From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Dec 23 09:47:18 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:47:18 -0800 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature Message-ID: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> Folks, Howdy. This popped up on a list I track. I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share that the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular term was chosen. Do any of you remember why? Bonus points for any additional background on the who and how. Thanks. d/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: nomenclature Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:48:57 -0500 So, someone asked me the other day why computers were called 'hosts'. I gave some silly, half-mumbled answer about how they "host" software applications, but I've been reading this interesting, if somewhat dry, book (The Horse, the Wheel, and Language) about the development of the European and South Asian languages from Proto-Indo European, which has a "*ghosti" precursor word (which means roughly "the guest/host hospitality obligation relationship") and it got me wondering again. Anyone have a better answer for me? Why are computers called "hosts"? -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Wed Dec 23 10:30:47 2009 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:30:47 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4B321B87.8593.27730E27@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:47, Dave CROCKER wrote: > I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share that the > Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular term was chosen. > > Do any of you remember why? I can only say that it is going to be VERY early on: from the first I saw of the project Severo's group was working on the "Host-Imp" interface and we had "host" machinery in the software. I'd bet it already had that terminology at the meeting in '68 that spawned the RFQ. /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From vint at google.com Wed Dec 23 10:33:06 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:33:06 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: steve may have the best explanation; as I recall, it was sort of a combination of the notion of a host (at an event - providing for the attendees/ users) and "host" in the sense of biological host to a parasite (!). vint On Dec 23, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Folks, > > Howdy. > > This popped up on a list I track. > > I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share > that the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that > particular term was chosen. > > Do any of you remember why? > > Bonus points for any additional background on the who and how. > > Thanks. > > d/ > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: nomenclature > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:48:57 -0500 > > So, someone asked me the other day why computers were called > 'hosts'. I > gave some silly, half-mumbled answer about how they "host" software > applications, but I've been reading this interesting, if somewhat dry, > book (The Horse, the Wheel, and Language) about the development of the > European and South Asian languages from Proto-Indo European, which > has a > "*ghosti" precursor word (which means roughly "the guest/host > hospitality obligation relationship") and it got me wondering again. > > Anyone have a better answer for me? Why are computers called "hosts"? > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From vint at google.com Wed Dec 23 10:52:39 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:52:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B3263EA.7000105@bbiw.net> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> <4B3263EA.7000105@bbiw.net> Message-ID: well that's not too clear - coulda been Jon. We'd have to look at the RFCs and see when the term first shows up for a clue perhaps? v On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > d/. > > On 12/23/2009 10:33 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> steve may have the best explanation; as I recall, it was sort of a >> combination >> of the notion of a host (at an event - providing for the attendees/ >> users) >> and "host" in the sense of biological host to a parasite (!). > > > Vint, > > Well, I asked my brother before asking the list. He doesn't > remember the origin. > > Your explanation of the logic makes complete sense, but do you > remember who first started using it? > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 23 10:53:08 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:53:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature Message-ID: <20091223185308.249826BE625@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "Bernie Cosell" > I'd bet it already had that terminology at the meeting in '68 that > spawned the RFQ. I just checked the RFQ (dated 29 July 1968) and sure enough, it talks of the "Host-Imp Interface", etc, etc. Noel From vint at google.com Wed Dec 23 10:55:02 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:02 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B321B87.8593.27730E27@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> <4B321B87.8593.27730E27@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <9FF9D3DE-F78F-4AA5-AAE1-EBC383F37039@google.com> that's a very good point. BBN was using the term host before we were very deep into the host-host protocols. On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:47, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share >> that the >> Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular >> term was chosen. >> >> Do any of you remember why? > > I can only say that it is going to be VERY early on: from the first > I saw > of the project Severo's group was working on the "Host-Imp" > interface and > we had "host" machinery in the software. I'd bet it already had that > terminology at the meeting in '68 that spawned the RFQ. > > /bernie\ > > -- > Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers > mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA > --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- > > > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Dec 23 11:14:38 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:14:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <20091223185308.249826BE625@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20091223185308.249826BE625@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4B326C1E.5000006@dcrocker.net> On 12/23/2009 10:53 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > I just checked the RFQ (dated 29 July 1968) and sure enough, it talks > of the "Host-Imp Interface", etc, etc. Thanks! This seems to move the source of the term to the Arpa office. Or is it more likely that it was a researcher -- or group of -- whispering in their ear? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Dec 23 11:23:29 2009 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:23:29 -0600 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4B326E31.5060803@cox.net> On 12/23/2009 11:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share that > the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular > term was chosen. > > Do any of you remember why? I'd have to dig out some old USE documentation (or maybe some UNIVAC or Sperry docs if I can find them) but I think we used the term "host" before we had "networks" as the term is now used. In the IBM world, what was on the other end of a telephone line from an RJE station? It seems to me that one end of a word channel cable was the "controller", the other the "host". -- Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml From richard at bennett.com Wed Dec 23 11:39:59 2009 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:39:59 -0800 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B326E31.5060803@cox.net> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> <4B326E31.5060803@cox.net> Message-ID: <4B32720F.1070703@bennett.com> The term "host" was used for big* time-shared mainframes long before the whole networking thing took off. RB *by the standards of the day. On 12/23/2009 11:23 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 12/23/2009 11:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share that >> the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular >> term was chosen. >> >> Do any of you remember why? > > I'd have to dig out some old USE documentation (or maybe some UNIVAC > or Sperry docs if I can find them) but I think we used the term "host" > before we had "networks" as the term is now used. > > In the IBM world, what was on the other end of a telephone line from > an RJE station? > > It seems to me that one end of a word channel cable was the > "controller", the other the "host". -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 23 14:53:44 2009 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:53:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature Message-ID: <20091223225344.589AA6BE62C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Dave CROCKER > This seems to move the source of the term to the Arpa office. I dipped into Hafner and Norberg/O'Neill, to see if they mentioned it, but no luck, although leads from them did allow me to close the time window a bit. Norberg/O'Neill referred to Robert's memo, "Message Switching Network Proposal", from April 24th (?), 1967, written shortly after the initial PI meeting on the topic at the University of Michigan, which I was lucky enough to find a copy of online, at: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/977.pdf and it does not mention 'host' anywhere. Similarly, Roberts' later papers, "Multiple Computer Networks and Intercomputer Communication" (published September 1967, although apparently written some time before that) and "Resource Sharing Computer Networks" (published June 1968) don't mention the term either - although it is possible it had been used before then, and Roberts just didn't like it... (been there, done that myself... :-). So it seems that the origin of the term dates from around when those two papers were written, and in any case before the RFQ on 29 July, 1968. > Or is it more likely that it was a researcher -- or group of -- > whispering in their ear? The positive data I can contribute on that is that the ARPA people _were_ definitely talking to researchers about the network well before the RFQ: e.g. the idea for the IMP (as a separate, dedicated packet switch, as opposed to running the lines directly to the mainframes) was from Wes Clark, at that University of Michigan meeting the year before. Norberg/O'Neill describe (pp. 164-169) a number of working groups involving researchers which met extensively through the summer of 1967, so yes, they were a key part of the group which led to the RFQ contents. You'd probably have to ask someone like Larry Roberts or Bob Taylor to get an answer with a high probability of being correct. Noel From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Dec 23 16:12:01 2009 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:01 -0800 Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature In-Reply-To: <4B326E31.5060803@cox.net> References: <4B3257A6.3030005@dcrocker.net> <4B326E31.5060803@cox.net> Message-ID: <1261613521.3248.9.camel@localhost> I agree - I also think that the term "host" is older than the Arpanet. It's important to remember that the Arpanet was the first "packet network" - not the first computer network. IIRC, in the 60s the "host" was the computer at the other end of your comm link, and it "hosted" the program that you were using from your terminal. You would dial up the host to use the program which it hosted. The program was a "guest" - it could be kicked out at any moment to cool its heels on the drum while a VIP (Very Important Program) was hosted. I think "host" was used in the context of the various terminal-computer networks that IBM, CDC, et al supported in the late 60s, but I have no idea where it originated. Old Sperry or IBM docs would be a good source. /Jack On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:23 -0600, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 12/23/2009 11:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share that > > the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular > > term was chosen. > > > > Do any of you remember why? > > I'd have to dig out some old USE documentation (or maybe some UNIVAC or > Sperry docs if I can find them) but I think we used the term "host" > before we had "networks" as the term is now used. > > In the IBM world, what was on the other end of a telephone line from an > RJE station? > > It seems to me that one end of a word channel cable was the > "controller", the other the "host". From feinler at earthlink.net Sat Dec 26 10:05:34 2009 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:05:34 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 38, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is my recollection. The early sites sometimes had a number of computers at their site, usually only one of which was attached to the Internet. It was the "host" in the sense of being the machine that welcomed outside network users to that site, and if there were several computers at a given site, took the user to the ones that were available for them to access via the internet. It was also true that many sites really didn't want outsiders to be able to access their computers as the norm then was to submit a "job" to a computer-saavy intermediary who then dealt with the computer . The idea of just any random user accessing one's computer put fear in the hearts of administrators at the time. Some considered these outside users a real nuisance that disrupted the normal scheme of things at the time. If I had to guess I would say that the term "host computer" probably began somewhere at BBN because it was around very early in the game, but that is a guess, so treat it as such until verified. RFC 1 was already referring to hosts. Happy New Year All! Jake On Dec 23, 2009, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at postel.org wrote: > Send internet-history mailing list submissions to > internet-history at postel.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > internet-history-request at postel.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > internet-history-owner at postel.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: nomenclature (Dave CROCKER) > 2. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Bernie Cosell) > 3. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Vint Cerf) > 4. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Vint Cerf) > 5. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Noel Chiappa) > 6. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Vint Cerf) > 7. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Dave CROCKER) > 8. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Larry Sheldon) > 9. Re: Fwd: nomenclature (Richard Bennett) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:47:18 -0800 > From: Dave CROCKER > Subject: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <4B3257A6.3030005 at dcrocker.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Folks, > > Howdy. > > This popped up on a list I track. > > I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share > that the > Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular > term was chosen. > > Do any of you remember why? > > Bonus points for any additional background on the who and how. > > Thanks. > > d/ > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: nomenclature > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:48:57 -0500 > > So, someone asked me the other day why computers were called > 'hosts'. I > gave some silly, half-mumbled answer about how they "host" software > applications, but I've been reading this interesting, if somewhat dry, > book (The Horse, the Wheel, and Language) about the development of the > European and South Asian languages from Proto-Indo European, which > has a > "*ghosti" precursor word (which means roughly "the guest/host > hospitality obligation relationship") and it got me wondering again. > > Anyone have a better answer for me? Why are computers called "hosts"? > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:30:47 -0500 > From: "Bernie Cosell" > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <4B321B87.8593.27730E27 at bernie.fantasyfarm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:47, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share >> that the >> Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular >> term was chosen. >> >> Do any of you remember why? > > I can only say that it is going to be VERY early on: from the first > I saw > of the project Severo's group was working on the "Host-Imp" > interface and > we had "host" machinery in the software. I'd bet it already had that > terminology at the meeting in '68 that spawned the RFQ. > > /bernie\ > > -- > Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers > mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA > --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:33:06 -0500 > From: Vint Cerf > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > steve may have the best explanation; as I recall, it was sort of a > combination > of the notion of a host (at an event - providing for the attendees/ > users) > and "host" in the sense of biological host to a parasite (!). > > vint > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> Howdy. >> >> This popped up on a list I track. >> >> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share >> that the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that >> particular term was chosen. >> >> Do any of you remember why? >> >> Bonus points for any additional background on the who and how. >> >> Thanks. >> >> d/ >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: nomenclature >> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:48:57 -0500 >> >> So, someone asked me the other day why computers were called >> 'hosts'. I >> gave some silly, half-mumbled answer about how they "host" software >> applications, but I've been reading this interesting, if somewhat >> dry, >> book (The Horse, the Wheel, and Language) about the development of >> the >> European and South Asian languages from Proto-Indo European, which >> has a >> "*ghosti" precursor word (which means roughly "the guest/host >> hospitality obligation relationship") and it got me wondering again. >> >> Anyone have a better answer for me? Why are computers called "hosts"? >> >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:52:39 -0500 > From: Vint Cerf > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: Dave CROCKER > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > well that's not too clear - coulda been Jon. We'd have to look at the > RFCs and see when the term first shows up for a clue perhaps? > > v > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> d/. >> >> On 12/23/2009 10:33 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> steve may have the best explanation; as I recall, it was sort of a >>> combination >>> of the notion of a host (at an event - providing for the attendees/ >>> users) >>> and "host" in the sense of biological host to a parasite (!). >> >> >> Vint, >> >> Well, I asked my brother before asking the list. He doesn't >> remember the origin. >> >> Your explanation of the logic makes complete sense, but do you >> remember who first started using it? >> >> d/ >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:53:08 -0500 (EST) > From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: internet-history at postel.org > Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu > Message-ID: <20091223185308.249826BE625 at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > >> From: "Bernie Cosell" > >> I'd bet it already had that terminology at the meeting in '68 that >> spawned the RFQ. > > I just checked the RFQ (dated 29 July 1968) and sure enough, it talks > of the "Host-Imp Interface", etc, etc. > > Noel > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:02 -0500 > From: Vint Cerf > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: "Bernie Cosell" > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <9FF9D3DE-F78F-4AA5-AAE1-EBC383F37039 at google.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > that's a very good point. BBN was using the term host before we > were very deep into the host-host protocols. > > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > >> On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:47, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >>> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share >>> that the >>> Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular >>> term was chosen. >>> >>> Do any of you remember why? >> >> I can only say that it is going to be VERY early on: from the first >> I saw >> of the project Severo's group was working on the "Host-Imp" >> interface and >> we had "host" machinery in the software. I'd bet it already had >> that >> terminology at the meeting in '68 that spawned the RFQ. >> >> /bernie\ >> >> -- >> Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers >> mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA >> --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:14:38 -0800 > From: Dave CROCKER > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: Noel Chiappa > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <4B326C1E.5000006 at dcrocker.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 12/23/2009 10:53 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> I just checked the RFQ (dated 29 July 1968) and sure enough, it talks >> of the "Host-Imp Interface", etc, etc. > > > Thanks! > > This seems to move the source of the term to the Arpa office. Or is > it more > likely that it was a researcher -- or group of -- whispering in > their ear? > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:23:29 -0600 > From: Larry Sheldon > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <4B326E31.5060803 at cox.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 12/23/2009 11:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share >> that >> the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular >> term was chosen. >> >> Do any of you remember why? > > I'd have to dig out some old USE documentation (or maybe some UNIVAC > or > Sperry docs if I can find them) but I think we used the term "host" > before we had "networks" as the term is now used. > > In the IBM world, what was on the other end of a telephone line from > an > RJE station? > > It seems to me that one end of a word channel cable was the > "controller", the other the "host". > -- > Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by > professionals. > > Requiescas in pace o email > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio > Eppure si rinfresca > > ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs > http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:39:59 -0800 > From: Richard Bennett > Subject: Re: [ih] Fwd: nomenclature > To: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <4B32720F.1070703 at bennett.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > The term "host" was used for big* time-shared mainframes long before > the > whole networking thing took off. > > RB > > *by the standards of the day. > > On 12/23/2009 11:23 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> On 12/23/2009 11:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >>> I remember that the term 'host' was one of the bits of mind-share >>> that >>> the Arpanet created.. But I don't recall hearing why that particular >>> term was chosen. >>> >>> Do any of you remember why? >> >> I'd have to dig out some old USE documentation (or maybe some UNIVAC >> or Sperry docs if I can find them) but I think we used the term >> "host" >> before we had "networks" as the term is now used. >> >> In the IBM world, what was on the other end of a telephone line from >> an RJE station? >> >> It seems to me that one end of a word channel cable was the >> "controller", the other the "host". > > -- > Richard Bennett > Research Fellow > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation > Washington, DC > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 38, Issue 1 > *********************************************** From brian at platohistory.org Sat Dec 26 12:38:47 2009 From: brian at platohistory.org (Brian Dear) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:38:47 -0800 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? Message-ID: One thing I've always wondered about was how much money ARPA divvied out to the various companies and universities involved with designing, building, and implementing ARPANET. Anyone know of a citation somewhere that lists out, for example, what the total funding amounts were, by year, in the late 60s, early 70s? Ideally, broken out to show dollar amounts per recipient institution or organization. In lieu of exact figures, even rough figures from memory would be helpful. Thanks, - Brian Brian Dear PLATO History Project La Jolla, California brian at platohistory.org From vint at google.com Sun Dec 27 08:00:42 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:00:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> ARPANET went on from 1969 to 1990 approx. I don't know how much was spent over that period of time but probably somewhere between $50-70M would be my guess. Keep in mind that the Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Internet programs were also part of the theme of network research so this could increase the totals. It would be very interesting to unearth the ARPA Orders related to ARPANET, and the other programs to see what the total amounted to. v On Dec 26, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Brian Dear wrote: > One thing I've always wondered about was how much money ARPA divvied > out to the various companies and universities involved with > designing, building, and implementing ARPANET. > > Anyone know of a citation somewhere that lists out, for example, > what the total funding amounts were, by year, in the late 60s, early > 70s? Ideally, broken out to show dollar amounts per recipient > institution or organization. > > In lieu of exact figures, even rough figures from memory would be > helpful. > > Thanks, > - Brian > > > Brian Dear > PLATO History Project > La Jolla, California > brian at platohistory.org > > From lpress at csudh.edu Sun Dec 27 09:35:10 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:35:10 -0800 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> Message-ID: <4B379ACE.8000007@csudh.edu> I wrote a CACM article on the Federal role in seeding networks, which included the following cost estimates (in $million) along with their sources: Morse Telegraph .03 Smithsonian SAGE 8,000. [7] ARPANET 25 [24] CSNET 5 [6] NSFNET Backbone 57.9 [8] NSF Higher-ed connections 30 Dave Staudt, NSF NSF International connections 6.6 Steve Goldstein, NSF (http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/articles/govt.htm) The $25m figure for ARPAnet was taken from reference [24]: Reed, Sidney G., Van Atta, Richard H., and Dietchman, Seymour J., "DARPA Technical Accomplishments: An Historical Review of Selected DARPA Projects" volume 1, page 20-28 [chapter 20, page 28], Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1990. (I don't recall how they arrived at the figure). The most interesting to me are the Morse telegraph and SAGE, which trained the majority of the nation's programmers at that time. Larry From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Dec 27 12:08:10 2009 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:08:10 -0800 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> Message-ID: <4B37BEAA.6010709@dcrocker.net> On 12/27/2009 8:00 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > ARPANET went on from 1969 to 1990 approx. I don't know how much was > spent over that period of time but probably somewhere between $50-70M > would be my guess. Which leads to the possibly-not-whimsical: How does one then assess the ROI? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jgrudin at microsoft.com Sun Dec 27 12:38:19 2009 From: jgrudin at microsoft.com (Jonathan Grudin) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:38:19 +0000 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <4B37BEAA.6010709@dcrocker.net> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> <4B37BEAA.6010709@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <77A720AA0ED745418C809C81C170B99F043F791A@TK5EX14MBXC141.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> For cost comparisons over time, it is helpful to adjust for inflation. For the years 1913-2009, monthly data can be found at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt For a sense of the differences, a dollar spent in 1985 is equivalent to $2 today, and a dollar spent in 1969 is about $6 today. -- Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: internet-history-bounces at postel.org [mailto:internet-history-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 12:08 PM To: Vint Cerf Cc: internet-history at postel.org Subject: Re: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? On 12/27/2009 8:00 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > ARPANET went on from 1969 to 1990 approx. I don't know how much was > spent over that period of time but probably somewhere between $50-70M > would be my guess. Which leads to the possibly-not-whimsical: How does one then assess the ROI? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From lpress at csudh.edu Sun Dec 27 14:15:52 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:15:52 -0800 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <4B37BEAA.6010709@dcrocker.net> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> <4B37BEAA.6010709@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4B37DC98.6070908@csudh.edu> > Which leads to the possibly-not-whimsical: How does one then assess the ROI? Being even more conservative -- consider all the investments ARPA and NSF ever made -- and the return on this one would make them a successful "venture capitalist." In some places, like Singapore, the government retains equity in their venture investments. Larry From vint at google.com Mon Dec 28 02:38:20 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:38:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <4B37DC98.6070908@csudh.edu> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> <4B37BEAA.6010709@dcrocker.net> <4B37DC98.6070908@csudh.edu> Message-ID: <800282BD-BD01-4AC4-82F0-80C9F7941178@google.com> I think there are funds in the Netherlands that do the same thing. v On Dec 27, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Larry Press wrote: >> Which leads to the possibly-not-whimsical: How does one then >> assess the ROI? > > Being even more conservative -- consider all the investments ARPA > and NSF ever made -- and the return on this one would make them a > successful "venture capitalist." > > In some places, like Singapore, the government retains equity in > their venture investments. > > Larry > > From vint at google.com Mon Dec 28 02:45:47 2009 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:45:47 -0500 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <4B379ACE.8000007@csudh.edu> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> <4B379ACE.8000007@csudh.edu> Message-ID: <376CE332-092F-4B3D-A1D8-C1BC0679FF80@google.com> Larry, do you recall whether your estimate for ARPANET included annual operational costs? What about investment in Internet development (by DARPA only). My estimates (higher than yours) included Packet Radio, Packet Satellite and Internet again including only expenditures by DARPA. v On Dec 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Larry Press wrote: > I wrote a CACM article on the Federal role in seeding networks, > which included the following cost estimates (in $million) along with > their sources: > > Morse Telegraph .03 Smithsonian > SAGE 8,000. [7] > ARPANET 25 [24] > CSNET 5 [6] > NSFNET Backbone 57.9 [8] > NSF Higher-ed connections 30 Dave Staudt, NSF > NSF International connections 6.6 Steve Goldstein, NSF > > (http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/articles/govt.htm) > > The $25m figure for ARPAnet was taken from reference [24]: > > Reed, Sidney G., Van Atta, Richard H., and Dietchman, Seymour J., > "DARPA Technical Accomplishments: An Historical Review of Selected > DARPA Projects" volume 1, page 20-28 [chapter 20, page 28], > Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1990. > > (I don't recall how they arrived at the figure). > > The most interesting to me are the Morse telegraph and SAGE, which > trained the majority of the nation's programmers at that time. > > Larry From lpress at csudh.edu Mon Dec 28 09:06:07 2009 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:06:07 -0800 Subject: [ih] Amount of funding from ARPA? In-Reply-To: <376CE332-092F-4B3D-A1D8-C1BC0679FF80@google.com> References: <565A5E25-BE71-48D5-ABA6-958168E1169D@google.com> <4B379ACE.8000007@csudh.edu> <376CE332-092F-4B3D-A1D8-C1BC0679FF80@google.com> Message-ID: <4B38E57F.30500@csudh.edu> On 12/28/2009 2:45 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > Larry, > > do you recall whether your estimate for ARPANET included annual > operational costs? It was a figure I took from this reference: Reed, Sidney G., Van Atta, Richard H., and Dietchman, Seymour J., "DARPA Technical Accomplishments: An Historical Review of Selected DARPA Projects" volume 1, page 20-28 [chapter 20, page 28], Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1990. My guess is that I saw it at the UCLA library -- I do not own the volume -- and I do not recall what it did or did not include. Given your recollection, it must have been a restrictive definition of the investment. The NSFNet figures came from different sources (see my earlier email) as did the SDC figure for SAGE and Morse' telegraph. SAGE cost far more than any of the ARPA or NSF projects, and, as a by product, thousands of programmers were trained. I was at the SDC Research Directorate working on induction (data mining) and we had hardware that had been developed for SAGE, but all the knowledge of real time systems and trained programmers must have been an important boost to the economy and the development of computer science -- the government contributes via procurement as well as research funding. Larry