🚀 go-pugleaf

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> AIX is a form of UNIX.
>
> Z/OS is derived from MVS. It may be POSIX-compliant, but so is Windows, and 
> Windows is not UNIX either.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#94 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#100 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#103 Old word processors

There had been a number of AIXs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX

When the austin displaywriter followon was canceled (ROMP, 801/risc),
the decided to get company that did AT&T unix port for IBM/PC (that was
sold as PC/IX) to do one for ROMP ... which was announced as AIX with
PC/RT (workstation).

The palo alto group was doing BSD port to mainframe ... but then got
redirected to port to ROMP (PC/RT) instead ... which was announced
as AOS.

801/risc, romp, rios, power/pc, etc posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801

The palo alto group was also working with UCLA on Locus (another UNIX
work-alike).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOCUS_(operating_system)

it was eventually announce as AIX/370 and AIX/386 ... and supported both
distributed file system as well as distributed processing as well as
processor migration (even across dissimilar architectures under some
constraints).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX#IBM_PS/2_series
and (some details garbled)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX#IBM_mainframes

The original POSIX support in MVS was funded by GPD (disk division,
renamed adstar) VP of software ... it was part of strategy to get around
problems with communication group. periodically repeated story:

Late 80s, a senior disk engineer group a talk scheduled at internal,
world-wide, annual, communication group conference ... supposedly on
3174 performance ... however he opened his talk with the statement that
the head of the communication group was going to be responsible for the
demise of the disk division. The issue was that the communication group
had stranglehold on datacenters with corporate strategic ownership of
everything that crossed datacenter walls and were fiercely fighting off
distributed computing and client/server, trying to preserve their dumb
terminal paradigm and install base. The disk division was seeing data
fleeing datacenters to more distributed computing friendly platforms
with fall in disk sales. The disk division had come up with a number of
solutions to address the opportunity, but they were constantly being
vetoed by the communication group. The datacenter stranglehold wasn't
just affecting disk sales and a few years later the company goes into
the red.

communication group & dumb terminal posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal

gpd/adstar executive was funding (non-IBM) startups for distributed
computing projects that would use IBM disks (since they technically
weren't IBM products and therefor not subject to communication group
veto) ...  as well as developing POSIX support on MVS ( communication
group couldn't veto POSIX, since it didn't involve anything that crossed
datacenter walls).


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970