4 Jun
2012
4 Jun
'12
7 a.m.
At 17:01 -0500 5/23/12, ARD wrote:
OS9 is so modular that there would be no problem in
writing the device
manager and device drivers for a netwoek drvice. I think ethernet would
have had far to high a data rate, but there are plenty of slower
alternatices.
Sorry for delayed response, vacation intervened.
http://www.cloud9tech.com/ (no affiliation, other than as a highly
satisfied customer) does market DriveWire for the CoCo3 running
NitrOS-9. I have not (yet) used it, but they claim 115,200 bps on a
CoCo3. There is a corresponding server that runs on the (Windows/Mac
OS X/Linux) other end of the serial wire, and they claim TCP/IP and
several dependent services (telnet, MIDI streaming to the server). So
Tony's suggestion more or less already exists, with the assumption
that you don't mind a modern-ish PC acting as an external ethernet
<-> serial adaptor.
--
- Mark 210-379-4635
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Asteroids headed toward planets
inhabited by beings that don't have
technology adequate to stop them:
Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.
4 Jun
4 Jun
7:45 a.m.
OS9 is so
modular that there would be no problem in writing the device
manager and device drivers for a netwoek drvice. I think ethernet would
have had far to high a data rate, but there are plenty of slower
alternatices.
Sorry for delayed response, vacation intervened.
http://www.cloud9tech.com/ (no affiliation, other than as a highly
satisfied customer) does market DriveWire for the CoCo3 running
NitrOS-9. I have not (yet) used it, but they claim 115,200 bps on a
CoCo3. There is a corresponding server that runs on the (Windows/Mac
OS X/Linux) other end of the serial wire, and they claim TCP/IP and
several dependent services (telnet, MIDI streaming to the server). So
Tony's suggestion more or less already exists, with the assumption
that you don't mind a modern-ish PC acting as an external ethernet
<-> serial adaptor. 
9:09 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 07:45:24AM -0700, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
..
- Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Why leave money to our children if we don't leave them the Earth?
> > OS9 is so modular that there would be no
problem in writing the device
> > manager and device drivers for a netwoek drvice. I think ethernet would
I wrote a device manager and device driver years ago to give me pseudo
ttys on a OS9 machine. I also had written a RAMDISK driver for OS9 I
it was obsoleted by OS9 II.
Fond memories.
> > have had far to high a data rate, but there
are plenty of slower
> > alternatices.
> Sorry for delayed response, vacation
intervened.
> http://www.cloud9tech.com/ (no
affiliation, other than as a highly
> satisfied customer) does market DriveWire for the CoCo3 running
Cool !
> NitrOS-9. I have not (yet) used it, but they
claim 115,200 bps on a
...
3:21 p.m.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Is this SLIP or PPP?
Neither. It's a well thought-out (and documented!) protocol for interface
between small 8-bit machines and modern hardware. There's nothing
specific to the CoCo - that just happens to be the first implementation.
--
OS9 is so modular that there would be no problem in
writing the device
manager and device drivers for a netwoek drvice. I think ethernet would
have had far to high a data rate, but there are plenty of slower
alternatices.
Sorry for delayed response, vacation intervened.
http://www.cloud9tech.com/ (no affiliation, other than as a highly
satisfied customer) does market DriveWire for the CoCo3 running
NitrOS-9. I have not (yet) used it, but they claim 115,200 bps on a
CoCo3. There is a corresponding server that runs on the (Windows/Mac
OS X/Linux) other end of the serial wire, and they claim TCP/IP and
several dependent services (telnet, MIDI streaming to the server). So
Tony's suggestion more or less already exists, with the assumption
that you don't mind a modern-ish PC acting as an external ethernet
<-> serial adaptor.
3:34 p.m.
Is this SLIP
or PPP?
Neither. It's a well thought-out (and documented!) protocol for interface
between small 8-bit machines and modern hardware. There's nothing
specific to the CoCo - that just happens to be the first implementation.
6:08 p.m.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I just looked at it on sourceforge. It seems like the same setup of a
Lantronix UDS or Wiznet-type device. Those are a little more portable.
In some respects. But those don't give you the virtual disk drive services
that drivewire offers.
--
Is this SLIP or PPP?
Neither. It's a well thought-out (and documented!) protocol for interface
between small 8-bit machines and modern hardware. There's nothing
specific to the CoCo - that just happens to be the first implementation. 
5 Jun
5 Jun
4:44 a.m.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Steven Hirsch wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I just looked at it on sourceforge. It seems like the same setup of a
Lantronix UDS or Wiznet-type device. Those are a little more portable.
In some respects. But those don't give you the virtual disk drive services
that drivewire offers.
For the Commodore users out there, you might want to look at the Comet
Is this SLIP or PPP?
Neither. It's a well thought-out (and documented!) protocol for interface
between small 8-bit machines and modern hardware. There's nothing
specific to the CoCo - that just happens to be the first implementation. from http://www.commodoreserver.com. They've got a
new driver out that
allows for a 38.4k transfer rate on the USER port, which is a
pretty big
deal on a Commodore 64. I've got a Comet and it works VERY well.
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://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a
server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck.
[Cipher in a.s.r]
8:28 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Steven Hirsch wrote:
Interesting, but it requires:
a) The purchase of a $50+ piece of hardware
b) That you store all your images on their web site.
DriveWire requires that you build a single cable (peanut expenditure) and
let's you store things on your own computer.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not like the current trend towards
putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
Steve
--
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
In some respects. But those don't give you the virtual disk drive services
that drivewire offers.
For the Commodore users out there, you might want to look at the Comet from
http://www.commodoreserver.com. They've got a new driver out that allows for
a 38.4k transfer rate on the USER port, which is a pretty big deal on a
Commodore 64. I've got a Comet and it works VERY well. > Is
this SLIP or PPP?
Neither. It's a well thought-out (and documented!) protocol for
interface
between small 8-bit machines and modern hardware. There's nothing
specific to the CoCo - that just happens to be the first implementation.
I just looked at it on sourceforge. It seems like the same setup of a
Lantronix UDS or Wiznet-type device. Those are a little more portable. 
11:42 a.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 06/05/2012 11:28 AM, Steven Hirsch wrote:
Interesting, but it requires:
a) The purchase of a $50+ piece of hardware
b) That you store all your images on their web site.
DriveWire requires that you build a single cable (peanut expenditure)
and let's you store things on your own computer.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not like the current trend towards
putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
12:26 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
> Interesting, but it requires:
> b) That you store all your images on their web site.
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not like
the current trend
> towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...though it sure can feel like it sometimes,
I know.
Especially when the third-party remote site is in a place with
substantially weaker privacy protection than is provided locally, which
is often the case since many - most? - of the third-party sites in
question are in the USA, with all the depressing implications that has
for privacy. (Of course, for people already in the USA, this may not
be as big a deal.)
There are reasons I, for example, run my own mailserver, and this is
one of them. I don't trust anyone else with my mail, especially not
someone off in another country. My offsite backups take the form of
two disks which I swap weekly, keeping the non-live one a few miles
from my place. That sort of thing.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
11:18 a.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mouse wrote:
It's a fun gadget for a 30 year old computer. Get over yourselves.
I'll be the first to say that if you don't physically control the hardware
your data is stored on, you don't control your data. However, whining
about storing disk images for your Commodore 64 on a remote site is just
f*cking stupid.
I mentioned the device because I figured some folks would get a kick out
of it, not to start a whinge-fest about cloud services.
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://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a
server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck.
[Cipher in a.s.r]
>
Interesting, but it requires:
> b) That you store all your images on their web site.
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not
like the current trend
> towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...though it sure can feel like it sometimes,
I know.
1:26 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 06/05/2012 02:18 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
It's a fun gadget for a 30 year old computer. Get over yourselves.
I'll be the first to say that if you don't physically control the
hardware your data is stored on, you don't control your data. However,
whining about storing disk images for your Commodore 64 on a remote site
is just f*cking stupid.
Of course. But some people put their personal finance data "in the
cloud" because they've been told it's a good idea, and they're stupid
enough to believe it. THAT was his complaint, and it's mine as well.
> Interesting, but it requires:
> b) That you store all your images on their web site.
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not
like the current trend
> towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...though it sure can feel like it sometimes,
I know.
I mentioned the device because I figured some folks
would get a kick out
of it, not to start a whinge-fest about cloud services.
This is classiccmp. We can turn ANYTHING into a whinge-fest.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
11:59 a.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
*facepalm* Good point. I keep forgetting that.
DB9 anyone? *runs*
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://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a
server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck.
[Cipher in a.s.r]
On 06/05/2012 02:18 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
It's a fun gadget for a 30 year old computer. Get over yourselves.
I'll be the first to say that if you don't physically control the
hardware your data is stored on, you don't control your data. However,
whining about storing disk images for your Commodore 64 on a remote site
is just f*cking stupid.
Of course. But some people put their personal finance data "in the
cloud" because they've been told it's a good idea, and they're stupid
enough to believe it. THAT was his complaint, and it's mine as well.
People that stupid deserve what they get, simple as that. I swear, some
people are still alive just because their Medulla doesn't know any better.
> Interesting, but it requires:
> b) That you store all your images on their web site.
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not
like the current trend
> towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...though it sure can feel like it sometimes,
I know.
I mentioned
the device because I figured some folks would get a kick out
of it, not to start a whinge-fest about cloud services.
This is classiccmp. We can turn ANYTHING into a whinge-fest. 
2:36 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
>> of it, not to start a whinge-fest about cloud
services.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Dave McGuire wrote:
> This is classiccmp. We can turn ANYTHING into a
whinge-fest.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Gene Buckle wrote:
*facepalm* Good point. I keep forgetting that.
DB9 anyone? *runs*
Good point.
We ALL have things which INFURIATE us, despite being in common usage.
And we can't resist reacting.
For some it's "DB9".
Recently I discovered how offensive using "DD" as a drive type can be.
For myself, I HATE "1.44M" when referring to a drive with 1,474,560 bytes.
(1.40625 Mebibytes) rounded, that is "1.4M"
To me, that is WORSE THAN to referring to 65,536 bytes as 65.5K
1,024,000 bytes per "Megabyte"??!?
"Die Telekom Cloud!" Die, NOW.
4:49 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
We ALL have things which INFURIATE us, despite being
in common usage.
And we can't resist reacting.
Though some of us sometimes can (mostly) keep the reactions off the
list. :/
For myself, I HATE "1.44M" when referring to
a drive with 1,474,560
bytes. (1.40625 Mebibytes)
The whole kibblebytes/maybebytes/gibberbytes stupidity is one of my pet
peeves. I refuse to let disk manufacturers redefine storage amounts
out from under me, no matter who buys into their fiction.
1,024,000 bytes per "Megabyte"??!?
Agreed, "1.44M" floppies are a particularly schizoid measurement. Not
that it bothers me the way [KMGT]iB do...as you said, different folks,
different hot buttons. :)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:01 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 5 Jun 2012 at 19:49, Mouse wrote:
Agreed, "1.44M" floppies are a particularly
schizoid measurement. Not
that it bothers me the way [KMGT]iB do...as you said, different folks,
different hot buttons. :)
You say what you have to say in order to be understood. I refer to
the format/medium as "1.44M", not 1.44MB. Pick your own unit to
make it come out right.. The fresh confusion over what "HD" means
illustrates the problem. Perhaps something like
3.5/300/80/2/18/512MFM might be a better way, but it's not likely to
be understood by many.
--Chuck
6:21 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 06/05/2012 07:49 PM, Mouse wrote:
Yes. It's even more stupid than the whole "master and SUBORDINATE"
(as opposed to the proper term "slave"), in the context of ATA-interface
drives, that a certain group of professionally-offended people tried to
promote.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
We ALL have
things which INFURIATE us, despite being in common usage.
And we can't resist reacting.
Though some of us sometimes can (mostly) keep the reactions off the
list. :/
For myself, I HATE "1.44M" when
referring to a drive with 1,474,560
bytes. (1.40625 Mebibytes)
The whole kibblebytes/maybebytes/gibberbytes stupidity is one of my pet
peeves. I refuse to let disk manufacturers redefine storage amounts
out from under me, no matter who buys into their fiction.
1:27 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...[...] Get over yourselves.
Yeah, that'll sure help calm the discussion down.
However, whining about storing disk images for your
Commodore 64 on a
remote site is just f*cking stupid.
...because of course nobody ever uses a C=64 for anything for which
privacy is important.
Right. Really cogent argument, that.
Phrased so politely, too.
And to get back to the subject, there are reasons beyond privacy for
not pushing data out to third parties. In particular, it's easy to
lose access to that data, either temporarily or permanently, for
reasons beyond your easy control. If I were playing with C=64 code, it
would quite annoy me if things suddenly stopped working temporarily
because some provider half a continent away failed...or permanently
because some company failed.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
1:37 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mouse wrote:
It's a fun gadget for a 30 year old computer. Get over yourselves.
I'll be the first to say that if you don't physically control the hardware
your data is stored on, you don't control your data. However, whining about
storing disk images for your Commodore 64 on a remote site is just f*cking
stupid.
I mentioned the device because I figured some folks would get a kick out of
it, not to start a whinge-fest about cloud services.
Geez, Louise... Lighten up! This must be crabby day on the cctalk list.
I was simply pointing out a rather major difference and expressed my
opinion along the way. Excuse the heck out of me...
Steve
--
>
Interesting, but it requires:
> b) That you store all your images on their web site.
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not
like the current trend
> towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...though it sure can feel like it sometimes,
I know.
2:57 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 03:26:52PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
Well, of course. I run my own infrastructure as far as possible and that
includes mailserver, webserver, newsserver, VPN, ... and that stuff
isn't hard.
>
Interesting, but it requires:
> b) That you store all your images on their web site.
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not
like the current trend
> towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
You're not alone, you two...though it sure can feel like it sometimes,
I know.
Especially when the third-party remote site is in a place with
substantially weaker privacy protection than is provided locally, which
is often the case since many - most? - of the third-party sites in
question are in the USA, with all the depressing implications that has
for privacy. (Of course, for people already in the USA, this may not
be as big a deal.)
There are reasons I, for example, run my own mailserver, and this is
one of them. I don't trust anyone else with my mail, especially not
someone off in another country. My offsite backups take the form of
two disks which I swap weekly, keeping the non-live one a few miles
from my place. That sort of thing.
Here it is a stack of tapes, with one (encrypted, obviously) copy sitting
in the vault of a local bank.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
1:20 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Dave McGuire wrote:
On 06/05/2012 11:28 AM, Steven Hirsch wrote:
For shure, that's not the only one besides you...
BTW: I'm currently 49 years old, have a little more than "normal" activity
on the net, worked as Unix Sysop for many years...but I still don't know
what for I should need Twitter and Facebook..
Regards,
Holm
PS: We have here in Germany aggressive Advertising from the German Telekom
for their Cloud system.
"Die Telekom Cloud!" ...since they must use english vocables in any sentence
where it is possible to get "a modern image".
For any normal German that sounds like "Die Telekom klaut!" wich means in
German that they are stealing ..
OMG.
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe,
Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583
www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Interesting, but it requires:
a) The purchase of a $50+ piece of hardware
b) That you store all your images on their web site.
DriveWire requires that you build a single cable (peanut expenditure)
and let's you store things on your own computer.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not like the current trend towards
putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
2:34 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Holm Tiffe wrote:
"Die Telekom Cloud!" ...since they must use
english vocables in any sentence
where it is possible to get "a modern image".
For any normal German that sounds like "Die Telekom klaut!" wich means in
German that they are stealing ..
GREAT!
So, depending on whether you are English speaking or German speaking, it
is either saying that the cloud should be put to death, or that they are
stealing. What's to argue?
3:04 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:20:00PM +0200, Holm Tiffe wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
I've been told they are _great_ for getting rid of excess spare time.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI
(Onion News Network about Facebook *g*)
On 06/05/2012 11:28 AM, Steven Hirsch wrote:
For shure, that's not the only one besides you...
BTW: I'm currently 49 years old, have a little more than "normal" activity
on the net, worked as Unix Sysop for many years...but I still don't know
what for I should need Twitter and Facebook.. Interesting, but it requires:
a) The purchase of a $50+ piece of hardware
b) That you store all your images on their web site.
DriveWire requires that you build a single cable (peanut expenditure)
and let's you store things on your own computer.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not like the current trend towards
putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
*applause*
THANK GOD...someone else who Gets It!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA PS: We have here in Germany aggressive Advertising
from the German Telekom
for their Cloud system.
"Die Telekom Cloud!" ...since they must use english vocables in any sentence
where it is possible to get "a modern image".
Yeah, if they were at least consistent, but this "stylish" mixing of german
and english words tends to produce some seriously cringeworthy things.
For any normal German that sounds like "Die
Telekom klaut!" wich means in
German that they are stealing ..
Nothing wrong with that perception ...
Hey, they are a telco. By definition, that means they are evil and should
not be trusted. ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
5:13 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 2012 Jun 5, at 3:04 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Hey, they are a telco. By definition, that means they
are evil and
should
not be trusted. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OEMSFx8pls
Start at 1:29:00.
Cheesy 60's movie with James Coburn. Lots of blinkenlights.
7:59 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OEMSFx8pls
Start at 1:29:00.
Cheesy 60's movie with James Coburn. Lots of blinkenlights.
You didn't even identify it, but what else could it possibly be but, "The
Presiden'ts Analyst"!?
TPC, indeed!
8:21 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Panels from the SAGE computer were used as props in that movie:
http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Q7/scifi/Analyst/
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OEMSFx8pls
Start at 1:29:00.
Cheesy 60's movie with James Coburn. Lots of blinkenlights.
You didn't even identify it, but what else could it possibly be but, "The
Presiden'ts Analyst"!?
10:40 p.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 2012 Jun 5, at 8:21 PM, Mike Loewen wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Fred Cisin wrote:
(.. yes, I did recognise them)
What I always wondered about those SAGE consoles used in the movies
is how the props people wrested them out of the Air Force so early.
SAGE had barely become fully functional when they got them (from your
pages Fox obtained them in 1966; from the MITRE site SAGE was fully
functional in 1964). Sure, some of the production was some years
older, but not very.
-
Here's a little hindsight thought experiment: if the SAGE hardware
had been reimplemented in solid-state in, say, the late 60s, would it
have been more cost-effective than running and maintaining the tube
version for the remaining 15 or so years of the system's life?
I suppose the real-politik answer is the system was obsolete by that
time anyways and it was just bureaucratic face-saving that kept it
running, but I'm thinking of the technical answer.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Panels from the SAGE computer were used as props in that movie:
http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Q7/scifi/Analyst/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OEMSFx8pls
Start at 1:29:00.
Cheesy 60's movie with James Coburn. Lots of blinkenlights.
You didn't even identify it, but what else could it possibly be
but, "The
Presiden'ts Analyst"!? 
10:54 p.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 6/5/12 10:40 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
if the SAGE hardware had been reimplemented in
solid-state
It was reimplemented by IBM As the IBM 4020. Two were built
one became the AN/FSQ-32 timesharing system at SDC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/FSQ-32
SAGE was already an obsolete technology because of the ICBM
before the transistorized systems were built.
11:19 p.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 2012 Jun 5, at 10:54 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 6/5/12 10:40 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Very interesting. I get the feeling from the description though, that
it was targetted to replace SAGE, rather than reimplementing the SAGE
architecture.
In any case, it never did replace SAGE, so my question is still
there, along with why the 32 didn't do (perhaps too early as a solid-
state machine, to make it worthwhile).
if the SAGE hardware had been reimplemented in
solid-state
It was reimplemented by IBM As the IBM 4020. Two were built
one became the AN/FSQ-32 timesharing system at SDC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/FSQ-32
SAGE was already an obsolete technology because of the ICBM
before the transistorized systems were built.
6 Jun
6 Jun
6:01 a.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
On 2012 Jun 5, at 8:21 PM, Mike Loewen wrote:
According to Radomes:
http://www.radomes.org/museum/sagedocs.html
...the first SAGE site to be decommissioned was Beale AFB in August of
1963. The equipment from Beale was a likely candidate to end up at either
Fox or Vectrex.
Decommissioning dates:
Beale AFB, CA 08/01/63
Minot AFB, ND 08/15/63
Larson AFB, WA 09/01/63
Grand Forks AFB, ND 12/01/63
K.I.Sawyer AFB, MI 12/15/63
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
Panels from the SAGE computer were used as props in that movie:
http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Q7/scifi/Analyst/
(.. yes, I did recognise them)
What I always wondered about those SAGE consoles used in the movies is how
the props people wrested them out of the Air Force so early. SAGE had barely
become fully functional when they got them (from your pages Fox obtained them
in 1966; from the MITRE site SAGE was fully functional in 1964). Sure, some
of the production was some years older, but not very.
10:51 a.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 2012 Jun 6, at 6:01 AM, Mike Loewen wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Thanks for finding that, wish the data were organised in one table
though. Going through the pages it looks like most of the sites were
deactivated by 1969.
What I always wondered about those SAGE consoles used in the
movies is how the props people wrested them out of the Air Force
so early. SAGE had barely become fully functional when they got
them (from your pages Fox obtained them in 1966; from the MITRE
site SAGE was fully functional in 1964). Sure, some of the
production was some years older, but not very.
According to Radomes:
http://www.radomes.org/museum/sagedocs.html
...the first SAGE site to be decommissioned was Beale AFB in
August of 1963. The equipment from Beale was a likely candidate to
end up at either Fox or Vectrex.
Decommissioning dates:
Beale AFB, CA 08/01/63
Minot AFB, ND 08/15/63
Larson AFB, WA 09/01/63
Grand Forks AFB, ND 12/01/63
K.I.Sawyer AFB, MI 12/15/63
11:33 a.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 6 Jun 2012 at 10:51, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Thanks for finding that, wish the data were organised
in one table
though. Going through the pages it looks like most of the sites were
deactivated by 1969.
At one point in my life, I had a unit manager who'd gotten his
experience with SAGE. He said the operators used to stash lunch bags
in the cabinets to keep the contents warm. I have no idea if he was
pulling my leg...
--Chuck
12:10 p.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Chuck Guzis wrote:
At one point in my life, I had a unit manager
who'd gotten his
experience with SAGE. He said the operators used to stash lunch bags
in the cabinets to keep the contents warm. I have no idea if he was
pulling my leg...
Doubtful. The air going through the frames was cold and the equipment
was not warm, to my recollection.
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
8:22 a.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Here's a little hindsight thought experiment: if
the SAGE hardware had been
reimplemented in solid-state in, say, the late 60s, would it have been more
cost-effective than running and maintaining the tube version for the
remaining 15 or so years of the system's life?
"Cost effective" would never have been an issue. Running an AN/FSQ-7,
as expensive as it sounds, is peanuts compared to just keeping one
F-102 aircraft fed and maintained.
--
Will
11:01 a.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 2012 Jun 6, at 8:22 AM, William Donzelli wrote:
No, not to the bureaucracy (I was getting at that in my first message).
Going from the pages Mike ref'd, I didn't realise so many of the
sites had been decommissioned so early and only a lesser portion hung
on to the 80s.
Here's a
little hindsight thought experiment: if the SAGE hardware
had been
reimplemented in solid-state in, say, the late 60s, would it have
been more
cost-effective than running and maintaining the tube version for the
remaining 15 or so years of the system's life?
"Cost effective" would never have been an issue. Running an AN/FSQ-7,
as expensive as it sounds, is peanuts compared to just keeping one
F-102 aircraft fed and maintained.
11:37 a.m.
New subject: SAGE meanderings / was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Going from the pages Mike ref'd, I didn't
realise so many of the sites had
been decommissioned so early and only a lesser portion hung on to the 80s.
To add to that history, the Hughes 5118/1116-based AN/FYQ-93 which
replaced the AN/FSQ-7 (SAGE) at McChord was in service from 1983 until
2006. Its replacement was the AN/FYQ-156 BCS-F (Battle Control System -
Fixed), built around HP servers:
http://www.radomes.org/museum/equip/radarequip.php?link=fyq-156.html
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://sturgeon.css.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
5 Jun
5 Jun
10:17 p.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 2012 Jun 5, at 7:59 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Brent Hilpert wrote:
Well, I thought I'd leave a little discovery for the enthused,
although I guess it's not just a click away for everybody.
You mean you knew without having to check? Sheer coincidence, I ran
across it just the night before. Seems I somehow missed it in the
intervening 44 years. And I like to think I'm pretty well versed in
60's flicks, so it was a surprise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OEMSFx8pls
Start at 1:29:00.
Cheesy 60's movie with James Coburn. Lots of blinkenlights.
You didn't even identify it, but what else could it possibly be
but, "The
Presiden'ts Analyst"!? TPC, indeed!
"And because of this irrational dislike of their own publically-owned
company,
they often don't pay their bills and sometimes even damage the
equipment!"
6 Jun
6 Jun
2:25 a.m.
New subject: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:20:00PM +0200, Holm Tiffe wrote:
BTW: I'm currently 49 years old, have a little
more than "normal" activity
on the net, worked as Unix Sysop for many years...but I still don't know
what for I should need Twitter and Facebook..
It's there to waste time. Or optionally so people can reveal
parts of they private life, then regret they didn't keep it private.
--
Eivind
6:15 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
BTW: I'm
currently 49 years old, have a little more than "normal" activity
on the net, worked as Unix Sysop for many years...but I still don't know
what for I should need Twitter and Facebook..
It's there to waste time. Or optionally so people can reveal
parts of they private life, then regret they didn't keep it private.
7:50 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I use Twitter as sort of a "hep IRC." But it helps to have your own client
(TTYtter), which is text-based, and the presence of a (somewhat) stable 3rd
party API is Twitter's ace in the hole. So it cuts down on a lot of crap
to have it whistling merrily away in a terminal window and I can glance at it
when I notice a lot of activity.
I don't trust Facebook.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- The fact that it works is immaterial. -- L. Ogborn -------------------------
Hmm, it seems, that I don't even need something like IRC..
I do have a phone flaterate, it is much less hassle to call the person on
the phone...
Regards,
Holm
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe,
Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583
www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
BTW: I'm currently 49 years old, have a little
more than "normal" activity
on the net, worked as Unix Sysop for many years...but I still don't know
what for I should need Twitter and Facebook..
It's there to waste time. Or optionally so people can reveal
parts of they private life, then regret they didn't keep it private. 
8:08 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 6 June 2012 15:50, Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de> wrote:
Hmm, it seems, that I don't even need something like IRC..
I do have a phone flaterate, it is much less hassle to call the person on
the phone...
Oh come now, don't be silly.
You can't readily talk to dozens of different people at once, all over
the world, free of charge, including possibly people who are deaf or
who can read and write a common language but not speak it, using a
single phone call. And even if you could, you could not realistically
remain present in said conference-call, occasionally interacting with
it, while you went ahead with other tasks at the same time.
This is like the Luddite friends of mine who refuse to use social
networks or email and complain that I could just phone them when I
want to invite them to an event.
I commonly invite a couple of hundred people at once to events. I
cannot do that by phoning them all; even emailing them all is a major
pain. This is the sort of thing social networks excel at.
You don't have to use them; feel free not to. But my friend who refuse
to are, by and large, friends who I do not invite to things.
They don't have to use the socnets, but equally, I do not have to
waste hours of my time and lots of money individually contacting those
people who refuse to use nasty modern tools.
I could also write letters to those who can't or won't use nasty
modern telephones. I could personally visit those who won't use the
post. I could arrange the event somewhere with car parking for those
who will not use public transport; I could be sure to arrange it in
walking distance for those who will not use wheeled vehicles.
Yes, I know of people who refuse all these things.
But I am not going to do it. *They* expect *me* to go to special
lengths because of *their* idiosyncratic, non-conformist preferences
and neophobia.
Well, no. There is no single point at which you can draw a line and
say, up to this point is reasonable, but beyond it is unreasonable.
Socnets are just a tool - a free and easy one. Sure, don't use them if
you don't want, but in doing so you must accept that you are going to
miss out on lots of stuff. That's fine - it's your choice. But it is
not fair or acceptable to ask others to go out of their way or to
endure inconvenience to satisfy your whimsical preferences.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
10:41 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Liam Proven wrote:
On 6 June 2012 15:50, Holm Tiffe <holm at
freibergnet.de> wrote:
Hehe, it seems you have problems I don't have and that I don't want.
If you need to invite hundrets of people to eveents, please do that like
you want, I just don't need to do that.
I can mail all of my friends and all of my customers or only some of them,
no need to chat... that's all.
I don't have any phobia, but it seems you have one: that you are get
disconnected...
Anyways, do what you like, so as I do.
Regards,
Holm
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe,
Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583
www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Hmm, it seems, that I don't even need something like IRC..
I do have a phone flaterate, it is much less hassle to call the person on
the phone...
Oh come now, don't be silly.
You can't readily talk to dozens of different people at once, all over
the world, free of charge, including possibly people who are deaf or
who can read and write a common language but not speak it, using a
single phone call. And even if you could, you could not realistically
remain present in said conference-call, occasionally interacting with
it, while you went ahead with other tasks at the same time.
This is like the Luddite friends of mine who refuse to use social
networks or email and complain that I could just phone them when I
want to invite them to an event.
I commonly invite a couple of hundred people at once to events. I
cannot do that by phoning them all; even emailing them all is a major
pain. This is the sort of thing social networks excel at.
You don't have to use them; feel free not to. But my friend who refuse
to are, by and large, friends who I do not invite to things.
They don't have to use the socnets, but equally, I do not have to
waste hours of my time and lots of money individually contacting those
people who refuse to use nasty modern tools.
I could also write letters to those who can't or won't use nasty
modern telephones. I could personally visit those who won't use the
post. I could arrange the event somewhere with car parking for those
who will not use public transport; I could be sure to arrange it in
walking distance for those who will not use wheeled vehicles.
Yes, I know of people who refuse all these things.
But I am not going to do it. *They* expect *me* to go to special
lengths because of *their* idiosyncratic, non-conformist preferences
and neophobia.
Well, no. There is no single point at which you can draw a line and
say, up to this point is reasonable, but beyond it is unreasonable.
Socnets are just a tool - a free and easy one. Sure, don't use them if
you don't want, but in doing so you must accept that you are going to
miss out on lots of stuff. That's fine - it's your choice. But it is
not fair or acceptable to ask others to go out of their way or to
endure inconvenience to satisfy your whimsical preferences.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
11:23 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
> Socnets are just a tool - a free and easy one.
Um. No.
They are not free. They entail some substantial costs - non-monetary,
many of them, but that does not make them any less costs. They entail
surrendering a substantial level of control over one's privacy and
various aspects of one's own identity. In many cases they demand a
relatively modern computer and, in some of those cases, turning control
of it over to someone else's software.
These may be costs you consider ignorable. They may be costs you have
already paid. But they are still costs, costs that for some people are
significant.
As for `easy', that's a very personal judgement call. I have watched
people use Facebook and its ilk; there is very little I would find easy
about using them.
> Sure, don't use them if you don't want,
but in doing so you must
> accept that you are going to miss out on lots of stuff. That's fine
> - it's your choice. But it is not fair or acceptable to ask others
> to go out of their way or to endure inconvenience to satisfy your
> whimsical preferences.
Why not? You seem to feel it's perfectly acceptable to ask _us_ to put
up with _your_ preferences....
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
11:59 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 6 June 2012 19:23, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
Life involves costs. Big deal. If I don't have to pay money for
something, that means that it's free, in the common daily use of the
word.
Such as? The line-length thing? Oh get real!
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
> Socnets
are just a tool - a free and easy one.
Um. ?No.
They are not free. ?They entail some substantial costs - non-monetary,
many of them, but that does not make them any less costs. ?They entail
surrendering a substantial level of control over one's privacy and
various aspects of one's own identity. ?In many cases they demand a
relatively modern computer and, in some of those cases, turning control
of it over to someone else's software. These may be costs you consider ignorable. ?They may
be costs you have
already paid. ?But they are still costs, costs that for some people are
significant.
Scott McNeally said it first and best. "You *have* no privacy on the
Internet. Get over it."
Nobody is forcing you to use it. Feel free not to.
As for `easy', that's a very personal
judgement call. ?I have watched
people use Facebook and its ilk; there is very little I would find easy
about using them.
Let me just check that I've got this straight. So you feel that you
are not competent to use a modern website that is used by about a
billion people and it's the *website's* fault?
Riiiiiiiiiiight... :?D
> Sure,
don't use them if you don't want, but in doing so you must
> accept that you are going to miss out on lots of stuff. ?That's fine
> - it's your choice. ?But it is not fair or acceptable to ask others
> to go out of their way or to endure inconvenience to satisfy your
> whimsical preferences.
Why not? ?You seem to feel it's perfectly acceptable to ask _us_ to put
up with _your_ preferences....
11:57 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 6 June 2012 18:41, Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de> wrote:
Hehe, it seems you have problems I don't have and
that I don't want.
What problems?
If you need to invite hundrets of people to eveents,
please do that like
you want, I just don't need to do that.
Well, if you don't have many friends or never throw big parties, I am
a little sorry for you. Personally, I am gregarious and have lots of
friends. :?)
I can mail all of my friends and all of my customers
or only some of them,
no need to chat... that's all.
So can I. Sometimes, it is quicker and easier to use a socnet. It is
easier for me to pick, say, the London-based people out of my ~800
friends on Facebook than to choose their email addresses from the
~5000 people in my address book.
I don't have any phobia, but it seems you have
one: that you are get
disconnected...
Not at all. It's a tool, nothing more. If you don't want to use it,
fine, but it makes you look foolish if you criticise others for no
other reason than that they do use it, or because you don't know how
to.
I've been an IT support professional for 25 years. My tools are my
hands and my brain; I used to carry around some physical media with a
few handy programs on. I don't use a soldering iron - have not since
the 1980s - or a multimeter, ever.
Others regard these as essential tools.
Neither of us is "right" or "wrong" - they're just tools for a
job.
I'm primarily a software support guy; if there is a hardware failure,
all I have to do is diagnose it and get someone else to fix it,
generally.
Others are specialists in hardware repair and would not know a Group
Policy from an XML schema. That's fine, too.
You seem to be judging tools by your own use for them, and people by
the tools they use. That is unwise.
Anyways, do what you like, so as I do.
I usually do. :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
12:59 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Liam Proven wrote:
I prefer to have really a smaller amount of "real" friends.
Maybe that's the language difference (We could always try to write in
german, I never had english in a school), I don't want/wanted to criticise
you or others for using Socnets, this was never my intention.
I'm not using them and I never missed something like that.
That is just my point of view, but no criticism.
On 6 June 2012 18:41, Holm Tiffe <holm at
freibergnet.de> wrote:
You want to contact hundreds of people, this is a technical problem, that I
simply not have.
Hehe, it seems you have problems I don't have
and that I don't want.
What problems? If you need to invite hundrets of people to
eveents, please do that like
you want, I just don't need to do that.
Well, if you don't have many friends or never throw big parties, I am
a little sorry for you. Personally, I am gregarious and have lots of
friends. :?) I can mail all of my friends and all of my
customers or only some of them,
no need to chat... that's all.
So can I. Sometimes, it is quicker and easier to use a socnet. It is
easier for me to pick, say, the London-based people out of my ~800
friends on Facebook than to choose their email addresses from the
~5000 people in my address book.
I don't have any phobia, but it seems you
have one: that you are get
disconnected...
Not at all. It's a tool, nothing more. If you don't want to use it,
fine, but it makes you look foolish if you criticise others for no
other reason than that they do use it, or because you don't know how
to.
I've been an IT support professional for 25 years. My tools are my
hands and my brain; I used to carry around some physical media with a
few handy programs on.
Same here.
I don't use a soldering iron - have not since
the 1980s - or a multimeter, ever.
I do hardware, repairing developing and programming but not building
besides of hobby projects or prototypes.
Others regard these as essential tools.
Neither of us is "right" or "wrong" - they're just tools for a
job.
I'm primarily a software support guy; if there is a hardware failure,
all I have to do is diagnose it and get someone else to fix it,
generally.
Nothing wrong here at all.
Others are specialists in hardware repair and would not know a Group
Policy from an XML schema. That's fine, too.
You seem to be judging tools by your own use for them, and people by
the tools they use. That is unwise.
Regards,
Holm
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe,
Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583
www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Anyways, do what you like, so as I do.
I usually do. :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 
7 Jun
7 Jun
11:46 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Liam Proven wrote:
I prefer to have really a smaller amount of "real" friends.
As do I.
I don;t know how long said parties last, but let's be generous and say 6
hours. That's 360 minutes. If you invited 360 people (that's 'hundreds')
you;d only soend, on avverage, 1 minute with each of them. That doesn't
sound very friendly to me.
Persoanlly I'd rather attend smaller gatherings where I get to spend
enoguh time with those present to have a reasonable discussion about
somehting of mutual interest. Even then I often feel I've not spent long
enough with each person.
[Socnets]
On 6 June 2012 18:41, Holm Tiffe <holm at
freibergnet.de> wrote:
You want to contact hundreds of people, this is a technical problem, that=
I
simply not have.
Hehe, it seems you have problems I don't have
and that I don't want.
=20
What problems? =20
> If you need to invite hundrets of people to eveents, please do that l=
ike
you want,
I just don't need to do that.
=20
Well, if you don't have many friends or never throw big parties, I am
a little sorry for you. Personally, I am gregarious and have lots of
friends. :=AC) Not at all.
It's a tool, nothing more. If you don't want to use it,
fine, but it makes you look foolish if you criticise others for no
other reason than that they do use it, or because you don't know how
to.
Maybe that's the language difference (We could always try to write in
german, I never had english in a school), I don't want/wanted to critici=
se
you or others for using Socnets, this was never my intention.
I'm not using them and I never missed something like that.
That is just my point of view, but no criticism.
3:54 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 06/07/2012 02:46 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
This is great...a nerdly analysis of party socialization statistics!
Now I've seen it all. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
I prefer to
have really a smaller amount of "real" friends.
As do I.
I don;t know how long said parties last, but let's be generous and say 6
hours. That's 360 minutes. If you invited 360 people (that's 'hundreds')
you;d only soend, on avverage, 1 minute with each of them. That doesn't
sound very friendly to me.
Persoanlly I'd rather attend smaller gatherings where I get to spend
enoguh time with those present to have a reasonable discussion about
somehting of mutual interest. Even then I often feel I've not spent long
enough with each person.
6:04 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 7 June 2012 19:46, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I don;t know how long said parties last, but let's be generous and say 6
hours. That's 360 minutes. If you invited 360 people (that's 'hundreds')
you;d only soend, on avverage, 1 minute with each of them. That doesn't
sound very friendly to me.
No no - it doesn't work like that.
Many people are on FB but seldom check it. Some don't know how to do
more than post on the wall. Many will not accept the invitation; many
will not notice it. If I issue, say, 200 invitations, maybe,
optimistically, a third will accept. Of those, perhaps 75% - again,
very optimistically - will mean it. Of which maybe a half will come.
Inviting 200-odd people means one actually gets 30 or 40. That's a
good big lively group, but not vast. If 3 or 4 people group around a
table each, say, that's only a dozen or so tables, meaning 20-30 min
per table over a night - long enough for a decent natter and a drink.
I've only organised such big "dos" a few times but it seemed to work.
A party if they all turned up would indeed be very unmanageable, yes!
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
6 Jun
6 Jun
1:06 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 6 Jun 2012 at 19:57, Liam Proven wrote:
So can I. Sometimes, it is quicker and easier to use a
socnet. It is
easier for me to pick, say, the London-based people out of my ~800
friends on Facebook than to choose their email addresses from the
~5000 people in my address book.
Well, I differentiate between "friends" and "acquaintances".
An acquaintance is someone you've met and occasionally chat with.
A friend is someone who will bail you out of jail in the middle of
the night, take you in when you're stranded, or attend your funeral.
Very different animals in my opinion. Simply calling someone a
friend doesn't make him/her one.
--Chuck
1:55 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Chuck Guzis wrote:
A friend is someone who will bail you out of jail in
the middle of
the night, take you in when you're stranded, or attend your funeral.
"A friend will help you move" For US, that's BIG.
"A REAL friend will help you move a body."
4:59 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 06/06/2012 10:50 AM, Holm Tiffe wrote:
Hmm, it seems, that I don't even need something
like IRC..
I do have a phone flaterate, it is much less hassle to call the person on
the phone...
Holm, my friend, this is one area in which you and I must disagree. I
hate phone calls. So disruptive.
Our opinions on social media are very much the same, though. I have a
Facebook account, but mainly to find and keep in touch with people who
haven't figured out "real email" yet; mainly old childhood friends.
Overall, my position is that I'm a busy guy, and I will NEVER have
enough free time for Facebook. It's little other than a huge time sink
for people who don't have anything better to do. :-(
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
5:11 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 7 June 2012 00:59, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2012 10:50 AM, Holm Tiffe wrote:
Somewhat tend to agree with that myself. I do not tend to use them for
social purposes, although in business, it's different.
Hmm, it seems, that I don't even need
something like IRC..
I do have a phone flaterate, it is much less hassle to call the person on
the phone...
?Holm, my friend, this is one area in which you and I must disagree. ?I
hate phone calls. ?So disruptive. ?Our opinions on social media are very much the same,
though. ?I have a
Facebook account, but mainly to find and keep in touch with people who
haven't figured out "real email" yet; mainly old childhood friends.
Overall, my position is that I'm a busy guy, and I will NEVER have
enough free time for Facebook. ?It's little other than a huge time sink
for people who don't have anything better to do. :-(
You know, it is not mandatory, or even useful or helpful, to play with
it to use it.
I don't put many pictures on it. I seldom update my status - that's
what Twitter is for, so I feed it through. I prefer email for
contacting people. I don't play any games on it at all and rarely
browse it - maybe on 5-10 min session a week, if that.
You don't need any of that.
But it is becoming the Internet's telephone directory. It is a simple
easy way to find people and build a big address book, to contact them
if needed, and to use as a birthdays-reminder system and so on.
Calling someone for the first time in ages? Quickly look at their page
and see what has happened in their life recently.
Its events system is also usable and can be syndicated out via
standard protocols - I sync mine into my Google Calendar, which is
synched into my phone automatically. Much easier than setting up and
running my own Exchange Server, which I am perfectly capable of doing
but see no reason to.
You don't have to live on the damned thing to make use of it.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
5:22 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 06/06/2012 08:11 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
I agree 100%.
Our opinions
on social media are very much the same, though. I have a
Facebook account, but mainly to find and keep in touch with people who
haven't figured out "real email" yet; mainly old childhood friends.
Overall, my position is that I'm a busy guy, and I will NEVER have
enough free time for Facebook. It's little other than a huge time sink
for people who don't have anything better to do. :-(
You know, it is not mandatory, or even useful or helpful, to play with
it to use it. I don't put many pictures on it. I seldom update
my status - that's
what Twitter is for, so I feed it through. I prefer email for
contacting people. I don't play any games on it at all and rarely
browse it - maybe on 5-10 min session a week, if that.
You don't need any of that.
I'm on Facebook for 5-10mins every two weeks or so.
But it is becoming the Internet's telephone
directory. It is a simple
easy way to find people and build a big address book, to contact them
if needed, and to use as a birthdays-reminder system and so on.
Calling someone for the first time in ages? Quickly look at their page
and see what has happened in their life recently.
Yes, I agree...but..
Its events system is also usable and can be syndicated
out via
standard protocols - I sync mine into my Google Calendar, which is
synched into my phone automatically. Much easier than setting up and
running my own Exchange Server, which I am perfectly capable of doing
but see no reason to.
You don't have to live on the damned thing to make use of it.
...this is where I have a problem. Nearly everyone I know uses
Facebook. Of them, I can count maybe two or three who DON'T "live on
the damned thing". It's built to become addictive to people who don't
have anything better to do, and let's face it...most people (excluding
people like us) DON'T have anything better to do.
Using it periodically for the reasons you state isn't the problem.
People living and breathing the stupid thing is where it becomes a
problem. Marriages are ending, jobs are being lost, etc etc all because
people just can't wait to rush to the nearest computer and "check in
real quick" on Facebook...where they sit for the rest of the night.
That's the part I have a problem with. Not the usage pattern you
describe.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
5:52 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On 7 June 2012 01:22, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
?...this is where I have a problem. ?Nearly everyone I know uses
Facebook. ?Of them, I can count maybe two or three who DON'T "live on
the damned thing". ?It's built to become addictive to people who don't
have anything better to do, and let's face it...most people (excluding
people like us) DON'T have anything better to do.
?Using it periodically for the reasons you state isn't the problem.
People living and breathing the stupid thing is where it becomes a
problem. ?Marriages are ending, jobs are being lost, etc etc all because
people just can't wait to rush to the nearest computer and "check in
real quick" on Facebook...where they sit for the rest of the night.
?That's the part I have a problem with. ?Not the usage pattern you
describe.
Ah, well, in that case, I entirely agree.
And with your previous one about frequently getting offended. ;?)
I can lose hours to Twitter, though - but I have a fairly
carefully-selected list of people that I follow, ones who post
interesting links to interesting stuff, don't use it as a medium to
natter and don't post about what they had for lunch or what their cat
is up to.
But the good thing about Twitter is that it works well without much
engagement. I can give it 2min a day or 2 hours, or none at all, and
it's fine. You don't "miss out" and rarely will anyone criticise you
for "not taking part" or anything.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
6:18 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 06/06/2012 10:50 AM, Holm Tiffe wrote:
I can't stand them myself.
Hmm, it seems, that I don't even need
something like IRC..
I do have a phone flaterate, it is much less hassle to call the person on
the phone...
Holm, my friend, this is one area in which you and I must disagree. I
hate phone calls. So disruptive. Our opinions on social media are very much the same,
though. I have a
Facebook account, but mainly to find and keep in touch with people who
haven't figured out "real email" yet; mainly old childhood friends.
Overall, my position is that I'm a busy guy, and I will NEVER have
enough free time for Facebook. It's little other than a huge time sink
for people who don't have anything better to do. :-(
There are other legitimate uses. For example, it's by far the easiest
way I have of sharing pictures of our 9-month-old daughter with family
and friends, and that's something I find valuable. It's also a very
handy way of organizing social events between myself and my friends,
but I'm willing to concede that point as a generational thing; I am,
after all, roughly a generation younger than most people involved in
this conversation. Facebook came out right in the middle of my
college years, so it became the de facto method of communication
between those of us who wanted to stay in touch.
But yeah, it can be a huge time sink if I'm not careful, especially
because I have the attention span of a goldfish. There's a useful
utility for OS X (with spinoffs for several other OSes) which lets
you block certain sites which may prove to be a distraction for a
certain amount of time, with no option to turn it off, called "Self
Control". It just manipulates the firewall to redirect said sites to
localhost, so if you're clever, you can work around it, but it does
break the instinctual "gotta check Facebook every five minutes" habit
quite well. It's a case of locks keeping honest men honest. :-)
- Dave
7 Jun
7 Jun
11:58 a.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
Holm, my friend, this is one area in which you and I
must disagree. I
hate phone calls. So disruptive.
Am I the only person here who sometimes totally ignores a ringing
telephone if I am doing somethign that I don't want to interrupt?
I refuse to handle technical questions by telephone. I want to be able to
take the time to get out the manuals, look things up, etc. That means e-mail.
-tony
3:01 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
I don't know if anyone on this list watches Futurama but there was an
amusing episode poking fun at the iphone and social media. It covered
themes such as brand brain-washing, twitter and "followers" as a measure of
popularity, and the very transient nature of internet popularity itself.
Here is a short clip from it. It's worth watching the whole episode if it
ever comes your way.
http://youtu.be/EaHUpWuqNHY
One of the most amusing scenes for me was on people trudging "zombie like"
in a long queue towards the shop selling these "eyephones". It may have
been deliberate or just coincidental, but it conjured up the image of the
IBM zombies trudging to their benches in the famous IBM vrs Mac ad of
1984. Oh, the irony! (-:
Terry (Tez)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Holm, my
friend, this is one area in which you and I must disagree. I
hate phone calls. So disruptive.
Am I the only person here who sometimes totally ignores a ringing
telephone if I am doing somethign that I don't want to interrupt?
I refuse to handle technical questions by telephone. I want to be able to
take the time to get out the manuals, look things up, etc. That means
e-mail.
-tony
4:39 p.m.
New subject: social media was Re: OS9 (for 6809) communication
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Terry Stewart wrote:
been deliberate or just coincidental, but it conjured
up the image of the
IBM zombies trudging to their benches in the famous IBM vrs Mac ad of
1984. Oh, the irony! (-:
In a different episode, Futurama explicitly addressed that ad - "HEY, We
were watching that!"
5 Jun
5 Jun
2:54 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:28:26AM -0400, Steven Hirsch wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Gene Buckle wrote:
Hmm.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Steven Hirsch wrote:
Interesting, but it requires:
a) The purchase of a $50+ piece of hardware On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
For the Commodore users out there, you might want to look at the
Comet from http://www.commodoreserver.com. They've got a new
driver out that allows for a 38.4k transfer rate on the USER port,
which is a pretty big deal on a Commodore 64. I've got a Comet
and it works VERY well. >>Is this SLIP or PPP?
>
>Neither. It's a well thought-out (and documented!) protocol
>for interface
>between small 8-bit machines and modern hardware. There's nothing
>specific to the CoCo - that just happens to be the first implementation.
I just looked at it on sourceforge. It seems like the same setup of a
Lantronix UDS or Wiznet-type device. Those are a little more portable.
In some respects. But those don't give you the virtual disk
drive services that drivewire offers. b) That you store all your images on their web site.
WTF? Why should someone store their (presumably private) data on their
servers instead of storing it on one of his own machines right next
to it? Privacy, confidentiality, accessability all go pretty much down
the drain with that "clouded"[0] approach.
DriveWire requires that you build a single cable
(peanut
expenditure) and let's you store things on your own computer.
Sounds much more reasonable.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I do not like the
current trend
towards putting my own data on third-party remote sites.
No, you are not. In fact, I believe this to be a perfectly reasonable
opinion. Why should I store my private data on machines outside my control?
Yes, some of my data (a carefully selected subset) is stored also on the
"cloud" of a company (which I have reasons to trust sufficiently).
Heck, even my backup tapes in the bank vault are encrypted.
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] As in "clouded thinking".
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
4 Jun
4 Jun
12:23 p.m.
http://www.cloud9tech.com/ (no affiliation, other than
as a highly
satisfied customer) does market DriveWire for the CoCo3 running
NitrOS-9. I have not (yet) used it, but they claim 115,200 bps on a
CoCo3. There is a corresponding server that runs on the (Windows/Mac
What hardware does it use at the CoCo end? It can't use the bit-banged
serial port (obviously), and none of the traditional RS232 modules would
go at that speed. Is there some special serial board for the CoCo (using
a PC-like serial chip, perhaps).
OS X/Linux) other end of the serial wire, and they
claim TCP/IP and
several dependent services (telnet, MIDI streaming to the server). So
Tony's suggestion more or less already exists, with the assumption
THis does not suprise me, it wouldn';t be that difficult to do. OS-9 is
really, really, hackable...
that you don't mind a modern-ish PC acting as an
external ethernet
<-> serial adaptor.
-tony
3:23 p.m.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
Actually, it does use the bit-banger serial port and it does communicate
at 115.2kps quite reliably. The author of the drivewire server tells me
that with a small hardware mod they're able to do 230kbps.
Steve
--
http://www.cloud9tech.com/ (no affiliation, other than as a highly
satisfied customer) does market DriveWire for the CoCo3 running
NitrOS-9. I have not (yet) used it, but they claim 115,200 bps on a
CoCo3. There is a corresponding server that runs on the (Windows/Mac
What hardware does it use at the CoCo end? It can't use the bit-banged
serial port (obviously), and none of the traditional RS232 modules would
go at that speed. Is there some special serial board for the CoCo (using
a PC-like serial chip, perhaps).
5 Jun
5 Jun
12:06 p.m.
Actually, it does use the bit-banger serial port and
it does communicate
at 115.2kps quite reliably. The author of the drivewire server tells me
That's impressive. PResumably the protocol is designed so that hte CoCO
knows when characters will be sent to it (for example it requests a
packet from the host, and cna then wait for a knwon number of charcters).
Even so, it must tie up the CPU when receivign data from the host. That's
going to be rather unpleasant on a multiuser machine.
-tony
7 p.m.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
It's surprisingly unobtrusive. You can even telnet into the CoCo by
accessing the server.
Check it out at:
https://sites.google.com/site/drivewire4/
For even more fun, you can use DriveWire from an FPGA CoCo. This runs a
synthesized, 25Mhz. 6809 on an Altera DE1 board. It will cheerfully
communicate at 430Kbps with a DW server.
Steve
--
Actually, it
does use the bit-banger serial port and it does communicate
at 115.2kps quite reliably. The author of the drivewire server tells me
That's impressive. PResumably the protocol is designed so that hte CoCO
knows when characters will be sent to it (for example it requests a
packet from the host, and cna then wait for a knwon number of charcters).
Even so, it must tie up the CPU when receivign data from the host. That's
going to be rather unpleasant on a multiuser machine.
4893
days inactive
4897
days old
65 comments
21 participants
participants (21)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
als＠thangorodrim.de -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
db＠db.net -
eivinde＠terraplane.org -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
holm＠freibergnet.de -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mloewen＠cpumagic.scol.pa.us -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
mtapley＠swri.edu -
snhirsch＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
terry＠webweavers.co.nz -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com