offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11

madodel madodel at
Mon Jan 7 10:32:55 CST 2008

jd wrote:
> Fred Cisin wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, madodel wrote:
>>> I've been using OS/2 since version 1.3.  I'm fairly well acquainted with
>>> its capabilities.  Yes I can be wrong and maybe you saw what you think you
>>> saw, but all you have is a story.  Where is your proof other then that you
>>> think you saw it was OS/2?   I can't prove a negative, but you should be
>>> able to prove that it did happen.
>> You're certainly welcome to doubt whether he was right, and/or think that
>> he was mistaken.  But we rarely put up a "burden of proof".
> It's nigh impossible to provide proof, evidence, etc., when one has
> "eyes only" access, not even carrying a camera around, "just in case".
>   For ATM's at least, no one's going to let you have anything as
> proof. If anyone feels otherwise I am sure the FBI would certainly be
> happy to assist in disabusing such silly notions.

There are over 140,000 photos of ATM machines and quite a few of them with 
crashed or hacked windows, on the internet according to Google.  There is 
no crime in taking a picture of an ATM screen.  Now if you had an ax or 
were attaching chains to it from your truck, then someone might get upset. :-)

I finally found two images of an ATM with an OS/2 error message.  One has a 
TRAP screen  It was a 
TRAP 000e which can be caused by bad RAM.  The other 
gives an unable to operate a hard drive message.  Both are most likely 
hardware errors.  Though either could have been caused initially by a 
software error causing the system to TRAP or reboot.  But that is not at a 
command prompt.

>>> but never at an OS/2 prompt.  And as I also posted, if the original ATM
>>> code programmer had known what they were doing then the program itself
>>> should have been set as the shell, so no command prompt should have ever
>>> been attainable.
>> "IF . . .  had known what they were doing"
>> I don't doubt that you could write some extraordinarily robust code.
>> But, do you assert that Diebold knows what they are doing?
> In defense of programmers, whether or not the programmer(s) failed to
> do an adequate job depends far more on their employer's policies and
> schedules than on the programmers' skill and experience. Mostly,
> companies seem to go with whatever works, even if it isn't perfect, or
> have a non-technical management type dictate precisely and strictly
> what a programmer is to do, regardless of the potential consequences.
> Or, rather, that /was/ a common policy. It's only slightly improved,
> though, in all the years since.
> ==

Having been a programmer for a couple of decades, none of the companies I 
have worked for are going to tell a programmer in detail, exactly how to 
code something.  They may specify a language and there might be a set of 
guidelines to follow.  You are given a set of requirements and you code to 
them.  Perhaps security wasn't a requirement.  Though if something as bad 
as this (allowing users to get to a command prompt or a GUI) got through to 
a customer I would seriously suspect the company had little or no quality 
checking.  But as I pointed out there are a lot of photos of crashed and 
hacked ATMs.



  From the eComStation Desktop of: Mark Dodel

  Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
  Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:

For a choice in the future of personal computing, Join VOICE -

   "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the 
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their 
democratic State itself.   That in it's essence, is Fascism - ownership of 
government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private 
power." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the Monopoly 
Investigation, 1938

More information about the cctalk mailing list