From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 12 07:35:05 2015 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 Message-ID: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The History Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a number of people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it meant, retrospectively. Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking back on it, it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant event of the century. It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was the year the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the Internet, and the impact the computer networking has had on the world (admittedly, in tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in the long run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than that? Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, happened in the same year! Noel From galmes at tamu.edu Thu Mar 12 08:19:26 2015 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:19:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> Noel, The coincidence of 1969 as Apollo 11 and the ARPAnet is indeed interesting. Your question could be taken (at least) two different ways. First, which was the greater human/cultural accomplishment/achievement? Second, which had the greater historical impact/consequences? The second seems easier to me: the ARPAnet/Internet has had huge (mostly positive) impact on so many aspects of modern life -- economy, culture, technology. No need to elaborate in this circle. The first is tougher. Just yesterday, in conversation with a friend, we noted that President Kennedy had, in his 1961 speech at Rice University, challenged the country to put a man on the moon (and safely return them) by the end of the decade. Eight and a fraction years later it was done, and in spectacular fashion. If our national leaders were to challenge us to attempt to repeat this today, could we do it? This mixes so many notions of national solidarity/will and the cohesiveness of our (US) society with the normal technical/economic issues, but it would be quite a challenge. My hunch is that future folks will consider the ARPAnet and say "cool" and "big impact", and they'll look back on Apollo and say "very cool". -- Guy On 3/12/15 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The History > Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a number of > people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it meant, > retrospectively. > > Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the > century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking back on it, > it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - > although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one > said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, > that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant event of > the century. > > It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was the year > the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the Internet, > and the impact the computer networking has had on the world (admittedly, in > tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in the long > run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than that? > > Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, happened in > the same year! > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From vint at google.com Thu Mar 12 08:27:56 2015 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:27:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: our grandchildren will be able to tell us.... :-) v On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The > History > Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a number > of > people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it > meant, > retrospectively. > > Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the > century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking back on > it, > it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - > although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one > said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, > that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant event of > the century. > > It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was the > year > the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the > Internet, > and the impact the computer networking has had on the world (admittedly, in > tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in the > long > run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than that? > > Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, happened in > the same year! > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gitis at bellsouth.net Thu Mar 12 08:45:29 2015 From: gitis at bellsouth.net (Craig Simon) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:45:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <1426175129.70696.YahooMailNeo@web181603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Consider how many people now use the Internet versus how many have been to orbit or the moon. JCR Licklider is far less known than his contemporary Wernher von Braun, but there are far more people interacting every day in the space he pioneered. Craig Simon craig at rkey.com 954-921-2838 @gitis On Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:54 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The History Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a number of people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it meant, retrospectively. Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking back on it, it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant event of the century. It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was the year the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the Internet, and the impact the computer networking has had on the world (admittedly, in tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in the long run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than that? Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, happened in the same year! Noel _______ internet-history mailing list internet-history at postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Mar 12 10:00:38 2015 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:00:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <1426175129.70696.YahooMailNeo@web181603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1426175129.70696.YahooMailNeo@web181603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5501C636.80500@meetinghouse.net> Then again, if we think beyond just the moon shot, to the space program, we have: - communications satellites - earth sensing satellites (can you say Google "satellite view?") And the Apollo program also brought us the famous "blue marble" view of the earth from the moon - that had some pretty lasting impact. Miles Fidelman Craig Simon wrote: > Consider how many people now use the Internet versus how many have > been to orbit or the moon. JCR Licklider is far less known than his > contemporary Wernher von Braun, but there are far more people > interacting every day in the space he pioneered. > Craig Simon > craig at rkey.com > 954-921-2838 > @gitis > > > On Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:54 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The > History > Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a > number of > people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it > meant, > retrospectively. > > Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the > century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking > back on it, > it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - > although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one > said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, > that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant > event of > the century. > > It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was > the year > the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the > Internet, > and the impact the computer networking has had on the world > (admittedly, in > tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in > the long > run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than > that? > > Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, > happened in > the same year! > > Noel > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for > assistance. > > > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Mar 12 10:09:07 2015 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:09:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <5501C833.20300@3kitty.org> On 03/12/2015 08:19 AM, Guy Almes wrote: > My hunch is that future folks will consider the ARPAnet and say > "cool" and "big impact", and they'll look back on Apollo and say "very > cool". The Internet has become like water and air in most people's minds - something that's always there, critical to life but mostly invisible. Travelling away from Earth is once again a science fiction dream, though history alleges that we used to do such things. My hunch is that until off-planet travel becomes common, people may remember Apollo and think it was very cool that we used to know how to do such things, or maybe deny that we could. The Internet, and certainly the ARPANET, will fade into memory and join electricity, the steam engine, telephone, television, and other technologies as part of the way things are, with most people unaware of where and when they began, and many even unable to imagine life without such things. Do you know who invented the wheel...? /Jack Haverty From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Mar 12 10:37:38 2015 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:37:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501C833.20300@3kitty.org> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> <5501C833.20300@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <5501CEE2.7060401@meetinghouse.net> Jack Haverty wrote: > On 03/12/2015 08:19 AM, Guy Almes wrote: >> My hunch is that future folks will consider the ARPAnet and say >> "cool" and "big impact", and they'll look back on Apollo and say "very >> cool". > The Internet has become like water and air in most people's minds - > something that's always there, critical to life but mostly invisible. > Travelling away from Earth is once again a science fiction dream, though > history alleges that we used to do such things. Yeah. I have a great quote from Vint, along the lines of "Infrastructure is something that's everywhere, that we use every day, and we only notice when it breaks." > > My hunch is that until off-planet travel becomes common, people may > remember Apollo and think it was very cool that we used to know how to > do such things, or maybe deny that we could. Not even. Real life space travel will never compare to what we see on TV and interactive games. It could be that the dream is dead. Sigh... > > Do you know who invented the wheel...? > > Well that one is easy. Johnny Hart, of course. :-) Cheers, Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From larrysheldon at cox.net Thu Mar 12 11:26:29 2015 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:26:29 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <2fgV1q01N3VDnm801fgWkc> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <2fgV1q01N3VDnm801fgWkc> Message-ID: <5501DA55.2050202@cox.net> On 3/12/2015 10:19, Guy Almes wrote: > Noel, > The coincidence of 1969 as Apollo 11 and the ARPAnet is indeed > interesting. > > Your question could be taken (at least) two different ways. > First, which was the greater human/cultural accomplishment/achievement? > Second, which had the greater historical impact/consequences? > > The second seems easier to me: the ARPAnet/Internet has had huge > (mostly positive) impact on so many aspects of modern life -- economy, > culture, technology. No need to elaborate in this circle. > > The first is tougher. > Just yesterday, in conversation with a friend, we noted that > President Kennedy had, in his 1961 speech at Rice University, challenged > the country to put a man on the moon (and safely return them) by the end > of the decade. Eight and a fraction years later it was done, and in > spectacular fashion. If our national leaders were to challenge us to > attempt to repeat this today, could we do it? This mixes so many > notions of national solidarity/will and the cohesiveness of our (US) > society with the normal technical/economic issues, but it would be quite > a challenge. > > My hunch is that future folks will consider the ARPAnet and say > "cool" and "big impact", and they'll look back on Apollo and say "very > cool". > -- Guy I think there is an impossible-to-quantify aspect of this importance comparison thing. I don't know how to add to the quandary except by reporting on a conversation that took place sometime during that era. I was sitting in a dentist's chair, among other things listening to the dentist drone on about the enormous waste that was the space program, when there so many worth recipients pan-handling around the train station. I finally stopped him (the enormity of an argument with a dentist did not occur to me at the time) and asked him why he was using the small hand-piece in his hand instead of the belt-driven monster hanging idly nearby. He went on about how the modern hand-piece drove the tool faster that allowed him to work quicker (and there-by reduce pain, he said, and there-by run more patients through hour, I thought). I asked him if he knew how the modern hand-piece had been developed. It was apparent to me that he did not. I said that I was pretty sure that the bearings that allowed the little turbine in the hand-piece to spin so fast had been developed for the inertial guidance platform gyroscopes. > > On 3/12/15 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The History >> Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a number of >> people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it meant, >> retrospectively. >> >> Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the >> century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking back on it, >> it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - >> although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one >> said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, >> that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant event of >> the century. >> >> It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was the year >> the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the Internet, >> and the impact the computer networking has had on the world (admittedly, in >> tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in the long >> run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than that? >> >> Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, happened in >> the same year! >> >> Noel -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes From larrysheldon at cox.net Thu Mar 12 11:31:26 2015 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:31:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <2g411q01t3VDnm801g42c1> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <2g411q01t3VDnm801g42c1> Message-ID: <5501DB7E.6000606@cox.net> On 3/12/2015 10:45, Craig Simon wrote: > Consider how many people now use the Internet versus how many have > been to orbit or the moon. JCR Licklider is far less known than his > contemporary Wernher von Braun, but there are far more people > interacting every day in the space he pioneered. As I have indicated elsewhere here, there are persuasive reasons to believe that the space-program might be deserving, in fact, for the credit for this almost-76-year-old being able to sit at a computer (having arrived here from my quarters upstairs under my own power) a type this reply to a mailing list that only incidentally uses the Internet as its transport. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes From kent at songbird.com Thu Mar 12 11:36:46 2015 From: kent at songbird.com (kent) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:36:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501CEE2.7060401@meetinghouse.net> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> <5501C833.20300@3kitty.org> <5501CEE2.7060401@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <5501DCBE.5030709@songbird.com> Years ago I took a vertebrate paleontology class. The professor, in his final lecture, spoke about the perspective the study of paleontology gave. >From his perspective, the moon landing was on a par with the first animal life coming out of the ocean. Relatively speaking, the Internet is barely a footnote -- it's just a phase of the advance of technology. But the moon landing represents something else entirely. From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 11:56:13 2015 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:56:13 +1300 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <5501E14D.2060004@gmail.com> On 13/03/2015 04:19, Guy Almes wrote: > Noel, > The coincidence of 1969 as Apollo 11 and the ARPAnet is indeed > interesting. IMHO that fact that they were in exactly the same year is coincidence, but the fact that they were approximately the same year isn't at all. They both needed the stored-program computer and micro-electronics to have been invented, and they both needed the impetus of competition with the USSR - don't forget that DARPA and NASA were both created in the aftermath of Sputnik 1. Then they needed one cycle of intense systems development, and neither of them suffered from second-system syndrome, so the fact that they were both ready about the same time seems unsurprising. Brian From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Mar 12 12:51:36 2015 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:51:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501DA55.2050202@cox.net> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <2fgV1q01N3VDnm801fgWkc> <5501DA55.2050202@cox.net> Message-ID: <5D26EA7A-EE21-4658-A371-59295F612B44@comcast.net> Do you guys realize how important something as simple as the ?screw? is? Without it, it is almost impossible to do fine measurements and build fine instruments. Some times the simplest things are far more important than we realize. > On Mar 12, 2015, at 14:26, Larry Sheldon wrote: > > On 3/12/2015 10:19, Guy Almes wrote: >> Noel, >> The coincidence of 1969 as Apollo 11 and the ARPAnet is indeed >> interesting. >> >> Your question could be taken (at least) two different ways. >> First, which was the greater human/cultural accomplishment/achievement? >> Second, which had the greater historical impact/consequences? >> >> The second seems easier to me: the ARPAnet/Internet has had huge >> (mostly positive) impact on so many aspects of modern life -- economy, >> culture, technology. No need to elaborate in this circle. >> >> The first is tougher. >> Just yesterday, in conversation with a friend, we noted that >> President Kennedy had, in his 1961 speech at Rice University, challenged >> the country to put a man on the moon (and safely return them) by the end >> of the decade. Eight and a fraction years later it was done, and in >> spectacular fashion. If our national leaders were to challenge us to >> attempt to repeat this today, could we do it? This mixes so many >> notions of national solidarity/will and the cohesiveness of our (US) >> society with the normal technical/economic issues, but it would be quite >> a challenge. >> >> My hunch is that future folks will consider the ARPAnet and say >> "cool" and "big impact", and they'll look back on Apollo and say "very >> cool". >> -- Guy > > I think there is an impossible-to-quantify aspect of this importance > comparison thing. I don't know how to add to the quandary except by > reporting on a conversation that took place sometime during that era. > > I was sitting in a dentist's chair, among other things listening to the > dentist drone on about the enormous waste that was the space program, > when there so many worth recipients pan-handling around the train station. > > I finally stopped him (the enormity of an argument with a dentist did > not occur to me at the time) and asked him why he was using the small > hand-piece in his hand instead of the belt-driven monster hanging idly > nearby. > > He went on about how the modern hand-piece drove the tool faster that > allowed him to work quicker (and there-by reduce pain, he said, and > there-by run more patients through hour, I thought). > > I asked him if he knew how the modern hand-piece had been developed. It > was apparent to me that he did not. > > > I said that I was pretty sure that the bearings that allowed the little > turbine in the hand-piece to spin so fast had been developed for the > inertial guidance platform gyroscopes. > >> >> On 3/12/15 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> So I was sitting here, not really up to working, and idly watching The History >>> Channel, and there was a documentary about Apollo 11 on. They had a number of >>> people (including Walter Cronkite) talking about what they thought it meant, >>> retrospectively. >>> >>> Several said something about how it was the greatest accomplishment of the >>> century, etc (it certainly was an amazing accomplishment - looking back on it, >>> it's completely amazing that they managed to do it with 1960s technology - >>> although winning WWII was an even greater effort, I'm quite sure), and one >>> said that when people look back at the 20th Century, centuries from now, >>> that's the thing they are likely to think was the most significant event of >>> the century. >>> >>> It suddenly struck me that something else happened in 1969 - that was the year >>> the ARPANET was turned on. Given that the ARPANET gave birth to the Internet, >>> and the impact the computer networking has had on the world (admittedly, in >>> tandem with the development of the personal computer), I wonder if in the long >>> run, landing on the Moon will really be seen as more significant than that? >>> >>> Odd how two such major things, long-term-historically speaking, happened in >>> the same year! >>> >>> Noel > > > > -- > The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: > > The fact that they are infallible; and, > > The fact that they learn from their mistakes. > > > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 13:54:51 2015 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:54:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501DCBE.5030709@songbird.com> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> <5501C833.20300@3kitty.org> <5501CEE2.7060401@meetinghouse.net> <5501DCBE.5030709@songbird.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:36 PM, kent wrote: > Years ago I took a vertebrate paleontology class. The professor, in his > final lecture, spoke about the perspective the study of paleontology gave. > > >From his perspective, the moon landing was on a par with the first > animal life coming out of the ocean. Relatively speaking, the Internet > is barely a footnote -- it's just a phase of the advance of technology. > But the moon landing represents something else entirely. I like his view. But the walking fish and first land-living moss etc before it wouldn't be remembered if it'd been a dead end. For Apollo to be *the* achievement in future history, we must expand beyond the planet (and LEO) permanently, it must be merely the *first* giant leap for mankind in that direction. If we become Spock's StarFleet, yes Apollo (and Soyuz/Mercury before it) are the crux (or cusp or singularity) of history. But if we evolve into StarTrek's the Borg (or are liquidated by Terminator's SkyNet) instead, the DARPAnet may yet be *the* crux. I'm still hoping Apollo wins the future history relevance contest, but on current form, since the Moon and Mars colonies are at best still hypothetical, DARPAnet is currently in the lead. Brian's comment explaining the coincidence as *both* were enabled by Stored Program computing and miniaturization and spurred by Cold War / Sputnik fever is well taken. Additionally, each project has several milestones. *We* see their matching 1969 milestones as meshing. But this is the public's space milestone and the researcher's 'net milestone that are meshing. The 'net date seen most clearly by outsiders (public, 'users') is alas not our 1969 blue-plaque commemorating the DARPAnet's "Watson come here i need you" moment, but more likely "Perpetual September" & Netscape making it a *public* utility; thile the space date seen as most important by insiders/researchers/specialists could be Sputnik & Gagarin paving the way for Aldrin, or arguably the ISS as the first *permanent* habitation in LEO (we hope). Academic point of view matters. Geologists are proposing (not yet accepted by governing body but debate is scheduled) that we've left the Holocene and entered a new Epoch, the "Anthropocene", since the detritus of our presence will be visible in the future rock record, however brief the human civilization here lasts, in geological time. In which case the Agriculture and/or 19thC industrial revolutions (with the standard manufactured screw John Day mentions) is the crux - although from a Geological timeframe, that's all still today, as are the millennia of Mesopotamian ruins ISIL is destroying and everything imaginable to follow. Geologists and Historians really don't speak the same language. But then Cosmologists have yet another timescale. (Which is why i prefer a log-time view to the Sagan-Tyson "Cosmos" cosmic calendar.) -- Bill Ricker bill.n1vux at gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Mar 12 14:02:46 2015 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:02:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501E14D.2060004@gmail.com> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> <5501E14D.2060004@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5501FEF6.3010608@dcrocker.net> On 3/12/2015 11:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > but the fact that they were approximately the same year isn't at all. > They both needed the stored-program computer and micro-electronics to > have been invented, and they both needed the impetus of competition > with the USSR - don't forget that DARPA and NASA were both created Although 'technology' development has an infinite history along with human development, World War I marked a quantum change in the use and development of technology as for very large-scale systems and very large-scale effects. World War II promoted the scale and complexity some number of quantum increments. The Cold War gave us an identical, continuing impetus for these tech efforts, along various lines, including both flight and communications (and computation, of course.) So I agree that it was very large historical forces that drove these two major accomplishments towards their major milestone around the same time. Considering how 'important' a milestone is can be useful. However trying to decide among milestones that each massively changed the world, assessing one as more important than another, is probably a fool's errand. Quantum/paradigm levels of change affect whatever is being measured in percentage by orders of magnitude. Judging between them probably affects percentages by single digits. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From johnl at iecc.com Thu Mar 12 15:36:42 2015 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 12 Mar 2015 22:36:42 -0000 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501E14D.2060004@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> >in the aftermath of Sputnik 1. Then they needed one cycle of intense >systems development, and neither of them suffered from second-system >syndrome, ... Hmmn. So we should now compare the Space Shuttle to the Internet. For all the glamor of the Apollo program, it was a dead end, sort of like building the Pyramids. We learned that by exerting the kind of effort only a motivated government can bring to a project, we could send a dozen guys to the moon for a few days each. The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article last month on the International Space Station: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/5200-days-in-space/383510/ It's clear we're still in Pyramids mode. The highly trained staff still spend the majority of their time on what might be called not dying, maintenance of the equipment and dealing with the effects of weightlessness on their bodies. (For example, everyone gets farsighted, and unlike the bone loss, it doesn't reverse when they get back.) Each person in space is supported by dozens of people on the ground, and everything they do is planned and scripted from Houston or its Russian equivalent. The ISS has room to do zero gee manufacturing, but so far there hasn't been anything to make it worthwhile. Private companies like SpaceX are likely to bring down the cost of sending stuff into space from incredibly high to merely very very expensive, but I don't see any sort of private space travel beyond $100,000 tourist jaunts and perhaps Elon Musk's private trip to Mars, where he says he wants to die, preferably not on impact, on which he could spend a billion dollars. The Internet, on the other hand, turned out to scale magnificently, to the point where stuff is so routine and so cheap that we take it for granted that our 13 year old kids have $30 networked supercomputers in their pockets and we argue about what they should be allowed to do with them. R's, John From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Mar 12 17:07:07 2015 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:07:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: Yet another example of mission creep turning into a monster. Remember all those Walt Disney and 2001 models of a space station and as the jumping off point for the moon? The ISS can?t be expanded in such a way to do artificial gravity, and is not in the right place to use as a jump off for the moon, and it can?t be moved. It is an amazing feat, but it doesn?t lay the ground work for the next step. > On Mar 12, 2015, at 18:36, John Levine wrote: > >> in the aftermath of Sputnik 1. Then they needed one cycle of intense >> systems development, and neither of them suffered from second-system >> syndrome, ... > > Hmmn. So we should now compare the Space Shuttle to the Internet. > > For all the glamor of the Apollo program, it was a dead end, sort of > like building the Pyramids. We learned that by exerting the kind of > effort only a motivated government can bring to a project, we could > send a dozen guys to the moon for a few days each. > > The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article last month on the > International Space Station: > > http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/5200-days-in-space/383510/ > > It's clear we're still in Pyramids mode. The highly trained staff > still spend the majority of their time on what might be called not > dying, maintenance of the equipment and dealing with the effects of > weightlessness on their bodies. (For example, everyone gets > farsighted, and unlike the bone loss, it doesn't reverse when they get > back.) Each person in space is supported by dozens of people on the > ground, and everything they do is planned and scripted from Houston or > its Russian equivalent. The ISS has room to do zero gee > manufacturing, but so far there hasn't been anything to make it > worthwhile. Private companies like SpaceX are likely to bring down > the cost of sending stuff into space from incredibly high to merely > very very expensive, but I don't see any sort of private space travel > beyond $100,000 tourist jaunts and perhaps Elon Musk's private trip to > Mars, where he says he wants to die, preferably not on impact, on > which he could spend a billion dollars. > > The Internet, on the other hand, turned out to scale magnificently, to > the point where stuff is so routine and so cheap that we take it for > granted that our 13 year old kids have $30 networked supercomputers in > their pockets and we argue about what they should be allowed to do > with them. > > R's, > John > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From johnl at iecc.com Thu Mar 12 17:21:56 2015 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 12 Mar 2015 20:21:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: References: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: > It is an amazing feat, but it doesn?t lay the ground work for the next step. Agreed. Given how much trouble they've having with the effects of zero gravity, it's clear they need to so some sort of rotating thing to produce artificial gravity. As far as I know, nobody has any idea how much artificial gravity would be enough. R's, John >>> in the aftermath of Sputnik 1. Then they needed one cycle of intense >>> systems development, and neither of them suffered from second-system >>> syndrome, ... >> >> Hmmn. So we should now compare the Space Shuttle to the Internet. >> ... From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Mar 12 19:21:15 2015 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:21:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: References: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <5771CE91-002F-4C43-9729-7421D4D0C0C0@comcast.net> They should have listened to Walt Disney! ;-) > On Mar 12, 2015, at 20:21, John R. Levine wrote: > >> It is an amazing feat, but it doesn?t lay the ground work for the next step. > > Agreed. Given how much trouble they've having with the effects of zero gravity, it's clear they need to so some sort of rotating thing to produce artificial gravity. As far as I know, nobody has any idea how much artificial gravity would be enough. > > R's, > John > >>>> in the aftermath of Sputnik 1. Then they needed one cycle of intense >>>> systems development, and neither of them suffered from second-system >>>> syndrome, ... >>> >>> Hmmn. So we should now compare the Space Shuttle to the Internet. >>> ... From galmes at tamu.edu Thu Mar 12 19:38:22 2015 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:38:22 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20150312223642.16483.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <55024D9E.6060002@tamu.edu> John, By the way, thanks for the link to the Atlantic article. As much as I admire those participating (at various altitudes) in the ISS, your comment about still being in the Pyramids mode is spot on. -- Guy On 3/12/15 5:36 PM, John Levine wrote: >> in the aftermath of Sputnik 1. Then they needed one cycle of intense >> systems development, and neither of them suffered from second-system >> syndrome, ... > > Hmmn. So we should now compare the Space Shuttle to the Internet. > > For all the glamor of the Apollo program, it was a dead end, sort of > like building the Pyramids. We learned that by exerting the kind of > effort only a motivated government can bring to a project, we could > send a dozen guys to the moon for a few days each. > > The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article last month on the > International Space Station: > > http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/5200-days-in-space/383510/ > > It's clear we're still in Pyramids mode. The highly trained staff > still spend the majority of their time on what might be called not > dying, maintenance of the equipment and dealing with the effects of > weightlessness on their bodies. (For example, everyone gets > farsighted, and unlike the bone loss, it doesn't reverse when they get > back.) Each person in space is supported by dozens of people on the > ground, and everything they do is planned and scripted from Houston or > its Russian equivalent. The ISS has room to do zero gee > manufacturing, but so far there hasn't been anything to make it > worthwhile. Private companies like SpaceX are likely to bring down > the cost of sending stuff into space from incredibly high to merely > very very expensive, but I don't see any sort of private space travel > beyond $100,000 tourist jaunts and perhaps Elon Musk's private trip to > Mars, where he says he wants to die, preferably not on impact, on > which he could spend a billion dollars. > > The Internet, on the other hand, turned out to scale magnificently, to > the point where stuff is so routine and so cheap that we take it for > granted that our 13 year old kids have $30 networked supercomputers in > their pockets and we argue about what they should be allowed to do > with them. > > R's, > John > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > . > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Mar 12 19:56:09 2015 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:56:09 +1100 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3419448F84974D8E948E699DD6199AB6@Toshiba> Seriously guys, The launch of Arpanet has about the same relationship to the Internet as the invention of the piston engine has to the Apollo moon landing. Not quite the same thing... Ian Peter From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Mar 12 20:10:48 2015 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:10:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <5501FEF6.3010608@dcrocker.net> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> <5501E14D.2060004@gmail.com> <5501FEF6.3010608@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <36474C8A-4951-41BC-A3CB-78C43FAF42A4@comcast.net> Are you sure it was WWII or was it really the Civil War? It was what they learned about logistics and production in the Civil War that provided the expertise for building the transcontinental railroad, the Panama Canal, etc. And in 1910, Sears-Roebuck built a plant on 40 acres on the outskirts of Chicago (this was when they had no brick and mortar stores) that was filling a 100,000 orders a day and moving 1,000,000 items a day. It was after Sears and before WWII that Taylor was doing all of his motion studies to improve production. Actually Ford came to look at Sears to apply to his factories. Those methods were in place until at least the 1960s when they were computerized but the suspicion is that they are still there, just in the machines. From what I understood about WWII, it was mainly taking methods already in use in other industries and applying them to shipbuilding and other areas for military material where they had not been applied to before. > On Mar 12, 2015, at 17:02, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 3/12/2015 11:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> but the fact that they were approximately the same year isn't at all. >> They both needed the stored-program computer and micro-electronics to >> have been invented, and they both needed the impetus of competition >> with the USSR - don't forget that DARPA and NASA were both created > > > Although 'technology' development has an infinite history along with > human development, World War I marked a quantum change in the use and > development of technology as for very large-scale systems and very > large-scale effects. > > World War II promoted the scale and complexity some number of quantum > increments. > > The Cold War gave us an identical, continuing impetus for these tech > efforts, along various lines, including both flight and communications > (and computation, of course.) > > So I agree that it was very large historical forces that drove these two > major accomplishments towards their major milestone around the same time. > > Considering how 'important' a milestone is can be useful. However > trying to decide among milestones that each massively changed the world, > assessing one as more important than another, is probably a fool's errand. > > Quantum/paradigm levels of change affect whatever is being measured in > percentage by orders of magnitude. Judging between them probably > affects percentages by single digits. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 12 20:30:33 2015 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 Message-ID: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "Ian Peter" > The launch of Arpanet has about the same relationship to the Internet > as the invention of the piston engine has to the Apollo moon landing. I don't agree. First, the ARPANET was a key building block of the early Internet (it was _the_ long-haul network tying together work at all the various sites working on the early Internet, such as SRI, ISI, MIT, BBN, etc). Next, the structure which evolved for protocol design on the ARPANET was taken over, more or less as is (although slowly modified over time, of course), by the early Internet work;there's a reason that there's one RFC series that slowly segues from NCP-based protocols to TCP/IP-based protocols. Finally - and perhaps the most telling of the close connection between the two - all the early applications (TELNET, FTP, email, etc) were straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web that we saw something sui generis. Noel From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Mar 12 20:48:56 2015 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:48:56 +1100 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: well, Noel, the piston engine was a pretty important precursor to the engines which powered the space landing too. Without it the space landing would have never happened. I agree Arpanet carries a similar relationship to the Internet. But to get to any understanding of what the Internet is as known today, you need to add to the Arpanet developments such as WWW(which you mention), the personal computer, broadband, Windows style OS, mobile phones, tablets, ecommerce engines, social networking, substantial microprocessor developments, and so many developments and interfaces that anyone looking at what was happening in 1969 would not see it as the same thing. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Noel Chiappa Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 2:30 PM To: internet-history at postel.org Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 > From: "Ian Peter" > The launch of Arpanet has about the same relationship to the Internet > as the invention of the piston engine has to the Apollo moon landing. I don't agree. First, the ARPANET was a key building block of the early Internet (it was _the_ long-haul network tying together work at all the various sites working on the early Internet, such as SRI, ISI, MIT, BBN, etc). Next, the structure which evolved for protocol design on the ARPANET was taken over, more or less as is (although slowly modified over time, of course), by the early Internet work;there's a reason that there's one RFC series that slowly segues from NCP-based protocols to TCP/IP-based protocols. Finally - and perhaps the most telling of the close connection between the two - all the early applications (TELNET, FTP, email, etc) were straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web that we saw something sui generis. Noel From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 20:57:14 2015 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:57:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <36474C8A-4951-41BC-A3CB-78C43FAF42A4@comcast.net> References: <20150312143505.BED3218C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5501AE7E.6050303@tamu.edu> <5501E14D.2060004@gmail.com> <5501FEF6.3010608@dcrocker.net> <36474C8A-4951-41BC-A3CB-78C43FAF42A4@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:10 PM, John Day wrote: > From what I understood about WWII, it was mainly taking methods already in use in other industries and applying them to shipbuilding and other areas for military material where they had not been applied to before. We always stand on the shoulders of those who came before, be they giants or just many generations. Time-and-motion studies and the industrial revolution fed into WW2, but the military application gave its name to "Operations Research". Brian's claim up-thread was that the rockets and stored-program-computer antecedents of Apollo and DARPAnet came from WW2 and Cold War, and were both gated by the semiconductor IC revolution. While Goddard and von Braun had experimented in prior decades (contemporary with your Sears, Ford, ...), the war did indeed provide the first practical liquid fuel rocket (V2), and classified war efforts (Havard, Bletchley) prepared the stage the first stored program computer (whether Manchester or Cambridge) in the Cold War. Explosive progress in both were indeed held back until transistors and LSI ICs came on-line. Hence the convergence in 1969. I find Brian's explication of 1969 compelling. -- Bill Ricker bill.n1vux at gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Mar 12 21:28:43 2015 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:28:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <3419448F84974D8E948E699DD6199AB6@Toshiba> References: <3419448F84974D8E948E699DD6199AB6@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5502677B.2030307@dcrocker.net> On 3/12/2015 7:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > The launch of Arpanet has about the same relationship to the Internet as the > invention of the piston engine has to the Apollo moon landing. Since my own view does not produce an assessment nearly as extreme, please explain your basis. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Mar 13 04:41:17 2015 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:41:17 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: References: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: I would really have to disagree with this. And this is mistake that the press makes a lot. Confusing the Internet with the uses of the Internet. My favorite example was a very short New York Times article merely reporting HP 3rd quarter earnings that said they weren?t performing as well as Google, Salesforce.com , and another, I think it was Facebook. But none of these companies are in the same market space as HP. It was a ludicrous comparison. The Internet is not the use of the Internet. Right now, I would be concerned about the reputation of the Internet. Most of what people are hearing about it is identity theft, the loss of privacy, cyber-crime, cyber-warefare, threats to their well-being, if not caused, enabled by the Internet. We are lucky to live in a period with a relatively docile population that seems to take the attitude that it is hopeless to try to do anything about it. 50 - 100 years ago, it could be looked on as the instigator of the end of a rather idyllic period, that is if the Ministry of Truth even allows it to be known what a time before the Internet was like. > On Mar 12, 2015, at 23:48, Ian Peter wrote: > > well, Noel, the piston engine was a pretty important precursor to the > engines which powered the space landing too. Without it the space landing > would have never happened. I agree Arpanet carries a similar relationship to > the Internet. > > But to get to any understanding of what the Internet is as known today, you > need to add to the Arpanet developments such as WWW(which you mention), the > personal computer, broadband, Windows style OS, mobile phones, tablets, > ecommerce engines, social networking, substantial microprocessor > developments, and so many developments and interfaces that anyone looking at > what was happening in 1969 would not see it as the same thing. > > Ian Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Chiappa > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 2:30 PM > To: internet-history at postel.org > Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu > Subject: Re: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 > >> From: "Ian Peter" > >> The launch of Arpanet has about the same relationship to the Internet >> as the invention of the piston engine has to the Apollo moon landing. > > I don't agree. First, the ARPANET was a key building block of the early > Internet (it was _the_ long-haul network tying together work at all the > various sites working on the early Internet, such as SRI, ISI, MIT, BBN, > etc). Next, the structure which evolved for protocol design on the ARPANET > was > taken over, more or less as is (although slowly modified over time, of > course), by the early Internet work;there's a reason that there's one RFC > series that slowly segues from NCP-based protocols to TCP/IP-based > protocols. Finally - and perhaps the most telling of the close connection > between the two - all the early applications (TELNET, FTP, email, etc) were > straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web > that > we saw something sui generis. > > Noel > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 13 05:46:40 2015 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 Message-ID: <20150313124640.2ACA118C0E4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "Ian Peter" > the piston engine was a pretty important precursor to the engines which > powered the space landing too. I guess I don't see the close connection there - more than to, say, the steam locomotive. When I think over the systems/sub-systems in a rocket, I have a hard time finding any with a very close link to those in the automobile. The structure owes more to aircraft practise than anything else (although there's a distant connection there, since the original airplane engines were an out-growth of IC engines for cars), except the Atlas balloon tanks, which were sui generis; the guidance is also pretty much all sui generis (except for gyros and actuators, which cars lack); the motors are pretty much also sui generis (although maybe there's a connection there, in the metallurgy of IC engine valve seats, which may have provided some high-temperature metals for the combustion chamber). Did I miss something? > But to get to any understanding of what the Internet is as known today, > you need to add to the Arpanet developments such as WWW (which you > mention), the personal computer Which I also mentioned, in the first message - but the PC (whose evolution is also an interesting story) is not the Internet, although the _marriage_ of the two has created the 'information society' we see today. > so many developments and interfaces that anyone looking at what was > happening in 1969 would not see it as the same thing. Clearly there has been considerable evolution in the over 40 years since the ARPANET was turned on, but i) that's to be expected, and ii) the airplane of 1910 bears very little resemblence to the airplane of 1950 either (an appropriate comparison, I think, since both periods are at the start of a new technology), but there, the two are clearly intimately related. Not many people worked on both the ARPANET and the Internet, but a few key figures (e.g. Jon Postel) did; and the early Internet people were certainly intimately familiar with the technical details of the ARPANET, and not just because we interfaced to it to transport our traffic around: in one of my main areas of interest, routing, BBN's work on routing in the ARPANET was the bedrock on which I stood. Noel From johnl at iecc.com Fri Mar 13 09:14:13 2015 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 13 Mar 2015 16:14:13 -0000 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20150313161413.24430.qmail@ary.lan> >straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web that >we saw something sui generis. We IRC and gopher users feel very left out. R's, John From eric.gade at gmail.com Fri Mar 13 09:42:37 2015 From: eric.gade at gmail.com (Eric Gade) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <20150313161413.24430.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20150313161413.24430.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: If we define "greatest accomplishment" as being one that led to the betterment of society, then the debate gets very interesting. When it comes to the Internet, it remains to be seen whether or not this is the case. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, John Levine wrote: > >straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web > that > >we saw something sui generis. > > We IRC and gopher users feel very left out. > > R's, > John > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -- Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Mar 13 11:32:10 2015 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:32:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: References: <20150313033033.7054B18C0DC@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20150313161413.24430.qmail@ary.lan> Message-ID: <7A0031E3-EF9D-474D-9D73-34820213E338@comcast.net> The web was no big deal. Just a less capable NLS with graphics. Ho-hum. ;-) > On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:42, Eric Gade wrote: > > If we define "greatest accomplishment" as being one that led to the betterment of society, then the debate gets very interesting. When it comes to the Internet, it remains to be seen whether or not this is the case. > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, John Levine > wrote: > >straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web that > >we saw something sui generis. > > We IRC and gopher users feel very left out. > > R's, > John > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > > -- > Eric > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larrysheldon at cox.net Sat Mar 14 08:11:44 2015 From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:11:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] ARPANET and Apollo 11 In-Reply-To: <34dL1q00C3VDnm8014dMDo> References: <34dL1q00C3VDnm8014dMDo> Message-ID: <55044FB0.6030803@cox.net> On 3/13/2015 11:14, John Levine wrote: >> straight ports of the ARPANET versions. It wasn't until we got to the Web that >> we saw something sui generis. > > We IRC and gopher users feel very left out. Add "HYTELNET" and "archie" RIP "wuarchives". -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes From craig at aland.bbn.com Wed Mar 18 13:03:49 2015 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:03:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box Message-ID: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> Hi folks: Does anyone remember the name of the (first) DEC Ethernet packet capture box -- the first one that could keep up with all the traffic on a 10 Mbps Ethernet. As I recall, it became a product c. 1984. I'm dragging through my brain and can't pull up the name. Thanks! Craig From mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu Wed Mar 18 14:05:22 2015 From: mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:05:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <22815bccf9af9dc14f440b75bd9d6918@seas.upenn.edu> On 2015-03-18 16:03, Craig Partridge wrote: > Hi folks: > > Does anyone remember the name of the (first) DEC Ethernet packet > capture box -- > the first one that could keep up with all the traffic on a 10 Mbps > Ethernet. > As I recall, it became a product c. 1984. I'm dragging through my > brain > and can't pull up the name. > Was that Dave Feldmeier's box? > Thanks! > > Craig > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu Wed Mar 18 14:22:36 2015 From: mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:22:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <22815bccf9af9dc14f440b75bd9d6918@seas.upenn.edu> References: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> <22815bccf9af9dc14f440b75bd9d6918@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <261e53b14704c39cf2a4ad901888cd20@seas.upenn.edu> On 2015-03-18 17:05, Michael Greenwald wrote: > On 2015-03-18 16:03, Craig Partridge wrote: >> Hi folks: >> >> Does anyone remember the name of the (first) DEC Ethernet packet >> capture box -- >> the first one that could keep up with all the traffic on a 10 Mbps >> Ethernet. >> As I recall, it became a product c. 1984. I'm dragging through my >> brain >> and can't pull up the name. >> > Was that Dave Feldmeier's box? Hmm. My brain is rotting -- maybe his was on the token ring (but same time period). > >> Thanks! >> >> Craig >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 18 14:37:41 2015 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box Message-ID: <20150318213741.2BDC718C0C8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Michael Greenwald > Was that Dave Feldmeier's box? No, Dave's box was on the ring network. Noel From mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu Wed Mar 18 14:42:29 2015 From: mbgreen at seas.upenn.edu (Michael Greenwald) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:42:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <20150318213741.2BDC718C0C8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20150318213741.2BDC718C0C8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5e45f5334a6878f09c97c631d456d360@seas.upenn.edu> On 2015-03-18 17:37, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: >> From: Michael Greenwald > > > Was that Dave Feldmeier's box? > > No, Dave's box was on the ring network. Yeah, sorry, I remembered that moments after sending the first message. From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 14:50:47 2015 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:50:47 +1300 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <5509F337.3010309@gmail.com> You don't mean the DELNI, do you? I just looked at my copy of "Digital's Networks: An Architecture with a Future" from ~1985, and didn't see any mention of a specific capture device. Radia might remember. Regards Brian On 19/03/2015 09:03, Craig Partridge wrote: > > Hi folks: > > Does anyone remember the name of the (first) DEC Ethernet packet capture box -- > the first one that could keep up with all the traffic on a 10 Mbps Ethernet. > As I recall, it became a product c. 1984. I'm dragging through my brain > and can't pull up the name. > > Thanks! > > Craig > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > . > From paul at redbarn.org Wed Mar 18 15:14:36 2015 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:14:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <5e45f5334a6878f09c97c631d456d360@seas.upenn.edu> References: <20150318213741.2BDC718C0C8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5e45f5334a6878f09c97c631d456d360@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <5509F8CC.7060806@redbarn.org> what i know from 1988 is that i wanted an ethernet capture box for DEC WRL, and i had to buy a whitebox PC and install FTP Software's LANWatch product on it, because there was nothing available in the product catalog. so, i'm very interested in any information anyone might turn up as to what ethernet capture box DEC may have been selling in 1984. vixie From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Mar 18 15:45:21 2015 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:45:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <5509F8CC.7060806@redbarn.org> References: <20150318213741.2BDC718C0C8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5e45f5334a6878f09c97c631d456d360@seas.upenn.edu> <5509F8CC.7060806@redbarn.org> Message-ID: <550A0001.5010703@dcrocker.net> On 3/18/2015 3:14 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > what i know from 1988 is that i wanted an ethernet capture box for DEC > WRL, and i had to buy a whitebox PC and install FTP Software's LANWatch > product on it, because there was nothing available in the product > catalog. so, i'm very interested in any information anyone might turn up > as to what ethernet capture box DEC may have been selling in 1984. oh boy. In 1986 we put TCP/IP on the Ungermann-Bass 'smart' Ethernet card and during the project I discovered someone had done an ethernet capture module, which symbolic display of the UB XNS packets. So I re-coded it to interpret TCP/IP. As far as I could tell, it kept of with ethernet flows adequately. When I moved to Wollongong in 1987, I had an equivalent product built, using regular (3Com, or whatever) cards. It performed adequately too. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From craig at aland.bbn.com Wed Mar 18 16:26:12 2015 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:26:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box Message-ID: <20150318232612.4140028E137@aland.bbn.com> To try to job memories more, here's what I remember. There was a relatively expensive standalone box that printed out packets. It was exhibited at whatever the annual DEC product conference was (DECUS?) shortly after I joined BBN (so late 1983 at the earliest and probably more like 1984 or 1985) and the story that came back was that Ken Oleson looked at the demo, saw passwords appearing on the screen, and said something akin to "I'm not sure I like this." My recollection was, ironically, that this was a DEC product. But perhaps it was a third party box? I do remember it was expensive for the time and a standalone device. It led to great interest in figuring out how to use regular boxes to capture packets off shared media networks like the Ethernets of the 1980s. Thanks! Craig > On 3/18/2015 3:14 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > what i know from 1988 is that i wanted an ethernet capture box for DEC > > WRL, and i had to buy a whitebox PC and install FTP Software's LANWatch > > product on it, because there was nothing available in the product > > catalog. so, i'm very interested in any information anyone might turn up > > as to what ethernet capture box DEC may have been selling in 1984. > > > oh boy. > > In 1986 we put TCP/IP on the Ungermann-Bass 'smart' Ethernet card and > during the project I discovered someone had done an ethernet capture > module, which symbolic display of the UB XNS packets. So I re-coded it > to interpret TCP/IP. As far as I could tell, it kept of with ethernet > flows adequately. > > When I moved to Wollongong in 1987, I had an equivalent product built, > using regular (3Com, or whatever) cards. It performed adequately too. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From amyzing at talsever.com Wed Mar 18 16:57:54 2015 From: amyzing at talsever.com (Amelia A Lewis) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:57:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <20150318232612.4140028E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20150318232612.4140028E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <20150318195754380330.7fea0ccf@talsever.com> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:26:12 -0400, Craig Partridge wrote: > My recollection was, ironically, that this was a DEC product. But perhaps > it was a third party box? I do remember it was expensive for the time > and a standalone device. Network General? Their Sniffer was released in the mid-eighties, and kind of established the generic name for network protocol analyzers ("sniffers") for a dozen years. (disclaimer: I wrote network protocol decodes for three different dedicated-hardware analyzer platforms in the mid-nineties, but haven't worked in that area for years, so my memory may be faulty) Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration. -- Edsger Dijkstra From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Mar 18 17:46:57 2015 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:46:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <20150318195754380330.7fea0ccf@talsever.com> References: <20150318232612.4140028E137@aland.bbn.com> <20150318195754380330.7fea0ccf@talsever.com> Message-ID: <550A1C81.8040903@dcrocker.net> On 3/18/2015 4:57 PM, Amelia A Lewis wrote: > Network General? Their Sniffer was released in the mid-eighties, I think Harry got that going around 1987. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 18:06:35 2015 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:06:35 +1300 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <20150318232612.4140028E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20150318232612.4140028E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <550A211B.9060909@gmail.com> Sounds like a protocol analyzer from a third party to me. Tektronix? I can't really remember who was building analyzers in those days, maybe HP already had one too. They certainly did by 1987: http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=938 Brian On 19/03/2015 12:26, Craig Partridge wrote: > > To try to job memories more, here's what I remember. > > There was a relatively expensive standalone box that printed > out packets. It was exhibited at whatever the annual DEC product > conference was (DECUS?) shortly after I joined BBN (so late 1983 at > the earliest and probably more like 1984 or 1985) and the story that came back > was that Ken Oleson looked at the demo, saw passwords appearing on > the screen, and said something akin to "I'm not sure I like this." > > My recollection was, ironically, that this was a DEC product. But perhaps > it was a third party box? I do remember it was expensive for the time > and a standalone device. It led to great interest in figuring out how > to use regular boxes to capture packets off shared media networks like the > Ethernets of the 1980s. > > Thanks! > > Craig > >> On 3/18/2015 3:14 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >>> what i know from 1988 is that i wanted an ethernet capture box for DEC >>> WRL, and i had to buy a whitebox PC and install FTP Software's LANWatch >>> product on it, because there was nothing available in the product >>> catalog. so, i'm very interested in any information anyone might turn up >>> as to what ethernet capture box DEC may have been selling in 1984. >> >> >> oh boy. >> >> In 1986 we put TCP/IP on the Ungermann-Bass 'smart' Ethernet card and >> during the project I discovered someone had done an ethernet capture >> module, which symbolic display of the UB XNS packets. So I re-coded it >> to interpret TCP/IP. As far as I could tell, it kept of with ethernet >> flows adequately. >> >> When I moved to Wollongong in 1987, I had an equivalent product built, >> using regular (3Com, or whatever) cards. It performed adequately too. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > From louie at transsys.com Fri Mar 20 13:07:13 2015 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:07:13 -0400 Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box In-Reply-To: <5509F337.3010309@gmail.com> References: <20150318200349.5E1BE28E137@aland.bbn.com> <5509F337.3010309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8E0A0B47-08E3-45CB-A693-70CD45A2C812@transsys.com> No the DELNI was a box that allowed 8(?) hosts to share a single half-duplex ethernet transceiver. It had ethernet AUI connections for the hosts, and another for plugging in a transceiver. Contention was, of course, CMSA/CD based. I don't recall if you could operate it without a transceiver attached; as an "ethernet in a box". This might have been something another vendor supported. louie On March 18, 2015 5:50:47 PM EDT, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >You don't mean the DELNI, do you? > >I just looked at my copy of "Digital's Networks: An Architecture with a >Future" >from ~1985, and didn't see any mention of a specific capture device. > >Radia might remember. > >Regards > Brian > >On 19/03/2015 09:03, Craig Partridge wrote: >> >> Hi folks: >> >> Does anyone remember the name of the (first) DEC Ethernet packet >capture box -- >> the first one that could keep up with all the traffic on a 10 Mbps >Ethernet. >> As I recall, it became a product c. 1984. I'm dragging through my >brain >> and can't pull up the name. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Craig >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> . >> >_______ >internet-history mailing list >internet-history at postel.org >http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 20 13:57:51 2015 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] DEC Ethernet packet capture box Message-ID: <20150320205751.1A14E18C0E3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Louis Mamakos > the DELNI was a box that allowed 8(?) hosts Yes, 8. > I don't recall if you could operate it without a transceiver > attached; as an "ethernet in a box". Yes, it can; there's a switch to enable/disable the 'uplink' port (no auto-sense). Noel From james.cole at icann.org Mon Mar 30 09:10:36 2015 From: james.cole at icann.org (James Cole) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:10:36 +0000 Subject: [ih] Early .Com Yearly Domain Counts Message-ID: I'm doing research on yearly TLD domain counts, and can't seem to find any information for specific TLDs before 1998. For example, ZookNIC lumps them all together so you can only see total domain counts for each year (http://www.zooknic.com/Domains/counts.html). Would anyone on this list happen to know where I'd be able to get yearly domain counts for specific TLDs? I'd be much obliged. -James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reed at reedmedia.net Mon Mar 30 10:06:15 2015 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:06:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ih] Early .Com Yearly Domain Counts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Would anyone on this list happen to know where I?d be able to get yearly > domain counts for specific TLDs? I?d be much obliged. Not counts for various years, but see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/04.pdf slide 101 for all domains registered as of around October 1986.