[comp.unix.internals] Multics bloat??? Are you sure???

pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/06/90)

On 1 Dec 90 23:01:26 GMT, eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) said:

eric> I will incorporate several of your corrections. Upon doing a
eric> context grep for MULTICS it does seem that the references to it
eric> are uniformly negative. That is unfair and was unintended; though
eric> I agree with the charge that MULTICS became somewhat bloated and
eric> at least partly a victim of design grandiosity, I also do think
eric> that it expressed some of the best thinking about OS design in its
eric> day and doesn't deserve to be `sneered at' by anyone.

Especially as it is smaller and faster and more efficient than SVR4, or
4.3BSD, etc... Multics was a large system for its day -- it was slow
when running more than a dozen users on a 1MIPS, 2MB machine :-). I
remember enjoying excellent response time on an 8 MIPS, 32MB machine
(approx.) when logged in with a couple hundred other users.

I would really like having somebody tell us what is the wired down code
size of a fairly recent Multics release (10, for example) vs. SVR4 or
Ultrix or SunOS etc...
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk

benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) (12/10/90)

I'll regret this, but:

Multics wired a trivial amount of memory. 95% of the kernel was paged,
only interrupt and fault handling was wired. Some day, Unix
implementations may do the same. (AIX does now ...)

Much Multics folklore comes from people who read Organic's (I'm sure
I'm spelling his name wrong) book, which rescribed the state of the
system long before I ever worked on it.  Other comes from internal MIT
polemics taken far out of context, like the Jargon file. Not to
mention that much of the Jargon material was written at about the same
time as Organic, when the MIT system was extremely slow, with less
than 1MB of memory, and a whole bunch of users.

Multics had all the interesting features of V.4, but it only had them
once, not 4 times from 4 predecessor versions merged together.

Multics didn't require the equivalent of fsck after reboot.

Multics had dynamic linking. Multics had fully symmetrical
multiprocessing. It had the same functionality as streams. It was the
first system certified B2, for what that's worth. Its commands had, by
and large, comprehensible and consistent names and arguments. 

Multics didn't require one to add a device driver to the kernel to
support a new device (except for those that contained file systems.)

All Multics system facilities were available from both commands and
subroutines.  No Multics subroutine printed a mysterious error cookie
on the terminal, they all returned some sort of error indication.

Multics could fit, without much bother, on the machines that are now
required for commercial Unix systems -- 12MB, several mips.

The Multics development group never found time or interest in writing
about the system, and the MIT academic community had written operating
systems off as old hat years ago. 

In short, Multics' sins were that it was ahead of its time and that it
was owned by a company that preferred to see it dead than in
competition with its batch OS offering, GCOS. Five to ten years ago,
little v7 Unix was a neat way to get a nearly-Multics OS onto an itty
bitty computer. Now, V.4 and related projects are running as fast at
they can to stick back in everything that the original Unix authors
(refugees from the Multics project) took out. Only it dosen't always
fit so well. Such is life.

Finally, only the ignorant spelled Multics in capital letters.

ps: in case you haven't guessed, I was one of its developers, and I
miss it. I hope that there's a place in hades reserved for the
Honeywell execs responsible for never selling it seriously.


-- 
Benson I. Margulies

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/10/90)

>Much Multics folklore comes from people who read Organic's (I'm sure
>I'm spelling his name wrong) book, which rescribed the state of the
>system long before I ever worked on it.

 AUTHOR          Organick, Elliott Irving, 1925-
 TITLE           The Multics system; an examination of its structure [by]
                 Elliott I. Organick.
 PUBLICATION     Cambridge, MIT Press [1972]
 CALL NUMBER     QA76.5 .O73
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

isodonovan@brb.isnet.inmos.co.uk (12/12/90)

Hi!

In article <1990Dec9.194753.436@odi.com>, benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
> I'll regret this, but:

maybe, but not on my account!

I used a Multics system (running on a Honeywell DPS 870) for about 2 years 
when I worked at the Compuing Centre at University College Cardiff (Wales, UK).
I only have a user's appreciation for it - I know nothing of the internal 
workings.

All I can say is that I found it easy to use - very intuitive.  Being able to
access the abilities of the OS as commands or as subroutines was great.  Simple
things like hijacking the prompt routine at any time to make it do almost
anything...  Access control lists were easy, as were removing a file from a
directory and replacing it with a pointer to somewhere else...

Above all it was friendly and easy to understand.

I had this idea that as time went on computer systems should get simpler to
use, more friendly, easier to understand.  Multics did all of those things like
no other system I've worked with.  

It's been good to see some of these functions creeping into VMS (which I use
most of the time) but it still does not have the same 'feeling' that Multics
did.

Unix, by contrast seems to be quite alien and hostile (MS-DOS ditto).

All in all, I would have preferred a future of Multics+Algol68 to one
of Unix+C!

Cheers,

  Brian

> 
> 
> -- 
> Benson I. Margulies
-- 
o---------------o-------------------------------------------------------------o
:    # # # #    : Brian O'Donovan - I.T., Inmos, Newport, Wales, UK, NP9 1YJ. :
:  # # # # # #  : Tel  : (+44 or 0)-633-810121-X383   o-----------------------:
:# # # # # # # #: Fax  : (+44 or 0)-633-810820        :(o)-(o) NISC: The NO   :
:# # # # # # # #: Telex:                497053        :   |    Instruction-Set:
:# # # # # # # #: eMail: Isodonovan@Isnet.Inmos.Co.Uk :   v    Computer.      :
:# # # # # # # #:-------------------------------------o-----------------------:
:  # # # # # #  : "When the chips are down we play our aces,                  :
:    # # # #    :  hiding them in our broken places."  -- The Roches.         :
o---------------o-------------------------------------------------------------o