From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: usotsuki@buric.co (Steve Nickolas)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:26:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs
In-Reply-To: <20160630170740.GA30017@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <0f57f9d8248db61cba34372814d2f45e.squirrel@webmail.yaccman.com>
 <CAC20D2OT2k6TqvdBiCzM8PoJ6Bs4YZKZ1BPPT_czJT0koGMk_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkr1zV9_vtMtZ65Cf-+qOAWYdHvpZ+-CXS9zz7Q5UaNDP5wFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEoi9W5RA0Eb90YT5t_23Q8bwj_Hi8pfmzsNpE0ujWLH-GnC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160630170740.GA30017@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1606301423370.9974@frieza.hoshinet.org>

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, John Cowan wrote:

> Dan Cross scripsit:
>
>> I've never understood why IBM didn't just write a real OS in a
>> high-level language instead of saddling the world with MS-DOS.
>
> I think because to IBM "a real OS" meant MVS.  The difference between
> Unix and MS-DOS simply wasn't visible to them.

And perhaps even less so when MS-DOS picked up a few of Xenix's features 
for 2.0 (mainly file i/o with Unix-like semantics, but FIND was a 
stripped-down version of "fgrep", and several of the new commands in 2.0 
were certainly derived from Unix...or even BSD), although to anyone who 
actually knew anything, that's about where the similarity ended.

-uso.