Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the before-there-was-github dept.

Esther Schindler writes "The Airline Control Program (ACP), introduced by IBM around 1967, predated the term 'open source' by decades. But you may be surprised by how much of its development resembles the FOSS movement today. The ITWorld.com article An Abbreviated History of ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Applications describes what made it special."

24 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was how it was back in the days, and that is why RMS started GNU and FSF, to keep it that way.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by xaxa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "How it was" -- when the value of the system was concentrated in the hardware. The whole system was set up to serve the most valuable part, and software was seen as "directions to run the hardware" -- important, one supposed, but not the showy part. With commodity hardware, the value is in the bits and bytes now.

      What about most device drivers? They still seem to be closed.

      (RMS was angered when a printer manufacturer wouldn't supply the source code to the printer driver, IIRC.)

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RMS was angered when a printer manufacturer wouldn't supply the source code to the printer driver, IIRC.

      And what most people miss about this story is not just that the manufacturer wouldn't provide the driver. It was that they refused to provide the driver so that rms could modify it so that MIT could use the hardware in the way that they pleased after paying for it.

      The device was a shiny new laser printer. rms wanted to add a feature to the driver - notifying someone when (not if) the printer jammed so that print jobs wouldn't get backed up when the printer jammed without having to have someone babysit the printer. The printer maker (I believe it was Xerox, but I could be wrong on this part) didn't want to give up the source because they were afraid that it contained trade secrets because they were the only game in town for laser printing.

      The refusal of source code for drivers goes on today, mainly from wireless manufacturers (with the added point that they feel they might be liable if someone violates an FCC reg because they tweaked the driver) and the video card makers.

  2. Re:It's not open source. by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are confusing Open Source with Free Software.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  3. OS not DOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was not IBM's DOS that inspired _The Mythical Man Month_. It was IBM's OS.

    They cobbled together DOS because OS was so late.

    OS is now z/OS.

    DOS is now z/VSE.

    1. Re:OS not DOS by Spiked_Three · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed - DOS had nothing to do with it.

      But dont forget VM, the first virtualization OS that I know of - and I dont know much about non-ibm computers of that time - but it came out of the necessity of the people who started running DOS while waiting for OS to get finished, and then couldnt afford 2 computers to run simultaneously while they migrated from DOS to OS. and of course, it is now z/VM - and more often used as part of the hardware microcode providing hardware partitioning.

      All early IBM OSs had the source freely available, DOS, OS and VM. I do not think the license restricted redistribution either, since it was available freely from the vendor. The OSs did not become 'licensed' until IBM got tired of supplying the OS for competing hardware - Amdal - and in my mind you can blame the entire software licensing mess of today on a hardware vendor too lazy to write (significant portions of) its own software, and mostly interested in hardware only profits (wow, sounds vaguely familiar even today).

      Anyhow, I was one of those geeky systems programmer guys, making operating system level changes to source code - I never saw it as open source movement though, just something we did to make the OS better fit our needs. 90% of what we needed could be done with vendor supplied 'hooks' that we shimmed in our 'exits' at. I wish more of that kind of thing still existed in all OSs.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
  4. Re:It's not open source. by gparent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Open source means the code is available. Nothing else.

    What you're looking for is GNU/Freedom.

  5. Re:It's not open source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Open Source Definition

    Introduction

    Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

    1. Free Redistribution

    The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

    2. Source Code

    The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

    3. Derived Works

    The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

    4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

    The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

    5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

    The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

    6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

    The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

    7. Distribution of License

    The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

    8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

    The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

    9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

    The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

    10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

    No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

    - Open Source Initiative, http://opensource.org/docs/osd

  6. FOSS? Not sure by filesiteguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting article to be sure -

    However, I'm not sure this really qualifies as OSS or FOSS software. You really couldn't run it on any other system and there was a very closed community of heavy-smoking computer people who were able to run or modify this.

    I did find it cool that the article mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month -The Mythical Man-Month which I'm reading right now. Funny how different - yet the same - software development is some fourty years later.

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  7. for a moment, i read that as "ATC" by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 2, Interesting
    • which stands for Air Traffic Control,
    • which reminds me of playing that game in Emacs the early 1990s (the source was called atc.el, but that doesn't seem to be on the net anymore -- kudos to anyone who can post it here, saving it from otherwise imminent obscurity),
    • which is neither here nor there,
    • but that's what bubbled up from the dregs of memory,
    • which is what happens when you the author encounters YA TLA in TFS,
    • like ATC, LSD, ATP, MCP, MCM, etc etc etc.

    mods: This post is on-topic because its author is old, too! (grumble grumble)

    1. Re:for a moment, i read that as "ATC" by HogGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is this it?

      http://hpux.connect.org.uk/hppd/hpux/Games/Arcade/atc-1.0/

  8. Re:It's not open source. by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So says OSI, but they haven't actually managed to establish legal control over the term 'open source', so at best, the definition is contested, at worst, there are multiple meanings.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  9. Re:It's not open source. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    There's quite a few more requirements than just having the code be available.

    Yes, and those requirements go beyond open source; it's more a definition of free software than open source. While many peopel view open source and free as one and the same I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between the two.

    BSD, for example, is an open source project with a license that differs from the above in allowing for proprietary use as well.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  10. Re:It's not open source. by koiransuklaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell is wrong with moderators today? This is not insightful or informative... loufoque make a perfectly valid point. ACP may resemble open source, but it is not open source.

    Claiming that the definition of open source does not include redistribution rights is revisionist, if not totally absurd.

  11. Re:It's not open source. by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Non-advertise clause BSD meets those terms perfectly - http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. You can allow *more* things, you just can't allow *less*.

    Those people did essentially come up with the term "open source", using their definition seems reasonable. Of course they couldn't trade mark it since it's a descriptive term.

    "Free software" clearly means "software without cost" but using that definition in a discussion about "open source" and "free software" licenses is retarded.

  12. Ummm, Spacewar!? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Informative

    "open source" was the norm for almost all programs in the 1960s. Spacewar was certainly as open as ATP, or more so by most definitions (no commercial claims at all), and was released in 1962. Source code for earlier games, like Nim and Wumpus, were widely available as well.

    This author appears to be committing the sin of omission, conflating his IBM-centric experience with the wider world.

    Maury

    1. Re:Ummm, Spacewar!? by mrisaacs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right in that a lot of "public domain" software was distributed as source, but there were no repositories - you could get the original version (or the latest version from the originators) or you could get varients from other developers, but it was rare to have a mechanism in place to submit changes anywhere or pass updates to all the users (remember - no internet, few modems, source mostly passed on 7 or 9 track tape reels).

      When Bulletin Board Systems came into vogue in the late '70s, this started to change. In the original article what was unique was that changes could be submitted to IBM, who'd include them in later releases or distribute them as additional code with the source. The same was true of my own ealier post. If the code did not originate with Datapoint, they would forward submitted changes back to the author, who could incorporate them in later versions or allow Datapoint to distribute more than one version (early fork?).

      It was not true OSS, but it was a clear pre-cursor.

      --
      ...carrier dead.....
    2. Re:Ummm, Spacewar!? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > but it was rare to have a mechanism in place to submit changes anywhere or pass updates to
      > all the users (remember - no internet, few modems, source mostly passed on 7 or 9 track tape reels).

      Actually both existed. Spacewar! was distributed primarily in paper-tape form, patches were contributed with paper, scissors and tape.

      No, really.

      Maury

    3. Re:Ummm, Spacewar!? by mrisaacs · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did say rare - not unknown.

      The universities and some companies were good about accepting changes and re-issuing,

      I did get a lot of card decks and paper tape while I was in college (early '70s) and at my first couple of employers(same time frame), but a lot of it came 3rd hand or later, and there may not have even been an indication of where it originated from.

      Also a lot of the software came along with a programmer (that is, when someone joined the staff they brought code.) it may not have been theirs originally, they might not know the originator - and at that time another fork would take place - you'd copy it and make your own revisions, which might or might not get incorporated back into the code from the provider. You might encounter variants of the code later at other organizations, and they would be vastly different (not necessarily better) that your own version.

      --
      ...carrier dead.....
  13. Re:Definition 1, Definition 2, etc. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "speciality coffee" isn't a specifically crafted term of art invented by a particular organization.

    "Open Source" is.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  14. Ever heard of Sabre? by okvol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The IT branch spun off by American Airlines, which outsourced operations to EDS (which was bought by HP). Through a few layers of gateways, Travelocity is in the same room (albeit huge) as the TPF system. They can cluster up to seven of the fastest mainframes to run as a unit with TPF, and have set records for real-time transactions per minute. All this in Tulsa, OK.

    --
    cabg x3 is a life changing event...
  15. Why surprised? This is old news by toby · · Score: 2, Informative

    IBM had the SHARE organisation since 1955.

    In other words, the open source philosophy has been part of IBM's DNA since before most of us were born.

    --
    you had me at #!
  16. It was only "open source" becuz...... by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was only "open source" because the code had to be hand-crafted and re-assembled for each particular configuration. You young kids expect softwar to be rife with XML configuration files, and virtual methods, and hooks. Back in those days the code had to fit into 4K addressable segments, so they could not AFFORD to even think of opening up a file and reading configuration info, or having a table of external procedure hooks. More likely the configuration constants were not even separate, they were convenient opcodes. For instance, if you knew a 707 at this airline always had 112 seats, you'd recall that the HCF opcode happened to be 112 decimal, so you'd compare the seat count against that opcode. All you kids with your fancy separate data! Also it was extreme luxury to have a procedure hook (or as you callem nowadys "virtual methods"). You see you could only call within the current 4K block, and any addresses you wished to pass had similar or worse restrictions. And there was darnlittle dynamc linking available in old IBM DOS, so you could not call anything that had not been linked in last week at the weekly build (which took hours).

  17. I used this system as an application programmer by raarts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the mid 80s I did a lot of assembly programming on ACP for KLM. We (125 programmers and me) shared a test system that boasted 128MB RAM and a 100MHz'ish CPU running ACP/TPF. The production system even had double the memory. It could do 100 transactions per second. Touroperators (KLM representatives) all over the world used reservation terminals connected by satellite lines to this mainframe. It definitely was mission critical. But I think the article exaggerates a bit, because internally the story was that the KLM would go broke if the mainframe went down for three consecutive days.

    When I was there, C was being tested as an alternative for assembly language, but it was thrown out, because it was too slow, and wasted too many resources.

    Mind you: my iPhone has more CPU and much more memory than this mainframe, and thus could easily run the entire worldwide reservation system for an medium sized airline!