- first/early use of core memory (6 microsecond cycle time)
- first/early use of modems over phone lines
- Memory was 64 K 32 bit words, later another 4 K was added making
69 K words
- Drums for external storage, 150 K words
- used standard size vacuum tubes (no miniture tubes), physically
extremely large -
- each computer of a pair had about 58,000 vacuum tubes and
consumed one million watts. And
another million watts to cool it.
- used for command and control of air defense units. There were
22 SAGE computer pairs and associated consoles,
communications gear, ... in installations about the U.S.
- some were in "hardened" mountains, others were in normal buildings
on SAC (Stragic Air Command) bases.
- Very vulnerable to jamming, useful only in peace time
or for VIP demos
- Installation started in 1958, many in service until 1985
Programmer Card - Front Side
and Back Side,
courtesy Bill Kirkpatrick
From Roger Lewis - Dec 27, 2006
Memory was 64 K 32 bit words, later another 4 K was added making 69 K words.
Actually it was quite the reverse. The early Q7's were installed with only 2 each 4K memories
fondly called "shower stalls" and the test program was called MEM01.
Later on the 65K memory was retrofitted to replace one of the 4K units
including the associated driver frames.
It was a massive retrofit and as I remember it, required the IBM team to work 7 days a week
for 6 weeks on all three shifts with extended shift lengths.
Rumor had it that each retrofit cost as much as the associated computer originally cost.
At the completion, the test programs were then called BIGMEM and LILMEM
reflecting the size differences.
Roger Lewis
13022 Psomas Way
Los Angeles, CA 90066-2213
From Les Earnest replying to a question about "Popular [DD] Cooper Myths Debunked" - Feb 2007
SAGE computers did record radar data on magnetic drums but kept only
about two minutes worth at any given time and discarded old hits as new
data came in. These data were used by the computer to automatically
track aircraft and those tracks often were recorded on magnetic tape.
However this process would not have "seen" a diverging radar blip unless
the radar data was being displayed (it usually wasn't) and it was
noticed by the Intercept Director following that flight.
-Les Earnest, who designed the Intercept Director's console layout
|
Fully deployed by 1963,
the IBM-built early warning system remained operational until 1984.
With 23 direction centers situated on the nation's northern, eastern,
and western boundaries, SAGE pioneered the use of computer control over large,
geographically distributed systems.
A Sage Talk at the Computer History Museum
Locations of SAGE systems
as per http://www.radomes.org/museum/
DC-1: McGuire AFB, NJ DC-12 / CC-3: McChord AFB, WA
DC-2: Stewart AFB, NY DC-13: Adair AFS, OR
DC-3 / CC-1: Hancock Field, NY DC-14: K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI
DC-4: Fort Lee AFS, VA DC-14: K. I. Sawyer AFB, MI
DC-5: Topsham AFS, ME (blockhouse demolished) DC-15: Larson AFB, WA
DC-6: Fort Custer, MI DC-16: Stead AFB, NV
DC-7 / CC-2: Truax Field, WI DC-17: Norton AFB, CA
DC-8: Richards-Gebaur AFB, MO DC-18: Beale AFB, CA
DC-9: Gunter AFB, AL DC-19 / CC-4*: Minot AFB, ND (* CC-4 blockhouse built,
but AN/FSQ-8 never installed)
DC-10: Duluth IAP, MN DC-20: Malmstrom AFB, MT
DC-11: Grand Forks AFB, ND DC-21: Luke AFB, AZ
DC-22: Sioux City AFS, IA
Thomas E. Page, tepage @ hotmail , com writes-
"By the way, the AN/FSQ-32 was to have been the "SuperSAGE" computer
for planned underground SuperSAGE Combat Control Centers. IBM developed
the computer (based upon the earlier AN/FSQ-7 and AN/FSQ-8 SAGE computers),
but the SuperSAGE facilities were cancelled. One site was to have been near
Cornwall, NY -- see http://www.radomes.org/museum/documents/CornwallNYnyt59.html.
"Many sites were examined for SuperSAGE. One was at Kennesaw Mountain,
Georgia ... Another was at White Horse Mountain, at Cornwall, New York ...
White Horse Mountain is just up the road from West Point." - "Shield of Faith"
by Bruce Briggs (Simon and Shuster, 1988). Reportedly, the AN/FSQ-32 computer
itself did find other aplications -- just not SAGE air-defense aplications."
Thomas E. Page, tepage @ hotmail , com June 16, 2009 writes in response to a question of SAGE numbers.
"
There were 22 SAGE Direction Centers (AN/FSQ-7) in the U.S.; one underground dual SAGE Direction Center (AN/FSQ-7) in Canada. Reportedly, 32 SAGE DC's total were planned.
There were 3 SAGE Control (later Combat) Centers (AN/FSQ-8) in the U.S. Reportedly, 7 SAGE CC's total were planned.
A number of Super-SAGE Combat Centers (AN/FSQ-32) were planned, but none was built. Most were to have built underground (e.g., White Horse Mountain near West Point, NY); at least one SSCC was to have been above-ground (Scott AFB, IL). One prototype Q-32 was installed at the IBM programming center in Santa Monica, CA.
One remote SAGE Combat Center was activated at the former manual at Hamilton AFB using a three-string BUIC-II computer, AN/GSA-51. "
Sage II solid state computer
Bob Boden - bobjoy2 (at) hotmail dot com - October 2006 writes
(e-mail address no longer valid, please contact
ed@ed-thelen.org if you know of Bob Boden.)
"
I wrote the system test programs for the Sage FSQ-7 output system in 1954
and 1955. Later my group worked on the RTA computer which was a precursor
for the solid-state Sage II computer.
"In 1958 I was made the Development Engineering Manager for Central
Processor, Channels, and Operator's Console for the Sage II computer. I
believe that this was the largest transistor computer ever built. It was
intended to replace the old vacuum tube FSQ-7 systems. The System
Development Corporation did our programming.
"We completed the design (which used the Philco MADT transistors -- type
2n501 if I remember rightly) and began physical layout and construction only
to have the government cancel the Sage Program. Our design tested out
beautifully, but only two machines were ever built. One went to SDC in LA
for use in programming, the other went to SAC.
"Why do I never see any reference to the Sage II computer? It was one of the
first 100% self-checked machines. It had a 48 bit word. 6.4mc clock
frequency. It used liquid cooling. SDC said in 1966 that the machine they
had was the most reliable and maintainable they had ever worked with."
Comment on above by Gordon Bell - gbell (at) microsoft dot com - October 2006
"Tom Marill and Larry Roberts performed the first computer-computer network experiment between the Q-32 and TX-2 (I believe).
"See Larry's page http://www.ziplink.net/~lroberts/InternetChronology.html says:
Oct-65 First Actual Network Experiment, Lincoln Labs TX-2 tied to SDC's Q32, Lawrence Roberts, MIT Lincoln Labs. This experiment was the first time two computers talked to each other and the first time packets were used to communicate between computers. "
SAGE Reunion - received May 1007
|
The Western Electric Defense Activities Engineering Services (ADES) Alumni Group held its 25th reunion in Houston this past weekend, April, 27-29. These were the people who integrated and tested the SAGE system at 23 sectors covering the USA back in the late 50's and early 60's.
About 500 engineers and other technical personnel were hired by ADES, trained at MITRE/Lincoln Labs, formed into five teams moving from sector to sector, integrating and testing this first big network of radars, computer centers, air bases, other inputs and ground to air data links. It also tied into the NIKE complex of ground to air missile sites.
Now all in their 70's they still recall the lure of the open road and the early days of computing and data transmission.
The 2008 meeting is tentatively set for San Diego.
R. F. Martina
9870 Jennifer Lane
Shreveport LA 71106
318-797-5419 rfjm9870@aol.com
|
|
The struggle for accuracy
From Roy Mize June 2009 to Paul Lasewicz, IBM Historian
|
I'm a docent at the Computer History Museum (www.computerhistory.org) imn silicon Valley (Mountain view).
Discussing SAGE is part of tmy tour lectures. A visitor asked about my assertion that there were 28 locations where duplexed AN/FSQ-7's were installed; e.g. 56 computers. My reply was that I had researched the subject but I would do so again just to make sure.
In reviewing my original SAGE research and doing new research, I found errors in a variety of places. it is expected in non validated posting, but I found errors in many places including various SAGE listings at the Computer History Museum Website, even at IBM.
I'm attempting to get validated information from all SAGE related vendors, and from archives where the ocmpanies no longer exist. I have a reply from MITRE and am awaiting replies from MIT/Lincoln Labs, AT&T, Western Electric, and Systems Development Corporation (Burroughs/UNISYS) archivists.
I also have a reply from another IBM office. However, they were unable to provide a complete answer.
Here is what I found on a search of IBM history Webpages:
"When fully deployed in 1963, the system consisted of 27 centers throughout North America..."
The number is correct when considered operational Air Force locations - 24 combat direction centers and 3 combat control centers. 27 centers x 2 = 54 computers.
2 additional AN/FSQ-7 computers were installed as a programming support center at RAND/Systems Development Corporation in Santa Monica, California.
I also found a reference that seems to be in error about the relationship of SAGE to the MIT/Whirlwind. Finename = teraflopattackilluminata.pdf. URL = www-03.ibm.com/servers/deepcomputing/pdf/teraflopattackilluminata.pdf
"IBM's been before. Its Whirlwind II used 55,000 vacuum tubes. "
Other sources state that Whirlwind II, as such, was never built. SAGE was sometimes described as Whirlwind II, but this is incorrect according to other sources.
My objective is to obtain documentqation from validated sources to use in preparing an accurate catabase of SAGE information. The computer History Museum has become a principal source for historical research on computers. As a docent, I;m spending time because our arhivisist can't spend the time I've expended on trcking down accurte information.
Your help would be greatly appreciated.
|
From Dale Williams May 2004
>> I was one of the Airman that Blue Suited the Q-7 at
>> Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, Mt in 1963.
>Question:
> 1) what is "Blue Suited"?
When the SAGE project first became an active weapons system for the Air Defense Command, the maintenance on the FSQ.-7 (&8) was preformed by IBM. In the early 60's the Air Force decided to take over maintenance or "Blue Suit" maintenance. It was a term used by the Air Force (at least at that time) to signify that Air Force personnel would be doing the job instead of civilian personnel. Did I clear that up or make it murkier?
>> Spent three years working in the Central Computer section
>> of the Q-7.
> Hmmm - sound like "Blue Suited" is maintenance?
> A person trained/specialized in one section?
When I first went into computers in the Air Force (I cross-trained out of air-craft radio maintenance), it was divided up into three sections. We were some of the first in the Air Force to be in the new field, computers. The section you were in was determined by an IQ test. If you did good in logical thinking, you were assigned to the central computer section. For what is a computer, but a logical thinking machine. If you did good in mechanical, you were assigned to input/output. That included card readers and card punches, printers, tape drives and computer entry punches. Plus the logic that controlled the input/output between the Long Range Radar sites and the Q-7. And the logic for the X-tell (cross talking) between the other Q-7 sites and the forward-tel and back-tel to the Q-8 sites. The FSQ.-7 was a direction center and for every so many Q-7's there was a FSQ-8 which was the control center. From there it went on up to NORAD.
They later determined this was not the way to break down the maintenance, as the computers and the peripheral equipment became more sophisticated. The transition from electron tubes to transistors and then on to chips made the computer so small that it just was not feasible to divide the maintenance up anymore. So you worked on everything as you were assigned from one system to another.
> Got any "war stories" that techies might enjoy?
>> The other two sections being Displays and Input/Output.
>> I got to work on the Q-7 in its final days at Luke AFB, Az.
>> in the early 70's. I was only there for about a year or so.
>> It wasn't nearly as exciting as the my first time up at Great Falls.
>> I had worked on a whole lot newer computer in the mean time,
>> but not physically bigger.
> Easy to believe ;-)
Also, you were actually in side the computer when you preformed maintenance. Everything was bigger than life with the Q-7. So you could, with an o-scope, look at each and every bit of the word as it worked its way through the computer. It was really a simple machine to work on, when I compare it to later and physically smaller, but much faster systems. I did work on other large systems, the Philco 2000 and 1000 at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Complex and the IBM 360 and 370 at a satellite monitoring site in Australia. But, even if they were larger and faster computers, it just wasn't the same as the old Q-7.
>> The Q-7 was the easiest computer I worked on,
>> more forgiving of my mistakes.
>> Dale Williams
>> blackkoko22@yahoo.com
I hope this clears up some of the questions and just doesn't generate a whole lot more. But if I can answer any other questions I will certainly try. It does strain the old memory going back 40 years to remember things. But it is fun remembering.
Dale
|
From Les Earnest Mar 2009 - replying about ARPANET in INFOROOTS
Les is not overly shy ;-)) (And I think SAGE was overly, unnecessarily sensitive to enemy jamming.)
This article is for those who think that
large organizations are/can-be efficient. No exceptions are discussed here :-|
Sue Thomas wrote:
>
> As per my earlier posts, I’m researching the influence of California
> on the development of the environment we now know as cyberspace. [
> http://www.thewildsurmise.com ] I’ve just read Annalee Saxenian’s
> ‘Regional Advantage’ about the cultural differences between east coast
> and west coast tech industries, and that has led me to wonder whether
> it would have made a huge difference to the development of the
> internet if the first few nodes had been based in east coast locations
> (apart from the obvious technical issues which had made the selected
> groups the best choice). Maybe the idea was even considered then
> discarded?
>
> To refresh your memories, the first 4 nodes of Arpanet were in Los
> Angeles, Menlo Park, Santa Barbara, and Utah. Any thoughts on possible
> alternative hosts on the East Coast – or other parts of the US – along
> with speculations as to whether anything would have been different,
> and why?
>
=======================================
In my view the East-West question doesn't make sense at several levels.
- First, there was no 4 node ARPAnet, though some now like to think
there was. The first four nodes were designated as a test rig, composed
of sites that were willing to shake down, debug and measure the
performance of the first packet switching schemes. The first operational
network was to be transcontinental and have 8 nodes though things got a
bit mixed up before all of the early sites got on line.
- The first nodes connected were not Los Angeles, Menlo Park, Santa
Barbara, and Utah. They were UCLA, SRI, UCSB, and U. Utah. It didn't
matter where they were located.
- ARPAnet was based principally on technology developed on the East
Coast, specifically at MIT.
I believe I am qualified to comment inasmuch as I was at MIT in the late
1950s when the underlying technology was developed there and was the
Stanford representative on the ARPAnet startup committee during 1967-68.
For the record, I'm a West Coast guy who went East for 12 years.
It appears to me that there were five key steps that led to the creation
of ARPAnet building on the 1950 technology base provided by general
purpose computers and telegraph and telephone systems:
(1) development of high speed digital communications;
(2) development of computer timesharing;
(3) recognition of the need for an integrated network;
(4) proof that partially connected networks would work;
(5) development of packet switching.
Steps 1, 2 and 4 happened at MIT; 3 and 5 were done mostly by people
from MIT.
HIGH SPEED DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
The first computer network was part of the SAGE air defense system,
which was initiated by MIT Lincoln Lab in the 1950s. SAGE used modems
that had been invented nearby in 1949 by Jack Harrington and his group
at the Air Force Cambridge Research Center (AFCRC). SAGE became a
nationwide network connecting 23 gigantic computers, one being in
Canada. I use the term "gigantic" in the physical sense inasmuch they
were the largest computers ever built. Each had about 55,000 vacuum
tubes and occupied an area the size of a football field. Never mind that
as an air defense system SAGE was a fraud that cost taxpayers billions
of dollars and was a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex that
has since bilked U.S. taxpayers out of many more billions. That
conspiracy is still going strong but it's another story.
SAGE used digital communications to collect radar data from remote
sites, transmit guidance commands via packet radio to manned
interceptors and ground-to-air missiles, and to send tactical
information to adjacent control centers and to higher level
command-control systems. However all these links were special-purpose.
TIMESHARING
Another thing that had to be invented before ARPAnet became worthwhile
was timesharing, since without it there would have been no need for
interactive networking until about 20 years later, when personal
computers became feasible. Timesharing was an accidental invention in
SAGE, which processed radar data cyclically and put keyboard
interactions and display generation in the same loop. That was a
special-purpose kind of timesharing but John McCarthy, who was then a
professor at MIT, foresaw the need for general purpose timesharing and
proposed it in 1959. Subsequently several timesharing projects in the
Boston area confirmed its feasibility in the early 1960s, the first
being CTSS at MIT. The first commercial timesharing.system was the
PDP-6, developed in 1964 by Digital Equipment Corporation, a spin-off
from MIT Lincoln Lab.
RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR A GENERAL PURPOSE NETWORK
The first person to clearly enunciate the need for a general purpose
computer network was J.C.R. Licklider, or "Lick" as his friends called
him. I first met Lick in 1949, when he gave me a summer job as a guinea
pig in one of his experiments. I ran into him again when I joined MIT
Lincoln Lab in 1956 to help design SAGE. Lick later became a key
scientist at Bolt, Baranek and Newman (BBN), where he supported the
development by Ed Fredkin and John McCarthy of an early timesharing
system on a DEC PDP-1 computer. In 1962 Lick joined the Defense
Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and founded its
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). A short time later he
proposed building an interactive network linking existing timesharing
systems. Lick didn't know exactly how to build such a network but left
it on the IPTO agenda when he returned to MIT and kept pushing for it --
see http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0366.html?printable=1
PROOF THAT PARTIALLY CONNECTED NETWORKS CAN WORK
The next two steps in ARPAnet development came out of a group of MIT
graduate students who spent evenings and weekends in the early 1960s
sharing the TX-2 computer at MIT Lincoln Lab. TX-2 had been designed by
Wes Clark, mostly using modules that had been engineered by Ken Olson
before he left to found DEC. Some of the students involved were Ivan
Sutherland who was developing his Sketchpad drawing system, Larry
Roberts who was working on perception of three dimensional objects from
photographs, and Len Kleinrock who was doing network simulations to
investigate queuing theory for various configurations of partially
connected networks. I was there too, creating the first cursive
handwriting recognizer, which included the first spelling checker as a
subroutine. We all helped each other occasionally and became friends.
Kleinrock completed his PhD in 1963 and showed that a partially
connected network could provide adequate throughput between any pair of
nodes. He then accepted a faculty appointment at UCLA. Concurrently,
Paul Baran at Rand Corporation was looking at networking from the
viewpoint of survivability in an environment where links could be taken
out and concluded that a multipath network would be more survivable than
the tree-structured networks used in military communications systems. He
attempted to get funding to build such a system but was unable to get it
funded. Later Donald Davies in Britain also advocated a packet switching
scheme but also was unable to find funding.
Ivan Sutherland finished his dissertation in 1963 and in 1964 was
recruited by Lick as his replacement, so that Lick could return to MIT.
Larry Roberts had also finished his dissertation in 1963 and hung around
Lincoln Lab. Ivan followed up on Lick's idea of creating a network by
funding Larry to put together a link between two timesharing systems,
the TX-2 at Lincoln Lab and the AN/FSQ-32 at Systems Development
Corporation.
Meanwhile I was loaned by my employer (MITRE Corp., an MIT spin-off) to
the Central Intelligence Agency for a year and then to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to work on more ill-conceived projects. Given that Ivan and I
were both in the Washington area we socialized occasionally and, in
1965, he tried to recruit me to join him at ARPA. I politely declined,
saying that after working in the military-industrial complex for over a
dozen years my goal was to get as far from the Pentagon as possible. He
then kindly suggested that I talk to Stanford, where he had just funded
a new million dollar computer facility for artificial intelligence
research but then had second thoughts about project management there. I
followed that suggestion and soon joyously left for Stanford. I learned
later that Ivan had also tried to recruit Larry Roberts, who also
declined, but was able to get Bob Taylor to come from NASA.
DEVELOPMENT OF ARPANET
When Bob Taylor took over IPTO at the end of 1965 he decided to move
ahead on creating a network and realized that he needed someone with
expertise to lead the project. Apparently based on suggestions from Lick
and Ivan he recruited Larry Roberts. Perhaps more accurately, he coerced
Roberts by leaning on his employer, MIT. Upon joining ARPA Roberts put
together a start-up committee composed of representatives of sites that
we interested in participating. I participated representing the Stanford
Artificial Intelligence Lab (SAIL) even though my boss, John McCarthy,
had major reservations about this possibly intrusive project.
We started formulating packet designs and our original plan was to have
each timesharing system talk directly to its neighbors over the network.
However Wes Clark, who had been the architect of TX-2 and other things,
then made the excellent suggestion that minicomputers be used to handle
packet switching. Those machines, which we called Interface Message
Processors (IMPs), would then talk to the main computer through a
separate interface.
We developed performance specifications for the network that focused on
two functions: file transfer and remote access, which came to be called
"Telnet". As I recall we discussed doing email briefly, given that it
was already available in some timesharing systems, but rejected it as a
frivolous use of the net -- after all, we already had U.S. Mail (!).
Though we were somewhat off-target in our initial choice of services it
turned out well in the long run. When the need for email services was
recognized a few years later it was easily provided using the file
transfer capability and when interactive web applications began to be
developed about 35 years later the short round-trip communications
delays specified for Telnet proved adequate for these new applications.
As I recall the Request for Proposals was issued in the summer of 1968
and our committee reviewed the resulting technical proposals at a
meeting in November that year in Monterey, California, at the Del Monte
Hotel, which I had arranged. Of the dozen or so that were submitted
there were two standouts, from Raytheon and BBN, both from the Boston
area. The consensus evaluation of our committee, based just on technical
issues, not financial proposals, was that Raytheon was the better
choice, though I thought BBN had done a better job and said so. Perhaps
I was influenced by the fact that a substantial number of people in the
BBN group had recently come there from Lincoln Lab after working on
SAGE. In any case I was happily surprised two months later to learn that
BBN was selected as the contractor. I later tried to find out how that
happened but got conflicting reports.
As soon as the IMP interface specifications were developed by BBN we all
started working on making that connection. I got one of our graduate
students (perhaps Phil Petit) to design the hardware and another (Andy
Moorer) to write the operating system software. However we then ran into
a brick wall. Our operating system, which was closely related to DEC's
TOPS-10, required that the entire system be resident in main memory,
which was then core. Unfortunately the addition of the ARPAnet interface
software made the operating system so large that there was not enough
room to run user programs! I therefore had to round up more funding, go
out for bids on more core memory and get it installed before we could
connect to ARPAnet. Thus even though we were supposed to be one of the
elite initial eight we were unable to connect until some months later.
Even then ARPAnet was not a very lively place, though the pace picked up
a lot after email was added. Most sites left many of their data and
program files publicly accessible and a lot of benign thievery went on,
which was fine inasmuch as nearly all of the participants were
universities. For example after I recruited Ralph Gorin to make an
improved spelling checker around 1971 it soon spread over the net to
most DEC-10 and DEC-20 computer facilities that were on the net.
After I wrote FINGER, which provided a kind of social networking service
and had a proto-blog capability (see
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/pcperipherals/0,39051168,61998604,00.htm),
it soon spread everywhere. Unfortunately the Unix version, written at UC
Berkeley, had a security vulnerability that was exploited by the first
Internet Worm, launched in 1988 from MIT by Robert Morris. Happily,
FINGER was used more constructively by other people, including Linus
Torvalds who reportedly used his ,plan file to coordinate the
development of Linux.
When Vint Cerf finished his PhD at UCLA in 1972 and came to Stanford, I
helped him round up funding for his network protocol research project
that produced TCP/IP, which facilitated the integration of disparate
networks into the Internet beginning 1 January 1983.
In summary, the trajectory of ARPAnet turned out to be a somewhat bumpy
but it demonstrated the practicality of packet switching and was close
enough to what was needed that it was able to evolve useful services. In
the beginning all telecommunications companies scoffed at the idea that
packet switching networks would work but they have now largely switched
over to using this technology. It is amusing to note that in 1976 AT&T
was offered the chance to take over ARPAnet with no up-front cost if
they would agree to run it, but they refused on the grounds that this
technology had no future!
-Les Earnest
Sue Thomas wrote:
>
> As per my earlier posts, I’m researching the influence of California
> on the development of the environment we now know as cyberspace. [
> http://www.thewildsurmise.com ] I’ve just read Annalee Saxenian’s
> ‘Regional Advantage’ about the cultural differences between east coast
> and west coast tech industries, and that has led me to wonder whether
> it would have made a huge difference to the development of the
> internet if the first few nodes had been based in east coast locations
> (apart from the obvious technical issues which had made the selected
> groups the best choice). Maybe the idea was even considered then
> discarded?
>
> To refresh your memories, the first 4 nodes of Arpanet were in Los
> Angeles, Menlo Park, Santa Barbara, and Utah. Any thoughts on possible
> alternative hosts on the East Coast – or other parts of the US – along
> with speculations as to whether anything would have been different,
> and why?
>
|
|
