IBM TSS [message #394329] |
Thu, 07 May 2020 16:46 |
|
Originally posted by: David Lesher
No, not TSO... TSS.
I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
I just wonder if anyone here had.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394330 is a reply to message #394329] |
Thu, 07 May 2020 16:55 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
> No, not TSO... TSS.
>
> I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
> I just wonder if anyone here had.
>
>
I played with it on Hercules a year or so ago. Never had the time to devote
to it that it needed.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394332 is a reply to message #394329] |
Thu, 07 May 2020 17:04 |
Gerard Schildberger
Messages: 163 Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 3:46:26 PM UTC-5, David Lesher wrote:
> No, not TSO... TSS.
>
> I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
> I just wonder if anyone here had.
>
>
> --
> A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz
> & no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Heard of it? Yuppers, I helped write part of it. IBM was having
problems getting the TSS code developed and debugged, so IBM farmed
part of it out to CUC (Computer Usage Company), at that time, it
was the oldest software house in the USA (founded 1955 and lasted
'til 1986). While I was at CUC, I didn't know what the code was
for or what it was called, I have forgotten the code name for the
project. Oh my gawd, the endless pointers! A really big bowl of
spaghetti, to be sure. _______________________ Gerard Schildberger
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394347 is a reply to message #394332] |
Thu, 07 May 2020 17:42 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
> Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
"Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
layer of indirection" ?
I forget where it originated, it was an oft repeated maxim when I
was a student.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394352 is a reply to message #394347] |
Thu, 07 May 2020 20:18 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
> Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
>
> "Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
> layer of indirection" ?
>
> I forget where it originated, it was an oft repeated maxim when I
> was a student.
>
The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term originated
by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1] attributed to
the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_softwar e_engineering
Sounds like any quote can be attributed by adding another level of
indirection.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394363 is a reply to message #394347] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 07:12 |
|
Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> schrieb:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
> Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
>
> "Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
> layer of indirection" ?
I forget where I read it...
HTTP/3 addresses HTTP/2's "TCP over TCP" problem by migrating to a
"TCP over TCP over UDP" model.
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394364 is a reply to message #394347] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 07:36 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606 Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 2020-05-07, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
> Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
>
> "Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
> layer of indirection" ?
>
> I forget where it originated, it was an oft repeated maxim when I
> was a student.
David Wheeler; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394366 is a reply to message #394363] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 08:31 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606 Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 2020-05-08, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> schrieb:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2020 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
>> Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh my gawd, the endless pointers!
>>
>> "Every problem in computer science can be solved by adding another
>> layer of indirection" ?
>
> I forget where I read it...
>
> HTTP/3 addresses HTTP/2's "TCP over TCP" problem by migrating to a
> "TCP over TCP over UDP" model.
Didn't Google want to design their own transport protocol (or whatever
you call TCP, UDP and SCTP) over IP, too?
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394367 is a reply to message #394352] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 08:33 |
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Thu, 07 May 2020 17:18:23 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
> originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
> attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
> "We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
For this, you need a PDP-10!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394374 is a reply to message #394367] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 14:21 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2020 17:18:23 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
>> originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
>> attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
>> "We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
>
> For this, you need a PDP-10!
>
Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
indirection loops)? I think some systems limited the number of levels of
indirection.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394375 is a reply to message #394374] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 15:17 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 May 2020 17:18:23 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
>>> originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
>>> attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
>>> "We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection."
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
>>
>> For this, you need a PDP-10!
>>
>
> Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
> indirection loops)? I think some systems limited the number of levels of
> indirection.
Burroughs medium systems allowed infinite amounts of indirectly.
The processor started a timer when executing each instruction, if the timer
fired before the instruction completed, the processor would branch to a
MCP (kernel) vector with a syndrome register noting instruction timeout.
Every memory operand could be marked as indirect address, and subsequent
addresses read could, in turn, also be marked indirect.
There was also an instruction (SLT - Search Linked List) that followed
pointers until a null pointer (0xeeeeee) or the processor instruction
timer triggered.
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394378 is a reply to message #394374] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 17:27 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1052993534.610654774.814497.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For this, you need a PDP-10!
>
> Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
> indirection loops)?
In principle, yes. In practice the limit was a few thousand levels if
you didn't want your program to hang.
The PDP-10 could take an interrupt before each address cycle and if so
restarted the instruction from the beginning. One time when I should
have been doing something else I wrote a program that made an ever
longer indirect address chain until it stalled, because the time to
compute the address was longer than the time between clock interrupts.
Other machines like the GE 635 had a timer than expired and killed
your job if an address calculation took too long. I think the PDP-10
approach was more elegant.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394379 is a reply to message #394374] |
Fri, 08 May 2020 17:32 |
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Fri, 08 May 2020 11:21:25 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 May 2020 17:18:23 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> The fundamental theorem of software engineering (FTSE) is a term
>>> originated by Andrew Koenig to describe a remark by Butler Lampson[1]
>>> attributed to the late David J. Wheeler:[2]
>>> "We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of
>>> indirection."
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Fundamental_theorem_of_software_engineering
>>
>> For this, you need a PDP-10!
>>
>>
> Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly
> including indirection loops)? I think some systems limited the number of
> levels of indirection.
That was my point...
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394402 is a reply to message #394378] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 12:58 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <1052993534.610654774.814497.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> For this, you need a PDP-10!
>>
>> Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
>> indirection loops)?
>
> In principle, yes. In practice the limit was a few thousand levels if
> you didn't want your program to hang.
>
> The PDP-10 could take an interrupt before each address cycle and if so
> restarted the instruction from the beginning. One time when I should
> have been doing something else I wrote a program that made an ever
> longer indirect address chain until it stalled, because the time to
> compute the address was longer than the time between clock interrupts.
>
> Other machines like the GE 635 had a timer than expired and killed
> your job if an address calculation took too long. I think the PDP-10
> approach was more elegant.
>
For some values of elegance.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394403 is a reply to message #394402] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 13:44 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> In article <1052993534.610654774.814497.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> For this, you need a PDP-10!
>>>
>>> Didn’t the -10 allow an infinite amount of indirection (possibly including
>>> indirection loops)?
>>
>> In principle, yes. In practice the limit was a few thousand levels if
>> you didn't want your program to hang.
>>
>> The PDP-10 could take an interrupt before each address cycle and if so
>> restarted the instruction from the beginning. One time when I should
>> have been doing something else I wrote a program that made an ever
>> longer indirect address chain until it stalled, because the time to
>> compute the address was longer than the time between clock interrupts.
>>
>> Other machines like the GE 635 had a timer than expired and killed
>> your job if an address calculation took too long. I think the PDP-10
>> approach was more elegant.
>>
>
> For some values of elegance.
>
XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394407 is a reply to message #394403] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 16:13 |
|
Originally posted by: drb
> XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
> few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
There's an old rule about capacity limits (how many _x_ are allowed).
There are only three numbers in this arena:
Zero
One
Many
De
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394409 is a reply to message #394403] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 16:58 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <989756820.610738990.169141.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
> few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
Once you go past one level, there's no good reason to have an
arbitrary limit.
On the PDP-10 I believe that the Fortran compiler used indirect
addresssing to do call-by-reference in subroutines, so if your calls
were N deep you could have an N-level indirect chain. It'd be pretty
cruel to make it so that calls three deep worked, but four deep
crashed.
Same thing for the execute instruction, which you could also chain. I
had those two or three deep for switches.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394410 is a reply to message #394409] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 18:33 |
Gerard Schildberger
Messages: 163 Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is too
>> few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
>
> Once you go past one level, there's no good reason to have an
> arbitrary limit.
>
> On the PDP-10 I believe that the Fortran compiler used indirect
> addresssing to do call-by-reference in subroutines, so if your calls
> were N deep you could have an N-level indirect chain. It'd be pretty
> cruel to make it so that calls three deep worked, but four deep
> crashed.
>
> Same thing for the execute instruction, which you could also chain. I
> had those two or three deep for switches.
>
> --
> Regards,
> John Levine, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
When did that change? It used to be that if an EX instruction executed
an EX instruction, you'd get an 0C3 abend. It used to be a favorite
way to cause an ABEND, as you'd know it was YOUR abend, not some random
instruction. ________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394412 is a reply to message #394329] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 18:36 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> writes:
> No, not TSO... TSS.
>
> I used it at NASA-LeRC, and know Ames used it too.
> I just wonder if anyone here had.
univ had 709 with 1401 for unit record front end when I took two
semester hour intro to computers/fortran. the univ. was talked into
replacing 709/1401 with 360/67 for tss/360. at the end of the semester
the 1401 was (temporarily) replaced with 360/30 (as part of transition
to 360/67) and I got programming job to redo 1401 MPIO (tape<->unit
record) on 360/30 (they could have just ran 1401 MPIO on 360/30 in 1401
hardware emulation mode, but they apparently wanted to get some 360
experience). I got to design & implement my own monitor, commands,
device drivers, interrupt handlers, error recovery, storage management,
etc. Univ. shutdown datacenter on weekends and I (mostly) had datacenter
all to myself (although 48hrs w/o sleep could make monday morning
classes difficult). Within about ten weeks, I had 2000 card assembler
program that took 30mins to assemble under os/360 on 360/30 ... for
stand-alone version loaded with BPS loader ... or 60mins for version
that ran under OS/360 (DCB macros took 5-6 mins elapsed time each).
768kbyte 360/67 then replaced 709 & 360/30 ... and mostly ran os/360
.... tss/360 never quite coming to product fruition. Few months later, I
was hired fulltime to be response of os/360 system. On weekends I
sometimes had to share the machine with IBM SE who was playing with
TSS/360.
Last week Jan1968, three people from the IBM science center came out and
installed CP67/CMS. The IBM SE and I put together a simulated
edit-compile-load-execute benchmark that I ran with 35 simulated users
under CP67 and he ran four simuulated users under TSS/360; the CP67 with
35 users had better interactive response and throughput thatn TSS/360
with four users. TSS/360 was enormous CPU and real storage hog ... IBM
did some TSS/360 1mbyte, single processor benchmarks compared to 2mbyte,
two processor benchmarks which got 3.8 times the throughput of the
single processor. IBM tried to spin that TSS/360 was so sophisticated
that its algorithms got nearly four times the thoughput with just twice
the hardware ... when realisticly TSS/360 needed over mbyte of real
storage just to handle the kernel before it could start getting any user
work done.
Before I graduate, I'm hired fulltime into small group in the Boeing CFO
office to help with the formation of Boeing Computer Services
(consolidate all dataprocessing into independent business unit to
bettern monitize the investment, even offering services to non-Boeing
entities). I thought Renton was possibly largest datacenter in the
world, something like $200M-$300M in 360 gear (60s dollar), 360/65s were
arriving faster than they could be installed, boxes constantly staged in
the hallways around the machine room. They get me a 1mbyte single
process 360/67 to play with and they bring up the dual processor 360/67
to Seattle from Boeing Huntsville (that had been configured as two
360/65 running OS/360).
When I graduate, instead of staying at Boeing, I join the cambridge
science center. I do a page-mapped filesystem for CP67/CMS (later ported
to VM370/CMS) that never ships to customers but I get it deployed at a
lot of installations (one of my hobbies after joining IBM was production
operating systems for internal datacenters, including the online
world-wide sales&marketing HONE systems). In moderately heavy filesystem
benchmarks get three times the throughput of standard CMS filesystem
.... I would say I learned what *NOT* to do for paged-mapped filesystem
from TSS/360.
TSS/370 finally starts to come into production quality ... a lot of
performance work was done after they cut the organization from 1200
people to 20 people and they start getting 370/168 machines with 4mbytes
of memory (enough to start running applications w/o heavy page
thrashing). I had interactions off and on with the group through the
mid-80s.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
Re: PDP-10, was IBM TSS [message #394413 is a reply to message #394410] |
Sat, 09 May 2020 19:01 |
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 09 May 2020 15:33:15 -0700, Gerard Schildberger wrote:
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>> XDS Sigma systems allowed only one level of indirection. IMHO one is
>>> too few and unlimited is too many I vote for three.
>>
>> Once you go past one level, there's no good reason to have an arbitrary
>> limit.
>>
>> On the PDP-10 I believe that the Fortran compiler used indirect
>> addresssing to do call-by-reference in subroutines, so if your calls
>> were N deep you could have an N-level indirect chain. It'd be pretty
>> cruel to make it so that calls three deep worked, but four deep
>> crashed.
>>
>> Same thing for the execute instruction, which you could also chain. I
>> had those two or three deep for switches.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> John Levine, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
>> https://jl.ly
>
> When did that change? It used to be that if an EX instruction
> executed an EX instruction, you'd get an 0C3 abend. It used to be a
> favorite way to cause an ABEND, as you'd know it was YOUR abend, not
> some random instruction. ________________________________________ Gerard
> Schildberger
The discussion is about the PDP-10.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394557 is a reply to message #394412] |
Thu, 14 May 2020 19:15 |
|
Originally posted by: David Lesher
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> TSS/370 finally starts to come into production quality ... a lot of
> performance work was done after they cut the organization from 1200
> people to 20 people and they start getting 370/168 machines with 4mbytes
> of memory (enough to start running applications w/o heavy page
> thrashing). I had interactions off and on with the group through the
> mid-80s.
I first used in ~~1985. We had 100-150 users on it. I recall our
guru was A. L. Armsted. Someone told me that the IBM Support
office was in Dallas, and had 6-8 people. We, however, had Al.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394571 is a reply to message #394557] |
Fri, 15 May 2020 02:51 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> writes:
> I first used in ~~1985. We had 100-150 users on it. I recall our
> guru was A. L. Armsted. Someone told me that the IBM Support
> office was in Dallas, and had 6-8 people. We, however, had Al.
there was dallas ... and then a new project in boeblingan germany
there was project with AT&T to port UNIX on top of TSS kernel as moving
to 370 ... started before Amdahl's GOLD/UTS.
Issue was that both IBM & Amdhal UNIX ran in VM370 virtual machine
.... because the field maintenance engineers required mainframe (real
hardware) error recovery and recording ... and to add that (mainframe
hardware error recovery/recording) to "native" UNIX was several times
larger than the straight forward 370 port.
SSUP was stripped down TSS/370 kernel (with mainframe error
recovery/recording) with UNIX APIs layered on top.
Although SSUP+UNIX had significant better performance (especially with
multiprocessor) than Amdahl UTS ... but there apparently was politics
inside AT&T. I would see Amdahl people fairly regularly at Stanford SLAC
sponsored monthly mainframe meeting ... and we would go out afterwards
to the Oasis (which has since closed) on El Camino ... just north of
stanford shopping center ... and they would tell lots of the internal
Amdahl politics. Simpson, from Houston HASP, had left IBM and was with
Amdahl in Dallas recreating "RASP" ... sort of mainframe MFT+ with real
paged mapped filesystem, contrasted to MVS which was MVT with separate
virtual address space for each application, but kept the OS/360
filesystem) ... and there was rivalry between him and the people in
silicon valley. I tried talking them into making truce with Simpson and
sort of doing UTS on stripped down RASP ... similar to what IBM was
doing with SSUP, a stripped down TSS with UNIX on top.
I also got email from the Dallas TSS/370 about the internal politics
that seemed to be going on inside of AT&T with SSUP and Unix on top.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394645 is a reply to message #394558] |
Sun, 17 May 2020 12:54 |
|
Originally posted by: David Lesher
Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> writes:
> That's been mis-attributed somewhere along the line. I know nothing about
> the banner.
Apologies, and thanks to whoever did provide it....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394646 is a reply to message #394571] |
Sun, 17 May 2020 13:10 |
|
Originally posted by: David Lesher
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> there was dallas ... and then a new project in boeblingan germany
> there was project with AT&T to port UNIX on top of TSS kernel
> as moving to 370 ... started before Amdahl's GOLD/UTS.
[Many details..]
Thanks for things I can almost follow; I was a mere user of the
system. I don't recall Unix being mentioned at all while there;
I had Usenet access at home via a dialup public access site.
The vignette I was told was that Dallas would call Al for
help more often than he would call them...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
|
|
|
Re: IBM TSS [message #394663 is a reply to message #394645] |
Mon, 18 May 2020 01:57 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606 Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 2020-05-17, David Lesher wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> writes:
>
>
>> That's been mis-attributed somewhere along the line. I know nothing about
>> the banner.
>
> Apologies, and thanks to whoever did provide it....
Peter Flass.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|