[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <49DD4499.9E268AE0 at spam.comcast.net>,
	David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> 
>> In article <qMOZXUt3qWvj at eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>>         koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> >  Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <BZhjsJkqzq4v at spock.koehler.athome.net>,
>> >>         koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org writes:
>> >> > In article <72pgbbFrckbiU1 at mid.individual.net>, billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> U*mmmm....  No, not really.  Active development (well, at least as active as
>> >> >> VMS seems to be) for three of the PDP-11 OSes just ended last year.  So, if
>> >> >> you take when they first started and compare that to when VMS first started
>> >> >> VMS will need a few more real good years to match them.
>> >> >
>> >> >    Hm.  Although possibly not as important as the Berkley port to VAXen,
>> >> >    I seem to recall the development of UNIX including a port to PDP-11
>> >> >    early on.
>> >> >
>> >> >    Sadly, I think continued development of that '60s technology will
>> >> >    continue for a bit longer.
>> >>
>> >> Unix is no more 60's technology than VMS (which traces it's roots back
>> >> to RSX on the PDP-11 as I recall) or zOS which can trace it's roots all
>> >> the way back to the IBM 360.
>> >>
>> >> It never ceases to amaze me that Unix, which has seen constant development
>> >> and considerably more attention from Computer Scientists and Engineers
>> >> than VMS is seen as stagnant while VMS which, as frequently stated here,
>> >> has seen little in the way of anything beyond the minimal bug fixing, is
>> >> seen as the epitome of modern computing.
>> >
>> >    UNIX is still a two-mode system which forks new processes every time
>> >    it turns around, and has no concept of files beyond stream of bytes.
>> >    That approach was typical of late 1960's OS design, and can be seen
>> >    in other OS, such as TOPS-10 and TOPS-20, which on the outside look
>> >    very different.
>> >
>> >    Nothing that has happened to UNIX over all the years has changed that
>> >    basic late-1960's design.
>> 
>> And yet, it is by far the most successful OS to come along.  Maybe the
>> reason none of those features were put into Unix is because Unix does
>> the job of being an OS just fine and all of it's users (probably several
>> hundred times the number of VMS users) don't see any need for any of
>> that extra fluff.
> 
> Did you know you needed:
> - a PC
> - with a GUI interface
> - a cell phone
> - an MP3 player
> - Wii / Playstation / etc.
> - a relational database
> 
> ...until some marketing guru came along and told you so?

PC:  I've been using "PC's" since they were the domain of the home
experimenter, so, long before any real marketing.

I've been using X-11 since System 9 (1985) so, nope, no marketing influence
needed there.

I don't see a need for a cellphone now.  The only reason I have one is
because my wife wanted one and here deal always includes a second one
free.  If I had to pay for it, I still wouldn't have one. 

MP3 Player:  Can't be marketing as when I got my first one I had no idea
what was on the market and had to do a lot of research.  Reason for getting
one was I was getting tired of lugging that CD player around to places like
the gym or my runs.

Hmmm...  Game console?  Well, I still have my Atari.  :-)  I got an Xbox
several years back.  Christmas present from my daughter.  Included online
service so here friends could all take shots at me in the various games.
I did complete Halo 3, thought.  :-)  

I have absolutely no personal use for a relational database.  I work with
them because my job not some marketeer requires it.  

> 
> Did you know that:
> - you need a vehicle that does not rely on either batteries or petroleum

No, I am perfectly happy with my MGB.

> - it was invented in the late 1970s

Oh, much earlier than that.  1906, I think.

> - it was quashed by the DoE in the early 1980s at the behest of the
>   petroleum lobby (and the successors to "the plumbers union")

Here come them black helicopters again.

> 
> ...? Probably not. 
> 
> Why? 

Why what?  Why did I not know all the bogus info above?  Want another
one to feed your conspiracy theories.  Did you know that GM had a Turbine
Powered vehicle in the early-to-mid 60's?  Local guy was one of the
beta-testers.  That never came to market either.  Do I believe the oil
companies or government killed it?  Of course not.  It died because it
was not marketable (there's that word again!!)  One of the reasons it
was not marketable was why the Rotary Engine never went beyond the niche
market. (Do you even know what company invented and put it in a car first?
Hint: Not a jap!)

> 
> It was either intentionally not publicized or it never "rose above the
> noise floor" of the media din.

Or, it was deemed not practical.  Mercedes introduced a car in a Japanese
Auto Show last year that meets your criteria.  It will likely never see
actual production.  Why?  Are the oil companies going to kill it?  Hardly.
It is nuclear powered. (Strike 1) and it cost over a million dollars. (Strike
2.  No need for Strike 3!)


> 
> I first read about it in two of the local papers in 1981.
> 
> D.J.D.
> 
> P.S. "Google" for "Johnson magnatron motor"

Is it a perpetual motion machine?  What would it cost to manufacture?
Is the onboard computer running Winbdows or VMS?  If it is so good, why
not manufacture and market it himself?  Oh yeah.  the black helicopters
will carry him away to the secret base at the earth's core that you get
to thru opening in the Arctic.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>