Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!kth!osiris!pd@sics.se From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Op Environment vs Op System (was: NeXT not revolutionary enough?) Message-ID: <2361@osiris.sics.se> Date: 30 Nov 88 16:30:33 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> <32711@bbn.COM> <28510@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Sender: pd@osiris.sics.se Reply-To: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science Lines: 18 In-reply-to: lum@bat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) In article <28510@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, lum@bat (Lum Johnson) writes: >In article <32711@bbn.COM> jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) writes: >I did not mean to imply that any actual TOPS-10 code was borrowed for TENEX. >I was under the impression that it was a case mainly of reverse-engineering. >TOPS-10 was the cleanest and tightest implementation of Project MAC's ideas, >so it was used as the original reference model in developing TENEX. Nope. Tops-10 (also known as Bottoms-10) and TENEX (later TOPS-20 (also known as Twenex)) did not have much in common apart from running on the same hardware (DEC pdp-10). The underlying philosophy of how an operating system should work was *very* different. It is amusing to note that some of the (for the day) advanced ideas (this was late '60:s to early '70:s) are beginning to show up in MACH... (What is this doing is comp.sys.next anyway?) --