meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (03/21/90)
buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: |hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: |> Hmmm, how novel...and how many years have these things been in VMS? | |And how many architectures does VMS run on? | |Oh, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to notice that putting features in |a portable operating system is much harder than to hack things in to a |particular machine. And how many architectures does AIX run on? Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' architectures? What? All IBM so far? Uh huh. -Miles
brian@alpha.la.locus.com.la.locus.com (Brian Horn) (03/21/90)
In article <9428@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >And how many architectures does AIX run on? > >Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' >architectures? What? All IBM so far? Well, actually AIX (prior incarnations) have run on Vaxen and 68K variants. It has also been run on many other IBM platforms, but some of them "never made it".
neal@mnopltd.UUCP (03/21/90)
-> ->buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: ->|hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: ->|> Hmmm, how novel...and how many years have these things been in VMS? ->| ->|And how many architectures does VMS run on? ->| ->|Oh, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to notice that putting features in ->|a portable operating system is much harder than to hack things in to a ->|particular machine. -> ->And how many architectures does AIX run on? -> ->Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' ->architectures? What? All IBM so far? -> ->Uh huh. -> ->-Miles -> Miles, will you beHAVE? yer clogging up the bandwidth.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neal Rhodes MNOP Ltd (404)- 972-5430 President Lilburn (atlanta) GA 30247 Fax: 978-4741 uunet!emory!jdyx!mnopltd!neal Or uunet!gatech!stiatl!mnopltd!neal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xxremak@csduts1.lerc.nasa.gov (David A. Remaklus) (03/21/90)
In article <9428@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: >|hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: >|> Hmmm, how novel...and how many years have these things been in VMS? >| >|And how many architectures does VMS run on? >| >|Oh, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to notice that putting features in >|a portable operating system is much harder than to hack things in to a >|particular machine. > >And how many architectures does AIX run on? > >Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' >architectures? What? All IBM so far? > >Uh huh. > >-Miles An even better question, how many different versions of AIX does IBM have? At last count I think it was four. Dave R. -- David A. Remaklus NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio xxremak@csduts1.lerc.nasa.gov
karl@stiatl.UUCP (Karl Klingman) (03/21/90)
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >|hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: >|And how many architectures does VMS run on? >And how many architectures does AIX run on? >Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' >architectures? What? All IBM so far? Sorry Miles, but I have been working with AIX for quite a while now and it doesn't seem to run well on an IBM platform. -- - /| -->GAK! | Karl Klingman \`O.o' | UUCP: emory!stiatl!karl ={___}= Onward through the | Internet: stiatl!karl@gatech.edu ` U ' fog. -- Oat Willy | Live Wild or Die!
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (03/22/90)
This has to be one of the most moronic threads I've had the misfortune
to read here. Can we please get back to technical discussion?
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edulance@virgin.MV.COM (Lance Fraser) (03/22/90)
In article <9428@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: >|hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: >|> Hmmm, how novel...and how many years have these things been in VMS? >| >|And how many architectures does VMS run on? >| >|Oh, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to notice that putting features in >|a portable operating system is much harder than to hack things in to a >|particular machine. > >And how many architectures does AIX run on? > >Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' >architectures? What? All IBM so far? > >Uh huh. > >-Miles Let's see in our office we use 1.VMS 2.Interactive Unix 3.AIX 4.AT&T Unix 5.SCO Xenix 386 6.SCO Xenix 286 7.SCO Unix 8.Microport Unix 9.DOS (yes, really) The funny thing is I don't have anything bad to say about any of them as a matter of fact there are good points to all of them. I guess we just enjoy what we do and we don't have to sit around complaining about everything. Maybe we're just not smart enough to know we should be complaining. Oh well, just thought I'd let people know that someone out here is happy with what's happenning. ---lance
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (03/23/90)
In article <9428@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >And how many architectures does AIX run on? > >Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' >architectures? What? All IBM so far? Various parts of AIX 3.1 will be available to all members of OSF for the appropriate fee. In that sense it is an "open" operating system. In theory, most of it should run "just fine" on every platform capable of running a modern demand paged operating system. >Uh huh. Oh, you thought this was the FREE life. That comes later. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) (03/24/90)
In article <9428@stiatl.UUCP>, meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: > buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: > |hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: > |> Hmmm, how novel...and how many years have these things been in VMS? > | > |And how many architectures does VMS run on? > | > |Oh, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to notice that putting features in > |a portable operating system is much harder than to hack things in to a > |particular machine. > > And how many architectures does AIX run on? > > Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' > architectures? What? All IBM so far? IBM architecture - RT IBM architecture - RS/6000 IBM architecture - S/370 Intel architecture - i386 (rumors of) Intel architecture - i860 (Wizard PS/2 cardset with 4xi860) whatever comes out of Steve Chen's supercomputer work Of course, with IBM not licensing AIX source to anyone, these are only IBM machines, but that is not the same as AIX being a non-portable OS. Rumors are that IBM's customers are pressing very hard for source licenses and that someday such licenses will be available. Whether that would lead to ports to other machines, I can't predict. -- A. Lester Buck buck@siswat.lonestar.org ...!texbell!moray!siswat!buck
mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) (03/26/90)
In article <519@siswat.UUCP>, buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: > > Of course, with IBM not licensing AIX source to anyone, these are only > IBM machines, but that is not the same as AIX being a non-portable OS. Actually, a LOT of people will get to see AIXv3 source...through OSF, to whom IBM has 'licensed' its source. Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | 'Truth' never set anyone free. It is only The Good mbrown@osf.org | *doubt* which will bring mental The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| emancipation. The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | --Anton LaVey
mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) (03/27/90)
In article <519@siswat.UUCP> buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: >In article <9428@stiatl.UUCP>, meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >> Or, probably more importantly, how many different manufacturers' >> architectures? What? All IBM so far? > >IBM architecture - RT This is AIX 2.2.1, runs on RT only >IBM architecture - RS/6000 This is AIX V3, runs on RS/6000 only >IBM architecture - S/370 >Intel architecture - i386 These are AIX/TCF, the only version of AIX that runs on more than one architecture. Just because the three different versions of AIX share the same name doesn't mean they share the same source code. They are in fact quite different from each other. -- Mark Dapoz (mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP) ...uunet!mnetor!hybrid!mdapoz I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy. -- Spock, "The Apple," stardate 3715.6.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (03/28/90)
In article <1990Mar26.175619.22528@hybrid.UUCP> mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) writes: >In article <519@siswat.UUCP> buck@siswat.UUCP (A. Lester Buck) writes: >>IBM architecture - RS/6000 > >This is AIX V3, runs on RS/6000 only AIX 3.1 is intended to run on as many things as you can throw it at, remember that this the same code selected by OSF for OSF/1. If you wanted to run AIX 3.1 on a VAX, DEC would only have to join OSF [ which we all know they already have ;-) ], and port AIX 3.1 to the VAX architecture. VMS is intended to run on the VAX, and that's about it. There isn't a "Open DEC Software Foundation" out there to join if you want to run VAX/VMS on your System/6000. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) (03/29/90)
In article <18179@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >AIX 3.1 is intended to run on as many things as you can throw it at, >remember that this the same code selected by OSF for OSF/1. If you >wanted to run AIX 3.1 on a VAX, DEC would only have to join OSF >[ which we all know they already have ;-) ], and port AIX 3.1 to the >VAX architecture. As I understand it, OSF is not going to use the AIX 3 kernel, only the utilities and libraries. To me this would mean that OSF/1 != AIX 3.1. Am I wrong in this assumption? I can't see how using a Mach kernel will maintain 100% compatibility with the AIX 3.1 kernel. You'll probably see OSF/1 on several platforms but I doubt you'll find AIX 3 on anything other than an IBM platform. -- Mark Dapoz (mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP) ...uunet!mnetor!hybrid!mdapoz I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy. -- Spock, "The Apple," stardate 3715.6.
mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) (03/29/90)
In article <1990Mar28.200036.21081@hybrid.UUCP>, mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) writes: > As I understand it, OSF is not going to use the AIX 3 kernel, only the > utilities and libraries. To me this would mean that OSF/1 != AIX 3.1. > Am I wrong in this assumption? I can't see how using a Mach kernel will > maintain 100% compatibility with the AIX 3.1 kernel. You'll probably > see OSF/1 on several platforms but I doubt you'll find AIX 3 on anything > other than an IBM platform. You have this correctly, as I see things. HOWEVER: The system interfaces (which are all an app cares about anyway) will be virtually identical, between OSF/1 and AIXv3. Hence, portability between the two should not be the big problem that say, ATT -> BSD portability is. Also, consider this: IBM has publicly announced its intentions to use OSF technology. Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | The effort of using machines to mimic the The Good mbrown@osf.org | human mind has always struck me as rather silly. The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| I would rather use them to mimic something The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | better. --Edsger Dijkstra
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (03/29/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >AIX 3.1 is intended to run on as many things as you can throw it at, >remember that this the same code selected by OSF for OSF/1. No, Mach is now the basis for OSF/1, and has been for awhile. In my opinion this is a much more intelligent choice as Mach is in many ways more advanced than AIX (although several versions of AIX have some pretty nifty features), not to mention it describes one product and actually runs with good reliability and on several architectures -- none of which can be said about AIX at the moment. >VMS is intended to run on the VAX, and that's about it. There isn't >a "Open DEC Software Foundation" out there to join if you want to >run VAX/VMS on your System/6000. Given the hardware dependencies inherent in VMS I think the only way you'd ever port it to a RISC machine would be through an emulator. VMS people are getting hit in the pocketbooks and the performance by that dependency.... jim frost saber software jimf@saber.com
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (03/29/90)
In article <1990Mar28.200036.21081@hybrid.UUCP> mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) writes: >As I understand it, OSF is not going to use the AIX 3 kernel, only the >utilities and libraries. To me this would mean that OSF/1 != AIX 3.1. >Am I wrong in this assumption? I can't see how using a Mach kernel will >maintain 100% compatibility with the AIX 3.1 kernel. You'll probably >see OSF/1 on several platforms but I doubt you'll find AIX 3 on anything >other than an IBM platform. The kernel is not the only part of an operating system. The bulk of the code is in the commands and libraries, as it is with any Mach-based operating system. Since the libraries and system calls define the interface to the system, and since AIX 3.1 has as a minimum a SVVS, BSD, and POSIX compatible collection of system calls, and since OSF/1 will include the AIX 3.1 libraries, one might conclude that AIX 3.1 and OSF/1 will be very similiar indeed. [ The utilities will be identical, something we both agree on anyway ... ] There will never be an operating system running on other than a DEC VAX which is very similiar to VMS. Ever. Now, if you wish to argue that the thing called "AIX 3.1 [ a trademark of IBM ]" will never run on other than IBM iron, fine. I'll agree to that. I think we can also agree that the thing called "ULTRIX [ a trademark of DEC ] will never run on other than DEC iron. But then ULTRIX at least smells more like BSD than VMS will ever smell like anything else from any other vendor. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) (03/30/90)
In article <18182@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
There will never be an operating system running on other than a DEC
VAX which is very similiar to VMS. Ever.
How soon we forget. Elxsi did run a thing very similar to VMS. Elxsi
is history, but it proved that VMS or VMS-like system can be built. I
vaguely recall HVX or someone else doing a similar thing...
--
Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM
It's Not My Fault | MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* kbierman%eng@sun.com
I Voted for Bill & | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group
Opus | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO"jerry@heyman.austin.ibm.com (Jerrold Heyman) (03/30/90)
In article <1990Mar29.011739.16076@world.std.com> madd@world.std.com (jim frost) writes: >jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>AIX 3.1 is intended to run on as many things as you can throw it at, >>remember that this the same code selected by OSF for OSF/1. > >No, Mach is now the basis for OSF/1, and has been for awhile. In my >opinion this is a much more intelligent choice as Mach is in many ways >more advanced than AIX (although several versions of AIX have some >pretty nifty features), not to mention it describes one product and >actually runs with good reliability and on several architectures -- >none of which can be said about AIX at the moment. True, MACH has been chosen by OSF to be the kernel of the OSF/1 release, but AIX 3.1 commands, libs, and other features (disk mirroring) are ALSO part of OSF/1. Granted the AIX 3.1 kernel isn't part of OSF/1 but there is a lot of AIX 3.1 that will be. Statements made by John F. Haugh II and Jim Frost are BOTH true. > >>VMS is intended to run on the VAX, and that's about it. There isn't >>a "Open DEC Software Foundation" out there to join if you want to >>run VAX/VMS on your System/6000. > >Given the hardware dependencies inherent in VMS I think the only way >you'd ever port it to a RISC machine would be through an emulator. >VMS people are getting hit in the pocketbooks and the performance by >that dependency.... > >jim frost >saber software >jimf@saber.com A lot has been made about DEC's VMS running on all its platforms. Until the 3100 came out, DEC had a lot of platforms, but only one architecture. AIX has been designed to run on distinctly different architectures - currently only architectures supported by IBM, but still three different ones (i386, IBM Risc, and S/370). With the addition of AIX 3.1 being part of OSF/1, the claim can be made that AIX will run on more and more platforms. Remember, IBM has made a statement of direction on folding back into AIX the other parts of OSF/1. Jerry Heyman Jerry Heyman AWD Austin AIX Development VNET: HEYMAN at AUSVM6 IBM Token: jerry@heyman.austin.ibm.com e-mail: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!heyman.austin.ibm.com!jerry
mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) (03/30/90)
In article <5633@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: >Also, consider this: IBM has publicly announced its intentions to use >OSF technology. True, but that doesn't mean that they will adopt or use all of OSF/1, only what they decide is appropriate for them to use. I believe that OSF members are allowed to pick and choose what parts of OSF/1 they would like to offer to their customers, there's no requirement that they accept all of OSF/1. -- Managing a software development team | Mark Dapoz is a lot like being on the psychiatric | ...uunet!mnetor!hybrid!mdapoz ward. -Mitch Kapor, San Jose Mercury | mnetor!hybrid!mdapoz@cs.toronto.edu
khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) (03/30/90)
In article <1956@awdprime.UUCP> jerry@heyman.austin.ibm.com (Jerrold Heyman) writes:
...
A lot has been made about DEC's VMS running on all its platforms. Until
the 3100 came out, DEC had a lot of platforms, but only one
architecture.
This was never correct. PDP-11's are still orderable, the PDP-8 lived
on inside a WP machine. There was an FPS array processor option for
VAX. There was the Rainbow (8088/8080|z80 I forget), and more.
The vast bulk of their customer base did migrate to VAX fairly early
and stayed there, so DEC _is_ mostly VMS. But strictly speaking it
hasn't been a one architecture company for a long time.
But more than enough about DEC, this is an IBM group last I checked ;>
cheers
--
Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM
It's Not My Fault | MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* kbierman%eng@sun.com
I Voted for Bill & | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group
Opus | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO"