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

[John Day]

All Multics terminals were half duplex IBM Selectrix and it was 
programmed in PL/1 that used EBCDIC.  But I will defer to Pogran on 
this one.

   ASCII was 7- bits.   In fact, there was a "crisis" one morning when 
BBN deployed new ASCII/EBCDIC tables in the TIPs and the guys logging 
into Multics from a TIP couldn't generate the line delete or 
character delete characters.

At 11:16 PM -0400 9/4/14, Michael Greenwald wrote:
>On 2014-09-04 22:31, John Day wrote:
>>In all areas, the IBM influence was minimal if any.  In the ARPANET,
>>EBCDIC was tolerated because of Multics
>
>?? Perhaps I'm misremembering but Multics used ASCII (9-bit 
>characters, but still
>ASCII as far as I remember).  Multics had (library?) routines to 
>write and read
>EBCDIC if needed -- is this why you mention Multics when talking about EBCDIC?
>Either way, I don't think that would be enough to cause people to tolerate
>EBCDIC.
>
>I'm just curious how multics may have caused EBCDIC to be "tolerated"?
>
>>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.