Xah Lee's Unixism

[Morten Reistad]

In article <413af268$0$19706$61fed72c at news.rcn.com>,
 <jmfbahciv at aol.com> wrote:
>In article <20040904.2231.57679snz at dsl.co.uk>,
>   bhk at dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
>>On Thursday, in article
>>     <41371e5c$0$19723$61fed72c at news.rcn.com> jmfbahciv at aol.com
>>     wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2mmdj0t6mjgif88en11skbo3n8uiuj46nc at 4ax.com>,
>>>    Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>> >MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>>> >NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.
>>> 
>>> All right.  Now I'm mystified.  Why did they have to borrow code
>>> from Unix?  They already had VMS.  ISTM, VMS had all of the 
>>> above.
>>
>>VMS (originally) most decidedly did NOT have either TCP/IP or NFS.
>
>I thought VMS did get TCP/IP into it.  I don't know anything about
>NFS.

VMS was too early, and was made too politically correct.

TCP/IP was NOT politically correct until around 1996 or so. 
TPTB wanted OSI, GOSIP/Decnet Phase 5 and all that crud, until we
Internet people hammered them. 

>>Indeed, it took many years before DEC [sorry, by then it was already
>>d|i|g|i|t|a|l] had a TCP/IP stack available for VMS --- the dreaded heap
>>of quivering jelly created by the Eunice idiots.
>>
>>Before that, people who needed TCP/IP on a Vax used various third-party
>>solutions, such as the implementations from Carnegie-Mellon (CMU) 
>
>Sigh!  If CMU had it, I would have assumed it got hornshoed into
>VMS.

Wrong mindset. TCP/IP was never a DEC invention, much less a D I G I T A L 
one. 

>> ..or
>>Wollongong universities.  Then, of course, there was what many regarded
>>as the best TCP/IP stack for VMS, MultiNet from TGV (Two Guys and a VAX).
>>That product also included a working NFS implementation.

One of these got the nickname Willgowrong aroung here. 

>Boy, I sure remember a lot of TCP/IP talk over the walls.  However,
>I don't seem to recall what was said nor when.

-- mrr