Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Shells everywhere (was Re: Cobol Data Corporation Cyber 180 ...)
Message-ID: <6770@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 13 Jan 89 08:36:33 GMT
References: <10847@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 21

in article <10847@tekecs.TEK.COM>, andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) says:
$ 	"It should be possible to write a shell for almost any usable
$ 	computer ..."
$ A shell requires that the system supply fork() and exec(), or perhaps
$ start_task() (fork and exec combined) system services, or something
$ analogous and reasonably efficient.  Lots of "usable computers" don't
$ have these.  Two examples that come to mind are the original PDP-10
$ running TOPS-10, and IBM CMS under VM/370: each user got exactly one
$ virtual address space, in which to run exactly one task (although

A seasoned critic would respond, "I thought you said USABLE
computers!"

(Caveats: I have used VM/CMS -- unfortunately. I have not used
TOPS-10. My computer at home is an Amiga.)

--
Eric Lee Green    ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg
          Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509              
Netter A: In Hell they run VMS.
Netter B: No.  In Hell, they run MS-DOS.  And you only get 256k.