offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11
madodel at ptdprolog.net
Mon Jan 7 10:32:55 CST 2008
> 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 http://www.hotfad.com/?title=Image:ATM_OS2_Crash.jpg 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
>>> 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
From the eComStation Desktop of: Mark Dodel
Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
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
More information about the cctalk