From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:21:02 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] Source code abundance? In-Reply-To: References: <23bbfb06-2de6-a9e1-0786-3f46d17c1192@kilonet.net> <20170306153317.GA23881@indra.papnet.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, ron minnich wrote: > Yes, the AIX code looks nothing like SYS V. It's been 20+ years since I > did a lot of work in AIX, and most of my work was in networking, external > pagers, and NFS, and even there you could see it was different (although > much of the NFS was clearly the Sun reference code, one giveaway being the > Sun copyrights in it :-) I always thought it was an interesting code base > -- they seemed to get preemptability right from the start, for example. As > it was explained to me, IBM did a full implementation from manuals of both > the kernel and the commands. > > There were lots of little weirdnesses in the commands. mkdir -p, for > example, would give you an error if the directory existed -- they got the > creation of the tree right, but the error wrong. There were tons of these > little gotchas in the commands and it's one thing that made NTP and Condor, > for just two examples, a real chore on AIX. > > I visited the now-closed IBM Palo Alto center in 1991, and they told me an > interesting AIX story. Seems to that point, on the mainframes, AIX had run > under VM. The native port was either starting or soon to start, and there > was some question about channel programming -- mainly, if the people who > really knew how it worked were still at IBM, or even still alive. I guess > they worked it out, however ;-) > I once heard that some version of AIX was actually implemented in PL/I. I strongly doubted that, and no one's mentioned it so I assume that's apocryphal? It would be so distinctive that I can't imagine someone NOT mentioning it if it were the case. - Dan C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: