Editing LINC (section)

== LINCtape ==
A noteworthy feature of the LINC was the LINCtape. It was a fundamental part of the machine design, not an optional peripheral, and the machine's OS relied on it. The LINCtape can be compared to a linear diskette with a slow seek time. The magnetic tape drives on large machines of the day stored large quantities of data, took minutes to spool from end to end, but could not reliably update blocks of data in place. In contrast, the LINCtape was a small, nimble device which stored about 400K, had a fixed formatting track allowing data to be repeatedly read and re-written to the same locations, and took less than a minute to spool from one end to the other. The tape was formatted in fixed-sized blocks, and was used to hold a directory and file system. A single hardware instruction could seek and then read or write multiple tape blocks all in one operation.

Filenames were six characters long. The file system allowed for two files—a source file and an executable binary file to be stored under the same name. In effect it was a 6.1 filename in which the extension was restricted to "S" or "B". Since the basic LINC had only 1024 12-bit words of core memory (RAM)—and the big, expanded LINC had only 2048—normal operations depended heavily on swapping to and from LINCtape. Digital later patented and marketed a similar design under the name [[DECtape]]; Digital's patents on DECtape were eventually tested in court and found invalid.<ref name=DECtapePatent>Thomas C. Stockebrand, Bidirectional Retrieval of Magnetically Recorded Data, {{US Patent|3,387,293}}, issued June 4, 1968.</ref><ref>Martha Blumenthal, Fraud Ruled in 1968 DEC Tape Patent, [https://books.google.com/books?id=r_blY9oI5CYC&pg=PA65 Computerworld], May 1, 1978; page 65.</ref><ref>Rya W. Zobel, [http://www.ecases.us/case/mad/2125524/digital-equip-corp-v-parker Memorandum of Decision], Digital Equip. Corp. v. Parker, April 2, 1980.</ref><ref>Levin H. Campbell, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/653/701/313062/ Court ruling], Digital Equipment Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc., et al., 653 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1981), June 12, 1981.</ref>

LINCtape is also remembered for its reliability, which was higher than that of the diskettes which supplanted it. LINCtape incorporated a very simple form of redundancy—all data was duplicated in two locations across the tape. LINC users demonstrated this by punching holes in a tape with an ordinary office paper punch. Tape damaged in this way was perfectly readable. The formatting track made operation almost independent of tape speed, which was, in fact, quite variable. There was no [[Tape transport#Capstan|capstan]]; the motion of the tape during reading and writing was directly controlled by the reel motors. There was no fast forward or rewind&mdash;reading and writing was performed at fast forward and rewind speeds. In some modes of operation, the data transfers were audible over the built-in loudspeaker and produced a very characteristic series of harsh bird-like squawks with varying pitch.