better Kodak reorganization

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Dale, May 6, 2013.

  1. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

     
    J. Clarke, May 10, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale

    J. Clarke Guest

    This is getting pointless. You're arguing both sides as suits your
    whim, you don't know the difference between a computer and a calculator,
    you don't understand how the internal accounting in large businesses
    works, and you're starting to show evidence that you're uneducable.
    This conversation is turning into a time-sink and I'm out of here.
     
    J. Clarke, May 10, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. It sure is, and that is because ...
    Well, I was there for over 25 years, and while I do not know everything,
    I sure know a lot.
    One reason why you think I am arguing both sides is that the culture and
    management style changed from time to time. Not enough to save the
    institution, but it did change, so comments about one era not
    surprisingly did not apply to another era.
    Now you are being stupid. You have no evidence of that one way or another.
    As it happens, I have designed small computer systems, written operating
    systems, compilers, a relational database management system, and lots of
    other stuff. To do that, I surely would have needed to know that. And
    these days, it is more difficult to distinguish one from another. In the
    1950s, the distinction was quite clear. Machines with a stored program
    were computers, and those without were calculators.

    you don't understand how the internal accounting in large businesses
    works,

    Not especially, and that is important because?
    How would you know? Have you been trying to educate me and failed? If so, I did not even realize you were attempting education. What were you trying to educate me about?

    Oh! Good!
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 10, 2013
    #63
  4. You do realize that MCI had virtually nothing at all to do with
    the Modified Final judgement from Green? That was between the DOJ
    and ATT, and it was in fact as much a product of ATT as it was from
    the DOJ.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 10, 2013
    #64
  5. A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
    1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.
    But not without computers.

    The Public Switched Telephone Network in the US first
    began using Common Channel Signaling in the 1960's, with
    2400 kbps modem channels used to transmit signaling
    information for interoffice trunks. The entire network
    of course required computers to control the signaling of
    all CCIS trunking.

    CCIS was matched to Common Control as implemented in the
    trunk switches themselves. And later it was extended to
    line switching offices, and with SS7 became very much a
    distributed computing network rather than a
    client/server packet network.
    The core competency included design and manufacture of
    telephone switching systems, which they clearly did sell
    "to the rest of the world". And that of course had a history
    going all the way back to the late 1800's.
    Please look up what a crossbar switching system is!

    And note that a detailed reference to AT&T's computational
    crossbar computers, developed prior to WWII, has been cited
    elsewhere in response to your erroneous statement.
    Common control digital signaling is not possible without
    computers.
    I clearly understand the history of the PSTN. And I
    note that Jean-David Beyer also has a very good
    recollection of how it functioned. I suppose that it is
    complex and different enough from other electronics
    industries that it isn't easy to sort it out without
    having been part of it for decades.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 10, 2013
    #65
  6. Ad Hominem won't get you points in this discussion. The
    fact is that your comments have lacked knowledge of the
    telecommunications industry, its technology, and the
    history of its politics.

    Trust that whatever you know about "internal accounting
    in large businesses", or for that matter anything else
    learned in a different industry, did not apply to a
    regulated regulated telcom monopoly. (An example: I
    regularly used to charter an aircraft all day long
    because that would guarantee I'd be home in less that 12
    hours. Double time was an avoidable red flag signaling
    bad managment. One hour of double time was worse than
    spending hundreds of dollars an hour wait time for an
    aircraft, because that was an indication work was
    getting done!)

    Heh, if you want to know how it worked... find some of
    Scott Adams' first Dilbert cartoons. Originally Dilbert
    was all insider jokes about management of the Bell
    System.

    True.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 10, 2013
    #66
  7. Reminds me of a direct experience I had of that. I was an MTS at Bell
    Labs at the time (around 1980, I guess) in a development area. In our
    department, several of the people wanted to investigate packet switching
    in general, and what the development of such a technology would mean as
    far as support from the network would be concerned.

    Just like when my grandfather was a director of electro-optical research
    and investigating television possibilities in the early 1920s. That had
    nothing to do with telephones either. His real interest was in physics,
    relativity, optics, photoelectric effect.... But management was
    enlightened in those days. So he did it and they demonstrated television
    in about 1927, and color television soon after. This turned out to be
    extremely valuable to the bottom line, because when commercial
    television became a big deal just after WW-II, guess who knew what
    bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio would be needed by the networks?
    Guess who had prepared for this, and had the equipment ready?

    Well studying packet switched networks, instead of the old circuit
    switched networks, would have been a big deal. ARPAnet was just getting
    started in those days, and the networking implications were not yet well
    understood. So it would have been a really worthwhile project for a
    small number (much less than 10) people to study. Management prohibited
    working on it, so those people quit and went to work for competitors of
    ours. Our director said that 98 percent of our business was voice, and
    that data would never amount to much. In our business, they had no
    understanding of what data was. They understood voice, facsimile,
    television. They lumped what they did not understand into the category
    of data and ignored it. Cisco systems came into being and they did
    understand "data." They were not alone. They are still in business.
    AT&T, except for the name, is not.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 10, 2013
    #67
  8. That is another interesting story. Bell Labs wrote the operating systems
    for the IBM machines we were using at the time. We recognized that
    continuing along that line, with big batch-processing systems was going
    to dead-end with the 7094-II machines. It did not look like the
    System/360s would be a success. It seemed as though multi-user time
    sharing systems would be the way of the future. But IBM was not
    interested in that, but GE was. So Bell Labs, MIT, and GE teamed up and
    GE made the 645 computers and Bell Labs and MIT cooperated in writing
    MULTICS. Well it was a little ahead of its time and a commercial
    failure. GE sold off their computer division to Honeywell, and Bell Labs
    dropped out of the project. Word came down from above: we will never
    write another operating system. Well Ken and Dennis fortunately were in
    research at Bell Labs, and they had a PDP 9 (or whatever the one before
    the PDP/11 was, and not the PDP 10) sitting around the lab, so they
    decided to build an OS somewhat like MULTICS, but that would run on a
    single processor. One thing lead to another, and they called it UNIX.
    Their department head, being an enlightened engineer himself, supported
    that. Basically, it was done in spite of what top management decreed.
    This is an oversimplification of what happened, but it is long enough.

    A few years later, I had an 11/45 with memory management hardware. And I
    needed it to work. At that time, UNIX did not support that, so my
    department head called Ken ad asked for him to implement memory
    management, and that was all the excuse he needed to get an 11/45 of his
    own and do it. This would have been in the early 1970s, I suppose. By
    the time I left, I do not think that would have been possible.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 10, 2013
    #68
  9. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, May 11, 2013
    #69
  10. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You should see http://www.dilbert.com/first_50/
     
    Eric Stevens, May 11, 2013
    #70
  11. We were talking about pre-WWII though.

    The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
    first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
    Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

    The point is that during the early development, when the
    first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
    for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

    Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
    commercial product there was indeed a research computer
    that as should be expect was more advanced.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 11, 2013
    #71
  12. Dale

    PeterN Guest


    Please make a proer attribution. I did not post what your posting says I
    said.
     
    PeterN, May 11, 2013
    #72
  13. Quoted again, above, is the only part that was
    attributed to you. You did in fact post it, in a
    message with these headers:

    From: PeterN <>
    Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:56:37 -0400
    Message-ID: <518bd53c$0$10783$-secrets.com>

    Perhaps you made a simple mistake in reading the message
    you cite, or perhaps *you* need to learn something about
    proper attributions.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 11, 2013
    #73
  14. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.
    The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
    were depending on it.
     
    Eric Stevens, May 11, 2013
    #74
  15. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
    was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
    limiting it enough for you.
    It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
    Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
    functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
    1945.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 11, 2013
    #75
  16. Dale

    Robert Coe Guest

    : I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software
    :
    : I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion
    : picture business
    :
    : what the strategic planners their should do is
    :
    : 1) map out ALL the imaging workflows
    : 2) indicate all participations, systems or products
    : 3) identify customers and partners
    : 4) build business cases
    :
    :
    : and don't forget
    :
    : 5) ask why there aren't participations
    : 6) keep up with changes in workflows
    : 7) central system offerings are best to vie
    : 8) create better workflows

    I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should
    develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more
    money than Kodak could get their hands on.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 11, 2013
    #76
  17. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    From the URL I have already given:

    "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
    1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
    An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
    time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
    by the end of the war."

    The history of crossbar switches is given in
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
    that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
    emerging from Bell labs.

    The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
    appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
    but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
    crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
    operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
    devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
    level of advance as the Colossus.
     
    Eric Stevens, May 12, 2013
    #77
  18. Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
    the Colossus.

    "The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
    model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
    1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
    Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
    ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
    and remained in service until 1949."

    http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Relays/Stibitz.html
     
    Jean-David Beyer, May 12, 2013
    #78
  19. Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all
    significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a
    very specific model of what is correctly described as a
    Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar
    switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented
    by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar).

    You are still missing the point. The discussion was
    whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a
    production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little
    doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to
    the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a
    crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got.

    And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the
    specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded
    production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 12, 2013
    #79
  20. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not
    programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1
    until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first
    of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general
    programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose
    calculator".
     
    Eric Stevens, May 12, 2013
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.