Ooops, editing error:
> Although one could build a system which has aggregatable addresses, used
> for path selection, but hid them from the hosts, and used an 'invisible'
> mapping system to translate from them to the aggregatable 'true' addresses.
Should have been "to translate from the 'addresses' used by the hosts to the".
> the changing nature of 'the Internet', but alas the list archives are
> broken at the moment, so no URL
Here are Jack's thoughts on how 'the Internet' is no longer a true internet:
Circa 1984, I remember giving lots of presentations where one theme was
that we had spent the first 10 years of the Internet (taking the 1974
TCP paper as the start) making it possible for every computer to talk
with every other computer.BB We would spend the next 10 years making it
not possible to do such things, so that only communications that were
permitted would be possible.
Sadly, I'm not sure that ever happened. The commercial world started
adopting TCP big time. The government decided to focus on using COTS -
Commercial Off-The-Shelf hardware and software. The Research world
focused on things like faster and bigger networks. At BBN, the focus
shifted to X.25, SNA, and such stuff that promised a big marketplace.
TCP had gone through 5 releases from TCP2 through TCP4 in just a few
years, so remaining items on the To-Do list, like address space, were
expected to be addressed shortly.
I'm not sure if anyone ever conveyed this architecture to the IETF or
all the vendors that were popping up with products to build
Internet(s). I think changes like NAT came about to solve pragmatic
problems. But that of course broke the "end-to-end" architecture, which
would view NAT actions as those of an intruder or equipment failure.
So TCP became no longer end-to-end.
The Internet is typically viewed as a way to interconnect networks. But
I think it's evolved operationally to become the way to interconnect
across administrative boundaries, where Autonomous Systems have become
associated with different ISPs, other mechanisms are used by vendors to
create their own walled gardens of services (e.g., "clouds" or
"messaging"), and NAT is used at the edges to connect to users'
internets. The end-to-end nature is gone.
But that's just based on my observations from the outside. I don't have
a clue as to what today's actual Internet Architecture is, other than a
collection of RFCs and product manuals that may or may not reflect
reality, or if there is anyone actually able to manage the
architecture. From my user's perspective, it's a Wild West out there.....
And the definition of The Internet is still elusive. I agree that the
users' definition is the best working one -- The Internet is the thing
I'm connected to to do what I do when I get "on the Net."
Noel
> From: Brent Hilpert
> Roughly, IP took care of a common addressing scheme and a common
> packet presentation, TCP took care of end-to-end flow control.
Yes on IP, but TCP's main function is reliability - much of the mechanism of
TCP (sequence numbers, acknowledgements, timeouts and retransmissions, and
checksums) is all there for that.
> As so much nowadays is about throwing ethernet frames around on
> different types of links and network formats (not what ethernet was
> originally designed for), some of the earlier diversity that made
> 'interneting' necessary may no longer be there.
There is one aspect of internetworking (the original term - I probably should
have described PUP/CHAOS/XNS as 'internetworking protocols') which _is_
crucial, though - the multi-layer address space. We'd need that even if
_everything_ in the world used Ethernet frame headers.
If one tried to do path selection (usually called 'routing', but I don't use
that term as it can be confused with packet forwarding) using only 48-bit
interface identifiers, it just wouldn't scale to the size network we have
now. The ability to aggregate groups of hosts, so that a distant routing
table contains only a single entry for all of them, is crucial for scaling
purposes. Without that, routing tables would have to have billions
(literally; add up the numbers of different kinds of end-user devices -
laptops, etc) of entries.
(Heck, even XNS had network numbers, precisely for this reason. Although one
could build a system which has aggregatable addresses, used for path
selection, but hid them from the hosts, and used an 'invisible' mapping
system to translate from them to the aggregatable 'true' addresses. The LISP
networking system does this, as does the 800 and inter-provider portability
capability in the 'phone system - although in both cases the input and output
to the mapping system have identical syntax.)
Originally, IP had only two layers in the addressing - network # and 'rest',
then we added a third layer with 'subnets', and finally went to a potentially
multi-layer system with CIDR. (I'm not sure what ISPs are actually doing with
them now - I'm now out of touch with that world.)
> It might be arguable whether we have an 'internet' any longer or just a
> great big 'network' with different types of links.
I found Jack Haverty's message to the internet-history list about the
changing nature of 'the Internet', but alas the list archives are broken at
the moment, so no URL.
Noel
The first Internet message was sent 60 yrs. ago on Nov. 21 between SRI and
UCLA. It was one-to-many, or more accurate one-to-one, but the world today
is many-to-many though cctalk runs through a moderator. The Internet
democratizes and gives a certain freedom to us all but it can lead to
mis-information from "one" or mis-interpretation by the "many".
Computerization of society as seen through cctalk tells this story well
mainly through the hardware side.
Happy computing.
Murray ?
> From: Nigel Johnson
> No, your home has an intranet!
Can you please provide a crisp, definitive, technical definition of what an
'intranet' is (similar to the one I just provided for 'internet' - "disparate
networks tied together with packet switches which examine the internet-layer
headers")?
If not, it's just marketing-speak, and should go where "Hitchhiker's Guide"
said marketing should go. (Having said that, only half-jokingly, I should add
that I am fully aware that _really good_ marketing people are worth their own
weight in gold-pressed latinum; the prime example being Steve Jobs, who
invented several products that people didn't know they needed/wanted until he
produced them.)
> From: Paul Koning
> No, "internet" has (had?) a very different meaning. Loosely, a network
> of computers belonging to different organizations, or using different
> technologies.
That's not the definition used by the originators of the term: see the
Cerf/Kahn paper. (I basically regurgitated it, above.)
> "Internet" .. the term picked to replace "ARPAnet" when it became
> desirable to call that network by a name that doesn't designate it as a
> US government research agency creation.
I can guarantee you that that is not correct (sorry). In 1982, which is
approximately when the term was created, you _had_ to have a USG connection to
get connected to the Internet. And the ARPANET was always called the ARPANET
until its last remnants were turned off in 1990 (although use of NCP was
discarded in January 1983, considerably earlier, so it was only used as a
component of the Internet after that).
In fact, I recollect the conversion with Vint Cerf (at an INENG/IETF meeting,
IIRC) where the term 'Internet' was suggested/adopted; in fact I may have been
the person who suggested it, although the memory is now too dim. The adoption
was _solely_ to do with the need for a name for the large internet we were all
connecting to, and _nothing_ to do with organizational stuff.
Noel
I'm clearing out some old stuff. These are free (but you pay postage) if anyone wants them.
Catch: they are in Sydney Australia.
---------------------------
Digital Communications Associates Inc. Circa 1985
IRMAlink IRMA 2 3270 Micro-to-Mainframe communications
IRMA 2 supplies the personal computer with direct coaxial connection
to an IBM 3174, 3274, 3276 or Integral Terminal Controller with Type A adapters.
Includes two completes sets, each: card + documentation + 3 x 3.5" disks with code and drivers.
Not in original packing.
See http://everist.org/spacejunk/sell/irma.htm
---------------------------
DigiBoard MC/8e Intelligent Async serial communications board (8 ports) Circa 1993
One microchannel card plus octopus cable and manuals. Some manuals still in sealed envelopes.
In original packing
See http://everist.org/spacejunk/sell/mc8e.htm
---------------------------
Guy
> From: Fred Cisin
> Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying
> "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older history.
> ...
> those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the
> internet.
Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'?
The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two
different words, with _different meanings_.
> Definition and history of the WORD "internet" is also critical
> ...
> do you know of any actual use of the word/name "internet" prior to the
> December 1974 RFC about TCP?
I believe the word 'internet' was coined for:
V. Cerf and R. Kahn, "A Protocol For Packet Network
Intercommunication," IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. C-
2O, No. 5. May 1974, pp. 637-648.
There was earlier work in the general area of connecting computer data
networks together, performed in the International Packet Network Working
Group (INWG), which had an alternative term 'catenet' which had much the same
meaning as 'internet'. (Although little-known, the INWG - not to be confused
with the later DARPA-centric group of the same acronym - is documented in two
papers, a draft one by Ronda Hauben, and a later one by Alex McKenzie.) I
don't know if the term 'internet' was used there before its appearance in the
Cerf/Kakhn paper.
Interestingly, "Internetworking" is mentioned in RFC604, December 1973, so
the word was in circulation in the technical community before the Cerf/Kahn
paper came out.
"Internet" came along later, when we needed a name for the internet centered
around the ARPANET. The need was discussed on the then-central email list for
the TCP/IP community (which may have been called 'inwg' - my memory is, alas,
fading), and we decided on 'Internet'.
I'd previously looked for the first use of 'Internet' in that sense in the
RFC's, and found it, but I don't remember what it was! Looking again, there's
a lot of 'Internet Protocol' and similar things to sort out; I see an
'Internet' in RFC780, May 1981, but it's marginal (it says "ARPA Internet");
the first 'true' use of 'Internet' on its own in the current meaning which
I found was in RFC821, August 1982.
Noel
> From: Richard Pope
> Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home:
> internet
It depends on what's inside it.
An 'internet' is a collection of disparate networks tied together with packet
switches which examine the internet-layer headers of the packets passing
through them (such boxes are now known as 'routers'). The "internet layer"
doesn't appear in the ISO 7-layer model, since the concept didn't appear
until after that was done; but you can imagine it as layer '3A', crammed in
between 3 ('Network') and 4 ('Transport').
Note that there are a number of networking protocol families that include the
internet concept; CHAOS, PUP, XNS and DECnet among them (although there are
several versions of DECnet and I no longer remember the details of most of
them, so take that one with the proverbial grain, but several had internets).
Does does the network in your house use router(s) to tie it together? If so,
it's an internet; if not, no. If you have a wireless hub, connected to a CATV
modem, you probably have a small piece of 'the Internet' in your house. (See
below.)
Note that there are still internets (and networks) which are not connected to
the Internet - Google for "air gap".
> and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of
> networked computers?
Originally 'the Internet' was the large TCP/IP internet centered around the
ARPANET, and later the NSFNET.
These days, the concept is more diffuse - there was some discussion recently
on the internet-history list:
http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/
about it, but I'm too lazy to track down the exact messages.
Noel
Yes, I was able to determine that the TurboDOS 1.41c disks which would complete my particular setup do exist and that they are in good hands, however I have not been able to get copies of the disks as of yet. I'm hoping that patience will prevail and perhaps another copy will turn up or the copies that I know about might someday become available.
The 16-bit 1.43 version that you need is readily available as 5.25" disk images. I've got copies of them and they work well. If you need it on 8" floppy, I can probably convert them using my IMS system to write them to 8". Getting a system up and running is not that difficult, I can guide you through if there's any trouble.
Jonathan
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
did anything more ever turn up?
I'd like to try getting a 16-bit 1.43 running, there is a set of disks on ebay, but the seller has blocked me
https://www.ebay.com/itm/193098921854
On 6/28/19 7:17 PM, Jonathan Haddox via cctalk wrote:
> Just sending a thanks for the replies from various folks on this list. I was able to recover a partial set of operating system files for my IMS/LF-Technologies S-100 machine from members who dug deep into their archives. It's booting now to a basic single-user TurboDOS 1.4 which proves that my hardware is sound. In order to get what I really want out of this machine, I still need to source a full set of TurboDOS 1.4 drivers (.REL files) from IMS L/F Tech distribution diskettes. I'll be around if they ever turn up.
>
> Thank You!
>
> IMS A645 Z-80 Processor
> IMS A631 serial/parallel I/O
> IMS A930 Floppy controller
> IMS A465 64K RAM
> IMS 1100 Winchester Hard disk controller
> IMS 862 User Processor (Z80)
> IMS 1081 User Processor (186)
> IMS 1120 Tape Controller On Tuesday, June 11, 2019, 11:55:29 AM CDT, Jonathan Haddox <new_castle_j at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm restoring an IMS - L/F Technologies S-100 Bus computer.? I've got all the pieces except for the Operating System.? I'm hoping that someone here may have a disk stashed away.? From the literature I have read, I would need TurboDOS version 1.40a or 1.41c from IMS or L/F Technologies.? I've seen TurboDOS 1.3 versions out in the wild from IMS, but the 1.4 version was greatly enhanced and offered better compatibility with my specific hardware.? I'd be much obliged if anyone can help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
> new_castle_j? at yahoo
