Content deleted Content added
Peter Flass (talk | contribs) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}. Tag: |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Mid |software=y |software-importance=Mid |early-comp-importance=Mid}}
}}
== Discussion leading to creation of the article ==
Line 397 ⟶ 399:
FWIW I have no recollection of anything between DOS and DOS/VS. Of course my last DOS release was 21.x. [[User:Peter Flass|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass|talk]]) 22:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
==Fedora OS Should Be considered as part of the IBM Operating Systems list==
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/28/ibm-is-reportedly-nearing-deal-to-acquire-red-hat.html
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-red-hat-m-a-ibm/ibm-nears-deal-to-acquire-cyber-security-company-red-hat-sources-idUKKCN1N20N5
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-acquire-red-hat-completely-changing-cloud-landscape-and-becoming-world%E2%80%99s-1-hybrid-cloud-provider
As of October 2018 theres talks that the owners of Fedora (Red Hat Inc) is merging with IBM.
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:640:C600:8270:A563:D5B6:732C:339A|2601:640:C600:8270:A563:D5B6:732C:339A]] ([[User talk:2601:640:C600:8270:A563:D5B6:732C:339A#top|talk]]) </small>
:It's called "Linux"; the article says "Both IBM-supplied operating systems and those supplied by others are discussed here, if notably used on IBM mainframes." in the third paragraph, so is there any reason to mention Linux distributions from IBM (if they buy Red Hat) but not Linux distributions from others, or just mentioning Linux as a whole?
:Furthermore, IBM may be supplying [[Red Hat Enterprise Linux]], rather than Fedora, as their "standard Linux".
:And the article should mention other UNIX-like systems as well, if it's to be a ''full'' history. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 21:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
:Is there any reason to believe that IBM is backing off from [[SUSE Linux Enterprise]] (SLE)? Nor are [[Red Hat Enterprise Linux]] (RHEL) and SLES the only Linux distributions that run on z. OTOH, I believe that [[OpenSolaris for System z]] is defunct. [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 17:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
== CTSS origin ==
[[History of IBM mainframe operating systems#Early time-sharing and virtual machine systems]] states {{tq|MIT's Fernando Corbató produced the first experimental time-sharing systems, such as CTSS, from 1957 to the early 1960s, using slightly modified IBM 704 and IBM 7090 mainframes}}; however, [[Compatible Time-Sharing System]] states {{tq|CTSS was first demonstrated on MIT's [[IBM 709]] in November 1961;}}. Is the reference to the 704 incorrect? Was there a time sharing system on the 704 prior to CTSS? 03:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]])
:704 and 7090, but not 709, and not 7094? Perhaps they meant "slightly modified IBM 7090 and 7094 mainframes", especially given that the [http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7094/L22-6636-1_RPQ_E02120_E15724_7090-7094_Additional_Core_Storage_Apr63.pdf Additional Core Storage] and [http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/7094/L22-6641-3_RPQ_E07291_880287_7090-7094_Multiprogramming_Package.pdf IBM 7090-7094 Multiprogramming Package] RPQs done for CTSS are listed as being for the 7090 and the 7094 (and *not* for the 704 or 709). (I thought I'd seen the "Core Storage Clock and Interval Timer" RPQ document, L22-6554-2, on Bitsavers, but I can't find it there; presumably that one adds a timer to generate interrupts to do time-slicing.) [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 05:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
::The reference that [[Compatible Time-Sharing System]] gives for CTSS originally running on a 709, [https://multicians.org/thvv/compatible-time-sharing-system.pdf Compatible Time-Sharing System (1961-1973) Fiftieth Anniversary Commemorative Overview], corroborates that.
::The 709 was slightly modified:
::{{quote|Corby states that he began talking with Marge Daggett (then Marge Merwin) and Bob Daley of the Computation Center staff about the system design in the spring of 1961, and the original demonstration was working by November of that year. They got IBM to provide an interrupt capability for the machine (an off-the-shelf change) which allowed them to take control of the machine. They created a special version of the operating system (which came to be known as CTSS). This operating system set aside 5 kilowords of memory (of 32kw total) for the time-sharing supervisor (and for buffering typewriter terminal input and output). Herb Teager had made four Flexowriters into special terminals, and these would work with the IBM 709. CTSS used tape drives to store the programs and files of the users of the four terminals. It was crude, but that was the original configuration for the desired demonstration of interactive computer use, and it allowed the traditional batch processing system to still operate (that was the “compatible” part of Compatible Time-Sharing System). Corby wrote the now famous first CTSS paper, with Daggett and Daley listed as co-authors,5 in January 1962 for presentation in May 1962.}}
::Section 4, "Memories and views of CTSS", quotes Corbató as saying "My recollection is that it was at one of those Meetings in 1959 that John McCarthy presented to Morse his memo outlining the three key changes (RPQ’s) that would make the IBM 709 suitable for timesharing." I presume that the memo in question is [http://jmc.stanford.edu/computing-science/timesharing-memo.html "A Time-Sharing Operator Program for our Projected IBM 709"]. However, the memo starts out saying "This memorandum is based on the assumption that MIT will be given a transistorized IBM 709 about July l960.", so it sounds as if he's proposing changes to the IBM 709T(ransistorized), pronounced exactly as you'd expect :-) (i.e., it was proposing changes to what was eventually the 7090). The only modifications McCarthy appears to be proposing are 1) "An interrupt feature on the computer", 2) "Changing the stop instructions to trap instructions.", 3), "Providing a real time alarm clock as an external device.", and 4) ''optionally'' providing "a memory range trap"; he appears to propose relocation being done by the operating system at program load time. The RPQs IBM ultimately provided include changes that amount to base-and-bounds registers (it's a little different, in that the "bounds" registers apply to addresses ''after'' relocation by the "base" register), so the relocation could be done in hardware.
::I don't know what modifications were done to the 709; I presume the 7090 and 7094 ultimately had all the RPQs.
::My inclination is to eliminate any mention of the 704, although McCarthy mentions it in passing ("Changing the stop instructions to trap instructions. This is a minor modification to the machine. (At least it will be minor for the 704.)" and "Experiments with using the flexo connection to the real-time package on the 704 will help but we cannot wait for the results if we want a time-sharing operator program in July l960."), and mention the 709, 7090, and 7094 (I'm guessing that the reference to a 709 was to a vacuum-tube 709, not to a 709T. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 06:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:::I'm guessing that "the now famous first CTSS paper" is [http://larch-www.lcs.mit.edu:8001/~corbato/sjcc62/ "An Experimental Time-Sharing System"]; it also mentions the 709 only in passing:
:::{{quote|To avoid memory allocation clashes, protect users from one another, and simplify the initial 709 system organization, only one user was kept in core memory at a time. However, with the special memory protection and relocation feature of the 7090, more sophisticated storage allocation procedures are being implemented. In any case, user swaps are minimized by using 2-channel overlapped magnetic tape reading and writing of the pertinent locations in the two user programs.}}
:::so it sounds as if the 709 had only minimal modifications, with the 7090 having two modifications:
:::{{quote|Also installed on the 7090 are two special modifications (i.e. RPQ's): a standard 60 cycle accounting and interrupt clock, and a special mode which allows memory protection, dynamic relocation and trapping of all user attempts to initiate input-output instructions.}}
:::with the first of those presumably being the "Core Storage Clock and Interval Timer" RPQ and the second of those presumably being the "IBM 7090-7094 Multiprogramming Package" RPQ. The "Additional Core Storage" one came later. It sounds as if swapping to disk, and supporting a file system on disk, also came later. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 06:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
::::[http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/timesharing/timesharing.html McCarthy's "Reminiscences on the History of Time-Sharing"] mentions a proposal to add an interrupt facility to a 704:
:::::My first attempts to do something about time-sharing was in the Fall of 1957 when I came to the M.I.T. Computation Center on a Sloan Foundation fellowship from Dartmouth College. It was immediately clear to me that the time-sharing the IBM 704 would require some kind of interrupt system. I was very shy of proposing hardware modifications, especially as I didn't understand electronics well enough to read the logic diagrams. Therefore, I proposed the minimal hardware modification I could think of. This involved installing a relay so that the 704 could be put into trapping mode by an external signal. It was also proposed to connect the sense switches on the ccnsole in parallel with relays that could be operated by a Flexowriter (a kind of teletype based on an IBM typewriter).
:::::When the machine went into trapping mode, an interrupt to a fixed location would occur the next time the machine attempted to execute a jump instruction (then called a transfer). The interrupt would occur when the Flexowriter had set up a character in a relay buffer. The interrupt program would then read the character from the sense switches into a buffer, test whether the buffer was full, and if not return to the interrupted program. If the buffer was full, the program would store the current program on the drum and read in a program to deal with the buffer.
:::::It was agreed (I think I talked to Dean Arden only.) to install the equipment, and I believe that permission was obtained from IBM to modify the computer. The connector to be installed in the computer was obtained.
::::but it doesn't sound as if that change was made. Instead, McCarthy speaks of an existing RPQ for the 704, done for Boeing, which included support for an external interrupt that could occur at ''any'' time:
:::::However, at this time we heard about the "real time package" for the IBM 704. This RPQ (request for price quotation was IBM jargon for a modification to the computer whose price wasn't guaranteed), which rented for $2,500 per month had been developed at the request of Boeing for the purpose of allowing the 704 to accept information from a wind tunnel. Some element of ordinary time-sharing would have been involved, but we did not seek contact with Boeing. Anyway it was agreed that the real time package, which involved the possibility of interrupting after any instruction, would be much better than merely putting the machine in trapping mode. Therefore we undertook to beg IBM for the real time package. IBM's initial reaction was favorable, but nevertheless it took a long time to get the real time package - perhaps a year, perhaps two.
::::Corbató's paper, on the other hand, speaks of running CTSS on the 709, and doesn't mention the 704 at all. The CTSS 50th anniversary commemorative overview also speaks of CTSS initially running on the 709, and mentions the 704, but ''not'' as a platform for CTSS.
::::So perhaps there's confusion somewhere. Perhaps the 704 was used for a very early prototype not called CTSS, and then went on to the 709, and then the 7090. Perhaps McCarthy meant the 709, although the [[IBM 709]] page says it was announced in 1957 but was first installed (somewhere, not necessarily MIT) in August ''1958'', in which case it wouldn't have been there in the fall of 1957. Perhaps Corbató and company meant the 704, but the Corbató paper ''and'' the commemorative overview saying "709" make that seem unlikely. [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 07:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
== There was an operating system for commercial work on the 1410/7010 ==
While it is true that almost all of the IBM operating systems for machines prior to the S/360 were intended for scientific and commercial workloads, the 1410/7010 Operating System (1410-PR-155) was intended for commercial workloads. --[[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 00:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
| |||