Bill Tutte founded the Department of Combinatorics & Optimization in 1962 at the University of Waterloo (the year I was born!). No one knew about his Bletchley Park work until 1985; later in 2001 he was awarded the Order of Canada (he passed away the following year aged 84). I was amongst the usual group of often confused undergraduates in his C&O classes ... his mind just
operated on a level that few of us mere mortals could ever understand!
I took graph theory with a professor who talked about Bill Tutte a lot. A lot of theories were proved by him. You could see his name all over in the index of the back of our textbook. This professor always pointed out that Bill was a chemist too. This is a well known graph theorist who was in awe of him.
Like the early hackers, he made things. In Flower's case, he made things than enabled hackers (eventually). While theory is important and interesting, actually making sh*t that works moves things forward.
Yeah, he also helped shorten the war which saved a whole lot of lives.
The U-Boot commanders all knew that the Enigma had been cracked, but Admiral Doenitz refused to believe it.
Rommel's Afrika Korps was also defeated by Enigma, because Rommel also refused to believe it was cracked. Enigma pointed out when and where Rommel's supply ships were.
No matter how secure your encryption method is, one should always assume it is cracked. Me, I would have backed it up with one-time pads.
Not true. There was some suspicion on the part of both Dönitz and his men (which is why they added a code wheel) but none of the U-boat memoirs published before ultra was declassified mention concerns about enigma except in passing.
In contrast they attributed getting attacked after sending in a position report to radio triangulation equipment allies had, called huff-duff.
And in most cases huff-duff was the reason they were attacked. Bletchley Park was too slow to provide an actionable attack vector off a position report. Instead ultra was used to route convoys around the u-boats. They experienced ultra as empty ocean they they hoped they would find a convoy.
The one exception was the "milk cows". These were resupply subs that were to rendezvous with u-boats in the open ocean. Dönitz would send orders for a rendezvous, bletchley would decrypt and send orders to a "hunter killer" group consisting of an aircraft carrier and destroyers to attract the two subs while resupplying.
I remember reading that the commanders were very suspicious because every time they rendezvoused with a milk cow, there was Allied equipment waiting for them.
Rommel attributed the attacks on his secret convoys to spies.
> all knew that the Enigma had been cracked, but Admiral Doenitz refused to believe it.
Whereas:
The dropping results made Admiral Dönitz suspicious. Although reassured by the Abwehr, the German Foreign Intelligence, that Enigma was unbreakable, he insisted on improving the security of Enigma. On 1 February 1942 the famous Enigma M4 model with four rotors and new key sheets were introduced.
There were multiple Enigma variations, based on rotor choice pool sizes, number of fittable rotors, time cycles to changing procedures, etc. Some naval enigma variations were broken, others weren't.
> Me, I would have backed it up with one-time pads.
Even one-time pads are subject to the efforts used to counter Enigma, such as so-called gardening. I fully agree that layers are better than a single method like Enigma was many times in practice, which is usually all-or-none with no failsafe, at least until later in the war, when Enigma variants started being used in combination with coded messages and code words on top of the Enigma cipher machines themselves, but those efforts were foiled by the dedication and planning of the gardeners’ known-plaintext attacks.
> In cryptanalysis, gardening is the act of encouraging a target to use known plaintext in an encrypted message, typically by performing some action the target is sure to report. It was a term used during World War II at the British Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park, England, for schemes to entice the Germans to include particular words, which the British called "cribs", in their encrypted messages. This term presumably came from RAF minelaying missions, or "gardening" sorties. "Gardening" was standard RAF slang for sowing mines in rivers, ports and oceans from low heights, possibly because each sea area around the European coasts was given a code-name of flowers or vegetables.
> The technique is claimed to have been most effective against messages produced by the German Navy's Enigma machines. If the Germans had recently swept a particular area for mines, and analysts at Bletchley Park were in need of some cribs, they might (and apparently did on several occasions) request that the area be mined again. This would hopefully evoke encrypted messages from the local command mentioning Minen (German for mines), the location, and perhaps messages also from the headquarters with minesweeping ships to assign to that location, mentioning the same. It worked often enough to try several times.
Of course. And that's why one shouldn't rely on a single layer of encryption.
With 1940s technology, generating a practical one time pad generator would have been an interesting engineering project. I would have simply used a newspaper. Even if your enemy knew you were using Die Zeitung, with the computer technology at the time it would have been tough to brute force which date and which article was used.
I don’t know much about encryption, but I can see a couple of concerns about such a scheme.
The first is that such keys will have all the statistical regularities of the German language, which I believe is problematic, even though I don’t know how one would go about exploiting it.
The second is the matter of how much encrypted text had to be transmitted every day, by the German military as a whole. If it significantly exceeded the daily output of Germany’s newspapers (and I would guess it did) there would seem to be considerable key reuse under this scheme.
For submarines and other units not receiving newspapers daily, there also seems to be a key-distribution issue. I don’t know if there is a better way to guarantee that communication can be maintained through a patrol than to depart with the equivalent of a stack of old newspapers. Is this a problem? I don’t know, but if the allies had figured out the broad outlines of the scheme, I imagine they might be able to do some preparation in anticipation of messages being intercepted.
I would agree in the ideal case, that with diligent usage of the Enigma machine with fresh keys/pads for each transmission, one’s transmissions would likely be secure, at least from the means and methods available to the Allies at the time.
However, in the fullness of time and with research into and with declassification of wartime intelligence thereof since the war of the now-known semi-regular failures to key and operate the Enigma machine properly, the hypothetical serially encoded (Enigma + one-time pad) materials would possibly be able to be attacked due to operator errors/failures of key rotation independently of and/or combined with known-plaintext attacks, but I will defer to you on the actual cryptanalysis and mathematical modeling.
I humbly admit that am not well-versed in this field, and I am not anything other than a fan of you and your work in the computing field, as it is mostly over my head.
I’m reminded by your newspaper suggestion that I once read that Dread Pirate Roberts aka Ross Ulbricht had part of their setup infected by a 0-day delivered via a news website, possibly via a third party ad network, but I don’t remember the details and don’t have a source at hand, nor do I know as a matter of fact that this occurred or was merely reported or rumored.
All of this is to say that I’m not sure that inconsistencies couldn’t be intentionally introduced in even the printed material to throw off encryption attempts if the source of the one-time pad were to have leaked. Knowing what is public knowledge regarding Crypto AG being compromised, I’m not willing to bet that a newspaper would be a safe bet for source material. A King James Version Bible, perhaps.
On the other hand, you have more fingers, and the long arm of the law casts an even longer shadow in wartime. Multi-armed bandits exist.
> in a generational act of intellectual virtuosity, designs and builds the world’s first computer to crack Enigma, allowing the U-boats to be neutralised and the war ultimately to be won. This is why Turing is known as the father of computing.
Huh? I thought he was known as the father of computing because he literally defined the concept of a machine being Turing complete and what that meant you could and couldn’t do on a Turing-complete machine. That and the halting problem work (and to a lesser extent the Turing test), at least to me, are what make him the father of computing.
The Enigma stuff is an impactful and vital short term impact he had while he was alive, but relatively fleeting and not very impactful on the broader field of cryptography. It’s the other contributions that are eternal and foundational to the field.
This reads like someone who watched the movie about his life but didn’t actually understand the broader scope of what he did and why it was important.
You're misreading ... that's the fictional story from the movies. Later in the article it says
> ... Turing – did, in what is now one of the most famous academic papers ever written, On Computable Numbers. This is the actual reason Turing is “the father of computing”.
J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchley used to be considered the real fathers of computing. They were the architects of the ENIAC, which was close to being a stored-program general purpose digital computer, and, eventually, when a memory unit was bolted on, became one. When the Moore School of Electrical Engineering wanted the patent rights to any new work Eckert and Mauchley did, they quit and formed a startup - Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation. That became UNIVAC.
The big question at the time was whether the sheer complexity of something like a UNIVAC would be cost-effective. Watson of IBM opined that there might be a market for six computers. IBM was building a few computers for the Atomic Energy Commission and such, and they were seen as niche products. The Turing/Von Neumann line of development all fed into that defense niche.
UNIVAC was bought by Remington Rand, which had a competing line of tabulating machines.
(Entirely mechanical. Almost completely forgotten.[1]) Unlike IBM, Remington Rand saw electronic digital computers as the next step to the future.
Remington Rand not only had the UNIVAC I, the Eckert-Mauchly machine, built. They built all the
peripherals for data processing - the tape drive (the UNISERVO), the line printer, the typewriter-sized printer, the card to tape converter, the tape to card converter, and the keyboard to tape device (the UNITYPER) So, while it was expensive, the UNIVAC could do routine data processing, far faster than the tabulating machines.
UNIVAC then sold the US Census Bureau two UNIVAC I computers. Census was, at the time, the largest tabulating machine customer of IBM, and rented several acres of tab machines. They were all on 30-day rental, that being what IBM insisted upon. Once the UNIVAC I machines were running, most of them became unnecessary, and the rental was cancelled. This was a huge shock to IBM as a corporation. (And the IBM salesman, paid on commission.) That's what kicked IBM into getting serious about computers.
Maybe practical real world computers but then I’d actually put Schokley and co as the true fathers having invented the transistor which is the only reason we have more than 6 computers - IBM otherwise would have been right because the energy and space requirements really would only have allowed for a small number of computers to have otherwise been built.
But ENIAC wouldn’t have been possible without Turing’s foundational research on what it means to build a computation machine in the first place and ENIAC was even preceded by Z3 although it was the first electronic Turing complete machine (Z3 was electromechanical).
They’re all important contributions but Turing literally defined the theoretical field. It’s like calling Townes, Schawlow, and Basov the fathers of the laser even though they just showed how to build the laser that Einstein predicted decades before. It’s important foundational work but most people know Einstein + laser whereas the names of the inventors of the first laser are less known. Einstein defined that it was even possible and how it would work. Others figured out how to achieve that through foundational science and engineering.
I thought ENIAC and Turing aren't really connected and independent to each other? And then again for development of physical computer, seems like Neumann have more claim to him because of his architecture.
Turing literally defined the mathematical underpinning of what it meant to build a computer in the first place and what operations it needed to support (the language and the computer instruction itself being indistinguishable at the time). Without this work we don’t have any kind of meaningful understanding of how to translate algorithms into something that can run on a machine.
Neumann’s contributions were valuable and notable as they proposed to make machines more flexible than how the ENIAC worked, but these are largely just “applied engineering” improvements not foundational theoretical CS concepts; the Harvard architecture is equally valid and flexible as Neumann’s design, even preceding Neumann’s idea of not differentiating code and data. It just that the simplicity at the time of Neumann machines won out even though today we pay for their penalty in other ways. But without Neumann or Harvard architectures you still end up building machines and likely these ideas would eventually have been proposed and tried by others without any meaningful delay in development. Without Turing’s work it’s possible that computers would have been delayed by decades until someone else figured this stuff out.
Without the transistor computers would just be an odd curio that’s in use in some places and basically the entire field wouldn’t exist (cryptography wouldn’t be a really thing, AI, databases, programming languages etc).
My grandfather worked with Flowers at the Post Office. They worked on many aspects of digital telecoms for the decades after the war, leading to the world's first digital PCM telephone exchange 'Empress' in London around 1968, and System X nationally in 1980.
Around 1986 my high school class did a trip to the town telephone exchange to see the building full of mechanical rotary switch gear that was about to be thrown out, to be replaced by a single 19" rack that contained the digital equivalent.
I have copies of some of Grandpa's UK patents including baud rate conversion and other essential components.
I have to say, the structure of that article is a perfect example of elitist exclusionary literature. Hang on: the introduction is wonderful, accessible language that most people can read. Then, the very first sentence of the actual meat of the article:
"On a sun-drenched weekday in August, Bletchley Park is the soul of pleasantness: a stately home flanking a lake codebreakers skated on in winter between battling a constantly evolving phalanx of electromechanical encryption machines used to scramble messages between leaders of the Third Reich."
That's a masterwork of elitist language. Drive away every non-explicit intellectual or specific to this topic participate (such as software engineers.)
What a failure of publication. I guess the initial click is all they really care about, because such language drops off 99% of those interested clicks. Fools? Shortsighted? WTF
If you made it to the end, you may have noticed that the bulk of the story is lifted from a book, which accounts for a change in tone. If someone buys or borrows a book and sits down to read the whole thing, they're expecting a different style of writing from a newspaper article. Also, this is very obviously a weekend magazine article aiming to satisfy a combination of intellectual interest, reader vanity, and curiosity.
And the article hasn't yielded the style all the way to the end. It was not fun to read with English being my second language; but I think now that's expected of The Guardian - little information spread out extensively with flowery language.
most people who click a random article from an unknown author don't sign up to read an essay worth of purple prose to get the (actually tiny amount of) useful information teased in the headline.
the OP is right - (virtually) no one is reading all that shit.
I maintain my point: it's prose, not even too complicated at that. The fact that many people have a hard time understanding it, is understandable, but not a good state of affairs.
People who have visited Bletchley Park or are into early computing history know of Tommy Flowers. Few others do.
He should have been involved in 1950s computing. But he went back to the Post Office Research Station to work on phone switches again. He did good work on phone switches.[1] But vacuum tubes in phone switches were never a good idea, and
the technology of phone switches was its own little world. Fully electronic phone switches were several decades away.
I suppose knowing that they cracked Enigma (and what it is) there and knowing who Alan Turing is qualifies as less than a “tiny” amount because I had no idea who he is, and I would wager that’s more than a large majority of the public know.
I was under pretty much all the false impressions mentioned in the article, it was a nice introduction for me. The name comes up, but I never connected the dots.
If you asked me for some names in early computing, I'd come up with Babbage, Ada, Turing, Zuse, Eckert and Mauchley, perhaps Atanasoff and Berry. I don't think I'd have come up with Flowers.
I'll do my best to right that wrong, but it really takes effort to rewrite history when something's declassified. In the same way that we all celebrated the SR-71 when in fact, the A-12 flew higher and faster, earlier, but it was classified, there's a mountain of material out there still claiming the SR-71 held all those firsts, when in fact not a single one of them was true.
Until Flowers' name rolls off the tongue as easily as Turing's, we have work to do.
> I don’t understand why it matters whether someone was in a movie or not.
This is calling into question that it matters in the first place, essentially muddying the waters of the discussion. I think you are mistaken; they didn’t say it doesn’t matter directly but they imply that whether it matters or not is irrelevant, which is the entire point of the whole post and thread, so it’s not encouraging thoughtful discussion, either. I did appreciate the discussion anyway, but I believe every silver lining has its cloud, and vice versa. It’s all a matter of perspective, expectations, intent, and effort.
I’m determined to give a good faith reply to every comment that merits one from me, but I usually am of the opinion that others are better able to wring some meaning from the content than I am, so I’m content not to post much most of the time.
That said, I believe youre honestly mistaken about what they said or meant. It’s not really ambiguous that they were nebulous about the comment that they replied to, but their word choice and approach made clear their disapproval or disagreement with their interlocutor.
Art imitates life, except when it doesn’t accurately depict the lived reality and efforts of those who did the work and won the war, in which case it’s arguably closer to myth making. The original author of the James Bond series of books, for example, engaged in this kind of propaganda, arguably with good intentions and positive impact.
It’s relevant whether or not they were depicted in a movie because that is the context of this thread, because that is the topic of the fine article itself.
>He should be up there with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and all the rest of them, one of the great figures of the history of computing. He should have made as much money as they did
I disagree. The amount of value companies like Microsoft and Apple have given the world is many many orders of magnitude than what this guy did. It's hard to have 1 person compete against the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people. Just being early to field of computing shouldn't automatically make someone a "great."
The value that companies such as Microsoft & Apple provide is supplied by all their thousands of employees, not just their CEO's. So its not a fair comparison to compare the output of Microsoft & Apple with the output of a single person (Tommy Flowers). Furthermore there are plenty of alternatives to Microsoft & Apple: if Bill Gates & Steve Jobs didn't exist we'd be probably be running Unix, Linux or one of the many other operating systems that lost out to Windows & MacOS for market share. If Tommy Flowers didn't exist we might have lost the war.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made a lot of money due to owning the company. Being able to own something being built by a lot of people is how its possible.
>If Tommy Flowers didn't exist we might have lost the war.
I don't think achievements in computing should be based off geopolitical achievements. Hypothetically he could not exist and the war is lost, but there would be someone else who would iterate upon computers.
Bill Tutte founded the Department of Combinatorics & Optimization in 1962 at the University of Waterloo (the year I was born!). No one knew about his Bletchley Park work until 1985; later in 2001 he was awarded the Order of Canada (he passed away the following year aged 84). I was amongst the usual group of often confused undergraduates in his C&O classes ... his mind just operated on a level that few of us mere mortals could ever understand!
I took graph theory with a professor who talked about Bill Tutte a lot. A lot of theories were proved by him. You could see his name all over in the index of the back of our textbook. This professor always pointed out that Bill was a chemist too. This is a well known graph theorist who was in awe of him.
Like the early hackers, he made things. In Flower's case, he made things than enabled hackers (eventually). While theory is important and interesting, actually making sh*t that works moves things forward.
Yeah, he also helped shorten the war which saved a whole lot of lives.
The U-Boot commanders all knew that the Enigma had been cracked, but Admiral Doenitz refused to believe it.
Rommel's Afrika Korps was also defeated by Enigma, because Rommel also refused to believe it was cracked. Enigma pointed out when and where Rommel's supply ships were.
No matter how secure your encryption method is, one should always assume it is cracked. Me, I would have backed it up with one-time pads.
Not true. There was some suspicion on the part of both Dönitz and his men (which is why they added a code wheel) but none of the U-boat memoirs published before ultra was declassified mention concerns about enigma except in passing.
In contrast they attributed getting attacked after sending in a position report to radio triangulation equipment allies had, called huff-duff.
And in most cases huff-duff was the reason they were attacked. Bletchley Park was too slow to provide an actionable attack vector off a position report. Instead ultra was used to route convoys around the u-boats. They experienced ultra as empty ocean they they hoped they would find a convoy.
The one exception was the "milk cows". These were resupply subs that were to rendezvous with u-boats in the open ocean. Dönitz would send orders for a rendezvous, bletchley would decrypt and send orders to a "hunter killer" group consisting of an aircraft carrier and destroyers to attract the two subs while resupplying.
I remember reading that the commanders were very suspicious because every time they rendezvoused with a milk cow, there was Allied equipment waiting for them.
Rommel attributed the attacks on his secret convoys to spies.
typo, you did not mean attract
> all knew that the Enigma had been cracked, but Admiral Doenitz refused to believe it.
Whereas:
~ https://www.ciphermachinesandcryptology.com/en/enigmauboats....~ https://uboat.net/technical/enigma_ciphers.htm
There were multiple Enigma variations, based on rotor choice pool sizes, number of fittable rotors, time cycles to changing procedures, etc. Some naval enigma variations were broken, others weren't.
> Enigma variations
ಠ _ ಠ
> Me, I would have backed it up with one-time pads.
Even one-time pads are subject to the efforts used to counter Enigma, such as so-called gardening. I fully agree that layers are better than a single method like Enigma was many times in practice, which is usually all-or-none with no failsafe, at least until later in the war, when Enigma variants started being used in combination with coded messages and code words on top of the Enigma cipher machines themselves, but those efforts were foiled by the dedication and planning of the gardeners’ known-plaintext attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardening_(cryptanalysis)
> In cryptanalysis, gardening is the act of encouraging a target to use known plaintext in an encrypted message, typically by performing some action the target is sure to report. It was a term used during World War II at the British Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park, England, for schemes to entice the Germans to include particular words, which the British called "cribs", in their encrypted messages. This term presumably came from RAF minelaying missions, or "gardening" sorties. "Gardening" was standard RAF slang for sowing mines in rivers, ports and oceans from low heights, possibly because each sea area around the European coasts was given a code-name of flowers or vegetables.
> The technique is claimed to have been most effective against messages produced by the German Navy's Enigma machines. If the Germans had recently swept a particular area for mines, and analysts at Bletchley Park were in need of some cribs, they might (and apparently did on several occasions) request that the area be mined again. This would hopefully evoke encrypted messages from the local command mentioning Minen (German for mines), the location, and perhaps messages also from the headquarters with minesweeping ships to assign to that location, mentioning the same. It worked often enough to try several times.
One-time pads are not vulnerable to gardening.
I can see gardening working against Enigma alone, or one time pads alone, but not with the two used serially.
OTPs are not vulnerable to anything except compromise of the OTP itself (the pre-shared keystream).
Of course. And that's why one shouldn't rely on a single layer of encryption.
With 1940s technology, generating a practical one time pad generator would have been an interesting engineering project. I would have simply used a newspaper. Even if your enemy knew you were using Die Zeitung, with the computer technology at the time it would have been tough to brute force which date and which article was used.
I don’t know much about encryption, but I can see a couple of concerns about such a scheme.
The first is that such keys will have all the statistical regularities of the German language, which I believe is problematic, even though I don’t know how one would go about exploiting it.
The second is the matter of how much encrypted text had to be transmitted every day, by the German military as a whole. If it significantly exceeded the daily output of Germany’s newspapers (and I would guess it did) there would seem to be considerable key reuse under this scheme.
For submarines and other units not receiving newspapers daily, there also seems to be a key-distribution issue. I don’t know if there is a better way to guarantee that communication can be maintained through a patrol than to depart with the equivalent of a stack of old newspapers. Is this a problem? I don’t know, but if the allies had figured out the broad outlines of the scheme, I imagine they might be able to do some preparation in anticipation of messages being intercepted.
I would agree in the ideal case, that with diligent usage of the Enigma machine with fresh keys/pads for each transmission, one’s transmissions would likely be secure, at least from the means and methods available to the Allies at the time.
However, in the fullness of time and with research into and with declassification of wartime intelligence thereof since the war of the now-known semi-regular failures to key and operate the Enigma machine properly, the hypothetical serially encoded (Enigma + one-time pad) materials would possibly be able to be attacked due to operator errors/failures of key rotation independently of and/or combined with known-plaintext attacks, but I will defer to you on the actual cryptanalysis and mathematical modeling.
I humbly admit that am not well-versed in this field, and I am not anything other than a fan of you and your work in the computing field, as it is mostly over my head.
The one-time pads could simply be a national newspaper on a particular date.
Another simple method would be to add an offset to the "rendevous at XX longitude and YY latitude" coordinates and time.
I’m reminded by your newspaper suggestion that I once read that Dread Pirate Roberts aka Ross Ulbricht had part of their setup infected by a 0-day delivered via a news website, possibly via a third party ad network, but I don’t remember the details and don’t have a source at hand, nor do I know as a matter of fact that this occurred or was merely reported or rumored.
All of this is to say that I’m not sure that inconsistencies couldn’t be intentionally introduced in even the printed material to throw off encryption attempts if the source of the one-time pad were to have leaked. Knowing what is public knowledge regarding Crypto AG being compromised, I’m not willing to bet that a newspaper would be a safe bet for source material. A King James Version Bible, perhaps.
On the other hand, you have more fingers, and the long arm of the law casts an even longer shadow in wartime. Multi-armed bandits exist.
> in a generational act of intellectual virtuosity, designs and builds the world’s first computer to crack Enigma, allowing the U-boats to be neutralised and the war ultimately to be won. This is why Turing is known as the father of computing.
Huh? I thought he was known as the father of computing because he literally defined the concept of a machine being Turing complete and what that meant you could and couldn’t do on a Turing-complete machine. That and the halting problem work (and to a lesser extent the Turing test), at least to me, are what make him the father of computing.
The Enigma stuff is an impactful and vital short term impact he had while he was alive, but relatively fleeting and not very impactful on the broader field of cryptography. It’s the other contributions that are eternal and foundational to the field.
This reads like someone who watched the movie about his life but didn’t actually understand the broader scope of what he did and why it was important.
You're misreading ... that's the fictional story from the movies. Later in the article it says
> ... Turing – did, in what is now one of the most famous academic papers ever written, On Computable Numbers. This is the actual reason Turing is “the father of computing”.
J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchley used to be considered the real fathers of computing. They were the architects of the ENIAC, which was close to being a stored-program general purpose digital computer, and, eventually, when a memory unit was bolted on, became one. When the Moore School of Electrical Engineering wanted the patent rights to any new work Eckert and Mauchley did, they quit and formed a startup - Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation. That became UNIVAC.
The big question at the time was whether the sheer complexity of something like a UNIVAC would be cost-effective. Watson of IBM opined that there might be a market for six computers. IBM was building a few computers for the Atomic Energy Commission and such, and they were seen as niche products. The Turing/Von Neumann line of development all fed into that defense niche.
UNIVAC was bought by Remington Rand, which had a competing line of tabulating machines. (Entirely mechanical. Almost completely forgotten.[1]) Unlike IBM, Remington Rand saw electronic digital computers as the next step to the future.
Remington Rand not only had the UNIVAC I, the Eckert-Mauchly machine, built. They built all the peripherals for data processing - the tape drive (the UNISERVO), the line printer, the typewriter-sized printer, the card to tape converter, the tape to card converter, and the keyboard to tape device (the UNITYPER) So, while it was expensive, the UNIVAC could do routine data processing, far faster than the tabulating machines.
UNIVAC then sold the US Census Bureau two UNIVAC I computers. Census was, at the time, the largest tabulating machine customer of IBM, and rented several acres of tab machines. They were all on 30-day rental, that being what IBM insisted upon. Once the UNIVAC I machines were running, most of them became unnecessary, and the rental was cancelled. This was a huge shock to IBM as a corporation. (And the IBM salesman, paid on commission.) That's what kicked IBM into getting serious about computers.
[1] https://www.museumwaalsdorp.nl/en/museum-waalsdorp-2/history...
Maybe practical real world computers but then I’d actually put Schokley and co as the true fathers having invented the transistor which is the only reason we have more than 6 computers - IBM otherwise would have been right because the energy and space requirements really would only have allowed for a small number of computers to have otherwise been built.
But ENIAC wouldn’t have been possible without Turing’s foundational research on what it means to build a computation machine in the first place and ENIAC was even preceded by Z3 although it was the first electronic Turing complete machine (Z3 was electromechanical).
They’re all important contributions but Turing literally defined the theoretical field. It’s like calling Townes, Schawlow, and Basov the fathers of the laser even though they just showed how to build the laser that Einstein predicted decades before. It’s important foundational work but most people know Einstein + laser whereas the names of the inventors of the first laser are less known. Einstein defined that it was even possible and how it would work. Others figured out how to achieve that through foundational science and engineering.
I thought ENIAC and Turing aren't really connected and independent to each other? And then again for development of physical computer, seems like Neumann have more claim to him because of his architecture.
Turing literally defined the mathematical underpinning of what it meant to build a computer in the first place and what operations it needed to support (the language and the computer instruction itself being indistinguishable at the time). Without this work we don’t have any kind of meaningful understanding of how to translate algorithms into something that can run on a machine.
Neumann’s contributions were valuable and notable as they proposed to make machines more flexible than how the ENIAC worked, but these are largely just “applied engineering” improvements not foundational theoretical CS concepts; the Harvard architecture is equally valid and flexible as Neumann’s design, even preceding Neumann’s idea of not differentiating code and data. It just that the simplicity at the time of Neumann machines won out even though today we pay for their penalty in other ways. But without Neumann or Harvard architectures you still end up building machines and likely these ideas would eventually have been proposed and tried by others without any meaningful delay in development. Without Turing’s work it’s possible that computers would have been delayed by decades until someone else figured this stuff out.
Without the transistor computers would just be an odd curio that’s in use in some places and basically the entire field wouldn’t exist (cryptography wouldn’t be a really thing, AI, databases, programming languages etc).
I would say this makes him one of the fathers of computer science as an intellectual field, not the father of computing.
Not to diminish his work, but you can build a perfectly fine computer without the theoretical stuff. In fact Babbage and Lovelace kind of did.
If we're making a list of people with large impact add George Boole.
My grandfather worked with Flowers at the Post Office. They worked on many aspects of digital telecoms for the decades after the war, leading to the world's first digital PCM telephone exchange 'Empress' in London around 1968, and System X nationally in 1980.
Around 1986 my high school class did a trip to the town telephone exchange to see the building full of mechanical rotary switch gear that was about to be thrown out, to be replaced by a single 19" rack that contained the digital equivalent.
I have copies of some of Grandpa's UK patents including baud rate conversion and other essential components.
I have to say, the structure of that article is a perfect example of elitist exclusionary literature. Hang on: the introduction is wonderful, accessible language that most people can read. Then, the very first sentence of the actual meat of the article:
"On a sun-drenched weekday in August, Bletchley Park is the soul of pleasantness: a stately home flanking a lake codebreakers skated on in winter between battling a constantly evolving phalanx of electromechanical encryption machines used to scramble messages between leaders of the Third Reich."
That's a masterwork of elitist language. Drive away every non-explicit intellectual or specific to this topic participate (such as software engineers.)
What a failure of publication. I guess the initial click is all they really care about, because such language drops off 99% of those interested clicks. Fools? Shortsighted? WTF
If you made it to the end, you may have noticed that the bulk of the story is lifted from a book, which accounts for a change in tone. If someone buys or borrows a book and sits down to read the whole thing, they're expecting a different style of writing from a newspaper article. Also, this is very obviously a weekend magazine article aiming to satisfy a combination of intellectual interest, reader vanity, and curiosity.
And the article hasn't yielded the style all the way to the end. It was not fun to read with English being my second language; but I think now that's expected of The Guardian - little information spread out extensively with flowery language.
I'd say it's more a failure of the educational system if 99% of people cannot interpret a sentence like that.
most people who click a random article from an unknown author don't sign up to read an essay worth of purple prose to get the (actually tiny amount of) useful information teased in the headline.
the OP is right - (virtually) no one is reading all that shit.
I maintain my point: it's prose, not even too complicated at that. The fact that many people have a hard time understanding it, is understandable, but not a good state of affairs.
> The world’s first digital electronic computer, forerunner of the ones reshaping our world today, was built in Britain
What about the Atanasoff-Berry-Computer from the US or the Zuse Z3 from Germany?
British classism is still live and kicking. You can't be achieving things if you were not in Oxbridge circle and don't have a trust fund /s
That's said, I wonder how many more forgotten working class heroes we have that powers that be decided to bury.
Well done for Guardian writing about this.
Pretty sure anyone who knows even a tiny bit of Bletchley Park history is well aware of Tommy Flowers.
People who have visited Bletchley Park or are into early computing history know of Tommy Flowers. Few others do.
He should have been involved in 1950s computing. But he went back to the Post Office Research Station to work on phone switches again. He did good work on phone switches.[1] But vacuum tubes in phone switches were never a good idea, and the technology of phone switches was its own little world. Fully electronic phone switches were several decades away.
[1] https://www.communicationsmuseum.org.uk/emuseum/electronicsw...
I suppose knowing that they cracked Enigma (and what it is) there and knowing who Alan Turing is qualifies as less than a “tiny” amount because I had no idea who he is, and I would wager that’s more than a large majority of the public know.
He's certainly in the histories I've read, but I guess most people don't read those.
Also, his grandson often sits in front of my Mum and Dad at football matches! Although I only found that out a lot later.
I was under pretty much all the false impressions mentioned in the article, it was a nice introduction for me. The name comes up, but I never connected the dots.
Ran across the name, perhaps.
If you asked me for some names in early computing, I'd come up with Babbage, Ada, Turing, Zuse, Eckert and Mauchley, perhaps Atanasoff and Berry. I don't think I'd have come up with Flowers.
I'll do my best to right that wrong, but it really takes effort to rewrite history when something's declassified. In the same way that we all celebrated the SR-71 when in fact, the A-12 flew higher and faster, earlier, but it was classified, there's a mountain of material out there still claiming the SR-71 held all those firsts, when in fact not a single one of them was true.
Until Flowers' name rolls off the tongue as easily as Turing's, we have work to do.
Did you ever see them or a character in their role in a movie?
I don’t understand why it matters whether someone was in a movie or not.
It’s a sad commentary on western culture that being in a movie seemingly has the importance that it seems to.
Doesn't make much sense to say it doesn't matter and also that it's sad.
If it's sad then it matters, if it doesn't matter then it isn't sad.
Read it again ... he didn't say that it doesn't matter.
So we’re all on the same page:
> I don’t understand why it matters whether someone was in a movie or not.
This is calling into question that it matters in the first place, essentially muddying the waters of the discussion. I think you are mistaken; they didn’t say it doesn’t matter directly but they imply that whether it matters or not is irrelevant, which is the entire point of the whole post and thread, so it’s not encouraging thoughtful discussion, either. I did appreciate the discussion anyway, but I believe every silver lining has its cloud, and vice versa. It’s all a matter of perspective, expectations, intent, and effort.
I’m determined to give a good faith reply to every comment that merits one from me, but I usually am of the opinion that others are better able to wring some meaning from the content than I am, so I’m content not to post much most of the time.
That said, I believe youre honestly mistaken about what they said or meant. It’s not really ambiguous that they were nebulous about the comment that they replied to, but their word choice and approach made clear their disapproval or disagreement with their interlocutor.
Art imitates life, except when it doesn’t accurately depict the lived reality and efforts of those who did the work and won the war, in which case it’s arguably closer to myth making. The original author of the James Bond series of books, for example, engaged in this kind of propaganda, arguably with good intentions and positive impact.
It’s relevant whether or not they were depicted in a movie because that is the context of this thread, because that is the topic of the fine article itself.
>He should be up there with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and all the rest of them, one of the great figures of the history of computing. He should have made as much money as they did
I disagree. The amount of value companies like Microsoft and Apple have given the world is many many orders of magnitude than what this guy did. It's hard to have 1 person compete against the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people. Just being early to field of computing shouldn't automatically make someone a "great."
The value that companies such as Microsoft & Apple provide is supplied by all their thousands of employees, not just their CEO's. So its not a fair comparison to compare the output of Microsoft & Apple with the output of a single person (Tommy Flowers). Furthermore there are plenty of alternatives to Microsoft & Apple: if Bill Gates & Steve Jobs didn't exist we'd be probably be running Unix, Linux or one of the many other operating systems that lost out to Windows & MacOS for market share. If Tommy Flowers didn't exist we might have lost the war.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made a lot of money due to owning the company. Being able to own something being built by a lot of people is how its possible.
>If Tommy Flowers didn't exist we might have lost the war.
I don't think achievements in computing should be based off geopolitical achievements. Hypothetically he could not exist and the war is lost, but there would be someone else who would iterate upon computers.