Re: [9fans] missing compilers?

["Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>]

jkw@bowser.eecs.harvard.edu wrote:
> In article <3D4F8DF3.18613.27913A3F@localhost>, Andrew Simmons wrote:
> > bolted on top of a "new" operating system which is based on
> > Carnegie-Mellon's 1980's version of an operating system from the
> > 70's.  At which point you start to think that even Bill Gates never legged
> > you over to quite this extent, and start looking at Windows machines.
> Ah.  I see, you're from the VMS camp, then?

It's even funnier.  OpenVMS evolved from VAX/VMS which was largely
inspired by RSX-11M, which evolved from RSX-11D which was a follow-on
to DOS/BATCH-11.  Windows XP evolved from a combination of Windows/NT
(which was largely inspired by VMS) and 16-bit Windows, which evolved
in several stages from a bolt-on to MS-DOS.  Forward compatibility
has always been a factor; even the latest Windows still supports
applications in an MS-DOS task.  And of course when it comes to "PC"
hardware, compatibility has produced some incredible kludges we're
still saddled with, the pitiful instruction set architecture being
perhaps the worst, with lack of standard video interface being a
close second.  Apple's OS/X systems are thus no worse in regard to
evolutionary features than Bill Gates' Windows systems.

Unix got several things right, most notably treating (almost) all
data sources/sinks as "files" that are accessed via the same mechanism.
Plan 9 explores the consequences of pushing that idea even farther,
while dropping some of Unix's less desirable features, but is not
bolted onto anything except existing hardware.