mike.a.sch...@gmail.com (Mike Schwab) writes: > How about Multics? Designed from the start to be multi-user and > highly secure.
some of the CTSS people went to the 5th flr and did Multics. Other of the CTSS people went to the IBM science center on the 4th flr and did cp67/cms, the internal network, online services, etc. Being in the same bldg. separated by one flr, there was some rivalry. One of the early "tests" was when science center ported apl\360 to cms for cms\apl ... it allowed typical apl\360 16kbyte workspaces to be increased to virtual memory size ... and also added API that allowed access of system services (like file read/write). Opening APL to real-world applications attracted a lot of internal locations to start using the cambridge system remotesly. A group of business planners in Armonk loaded the most valuable corporate asset (customer details) on cambridge system to do business modeling applications in cms\apl. we had some interesting issues since non-employess (cambridge area univ students, instructors, professors) also had online access to the cambridge system. some posts mentioning science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech some multics installations: http://www.multicians.org/site-afdsc.html http://www.multicians.org/mgd.html#DOCKMASTER other old reference to DOCKMASTER org. (gone 404 but lives on at wayback machine): http://web.archive.org/web/20090117083033/http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0409/8362.shtml and old reference to afds coming by to talk about 20 vm/4341 systems ... but then that was increased to 220 (posted in multics discussion group) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#email790404 Recently a european that worked in NATO claimed that they got 6000 vm/4341 systems. Note that Multics was implemented in PLI. Up through the 90s, the major tcp/ip bugs/exploits were because of buffer length related bugs epidemic in c-language implementations (and still continues to be a frequent source of exploits). The original ibm mainframe tcp/ip product was implemented in vs/pascal and had *none* of these epidemic bugs found in c-language implementations. As an aside, for various reasons this implementation had some significant performance issues, getting 44kbytes/sec aggregate using 3090 processor. I did the rfc1044 enhancements and some tuning tests at cray research got sustained channel speed throughput between cray and 4341, using only modest amount of 4341 (possibly 500 times improvement in bytes moved per instruction executed). The (non-rfc1044) version was also made available on MVS by simulating the required VM functions. Much later the communication group contracted for TCP/IP support through VTAM. After the initial demonstration, the communication group told the contractor that everybody *knows* that a *correct* version of TCP/IP runs slower than LU6.2 and they will only be paying for a *correct* version. I also had other rivalry with the 5th flr. One of my hobbies was providing enhanced operating systems to internal locations ... some old email regarding CSC/VM (later it was SJR/VM, after I transferred to san jose research): http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430 It wasn't fair to compare the total number of Multics systems that had ever existed with the total number of vm370 customer systems or even the total number of internal vm370 systems. However, for a time, I had a few more internal csc/vm systems than the total number of Multics systems. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
