Doug Englebart

[Al Kossow]

From: Christina Engelbart <***@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father

Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep peacefully at home last night. His health had been deteriorating of late, and took turn for worse on the weekend. I will circle back around
soon, for now just wanted to give you all advance notice and look forward to discussing your thoughts as I am a bit fuzzy at present.

[Frank Pajerski]

NYT obit .....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html



"Al Kossow" wrote in message news:kr1mp1$2en$***@dont-email.me...

From: Christina Engelbart <***@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father

Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep peacefully at home
last night. His health had been deteriorating of late, and took turn for
worse on the weekend. I will circle back around
soon, for now just wanted to give you all advance notice and look forward to
discussing your thoughts as I am a bit fuzzy at present.

[Patrick Scheible]

Post by Frank Pajerski
NYT obit .....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father
Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep peacefully at
home last night. His health had been deteriorating of late, and took
turn for worse on the weekend. I will circle back around
soon, for now just wanted to give you all advance notice and look
forward to discussing your thoughts as I am a bit fuzzy at present.

Damn.

He's known for the mouse, but that's least significant of his visions.

RIP

-- Patrick

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Post by Patrick Scheible
Damn.
He's known for the mouse, but that's least significant of his visions.

doug was at tymshare when m/d bought them ... and tymshare was running
his augment system on pdp10. i was brought in to audit/review gnosis for
spinoff to keykos. i was also asked if i could find anybody interested
at ibm to hire doug. i sent up some interviews ... but it was real
mismatch.

[Joe Morris]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler

Post by Patrick Scheible
Damn.
He's known for the mouse, but that's least significant of his visions.

doug was at tymshare when m/d bought them ... and tymshare was running
his augment system on pdp10. i was brought in to audit/review gnosis for
spinoff to keykos. i was also asked if i could find anybody interested
at ibm to hire doug. i sent up some interviews ... but it was real
mismatch.

Today's (4 July) _Washington Post_ gave him a half-page obituary...available
online:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/douglas-engelbart-computer-visionary-and-inventor-of-the-mouse-dies-at-88/2013/07/03/1439b508-0264-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story.html?hpid=z14

Joe

[Bill Leary]

((..omitted..))
Today's (4 July) _Washington Post_ gave him a half-page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/douglas-engelbart-computer-visionary-and-inventor-of-the-mouse-dies-at-88/2013/07/03/1439b508-0264-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story.html?hpid=z14

All: It's a half page in print, but it's three pages on line. Remember to
follow the "Next" to the other two pages. Very interesting.

- Bill

[Michael Black]

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by Frank Pajerski
NYT obit .....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father
Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep peacefully at
home last night. His health had been deteriorating of late, and took
turn for worse on the weekend. I will circle back around
soon, for now just wanted to give you all advance notice and look
forward to discussing your thoughts as I am a bit fuzzy at present.

Damn.
He's known for the mouse, but that's least significant of his visions.
RIP

It's the same thing with XEROX PARC, the place where Steve Jobs found the
mouse (and sometimes windows is mentioned), when in both cases the mouse
is less significant than the shift to what you could do with the mouse,
away from the keyboard.

A mouse really is pretty good for graphic stuff, certainly beats a
keyboard for that, nnd the house helped to make the rest possible.

DIdn't Doug Englebart experiment with trackballs too? EIther rejecting
them or seeing them as an alternative to the mouse? I finally got one of
those last year for 75cents at a garage sale, I haven't used it that much
for the simple reason that it has no scroll wheel, and in waiting to get a
cheap trackball, I've gotten used to having the scroll wheel. One of
these days I may take a cheap scroll mouse and add the scroll wheel to the
trackball.

Michael

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Post by Michael Black
DIdn't Doug Englebart experiment with trackballs too? EIther
rejecting them or seeing them as an alternative to the mouse? I
finally got one of those last year for 75cents at a garage sale, I
haven't used it that much for the simple reason that it has no scroll
wheel, and in waiting to get a cheap trackball, I've gotten used to
having the scroll wheel. One of these days I may take a cheap scroll
mouse and add the scroll wheel to the trackball.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#57 Doug Engelbart

NLS (augment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLS_%28computer_system%29

with cord keyboard.

about that time, the human factors group had a cord keyboard for 3277
somewhat the shape of large mouse with depressions for each finger and
rocker switch at the finger tips. claims of 2-3 times typing speed of
standard 3277 qwerty keyboard (with one hand) ... would allow one handed
keyboard with other hand on (real) mouse

other reference "five-key keyset" on left and 3-button moust on right
http://www.dougengelbart.org/firsts/mouse.html

past posts mentioning engelbart, augment, and/or cord keyboard
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#22 No more innovation? Get serious
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#26 Who Owns the HyperLink?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#31 stupid user stories
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#4 markup vs wysiwyg (was: Re: learning how to use a computer)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#48 XML, AI, Cyc, psych, and literature
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004q.html#55 creat
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#47 creat
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#12 Flat Query
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#50 stacks: sorting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#51 stacks: sorting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#54 Douglas Engelbart's HyperScope 1.0 Launched
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#22 vmshare
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#29 Even worse than UNIX
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008b.html#53 folklore indeed
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#23 Doug Engelbart's "Mother of All Demos"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#57 PC premiered 40 years ago to awed crowd
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#62 PC premiered 40 years ago to awed crowd
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#3 New machine code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#61 Does IBM host guest speakers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#28 Opinion: The top 10 operating system stinkers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#8 Fathers of Technology: 10 Unsung Heroes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#84 Adventure - Or Colossal Cave Adventure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#9 Far and near pointers on the 80286 and later
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#53 Far and near pointers on the 80286 and later
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010q.html#63 VMSHARE Archives
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#11 Typewriter vs. Computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#31 Colossal Cave Adventure in PL/I
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011c.html#2 Other early NSFNET backbone
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#39 Just a quick link to a video by the National Research Council of Canada made in 1971 on computer technology for filmmaking
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#40 GNOSIS & KeyKOS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#80 Still not convinced about the superiority of mainframe security vs distributed?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#55 Arthur C. Clarke Predicts the Internet, 1974
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#60 Arthur C. Clarke Predicts the Internet, 1974

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <***@darkstar.example.org>, on
07/04/2013

Post by Michael Black
A mouse really is pretty good for graphic stuff, certainly beats a
keyboard for that,

The competition to the mouse was not the keyboard, it was other
pointing devices. I'll stick to my trackball, TYVM.

"Real programmers don't eat mice."

[Charles Richmond]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/04/2013

Post by Michael Black
A mouse really is pretty good for graphic stuff, certainly beats a
keyboard for that,

The competition to the mouse was not the keyboard, it was other
pointing devices. I'll stick to my trackball, TYVM.
"Real programmers don't eat mice."

The plural of "mouse" for a computer mouse can also be "mouses".

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

4 plural also mous·es : a small mobile manual device that controls movement
of the cursor and selection of functions on a computer display

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

The competition to the mouse was not the keyboard, it was other pointing devices.

In 1971 we were programming applications that used a light pen on a Philco computer. IIRC, the light pen was just used to select a menu item--something that could be just as easily done by tabbing the cursor to the desired box.

Funky things would happen if we took a light pen and touch it to the screen of an adjacent terminal. (The terminals were converted television sets, and could still work as a TV set. We didn't have screen savers back then and the sign-on text letters were burned into the screen.)

[Lon]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

The competition to the mouse was not the keyboard, it was other pointing devices.

In 1971 we were programming applications that used a light pen on a Philco computer. IIRC, the light pen was just used to select a menu item--something that could be just as easily done by tabbing the cursor to the desired box.
Funky things would happen if we took a light pen and touch it to the screen of an adjacent terminal. (The terminals were converted television sets, and could still work as a TV set. We didn't have screen savers back then and the sign-on text letters were burned into the screen.)

Were the light pens essentially just photocells, where the display
driver would put up a streak or other marker on the screen and the light
pen would detect that in the scan and the screen position was taken from
that?

[John Levine]

Post by Lon
Were the light pens essentially just photocells, where the display
driver would put up a streak or other marker on the screen and the light
pen would detect that in the scan and the screen position was taken from
that?

The ones I used were. You'd put stuff in your display list to test
for a light pen hit after each object.

[Uncle Steve]

Post by Frank Pajerski
NYT obit .....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html

Honorable mention tonight on the CBC "As it happens" program. They
played an excerpt from his 1968 "mother of all demos" conference
address where he described the "mouse".

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money
from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary
pioneer. Such is progress.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

[Patrick Scheible]

Post by Uncle Steve

Post by Frank Pajerski
NYT obit .....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html

Honorable mention tonight on the CBC "As it happens" program. They
played an excerpt from his 1968 "mother of all demos" conference
address where he described the "mouse".
Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money
from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary
pioneer. Such is progress.

He also got an xkcd cartoon for him. Few people share that honor.

-- Patrick

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

[Rich Alderson]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from the
invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept was
a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of time. (see
BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was developed
earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a prototype of
seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

Doug Ring and Rae Young, _Mobile Telephony: Wide-Area Coverage_, Bell Labs,
1947. (cited from Gertner, _The Idea Factory_, Penguin Books, 2012)

[Uncle Steve]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

I recollecting an interview I heard on radio, and it may be that I'll
have to dig a little to find out which one.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

[brad]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from
the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept
was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of
time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was
developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner >phone service was a
prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

There is a documentary on cable TV that, if you aren't listening too
closely, sounds like Motorola was big in this This is a direct paste from a
Motorola site on the web;

"We introduced the world's first commercial portable cellular phone"

I think of Motorola back in the days when they would fill half the trunk of
your car with gear and provide telephone-like service. I suspect that, like
most inventions, you really have to dig to get at the truth. The "pure"
cases are rare; the airplane and xerography are pretty darn pure and come to
mind as exceptions to the general rule.

[Rob Doyle]

Post by brad

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Uncle Steve
Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any
money from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a
visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole
concept was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive
period of time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was
developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner >phone service
was a prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station
to another.

There is a documentary on cable TV that, if you aren't listening too
closely, sounds like Motorola was big in this This is a direct paste
from a Motorola site on the web;
"We introduced the world's first commercial portable cellular phone"
I think of Motorola back in the days when they would fill half the
trunk of your car with gear and provide telephone-like service. I
suspect that, like most inventions, you really have to dig to get at
the truth. The "pure" cases are rare; the airplane and xerography
are pretty darn pure and come to mind as exceptions to the general
rule.

Motorola was certainly an early adopter. Harris and GE were also players.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Mobile_Phone_System

Rob.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

I suspect that, like most inventions, you really have to dig to
get at the truth.

But it would give you a Hedy feeling.

[Patrick Scheible]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

I suspect that, like most inventions, you really have to dig to
get at the truth.

But it would give you a Hedy feeling.

Actually, it makes me feel completely at sea.

-- Patrick

[Peter Flass]

Post by brad

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from
the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept
was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of
time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was
developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner >phone service was a
prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

There is a documentary on cable TV that, if you aren't listening too
closely, sounds like Motorola was big in this This is a direct paste from a
Motorola site on the web;
"We introduced the world's first commercial portable cellular phone"
I think of Motorola back in the days when they would fill half the trunk of
your car with gear and provide telephone-like service.

I remember those days. Their target market was contractors, oil-field
repair, etc. where there was a lot of money involved and the user had to
be quite aways from a land line.

I suspect that, like

Post by brad
most inventions, you really have to dig to get at the truth. The "pure"
cases are rare; the airplane and xerography are pretty darn pure and come to
mind as exceptions to the general rule.

The airplane not so much, apparently. The Wrights most likely weren't
first. That situation is probably similar to computers. Who was "the
inventor of the computer?" Not so sure about Xerography either.
Chester Carlson bought the invention.

[Walter Bushell]

Post by Peter Flass
The airplane not so much, apparently. The Wrights most likely weren't
first.

A lot of previous art, but the Wrights added a few key elements, just
like Watt built on Newcomb's steam engine which was apparently the
first widely used steam engine so he should probably get the credit.

Post by Peter Flass
That situation is probably similar to computers. Who was "the
inventor of the computer?" Not so sure about Xerography either.
Chester Carlson bought the invention.

[Nick Spalding]

Walter Bushell wrote, in

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Peter Flass
The airplane not so much, apparently. The Wrights most likely weren't
first.

A lot of previous art, but the Wrights added a few key elements, just
like Watt built on Newcomb's steam engine which was apparently the

Newcomen

Post by Walter Bushell
first widely used steam engine so he should probably get the credit.

Post by Peter Flass
That situation is probably similar to computers. Who was "the
inventor of the computer?" Not so sure about Xerography either.
Chester Carlson bought the invention.

[Peter Flass]

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Peter Flass
The airplane not so much, apparently. The Wrights most likely weren't
first.

A lot of previous art, but the Wrights added a few key elements, just
like Watt built on Newcomb's steam engine which was apparently the
first widely used steam engine so he should probably get the credit.

Post by Peter Flass
That situation is probably similar to computers. Who was "the
inventor of the computer?" Not so sure about Xerography either.
Chester Carlson bought the invention.

I think the key development for powered flight was an engine that was
lightweight and powerful enough to get the plane off the ground.

Many people now thingk that Gustave Whitehead was the first to fly "1.5
miles at a height of 50 feet."

(http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/05/connecticut-senate-passes-bill-writing-wright-brothers-out-history/#ixzz2Yjx7mv3a)

It's interesting that when the Wrights donated their plane to the
Smithsonian apparently it was with the condition that the museum could
never publicly suggest that they weren't the first, so it was something
they were worried about at the time.

[Charles Richmond]

[snip...] [snip...]
[snip...]
It's interesting that when the Wrights donated their plane to the
Smithsonian apparently it was with the condition that the museum could
never publicly suggest that they weren't the first, so it was something
they were worried about at the time.

The Smithsonian maintained for many years that Langley was the first to have
a successfull powered aircraft. So the Wright brothers loaned the Kitty
Hawk Flyer to the British Museum. After Wilbur and Orville were both dead,
the plane was sold by the executors of Orville's estate... to the
Smithsonian for one dollar... with the written agreement with the following
stipulation:

"...the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to
be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any
aircraft model or design of earlier date than the 1903 Wright Aeroplane,
claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under
its own power in controlled flight."

If the Smithonian failed to honor this agreement, the ownership of the
aircraft would revert to the heirs of the Wright brothers.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[JimP.]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:10:46 -0500, "Charles Richmond"

Post by Charles Richmond

[snip...] [snip...]
[snip...]
It's interesting that when the Wrights donated their plane to the
Smithsonian apparently it was with the condition that the museum could
never publicly suggest that they weren't the first, so it was something
they were worried about at the time.

The Smithsonian maintained for many years that Langley was the first to have
a successfull powered aircraft. So the Wright brothers loaned the Kitty
Hawk Flyer to the British Museum. After Wilbur and Orville were both dead,
the plane was sold by the executors of Orville's estate... to the
Smithsonian for one dollar... with the written agreement with the following
"...the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to
be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any
aircraft model or design of earlier date than the 1903 Wright Aeroplane,
claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under
its own power in controlled flight."
If the Smithonian failed to honor this agreement, the ownership of the
aircraft would revert to the heirs of the Wright brothers.

Then it should be returned to them. And the facts promenetly displayed
in the Smithsonian as to why it is gone.

JimP.

[Alfred Falk]

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Peter Flass
The airplane not so much, apparently. The Wrights most likely weren't
first.

A lot of previous art, but the Wrights added a few key elements, just
like Watt built on Newcomb's steam engine which was apparently the
first widely used steam engine so he should probably get the credit.

One of those key elements, I have read, was training. Most of their
predecessors assumed that flying would be easy - at least no harder than
basic sailing. Most of them had shortened lives. Part of their "kite"
experiments were to learn how to control them.

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Peter Flass
That situation is probably similar to computers. Who was "the
inventor of the computer?" Not so sure about Xerography either.
Chester Carlson bought the invention.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

There is a documentary on cable TV that, if you aren't listening too closely, sounds like Motorola was big in this This is a direct paste from a Motorola site on the web; "We introduced the world's first commercial portable cellular phone"
I think of Motorola back in the days when they would fill half the trunk of your car with gear and provide telephone-like service. I suspect that, like most inventions, you really have to dig to get at the truth. The "pure" cases are rare; the airplane and xerography are pretty darn pure and come to mind as exceptions to the general rule.

You're correct. In this specific case, "pure" constitutes several intermediate steps.

The first development was mobile telephone service itself, which the Bell System introduced after WW II. That had only a few channels per city, so capacity was very limited. Originally it was manual, but in the 1960s one could dial direct in and out to/from mobile phones.

The second development was cellular service, which provided considerably more capacity via the use of small low-powered cells that could re-use frequencies. The original system (see above references) was intended for automobiles. It had a telephone set in the front of the car, plus a radio unit in the trunk. While limited to automobiles, this was a huge development and truly revolutionary as it allowed them to meet the large unsatisfied demand for mobile service. As the BSTJ articles show, this development involved quite a bit of research and testing.

The third development was the miniaturization of the above components. First out were "bag phones". While portable, these were cumbersome.

Subsequent to that were the "brick" phones, which were handheld devices. I suspect when people talk about "inventing the cell phone", they're actually referring to the brick phone. It would be more accurate to say that they invented the first miniature hand-held unit. I thought that was done by Motorola engineers.

[Lon]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

It wasn't Hedley Lamar?

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lon

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

It wasn't Hedley Lamar?

Only in Blazing Saddles...

scott

[Charles Richmond]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lon

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from
the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole
concept was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive
period of time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was
developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a
prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to
another.

It wasn't Hedley Lamar?

Only in Blazing Saddles...

And ISTM the real Heddy Lamar *sued* the Blazing Saddles people over the use
of the name so close to hers.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Bill Leary]

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lon
It wasn't Hedley Lamar?

Only in Blazing Saddles...

And ISTM the real Heddy Lamar *sued* the Blazing Saddles people over the
use of the name so close to hers.

From the IMDb trivia list for Blazing Saddles:

"Hedy Lamarr sued Mel Brooks over the use of the name Hedley Lamarr and
settled out of court. Mel said he was flattered by this attention."

- Bill

[Bill Marcum]

Post by Bill Leary

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lon
It wasn't Hedley Lamar?

Only in Blazing Saddles...

And ISTM the real Heddy Lamar *sued* the Blazing Saddles people over the
use of the name so close to hers.

"Hedy Lamarr sued Mel Brooks over the use of the name Hedley Lamarr and
settled out of court. Mel said he was flattered by this attention."
- Bill

At one point in the movie, the governor (Brooks) tells Hedley, "You'll
be able to sue her!"

[Michael Black]

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lon

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Like the guy who invented the cell-phone, he didn't make any money from
the invention of the mouse, but is credited as a visionary pioneer.

Who was the guy who invented the cell phone? I thought the whole concept
was a collaborative effort from Bell Labs over an extensive period of
time. (see BSTJ index below:)
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol58-1979/bstj-vol58-issue01.html
While the above is from 1979, the concept of cellular handoff was
developed earlier; for instance, the 1969 Metroliner phone service was a
prototype of seamless automated handoff from one base station to another.

It wasn't Hedley Lamar?

Only in Blazing Saddles...

And ISTM the real Heddy Lamar *sued* the Blazing Saddles people over the use
of the name so close to hers.

She should have been glad of the attention. Her career was well in the
past by the time of Blazing Saddles. If anything, it moved her into more
prominence, she's a real person because of the film. You can't mention
Hedley without Hedy, or vice versa.

If she hadn't been parodied in the film, nobody would have known her,
except for the retroactive pointers to her patent on spread spectrum.

Now, it would seem some of her films are worth se4eing, being out of the
ordinary for the time, but we wouldn't be talking about her (and I
wouldn't mention her films here) if not for Blazing Saddles.

Michael

[Charles Richmond]

[snip...] [snip...]
[snip...]

Post by Charles Richmond
And ISTM the real Heddy Lamar *sued* the Blazing Saddles people over the
use of the name so close to hers.

She should have been glad of the attention. Her career was well in the
past by the time of Blazing Saddles. If anything, it moved her into more
prominence, she's a real person because of the film. You can't mention
Hedley without Hedy, or vice versa.
If she hadn't been parodied in the film, nobody would have known her,
except for the retroactive pointers to her patent on spread spectrum.
Now, it would seem some of her films are worth se4eing, being out of the
ordinary for the time, but we wouldn't be talking about her (and I
wouldn't mention her films here) if not for Blazing Saddles.

Hedy Lamar is *no* dummy. I believe she had other patents besides frequency
hopping radio. For the bulk of folks, even with Blazing Saddles... I doubt
the average person on the street could identify her. She probably thought
the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or thought that they should have
*paid* her for the use of the name.

There is a movie with a young Hedy Lamar (about 24 I think) and Jimmy
Stewart titled "Come Live with Me". It's a nice movie, Hedy is very
beautiful in it, and you get to see Stewart using a typewriter. I *like*
old typewriters and I think Jimmy Stewart plays a novelist in this movie.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

She probably thought the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or thought that they should have *paid* her for the use of the name.

Copyright laws on that sort of thing are tricky. Apparently, they _can_ make brief use of a celebrity's name without payment for the purposes of humor (eg satire), it falls under protected free speech. TV shows "name drop" for humor all the time. I think they can even use it for humor in a negative or teasing way as long as it bears some resemblance to the truth (eg making a joke about wild partying and referring to Lindsay Lohan, as an example).

A few years ago there was a "House" episode where he parodied the closing scene from Casablanca in telling a young girl he couldn't be with her. "You belong with Victor--there's a kid in your class named Victor, isn't there?") Anyway, presumably that was a legal use of the Casablanca dialogue.

I believe when it comes to music the rules are much tougher. There was a popular pop song that sounded a bit like an earlier pop song and the courts ruled it was copyright infringement. I believe the rights for musical numbers in TV shows are handled separately and differently than the dialogue.

Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when utilizing copyrighted source code in a program.

As to trademarks, often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its products as a subtle plug. You see Apple computers often on TV shows. Same with cans of Pepsi. Sometimes they go overboard, really flaunting the product placement instead of merely it being subtly in the background.

[greymausg]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

She probably thought the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or thought that they should have *paid* her for the use of the name.

Copyright laws on that sort of thing are tricky. Apparently, they _can_ make brief use of a celebrity's name without payment for the purposes of humor (eg satire), it falls under protected free speech. TV shows "name drop" for humor all the time. I think they can even use it for humor in a negative or teasing way as long as it bears some resemblance to the truth (eg making a joke about wild partying and referring to Lindsay Lohan, as an example).
A few years ago there was a "House" episode where he parodied the closing scene from Casablanca in telling a young girl he couldn't be with her. "You belong with Victor--there's a kid in your class named Victor, isn't there?") Anyway, presumably that was a legal use of the Casablanca dialogue.
I believe when it comes to music the rules are much tougher. There was a popular pop song that sounded a bit like an earlier pop song and the courts ruled it was copyright infringement. I believe the rights for musical numbers in TV shows are handled separately and differently than the dialogue.
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when utilizing copyrighted source code in a program.
As to trademarks, often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its products as a subtle plug. You see Apple computers often on TV shows. Same with cans of Pepsi. Sometimes they go overboard, really flaunting the product placement instead of merely it being subtly in the background.

Product placement, one of _the_ reasons for even making films and TV now. One local TV soap had an ordinary pub front, a drinks company pad them to replace
it with one with a prominent ad for their drinks. James Bond films (and books) are full of it.

[unknown]

Post by greymausg

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

She probably thought the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or thought that they should have *paid* her for the use of the name.

Copyright laws on that sort of thing are tricky. Apparently, they _can_ make brief use of a celebrity's name without payment for the purposes of humor (eg satire), it falls under protected free speech. TV shows "name drop" for humor all the time. I think they can even use it for humor in a negative or teasing way as long as it bears some resemblance to the truth (eg making a joke about wild partying and referring to Lindsay Lohan, as an example).
A few years ago there was a "House" episode where he parodied the closing scene from Casablanca in telling a young girl he couldn't be with her. "You belong with Victor--there's a kid in your class named Victor, isn't there?") Anyway, presumably that was a legal use of the Casablanca dialogue.
I believe when it comes to music the rules are much tougher. There was a popular pop song that sounded a bit like an earlier pop song and the courts ruled it was copyright infringement. I believe the rights for musical numbers in TV shows are handled separately and differently than the dialogue.
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when utilizing copyrighted source code in a program.
As to trademarks, often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its products as a subtle plug. You see Apple computers often on TV shows. Same with cans of Pepsi. Sometimes they go overboard, really flaunting the product placement instead of merely it being subtly in the background.

Product placement, one of _the_ reasons for even making films and TV now. One local TV soap had an ordinary pub front, a drinks company pad them to replace
it with one with a prominent ad for their drinks. James Bond films (and books) are full of it.

Even better, we faked prosperity for the G8 summit in Fermanagh.

From
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22738710

"Some empty shops and restaurants in towns and villages throughout the
county have also had photographic images attached to their windows to
make them look like thriving businesses."


As opposed to the reality shown by June 2013 car sales.

"Core eurozone countries are suffering now -- with German sales down
-4.7% and France dropping by -8.4%.

There was also a stunning 71% year-on-year plunge in sales in Ireland.
Just 1,673 new vehicles were registrated in the Republic in June, down
from 6,352 in June 2012. That puts Ireland's status as an austerity
poster boy into perspective."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23324804
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/16/eurozone-crisis-greece-general-strike-austerity

Cannot imagine there are many nice new shiny looking Mercedes on
public view in Athens.

Carl Goldsworthy

[Peter Flass]

Post by greymausg

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

She probably thought the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or thought that they should have *paid* her for the use of the name.

Copyright laws on that sort of thing are tricky. Apparently, they _can_ make brief use of a celebrity's name without payment for the purposes of humor (eg satire), it falls under protected free speech. TV shows "name drop" for humor all the time. I think they can even use it for humor in a negative or teasing way as long as it bears some resemblance to the truth (eg making a joke about wild partying and referring to Lindsay Lohan, as an example).
A few years ago there was a "House" episode where he parodied the closing scene from Casablanca in telling a young girl he couldn't be with her. "You belong with Victor--there's a kid in your class named Victor, isn't there?") Anyway, presumably that was a legal use of the Casablanca dialogue.
I believe when it comes to music the rules are much tougher. There was a popular pop song that sounded a bit like an earlier pop song and the courts ruled it was copyright infringement. I believe the rights for musical numbers in TV shows are handled separately and differently than the dialogue.
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when utilizing copyrighted source code in a program.
As to trademarks, often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its products as a subtle plug. You see Apple computers often on TV shows. Same with cans of Pepsi. Sometimes they go overboard, really flaunting the product placement instead of merely it being subtly in the background.

Product placement, one of _the_ reasons for even making films and TV now. One local TV soap had an ordinary pub front, a drinks company pad them to replace
it with one with a prominent ad for their drinks. James Bond films (and books) are full of it.

(What's with the extra carriage returns in your posts lately? Reminds
me of the GG thread.)

I remember when product placement first appeared. Prior to that movies
used to use generic products, possibly to avoid copyright lawsuits. At
first it was "cool" seeing real products. Now they aren't content just
to show a character drinking Coke, they make sure to get a close-up of
the label - on TV, at least. It's just gotten tedious.

I assume many here recall the days of radio and early TV when the line
between program content and advertising was blurry to say the least.
The star would also appear in the ads: "Hey kids, when I need to take a
break from chasing bad guys I always enjoy a relaxing cup of Ovaltine."

[Andrew Swallow]

Post by Peter Flass

Post by greymausg

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

She probably thought the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or
thought that they should have *paid* her for the use of the name.

Copyright laws on that sort of thing are tricky. Apparently, they
_can_ make brief use of a celebrity's name without payment for the
purposes of humor (eg satire), it falls under protected free speech.
TV shows "name drop" for humor all the time. I think they can even
use it for humor in a negative or teasing way as long as it bears
some resemblance to the truth (eg making a joke about wild partying
and referring to Lindsay Lohan, as an example).
A few years ago there was a "House" episode where he parodied the
closing scene from Casablanca in telling a young girl he couldn't be
with her. "You belong with Victor--there's a kid in your class named
Victor, isn't there?") Anyway, presumably that was a legal use of
the Casablanca dialogue.
I believe when it comes to music the rules are much tougher. There
was a popular pop song that sounded a bit like an earlier pop song
and the courts ruled it was copyright infringement. I believe the
rights for musical numbers in TV shows are handled separately and
differently than the dialogue.
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when
utilizing copyrighted source code in a program.
As to trademarks, often times a company will pay a TV show to display
one of its products as a subtle plug. You see Apple computers often
on TV shows. Same with cans of Pepsi. Sometimes they go overboard,
really flaunting the product placement instead of merely it being
subtly in the background.

Product placement, one of _the_ reasons for even making films and TV
now. One local TV soap had an ordinary pub front, a drinks company pad
them to replace
it with one with a prominent ad for their drinks. James Bond films
(and books) are full of it.

(What's with the extra carriage returns in your posts lately? Reminds
me of the GG thread.)
I remember when product placement first appeared. Prior to that movies
used to use generic products, possibly to avoid copyright lawsuits. At
first it was "cool" seeing real products. Now they aren't content just
to show a character drinking Coke, they make sure to get a close-up of
the label - on TV, at least. It's just gotten tedious.
I assume many here recall the days of radio and early TV when the line
between program content and advertising was blurry to say the least. The
star would also appear in the ads: "Hey kids, when I need to take a
break from chasing bad guys I always enjoy a relaxing cup of Ovaltine."

In Britain when they show American X Factor they blur out the name on
the drinking cups. 4 cups, in different positions in about half the
shots in an one hour show - that is a hard working censor.

Andrew Swallow

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

I assume many here recall the days of radio and early TV when the line between program content and advertising was blurry to say the least. The star would also appear in the ads: "Hey kids, when I need to take a break from chasing bad guys I always enjoy a relaxing cup of Ovaltine."

On "I Love Lucy" when it originally aired there were references to the sponsor (Marlboro I think) as scenes opened and closed. This was not used over the years for the reruns, but one station did show it as it originally aired.

On early TV news programs, the sponsor's name was plastered all over the place--on the anchorman's desk, on the wall behind him, as part of the name of the show.

TV pioneer Pat Weaver (father of Signorney) wrote a good book explaining the early business model of television and the evolution toward modern practice. Originaly sponsors owned the entire show and had exclusive advertising. Later it changed to the network owning the show and selling the ad space itself.

"The best seat in the house : the golden years in radio and television" / by Pat Weaver, 1994.

When some very long running soaps were cancelled, I was surprised to find they still existed on the old model--Proctor & Gamble was the sole owner, a carry over from the old days Apparently the soaps lost ratings and it became costly for P&G to carry them. (I was also surprised to learn that a few actors spent their entire long careers on a single soap, growing old on the series. How many IT people spend their entire careers for a single employer? These days, most people outlive their employer.)

[greymausg]

Post by Peter Flass

Post by greymausg
Product placement, one of _the_ reasons for even making films and TV now. One local TV soap had an ordinary pub front, a drinks company pad them to replace
it with one with a prominent ad for their drinks. James Bond films (and books) are full of it.

(What's with the extra carriage returns in your posts lately? Reminds
me of the GG thread.)a

Will check, I generally wordwrap to about 75, but my quote above seems to
have changed to 158. Mr Hancocks posts (usefull) seems be garbled by GG.
I am migrating to differing machines at present. (Slrn rewraps to usual
length with `w`, but the quotes remain unchanged.

Post by Peter Flass
I remember when product placement first appeared. Prior to that movies
used to use generic products, possibly to avoid copyright lawsuits. At
first it was "cool" seeing real products. Now they aren't content just
to show a character drinking Coke, they make sure to get a close-up of
the label - on TV, at least. It's just gotten tedious.
I assume many here recall the days of radio and early TV when the line
between program content and advertising was blurry to say the least.
The star would also appear in the ads: "Hey kids, when I need to take a
break from chasing bad guys I always enjoy a relaxing cup of Ovaltine."

[Charles Richmond]

Post by greymausg

Post by Peter Flass

Post by greymausg
Product placement, one of _the_ reasons for even making films and TV
now. One local TV soap had an ordinary pub front, a drinks company pad
them to replace
it with one with a prominent ad for their drinks. James Bond films (and
books) are full of it.

(What's with the extra carriage returns in your posts lately? Reminds
me of the GG thread.)a

Will check, I generally wordwrap to about 75, but my quote above seems to
have changed to 158. Mr Hancocks posts (usefull) seems be garbled by GG.
I am migrating to differing machines at present. (Slrn rewraps to usual
length with `w`, but the quotes remain unchanged.

IMHO, someone should give Mr. Hancock a nickel and tell him to get a *real*
newsreader!

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Peter Flass]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when utilizing copyrighted source code in a program.
As to trademarks, often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its products as a subtle plug.

Think M$. They make sure you not only see that it's a "surface", but do
a close up of the screen. Surface is a good name for their products,
they're all surface and no substance. Maybe they shold have named it
"Microsoft Demo" to bring in another thread.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Peter Flass

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when
utilizing copyrighted source code in a program. As to trademarks,
often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its
products as a subtle plug.

Think M$. They make sure you not only see that it's a "surface",
but do a close up of the screen. Surface is a good name for their
products, they're all surface and no substance.

:-)

Post by Peter Flass
Maybe they shold have named it "Microsoft Demo" to bring in
another thread.

What, we're marching on Redmond?

[Michael Black]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Peter Flass

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when
utilizing copyrighted source code in a program. As to trademarks,
often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its
products as a subtle plug.

Think M$. They make sure you not only see that it's a "surface",
but do a close up of the screen. Surface is a good name for their
products, they're all surface and no substance.

:-)

Post by Peter Flass
Maybe they shold have named it "Microsoft Demo" to bring in
another thread.

What, we're marching on Redmond?

Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to Computer
Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Michael

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Michael Black

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Peter Flass

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Returning to computers, I have no idea what rules apply when
utilizing copyrighted source code in a program. As to trademarks,
often times a company will pay a TV show to display one of its
products as a subtle plug.

Think M$. They make sure you not only see that it's a "surface",
but do a close up of the screen. Surface is a good name for their
products, they're all surface and no substance.

:-)

Post by Peter Flass
Maybe they shold have named it "Microsoft Demo" to bring in
another thread.

What, we're marching on Redmond?

Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Oh, the one he wrote on stolen university computer time?

[Charles Richmond]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Oh, the one he wrote on stolen university computer time?

Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.

The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.

Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Michael Black]

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Charlie Gibbs

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Oh, the one he wrote on stolen university computer time?

Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

I thought it was definitely history that they had no actual Altair to run
it on before they went to MITS. Maybe in "Hackers", or maybe in "Fire in
the Valley", I'm sure some detail (but maybe not enough) is provided about
this.

Michael

[Charles Richmond]

Post by Michael Black

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Charlie Gibbs

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Oh, the one he wrote on stolen university computer time?

Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff
to write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better
code... and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with
Bill Gates' programming ability.
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to
emulate the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler
could be used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language...
into an executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug
the Altair BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape
that went with Allen to Albuquerque.

I thought it was definitely history that they had no actual Altair to run
it on before they went to MITS. Maybe in "Hackers", or maybe in "Fire in
the Valley", I'm sure some detail (but maybe not enough) is provided about
this.

Yeah, it seems clear from several sources that Allen and Gates had *no*
Altair to run the BASIC on. Still, Allen took a paper tape to Albuquerque
that had *real* 8080 binary code for the interpreter on it.

Perhaps I misunderstood... Thinking of what I read before, perhaps Allen
wrote macros for the PDP-10 that generated *real* 8080 binary code. And
they had an 8080 emulator on the PDP-10 to test the binary that was *real*
8080 code. That must be how it worked...

Somehow I got mixed up and thought that the PDP-10 macros generated PDP-10
code to *emulate* the 8080 instructions. Now I believe I was wrong in this
assumption. The PDP-10 macros actually generated the 8080 binary and the
8080 binary was run through an 8080 emlator running on the PDP-10.

But defintely... computer time was sponged off of the Harvard PDP-10 gto
dvelop the Altair BASIC. To use a variation on Gates' wording in his Open
Letter to Hobbyists: "As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, Bill
Gates *stole* the computer time."

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Rich Alderson]

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Oh, the one he wrote on stolen university computer time?

Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.

You've never heard Paul Allen speak about Bill Gates's programming ability,
clearly. Or read his book.

Post by Charles Richmond
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.

He also wrote an 8080 simulator, adapted from an 8008 simulator he wrote for an
earlier project, which interpreted the 8080 code generated by his macros. It
uses local UUOs[1] to drive the simulation: 8080 code is represented as a
PDP-10 LUUO in the left halfword, and an 8-bit 8080 word in the right halfword.

Post by Charles Richmond
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

One of the routines in the simulator is named "PUNCH". It utilizes the image
mode feature of the PDP-10 paper tape punch code, in which the rightmost 8 bits
of a 36-bit word are output to the punch and the rest of the word is ignored.
The debugged code from the simulator *is* the binary to be punched.

[1] Opcodes 000-077 are treated specially on the PDP-10, with the hardware
trapping to address 40 and storing the decoded instruction (effective
address calculated, etc.) in 41. 000 is always an illegal instruction.
040-077 (monitor UUOs[2]) trap to the monitor's (kernel's) address space,
even when executed by a user program, making for a nice system call
mechanism. 001-037 trap to the user program's address space, i. e. are
local, where routines can be written to handle them in any way the
programmer chooses--like to introduce a routine to simulate another
processor's operation.

[2] "Unimplemented User Operations".

[jmfbahciv]

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Charles Richmond

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Oh, the one he wrote on stolen university computer time?

Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.

You've never heard Paul Allen speak about Bill Gates's programming ability,
clearly. Or read his book.

Post by Charles Richmond
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.

He also wrote an 8080 simulator, adapted from an 8008 simulator he wrote for an
earlier project, which interpreted the 8080 code generated by his macros.

It

Post by Rich Alderson
uses local UUOs[1] to drive the simulation: 8080 code is represented as a
PDP-10 LUUO in the left halfword, and an 8-bit 8080 word in the right halfword.

Post by Charles Richmond
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

One of the routines in the simulator is named "PUNCH". It utilizes the image
mode feature of the PDP-10 paper tape punch code, in which the rightmost 8 bits
of a 36-bit word are output to the punch and the rest of the word is ignored.
The debugged code from the simulator *is* the binary to be punched.
[1] Opcodes 000-077 are treated specially on the PDP-10, with the hardware
trapping to address 40 and storing the decoded instruction (effective
address calculated, etc.) in 41. 000 is always an illegal instruction.
040-077 (monitor UUOs[2]) trap to the monitor's (kernel's) address space,
even when executed by a user program, making for a nice system call
mechanism. 001-037 trap to the user program's address space, i. e. are
local, where routines can be written to handle them in any way the
programmer chooses--like to introduce a routine to simulate another
processor's operation.
[2] "Unimplemented User Operations".

We routinely generated all kinds of other platforms' code on the -10.
that's not unusual. And anyone can write a PA1050. You don't have
to run the real machine code until you're ready to debug it.

The problem would be generating that paper tape. :-)

/BAH

[Charles Richmond]

[snip...] [snip...]
[snip...]

Post by Charles Richmond
Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.

You've never heard Paul Allen speak about Bill Gates's programming ability,
clearly. Or read his book.

You're right... I have *not* read Paul Allen's book, I've only read rumors.

Post by Charles Richmond
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.

He also wrote an 8080 simulator, adapted from an 8008 simulator he wrote for an
earlier project, which interpreted the 8080 code generated by his macros.
It
uses local UUOs[1] to drive the simulation: 8080 code is represented as a
PDP-10 LUUO in the left halfword, and an 8-bit 8080 word in the right halfword.

Post by Charles Richmond
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

One of the routines in the simulator is named "PUNCH". It utilizes the image
mode feature of the PDP-10 paper tape punch code, in which the rightmost 8 bits
of a 36-bit word are output to the punch and the rest of the word is ignored.
The debugged code from the simulator *is* the binary to be punched.
[1] Opcodes 000-077 are treated specially on the PDP-10, with the hardware
trapping to address 40 and storing the decoded instruction (effective
address calculated, etc.) in 41. 000 is always an illegal instruction.
040-077 (monitor UUOs[2]) trap to the monitor's (kernel's) address space,
even when executed by a user program, making for a nice system call
mechanism. 001-037 trap to the user program's address space, i. e. are
local, where routines can be written to handle them in any way the
programmer chooses--like to introduce a routine to simulate another
processor's operation.
[2] "Unimplemented User Operations".

Thanks for the explanation and additional details, Rich! I was aware that
the UUO's on the PDP-10 and DEC-20 was the way that system calls were
implemented. So when UUO's are discussed, I can kinda understand what is
being said.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Peter Flass]

Post by Charles Richmond

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]

Post by Charles Richmond
Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.

You've never heard Paul Allen speak about Bill Gates's programming ability,
clearly. Or read his book.

You're right... I have *not* read Paul Allen's book, I've only read rumors.

Post by Charles Richmond
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.

He also wrote an 8080 simulator, adapted from an 8008 simulator he wrote for an
earlier project, which interpreted the 8080 code generated by his
macros. It
uses local UUOs[1] to drive the simulation: 8080 code is represented as a
PDP-10 LUUO in the left halfword, and an 8-bit 8080 word in the right halfword.

Post by Charles Richmond
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

One of the routines in the simulator is named "PUNCH". It utilizes the image
mode feature of the PDP-10 paper tape punch code, in which the rightmost 8 bits
of a 36-bit word are output to the punch and the rest of the word is ignored.
The debugged code from the simulator *is* the binary to be punched.
[1] Opcodes 000-077 are treated specially on the PDP-10, with the hardware
trapping to address 40 and storing the decoded instruction (effective
address calculated, etc.) in 41. 000 is always an illegal
instruction.
040-077 (monitor UUOs[2]) trap to the monitor's (kernel's) address space,
even when executed by a user program, making for a nice system call
mechanism. 001-037 trap to the user program's address space, i. e. are
local, where routines can be written to handle them in any way the
programmer chooses--like to introduce a routine to simulate another
processor's operation.
[2] "Unimplemented User Operations".

Thanks for the explanation and additional details, Rich! I was aware
that the UUO's on the PDP-10 and DEC-20 was the way that system calls
were implemented. So when UUO's are discussed, I can kinda understand
what is being said.

Basically the same is INT on x86 boxes.

[C***@n-stoff.co.de]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:58:13 -0400, Peter Flass

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Charles Richmond

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]

Post by Charles Richmond
Yeah, the one that he and Paul Allen wrote, and they hired Monte Davidoff to
write the floating point routines. IMHO Paul Allen wrote the better code...
and ISTM that I read somewhere that Allen was unimpressed with Bill Gates'
programming ability.

You've never heard Paul Allen speak about Bill Gates's programming ability,
clearly. Or read his book.

You're right... I have *not* read Paul Allen's book, I've only read rumors.

Post by Charles Richmond
The way I heard it, Allen wrote some macros for Harvard's PDP-10 to emulate
the instructions of the Intel 8080. Then the Macro-10 assembler could be
used to assemble what was essentially 8080 assembly language... into an
executable that would run on the PDP-10. They used this to debug the Altair
BASIC 8080 code from the assembly language level.

He also wrote an 8080 simulator, adapted from an 8008 simulator he wrote for an
earlier project, which interpreted the 8080 code generated by his
macros. It
uses local UUOs[1] to drive the simulation: 8080 code is represented as a
PDP-10 LUUO in the left halfword, and an 8-bit 8080 word in the right halfword.

Post by Charles Richmond
Maybe someone else knows how Gates and Allen assembled the 8080 assembly
language into *real* 8080 binary... so they could punch the paper tape that
went with Allen to Albuquerque.

One of the routines in the simulator is named "PUNCH". It utilizes the image
mode feature of the PDP-10 paper tape punch code, in which the rightmost 8 bits
of a 36-bit word are output to the punch and the rest of the word is ignored.
The debugged code from the simulator *is* the binary to be punched.
[1] Opcodes 000-077 are treated specially on the PDP-10, with the hardware
trapping to address 40 and storing the decoded instruction (effective
address calculated, etc.) in 41. 000 is always an illegal instruction.
040-077 (monitor UUOs[2]) trap to the monitor's (kernel's) address space,
even when executed by a user program, making for a nice system call
mechanism. 001-037 trap to the user program's address space, i. e. are
local, where routines can be written to handle them in any way the
programmer chooses--like to introduce a routine to simulate another
processor's operation.
[2] "Unimplemented User Operations".

Thanks for the explanation and additional details, Rich! I was aware
that the UUO's on the PDP-10 and DEC-20 was the way that system calls
were implemented. So when UUO's are discussed, I can kinda understand
what is being said.

Basically the same is INT on x86 boxes.

This is all really interesting stuff boys - I was beginning to think
the group itself was fossilising, as opposed to us old timers! Keep up
the good work. I'm hoping some of these young hot shot programmers in
the retail banking sector just might learn something.

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Post by C***@n-stoff.co.de
This is all really interesting stuff boys - I was beginning to think
the group itself was fossilising, as opposed to us old timers! Keep up
the good work. I'm hoping some of these young hot shot programmers in
the retail banking sector just might learn something.

note in 1995 time-frame, there were presentations in industry meetings
by dial-up home banking operations about moving to internet ... the
primary motivation was the significant customer support costs for
serial-port dial-up modems ... however, the commerical/cash-management
dial-up operations were presenting that they would *never* move to the
internet because of long list of vulnerabilities and exploits ... that
continue to this day.

five years later there was some large pilot programs involving chipcards
and cardreaders for internet home banking customers ... that resulted in
rapidly spreading rumor that chipcards were not practical in the
consumer market. in some post-mortem reuse with the security and PC/SC
groups in redmond and various financial industry operations ... it was
determined the "real" problem wasn't the chipcards but that there had
been a free give away of serial-port cardreaders ... which had resulted
in huge number of customer support problems. The significant
institutional knowledge about huge customer support costs associated
with serial port devices had managed to evaporate in short five years.
One conjecture was that this was also period that USB was being
developed (in large part motivated by the same significant problems with
serial-port operations) and institutions thought they could unload large
numbers of obsolete serial-port cardreaders

these aborted failed serial-port excursions had resulted in big pullback
from chipcard operations (even tho the real blame was the serial-port
cardreaders) ... including the EU FINREAD standard. misc. past
posts mentioning EU FINREAD:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#finread

misc. past posts mentioning online home banking
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#dialup-banking

there has been a lot of "if-only" conjecture that if it hadn't been for
those mis-guided pilots ... the internet would be suffering from much
less financial fraud and exploits.

disclaimer: we had chip that we were looking at deploying in this
timeframe ... which also got caught up in the pullback from all chipcard
deployments. old press release at 1999 annaul BAI world-wide retail
banking show
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ansiepay.html#x959bai

we also did bunch of AADS patents (all assigned) in the area
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadssummary.htm

NACHA was also doing AADS pilot that got caught up in the pullback
(rapidly spreading rumor in the financial industry that chipcards
weren't practical in the consumer market) ... 23July2001 item (final
report 12yrs ago)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070706004855/http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/News/news.html

[Michael Black]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler

Post by C***@n-stoff.co.de
This is all really interesting stuff boys - I was beginning to think
the group itself was fossilising, as opposed to us old timers! Keep up
the good work. I'm hoping some of these young hot shot programmers in
the retail banking sector just might learn something.

note in 1995 time-frame, there were presentations in industry meetings
by dial-up home banking operations about moving to internet ... the
primary motivation was the significant customer support costs for
serial-port dial-up modems ... however, the commerical/cash-management
dial-up operations were presenting that they would *never* move to the
internet because of long list of vulnerabilities and exploits ... that
continue to this day.

That era was a cusp. One local alternative weekly bought an existing
computer BBS system in late 1994, their foray into being online. And
right at that point, it made sense, since few had internet access. It was
something like free for five minutes a day, you could register and get 15
or 20 minutes a day, or pay a monthly fee. So one could access the
contents of the newspaper online, one could participate in the local
forums if you registered, and if you paid, you got Usenet and email at a
time when that still wasn't commonly available. If they'd just put up a
website, few would have seen it. Anyone could get access this way, to the
limit of the number of phone lines.

And it did sort of work for a time. But even as it went online, the
concept was failed, since things were tipping in favor of ISPs, general
access. I don't think it really worked out as they hoped, yet as an
access point it kept going for quite a few years, even if in 1997 the
paper put up a webpage and used that rather than the BBS to put its
contents online.

They weren't worried about security. But at the time the BBS was a way of
providing access when few had internet access. The same thing had various
manufacturers offering a BBS, to provide software and updates, I certainly
remember companies like US Robotics having a BBS for this purpose.

Now, it would be silly to provide dial up access, since virtually anyone
has internet access (and can at least get it at places like the library).
BBSs have pretty much faded for the same reason.

Michael

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013j.html#21 8080 BASIC

there are still quite a large number of card-swipe point-of-sale
terminals that do dial-up transactions (a large percentage of
point-of-sale terminals still out there are basically PC/XTs with
compressed form-factor and flash drive in place of spinning drive with
2400 baud modem).

I've mentioned having worked on clone terminal controller as
undergraduate in the 60s ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm

started out as interdata/3 which then morphed into a interdata/4 for the
mainframe channel interface and cluster of interdata/3s for port/line
scanners. it was picked up as product by interdata and then sold under
perkin-elmer brand (after P/E bought interdata). about a decade ago, i
saw such a perkin-elmer clone controller in large financial transaction
datacenter handling much of the POS terminal traffic on the east coast.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
there are still quite a large number of card-swipe point-of-sale
terminals that do dial-up transactions (a large percentage of
point-of-sale terminals still out there are basically PC/XTs with
compressed form-factor and flash drive in place of spinning drive
with 2400 baud modem).

True enough. After swiping my card I still sometimes hear
DTMF tones - and depending on the muting settings, possibly
the mating calls of V.22bis modems as well.

[Lon]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
there are still quite a large number of card-swipe point-of-sale
terminals that do dial-up transactions (a large percentage of
point-of-sale terminals still out there are basically PC/XTs with
compressed form-factor and flash drive in place of spinning drive
with 2400 baud modem).

True enough. After swiping my card I still sometimes hear
DTMF tones - and depending on the muting settings, possibly
the mating calls of V.22bis modems as well.

Some of them just used the signalling channel and didn't actually make a
phone call. Plenty of bandwidth.

[Clark G]

Post by Lon

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
there are still quite a large number of card-swipe point-of-sale
terminals that do dial-up transactions (a large percentage of
point-of-sale terminals still out there are basically PC/XTs with
compressed form-factor and flash drive in place of spinning drive
with 2400 baud modem).

True enough. After swiping my card I still sometimes hear
DTMF tones - and depending on the muting settings, possibly
the mating calls of V.22bis modems as well.

Some of them just used the signalling channel and didn't actually make
a phone call. Plenty of bandwidth.

My current employer recently installed a new video conferencing system
in the boardroom and the contract was giving a demo for us support
staff. When a connection was made to a remote site, a series of quick
DTMF (touch) tones could be heard over the speakers. I asked the guy
"You're surely not actually dialing to make a connection, right?" He
said "Yah, the DTMF tones are just for show."

[Michael Black]

Post by Lon

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
there are still quite a large number of card-swipe point-of-sale
terminals that do dial-up transactions (a large percentage of
point-of-sale terminals still out there are basically PC/XTs with
compressed form-factor and flash drive in place of spinning drive
with 2400 baud modem).

True enough. After swiping my card I still sometimes hear
DTMF tones - and depending on the muting settings, possibly
the mating calls of V.22bis modems as well.

Some of them just used the signalling channel and didn't actually make a
phone call. Plenty of bandwidth.

As I said in another post, the negotiating between faster odems takes up a
significant amount of time compared to the actual data transfer, so it
makes sense to do things faster.

Michael

[Michael Black]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013j.html#21 8080 BASIC
there are still quite a large number of card-swipe point-of-sale
terminals that do dial-up transactions (a large percentage of
point-of-sale terminals still out there are basically PC/XTs with
compressed form-factor and flash drive in place of spinning drive with
2400 baud modem).

I wondered about that. Even about 2005, a friend who was in the business
was running around buying up old USR external modems for this, but then
went to tiny modem boards. He said something about how the faster speed
modems didn't help, the negotiating between them used up more time than
the tie to send the actual transaction.

I might have thought that sort of thing had gone to the internet. I can't
figure out why so many small businesses have high speed internet now, so I
assumed it wsa for transactions and it was cost effective simply because
one didn't need a second phone line.

Are those terimnals actual XTs, or were they just the equivalent in a more
suitable enclosure? I remember staying with a friend in 1997 while she
closed up a chocolate store, the cash register then had an LCD display of
some sort (I don't think it was still CRT) and a trackpad for doing behind
the scene things. I dont' think the trackpad was used for everyday
transactions.

Michael

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <***@darkstar.example.org>, on
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving. Besides,
bootlegging became respectable when he wanted Stacker.

[Rich Alderson]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?

The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins and
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of that OS,
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded. Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because the
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to the
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I didn't
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with the
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair, for
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that that
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

[jmfbahciv]

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins and
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of that OS,
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded.

Yea. One of their stories about getting listings was not recognizing
that DAEMON wasn't a piece of the monitor even though the TITLE said
"swappable part of the monitor".

Post by Rich Alderson
Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because the
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

the whole piont of providing sources was 1. for self-training and
2. self-modification. The more people who could read listings and code,
the more hardware we would sell in the future. Plus customers helped
strain out the worst bugs.

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to the
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I didn't
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with the
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair, for
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that that
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

I never understood the "stealing PDP-10 time at Harvard" part. If they had
an account or worked for the Center, they would have access. The only
explanation I can think of was they used computer time which was cross-charged
to a department which had them doing something else. Lots of people
"stole" cpu runtimme and kilo-core-seconds that way. Nobody teneded to care
as long as the usage didn't detract from the serious computer jobs (third
shift was usually idle) or printed lots of paper; that was real money and real
expense.

/BAH

[Patrick Scheible]

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins and
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of that

OS,

Post by Rich Alderson
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded.

Yea. One of their stories about getting listings was not recognizing
that DAEMON wasn't a piece of the monitor even though the TITLE said
"swappable part of the monitor".

Post by Rich Alderson
Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because the
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

the whole piont of providing sources was 1. for self-training and
2. self-modification. The more people who could read listings and code,
the more hardware we would sell in the future. Plus customers helped
strain out the worst bugs.

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to the
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I didn't
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with

the

Post by Rich Alderson
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair, for
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that that
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

I never understood the "stealing PDP-10 time at Harvard" part. If they had
an account or worked for the Center, they would have access. The only
explanation I can think of was they used computer time which was cross-charged
to a department which had them doing something else. Lots of people
"stole" cpu runtimme and kilo-core-seconds that way. Nobody teneded to care
as long as the usage didn't detract from the serious computer jobs (third
shift was usually idle) or printed lots of paper; that was real money and real
expense.

My understanding was that it wasn't just that they stole CPU time for
their own entertainment or general education, but that they were using
the stolen time to help them with a moneymaking project. That's not
just taking CPU time, that's endangering Harvard's nonprofit tax exempt
status.

-- Patrick

[jmfbahciv]

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins and
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of that

OS,

Post by Rich Alderson
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded.

Yea. One of their stories about getting listings was not recognizing
that DAEMON wasn't a piece of the monitor even though the TITLE said
"swappable part of the monitor".

Post by Rich Alderson
Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because the
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

the whole piont of providing sources was 1. for self-training and
2. self-modification. The more people who could read listings and code,
the more hardware we would sell in the future. Plus customers helped
strain out the worst bugs.

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to the
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I didn't
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with

the

Post by Rich Alderson
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair, for
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that that
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

I never understood the "stealing PDP-10 time at Harvard" part. If they had
an account or worked for the Center, they would have access. The only
explanation I can think of was they used computer time which was cross-charged
to a department which had them doing something else. Lots of people
"stole" cpu runtimme and kilo-core-seconds that way. Nobody teneded to care
as long as the usage didn't detract from the serious computer jobs (third
shift was usually idle) or printed lots of paper; that was real money and real
expense.

My understanding was that it wasn't just that they stole CPU time for
their own entertainment or general education, but that they were using
the stolen time to help them with a moneymaking project. That's not
just taking CPU time, that's endangering Harvard's nonprofit tax exempt
status.

That is a very strange way to look at it on Harvard's part. think of all
the research computing which eventually gets patents and/or sold to
industries. Harvard's biggest business is real estate, not education.

/BAH

[Michael Black]

Post by Uncle Steve

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins

and

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of

that

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
OS,

Post by Rich Alderson
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded.

Yea. One of their stories about getting listings was not recognizing
that DAEMON wasn't a piece of the monitor even though the TITLE said
"swappable part of the monitor".

Post by Rich Alderson
Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because

the

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

the whole piont of providing sources was 1. for self-training and
2. self-modification. The more people who could read listings and code,
the more hardware we would sell in the future. Plus customers helped
strain out the worst bugs.

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to

the

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I

didn't

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with

the

Post by Rich Alderson
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair,

for

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that

that

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

I never understood the "stealing PDP-10 time at Harvard" part. If they had
an account or worked for the Center, they would have access. The only
explanation I can think of was they used computer time which was

cross-charged

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
to a department which had them doing something else. Lots of people
"stole" cpu runtimme and kilo-core-seconds that way. Nobody teneded to

care

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
as long as the usage didn't detract from the serious computer jobs (third
shift was usually idle) or printed lots of paper; that was real money and

real

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
expense.

My understanding was that it wasn't just that they stole CPU time for
their own entertainment or general education, but that they were using
the stolen time to help them with a moneymaking project. That's not
just taking CPU time, that's endangering Harvard's nonprofit tax exempt
status.

That is a very strange way to look at it on Harvard's part. think of all
the research computing which eventually gets patents and/or sold to
industries. Harvard's biggest business is real estate, not education.

But almost forty years later, it may have been a specific set of rules
broken. Like maybe they had to announce what they were doing, or
something. In other words, it's less about them using the computer for
commercial use, but that they didn't go through channels.

I have no idea, but it's long in the past, and just travels as a
"factoid".

You're right, endless companies have started as a result of work done at a
university. Bose died this week, and I was under the impression he
started his speaker company while at MIT.

Michael

[jmfbahciv]

Post by Michael Black

Post by Uncle Steve

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins

and

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of

that

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
OS,

Post by Rich Alderson
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded.

Yea. One of their stories about getting listings was not recognizing
that DAEMON wasn't a piece of the monitor even though the TITLE said
"swappable part of the monitor".

Post by Rich Alderson
Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because

the

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

the whole piont of providing sources was 1. for self-training and
2. self-modification. The more people who could read listings and code,
the more hardware we would sell in the future. Plus customers helped
strain out the worst bugs.

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to

the

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I

didn't

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with

the

Post by Rich Alderson
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair,

for

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that

that

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

I never understood the "stealing PDP-10 time at Harvard" part. If they had
an account or worked for the Center, they would have access. The only
explanation I can think of was they used computer time which was

cross-charged

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
to a department which had them doing something else. Lots of people
"stole" cpu runtimme and kilo-core-seconds that way. Nobody teneded to

care

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
as long as the usage didn't detract from the serious computer jobs (third
shift was usually idle) or printed lots of paper; that was real money and

real

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
expense.

My understanding was that it wasn't just that they stole CPU time for
their own entertainment or general education, but that they were using
the stolen time to help them with a moneymaking project. That's not
just taking CPU time, that's endangering Harvard's nonprofit tax exempt
status.

That is a very strange way to look at it on Harvard's part. think of all
the research computing which eventually gets patents and/or sold to
industries. Harvard's biggest business is real estate, not education.

But almost forty years later, it may have been a specific set of rules
broken. Like maybe they had to announce what they were doing, or
something. In other words, it's less about them using the computer for
commercial use, but that they didn't go through channels.
I have no idea, but it's long in the past, and just travels as a
"factoid".

I looked up the definition of "factoid" once; it's a non-fact which
souunds like a plausible fact. So I have never understood why the
word is used to indicate a fact--some TV program started to use the
word whenever it mentioned a curious fact of history.

Post by Michael Black
You're right, endless companies have started as a result of work done at a
university.

Yes. A lot of it was a PhD project.

Post by Michael Black
Bose died this week, and I was under the impression he
started his speaker company while at MIT.

Aw, shit. I hadn't heard. I always wanted to tour the place.

/BAH

[Michael Black]

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Michael Black

Post by jmfbahciv
That is a very strange way to look at it on Harvard's part. think of all
the research computing which eventually gets patents and/or sold to
industries. Harvard's biggest business is real estate, not education.

But almost forty years later, it may have been a specific set of rules
broken. Like maybe they had to announce what they were doing, or
something. In other words, it's less about them using the computer for
commercial use, but that they didn't go through channels.
I have no idea, but it's long in the past, and just travels as a
"factoid".

I looked up the definition of "factoid" once; it's a non-fact which
souunds like a plausible fact. So I have never understood why the
word is used to indicate a fact--some TV program started to use the
word whenever it mentioned a curious fact of history.

I can't say I've paid full attention, but my point of using "factoid"
there was because it was one of those things "people know". I've seen
people issue statements in the paper or online, and it becomes "fact",
nobody stopping to think about what was said, so it gets high travel.

When they were making that film about Noam Chomsky 25 years ago, I was
practically nanny to one of the filmmaker's daughter. The big premise of
the film is that old media keeps things out of the press. I can't even
remember if I thought of it at the time, or when I got online a few years
later, but at some point I realized "old media has to filter because of
limited bandwidth, what they filter comes second". Even about five years
ago, I saw the same statement as a sidebar in the newspaper, someone who
gets lots of travel, repeating that old media filters. Nobody questioning
what she said, because "she must know what she's talking about".

People just take it as a given, and then repeat it, which causes others to
repeat it. It's not fact, but is something "everyone knows". I was
thinking "folk knowledge" might describe it, too.

The GOodtimes virus of 1994 counted on people passing the message (there
was no virus, but the hoaxing message travelled like it was a virus),
precisely by giving it "authority" so those who didn't know their stuff
would just automatically pass the message.

Or when the Montreal Freenet died in 1996, after four months of operation
and 3 years of waiting, the official announcement blamed it on some
things, and a second group that tried to bring a freenet here just took
the announced statements as fact. And since they did, they were unable to
fix the real problems, because they though the problem was elsewhere.

During the anti-globalization movement, someone announced "nobody can
ensure a demonstration is non-violent" and that's been passed around and
treated like fact ever since. But I know that non-violence is an active
role, and from experience, a demonstration is defined by the organizers.
But since the "Fact" is out there, nobody is looking deeper.

The story of Bill Gates is like that. We've seen snippets of it, but the
exact story I'm not sure has been documented. Certainly a full story has
less travel than the snippet "he used a Harvard computer to write the
first MS BASIC".

Michael

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

But since the "Fact" is out there, nobody is looking deeper. The story of Bill Gates is like that. We've seen snippets of it, but the exact story I'm not sure has been documented. Certainly a full story has less travel than the snippet "he used a Harvard computer to write the first MS BASIC". Michael

IIRC, Gates and his co-horts were writing application programs for pay to serve local businesses, using his high school and/or college computer. While far from the only folks who did that sort of thing, in many (most?) cases that would be a violation of school policy--using school facilities for a for-profit-enterprise.

Further, many school computer facilities were provided at a big discount by a vendor's because it was for educational purposes. Uaing such hardware for commercial purposes was a violation of the terms of the service.

IMHO, perhaps using a school's computer to develop _one_ commercial application could be seen as a culmination of an education process. But all subsequent development and of course all opeations should be done elsewhere, not on the school's machine; regardless of whether it "costs" anything. (It should be remembered that something that is "free" is not always free.)

[jmfbahciv]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

But since the "Fact" is out there, nobody is looking deeper. The story of

Bill Gates is like that. We've seen snippets of it, but the exact story I'm
not sure has been documented. Certainly a full story has less travel than the
snippet "he used a Harvard computer to write the first MS BASIC". Michael

This posting style of googles is not working. Deleting <CRLF>s and other
vertical and horizontal characters is modifying the contents of a post
and nobody in my working days considered that professional. Changing
others' docs was even considered illegal in some cases. Anything of
a legal nature going through GG is goign to have problems.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
IIRC, Gates and his co-horts were writing application programs for pay to

serve local businesses, using his high school and/or college computer. While
far from the only folks who did that sort of thing, in many (most?) cases that
would be a violation of school policy--using school facilities for a
for-profit-enterprise.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, many school computer facilities were provided at a big discount by

a vendor's because it was for educational purposes. Uaing such hardware for
commercial purposes was a violation of the terms of the service.


There wasn't a vendor because Harvard owned its system. My guess is that,
if Harvard had a problem with them, it was because they pissed off someone
in the computer center.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
IMHO, perhaps using a school's computer to develop _one_ commercial

application could be seen as a culmination of an education process. But all
subsequent development and of course all opeations should be done elsewhere,
not on the school's machine; regardless of whether it "costs" anything. (It
should be remembered that something that is "free" is not always free.)

Does that also inlcude the professors who had their kiddies writing
a compiler with the plan to sell it later?

/BAH

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by jmfbahciv
This posting style of googles is not working.

As mentioned, google usenet recently was redone. For a while, one could continue to use the old system, but now the old system is shut down (AFAIK).

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:57:37 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:


[Does this post look any better?]

Post by jmfbahciv
There wasn't a vendor because Harvard owned its system. My guess is that,
if Harvard had a problem with them, it was because they pissed off someone
in the computer center.

Even if the system was owned outright, it may have been purchased with an educational discount and strict terms on usage.

Post by jmfbahciv
Does that also inlcude the professors who had their kiddies writing
a compiler with the plan to sell it later?

IMHO, it would be inappropriate for a professor to utilize school equipment or unpaid school students on a commercial venture unless permission is granted by the school. On many efforts, students are paid; in that case using students doesn't matter. Many times professors do consulting for outside commercial firms which is ok, or they get grants for research, also ok. Presumably colleges have policies for using school facilities for outside purposes; probably getting a piece of the revenue.

[John Levine]

Post by jmfbahciv
There wasn't a vendor because Harvard owned its system. My guess is that,
if Harvard had a problem with them, it was because they pissed off someone
in the computer center.

At Yale, we occasionally found kids doing commercial work on the CS
department's PDP-10. I had to tell them they can't do that, that's
not what it's for, and it doesn't matter that they carefully put all
their files on DECtape and didn't leave anything on the disk (all 60MB
of it.)

[Rod Speed]

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Michael Black

Post by Uncle Steve

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/16/2013

Post by Michael Black
Don't forget, Bill Gates did protest, with that "Open Letter to
Computer Hobbyists" about the bootlegging of Microsoft BASIC.

Which bootlegging? Don't forget the dumpster diving.

Are the two commensurable?
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins

and

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of

that

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
OS,

Post by Rich Alderson
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded.

Yea. One of their stories about getting listings was not recognizing
that DAEMON wasn't a piece of the monitor even though the TITLE said
"swappable part of the monitor".

Post by Rich Alderson
Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because

the

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

the whole piont of providing sources was 1. for self-training and
2. self-modification. The more people who could read listings and code,
the more hardware we would sell in the future. Plus customers helped
strain out the worst bugs.

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to

the

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I

didn't

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree

with

Post by Michael Black

Post by Uncle Steve

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
the

Post by Rich Alderson
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair,

for

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that

that

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Rich Alderson
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

I never understood the "stealing PDP-10 time at Harvard" part. If
they

had

Post by Michael Black

Post by Uncle Steve

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
an account or worked for the Center, they would have access. The only
explanation I can think of was they used computer time which was

cross-charged

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
to a department which had them doing something else. Lots of people
"stole" cpu runtimme and kilo-core-seconds that way. Nobody teneded to

care

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
as long as the usage didn't detract from the serious computer jobs (third
shift was usually idle) or printed lots of paper; that was real money and

real

Post by Patrick Scheible

Post by jmfbahciv
expense.

My understanding was that it wasn't just that they stole CPU time for
their own entertainment or general education, but that they were using
the stolen time to help them with a moneymaking project. That's not
just taking CPU time, that's endangering Harvard's nonprofit tax exempt
status.

That is a very strange way to look at it on Harvard's part. think of all
the research computing which eventually gets patents and/or sold to
industries. Harvard's biggest business is real estate, not education.

But almost forty years later, it may have been a specific set of rules
broken. Like maybe they had to announce what they were doing, or
something. In other words, it's less about them using the computer for
commercial use, but that they didn't go through channels.
I have no idea, but it's long in the past, and just travels as a
"factoid".

I looked up the definition of "factoid" once; it's a non-fact which
souunds like a plausible fact. So I have never understood why the
word is used to indicate a fact--some TV program started to use the
word whenever it mentioned a curious fact of history.

Its just another example of how common usage changes over time.

We have seen it with decimate and hacker too.

Post by jmfbahciv

Post by Michael Black
You're right, endless companies have started
as a result of work done at a university.

Yes. A lot of it was a PhD project.

Post by Michael Black
Bose died this week, and I was under the impression
he started his speaker company while at MIT.

Aw, shit. I hadn't heard. I always wanted to tour the place.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by Rich Alderson
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the
ins and outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for
users of that OS, *in order to become better programmers*.

Didn't m$ copy the BASIC code?

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without
recompense to the company

Were penny anté compared to the theft of Stacker.

[Rich Alderson]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by Rich Alderson
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the
ins and outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for
users of that OS, *in order to become better programmers*.

Didn't m$ copy the BASIC code?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without
recompense to the company

Were penny anté compared to the theft of Stacker.

From what I read about this (on a Stacker-friendly web site!) it does not
appear that Microsoft *stole* Stacker, but rather engaged in questionable
marketing practices while changing their own code to implement an on-the-fly
file compression mechanism that the site I was reading called inferior. If
they had stolen the code, wouldn't it have been just as good?

I think you've simply decided that anything done by Microsoft was EVIL and
checked your thought processes at the door.

[Peter Flass]

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by Rich Alderson
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the
ins and outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for
users of that OS, *in order to become better programmers*.

Didn't m$ copy the BASIC code?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by Rich Alderson
The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without
recompense to the company

Were penny anté compared to the theft of Stacker.

From what I read about this (on a Stacker-friendly web site!) it does not
appear that Microsoft *stole* Stacker, but rather engaged in questionable
marketing practices while changing their own code to implement an on-the-fly
file compression mechanism that the site I was reading called inferior. If
they had stolen the code, wouldn't it have been just as good?
I think you've simply decided that anything done by Microsoft was EVIL and
checked your thought processes at the door.

It's not a big stretch.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by Rich Alderson

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Didn't m$ copy the BASIC code?

No. Where did you get that idea?

From reports in the press to that effect.

Post by Rich Alderson
From what I read about this (on a Stacker-friendly web site!) it
does not appear that Microsoft *stole* Stacker, but rather engaged
in questionable marketing practices while changing their own code to
implement an on-the-fly file compression mechanism that the site I
was reading called inferior. If they had stolen the code, wouldn't
it have been just as good?

Not if they copied the algortinm but not the actual code.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit>

Post by Rich Alderson
I think

ObQuirk.

Post by Rich Alderson
you've simply decided that anything done by Microsoft was EVIL and
checked your thought processes at the door.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

Are you channeling BAH?

[Rich Alderson]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
Are you channeling BAH?

I'm not even going to look at the Wikipedia definition of "ad hominem", since I
know what it means--and it does not mean attacking someone with insults instead
of answering their arguments with reason. I simply think that you do not have
a reasoned argument for your statement that Microsoft stole Stacker and infer
from my belief that you must therefore not be willing to look at the facts of
the case with an unjaundiced eye.

An ad hominem argument goes like this: He reads Wikipedia. Since we all know
that Wikipedia is the tool of Satanists, his statements regarding the growth of
millefoil in the lakes around Puget Sound *must* be wrong.

And while Barb and I do not agree politically, I see nothing wrong in her
continuing attempts to characterize the computer industry of the 1960s to the
1990s, since I know other people from the same company who agree with her
assessments.

Unlike most of the people on this newsgroup these days, I don't have infinite
time to respond to trolls. My side of this discussion is at an end.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

I simply think that you do not have a reasoned argument for your
statement that Microsoft stole Stacker and infer from my belief
that you must therefore not be willing to look at the facts of the
case with an unjaundiced eye.

It would be equally valid for me to infer that you are Marie of
Rumania; your "inference" is ludicrous.

And while Barb and I do not agree politically, I see nothing wrong in
her continuing attempts to characterize the computer industry of the
1960s to the 1990s,

Here experience is limited to DEC; her idiotic statements were not.
Even when writing about DEC she got her facts wrong, e.g., about line
counts.

trolls.

You don't see her right wing diatribes in AFC as trolling?

[greymausg]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

I simply think that you do not have a reasoned argument for your
statement that Microsoft stole Stacker and infer from my belief
that you must therefore not be willing to look at the facts of the
case with an unjaundiced eye.

It would be equally valid for me to infer that you are Marie of
Rumania; your "inference" is ludicrous.

And while Barb and I do not agree politically, I see nothing wrong in
her continuing attempts to characterize the computer industry of the
1960s to the 1990s,

Here experience is limited to DEC; her idiotic statements were not.
Even when writing about DEC she got her facts wrong, e.g., about line
counts.

trolls.

You don't see her right wing diatribes in AFC as trolling?

BAH may be putting out right wing diatribes, but a lot of people
have those views nowadays, and they are a legitimate[1] viewpoint.
(As well as that, she is here longer than you. Be polite)


[1](Foxnews derived, mistaken, but legitimate. If you really want to
silence the other side, move to Syria, they are working out their
dfferences with AK47s There)

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

BAH may be putting out right wing diatribes, but a lot of people have
those views nowadays

Some of them, however, post their views in appropriate nesw groups and
don't make up their facts as they go. Some of them don't tell people
that they disagree with to fuck off.

[jmfbahciv]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

BAH may be putting out right wing diatribes, but a lot of people have
those views nowadays

Some of them, however, post their views in appropriate nesw groups and
don't make up their facts as they go. Some of them don't tell people
that they disagree with to fuck off.

I only tell someone to fuck off when they have crossed the line from
discussion to personal attacks. that one post you wrote did just that.

/BAH

[Michael Black]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

BAH may be putting out right wing diatribes, but a lot of people have
those views nowadays

Some of them, however, post their views in appropriate nesw groups and
don't make up their facts as they go. Some of them don't tell people
that they disagree with to fuck off.

Considering how some of the threads drift, she's not doing anything others
aren't doing.

And if she's a troll, she's been here much longer than the recent influx
of trolls.

Michael

[harry]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

I simply think that you do not have a reasoned argument for your
statement that Microsoft stole Stacker and infer from my belief
that you must therefore not be willing to look at the facts of the
case with an unjaundiced eye.

It would be equally valid for me to infer that you are Marie of
Rumania; your "inference" is ludicrous.

And while Barb and I do not agree politically, I see nothing wrong in
her continuing attempts to characterize the computer industry of the
1960s to the 1990s,

Here experience is limited to DEC; her idiotic statements were not.
Even when writing about DEC she got her facts wrong, e.g., about line
counts.

trolls.

You don't see her right wing diatribes in AFC as trolling?

No, just expressing her opinion about those issues, however misguidedly.

[Charles Richmond]

[snip...] [snip...]
[snip...]
The dumpster-diving kids (half a dozen of them) wanted to learn the ins and
outs of an operating system and of the utilities provided for users of that OS,
*in order to become better programmers*. They succeeded. Microsoft continued
to use PDP-10 family systems for product development for years, because the
tools created and extended by the founders ran on that hardware.

I read somewhere that Microsoft had a VAX they used to help create BASIC
interpreters for new microprocessors. ISTM that I have a picture somewhere
in a magazine... of Bill Gates standing beside this VAX.

The people who gave away copies of Microsoft BASIC without recompense to the
company were doing what to better themselves or others, exactly? (I didn't
care for the tack taken in the infamous Letter, but I didn't disagree with the
basic premise.) There were other ways to write software for the Altair, for
free, even if they weren't as easy to acquire and use; I don't see that that
justifies not paying for the commercial product.

Well, the "excuse" is that software traditionally had been free and
commerciallization of the software was somewhat new. Also, the *very* high
price charged for the BASIC meant that most would *never* have it without
purloining a copy. I personally think that Microsoft *benefited* by Altair
BASIC being distributed more widely... But yes, *not* paying for a
commercial product is *wrong*. Still, the tone of Bill Gates' letter
offended many hobbyists.

And the world benefited by *not* using the commercial product. ISTM that
the Tiny BASIC movement was a reaction to the high price of the Microsoft
Altair BASIC product. GNU, the Free Software Foundation, and the Open
Source movement were reactions to other efforts at software
commercializations. And the "free software" people have been criticized for
giving away their own works... works that legitimately belong to them.

As for copyrights today, ISTM that the government has gone too far in giving
intellectual property rights to folks. My understanding is that the
copyright is an *initial* period that gives the author exclusive rights to
his work. Then the work is supposed to revert to the public domain. The
same thing was supposed to apply to patents.

According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, when you "buy" a book or
piece of software, you *barely* have the right to use it yourself and then
only in restricted circumstances. When you buy a digital "book"... you have
*fewer* rights that if you had purchased a paper copy. And the digital
copies are usually priced only a dollar or two less than the real paper
editions.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Lawrence Statton]

Post by Charles Richmond
Well, the "excuse" is that software traditionally had been free and
commerciallization of the software was somewhat new. Also, the *very*
high price charged for the BASIC meant that most would *never* have it
without purloining a copy.

How much was it? (Spends ten minutes going through the wikipedia
article). $200 if purchased as a separate line-item; bundled into the
price if purchased with some of the hardware. Yeah, that is pretty
expensive.

Post by Charles Richmond
I personally think that Microsoft *benefited* by Altair BASIC being
distributed more widely... But yes, *not* paying for a commercial
product is *wrong*. Still, the tone of Bill Gates' letter offended
many hobbyists.

I think that "benefited" is the understatement of the century. They
learned very early -- selling software to end-users is a hard starter,
but selling software to hardware manufacturer's is a guaranteed
gold-mine.

They KINDA did that with the MITS deal, but the genius was in getting
their product into ROMs where their was a higher cost-to-entry to copy
it, and getting it into (e.g. the TRS-80) where the hardware sold in
the zillions. I'd love to know what the unit-royalty for the 12K
BASIC for the Model-I ended up earning uSoft. (Those of you with
lightning minds and good memories will recall that the Level-1 4K
BASIC was mostly Li Chen's basic with the 16-bit integers replaced
with 32-bit floats).

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Well, the "excuse" is that software traditionally had been free and commerciallization of the software was somewhat new.

The statement is a 'half truth' and basically wrong.

Yes, it was true that software was traditionally free and charging for it was new. The big BUT is that charging for software came along with unbundling, so that hardware prices dropped quite a bit at the same time.

IBM used to bundle its software and support as part of the price for its hardware. What appeared to be free, wasn't really free, and customers had to pay it whether they wanted to or not. IBM unbundled. That generally worked out to be a good deal for customers as it meant people could, and did, shop for alternative software packages, especially in the application area, but even for some system programs, too. For instance, early TSO was a resource hog and ADR came out with a more efficient product called ROSCOE. Whitlow's SYNCSORT was often seen as superior to IBM's sort.

As for copyrights today, ISTM that the government has gone too far in giving

intellectual property rights to folks.

This is a tough issue. I dare say most computer software would have been long obsolete even under older copyright laws. So, maybe you can run the 1975 version of CICS or S/360-OS for free on your computer, but do you really want to?

It's hard to justify illegal copying of computer software to save others the purchase price. Computer software is special in that it can be often copied very quickly and easily with 100% accuracy. In contrast, to copy a book, one must stand over a Xerox machine and do it page by page. A few pages inevitably come out crooked or get stacked out of sequence; so book copying isn't as easy.



I think the extended length of copyright protection ends up mostly impacting music, motion picture, and TV productions.

My own feeling is that perhaps the Disney company (and other studios) aren't morally entitled to royalties for films it made in the 1930s because it was so long ago. But on the other hand, if those works became public domain, _other_ folks would make money from exhibiting them, and that's not fair either. Also, many of those old works cost a ton of money and a great deal of risk to make in the first place, more so than say (usually) the author of a book.

Would anyone know how much a studio makes from syndicating old TV shows? For instance, MeTV airs old Brady Bunch episodes--how much do they pay Paramount for that priviledge? How much does TCM have to pay for each old movie it airs?

[Peter Flass]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
IBM used to bundle its software and support as part of the price for
its hardware. What appeared to be free, wasn't really free, and
customers had to pay it whether they wanted to or not. IBM
unbundled. That generally worked out to be a good deal for customers
as it meant people could, and did, shop for alternative software
packages, especially in the application area, but even for some
system programs, too. For instance, early TSO was a resource hog and
ADR came out with a more efficient product called ROSCOE.

I don't know enough about ROSCOE to agree with "superior." Wasn't it
roughly equivalent to DOS ICCF? That is, online edit, submit batch
compile, no FG execution?
...
Whitlow's

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
SYNCSORT was often seen as superior to IBM's sort.

Post by Charles Richmond
As for copyrights today, ISTM that the government has gone too far in giving

intellectual property rights to folks.
This is a tough issue. I dare say most computer software would have
been long obsolete even under older copyright laws. So, maybe you
can run the 1975 version of CICS or S/360-OS for free on your
computer, but do you really want to?

The terms are much too long, but another problem is eliminating the
requirement to renew every 7(?) years. This leaves abandonware in limbo
- you can't buy it, but you also can't freely copy it.

Some people and companies are good about releasing obsolete software as
PD, but not all.

[Dave Garland]

Post by Peter Flass

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
This is a tough issue. I dare say most computer software would
have been long obsolete even under older copyright laws. So,
maybe you can run the 1975 version of CICS or S/360-OS for free
on your computer, but do you really want to?

The terms are much too long, but another problem is eliminating
the requirement to renew every 7(?) years. This leaves
abandonware in limbo - you can't buy it, but you also can't
freely copy it.
Some people and companies are good about releasing obsolete
software as PD, but not all.

Seems like a lot of software these days incorporates third-party
bits whose terms make it impossible for the "author" to release it.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by Peter Flass
I don't know enough about ROSCOE to agree with "superior." Wasn't
it roughly equivalent to DOS ICCF? That is, online edit, submit
batch compile, no FG execution?

The original ROSCOE was a rebranded version of WRAP, which ADR bought
from WSU. It had a very primitive editor and was probably comparable
to the original ICCF; both have evolved since then. You can judge its
capabilities by the fact that ADR called the bundled CRJE unfair
competition. It was certainly not comparable to TSO.

If you wanted an interactive editor with the ability to submit and
retrieve jobs, Wylbur was a much better choice than ROSCOE, at least
in the 1970's and 1980's.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

I don't know enough about ROSCOE to agree with "superior." Wasn't it roughly equivalent to DOS ICCF? That is, online edit, submit batch compile, no FG execution?

ROSCOE was superior to TSO in terms of computer resource utilization "behind the scenes*". If a datacenter had limited capacity--as so many did back then--ROSCOE enabled more programmers to work without impacting other production.


*I don't know the gory details, but it was something to do with how each allocated address spaces; ROSCOE was more efficient.

[Lon]

Post by Charles Richmond

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]

Post by Charles Richmond
And ISTM the real Heddy Lamar *sued* the Blazing Saddles people over
the use of the name so close to hers.

She should have been glad of the attention. Her career was well in
the past by the time of Blazing Saddles. If anything, it moved her
into more prominence, she's a real person because of the film. You
can't mention Hedley without Hedy, or vice versa.
If she hadn't been parodied in the film, nobody would have known her,
except for the retroactive pointers to her patent on spread spectrum.
Now, it would seem some of her films are worth se4eing, being out of
the ordinary for the time, but we wouldn't be talking about her (and I
wouldn't mention her films here) if not for Blazing Saddles.

Hedy Lamar is *no* dummy. I believe she had other patents besides
frequency hopping radio. For the bulk of folks, even with Blazing
Saddles... I doubt the average person on the street could identify her.
She probably thought the movie portrayed her in a bad light... or
thought that they should have *paid* her for the use of the name.

Possibly. Any long time user of Corel Draw would recognize her, as she
was the winning entry in a Corel Draw art contest, and therefore the
face on the product box a few years back.
...no idea if reimbursed for said imagery.

[Walter Banks]

Post by Al Kossow
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father
Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep
peacefully at home last night. His health had been deteriorating
of late, and took turn for worse on the weekend. I will
circle back around soon, for now just wanted to give you all
advance notice and look forward to discussing your thoughts
as I am a bit fuzzy at present.

Although he developed the mouse, it was more than that he
started a whole paradigm shift to pointing devices as a way
to communicate with computers. We owe him a lot. I met
him a few times 30+ years ago.

Last night we lost a computer pioneer.

Our condolences to his family, he will be fondly remembered.

Walter Banks

[Walter Banks]

Post by Al Kossow
Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: update on my father
Very sorry to inform my father passed away in his sleep
peacefully at home last night. His health had been deteriorating
of late, and took turn for worse on the weekend. I will
circle back around soon, for now just wanted to give you all
advance notice and look forward to discussing your thoughts
as I am a bit fuzzy at present.

Although he developed the mouse, it was more than that he
started a whole paradigm shift to pointing devices as a way
to communicate with computers. We owe him a lot. I met
him a few times 30+ years ago.

Last night we lost a computer pioneer.

Our condolences to his family, he will be fondly remembered.

Walter Banks