4 ms·

OS/400 -- now called IBM i -- sounds like it was ahead of its time: IBM designed IBM i as a "turnkey" operating system, requiring little or no on-site attentio

OS/400 -- now called IBM i -- sounds like it was ahead of its time: IBM designed IBM i as a "turnkey" operating system, requiring little or no on-site attention from IT staff during normal operation. For example, IBM i has a built-in DB2 database which does not require separate installation. Disks are multiply redundant, and can be replaced on line without interrupting work. System administration has been wizard-driven for years. This automatic self-care policy goes so far as to automatically schedule all common system maintenance, detect many failures, and even order spare parts and service automatically. Another peculiar feature is that this system was one of the earliest to be object-based. Unlike traditional OSes like UNIX and Windows NT, there are no files, only objects of different types. It implemented one of the earliest-known systems for persistent objects. Further, the objects persist in very large, flat virtual memory, called a single-level store.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_i https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_i

monocasa 8y ago
And the vast majority of code is written for a VM that has such a forward looking design, it specifies 128-bit pointers!
msla 8y ago
> OS/400 -- now called IBM i -- sounds like it was ahead of its time: That's because it's the last remnant of Atlantis. https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/fs.html https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/fs.html > The IBM Future System (FS) project was a design effort to succeed the IBM S/370 architecture that was adopted company wide in 1971. FS was based on a single-level store with automatic data management. The project is reputed to have cost more than $1B when it was cancelled in February 1975, but the single-level store idea was adopted by System/38, AS/400, and iSeries. Single-level store is IBM's cutesy way of saying that there's no application-level distinction between disk and RAM: It's all data, applications access data (or don't, depending on a security model), and the OS handles persistence the same way it handles caching; that is, transparently. Anyway, security was important to IBM, particularly the security to be free from people making clones of FS hardware. This had unfortunate effects on the systems's comprehensibility: http://www.cap-lore.com/CapTheory/KK/FS.html http://www.cap-lore.com/CapTheory/KK/FS.html > Some suggest that this memo[0] was the beginning of the end of IBM’s Future System. The section of the memo with “security” in the heading, concerns keeping the architecture secret, from most of those working on the project. Quote: >> Tight security prevents a potential thief from stealing a system design. But good communication is necessary to design a system that is worth stealing. The recent version of the RIPON architecture has been issued in 15 separate, registered confidential documents. A programmer who gets authorization to learn about the addressing structure has to demonstrate a separate need to know to learn the instruction set. The avowed aim of all this red tape is to prevent anyone from understanding the whole system; this goal has certainly been achieved. [0] http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm It evolved: http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/ http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/ > In 1978, a scaled-down version of FS was announced as System/38. The greatest strength of HLS, AFS, and System/38 was a “one-level store”: a virtual memory that eliminated the distinction between RAM and files on disk drives. That made System/38 much easier to program than earlier computer systems or even most systems today. But the instruction set of System/38 was essentially System/370 with descriptors. The microcode of any 370 system could have been modified to support it, and programming for FS could have begun in 1971. > As another option, John Cocke had designed a RISC machine, which eventually became the Power PC. In 1994, under the name AS/400, it ran a later version of the System/38 software. But as early as 1971, Cocke had persuaded the AFS group that a conventional computer with the HLS descriptors and a well-designed compiler could run the FS software. That computer could be a modified System/370, his RISC design, or both. The first FS machine could have been delivered as an “option” of the IBM 3033, which was announced in 1977 and delivered in 1978. > An even better option was a high-speed System/370-compatible machine that Gene Amdahl had designed in 1969. Unfortunately, that project was canceled for political reasons. Therefore, Amdahl left IBM, got funding from Fujitsu, founded the Amdahl Corporation, and delivered his 470 system in 1975. Until the IBM 3033 in 1978, Amdahl’s machine was much faster than anything IBM was selling. With suitable microcode, a design by Cocke or Amdahl could have served as the high-end hardware for FS. System/38 would have been the entry-level version for smaller systems.
lscotte 8y ago
Tandem was doing the same thing as far as redundancy and ordering it's own maintenance. Tandem even had redundant CPUs that would execute instructions in lock-step and compare results. They were very popular in banks. There are stories of parts showing up without customers even being aware any hardware had failed because they were so reliable.
kitd 8y ago
You forgot the on/off switch - designed to be used only twice.

monocasa 8y ago

And the vast majority of code is written for a VM that has such a forward looking design, it specifies 128-bit pointers!

msla 8y ago

> OS/400 -- now called IBM i -- sounds like it was ahead of its time: That's because it's the last remnant of Atlantis. https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/fs.html https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/fs.html > The IBM Future System (FS) project was a design effort to succeed the IBM S/370 architecture that was adopted company wide in 1971. FS was based on a single-level store with automatic data management. The project is reputed to have cost more than $1B when it was cancelled in February 1975, but the single-level store idea was adopted by System/38, AS/400, and iSeries. Single-level store is IBM's cutesy way of saying that there's no application-level distinction between disk and RAM: It's all data, applications access data (or don't, depending on a security model), and the OS handles persistence the same way it handles caching; that is, transparently. Anyway, security was important to IBM, particularly the security to be free from people making clones of FS hardware. This had unfortunate effects on the systems's comprehensibility: http://www.cap-lore.com/CapTheory/KK/FS.html http://www.cap-lore.com/CapTheory/KK/FS.html > Some suggest that this memo[0] was the beginning of the end of IBM’s Future System. The section of the memo with “security” in the heading, concerns keeping the architecture secret, from most of those working on the project. Quote: >> Tight security prevents a potential thief from stealing a system design. But good communication is necessary to design a system that is worth stealing. The recent version of the RIPON architecture has been issued in 15 separate, registered confidential documents. A programmer who gets authorization to learn about the addressing structure has to demonstrate a separate need to know to learn the instruction set. The avowed aim of all this red tape is to prevent anyone from understanding the whole system; this goal has certainly been achieved. [0] http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm It evolved: http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/ http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/ > In 1978, a scaled-down version of FS was announced as System/38. The greatest strength of HLS, AFS, and System/38 was a “one-level store”: a virtual memory that eliminated the distinction between RAM and files on disk drives. That made System/38 much easier to program than earlier computer systems or even most systems today. But the instruction set of System/38 was essentially System/370 with descriptors. The microcode of any 370 system could have been modified to support it, and programming for FS could have begun in 1971. > As another option, John Cocke had designed a RISC machine, which eventually became the Power PC. In 1994, under the name AS/400, it ran a later version of the System/38 software. But as early as 1971, Cocke had persuaded the AFS group that a conventional computer with the HLS descriptors and a well-designed compiler could run the FS software. That computer could be a modified System/370, his RISC design, or both. The first FS machine could have been delivered as an “option” of the IBM 3033, which was announced in 1977 and delivered in 1978. > An even better option was a high-speed System/370-compatible machine that Gene Amdahl had designed in 1969. Unfortunately, that project was canceled for political reasons. Therefore, Amdahl left IBM, got funding from Fujitsu, founded the Amdahl Corporation, and delivered his 470 system in 1975. Until the IBM 3033 in 1978, Amdahl’s machine was much faster than anything IBM was selling. With suitable microcode, a design by Cocke or Amdahl could have served as the high-end hardware for FS. System/38 would have been the entry-level version for smaller systems.

lscotte 8y ago

Tandem was doing the same thing as far as redundancy and ordering it's own maintenance. Tandem even had redundant CPUs that would execute instructions in lock-step and compare results. They were very popular in banks. There are stories of parts showing up without customers even being aware any hardware had failed because they were so reliable.

kitd 8y ago

You forgot the on/off switch - designed to be used only twice.