From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0df43ffd for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id BF9679C0AC; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 00:00:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440CF9C077; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:59:40 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="qBVB0Dk1"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C0B199C077; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:59:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com (mail-wm1-f65.google.com [209.85.128.65]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3C269C00B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:59:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id l2so7568547wmg.0 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:59:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8wgwM0OpseeKhheWf8vbRNsNxXE5D8E13xvWqmJiuyk=; b=qBVB0Dk1zVF/smIgox8cOYB+MxtIkhGpwb3rJYgFNDNNZBi19oJufwqHMIpNSh5+Om x/LQrMZcO5hitJyYt9rXEVnjLxrszmFfzNFTJBq69VrTWlnFSDElWpPxfjDu98xepoBj zAjOz0CEkOwdskcvvulZSrE6vdOQUMoeNtqtI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=8wgwM0OpseeKhheWf8vbRNsNxXE5D8E13xvWqmJiuyk=; b=IBLiN56Lk3AfhrppYC9dyBuj3AdDDP476n797z/OaHjP7rTbWre+Hl+3QbxzKUvpBY SmqL1y0gypXZzksJSySyjSku9MajvZgCGsGgj+kQ+C5kTA84oHzcGAZmLcak4eVHNCVL Rs4yEOFjgqjUd0nek4pnmHg6zwaoadW8RuksnMrt4yzqNxSq3bu0RIVfldfGarv5xHzX X9h1knvDGQe6HtoL47ru/Q/KaRkmnVc2lMXpmihTjnUZFGuhsuVwcTe0wGTKBfwN80ik XCTrg+2Wnoh2DscWNQrBi3xZCZet/21C3travIt3TDdD9ee0+b+vSeT84OcZsLpeofM8 CVtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUcUmU5/1ASGnsd8r8Qcy5hmEm6HsAn1Tli5C3VuMW5vy9S1qeC Dvlea5xDo8g/aa3qhNoVoTBTGPI2UD4ybW2m3hI4rEGNXTxQEw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxyeBschLj8Y8rLbNgu3Or81ohP+0ODfF6QD8C1Q6/ObsDD+MeGOL9FFKkI2MGeZeuZcu/vK7mq0SpuxTkpwZI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2310:: with SMTP id 16mr19123954wmo.8.1567173574985; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:59:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190828172451.GX13570@mcvoy.com> <20190828181727.GA82704@wopr> <1d3d8c9a-7006-4666-b32e-8fa4fc5e9f7c@PU1APC01FT039.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:59:08 -0400 Message-ID: To: "tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d1c3a059156081a" Subject: Re: [TUHS] ISO, OSI, and DECnet (was Re: If not Linux, then what?) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000003d1c3a059156081a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Besides DECnet, IIRC, in the USA the only semi-large (required) use of OSI was for TOP [Technical Office Protocol] and MAP [manufacturing automation protocol] that GM and Boeing tried to ram down the industries virtual throat. At Masscomp, we had already built an OSI/X.25 interface for Europe, but since I ran Datacom and these folks were definitely my target customers for a real-time system, I had to listen to them. I spent way too many hours in GM and Boeing conference rooms dealing with it. By memory, the arguments for MAP over ethernet was the later was considered 'unpredictable', they claimed they all had to have fiber on the manufacturing floor, and were convinced that TCP/IP had 'too much overhead' for real-time automation. I never really understood the justification of why TOP was needed, other than there were a bunch of folks in both places running DECnet and there was a huge level of NIH. When I was at Masscomp, I don't think we ever sold many systems into GM. But our stop-gap for Ford was to use Protean fiber-based boards on the manufacturing floor and continued to run TCP on top it, and our traditional Ethernet was just fine by them, "thank you." Since Ford Aerospace was our partner for building the new Mission Control at NASA (we ran redundant ethernet there), they were already pretty familiar with our Ethernet and IP stack products, so they took over working with the folks inside of Ford. Shortly thereafter, Masscomp and Apollo won the bid for the Boeing 7J7 program (which became the 777 when it shipped). The agreed (common) interface between all three firms was Ethernet and IP. [**] I left for Stellar, but I don't think they ever built either the MAP/TOP or any of the rest of the OSI stuff besides X.25, funny how they stopped asking for it. I still have a binder of all the TOP specs in my basement. [**] An interesting factoid that I thought of while writing this reply. One thing I learned from working with Boeing during that time is that until that program, the C5A and the 747-400 were the only two airplanes that could carry their documentation as a payload. The paper required for the FAA weighed that much. One of the justifications of the 7J7 was they had gotten approval from the FAA to make all of the documentation delivered electronically. It was the first plane they designed 100% using CAD and no paper or other models. Masscomp systems on the manufacturing floor, and Apollo's in the engineering offices. --0000000000003d1c3a059156081a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Besides DECnet, IIRC, in the USA the only semi-large (r= equired) use of OSI was for TOP [Technical Office Protocol] and MAP [manufa= cturing automation protocol]=C2=A0 that GM and Boeing tried to ram down the= industries virtual throat.=C2=A0 =C2=A0At Masscomp, we had already built a= n OSI/X.25 interface for Europe, but since I ran Datacom and these folks we= re definitely my target customers for a real-time system, I had to listen t= o them.=C2=A0 I spent way too many hours in GM and Boeing conference rooms = dealing with it.=C2=A0 =C2=A0By memory, the arguments for MAP over ethernet= was the later was considered 'unpredictable', they claimed they al= l had to have fiber on the manufacturing floor, and were convinced that TCP= /IP had 'too much overhead' for real-time automation.=C2=A0 I never= really understood the justification of why TOP was needed, other than ther= e were a bunch of folks in both places running DECnet and there was a huge = level of NIH.

When I was at Masscomp, I don't thin= k we ever sold many systems into GM.=C2=A0 But our stop-gap for Ford was to= use Protean fiber-based boards on the manufacturing floor and continued to= run TCP on top it, and our traditional Ethernet was just fine by them, &qu= ot;thank you."=C2=A0 Since Ford Aerospace was our partner for building= the new Mission Control at NASA (we ran redundant ethernet there), they we= re already pretty familiar with our Ethernet and IP stack products, so they= took over working with the folks inside of Ford.=C2=A0 Shortly thereafter,= Masscomp and Apollo won the bid for the Boeing 7J7 program (which became t= he 777 when it shipped).=C2=A0 The agreed (common)=C2=A0 interface between = all three firms was Ethernet and IP.=C2=A0 [**]

I left= for Stellar, but I don't think they ever built either the MAP/TOP or a= ny of the rest of the OSI stuff besides X.25, funny how they stopped asking= for it.=C2=A0 I still have a binder of all the TOP specs in my basement.





[**] An interesting factoid that I thought of while writing this = reply.=C2=A0 One thing I learned from working with Boeing during that time = is that until that program, the C5A and the 747-400 were the only two airpl= anes that could carry their documentation as a payload.=C2=A0 The paper req= uired for the FAA weighed that much.=C2=A0 One of the justifications of the= 7J7 was they had gotten approval from the FAA to make all of the documenta= tion delivered electronically.=C2=A0 It was the first plane they designed 1= 00% using CAD and no paper or other models.=C2=A0 Masscomp systems on the m= anufacturing floor, and Apollo's in the engineering offices.
--0000000000003d1c3a059156081a--