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

[John Day]

Yes, but for those of us who spent many years interacting with the 
company, it was no typo!  We always spelled it that way as did many 
of the employees.

Talk about a company that was 20 years ahead of everyone else and 
didn't know how to sell it!  Good grief.


At 11:39 -0400 2012/05/11, Vint Cerf wrote:
>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
>>
>>