Anyone remember FCC Regs on emissions was Tops10 disk quota quandary 1334
Really? How many TOPS-10 vs TOPS-20 customers were there in 1980?
Now I know that you are in a fantasy world. Perhaps the real reason why you lost your job was because you became psychotic, and this "chronic fatigue syndrome" is just a cover.
I wrote fewer than 10 SPRs. I didn't like those multipart forms and having to find a typewriter to fill it out.
Anyone remember FCC Regs on emissions was Tops10 disk quota quandary 1336
I take exception to some of Mark's statements, and disagree with others. Mark Crispin: Bottoms-10 was junk in 1964 when it was the PDP-6 monitor. Why do...
You are thinking of another individual. His idenbreasty is pretty easy to determine by going through any issue of the Software Dispatch (and I still have several years worth of them). In the late 1980s he became a senior manager at DEC.
Want a Fast Computer 1338
You don't have to be so destructive. They work perfectly well as soon as you...
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Bottoms-10 was junk in 1964 when it was the PDP-6 monitor. Why do you think that MIT and BBN had to write their own operating systems?
Even today, people talk about how various modules (SCNSER, disk service, etc.) were unmaintainable except by one person.
At times, even The One Holy Person had problems. The "Tony in RH20 Land" story is a lesson, not on the design choices of the RH20 but rather the design choices in TOPS-10 which buttumed that all hardware worked the same way. The RH20 did not being treated like an RH10, and was brutal in its punishmnet of anyone who attempted to do so.
By comparison, when I implemented support for the Systems Concepts FA10 in TOPS-20, it was quite easy. What makes it more remarkable is that I had never touched disk physical I-O code before, and the FA10 was (at least) as foreign to the RH20 way of doing things as the RH20 was to the RH10 way of doing things. Bosack did a great job in building TOPS-20 PHYSIO, and the result was easy to extend to new and even bizarre devices.
TOPS-10 could have benefitted a great deal from using PHYSIO, but it never did. Even WAITS ended up using PHYSIO when SAIL finally discarded the Foonly channel, IBM disks, and PDP-6 7-track tapes in favor of RH20s, RP07s, and TU78s.
People learn from their mistakes and do a better job the next time. It also helps if (as with Tenex) the entire system is redesigned and rebuilt are quite instructive reading.
Why did so many developers abandon TOPS-10 if TOPS-10 was so wonderful?
-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anyone remember FCC Regs on emissions was Tops10 disk quota quandary 1335
That count doesn't matter. What mattered in 1980 was how many -10 customers would go to other manufacturers with their open...