28 Dec
2017
28 Dec
'17
3:02 a.m.
I apologise if this is too far from the main topic, but I wanted to check
an urban legend.
There is a story - as I have heard it told - that PDPs established their
place (and popularity) in the marketplace by pointedly *not* advertising
themselves as "computers", but instead as "programmed data
processors".
This was because - so the story goes - that everyone in corporations of the
time simply *knew* that "computers" came only from IBM, lived in big
datacentres, had million-dollar price-tags, and required extensive project
management to purchase; whereas nobody cared enough about a thing called a
"programmed data processor" to bother bikeshedding the
few-tens-or-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars purchase proposal to an
inevitable death. Thus, they flitted under the purchasing radar, and sold
like hotcakes.
I wonder: does this story have substance, please?
Aside from anything else: I draw parallels to the adoption of Linux by Wall
St, and the subsequent adoption of virtualisation / AWS by business - now
reflected in companies explaining to ISO27001 auditors that "well, we don't
actually possess any physical servers..."
- alec
--
http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm
28 Dec
28 Dec
3:50 a.m.
On 12/27/2017 02:02 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
There is a story - as I have heard it told - that PDPs
established their
place (and popularity) in the marketplace by pointedly *not* advertising
themselves as "computers", but instead as "programmed data
processors".
That jives with what I understand as well.
This was because - so the story goes - that everyone
in corporations of
the time simply *knew* that "computers" came only from IBM, lived in big
datacentres, had million-dollar price-tags, and required extensive
project management to purchase; whereas nobody cared enough about a
thing called a "programmed data processor" to bother bikeshedding the
few-tens-or-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars purchase proposal to an
inevitable death. Thus, they flitted under the purchasing radar, and
sold like hotcakes.
I don't agree with "…only came from IBM…". Please point your web
browser to your preferred search engine and ask it for Snow White and
the Seven Dwarfs as it relates to the computer industry.
It's my (mis?)understanding that PDPs had a significant advantage that
they came in with a significantly lower price tag which allowed them to
get through finance / bursar office with less scrutiny.
I wonder: does this story have substance, please?
It mostly jive with what I've heard / read a number of places. Further,
I'm not aware of any stories countermanding it.
Aside from anything else: I draw parallels to the
adoption of Linux by
Wall St, and the subsequent adoption of virtualisation / AWS by business
I don't know that I agree with that assessment. - Though as sure as I
say that, what I start typing sort of parallels it.
I think Linux broke into traditionally non-Unix shops as play things on
old retired machines. Then as time moved on and things evolved, Linux
started doing more to carry less-critical production load. More time
passes with more evolution and Linux often picks up a non-trivial
portion of the production work load from non-Linux systems.
The other similar thing that I have seen, and think I will see more of,
is that people play with Linux at home, learn some things, and realize
that it can do things at work too. In which case it will likely more
overtly take on production loads more directly.
As for virtualization, I think that's evolution and people trying to
avoid physical server sprawl. I think AWS (et al) are simply additional
forms of virtualization.
now reflected in companies explaining to ISO27001
auditors that "well,
we don't actually possess any physical servers..."
Okay. How does (the lack of) physical servers actually impact ISO 27001
compliance? - From my read of the Wikipedia article I don't see how
(the lack of) physical on premise servers changes anything.
I feel like ISO 27001 is more a business plan / policy / procedure type
check than a technical to-do list. As such, I feel like such plans /
policies / procedures would still apply to the infrastructure that
people are using, be it physical on prem or virtual in the cloud.
Someone still owns the equipment and is responsible for it. Further,
businesses outsourcing to the cloud still have a responsibility to
ensure that said infrastructure is secured / updated / managed to the
same standards.
Granted, virtual ~> AWS does make it a LOT simpler for people to start
projects and do things that may be against company policy. But that's a
matter of initial economics. For the project to continue, it will need
to fall back in line with stated policies, be it physical on prem or
virtual in the cloud.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
3:51 a.m.
You are mixing a couple of different stories I fear...
If you want the full story get a copy of: Computer Engineering: A DEC
View of Hardware Systems Design
<https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Engineering-Hardware-Systems-Design/dp/1483207676>
But a snap shot for this mailing list is this ... The PDP term was used by
KO when he was funding Digital because the VC's the 60s did not believe
that a computer company would succeed. But making things for the
instrumentation market (Lincoln Labs, Livermore, *etc*.). This is how
PDP-1 came to be. The PDP term was keep for the first 25 years (until the
Vax and renaming of the PDP-10/PDP-20 to DECSystem 10/20). [The 1 begat the
6, 9, 15 an 10 families].
The concept of purchasing smaller system, was indeed true. This was the
idea behind the >>mini-computer<< or *minimal computer* that Gordon Bell
who lad left DEC temporarily to be a CMU Prof for a time began to explore.
He took the idea and commercialized and the PDP-8 line was the first in
that line. The 11 & 15 were full computer systems. DEC also made
something called the PDP-16 'Register Transfer Modules' (RTMs) which was an
attempt to make the small controller idea even more accessible, but the
Intel microprocessor would eclipse them (I think I was the last group at
CMU was talk a course using them. Another factoid, the predecessor to
VHDL/Verilog and the like, ISPL and ISPS actually spit out 'code' for DEC
RTM modules instead of gates).
But the key point is that in 1975 dollars, a PDP-11/40 system that was good
enough to run something like Sixth Edition of UNIX cost somewhere between
$50k-$150k. This would have been much, much cheaper than say a PDP-10, or
a equivilent IBM 'mainframe' size system which would have started above $1M.
Clem
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Alec Muffett <alec.muffett(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I apologise if this is too far from the main topic,
but I wanted to check
an urban legend.
There is a story - as I have heard it told - that PDPs established their
place (and popularity) in the marketplace by pointedly *not* advertising
themselves as "computers", but instead as "programmed data
processors".
This was because - so the story goes - that everyone in corporations of
the time simply *knew* that "computers" came only from IBM, lived in big
datacentres, had million-dollar price-tags, and required extensive project
management to purchase; whereas nobody cared enough about a thing called a
"programmed data processor" to bother bikeshedding the
few-tens-or-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars purchase proposal to an
inevitable death. Thus, they flitted under the purchasing radar, and sold
like hotcakes.
I wonder: does this story have substance, please?
Aside from anything else: I draw parallels to the adoption of Linux by
Wall St, and the subsequent adoption of virtualisation / AWS by business -
now reflected in companies explaining to ISO27001 auditors that "well, we
don't actually possess any physical servers..."
- alec
--
http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm
3:52 a.m.
Typo -- funding in the 50s -- sorry...
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
You are mixing a couple of different stories I
fear...
If you want the full story get a copy of: Computer Engineering: A DEC
View of Hardware Systems Design
<https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Engineering-Hardware-Systems-Design/dp/1483207676>
But a snap shot for this mailing list is this ... The PDP term was used
by KO when he was funding Digital because the VC's the 60s did not believe
that a computer company would succeed. But making things for the
instrumentation market (Lincoln Labs, Livermore, *etc*.). This is how
PDP-1 came to be. The PDP term was keep for the first 25 years (until the
Vax and renaming of the PDP-10/PDP-20 to DECSystem 10/20). [The 1 begat the
6, 9, 15 an 10 families].
The concept of purchasing smaller system, was indeed true. This was the
idea behind the >>mini-computer<< or *minimal computer* that Gordon Bell
who lad left DEC temporarily to be a CMU Prof for a time began to explore.
He took the idea and commercialized and the PDP-8 line was the first in
that line. The 11 & 15 were full computer systems. DEC also made
something called the PDP-16 'Register Transfer Modules' (RTMs) which was an
attempt to make the small controller idea even more accessible, but the
Intel microprocessor would eclipse them (I think I was the last group at
CMU was talk a course using them. Another factoid, the predecessor to
VHDL/Verilog and the like, ISPL and ISPS actually spit out 'code' for DEC
RTM modules instead of gates).
But the key point is that in 1975 dollars, a PDP-11/40 system that was
good enough to run something like Sixth Edition of UNIX cost somewhere
between $50k-$150k. This would have been much, much cheaper than say a
PDP-10, or a equivilent IBM 'mainframe' size system which would have
started above $1M.
Clem
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Alec Muffett <alec.muffett(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I apologise if this is too far from the main
topic, but I wanted to check
an urban legend.
There is a story - as I have heard it told - that PDPs established their
place (and popularity) in the marketplace by pointedly *not* advertising
themselves as "computers", but instead as "programmed data
processors".
This was because - so the story goes - that everyone in corporations of
the time simply *knew* that "computers" came only from IBM, lived in big
datacentres, had million-dollar price-tags, and required extensive project
management to purchase; whereas nobody cared enough about a thing called a
"programmed data processor" to bother bikeshedding the
few-tens-or-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars purchase proposal to an
inevitable death. Thus, they flitted under the purchasing radar, and sold
like hotcakes.
I wonder: does this story have substance, please?
Aside from anything else: I draw parallels to the adoption of Linux by
Wall St, and the subsequent adoption of virtualisation / AWS by business -
now reflected in companies explaining to ISO27001 auditors that "well, we
don't actually possess any physical servers..."
- alec
--
http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm
7:23 a.m.
If there's any followup then Grant and I can take it off-thread, but for
clarity:
On 27 December 2017 at 21:50, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
wrote:
now reflected in companies explaining to ISO27001 auditors that "well, we
There is none; but the preconceptions which are exposed when <crusty old
auditor or consultant> meets his/her first <tiny agile startup suddenly
needing certification in order to meet $govt_sales_requirement> - are
hilarious to experience.
Q: "Where are the servers?"
A: "Well, that depends..."
...etc.
-a
--
http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm
don't actually possess any physical
servers..."
Okay. How does (the lack of) physical servers actually impact ISO 27001
compliance? - From my read of the Wikipedia article I don't see how (the
lack of) physical on premise servers changes anything.
8:14 a.m.
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:51:54 -0500, Clem Cole wrote:
The concept of purchasing smaller system, was indeed true. This was the
idea behind the >>mini-computer<< or *minimal computer* that Gordon Bell
who lad left DEC temporarily to be a CMU Prof for a time began to explore.
This ties in very much with what I recall from the late 1960s. My
very first computer was a PDP-8/I, and we certainly called it a
computer, not a data processor.
He took the idea and commercialized and the PDP-8 line
was the first
in that line.
Not the PDP-5? I thought there was little difference. If there was,
it would be interesting to know.
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
2332
days inactive
2333
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alec Muffett -
Clem Cole -
Grant Taylor -
Greg 'groggy' Lehey