Page 1 of 2

IOUG

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:18 pm
by OracsRevenge
Young, spotty 16 year old me submitted a few type-ins to IOUG

https://www.oric.org/software/printer_f ... n-670.html

Does this make me a published Oric author?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are the scans of IOUG available online?

If not, I can feel a trip up into the loft is in order.

Thanks

Re: IOUG

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:26 pm
by Dbug
Welcome,
I guess if you have been published, you are a published Oric author :)

One remark though: Would you mind removing the color and reduce the font size for the text in the signature?
Basically I don't mind people having small text at the bottom, but on threads were people comment multiple time large banners start feeling like ads on TV, something you'd rather not see again and again.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:55 pm
by Symoon
OracsRevenge wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:18 pm
Young, spotty 16 year old me submitted a few type-ins to IOUG
Does this make me a published Oric author?
IMHO, it sure does!

Re: IOUG

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:42 pm
by OracsRevenge
:)

I wrote a few machine code type-ins and submitted them.

The one I was most proud of was a tape indexer that auto-detected between Atmos and Oric.

Will have to get all the old magazines and printouts down from the loft and see what else I did.

I have a few big boxes of Oric/Atmos stuff up in the loft, Maplin Speech module, modem, etc, etc will have to risk a Zorgon-style spider attack and make a list.

The last time I had a spot of Oric inspired nostalgia was in ~2012 when I found that TV advert for the Oric and posted it on one of the forums !

Thanks

Pete

Re: IOUG

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:29 am
by coco.oric
Will have to get all the old magazines and printouts down from the loft and see what else I did.
Yes !
I don't think IOUG mag has been scanned.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:30 pm
by Steve M
No, I don't think so. I was meaning to scan some but all mine were put in a ring binder so have holes through the text. There's quite a lot of pages to scan, so it'd take a while. Also, I think I'm missing a few issues.
I've no time just now, so it'd be good if someone can get their scanner running!

Re: IOUG

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:21 pm
by mikeb
Hi Steve :)

IOUG have been scanned (23 issues+supplement) and are with Dbug as PDFs -- they were not made public due to concerns over "data protection", addresses, phone numbers.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:08 pm
by ibisum
Any chance we can get a copy of the archive?

Re: IOUG

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:58 pm
by Dbug
I have IOUG #1 to #23, plus a supplement issue with programs.

The main issue was that there are some small announces in the magazines, with people selling or buying stuff, with their names and addresses. The question is to know if that's actually a problem, considering that technically that was published in a magazine, and could be considered public information.

I let the community decide, same thing for OUM issues #66 to #145, and Your Oric #2 to #8

Re: IOUG

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:10 pm
by Chema
I think other archiving sites publish the mags with all that information without any problem. Doesn't help much, as they might be doing the wrong thing, but I'd say it is quite safe, being so old and (as you said) information that was already public.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:37 am
by Steve M
I think with new data protection laws it may be a bit of a tricky issue.

I guess people were OK publishing their details in a mag distributed to a small group but it's a different thing publishing online.

I guess the options are to blur such information - how big a job would that be?
Or it could be put online as is and deal with any problems when/ if they arise. You'd need to remove any data if requested to do so.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:05 am
by Dbug
I guess the options are to blur such information - how big a job would that be?
I guess there are two issues:
- This require some PDF editing tool with the ability to modify / clear the content.
- One need to know what exactly should be moved: If we speak of phone numbers and addresses, only for individuals, or maybe also for companies, what about single person businesses. What about names and first names "Here is an interesting question from xxxxxxx living in xxxxxx asking where he can find such and such software".

Re: IOUG

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:08 am
by coco.oric
Delete names on scan pics is a huge work. First pdf recognize process (ok, it's quite easy now with adobe products), and modify the names ...

On CEO-MAG, all mags have been modified to remove names and only keep didier v. for exemple on my case. And today, there're only email of the organisation and my own mail (inside a pic in the pdf). But for old mags we scanned, we didn't modified anything (i don't remember where it is stored on the website but i've already scanned oum 91-110, 1-10 from steve, rhetoric 1-25 and i'm on going on oum 11-90 with some missing issues, and another mag i didn't remember the name).

May be these solutions can be applied :
- put the mag copy at 100% without modification, like a backup of oric story, in a directory where only registered people can get it
- modify the mag, and put it in a public place.

As i like original issues, i prefer the first one, and you've nothing to do.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:03 am
by Symoon
I recall I modified CEO-Mag issue 13 like this:
- re converted the PDF into GIF
- with Paint Shop Pro, removed names but not snail mail addresses (I don't think there were any e-mails at this time)
- André made a PDF of it again

It was horribly long though the Mag was only 12 pages long by then. Never did any other one!
The goal at the time was to have 4 or 5 old CEO-Mag for public release so people could see how the magazine evolved as time when by.
I guess (I hope! :lol: ) it can still be downloaded somewhere.

Re: IOUG

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:44 am
by Steve M
Personally I would leave the names and remove the addresses. There is an OUM contact list if people wanted to try contacting someone. The issue with leaving old addresses is that personal info can be used for identity theft which wasn't really a great issue when these mags were published.

Rhetoric has a few problems. In one issue that I edited one page didn't print so I used the other side and sent it to the guy to photocopy. He just handed it over at a shop that copied every page including the misprint and getting the pages out of order in the process. It's a bit of a mess that has been reproduced into the pdf version.
For this and other reasons I've always been against publishing Rhetoric online. The people that were interested at the time had to pay for privilege of obtaining our little tome and the struggle to fill the pages got more and more obvious as it went on. The content reflects on what was happening at the time and there's not so relevant to today. We didn't have the regular contributors of OUM or expertise of CEO.
Whilst I'm quite proud of what we achieved, it's also something best kept in the memories.

OUM did have some useful articles. The most mentioned were Peter Bragg's Machine Code articles, of which I have the first 70 in text files, and Jon Haworths Rambing in the ROM, which gave a disassembly of both ROMs. He produced a couple of volumes collating the useful info (snipping his rambling intros), but volume 3 never transpired. He said he was close to finishing when OUM closed so I'd hoped he would continue in Rhetoric, but it was not to be. I was considering compiling volume 2 from the OUM articles and then finishing it off from the Advanced User Guide and Bob Maunder's book, - but I don't have the time or expertise.

OUM was as much a social group as an Oric one. The banter in the mag was almost like the stuff you might find on social media today - except we couldn't reply as quickly. Much of it isn't of interest today to newcomers. I think one option would be to compile the useful articles and make a "Best of OUM". For that there would be no need to include letters or adverts for software or Dave's jokes. Just have the Oric stuff.

On a personal note though I find it embarrassing to look back and see all the mistakes. It would be nice to go back and run things through a spell checker. Once everything goes online as it is, the chance to make things better/ right is lost. I've put some of my articles online and altered some. Putting out the version that weren't improved or corrected is a bit of a double blow.