Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!joyce!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (s m ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Cobol Data Corporation Cyber 180 (was Re: 64 bits)
Message-ID: <2381@garth.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jan 89 03:50:04 GMT
References: <28200249@mcdurb> <451@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <1951@scolex> <2618@ficc.uu.net> <1128@raspail.UUCP> <2371@garth.UUCP> <2032@scolex>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (s m ryan)
Organization: intergraph/apd in sunny california
Lines: 64

>>- no concept of subsystem which permit a layerring of commands.
>
>You could run a different shell.  NOS, btw, has a truly horrible idea of a
>shell:  you *can* specify your own shell, but it gets reloaded after every
>command has been executed (since it doesn't have VM, other than segmentation
>[i.e., Base + Offset, where Base is set by the OS], and you only have 2**17
>usable address bits).  The shell is, in my opinion, more flexible, but
>subsystems are neat (in NOS, a subsystem can schedule it's own processes to
>run, if it wants to).

That's subcontrol points. Actually, the real problem with NOS shells is
their `features' which cause destructive interaction with CONTROL and EXCST.

I'm not sure how many people even know what a NOS/VE subsystem is. Oh,
sure, you could stack up local variables on some file and hope no one
removes them. Subsystems are akin to objects, permitting a hierarchial
organisaion of the environment.

>>- no ability for file and system security.
>
>Ahem.  AT&T SysVr3.2 will, supposedly, be B1 secure.  This is the same level
>as NOS.  NOS/VE doesn't have that much more over NOS, and, again, Embos
>beats them both.

You haven't seen selective security until you've seen permits. I don't know
what all these levels mean, but does supposedly really mean the same as
already implemented? Will it include access levels?

Er, why does Unix always seem to be run with the DEBUG switch set? Doesn't
seem to have any problem with running SYOT from IAOT jobs.

>>By the way, while NOS does not have a `standard error file,' it does have
>>dayfiles. Lordy, lordy, I wish I had dayfiles on Unix.
>
>NOS/VE does, however.  It still has dayfiles, though.  A problem with
>dayfiles occurs, however, when you start running out of disk space, and the
>system wants to report this *in* the dayfile.

SYSTEM, ACCOUNT, and ERRLOG can all be terminated and purged. CSUCS had
a local mod to permit job dayfiles to be terminated and purged.

>                                                                     (except
>that programs under NOS often put little messages into the dayfile, such as
>what routine they're in [if you wanted to know]).

In fact many people do. Not all of those little messages go to the dayfile.
Line 1 and 2 messages can replaced as often as desired without adding to the
dayfile. Do an <ESC>e and you can find out what stage your job is at.

Unix is much better of course: either you get little messages until your
terminal runneth over or you get dead silence.

>NOS/VE has its advantages, as does NOS.  Unix is, for my purposes, much more

The problem with people with Unix-on-the-brain is their inability to recognise
what other people have done. What I like about Unix just about matches what I
dislike.

And I detest programs that require specific file names.
-- 
The tears of Hreithmar quickly dried.                               -- s m ryan
He claimed his proce: to fill the hide
with scarlet gold and cover well                               -- Andwari's Gem
and thus avoid a vengeance fell.                                         -- 1/8