Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!sysvis!george From: george@sysvis.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: FYI: VM systems on the net Message-ID: <-121460412@sysvis> Date: Fri, 18-Jul-86 15:01:00 EDT Article-I.D.: sysvis.-121460412 Posted: Fri Jul 18 15:01:00 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jul-86 03:15:21 EDT References: <6340MW9@PS> Lines: 69 Nf-ID: #R:<6340MW9@PS>:-12:sysvis:-121460412:000:3048 Nf-From: sysvis.UUCP!george Jul 18 14:01:00 1986 Just to set the record straight, I was a systems programmer in an IBM shop some years ago when VM was first announced. I installed a pre-release copy of VM for testing purposes and became quite familiar with it over some time. I'm sure that improvements have been made (there was room for them). So you can all now stop explaining to me how "it works". Cheez... I answered the original message in the same tone it was written. > Written 8:31 pm Jul 15, 1986 by argus.UUCP!ken > Strange, I've been on an IBM 4361 for almost a year and have never used a > batch process, practically everything is interactive. Also, VM has many > I/O capabilities which are better than Un*x. You ignored my (hard tested) number about VM's overhead. I wonder how many MIPS per user are needed by an interactive multi-os/VM system? Do you know? "Better" is mostly a relative word, so I won't get into a frame of reference discussion with you. Do all net readers know what an IBM 4361 is, Ken? (Please don't explain it to me.) > For starters, the equivalent of the Un*x write(1) on VM does not go > splattering all over whatever else is being displayed on the screen. > By default it is displayed on a seperate screen, or ... > do whatever you want with them. Gee, I hope there are no emergency messages to go through...No wait! I know! We'll just buy two terminals for each user (from IBM?). Wow! the thought! [BTW (seperate <> separate)] > I believe one of the higher PC models does use a variation of VM. But > VM on a single process machine does not really make much sense. Further- > more a lot of VM's power is in its hardware implementation, the paging and > lookaside tables for example. Gosh, you mean that $meta-million dollar machine has some hardware that $4K micros don't implement? How utterly absurd of those dastardly micros! What is the $$ cost per user of your 4361? > Lastly, is there really a reason why programs posted here have to be in C? No. Its just customary for UN*X systems. Portability and all that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Written 12:19 pm Jul 15, 1986 by ll-xn.ARPA!jcollas > Geez. What an monarchical tone to your message! "That which we see in others..." > VM is a little different than your usual operating system. I didn't think it was an operating system, did you? BTW -- its different FROM > It might be better to think of it as a "meta-" operating system. You think of it in your own terms. I will do so in mine. >> ...[me]... IBM didn't have an official `C' compiler as of some >> time ago so what are you going to do with sources that won't compile, and if > Funny. I believe that Waterloo, Bell Labs (ATTIS), SAS Institute, Oracle > all sell C Compilers for the IBM/370. Most stuff can port between UNIX > and CMS. (Most, not all). I didn't see IBM's name in that list. Still no official `C' compiler. This means that only some very small percent of the IBM shops compile C programs. Did you not tell me everything?