[ih] Hourglass model question

[John Day]

There was a technical part. I thought it was mostly technical.  There was a real attempt to come up with protocols to make resource sharing a lot more seamless beyond RJE and just logging in to another system as a timesharing user. Things to facilitate running a distributed program over more than one machine, etc.  There were probably 5 or 6 new protocols being proposed to develop.  I don’t remember what they were now, but could dig it out.

The one I do remember from the first meeting was, that someone proposed that we needed a common editor. (Remember the ‘my editor’s better than your editor! debates’?), ;-) 

I remember thinking ‘o, good grief given the debates we had over FTP, this is going to go forever!’ Padlipsky piped up and said, ’The example PL/1 program in the Multics Programmers Manual is a simple editor. Lets just use that.’ The reaction was, 'sure why not' and the discussion was over in minutes. Total shock.  And within a few weeks there were NETEDs all over the ’Net.  (And I don’t think any of them were exactly the same.) ;-) They just couldn’t resist the temptation to ‘improve’ it.  ;-)

Take care,
John



> On Jul 5, 2019, at 23:59, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn’t see anything technical.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net <mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net>> wrote:
> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > With apology, what was USING?
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> 
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> ...
> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
> >     potential.
> 
> 
> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy 
> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
> 
>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/>
> 
> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial 
> task of figuring what it was for.
> 
> The RFC summarized this as:
> 
>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>     wish to use.
> 
> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own 
> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is, 
> not a broad enough based of community interest.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/3df50b0b/attachment.htm>