Prev: Panasonic LZ5 audio recording
Next: Fuji; Decline and fall of one of the better brands
From: Chris Malcolm on 23 Mar 2010 06:32
In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <80qjelFdg2U5(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>> Please explain how all the individual networks that comprise the
>>> intenet would have been created without capitalism.
>>
>>Explain why the inventor of the World Wide Web, and the inventor of
>>the basic von Neumann architecture behind all modern computers,
>>deliberately took steps to make it impossible for capitalists to make
>>money from those developments, and what good consequences followed
>>from those decisions.

> The Von Neuman architecture had no bearing on the creation of the
> Internet.

I didn't say it did. It's just an interesting example in the history
of computers of a deliberate decision to make it impossible for any
company to establish patents and make money from specific features of
that kind of computer architecture. Von Neumann thought that letting
the capitalists slice up the market and establish trade secrets
etc. would seriously hobble the development of what he recognised was
going to be an extremely important technological development.

> Besides he failed. I don't know of any MCU/ CPU companies that
> are anything but capitalist.

That's not what he was trying to avoid. He succeeded extremely well in
what he was trying to do. Which was to accelerate the development of
the new technology to create as quickly as possible the conditions
where American capitalist entrepreneurs could move in and make profits
to the benefit of all. But he considered that there were certain
kinds of development where the capitalist model of development would
hobble and distort development.

> The WWW is the one thing that has caused the commercialisation of the
> Internet. In what way did Tim B Lee make it impossible for capitalists
> to make money with HTTP?

He didn't, and he didn't want to. But like von Neumann, and possibly
even following von Neumann's example, he considered that certain
phases of development of new technologies are hindered rather than
assisted by the too early involvement of profiteers.

Wasn't this stuff part of your computer science education?

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Chris H on 23 Mar 2010 09:52
In message <80rjmfFhn0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <80qjelFdg2U5(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>> Please explain how all the individual networks that comprise the
>>>> intenet would have been created without capitalism.
>>>
>>>Explain why the inventor of the World Wide Web, and the inventor of
>>>the basic von Neumann architecture behind all modern computers,
>>>deliberately took steps to make it impossible for capitalists to make
>>>money from those developments, and what good consequences followed
>>>from those decisions.
>
>> The Von Neuman architecture had no bearing on the creation of the
>> Internet.
>
>I didn't say it did. It's just an interesting example in the history
>of computers of a deliberate decision to make it impossible for any
>company to establish patents and make money from specific features of
>that kind of computer architecture. Von Neumann thought that letting
>the capitalists slice up the market and establish trade secrets
>etc. would seriously hobble the development of what he recognised was
>going to be an extremely important technological development.

The most successful architecture was the Harvard.


>> The WWW is the one thing that has caused the commercialisation of the
>> Internet. In what way did Tim B Lee make it impossible for capitalists
>> to make money with HTTP?
>
>He didn't, and he didn't want to. But like von Neumann, and possibly
>even following von Neumann's example, he considered that certain
>phases of development of new technologies are hindered rather than
>assisted by the too early involvement of profiteers.
>Wasn't this stuff part of your computer science education?

I was involved in computers from a very early age. My father started
with computers in 1952 and I started at school in 1969. I have even
been to the birth place of modern computers.

What Tim did was make an open standard. Thus everyone could play and
make money. Had he closed it off it may not have taken off. He took a
long term capitalise view not a short term one.





--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Chris Malcolm on 23 Mar 2010 18:26
In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <80rjmfFhn0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> In message <80qjelFdg2U5(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>> Please explain how all the individual networks that comprise the
>>>>> intenet would have been created without capitalism.
>>>>
>>>>Explain why the inventor of the World Wide Web, and the inventor of
>>>>the basic von Neumann architecture behind all modern computers,
>>>>deliberately took steps to make it impossible for capitalists to make
>>>>money from those developments, and what good consequences followed
>>>>from those decisions.
>>
>>> The Von Neuman architecture had no bearing on the creation of the
>>> Internet.
>>
>>I didn't say it did. It's just an interesting example in the history
>>of computers of a deliberate decision to make it impossible for any
>>company to establish patents and make money from specific features of
>>that kind of computer architecture. Von Neumann thought that letting
>>the capitalists slice up the market and establish trade secrets
>>etc. would seriously hobble the development of what he recognised was
>>going to be an extremely important technological development.

> The most successful architecture was the Harvard.

Which Harvard? There were four of them, Mk1 to Mk4.

The Harvard Mk 1, like some others of the time, was essentially a
manually programmable calaculator of a Babbage-type of
architecure. Von Neumann criticised that and the similar ENIAC
architecure in his EDVAC Report, which proposed what we now call the
von Neumann architecture.

I think the Harvard Mk 3 was one of the first von Neumann architecture
machines, but you may be able to correct me on that.

>>> The WWW is the one thing that has caused the commercialisation of
>>> the Internet. In what way did Tim B Lee make it impossible for
>>> capitalists to make money with HTTP? >> >>He didn't, and he
>>> didn't want to. But like von Neumann, and possibly >>even
>>> following von Neumann's example, he considered that certain
>>> >>phases of development of new technologies are hindered rather
>>> than >>assisted by the too early involvement of profiteers.
>>> >>Wasn't this stuff part of your computer science education?

> I was involved in computers from a very early age. My father started
> with computers in 1952 and I started at school in 1969. I have even
> been to the birth place of modern computers.

Then like me you acquired you computer education in the days before
degrees in it existed :-)

> What Tim did was make an open standard. Thus everyone could play and
> make money. Had he closed it off it may not have taken off. He took a
> long term capitalise view not a short term one.

Which is exactly what von Neumann did by deliberately publishing or
encouraging the publication of all the latest research so that patents
couldn't be raised. He steered the research community of the time into
an open source development programme.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Chris H on 23 Mar 2010 19:33
In message <80stg6FqucU3(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <80rjmfFhn0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> In message <80qjelFdg2U5(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>>> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>>> Please explain how all the individual networks that comprise the
>>>>>> intenet would have been created without capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain why the inventor of the World Wide Web, and the inventor of
>>>>>the basic von Neumann architecture behind all modern computers,
>>>>>deliberately took steps to make it impossible for capitalists to make
>>>>>money from those developments, and what good consequences followed
>>>>>from those decisions.
>>>
>>>> The Von Neuman architecture had no bearing on the creation of the
>>>> Internet.
>>>
>>>I didn't say it did. It's just an interesting example in the history
>>>of computers of a deliberate decision to make it impossible for any
>>>company to establish patents and make money from specific features of
>>>that kind of computer architecture. Von Neumann thought that letting
>>>the capitalists slice up the market and establish trade secrets
>>>etc. would seriously hobble the development of what he recognised was
>>>going to be an extremely important technological development.
>
>> The most successful architecture was the Harvard.
>
>Which Harvard? There were four of them, Mk1 to Mk4.
>
>The Harvard Mk 1, like some others of the time, was essentially a
>manually programmable calaculator of a Babbage-type of
>architecure. Von Neumann criticised that and the similar ENIAC
>architecure in his EDVAC Report, which proposed what we now call the
>von Neumann architecture.
>
>I think the Harvard Mk 3 was one of the first von Neumann architecture
>machines, but you may be able to correct me on that.

"Harvard architecture" as a CPU architecture is NOT the same as Von
Neuman. In fact it is the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture

>> I was involved in computers from a very early age. My father started
>> with computers in 1952 and I started at school in 1969. I have even
>> been to the birth place of modern computers.
>
>Then like me you acquired you computer education in the days before
>degrees in it existed :-)

Yes. I think my father was involved where there were only six computers
in the UK

>> What Tim did was make an open standard. Thus everyone could play and
>> make money. Had he closed it off it may not have taken off. He took a
>> long term capitalise view not a short term one.
>
>Which is exactly what von Neumann did by deliberately publishing or
>encouraging the publication of all the latest research so that patents
>couldn't be raised. He steered the research community of the time into
>an open source development programme.

Not at all. You are confusing an open standard with open source VERY
different. ISO C is an open standard and you get C compilers under many
licenses including Open Source

Ethernet is an open standard but many make commercial and capitalist
living from it.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Chris Malcolm on 24 Mar 2010 08:03
In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <80stg6FqucU3(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> In message <80rjmfFhn0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>In rec.photo.digital Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>> In message <80qjelFdg2U5(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>>>> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>>>> Please explain how all the individual networks that comprise the
>>>>>>> intenet would have been created without capitalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain why the inventor of the World Wide Web, and the inventor of
>>>>>>the basic von Neumann architecture behind all modern computers,
>>>>>>deliberately took steps to make it impossible for capitalists to make
>>>>>>money from those developments, and what good consequences followed
>>>>>>from those decisions.
>>>>
>>>>> The Von Neuman architecture had no bearing on the creation of the
>>>>> Internet.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say it did. It's just an interesting example in the history
>>>>of computers of a deliberate decision to make it impossible for any
>>>>company to establish patents and make money from specific features of
>>>>that kind of computer architecture. Von Neumann thought that letting
>>>>the capitalists slice up the market and establish trade secrets
>>>>etc. would seriously hobble the development of what he recognised was
>>>>going to be an extremely important technological development.
>>
>>> The most successful architecture was the Harvard.
>>
>>Which Harvard? There were four of them, Mk1 to Mk4.
>>
>>The Harvard Mk 1, like some others of the time, was essentially a
>>manually programmable calaculator of a Babbage-type of
>>architecure. Von Neumann criticised that and the similar ENIAC
>>architecure in his EDVAC Report, which proposed what we now call the
>>von Neumann architecture.
>>
>>I think the Harvard Mk 3 was one of the first von Neumann architecture
>>machines, but you may be able to correct me on that.

> "Harvard architecture" as a CPU architecture is NOT the same as Von
> Neuman. In fact it is the opposite.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_architecture

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture

Thanks. But you're going a bit far to claim that they're opposite.

The really important thing about the von Neumann architecture which
establishes Turing Equivalence and enables the possibility of software
tools such as compilers, loaders, and interpreters is the holding of
program in the same memory as data. That meant that a program
instruction could also be program data. Programs could write programs,
and do so even when the program was running.

The Harvard architecture regarded that as too dangerous (a running
program could be corrupted by bugs) and kept executable programs in a
different section of the same kind of memory as the data. That also
meant that data and program instructions could be retrieved
simultaneously along individually optimised access paths which made it
a faster architecture. But also lost it strict Turing Equivalence and
made some very useful program control operations at least rather
awkward. So what is now often called the Harvard Architecture is
actually the Modified Harvard Architecture which allows the separation
between program and data to be switched out or circumvented for
privileged operations.

So I regard the Harvard Architecture as a modified von Neumann
architecture which went a bit too far, and had to be rescued by the
Modified Harvard Architecture.

While the Modified Harvard Architecture is the basis of most modern
computer architectures, purists and folk working in especially
demanding areas such as Artificial Intelligence have tended to favour
the pure von Neumann architecture, regarding the Harvard architecture
as nappies for unskilled programmers.

>>> I was involved in computers from a very early age. My father started
>>> with computers in 1952 and I started at school in 1969. I have even
>>> been to the birth place of modern computers.
>>
>>Then like me you acquired you computer education in the days before
>>degrees in it existed :-)

> Yes. I think my father was involved where there were only six computers
> in the UK

Those of the six Regional Computing Centres which went on to form the
backbone of JANET and then the UK branch of the Internet. I think my
newsgroup posting path may go through a surviving remnant of the
Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre.

The government committee which decided on those six and where to site
them originally decided that Britain ought to have one National
Computer, and it should be sited in Carlisle, because Carlisle had the
best railway links to the rest of the UK. They thought steam engines
would be the most useful useful way of tranporting the punched cards
in and the computer printouts back.

Since we already by that time had a well established telephone network
which was already handling digital telegraph and telex data you can
tell that this committee was using the standard government method of
handling technical problems: escalate the problem upwards until the
technical problems disappear because nobody has a clue.

Fortunately by the time they'd decided on one National Computer sited
at Carlisle and using steam engine data transfer their conclusion was
so laughably out of date that they were easily bullied into letting
some inferior people with technical educations "revise" their
recommendation.

>>> What Tim did was make an open standard. Thus everyone could play and
>>> make money. Had he closed it off it may not have taken off. He took a
>>> long term capitalise view not a short term one.
>>
>>Which is exactly what von Neumann did by deliberately publishing or
>>encouraging the publication of all the latest research so that patents
>>couldn't be raised. He steered the research community of the time into
>>an open source development programme.

> Not at all. You are confusing an open standard with open source VERY
> different. ISO C is an open standard and you get C compilers under many
> licenses including Open Source

> Ethernet is an open standard but many make commercial and capitalist
> living from it.

You're quite right. I was clumsily using "open source" as a synonym
for "open", and meant to include both open source and open standard.

--
Chris Malcolm
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Panasonic LZ5 audio recording
Next: Fuji; Decline and fall of one of the better brands