Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!bbn!jr@bbn.com
From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Op Environment vs Op System (was: NeXT not revolutionary enough?)
Message-ID: <32711@bbn.COM>
Date: 23 Nov 88 21:49:14 GMT
References: <471@wucs1.wustl.edu> <48@necbsd.NEC.COM> <26446@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4833@polya.Stanford.EDU> <145@avsd.UUCP> <4163@encore.UUCP> <32289@bbn.COM> <27921@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson)
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA
Lines: 27
In-reply-to: lum@bat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson)

In article <27921@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, lum@bat (Lum Johnson) writes:
>Both BBN TENEX and ATT UNIX were written in reaction to defects in the model
>of time sharing accepted by Project MAC and exemplified by CTSS, MULTICS, and
>TOPS-10.  TENEX, modeled mostly on DEC TOPS-10, 

I think this is a bit too strong.  TENEX kept parts of TOPS-10 it
could use, and had a "compatibility mode" for running TOPS-10
programs, but a lot of the ideas were fundamentally different.  TENEX
provided paged address space; PDP-10 was segmented [i.e., BBN added a
pager to the PDP-10 to get to TENEX].

>						 was implemented on a Honeywell
>machine, ported to Digital's pdp-10 when that was discontinued, 

huh?  TENEX started out on and stayed with the PDP-10.  The name
should say it.  Maybe you are confused with the Arpanet IMP, which
started on Honeywell 516 minis, then went to H-316s, before jumping to
a microcoded BBN-built machine in the early 1980's.  Also, MULTICS was
built on a GE 645 (I think that's the right number), which went to
Honeywell when GE left the computer biz.
								 and used by
>Digital as the basis of TOPS-20.

yup.
--
/jr
jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr