🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2892@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> bobp@vsedev.vse.com (Bob Pearson) writes:
>
:
>
>Multics gave us, rings (domains of execution), dynamic linking, a hierarchical
>file system that was extremely reliable, control sharing of programs/data via
>discretionary ACLs (Access Control Lists) and nondiscretionary AIM (Access
>Isolation Mechanism), demand paging (no thrashing here), unparalleled security,
>device independent I/O, the concept of files as an extension of memory, IPCs,
>replaceable execution environments (that a USER could code), a realtime pre-
>emptive operating system that was highly interactive, the ability to do backups
>automatically on ACTIVE FILE SYSTEMS, the ability to install changes to the OS
>without taking the system down, etc, etc...
>
>MORE RAVING...
>One is incredulous that with these features, so far ahead of all its competition
>of the day (vintage IBM VM/CMS, the TSO of MVS, TOPS-10, TWENEX, VMS, et al),
>were not enough to save this very elegant operating system.  But alas, the
>Dollar wielded its mighty sword and slayed this sleeping giant.  We all know
:
>
>When I talk to CS students who take OS courses, some say they studied Multics in
>class and their general impression is that it is a dinosaur, that the operating
>systems of today are much more advance and elegant.  I wonder...
>
>                                I am truly HBD (Honeywell Brain-Damaged),
>
>                                Bob Pearson
:

Interestingly enough, IBM's TSS operating system had many of the features of
MULTICS as listed above (they were copied, of course).  TSS had a lot of bugs
when it was first released, and gained a (deserved at the time, but not later)
reputation for unreliability.  In the meantime, the forces of OS/360 (now MVS)
recouped within IBM and succeeded in killing off TSS before it ever really
had a chance to succeed.  In this case, I believe it really was a question of
politics, not profit.  TSS is also listed as a "dinosaur" in the operating
system textbooks, despite the fact that it and  MULTICS are still
unsurpassed today in any commercial operating system.  Amusingly enough,
though, the TSS kernel lives on inside UNIX/370, IBM's UNIX done for Bell
labs for the IBM 370, and probably inside IX/370 as well.  TSS was originally
designed for the 32 bit addressing 360/67, though it was given a partial
lobotomy to run on the 370/168 (24 bit addressing).  I believe that
the MVS lobby within IBM will not permit 32 bit addressing to be restored to
TSS to support UNIX, or will delay it inordinately, for political reasons.
Nor will they permit, I would bet, IX/370 to be ported to the 3090/VF series,
again to protect MVS.  Ask your local IBM sales rep
about it some time; especially ask why if MVS is so good you can't run
UNIX on top of it :-)       For years people inside and outside IBM have
been trying to get IBM to give VM the right stuff to be an operating
system in its own right, but the MVS crowd has successfully fought it off.
There is still (the last time I looked) no support of 32 bit addressing
in CMS, and no decent production batch monitor.

I guess I am TBD (TSS Brain-Damaged), but my
message to whoever is reading this is, "Never Give In (when internal
politics threatens to destroy technically sound marketable products)".
Easy to say, but hard to do!  

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP {seismo,topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}!
  NASA Ames Research Center                ames!pioneer!lamaster
  Moffett Field, CA 94035    ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa
  Phone:  (415)694-6117      ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov

"In order to promise genuine progress, the acronym RISC should stand 
for REGULAR (not reduced) instruction set computer." - Wirth

("Any opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the
author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government")