| 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379809] |
Thu, 17 January 2019 15:16  |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379812 is a reply to message #379811] |
Thu, 17 January 2019 15:50  |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:30:11 PM UTC-5, Alfred Falk wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in news:15c815ed-0569-4ae1-8c78-
> 2fa5a9924a1f@googlegroups.com:
>
>> I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
>> saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
>
> Well, sure it was obsolete. But it still worked just fine if you didn't
> need EBCDIC, just BCD punching.
> No doubt, being obsolete would also mean you could it cheaper.
Even EBCDIC could be done by multi-punching the special characters.
We had to do so when using an 026; I don't think they had
characters like parenthesis.
Did the 026 use vacuum tubes? That would be a maintenance item,
and high maintenance expenses could make something obsolete--
too costly to keep running. Also, in later years, spare parts
for an old machine might be scarce.
Some companies continued using tabulating equipment into
the early 1980s. They required regular maintenance to keep
running.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379815 is a reply to message #379812] |
Thu, 17 January 2019 16:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: timcaffrey420
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:50:04 PM UTC-5, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:30:11 PM UTC-5, Alfred Falk wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in news:15c815ed-0569-4ae1-8c78-
>> 2fa5a9924a1f@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
>>> saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
>>
>> Well, sure it was obsolete. But it still worked just fine if you didn't
>> need EBCDIC, just BCD punching.
>> No doubt, being obsolete would also mean you could it cheaper.
>
> Even EBCDIC could be done by multi-punching the special characters.
> We had to do so when using an 026; I don't think they had
> characters like parenthesis.
>
> Did the 026 use vacuum tubes? That would be a maintenance item,
> and high maintenance expenses could make something obsolete--
> too costly to keep running. Also, in later years, spare parts
> for an old machine might be scarce.
>
> Some companies continued using tabulating equipment into
> the early 1980s. They required regular maintenance to keep
> running.
They were in use at Michigan State until at least 1982.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379816 is a reply to message #379809] |
Thu, 17 January 2019 16:44 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
> saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
Every shop I was in had a mix of 026s and 029s.
The 026s were built like tanks.
I don't remember any service calls on them.
They stayed in service until cards finally went away.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379818 is a reply to message #379809] |
Thu, 17 January 2019 18:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: David Wade
On 17/01/2019 20:16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
> saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
>
So were many things, but schools often used donated equipment. When I
started work at Refuge Assurance Company in 1976 we were still using
hand punches to prepare JCL cards.
If the school had a donated machine, e.g. an IBM1620 or IBM1401 then BCD
cards were what was needed. Even if they had a remote link to a
Mainframe System/360 had the ability to read BCD cards.
So it would be usable why replace.....
..... 029's were expensive...
Dave
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379819 is a reply to message #379818] |
Thu, 17 January 2019 19:48 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
> On 17/01/2019 20:16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
>> saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
>>
>
> So were many things, but schools often used donated equipment. When I
> started work at Refuge Assurance Company in 1976 we were still using
> hand punches to prepare JCL cards.
>
> If the school had a donated machine, e.g. an IBM1620 or IBM1401 then
> BCD cards were what was needed. Even if they had a remote link to a
> Mainframe System/360 had the ability to read BCD cards.
>
> So it would be usable why replace.....
> .... 029's were expensive...
I've seen BCD vs. EBCDIC mentioned multiple times.
Of course, both machines used Hollerith.
There we additional characters on the 029 but I don't
remember any data entry person needing any special characters
except for punching computer programs.
The 026 stayed in service a long time and was fine for most data
entry work.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379824 is a reply to message #379815] |
Fri, 18 January 2019 08:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: drb
> They were in use at Michigan State until at least 1982.
Probably worth pointing out that those were used for the CDC 6500
and 750 card readers rather than for IBM systems. AIS used 029 (or
129?) machines in the keypunch pool at class registration to punch
corrected cards, but of course they used a 370 family system.
Cards pretty much died even for students once the scredit (Ontel with
custom ROM) terminals appeared, but I don't recall exactly which year
that happened.
The CDC machines were retired in 1986 or 1987[1].
De
[1] Production work moved to an IBM machine. A small CDC machine was
obtained, and I believe Hustler was ported to it, but my understanding
is that it never saw end users.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379827 is a reply to message #379824] |
Fri, 18 January 2019 13:36 |
|
|
Originally posted by: timcaffrey420
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 8:52:49 AM UTC-5, Dennis Boone wrote:
>> They were in use at Michigan State until at least 1982.
>
> Probably worth pointing out that those were used for the CDC 6500
> and 750 card readers rather than for IBM systems. AIS used 029 (or
> 129?) machines in the keypunch pool at class registration to punch
> corrected cards, but of course they used a 370 family system.
>
> Cards pretty much died even for students once the scredit (Ontel with
> custom ROM) terminals appeared, but I don't recall exactly which year
> that happened.
>
> The CDC machines were retired in 1986 or 1987[1].
>
> De
>
> [1] Production work moved to an IBM machine. A small CDC machine was
> obtained, and I believe Hustler was ported to it, but my understanding
> is that it never saw end users.
The Admin stuff was always done on IBM 370 machines and was completely
separate from the Computer Lab, so no need to move "production work"
to the IBM machine.
The computer lab did get a small IBM (4300 series I think), they also
got a Convex and at least one Cyber 180 to replace the aging CDC 170/750.
(The 6500 was used for OS development work for many years after the 750
showed up, but the "small" 180 was faster and cheaper).
Mark Riordan developed Scredit in the 1980-81 timeframe, and later ported
it to the newly released IBM PC. Yes, it mostly replaced the keypunches, but
they put the Scredit terminals in the workroom next door first, then started retiring the keypunches.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379828 is a reply to message #379818] |
Fri, 18 January 2019 15:21 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:57:46 PM UTC-5, David Wade wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 20:16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> I thought the 026 was obsolete by 1978 (by the 029), yet I
>> saw a picture of it being used in a school in 1978.
>>
>
> So were many things, but schools often used donated equipment. When I
> started work at Refuge Assurance Company in 1976 we were still using
> hand punches to prepare JCL cards.
>
> If the school had a donated machine, e.g. an IBM1620 or IBM1401 then BCD
> cards were what was needed. Even if they had a remote link to a
> Mainframe System/360 had the ability to read BCD cards.
>
> So it would be usable why replace.....
> .... 029's were expensive...
I didn't think that the machine would've been donated. A freebie
obviously changes the economics, even if it is costlier to maintain.
In the picture there was the edge of the card reader, but not enough
was shown to ascertain what model of computer it was.
Here's a question: Say it's 1974 and you are a high school
teacher. A local company offers to donate to you an IBM 1401
system, even deliver it. But your school would have to provide
a room and power for it.
Would you accept such an offer? (I know of schools that had a
1401 in 1974).
On the plus side, your kids get to learn to program and operate
a real computer. On the minus side, by 1974 the 1401 language
was somewhat obsolete, so learning it was a mixed blessing,
though there still was a lot of emulation out there.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379829 is a reply to message #379824] |
Fri, 18 January 2019 15:26 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 8:52:49 AM UTC-5, Dennis Boone wrote:
>> They were in use at Michigan State until at least 1982.
>
> Probably worth pointing out that those were used for the CDC 6500
> and 750 card readers rather than for IBM systems. AIS used 029 (or
> 129?) machines in the keypunch pool at class registration to punch
> corrected cards, but of course they used a 370 family system.
>
> Cards pretty much died even for students once the scredit (Ontel with
> custom ROM) terminals appeared, but I don't recall exactly which year
> that happened.
>
> The CDC machines were retired in 1986 or 1987[1].
I visited a data center that had a CDC 6400. They had a mix
of 026's and 029's. Both machines had charts with multi-punch
codes so that the 026 could create EBCDC and the 029 certain
BCD characters.
That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
computer privileges.
* A new congresswoman recently stated the same thing in reference
to impeaching the president.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379843 is a reply to message #379829] |
Fri, 18 January 2019 17:02 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> I visited a data center that had a CDC 6400. They had a mix
> of 026's and 029's. Both machines had charts with multi-punch
> codes so that the 026 could create EBCDC and the 029 certain
> BCD characters.
A little-known fact was that on the 026 and 029 the relationship
between the position of each key on the keyboard and the holes it
caused to be punched into the card remained fixed regardless of
the codes that were marked on the keycaps (and printed if it was
a printing punch). Thus, if I needed some cards right away and
all of the "right" punches were busy, I could sit down at one of
the "wrong" punches and punch what I needed. I could touch-type
the entire character set, so I didn't care what was on the keycaps.
(The glyphs printed on the card were wrong, but I could always
duplicate the card on the "right" punch later if need be.)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379877 is a reply to message #379843] |
Sat, 19 January 2019 14:18 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 5:03:13 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> I visited a data center that had a CDC 6400. They had a mix
>> of 026's and 029's. Both machines had charts with multi-punch
>> codes so that the 026 could create EBCDC and the 029 certain
>> BCD characters.
>
> A little-known fact was that on the 026 and 029 the relationship
> between the position of each key on the keyboard and the holes it
> caused to be punched into the card remained fixed regardless of
> the codes that were marked on the keycaps (and printed if it was
> a printing punch). Thus, if I needed some cards right away and
> all of the "right" punches were busy, I could sit down at one of
> the "wrong" punches and punch what I needed. I could touch-type
> the entire character set, so I didn't care what was on the keycaps.
> (The glyphs printed on the card were wrong, but I could always
> duplicate the card on the "right" punch later if need be.)
I never could remember the key positions of the special
characters, like parenthesis, asterisk, apost/quote, and
others used in programming. In the days of keypunch, I
coded my program on coding forms and had the keypunch
operators do it, which was usually company policy.
When we got online terminals, then we keyed it in ourselves
In my early days, I used the < > symbols in COBOL IF statements.
My boss suggested it'd be better to spell it out (GREATER).
I forgot why, but it was better.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379882 is a reply to message #379877] |
Sat, 19 January 2019 17:24 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 5:03:13 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I visited a data center that had a CDC 6400. They had a mix
>>> of 026's and 029's. Both machines had charts with multi-punch
>>> codes so that the 026 could create EBCDC and the 029 certain
>>> BCD characters.
>>
>> A little-known fact was that on the 026 and 029 the relationship
>> between the position of each key on the keyboard and the holes it
>> caused to be punched into the card remained fixed regardless of
>> the codes that were marked on the keycaps (and printed if it was
>> a printing punch). Thus, if I needed some cards right away and
>> all of the "right" punches were busy, I could sit down at one of
>> the "wrong" punches and punch what I needed. I could touch-type
>> the entire character set, so I didn't care what was on the keycaps.
>> (The glyphs printed on the card were wrong, but I could always
>> duplicate the card on the "right" punch later if need be.)
>
> I never could remember the key positions of the special
> characters, like parenthesis, asterisk, apost/quote, and
> others used in programming. In the days of keypunch, I
> coded my program on coding forms and had the keypunch
> operators do it, which was usually company policy.
> When we got online terminals, then we keyed it in ourselves
>
> In my early days, I used the < > symbols in COBOL IF statements.
> My boss suggested it'd be better to spell it out (GREATER).
> I forgot why, but it was better.
Certainly no difference in execution.
If the thought it was better style, I'd say it made zero difference.
Once worked with a guy that insisted every IF needed an ELSE.
His code was full of:
IF X > Y
DO SOMETHING
ELSE
NEXT SENTENCE.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379915 is a reply to message #379911] |
Mon, 21 January 2019 11:32 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2019-01-19, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once worked with a guy that insisted every IF needed an ELSE.
>> His code was full of:
>>
>> IF X > Y
>> DO SOMETHING
>> ELSE
>> NEXT SENTENCE.
>
> Quirky, but given COBOL's lack of an END IF, understandable.
COBOL has had END-IF for a long time now.
Of course this is folklore and my NEXT SENTENCE encounter
was even before that.
When END-IF was introduced to the standard I was submitting
comments. My comment was that COBOL was creating too many
reserved words that might impact users. I wanted the
standard changed so that new reserved words did NOT contain dashes
giving the users an easy way to avoid future reserved words.
So, END-IF, END-PERFORM etc. would have been "END IF", "END PERFORM".
Sadly, others disagreed with my proposal.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379934 is a reply to message #379829] |
Tue, 22 January 2019 01:59 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
....
> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
> computer privileges.
If things still worked like that, I'd have to find another occupation.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379938 is a reply to message #379934] |
Tue, 22 January 2019 03:28 |
|
|
Originally posted by: David Wade
On 22/01/2019 06:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ...
>> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
>> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
>> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
>> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
>> computer privileges.
>
There can't have been many users if that was the case. I remember when
we went from Honeywell H3200 to Honeywell L66 the ops got very upset
that they couldn't see what Time-sharing users were doing.
> If things still worked like that, I'd have to find another occupation.
>
I also heard that the girls decoding German ciphers at Bletchley Park
gained a good knowledge of German curses as they were often used as keys
to the cipers....
> /Jorgen
>
Dave
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379948 is a reply to message #379938] |
Tue, 22 January 2019 11:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:28:10 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 06:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> ...
>>> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
>>> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
>>> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
>>> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
>>> computer privileges.
>>
>
> There can't have been many users if that was the case. I remember when
> we went from Honeywell H3200 to Honeywell L66 the ops got very upset
> that they couldn't see what Time-sharing users were doing.
>
>> If things still worked like that, I'd have to find another occupation.
>>
>
> I also heard that the girls decoding German ciphers at Bletchley Park
> gained a good knowledge of German curses as they were often used as keys
> to the cipers....
Ah, first I have heard of that.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379955 is a reply to message #379915] |
Tue, 22 January 2019 15:35 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:32:32 AM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2019-01-19, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Once worked with a guy that insisted every IF needed an ELSE.
>>> His code was full of:
>>>
>>> IF X > Y
>>> DO SOMETHING
>>> ELSE
>>> NEXT SENTENCE.
>>
>> Quirky, but given COBOL's lack of an END IF, understandable.
>
> COBOL has had END-IF for a long time now.
>
> Of course this is folklore and my NEXT SENTENCE encounter
> was even before that.
>
> When END-IF was introduced to the standard I was submitting
> comments. My comment was that COBOL was creating too many
> reserved words that might impact users. I wanted the
> standard changed so that new reserved words did NOT contain dashes
> giving the users an easy way to avoid future reserved words.
> So, END-IF, END-PERFORM etc. would have been "END IF", "END PERFORM".
> Sadly, others disagreed with my proposal.
I knew some programmers who liked using the ELSE/NEXT SENTENCE, but
I did not care for it.
I liked END IF when it came out and made use of it. I thought it
was good style.
As to reserved words, I remember way back my compsci prof saying
a dash wasn't in reserved words, so it was helpful to push a dash
in field names. Anyway, with all the new features they keep adding,
there are a great many reserved words these days.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379956 is a reply to message #379934] |
Tue, 22 January 2019 15:40 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 1:59:18 AM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ...
>> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
>> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
>> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
>> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
>> computer privileges.
>
> If things still worked like that, I'd have to find another occupation.
When I watch TV shows from that era, I'm surprised that many characters
are still wearing neckties, even what I thought were informal
situations (like Mannix). Despite the changes of the 1970s, we
were still a more formal society as compared to later years.
Using profanity on the street would result in a summons for
disorderly conduct; I think today not so.
Also, I think there was a difference between orally saying something
as compared to typing it on a computer (which was worse). Lastly,
the kid typing m...f... was probably seen as worse. On broadcast
TV, they now say some words, but generally still avoid the F word.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #379957 is a reply to message #379938] |
Tue, 22 January 2019 15:40 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 3:28:12 AM UTC-5, David Wade wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 06:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> ...
>>> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
>>> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
>>> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
>>> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
>>> computer privileges.
>>
>
> There can't have been many users if that was the case. I remember when
> we went from Honeywell H3200 to Honeywell L66 the ops got very upset
> that they couldn't see what Time-sharing users were doing.
It may have been a new experimental system, which is how we got
time on it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #380001 is a reply to message #379938] |
Wed, 23 January 2019 12:31 |
Ken Wheatley
Messages: 14
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:28:10 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 06:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> ...
>>> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
>>> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
>>> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
>>> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
>>> computer privileges.
>>
>
> There can't have been many users if that was the case. I remember when
> we went from Honeywell H3200 to Honeywell L66 the ops got very upset
> that they couldn't see what Time-sharing users were doing.
>
>> If things still worked like that, I'd have to find another occupation.
>>
>
> I also heard that the girls decoding German ciphers at Bletchley Park
> gained a good knowledge of German curses as they were often used as keys
> to the cipers....
>
Not likely to used as keys, but possibly repeated often enough to make
it easier to crack. That's why the operators were supposed to send
exactly what they were told to send.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #380022 is a reply to message #380001] |
Wed, 23 January 2019 18:39 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 23/01/2019 17:31, BirchangerKen wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:28:10 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/01/2019 06:59, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2019-01-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> That CDC offered timesharing as well. One time a student,
>>>> frustrated that it deleted his program, typed in an expletive*.
>>>> He didn't know that all commands appeared on the operator's
>>>> screen who was not amused. They were logged. The kid lost his
>>>> computer privileges.
>>>
>>
>> There can't have been many users if that was the case. I remember when
>> we went from Honeywell H3200 to Honeywell L66 the ops got very upset
>> that they couldn't see what Time-sharing users were doing.
>>
>>> If things still worked like that, I'd have to find another occupation.
>>>
>>
>> I also heard that the girls decoding German ciphers at Bletchley Park
>> gained a good knowledge of German curses as they were often used as keys
>> to the cipers....
>>
> Not likely to used as keys, but possibly repeated often enough to make
> it easier to crack. That's why the operators were supposed to send
> exactly what they were told to send.
>
I think the swear words were the starting point of the key stream rather
than the network wide key variables.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #380030 is a reply to message #379955] |
Wed, 23 January 2019 20:57 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:35:41 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
[snip]
> As to reserved words, I remember way back my compsci prof saying
> a dash wasn't in reserved words, so it was helpful to push a dash
> in field names. Anyway, with all the new features they keep adding,
> there are a great many reserved words these days.
Language reserved words are generally useful words for program
identifiers, or would be if they were not reserved. The Web
equivalent:
C:\CBS2Dev>ping thegoodnamesweretaken.com
Pinging thegoodnamesweretaken.com [68.178.213.61] with 32 bytes of
data:
Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 68.178.213.61:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 49ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 49ms
C:\CBS2Dev>
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #380043 is a reply to message #380030] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 09:10 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:35:41 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> As to reserved words, I remember way back my compsci prof saying
>> a dash wasn't in reserved words, so it was helpful to push a dash
>> in field names. Anyway, with all the new features they keep adding,
>> there are a great many reserved words these days.
>
> Language reserved words are generally useful words for program
> identifiers, or would be if they were not reserved.
That’s why PL/I has no reserved words.
> The Web
> equivalent:
>
> C:\CBS2Dev>ping thegoodnamesweretaken.com
>
> Pinging thegoodnamesweretaken.com [68.178.213.61] with 32 bytes of
> data:
> Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
> Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
> Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
> Reply from 68.178.213.61: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=56
>
> Ping statistics for 68.178.213.61:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 49ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 49ms
>
> C:\CBS2Dev>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #380064 is a reply to message #380030] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 16:47 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:57:10 -0800, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> C:\CBS2Dev>ping thegoodnamesweretaken.com
Gah, that looks like MSDOS. Install CP/M already! ;-)
Yes, that might be the Windows shell you use. And it seems there was
never a ping command in CP/M. But SCNR.
--
Andreas
|
|
|
|
| Re: 026 keypunch running in 1978 [message #380093 is a reply to message #379809] |
Fri, 25 January 2019 04:30 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:54:18 -0600
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> No subdirectories in CP/M-80 either. A flat file system, though it
> could be segmented into 16 "user areas", which sorta acted like home
> directories in that whichever one you were in, you couldn't access the
> others. (I never actually knew anyone to make use of user areas.)
We did :) But only on the CP/M MP/M based MMMOST star network
setup with a big (40 MB) file server/network hub and a bunch of CP/M and
MP/M based workstations. The file server exported four logical drives (8MB
limit in CP/M) one of them was used for home directory style split by user
number the others were all common access holding applications and databases.
People we set up like that tended to think of the IBM PC as rather
primitive and not very useful.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
