Live data from Hacker News

Collapse OS

collapseos.org

91–100 of 323 posts

Re: Collapse OS

#91

I've been sort of half-assed working on a novel about a post-tech future (100+ years after apocalypse), where a handful of people retained some technology by virtue of having stored information about it in a manner that survived and a tradition of scavenging and trading and a sort of religion based on maintaining it in a working state. So, this is a fun read and thought experiment, even if an 8-bit computer is probab…

Jacquard Looms. No electronics required.

Re: Collapse OS

#92

Is there a rad-hardened version of z80?

There allegedly was one, but I can't find any info on it. Given the relative simplicity of a Z80 compared to newer CPU designs, it should be relatively "easy" to harden it.

There was definitely a rad-hardened version of the 8085 (similar to the 8080, and therefore to the Z80), which was used on the Sojourner rover (among various other NASA and ESA spacecraft). Seems like RISC processors were more common for this, though (looks like most relatively-recent NASA spacecraft - including pretty much all of NASA's Mars landers after Sojourner - use(d) rad-hardened POWER CPUs, e.g. the RAD6000 and RAD750).

Re: Collapse OS

#94

Is there a rad-hardened version of z80?

I have found many people saying that a rad-hardened Z80 with ferrite-core memory was used on the Space Shuttle, though I can't find an authoritative source to back that up.

unlikely [0]

though Sojourner rover used a rad-hardened 80C85 [1]

[0] https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group.php?...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_embedded_compute...

Re: Collapse OS

#95

Is there a rad-hardened version of z80?

I have found many people saying that a rad-hardened Z80 with ferrite-core memory was used on the Space Shuttle, though I can't find an authoritative source to back that up.

The Shuttle did indeed use core memory for awhile, but in what was basically a repackaged and rad-hardened System/360 (so not Z80-based AFAICT): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi

Re: Collapse OS

#96
Neat idea, but I'm not seeing the window of usefulness for this.

If society collapses and recovers relatively quickly, we likely can coast for 10-20 years on the computers that have already been built. This would be what I'd expect to happen with a point-in-time catastrophe that disrupts everything but then ends and we can all set to work to rebuilding everything. (Like a massive economic collapse, huge meteor strike, nuclear winter, etc.) Even if 95% of computers become inoperable, there's a lot you can do with the remaining 5%. Probably more than what you can do with new stuff you build.

Another scenario is that we recover really slowly. This would be due to some kind of enduring factor that holds back humanity, like a really long-term famine or global political instability that we somehow cannot reset. In that case, what's the hurry to develop software that's ready to go? Maximizing compute capability doesn't seem like it would be the thing that tips the scales and allows society to get rolling again. For that you need to solve whatever the root problem is.

TLDR, if we fall, maybe there is nothing holding us down, and we can bounce back up relatively quickly, in which case we don't need this. Or there is something holding us down, then it seems unlikely that computing is what we need to solve that.

Maybe there are other scenarios that I haven't thought of, though. Or ways that computing would help in the above scenarios.

Re: Collapse OS

#97
Why z80 and not x86 or AArch, which are both more readily accessible today? This whole idea reeks of someone trying to reconcile their love of old computers with their poorly considered death-cult Malthusianism.

Re: Collapse OS

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could a Z80 do these things effectively? Honest question.

Yes, sensor monitoring (movement, heat, wind) is just simple IO handling and I'm sure managing a SQLite database would be in it's capabilities. If a C64 is capable of all if this then it can be done. Even chat is possible for example between two buildings where radio might not penetrate the walls. But sure, at that point if you can lay down cables, then it's simpler to just build a telephone.

SQLite assumes quite a bit more resources than a Z80 has.

Re: Collapse OS

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea. But I ask (not being annoying), do we really need it? Seems like having all of that more distributed in the hands of users would be a better protection against unavailability.

Usually the idea behind a doomsday vault is that you're keeping everything securely in one place in case there is widespread disaster that sufficiently wipes out the distributed knowledge. They're not mutually exclusive.

And to expand on this: ideally we wouldn't have just one repository of hardware and knowledge of how to use/recreate that hardware, just like how ideally we wouldn't have just one repository of seeds and knowledge of how to plant/cultivate those seeds. We should be aiming to have as many redundant Svalbard-style doomsday vaults as possible, for all sorts of things (seeds, computers, medicine, you name it).

Re: Collapse OS

#100

I've been sort of half-assed working on a novel about a post-tech future (100+ years after apocalypse), where a handful of people retained some technology by virtue of having stored information about it in a manner that survived and a tradition of scavenging and trading and a sort of religion based on maintaining it in a working state. So, this is a fun read and thought experiment, even if an 8-bit computer is probab…

Ben Eater's YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS0N5baNlQWJCUrhCEo8WlA) shows the step-by-step process of building an 8-bit computer, running a display and sending data over a network from fundamental components. He does use some manufactured stuff like breadboards, timing crystals and ICs, but it's still pretty cool stuff. Building computers from raw minerals would be pretty tough.
Post reply on HN