Nothing in the article about how sales of "secure" digital media exceeded the sales of compact flash in 2003. The reason *I* am interested in this disturbing trend is the decreasing availability of media accessible to my open-source OS workstation.
My Palm Tungsten has a SD/MMC slot, MultiMedia cards are becoming unavailable, SD cards are all over the place, and there are *no* open-source drivers for the restricted SD media.
Naturally, I would *welcome* being wrong. does anyone in the community know of a way to use SD media in a Linux or other open-source OS context? I know the SD protocol seems to be available only under NDA and with some sort of fee structure, but it's possible that a driver exists somewhere.
Oh, what a feeling of pure POWER! It really worked, typically used to support the experimental design students in the department of Industrial Engineering. With dual D/A converters, we drove an oscilloscope to present 5x8 dot-matrix characters, and tested student reaction times with a little button-panel. It measured reaction times in milliseconds, was fully scriptable, and the entire thing fit in 1.5 kwords of core. (yup, *core* memory). Back then, the new 1.7 million-word RK05 disk drive felt like acres of space, never to be filled! (The PDP-8 had a 12-bit wordsize, so the RK05 was 2.5 Mbytes for the PDP-11 users whose projects had the resources for such fancy machines.)
That feeling of power seems impossible to duplicate, apparently... My current home system is a 2.4 GHz P4, 1G RAM, 80G disk with dual 1600x1200 21.3 inch LCD monitors, and it's just a boring desktop system. Other than the monitors, it's a standard low-end desktop machine.
The business for which I work is perfectly happy with the GPL as it stands right now. We are profitable, we have some proprietary code, and we use and enhance GPLed code with a clear understanding of its value proposition. We value the rate of progress that comes with membership in the community.
What Darl wants, and I will fight to the end of my days to prevent, is a return to the hugely inefficient days when every Tom, Dick and Harry company could build their own unique, incompatible-with-the-universe, expensive custom OSes. Only in the rarest of cases were those systems worth anywhere near their costs. Digital, Data General, IBM, AT&T, Sun, Apollo, (reaching back in history here) Interdata, Xerox, Burroughs, Sperry, RCA, all spent *huge* numbers of their customers' dollars funding their slick research OSes. It was interesting for some, but terrifically expensive for the majority of businesses. On the other hand, the openness implicit in GPLed (and to a lesser extent BSD licensed) code provides an excellent mechanism for encouraging the boad adoption of open standards. These standards lead to portability, interoperability, and the dissemination of the knowledge needed for full participation in information-intensive societies.
<repeating a prior comment>I dropped a fully-paid UNIXware license, converting to Linux in 1996 due to UINXware's inadequate support of then-current hardware. It has only fallen further behind since then. If you want to compete with the big boys, then be prepared to perform up to their standards.</repeat>
Steve must have been looking into the future of The SCO Group.... Long before "Father of the Bride", he did a movie called "The Jerk"! It's not a *really good* fit, considering that Mr McBride is nowhere near as "eccentrically lovable" as Steve's original character.
There's also "The Single Guy", yet another (hopefully) prescient movie by Steve Martin about a guy who couldn't buy a date. I hope Mr McBride will have plenty of idle time to think about his antics, looking for work in all the wrong places (e.g. anywhere on this planet).
The goal for OSS (as I see it at work and at home) is to function well. The goal for Microsoft is to make money, and so far they have used "integration" (what they label "innovation"), exclusivity and counter-interoperability to achieve that goal.
Each system has its place. I've set up a Win2k workstation for my wife, a Linux workstation for myself, and a Linux server for her database back-end. I will not "move up" to XP due to my concern for interoperability with my Linux systems, Microsoft's increasingly onerous restrictions on how I use my computer with my (non stolen) data.
Pencils (standard Pentel) with HB leads are ideal. No problems with leaking in the heat or failure to write in the cold. (OK, this is Ohio, so it's "in the cool", since we aren't granted winters any more...)
...I cannot participate in my society unless I've paid some particular profit-motivated vendor for the privilege. I accept responsibilities like paying taxes, obeying laws, behaving in a civil way, etc. I do not accept for one second the idea that, after paying big big bucks in taxes, I get to pay yet more for high cost software to participate.
My favorite example is government web sites that "work better with particular browsers associated with expensive desktop operating systems" and have subtle problems that interfere with my attempts to access them using the tools available on my engineering workstation.
Actually, the WTC architects designed the buildings explicitly to survive impact by the largest commonly-used airplane in use at the time: The Boeing 707 (and similar planes, like the Convair 880). The Twin Towers were brought down by Boeing 767 airplanes with substantially more weight and fuel capacity than the 707.
I agree that Microsoft has made marketing and growth the one and only priority for their products since the late '80's, to the exclusion of *anything* that would slow their product introduction cycle. The trojan/virus/worm transmission systems named IE and Outlook were brought to market without a thought for the security of their customers. I believe this is inexcusable. I believe the whole experience shows Microsoft's contempt for their customers. (So... If you use Microsoft Windows, everyone owns your computer but you: The crackers get access through Microsoft's endless vulnerabilities, Microsoft gets access because it's their software, and Microsoft-friendly software vendors have their spyware tricks.
Unless they really succeed in making this a proper hardware-based end-to-end solution (a notoriously difficult proposition), we can kiss open source operating systems and the computers on which we hope to run them *goodbye*.
This is a big part of why it's impossible to get video hardware documentation. They call it "licensing issues", but as long as a video card has MPEG acceleration, it can be used to display content, a capability that "must be" regulated.
I find it interesting that I am licensed to drive a powerful instrument of destruction (1.5 ton car) and need no license to own an instrument of destruction (gun) but very quickly am losing the privilege of running my own computer with my own O.S. whose only capacity for hurting *anyone* is to use unregulated mdeia content! Which I don't do anyway!
The forces that have been renting the reins of power (that's political graft power) lately will not allow a broad distribution of energy generation and the consequent loss of their ability to control how decisions are made. This is as important to the wielders of influence as media consolidation, and for similar reasons.
Check out the Linuxworld reference to Computerworld's article. If it's real (and the SEC is paying attention, then SCOX and Canopy could be digging themselves a nice Enron-shaped hole. (should we all start believing in Santa Claus too?)
Until individual users can be weaned from the windows environment, VMware allows them to function normally until they are accustomed to a straightforward Linux environment.
The company I work for is dependent on Exchange & Office and the engineers are dependent on Linux for their development needs. Rather than have two boxes, we have VMware running a virtual Windows box. Most of us are reasonably happy with the compromise. Some of us "secretly hope" to drop the Windows stuff eventually. VMware remains valuable as a platform test environment for our embedded software. Most of us limit the W2k VM to 256 Mbytes, but give it CPU priority.
Re:I like Ms. Ullman's writing, but...
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 1
I remember the classic "closing the serial port before the transmit fifo is fully drained" bug in the 2.0.38 kernel. We had delivered some units to a customer (said units being delivered to a field location 4 hours drive from their office). Then the units started dying...
Our company was in the standard startup scenario, in 2001. (You all remember back then? "dot-bomb"?)
It was pretty tense then too. The problem could have been hardware, could have been application software, and worst of all, the system was an MMU-less 68k. The kernel was uClinux, so we had *no clue at all* where the problem was.
A long 2 days for the guy who ported the serial driver! These bugs do happen. Then again, we're not talking about months-long bugs, either. I've never had one of those, in 32 years of embedded development. (Seriously... I began on a Digital PDP-8/L...)
Heelloo, This is *slashdot*! Arguing for the sake of arguing is "our" stock-in-trade!:-)
Unable to resist...
Ye olde "9 pregnant women having a baby in 1 month" argument... For another analogue that may apply here, it's worth noting that recent developments in semiconductor processing technology includes a move to 30cm wafers, specifically to accommodate parallelism in production.
I don't remember the dates specifically, but silicon production "began" with 3-inch wafers, then transitioned to 5-inch, then 8-inch. So, don't be too harsh on those who suggest doing things in parallel.
Producing 1000 CDs per day? Consider standard pressing techniques, which is nearly as flexible as "burning" CDs but way cheaper and can be performed as quickly as you wish. (Did you know that CD sputtering chambers can contain multiple different blanks?)
I will buy a tablet PC, as soon as it supports my normal working environment (Linux, X, the tools that I've become accustomed to). A friend showed me a very nice tablet PC that could run only WinXP/tablet. I don't have a problem with Microsoft requiring the hardware manufacturers keeping documentation secret per se, but Windows does not adjust to my style of work, and it's not very easy to port my favorite tools to it. (I got used to the UNIX/X way of doing things long ago and it works very well for me.)
Does anyone know of a tablet PC that both boots Linux and has documented interfaces?
I've been wondering why I want to kill someone when I hear about someone patenting a plainly obvious idea (like spooling up multiple searches in parallel processes...)
Originallly, the patent (and trademark) office patented implementations of ideas *usually* in the context of medium-to-large industry activities. (Think back... Anyone patented common daily processes? I cannot think of any right off.)
Software is unique in being practiced *everywhere* by many people, all studying similar concepts and processes. It's become a race among huge numbers of people doing very similar work to "be the first to register". Many developers don't have stables of lawyers *dying* to prove their value to their bosses, which puts us at a big disadvantage relative to the big corporate interests.
In my opinion, the fact that we're all doing similar work (we're all in a really big race, and which of many front-runners actually "get there first" becomes a matter of probability), and that only a few entities have the capacity/will to register these ideas lead inevitably to apparent capricious granting of patents by the USPTO and huge advantage to the corporate interests. This is why I feel totally left out of the process.
Oh and by the way for those in the EU: This is almost certainly a fault of big governments dissociated from their stakeholders and you're next:-(:-( sorry about that, I'm just a messenger, don't shoot me... And remember that in America, the privileges granted by the first amendment are effectively available only to those who can afford to purchase the ability to outshout others.
Now that's a "helpful" attitude (not)! When I participate in co-workers architecture, design and implementation reviews, I have a favorite comment:
"Remember your audience: Everyone here is on a tight schedule, often required to work >60 hours per week. Architectures, designs, and code must be clear and understandable. Do not waste our time with your mastery of the latest fancy-boy fad."
On a somewhat more balanced note... There are many very intelligent people who concentrate on their particular areas of study, and technologies that are successful in making information/concepts accessible to busy preoccupied people do have value. And finally, there are people who are well informed that simply do not get some concepts. I am married to a very intelligent person who needs help with complex mechanical concepts, but has me totally beat with her capacity for understanding the human personality. (my wife the doctor:-) )
Yes we live in a complex world, only some of which is unavoidable, and if someone cannot hack it, should do something else. I wonder if after your two weeks of study, you would be able to help review an engine intake design that is resistant to flameout due to high-AOA or evasive maneuvers...
I am surprised it took so long. Eventually, the worldwide marketplace for intelligent human effort such as engineering, must take effect, just as it has for manufacturing.
We have *always* been a commodity. It's only recently that USians and other participants in Western-style societies have been faced with the reality of competing with the real world.
As it was with the whole crypto discussion some years ago, so it is with being intelligent: Ths US and other industrialized societies have no monopoly on intelligence. Lots of people are smart, and they are beginning to compete in the world marketplace for such services.
I disagree with your estimate of Linux being potentially too large. A casual reading of EE Times shows that phone toolkit providers particularly, and embedded developers (hardware and software) in general, are racing to provide maximum flexibility, power, and extensibility into their products. The result is that phones particularly and embedded products in general are rapidly entering territory formerly reserved for quote larger unquote systems. (Last week, I read a nice article about chip-stacking to increase flash and RAM capacity...)
Kernel resource consuption is losing out to its flexibility in developers' lists of selection criteria, due to its decreasing fraction of system resource allocation needs. Separately, non-open-source kernels/executives are likely to lose out to Linux due not only to its amazing flexibility, but also due to the business-level control it offers to developers.
As far as market penetration goes, then Windows can be a better choice. Market penetration is a very powerful argument when choosing a platform for development of a product.
Based on some fairly long-term observation, I conclude however, that any broad marketplace is subject to all sorts of manipulations, and the current marketplace of Desktop Operating Environments is no exception.
For example: Win2k is a relatively stable platform (being neither dramatically inferior nor dramatically superior as a technical solution to developers' and users' needs). As an example of a dominant platform, it's a reasonable solution. But it's being forced out of the marketplace, supplanted by WinXP: A platform that errs on the side of benefits for its provider than its customer (in my opinion).
There are other platforms that offer much more control to their collective user communities and developer communities, and are arguably technically superior to the dominant platform. But they are "also-rans", largely due to the marketplace manipulations of Microsoft.
On Windows: Usability is OK (though nothing to write home about), hardware compatibility is is good (due largely to its >90% marketplace presence) and software compatibility sucks rotten eggs through a skinny straw (I ***HATE*** having to set up a Windows system, with endless subtle incompatibilities all over the place, unless you're talking about a *pure* Microsoft environment).
a high degree of design coordination: The internet
access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment: dyadic (to quote the old evil empire...), quad, and higher-count multiprocessors that have become far more common under the influence of Moore's "law"
Access to UNIX code, methods and concepts: People have been studying OS technology for 40+ years... Including IBM!:-)
UNIX architectural experience: Again, this is standard upper-classman study. I studied this stuff at the age of 18, 28 years ago. (Back then, our studies were somewhat "academic", given how many System/360./370, CDC supercomputers existed at the time...)
A very significant financial investment: Add up the contributions of the core teams, the hundreds of regular patch providers, thousands of enthusiasts, and hundreds of thousands of people studying this stuff (Gnu very much included): The cost of paying that many smart people professional wages would be, in a word, huge.
SCO has completely missed the effects of common availability of computational resources. I remember when crossing the gigaflop "barrier" was a big deal. Today it's your average laptop. 18 years ago, a UNIX source license in a business context could cost about $125,000 (as priced by a friend of mine, working on Sequent boxes). Apparently, that's when SCO executives seem to have stopped noticing the progress of technology.
Must of the structure of CP/M was derived from the Digital Equipment Corporation ("DEC") PDP-11 console monitor interfaces, of which several existed:
PDP-8 OS/8
PDP-11 DOS/Batch
PDP-11 RT-11
Others that I don't remember...
The 8.3 format derives indirectly from the PDP-11 (mostly), which used a 6.3 format. I don't remember when the slick new invention of 8-character basenames came into existence. The idea of "switches" separated from their arguments by forward slash characters also came from this tradition. "PIP" (Peripheral Interchange Program, IIRC) was the most commonly used data/file transfer program, and tended to be the most "sophisticated" application of the command line work of its time.
The approach saw some real changes when DEC introduced their new CLI paradigm, represented on RSTS/E and VMS, called DCL ("Digital Command Language").
Historical note: The 6.3 format became popular on the PDP-11 family due to its use of the radix-50 encoding method: Each 16-bit word carried 3 characters selected from uppercase alpha, digits, and some punctuation. int(65536^(1/3)) = 50. Don't even *think* of commenting on "50^3" > 65536. Back then binary values were expressed in octal.
Slashdot Mirror
My Palm Tungsten has a SD/MMC slot, MultiMedia cards are becoming unavailable, SD cards are all over the place, and there are *no* open-source drivers for the restricted SD media.
Naturally, I would *welcome* being wrong. does anyone in the community know of a way to use SD media in a Linux or other open-source OS context? I know the SD protocol seems to be available only under NDA and with some sort of fee structure, but it's possible that a driver exists somewhere.
That feeling of power seems impossible to duplicate, apparently... My current home system is a 2.4 GHz P4, 1G RAM, 80G disk with dual 1600x1200 21.3 inch LCD monitors, and it's just a boring desktop system. Other than the monitors, it's a standard low-end desktop machine.
What Darl wants, and I will fight to the end of my days to prevent, is a return to the hugely inefficient days when every Tom, Dick and Harry company could build their own unique, incompatible-with-the-universe, expensive custom OSes. Only in the rarest of cases were those systems worth anywhere near their costs. Digital, Data General, IBM, AT&T, Sun, Apollo, (reaching back in history here) Interdata, Xerox, Burroughs, Sperry, RCA, all spent *huge* numbers of their customers' dollars funding their slick research OSes. It was interesting for some, but terrifically expensive for the majority of businesses. On the other hand, the openness implicit in GPLed (and to a lesser extent BSD licensed) code provides an excellent mechanism for encouraging the boad adoption of open standards. These standards lead to portability, interoperability, and the dissemination of the knowledge needed for full participation in information-intensive societies.
<repeating a prior comment>I dropped a fully-paid UNIXware license, converting to Linux in 1996 due to UINXware's inadequate support of then-current hardware. It has only fallen further behind since then. If you want to compete with the big boys, then be prepared to perform up to their standards.</repeat>
There's also "The Single Guy", yet another (hopefully) prescient movie by Steve Martin about a guy who couldn't buy a date. I hope Mr McBride will have plenty of idle time to think about his antics, looking for work in all the wrong places (e.g. anywhere on this planet).
The goal for OSS (as I see it at work and at home) is to function well. The goal for Microsoft is to make money, and so far they have used "integration" (what they label "innovation"), exclusivity and counter-interoperability to achieve that goal.
Each system has its place. I've set up a Win2k workstation for my wife, a Linux workstation for myself, and a Linux server for her database back-end. I will not "move up" to XP due to my concern for interoperability with my Linux systems, Microsoft's increasingly onerous restrictions on how I use my computer with my (non stolen) data.
Pencils (standard Pentel) with HB leads are ideal. No problems with leaking in the heat or failure to write in the cold. (OK, this is Ohio, so it's "in the cool", since we aren't granted winters any more...)
My favorite example is government web sites that "work better with particular browsers associated with expensive desktop operating systems" and have subtle problems that interfere with my attempts to access them using the tools available on my engineering workstation.
I agree that Microsoft has made marketing and growth the one and only priority for their products since the late '80's, to the exclusion of *anything* that would slow their product introduction cycle. The trojan/virus/worm transmission systems named IE and Outlook were brought to market without a thought for the security of their customers. I believe this is inexcusable. I believe the whole experience shows Microsoft's contempt for their customers. (So... If you use Microsoft Windows, everyone owns your computer but you: The crackers get access through Microsoft's endless vulnerabilities, Microsoft gets access because it's their software, and Microsoft-friendly software vendors have their spyware tricks.
This is a big part of why it's impossible to get video hardware documentation. They call it "licensing issues", but as long as a video card has MPEG acceleration, it can be used to display content, a capability that "must be" regulated.
I find it interesting that I am licensed to drive a powerful instrument of destruction (1.5 ton car) and need no license to own an instrument of destruction (gun) but very quickly am losing the privilege of running my own computer with my own O.S. whose only capacity for hurting *anyone* is to use unregulated mdeia content! Which I don't do anyway!
The forces that have been renting the reins of power (that's political graft power) lately will not allow a broad distribution of energy generation and the consequent loss of their ability to control how decisions are made. This is as important to the wielders of influence as media consolidation, and for similar reasons.
Check out the Linuxworld reference to Computerworld's article. If it's real (and the SEC is paying attention, then SCOX and Canopy could be digging themselves a nice Enron-shaped hole. (should we all start believing in Santa Claus too?)
The company I work for is dependent on Exchange & Office and the engineers are dependent on Linux for their development needs. Rather than have two boxes, we have VMware running a virtual Windows box. Most of us are reasonably happy with the compromise. Some of us "secretly hope" to drop the Windows stuff eventually. VMware remains valuable as a platform test environment for our embedded software. Most of us limit the W2k VM to 256 Mbytes, but give it CPU priority.
Our company was in the standard startup scenario, in 2001. (You all remember back then? "dot-bomb"?)
It was pretty tense then too. The problem could have been hardware, could have been application software, and worst of all, the system was an MMU-less 68k. The kernel was uClinux, so we had *no clue at all* where the problem was.
A long 2 days for the guy who ported the serial driver! These bugs do happen. Then again, we're not talking about months-long bugs, either. I've never had one of those, in 32 years of embedded development. (Seriously... I began on a Digital PDP-8/L...)
Unable to resist...
Ye olde "9 pregnant women having a baby in 1 month" argument... For another analogue that may apply here, it's worth noting that recent developments in semiconductor processing technology includes a move to 30cm wafers, specifically to accommodate parallelism in production.
I don't remember the dates specifically, but silicon production "began" with 3-inch wafers, then transitioned to 5-inch, then 8-inch. So, don't be too harsh on those who suggest doing things in parallel.
Producing 1000 CDs per day? Consider standard pressing techniques, which is nearly as flexible as "burning" CDs but way cheaper and can be performed as quickly as you wish. (Did you know that CD sputtering chambers can contain multiple different blanks?)
Does anyone know of a tablet PC that both boots Linux and has documented interfaces?
Re your .sig: Have you found any improvements in the cake recipe? :-) :-)
http://www.galileo-pgm.org/
Nope, it's Inigo. Read the book (as it's been said in another post, it is a good read).
Originallly, the patent (and trademark) office patented implementations of ideas *usually* in the context of medium-to-large industry activities. (Think back... Anyone patented common daily processes? I cannot think of any right off.)
Software is unique in being practiced *everywhere* by many people, all studying similar concepts and processes. It's become a race among huge numbers of people doing very similar work to "be the first to register". Many developers don't have stables of lawyers *dying* to prove their value to their bosses, which puts us at a big disadvantage relative to the big corporate interests.
In my opinion, the fact that we're all doing similar work (we're all in a really big race, and which of many front-runners actually "get there first" becomes a matter of probability), and that only a few entities have the capacity/will to register these ideas lead inevitably to apparent capricious granting of patents by the USPTO and huge advantage to the corporate interests. This is why I feel totally left out of the process.
Oh and by the way for those in the EU: This is almost certainly a fault of big governments dissociated from their stakeholders and you're next :-( :-( sorry about that, I'm just a messenger, don't shoot me... And remember that in America, the privileges granted by the first amendment are effectively available only to those who can afford to purchase the ability to outshout others.
"Remember your audience: Everyone here is on a tight schedule, often required to work >60 hours per week. Architectures, designs, and code must be clear and understandable. Do not waste our time with your mastery of the latest fancy-boy fad."
On a somewhat more balanced note... There are many very intelligent people who concentrate on their particular areas of study, and technologies that are successful in making information/concepts accessible to busy preoccupied people do have value. And finally, there are people who are well informed that simply do not get some concepts. I am married to a very intelligent person who needs help with complex mechanical concepts, but has me totally beat with her capacity for understanding the human personality. (my wife the doctor :-) )
Yes we live in a complex world, only some of which is unavoidable, and if someone cannot hack it, should do something else. I wonder if after your two weeks of study, you would be able to help review an engine intake design that is resistant to flameout due to high-AOA or evasive maneuvers...
We have *always* been a commodity. It's only recently that USians and other participants in Western-style societies have been faced with the reality of competing with the real world.
As it was with the whole crypto discussion some years ago, so it is with being intelligent: Ths US and other industrialized societies have no monopoly on intelligence. Lots of people are smart, and they are beginning to compete in the world marketplace for such services.
Kernel resource consuption is losing out to its flexibility in developers' lists of selection criteria, due to its decreasing fraction of system resource allocation needs. Separately, non-open-source kernels/executives are likely to lose out to Linux due not only to its amazing flexibility, but also due to the business-level control it offers to developers.
Based on some fairly long-term observation, I conclude however, that any broad marketplace is subject to all sorts of manipulations, and the current marketplace of Desktop Operating Environments is no exception.
For example: Win2k is a relatively stable platform (being neither dramatically inferior nor dramatically superior as a technical solution to developers' and users' needs). As an example of a dominant platform, it's a reasonable solution. But it's being forced out of the marketplace, supplanted by WinXP: A platform that errs on the side of benefits for its provider than its customer (in my opinion).
There are other platforms that offer much more control to their collective user communities and developer communities, and are arguably technically superior to the dominant platform. But they are "also-rans", largely due to the marketplace manipulations of Microsoft.
On Windows: Usability is OK (though nothing to write home about), hardware compatibility is is good (due largely to its >90% marketplace presence) and software compatibility sucks rotten eggs through a skinny straw (I ***HATE*** having to set up a Windows system, with endless subtle incompatibilities all over the place, unless you're talking about a *pure* Microsoft environment).
SCO has completely missed the effects of common availability of computational resources. I remember when crossing the gigaflop "barrier" was a big deal. Today it's your average laptop. 18 years ago, a UNIX source license in a business context could cost about $125,000 (as priced by a friend of mine, working on Sequent boxes). Apparently, that's when SCO executives seem to have stopped noticing the progress of technology.
- PDP-8 OS/8
- PDP-11 DOS/Batch
- PDP-11 RT-11
- Others that I don't remember...
The 8.3 format derives indirectly from the PDP-11 (mostly), which used a 6.3 format. I don't remember when the slick new invention of 8-character basenames came into existence. The idea of "switches" separated from their arguments by forward slash characters also came from this tradition. "PIP" (Peripheral Interchange Program, IIRC) was the most commonly used data/file transfer program, and tended to be the most "sophisticated" application of the command line work of its time.The approach saw some real changes when DEC introduced their new CLI paradigm, represented on RSTS/E and VMS, called DCL ("Digital Command Language").
Historical note: The 6.3 format became popular on the PDP-11 family due to its use of the radix-50 encoding method: Each 16-bit word carried 3 characters selected from uppercase alpha, digits, and some punctuation. int(65536^(1/3)) = 50. Don't even *think* of commenting on "50^3" > 65536. Back then binary values were expressed in octal.