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=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 69966df8 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6A29393D7B; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:27:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DFE93D2D; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:27:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kev009.com header.i=@kev009.com header.b="SHxiNANO"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D100893D2D; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:27:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com (mail-io1-f41.google.com [209.85.166.41]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB40393D1B for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:27:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id k24so3736252ioc.4 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:27:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kev009.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jPPXyx1O0wqaTXR+PzKm/yJj50edxSqQqyo4b0vvxtM=; b=SHxiNANOwRnYlw6PMJU+K1NUGY4vmn7N3BqTc9VWQx+Kwa0mRQTE1TjAGzBER+Mb90 Vf9KbESKgOhdLEcS81GpgwZcJozyup48cojweM0X4F0hTEO1UWwlT17Pdl0HVxXUvyTs SEWFEphelT9fsK9TRp+tBM5Ho2+xMQu7xDxcI= 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:cc; bh=jPPXyx1O0wqaTXR+PzKm/yJj50edxSqQqyo4b0vvxtM=; b=WYwqg4BBf0qluwUb1NDqwnuPRQWCS5aKwMPHoFXm8+G121rd+X3O8VrGVQ6eQ/L0CR 310s6ww5MLaJ7Pcyil9sGxlkiwdDGwVo0A2F9zXcO3QEqMBRgLj3cIwx3Ql9sZceUoiZ AwBhG4KAX4f353BLNxohs2Vhm84gD9cILAZx9WBphH2mJNHXr29xuAcX7EaXuFmewezb eUW/uYGwbZBdD4FmeHsBj0ByPKxIkCB6El4/X7/15xwCrHDQohD5CBfrRG9illB0nOuq 4EU9HOHl+1baoznBK3+Cxt0A/ow93OMzHQPynD0O7HctC9m7IvKobgBMhFTsnWg8GncT Q9WA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXiejDkchJ83k/PE1YfW0pWcaU9vum8RBHmCeehbNXwIrbajfIJ QHIp2yRBAW8Z44ABct/LIp8oGM0fqbLFPHXOpzQdhTrS X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyRX3VlkqFmKMUBoFBlfdyxJOlgCtiLe2WdlFAa6LX8sLLngTBfmhiq4ivJxNCboZriWlATj/Z4KAo5M61S91I= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9285:: with SMTP id s5mr23048493iom.85.1582187246979; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:27:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <25E62EB5E090E7CB.c5cb28db-f209-4d75-8ad6-a165cb810b47@mail.outlook.com> <899AF90D-22DB-431F-929A-8BD3F144F610@technologists.com> In-Reply-To: <899AF90D-22DB-431F-929A-8BD3F144F610@technologists.com> From: Kevin Bowling Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:27:16 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Charles H. Sauer" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d343cf059efdaca5" Subject: Re: [TUHS] anedotes: RT/PC VRM, (early) AIX compilers, IBM (Research) software release/pricing [was Re: Bitsavers' RT/PC, AIX, AOS, etc. recent additions 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 Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000d343cf059efdaca5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for sharing, very interesting history to me. You guys were pros.. particularly amazing to me how far ahead the machine abstractions were on the various IBM machines (CP, S/38, VRM) compared to most of the industry. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:44 PM Charles H. Sauer wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:41 AM, Kevin Bowling > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > IBM abandoned the idea of any ukernel with AIX3 for RISC/6000.. Charlie > may be able to add commentary on that but it was almost certainly for > performance which was paramount in the workstation wars and RS6K had an > front runner opening. > > > > I initially missed Kevin's ping after my spam filter put several TUHS > messages in /var/mail/devnull. (I eventually skim subject lines of messages > that go there.) > > I could write more than I want to/should about how the VRM came to be and > not to be, but will try to add a little to what I've said before ( > https://notes.technologists.com/notes/2017/03/08/lets-start-at-the-very-beginning-801-romp-rtpc-aix-versions/). > I'm trusting 30+ year-old memories here and not looking at the various > papers and manuals that might inform. > > I joined Glenn's AFWS project July 5, 1982. There was no well defined > software plan yet. Glenn wanted to do something useful and significant, and > proposed that we do the VRM. We had several distinct user environments in > mind. I took the lead in writing a specification of the VMI (virtual > machine interface) while others started prototyping. We were way overly > ambitious with abstractions along the lines of the single level store of > (Glenn's) System 38, trying to take advantage of the 40 bit addressing of > the Rosetta virtual memory chip, yet still heavily influenced by CP/CMS. > After a few months, Al Chang, primary person behind CP.R, came to Austin > for a design review of what we'd done. He told Glenn he'd grade our work > "C+". That might have been generous. > > We scaled back our ambitions dramatically, started working with ISC. About > the time (1983) of the transition from "ad tech" to "product" organization, > it became clear that our virtual memory manager needed to be scrapped and > we lifted what Al had done for CP.R and put it in the VRM. > > In hindsight, the VRM turned out better than it might have. Besides AIX > there was a version of Pick for VRM that sold about 4000 copies according > to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RT_PC. Though the VMI cost us some > in performance, we were surprisingly successful in minimizing the > penalties. But with AIX 3 and RS/6000 we wanted to take dramatic steps > forward, and it made no sense to preserve the VMI. > > Anecdotal comments on other TUHS/COFF discussions: > > If I recall correctly, pcc, eventually including the HCR optimizing phase, > was bundled with base AIX. Initially, the C compiler based on the PL.8 > compiler would only run on CMS, so it was not generally available outside > of IBM, but app vendors, especially CAD vendors, were enabled and > encouraged to come to Austin to use it to get the best performance. The > native C compiler based on PL.8 compiler concepts ended up being a complete > rewrite, outside of Yorktown, and sold as a separate product. > > Producing software products, getting them released, priced, etc. was very > confusing to me most of the time I was at IBM. Part of it was the history > that Clem has cited. Part of it was confusion about the antitrust suits > against IBM. Part of it was confusion about whether and what software was > patentable. Academics and others wanted access to the modeling & simulation > software, RESQ, my team developed at Yorktown. Eventually, the concept of > "Research Distributed Program" was agreed upon and RESQ was the first > instance: https://technologists.com/sauer/RA144.pdf. However, we were > forced to price RESQ much higher than I thought reasonable. I had already > transferred to Austin by the time the release was official -- I don't know > how many copies were sold. But source code was necessary to take full > advantage of RESQ so the PL/I source was included on the tapes. > > When OSF was announced, with the intention of making AIX source available > to the other OSF companies, I was stunned because it was so > uncharacteristic of the IBM I thought I knew. It would be interesting to > know how that would have worked out if OSF had stuck with AIX and IBM had > delivered the source on the schedule everyone hoped for, but that's on a > different timeline than this one. > > > -- > voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer@technologists.com > fax: +1.512.346.5240 web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ > Facebook/Google/Skype/Twitter > : > CharlesHSauer > > --000000000000d343cf059efdaca5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for sharing, very interesting history to me.= =C2=A0 You guys were pros.. particularly amazing to me how far ahead the ma= chine abstractions were on the various IBM machines (CP, S/38, VRM) compare= d to most of the industry.

<= div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:44 PM Charl= es H. Sauer <sauer@technologi= sts.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2020, at 7:41 AM, Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> wro= te:
>
> ...
>
> IBM abandoned the idea of any ukernel with AIX3 for RISC/6000.. Charli= e may be able to add commentary on that but it was almost certainly for per= formance which was paramount in the workstation wars and RS6K had an front = runner opening.
>

I initially missed Kevin's ping after my spam filter put several TUHS m= essages in /var/mail/devnull. (I eventually skim subject lines of messages = that go there.)

I could write more than I want to/should about how the VRM came to be and n= ot to be, but will try to add a little to what I've said before (https://notes.technologists.com/notes/2017/03/08/lets-start-at-the-very-= beginning-801-romp-rtpc-aix-versions/). I'm trusting 30+ year-old m= emories here and not looking at the various papers and manuals that might i= nform.

I joined Glenn's AFWS project July 5, 1982. There was no well defined s= oftware plan yet. Glenn wanted to do something useful and significant, and = proposed that we do the VRM. We had several distinct user environments in m= ind. I took the lead in writing a specification of the VMI (virtual machine= interface) while others started prototyping. We were way overly ambitious = with abstractions along the lines of the single level store of (Glenn's= ) System 38, trying to take advantage of the 40 bit addressing of the Roset= ta virtual memory chip, yet still heavily influenced by CP/CMS. After a few= months, Al Chang, primary person behind CP.R, came to Austin for a design = review of what we'd done. He told Glenn he'd grade our work "C= +". That might have been generous.

We scaled back our ambitions dramatically, started working with ISC. About = the time (1983) of the transition from "ad tech" to "product= " organization, it became clear that our virtual memory manager needed= to be scrapped and we lifted what Al had done for CP.R and put it in the V= RM.

In hindsight, the VRM turned out better than it might have. Besides AIX the= re was a version of Pick for VRM that sold about 4000 copies according to <= a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RT_PC" rel=3D"noreferrer" targe= t=3D"_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RT_PC. Though the VMI co= st us some in performance, we were surprisingly successful in minimizing th= e penalties. But with AIX 3 and RS/6000 we wanted to take dramatic steps fo= rward, and it made no sense to preserve the VMI.

Anecdotal comments on other TUHS/COFF discussions:

If I recall correctly, pcc, eventually including the HCR optimizing phase, = was bundled with base AIX. Initially, the C compiler based on the PL.8 comp= iler would only run on CMS, so it was not generally available outside of IB= M, but app vendors, especially CAD vendors, were enabled and encouraged to = come to Austin to use it to get the best performance. The native C compiler= based on PL.8 compiler concepts ended up being a complete rewrite, outside= of Yorktown, and sold as a separate product.

Producing software products, getting them released, priced, etc. was very c= onfusing to me most of the time I was at IBM. Part of it was the history th= at Clem has cited. Part of it was confusion about the antitrust suits again= st IBM. Part of it was confusion about whether and what software was patent= able. Academics and others wanted access to the modeling & simulation s= oftware, RESQ, my team developed at Yorktown. Eventually, the concept of &q= uot;Research Distributed Program" was agreed upon and RESQ was the fir= st instance: https://technologists.com/sauer/RA144.pdf.= However, we were forced to price RESQ much higher than I thought reasonabl= e. I had already transferred to Austin by the time the release was official= -- I don't know how many copies were sold. But source code was necessa= ry to take full advantage of RESQ so the PL/I source was included on the ta= pes.

When OSF was announced, with the intention of making AIX source available t= o the other OSF companies, I was stunned because it was so uncharacteristic= of the IBM I thought I knew. It would be interesting to know how that woul= d have worked out if OSF had stuck with AIX and IBM had delivered the sourc= e on the schedule everyone hoped for, but that's on a different timelin= e than this one.


--
voice: +1.512.784.7526=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0e-mail: sauer@technologists.com=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
fax: +1.512.346.5240=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/Skype/Twitter: CharlesHSauer

--000000000000d343cf059efdaca5--