Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site arizona.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!arizona!whm
From: whm@arizona.UUCP (whm)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: VM/IX on IBM 4341
Message-ID: <18087@arizona.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 00:36:42 EST
Article-I.D.: arizona.18087
Posted: Thu Dec  6 00:36:42 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 06:59:58 EST
References: <117@circadia.UUCP> <411@mhuxd.UUCP> <634@pucc-k>
Organization: Dept of CS, U of Arizona, Tucson
Lines: 41

IBM has been encouraging us to consider the acquisition of a VM/IX system as
a major computational facility.  Several weeks ago I sent off an "unload-and-
run" benchmark tape for testing on a VM/IX system.

Today I was talking to the guy at IBM who is apparently attending to getting
the benchmark tape run and he's run into a little problem:  I had inadvertently
included a directory called "kimbo's" on the the tape and to the best of
my understanding, they were *unable* to read the tape because tar couldn't
create a directory called "kimbo's".  Further investigation revealed that
the following special characters are allowed in VM/IX file names: period,
comma, underscore, minus sign.

The solution we reached was for me to make a benchmark tape with conformant
names and Federal Express that off to them.

Based on my experience with that tape, I guess I'd like to second the comment
about VM/IX leading the "loser patrol".  Having dealt with very early Eunice
systems, it's not beyond the realm of my imagination to imagine those file
name limitations, but it is simply incomprehensible that they'd have no way
to deal with the problem.  I mean, how hard could it be to have tar ask for
an alternate file name?  Perhaps this is in fact possible, but the person I'm
dealing with didn't know about the feature.

As mentioned, "VM/IX is based on INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation's IS/3, which
is in turn based on UNIX System III, a standard UNIX system developed by
AT&T Bell Laboratories." (IBM GH20-6410-0, VM/IX General Information Manual)
I've had this document for quite some time, but I had never noticed the
part about IS/3.  The IBM guys have told us many times that VM/IX is
System III, but for some reason I get the feeling that IS/3 is much like
IS/1, which as I recall was a UNIX on VMS system that provided all the
facilities of UNIX that could be directly mapped into VMS operations or
something like that.  I guess it must have had some good points, and I
might have the facts mixed up, but my general feeling about the IS/1 system
was "How can anyone hope to sell that product to knowledgeable users who
want full UNIX capabilities."

Does anyone know if IS/3 is merely an upgraded IS/1?

					Bill Mitchell
					whm.arizona@csnet-relay
					{noao,mcnc,utah-cs}!arizona!whm