The crazy world of 8-Bit personal computing truly kicked off in 1972 with the release of the Intel 8008 microprocessor. The impact of which can still be felt today — in fact, some of the designs of modern “x86” processors are built upon the foundation that the 8008 built.
But did you know…
Another company managed to get a working 8-Bit microprocessor before Intel?
The Intel 8008 had almost no design similarities to the Intel 4004 (and was not a successor)?
The initial functional design of the Intel 8008… was not actually made by Intel?
It’s all true. The history of the Intel 8008 — the CPU that formed the basis for the 8080, 8086, and the entire x86 processor family — is wild and woolly. To say the least.
So buckle up, buttercup. This is one heck of a ride.
Not based on the 4004
Let’s get this out of the way, right up front.
The Intel 4004 microprocessor was released in 1971 (the year before the 8008). The 4004 is a 4-Bit processor, while the 8008 is an 8-Bit processor.
These facts led many to believe that the 8008 was an upgraded, 8-bit version of the 4004. An easy assumption to make.
However…
The 8008 microprocessor was not based on the 4004. The 8008 was, in fact, a completely different design — not originally designed by Intel — that happened at roughly the same time as the 4004.
The Intel 4004 - Photo credit: Thomas Nguyen
These two chips are wildly different — the fact that the “4004” and “8008” have similar names is nothing but marketing.
So, if the 8008 was not originally designed by Intel… where the heck did it come from?
Well… San Antonio, Texas. Obviously.
Computer Terminal Corp
A company down in Texas named “Computer Terminal Corporation” was building a programmable computer terminal with an 8-bit CPU design.
A truly cool looking machine, with a massively widescreen CRT monitor: The Datapoint 2200.
Fun historical tidbit: One of the goals of the Datapoint 2200 was to replace the IBM Punch Card. Towards that end, the widescreen monitor on the Datapoint 2200 was almost exactly the same dimensions (displaying 12 rows of 80 characters) as those Punch Cards.
An IBM Punch Card
But this was 1969.
Which meant that there were no off-the-shelf CPUs that those nerdy Texans could use to build their 8-Bit machine. So they did what any good nerds would do… they built their own CPU design — using a wide array of individual components — on a large board.
A shot of the “core CPU board” of the Datapoint 2200. Photo courtesy: oldcomputers.net
The result is an “8-Bit CPU” (on a big ole’ board) powering the world’s first personal computer.
Historical Argument Time: Whether or not the Datapoint 2200 qualifies as the first “personal computer” has been debated for decades. One thing is certain… it is the first mass produced, programmable computer terminal. You could program in BASIC and run your programs locally. And, considering the size of the machine, it fits the definition of a Personal Computer — before any others were mass produced — in the opinion of The Lunduke Journal.
Obviously, this approach to the CPU board had some down-sides.
The vast number of individual an unique components on the CPU board for the 2200 meant that shortages or changes in any individual part could cause delays, re-designs, or wild pricing fluctuations. Plus it meant that building each CPU board was a time-intensive process. Then there was the heat issue. That board generated a lot of heat.
A Datapoint 2200 with the case removed. Photo courtesy: oldcomputers.net
To resolve these issues, Computer Terminal Corporation began working with two companies. Both competing to shrink large portions of the Datapoint’s 2200 8-Bit CPU into as small a number of chips as possible.
Those companies: Intel and Texas Instruments.
The TMX-1795 & Intel 1201
Intel and Texas Instruments were in a fierce competition to build the first 8-Bit microprocessor… based (very, very closely) on the designs of the Datapoint 2200. Both companies were, quite literally, miniaturizing the 2200’s CPU board design into a single chip.
It was a race. And these companies needed to move fast.
The first company to complete a functional microprocessor was Texas Instruments, with the TMX-1795.
The TMX-1795 CPU. Photo courtesy: Computer History Museum
Unfortunately for Texas Instruments, Computer Terminal Corporation was disappointed by the performance of the TMX-1795 (as it performed far slower than the Datapoint 2200’s larger, custom CPU board).
A few months later, Intel would also cross the finish line: providing the Intel 1201 CPU for evaluation to be used in the Datapoint 2200.
The Intel 1201, just like Texas Instrument’s offering, was simply not performing well enough.
In the end, Computer Terminal Corporation opted to not use either microprocessor — sticking with their larger, in-house designed board for the final release of the Datapoint 2200.
Texas Instruments, which had accomplished something truly remarkable — the development of the world’s first 8-Bit microprocessor (based on the design of the Datapoint) — opted to shelve their TMX-1795 entirely. It never went into production and never got any public release… existing only as a handful of demo and prototype units.
Intel, on the other hand, had other ideas…
The deal with Intel
Not long after the Intel 1201 project had been dropped… Seiko approached Intel about the idea of using this new 8-Bit CPU in a desktop calculator. But… who owned the rights to the 8-Bit 1201 chip? Intel or Computer Terminal Corp?
Luckily for Intel, the deal with Computer Terminal Corporation was extremely vague. In fact, it existed entirely as notes on a purchase order. There was no other contract, whatsoever. Seriously.
One of the most critical deals in all of computer history exists as nothing more than a few lines on a purchase order. How crazy is that?
But, as luck would have it, we have an actual copy of that purchase order.
This purchase order was uncovered and preserved by the sales rep
Note the purchase amount: $3,000,000. That’s for 100,000 Intel 1201 chips… at $30 each.
Now here’s where everything gets a bit... funky. We're getting into brutal, cut-throat business here.
See that note scribbled at the top of the Purchase Order? “P.O. on hold - awaiting customer schedule.”
The reason for that note: Due to financial issues, Computer Terminal Corporation put a small delay on the CPU project. But then, when the project resumed, Intel missed the deadline (regardless of the delay). And the chip, when delivered, performed far slower than expected.
Plus… No Intel 1201 chips were ever delivered.
So… who owed who money? Based on the wording in the Purchase Order… it wasn’t at all cut and dried. This could have turned into a long legal battle to settle that question.
Intel used this opportunity to pressure Computer Terminal Corporation into giving the entire intellectual property of the 1201 chip to Intel… in exchange for simply dropping the matter entirely.
Intel would then, almost immediately, turn around and begin selling a slightly modified 1201 CPU (now called the “8008” for marketing purposes).
The 8008’s legacy
That new 8008 CPU would eventually lead to the 8080, 8086, 80286, and the full line of x86 processors that would almost totally define Intel and the PC industry for the next several decades.
While the 8008 was not the only 8-Bit CPU to exist — the Z80, the 6502, and so many others appeared in the years that followed — the impact that it had on the world of computing is truly mind-boggling.
And the company that did all the initial design — Computer Terminal Corporation — didn’t see a penny for it. They, literally, gave it to Intel. And, boy-oh-boy, did Intel run with it.
Because it deserves to be marveled at… here is a detailed die shot of the Intel 8008. Ain’t it purdy?
The world’s first 8-Bit CPU… really wasn’t the world’s first. Texas Instruments beat Intel by a few months… but they never went into production.
Historical Tidbit: Even though the TMX-1795 never went into production, Texas Instruments filed several patents on it over the course of the next few years. And, being as both the TMX-1795 and the 8008 were based on the exact same system (the Datapoint 2200)… this laid the groundwork for lawsuits galore.
And Intel isn’t really the company responsible for creating the instruction set and architectural design of the 8008 — which formed the basis of almost their entire processor line for decades. That honor goes to Computer Terminal Corporation… of San Antonio, Texas.
Wild, right?
Explains why this poor lady, from an original Datapoint 2200 advertisement, has the "I just got forced into giving away all of our hard work to Intel" look.
GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke"
The GNOME team has censored -- and deleted the account -- of the maintainer of Manjaro Linux GNOME Edition. Why? Because he linked to a Lunduke article.
GNOME Ousts Elected Board Member in Secret, Tells Nobody for 2 Months
Secret meetings. No transparency. Total chaos at the GNOME Foundation as they remove Sonny Piers, one of their Board Members, without telling anyone. This all happens right as the GNOME Executive Director quits, GNOME announces dire financial circumstances, and a disastrous "5 year plan" focusing on DEI.
Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.
It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.
The Lunduke Computer Operating System forum is getting some structure... and, for those of you looking to get involved, posts are starting to go up discussing specific areas available for contribution.
I installed Llama 3.1 8B locally on my $600 windows 11 machine (Ryzen 7 mobile processor, 8 cores, 64gig ram, integrated gpu). Not exactly a high performance genai machine.
Initial impression? Pretty nice. Quick enough - but not nearly as quick as ChatGPT.
I told it about Lunduke and OSNews and asked for a Haiku:
Truth stands strong against hate
Lunduke's voice echoes love loud
Light shines in the dark
With some more prompting we arrived at:
Bytes of love prevail
Osnews' hate crashes to zero
Lunduke's code saves
Not bad. I gave it one of my blog posts to review, and it did a solid job. Then we discussed diabetes and such. Even this 8B version, is nice.
The 70B version will probably run on my machine.
Looking forward to someone taking off the censorship. A model this good, uncensored, running locally? Game changer.
Editor of OSNews calls for the murder of a Conservative, Jewish Tech Journalist
Leftist Extremist OSNews says Lunduke is "Nazi" who must "die".
The Editor of OSNews.com has declared that I, Lunduke, am a member of the Nazi party -- and encourages others to murder me.
I repeat: A Tech Journalist has stated -- as a matter of fact -- that a proud Jewish man is a Nazi that must be killed.
Absolutely insane.
On Friday, July 26th, the Editor of OSNews.com (Thom Holwerda), posted the following to his Mastodon account:
"Hey linuxrocks.online, you have a nazi infestation. Considering your instance seems to use only approved registrations, this surely raises about a million red flags."
What was the "Nazi infestation" he speaks of? He includes a screenshot of The Lunduke Journal account to make it clear who he was refering to.
While this is already absolutely insane (no sane person would call a proud Jewish man a member of the Nazi party)... it gets far, far worse.
A few hours later, the OSNews.com Editor followed up with the following statement:
"Since the instance linuxrocks.online is openly, knowingly, and willingly hosting nazis, I'm going to block the whole instance. If you're a follower on said nazi instance, I suggest you reconsider your choice of instance.
No quarter for nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi."
"No quarter for nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi."
Am I a Nazi? Obviously not. But, that Tech Journalist says that I am a Nazi. And I must be killed.
Which means, according to the Editor of OSNews, "The only good [Lunduke] is a dead [Lunduke]."
Is it libel? Without question. Is this a clear threat of violence? Absolutely.
He also appears to be stating that anyone who simply exists on the same server as me is, by proximity, also a Nazi. And they must also be murdered.
Few Will Condemn This
I wish I could say this was a completely isolated incident.
The sad fact is, a number of Tech Journalists share the extreme, Leftist, disturbed, violent views of the Editor of OSNews. They believe that many groups (including both Conservatives and Jews) are evil "Nazis" who must be murdered.
And, while many other Tech Journalists do not agree with those warped, twisted ideas... few, if any, will speak out against those calls for violence and death.
All Hope Is Not Lost
In those vile messages quoted above, the Editor of OSNews was clearly attempting to bully the administrator of a specific server -- whose only crime was allowing me to exist.
How did that server's administrator respond? In an incredibly reasonable way:
"We do not appreciate name-calling here. Would you like to present your evidence that a user needs to be removed rather than going straight to name-calling."
No name-calling. Present evidence if you have a concern.
Reasonable. Calm. Practical.
Seeing that sort of response gave me just a little extra hope for the future of the Open Source and general computer industries. If we can get more brave, reasonable, thoughtful people -- like that server administrator -- speaking against the hate and violence of people like the Editor of OSNews... we might just stand a chance.
(Of course, no response given -- by the OSNews Editor -- to this reasonable request.)
A Related Thought From Lunduke
Let's pause, and take a step back. I'd like to talk, for just a moment, about politically charged discussions (like this one) within the broader Tech World... and on The Lunduke Journal specifically.
When I first started The Lunduke Journal, I focused entirely on the technical aspects of computing. "Stay clear of politics, Lunduke," I told myself. "Stick to the happy tech stuff!"
And, by and large, I managed to stay true to that for many years (with no more than a passing, momentary blip into politically charged topics once in a blue moon).
But, here we stand.
At a time when people are being banned from Open Source projects solely because of their political leanings (often leading to the complete destruction of those projects). When entire Open Source organizations and concepts are being re-shaped -- into something not-at-all "Open" -- by political activists. When Big Tech corporations are regularly discriminating against people based on the color of their skin or their sex.
And when, like we saw today, a Tech Journalist declares that Conservative Jewish Nerds (and the people who exist near them) are "Nazis" who need to be murdered.
Staying quiet on these issues is simply not an option.
Not for The Lunduke Journal. And not for any other Tech Journalist worth a damn.
It is well past time to speak out against this insanity. If you are a Tech Journalist (in whatever form... articles, podcasts, videos), shine a light on these stories. Show people the damage that is being done to the world of computing by these political extremists.
The Lunduke Journal can't do this all alone. But if I have to do it on my own... I will.
Because I love computing. I love the history of it, the technical aspects, the future... all of it. And computing is worth saving.
So, I will keep covering all of it. Even if these extremists keep threatening to kill me.
From the fact that it considers "No Data" to be "Open Data" (yeah, try to wrap your brain around that little nugget) to the corporate sponsorship (from corporations in the "Closed Source A.I." business)... to the "anti-racist, decolonizing" consultant they hired to put the whole thing together.
Yeah. "Decolonizing". The whole thing is just plain weird.
A Little Background
The Open Source Initiative's cliam to fame is that they are the steward of what is known as the "Open Source Definition" (aka "the OSD"). A set of rules which any software license must adhere to in order to be considred, officially, "Open Source".
The "OSD" began life back in 1997 as the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", written by Bruce Perens. Later, with the help of Eric Raymond, that document morphed into the "Open Source Definition"... at which point the two men created the "Open Source Initiative" to act as a certification body for the OSD.
Fun Historical Tidbit: The Open Source Initiative likes to tell a long-debunked story about the creation of the term "Open Source" which they know is historically incorrect. That little tidbit isn't critical to what we're talking about today... but it's just plain weird, right?
Flash forward to today, and both of the founders -- Perens and Raymond -- have been forced out or banned from the Open Source Initiative entirely. Now the organization, free from the influence of the founders, is looking to expand into the newly exciting field of "Artificial Intelligence".
Thus: The creation of "The Open Source A.I. Definition"... or the OSAID.
The Anti-Racist Leadership
To create this new "OSAID", the Open Source Initiative hired Mer Joyce from the consulting agency known as "Do Big Good".
Why, specifically, was Mer Joyce hired to lead the effort to create a brand new "Open Source" definition, specifically focused on Artificial Intelligence?
Was it her extensive background in Open Source?
Or her expertise in A.I. related topics?
Perhaps it was simply her many years of work in software, in general?
Nope. It was none of those things. Because, in fact, Mer Joyce appears to have approximately zero experience in any of those areas.
In fact, the stated reason that Mer Joyce was chosen to create this Open Source definition is, and I quote:
"[Mer Joyce] has worked for over a decade at the intersection of research, policy, innovation and social change."
As for the consulting agancy, Do Big Good, their focus appears to be equally... non-technical. With a focus on "creating an equitable and sustainable world" and "inclusion".
Note: Yes. They wrote "decolonalizing". Which is not a real word. We're going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "decolonizing". Spelling errors happen.
Now, how does "Embodying decolonizing values" help to draft a definition of Open Source Artificial Intelligence licensing?
No clue. But, apparently, "decolonizing" and being "anti-racist" is important to the Open Source Definition and software licensing.
You'll note that the only software-related skill this "Do Big Good" company appears to have is that they can "work virtually or in-person". In other words: They know how to use Zoom.
In fact, this consulting firm only gives three examples of client projects they've worked on. And the other two are non-technical policy documents for the government of Washington State.
Why this agency, and this individual, was hired to lead the work on the OSAID is beyond baffling. Just the same, this appears to be part of a larger pattern within Open Source and Big Tech: Hiring non-technical, political activist types to lead highly technical projects. It doesn't usually go well.
The Diverse Working Groups
Considering that the leadership hired to oversee the OSAID's creation is extremely non-technical -- and almost 100% focused on "anti-racist" and "decolonizing" activism -- it's no surprise that one of the first steps taken was to create "working groups" based entirely on skin color and gender identity.
"The next step was the formation of four working groups to initially analyze four different AI systems and their components. To achieve better representation, special attention was given to diversity, equity and inclusion. Over 50% of the working group participants are people of color, 30% are black, 75% were born outside the US, and 25% are women, trans or nonbinary."
What does having "25% of the people being Trans or nonbinary" have to do with creating a rule-set for software licensing?
Your guess is as good as mine.
But, from the very start of the OSAID's drafting, the focus was not on "creating the best Open Source AI Definition possible"... it was on, and I quote, "diversity, equity and inclusion".
The best and brightest? Not important. Meritocracy? Thrown out the window.
Implement highly racist "skin color quotas" in the name of "DEI"? You bet! Lots of that!
Case in point: The OSAID declares that the complete absence of the data used to train an A.I. system... does, in fact, qualify as "Open". No data... is considered... open data.
If that sounds a bit weird to you, you're not alone.
Let's back up for a moment to give a higher level understanding of the components of an A.I. system:
The Source Code
The Training Data
The Model Parameters
If you have access to all three of those items, you can re-create an A.I. system.
Now, we already have the OSD (the Open Source Definition) which covers the source code part. Which means the whole purpose of having the OSAID (the Open Source AI Definition) is to cover the other two components: The Training Data and the Model Parameters.
Without an exact copy of the Training Data used in an A.I. system, it becomes impossible to re-create that A.I. system. It's simply how the current generation of A.I. works.
However, the OSAID does not require that the Training Data be made available at all. The definition simply requires that:
"Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data."
At first that sounds pretty reasonable... until you really think about what it means.
This means that an A.I. system would be considered "Open Source A.I." even if it provided zero data used to train it -- it simply must be possible for someone to use the closed, proprietary data... if they should happen to obtain it.
That's like saying "My software is open source. But I'm not going to let you have the source code. But, if you did get the source code -- like through espionage or something -- you'd be able to use it. Which means it's open source. But you can't distribute or modify that source. Because it's mine."
Now, an argument could be made that the source code for an AI system could be open even if the data is all closed... and, therefor, it would be "Open Source" under the old OSD. Which is absolutely true. But, in that case, why have an "OSAID" at all? Why not simply keep the existing OSD and focus on that?
Well... I think we have a simple answer to why this OSAID is so utterly strange...
The Corporate Sponsors
The Open Source Initiative is not a huge foundation, especially when compared to some. But it's revenue is not insignificant. And it's growing.
In 2023, the Open Source Initiative brought in a revenue of $786,000 -- up roughly $200,000 from the year prior.
Many of these companies have some noteworthy things in common:
They are in the A.I. business in some way.
They make use of "Open Source" in their A.I. products.
They use "Open Source" as a promotional and public relations tool.
They, in one way or another, work with a closed, proprietary set of A.I. training data.
They have significant "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" efforts.
When you add that all together, this "Open Source AI Definition" begins to make a lot more sense.
It is, in short:
An effort to create a "Certification" which will declare all of their A.I. systems (no matter how closed their data is) as "Open Source"... while simultaneously being run by a DEI activist organization with a focus on racial and gender identity quotas.
It checks a whole lot of check boxes. All at once.
What Impact Will This Have?
While many may argue that this "OSAID" is simply irrelevant -- and can be ignored by the broader "Free and Open Source Software" industry -- that misses a key impact that is worth noting.
That being: The continued corruption of both the ideas and the organizations of Open Source.
Not only has the Open Source Initiative banned their founding members (and re-written their own history)... they are now seeking to create a new "Open Source Definition" which will allow for systems consisting primarily of closed, proprietary data to be considered "Open Source". Thus making their Big Tech financiers happy.
The meaning of the term "Open Source" is being actively modified to mean "A little open, and a lot closed". And many of the same corproations which are funding this effort are also funding things like... The Linux Foundation.
Which means this corruption and dilution of the concept of "Open Source" is likely to spread far beyond the reaches of one, small (but growing) licensing certification foundation.
Also, apparently, decolonizing values... or something.
There are some options. For both subscribing and donating. They're all on this page.
Bonus: At the bottom of this page you will find the invite link to the super-secret Lunduke Journal Discord Chat Server. This is only available for full subscribers, which makes it a nice place to hang out. No riff-raff.
Lunduke Journal Exclusive Articles
(You won't find these stories covered anywhere else.)
