On 2021-10-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 29/10/2021 17:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-29, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Fortunately, it doesn't look like time travel can
>>> be realized in the real world.
>>
>> Too bad. I'd love go to back and see to it that
>> Bill Gates' parents never met.
>
> And end up in a world run by IBM and Gary Kildall?

Why not? I doubt it could be worse.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much
>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it
>>>> easily.
>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the
>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s.
>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they
>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which
>>> has a Z80 CPU.
>>
>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80.
>>
>> Sinclair came very late to the party.
>>
>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious
>> . 1974 or thereabouts
>
> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800
> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True,
> that one had a 8080.
>
>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again
>
> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1
> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2
> a year later they produced large quantities.
>
>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later.
>
> 1977.
>
>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.
>
> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.
>
>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on
>> Z80s/8080s.
>
> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not
> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an
> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>.
>
>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler.
>
> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80
> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s.
>
> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a
> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly
> used in the education sector.
>
> If you check some links of
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be
> noticed that most of the used a Z80.
>
>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it.
>
> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in
> numbers.
>
> [...]
>
>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the
>>> Oric,
>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day.
>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to
>>> code
>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64).
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well?
>
> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the
> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market.
>
> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers

I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first
"Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something
the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or
TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you
were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip.

The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the
new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed
straight at the student/hobby market and I don't
think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to
a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort
of "milestone" though because regular Joes could
actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real
"democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore
came along shortly after and blew the Altairs
out of the water.

The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from
the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal
issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s.
More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon
edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC
market (except for the CoCo).

(Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but
you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish
but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still
sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use
in embedded systems, esp those that need to be
close to Real Time)

The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were
one of the next steps for Small Business computers.
The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were
nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters
too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as
home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but
could never quite afford one. The final version had
a 68000 co-processor board in there.

The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s,
a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled
box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but
the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure
out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard.
PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business"
market. They offered similar performance, but except
for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a
CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short-
lived companies.

I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge
people, who had a computer shop, but mostly
made money writing clones of popular computer
games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET.
Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-)
He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd
then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s
and C-64s.

TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves
by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for
3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit
chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by
the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky
hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup
which stored register sets and stuff in system
memory because, at the time, it was actually
faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch
And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember
that instruction. It was never meant as a
"small business" PC, and neither were the
VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus".
A few C64s were put to "business" USE however -
for a very long time there was a "local govt
channel" and once in a while it'd crash and
you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-)

The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were
pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture
units.

But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
others went under eventually ... though Commodore
made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have
fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
support programs too. I bought the original, but
there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
PC (semi)-Clone.

The native 550 graphics were superior,
but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and
you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky
jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit,
and about a third the price of IBM. I might still
have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk.

Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years
back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because
it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went
down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and
WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ...

Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box
but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of
XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas,
a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly
went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small
business" boxes. Think you can still buy them
on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay
and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I
have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there,
they were VERY good systems and the OS was well
ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs
and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four
inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...

On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much
>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it
>>>> easily.
>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the
>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s.
>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they
>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which
>>> has a Z80 CPU.
>>
>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80.
>>
>> Sinclair came very late to the party.
>>
>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious
>> . 1974 or thereabouts
>
> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800
> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True,
> that one had a 8080.
>
>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again
>
> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1
> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2
> a year later they produced large quantities.
>
>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later.
>
> 1977.
>
>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.
>
> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.
>
>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on
>> Z80s/8080s.
>
> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not
> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an
> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>.
>
>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler.
>
> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80
> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s.
>
> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a
> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly
> used in the education sector.
>
> If you check some links of
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be
> noticed that most of the used a Z80.
>
>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it.
>
> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in
> numbers.
>
> [...]
>
>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the
>>> Oric,
>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day.
>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to
>>> code
>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64).
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well?
>
> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the
> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market.
>
> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers

I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first
"Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something
the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or
TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you
were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip.

The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the
new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed
straight at the student/hobby market and I don't
think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to
a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort
of "milestone" though because regular Joes could
actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real
"democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore
came along shortly after and blew the Altairs
out of the water.

The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from
the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal
issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s.
More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon
edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC
market (except for the CoCo).

(Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but
you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish
but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still
sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use
in embedded systems, esp those that need to be
close to Real Time)

The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were
one of the next steps for Small Business computers.
The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were
nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters
too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as
home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but
could never quite afford one. The final version had
a 68000 co-processor board in there.

The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s,
a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled
box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but
the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure
out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard.
PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business"
market. They offered similar performance, but except
for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a
CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short-
lived companies.

I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge
people, who had a computer shop, but mostly
made money writing clones of popular computer
games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET.
Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-)
He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd
then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s
and C-64s.

TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves
by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for
3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit
chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by
the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky
hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup
which stored register sets and stuff in system
memory because, at the time, it was actually
faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch
And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember
that instruction. It was never meant as a
"small business" PC, and neither were the
VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus".
A few C64s were put to "business" USE however -
for a very long time there was a "local govt
channel" and once in a while it'd crash and
you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-)

The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were
pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture
units.

But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
others went under eventually ... though Commodore
made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have
fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
support programs too. I bought the original, but
there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
PC (semi)-Clone.

The native 550 graphics were superior,
but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and
you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky
jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit,
and about a third the price of IBM. I might still
have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk.

Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years
back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because
it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went
down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and
WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ...

Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box
but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of
XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas,
a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly
went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small
business" boxes. Think you can still buy them
on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay
and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I
have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there,
they were VERY good systems and the OS was well
ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs
and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four
inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...

On 11/1/21 2:50 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-10-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2021 17:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-10-29, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At some point in childhood intelligence organises sensory data into a
>>>> model, that includes a self, in a real (physical) world. That model is
>>>> reinforced through parents etc until people like you think that they
>>>> have actually emerged into 'the real world' and start to explain their
>>>> awareness of it, on terms of its physical nature!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, many people's models are seriously warped.
>>
>> Warped with respect to what?
>>
>> A couple of decades inquiry into the matter shows that there is no way
>> to establish what the One True Model of Reality looks like. And those
>> that think they are in possession of it are no less deluded than anyone
>> else.
>>
>> My conclusion is that *any* model will do, provided it is not so
>> dysfunctional as to result in death before procreation.
>
> <snip>
>
>> The only concession to 'warpage' I will allow, is that if people are
>> living miserably because they cling to beliefs that make them angry,
>> miserable, jealous and full of shame, well perhaps they should consider
>> abandoning the belief set and replacing it with something else, just as
>> lacking in truth content, but more palatable.
>
> In some societies, this can result in death before procreation. 1/2 :-)

Why do you ascribe SO many negatives to those "under-achieving"
societies ?

Sorry, but to build much of anything you need a good foundation
and a path towards advancement. Not everybody HAS that. It's not
that they are stupid or hateful or angry or miserable or jealous
or any of that crap - they just lack "The Ladder" anywhere handy.

Reasons may be "cultural" or more rooted in the Leaders of the
moment or economic situation. Usually the latter two.

People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
of that that tends to be the problem.

On 11/1/21 21:13, 1p166 wrote:
> On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much
>>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it
>>>>> easily.
>>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the
>>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s.
>>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they
>>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which
>>>> has a Z80 CPU.
>>>
>>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80.
>>>
>>> Sinclair came very late to the party.
>>>
>>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious
>>> . 1974 or thereabouts
>>
>> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800
>> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True,
>> that one had a 8080.
>>
>>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again
>>
>> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1
>> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2
>> a year later they produced large quantities.
>>
>>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later.
>>
>> 1977.
>>
>>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.
>>
>> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.
>>
>>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on
>>> Z80s/8080s.
>>
>> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not
>> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an
>> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>.
>>
>>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler.
>>
>> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80
>> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s.
>>
>> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a
>> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly
>> used in the education sector.
>>
>> If you check some links of
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be
>> noticed that most of the used a Z80.
>>
>>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it.
>>
>> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in
>> numbers.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the
>>>> Oric,
>>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day.
>>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to
>>>> code
>>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly.  Wasn't Apple II  a 6502 as well?
>>
>> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the
>> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market.
>>
>> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers

` The Apple was outside my price range as well.
My Amigas were second hand.
Years later I had credit and spent a lot to bring
the specs on the A2000b up to date with a cool running 68060
with 64 megabytes of ram, a nice video card, and scan-doubler.

>
>
>   I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first
>   "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something
>   the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or
>   TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you
>   were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip.
>
>   The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the
>   new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed
>   straight at the student/hobby market and I don't
>   think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to
>   a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort
>   of "milestone" though because regular Joes could
>   actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real
>   "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore
>   came along shortly after and blew the Altairs
>   out of the water.

Well I was not paying close attention as a friend
was trying to build a CPM computer in her bedroom. Don't
know if she ever got it working. I asked her how much
memory I would need for word processing, she said 64 KB
and I grabbed a C=64 at the Pacific Stereo store for $200
and next week came back for the VIC 1541 floppy drive which
was about $220.
>
>   The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from
>   the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal
>   issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s.
>   More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon
>   edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC
>   market (except for the CoCo).
>
>   (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but
>   you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish
>   but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still
>   sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use
>   in embedded systems, esp those that need to be
>   close to Real Time)
>
>   The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were
>   one of the next steps for Small Business computers.
>   The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were
>   nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters
>   too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as
>   home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but
>   could never quite afford one. The final version had
>   a 68000 co-processor board in there.
>
>   The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s,
>   a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled
>   box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but
>   the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure
>   out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard.
>   PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business"
>   market. They offered similar performance, but except
>   for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a
>   CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short-
>   lived companies.

Commodore Business Machines was a pioneer of cost
reduction.
I had a C=64 but did not code but did do book keeping
for a man who had gotten several years behind,
I did a lot of work in PaperClip from Batteries
Included of Canada.
The C=128/64 had a chip called an 8502 to run the
Commodore side of things but CPM ran on a Zilog Z-80A.
that was built in for the purpose. I got the OS from
FOG down in Daly City. I got hooked on dungeon crawls
then and when i have time I still play Angband on whatever
it will run on in my VirtualBox.

>
>   I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge
>   people, who had a computer shop, but mostly
>   made money writing clones of popular computer
>   games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET.
>   Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-)
>   He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd
>   then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s
>   and C-64s.
>
>   TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves
>   by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for
>   3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit
>   chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by
>   the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky
>   hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup
>   which stored register sets and stuff in system
>   memory because, at the time, it was actually
>   faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch
>   And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember
>   that instruction. It was never meant as a
>   "small business" PC, and neither were the
>   VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus".
>   A few C64s were put to "business" USE however -
>   for a very long time there was a "local govt
>   channel" and once in a while it'd crash and
>   you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message  :-)
>
>   The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were
>   pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture
>   units.
>
>   But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
>   of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
>   Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
>   others went under eventually ... though Commodore
>   made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have
>   fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
>   Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
>   support programs too. I bought the original, but
>   there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
>   that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
>   PC (semi)-Clone.

On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.

:-(

> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
> others went under eventually ... though Commodore
> made a fair try with the Amigas.

Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management
ran the company into the ground. At one point the
president and CEO (Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali) were
pulling down bigger salaries than the heads of IBM -
while the techies and marketing staff starved.
Shareholder meetings were held in the Bahamas to
discourage those pesky shareholders from attending.

> Those STILL have
> fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
> Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
> support programs too. I bought the original, but
> there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
> that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
> PC (semi)-Clone.

The Amiga's biggest shortcoming was its lack of memory
protection. If you stayed away from buggy software
that stomped on random memory locations, you could
avoid almost all Guru Meditations.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

On 01/11/2021 18:50, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-10-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2021 17:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-10-29, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At some point in childhood intelligence organises sensory data into a
>>>> model, that includes a self, in a real (physical) world. That model is
>>>> reinforced through parents etc until people like you think that they
>>>> have actually emerged into 'the real world' and start to explain their
>>>> awareness of it, on terms of its physical nature!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, many people's models are seriously warped.
>>
>> Warped with respect to what?
>>
>> A couple of decades inquiry into the matter shows that there is no way
>> to establish what the One True Model of Reality looks like. And those
>> that think they are in possession of it are no less deluded than anyone
>> else.
>>
>> My conclusion is that *any* model will do, provided it is not so
>> dysfunctional as to result in death before procreation.
>
> <snip>
>
>> The only concession to 'warpage' I will allow, is that if people are
>> living miserably because they cling to beliefs that make them angry,
>> miserable, jealous and full of shame, well perhaps they should consider
>> abandoning the belief set and replacing it with something else, just as
>> lacking in truth content, but more palatable.
>
> In some societies, this can result in death before procreation. 1/2 :-)
>
Hence my proviso in the first paragraph you quoted.

Humans only duty, and that is only in terms of species survival, is
procreation.
After that its a free lunch.

Sexism, classism. racism, gender politics, systems of government,
religious beliefs? All irrelevant.

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>   of that that tends to be the problem.

I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis in a
vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning and
pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.

Even rats can do all that.

Society needs one or two 'bright' individuals on occasion when
circumstances need a different approach.
But in general smart people are disliked and reviled and ignored by the
masses .

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 2021-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
>
>> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>> of that that tends to be the problem.
>
> I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis
> in a vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning
> and pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.
>
> Even rats can do all that.
>
> Society needs one or two 'bright' individuals on occasion when
> circumstances need a different approach.
> But in general smart people are disliked and reviled and ignored
> by the masses.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded - here and there,
now and then - are the work of an extremely small minority,
frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed
by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is
kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out
of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
-- Robert A. Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

On 11/2/21 3:09 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
>>
>>> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>>> of that that tends to be the problem.
>>
>> I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis
>> in a vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning
>> and pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.
>>
>> Even rats can do all that.

Aww ... Charlie ..............

Oh, and Lazarus Long is FICTIONAL.

up
On 11/2/21 2:17 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
>> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
>
> :-(
>
>> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
>> others went under eventually ... though Commodore
>> made a fair try with the Amigas.
>
> Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management
> ran the company into the ground.

Rats. Sinking ship. What did you expect ? Pretend
make an visible effort, to keep the stock prices up
while cashing-in to the max.

Commodore was OVER. It had its day in the sun but
IBM (& clones) and Apple were IT - the future.
Whatever Amiga could do, Mac could do, or soon
do, better - and had a bigger customer base.

The Market at the time was consolidating. Only
two main players. All the fringe players were
OUT. Take the money and RUN.

Sorry, but Amiga was NOT a competitor. It had
its good features, but others, better capitalized,
soon copied and exceeded them.

That's the way it goes.

Whatever the Next Big Thing is, there will initially
be a bunch of players. Again, probably TWO will become
IT and all the others will wither away.

And even that duality will be something of a lie ...
the BIG people will have stock/influence in BOTH
"sides". Humans LOVE "duality", choices or false
choices. PLAY that psychology for profit.

Cynical ? Check it out. REAL.

MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa.
Check it out, you can confirm that. The "sides"
are all for show, a way of goading consumers
and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty
to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side.

The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
understood the utility of cultivating those
fake "sides".

On 11/2/21 20:58, 1p166 wrote:
> On 11/2/21 3:09 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2021-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
>>>
>>>> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>>>> of that that tends to be the problem.
>>>
>>> I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis
>>> in a vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning
>>> and pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.
>>>
>>> Even rats can do all that.
>
>   Aww ... Charlie ..............
>
>   Oh, and Lazarus Long is FICTIONAL.
It was not Charlie, 1p166 who said those foolish things but
the un-Natural Philospher, a misogynist and apparently now
anti-sexual.

Rats don't groan. Only human women have problems with the
severely enlarged head of Homo sapiens sapiens. That is why
and the pains are real. Groans and screams.

Is the NP an incel? Who can tell and why would they bother.
I added him to my TB filters long ago.

We might add misanthrope to the list of unpleasant
things about him. I wonder if he is a Catholic philosopher?
Lot of misanthropes fall in that basket, blaming women for
whatever problems.

As you say Lazarus Long is a fantasy and a wish
fulfillment fantasy as well. I used to love Heinlein but
as he aged he got less amusing. And he died in 1988 so I
am older now then he was when he died but of course I do
not have his sterling list of achievements.

bliss - the ineluctable

On 11/2/21 21:27, 1p166 wrote:
> up
> On 11/2/21 2:17 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>
>>>     But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
>>>     of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
>>
>> :-(

And the IBM PC was killed by its own clones.

>>
>>>     Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
>>>     others went under eventually ... though Commodore
>>>     made a fair try with the Amigas.

Actually they were failing until the brought Jobs back
and he brought the NextOS with him which became the OS X eventually..
>>
>> Commodore techs made a fair try.  Commodore management
>> ran the company into the ground.
>
>   Rats. Sinking ship. What did you expect ? Pretend
>   make an visible effort, to keep the stock prices up
>   while cashing-in to the max.

The company went under because the management had
no idea what they had in the Amiga.

>
>   Commodore was OVER. It had its day in the sun but
>   IBM (& clones) and Apple were IT - the future.
>   Whatever Amiga could do, Mac could do, or soon
>   do, better - and had a bigger customer base.

Actually the fastest Mac at one time was an
Amiga with emulator.
>
>   The Market at the time was consolidating. Only
>   two main players. All the fringe players were
>   OUT. Take the money and RUN.
>
>   Sorry, but Amiga was NOT a competitor. It had
>   its good features, but others, better capitalized,
>   soon copied and exceeded them.

No one copied it except with vastly greater CPU
power and separately designed graphics cards/
>
>   That's the way it goes.
>
>   Whatever the Next Big Thing is, there will initially
>   be a bunch of players. Again, probably TWO will become
>   IT and all the others will wither away.
>
>   And even that duality will be something of a lie ...
>   the BIG people will have stock/influence in BOTH
>   "sides". Humans LOVE "duality", choices or false
>   choices. PLAY that psychology for profit.
>
>   Cynical ? Check it out. REAL.
>
>   MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa.
>   Check it out, you can confirm that. The "sides"
>   are all for show, a way of goading consumers
>   and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty
>   to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side.
>
>   The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>   ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>   understood the utility of cultivating those
>   fake "sides".

I chose GNU/Linux and old x86 laptops.

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 11/2/21 1:05 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 11/1/21 21:13, 1p166 wrote:
>> On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much
>>>>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it
>>>>>> easily.
>>>>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the
>>>>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s.
>>>>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they
>>>>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before),
>>>>> which
>>>>> has a Z80 CPU.
>>>>
>>>> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80.
>>>>
>>>> Sinclair came very late to the party.
>>>>
>>>> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious
>>>> . 1974 or thereabouts
>>>
>>> "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800
>>> (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True,
>>> that one had a 8080.
>>>
>>>> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again
>>>
>>> It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1
>>> were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2
>>> a year later they produced large quantities.
>>>
>>>> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later.
>>>
>>> 1977.
>>>
>>>> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.
>>>
>>> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.
>>>
>>>> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on
>>>> Z80s/8080s.
>>>
>>> UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not
>>> shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an
>>> emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>.
>>>
>>>> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler.
>>>
>>> The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80
>>> based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s.
>>>
>>> But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a
>>> 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly
>>> used in the education sector.
>>>
>>> If you check some links of
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be
>>> noticed that most of the used a Z80.
>>>
>>>> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it.
>>>
>>> The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in
>>> numbers.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the
>>>>> Oric,
>>>>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day.
>>>>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to
>>>>> code
>>>>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.  Wasn't Apple II  a 6502 as well?
>>>
>>> Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside
>>> the
>>> UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market.
>>>
>>> F'up2 alt.folklore.computers
>
> `    The Apple was outside my price range as well.
>     My Amigas were second hand.
>     Years later I had credit and spent a lot to bring
> the specs on the A2000b up to date with a cool running 68060
> with 64 megabytes of ram, a nice video card, and scan-doubler.
>
>
>>
>>
>>    I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first
>>    "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something
>>    the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or
>>    TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you
>>    were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip.
>>
>>    The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the
>>    new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed
>>    straight at the student/hobby market and I don't
>>    think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to
>>    a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort
>>    of "milestone" though because regular Joes could
>>    actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real
>>    "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore
>>    came along shortly after and blew the Altairs
>>    out of the water.
>
>     Well I was not paying close attention as a friend
> was trying to build a CPM computer in her bedroom. Don't
> know if she ever got it working.  I asked her how much
> memory I would need for word processing, she said 64 KB
> and I grabbed a C=64 at the Pacific Stereo store for $200
> and next week came back for the VIC 1541 floppy drive which
> was about $220.
>>
>>    The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from
>>    the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal
>>    issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s.
>>    More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon
>>    edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC
>>    market (except for the CoCo).
>>
>>    (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but
>>    you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish
>>    but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still
>>    sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use
>>    in embedded systems, esp those that need to be
>>    close to Real Time)
>>
>>    The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were
>>    one of the next steps for Small Business computers.
>>    The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were
>>    nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters
>>    too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as
>>    home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but
>>    could never quite afford one. The final version had
>>    a 68000 co-processor board in there.
>>
>>    The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s,
>>    a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled
>>    box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but
>>    the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure
>>    out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard.
>>    PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business"
>>    market. They offered similar performance, but except
>>    for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a
>>    CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short-
>>    lived companies.
>
>     Commodore Business Machines was a pioneer of cost
> reduction.
>     I had a C=64 but did not code but did do book keeping
> for a man who had gotten several years behind,
>     I did a lot of work in PaperClip from Batteries
> Included of Canada.
>     The C=128/64 had a chip called an 8502 to run the
> Commodore side of things but CPM ran on a Zilog Z-80A.
> that was built in for the purpose.  I got the OS from
> FOG down in Daly City.  I got hooked on dungeon crawls
> then and when i have time I still play Angband on whatever
> it will run on in my VirtualBox.

There were a number of "dual chip" units back
in the day. They wanted to support the Latest
Stuff, but ALSO wanted to support the CP/M
universe of biz software. The TRS with the
68K chip was perhaps the most powerful of
those dual-chip boxes.

But the 16-bit chips and a lot more memory
made it WAY easy to write vastly superior
apps - and the 8-bit and CP/M universes
collapsed. Not much in the way of dual-chip
endeavours after that (OK there ARE those
Arduinos and maybe you can count the x86+
NVidia setups often used for mining bitcoins).

On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
> understood the utility of cultivating those
> fake "sides".

Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive,
that was a sobering discovery.

The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's
your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with
"Who do you support".

I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the
ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain slightly
suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the principle, it
was certainly a good demonstration if not.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 03/11/2021 03:58, 1p166 wrote:
> On 11/2/21 3:09 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2021-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
>>>
>>>> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>>>> of that that tends to be the problem.
>>>
>>> I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis
>>> in a vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning
>>> and pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.
>>>
>>> Even rats can do all that.
>
>   Aww ... Charlie ..............
>
>   Oh, and Lazarus Long is FICTIONAL.

So is most of history.

--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 03/11/2021 04:39, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> I wonder if he is a Catholic philosopher?
> Lot of misanthropes fall in that basket, blaming women for
> whatever problems.

I nowhere blamed anyone for anything. I merely observed that the act of
procreation prerequires no intelligence. On the part of either sex .
The rest, you made up or inferred, which reveals your mind and
prejudice far more than it does mine.

Intelligence of a very few is useful for survival, intelligence of many
is far too dangerous, which is why the modern trend is not to educate
it, but indoctrinate it, as your remark above shows.

--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 11/2/21 22:26, 1p166 wrote:

>>
>>      Well I did bookkeeping and more on the Amiga
>> from the A1000 to the 2000b and wasted a lot of money
>> on them.  But they were the best of the time which
>> passed about 1995 when the Windows got useful.
>
>   IMHO, the Amigas were "gimmicks" to keep up the
>   Commodore stock prices so the executives could
>   plunder the company. Nothing Amiga could do that
>   IBM or Apple couldn't -or couldn't soon- exceed
>   and the bosses knew it.

Every hear of the VideoToaster. Originally an Amiga
2000 Zorro card. Later the company building it stripped
of the Amiga id from the boxes one on the very largest
boxes that was not a tower, then they added their card
and sold it to the TV broadcast station of the time for
subtitling and other functions. Used to see occasionally
the TV screen vanish with instructions to insert the
Kickstart disk or similar.

>
>   Goddamned "Guru Meditations" ... they quickly
>   forced me in a given direction. Given Apples
>   "closed box" philosophy I think I chose correctly.
>
>>      The IBM PC had is own problems and eventually
>> failed due to faster cheaper clones.
>
>   A *business* failure, not a *technical* failure.
>   As I said, I put my meager paycheck into a CLONE.
>
>> CBM tried to
>> build its own PC line but the people in charge were
>> not computer users nor knew what they were about.
>> Finally a debtor took over the company and used it
>> as a Cash Cow and milked it dry and right into bankruptcy.
>> The Amiga IP was up for grabs and the right folks
>> did not get it.
>
>   CBM was doomed. There could only be two "sides".
>   The big people knew this, and thus took the money
>   and ran.
>
>>>
>>>    The native 550  graphics were superior,
>>>    but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and
>>>    you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky
>>>    jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit,
>>>    and about a third the price of IBM. I might still
>>>    have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk.
>>>
>>>    Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years
>>>    back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because
>>>    it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went
>>>    down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and
>>>    WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ...
>>
>>      If it ain't broke this week wait for the updates
>> to take it down.
>
>   Heh heh heh ... KNOW what you mean !  :-)
>
>> An important computer with traffic
>> control should have been better maintained.
>
>   But it didn't NEED to be "maintained". It was
>   perfect as it was. The problem wasn't software,
>   the mainboard developed a fault. FAIR chance,
>   though I'm not 100% sure, they just moved the
>   same app to a slightly newer motherboard -
>   a Core-2-Quad or something that could still
>   run 8/16 code. A VM could also do it. I have
>   CP/M-86 running in a VM - AND a good 'C'
>   compiler, for fun.
>
>>      Not clones anymore, x86 computers dominate and
>> what do you run Linux on anyway.  Some builders make
>> them reliable machines.
>
>   Almost all of the clones are good machines. I prefer
>   ASUS boards these days. Their "B" series are good
>   solid hardware. Their "ROG-STRIX" are maybe even
>   better, but a tad more expensive. GOTTA turn off
>   all those blinky LEDS though !
>
>>>    Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box
>>>    but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of
>>>    XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas,
>>>    a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly
>>>    went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small
>>>    business" boxes. Think you can still buy them
>>>    on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay
>>>    and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I
>>>    have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there,
>>>    they were VERY good systems and the OS was well
>>>    ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs
>>>    and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four
>>>    inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...
>>
>>      The Sage was pretty and even more expensive than the
>> Amiga.  I looked and looked but never got one.
>
>   I lusted ... but my paycheck was too small at
>   the time. I loved the 68k, but also wanted a
>   more biz/development OS environment. SAGE had
>   that.
>
>   Now I have a bigger paycheck - but SAGE is gone.
>   Fortunately Linus stepped in - and some the
>   BSDs are good too.
>
>   Got a bad shock today trying to upgrade my Buster
>   to Bullseye ... the apt full-upgrade hit an error
>   halfway through and trashed it. Cannot find any
>   option that really says "ignore ALL errors and
>   keep going". Fortunately I'd used gparted to
>   make a full copy of my existing system. Alas
>   my Buster is chock-FULL of add-on software
>   that was meticulously added and tweaked. Really
>   REALLY don't want to start all over again.
>   Winders really IS better in this respect, but
>   maybe ONLY that respect.
I will say only that I am sorry to hear of your
problems with Debian upgrades

There is PCLinuxOS 64 a rolling release with very
good support through an active forum at:
<https://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php>
My Dell Latitudes 6520, 6540 and 7450 have
not done much complaining on the PCLinux diet.

bliss-“Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am...
--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 11/3/21 12:39 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 11/2/21 20:58, 1p166 wrote:
>> On 11/2/21 3:09 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>>>>> of that that tends to be the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis
>>>> in a vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning
>>>> and pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.
>>>>
>>>> Even rats can do all that.
>>
>>    Aww ... Charlie ..............
>>
>>    Oh, and Lazarus Long is FICTIONAL.
> It was not Charlie, 1p166 who said those foolish things but
> the un-Natural Philospher, a misogynist and apparently now
> anti-sexual.

Sorry, must have miscounted the indents ... I've
writ enough Python to run into that problem once
or twice before :-)

> Rats don't groan.  Only human women have problems with the
> severely enlarged head of Homo sapiens sapiens. That is why
> and the pains are real.  Groans and screams.

Humans can BARELY be born - it's true. Not only
is it a J-shaped exit path but it does a 90
along the way.

Maybe the trend towards preemies is an evolutionary
experiment of sorts ? Unless babies get smaller, or
at least have initially smaller heads that grow out
later then this may be the end of tangible brain-volume
gains for the species.

> Is the NP an incel? Who can tell and why would they bother.
> I added him to my TB filters long ago.
>
>     We might add misanthrope to the list of unpleasant
> things about him.  I wonder if he is a Catholic philosopher?
> Lot of misanthropes fall in that basket, blaming women for
> whatever problems.

It is not hard to make nasty general conclusions about
humans ... we too often prove the misanthropes correct.
But not always. It is also an error to suggest those
in poorer countries are "stupid" - they're just a slice
of the same genetic cake, not fundamentally different.
Local sociopolitical factors tend to be the main problem.

>     As you say Lazarus Long is a fantasy and a wish
> fulfillment fantasy as well.  I used to love Heinlein but
> as he aged he got less amusing.  And he died in 1988 so I
> am older now then he was when he died but of course I do
> not have his sterling list of achievements.
>
>     bliss - the ineluctable

I think Heinlein kinda went wonky in his old age.
I once met a nephew of his who sort of suggested
that was the case.

On 2021-11-03, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa.
> Check it out, you can confirm that.

Back in the '80s, M$ made Apple an outright gift of
$150 million. Apple was the only thing keeping the
Department of Justice off Microsoft's back, so Apple
had to be kept alive, but weak.

Unfortunately for M$, Apple didn't remain weak.

> The "sides"
> are all for show, a way of goading consumers
> and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty
> to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side.
>
> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
> understood the utility of cultivating those
> fake "sides".

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>> understood the utility of cultivating those
>> fake "sides".
>
> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
> been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
> recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive,
> that was a sobering discovery.

It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways.
The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond
what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the
wall instead of following you around the house.

My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and
_Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're
seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been
replaced by social media.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs |
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | "Alexa, define 'bugging'."
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |
/ \ if you read it the right way. |

On 2021-11-03, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> On 11/2/21 3:09 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2021 05:04, 1p166 wrote:
>>>
>>>> People are SMART everywhere. It's the ability to make good USE
>>>> of that that tends to be the problem.
>>>
>>> I disagree, people are stupid everywhere, because inserting a penis
>>> in a vagina doesn't take any great intelligence. Nor does groaning
>>> and pushing the baby out or slapping it against a nipple.
>>>
>>> Even rats can do all that.
>
> Aww ... Charlie ..............

Watch your attributions. I didn't write any of the above.

> Oh, and Lazarus Long is FICTIONAL.

The character might be fictional, but
his observations of life are very real.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
> > 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
> >> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
> >> understood the utility of cultivating those
> >> fake "sides".
> >
> > Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
> > Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and
> > have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I
> > fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly
> > simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery.
>
> It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways.
> The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond
> what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the
> wall instead of following you around the house.

What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed
to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but
rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest.

Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a
society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good -
right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with
carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as
there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless
rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive.

> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and
> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're
> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been
> replaced by social media.

For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human
nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent
slavery.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
>>> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>>>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>>>> understood the utility of cultivating those
>>>> fake "sides".
>>>
>>> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
>>> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and
>>> have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I
>>> fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly
>>> simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery.
>>
>> It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways.
>> The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond
>> what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the
>> wall instead of following you around the house.
>
> What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed
> to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but
> rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest.

Yes, it didn't occur to Orwell that Big Brother would actually turn out
to be Big Business. But let's face it, that one went past most people
(but not Pohl & Kornbluth, as you point out).

> Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a
> society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good -
> right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with
> carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as
> there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless
> rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive.
>
>> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and
>> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're
>> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been
>> replaced by social media.
>
> For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human
> nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent
> slavery.

Societies seem to need a slave class. _Brave New World_ described this
in some detail. We thought that machines would take the place of this
class - but instead have turned out to be agents of the ruling class.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

On 11/3/21 3:26 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>> understood the utility of cultivating those
>> fake "sides".
>
> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
> been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
> recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive,
> that was a sobering discovery.

It used to be the politicians/priesthood, but then
the ADVERTISERS came - and post-WW2 undertook what
you might call the "science of salesmanship", lots
of psych experiments designed to yield objective
data. What motivates people, in what ways, how much,
how long ... they made manipulation a science. And
then the politicians/priesthood (esp evangelicals)
borrowed all that data.

I'll rec a somewhat old book to you - it can still
be had. It was writ in the late 50s by a polymath
named Jaques Ellul and called "The Technological
Society". It was not about computers - it was about
the growth of science-informed psychological
manipulation by State and private entities. The
original was in French, but the English translation
is perfectly readable, albeit with some rather odd
wording at times.

Hmm ... I wonder what Obama's "Brain Initiative" was
REALLY supposed to find out :-)

> The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's
> your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with
> "Who do you support".
>
> I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the
> ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain slightly
> suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the principle, it
> was certainly a good demonstration if not.
>

Goebbels ... Goring's interests rarely strayed from killing
people .......

Goebbels was a very GOOD propagandist ... but fortunately
his instincts and insights were mostly limited to German
culture. His stuff never translated very well.

But if Goebbels had the wealth of scientific data the
Mad Men compiled ...

Anyway, the MS/Apple "duality" is a sort of deliberate
scam. You pick a side and are encouraged to feel all
superior about it, hurl distain at "those OTHERS".
Meanwhile the big investors buy stock in BOTH companies
and encourage the 'competition' illusion.

Besides we Linux people know WE are the best :-)