Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Miniskirts and mainframes
Date: 9 Aug 2015 06:56:19 GMT
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <d2obsjFj934U9@mid.individual.net>
References: <87wpx5tl2j.fsf@lhwserver.localdomain> <1264341184460772817.037441peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net C29F6v/uJIyoA08icP8QxQCNnZX8gZ8TOXZBNb1Z3qitzzjPYi
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0j2UkEYeui5zvS2R1lzGZy3J64g=
User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2)
Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:149541

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 00:26:42 +0000, Peter Flass wrote:

> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes:
>>> I would contend that perhaps mainframes had (and have) more archaic
>>> operating systems!
>> 
> Unix and unix-like OSs date from around 1970, so pretty archaic there
> too.

You miss the point. Compare IBM operating systems (particularly things 
like CMS) in the mid-1980s, with something like VMS, of the same period. 

The IBM systems are really crude by comparison.