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?)
--