hardware that is required, but almost

no one runs with that anymore, and the drivers for video, audio, and
networking come from different companies with varying quality and 
stability. Finding those drivers for anything other than the most recent

releases can be difficult.

Then, there is the history of the business practices of the company that 
produces it.

Re: vintage computers in active use