From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 52182bff for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 23:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E14B9A20A2; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:26:22 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1386A209E; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:25:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 76332A1A90; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:25:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D234A20A8 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:25:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 615A418C09E; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 19:25:37 -0400 (EDT) To: tuhs@tuhs.org Message-Id: <20180901232537.615A418C09E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 19:25:37 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Subject: Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Public access multics X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Greenwald@cs.stanford.edu, thvv@multicians.org, osibert@oxford.com, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" > From: Will Senn > I was thinking that Multics was a failed predecessor of unix > ... straighten me out :) I'd start with: https://multicians.org/myths.html > From: Clem Cole > https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Unix-succeed-and-not-Multics/answer/Clem-Cole Clem, I think that's too limited in scope. Like a lot of 'big' 'failures' (defined in Multics' case as 'failure to grow to significant market share, and continue in the long term'), I don't think Multics 'failed' for a single reason. In general, in large failures, there are a number of causes, all doing their bit. Now, if there are M causes, ranked in priority, maybe the first N1 are _each_ big enough that _any one_ of them could have led to that outcome. Or maybe not; maybe it needed the first N2, all acting in concert. My crystal ball isn't that accurate. But here's my take on _some_ of Multics' main issues. - Management: if you look at: https://multicians.org/hill-mgt.html it's clear that Honeywell top management didn't understand Multics, and didn't understand that it had a long-term potential. They terminated investment in new hardware, and that was what finally killed Multics. - Non-portability: the system was too tied to a specific platform; it couldn't really be moved elsewhere. (E.g. the code is riddled with 'fixed bin 18'; yes, that could be changed with a program to edit the source, but there are lots of dependencies on the specifics of the machine's architecture.) It would be possible to re-write it to run on, say, a 386, but you'd pretty much have to start from scratch. - Built for the wrong future: a key assumption was that people would continue to get their computes from large centralized machines. Clearly, that was wrong (and it played into the issues with Honeywell management)>. Multics _could_ have made the transition to today's 'small' (physically) machines, in which case it would have been really good to have - e.g. if we could run browsers in AIM boxes a lot of malware simply would not be an issue. But the point above prevented that. Those are some of the big ones; I may come up with more. I've CC'd a couple of Multicians - perhaps they can add additional insight. Noel