eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May24.031011.5331@menudo.uh.edu> svec5@menudo.uh.edu (T.C. Zhao) writes: >Any computers the sysadm forces you to run COS (like PSC) >or CTSS on it. Seriously, I never understood >why the guys at PSC were so fond of COS ? Couple of years ago, >despite that fact that CRI changed OS to UNIX, the PSC >guys were working their heads off to make UNIX behave like COS. >... >When I skim the buffer magzine the energy reseach publishes, >about 60% is talking about CTSS. COS: oh yeah! I better understand the structure of COS knowing Univac/Unisys EXEC*1100 (EXEC*8). They replaced those "@ASG,T...." with "ASSIGN,.." So that is the pedigree of COS....8^) All those good men from Univac. Why? You ask? It's because the administrators of computers are a very conservative lot. They use what the vendor supplies (with the odd exception like CTSS, with which I constantly kidded Michael and Fernbach). Both are still better than VS/2. Many of these people don't see what's driving the trends in the computer industry. People don't want to change. Interactive COS is not, too bad, and CTSS would probably have been better. We are in a shake-out period of Operating Systems. Right now commonality is the buzzword. This forces scientists to make a choice, advance the science in which they are are trained and minimize the effort in becoming a computer jockey (hold all other sciences and technologies constant [fixed]), OR switch professions and become a computer programmer/scientist. Serious stuff this. The same thing goes for languages (Fortran, slowly shifting for a variety of reasons; I just got SISAL up on our Y), software tools (UPDATE is kind of silly, much better tools exist), libraries [now these are good], etc. I don't blame administrators or users; they only lack an understanding of some of the forces which drive the computer economy. They are placed in a difficult decision-making position. We could be running COS NOW, or something similar like CTSS, NLTSS, and we would be shaking it out. I wonder where we would be then? It only would have taken a single car wreck to have delayed CX-OS/UNICOS: if myself, Creon Levit, Mark Aaker, Marty Fouts, etc., at least a year maybe four at most. I think Cray Research would have developed UNICOS eventually [by itself] (all their new hires in the mid 80s would have pushed for it). But for that matter, maybe H-P could have said Yes to Woz, or ...... "These MBAs don't realize. The engineers drive the boat." --Nolan Bushnell Let the dinosaurs continue to run COS, EXEC*2200 (does anybody reading have an ISP?), and VS/2. People who opposed UNICOS back in 1982-4 are kind of like people who ADMIT voting for Richard Nixon in 1972. A rare lot. It does no good to be mad at them. "We did not fight the enemy, so much as we fought ourselves." --Oliver Stone --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene