As Linus continually points out, anything you can do to make a microkernel OS fast, you can do to a monolithic kernel (like Linux). All this is true - and the monolithic kernel wins because of lower overhead. That's why Linux continually beats out high-end rockin' Solaris on single-processor machines.
Given that the Solaris/SunOS 5.x kernel is a monolithic kernel (with loadable modules, but Linux has those as well), not a microkernel plus stuff atop it, how can this be "why Linux continually beats out... Solaris on single-processor machines"?
OPportunistic LOCK. It's actually not a "lock" in the standard sense of a file lock; it's a mechanism that allows an SMB client to tell an SMB server "I'd like to cache data I read from this file, but that's not safe if another machine is accessing to it; if anybody tries to open this file, please notify me, and don't let them access the file until either
I respond to that notification (which amounts to telling you I've finished writing back to you any unsynced data, and requesting any byte-range file locks I didn't bother telling you about because I knew no other machine would be accessing the file);
you time me out because I didn't respond in time."
Why is Unix called Unix if there are so many different Unixes (Or is it unixae).
Because, at the time it came out, there weren't that many different ones (although I hae the impresssion the various bits of AT&T using it for various internal purposes started creating different variants for their own projects fairly soon after they started getting it from Bell Labs).
(I'm not sure whether any Bell Labs person has officially said that "UNIX" was a pun on "Multics" or not.)
It should be called Multix
...except that a name that sounds very much like that was already taken (take a look at said page; it's the home page for a site that discusses an interesting operating system).
(I don't remember whether anybody from Bell Labs officially stated that "UNIX" was a pun on "Multics" or not.)
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
there is no possible way to convince free software developers to clone CDE unless some of them are hell bent on passing the certification
I think the goal of the Single UNIX Specification was to make all systems that claim to be UNIX look sufficiently like one another that software, and users, don't get locked into particular versions.
If
not enough software uses the features of CDE to make a system lacking it "not UNIXy enough";
the users whom the standard is intended to help don't really care;
then the case should perhaps be made to TOG that mandating CDE isn't worth the effort.
Given that CDE is their baby, I'm not sure they'll accept that case, but that's another matter. Perhaps the answer then is to have commercial distributors of Linux, etc. systems package up versions with CDE, etc. and get those certified as UNIX; those who care can buy those systems, and those who don't care don't have to get a system with CDE.
Because requirements include mandatory use of some proprietary software
Such as Lesstif?:-)
Unless the requirements mandate that you provide APIs that can only (either for technical or legal/patent/etc. reasons) be implemented by software from TOG, I don't consider those requirements ipso facto "Linux-unfriendly". They may require that free reimplementations of the APIs of XTI, and Motif, and CDE, be implemented, but that's another matter - after all, Linux distributions already include a kernel, libraries, and utilities that are free implementations of many UNIX-flavored-OS APIs....
(Yes, commercial distribution vendors could buy the TOG software and put it into the distributions that they run through the test suite, but if you have to do that, I wouldn't exactly consider that very "Linux-friendly".)
That doesn't answer the question. Obviously there are requirements; what changes to those requirements are required to be "Linux-friendly"?
In addition, if Linux (or any other UNIX-flavored OS) can't satisfy those requirements, why should the definition, rather than Linux (or any other UNIX-flavored OS), be changed? (There may be legitimate reasons to change the definition, but I don't consider "Linux out of the box can't meet them" - or "{Free,Net,Open}BSD out of the box can't meet them", or "{pick your favorite commercial UNIX} out of the box can't meet them", or "{pick your favorite OS that has a UNIX-compatibility environment} can't meet them - to be, in and of itself, a legitimate reason.)
In addition, several truckloads of cash are required.
"Linux", in the sense of the Linux kernel, isn't something to which one would give the UNIX trademark, given that it doesn't implement the full API, or command-line interface, of a UNIX system, so what would be tested would be a Linux distribution.
One could argue that the vendors of the larger commercial Linux distributions could supply the truckloads of cash necessary to get their distribution tested.
However, if there is ever, say, a Linux Standard Base "sample" or "reference" implementation, it'd be nice to have that certified (assuming the LSB covers everything that the current UNIX standard specifies), so that perhaps it could be arranged that any LSB-compliant Linux distribution gets the UNIX trademark automatically. If that's doable, perhaps, again, the commercial Linux distributors could supply the cash.
If not, however, it'd be nice to arrange that it be possible for the non-commercial distributions, or distributions from smaller vendors, could get the UNIX trademark as well.
Look, France, Germany, and other European governments are giving up some sovereignty to be a part of the EU.
And some in Europe are, I have the impression, not certain that this is all A Good Idea; they may or may not be correct in that belief, but I think at least some of them think that the fiscal policies needed to meet the Maastricht criteria may have increased unemployment.
ohhh, while watching CNN, I just saw an advertisement for you're little 'protest' "lets go to Seattle and put that on the WTO agenda
www.adbusters.org
The notion of "a slick television advertisement" from Adbusters seems a bit odd, given that they spend a fair bit of energy arguing against "slick television advertisements" (and other advertisements, hence the name). The WTO Uncommercial page on their site ask for donations to help fund those advertisements - in modern societies, it may be that you have to advertise on TV to make your viewpoint widely known.
I may not agree with all of what Adbusters says, but I, at least, think it's a Good Thing that there're more ads on TV than just ads trying to seduce you into buying product XXX....
He may be thinking of the IRS denying the Christian Coalition's application for tax-exempt status, but, frankly, I see no evidence that the CC necessarily speaks for all Christians (unless you limit "Christians" to those who believe as the CC does, but, as far as I can tell, that'd leave out rather a lot of people who think Jesus was the son of God, and, frankly, that's the criterion I use for determining whether somebody's a Christian). Perhaps they were unfairly denied tax-exempt status, but I hardly consider that sufficient grounds to argue that Christians are, in general, being persecuted....
Now, I suspect there are some other Christians who've been investigated, harassed, etc. as a result of actions they've taken as a result of being inspired by their faith; I'm curious whether the CC, or other "religious right" organizations, would stand up for the rights of Christians who've protested against US involvement in, say, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, various civil wars throughout the globe, or against US nuclear weapons, or against the School of the Americas, or....
(I'm also curious how eager they - or the original poster - would be to defend the rights of, say, non-believers such as me. I seem to remember a claim that the father of the leading Republican presidential candidate wasn't certain whether non-believers could be considered citizens of the US - blah blah blah "nation under God" blah blah blah. Then again, alluding back to earlier US actions, he was the same man who, when VP, praised Fernando Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles"....)
As far as revealing the inner workings, if someone really wants to know that they could read the OS/390 Principles of Operations on IBM's bookmanager site.
Or they could just follow this link if they don't want to go searching for it.
It's apparently already been done. (I think S/370 support has been in there for ages; the link is to somebody offering pre-compiled binaries for OS/390 UNIX services.)
2) Offer Linux under VM as a standalone OS. VM runs other operating systems really well. Both of these would reduce the porting effort because the actual hardware would be hidden.
I was under the impression that the "virtual machine" that VM implemented looked rather S/3xx-ish, complete with virtual channels talking to virtual I/O devices that look somewhat like real S/3xx I/O devices.
In any case, you can be sure there won't be much Linux running on these boxen, even in VM's. AIX/Monterey is what will be running there - it's optimised to do that,
The result will be a single UNIX operating system product line that runs on IA-32, IA-64 and Power microprocessors....
Nothing in there about System/390.
So, no, it appears that Monterey will not be running there. Once upon a time, IBM did have a UNIX that ran on System/3xx, and that they called "AIX" (which doesn't necessarily mean it's the same OS as the AIX that runs on RS/6000's), but I'm not sure it's still around.
"Micropayments"? Is this a way to charge users of the Internet?
More likely a way to charge users of a particular site to look at stuff from that site. There already exist sites where you have to pay to read stuff; this may just be a more lightweight version (although hopefully it's not so lightweight that following a link to a "pay-per-view" site that you don't know is a "pay-per-view" site automatically takes you there and charges you for it; others have expressed concerns about that here, and I sympathize with those concerns - if I'm going to be charged money to read something, I'd prefer to know how much it's going to cost me before I read it).
Who does the money go to?
Presumably the site that's charging you to view it.
And why is a charge necessary?
Ask that of whoever's maintaining the site that's charging you.
Though it would potentially be tougher for a graphical browser to spawn $EDITOR for each text area it encountered
Yes, the fork/exec interface isn't ideally suited to that.
it would be nigh on impossible for MSIE to spawn $EDITOR.
Well, it could spawn it with CreateProcess() (IE 4.0, at least on Solaris, doesn't handle mail or news itself, but punts to whatever mail or news reader you tell it to - which, amusingly enough, makes it arguably more UNIXy than Netscape on UNIX, at least in that regard!), but that interface isn't, as far as I know, any more friendly towards that sort of pluggable text-editor functionality than is fork/exec. A COM/OLE editor interface might be better suited to that.
Even better would be to make vim embeddable as a GTK widget or somesuch so that, say, an IDE could really spawn my favorite editing environment!
I have the impression that in some message about a mailer for GNOME that they were thinking of making a Bonobo interface for text-editor widgets, so that different widgets could be plugged in.
If they do so, I'm curious whether it'd be the first desktop environment/toolkit to do so; I have the impression something such as that could be done in Windows, or in KDE, but I don't know whether anybody's actually done so.
(The Andrew toolkit had, as its text widget, a fairly powerful editor, which had, I think, some amount of vi compatibility available atop its more EMACSish base, but if you're used to a particular editor, that still might not be all you'd want.)
Except port them to the BSD kernel API and the BSD libc API where needed. This is by no means a trivial task.
True - but that's not a consequence of the BSD folk using fewer and fewer GNU utilities over time, if the Debian folk aren't using the BSD utilities, except maybe to the extent that ports of GNU utilities to FreeBSD become less actively maintained.
...and I use FreeBSD on my home desktop machine. I don't consider Debian (or most other Linux distributions) to inherently be desktop-only OSes (there might be a desktop-only distribution out there somewhere, for all I know), or consider any of the BSDs to inherently be server-only OSes....
Recall that the BSD folks are using less and less GNU utilities over the years. It looks like Debian GNU/BSD would have its work cut out for them if they wanted to keep the GNU there.
Given that, apparently, the "FreeBSD-based Debian" would use only the kernel and C library from FreeBSD, and would use their own utilities (and, presumably, other libraries) instead of the BSD ones, they wouldn't have to do any more work, over time, to "keep the GNU there" than to keep it in Debian GNU/Linux.
Actually, VM is a complete OS, with tools, editor, compilers and applications deisgned specifically for it.
Is that for the component that actually implements the virtual machines, or for the OSes that run on the virtual machines, e.g. CMS (was CMS ever capable of booting as a single-user OS on a "raw" S/3x0?), or the regular IBM OSes (or non-IBM OSes, as per the topic of this thread...) that can also run as guests in a virtual machine?
Actually, what do you think, would it be possible to port VM to anything non-mainframe? (a PC, for example?)
As VM implements a virtual, err, umm, S/3x0, complete with channel controllers, simulated mainframe-flavored disks, etc., and, I think, depends on features of S/3x0 to provide that emulation, it probably couldn't be ported at all easily.
However, VMware implements a similar type of "virtual machine" on NT or Linux on a PC. (The posts asking whether VM was like VMware were somewhat amusing, given that VM/3x0 and CP/360 antedated the 8086, much less VMware, by many years, as in "probably around 15 years, if not more".)
I believe that [SMP] was a term introduced by Intel,
Possibly, but I seem to remember hearing the term before x86 MP systems were common (although they date back at least as far as the Sequent Symmetry, so they do go back a while).
and I don't think that other multi-CPU architectures are described with this acronym, but I could very well be wrong.
Perhaps Digital^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCompaq don't say "SMP", but they sure say "symmetric multiprocessing" (admittedly, not "symmetrical", if one wants to be fussy) on the Digital^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTru64 UNIX home page.
I also believe that the 390 architecture is massively parallel but not really symmetrical.
There exist S/390 machines that have a lot of processors, but the Multiprise 3000 "enterprise servers" (every time I hear some marketoon say "enterprise", I wonder whether they intend to install the "enterprise" product in question on the bridge of NCC-1701) start out as uniprocessors and go up to big honking two-way systems.
I also have the impression that the MP S/390's are "really symmetrical", in the sense that there aren't particular S/390 processors dedicated to specific functions.
As another poster mentioned that the 390 can have various CPU modules which might not even run the same instruction sets.
I suspect he's thinking of I/O processors, e.g. the processors that run the channel controllers (which I wouldn't be surprised to hear were PowerPCs these days), the communication controllers, etc. - the processors that run the applications, and the bulk of the OS, are S/390s, as far as I know.
S/390 hardware hasn't been 32 bit for quite awhile... there are some dedicated chuncks that do 1Kbit (yes, 1024 bit processors), but I think most is 64 bit.
Define "32 bit" and "64 bit". S/390's general-purpose registers are still 32 bits wide (it says "For some operations, two adjacent general registers are coupled, providing a 64-bit format", but, as I remember, that's been true since System/360, back in the early '60's, in that it had, I think, double-precision shift instructions, at least) and, whilst I think ESA/390 has some segmentation-like scheme to boost the address space size above 2^31, the instruction set still looks more 32-bit than 64-bit or whatever. The internal data paths of the implementation may be wider, but, if you go by internal data path widths or processor-to-storage data path widths, there are few if any 32-bit processors left....
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the Solaris/SunOS 5.x kernel is a monolithic kernel (with loadable modules, but Linux has those as well), not a microkernel plus stuff atop it, how can this be "why Linux continually beats out ... Solaris on single-processor machines"?
OPportunistic LOCK. It's actually not a "lock" in the standard sense of a file lock; it's a mechanism that allows an SMB client to tell an SMB server "I'd like to cache data I read from this file, but that's not safe if another machine is accessing to it; if anybody tries to open this file, please notify me, and don't let them access the file until either
Because, at the time it came out, there weren't that many different ones (although I hae the impresssion the various bits of AT&T using it for various internal purposes started creating different variants for their own projects fairly soon after they started getting it from Bell Labs).
(I'm not sure whether any Bell Labs person has officially said that "UNIX" was a pun on "Multics" or not.)
...except that a name that sounds very much like that was already taken (take a look at said page; it's the home page for a site that discusses an interesting operating system).
(I don't remember whether anybody from Bell Labs officially stated that "UNIX" was a pun on "Multics" or not.)
But even after I found that on the package, it still sounded like the allergy medicine Conan the Barbarian uses....
Jef Poskanzer. The ACME Laboratories home page says:
(and has a pile of other stuff on it as well - stuff quite possibly of interest to much of the Slashdot audience).
Yeah, the Performa, and the Compaq Contura, made me think they should be sold at drugstores, perhaps with "ribbed for her pleasure" as a slogan....
...and is, or, at least, was at one time, a Toyota model name as well.
So is Celsior, but it's called a "Lexus LS400" in North America.
Or, as a wise man once said:
I think the goal of the Single UNIX Specification was to make all systems that claim to be UNIX look sufficiently like one another that software, and users, don't get locked into particular versions.
If
then the case should perhaps be made to TOG that mandating CDE isn't worth the effort.
Given that CDE is their baby, I'm not sure they'll accept that case, but that's another matter. Perhaps the answer then is to have commercial distributors of Linux, etc. systems package up versions with CDE, etc. and get those certified as UNIX; those who care can buy those systems, and those who don't care don't have to get a system with CDE.
Such as Lesstif? :-)
Unless the requirements mandate that you provide APIs that can only (either for technical or legal/patent/etc. reasons) be implemented by software from TOG, I don't consider those requirements ipso facto "Linux-unfriendly". They may require that free reimplementations of the APIs of XTI, and Motif, and CDE, be implemented, but that's another matter - after all, Linux distributions already include a kernel, libraries, and utilities that are free implementations of many UNIX-flavored-OS APIs....
(Yes, commercial distribution vendors could buy the TOG software and put it into the distributions that they run through the test suite, but if you have to do that, I wouldn't exactly consider that very "Linux-friendly".)
That doesn't answer the question. Obviously there are requirements; what changes to those requirements are required to be "Linux-friendly"?
In addition, if Linux (or any other UNIX-flavored OS) can't satisfy those requirements, why should the definition, rather than Linux (or any other UNIX-flavored OS), be changed? (There may be legitimate reasons to change the definition, but I don't consider "Linux out of the box can't meet them" - or "{Free,Net,Open}BSD out of the box can't meet them", or "{pick your favorite commercial UNIX} out of the box can't meet them", or "{pick your favorite OS that has a UNIX-compatibility environment} can't meet them - to be, in and of itself, a legitimate reason.)
"Linux", in the sense of the Linux kernel, isn't something to which one would give the UNIX trademark, given that it doesn't implement the full API, or command-line interface, of a UNIX system, so what would be tested would be a Linux distribution.
One could argue that the vendors of the larger commercial Linux distributions could supply the truckloads of cash necessary to get their distribution tested.
However, if there is ever, say, a Linux Standard Base "sample" or "reference" implementation, it'd be nice to have that certified (assuming the LSB covers everything that the current UNIX standard specifies), so that perhaps it could be arranged that any LSB-compliant Linux distribution gets the UNIX trademark automatically. If that's doable, perhaps, again, the commercial Linux distributors could supply the cash.
If not, however, it'd be nice to arrange that it be possible for the non-commercial distributions, or distributions from smaller vendors, could get the UNIX trademark as well.
What changes to their current UNIX definition would be required for this?
You mean those EU goverments that impose directives limiting the collection of personal data? (See the Directorate General XV, for Media, Information Society and Data Protection page on the EU's Web site.)
And some in Europe are, I have the impression, not certain that this is all A Good Idea; they may or may not be correct in that belief, but I think at least some of them think that the fiscal policies needed to meet the Maastricht criteria may have increased unemployment.
The notion of "a slick television advertisement" from Adbusters seems a bit odd, given that they spend a fair bit of energy arguing against "slick television advertisements" (and other advertisements, hence the name). The WTO Uncommercial page on their site ask for donations to help fund those advertisements - in modern societies, it may be that you have to advertise on TV to make your viewpoint widely known.
I may not agree with all of what Adbusters says, but I, at least, think it's a Good Thing that there're more ads on TV than just ads trying to seduce you into buying product XXX....
He may be thinking of the IRS denying the Christian Coalition's application for tax-exempt status, but, frankly, I see no evidence that the CC necessarily speaks for all Christians (unless you limit "Christians" to those who believe as the CC does, but, as far as I can tell, that'd leave out rather a lot of people who think Jesus was the son of God, and, frankly, that's the criterion I use for determining whether somebody's a Christian). Perhaps they were unfairly denied tax-exempt status, but I hardly consider that sufficient grounds to argue that Christians are, in general, being persecuted....
Now, I suspect there are some other Christians who've been investigated, harassed, etc. as a result of actions they've taken as a result of being inspired by their faith; I'm curious whether the CC, or other "religious right" organizations, would stand up for the rights of Christians who've protested against US involvement in, say, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, various civil wars throughout the globe, or against US nuclear weapons, or against the School of the Americas, or....
(I'm also curious how eager they - or the original poster - would be to defend the rights of, say, non-believers such as me. I seem to remember a claim that the father of the leading Republican presidential candidate wasn't certain whether non-believers could be considered citizens of the US - blah blah blah "nation under God" blah blah blah. Then again, alluding back to earlier US actions, he was the same man who, when VP, praised Fernando Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles"....)
Or they could just follow this link if they don't want to go searching for it.
The Linux on the IBM ESA/390 Mainframe Architecture page has links to various documents about S/390.
It's apparently already been done. (I think S/370 support has been in there for ages; the link is to somebody offering pre-compiled binaries for OS/390 UNIX services.)
I was under the impression that the "virtual machine" that VM implemented looked rather S/3xx-ish, complete with virtual channels talking to virtual I/O devices that look somewhat like real S/3xx I/O devices.
AIX/Monterey is optimized to run on System/390? Indeed? The Overview page under the Project Monterey home page says
Nothing in there about System/390.
So, no, it appears that Monterey will not be running there. Once upon a time, IBM did have a UNIX that ran on System/3xx, and that they called "AIX" (which doesn't necessarily mean it's the same OS as the AIX that runs on RS/6000's), but I'm not sure it's still around.
More likely a way to charge users of a particular site to look at stuff from that site. There already exist sites where you have to pay to read stuff; this may just be a more lightweight version (although hopefully it's not so lightweight that following a link to a "pay-per-view" site that you don't know is a "pay-per-view" site automatically takes you there and charges you for it; others have expressed concerns about that here, and I sympathize with those concerns - if I'm going to be charged money to read something, I'd prefer to know how much it's going to cost me before I read it).
Presumably the site that's charging you to view it.
Ask that of whoever's maintaining the site that's charging you.
Yes, the fork/exec interface isn't ideally suited to that.
Well, it could spawn it with CreateProcess() (IE 4.0, at least on Solaris, doesn't handle mail or news itself, but punts to whatever mail or news reader you tell it to - which, amusingly enough, makes it arguably more UNIXy than Netscape on UNIX, at least in that regard!), but that interface isn't, as far as I know, any more friendly towards that sort of pluggable text-editor functionality than is fork/exec. A COM/OLE editor interface might be better suited to that.
I have the impression that in some message about a mailer for GNOME that they were thinking of making a Bonobo interface for text-editor widgets, so that different widgets could be plugged in.
If they do so, I'm curious whether it'd be the first desktop environment/toolkit to do so; I have the impression something such as that could be done in Windows, or in KDE, but I don't know whether anybody's actually done so.
(The Andrew toolkit had, as its text widget, a fairly powerful editor, which had, I think, some amount of vi compatibility available atop its more EMACSish base, but if you're used to a particular editor, that still might not be all you'd want.)
True - but that's not a consequence of the BSD folk using fewer and fewer GNU utilities over time, if the Debian folk aren't using the BSD utilities, except maybe to the extent that ports of GNU utilities to FreeBSD become less actively maintained.
...and I use FreeBSD on my home desktop machine. I don't consider Debian (or most other Linux distributions) to inherently be desktop-only OSes (there might be a desktop-only distribution out there somewhere, for all I know), or consider any of the BSDs to inherently be server-only OSes....
Given that, apparently, the "FreeBSD-based Debian" would use only the kernel and C library from FreeBSD, and would use their own utilities (and, presumably, other libraries) instead of the BSD ones, they wouldn't have to do any more work, over time, to "keep the GNU there" than to keep it in Debian GNU/Linux.
Yes.
Is that for the component that actually implements the virtual machines, or for the OSes that run on the virtual machines, e.g. CMS (was CMS ever capable of booting as a single-user OS on a "raw" S/3x0?), or the regular IBM OSes (or non-IBM OSes, as per the topic of this thread...) that can also run as guests in a virtual machine?
As VM implements a virtual, err, umm, S/3x0, complete with channel controllers, simulated mainframe-flavored disks, etc., and, I think, depends on features of S/3x0 to provide that emulation, it probably couldn't be ported at all easily.
However, VMware implements a similar type of "virtual machine" on NT or Linux on a PC. (The posts asking whether VM was like VMware were somewhat amusing, given that VM/3x0 and CP/360 antedated the 8086, much less VMware, by many years, as in "probably around 15 years, if not more".)
Possibly, but I seem to remember hearing the term before x86 MP systems were common (although they date back at least as far as the Sequent Symmetry, so they do go back a while).
Perhaps Digital^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCompaq don't say "SMP", but they sure say "symmetric multiprocessing" (admittedly, not "symmetrical", if one wants to be fussy) on the Digital^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTru64 UNIX home page.
There exist S/390 machines that have a lot of processors, but the Multiprise 3000 "enterprise servers" (every time I hear some marketoon say "enterprise", I wonder whether they intend to install the "enterprise" product in question on the bridge of NCC-1701) start out as uniprocessors and go up to big honking two-way systems.
I also have the impression that the MP S/390's are "really symmetrical", in the sense that there aren't particular S/390 processors dedicated to specific functions.
I suspect he's thinking of I/O processors, e.g. the processors that run the channel controllers (which I wouldn't be surprised to hear were PowerPCs these days), the communication controllers, etc. - the processors that run the applications, and the bulk of the OS, are S/390s, as far as I know.
Define "32 bit" and "64 bit". S/390's general-purpose registers are still 32 bits wide (it says "For some operations, two adjacent general registers are coupled, providing a 64-bit format", but, as I remember, that's been true since System/360, back in the early '60's, in that it had, I think, double-precision shift instructions, at least) and, whilst I think ESA/390 has some segmentation-like scheme to boost the address space size above 2^31, the instruction set still looks more 32-bit than 64-bit or whatever. The internal data paths of the implementation may be wider, but, if you go by internal data path widths or processor-to-storage data path widths, there are few if any 32-bit processors left....