[ih] Hesitating to disagree with one of the fath =?iso-8859-h

[Vint Cerf]

I am sure you meant Burroughs but your typo is hilarious!

v


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:45 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes, that is correct.  Burros built the machine and it was to be connect via
> B6700, which was a much more interesting machine than either Illiac IV or
> Tenex.
>
> Yes, it was wonderfully ironic that the rationale for moving the machine
> from Illinois was fear of it doing classified research. However the building
> to house was not securable and that couldn't have happened.  So it went to
> Ames where it was securable and was used for classified work, which is why
> it was never connected.
>
>
>
>
> At 23:14 -0400 2012/05/10, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>>    > From: "Sytel" <sytel at shaw.ca>
>>
>>    > the attack on the office in Illinois. Will also be looking into the
>>    > Iliac IV; would this have been connected to the ARPANET in any way?
>>
>> Yes, via a front-end PDP-10 running Tenex, but only after it moved to Ames
>> in
>> 1972. See RFC-330, April 1972, "Network Host Status", where it shows up as
>> host 0/15.
>>
>> It was listed in several issues of "Network Host Status" prior to that,
>> but
>> always as 'not conected yet'. The original plan was to apparently to
>> connect
>> via its B6500 front-end, but they switched it to be a PDP-10.
>>
>> (Oddly enough, it was originally listed as being host 0/13 in RFC 288 -
>> perhaps this was a typo? That RFC also shows Case as being 0/13... IMP 13
>> was
>> later the Gunter IMP.)
>>
>>        Noel
>
>