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_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4537 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2022 15:38:41 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 8 Apr 2022 15:38:41 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0DEDC9D6FD; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:38:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AA59D680; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:35:59 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="gcIqT+Nd"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 699729D680; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:35:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oa1-f49.google.com (mail-oa1-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBBC59D665 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:35:56 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oa1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-ddfa38f1c1so10066109fac.11 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:35:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZVbzKD/DsSwuUm65l37SBn4LpXE7DLdd6310VzedhGU=; b=gcIqT+NdNcduiaq3bAMEQYZilZq0aXTs/hlzAa5N7HKjyIR3HJ5+5w9ofOtlJjxD/u C5ezCavpy/ZMVhkG5la4PY8f4kB7juTFhmDHILQQO2JL3Fyb/pFsLPp9FZMHAC4kPcfs EikgUEc6kCpsGxJZioYp+4U7xcM2vto+ejLNtBBn+zk5sOn/GhcPZSsSY/KneC6RRb1i UdIllWRg/l9YTjNC0VZCb4ktq6lQjNBkjWSL7UD/mng2mdyTTddqAsX5mo1uCc0pg2uq TT7Ln/qPGErIOT7Cspn39JBpVEYTEPYjam/2krQzKrlckibezcacVXQeKFaxrpYnThRv MvnA== 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=ZVbzKD/DsSwuUm65l37SBn4LpXE7DLdd6310VzedhGU=; b=DztqnHy5Gy8hBeFHgH6H0sMgD4Jwwr2/zpkQIzOvVpuRpncTfNfd4ECSqkH6OsGtOd KyYEXJKRpp2djslv8PcT75cDmbGfbCJNIcq/Fmf7AVTxsrZ7I57rPbYJeG82EQcDCKzK QLwVbYUkuAJoCZmRC79eRzzy1fe/Slxq8NxPHbkWxDiQyHXnBvYs8GqhG9bdQDy3kbGS p8FZf6n///8DWGnPbNzKDs7G2pX3iPk7vT8jxSe0HkuWFDZ9ZSy3RuRCfsyCyOqBhXmg xbITNcPsf6sJPm3qEQhuq6ZhGw10BwX8wlxa4CBOP0j51nFLphgjQ2hkNGM5Yx2tsS1U OInA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315BJwJSMwDVHZwhnD/BxWXB6sPLvxLR1Pri8+LEJDalrunxC8n n5bM6mJ6UTJNAH6Q65a3JxNccoe5viTaFFEFFRfyGqYc X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbOaoNcfWBRhdNeQl4FyObtkZ/O9XjU+REFwLlTiwmhS00WhjNlO6XJYUg9DwSQAibiiuLjSI1pV/0KnxT0vg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e991:b0:de:e86c:99be with SMTP id r17-20020a056870e99100b000dee86c99bemr8578219oao.278.1649432156292; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:35:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7wh774dtvi.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <20220408152834.GE29186@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20220408152834.GE29186@mcvoy.com> From: Dan Cross Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:35:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c1ca2805dc26598e" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Interesting commentary on Unix from Multicians. 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" --000000000000c1ca2805dc26598e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:28 AM Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:59:26AM -0400, Dan Cross wrote: > > Of course, by 1976, Unix was at 6th Edition and I can see why no one > would > > want to go back to Multics (or being tied to a machine costing an order > of > > magnitude more than a PDP-11). But one wonders what would have happened > had > > Multics started accepting timesharing, say, 9 months earlier than it did. > > Do we have any people around who actively used Multics long enough to > develop a feel for it? My only experience is the printout that Rob > Gingell had on his office door which was a description of Multics > paging in library after library before it actually ran the program. > I have no idea if it was that bad. > > I guess what I'm trying to ask is if Multics had modern hardware > under it, performed well, would we want to be running it? > I'm running Multics under emulation at home and I think it's actually pretty cool. I imagine that both Doug and Ken would remember it pretty well? - Dan C. --000000000000c1ca2805dc26598e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:28 AM Larry McV= oy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:59:26AM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> Of course, by 1976, Unix was at 6th Edition and I can see why no one w= ould
> want to go back to Multics (or being tied to a machine costing an orde= r of
> magnitude more than a PDP-11). But one wonders what would have happene= d had
> Multics started accepting timesharing, say, 9 months earlier than it d= id.

Do we have any people around who actively used Multics long enough to
develop a feel for it?=C2=A0 My only experience is the printout that Rob Gingell had on his office door which was a description of Multics
paging in library after library before it actually ran the program.
I have no idea if it was that bad.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is if Multics had modern hardware
under it, performed well, would we want to be running it?
<= div>
I'm running Multics under emulation at home and I th= ink it's actually pretty cool.

I imagine that = both Doug and Ken would remember it pretty well?

= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Dan C.
=C2=A0
--000000000000c1ca2805dc26598e--