[ih] Impact of history on today's technology [was: why did CC happen at all?]

[John Day]

In all areas, the IBM influence was minimal if any.  In the ARPANET, 
EBCDIC was tolerated because of Multics and the UCLA 360/91, 
half-duplex terminals were tolerated for the same reason.  The nature 
of the protocols in the ARPANET, the Internet, and OSI had very 
little IBM influence. Any influence IBM might have had was more in 
terms of what they couldn't do, that everyone else could.

Probably mostly limited to HDLC as coming from SDLC, but that work 
was really unrelated.

IBM's primary strategy was not so much to contribute to the standards 
but ensure that they moved as slowly as possible.

Take care,
John

At 7:46 PM -0500 9/4/14, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>On 9/4/2014 14:41, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>I think there is a rather philosophical history question here,
>>all the same.
>>
>>What, in general, is the impact of historical technological
>>issues on current protocols and practices? To take a completely
>>different example, there was a considerable period when handling
>>larger than 16 bit quantities in minicomputers was awkward and
>>slow, so there was a tendency to design stuff around that constraint.
>>Or consider the cost of electronics and cabling in the token ring vs
>>Ethernet argument. I'm sure there are a dozen examples of tech issues
>>from the 1960s and 1970s that still have significant impact today.
>
>I was not a part of the network-development world except as a 
>"consumer" of sorts.
>
>It appears to me, from what was a UNIVAC 1100-centric view of the 
>world the the emerging networks stuff--like a lot of earlier 
>telecommunications stuff--had a a strong IBM coloration, flavor, and 
>odor.
>
>For example, when the realization dawned that 4, 8, and 16 were not 
>natural limits on word size and 8 bits was the only sub-division 
>possible, 32 bits (and 8 bits) took over, leaving us who lived in an 
>8-bit-36-bit world with some awkward arithmetic.
>
>
>--
>The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
>
>The fact that they are infallible; and,
>
>The fact that they learn from their mistakes.