Slashdot Mirror


40 Years of Multics, 1969-2009

gribll writes "October 2009 marked an important milestone in the history of computing. It was exactly 40 years since the first Multics computer system was used at MIT. The interview is with Multics co-developer, MIT Professor and Turing Award winner Fernando J. Corbato. Multics (Multiplexed Information and Computing Service) is regarded as the foundation of modern time-sharing systems. Multics was the catalyst for the development of Unix and has been used as a model of operating system design since its release four decades ago. There is also a picture gallery of Multics history."

22 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Favorite quote by alecto · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In hindsight we might have picked a simpler language than PL/I, . . ." Now there's an understatement!

  2. obKanye by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey Multics, I'm really happy for ya, and imma let you finish, but UNIX is the best multiuser operating system of ALL TIME. OF. ALL. TIME.

    --
    Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
  3. I wish it never died! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had to use it at a large energy company in Europe in the 1980s. It was actually a fantastic system.

    Unlike VMS and IBM's mainframe OSes, it was actually pretty friendly to use. This attribute has clearly rubbed off on UNIX. While we'd spend months teaching some users how to use VMS, they'd get Multics within a few days.

    The programming environment was also fantastic. It didn't support as many languages as VMS, nor did it have language interoperability that was as good, but it still supported more languages than you'd fine on typical UNIX systems of that era.

    That said, it still was a beast compared to UNIX. UNIX was sly and sleek, and thus supported lower-end hardware better than Multics could. And UNIX was more portable, which eventually made it more widely available.

    Still, I look upon my Multics days with a fondness I didn't find again until the early 2000s, when I was able to get a position administering a network of FreeBSD servers.

    1. Re:I wish it never died! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My recollection from the early 80s is that it had fantastic language interoperability, especially compared to other systems at the time.

      On Multics you could pass variables from one language to another using full declarators allowing each language to inspect the value and type and more of each incoming variable, and act accordingly, and most of the Multics languages supported that in the compiler.

      So PL/I could call into FORTRAN and on and on.

      It's been a long time, I could easily be wrong about this, but that's what I remember.

    2. Re:I wish it never died! by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, I always considered VMS to be more user friendly, at least to novices, than Unix. Unix was full of cryptic shorthand commands. Ie, "help" vs "man -k", "search" vs "grep", "edit" vs "vi" or "ed" or "ex", etc. DCL was very quick to pick up compared to Unix sh, even though sh had more power.

      Essentially I think VMS had a shallow learning curve where Unix was pretty steep, but the shallow curve meant it took you longer to learn how to do really powerful things. The result was that it was faster to become a functional user with VMS, but you got to be a power user more quickly with Unix.

  4. Re:Um, wasn't bloated Multics the reason *WHY* . . by timster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that "was the catalyst" line is great. You can come up with all sorts of equivalent expressions. Like "MS-DOS was the catalyst for Linux", or "horse manure was the catalyst for the automobile"

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  5. 40 Years of Multics, 1969-2009 by omar.sahal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Multics was very influential, it provided Ken Thompson an example of what not to do. In other words, stick closely to the KISS (Keep It Simple) principle.

  6. Re:Um, wasn't bloated Multics the reason *WHY* . . by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bloat isn't really the right word. Multics had a lot more features than UNIX, and some really nice ideas (like the fact that files and memory used the same interface), but it required very high-end hardware for the time. It was a mainframe OS. It would not run on a minicomputer and so UNIX was written to port a game from Multics to the spare minicomputer that Thompson and Richie had access to. It turned out that UNIX, while inferior, was good enough for a lot of things, but saying Multics is bloated compared to UNIX is like saying Linux is bloated compared to MS DOS 3.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. Security in hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I worked at the Pentagon (HQAF DSC) one of the machines I developed on was a Multics machine. The really interesting part of the architecture to me was that it had, if I recall correctly, seven permission rings from ring 6 to ring 0 and each were implemented in hardware. The OS ran on a separate processor cluster for each ring, and system level work (kernel mode) was done all in ring 0.

    I enjoyed learning PL1, and found it to be an easy transition to go to Unix/C. The multics box was a beast, and stuff ran like greased lightning.

  8. Slashdot is bad with anniversaries by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    October 2009 marked an important milestone in the history of computing

    and they waited until november to tell you!

  9. "Bloated"? Oh, FFS. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's true that Multics couldn't get out of its own way on a system with 64K of RAM, although it was technically supposed to run on that configuration. To work well, it really wanted several hundred K of RAM. Thank heavens we left it in the dustbin of history, replaced by the crisp, clean efficiency of Windows, or OS X, or Linux.

  10. If it was so good by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it was so good, then why aren't there any emulators for it? Nearly every other old system has emulators, but not Multics.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:If it was so good by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, for one theres little need and for another there is little interest. The source code for Multics wasn't released till 1992, by then it was clear that UNIX was the future, development basically stopped for Multics long before then and Linux was beginning its rise as an open source UNIX system. With no legacy software to drive a tricky system to emulate why do it? I mean, with game consoles there are the games, with PC things usually there are a few nifty pieces of software, with Multics just about everything was ported to UNIX.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:If it was so good by mike.mondy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a few defunct projects on sourceforge and, I think, one live effort. I'm writing an emulator, but I haven't released any code yet.

      CPUs are trivial. Systems can be hard.

      Writing an emulator probably wasn't feasible before the sources were released two years ago. A few people started prior to that, but I can't imagine how.

      Multics ran on somewhat complex hardware. In addition to the CPU, there were several other complex components including the system controllers, I/O multiplexors, and front end processors. Some of these were programmable or semi-programmable devices and much of the documentation is missing.

      Now that we have compiler listings, assembly listings, a few documents, and a boot tape, the task seems feasible. Digging through the machine code on the boot tape and in the assembly listings partially makes up for the lack of decent documentation on some of the components.

      My emulator is far from complete -- and it's almost 18K lines of code. It does read the boot tape and run about 2 million instructions, but crashes before finishing the boot process. The emulator doesn't yet know about disks or support instruction restart etc. There's a lot of work left to do.

      I plan on cleaning up a few things and releasing it real soon now.

    3. Re:If it was so good by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just in time to compete with HURD.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. First introduction to viruses by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The implementation we used (SWURCC, England. 1978 - ?) had a "cookie monster" program. Briefly, this was a process that wandered randomly around the logged in users, occasionally taking control of their VDU and sending the message "I wanna cookie" It would only give you your screen back once the user typed "cookie". Swearing at it got you disconnected.

    I have a feeling that this "feature" got removed very soon after it snarfed the Computer Unit Director's screen.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  12. Can you by SnarfQuest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can you really rate it as 40 years, since the last operational site was shut down in 2000? Shouldn't the timer stop when it dies, like with people? Do you give Columbus's age as over 500 years?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  13. Re:Hmm, Multics and Sesame Street, both 40 years o by satellite17 · · Score: 4, Funny

    indeed,

    This episode of Multics was brought to you by the letters P and L and the number 1

  14. I was a Multics user and code developer by nani+popoki · · Score: 4, Interesting
    in the 1970s. I programmed in PL/1. While the language was complex (being a synthesis of the most difficult-to-implement features from FORTRAN, COBOL and Algol), it certainly was a fine development environment *on Multics*.

    I still miss the clean user interface (all command-line arguments meant the same thing, no matter which command was being executed) and fine documentation. But the GE645 / Honeywell 6800 architecture was never well-enough documented to make emulation feasible. And the descendants of Multics have implemented most of the features more-or-less. The world has moved on.

    I've moved on, too. In 1978 I taught myself C; I've since learned and continue to program in C++, Java and Python, having discarded along the way Lisp, Pascal and Delphi.

    And I use Windows mostly now. But my memory tells me that Multics was often faster for routine things like searching the file system. (Though the filesystem back then was only a few hundred MB.) And the processor back then was good for about 1 MIPS. Forget about color graphics. Animation? That was for cartoonists.

    Anyway, this old-timer got a chuckle out of the article; thanks for posting the heads-up.

  15. Re:Um, wasn't bloated Multics the reason *WHY* . . by Abreu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It turned out that UNIX, while inferior, was good enough for a lot of things...

    It's amazing the number of times in computing where something, while inferior, was good enough for a lot of things and ended up dominating...

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  16. Re:Um, wasn't bloated Multics the reason *WHY* . . by vlm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course the Current version of Linux or BSD is probably more "bloated" then the last version of Multics.

    Sure, trade in a 40 year old operating system for two 20s, just because its a little bloated after giving you the best years of its life... Does this tty driver make my kernel look fat?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  17. Stupid Comment by omb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Corbato designed and taught the Architecture that underpinned the UNIX developers and Martin Richards (of Cambridge UK) later, in 1970, brought BCPL, evolving into B, C, ... (_but_ definitely not C++)

    Professor Corbato got so many things right on the GE645 that he, Gordon Bell, Maurice Wilks and Tom Kilburn were the generation of _REAL_ uber-architects in the 60/70 s; with Gene Ahmdahl and Fred Brooks doing the engineering heavy lifting, Chris Streachy and and the MIT school (Marvin Minsky and many others) did the philosophy.

    Without their contributions the Computer Industry would never have started