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=-0.8 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 4ff28cc9
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>;
	Mon, 3 Sep 2018 13:29:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id BF8A5A1B13; Mon,  3 Sep 2018 23:29:48 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E2FA1A2D;
	Mon,  3 Sep 2018 23:29:19 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
 id 67234A1A2D; Mon,  3 Sep 2018 23:29:16 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from mail.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (mail.cs.dartmouth.edu [129.170.212.100])
 by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3A9A1A1D
 for <tuhs@tuhs.org>; Mon,  3 Sep 2018 23:29:13 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (tahoe.cs.dartmouth.edu [129.170.212.20])
 by mail.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w83DT7AT004832
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
 Mon, 3 Sep 2018 09:29:07 -0400
Received: from tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (8.15.2/8.14.3) with ESMTP id w83DT7KS105109;
 Mon, 3 Sep 2018 09:29:07 -0400
Received: (from doug@localhost)
 by tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w83DT5q0105108;
 Mon, 3 Sep 2018 09:29:05 -0400
From: Doug McIlroy <doug@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Message-Id: <201809031329.w83DT5q0105108@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 09:29:05 -0400
To: arnold@skeeve.com, tuhs@tuhs.org
User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [TUHS] 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 <tuhs.minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
Sender: "TUHS" <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org>

> Was Algol 60 any kind of viable alternative at the time?

The operating system for the Burroughs B5000 had been written in
Burroughs Algol. That punctured the widespread belief that OS's
were so particular to the hardware that they had to be written
in machine language. I don't recall how far Burroughs Algol
went beyond Algol 60, nor why Multics did not want to follow
that lead.  ("Viable" is a slippery concept when choosing
among Turing-complete alternatives.)

Doug