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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 23622 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2022 14:02:10 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 8 Apr 2022 14:02:10 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id EE7379D699; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 00:02:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149B59D680; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 00:00:06 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lobxYHok"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id ED4EE9D680; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 00:00:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oi1-f175.google.com (mail-oi1-f175.google.com [209.85.167.175]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B1319D665 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 00:00:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oi1-f175.google.com with SMTP id a19so4406077oie.7 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:00:03 -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=JOJi94K59qNk6oudfkhR1P+kH8mBQ7qBuqImsL6yUVc=; b=lobxYHok9OmUDwZLdhPu6HinXkmvwvcB0xux9ufFe1jh17vUS7XjKawJMHO3dJ+WiE FlesoRU8sfMNw4DsdNh0IeyevaB7SM7GJ+XYEGLetVRmZ1YMneudrwVlBIzjsPJvEvGO yJhRZ98nn5pMJPGPDSK3/N2ZiXOUWc4ffPdvw3UOgd8cuiZQ3Kw09O/uyFqReiJtXuBy Drt7nLL0z95xIuhFj4b9EhkLeNlTE81d1L5F5fr5huJq6Cqc7hGrr5ptgDZxVD5jkgX5 AdqPheyj3Nc45uFJN9HDAg4vxrxEuxCdf8W3e86Wqk/gODtxUwuXW1J4J5xosaYfjepR s9BQ== 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=JOJi94K59qNk6oudfkhR1P+kH8mBQ7qBuqImsL6yUVc=; b=yuToIAVlglOwABUID7tJaXJqlNTunLAFfXTLZMS3uf0AtUBQ1WiX4EbrrNGULMf7eS sApM3zdJ0SHLA7f8twXvWo/mF/c7QdGILcYLwAtuuzKGo3u9XWy4RWbr0fh+iZXrlnsO Ghf5nEOizbAqFLR5jdh2NvSdh2ogEEf278o1vTFV1VHRv/PyechlYUauiVoHhwU6j3Ya KCUPtavgxQQP7XbDYR/ajf6ubINb5Z0IFvWs5gFm6vpqRZaVwyP32QNxMWXHJYwYQZKf 9BUJfZJMY9OzmQnSL0hFnBfZ2IzEmRlip3YGt5dQeKG5Jy6gRvxKi86dL80Kg8X5Eu10 U7Xg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UnZweiO+Z6acWb0qZlWXEdzpLPJjO/F3xI6OFzSJSiySljI8R pFIFRHT0IWP6V423LZ7h/irVoKZqqvs1aj9QpZ2UuCaSles= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXU3Db183ujNlGhvcHfbkqHERWLwVqCSwSmtNaR1UMDJnLRuLkrwBPM/a5xdfd3sd9eSpvgE38T3krjsZ0Ufs= X-Received: by 2002:a54:4d05:0:b0:2ef:10d0:f348 with SMTP id v5-20020a544d05000000b002ef10d0f348mr7702100oix.278.1649426402615; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7wh774dtvi.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> In-Reply-To: <7wh774dtvi.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> From: Dan Cross Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:59:26 -0400 Message-ID: To: Lars Brinkhoff Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cfa74e05dc250293" 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" --000000000000cfa74e05dc250293 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:30 AM Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > Dan Cross wrote: > > Interesting quotes include Fano talking about different objectives > > from the different organizations, Corby saying, "they [Bell Labs] > > dropped out three-quarters of the way through the race" (referring to > > Multics), Fano asserting that BTL left after the _research_ part of > > the project was essentially completed > > Multics was started in 1964 and first went online in 1967, although it > seems likely it wasn't exactly at the top of its game yet. Bell Labs > pulled out in 1969. If that was the 75% point, 100% would be around > 1971. > In context, I don't think Corby's statement was meant to be taken literally, but rather he used it as more of a colloquialism. His point was that (at least in his perception) the bulk of the work had been done when BTL dropped out of the project. Fano's statements are a bit overshadowed by Corby's here, but when he talked about each of the three participants in the Multics project at its outset working on one project but with different goals, he stated that his impression was that Bell Labs was interested in both the research products as well as a production system that they actually could use. In particular, they expected that the latter would be delivered on a specific timetable: when the research part basically wrapped and the system still wasn't production ready, they dropped out. MIT started offering timesharing access on Multics in 1969. A second site at Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, NY was operational by 1970. Honeywell announced the 6180 running Multics as a product in 1973; throughout the 70s things were tuned, cleaned up, and new subsystems introduced. The "New Storage System", which started in 1973 and was delivered to customers in 1976. I think it's fair to say that, by the mid-70s, Multics had fully transitioned from "research project" to "commercial system." Bell Labs dropping out of Multics in 1969 was, of course, before Unix. This raises the question, what did Bell Labs use instead? I imagine 360s and either traditional batch processing or TSS or something? 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. It would be interesting to hear what it was like when Bell Labs withdrew from the Multics project. Does anyone have any stories? Perhaps Ken or Doug? Also, what was the relationship like with the MIT people after that? Corby et al seemed somewhat animated in insisting that Multics had been essential to the creation of Unix, almost as if that had not been sufficiently acknowledged; I imagine by the time this video was shot, they must have been feeling somewhat overshadowed by the success of Unix. - Dan C. --000000000000cfa74e05dc250293 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:30 AM Lars Brink= hoff <lars@nocrew.org> wrote:<= br>
Dan Cross wrote:
> Interesting quotes include Fano talking about different objectives
> from the different organizations, Corby saying, "they [Bell Labs]=
> dropped out three-quarters of the way through the race" (referrin= g to
> Multics), Fano asserting that BTL left after the _research_ part of > the project was essentially completed

Multics was started in 1964 and first went online in 1967, although it
seems likely it wasn't exactly at the top of its game yet.=C2=A0 Bell L= abs
pulled out in 1969.=C2=A0 If that was the 75% point, 100% would be around 1971.

In context, I don't think Cor= by's statement was meant to be taken literally, but rather he used it a= s more of a colloquialism. His point was that (at least in his perception) = the bulk of the work had been done when BTL dropped out of the project.

Fano's statements are a bit overshadowed by Corby= 's here, but when he talked about each of the three participants in the= Multics project at its outset working on one project but with different go= als, he stated that his impression was that Bell Labs was interested in bot= h the research products as well as a production system that they actually c= ould use. In particular, they expected that the latter would be delivered o= n a specific timetable: when the research part basically wrapped and the sy= stem still wasn't production ready, they dropped out.

MIT started offering timesharing access on Multics in 1969. A secon= d site at Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, NY was operational by 1970. Hone= ywell announced the 6180 running Multics as a product in 1973; throughout t= he 70s things were tuned, cleaned up, and new subsystems introduced. The &q= uot;New Storage System", which started in 1973 and was delivered to cu= stomers in 1976. I think it's fair to say that, by the mid-70s, Multics= had fully transitioned from "research project" to "commerci= al system."

Bell Labs dropping out of Multics= in 1969 was, of course, before Unix. This raises the question, what did Be= ll Labs use instead? I imagine 360s and either traditional batch processing= or TSS or something?

Of course, by 1976, Unix= was at 6th Edition and I can see why no one would want to go back to Multi= cs (or being tied to a machine costing an order of magnitude more than a PD= P-11). But one wonders what would have happened had Multics started accepti= ng timesharing, say, 9 months earlier than it did.

It would be interesting to hear what it was like when Bell Labs withdrew f= rom the Multics project. Does anyone have any stories? Perhaps Ken or Doug?= Also, what was the relationship like with the MIT people after that? Corby= et al seemed somewhat animated in insisting that Multics had been essentia= l to the creation of Unix,=C2=A0almost as if that had not been sufficiently= acknowledged; I imagine by the time this video was shot, they must have be= en feeling somewhat overshadowed by the success of Unix.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Dan C.

--000000000000cfa74e05dc250293--