Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's not true. Most of the vacuum tubes use(d) 6 volts and upwards.In article <esu5o4$8ss_003@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since
the 60s.
[....]
The operator allocated them
after you paid large amounts of money.
That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM
operational POV.
Yes, an IBM environment
Ours was designed differently. It was easy
to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose.
Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category.
Who did the "reserved for that purpose"? That would be the point where
money would be needed.
[....]
Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there
is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early
days.
Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with
certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an
accident.
Sure it was. In both hardware and software design there are often choices
that look identical today but won't in the future. For a long time logic
has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater
voltage on tubes.
In other words, you "editted" the tape. You wrote one file and then wroteIn article <esrtcj$qj4$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
In other words, you wrote the TAPE.DIR after all the other files were
written. This means you had to write a file of that size and then the
data and then open TAPE.DIR for writing.
If this is what you did then my method of putting a correct checksum still
works. If you wrote the TAPE.DIR before the other files and never changed
it, my method still works.
[....]
Anybody who has done any grocery shopping would know the difference
between the two. Just because dog food is on your shopping list
never guarantees that dog food will be in your car when you get home.
The only listing that shows you were successful in putting
dog food in the shopping cart is the cash register receipt.
Does this mean you wrote TAPE.DIR after the other files were all written?
Yes. TAPE.DIR was created after the files were written to the tape.
That is how you get a directory listing of the tape onto the tape.
The first cut of the tape had a zero block TAPE.DIR for a place holder
on the tape. Then a DIRECT DSK:TAPE.DIR=TAPE:/CHECKSUM was done.
Then another save was done; this time TAPE.DIR that was on the
tape contained a checksummed directory of the tape.
As I explained, the claim that it can't be correct it wrong. The method II don't think so. You objected to opening it for writing. This means
that you only could have put it onto the tape before the others. You must
therefor have known what you intended to write. You also would have
checked when you were done that you really had written what you intended.
If what you actually wrote did not match what you intened to write, you
would have taken some action. Most likely you would make a new tape.
A second save exercise had to be done. Howver, the checksum of
the file TAPE.DIR in the file TAPE.DIR would never be correct.
We could live with that. It would not generate any SPRs nor
create problems in the field.
You don't seem to be able to understand the idea so yes, I guess you wouldNo, what I suggested solves the problem you had cleanly and without adding
any problems. You just seem not to be able to grasp what it does.
I know what it does. And the solution would cause more problems than
it fixed. If your solution was the only one, I'd punt the idea.
No, it would not, You just need to think about what I really said. WhenNothing I suggested would result in that. The net result of what I have
suggested is one line of text in the TAPE.DIR file if it is an ASCII text
file and an extra byte if it is binary.
Since the medium is a magtape, inserting one tiny bit would make a
mess of the save set and cause it to not be restorable.
..... and yet you shipped it with a mistake on it. This means it was notThis
was the master cut of the tapes that would soon be made to ship
to all customers. It had to be perfect and copyable.
This has nothing to do with the question at hand. The strips on the endsAnother trick that had to done was to save files to tapes that
had been physically logically "shortened". That was done by
moving the silver strip to make a "short tape".
Yes it does! You can do exactly all the same steps as what you did plus aOnce again what you are saying contradicts what you suggested earlier.
You had to check that you really did put onto the tape what you intended
to put onto the tape. My method makes no change to that requirement.
Your method does not put a director _OF_ the tape onto the tape.
You wrote something onto the tape called TAPE.DIR. I have not suggestedWRONG! You have always been able to edit magnetic tape. You can't cause
the lengths of things to change but you can overwrite a file with one of
the same size.
But it isn't the same size. You cannot predict the size of any
record on a magtape.
We are not talking about humans doing things we are talking about whatHardly new. Reel to reel tape isn't used much anymore. Even very stone
aged reel-to-reel drives like the Kennedy 9700 could do it. You being
unaware of this contradicts statements you made earlier.
I was never aware that the purpose of IRGs was so a human could
edit directly to the tape.
Then as I have explained, the method works the checksum did not need to beYes! THat is the only way to get a directory of the tape.
massive snipIn article <esu74a$8qk_001@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
BAH is right.I was never aware that the purpose of IRGs was so a human could
edit directly to the tape.
We are not talking about humans doing things we are talking about what
computers could do.
Yes! THat is the only way to get a directory of the tape.
Then as I have explained, the method works the checksum did not need to be
wrong.
The checksum of the tape has changed and is therefore now incorrect.
Every time you change the checksum data, the checksum changes.
In article <b6a74$45f2f36e$4fe72af$20401@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <esu5o4$8ss_003@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since
the 60s.
[....]
The operator allocated them
after you paid large amounts of money.
That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM
operational POV.
Yes, an IBM environment
Ours was designed differently. It was easy
to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose.
Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category.
Who did the "reserved for that purpose"? That would be the point where
money would be needed.
[....]
Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there
is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early
days.
Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with
certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an
accident.
Sure it was. In both hardware and software design there are often choices
that look identical today but won't in the future. For a long time logic
has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater
voltage on tubes.
That's not true. Most of the vacuum tubes use(d) 6 volts and upwards.
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
How about the forward voltage drop for the rectifier ?Ken Smith wrote:
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
6.3 * .707 = 4.45 making 4 volts the nearest round number.
Semiconductor diodes, yes."nonsense@unsettled.com" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
6.3 * .707 = 4.45 making 4 volts the nearest round number.
How about the forward voltage drop for the rectifier ?
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leaveKen Smith wrote:
In article <esu5o4$8ss_003@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since
the 60s.
[....]
The operator allocated them
after you paid large amounts of money.
That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM
operational POV.
Yes, an IBM environment
Ours was designed differently. It was easy
to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose.
Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category.
Who did the "reserved for that purpose"? That would be the point where
money would be needed.
[....]
Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there
is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early
days.
Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with
certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an
accident.
Sure it was. In both hardware and software design there are often choices
that look identical today but won't in the future. For a long time logic
has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater
voltage on tubes.
That's not true. Most of the vacuum tubes use(d) 6 volts and upwards.
No she is wrong.Ken Smith wrote:
In article <esu74a$8qk_001@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
massive snip
I was never aware that the purpose of IRGs was so a human could
edit directly to the tape.
We are not talking about humans doing things we are talking about what
computers could do.
Yes! THat is the only way to get a directory of the tape.
Then as I have explained, the method works the checksum did not need to be
wrong.
BAH is right.
This isn't what she is doing. TAPE.DIR contains the list of files on theYou run a checksum of the tape.
You write the checksum to the tape.
Not if you do as I suggested way backThe checksum of the tape has changed and is therefore now incorrect.
Every time you change the checksum data, the checksum changes.
Did you just change your mind?There's no way around it,
sqrt(2) != 0.707Ken Smith wrote:
In article <b6a74$45f2f36e$4fe72af$20401@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <esu5o4$8ss_003@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since
the 60s.
[....]
The operator allocated them
after you paid large amounts of money.
That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM
operational POV.
Yes, an IBM environment
Ours was designed differently. It was easy
to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose.
Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category.
Who did the "reserved for that purpose"? That would be the point where
money would be needed.
[....]
Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there
is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early
days.
Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with
certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an
accident.
Sure it was. In both hardware and software design there are often choices
that look identical today but won't in the future. For a long time logic
has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater
voltage on tubes.
That's not true. Most of the vacuum tubes use(d) 6 volts and upwards.
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
6.3 * .707 = 4.45 making 4 volts the nearest round number.
"nonsense@unsettled.com" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
6.3 * .707 = 4.45 making 4 volts the nearest round number.
How about the forward voltage drop for the rectifier ?
Thought you didn't know what you were talkingIn article <72ef1$45f31da7$4fe7333$21289@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <b6a74$45f2f36e$4fe72af$20401@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <esu5o4$8ss_003@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since
the 60s.
[....]
The operator allocated them
after you paid large amounts of money.
That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM
operational POV.
Yes, an IBM environment
Ours was designed differently. It was easy
to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose.
Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category.
Who did the "reserved for that purpose"? That would be the point where
money would be needed.
[....]
Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there
is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early
days.
Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with
certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an
accident.
Sure it was. In both hardware and software design there are often choices
that look identical today but won't in the future. For a long time logic
has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater
voltage on tubes.
That's not true. Most of the vacuum tubes use(d) 6 volts and upwards.
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
6.3 * .707 = 4.45 making 4 volts the nearest round number.
sqrt(2) != 0.707
LM78XX series provides:I'll do it for you:
6.3 * sqrt(2) = 6.3*1.414 = 8.9V
Low line condition = -10% ie: 0.9 times the above
8.9 * 0.9 = 8.0
The rectifier is a silicon diode:
8.0 - 0.7 = 7.3V
The regulator was from before LDOs were invented. So lets use the LM78XX
as an example design:
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/pf/LM/LM7805.html says drop out voltage =
2.0
7.3 - 2.0 = 5.3
Round off
5V
There were also huge numbers of "filament transformers" which had only theThat there used to be plenty of transformers incorporating
a 6.3 volt winding among the multiple outputs
You could buy a filament transformer for way less than one at any othercommon to
transformers during vacuum tube days has nothing to do
with the reason 5 volts was selected for logic circuits.
There's no good reason to have selected 5 volts as opposed
to 6 volts, or for that matter, 8 volts. There's nothing
sacred about manufacturing 6.3 volt transformers as opposed
to any other particular low voltage you might select.
They weren't obsolete on the day the choice was made. They were stillAn
entire electronics industry didn't grow up around some suspect
warehouse full of obsolete/surplus 6.3 volt transformers
someplace.
Looking at the availability of the voltages in the LM series
(I had an S-100 buss computer once that had cards loaded
down with the things) any voltage could have been just as
easily selected.
It's different.Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
"nonsense@unsettled.com" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Yes, it is true. The heater voltage on many tubes was 6.3VAC. I'll leave
the *sqrt(2) and the headroom numbers for you to go find. When you get
done, you will see why 5V was the nearest round number.
6.3 * .707 = 4.45 making 4 volts the nearest round number.
How about the forward voltage drop for the rectifier ?
Semiconductor diodes, yes.
Do tube rectifiers have the same "forward drop"?
Certainly not the amps required.I doubt it as a hot tube is very happy to pass electrons.
Utter nonsense.There's no good reason to have selected 5 volts as opposed
to 6 volts, or for that matter, 8 volts.
Our products weren't IBM. So we had different constraintsIn article <esu5o4$8ss_003@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]
These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since
the 60s.
[....]
The operator allocated them
after you paid large amounts of money.
That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM
operational POV.
Yes, an IBM environment
That depended on what was getting done and who needed it.Ours was designed differently. It was easy
to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose.
Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category.
Who did the "reserved for that purpose"?
Now think about that over time. The constraint was 5V so choicesThat would be the point where
money would be needed.
[....]
Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there
is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early
days.
Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with
certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an
accident.
Sure it was. In both hardware and software design there are often choices
that look identical today but won't in the future. For a long time logic
has run on 5V. The selection of 5V can be traced in part to the heater
voltage on tubes.
So why are you arguing about an OS philosophy that tried toOn Sat, 10 Mar 07 11:40:07 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
In article <oo04v2d5ubfqmd07mgaqe6fssbav3g66th@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:29:11 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:
In article <esrg7f$8ss_001@s842.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <2v91v2pjpp3qdcn8mv70t5rk21t7g1oeem@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 07 11:48:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
As I said above, our OS philosophy was to provide multiple pathways.
Multiple pathways...do you understand what that means? So why
are you demeaning the OS philosophy with an argument about networks?
Networking is a MAJOR part of a modern OS, dingledorf.
It shouldn't be. Routing should be kept off user machines.
If more effective ways of breaking up the routing problem were found,
routing could be spread across the user machines. With the current
situation, I agree with you that it needs to be kept on a special box just
for that purpose.
Funny... I said NETWORKING, NOT ROUTING.
Do you two have reading comprehension issues or what?
Which layer of the NETWORKING were you talking about?
From your stupid posts, I was unaware that you knew anything about
layers.
And, it is a COMPUTING model they refer to, not a networking model.
Then that TAPE.DIR was not made by taking a directory of theIn article <esu670$8ss_005@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <esrrjh$n5i$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <esrgkf$8ss_004@s842.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[.... me .....]
..... and it includes its own checksum. This checksum can be made to be
correct by the method I suggested.
Only by fakery.
No "fakery" was needed if you know beforehand the names of the files that
will be written.
Your method is still not a physical directory of the tape that is
going to be sent out.
Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! Stop thinking that and you may start
to see your mistake. I have tried repeatedly to simplify the question and
re-explain the issue. You keep coming back to this mistake. I have
explained how the checksum of the TAPE.DIR file can be correct in several
different ways but you seem to be unable to grasp what I've said.
To fake it would open up many opportunities
for Murphy's Law to strike.
Nothing I suggested leaves any extra room for Murphy and provides a
correct checksum which closes one door he may use.
Editing a number into the middle of a magtape is not asking
for major Murphy events? You are definitely not thinking well.
No, you are making the same mistake over and over. As I stated before, if
you know what you are going to put into TAPE.DIR, you can make its
checksum correct. No editing of a magnetic tape was needed by the method.
TAPE.DIR is written by taking a directory of the tape. Since[.....]
You have to write to TAPE.DIR if you want it to exist. In the case where
the names going into TAPE.DIR is known, the method I suggested did not
require any other write actions than the method you suggested. It only
required that you think about what you intend to write before you wrote
it. This I assume you would already have to do some amount of because you
need to conpose the contents of that file based on what you intend to
write.
You just missed something that is all.
You still are missing the requirement of having a directory of the
tape on the tape.
TAPE.DIR is the first file on the tape
TAPE.DIR lists the checksums of all the files on the tape.
TAPE.DIR's checksum in this list can be correct when written.
It is you who do not understand the purpose of the file. It isI have tried to explain how but you just don't seem to be able to
understand the issue.
It can be lost. And if you knew the procedures of putting anotherKen Smith wrote:
In article <esu74a$8qk_001@s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
massive snip
I was never aware that the purpose of IRGs was so a human could
edit directly to the tape.
We are not talking about humans doing things we are talking about what
computers could do.
Yes! THat is the only way to get a directory of the tape.
Then as I have explained, the method works the checksum did not need to be
wrong.
BAH is right.
You run a checksum of the tape.
You write the checksum to the tape.
The checksum of the tape has changed and is therefore now incorrect.
Every time you change the checksum data, the checksum changes.
There's no way around it, other than putting a listing with
the correct tape checksum on some other media. Printing a label
with the checksum and sticking it to the reel would have worked,
but that probably wasn't geeky enough a solution.
You are wrong. The word containing the checksum of theOn Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:36:46 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:
The checksum of the tape has changed and is therefore now incorrect.
Every time you change the checksum data, the checksum changes.
The checksum test tests the body of data on the tape, and does NOT
include the added checksum at the end, you idiotic, devoid of logic
twit.