what's the difference between LFLine Fee and NL New line 4454

re:

last week of jan68, three people from the science center

came out from the science center to install cp67.

at the time, cp67 had support for (doing automatic terminal recognition) for 2741 and 1050s. the university had some ascii tty33s ... so i found myself adding ascii tty terminal support to cp67. this included having to decide how some ascii characters mapped to ebcdic and back again.

i thot i could do the implementation so that tty support would be merged into the existing cp67 automatic terminal recognition ... which sort of worked. I thot the 2702 sad command which switched line scanner between supported terminal types. this worked fine for leased lines and terminals with the same baud rate. however, 2702 had shortcut ... while sad command could change the line scanner on each port-line ... the oscillator fixing the baud rate was hard wired to each port.

this short comming led to a univ. project to build our own terminal control unit, reverse engineer the channel interface and build our own channel interface card for an interdata-3 programmed to emulate 2702 ... with the added capability that it would automate baud rate determination. somebody then did a write-up blaiming four of us for the plug control unit business:

here is a story about the tty support later resulting in 27 cp67 crashes on a single day.

I had done some one byte truncations related to tty line length ... and a local modification was made to handle some sort of ascii device (plotter?) with line length on the order of 1k(?) ... the maximum line length was increased w-o changing the one byte fiddling.

later, the claim was that a primary motivation for FS

effort was as counter to plug compatible controller business ... from the following

IBM tried to react by launching a major project called the 'Future System' (FS) in the early 1970's. The idea was to get so far ahead that the compebreastion would never be able to keep up, and to have such a high level of integration that it would be impossible for compebreastors to follow a compatible niche strategy. However, the project failed because the objectives were too ambitious for the available technology. Many of the ideas that were developed were nevertheless adapted for later generations. Once IBM had acknowledged this failure, it launched its 'box strategy', which called for compebreastiveness with all the different types of compatible sub-systems. But this proved to be difficult because of IBM's cost structure and its R&D spending, and the strategy only resulted in a partial narrowing of the price gap between IBM and its rivals.

... &

This first quiet warning was taken seriously: 2,500 people were mobilised for the FS project. Those in charge had the right to choose people from any IBM units. I was working in Paris when I was picked out of the blue to be sent to New York. Proof of the faith people had in IBM is that I never heard of anyone refusing to move, nor regretting it. However, other quiet warnings were taken less seriously.

... snip ...

as i've mentioned a number of times in the past, i wasn't very respective about the FS effort ... drawing an analogy with some cult film that been playing down in central sq for over a decade ... something about the inmates being in charge of the insbreastution.