IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: If thread is on idiosyncracies
Then there are lots of nits with lots of variants of 'Unix'.

Two variants of Unix I worked with (apart from the RT/AIX VM) both qualify as oddball - these were MACH & AIX/1 on the 370 with its shared file system that ran on PS/2s - that was really oddball & eventually got squashed.

Most people (unix fans) probably know something about Rick Rashid's (CMU) Mach but the 2nd one (370 based) was from one of the other major universities & was originally desined for DG & DEC computers. It allowed a cluster of computers (Servers & Workstations) to look like a single large clustered file system where the parent directory was on the main server each node added a sub-directory which was located on a workstation node. A cluster of 20 or so PS/2s would look like a single large computer. Problems did occur when nodes decided to depart as their filesystem would dissapear so strange things could happen if that cluster node's filesystem was in use.

Re XENIX - I really enjoyed working on Bill Gates version of that - MS had licensed it to ALTOS Corp who ran it on their ACS-x86 family of intel based computers in 1982 which was when I first worked with it. XENIX was so far out in front of other System 7 versions of Unix of the day - Xenix incorporated Bill Joy's infamous Berkeley Enhancements & it was these that gave Unix any commercial power - pure Unix lacked too much that was needed for commercial usage. VI & Termcap, for example, were two features that made a difference. Whilst people can crit VI all they like, the power it brought was that any dumb ascii terminal could be configured in termcap so that an application like VI (and also RM Cobol, MS Basic, etc: - critical to commercial usage) could run without hard coded escape sequences to the terminal. Prior to VI Termcap hard coding to one brand of ascii terminal was the only way to do screen control.

XENIX led the way for many years, as the Unix OS of choice where systems were being placed in real world businesses - Most Universities never understood this & stuck to either UCB or pure AT&T variants (BSD & AT&T Sys III & Sys V).

DSM

Expand Edited by dmarker2 March 20, 2002, 10:39:35 PM EST
New Re: If thread is on idiosyncracies
Most Universities never understood this & stuck to either UCB or pure AT&T variants (BSD & AT&T Sys III & Sys V).

Now with this, I disagree. AT&T III was utterly unsuitable for business use. AT&T 4 was pure shit for business use.

Berkley 4.2 was, perhaps, the first one that could be used for real business. I know, I was in a business that used a Dec Vax with BSD 4.2. The problem (in business terms at the time) was that Dec had no interest in selling systems with Unix, it wanted to sell systems with VMS.

They (er, the business I was with) finally had to abandon Digital for HP, IBM, Unisys, Encore, or anyone else that could (maybe) support them. Fuck Digital and the spaded horse they clumped in on.

Perhaps that's why I'm so irritated at the HP-Compaq merger. Ride another horse to safety, Compaq-aka-Digital, you and HP are in deep doo-doo.
"I didn't know you could drive to Europe." -- An eavesdropper, piping in when he overheard a conversation about someone who had driven to Montreal.
     MS used to develop in... vi?? - (admin) - (34)
         Explains it all. - (pwhysall)
         Xenix was a great product! - (boxley)
         More revisionist history from the masters - (jb4) - (7)
             Another BG line - (dlevitt) - (6)
                 Remeber NT3.5.1 was a pretty decent product - (boxley) - (4)
                     Box, you (of all people) shoulda known... - (jb4) - (3)
                         Y'know.. even us non- codemonkeys - (Ashton) - (1)
                             Don't you mean its earlier cousin, the UAE? -NT - (wharris2)
                         thats when I bailed -NT - (boxley)
                 A truly Stupefying line from the little twit hisself: - (Ashton)
         IBM did have the AIX product for PCs. - (a6l6e6x) - (22)
             Jives perfectly with IBM, AIX that is. - (wharris2) - (21)
                 Re: AIX Odd ???? - (dmarker2) - (17)
                     Odd, yes - (wharris2) - (3)
                         Re: If thread is on idiosyncracies - (dmarker2) - (1)
                             Re: If thread is on idiosyncracies - (wharris2)
                         Re: Odd, yes... But Right!!! - (folkert)
                     Doug, I was an engineer on IBM S/360/67. - (a6l6e6x) - (12)
                         Re: Doug, I was an engineer on IBM S/360/67. - (dmarker2) - (11)
                             Exciting times indeed! Read this BOX. - (a6l6e6x) - (10)
                                 Re: Exciting times indeed! - (dmarker2) - (8)
                                     It is amazing you still have the tools. - (a6l6e6x) - (7)
                                         Re: You are dead right about replacing cores - (dmarker2) - (6)
                                             Yep, I hear about that Suggestion Award. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                             Question about core memory. - (static) - (4)
                                                 Re: Question about core memory. - My memory of core :-) - (dmarker2) - (3)
                                                     Now imagine threading R/W wires x-turns, through EACH one.. -NT - (Ashton)
                                                     Re: core memory. - (a6l6e6x)
                                                     Ah... - (static)
                                 hey you could do big/little I(E)ndian that way! -NT - (boxley)
                 AIX - doesn't that stand for . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                     Re: Anti-AIX - lot of emotion at the time but... - (dmarker2) - (1)
                         I retired one of those Zylog Zues boxes . . - (Andrew Grygus)
         Told this to my UNIX admin students - (tjsinclair)

I thought it was Run Away From the Dots.
180 ms