Re: Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

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 that -- it's good to know.
>> 
>> But please can you bottom-post?
>> 
> 
> I like bottoms too but let's not be anal about it.

Ah. When you talk about “base” humor, you don’t mean 2, 8, or 16, then.

Re: Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

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 but let's not be anal about it.

--T

Re: Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

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.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> 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 do not think they are going away 
> for a long   long time, or  if ever. I hear 
> good things  about them.

I'm not so positive about LCM.  Their mission is fascinating, but they have a 
bizarre approach of doing things in secret and not making any of their holdings 
visible to others.  At one point I agreed to be a technical advisor on one of 
their projects, but found that they required a non-disclosure agreement -- one 
whose terms were quite out of line and that they were not willing to correct or 
even to discuss.

paul

Re: DEC archives

[Steve Malikoff via cctalk]

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 computer docs 
for others,
I usually just squirrel them onto some webspace somewhere. But I think 
archive.org can
take better care of them for the long term.
So, I've just joined and put up a few docs this Saturday morning...
 https://archive.org/details/@galasphere347
Should be more to come.

Steve.

Re: Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Ed via cctalk]

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  of  such
is distributed on a wide basis.
 
You might also see about  places to leave  
copies at  Living Computer Museum 
and others. Lets face it,  with Paul Allen's
backing, I do not think they are going away 
for a long   long time, or  if ever. I hear 
good things  about them.
 
Just  some thought 
Ed#  _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)  
 
 
In a message dated 6/16/2017 5:54:27 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

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  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 perhaps someone  else will? That could go for other scans that have
>>>  been
>>> deemed inappropriate for  bitsavers.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe, maybe  not...
>>
>> If I have something scanned or otherwise  available I will try to pass
>> it on to anyone
>> that  wants it. I am not going to be selfish about it.
>>
>>  BUT... To scan, say the P851 technical manual (both volumes) would  take
>> several
>> days. I am not going to do that on the  off-chance that somebody wants
>> it. I don't
>> want it, I  have it on paper which I find more convenient at the  bench.
>>
>> I have somewhat bitter experience of this. Some  time ago somebody 
noticed
>> I had a Trend HSR reader in one of my  photos on filckr. They asked if I
>> had the
>> manual. I  do, and I scanned it for him. I mentioned it here and nobody 
was
>>  interested in making it public. At the same time I found the Trend  UDR
>> manual,
>> so I scanned that too. I assume nobody  would want that, so I've not
>> bothered
>> to even try to  get it 'out there'.
>>
>>  -tony
>>
>>
> I second geneb. Just submit to  archive.org as a default, in addition to
> wherever  else.
>
> Somebody pointed out to me that they also have  tools:
>  https://internetarchive.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cli.html
>
>
>  --Toby
>
>
>
>

Re: Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Jason Scott via cctalk]

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 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 perhaps someone else will? That could go for other scans that have
>>> been
>>> deemed inappropriate for bitsavers.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not...
>>
>> If I have something scanned or otherwise available I will try to pass
>> it on to anyone
>> that wants it. I am not going to be selfish about it.
>>
>> BUT... To scan, say the P851 technical manual (both volumes) would take
>> several
>> days. I am not going to do that on the off-chance that somebody wants
>> it. I don't
>> want it, I have it on paper which I find more convenient at the bench.
>>
>> I have somewhat bitter experience of this. Some time ago somebody noticed
>> I had a Trend HSR reader in one of my photos on filckr. They asked if I
>> had the
>> manual. I do, and I scanned it for him. I mentioned it here and nobody was
>> interested in making it public. At the same time I found the Trend UDR
>> manual,
>> so I scanned that too. I assume nobody would want that, so I've not
>> bothered
>> to even try to get it 'out there'.
>>
>> -tony
>>
>>
> I second geneb. Just submit to archive.org as a default, in addition to
> wherever else.
>
> Somebody pointed out to me that they also have tools:
> https://internetarchive.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cli.html
>
>
> --Toby
>
>
>
>

Re: DEC archives

[Ed via cctalk]

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 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 was the resolution and the image format  not being 
OCR'able at the time (this was many years ago). I don't recall the  
details, but it was a format from a volume, consumer scanner.

One thing  is that I wanted to preserve the colorful cover art and the 
hand-written notes  in the margins, so I selected a format that I thought would 
be better for  that.

alan 

> 
> -- 
> Liam Proven • Profile:  https://about.me/liamproven
> Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google  Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
> Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven •  Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
> UK: +44 7939-087884 •  ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829  053

Where to send scans for publishing and preservation - Re: DEC archives

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

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 schematics, etc.




I would suggest that it is not a waste of time at all. If BitSavers won't have 
them
then perhaps someone else will? That could go for other scans that have been
deemed inappropriate for bitsavers.


Maybe, maybe not...

If I have something scanned or otherwise available I will try to pass
it on to anyone
that wants it. I am not going to be selfish about it.

BUT... To scan, say the P851 technical manual (both volumes) would take several
days. I am not going to do that on the off-chance that somebody wants
it. I don't
want it, I have it on paper which I find more convenient at the bench.

I have somewhat bitter experience of this. Some time ago somebody noticed
I had a Trend HSR reader in one of my photos on filckr. They asked if I had the
manual. I do, and I scanned it for him. I mentioned it here and nobody was
interested in making it public. At the same time I found the Trend UDR manual,
so I scanned that too. I assume nobody would want that, so I've not bothered
to even try to get it 'out there'.

-tony



I second geneb. Just submit to archive.org as a default, in addition to 
wherever else.


Somebody pointed out to me that they also have tools: 
https://internetarchive.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cli.html



--Toby

Re: DEC archives

[Alan Perry via cctalk]

> 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 was the resolution and the image format not being 
OCR'able at the time (this was many years ago). I don't recall the details, but 
it was a format from a volume, consumer scanner.

One thing is that I wanted to preserve the colorful cover art and the 
hand-written notes in the margins, so I selected a format that I thought would 
be better for that.

alan 

> 
> -- 
> Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
> Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
> Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
> UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: DEC archives

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

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 not a waste of time at all. If BitSavers won't 
> have them
> then perhaps someone else will? That could go for other scans that have been
> deemed inappropriate for bitsavers.

Maybe, maybe not...

If I have something scanned or otherwise available I will try to pass
it on to anyone
that wants it. I am not going to be selfish about it.

BUT... To scan, say the P851 technical manual (both volumes) would take several
days. I am not going to do that on the off-chance that somebody wants
it. I don't
want it, I have it on paper which I find more convenient at the bench.

I have somewhat bitter experience of this. Some time ago somebody noticed
I had a Trend HSR reader in one of my photos on filckr. They asked if I had the
manual. I do, and I scanned it for him. I mentioned it here and nobody was
interested in making it public. At the same time I found the Trend UDR manual,
so I scanned that too. I assume nobody would want that, so I've not bothered
to even try to get it 'out there'.

-tony

RE: DEC archives

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

 
> 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 perhaps someone else will? That could go for other scans that have 
been deemed inappropriate for bitsavers.

I know Jay provides space for classic computing sites, perhaps he could be 
persuaded to provide a site called "notbitsavers" :-) Of course someone would 
have to manage it

Regards

Rob

Re: DEC archives

[geneb via cctalk]

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 to the Internet Archive?  I 
suspect they'd love to have the material.


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: DEC archives

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

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: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: DEC archives

[Alan Perry via cctalk]

> 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, there would have to be full time CHM collections staff present to
> manage and oversee the operation.
> 

Yes, but it would at least allow people to scan stuff in their own collection 
and make it available in an acceptable form.

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 documents at that point (I still scan and distribute 
automotive documents; car people seem to just make what they get work for their 
needs).

alan 

Re: DEC archives

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> 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 copy, obstruction of access and rejection of help.  If 
> this is Califonia

Rod, you need to do some attitude adjustment.  Hostility in response to a 
reasoned explanation of museum professional standards is uncalled for.  
Especially since you seem to be ignorant of how professional museums operate.

If you sauntered into the British Museum saying "hey, I'm here to help you" 
what do you think the reaction would be?  If they say "no thank you" would you 
accuse them of obstruction and unprofessionality?

As for "won't need to be handled" how do you think scans, or photocopies, are 
made?  Of course, by handling the document.  If it's a book or similarly bound 
document, you can't just put it on a standard scanner or copier, because of the 
binding.  You can put it into a specialized book scanner, but that still 
affects the document, though less so.  And it takes time, lots of time.

There are a number of steps to be taken with any museum asset.  Preservation 
first.  Then cataloguing.  Then and only then can you consider operations like 
scanning.  Given the funding available, it's clear they did step one and a 
substantial piece of step two, but they don't currently have time or money to 
do step 3.  So?  Keep in mind that a lot of the rest of their collection hasn't 
even reached step 2 yet.

paul

Re: DEC archives

[Pontus Pihlgren via cctalk]

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

Re: DEC archives

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

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 requirements id still absolutely help out any of the local
> museums if in their area for travel. Im surely not the only one. Plus
> it would be valid for those of us with documents at home to scan for
> the hobby to get them acceptable quality to upload, etc. null

It's not that simple. The CHM has 70 full time employees (most of
whom are museum professionals) and 150 active, qualified volunteers.

Volunteers participate as docents, gallery interpreters, demonstrators,
restoration team members, collections helpers (artifact classifying,
cataloging), etc. Each job has training requirements which can take
several weeks of one or more sessions per week. Most of the volunteer
jobs have formal testing requirements upon course completion.

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, there would have to be full time CHM collections staff present to
manage and oversee the operation.

Be aware that the CHM not only has the DEC collection, but huge
collections of Cisco, Google and other company and individual
histories, manuals, etc. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The CHM
has ten's of thousands of artifacts - both hardware and software.

The reality is that there are limited resources and what gets
done is a matter of establishing goals and priorities for exhibits,
collections, education, events, etc., etc.

The CHM certainly hasn't "shortchanged" the DEC collection. The CHM
spent 14 months and over 5,000 man hours cataloging it!!!

BTW: If it took that long to catalog it - take a guess at how long it
will take to scan it ;)

Regards,
Lyle
-- 
73  AF6WS
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

RE: DEC archives

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

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 for travel. 
Im surely not the only one. Plus it would be valid for those of us with 
documents at home to scan for the hobby to get them acceptable quality to 
upload, etc.
null

Re: DEC archives

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

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 expected to adhere to a set of standards of care for their
collections, which are formally set out by relevant bodies; see, for
example, the British and US pages at the following URLs:

British:  http://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice
US:   http://aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices

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).  It might be done by unpaid interns who already have
training in proper cataloguing and preservation techniques, but they also
would have to be overseen by a paid professional.

More things have been accidentally damaged or destroyed by enthusiastic
amateurs than have ever been preserved with proper provenance, cataloguing,
and care.

I realize that this will cut no ice with you, but CHM has a responsibility
beyond your happiness with respect to preserving this archive, and Al is
correct to point this out.

 Rich

Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134

mailto:ri...@livingcomputers.org

http://www.LivingComputers.org/
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 copy, obstruction of access and rejection of help.  
If this is Califonia


--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darknessand light

Re: DEC archives

[Mark Linimon via cctalk]

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 question.

tnx

mcl

RE: DEC archives

[Rich Alderson via cctalk]

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
collections, which are formally set out by relevant bodies; see, for
example, the British and US pages at the following URLs:

British:  http://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice
US:   http://aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices

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).  It might be done by unpaid interns who already have
training in proper cataloguing and preservation techniques, but they also
would have to be overseen by a paid professional.

More things have been accidentally damaged or destroyed by enthusiastic
amateurs than have ever been preserved with proper provenance, cataloguing,
and care.

I realize that this will cut no ice with you, but CHM has a responsibility
beyond your happiness with respect to preserving this archive, and Al is
correct to point this out.

Rich

Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134

mailto:ri...@livingcomputers.org

http://www.LivingComputers.org/

Re: DEC archives

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

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 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 underfoot just slow things down?

mcl

Re: DEC archives

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

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 days, could we be put to work, or would
having us underfoot just slow things down?

mcl
Now for a real practical use for the archives. As you know I make front 
panels for PDP-8's and 11's.
I have all the information I can find. Full drawing sets photos etc.  
However there are no detail drawings of the
individual panels by themselves.  For each panel there should be sets of 
drawings of the base panel with its cutouts, and

the artwork for each layer.
So for an 8/e you would have a drawing of the plexiglass blank (18.5" x 
8.25") with dimensions and positions of the cutouts,
One artwork for each of the Black, White, Terracotta and Yellow layers. 
Also manufacturing instructions and a parts list.
Although they are shown in the drawing sets of the systems there has to 
be more detail or they could not have been made.


I'm 5,800 miles away. Not a problem if they had been scanned. But a tad 
more difficult to go and look.

Look for what?  Any detail panel information for any system that had one.
If anybody is going there anyway. Please could they look for me.

Rod Smallwood.

--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darknessand light

Re: DEC archives

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

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 to, say, 
digital content).


I'd think you of all people would appreciate that point.

Anyway, like Mark, I've got plenty of boxes here to scan.

--Toby

Re: DEC Archives

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

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 asset in understanding both DEC's business
successes and failures, engineering prowess and bad decisions, etc.

Al and others have discussed on cctalk the implications and
cost of publishing the CHM's massive DEC archives. It would be a huge
undertaking - but if the funding were available, it could be done.

In the past, I personally funded the CHM scanning of all of the "Amateur
Computer Society's" newsletters. I did so because it was the "first"
hobby-centered computer publication*. (It was published from 1966-1976).

You can see the results (and download it) here:

http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102654910


My suggestion would be that if we want the DEC archives available, we
should prioritize what we find most valuable, pool our resources ($$$)
and fund the scanning of the documents incrementally based on priority.

One of the reasons I've personally been reviewing the DEC material is to
determine what, if any, scanning I might be willing to fund.

Regards,
Lyle

* And I was a member of the "Amateur Computer Society" :)



They may not have Xeroxed when they cataloged.
That would have been standard practice over here.
Had they done there would have been a secondary source to scan.
You would think computer people had heard of a backup.
I fear there's more enthusiasium

--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darknessand light

Re: DEC archives

[Curious Marc via cctalk]

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 as occasional 
volunteering though: lots of  work over periods of years. It's a monumental and 
expensive task. And one of the largest contributors and staunchest supporter is 
Al :-). Let's celebrate every step of the progress.
Marc

Re: DEC Archives

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

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
> successes and failures, engineering prowess and bad decisions, etc.  

Al and others have discussed on cctalk the implications and
cost of publishing the CHM's massive DEC archives. It would be a huge
undertaking - but if the funding were available, it could be done.

In the past, I personally funded the CHM scanning of all of the "Amateur
Computer Society's" newsletters. I did so because it was the "first"
hobby-centered computer publication*. (It was published from 1966-1976).

You can see the results (and download it) here:

http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102654910


My suggestion would be that if we want the DEC archives available, we
should prioritize what we find most valuable, pool our resources ($$$)
and fund the scanning of the documents incrementally based on priority.

One of the reasons I've personally been reviewing the DEC material is to
determine what, if any, scanning I might be willing to fund.

Regards,
Lyle

* And I was a member of the "Amateur Computer Society" :)


-- 
73  AF6WS
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Re: DEC archives

[Mark Linimon via cctalk]

Is there no way that occasional volunteer effort could be used in this
or other tasks at the CHM?

mcl

Re: DEC archives

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> 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.
>> 
>> 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 11:59 PM, emanuel stiebler wrote:
>> 
>>> But seriously, does it make sense to got there for few days, and support 
>>> somebody in scanning the material?
>>> 
>>> I understand, that in few days we can't scan all, but it is a start?
>>> 
> Oh Dear Al what are you doing!
> 
> That is a really negative statement. You are protecting nothing.

That seems like an unfair statement.  I don't see anything in what Al says (or 
has said in the past) that justifies accusing him of "protecting".  It makes 
perfect sense that a museum with just a handful of employees and a very limited 
budget would not plan to scan 1200 feet of boxes holding hundreds of thousands 
of pages of stuff.  Just doing the inventory that exists must have been a large 
effort, and indeed we are told that they relied on specific funding to get that 
much.

If you think that it's possible to get funding to acquire equipment and hire 
people sufficient to scan that large body of material in a reasonable amount of 
time, I'd encourage you to make the effort to raise that money.  But to pretend 
that it could be done on the existing budget seems unreasonable to me.

Actually, if more funds are to be thrown at this collection, my recommendation 
would be first to fund a more detailed inventory of the documents, so that it 
would be possible to point out which parts of which box are worth the 
additional effort of scanning.  Even that is likely to be a large effort, since 
presumably we're talking about tens of thousands of documents, and even if it 
takes only a handful of minutes to identify and record what each document is, 
that could easily add up to a manyear or two.  Does anyone here have a spare 
$100k lying around?

paul

Re: DEC archives

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

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 demand by staff at 50 cents per page.


On 6/14/17 11:59 PM, emanuel stiebler wrote:


But seriously, does it make sense to got there for few days, and support 
somebody in scanning the material?

I understand, that in few days we can't scan all, but it is a start?


Oh Dear Al what are you doing!

That is a really negative statement. You are protecting nothing.
As an ex-DEC employee I can tell you that that would annoy so many 
people to whom the information relates.
DEC was a world wide company and there must be world wide access to the 
information.

This material must be made available a widely as possible.
For God's sake man scanning is the one thing that will preserve the 
originals from future handling.


Stop this Policy and Budget nonsense and accept gracefully the help you 
have been offered.


Rod Smallwood 45083 Digital Equipment Corporation 1975 - 1985

--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darknessand light

Re: DEC archives

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

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/

Re: DEC archives

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

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 11:59 PM, emanuel stiebler wrote:

> But seriously, does it make sense to got there for few days, and support 
> somebody in scanning the material?
> 
> I understand, that in few days we can't scan all, but it is a start?
> 

Re: DEC archives

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> 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://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/finding-aids/102733963-DEC/102733963-DEC.pdf
>> 
>> Now, I wonder if it has Firefly docs...
> 
> Absolutely splendid! Perhaps one could set up some sort of voting system 
> for what should be scanned. Given of course that someone is willing to 
> do the scanning :)

That would be interesting.  Unfortunately, the information available is 
limited.  While the photos seem to be cataloged in detail, an entry for each 
individual item, the documents by and large are identified only by vague 
descriptions for a whole box at a time.  Things like "Box 6, 102737405, 
Engineering notes, 1948-1953".  Or "Box 455, 102750643, PDP-11, VAX and other 
manuals, 1966-1982".

paul

Re: DEC archives

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

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 will take exactly that route ;-)

But seriously, does it make sense to got there for few days, and 
support somebody in scanning the material?


I understand, that in few days we can't scan all, but it is a start?

From these distant shores it strikes me that with that amount of 
material a Scanning Squad should be sent to set up a production line.

Fetchers, Scanners and Returners on at least three stations for a start.

Rod Smallwood 45083


--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darknessand light

Re: DEC archives

[Pontus Pihlgren via cctalk]

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
> 
> Now, I wonder if it has Firefly docs...

Absolutely splendid! Perhaps one could set up some sort of voting system 
for what should be scanned. Given of course that someone is willing to 
do the scanning :)

I'm curious about the negative still labled "Swedish students" but I'm 
sure there are manuals and correspondence in there that would be much 
more usefull.

Thanks everyone who worked and financed this massive undertaking.

/P

Re: DEC archives

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

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 make sense to got there for few days, and support 
somebody in scanning the material?


I understand, that in few days we can't scan all, but it is a start?

Re: DEC archives

[Ian S. King via cctalk]

>
> > 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 6000-660 for some time.  I'd
part with significant organs to obtain printsets of power supply elements.
Al?

And it looks like I'm burning the bulk of my PTO on my daughter's high
school graduation and installation at university.  :-)  I might have to put
this on the list for 2018.  -- Ian

-- 
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School 
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens

Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal 
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab 

University of Washington

There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Re: DEC archives

[Mark Linimon via cctalk]

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

Re: DEC archives

[Rod Smallwood via cctalk]

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 black and white.
Just darknessand light

Re: DEC archives

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

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.

Re: DEC archives

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

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/102733963-DEC.pdf



Really hope it will all be scanned in one day. At least all technical
documentation ...




Definitely. A thousand boxes are not at all accessible.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4a/2a/f1/4a2af17f72f8c850e092ae545074ff56.jpg


--Toby
*glances around at the boxes of books and doc in his apartment, for 
scanning one day*

Re: DEC archives

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

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. At least all technical 
documentation ...