I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part
of the circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or
a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have
the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of the
circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a service
manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same >attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to >understand it.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is >sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. >The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail for
the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >wrote:
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part
of the circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or
a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have
the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are
allowed to understand it.
Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled
"Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is >> sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm.
The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail >> for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a
competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic,
or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over
300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive
electronics nattering at us.)
My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone.
No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons.
And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in
my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes:
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of >>the
circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a >>service
manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same >>attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to >>understand it.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is >>sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. >>The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail >>for
the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >>competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
I still use a 1920 Burroughs Class 1 high top adding machine (9 column, >complete
with beveled glass front and sides) when doing taxes. I have two
slightly different models. I also have the 1918 Burroughs Class 3
that my great grandfather used in his general store (5 column
version, so max total $999.99).
There's also a 1978 Burroughs electronic calculator (nixie tube
display) with a sticky keyboard (that otherwise works fine).
I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley
tools (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get
regular use.
here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are
allowed to understand it.
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 19:09:27 -0000 (UTC), thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) wrote: >TheLastSysop wrote:
here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are
allowed to understand it.
"Allowed to understand" does a lot of work. The sealed
device isn't hiding complexity to protect the user. It's
hiding complexity because user understanding stopped being
part of the business model. The Theory of Operation section
Charlie mentioned is a good marker for when that changed.
Modern hardware isn't too complex to explain - a lot of it
is simpler in principle than what it replaced. Explanation
just became a cost center.
Same pattern in software. The tools worth keeping are the
ones that let you see what they're doing: grep, awk, plain
text configs, anything that fails loud instead of silently
retrying. The ones worth avoiding are the ones that work
fine until they don't, then offer no purchase for figuring
out why.
Survivorship bias is doing some work here too. The old
tools that were bad at explaining themselves got tossed. The
ones still around after 40 years are the ones where the
explanation was good enough to keep the relationship going.
Lev
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is
part of the circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or
a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have >>> the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are >>> allowed to understand it.
Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled
"Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it >>> is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers >>> calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left >>> a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. >>>
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like >>> a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic,
or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over
300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive
electronics nattering at us.)
My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone.
No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons.
And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in
my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
It absolutely counts. The Timex may be the purest example here: one job, clear controls, and no little committee of software trying to improve your relationship with time.
The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot where the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet convinced that every door latch and dashboard light needs a software product manager.
A flip phone with real buttons is almost cheating. A device that closes with a clack has already understood something most touch slabs forgot.
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 21:48:52 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >wrote:
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:16:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is
part of the circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or >>>> a service manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have >>>> the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are >>>> allowed to understand it.
Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled >>>"Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it >>>> is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers >>>> calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left
a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience. >>>>
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like
a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic,
or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over
300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive
electronics nattering at us.)
My flip phone is brand-new, but it's still a flip phone.
No Google, no apps, no time-wasters - but real buttons.
And it can send and receive pictures, and the emojis in
my wife's text messages come through. I'll give it up
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
It absolutely counts. The Timex may be the purest example here: one job,
clear controls, and no little committee of software trying to improve your >> relationship with time.
The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot where >> the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet convinced that every >> door latch and dashboard light needs a software product manager.
A flip phone with real buttons is almost cheating. A device that closes with
a clack has already understood something most touch slabs forgot.
Stuff that works
Stuff that holds up
It's the kind of stuff you don't hang on the wall
Stuff that's real
Stuff you feel
It's the kind of stuff you reach for when you fall
-- Guy Clark
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much
of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep
the lawyers calm.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats
you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >> TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes:
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner
is part of the circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real
switch, or a service manual that explains the theory before the
parts list all have the same attitude: here is the machine, here
is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much
of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to
keep the lawyers calm.
The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually
left a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a
little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats
you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
[snip]
I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley tools
(hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get
regular use.
The hand tools belong in the same category. A good plane or rule
does not hide its intent. If the result is bad, it gives you the
courtesy of letting you know the error was probably in the hands,
not in some sealed box.
Using one for taxes is wonderful. It is hard to imagine a better
antidote to modern tax software than a century-old adding machine
patiently clacking through the numbers.
Back in the mainframe days, many manuals contained a section titled
"Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
The cars count too, especially at 300,000 km. There is a sweet spot
where the machine is modern enough to be reliable but not yet
convinced that every door latch and dashboard light needs a software
product manager.
Oh, and recent Emacsen have abandoned RMAIL format ...
On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
Oh, and recent Emacsen have abandoned RMAIL format ...
Still current <https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Rmail.html>.
Yeah, still calling it Rmail. But (from that doc):
...Rmail uses the standard 'mbox' format, introduced by Unix and
GNU systems for inbox files, as its internal format of Rmail
files.
For many years it used its own format, BABYL, dating from the early
80s. I have ca. 500M mail archived in BABYL format.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
On the software side, we have Open Source. Primarily Linux, also BSD
is available if you *really* want to relive the Old Days ...
The BSDs are modern operating systems that are used heavily in
production at some rather large outfits, not some antiquated relics.
Also, I find the kernel source of, say, FreeBSD a lot better to read
and understand than the Linux kernel source.
On 2026-06-02, TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a
competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
Does my 40-year-old Timex watch count? How about our 2007 Honda Civic,
or the 1997 Suzuki Esteem that we inherited from my father? (Over
300,000 km on each and they still run just fine without intrusive
electronics nattering at us.)
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of the
circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a service
manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same >attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to >understand it.
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:24:14 GMT
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats
you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
'73 Super Beetle. Simple enough that even I can sorta understand it,
easy to maintain, and it just does what I tell it. (Now if only the
engine compartment weren't so dang cramped...)
In article <1939e645b7be28e37b80@dev.null>,
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you
like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
I have a tube tester I bought for use with some old radios. Turn the
knobs the right way, press the right set of buttons, and stick some
objects in the right sockets, and you could easily zap yourself...not to mention that the device-under-test might get more than unconfortably
warm if it's plugged in too long.
WWV. Air traffic is mostly encrypted now.
You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of the machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base system.
I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the layers
and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like on modern computing.
David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
WWV. Air traffic is mostly encrypted now.
I'm guessing you mean something other than the air traffic radio used
by airplanes. It's never encrypted and I doubt it ever will be.
Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
On 2026-06-03, Don Poitras <poitras@pobox.com> wrote:
David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
WWV. Air traffic is mostly encrypted now.
I'm guessing you mean something other than the air traffic radio used
by airplanes. It's never encrypted and I doubt it ever will be.
And it's been up in the VHF band (118-137 MHz) for just about forever.
Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you
like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
Not really tools, but I have a collection of older homecomputers from the 70s/80s/90s. Some of them share the characteristics you list in that they came with manuals that had the complete schematics, theory of operation, assembly listings of any software in ROM, pinouts for every connector etc.
You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of the machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base system.
I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the layers
and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like on modern computing.
Cheers,
Koen
/| I may be demented \|\|
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner is part of the
circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real switch, or a service
manual that explains the theory before the parts list all have the same attitude: here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep the lawyers calm. The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually left a trail for
the curious person with a screwdriver and a little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
-- TheLastSysop
In other news, the GE toaster that I recieved in 1976 is still
working and does fast work.
Worst gadget in the house is a Spectrum HDTV Box. After a few hours
the channel you are watching loses its stream.
I thought of the device called "phase tester" or "single pole
voltage indicator", where the operator is literally part of the
circuit: a neon indicator where the operator literally completes the
circuit to ground via a ~1 MOhm resistor and a metal button at the
end.
The are colloquially called a "lying pen" because they are
unreliable: stand on a wooden ladder, and the higher ground
resistance may give a false negative. Forget to touch the button at
the end: false negative. Stand in a puddle, and get a tingle. They
are still sold and used, though they are deprecated.
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:32:41 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote:
Worst gadget in the house is a Spectrum HDTV Box. After a few hours
the channel you are watching loses its stream.
I had a WDTV streamer box, bought in a bricks-and-mortar retail store
decades ago. I found it was very fussy about the type of material it
played: trying to do trick play (fast back/forward) on an FLV file and
it would get stuck, for example.
Also, you know that sequence of white noise that?s part of the opening credits in the ?Max Headroom? TV episodes? It would hang on that so
badly, nothing short of a reboot would fix it.
I finally retired it after the remote control started acting up.
Ordered a Vero V box online from this crowd <https://osmc.tv/>. That?s Linux-based, I can SSH into it and muck around, nothing is locked
down, that I can see. No trick play as such (it just skips
forward/backward), but it plays everything I?ve so far thrown at it.
I just found out the other day that the white noise is cosmic
background radiation. Alas, it is no more on digital sets.
I have an abacus. Does that count?
*groan*!
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 21:04:48 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
I just found out the other day that the white noise is cosmic
background radiation. Alas, it is no more on digital sets.
It was also never in colour on colour sets.
Trivia question: why not? ;)
In other news, the GE toaster that I recieved in 1976 is still working and does fast work. The simple controls( two of them ) require no instruction. If you want to move the darkness slider up to 10, it allows you to turn your bread slices into 18" flames coming out of the slots( Yes, I did do that. ).
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
In that category, we have a 60+ year old tractor that's running just
fine. No electronics, if you don't count the ignition. Lovely machine.
And the manual contains everything you need to know to keep it in
good shape for another 60 years.
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
On 2026-06-03, Don Poitras <poitras@pobox.com> wrote:
Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.
While I've not completed the solo work (and thus no licence),
I've flown in a Cessna 172 and 421 - the latter a fine ride.
You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of
the machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base
system. I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the
layers and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like
on modern computing.
The manual for the Apple II starts with how to enter machine code
via the monitor. Now the equivalent device actively prevents you
from running unsigned code.
On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> writes:
I have a weakness for old tools and gadgets that assume the owner
is part of the circuit.
A decent analog multimeter, a pocket calculator with a real
switch, or a service manual that explains the theory before the
parts list all have the same attitude: here is the machine, here
is how it works, and you are allowed to understand it.
Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much
of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to
keep the lawyers calm.
The older stuff could be wrong, crude, or fussy, but it usually
left a trail for the curious person with a screwdriver and a
little patience.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats
you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
[snip]
I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley tools
(hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get
regular use.
The hand tools belong in the same category. A good plane or rule
does not hide its intent. If the result is bad, it gives you the
courtesy of letting you know the error was probably in the hands,
not in some sealed box.
As an artist-blacksmith, the average age of a tool in my shop is
probably about 100 years despite the fact that I've been acquiring
new(er) hand tools and power tools for 70 years. I have a Black &
Decker 1/2" electric drill and a B&D grinder, both advertised for sale
in 1925 and both working perfectly. Most of the very numerous smithing
tools were made before WW I. Mostly no manuals, of course, although I
do have a manual for the (1920s?) Foley Saw Filer and the (also 1920s) >Alldays & Onions 300# air hammer.
To nudge back toward a.f.c....
I started with Linux at home in 1999, great fat book w/ 2 CDs. Chose
Caldera over Red Hat. It came up with KDE (quickly dumped for X + twm)
and XEmacs. Hastily downloaded (over dialup) GNU Emacs, compiled it
and was all good. Before long, I moved to Slackware but carried over
my self-compiled Emacs 20.7.2.
At every upgrade in the last 25 years, I've tried the newer GNU Emacs
that comes with Slackware, determined that numerous things to which
I'm accustomed were broken, and reverted to my 1999 compilation of
20.7. Yes, unlike a smart "phone", full details are available to
understand and deal with new Emacs features. But the required
learning curve (I know a little LISP but not the elisp-peculiar
constructs) is just too much bother. With increasing age, fear of
bother upstages any fear of death. Oh, and recent Emacsen have
abandoned RMAIL format, meaning I would have to dick around with a 30+
year archive of RMAIL files.
So I'm writing this on my 1999-compiled 20.7 executable.
FWIW,
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 22:27:32 GMT, scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter)
wrote:
In article <1939e645b7be28e37b80@dev.null>,
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a >>competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
I have a tube tester I bought for use with some old radios. Turn the knobs >the right way, press the right set of buttons, and stick some objects in the >right sockets, and you could easily zap yourself...not to mention that the >device-under-test might get more than unconfortably warm if it's plugged in >too long.
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
That means, if you put in new bread too quickly after toasting the
previous slices without waiting for it to cool down a bit, they will
come out underdone.
Yes, timer-based toasters are a real improvement.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 07:10:26 -0000 (UTC), Lev wrote:
The manual for the Apple II starts with how to enter machine code
via the monitor. Now the equivalent device actively prevents you
from running unsigned code.
I wonder what your idea of ?the equivalent device? might be ...
Charlie Gibbs wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.
In article <87bjdqe881.fsf@posteo.de>,
Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
That means, if you put in new bread too quickly after toasting the
previous slices without waiting for it to cool down a bit, they will
come out underdone.
Yes, timer-based toasters are a real improvement.
This has been out for a while, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, it
feels relevant to this thread:
https://youtu.be/1OfxlSG6q5Y
They don't make 'em like they used to, apparently.
How to make Toast:
Electrical Engineering vs. Computer Science
Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far from here, a
king summoned two of his advisors for a test. He showed
them both a shiny metal box with two slots in the top, a
control knob, and a lever. "What do you think this is?"
To: Charlie Gibbs
Charlie Gibbs wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.
Question - how do you power modern electronics in a classic plane?
Does it have an alternator/battery like a car?
On 2026-06-04, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It was also never in colour on colour sets.
Trivia question: why not? ;)
Probably because the 3.58-MHz colour subcarrier is missing,
which causes most TV sets to revert to black and white
courtesy of a circuit known as the "colour killer".
I've heard that if you don't have a colour killer,
the result is known, not as snow, but as confetti.
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
That means, if you put in new bread too quickly after toasting the
previous slices without waiting for it to cool down a bit, they will
come out underdone.
Yes, timer-based toasters are a real improvement.
On 02 Jun 2026 19:44:48 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
So I'm writing this on my 1999-compiled 20.7 executable.
That 20.7 executable has crossed the line from program into shop tool.
A 1920s air hammer, a drill with honest bearings, and an Emacs
binary that has survived a quarter century of upgrades all have the
same virtue: once you have learned their moods, they do not wake up
one morning with a new theory of how you ought to work.
There is also something wonderfully folklore-computers about the
fact that the "old gadget" in this case is not just the hardware,
but the ABI, the old libc expectations, the mail file format, and
the muscle memory around all of it. The executable is almost a
little preserved machine room.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime
toaster, the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime toaster,
the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
Ah, that kind of toaster. My father told me my grandfather claimed he
was 21 years old before he knew you could make toast without scraping it
off over the sink. That would have been in about 1897.
... changing the thing that has custody of thirty years of mail is
how a small modernization project becomes archaeology with side
effects.
The older test gear often has that wonderfully direct contract: the
front panel tells you what matters, the meter gives you an honest
answer, and the lethal bits are not hidden so much as presumed to be respected. Modern gear often improves the safety margin, which is
good, but sometimes it also hides the explanation behind a sealed
case and a service menu.
The king wisely had the computer scientist beheaded, and they all
lived happily ever after.
According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime
toaster, the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
Ah, that kind of toaster. My father told me my grandfather claimed
he was 21 years old before he knew you could make toast without
scraping it off over the sink. That would have been in about 1897.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime
toaster, the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
If there were a timer, I'd have to remember all the setting, different
for, say, Milk & Potato Bread versus Russian Black Bread. Paying
attention is fungible.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 19:51:10 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime
toaster, the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
Ah, that kind of toaster. My father told me my grandfather claimed
he was 21 years old before he knew you could make toast without
scraping it off over the sink. That would have been in about 1897.
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:51:10 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime toaster,
the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
Ah, that kind of toaster. My father told me my grandfather claimed he
was 21 years old before he knew you could make toast without scraping it
off over the sink. That would have been in about 1897.
Ours is clockwork based.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:25:49 -0700, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >On 6/4/26 13:34, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:51:10 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
No, paying-attention based. Same tech as used by my wintertime toaster, >>>> the top of the wood-fired kitchen range.
Ah, that kind of toaster. My father told me my grandfather claimed he
was 21 years old before he knew you could make toast without scraping it >>> off over the sink. That would have been in about 1897.
Ours is clockwork based.
We used to have one like this: >https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.g
ilandroyprops.tv/products/antique- >toaster&ved=2ahUKEwjj9Y7-s_CUAxVTIUQIHRBKNw4Qh- >wKegQIFxAE&usg=AOvVaw3LStL_Am1L_lTWBoG8s8qa
On 5 Jun 2026 19:04:06 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:47:53 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:
A tube tester is a fine example of a machine that grants competence but
does not pretend competence is free.
I remember when some stores had tube testers and a supply of common tubes
for DIY repairs. Those days are long gone, along with the 6AU6 and
friends.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I have email records going back about 40 years. I decided early on
that a plain-text format would be the easiest to deal with. And
thatrCOs how IrCOve survived moves across about 3 different platforms
in that time.
Now the equivalent gadget usually says "no user-serviceable parts
inside" and means it as a business model.
On 6/4/26 13:34, Bob Eager wrote:[snip]
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:51:10 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
We used to have one like this:
https://www.gilandroyprops.tv/products/antique-toaster
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 19:51:10 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
Ah, that kind of toaster. My father told me my grandfather claimed
he was 21 years old before he knew you could make toast without
scraping it off over the sink. That would have been in about 1897.
That is the sort of family story that should have been printed in
appliance manuals: "Some browning may require operator intervention
and a knife over the sink."
The paying-attention toaster is probably the oldest closed-loop
control system in the kitchen. Sensor: nose and eyeball. Actuator:
hand. Failure mode: breakfast archaeology. Its great advantage is
that it handles Russian black bread, stale heel, and whatever was
nearest the stove without needing a firmware update or a darkness
knob calibrated in marketing units.
On 05 Jun 2026 22:47:10 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
On 6/4/26 13:34, Bob Eager wrote:[snip]
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:51:10 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
We used to have one like this:
https://www.gilandroyprops.tv/products/antique-toaster
Ah, the drop-down-door type. At half-time, open the door, close the
door, your toast is turned over. Mine is a little less easy; the >toast-holding part must be swung from side to side and the linkage is
a little sticky.
In the 1970s, a couple I knew were getting married. Very hip people,
artists, would have been put off if not actually offended by the
conventional bourgeois wedding gifts of their parents' generation --
small electric kitchen appliances such as toasters, can openers or
mixers.
I had one of those drop-down-door toasters on hand. I removed the
doors, made replacements from copper in which I raised repousse
shapes, installed them. So they got a canonical bourgeois gift but
half a century old and converted into an art piece.
I'm sorry I don't have photos but the repousse is the same sort of
work as the face of Zephyrus here:
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/zeph.html
On 6 Jun 2026 10:56:39 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: >TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote or quoted:
There is something wonderfully backwards, in the good sense, about a gift >>where
the repair/modification history is part of the present.
Kintsugi (???), which translates to "golden joinery,"
is the traditional Japanese art of repairing broken pottery
by mending the fractures with a lacquer dusted or mixed with
powdered gold, silver, or platinum.
Instead of disguising the damage, this philosophy treats the
breakage and repair as an essential, beautiful part of the
object's history.
It is deeply intertwined with the Japanese worldview of
wabi-sabi, which finds beauty in imperfection, transience,
and the natural wear of time.
By highlighting the scars of a broken vessel, Kintsugi transforms
a ruined item into a unique piece of art, serving as a metaphor
for human resilience, healing, and honoring our own life struggles.
What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >>
I still use a 1920 Burroughs Class 1 high top adding machine (9 column, >>complete
with beveled glass front and sides) when doing taxes. I have two
slightly different models. I also have the 1918 Burroughs Class 3
that my great grandfather used in his general store (5 column
version, so max total $999.99).
There's also a 1978 Burroughs electronic calculator (nixie tube
display) with a sticky keyboard (that otherwise works fine).
I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley
tools (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get
regular use.
That Burroughs collection is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. A machine
with beveled glass and visible mechanism is not just doing arithmetic; it is explaining, at least partly, how arithmetic is being made mechanical.
Using one for taxes is wonderful. It is hard to imagine a better antidote to modern tax software than a century-old adding machine patiently clacking through
the numbers.
The hand tools belong in the same category. A good plane or rule does not hide
its intent. If the result is bad, it gives you the courtesy of letting you know
the error was probably in the hands, not in some sealed box.
On 2026-06-03, Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:
You could and were encouraged to understand every little corner of the machine. Build your own extensions or modifications to the base system.
I still enjoy using and fixing these machines. None of the layers
and layers of abstraction that hide the inner workings like on modern computing.
There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that
described a particularly convoluted piece of logic. The last
line was:
You are not expected to understand this.
Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
You are expected not to understand this.
Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
Ignorance is strength.
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 99: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <87bjdqe881.fsf@posteo.de>,
Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> wrote:
Lawrence Dƒ??Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
On 04 Jun 2026 03:37:43 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
My electric toaster is 113 years old and works fine.
Presumably thermostat-based, rather than timer-based.
That means, if you put in new bread too quickly after toasting the
previous slices without waiting for it to cool down a bit, they will
come out underdone.
Yes, timer-based toasters are a real improvement.
This has been out for a while, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, it
feels relevant to this thread:
https://youtu.be/1OfxlSG6q5Y
They don't make 'em like they used to, apparently.
How to make Toast:
Electrical Engineering vs. Computer Science
Users click on it, and the message 'Booting UNIX v.8.3' appears
on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be out by the time the product
gets to the market.) Users can pull down a menu and click on
the foods they want to cook."
adequate hardware platform for the implementation phase. An
Intel 80386 with 8MB of memory, a 30MB hard disk, and a VGA
monitor should be sufficient. If you select a multitasking,
There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that describedIt was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular line
a particularly convoluted piece of logic. The last line was:
You are not expected to understand this.
Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
You are expected not to understand this.
Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
Ignorance is strength.
that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read it
now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
be on the test. Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
make sure i knew the kernel for finals.
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 +0000, Etheromania wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Commentary_on_the_UNIX_Operating_System#%22You_are_not_expected_to_understand_this%22
There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that describedIt was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular line
a particularly convoluted piece of logic. The last line was:
You are not expected to understand this.
Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
You are expected not to understand this.
Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
Ignorance is strength.
that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read it
now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
be on the test. Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
make sure i knew the kernel for finals.
The average student wasn't permitted to read it. When it was written, it
was Bell Labs internal only.
Even when UNIX was released to the outside world, access under the edicational licence only permitted graduates and staff to see it.
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
wouldn't be on the test.
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 +0000, Etheromania wrote:
There was that famous comment in early Unix source code that describedIt was the context switcher for the unix kernel. one particular line
a particularly convoluted piece of logic. The last line was:
You are not expected to understand this.
Unfortunately, modern gadgets seem to have swapped two words:
You are expected not to understand this.
Remember the slogan from Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_:
Ignorance is strength.
that was a mess of symbols more than text, i probably couldn't read it
now but i could when I read and wrote c more frequently.
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it wouldn't
be on the test. Which was probably helpful because it's alarmingly
obtuse and would have sent me into a panic if anyone ever told me to
make sure i knew the kernel for finals.
The average student wasn't permitted to read it. When it was written, it
was Bell Labs internal only.
Even when UNIX was released to the outside world, access under the >edicational licence only permitted graduates and staff to see it.
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:its from the lions commentary which was written by a professor and sent
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
wouldn't be on the test.
Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never
entertained ?students? who sat ?tests?.
Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any
other patches -- back to Bell Labs ...
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 23:15:32 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:its from the lions commentary which was written by a professor and
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended
to indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
wouldn't be on the test.
Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never
entertained ?students? who sat ?tests?.
Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any
other patches -- back to Bell Labs ...
sent back to bell labs.
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 23:33:20 GMT, Etheromania wrote:youre right i edited the wikipedia article to make a nonsensical shitpost
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 23:15:32 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:its from the lions commentary which was written by a professor and
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended
to indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
wouldn't be on the test.
Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never
entertained ?students? who sat ?tests?.
Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any
other patches -- back to Bell Labs ...
sent back to bell labs.
John Lions would never have written anything so stupid in a book meant
to *explain* how the Unix kernel worked.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Commentary_on_the_UNIX_Operating_System#%22You_are_not_expected_to_understand_this%22>
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> posted:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:its from the lions commentary which was written by a professor and sent
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
wouldn't be on the test.
Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never entertained
?students? who sat ?tests?.
Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any other
patches -- back to Bell Labs ...
back to bell labs.
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 23:33:20 +0000, Etheromania wrote:
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> posted:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:07:49 GMT, Etheromania wrote:its from the lions commentary which was written by a professor and sent back to bell labs.
The comment itself was actually directed at students and intended to
indicate that they shouldn't waste time studying it because it
wouldn't be on the test.
Not sure how that could be, given that AT&T Bell Labs never entertained
?students? who sat ?tests?.
Sure, there were outside places like Universities using the Unix
sources (up to the 6th Edition, anyway) in CS courses for study
purposes, but none of them contributed comments -- or indeed, any other
patches -- back to Bell Labs ...
But the comment was in the accompanying source code. Which was written by Dennis Ritchie.
From the man himself, on his preserved home page; see the second heading.
http://cm.bell-labs.co/who/dmr/odd.html
Im not sure why it has an entry on wikipedia in the lions book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Commentary_on_the_UNIX_Operating_System#%22You_are_not_expected_to_understand_this%22
after reviewing it again it doesn't attribute the comment directly to
the lions book and merely explains where to find it.
In article <1780863612-19817@newsgrouper.org>,
Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) posted:
How to make Toast:
Electrical Engineering vs. Computer Science
Users click on it, and the message 'Booting UNIX v.8.3' appears
on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be out by the time the product
gets to the market.) Users can pull down a menu and click on
the foods they want to cook."
adequate hardware platform for the implementation phase. An
Intel 80386 with 8MB of memory, a 30MB hard disk, and a VGA
monitor should be sufficient. If you select a multitasking,
Having a really hard time pinning down when this could have been written
When they say Unix 8.3 do they mean Bell Labs Research Unix?
Because by the time VGA was a thing they were on RU-9
The particular page I pulled it from goes back to 2006
https://web.archive.org/web/20060909110208/https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~gogo/humor/hum_toast.html
but I seem to recall seeing from some time well before that.
Im not sure why it has an entry on wikipedia in the lions book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Commentary_on_the_UNIX_Operating_System#%22You_are_not_expected_to_understand_this%22
after reviewing it again it doesn't attribute the comment directly
to the lions book and merely explains where to find it.
"Scott" == Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> writes:
Well, there was the Lions' commentary, which was widely
available in
the late 70's and beyond. We actually used a photocopy version
of the
Lions text for a college course in 1979/80.
An entire lecture was devoted to the "You are expected not to
understand this" comment and we were expected to understand it in
detail.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 13 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 21:22:59 |
| Calls: | 218 |
| Files: | 21,503 |
| Messages: | 83,973 |