RasPi-5 4 GB.

APT update/upgrade from a mid-November OS (possibly Oct-10?) to the current
version (Dec-03) and noticed a major drop in excellent NTP timekeeping
performance. Was there anything which might have caused this? Thanks! Current
data:

https://satsignal.eu/mrtg/performance_raspi-28.php

All NTPsec settings look the same, as far as I can tell. Servers the same.
Just something in the OS which has changed possibly lowering the CPU response,
perhaps it's sleeping for moments or something. Process priorities?
Suggestions welcome!

I know there's a Bookworm in beta but no idea whether this issue is fixed, or
even known about?
--
Thanks,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 04/12/2023 14:21, David Taylor wrote:
> RasPi-5 4 GB.
>
> APT update/upgrade from a mid-November OS (possibly Oct-10?) to the
> current version (Dec-03) and noticed a major drop in excellent NTP
> timekeeping performance.  Was there anything which might have caused
> this?  Thanks! Current data:
>
>   https://satsignal.eu/mrtg/performance_raspi-28.php
>
> All NTPsec settings look the same, as far as I can tell.  Servers the
> same. Just something in the OS which has changed possibly lowering the
> CPU response, perhaps it's sleeping for moments or something.  Process
> priorities? Suggestions welcome!
>
> I know there's a Bookworm in beta but no idea whether this issue is
> fixed, or even known about?
Check that you still are using ntp and the systemd virus hasn't taken
over yet another part of your OS.
systemctl status ntp
Should be state it is active.
systemctl status systemd-timesyncd
Should report not found.
---druck

On 12/5/23 12:30 PM, druck wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 14:21, David Taylor wrote:
>> RasPi-5 4 GB.
>>
>> APT update/upgrade from a mid-November OS (possibly Oct-10?) to the
>> current version (Dec-03) and noticed a major drop in excellent NTP
>> timekeeping performance.  Was there anything which might have caused
>> this?  Thanks! Current data:
>>
>>    https://satsignal.eu/mrtg/performance_raspi-28.php
>>
>> All NTPsec settings look the same, as far as I can tell.  Servers the
>> same. Just something in the OS which has changed possibly lowering the
>> CPU response, perhaps it's sleeping for moments or something.  Process
>> priorities? Suggestions welcome!
>>
>> I know there's a Bookworm in beta but no idea whether this issue is
>> fixed, or even known about?
>
> Check that you still are using ntp and the systemd virus hasn't taken
> over yet another part of your OS.
>
>     systemctl status ntp
>
> Should be state it is active.
>
>     systemctl status systemd-timesyncd
>
> Should report not found.

Such threads are NOT encouraging ....

There SHOULD be almost NO diff between using Deb
derivs on a Pi-3/4/5 ... but is that TRUE ???

If Pi's are becoming a total pain in the ass, well,
I'll have to look for new solutions.

On 05/12/2023 17:30, druck wrote:
> Check that you still are using ntp and the systemd virus hasn't taken
> over yet another part of your OS.
>
> systemctl status ntp
>
> Should be state it is active.
>
> systemctl status systemd-timesyncd
>
> Should report not found.
>
> ---druck

Many thanks for that. TL:DR: it's just ntp.

However, it appears to be NTPsec rather than the older NTP I normally use.

Detailed report:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pi@RasPi-29:/var/lib $ systemctl status systemd-timesyncd
Unit systemd-timesyncd.service could not be found.

pi@RasPi-29:/var/lib $ systemctl status ntp
* ntpsec.service - Network Time Service
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/ntpsec.service; enabled; preset: enabled)
Active: active (running) since Sun 2023-12-03 15:04:12 GMT; 2 days ago
Docs: man:ntpd(8)
Process: 846 ExecStart=/usr/libexec/ntpsec/ntp-systemd-wrapper
(code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
Main PID: 856 (ntpd)
Tasks: 1 (limit: 4915)
CPU: 10.267s
CGroup: /system.slice/ntpsec.service
`-856 /usr/sbin/ntpd -p /run/ntpd.pid -c /etc/ntpsec/ntp.conf -g
-N -u ntpsec:ntpsec

Dec 05 19:04:12 RasPi-29 ntpd[856]: LOG: frequency file
/var/lib/ntp/ntp.drift-tmp: No such file or directory
..
..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the "Process:" line it looks like systemd has poked its nose in somehow.
The last line notes that a directory in /var/lib was missing, although I think
the drift files only affects fresh starts. Nevertheless I created the missing
directory in case it makes any difference, appreciating that it may need
recreating every boot as it's in /var.

systemctl status ntpsec

produces the same output.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 06/12/2023 07:34, 56g.1173 wrote:
> Such threads are NOT encouraging ....
>
> There SHOULD be almost NO diff between using Deb
> derivs on a Pi-3/4/5 ... but is that TRUE ???
>
> If Pi's are becoming a total pain in the ass, well,
> I'll have to look for new solutions.

I think the blame may be laid at the changes within the OS, rather than totally
in the hardware itself.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 06/12/2023 07:56, David Taylor wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 07:34, 56g.1173 wrote:
>>     Such threads are NOT encouraging ....
>>
>>     There SHOULD be almost NO diff between using Deb
>>     derivs on a Pi-3/4/5 ... but is that TRUE ???
>>
>>     If Pi's are becoming a total pain in the ass, well,
>>     I'll have to look for new solutions.
>
> I think the blame may be laid at the changes within the OS, rather than
> totally in the hardware itself.

Essentially systemd is forcing old code that has been stable for years
to be rewritten to conform to it - as far as I can tell.

Thus invalidating all the old help files and tutorials on it.

It that 'progress' that Liberals love to worship.

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 06/12/2023 11:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Essentially systemd is forcing old code that has been stable for years
> to be rewritten to conform to it - as far as I can tell.
>
> Thus invalidating all the old help files and tutorials on it.
>
> It that 'progress' that Liberals love to worship.

It's not the first time that something like this has happened in the Linux
environment, and lack of backwards compatibility is a rather inconvenient and
tiresome "feature".
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 06/12/2023 14:03, David Taylor wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 11:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Essentially systemd is forcing old code that has been stable for years
>> to be rewritten to conform to it - as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Thus invalidating all the old help files and tutorials on it.
>>
>> It that 'progress' that Liberals love to worship.
>
> It's not the first time that something like this has happened in the
> Linux environment, and lack of backwards compatibility is a rather
> inconvenient and tiresome "feature".

It is the bane of all software - and it forces you to upgrade constantly
or never upgrade at all.

Many people I know would be entirely happy with Wordstar on CP/M and a
dot matrix printer....Come to think of it a pi Zero with a bit of screen
added and Joes Own Editor would do that.

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Many people I know would be entirely happy with Wordstar on CP/M and a
> dot matrix printer....Come to think of it a pi Zero with a bit of screen
> added and Joes Own Editor would do that.

Why use a clone when you can use the original on a Pico :-)
https://kevinboone.me/cpicom.html

and I'm sure you could do the dot matrix bit with a Pico too:
https://magpi.raspberrypi.com/articles/giant-dot-matrix-printer

Theo

On 06/12/2023 14:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> It is the bane of all software - and it forces you to upgrade constantly
> or never upgrade at all.

No, not /all/ software.

With Windows-32 (for example) I can still run software I wrote for Windows-XP,
and run the newest software written specifically for the current version. With
NTP on Windows there is similar backwards compatibility, and NTP on the
Raspberry Pi has been compatible until someone chose to replace NTP with NTPsec
(where the output format of some monitoring commands has changed).

Upgrades I am usually happy with, and I almost always run the latest software
versions here, but upgrades which break existing systems I am not happy with,
especially when they offer little or no benefit to me.

I've posted the present problem on one of the Raspberry Pi forums, as I wonder
whether anyone has actually looked at the precision of timekeeping of this new
device and OS. I'm hoping that a simple update will resolve the issue. I am
grateful for the suggestions received here.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:37:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 07:56, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 07:34, 56g.1173 wrote:
>>>     Such threads are NOT encouraging ....
>>>
>>>     There SHOULD be almost NO diff between using Deb derivs on a
>>>     Pi-3/4/5 ... but is that TRUE ???
>>>
>>>     If Pi's are becoming a total pain in the ass, well,
>>>     I'll have to look for new solutions.
>>
>> I think the blame may be laid at the changes within the OS, rather than
>> totally in the hardware itself.
>
> Essentially systemd is forcing old code that has been stable for years
> to be rewritten to conform to it - as far as I can tell.
>
> Thus invalidating all the old help files and tutorials on it.
>
That's not my experience: I've moved a few personal background programs
from the old sysv system to systemd without much problem at all: it was
just a matter of setting up a systemd descriptor, which wasn't any harder
than doing it for the old system: in fact I thought it was a bit easier
since all the 'scriptlets' are now in a single file rather than the two or
three scripts that some background tasks could need.

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 06/12/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Many people I know would be entirely happy with Wordstar on CP/M and a
>> dot matrix printer....Come to think of it a pi Zero with a bit of screen
>> added and Joes Own Editor would do that.
>
> Why use a clone when you can use the original on a Pico :-)
> https://kevinboone.me/cpicom.html
>
No mass storage. No output for an 80x25 style screen. I love my Picos
finally, but they cannot even drive a floppy disk.

Whereas a Zero can come with an SSD an HDMI attached screen and
probably drive a parallel port.

In terms of a 'word processing station' I think that is about ideal.

> and I'm sure you could do the dot matrix bit with a Pico too:
> https://magpi.raspberrypi.com/articles/giant-dot-matrix-printer
>

all very ingenious, but...I guess a zero running Raspios could drive a
modern inkjet or laser printer via USB.

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 12/6/23 10:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Many people I know would be entirely happy with Wordstar on CP/M and a
>>> dot matrix printer....Come to think of it a pi Zero with a bit of screen
>>> added and Joes Own Editor would do that.
>>
>> Why use a clone when you can use the original on a Pico :-)
>> https://kevinboone.me/cpicom.html
>>
> No mass storage.  No output for an 80x25 style screen.  I love my Picos
> finally, but they cannot even drive a floppy disk.
>
>
> Whereas a Zero can come with an SSD  an HDMI attached screen and
> probably drive a parallel port.
>
> In terms of a 'word processing station' I think that is about ideal.

Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up
with an 80x24 screen anymore.

GUI/WYSIWYG is a lot better. There are a number of medium-power
word processors that run on Linux and the ubiquitous LibreOffice
suite adds even more clout. For dirt simple, use Leafpad and friends.

A Pico is a microCONTROLLER ... it's meant for operating "things"
or being a "thing".

Love microCs but there'd be no point in making a word-processor
using one. Yea, somewhere there IS a SD-Card library, so you can
have yer storage, and there IS a serial library so you can pull
out your beloved serial terminal (or make your own). Even
Ard Uno's have those libs handy. I even found a TCP stack lib
and made a (very slow/simple) web server out of one and hung it
on one of the company's unused domains for a couple of years.
ASCII-Art "graphics". Now a printer ... find an old Oki rs232
matrix printer or something so you won't need much for a 'driver'.

>> and I'm sure you could do the dot matrix bit with a Pico too:
>> https://magpi.raspberrypi.com/articles/giant-dot-matrix-printer
>>
>
> all very ingenious, but...I guess a zero running Raspios could drive a
> modern inkjet or laser printer via USB.

On 12/6/23 2:56 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 07:34, 56g.1173 wrote:
>>     Such threads are NOT encouraging ....
>>
>>     There SHOULD be almost NO diff between using Deb
>>     derivs on a Pi-3/4/5 ... but is that TRUE ???
>>
>>     If Pi's are becoming a total pain in the ass, well,
>>     I'll have to look for new solutions.
>
> I think the blame may be laid at the changes within the OS, rather than
> totally in the hardware itself.

Hmmmmm ... a few weeks back I did report an unusual
problem related to the PLATFORM/Hardware. It involved
the "autostart" features in LXDE. Something that worked
properly on Pi-3's did NOT work on Pi-4s. This change
coincided with using BookWorm - but it WAS distinctly
related to the model of Pi.

This was NOT a matter of what you initially installed on.
Tried something installed on a 3, moved the card to a 4
and PROBLEM. Installed from scratch on a 4, STILL the
problem.

There's SOMETHING in the hardware that makes BookWorm
take an alternate path. Don't have a Pi5 yet, so I
don't know how that will react.

DID find out how to make 'autostart' work ... but it
was weird AND related to Wayland-vs-X11. With Wayland
the documented place for the 'autostart' has to be
different - and a FOLDER populated with ".desktop"
type files.

As for "time-keeping" ... normally the Pi looks for
certain internet time servers - and should thus keep
perfect time, likely to the millisecond.

On 07/12/2023 06:53, 56g.1173 wrote:
> As for "time-keeping" ... normally the Pi looks for
> certain internet time servers - and should thus keep
> perfect time, likely to the millisecond.

Actually the RPi, all models, can do much better than millisecond, down to tens
of microseconds when you add a GPS/PPS device. In the instance I reported the
only update was an upgrade of the OS (and its components).

Here's a RasPi-400 Wi-Fi synced to in-house stratum-1 NTP servers:

https://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/raspi24_ntp-b.html

within about 100 microseconds or better.

The two RasPi-5 are running off the same 5 GHz Wi-Fi as is the RPi-400. I'll
try changing one of them to the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi but I'm not expecting any
improvement!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 21:00:41 -0500
"56g.1173" <56g.1173@ztq9.net> wrote:

> Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up
> with an 80x24 screen anymore.

There's three of them open on this desktop now, although for
serious work I usually use 80x<as much as I can fit> terminals.

> GUI/WYSIWYG is a lot better. There are a number of medium-power
> word processors that run on Linux and the ubiquitous LibreOffice
> suite adds even more clout. For dirt simple, use Leafpad and friends.

Yet when I need to write a letter and snail mail it I use vi and
groff - old habits die hard and 1980s documents still work fine.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On 07/12/2023 02:00, 56g.1173 wrote:
> On 12/6/23 10:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Many people I know would be entirely happy with Wordstar on CP/M and a
>>>> dot matrix printer....Come to think of it a pi Zero with a bit of
>>>> screen
>>>> added and Joes Own Editor would do that.
>>>
>>> Why use a clone when you can use the original on a Pico :-)
>>> https://kevinboone.me/cpicom.html
>>>
>> No mass storage.  No output for an 80x25 style screen.  I love my
>> Picos finally, but they cannot even drive a floppy disk.
>>
>>
>> Whereas a Zero can come with an SSD  an HDMI attached screen and
>> probably drive a parallel port.
>>
>> In terms of a 'word processing station' I think that is about ideal.
>
>
>   Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up
>   with an 80x24 screen anymore.
>
To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
productivity.

>   GUI/WYSIWYG is a lot better.

I guess that's why most professional book authors don't use it.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.

Depends how you use them. When I used terminals I usually had three
or four on my desk (and from time to time found myself typing on the wrong
keyboard). These days (since around 1990 when I met my first X terminal) I
tend to have more terminals but they're all on the one (or two) big
screen(s) and use the same keyboard. They're also colour, tabbed and come
with big scrollback buffers - way nicer than 1980s terminals even before
you throw in the window manager with unlimited virtual desktops for
separating threads of activity.

> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
> productivity.

Nah, you just have to use them right - now IDEs OTOH ...

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On 07/12/2023 10:59, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
>> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
>
> Depends how you use them. When I used terminals I usually had three
> or four on my desk (and from time to time found myself typing on the wrong
> keyboard). These days (since around 1990 when I met my first X terminal) I
> tend to have more terminals but they're all on the one (or two) big
> screen(s) and use the same keyboard. They're also colour, tabbed and come
> with big scrollback buffers - way nicer than 1980s terminals even before
> you throw in the window manager with unlimited virtual desktops for
> separating threads of activity.
>
But you do not spend your days listening to customers and entering their
details on the same screen over and over. Or writing a series of letters
over and over. Or checking in today's stock, and booking it out again.

That is the reality of commercial computing, where it actually *aided*
productivity.

>> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
>> productivity.
>
> Nah, you just have to use them right - now IDEs OTOH ...
>

The last time I peeked at a winders PC in a bank, it was running nothing
but an IBM terminal emulator with an 80x25 screen hooked up to a
mainframe somewhere in probably Berkshire.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 07/12/2023 10:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> and no distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS

Those of us who read Byte will remember Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor
column and his first editor and word processor descriptions. For
creative writing he just wanted to see the words and no shit, no status
lines. Just his words. If he wanted info etc. he would press a button.
But when creating, he just wanted his words. When he moved to graphical
systems there was so much moaning about word processors displaying
status he didn't want.

Me, here I am with a Windows laptop with 2x 24in monitors showing some
corporate hellish crap (Outlook/Teams/company webpage on Edge) plus RDP
session to a big-iron Windows box (64 core) and that has X stuff from
the big iron Linux boxes... 7x Xterm, Xemacs, normal emacs in Xterm,
Gedit, Notepad++, Cygwin, Perforce. The most productive for writing
software for me, emacs with syntax highlighting or Xemacs with syntax
highlighting. Sure I can use Visual Studio on Windows or VS Code on
Linux (the debuggers are nice) but for just writing code, emacs. (And
sometimes vi or nano).

Less distraction please.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>   Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up with an
>>   80x24 screen anymore.
>>
> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
> productivity.
>
It all depends in what you're used to writing code (or text) on:

- The base case has to a box of 80 column punch cards and a 12 key hand
punch: the standard kit when I learnt to program computers, first
assembler then COBOL: many of us carried a stack of 20 cards: the
minimal set of cards that a COBOL compiler would compile without
complaints

- paper tape was an improvement (could be written and read with a teletype
or, better, a Flexowriter. But its main advantage over cards was that it
couldn't be scrambled if you dropped it.

- next step was the use a teletype as a terminal, but only because it
could be used interactively. The standard interface for minicomputers
and the early microcomputers.

- an 80 x 24 monochrome Visual Display Unit was the next step up but its
ease of use depended entirely on the software driving it: a lot of
mainframes sed block-mode screens: you could locally edit a screenful of
text before hitting 'SEND', which caused the editor program to append
the current screenful the the file and show you the next 24 lines. This
was slightly better than using a teletype and was the way you programmed
almost all mainframes. Minicomputers and 2 gen microcomputers uses what
was effectively a teletype fitted with a 80 x 24 display instead of a
paper tape reader and punch. The architype at this stage was a DEC VT100
or one of the monochrome Wyse devices.

- then, finally, we got colour graphic terminals but know what, IME you're
no more productive writing code on these than on a Wyse or DEC: and know
what, I prefer to write code on a modern Linux system with a bog
standard monochrome text editor, such as vi, microEmacs or, currently,
gedit and to use 'make' to compile C and 'ant' to
compile Java and with everything run from the command line in a console
window.
> GUI/WYSIWYG is a lot better.
>
Not in my book. I've tried IDEs and don't like them - most just clutter
the screen and the mouse just gets in the way if its used for anything
much more than simple cut'n paste operations or launching applications.

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 07/12/2023 13:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>
>>>   Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up with an
>>>   80x24 screen anymore.
>>>
>> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
>> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
>> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
>> productivity.
>>
> It all depends in what you're used to writing code (or text) on:
>
Commercial IT users do not write code at all.
They look up and enter data in giant mainframe databases.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:50:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2023 13:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>   Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up with an
>>>>   80x24 screen anymore.
>>>>
>>> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
>>> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
>>> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
>>> productivity.
>>>
>> It all depends in what you're used to writing code (or text) on:
>>
> Commercial IT users do not write code at all.
> They look up and enter data in giant mainframe databases.

r /Commercial IT Users/Software engineers/

The other class of computer users who'd likely use a screen the same way
as a software engineer or developer is an author (of anything from scripts
to novels).

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 2023-12-07, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>   Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up with an
>>>   80x24 screen anymore.
>>
>> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
>> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
>> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
>> productivity.
>
> It all depends in what you're used to writing code (or text) on:
>
> - The base case has to a box of 80 column punch cards and a 12 key hand
> punch: the standard kit when I learnt to program computers, first
> assembler then COBOL: many of us carried a stack of 20 cards: the
> minimal set of cards that a COBOL compiler would compile without
> complaints

I was usually able to get access to a keypunch, although sometimes it
meant waiting until the keypunch staff was off for lunch. In a pinch
I did use one of those hand punches; I affixed a tag to it saying
"Programmers have priority on this punch!"

> - paper tape was an improvement (could be written and read with a teletype
> or, better, a Flexowriter. But its main advantage over cards was that it
> couldn't be scrambled if you dropped it.

I never did use paper tape for programming, but many of our customers
sent us data on paper tape so I became the local guru, even doing
several re-writes of the IOCS to get the desired results.

> - next step was the use a teletype as a terminal, but only because it
> could be used interactively. The standard interface for minicomputers
> and the early microcomputers.

Being a denizen of the mainframe world, I didn't get to play with
teletypes much - at least in a work environment.

> - an 80 x 24 monochrome Visual Display Unit was the next step up but its
> ease of use depended entirely on the software driving it: a lot of
> mainframes sed block-mode screens: you could locally edit a screenful of
> text before hitting 'SEND', which caused the editor program to append
> the current screenful the the file and show you the next 24 lines. This
> was slightly better than using a teletype and was the way you programmed
> almost all mainframes. Minicomputers and 2 gen microcomputers uses what
> was effectively a teletype fitted with a 80 x 24 display instead of a
> paper tape reader and punch. The architype at this stage was a DEC VT100
> or one of the monochrome Wyse devices.

Ah yes, I remember mainframe terminals and their programming nightmares.
I did manage to port Dungeon to that environment, which took some doing.

> - then, finally, we got colour graphic terminals but know what, IME you're
> no more productive writing code on these than on a Wyse or DEC: and know
> what, I prefer to write code on a modern Linux system with a bog
> standard monochrome text editor, such as vi, microEmacs or, currently,
> gedit and to use 'make' to compile C and 'ant' to
> compile Java and with everything run from the command line in a console
> window.

Ditto.

>> GUI/WYSIWYG is a lot better.
>
> Not in my book. I've tried IDEs and don't like them - most just clutter
> the screen and the mouse just gets in the way if its used for anything
> much more than simple cut'n paste operations or launching applications.

When I start getting weird about non-computing things, my wife says,
"Why does everything have to be such a huge project?" But with IDEs,
everything _does_ have to be a project. Makefiles are so much simpler.

A couple of times I've fought bugs that were sufficiently obscure that
my usual practice of sprinkling printf()s (or, more accurately, writes
to a log file) through the code was progressing painfully slowly.
I tried loading my code into an IDE, but it turned out to be so much
work setting up those damned projects that I found it easier to give
up on IDEs and tough it out the old-fashioned way.

Having said that, there are times when I find a GUI more convenient -
but more often than not a good old CLI does the job much more quickly
and easily. I reserve the right to use whatever method works best
at the time, and resent any attempt to force me into a mold, however
pretty the graphics may be.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Windows is
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | video games
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | for managers.
/ \ if you read it the right way. |

On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 19:35:01 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2023-12-07, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 10:27:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>>   Agreed ... but I don't think anybody is going to put up with an
>>>>   80x24 screen anymore.
>>>
>>> To be honest, those screens with very limited capability and no
>>> distraction were far far more productive than today's GUIS.
>>> In terms of commercial computin, windows were a huge step backward in
>>> productivity.
>>
>> It all depends in what you're used to writing code (or text) on:
>>
>> - The base case has to a box of 80 column punch cards and a 12 key hand
>> punch: the standard kit when I learnt to program computers, first
>> assembler then COBOL: many of us carried a stack of 20 cards: the
>> minimal set of cards that a COBOL compiler would compile without
>> complaints
>
> I was usually able to get access to a keypunch, although sometimes it
> meant waiting until the keypunch staff was off for lunch. In a pinch I
> did use one of those hand punches; I affixed a tag to it saying
> "Programmers have priority on this punch!"
>
We used 12 key punches in the first programming shop I worked in, and yes,
we hand keyes patches as well as complete programs if our keypunch pool
was busy (this was a small computer bureau).

>> - paper tape was an improvement (could be written and read with a
>> teletype
>> or, better, a Flexowriter. But its main advantage over cards was that
>> it couldn't be scrambled if you dropped it.
>
> I never did use paper tape for programming, but many of our customers
> sent us data on paper tape so I became the local guru, even doing
> several re-writes of the IOCS to get the desired results.
>
The first computer I used was an Elliott 503 (scientific beast, programmed
in ALGOL 60). We used a Flexowriter to write and edit programs on 8 column
paper tape.

>> - next step was the use a teletype as a terminal, but only because it
>> could be used interactively. The standard interface for minicomputers
>> and the early microcomputers.
> My nect machines were ICL 1900s which all had a teletype as the
operators console - they didn't use operator consoles with screens: those
were only fitted to 2900 series machines.

>
> Being a denizen of the mainframe world, I didn't get to play with
> teletypes much - at least in a work environment.
>
So what were you on - IBM, Burroughs or what?
> Ah yes, I remember mainframe terminals and their programming nightmares.
> I did manage to port Dungeon to that environment, which took some doing.
>
Indeed, though the ICL trick of locally editing the current page was
relatively user-friendly, but I never did like the way the OS/400 editor
(on IBM AS/400 systems) worked.

>
> When I start getting weird about non-computing things, my wife says,
> "Why does everything have to be such a huge project?" But with IDEs,
> everything _does_ have to be a project. Makefiles are so much simpler.
>
Quite - thats why I like to drive C and Java program builds and don'y like
the IDE's

> Having said that, there are times when I find a GUI more convenient -
> but more often than not a good old CLI does the job much more quickly
> and easily. I reserve the right to use whatever method works best at
> the time, and resent any attempt to force me into a mold, however pretty
> the graphics may be.
>
Yep nothing much beats a command line and a well written makefile, even it
its an 'ant' build script for Java: thre capabilities are quite similar,
though an ant build file uses less arcane syntax than make.

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org