Re: Mainframe floating point math implementation.
> From: Charles Anthony > the missing piece of the rounding algorithim has been identified: > Only round if the mantissa was shifted more then 71 bits. Wow. I'm really impressed that they implemented that in hardware, back then! Then again, they threw so many gates at the Multics CPU, I guess they figured a few more wouldn't matter... ;-) Noel
Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
> From: Jerry Weiss > Disabling IPV6 was the cure. I was _extremely_ amused to hear that. (Backstory: I'm a long-time detractor of IPv6 - I've always thought it's a rolling ball of digestive byproduct, to be blunt. In fact, if I had still been on the IESG when it came around, I'd have canned it. Unfortunately, I'd resigned a while before [for unrelated reasons], something that in hindsight I've greatly regretted, since it removed my ability to can IPv6. So to hear that IPv6 is _still_, all these years later, not that crucial to useful functionality, is very satisfactory to me - it says my assessment was right on the nose. Long may IPv6 fail to be successful! The single biggest/most expensive IT failure of all time?) Noel
Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Jerry Weiss > > > Disabling IPV6 was the cure. > > I was _extremely_ amused to hear that. > > (Backstory: I'm a long-time detractor of IPv6 - I've always thought it's a > rolling ball of digestive byproduct, to be blunt. In fact, if I had still > been on the IESG when it came around, I'd have canned it. Unfortunately, > I'd > resigned a while before [for unrelated reasons], something that in > hindsight > I've greatly regretted, since it removed my ability to can IPv6. So to hear > that IPv6 is _still_, all these years later, not that crucial to useful > functionality, is very satisfactory to me - it says my assessment was right > on the nose. Long may IPv6 fail to be successful! The single biggest/most > expensive IT failure of all time?) > I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of the land rush of domain name marketing. Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet dark. -- Charles
Re: Mainframe floating point math implementation.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Charles Anthony > > > the missing piece of the rounding algorithim has been identified: > > Only round if the mantissa was shifted more then 71 bits. > > Wow. I'm really impressed that they implemented that in hardware, back > then! > > Then again, they threw so many gates at the Multics CPU, I guess they > figured > a few more wouldn't matter... ;-) > > The floating point actually predates Multics (GE-635 I believe); I suspect that the driving force for sophisticated floating point was the growing 'scientific computing' market, remember this was Cold War era and the military was spending piles of money on nuclear weapon research. (I don't have any documentation, just my informal understanding of mainframe history.) -- Charles Noel >
Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
> > On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony > wrote: > > I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of > DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of the > land rush of domain name marketing. > > Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet dark. > > -- Charles What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn’t enough IPv4 address space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry. Robert Johnson -- Gtalk/Jabber:al...@blastpuppy.com AIM:AlohaWulf Yahoo:AlohaWulf Skype:AlohaWolf Telephone:+1-562-286-4255 C*NET: 18219881 Email:al...@blastpuppy.com Email:alohaw...@gmail.com -- "Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of "crackpot" than the stigma of conformity." - Thomas J. Watson Sr.
Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
> > On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Jerry Weiss > >> Disabling IPV6 was the cure. > > I was _extremely_ amused to hear that. > > (Backstory: I'm a long-time detractor of IPv6 - I've always thought it's a > rolling ball of digestive byproduct, to be blunt. In fact, if I had still > been on the IESG when it came around, I'd have canned it. Unfortunately, I'd > resigned a while before [for unrelated reasons], something that in hindsight > I've greatly regretted, since it removed my ability to can IPv6. So to hear > that IPv6 is _still_, all these years later, not that crucial to useful > functionality, is very satisfactory to me - it says my assessment was right > on the nose. Long may IPv6 fail to be successful! The single biggest/most > expensive IT failure of all time?) > > Noel So, I’m curious what your objections to v6 are (I know there are some very good technical objections, because v6 is unlike v4 enough to be a breaking change from a programatic point of view) - or rather, how would you solve the shortage of IP addresses? Robert Johnson -- Gtalk/Jabber:al...@blastpuppy.com AIM:AlohaWulf Yahoo:AlohaWulf Skype:AlohaWolf Telephone:+1-562-286-4255 C*NET: 18219881 Email:al...@blastpuppy.com Email:alohaw...@gmail.com -- "Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of "crackpot" than the stigma of conformity." - Thomas J. Watson Sr.
OT RE: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
TSIA -Original Message- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Robert Johnson Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:36 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old) > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Jerry Weiss > >> Disabling IPV6 was the cure. > > I was _extremely_ amused to hear that. > > (Backstory: I'm a long-time detractor of IPv6 - I've always thought > it's a rolling ball of digestive byproduct, to be blunt. In fact, if I > had still been on the IESG when it came around, I'd have canned it. > Unfortunately, I'd resigned a while before [for unrelated reasons], > something that in hindsight I've greatly regretted, since it removed > my ability to can IPv6. So to hear that IPv6 is _still_, all these > years later, not that crucial to useful functionality, is very > satisfactory to me - it says my assessment was right on the nose. Long > may IPv6 fail to be successful! The single biggest/most expensive IT > failure of all time?) > > Noel So, I’m curious what your objections to v6 are (I know there are some very good technical objections, because v6 is unlike v4 enough to be a breaking change from a programatic point of view) - or rather, how would you solve the shortage of IP addresses? Robert Johnson -- Gtalk/Jabber:al...@blastpuppy.com AIM:AlohaWulf Yahoo:AlohaWulf Skype:AlohaWolf Telephone:+1-562-286-4255 C*NET: 18219881 Email:al...@blastpuppy.com Email:alohaw...@gmail.com -- "Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of "crackpot" than the stigma of conformity." - Thomas J. Watson Sr.
Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony > wrote: > > > > I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of > > DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of > the > > land rush of domain name marketing. > > > > Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet > dark. > > > > -- Charles > > What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn’t enough IPv4 address > space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry. > What they did was 'NAT plus IPV6 will solve everything.' It seems like NAT gave them enough breathing room to fumble IPV6 through feature creep and enabled slow uptake. The is no pressure to leave NAT; the vast majority of the NATed users have bought into the client/server model of centrally managed services and are happy surfing the web and putting their credit card numbers in the cloud; the ISPs are raking in the money. NAT is great for that, but if you and I want to do peer-to-peer, we are out of luck. I don't have a problem with NAT per se w.r.t. address exhaustion; I have a problem with it apparently being deployed as a solution, and not as a stop-gap. -- Charles
OT: was: Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Charles Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson > wrote: > >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony >> wrote: >>> >>> I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of >>> DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of >> the >>> land rush of domain name marketing. >>> >>> Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet >> dark. >>> >>> -- Charles >> >> What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn’t enough IPv4 address >> space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry. >> > > What they did was 'NAT plus IPV6 will solve everything.' > > It seems like NAT gave them enough breathing room to fumble IPV6 through > feature creep and enabled slow uptake. > > The is no pressure to leave NAT; the vast majority of the NATed users have > bought into the client/server model of centrally managed services and are > happy surfing the web and putting their credit card numbers in the cloud; > the ISPs are raking in the money. NAT is great for that, but if you and I > want to do peer-to-peer, we are out of luck. > > I don't have a problem with NAT per se w.r.t. address exhaustion; I have a > problem with it apparently being deployed as a solution, and not as a > stop-gap. > > -- Charles All, Didn’t quite realize (maybe should have) the discussion I’d kick off. I was thinking “classic” in regard to my OS 10.4 machines which are well over a decade old. The discussion is fascinating, but ... Relabelled the thread “OT” because i think it’s maybe not germane to “classic” computing. Please reply to this title (or better, off-list) if you agree. - Mark 210-522-6025 office 210-379-4635cell
Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.6
At 12:36 AM 3/28/2016, Tapley, Mark wrote: On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Jerry Kemp wrote: > Just curious if something specifically is broken or non-fixable with the 10.6.8 IPv6 stack?] No, there's nothing broken with OSX. I have a functioning IPv6 network here at home, with OSX 10.4 and 10.6 and a few iOS variants which don't have any problems. It's sad that they can't get this right. I'm on Verizon FiOS which doesn't have IPv6 at all. Seems like these carriers just don't want to give us what we need. Oh, I just figured it out: they're providing "Unlimited" IPv6. :) -Rick
Z8-02 demo PCB (was Re: Running a Z8-02 MPD on a breadboard)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Eric Smith wrote: > I designed a simple QUIP adapter for use with solderless breadboards, > and wired up a Z8-02 MPD along with a 28C16 EEPROM for the program > memory, a 62256 static RAM, address latch, and decoder. I programmed a > copy of the Z8671 Basic/Debug interpreter into the EEPROM. To my > amazement, it worked the first time. > > Photos: > https://www.flickr.com/photos/22368471@N04/sets/72157652653732622 I had a PCB made of basically the same circuit, with a TLC7705 voltage supervisor/reset circuit added, and a stuff option for an actual RS-232 port. I've added photos to the album linked above. Unlike the solderless breadboard version, it did not work the first time, and I haven't yet figured out what's wrong with it. The reset circuit seems to work correctly. I should have added a bus connector for I/O expansion. I was in a hurry and it had to be under 100mm square to get the boards made inexpensively. Rather than soldering in the exceedingly rare 3M QUIP socket, I soldered down four 16-position single in line machined-pin sockets, and plugged the QUIP socket into those.
