Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Digital Domesday Rescued By Emulation

Posted by timothy on Mon Dec 02, 2002 02:35 PM
from the good-thing-it-wasn't-palladium-protected dept.
eefsee writes "The BBC announced that the Digital Domesday project which had become unusable has now been revived thanks to the successful emulation of a 1980's era Acorn computer. Folks at Leeds University and University of Michigan did the emulation work. This is just one early indication of how difficult it will be to maintain our digital heritage. Note that the printed Domesday Book, on which the digital project was modeled, is still quite accessible after almost 1000 years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Digital Domesday Rescued By Emulation | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 395 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • doomsday?? what? by eegad (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:38PM
  • Which computer? by red_dragon (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:38PM
    • Re:Which computer? by ryants (Score:3) Monday December 02 2002, @02:41PM
      • Re:Which computer? (Score:5, Informative)

        by gwernol (167574) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:00PM (#4795810)
        BBC Micro == Acorn == Acorn BBC Micro.

        Or more accurately:

        The British Broadcasting Company (the BBC) wanted to build a microcomputer in the early 1980s which they could use as part of their effort to promote national computer literacy. The idea was to have a standard machine that they could use in their TV shows - and viewers could buy one of their own and learn to use and program it by watching the shows.

        After approaching several UK computer manufacturers they settled on Acorn. At the time Acorn were a leading supplier of micros, notable the Acorn Atom. The BBC contracted Acorn to produce a new more advanced version of the Atom which was designed and manufactured by Acorn but sold as the BBC Micro.

        The BBC Micro was never sold as an Acorn machine, indeed Acorn produced their own rival (and much less successful) machine called the Electron.

        So your equation is not strictly true, but its close.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Which computer? (Score:5, Informative)

          by SpinyNorman (33776) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:19PM (#4795956)
          The Beeb may have had the BBC owl logo on it, but they were sold by (and the profits went to) Acorn. The Electron was basically a lost cost version of the Beeb, another part of the product line - it wasn't a rival. I was Acorn employeee ~12.

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Which computer? by Goth Biker Babe (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:59AM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Which computer? by Salsaman (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:42PM
    • Both, actually... by mdb31 (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:43PM
    • Re:Which computer? by iggymanz (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:46PM
    • Re:Which computer? by Brian Blessed (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:52PM
    • Re:Which computer? by jnik (Score:3) Monday December 02 2002, @02:54PM
    • To arms! by vsprintf (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @07:02PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Yes by DoctorFrog (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @02:06AM
  • DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2002, @02:41PM (#4795653)
    <sarcasm>

    See? This is why we need DRM. If there were proper DRM going on then of course it would have been recoverable! We would just need the exact system(nope, can't change the processor, or the video card, or the hard driver) in order to recover it!

    See, doesn't DRM help us all?

    </sarcasm>
    • Re:DRM (Score:5, Funny)

      by C A S S I E L (16009) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:41PM (#4796162) Homepage
      Actually, it's just as well the data was on videodisc rather than DVD. Otherwise, think of all the work that would have done on the emulator, only to arrive at the message

      Region Error

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:DRM by patrixx (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:24AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:DRM by kubrick (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @12:46AM
  • Frisbee by Funkitup (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:42PM
    • Re:Frisbee by pVoid (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:02PM
      • Re:Frisbee by The Cydonian (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:15PM
        • Re:Frisbee by Funkitup (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @08:01PM
          • And here by Funkitup (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @08:03PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • copyright/DMCA issues? by tps12 (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:42PM
  • Interesting to think.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quirk (36086) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:42PM (#4795661) Homepage Journal
    how badly DRM driven by capitalist proprietory concerns conflicts so inimically with culture, history and knowledge.
  • So why (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cybercomm (557435) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:42PM (#4795667) Homepage Journal
    Didn't they just save one of those acorn computers? I mean the voltage hasn't changed, so all they had to do was brong that pc out of retirement, find a way to hook it up to a 486 and transfer the files...or is it more complicated than that?
    • Re:So why by madhippy (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:10PM
      • Re:So why by The Cydonian (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:20PM
      • Re:So why by Waffle Iron (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:24PM
      • Re:So why by BigBadaboom (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @09:03PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:So why by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday December 02 2002, @03:11PM
    • Re:So why by Trogre (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @05:29PM
      • Re:So why by Froggie (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:36AM
      • Re:So why by Trogre (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @03:20PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • I am guessing... by mschoolbus (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:42PM
  • What's so hard by Tri0de (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:43PM
    • Re:What's so hard by xsbellx (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:56PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What's so hard (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iggymanz (596061) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:57PM (#4795788)
      Only problem is that devices can age and wear out just sitting on the shelf - electrolytic capacitors can dry out, transformers can leak PCB's, metals can corrode, etc.

      A schematic does not contain all of the information needed to build a device, either. Seeing, for example, that a 2N2222 bipolar NPN transistor is required for an amplifier isn't going to be too useful in the year 2100, I would bet. And the paper those semiconductor companies use for those big thick spec books? that crap turns yellow and falls apart in 10 years!
      [ Parent ]
      • PCB's ? by buckinm (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @09:08PM
        • Re:PCB's ? by silentbozo (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @10:00PM
        • Re:PCB's ? by iggymanz (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @10:02PM
      • Re:What's so hard by rcw-home (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:45PM
      • Re:What's so hard by iggymanz (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @03:29PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What's so hard by Handpaper (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @06:24PM
  • nice! by newsdee (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:43PM
  • Our digital heritage? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Chester K (145560) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:46PM (#4795692) Homepage
    This is just one early indication of how difficult it will be to maintain our digital heritage.

    If something is truly of importance, it will be ported forward to new technologies before the existing technology becomes so out of date that recovering it becomes a Herculian effort, or it will also co-exist in a more future-proof medium. Otherwise it's simply dead data that's more than likely never going to have a need to be accessed again.... not every bit needs to be held forever.

    Would the world have stopped turning if this little chunk of history gone unrecovered? No. Are there other forms of media (books, videos, music) from the 1980's that would have answered the same questions about culture and society that the data in this archive answers? Definately.
    • What is truly important by Cardbox (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:52PM
    • Re:Our digital heritage? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by budalite (454527) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:05PM (#4795856)
      My initial reaction was very similar to yours. "Well, gee." Upon further thought, I realized that I am familiar with quite a few cases where a set/bunch of info was initially thought to be useless, allowed to go "fallow" (become forgotten, etc.), and later re-discovered and found to be of "ground-breaking" importance. One of the best examples might be the "losing" of just about everything really useful that was written by the ancient Greeks. The "saviors" of this "technology" were the Arabs. The rediscovery of the Greek philosophers (et al). helped usher in the European Reformation. :})||
      [ Parent ]
    • Future Proof? by Irvu (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:30PM
    • Re:Our digital heritage? by gl4ss (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:54PM
    • Re:Our digital heritage? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rodgerd (402) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:57PM (#4796284) Homepage
      Yeah, that's right. The current generation *always* knows what's valuable and what isn't.

      For example, we don't miss any of the treasures of the Roman empire lost under Constantine, Justinian and his successors when the newly ascendant Christians went on a Taliban style orgy of destruction, smashing up anything they considered "pagan" or "unacceptable".

      And scholars of Rome *certainly* don't miss any of the works held in the libraries of Rome that were destroyed by the Gothic invaders before the so-called dark ages.

      Nor does anyone regret that poverty striken Icelanders took to using ancient manuscripts for dress patterns and firelighters in the 19th century. Nope, didn't lose much there at all.

      Hell, we don't even miss all those Egyptian writings destoryed in the 19th century. Or by the Aswan Dam project.

      And of course, accidents never happen. Just forget about that little fire in the Library of Alexandra.

      I genuflect to your superior wisdom and knowledge.
      [ Parent ]
    • Let's simplify this for you. by twitter (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @04:33PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • What about next time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2002, @02:46PM (#4795694)
    From the article:

    'The software and hardware needed to access the Domesday discs is to be deposited at the Public Record Office once the project is completed.'

    This is all fine and good, but it has already introduced the problem we'll face in approximately 2015:

    We're going to have to create an emulator for the emulator.

    And so on, ad infinitum. What we really need is some universally acceptable method to store digital data that isn't likely to decay or fall out of favor in the next ten years. That, I'm afraid, is a difficult proposition.

    I just hope the emulator's emulator works.

  • The Curse of History (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alien54 (180860) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:47PM (#4795708) Journal
    The politcal implications of this are interesting.

    It is very much easier to educate a person according to the curriculum you desire if contradictory information is not available, especially regarding the history of a place. The extreme example is that of the Pol Pot regime. But you also see it in a newspaper when they fire all of the old hands who know where the bodies are buried, and only the young bucks are around who can be easily stampeded. No institutional memory.

    On another note - if you want to damn a politician to history, make sure to get those stone obelisk and stelli erected with heavy engraving. Make sure some are out in the desert so that they are properly preserved.

    Archeologists will come by centuries later and will take what you say as truth. Or at least very seriously. Have a field day.

    the digital data will have disappeared, and the testimony on your stone monuments will be one of the few surviving original source records from the era.

    • Re:The Curse of History by MrEd (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:54PM
    • Ulimate Revenge (Score:4, Funny)

      by Alien54 (180860) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:28PM (#4796034) Journal
      the digital data will have disappeared, and the testimony on your stone monuments will be one of the few surviving original source records from the era.

      I can see it all now. LUGs getting together to make testimonial stone glyphs testifying to the Ages their opinions of the character of their least favorite politician or software company.

      • We have gathered together to have this monument built as a testimony to the ages of our opinion of Mr. X.
      • We recognise that much of what we know will not survive our age and our time. And therefore we want to make sure that the following is known to the ages.
      • That He was rich through the sale of inferior goods
      • That the inferiority was such as to cause many people to also become wealthy throught the repair and maintenance of these goods
      • that the time and effort wasted in the repair and maintenance of these goods was a sore and a parasite on the health of our whole community
      • that the loss of these resources are a curse upon the land.
      • That therefore we place a curse on him and his descendents for the damge done to the future of our lives, and that of our posterity.

      You get the idea. Also applies to politicians.

      have a blast. Have it placed on you tombstone or something. or in the side of a cliff.

      [ Parent ]
    • The mighty vi by horza (Score:2) Wednesday December 04 2002, @06:44AM
  • This is why... by core plexus (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:48PM
  • Paper is cool by rtstyk (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:50PM
  • Emulate? by Vladislas (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:50PM
  • Whew... by ZoneGray (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:52PM
  • Abandonware (Score:4, Funny)

    by slipkid (442316) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:52PM (#4795748) Homepage Journal
    The Domesday Project is now officially abandonware...

    Rumor has it that MAME 0.7 [mame.net] will support it.
  • I remember Arcons by Lossenelin (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:56PM
  • Major reason for open source! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @02:57PM
  • by sheldon (2322) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:02PM (#4795837)
    "Note that the printed Domesday Book, on which the digital project was modeled, is still quite accessible after almost 1000 years."

    Not really. I saw one volume of the Domesday book at the White Tower back in 2000. It was sealed under a sealed glass box, and you could only look at the two pages it was turned to. I would have tried to get access to it under the box, but there were these guards that looked quite intimidating and they kept saying "Move along..."

    Even then, I could barely make out the cryptic scribbles. Sure didn't look like English to me.

    At least with a digital version they can make infinite copies of it and distribute it to anybody interested, unlike the paper version locked up under a glass box.
    • Re:Original Domesday is not quite accessible by sheldon (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @03:04PM
    • by Selanit (192811) on Monday December 02 2002, @04:05PM (#4796350)
      Even then, I could barely make out the cryptic scribbles. Sure didn't look like English to me.

      There's a good reason for that: the Domesday Book wasn't written in English. It was written by Norman monks as the article mentions. They wrote it in Latin. That was the language of government, the arts, and bureaucracy in those days. Old French was a strong second. And Old English, as the language of a subjugated populace, came in a distant, distant third.

      æ And even if it had been written in English, you still wouldn't have been able to read it without special training. Here is an example of Old English (from memory, so if there are any mistakes, they're mine!):

      Sume dæge hit gelamp æt an nunnan of æm ilcan mynstre geforon in on hire wyrt-tun. Ond ær heo gesawon an leahtric, and hit gelyste æs.
      Translated roughly, that means:
      It so happened that a nun of that same monastery went into their garden. And there she saw a particular lettuce, and she wanted it.
      The language has changed substantially since those days, no? And as if that weren't bad enough, styles of handwriting have changed an awful lot too. Once you get into postgraduate-level medieval studies, you get special training in reading historical forms of handwriting, the study of which is called palaeography.

      Lastly, the project is not a copy of the original Domesday Book: it was an effort to create a resource of similar utility for future historians by gathering interesting stuff from around the country and storing it in digital form. Videos, maps, and so on, as the article said. There have been some electronic editions of medieval texts, notably the sole remaining manuscript of the poem Beowulf, which was written down in the early 1100s. Alas, it is proprietary, and you have to pay a rather large sum to the British Library if you want a copy. Some of it is web accessible [uky.edu].

      Next question!

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Original Domesday is not quite accessible by thoth (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @04:16PM
    • Re:Original Domesday is not quite accessible by rodgerd (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @04:20PM
    • Re:Original Domesday is not quite accessible by Mendax Veritas (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @05:28PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The Professor (Score:5, Funny)

    by Flamesplash (469287) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:08PM (#4795877) Homepage Journal
    Acorn Computer

    Damn, and I thought the Professor was all that by making a radio out of a coconut. A computer in an acorn? DAMN!
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Remembering dead technology by theCat (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:13PM
  • decoding old english decoding Acorn computer by rkowen (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:15PM
  • I was 12 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inda (580031) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Monday December 02 2002, @03:18PM (#4795951) Journal
    My school took part in creating the Digital Domesday book, as most schools did. We did the normal scapebook thing; pictures and stories. Only the best stuff made it in.

    I also remember see the finished version in the Natural History museum (or was it the Science museum?). It had one of those Marble Madness balls on the front for navigating - great fun.

    If they put this online it will make a good read.

    The original is here. [domesdaybook.co.uk]

  • Not even carving it onto a rock is enough... by mst (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:21PM
  • Digital Data for Dummies by DiscoBiscuit (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @03:21PM
  • The difficulty is hubris (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eXtro (258933) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:26PM (#4796022) Homepage Journal
    Digital media is the easiest thing in the world to preserve. Digital data can be migrated to more modern media (casette v.s. hard drive v.s. digital video disc) with increasing efficiency with every passing generation. People have already copied data off of 5 1/4" floppies onto 3.5" floppies onto Syquest drives onto CD-ROMS. Nothing is lost in this process. A photograph of the Mona Lisa loses something over the original painting. A digital copy of a photograph of the Mona Lisa doesn't need to lose anything over the photograph.


    The real problem is that people don't look any further than right here, right now. All that's required to preserve digital data for future generations to revere or vilify is an effort to keep migrating it onto future media and to publish the method of reading the data along with it. Software formats come and go, there are probably software packages that can't even reliably read data using older versions of that software package.


    The specification for the format in which the data is stored is the Rosetta Stone of the 21st century. Make this open and data can live in perpetuity.

  • About The Doomesday Project by Brian Blessed (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:28PM
  • Aliens (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saihung (19097) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:40PM (#4796157)
    I think the only way to preserve data over the very long term (thousands of years) is to assume that whoever reads it in the future will be an alien (eg so different from us as to make any assumptions impossibile). Assume nothing about what we may have in common, and start from the basics. Any digital data that wants to be permanent in the same way that cuneaform tablets are permanent must contain not only data, but must begin with a complete description of what it takes to decode the data, starting from establishing a basic mathematical language. Very, very difficult. Perhaps we should be consulting linguists and archeologists when we're looking to put together these kinds of archives? Ask an archeologist, "What would make your job easier if you found it in the beginning of an ancient inscribed stone tablet? What kinds of things would aid you in translating it?" and go from there.
    • Re:Aliens by John Hasler (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @07:07PM
  • This is a fall at the first hurdle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams (2972) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:44PM (#4796200) Homepage
    Think about the next few centuries for a bit:
    1. This became inaccessible after 10 years.
    2. Archaelogogists in 1000 years are likely to be interested in what we are (were) up to today, that is 100 times as many generation times as it took the Acorn to become unusable.
    3. Many of the designers of the original machines are probably still around - and able to help. They won't be in 1000 years time (insert caveat about medical advances here).
    4. The article talks about changes in hardware and software that made the old formats unreadable, how often will that change over 1000 years - especially if proprietary s/ware vendors need to churn to get upgrade fees?
    5. The data was stored on 2 video disks, not a large amount of data - quite pheasable to have a project to recover the data. What about the data that we might want to store today ? What about the data that will be generated over the next 1000 years ?
      To be kept available future data archives will need to be copied over and over. They will have to be copied in bulk, there will not be the man power to do specials on anything.
    6. Data is only useful is readable and searchable. Will a future archaeologist be willing to learn to use 100 generations of applications to look at 1000 years of archive ?
    7. Disasters happen. This data must be free so that it can be freely copied many times to many places.

    What am I trying to say: this problem will get worse, worse than you can imagine. Well defined, simple Open standards for data is a must for the basics. Well defined, simple Open standards for Open Source applications to implement anything richer - these applications growing gradually over time, but maintaining backwards compatability. I still use troff and can still maintain/print documents that are over 15 years old.

    A proprietary future will be much poorer than an Open one. A future that overly controls copying will be much poorer than an open one.

    All of the numbers above are probably an underestimate.

  • still working by twem2 (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:44PM
  • Preserving data in perpetuity by davecl (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:45PM
  • Linear B? by dismentor (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:48PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Digital Domesday?` by minus_273 (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @04:04PM
  • This Is Natural Selection by Mannerism (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @04:17PM
  • Why didn't they just buy one? by g4dget (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @04:21PM
  • I remember it. by caluml (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @04:35PM
  • Domesday Book is accessible? by jstott (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @04:35PM
  • It isn't Digital by CrosbieSmith (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @04:44PM
  • On The Contray by John Hasler (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @04:45PM
  • Question then by gr8_phk (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @04:48PM
  • Long Now by jonv (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @05:04PM
  • Accessible? Not quite. by pclminion (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @05:06PM
  • The Long Now Foundation worries about this by cweagle (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @05:08PM
  • Digital Domesday by pr0nbot (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @05:55PM
  • Discs by tubabeat (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @05:56PM
  • by elronxenu (117773) on Monday December 02 2002, @05:59PM (#4797183) Homepage
    It sounds like the recovery team had only the finished, "executable" version of the system to work with. Using an emulator allowed them to use the content without really understanding the data structures or algorithms within. And therein lies the problem. By making the "binary" work, they have doomed (heh) themselves to continue to keep that binary working until somebody gets the right idea, and converts the system into "source code" which can be used with any modern technology.

    As the GNU project says, "source code" is the preferred form for modification of a work. For this project, the source code for the display program might be BASIC or assembler, but that's not important. What's important is the text/image/video/audio content, and the source form for that content might be XML PNM (no lossy compression), uncompressed AVI and WAV files.

    Converting the original, BBC-Micro specific program into a modern source format will eliminate the need for a special or unique system to access that content.

    Furthermore, distribution costs on the Internet approach zero, so that work can be made widely available to everybody, not just a few schools or visitors to a museum.

    Over time our popular formats such as JPEG and AVI files will become obsolete, so the work must be converted into that newer form in future, possibly ad-infinitum. At least those future conversions will occur from one well-known and popular format into another.

    The software and hardware needed to access the Domesday discs is to be deposited at the Public Record Office once the project is completed.

    They haven't really learned from their efforts, have they?

    So here's the new reason to use open source: It is important to preserve our digital heritage, and using source code is the best means we have of making works accessable and compatible with the computers of the future.

  • Similar situation at SLAC (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pont (33956) on Monday December 02 2002, @06:32PM (#4797425)
    I work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center [stanford.edu].

    Back in the day(TM) before RDBMS were a commodity, SLAC used the SPIRES database written at Stanford running on an IBM Mainframe. Well, as these things go, the IBM Mainframe was getting long in the tooth, but there was a ton of data in this SPIRES database. SPIRES wasn't going to get ported to anything modern. I forget who exactly, but one engineer just up and decided to write an emulator for the IBM mainframe in practicly no time at all.

    Now the SPIRES database is still running. However, it now runs on Solaris using a home-brewed IBM Mainframe emulator. Even though it's in emulation, it runs faster than it ever used to on the real deal (Moore's Law and all).

    As a side note, the first truly useful web site was here at SLAC when George Crane and Paul Kunz hooked up a web front end to the SPIRES database so the High Energy Physics community could easily get at other's papers.
  • by epeus (84683) on Monday December 02 2002, @07:14PM (#4797717) Homepage Journal
    I worked at the Interactive Television Unit (the BBC department that was founded for the Domesday Project) for the last 3 months of its existence in 1989 before it was spun out into the MultiMedia Corporation in Jan 1990 (I then worked at MMC until 1997, when it bacame a shell company owned bythe stockbrokers, but that's another story).

    When we left the BBC, they had all the original Video data on Broadcast quality masters, and all the digital data preserved on VAX tapes. They must have thrown those out in the intervening 12 years (which wouldn't surprise me).

    I know of two former MMC directors who have CD-ROM backups of the digital data and working Domesday systems.

    Which is not to decry the work in emulating it - that si the real long-term answer. The Church-Turing thesis is the ultimate refutation of DRM too.
  • An idea on how to store data long-term by Animixer (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @08:12PM
  • Trusted computing... by joebeone (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @08:19PM
  • MIRROR to original website... by AyeRoxor! (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @10:19PM
  • Original Dbook accessable after 1k years? by Glasswire (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @10:50PM
  • Doomsday book by goodchef (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @12:29AM
  • leech it & public data? by jago25_98 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @02:29AM
  • Why not as a DVD? by Goth Biker Babe (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:23AM
  • Now put the contents on the net! by Thunderbear (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:18AM
  • The original was _printed_? by IonSwitz (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:08AM
  • My 15 minutes... by timftbf (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:11AM
  • How about Nickel? by Insightfill (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @12:24PM
  • Long-Lasting Human-Readable Media by some guy I know (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @01:18PM
  • Re:Domesday? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bilestoad (60385) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:43PM (#4795676)
    If you're too lazy or ignorant to use Google:

    "The first approach to a modern assessment roll or cataster is the well known Domesday Book."

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/domesday1. ht ml

    "The Domesday Book was ordered by William the Conqeror to assess the value of his conquered kingdom 20 years after defeating Harold at the Battle of Hastings."

    http://www.villagenet.co.uk/history/1086-domesda y. html
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Domesday? by rworne (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @03:23PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Domesday? by gosand (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:45PM
    • Re:Domesday? by hosebee (Score:1) Monday December 02 2002, @03:18PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Domesday? by gosand (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:27AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Domesday? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pknoll (215959) <patrick@grapefiGINSBERGsh.org minus poet> on Monday December 02 2002, @02:46PM (#4795696) Homepage
    From The Domesday Book Online [domesdaybook.co.uk]:

    The Domesday book was commissioned in December 1085 by William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The first draft was completed in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418 settlements in the English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the border with Scotland at the time).

    The book has nothing to do with the "doomsday" world-ending yadda, it was mainly set up to inform the king of how much tax monies he should have been receiving.

    Find out more [domesdaybook.co.uk].

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Domesday? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2002, @02:55PM (#4795773)
      From the site linked : "Also, as many visitors will have noticed, the extracts from Domesday entries that were previously on the site have regrettably been removed for copyright reasons."

      Copyright? On a book written nearly a thousand years ago?!
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Domesday? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zathrus (232140) on Monday December 02 2002, @03:00PM (#4795818) Homepage
      The book has nothing to do with the "doomsday" world-ending yadda

      Excepting that they're the same word, just the language has evolved in the intervening millenium.

      I could rape the previous /. thread for the info, but just click on the link in the main story and read it for yourself. Essentially "Domesday" translates to "Day of Judgements" in modern English.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Domesday? by pknoll (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:38PM
      • Re:Domesday? by dnahelix (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:10AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Phew by unicron (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:47PM
    • Re:Phew by Salsaman (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:59PM
  • Re:Phew (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gorilla (36491) on Monday December 02 2002, @02:55PM (#4795767)
    No they wouldn't. Whoever currently owns the Acorn copyrights could sue them.

    The BBC wanted a micro which they could use in their educational stuff. They went to Acorn, who was a successful manufacturer of the Atom [planet.nl], and basically they agreed that the next generation computer, which was to be called the Proton could be called the BBC Micro. This gave Acorn exposure and extra sales, and the BBC the machine they were looking for. For about a decade, you saw BBC micro's popping up in BBC shows including Dr Who. Acorn later made the Electron, and then the Archimedies, before going bankrupt.

    Therefore the BBC do not own the copyright on the ROM's in the BBC micro.

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Phew by Salsaman (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:22PM
    • Re:Phew by beebware (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:35PM
      • Re:Phew by Goth Biker Babe (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:04AM
    • Re:Phew by LizardKing (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @03:42PM
      • Re:Phew by gorilla (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:23AM
  • I RTFA, and I don't know what the hell this domesday unit is. Some sort of time-capsule thing?

    No.. no you didn't RTFA. Because if you had you would have seen this:

    By contrast, the original Domesday Book, an inventory of England compiled in 1086 by Norman monks, is in fine condition in the Public Record Office in Kew, London.

    And, also this:

    The video discs feature about a million people in the UK. They contain video clips from the BBC and ITV companies as well as 200,000 pictures and tens of thousands of maps.


    So, what it is is an inventory of England. People and culture. Please don't say you RTFAd if you didn't, and then don't ask for more information when you say you don't care.

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Domesday? by dr_dank (Score:2) Monday December 02 2002, @02:58PM
  • 26 replies beneath your current threshold.