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

[John Day]

At 6:55 AM -0400 9/5/14, Michael Greenwald wrote:
>On 2014-09-05 06:46, John Day wrote:
>>Michael,
>>I think I was wrong and you were right.  After I went downstairs last
>>night, it slowly came back to me ;-) that Pogran and I had discussed
>>this before and my story of the translate tables was wrong.
>
>I was pretty sure that by 1977 or so Multics used ASCII.  I wasn't
>sure if you may have been referring to earlier days.

O, I was definitely referring to before 1977!  ;-)

>
>>
>>Pogran and I had come across another situation where the mapping
>>between the conventions was not the isomorphic.  We were doing a File
>>Access Protocol (1973) and used a byte-indexed file pointer and
>>realized it wouldn't be as simple as we thought, because the
>>ASCII/ARPANET convention for "end of record" was CRLF and the Multics
>>convention was NL (New Line), which I thought was EBCDIC not ASCII.
>>
>>John
>>
>>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.