| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426624 is a reply to message #426614] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 16:12   |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> however, all 3270s were half-duplex and if you were unfortunate to hit a
> key same time system went to write to screen, it would lock the keyboard
> and would have to stop and hit the reset key. YKT developed a FIFO box
> for 3277, unplug the keyboard from the 3277 head, plug the FIFO box into
> the head and plug the 3277 keyboard into the fifo box ... eliminating
> the unfortunate keyboad lock.
Back in the late 60s I finished implementing my first online system on a
S/360-30 and IBM 2260s.
Then my boss came in with the manuals for the IBM 3270s.
He wanted my opinion on the terminals.
I read the manual and told my boss they were unnecessary complicated
crap.
Over the years I did lots of stuff with 3270s. I never changed my mind.
One project I did was using Bunker Ramo 3270 compatible terminals.
By mistake I wrote some code that put more than 80 characters on a line.
The Bunker Ramo CRT just squeezed the text a bit. If I recall you could
put around 120 characters on a line and still read the display.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426625 is a reply to message #426616] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 17:12 |
cross
Messages: 55
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <725933673.759953355.073976.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:45:22 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 07:09:48 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > about the same time was "gold" from recent univ. graduate (tried to
>>>> > hire him at IBM, but no takers) that had ported unix to 370. ("gold"
>>>> > code name taken from "Au" - "Amdahl Unix")
>>>>
>>>> Was it running on bare metal or under the VM hypervisor?
>>>>
>>>> Because I believe Linux on IBM mainframes to this day runs as a VM, not
>>>> on bare metal. Not sure why.
>>>>
>>> RAS. Lots of error reporting and recovery would otherwise have to be
>>> duplicated.
>>
>> Look at it the other way: Linux already has extensive mechanisms for doing
>> exactly this sort of thing, which work across all its different platforms.
>>
>> So the question becomes: would someone running Linux on an IBM mainframe
>> want to make a special case of that installation, or would they rather be
>> able to manage it with the same mechanisms as all their other Linux
>> installations?
>
> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe to run Linux. I would think the typical
> customer is already running a zOS, zVM, or zTPF workload and wants to add
> Linux to it.
The troll's characterization of Linux with respect to RAS is
simply incorrect. While Linux on some architectures may have
some rudimentary support for RAS (e.g., x86 MCA or something,
support for basic PCIe hotplug), Linux comes nowhere near
mainframe-class RAS support.
- Dan C.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426626 is a reply to message #426620] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 17:16 |
cross
Messages: 55
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <1471164854.759954296.495287.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>> In article <zg-dnUdXgZm7PAb6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Dennis Boone <drb@ihatespam.msu.edu> wrote:
>>>> I don't know what those things are but I wouldn't call z/OS an emulation
>>>> layer. It looked and acted like a Unix implementation.
>>>
>>> Seems like it might be time to inject a reminder that "unix" sometimes
>>> refers to kernel (AIX is not unix, etc.) and sometimes to API (POSIX
>>> compliance might be thought of as "unix"). IIRC the z/OS unix stuff is
>>> API compliance.
>>
>> "Unix" is a trademark, owned by The Open Group. Systems that
>> implement relevant standards and provide a common base of
>> utilities, libraries, etc, can apply for certification to use
>> the Unix trademark. Only a few still bother to do so: Apple,
>> IBM, HP and SCO. Of the IBM systems, versions of both AIX and
>> z/OS are certified Unix systems. So both AIX and z/OS are Unix.
>>
>> Many other systems adhere closely to the the standards required
>> for Unix certification and provide the common utilities and so
>> forth, but don't bother with the laborious (and expensive)
>> certification process, and so can't technically call themselves
>> Unix. Most of these systems meet those criteria for all intents
>> and purposes and so are sort of de facto Unix, even if not
>> legally Unix. Among these are Linux, most of the BSD-derived
>> operating systems, QNX, and illumos (descendent of Solaris,
>> itself derived from SVR4).
>>
>> Then there is the kernel lineage: at one point, "Unix" meant
>> sharing code with systems derived from early versions of
>> research Unix (e.g., 7th Edition, 32/V, 4BSD, SysIII and SysV,
>> etc). AIX and HP-UX both certainly fall into this category, as
>> did many of the now obsolete "commercial" Unixes of the 1980s
>> and 90s, but z/OS (as a whole) and Linux do not. The BSDs are
>> sort of weird in this regard: they are kind of the Ship of
>> Theseus of Unix in that they are directly descended from the
>> research Unix code base, but with all of the AT&T code rewritten
>> and replaced.
>>
>> Then there are Unix-like systems that are designed for other
>> purposes, but neither descend from research Unix code nor try to
>> adhere to the standards mentioned before. Many of these are
>> research or pedagogical systems, such as Comer's Xinu, xv6 and
>> its derivatives (rxv64 [disclaimer: I wrote that]; sv6, and the
>> early versions of Minix. Mach and similar research systems fit
>> into a weird quasi-independent space, as Mach started from 4BSD
>> but is for all intents its own thing now.
>>
>> Then there are hybrids like OSF/1, etc.
>>
>> I've found that when one refers to "Unix" one is generally being
>> imprecise, and the exact meaning depends on context. Often it's
>> just a shorthand for "looks and behaves substantially as one
>> expects based on familiarity with other Unix systems." So when
>> one is talking generically about "Unix" one may also mean Linux,
>> BSD, etc, even though those are technically not "Unix" in the
>> sense of being certified to use the trademark, or sharing code
>> with Bell/AT&T/USL/whatever code.
>>
>
> I like Unix vs. Unix(R), that’s a great way to differentiate. Just like it
> used to be with IBM “standards”back in the day, I suspect Linux is driving
> the bus these days.
Very much so. Linux is, undoubtedly, the most important OS in
the world right now. I think this is why you see so few systems
listed as UNIX(R) certified: it simply doesn't matter all that
much anymore.
- Dan C.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426627 is a reply to message #426622] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 17:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:45:05 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
> You'd use it for the same reason you'd use any other mainframe,
> extremely high reliability with uptime measured in years and sometimes
> decades. They can swap out entire hardware subsystems without
> rebooting.
That’s all a complete myth.
There is an article from 1986 on Bitsavers, talking about maintaining
correct time on IBM mainframes. It recommends rebooting to turn daylight
saving on and off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426629 is a reply to message #426610] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 17:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:12:15 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> ... I wouldn't call z/OS an emulation layer. It looked and acted like a
> Unix implementation.
Not a very good one, by your own admission:
> One a mainframe, there are a few issues to deal with to run Unix.
> The common use terminal, a 3270 is not character at a time, data is
> transferred in blocks with a pretty complex protocol. z/OS unix
> couldn't do things like run Emacs on a 3270 but it did a reasonably good
> job of providing a working stdin/stdout.
Couldn’t even run Emacs?? What kind of “Unix” is this?
> Another issue is the native disk file system where data is read in
> blocks with predefined block sizes. z/OS Unix also did a pretty good
> job with this.
What did “pretty good job” mean, exactly? Could it reliably and
efficiently handle files with sizes that were not an exact multiple of
some block size, or not?
How efficiently could it fork multiple processes?
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426630 is a reply to message #426611] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 17:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:56:22 +0000, Dennis Boone wrote:
> Seems like it might be time to inject a reminder that "unix" sometimes
> refers to kernel (AIX is not unix, etc.) and sometimes to API (POSIX
> compliance might be thought of as "unix"). IIRC the z/OS unix stuff is
> API compliance.
In other words, it was an emulation layer. And an imperfect one, at that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426631 is a reply to message #426615] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 17:44 |
cross
Messages: 55
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <J3OmP.47191$HO1.4584@fx14.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> In article <zg-dnUdXgZm7PAb6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Dennis Boone <drb@ihatespam.msu.edu> wrote:
>>>> I don't know what those things are but I wouldn't call z/OS an emulation
>>>> layer. It looked and acted like a Unix implementation.
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Many other systems adhere closely to the the standards required
>> for Unix certification and provide the common utilities and so
>> forth, but don't bother with the laborious (and expensive)
>> certification process, and so can't technically call themselves
>> Unix. Most of these systems meet those criteria for all intents
>> and purposes and so are sort of de facto Unix, even if not
>> legally Unix. Among these are Linux, most of the BSD-derived
>> operating systems, QNX, and illumos (descendent of Solaris,
>> itself derived from SVR4).
>
> I wouldn't necessarily say 'derived'. Sun and USL worked
> together on SVR4, with SVR4 adopting several features
> from SunOS including a bunch of UCB usermode stuff.
I would. As you say, Sun and AT&T collaborated to produce SVR4,
and Sun agreed to switch from the 4.2/4.3BSD-based SunOS 4 to
System V in exchange for a cache infusion from AT&T. But this
was all in the context of AT&T trying to enter the computer
market after the Bell System broke up and ended its monopoly
status in 1982; once Sun adopted Solaris, their agreement with
AT&T was terminated, and AT&T SVR4.x and Solaris followed
diverging paths. Anyway, by the time of OpenSolaris (and then
illumos with it's various distributions: OpenIndiana and OmniOS
and so on) Solaris was clearly derived from SVR4, but pretty
different internally.
>> Then there are hybrids like OSF/1, etc.
>
> And Chorus/MIX and SVR4/Mk (aka Amadeus[*])
>
> [*] USL, Unisys, ICL (Fujitsu), Chorus Systemes, et al.
Indeed! The list goes on and on.
- Dan C.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Unix [message #426632 is a reply to message #426612] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 18:42 |
|
|
Originally posted by: moi
On 30/01/2025 16:18, vallor wrote:
> Oddly enough, MacOS is UNIX(R). I have a correspondent
> who claims otherwise, but they haven't described what UNIX(R)
> offers that MacOS doesn't. Nevertheless, I find it troublesome
> to use because of its extra "security" features that hobble
> ordinary usage. Example:
>
> (base) Mac:~ scott$ cd Desktop/
> (base) Mac:Desktop scott$ ls
> ls: .: Operation not permitted
I am not sure what you have done to your computer, but here:
/Users/wf: cd Desktop
/Users/wf/Desktop: arch
i386
/Users/wf/Desktop: uname -s
Darwin
/Users/wf/Desktop: ls
www.findlayw.plus.com www.findlayw.plus.com.gz
/Users/wf/Desktop: ls -ld .
drwx------@ 8 wf staff 256 30 Jan 23:33 .
/Users/wf/Desktop: ls -l
total 56
-rwxr-xr-x@ 1 wf staff 22493 30 Jan 02:59 www.findlayw.plus.com
-rwxr-xr-x@ 1 wf staff 2835 30 Jan 02:58 www.findlayw.plus.com.gz
/Users/wf/Desktop: id
uid=501(wf) gid=20(staff)
groups=20(staff),12(everyone),61(localaccounts),100(_lpopera tor)
/Users/wf/Desktop:
--
Bill F.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426633 is a reply to message #426627] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 19:22 |
scott
Messages: 4380
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:45:05 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>
>> You'd use it for the same reason you'd use any other mainframe,
>> extremely high reliability with uptime measured in years and sometimes
>> decades. They can swap out entire hardware subsystems without
>> rebooting.
>
> That’s all a complete myth.
>
> There is an article from 1986 on Bitsavers, talking about maintaining
> correct time on IBM mainframes. It recommends rebooting to turn daylight
> saving on and off.
Half a century ago, even if what you say is true. Modern Z-series
cannot be compared to 70's vintage hardware.
There was also Tandem in that timeframe, and they were truly non-stop.
Although a former colleague was at Tandem a couple decades ago when
they got hit by date bug that started affecting systems at the
date line - it reached eastern europe before he pushed a microcode
patch to the rest of the globe.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Unix (was: Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix) [message #426634 is a reply to message #426621] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 19:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:19:40 GMT, Mister Johnson wrote:
> On 2025-01-30, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> (base) Mac:~ scott$ cd Desktop/
>> (base) Mac:Desktop scott$ ls
> ls: .: Operation not permitted (base)
>
> that's odd!
>
> % cd Desktop/
> % ls [lots of stuff]
> % ls -ld .
> drwx------@ 129 foo staff 4128 22 Jan 22:17 . % ls -lde .
> drwx------@ 129 foo staff 4128 22 Jan 22:17 .
As I recall, it was a common problem, at least in the early days of OS X,
for various file/directory permissions to get screwed up and require the
running of some utility to fix them up again.
Does that still occur?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Unix (was: Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix) [message #426635 is a reply to message #426612] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 19:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
“Unix” is the trademark. “Unix™” or “Unix®” is merely recognition of the
trademark. You don’t evade the trademark by leaving those symbols out.
When people say “Unix”, they don’t usually think of the trademark, they
think of some traditions on how the system is supposed to behave. But
using the same term for both is confusing, even apart from the legal
issues. That’s why some of us prefer to use a term like “*nix” to denote
the traditional behaviour, as distinct from the trademark.
This is even more important given that macOS, the one system still on its
feet that is legally entitled to call itself “Unix”, has departed so much
from the traditions denoted by “*nix”.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426636 is a reply to message #426628] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 19:43 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 11:33:40 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe to run Linux.
>
> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe for any rational reason. All the rational
> reasons for buying them disappeared during the 1980s.
You'd buy a mainframe if you accumulated billions of dollars worth of
software developed to only to run on mainframes.
IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426637 is a reply to message #426629] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 19:55 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:12:15 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> ... I wouldn't call z/OS an emulation layer. It looked and acted like a
>> Unix implementation.
>
> Not a very good one, by your own admission:
>
>> One a mainframe, there are a few issues to deal with to run Unix.
>> The common use terminal, a 3270 is not character at a time, data is
>> transferred in blocks with a pretty complex protocol. z/OS unix
>> couldn't do things like run Emacs on a 3270 but it did a reasonably good
>> job of providing a working stdin/stdout.
>
> Couldn’t even run Emacs?? What kind of “Unix” is this?
A Unix without A-sync terminals and no full duplex I/O.
>> Another issue is the native disk file system where data is read in
>> blocks with predefined block sizes. z/OS Unix also did a pretty good
>> job with this.
>
> What did “pretty good job” mean, exactly? Could it reliably and
> efficiently handle files with sizes that were not an exact multiple of
> some block size, or not?
Yes it could.
In C you had the choice of reading those files as binary or non-binary.
In binary mode you'd see fixed size blocks of data. In character mode
you'd see newlines and trailing spaces stripped.
z/OS also supported UNIX style files.
> How efficiently could it fork multiple processes?
Never saw a problem with that.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426638 is a reply to message #426630] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 19:57 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:56:22 +0000, Dennis Boone wrote:
>
>> Seems like it might be time to inject a reminder that "unix" sometimes
>> refers to kernel (AIX is not unix, etc.) and sometimes to API (POSIX
>> compliance might be thought of as "unix"). IIRC the z/OS unix stuff is
>> API compliance.
>
> In other words, it was an emulation layer. And an imperfect one, at that.
Whatever crap definition of "emulation" you want to tout.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426639 is a reply to message #426637] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 20:10 |
cross
Messages: 55
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <vnh72t$36h20$2@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:12:15 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>> ... I wouldn't call z/OS an emulation layer. It looked and acted like a
>>> Unix implementation.
>>
>> Not a very good one, by your own admission:
>>
>>> One a mainframe, there are a few issues to deal with to run Unix.
>>> The common use terminal, a 3270 is not character at a time, data is
>>> transferred in blocks with a pretty complex protocol. z/OS unix
>>> couldn't do things like run Emacs on a 3270 but it did a reasonably good
>>> job of providing a working stdin/stdout.
>>
>> Couldn’t even run Emacs?? What kind of “Unix” is this?
>
> A Unix without A-sync terminals and no full duplex I/O.
There was a lot of Unix that didn't run emacs before 1981.
I'd save your breath, though: Lawrence is a well-known troll who
will "argue" this to death, usually be repeating the same silly
points over and over again.
- Dan C.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Unix [message #426640 is a reply to message #426632] |
Thu, 30 January 2025 22:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: vallor
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:42:44 +0000, moi wrote:
> On 30/01/2025 16:18, vallor wrote:
>
>> Oddly enough, MacOS is UNIX(R). I have a correspondent
>> who claims otherwise, but they haven't described what UNIX(R)
>> offers that MacOS doesn't. Nevertheless, I find it troublesome
>> to use because of its extra "security" features that hobble
>> ordinary usage. Example:
>>
>> (base) Mac:~ scott$ cd Desktop/
>> (base) Mac:Desktop scott$ ls
>> ls: .: Operation not permitted
>
> I am not sure what you have done to your computer, but here:
>
> /Users/wf: cd Desktop
>
> /Users/wf/Desktop: arch
> i386
> /Users/wf/Desktop: uname -s
> Darwin
>
> /Users/wf/Desktop: ls
> www.findlayw.plus.com www.findlayw.plus.com.gz
>
> /Users/wf/Desktop: ls -ld .
> drwx------@ 8 wf staff 256 30 Jan 23:33 .
>
> /Users/wf/Desktop: ls -l
> total 56
> -rwxr-xr-x@ 1 wf staff 22493 30 Jan 02:59 www.findlayw.plus.com
> -rwxr-xr-x@ 1 wf staff 2835 30 Jan 02:58 www.findlayw.plus.com.gz
>
> /Users/wf/Desktop: id
> uid=501(wf) gid=20(staff)
> groups=20(staff),12(everyone),61(localaccounts),100(_lpopera tor)
> /Users/wf/Desktop:
I forgot to mention that my shell commands were used via an ssh session.
I regret the omission.
--
-Scott System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.13.0 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
"Useless Invention: Double-sided playing cards."
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426641 is a reply to message #426636] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 01:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:43:20 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 11:33:40 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe to run Linux.
>>
>> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe for any rational reason. All the rational
>> reasons for buying them disappeared during the 1980s.
>
> You'd buy a mainframe if you accumulated billions of dollars worth of
> software developed to only to run on mainframes.
If you haven’t completely depreciated all that by now, then you’re
probably out of business or heading that way.
> IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
I doubt they’re making any profit on it any more.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426642 is a reply to message #426638] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 01:31 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:57:21 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:56:22 +0000, Dennis Boone wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like it might be time to inject a reminder that "unix" sometimes
>>> refers to kernel (AIX is not unix, etc.) and sometimes to API (POSIX
>>> compliance might be thought of as "unix"). IIRC the z/OS unix stuff
>>> is API compliance.
>>
>> In other words, it was an emulation layer. And an imperfect one, at
>> that.
>
> Whatever crap definition of "emulation" you want to tout.
The fact that the emulation was crap is all the info I need.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426643 is a reply to message #426637] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 01:33 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:55:57 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> Could it reliably and efficiently handle files with sizes that were not
>> an exact multiple of some block size, or not?
>
> Yes it could. In C you had the choice of reading those files as binary
> or non-binary. In binary mode you'd see fixed size blocks of data.
That’s already wrong.
>> How efficiently could it fork multiple processes?
>
> Never saw a problem with that.
Somehow I doubt you tested it very heavily.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426646 is a reply to message #426641] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 10:24 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 19:43:20 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 11:33:40 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe to run Linux.
>>>
>>> You wouldn’t buy a mainframe for any rational reason. All the rational
>>> reasons for buying them disappeared during the 1980s.
>>
>> You'd buy a mainframe if you accumulated billions of dollars worth of
>> software developed to only to run on mainframes.
>
> If you haven’t completely depreciated all that by now, then you’re
> probably out of business or heading that way.
I'm sorry, "depreciated"?
What are you talking about?
There are people running their businesses with their software.
It makes no difference how they are carrying their development cost on
their books.
>> IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
>
> I doubt they’re making any profit on it any more.
That's something you could look up for yourself.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426647 is a reply to message #426639] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 10:25 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3899
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> In article <vnh72t$36h20$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:12:15 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... I wouldn't call z/OS an emulation layer. It looked and acted like a
>>>> Unix implementation.
>>>
>>> Not a very good one, by your own admission:
>>>
>>>> One a mainframe, there are a few issues to deal with to run Unix.
>>>> The common use terminal, a 3270 is not character at a time, data is
>>>> transferred in blocks with a pretty complex protocol. z/OS unix
>>>> couldn't do things like run Emacs on a 3270 but it did a reasonably good
>>>> job of providing a working stdin/stdout.
>>>
>>> Couldn’t even run Emacs?? What kind of “Unix†is this?
>>
>> A Unix without A-sync terminals and no full duplex I/O.
>
> There was a lot of Unix that didn't run emacs before 1981.
>
> I'd save your breath, though: Lawrence is a well-known troll who
> will "argue" this to death, usually be repeating the same silly
> points over and over again.
I'm getting Alan Connor flashbacks.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426648 is a reply to message #426646] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 10:30 |
scott
Messages: 4380
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> If you haven’t completely depreciated all that by now, then you’re
>> probably out of business or heading that way.
>
> I'm sorry, "depreciated"?
> What are you talking about?
Dan, Arguing with a troll is pointless. Best to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426652 is a reply to message #426646] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 12:58 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:24:01 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
>>
>> I doubt they’re making any profit on it any more.
>
> That's something you could look up for yourself.
I understand that all the profit has been in software, for many years.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426653 is a reply to message #426636] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 13:30 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3254
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> You'd buy a mainframe if you accumulated billions of dollars worth of
> software developed to only to run on mainframes.
>
> IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
turn of century, mainframe hardware was a few percent of IBM revenue and
dropping. a decade ago, mainframe hardware was a couple percent of
revenue and still dropping ... however the mainframe group accounted for
25% of revenue and 40% of profit ... nearly all software and services.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix vs mainframes [message #426654 is a reply to message #426652] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 13:48 |
John Levine
Messages: 1487
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx>:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:24:01 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>>> IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
>>>
>>> I doubt they’re making any profit on it any more.
>>
>> That's something you could look up for yourself.
>
> I understand that all the profit has been in software, for many years.
IBM continues to put a lot of effort into their mainframe hardware. If
you look at their financial reports, they usually have a bullet for "IBM Z"
which is up some quarters, down others. The most recent slide deck has a
bullet that says:
z16 our most successful program in history
I agree that mainframes is a legacy business but it's one that still has
a long life aheade it it.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix vs mainframes [message #426655 is a reply to message #426654] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 13:53 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3254
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> I agree that mainframes is a legacy business but it's one that still has
> a long life aheade it it.
IBM deliberately misclassified mainframe sales to enrich execs, lawsuit
claims. Lawsuit accuses Big Blue of cheating investors by shifting
systems revenue to trendy cloud, mobile tech
https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/07/ibm_securities_lawsui t/
IBM has been sued by investors who claim the company under former CEO
Ginni Rometty propped up its stock price and deceived shareholders by
misclassifying revenues from its non-strategic mainframe business - and
moving said sales to its strategic business segments - in violation of
securities regulations.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix vs mainframes [message #426656 is a reply to message #426654] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 14:10 |
cross
Messages: 55
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
In article <vnj5u0$2vig$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx>:
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:24:01 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>>> > IBM is still selling mainframe hardware.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt they’re making any profit on it any more.
>>>
>>> That's something you could look up for yourself.
>>
>> I understand that all the profit has been in software, for many years.
>
> IBM continues to put a lot of effort into their mainframe hardware. If
> you look at their financial reports, they usually have a bullet for "IBM Z"
> which is up some quarters, down others. The most recent slide deck has a
> bullet that says:
>
> z16 our most successful program in history
>
> I agree that mainframes is a legacy business but it's one that still has
> a long life aheade it it.
z16 is an extremely impressive machine. I agree that if one is
not already immersed in the ecosystem there's little reason to
become so, but the hardware itself is very capable. I thknk our
gear from Oxide gives it a run for the money, but I'm not going
to knock IBM iron.
- Dan C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426659 is a reply to message #426646] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 16:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:24:01 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> If you haven’t completely depreciated all that by now, then you’re
>> probably out of business or heading that way.
>
> I'm sorry, "depreciated"?
> What are you talking about?
You know, one of those amounts you offset against gross income to come up
with net profit (or loss).
Or, if you want it in simpler terms, “written off”.
> There are people running their businesses with their software.
Computing needs have changed a lot. COBOL was designed for the batch era.
We no longer operate our businesses in the batch era.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426660 is a reply to message #426653] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 16:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 08:30:10 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> turn of century, mainframe hardware was a few percent of IBM revenue and
> dropping. a decade ago, mainframe hardware was a couple percent of
> revenue and still dropping ... however the mainframe group accounted for
> 25% of revenue and 40% of profit ... nearly all software and services.
Perhaps even more than 100% software and services? So they could be making
0% or less on each mainframe unit still being sold?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix vs mainframes [message #426662 is a reply to message #426654] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 16:28 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:48:32 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
> I agree that mainframes is a legacy business but it's one that still has
> a long life aheade it it.
If that were true, why is IBM the only one doing it?
Back in 1980, there were something like 10 different companies operating
in the mainframe business. Now there is only one. And it’s a company which
continues to shrink in most of its business divisions, with the exception
of its Red Hat Linux business. Before acquiring Red Hat, it had been
losing money for years.
Face it: mainframes are a dead-end business, with zero growth
opportunities any more.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426663 is a reply to message #426651] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 16:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:44:31 -0800, John Ames wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 06:33:03 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> How efficiently could it fork multiple processes?
>>>
>>> Never saw a problem with that.
>>
>> Somehow I doubt you tested it very heavily.
>
> What's your basis for that assertion?
It’s well known that the Unix creation-of-lots-of-processes model plays
poorly with every single proprietary OS out there.
The idea that a mainframe system, of all things, could handle process
creation efficiently, is laughable.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426664 is a reply to message #426663] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 17:13 |
scott
Messages: 4380
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:44:31 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 06:33:03 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> > How efficiently could it fork multiple processes?
>>>>
>>>> Never saw a problem with that.
>>>
>>> Somehow I doubt you tested it very heavily.
>>
>> What's your basis for that assertion?
>
> The idea that a mainframe system, of all things, could handle process
> creation efficiently, is laughable.
More ravings from a troll who has never even used a mainframe
operating system, much less actually written one.
Process creation on Burroughs mainframes was certainly
competitive with fork[*]. I speak from experience on both
ends (having written both mainframe operating systems
and an unix-compatible MPP operating system (specifically responsible
for the process create and management code). I have
patents related to the latter.
[*] In fact, the algol (MCP flavor) routine to create a
new process on the Burroughs Large systems was actually
named 'motherforker'. On Medium systems, the early MCP
function that created a new context was called 'hiho'. As
in Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, it's off to work we go.
|
|
|
|
| Re: old pharts, Multics vs Unix [message #426665 is a reply to message #426663] |
Fri, 31 January 2025 17:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: John Ames
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:30:10 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> What's your basis for that assertion?
>
> It’s well known that the Unix creation-of-lots-of-processes model
> plays poorly with every single proprietary OS out there.
>
> The idea that a mainframe system, of all things, could handle process
> creation efficiently, is laughable.
So your basis for casting doubt on his specific attestation of personal
experience is "everybody knows?"
Hmm. Sure. Makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
