From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Feb 12 17:04:27 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7266123D6CE for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:04:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johnl@iecc.com) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "gal.iecc.com", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48HmG2586yz4dtC for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:04:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johnl@iecc.com) Received: (qmail 65071 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2020 17:04:20 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fe2c.5e443014.k2002; bh=GkHsLSO1a9BrTKmdYcqVA7yEB/9ge7BOHSchBsMGVHM=; b=Q5Vac2Qi/N3vW7tbg49VS4+IkFZk4r2p4QDb/Lgx+vBmtWhFzN/+KV5KkKWxpHePZkopbm61WbxZcVkQg+jtTScGOEB79zIHmA4iArZCBz4n8IfLgLxi8oL/cvMVFz/Yb9osEuzs17h7mHB+hLOjQZpqkEVW5MgMqcrMQ4+ajr9DH6BlkArDKTDFJv2qVNheFx032v0nFrDygsJ5+d0BQwtdI+WfsdnVi8OLAkdvXC/lFwORQX97VA7VBG+eqyzU Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 12 Feb 2020 17:04:20 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2B9961450DF8; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 12:04:19 -0500 (EST) Date: 12 Feb 2020 12:04:19 -0500 Message-Id: <20200212170420.2B9961450DF8@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: bennett@sdf.org Subject: Re: terminology and history (was Re: Re updating BIOS) In-Reply-To: <202002120724.01C7OcSW005991@sdf.org> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48HmG2586yz4dtC X-Spamd-Bar: -------- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=iecc.com header.s=fe2c.5e443014.k2002 header.b=Q5Vac2Qi; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=iecc.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of johnl@iecc.com designates 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=johnl@iecc.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-8.14 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[iecc.com:s=fe2c.5e443014.k2002]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_MED(-2.00)[iecc.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.4.2]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2001:470:1f07:1126::/64]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[iecc.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[iecc.com,none]; IP_SCORE(-3.64)[ip: (-9.90), ipnet: 2001:470::/32(-4.65), asn: 6939(-3.58), country: US(-0.05)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:04:27 -0000 In article <202002120724.01C7OcSW005991@sdf.org> you write: >that later virtual memory systems had. Although offered by Cambridge University, >rather than IBM, CP-67/CMS provided virtual machine support. Uh, no, it was the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center in Cambridge MA. It was in the same building where Project MAC was. CP was a skunkworks project, originally on a modified 360/40, then on a /67. It was quite embarassing that CP/67 was so much faster and more reliable than the flagship TSS. I used both; TSS would have been great if if worked, but it didn't. It was also not surprising, since CP was written by a small skilled staff while TSS had hordes of programmers trying to implement undebugged specs. >> [MS/PC/DR/Free]DOS was a lot more like a mainframe batch operating > > No, that was my point. They were all like monitor systems (e.g., IBM >1620/1710 Monitor I). They did almost nothing for the user or program except >for loading an executable program from a disk drive and accepting a return of >control when the application program ended, ... They also provided a file system, which was pretty important. I'd say they didn't provide quite as much as DOS/TOS but it was more than a batch monitor.