Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!gatech!hubcap!eos!eugene
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: System: North America [a massively parallel PD computer?]
Message-ID: <3896@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 88 21:24:49 GMT
Sender: fpst@hubcap.UUCP
Lines: 29
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

Distributed applications
Proposals like this are made all the time, I first heard them in 1973.
I actually saw my first distributed application in 1979 (Alto/Ethernet
based).  So they predate Brunner's Sci Fi story years.  Please consult
Schoch and Hupp's CACM paper [1982?] on worm programs.

The technical problems: poor programming language constructs for communications
and data protection.  It has full amazed me that for all the Crays LLNL has,
with a fairly decent network, no one wrote multi-Cray applications.
The effort is too great for so little return (improvement).

To date the best example was the recent factoring of a 100 decimal digit
number (See Factoring by Email, done at DECWRL).

The best application I've heard was from a fellow at a cable TV company.
They have 10,000 68K in switching system around the US.  On the day of the
Superbowl when switching is at a minimum, down load a redundant program
to make the system "the most powerful chess in the world."

The real problem isn't technical, the problem is social.  Machines are regarded
as personal property, not a commons.  What business is your program running
on my machine?  It's an idea who's time will come.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."