Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10,alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.lisp,alt.os.multics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!dircon!rheged!simon
From: simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Message-ID: <D6MqFs.3yw@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Organization: none. Disorganization: total.
References: <D5yxwn.5BG@sdf.saomai.org> <BILLW.95Mar26154351@glare.cisco.com> <3ledga$rcr@news2.delphi.com> <Pine.NXT.3.92.950330155824.2916A-100000@tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 20:04:38 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <Pine.NXT.3.92.950330155824.2916A-100000@tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu>,
Mark Crispin  <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>On 30 Mar 1995, THUNDERONE@DELPHI.COM wrote:
>> Modern Operating Systems attempt to adapt to the human's needs.  Old 
>> Operating Systems require the human to adapt to them.
>
>Except for the "modern" operating system UNIX, which requires the user to 
>adapt to it (with such obvious commands as "cat", "grep", and "awk"), and 
>the "old" operating system TOPS-20, which adapted to the human's need.

Hey, hey, I *like* UN*X, but I wouldn't call it modern. Do you drive a
nineteen sixty-eight car? (Well, I drive a nineteen *thirty*-eight
designed car, but I don't pretend that's modern either). Chorus,
anybody? TAOS? Plan 9? Let's face it, even Mach is *old* in computing
terms.




-- 
------- simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)

	my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
				;; This joke is not funny in emacs.
