I remember the first time I saw Unix, in 1976. The first step in installing it was to compile the C compiler (supplied IIRC in PDP-11 assembler) and then compile the kernal, and then the shell and all the utilities. You had an option as to whether you wanted to put the man pages online since they took up a significant (in those days) amount of disk space. Make was not yet released by AT&T so this was all done either by typing at the command line or (once the shell was running) from shell scripts.

fascinating. Moderators- mod this post up. It's knowledgeable, true balanced, multi-viewpoint science. Something we don't see a lot of here.

Interesting that in the 70's a "computer" exhibit it was an analogue computer. Sounds like it was an evolution of the AT&T "VODER" system at the 1939 World's fair. A simulation of the human voice track it had four controls that were run by trained operators (all cute young girls, given the sensitivities of the time) who used their hands and feet to "speak" to visitors. In the 50s and early 60s computations by analog computers were cheaper although less accurate in general. Keep in mind that computation then meant solving differential equations, something that amplifiers, capacitors and inductors do naturally. Also round off error was poorly understood and bits were expensive. By the early 70's the price of digital circuitry was coming down fast and digital was clearly the computer of the future. Analogue components have to be consistent over their whole range in order to be used in mass produced hardware, digital just needs to switch consistently.

This was a different winged dinosaur than the one on the PBS Show.

Yes, back in the mid to late 70's those simulations were real popular. They were based on a system of partial diffferential equations that would relate the rate of use for one variable to the supply of all the others. For instance to produce more food you would need to use more energy and more water. Problem was that the 'constants' relating the different equations aren't constant - they are the average actions of the mass of humanity. This let to interesting problems, like what do you get when you take an integral over a random process? What about only the positive half of the process? Neat math but it invalidates models that used simple numerical constants to relate the ties between resources. The simpler the model the more likely it is to be 'right' and the less likely it is to be useful in policy decisions. It's like the math statement that proves unique prime factors for any number exist but tells you nothing about how to calculate them. Hubbert's simple analysis in the 1950's told 'truth' but it got a number of details wrong (for instance he thought oil production in the US would be over by now). Similarly the differential models of the late 70's assure us things will run out eventually but give us little guidance about what will run out first or how fast.