From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6849 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2021 19:42:02 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 Nov 2021 19:42:02 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2521F94F05; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:41:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4609193D29; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:39:50 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="o8ivJusZ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A202B93D29; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:39:47 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f182.google.com (mail-qk1-f182.google.com [209.85.222.182]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B35AC93D1B for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:39:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id b67so4128052qkg.6 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) 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 :cc; bh=mOoxe6UcTPyBaOCkLxRZ/0OI0YWwUm6XqwRYSh6Mws8=; b=o8ivJusZFwkXxFoozoq+7tmvbkqEyNcZbeEh41fWD9BqlcWlo5nrEii3GJH7EjRPY9 58mPLxoPg7ZMcQFim7xPTh3fsq63TFXckcV769u3KIW8OQH+US64cvlSV7dD2V/JSH04 Q3SbrdhQEhmBmXQoUXkqAgaRLi+iaSJEQZURk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mOoxe6UcTPyBaOCkLxRZ/0OI0YWwUm6XqwRYSh6Mws8=; b=AbNG2s9sKGztpJbkNG+cAAhEHgNno30CjlJmu2vaSQDSE6puiZw6dYkw1StYrN14rA bpAKKlAudKup6bHbZDYqRYFI6DSV6Wkt0zOjpJjkzsK6lcxsI9igpCoPtTPrw3qs7OE1 HQkz0/xf0V/+XOLczaSyHveXMitTczHbho+ZQIJUM27UkRVpEo5RV+63UffKaGorarfu zWHh90dcNsxTU7vvJ6J5PBc0cH8aRZAen1O2lRpCHyOZ1U/mLpHVDa7bme094NCx+I+/ DoX1FdwORCHz0/YU4MfLajIOsBBQimRnE8Rw0K0LbIn2JCT0h9KRokxf1mFUpFDoi9TO 5bhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530QNQvtBonHb+S+5pHoQ3gftANrtjI2Q3AsGQtcVMX0sHXvmvNt E0xWLyjUPf5g6oSb0+QBxcS3pBkvC5IF5OvgvkGLX0zuf+OOlmJO X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRc0VerV3Fmy7BGvsiITfDIGggGUnU4k0UuoTrUS3I5GX5N26LvGAxoweyfYPVuyaXdXYstKOzfhk0iIO7HRE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:22c3:: with SMTP id o3mr893215qki.748.1637782785585; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:39:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <530A0404-0542-404F-9E77-484AA2E678C5@cfcl.com> <20211124184040.GS3889@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20211124184040.GS3889@mcvoy.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:39:19 -0500 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027893505d18e0510" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Book Recommendation 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: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000027893505d18e0510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > SMIT - just say no. There were a number of things IBM did well with AIX so I'm not quite so glib knocking everything from them. But I agree that SMIT was the not so well thought out piece and never fully understood why it ended up being such a bad example of systems SW. ... but .... I always suspected that SMIT was an example of what IT managers running mainframe thought of UNIX. The folks at IBM set out (and did) a thorough and well thought out requirements study IBM style ... and then ... they only talked to Mainframe IT folks, not people that actually had experience in running UNIX in a production setting from their (like on a BSD or Ultrix based Vax or SunOS - i.e. instead of talking to the folks that came to a USENIX LISA, they talked to customers that came to a SHARE meeting). So they solved the wrong set of problems. SMIT was a force fit of UNIX to mainframe shop and never was quite right for either group. I'm not sure the IT folks really liked it much better than the UNIX folks, but at least for them it used their terminology and their concepts (*e.g.* DASD *vs.* DISK). BTW: HP, I thought had a similar issue and they did not really understand the UNIX user. DEC parts of so got it/parts did not. Many DECies wanted Ultrix == VMS (and really wanted Unix to go away since VMS and RXS were really better in their hearts), but at least there were a ton of folks inside of DEC doing the Unix work that 'got it.' As I have said before, it was always interesting having all of them as customers at LCC. You got to see the good and bad of all the systems vendors. --00000000000027893505d18e0510 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On W= ed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:43 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
SMIT - just say no.
There were a number of things IBM did well with AIX so=C2=A0I'm not= quite so glib knocking=C2=A0everything=C2=A0from them. =C2=A0
=

But = I agree that SMIT was the not so well thought out piece and never fully und= erstood why it ended up being such a bad example of systems SW. ... but =C2= =A0.... I always suspected that SMIT was an example of what IT managers run= ning mainframe thought of UNIX.=C2=A0 The folks at IBM set out (and did) a = thorough and well thought out requirements study IBM style ... and then ...= they only talked to Mainframe IT folks, not people that=C2=A0actually=C2= =A0had experience in running UNIX in a production setting from their (like = on a BSD or Ultrix=C2=A0based Vax or SunOS - i.e. instead of talking to the= folks that came to a USENIX LISA, they talked to customers that came to a = SHARE meeting).=C2=A0 So they solved the wrong=C2=A0set of problems.=C2=A0 = SMIT was a force fit of UNIX to mainframe shop and never was quite right fo= r either group.=C2=A0 I'm not sure the IT folks really liked it much be= tter than the UNIX folks, but at least for them it used their terminology a= nd their concepts (e.g. DASD vs. DISK).

BT= W: =C2=A0HP, I thought had a similar issue and they did not really understa= nd the UNIX user. =C2=A0 DEC parts of so got it/parts did not.=C2=A0 Many D= ECies wanted Ultrix =3D=3D VMS (and really wanted Unix to=C2=A0go away sinc= e VMS and RXS were really better in their=C2=A0hearts), but at least there = were a ton of folks inside of DEC doing the Unix work that=C2=A0'got it= .'

As = I have said before, it was always interesting having all of them as custome= rs at LCC.=C2=A0 You got to see the good and bad of all the systems vendors= .
--00000000000027893505d18e0510--