On 10/2/2015 9:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/02/2015 08:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
IBM has a constancy. There is little fear that they are going to
"go away" and leave you "hanging".

Like they say, nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. Or, these days,
Windows.

When I was in college the data center chose an Amdahl 470/V6 because it
would fit. The IBN equivalent required a chiller and would not fit in
the building. IBM went to the governor trying to stop the sale. Amdahl
had the machine in a truck, not far from the school, waiting for the
approval to go through.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 6:14:18 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:12:16 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:

Political Correctness and Affirmative Action wrecked another company, eh? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Non PC Monster

...you're in way over your head. (and this is technical, not political). Know your place...nursing home, therapy, go to church service...get better.

I've dealt with Affirmative Action for years and watched it destroy a company I worked for and that's why told the corporate world to shove it. I went to work for myself and companies infested with AAM's,"Affirmative Action Morons" called me to fix things the AAM's couldn't comprehend. It was my personal Revenge Of The Nerds. AAM's have a serious problem understanding the inner workings of the technology monkeys like you play with every day. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Ape Monster

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 10/2/2015 9:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/02/2015 08:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
IBM has a constancy. There is little fear that they are going to
"go away" and leave you "hanging".

Like they say, nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. Or, these days,
Windows.

When I was in college the data center chose an Amdahl 470/V6 because it
would fit. The IBN equivalent required a chiller and would not fit in
the building. IBM went to the governor trying to stop the sale. Amdahl
had the machine in a truck, not far from the school, waiting for the
approval to go through.

I guess IBM was ****ed at Gene Amdahl for leaving and opening his own company. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle CPU Monster

On 2015-10-03, Don Y wrote:
This split keeps flipping back and forth every few years
as technology and personnel costs change. Wait until
some "cloud" is seriously breached: I can see the adverts,
now: "It's 6PM -- do you know where your DATA is??"

I'm not in favor of "cloud" computing myself, both because you lose
control of your data (you don't know who will have access to it under
what conditions, or even if you will be able to access it in the future),
and because it represents a big step backwards 40-50 years or more to
the days of the old computer service bureaus. The "cloud" is just the
latest marketing-speak for a very old concept.

There have already been breeches and losses of course, for example:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/21477...of_future.html

People are still flocking to the cloud though, running off the cliff
like lemmings, because Ken Olsen was right! ;-)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/3/2015 10:14 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-03, Don Y wrote:
This split keeps flipping back and forth every few years
as technology and personnel costs change. Wait until
some "cloud" is seriously breached: I can see the adverts,
now: "It's 6PM -- do you know where your DATA is??"

I'm not in favor of "cloud" computing myself, both because you lose
control of your data (you don't know who will have access to it under
what conditions, or even if you will be able to access it in the future),
and because it represents a big step backwards 40-50 years or more to
the days of the old computer service bureaus. The "cloud" is just the
latest marketing-speak for a very old concept.

I can see advantages for some businesses with the need for data to be
accessed from many locations. For the typical small business or home
user, simple backup to a thumb drive covers all your needs.

On 10/3/2015 7:14 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-03, Don Y wrote:
This split keeps flipping back and forth every few years
as technology and personnel costs change. Wait until
some "cloud" is seriously breached: I can see the adverts,
now: "It's 6PM -- do you know where your DATA is??"

I'm not in favor of "cloud" computing myself, both because you lose
control of your data (you don't know who will have access to it under
what conditions, or even if you will be able to access it in the future),

It's not just the "data" that you can lose control of (icky grammar)
but the applications that access/process it, as well. I don't let
any of my computers install updates automatically. (in fact,
I've been downloading MS's updates for "offline" installation for
the past few days). I don't want to "wonder" why my machines
*appear* to be behaving differently (for better or worse). I want
to *know* that I am directly responsible for any changes and not
"wonder" WTF someone else decided to do *to* my machine (in the
name of "improving my user experience")

and because it represents a big step backwards 40-50 years or more to
the days of the old computer service bureaus. The "cloud" is just the
latest marketing-speak for a very old concept.

OTOH, I genuinely *love* running X windows terminals so to cut
my maintenance efforts significantly! I don't have to run around to
each machine (terminal) changing configuration options, installing
the latest applications/versions, etc.

But, again, *I* have control over them, not some "cloud provider"
making the changes that *they* want to make on *their* servers!

There have already been breeches and losses of course, for example:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/21477...of_future.html

People are still flocking to the cloud though, running off the cliff
like lemmings, because Ken Olsen was right! ;-)

I can understand the desire to get away from the sea of techs that
seems essential to keep any organization's IT up and running. I
spend a couple of days a week, on average, on equipment related stuff
(and I'm just a one-man shop -- though with a large number and variety
of machines, OS's, applications and data)

My "solution" is to just know what I *have* (good and bad) and control
how often (rarely!) I make changes. Just because some OS/applicaation
vendor thinks its time for a new roll-out, doesn't mean *I* want to
partake of that -- even if it is "free" (the *time* to install it
and learn it is NEVER free! And, the alleged benefits rarely prove
to be worth the effort)

I maintain a small "computer lab" for a local non-profit (for
disadvantaged kids). The updates mentioned above are intended to
be deployed, there. It will take me a couple of days just to get
a dozen machines "checked out", upgraded and debugged -- and I
doubt any of the students will notice or *care* that they've
been "upgraded". If I had to *pay* someone to perform such
an (apparently) useless task for dozens/hundreds/thousands of "seats"
at an organization, I'd be looking real hard for a way to NOT
need that person/department! :

On 10/3/2015 7:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/3/2015 10:14 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-03, Don Y wrote:
This split keeps flipping back and forth every few years
as technology and personnel costs change. Wait until
some "cloud" is seriously breached: I can see the adverts,
now: "It's 6PM -- do you know where your DATA is??"

I'm not in favor of "cloud" computing myself, both because you lose
control of your data (you don't know who will have access to it under
what conditions, or even if you will be able to access it in the future),
and because it represents a big step backwards 40-50 years or more to
the days of the old computer service bureaus. The "cloud" is just the
latest marketing-speak for a very old concept.

I can see advantages for some businesses with the need for data to be accessed
from many locations. For the typical small business or home user, simple
backup to a thumb drive covers all your needs.

Run a VPN to your own server. Ah, but that requires the same technogeeks
that we're trying to get away from! :

One has to wonder how many "sealed" orders have already been served on Amazon,
MS, etc. (cloud providers)? It's just *such* a sweet honey-pot that you
KNOW the spooks are drooling over a chance to go "wandering through
the data"...

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 10/2/2015 9:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/02/2015 08:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
IBM has a constancy. There is little fear that they are going to
"go away" and leave you "hanging".

Like they say, nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. Or, these days,
Windows.

When I was in college the data center chose an Amdahl 470/V6 because it
would fit. The IBN equivalent required a chiller and would not fit in
the building. IBM went to the governor trying to stop the sale. Amdahl
had the machine in a truck, not far from the school, waiting for the
approval to go through.

I guess IBM was ****ed at Gene Amdahl for leaving and opening his own company. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle CPU Monster
From the Burroughs world, IBM meant "It's Better Manually"

wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 10/2/2015 9:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/02/2015 08:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
IBM has a constancy. There is little fear that they are going to
"go away" and leave you "hanging".

Like they say, nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. Or, these days,
Windows.

When I was in college the data center chose an Amdahl 470/V6 because it
would fit. The IBN equivalent required a chiller and would not fit in
the building. IBM went to the governor trying to stop the sale. Amdahl
had the machine in a truck, not far from the school, waiting for the
approval to go through.

I guess IBM was ****ed at Gene Amdahl for leaving and opening his own company. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle CPU Monster
From the Burroughs world, IBM meant "It's Better Manually"

Burroughs had pretty monster size impressive looking MICR.
It used Nixie tubes for digital display.

Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 6:14:18 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:12:16 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:

Political Correctness and Affirmative Action wrecked another company, eh? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Non PC Monster

...you're in way over your head. (and this is technical, not political). Know your place...nursing home, therapy, go to church service...get better.

I've dealt with Affirmative Action for years and watched it destroy a company I worked for and that's why told the corporate world to shove it. I went to work for myself and companies infested with AAM's,"Affirmative Action Morons" called me to fix things the AAM's couldn't comprehend. It was my personal Revenge Of The Nerds. AAM's have a serious problem understanding the inner workings of the technology monkeys like you play with every day. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Ape Monster

AAM or not dummies are always dummies. Once we tried to train a bunch of
Iranians which turned out it was almost impossible attempt. I think
their brains work in different dimension.

Then bunch of engineers from China came. They were very sharp. They made
instructors sweat with all kind of tough questions. Seemed they to try
to dig out all the industrial secrets. They were very often jotting down
things on their notebook.

Then Koreans came, as smart as Chinese but they were always asking extra
questions nothing to do with their job. Like where can I buy
McIntosh stereo, where to buy Rolex watch, where to buy Nikon
or Canon high end cameras, etc. I pretended I am not fellow Korean.
Did not w,ork. I passed the trip to an Aussie fellow. I still remember
his name Julian Hare, quite sharp and smart guy.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/3/2015 10:14 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-03, Don Y wrote:
This split keeps flipping back and forth every few years
as technology and personnel costs change. Wait until
some "cloud" is seriously breached: I can see the adverts,
now: "It's 6PM -- do you know where your DATA is??"

I'm not in favor of "cloud" computing myself, both because you lose
control of your data (you don't know who will have access to it under
what conditions, or even if you will be able to access it in the future),
and because it represents a big step backwards 40-50 years or more to
the days of the old computer service bureaus. The "cloud" is just the
latest marketing-speak for a very old concept.

I can see advantages for some businesses with the need for data to be
accessed from many locations. For the typical small business or home
user, simple backup to a thumb drive covers all your needs.

Many guys do lot more now like a pro photographers, old movie
collectors, etc. They use NAS with very complex back up scheme.
They can access their stuff in sync from anywhere where there is 'Net
access. Now cloud storage is getting popular but personally I
never use it. I just have a Synology 4 bay NAS with separate back up
drives. I can remotely access home security cameras running 7/24, or
home comfort system. Can remote start my car sitting at airport parking
lot. It's like car remote start has some thing like cellphone. Call the
car to start it.
sytem

On 10/02/2015 10:28 PM, Don Y wrote:
I eschew single letter identifiers preferring, instead, more informative
names: iterator, index, row, column, etc. I find it makes it easier to
"read" (subvocalize) the code and impart meaning to it in the reading.

One of my learning experiences was working with C code written by a
non-English speaking programmer. It was well constructed code and all
the key words were English, but none of the variable or function names
had any apparent meaning to me. It really brought home how much the
readability of code depends on meaningful naming.

On 10/02/2015 11:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
I love old SciFi and Japanese monster movies. Because I've worked in the electrical and electronics fields, I pay attention to the "blinking lights". One of the things that always has me rolling on the floor in laughter is the fact that spinning reels for the computer tape drives are empty. There is no tape in them! ^_^

[

And they always go in the same direction... Take a pass writing the
partial products to tape because you sure weren't going to keep them in
core. Rewind the tape, take another pass. Rinse and repeat.

When I interviewed for my current job the head of engineering asked a
question probing my knowledge of memory management. He prefaced the
question with 'Assume you have unlimited memory.' I thought to myself
'I'm going to like this job'.

On 10/03/2015 07:09 AM, sms wrote:
When I was in college the data center chose an Amdahl 470/V6 because it
would fit. The IBN equivalent required a chiller and would not fit in
the building. IBM went to the governor trying to stop the sale. Amdahl
had the machine in a truck, not far from the school, waiting for the
approval to go through.

We had an System 360/30 in a purpose built building. However, years
after I left the computing center was moved to a building more fitting
for the task:

http://rpi.edu/tour/vcc/

The old god was replaced with the new god.

On 10/02/2015 10:30 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-03, rbowman wrote:
Nothing like going from 'America's most successful entrepreneur' to
'what an idiot' in a few short years.

Ken Olsen was correct, just ahead of his time, as evidenced by the growing
popularity of so-called "cloud computing." Most people really do not want
the hassle and responsibility that having their own computer entails. What
they really want is the capability, but provided by a terminal that is
easy to use and as maintenance-free as possible with someone else handling
the messy details of security, backups, etc. on the other end.

I've found that ironical too. The ADM-3A terminals have been replaced
with tablets, phones, and Chromebooks but we're getting back to where we
started. With the same problems too. AWS has a hiccup and the world stops.

On 10/3/2015 2:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/02/2015 10:28 PM, Don Y wrote:
I eschew single letter identifiers preferring, instead, more informative
names: iterator, index, row, column, etc. I find it makes it easier to
"read" (subvocalize) the code and impart meaning to it in the reading.

One of my learning experiences was working with C code written by a non-English
speaking programmer. It was well constructed code and all the key words were
English, but none of the variable or function names had any apparent meaning to
me. It really brought home how much the readability of code depends on
meaningful naming.

I've thought of making a generic "obfuscator" that simply walks
through the parse tree replacing identifiers with *other*
(pseudorandom) identifiers -- and stripping comments. Don't
even bother with whitespace mangling or bizzare operator
rewrites. Just change the names of things (which could be
verbs describing actions -- replaced with *nouns* describing
nonsense *things*, etc.)

When reverse engineering something (from bare metal), the first thing
you start doing is replacing "numbers" (addresses) with ANYTHING that
imparts even the tiniest amount of meaning to those numbers. Make
a few good initial guesses and things move along pretty quickly!

On 10/03/2015 04:23 PM, Don Y wrote:
I've thought of making a generic "obfuscator" that simply walks
through the parse tree replacing identifiers with *other*
(pseudorandom) identifiers -- and stripping comments. Don't
even bother with whitespace mangling or bizzare operator
rewrites. Just change the names of things (which could be
verbs describing actions -- replaced with *nouns* describing
nonsense *things*, etc.)

f2c... There is still a lot of FORTRAN source in the GIS world like:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PC_PROD/SPCS83/

Grab the FORTRAN, run it through f2c and you'll have C code that might
compile but good luck reading it.

The JavaScript minifiers are more designed to reduce the size of the
library that has to be downloaded by the browser but kicking you way
through something like

http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs.../jquery.min.js

requires dedication compared to

http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.1.4.js

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:35:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 10/02/2015 11:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
I love old SciFi and Japanese monster movies. Because I've worked in the electrical and electronics fields, I pay attention to the "blinking lights". One of the things that always has me rolling on the floor in laughter is the fact that spinning reels for the computer tape drives are empty. There is no tape in them! ^_^

[

And they always go in the same direction... Take a pass writing the
partial products to tape because you sure weren't going to keep them in
core. Rewind the tape, take another pass. Rinse and repeat.

When I interviewed for my current job the head of engineering asked a
question probing my knowledge of memory management. He prefaced the
question with 'Assume you have unlimited memory.' I thought to myself
'I'm going to like this job'.

When you're a technology nerd, you appreciate technical realism in movies that are supposed to be of the current era. SciFi on the other hand......
I remember reading that Gene Roddenberry came up with the transporter for The Starship Enterprise because he couldn't figure out how to land that big SOB. SciFi is all about imagination and I always remember how many of the gadgets from Star Trek seem familiar today like the communicator which resembles a flip phone and the computer tablet that the captain would sign like a PDA or Android tablet. Voice interface for the computers along with touch screens. The tricorder is similar to remote sensing tech that exists today.. Current phaser like weapons need a truck or plane to carry them around except for the new portable laser weapon that fits in four boxes. It doesn't quite fit in a holster on your belt but I still want a Star Trek phaser weapon. ^_^

http://defensetech.org/2015/09/01/bo...-flying-drone/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijp3-zjTIp0

[8~{} Uncle Fictional Monster

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:01:54 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 10/03/2015 04:23 PM, Don Y wrote:
I've thought of making a generic "obfuscator" that simply walks
through the parse tree replacing identifiers with *other*
(pseudorandom) identifiers -- and stripping comments. Don't
even bother with whitespace mangling or bizzare operator
rewrites. Just change the names of things (which could be
verbs describing actions -- replaced with *nouns* describing
nonsense *things*, etc.)

f2c... There is still a lot of FORTRAN source in the GIS world like:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PC_PROD/SPCS83/

Grab the FORTRAN, run it through f2c and you'll have C code that might
compile but good luck reading it.

The JavaScript minifiers are more designed to reduce the size of the
library that has to be downloaded by the browser but kicking you way
through something like

http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs.../jquery.min.js

requires dedication compared to

http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.1.4.js

Fortran 4 with watfour and watfive compiler was pretty common around
here -Watfour and Watfive were developed here in town at the
University of Waterloo (along with a whole crapload of other computer
software and other high-tech stuff)

On 10/3/2015 5:01 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/03/2015 04:23 PM, Don Y wrote:
I've thought of making a generic "obfuscator" that simply walks
through the parse tree replacing identifiers with *other*
(pseudorandom) identifiers -- and stripping comments. Don't
even bother with whitespace mangling or bizzare operator
rewrites. Just change the names of things (which could be
verbs describing actions -- replaced with *nouns* describing
nonsense *things*, etc.)

f2c... There is still a lot of FORTRAN source in the GIS world like:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PC_PROD/SPCS83/

Grab the FORTRAN, run it through f2c and you'll have C code that might compile
but good luck reading it.

Yeah, but f2c changes the *performance* of the emulated code.
Doing something simmilar in C could easily change the timeliness
guarantees that the original (unobfuscated) code satisfied.

Simple identifier/whitespace obfuscations would produce identical
(stripped) binaries and, thus, identical performance.

The JavaScript minifiers are more designed to reduce the size of the library
that has to be downloaded by the browser but kicking you way through something
like

http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs.../jquery.min.js

requires dedication compared to

http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.1.4.js

I have a watermarking scheme that reorders code fragments in the linked
image to yield identical performance (no changes in the sources) yet
allows me to track the "pedigree" of a given binary -- in a way that
the end user can't counter (without having access to the sources).

"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 9/30/2015 2:48 AM, Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

I didn't run "IBM-badged" hardware. OTOH, I didn't run "Peoples' Computer
Factory #2733" UNBADGED machines. When my friends were paying ~2K for
a machine, I was paying 8K. But, I never called anyone at 3AM complaining
that a $3K CAD program "was misbehaving". Or, that my "discount" disk
drive's geometry wasn't supported in the machine's BIOS, etc. Or, my
(UN*X) coprocessor card was incompatible with the DOS driver it loaded
"under" the UN*X OS for "hardware services".

As someone said in a movie once, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Would I try to run a leading edge graphics program on a clone? Probably
not, but I also saw plenty of people with legit IBM's and MACs go through
some serious tsuris trying to get things to work. The SW of that period had
extensive "complexity" issues exacerbated by a rapidly evolving HW base.

I had more problems with programs that used copy protection (like Lotus)
that required key disks or that secret sectors be written to the hard disk.
those programs invariably caused serious backup problems.

I believe that CopyLok or some such nonsense actually caused several of the
software companies that used that or similar technologies to go under.
People learned what happened to Copy-locked programs after the first system
restore and shopped elsewhere. I believe Borland began eating Lotus' lunch
over the copy-protection issue. There's poetic justice in a convoluted
scheme to protect against software copying that ignored real-world
consequences to users bringing a whole software company to its knees.

--
Bobby G.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/1/2015 11:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/01/2015 01:46 PM, wrote:
The Tier 2
mfgs were also technically "clones" - including AST, Packard Bell,
Compaq, HP, Sanyo, etc.

A moment of silence for DEC...

DEC, DG, Wang are at the forefront of technology. Big (and smart)
companies that will go on forever.

As Ken Olsen wisely pointed out "why would anyone want a computer on
their desk?" Such a great vision.

There was desk sized computers when I worked at DEC in 69. Even had
terminal displays. One competitor was Honneywell.

Greg

On 10/03/2015 07:23 PM, wrote:
Fortran 4 with watfour and watfive compiler was pretty common around
here -Watfour and Watfive were developed here in town at the
University of Waterloo (along with a whole crapload of other computer
software and other high-tech stuff)

FORTRAN IV was the first language I learned. It didn't do me too much
harm. I haven't used anything past FORTRAN 77 but Fortran 2015 probably
would still be recognizable.

On 10/03/2015 11:39 PM, Robert Green wrote:
There's poetic justice in a convoluted
scheme to protect against software copying that ignored real-world
consequences to users bringing a whole software company to its knees.

We still use a third party application that uses a dongle. It's morphed
from a parallel port to a USB dongle over the years but they're still there.

On 10/3/2015 10:39 PM, Robert Green wrote:

As someone said in a movie once, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Would I try to run a leading edge graphics program on a clone? Probably
not, but I also saw plenty of people with legit IBM's and MACs go through
some serious tsuris trying to get things to work. The SW of that period had
extensive "complexity" issues exacerbated by a rapidly evolving HW base.

The bigger problem was the fact that the OS didn't isolate the
applications from the hardware. So, you had the CP/M mentality bleeding into
the PC world -- developers thinking they could freely play with aspects
of the underlying hardware "at will". Until those aspects didn't exist
in some variant of the machine they *expected* to encounter.

I had more problems with programs that used copy protection (like Lotus)
that required key disks or that secret sectors be written to the hard disk.
those programs invariably caused serious backup problems.

I believe that CopyLok or some such nonsense actually caused several of the
software companies that used that or similar technologies to go under.
People learned what happened to Copy-locked programs after the first system
restore and shopped elsewhere. I believe Borland began eating Lotus' lunch
over the copy-protection issue. There's poetic justice in a convoluted
scheme to protect against software copying that ignored real-world
consequences to users bringing a whole software company to its knees.

FutureNet/Data I/O had probably the nicest schematic entry (capture)
system at the time (DASH/STRIDES). They had a whole suite of related
EDA tools -- logic synthesis, device programming, etc.

But, were super paranoid about copy protecting EVERYTHING they
sold! And, tried a bunch of different *hardware* approaches to
the problem (even adding "protection" to a many thousand dollar add-in
"coprocessor" card that was required for some of their tools! WTF?
I have to buy this expensive board *and* another board in case I happened
to acquire the expensive board "for free"???)

One scheme used small registered PAL's (programmable logic devices...
precursors to FPGA's) as "keys". The thinking was that they could
implement a finite state machine (FSM) *in* the PAL using the PAL's
internal register to store the "current state". Then, supply new
"inputs" to the PAL from software running in the application and,
KNOWING how the FSM was designed, they could PREDICT the new state
that the FSM would enter given its "current state" and the supplied
inputs.

If you didn't know the logic governing the FSM's operation, you
wouldn't be able to predict the next state for all possible
input conditions (and for all possible "current states"!).

I wrote a tiny little program (two pages?) that would walk the
FSM through every possible set of states, applying every possible
set of inputs to each -- and recording the "next state" that the
FSM progressed into for each of these cases.

[This is actually tricky because you don't know where you will end up
at any given time -- yet, have to ensure you travel down every possible
path. Sort of like being deposited in a city and tasked with
making a map of all the roads -- without being able to *see* down any
of them! "I wonder where *this* will take me?" Obviously, you don't want
to keep taking the same path over and over again. Yet, need a means
of "discovering" every path that you aren't even aware of, currently!]

Armed with this "map", I then used the logic synthesis tool from that
same paranoid vendor to convert the verbose map into a concise set
of equations. The same set of equations that yet another of their
tools would then *burn* into a virgin PAL device -- giving me a
duplicate, counterfeit copy of the genuine "key"... all using THEIR
tools to do so!

Ooops!

[Of course, I had to own a legitimate key to begin with. All I've
done is come up with a way of creating a backup copy of that key!]

On 10/04/2015 01:20 AM, Don Y wrote:
giving me a
duplicate, counterfeit copy of the genuine "key"... all using THEIR
tools to do so!

Ooops!

Don't you love that? The IBM 5110 had a way to 'lock' the BASIC source
code on the floppies. They also threw a binary disk editor into the
software set. Lemme see... locked source has these bits in the header
set, unlocked doesn't. Bingo!

On 10/4/2015 12:03 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/04/2015 01:20 AM, Don Y wrote:
giving me a
duplicate, counterfeit copy of the genuine "key"... all using THEIR
tools to do so!

Ooops!

Don't you love that? The IBM 5110 had a way to 'lock' the BASIC source code on
the floppies. They also threw a binary disk editor into the software set. Lemme
see... locked source has these bits in the header set, unlocked doesn't. Bingo!

Yeah. Something about "left hand" and "right hand" and their knowledge of
each other's actions springs to mind! :

I was tasked with bringing up a fairly large bit of ATE on a subcontract to
one of the IBM divisions. Used a "series 1" (IIRC) minicomputer to drive
the test program (used to verify that the device we had built was
performing according to spec).

Test procedure (script of some sort) resided on an 8" floppy.

Many of the tests were incredibly long (time wise) -- e.g., memory test.
As a result, if you ran those tests in the test suite, you were
unable to get many "passes" in an 8 hour shift. And, tedious to
select just *one* particular test (esp if you've made some change
to the device that could cause some other test to fail -- without
your being aware of that fact cuz you're focused on another test!).

System came with facilities to "edit files" (IIRC, similar to a hex editor
as the "script" wasn't in an "English" language). So, I'd routinely
patch the test floppy to eliminate the lengthy tests (that I "knew"
would pass) so i could concentrate on the tests that were catching
faults.

Time for sell-off came. IBM technician came out. Lots of handshakes
all around (they're happy cuz we're done; we're happy cuz we're getting
PAID! : ).

Sat down for the test (hours!). Memory test came up and announced
itself:
Testing memory. Go for coffee.
Technician frowned. Test never said "Go for coffee" before!

Ooops! *Busted*.

He calmly opened his briefcase and pulled out *his* copy of
the floppy and said, "Shall we start, again?"

[No animosity. No suspicion that we were trying to pull a fast
one -- device passed with flying colors. *But*, he'd seen
something that shouldn't have been there, so... shrug Of
course, my boss knew who the "wise guy" had been...]

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 00:44:19 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 10/03/2015 07:23 PM, wrote:
Fortran 4 with watfour and watfive compiler was pretty common around
here -Watfour and Watfive were developed here in town at the
University of Waterloo (along with a whole crapload of other computer
software and other high-tech stuff)

FORTRAN IV was the first language I learned. It didn't do me too much
harm. I haven't used anything past FORTRAN 77 but Fortran 2015 probably
would still be recognizable.
ForTran - = Formula Translator

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 10/03/2015 11:39 PM, Robert Green wrote:
There's poetic justice in a convoluted
scheme to protect against software copying that ignored real-world
consequences to users bringing a whole software company to its knees.

We still use a third party application that uses a dongle. It's morphed
from a parallel port to a USB dongle over the years but they're still
there.

A dongle is livable. Something like Superlok that demands a file be written
in a non-standard way, not so much. I recall we came in on two Mondays in a
row with the entire network locked up because the backup had failed due to
Lotus' copy protection failing verification.

Plans to replace Lotus with Excel were soon underway and it was gone by the
next accounting cycle with only a few die hards having Lotus still on their
desktops. When tech inquiries to Lotus made it clear they weren't going to
work with us on the subject of failed restores we chose another option.

There are still plenty of industrial programs that use dongles, but very few
that I know of that use deliberately corrupted media. (Ducks in fear that
I will now learn about all the software that still uses corrupt media to
protect their IP).

--
Bobby G.

On 10/4/2015 6:51 PM, Robert Green wrote:

A dongle is livable. Something like Superlok that demands a file be written
in a non-standard way, not so much. I recall we came in on two Mondays in a
row with the entire network locked up because the backup had failed due to
Lotus' copy protection failing verification.

Plans to replace Lotus with Excel were soon underway and it was gone by the
next accounting cycle with only a few die hards having Lotus still on their
desktops. When tech inquiries to Lotus made it clear they weren't going to
work with us on the subject of failed restores we chose another option.

There are still plenty of industrial programs that use dongles, but very few
that I know of that use deliberately corrupted media. (Ducks in fear that
I will now learn about all the software that still uses corrupt media to
protect their IP).

DVD video relies on this heavily.

Ages ago, floppy "key disks" were "marginalized" -- so that their contents
were not *reliably* read. The verification software simply tried to read
them several times. If it got consistent results, it knew this was a
forged copy. If the data changed "mysteriously", it knew that this was
a genuine medium that was deliberately "flakey".

You have to show some sympathy for (pure) software vendors -- folks that
don't ALSO sell a piece of hardware that their software uses/runs on.
I always chuckle when I hear folks wanting "free" -- yet also wanting
to be *paid* for THEIR work efforts! The Other Guy is always OVERPAID;
but never oneself! :

I note the large numbers of folks who run FOSS and suspect that many of
them do so simply because it is "Free". They simply don't want to
have to PAY for these "products" and will "settle" for things that
are inferior, lack any sort of support, etc. JUST to avoid paying
for them! They also seem to be the sorts of folks who don't value their
own time.

If you could have a "free" car but had to spend an hour running around
pushing levers, adjusting settings, mixing fuel, etc. just to get
an hour's worth of use out of it, would you? Knowing that you'll
have to do the same thing *tomorrow* for an hour's use at that time?

Would you use a "free" cellphone (exclusively) if the chances of getting
signal were 50% at any given time?

How much time would you be willing to post comments on user forums
HOPING to find a GENUINE solution to the problem you are having
trying to get your FOSS spreadsheet program to calculate your
income tax bracket before you could file your tax return?

How many times will you tolerate downloading and installing updates
in the *hope* that something that you are having problems with gets fixed?
How much RISK do you run that those updates don't BREAK something
else? Or, change its behavior in a way that sends you scurrying back to
those same forums asking how you NOW perform the task that you previously
KNEW how to perform?

Someone has to pay for the efforts of those developers. Just like
someone has to pay for the doctor who treats/cures your malady, the
accountant who balances your books, the farmer who grows your food, etc.

So, why is software considered different? Free to steal -- if not
outright free?

"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2015 10:39 PM, Robert Green wrote:

As someone said in a movie once, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Would I try to run a leading edge graphics program on a clone? Probably
not, but I also saw plenty of people with legit IBM's and MACs go
through
some serious tsuris trying to get things to work. The SW of that period
had
extensive "complexity" issues exacerbated by a rapidly evolving HW base.

The bigger problem was the fact that the OS didn't isolate the
applications from the hardware. So, you had the CP/M mentality bleeding
into
the PC world -- developers thinking they could freely play with aspects
of the underlying hardware "at will". Until those aspects didn't exist
in some variant of the machine they *expected* to encounter.

It's hard to believe that MS, Intel and ARPA both thought we would all be
one big happy family of computer users and security wasn't really necessary.
Hence the net and PCs have been insecure from the ground up for a long time.

--
Bobby G.

"John" wrote in message news:y3jPx.6310

stuff snipped

I use an I6 *(the previous smaller I4GS was just as good and an easier
fit in your pocket) and will say its a nice
'phone/tablet/clock/radio/gamer/whatever gadget'.

But then again I am still working.

When I retire a *much less expensive*
'phone/tablet/clock/radio/gamer/whatever gadget' will be my choice.

Just the reverse here. I am getting into telemedicine and the iPhone has a
lot of features that will be very useful.

--
Bobby G.

On 10/4/2015 7:54 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2015 10:39 PM, Robert Green wrote:

As someone said in a movie once, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Would I try to run a leading edge graphics program on a clone? Probably
not, but I also saw plenty of people with legit IBM's and MACs go
through
some serious tsuris trying to get things to work. The SW of that period
had
extensive "complexity" issues exacerbated by a rapidly evolving HW base.

The bigger problem was the fact that the OS didn't isolate the
applications from the hardware. So, you had the CP/M mentality bleeding
into
the PC world -- developers thinking they could freely play with aspects
of the underlying hardware "at will". Until those aspects didn't exist
in some variant of the machine they *expected* to encounter.

It's hard to believe that MS, Intel and ARPA both thought we would all be
one big happy family of computer users and security wasn't really necessary.
Hence the net and PCs have been insecure from the ground up for a long time.

The 'net was initially an elitist tool. Effectively "invitation only";
you counted on someone ELSE to get you *onto* it so "behaved responsibly".
You always had someone who was effectively your benefactor (remember "bang"
routing for mail??)

The PC's problem was that it was underpowered to start with. It
was just a fancy CP/M machine -- single user, etc. Security was
commonplace in bigger systems (MULTICS, etc.) but too troublesome to
implement on a tiny dog like a PC (XT).

And, of course, MS was never an innovator. So, they just looked at
CP/M and figured "good enough"...

On 10/04/2015 09:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
And, of course, MS was never an innovator. So, they just looked at
CP/M and figured "good enough"...

Too bad IBM didn't go with CP/M-86. Another sad story.

rbowman posted for all of us...



On 10/01/2015 01:45 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Nah, it's the stuff from Newark, NJ. Maybe the co. was on Corinthian Ave?
Nothing rich about Newark. Maybe made out of parchment paper and cigar
wrappers. I don't think the druggies had blunts then...

Newark is on par with the part of Connecticut where they skin the giant
Naugas.

I wondered where that happened. Can you provide any details such as tanning
or pix? g

--
Tekkie

On 10/05/2015 05:49 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
I wondered where that happened. Can you provide any details such as tanning
or pix? g

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25086701@N07/3283077316
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/351912446337516/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naugahyde

After the Nauga sheds its skin it doesn't need any further processing. I
haven't been back that way for a couple of decades but for much of the
Connecticut Valley meth may be the principle product after the mills and
machine tool builders left.

"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 10/4/2015 6:51 PM, Robert Green wrote:

A dongle is livable. Something like Superlok that demands a file be
written
in a non-standard way, not so much. I recall we came in on two Mondays
in a
row with the entire network locked up because the backup had failed due
to
Lotus' copy protection failing verification.

Plans to replace Lotus with Excel were soon underway and it was gone by
the
next accounting cycle with only a few die hards having Lotus still on
their
desktops. When tech inquiries to Lotus made it clear they weren't going
to
work with us on the subject of failed restores we chose another option.

There are still plenty of industrial programs that use dongles, but very
few
that I know of that use deliberately corrupted media. (Ducks in fear
that
I will now learn about all the software that still uses corrupt media to
protect their IP).

DVD video relies on this heavily.

And was cracked a long, long time ago by a 16 year old kid. Also, I don't
run my business from DVDs so there's a bit of a structural difference
between the two.

The fact that Excel (unprotected) buried 123 tells us something about
people's tolerance for copy-protected software that could fail them at the
worst time possible - after a network crash. We bought licenses for every
seat but even so, we could NOT afford to spend the inordinate amount of time
we did trying to restore 123 from a tape backup of the HD.

Ages ago, floppy "key disks" were "marginalized" -- so that their contents
were not *reliably* read. The verification software simply tried to read
them several times. If it got consistent results, it knew this was a
forged copy. If the data changed "mysteriously", it knew that this was
a genuine medium that was deliberately "flakey".

They also punched physical holes in the disks to accomplish much the same
thing, IIRC.

If you could have a "free" car but had to spend an hour running around
pushing levers, adjusting settings, mixing fuel, etc. just to get
an hour's worth of use out of it, would you? Knowing that you'll
have to do the same thing *tomorrow* for an hour's use at that time?

Well, it's not really *that* bad using freeware. People also realized that
the marginal cost to the manufacturer of SW box # 2 is very much not the
same as tangible property.

It's like when they closed Napster and the CD industry collapsed. They were
so paranoid about copying they ignored what Napster did for them. I used it
all the time to find music to listen to - and then to buy - because I
couldn't stand the chatter of commercial radio stations.

I didn't start buying music again until Napster had basically forced the
industry into a la carte sales of songs. Eventually even the RIAA had to
give up on its campaign of suing grandmothers for thousands of dollars
because their grandkids set up Napster on the computer.

Just the other day I had to help a person convert a Region 2 DVD into one
she could play. She had no idea that the world has been carved up into DVD
regions that don't support one another.

I also have some issues with supporting companies like Disney who managed to
change the copyright laws to their liking at the expense of the very concept
of copyrighting. Mickey's copyright *should* have ended long ago but Disney
*bought* Senator Hollings (aka Senator Disney) and he spearheaded changing
the copyright laws to favor Disney and not the general public.

When Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to prevent people from refilling printer
cartridges any sympathy I might have had for the big guys evaporated.

Would you use a "free" cellphone (exclusively) if the chances of getting
signal were 50% at any given time?

If the chances of freeware working were only 50% I'd agree with that
analogy, but it's not. It's more difficult to use, but not by that large a
factor.

How much time would you be willing to post comments on user forums
HOPING to find a GENUINE solution to the problem you are having
trying to get your FOSS spreadsheet program to calculate your
income tax bracket before you could file your tax return?

Probably as much as I might spend finding out how to do what I need to do
with a paid software program. I got one of the new 50 dollar Kindle Fire
tablets and the documentation is atrocious - and I own it fair and square.
Paying for something is no guarantee of good (or any) support.

How many times will you tolerate downloading and installing updates
in the *hope* that something that you are having problems with gets fixed?

That's MS, Apple and any company that has to publish updates. They've all
failed at one time or another.

How much RISK do you run that those updates don't BREAK something
else?

The rule of computing for a very long time has been; "The Upgrade Giveth and
the Upgrade Taketh Away." It's usually a crapshoot as to what comes and
what goes.

Or, change its behavior in a way that sends you scurrying back to
those same forums asking how you NOW perform the task that you previously
KNEW how to perform?

Again, that's Windows, Apple and even Unix when a new version or a bugfix is
required. Why did MS change "Find" to "Search?" Perhaps we'll never know
but changing 'happy' to 'glad' just for the sake of changing something has
been going on for a long time - way before the PC revolution.

Someone has to pay for the efforts of those developers. Just like
someone has to pay for the doctor who treats/cures your malady, the
accountant who balances your books, the farmer who grows your
food, etc.

Software is perceived differently than all of the above (right or wrong)
because it's IP, not tangible property and not work confined to one client
or customer.

So, why is software considered different? Free to steal -- if not
outright free?

Stealing a piece of software is not the same as stealing a tangible good
like a truck fill of vegetables. Steal from the farmer and he's out real
time and money that it will take to regrow that crop. Steal from a SW and
the physical damages are the incremental cost involved with making another
copy.

With Free/Shareware it's the cost of disk storage space and perhaps not even
that with CNET and other places that will take on the distribution cost. I
am not trying to justify the theft, only to answer your question as to why
people think it's OK to rip off software. People just don't see IP the same
way as tangible property.

--
Bobby G.

On 10/5/2015 7:14 PM, Robert Green wrote:

The fact that Excel (unprotected) buried 123 tells us something about
people's tolerance for copy-protected software that could fail them at the
worst time possible - after a network crash. We bought licenses for every
seat but even so, we could NOT afford to spend the inordinate amount of time
we did trying to restore 123 from a tape backup of the HD.

No, Excel buried Lotus because MS marketed/bundled it far more
aggressively. Why did MSWord bury WordPerfect? Was it because
WP had some onerous licensing terms/technology? Why did MS C
bury Borland's offerings? etc.

If you could have a "free" car but had to spend an hour running around
pushing levers, adjusting settings, mixing fuel, etc. just to get
an hour's worth of use out of it, would you? Knowing that you'll
have to do the same thing *tomorrow* for an hour's use at that time?

Well, it's not really *that* bad using freeware. People also realized that
the marginal cost to the manufacturer of SW box # 2 is very much not the
same as tangible property.

Should software vendor set price of each copy to recover his total
costs for developing said product? Offer a deep discount to buyer #2
and let first adopters pay for all the development??

I also have some issues with supporting companies like Disney who managed to
change the copyright laws to their liking at the expense of the very concept
of copyrighting. Mickey's copyright *should* have ended long ago but Disney
*bought* Senator Hollings (aka Senator Disney) and he spearheaded changing
the copyright laws to favor Disney and not the general public.

When Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to prevent people from refilling printer
cartridges any sympathy I might have had for the big guys evaporated.

I interviewed with a company that sold "distilled water" prepackaged
for their instrument -- at prices that rivaled what you'd pay for a
vintage wine! How is a little bottle of water justified at an outrageous
price (to help defray development costs for the "toilet paper dispenser")
but software that tries to control *its* users is considered "outrageous"?

Would you use a "free" cellphone (exclusively) if the chances of getting
signal were 50% at any given time?

If the chances of freeware working were only 50% I'd agree with that
analogy, but it's not. It's more difficult to use, but not by that large a
factor.

Maybe for "plain jane" applications (office/productivity suites).
But, have you compared the features and quality of those "modern"
FOSS offerings with *paid* offerings from 20 years past? Let
alone trying to factor in the effects that hardware advances
have GIFTED to the current FOSS offerings (try running some of
these programs on 20 year old hardware for a REAL eye opener!)

How much time would you be willing to post comments on user forums
HOPING to find a GENUINE solution to the problem you are having
trying to get your FOSS spreadsheet program to calculate your
income tax bracket before you could file your tax return?

Probably as much as I might spend finding out how to do what I need to do
with a paid software program. I got one of the new 50 dollar Kindle Fire
tablets and the documentation is atrocious - and I own it fair and square.
Paying for something is no guarantee of good (or any) support.

Because the market your fishing in has been driven by bottom feeders.
No one *wants* to pay for support -- so what vendor would devote
resources *to* support? If you *charge* for support, then users
grumble. So, you set up a web portal and HOPE users can get enough
support from their peers that they will continue to use your product;
even if that means they only use a small fraction of what is possible!

I was building 3D CAD models some 20+ years ago (AutoCAD v11 w/ AME).
I can recall having a problem with the package (some $3K as an *upgrade*)
and having a fix in my hands within days.

We'll ignore the fact that there were no FOSS 3D CAD offerings "back then".

If I had a similar problem with a FOSS product *today*, it would probably
be weeks for someone to "take an interest" in my particular problem,
devote some time researching it and then days or weeks for someone
to decide it was worth *fixing*!

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on *my* project. What do I tell *my*
client? "The FREE software that I'm using doesn't work correctly.
I'm hoping someone will step up and offer me a solution sometime soon.
I realize *you* have market constraints that are pressuring you for a
product offering but there's nothing *I* can do to speed things up..."

[And, hope I don't get slapped with a suit charging me for failing
to meet my contractual obligations -- and wanting me to pay the costs
for them to hire someone else to provide those results!]

How many times will you tolerate downloading and installing updates
in the *hope* that something that you are having problems with gets fixed?

That's MS, Apple and any company that has to publish updates. They've all
failed at one time or another.

And the same is true of FOSS software. Download a newer version of whatever
and you discover that a whole slew of dependencies get dragged into that
effort. Not that they *need* to be but no one has spent the time to make
the upgrade as painless as possible: "just grab it all" (and worry
about the changes/bugs that you've now inheritted, later!)

How much RISK do you run that those updates don't BREAK something
else?

The rule of computing for a very long time has been; "The Upgrade Giveth and
the Upgrade Taketh Away." It's usually a crapshoot as to what comes and
what goes.

Of course! And the FOSS community is no better than the COTS vendors.
"Update often" is a *mantra* of the FOSS community. A reflection that
there is very little formal testing going on -- no one's "business"
(reputation) is at stake.

Or, change its behavior in a way that sends you scurrying back to
those same forums asking how you NOW perform the task that you previously
KNEW how to perform?

Again, that's Windows, Apple and even Unix when a new version or a bugfix is
required. Why did MS change "Find" to "Search?" Perhaps we'll never know
but changing 'happy' to 'glad' just for the sake of changing something has
been going on for a long time - way before the PC revolution.

But the FOSS world is just as guilty. No one takes ownership of a
(FOSS) "product" and thinks about it from the consumer's point of view.
Instead, its wide-eyed "look at this neat feature I added!" ("Mommy,
I made a poops!")

Someone has to pay for the efforts of those developers. Just like
someone has to pay for the doctor who treats/cures your malady, the
accountant who balances your books, the farmer who grows your
food, etc.

Software is perceived differently than all of the above (right or wrong)
because it's IP, not tangible property and not work confined to one client
or customer.

So, why is software considered different? Free to steal -- if not
outright free?

Stealing a piece of software is not the same as stealing a tangible good
like a truck fill of vegetables. Steal from the farmer and he's out real
time and money that it will take to regrow that crop. Steal from a SW and
the physical damages are the incremental cost involved with making another
copy.

No, that's not true. Let *everyone* steal from that developer and it
doesn't matter how many incremental copies he makes -- no one is
BUYING those copies! What's to stop EVERYONE from "taking a freebie"
instead of paying for it? Look at how few "shareware" (voluntary
payments) companies/developers are "successful". Are any of them
publicly traded? Any have net positive cash flows? :

With Free/Shareware it's the cost of disk storage space and perhaps not even
that with CNET and other places that will take on the distribution cost. I
am not trying to justify the theft, only to answer your question as to why
people think it's OK to rip off software. People just don't see IP the same
way as tangible property.

So, they shouldn't see their own *labors* as having value, right? After
all, the time you spend digging a ditch or balancing someone's books
or diagnosing someone's medical problems aren't TANGIBLE things. So,
why would you expect folks to PAY for those things? Make me a bowl
out of a sheet of copper and I'll pay you for the bowl. Balance my
corporate books and what do I have to show (tangibly) for the effort?

On 10/05/2015 09:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
Why did MS C
bury Borland's offerings? etc.

Back in the day I used Borland's OWL IDE. At the time it was arguable
better than MFC. Gates had deeper pockets however. Borland did **** me
off when they bought the BRIEF programming editor and effectively buried it.

On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
aggressively. Why did MSWord bury WordPerfect? Was it because
WP had some onerous licensing terms/technology?

My recollection is that it was because the initial releases of
Word Perfect for Windows were worse than atrocious.

Maybe for "plain jane" applications (office/productivity suites).
But, have you compared the features and quality of those "modern"
FOSS offerings with *paid* offerings from 20 years past?

FOSS does everything that I need, have not used commercial software
for many years.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------