On Jun 17, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
wrote:
> On 2017-06-17 8:32 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
>> On 17 June 2017 at 02:54, Jason Scott via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>> Archive.org will take all your scans no questions asked. Mail me if you
>>> need assistance.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for
On 2017-06-17 8:32 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On 17 June 2017 at 02:54, Jason Scott via cctalk wrote:
Archive.org will take all your scans no questions asked. Mail me if you
need assistance.
Thanks for that -- it's good to know.
But please can you bottom-post?
I like bottoms too b
On 17 June 2017 at 02:54, Jason Scott via cctalk wrote:
> Archive.org will take all your scans no questions asked. Mail me if you
> need assistance.
Thanks for that -- it's good to know.
But please can you bottom-post?
--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.c
The situation where copies of your digital files are housed with multiple
institutions is always the best approach.
On Jun 16, 2017 6:36 PM, wrote:
> I have always pondered...
> Which will last the eternity?
> Archive.org
> Or...
> CHM?
>
> Of course, the best plan is to stash
> stuff at all t
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Ed via cctalk wrote:
>
> I have always pondered...
> Which will last the eternity?
> Archive.org
> Or...
> CHM?
> ..
> You might also see about places to leave
> copies at Living Computer Museum
> and others. Lets face it, with Paul Allen's
> backing, I d
Gene suggested:
> Instead of that, why not just upload the scans to the Internet Archive? I
> suspect they'd love to have the material.
>
> g.
Thanks for that! After grabbing this-that-theother off archive.org, it had
never really
occurred to me to actually join and upload bits and pieces of old
I have always pondered...
Which will last the eternity?
Archive.org
Or...
CHM?
Of course, the best plan is to stash
stuff at all the archiving facilities.
Geographically diverse storage has
always been a favorite topic of our.
NOTE!> Make it clear, on your passing,
that material or copies
Archive.org will take all your scans no questions asked. Mail me if you
need assistance.
On Jun 16, 2017 11:47 AM, "Toby Thain via cctalk"
wrote:
> On 2017-06-16 1:40 PM, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Rob Jarratt
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have therefore come to
Alan and others - Yes I like the colored covers on things also. many
are cool to put in displays or just frame and put on the wall.
Ed# _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)
In a message dated 6/16/2017 11:21:26 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
>
On 2017-06-16 1:40 PM, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Rob Jarratt
wrote:
I have therefore come to the conclusion that people don't want my scans (for
whatever reason). And I am not going to waste my time scanning manuals as a
result. So no Philips P800 schematic
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 07:20, Liam Proven via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 June 2017 at 16:17, Alan Perry via cctalk
>> wrote:
>> that it was in an inappropriate format and that I was "wasting everybody's
>> time".
>
> That's not good. What format did you use, JOOI?
As I recall, the problem
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Rob Jarratt
wrote:
>
>> I have therefore come to the conclusion that people don't want my scans (for
>> whatever reason). And I am not going to waste my time scanning manuals as a
>> result. So no Philips P800 schematics, etc.
>>
>
>
> I would suggest that it is no
> I have therefore come to the conclusion that people don't want my scans (for
> whatever reason). And I am not going to waste my time scanning manuals as a
> result. So no Philips P800 schematics, etc.
>
I would suggest that it is not a waste of time at all. If BitSavers won't have
them then
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
I have therefore come to the conclusion that people don't want my scans
(for whatever reason). And I am not going to waste my time scanning manuals
as a result. So no Philips P800 schematics, etc.
Instead of that, why not just upload the scans t
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Alan Perry via cctalk
wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 23:11, Lyle Bickley via cctech
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Having volunteered with Collections (cataloging, etc.), I know that one
>> session at VCF would be insufficient to qualify someone to properly
>> handle a
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alan Perry via cctalk wrote:
A long time ago I scanned some documents and, after I made them
available, the response that I got from a museum representative was that
it was in an inappropriate format and that I was "wasting everybody's
time". I stopped scanning computer do
On 16 June 2017 at 16:17, Alan Perry via cctalk wrote:
> that it was in an inappropriate format and that I was "wasting everybody's
> time".
That's not good. What format did you use, JOOI?
--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: l
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 23:11, Lyle Bickley via cctech
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Having volunteered with Collections (cataloging, etc.), I know that one
> session at VCF would be insufficient to qualify someone to properly
> handle and copy documents to museum standards. In addition, as Rich
> said, th
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> That's the whole point scanning _will_ preserve the archive because it won't
> need to be handled.
> They didn't even bother too make back up Xerox copies. You seem to imply they
> are professional.
> No backup, 50cents a c
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 06:27:57PM +, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
>
> More things have been accidentally damaged or destroyed by enthusiastic
> amateurs than have ever been preserved with proper provenance, cataloguing,
> and care.
>
I've seen this first hand, it is quite depressing.
/P
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:45:37 -0500
Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote:
> Ok revising my overly simple thought of vounteers showing up. What
> about a class on document archival at VCFw (or other) and then an
> archive party? Not trying to push a non-issue, but if that gets past
> any legal requirement
Ok revising my overly simple thought of vounteers showing up. What about a
class on document archival at VCFw (or other) and then an archive party?
Not trying to push a non-issue, but if that gets past any legal requirements id
still absolutely help out any of the local museums if in their area
On 15/06/2017 19:27, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
From: Rod Smallwood
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:39 AM
Stop this Policy and Budget nonsense and accept gracefully the help you
have been offered.
You speak as if this were Al's personal decision and policy. It is not.
Museums are expec
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 06:27:57PM +, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
> In order for this work to be done by volunteers, they first have to be
> vetted, and their work must be overseen by a professional (which costs
> those scarce funds).
Simply this statement would have answered my newbie que
From: Rod Smallwood
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:39 AM
> Stop this Policy and Budget nonsense and accept gracefully the help you
> have been offered.
You speak as if this were Al's personal decision and policy. It is not.
Museums are expected to adhere to a set of standards of care for their
I never did query about that. I've only been twice in 10 years but if i was
there I'd certainly volunteer time if its something i either know or can
quickly learn to do.
VCF West Al nighter party :-)
Original message From: Mark Linimon via cctalk
Well that's particularly what
On 15/06/2017 23:55, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:17:33PM -0700, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote:
It would not qualify it as occasional volunteering though:
Well that's particularly what I was getting to: if some of us (e.g. myself)
were in Silicon Valley for a few
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:17:33PM -0700, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote:
> It would not qualify it as occasional volunteering though:
Well that's particularly what I was getting to: if some of us (e.g. myself)
were in Silicon Valley for a few days, could we be put to work, or would
having us under
On 2017-06-14 1:54 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
On 6/14/17 7:27 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
A thousand boxes are not at all accessible.
They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to Fremont.
No, _even on site_ 1000 boxes are very hard to access (compared t
On 15/06/2017 23:01, Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:42:18 -0700
Lyle Bickley wrote:
Note: This is a re-post - as my last post didn't seem to make it to
cctalk...
--snip--
I have personally reviewed several boxes of the DEC archives - and
they are a terrific ass
On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Mark Linimon via cctalk
wrote:
Is there no way that occasional volunteer effort could be used in this
or other tasks at the CHM?
mcl
Absolutely. The museum archival and cataloging efforts enlist the support of
many volunteers (and donors). It would not qualify it a
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:42:18 -0700
Lyle Bickley wrote:
Note: This is a re-post - as my last post didn't seem to make it to
cctalk...
--snip--
> I have personally reviewed several boxes of the DEC archives - and
> they are a terrific asset in understanding both DEC's business
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:42:18 -0700
Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:
--snip--
> I have personally reviewed several boxes of the DEC archives - and
> they are a terrific asset in understanding both DEC's business
> successes and failures, engineering prowess and bad decisions, etc.
Is there no way that occasional volunteer effort could be used in this
or other tasks at the CHM?
mcl
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15/06/2017 16:19, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> There are no plans or budget to scan this material en mass, so it wouldn't
>> make
>> sense for anyone to come here assuming they would be allowed to do that.
>>
>>
On 15/06/2017 16:19, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
There are no plans or budget to scan this material en mass, so it wouldn't make
sense for anyone to come here assuming they would be allowed to do that.
If you look at the actual museum policy on copying material in the collection,
it is done on
On 6/15/17 8:19 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> If you look at the actual museum policy on copying material in the collection,
> it is done on demand by staff at 50 cents per page.
http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/requests/
There are no plans or budget to scan this material en mass, so it wouldn't make
sense for anyone to come here assuming they would be allowed to do that.
If you look at the actual museum policy on copying material in the collection,
it is done on demand by staff at 50 cents per page.
On 6/14/17 1
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:00 AM, Pontus Pihlgren via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:40:14PM -0400, Mark Kahrs via cctalk wrote:
>> In case you hadn't heard, the DEC archives at CHM are available and here's
>> the PDF:
>>
>> http:
On 15/06/2017 07:59, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:
On 2017-06-14 19:54, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
On 6/14/17 7:27 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
A thousand boxes are not at all accessible.
They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to
Fremont.
I probably
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:40:14PM -0400, Mark Kahrs via cctalk wrote:
> In case you hadn't heard, the DEC archives at CHM are available and here's
> the PDF:
>
> http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/finding-aids/102733963-DEC/102733963-DEC.pdf
>
On 2017-06-14 19:54, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
On 6/14/17 7:27 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
A thousand boxes are not at all accessible.
They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to Fremont.
I probably will take exactly that route ;-)
But seriously, does it ma
>
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:54:03AM -0700, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> > > They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to
> > > Fremont.
> >
>
I wonder: how technical is the 'technical' content? I have been looking
for even pinout-level documentation for my VAX 6000-66
That is an immense pdf and collection. Some time and effort gone into that!
On 14 Jun 2017 19:18, "Mark Linimon via cctalk"
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:54:03AM -0700, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> > They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to
> > Fremont.
>
> I'l
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:54:03AM -0700, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to
> Fremont.
I'll get down there just as soon as I've scanned in all my own stuff.
mcl
On 14/06/2017 18:54, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
On 6/14/17 7:27 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
A thousand boxes are not at all accessible.
They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to Fremont.
About 8000 miles from here!
Rod
--
There is no wrong or right
Nor bl
On 6/14/17 7:27 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
> A thousand boxes are not at all accessible.
They are trivial to access. You just have to cart your lazy asses to Fremont.
On 2017-06-14 3:14 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:
On 2017-06-13 23:40, Mark Kahrs via cctalk wrote:
In case you hadn't heard, the DEC archives at CHM are available and
here's
the PDF:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/finding-aids/102733963-DEC/1027339
On 2017-06-13 23:40, Mark Kahrs via cctalk wrote:
In case you hadn't heard, the DEC archives at CHM are available and here's
the PDF:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/finding-aids/102733963-DEC/102733963-DEC.pdf
Really hope it will all be scanned in one day
a lot of the staff had jumped
ship overnight and gone to Centronics.
The place was empty!!
Rod Smallwood
On 13/06/2017 22:40, Mark Kahrs via cctalk wrote:
In case you hadn't heard, the DEC archives at CHM are available and here's
the PDF:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resour
In case you hadn't heard, the DEC archives at CHM are available and here's
the PDF:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/finding-aids/102733963-DEC/102733963-DEC.pdf
Now, I wonder if it has Firefly docs...
51 matches
Mail list logo
