On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yeah, I had quite a number of problems with the original post also.
We each see a different part of the elephant. Sometimes I think that
Murray is/was at the other end than I am/was.
I really like Murray, and what he says, but his views of what was
significant or pivotal and mine seem diametrically opposite.
Early internet systems--I'm not sure where to draw the line between Usenet,
ARPANet and Internet exactly often employed nothing more than POTS
networking, using nothing more than UUCP or similar methods.
Ahh!
defining where to draw that line IS the fundamental aspect for declaring
"FIRST"!
When I added email Internet communication, I used a package for Windows
called UUPC, which was pretty much a UUCP clone. Others simply signed up to
a service, such as Compuserve.
Compuserve and The Source seem to be the primary way that non-university
individuals got a chance to get started in inter computer networking.
Then came AOL; remember when AOL ADDED internet connectivity?
The Internet is not the World-Wide-Web. Indeed, I have a PC package and book
titled "Internet Starter Kit" and there's no mention of a web browser.
I've still got a copy of it. Next time that I stumble over it, I'll
give it away.
I do miss the web-less Internet in some respects. People were more polite
back then--at least in their written communication.
Really?
I originally thought of WWW as just a [significant] enhjancement to
gopher.
Some would try to place "flame" or "flame-war" as originataing in usenet.
While I won't try to claim that the FIRST or SECOND emails were flames,
I'm inclined to think that they started early. 'course in our day, we
were much more polite in how we flamed, maybe because we kinda assumed
that what we wrote might get read by those with power over us.
"COULD THE PLANNING OF OS 'UPGRADES' START TO INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF
WHICH PROJECTS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED?"
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
