HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: operating systems research hosed?? (Re: WINDOWS/NT)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:40:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

adobe!zstern@uunet.UU.NET (Zalman Stern) writes:
: So what does this has to do with the "OS research hosed" subject? If  
: anything, Microsoft derived a lot of the knowledge that went into NT from  
: the OS research community(*).
: 
: (*) Commercial companies seem loathe to credit the research that their  
: products are based on in public. Probably because the issue of intellectual  
: property rights is such a swamp these days. It is unfortunate because smart  
: people don't get the recognition they deserve and because it denies future  
: researchers an idea of which concepts evolved from where.

Gimme a break.  The reason companies don't hand out credit is that the
companies add significant value.  With the exception of the FSF/GNU
effort, most widely available code is at the prototype level.  Just
proving that it can be done by demonstrating a prototype is, in my
opinion, doing all the fun part and none of the hard part.  It's no
wonder that companies aren't very thrilled with research - it grabs the
headlines but doesn't solve the real problems.

Research has its place.  Companies have their place.  Don't under value
one and over value another.
---
Larry McVoy			(415) 336-7627			 lm@sun.com
From: 971kamali@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: inquiry about MUSE O.S.
Date: 3 Oct 1992 02:25:50 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan University
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

Hello:

I am a Master Student in Western Michigan University.
I have statrted my thesis on Operating Systems.

I badly need some material on MUSE Operating system.
If somebody send me any information regarding this will be 
highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

	--Kamali

e-mail address on UNIX : kamali@cs.wmich.edu

Mohammad Kamali
1940 Howard Street
Apt# 257
Kalamazoo MI-49008
U.S.A

Voice : (616)387-7500
From: johnson@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: operating systems research hosed?? (Re: WINDOWS/NT)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 19:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

I see a culture gap here.

lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes:

>Gimme a break.  The reason companies don't hand out credit is that the
>companies add significant value.

This is no excuse.  It doesn't matter how much value you add, what counts
is whether you got value from somebody else.  It doesn't matter whether
they did the fun part and you did the expensive part; did you use ideas
that you got from other people?  If you did, you have to cite it, otherwise
you are a plagarist.  In the research community, there is NO worse sin.

>Just proving that it can be done by demonstrating a prototype is, in my
>opinion, doing all the fun part and none of the hard part.  It's no
>wonder that companies aren't very thrilled with research - it grabs the
>headlines but doesn't solve the real problems.

In fact, it isn't even necessary to build a prototype.  If you think up
a neat idea and write a paper on it then you deserve to have that work
cited by other people who build upon it.  It is the Way of Research.

>Research has its place.  Companies have their place.  Don't under value
>one and over value another.

And as far as I can see, you are the one falling into this trap.

There is a real culture gap between research and business.  In research,
it is good if someone reuses your ideas as long as you are cited.  The
citation is all that is owed you.  You are mad if someone uses your work
and doesn't cite you, but if they cite you then all is well.  In turn,
you are careful to cite all the work that you build upon.

In business, if you build on someone else's work then you are sued
for copyright violation or patent violation, so you never mention the
work that led to yours.  Moreover, from a marketing point of view you
want everyone to think that you are the only ones bright enough to think
up this stuff, so it is counterproductive to tell people where you got
your ideas.

The result is that researchers think business people are thieves, liers,
in short, plagiarists.  The culture gap strikes again.

In fact, we don't think that business people are plagiarist, because
we know they don't play by our rules.  On the other hand, it is very
annoying when business people say really stupid things like "we added
more value than you did, so it is OK to not mention what the ideas
we borrowed from you."  That is completely bogus by either culture.
The correct answer is "we don't mention any of the ideas we borrowed
for fear of lawsuits and because it would hurt our marketing".  The
amount of value added has nothing to do with anything.

Ralph Johnson -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: pasheva@skorpio.USask.ca (Elina Pasheva)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: references about multimedia file systems
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:00:12 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

I am interested in learning about North American projects
in (distributed) multimedia file systems (this is part of my
PhD thesis research). 

I would appreciate any references on that issue.

Elina

Dept. Computational Science
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N OWO
pasheva@SKORPIO.USask.ca
From: eric@cs.sfu.ca (Eric Kolotyluk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: CODA
Date: 3 Oct 1992 02:25:16 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

Efforts in the CODA project at CMU have recently come to my attention
as both a graduate student and as a systems manager,.. As such, I have
a number of (hopefully not too naive) questions...

1. CODA seems to deal well with the issues of `connected' vs `disconnected'
   operation.  There seems to be, however, a more continuous relationship
   between `connected' and `disconnected' status in distributed file systems:
   At one end of the spectrum 0 may represent totally disconnected status,
   and any value > 0 might represent the bandwidth between the client apppli-
   cation.  For example, those of us on an ethernet, `n' might be 10,000,000.,
   but for those of use at the other end of a V.32bis modem n might = 14,400.

   The point is, for those of us with portable and remote computers, can we
   `expect' a ditributed file system in the future that can `adapt' to our
   prefered live-styles (10BASE-x, 100-DDI, x.32bis, ISDN, SMDS, ATDM, etc).

   Examples: I disconnect my `system' from the network, but later reconnnect 
   over a lower bandwidth link: how is re-integration and hording handled?
   I work at the office over a 10,000,00 or 100,000,000 bps link, and over a
   64.000 bps  or 128,000 link: will it do `what I want?'

2. As a systems adminitrator, `I don't want to deal with this shit!'.
   Can we build systems that can adapt to the user requirements without
   systems administrator intervention?

3. As an idealist, can we embed the essential information in X.500

For those of your who don't yet know about CODA: way cool!

For those of you who like to argue about windows/NT and other baseline
stuff, check out CODA, MACH and other way cool stuff!

If it's for sale, I'll buy!

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Eric Kolotyluk					Eric_Kolotyluk@sfu.ca
Manager, Research and Education Systems		+1 604 291-3014 phone
School of Computing Science			+1 604 291-3045 fax
Simon Fraser University
From: Ken Birman <ken@cs.cornell.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: distributed shell
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:39:30 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <1a2f6nINNp8j@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance) writes:
>I am working on what I call a distributed shell implementing a
>`poorman's distribution'.
>...
>Is there any work in this area I need to be aware of?

I was shown a demo of a shell supporting this sort of functionality
last time I visited Syracuse University.  (Not sure who did the work.)

-- 
Kenneth P. Birman                              E-mail:  ken@cs.cornell.edu
4105 Upson Hall, Dept. of Computer Science     TEL:     607 255-9199 (office)
Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (USA)      FAX:     607 255-4428
From: iakob@iesd.auc.dk (Inger Marie B. Jakobsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Object Oriented OS wanted
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:40:51 GMT
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp


In our study of object oriented operating systems (OOOS) we need a
OOOS or -kernel to do a case study. The OOOS or -kernel must be able
to run on a sun (sparc) station.

Therefore, if you know about such an OS or kernel, we would appreciate
it, if you'd let us know.

Should you know some related litterature, we would likewise be very
interested.

--
Thanks,
	Inger Marie
--

                                |
iakob@iesd.auc.dk		|   Abandon the search for Truth
Aalborg Universitet		|   Settle for a good fantasy.
9000 Aalborg			|         _   _   _   _   _  oo
				|      \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \/''
From: mjr@decuac.DEC.COM (Marcus J. "Buddy can you spare a clue?" Ranum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: research hosed?? (Re: WINDOWS/NT)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 05:27:54 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

[Note - The title "Operating Systems research hosed" was because I
got repeated bounce mail when my posting went to the moderator. I
re-sent directly, with the "hosed?" comment and *that* one got
posted.]

>[...] The original message seemed to indicate that Windows/NT is going to  
>upset this balance. I disagree. NT is an example of the above symbiosis  
>whether Microsoft wants to admit it or not. Then again, maybe this lack of  
>credit will hurt the OS research community.

	My posting wasn't intended to slap operating systems researchers
or to beatify Microsoft.

	The impression that I had after playing with NT for an hour or
so was that somewhere, someone, seems to have put some *THOUGHT* into
what is necessary for a "reasonable" desktop environment. That may
seem obvious, but it's something that most UNIX vendors seem to have
real trouble with. It's probably already too late for UNIX for anything
more than technical/development work. NT shows unmistakable signs of
having been "thought about" from a standpoint of "cheap, easy, adequate"
rather than "expensive, complex and arcane, powerful"  -  I can guess
where the customer interest will be.

mjr.
From: shearson!lorax!rens@uunet.UU.NET (Rens Troost)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: operating systems research hosed?? (Re: WINDOWS/NT)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 19:16:49 GMT
Organization: Lehman Brothers
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <1a9td2INN9rl@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM
(Larry McVoy) writes:

   adobe!zstern@uunet.UU.NET (Zalman Stern) writes:

   : (*) Commercial companies seem loathe to credit the research that
   : their products are based on in public. Probably because the issue
   : of intellectual property rights is such a swamp these days. It is
   : unfortunate because smart people don't get the recognition they
   : deserve and because it denies future researchers an idea of which
   : concepts evolved from where.

   Gimme a break.  The reason companies don't hand out credit is that
   the companies add significant value.  With the exception of the
   FSF/GNU effort, most widely available code is at the prototype
   level.  Just proving that it can be done by demonstrating a

How about X11? Just because I have to pay sun for a larger and slower
X11 does not mean that the one I can FTP from export is 'a prototype' :)
What makes emacs really neat is the contributed body of free elisp,
not just the (remarkable) work put into it by FSF. 

In the case of Microsoft's "New Technology," zstern seems right on in
his analysis. Why did you need to flame him? 

   prototype is, in my opinion, doing all the fun part and none of the
   hard part.  It's no wonder that companies aren't very thrilled with
   research - it grabs the headlines but doesn't solve the real
   problems.

Big Companies always get the big headlines - One hears a lot in the
newspapers about Sun, but very little about researchers. One rarely
hears the names of even famous free software contributors like Wall,
Stallman, or Jolitz outside the industry. Even my grandmother knows
what Sun Microsystems does. (though not even those inside sun may be
certain what SunPro, SunSelect, SunSoft, SMCC, SunExpress, SunPics,
and the rest of the Sun mob do!)

   Research has its place.  Companies have their place.  Don't under
   value one and over value another.  --- Larry

This is true, and I enjoy the stable, well supported products of sun
and other companies. but you sell the research community short. Oh, I
forgot to mention kermit, uucp, kerberos (athena in general!), top,
perl; the list goes on. Need I say more?

-Rens



--
  __   ___  ,    __  
 /__) /__  /| / (    |  J. Laurens Troost    Lehman Brothers Technical Services
/  \ (___ / |/ __)   |  *Opinions expressed herein are mine. Mine, I tell you!*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INET: rens@shearson.com        VOICE: (212) 464-3705        FAX: (212) 464-2040
From: Terri_Watson@cs.cmu.edu (Elfling)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: CODA
Date: 6 Oct 1992 02:27:57 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <1aj0acINN5s5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> eric@cs.sfu.ca (Eric Kolotyluk) writes:

  1. CODA seems to deal well with the issues of `connected' vs `disconnected'
     operation.  There seems to be, however, a more continuous relationship
     between `connected' and `disconnected' status in distributed file systems:
     At one end of the spectrum 0 may represent totally disconnected status,
     and any value > 0 might represent the bandwidth between the client apppli-
     cation.  For example, those of us on an ethernet, `n' might be 10,000,000.
     but for those of use at the other end of a V.32bis modem n might = 14,400.

      The point is, for those of us with portable and remote computers, can we
      `expect' a ditributed file system in the future that can `adapt' to our
      prefered live-styles (10BASE-x, 100-DDI, x.32bis, ISDN, SMDS, ATDM, etc).

     Examples: I disconnect my `system' from the network, but later reconnnect 
      over a lower bandwidth link: how is re-integration and hording handled?
      I work at the office over a 10,000,00 or 100,000,000 bps link, and over a
      64.000 bps  or 128,000 link: will it do `what I want?'

Eric,

I am not part of the CODA project, but I am somewhat familiar with
what they are currently working on.  There is effort underway to
support connection at different speeds/bandwidths and offering varying
levels of service accordingly.  I am not certain as to how this
impacts reintegration.  You might try contacting lily@cs.cmu.edu as I
believe that she is the student working on this aspect of the project.

.Terri
elf@cs.cmu.edu
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: NT sources and other info.
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:42:45 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp


Below is a post that I posted comp.os.{os2,ms-windows}.advocacy, that
someone that follows this group regularly said would be of interest here.
I assume the main item of interest is #6 -- availability of NT sources, but
other items may be of interest too.  This is the second time (that
I know of) that Microsoft has promised to make sources available
(the other time was at the San Franciso NT developers' conference).

-------
A friend of mine just attended a DARPA meeting in DC... it was addressed
by Mark Ryland of Microsoft's DC/Federal office.  Here's some of
my friend's notes:

	1. Disk buffers are first class objects whose ownership changes from
           the OS to the application when a read is complete.  This alleviates
           any need for copying in the device driver.

	2. They distributed 20,000 copies of the pre-release Dev. Kit.

	3. The non-pageable kernel is 50KB in size.

	4. Microsoft is building OLE 2.0 for MacIntosh as well as for PCs.

	5. Final release will be in February/March 1993.  The beta release will
           occur sometime in October 92.

	6. Windows NT sources will be available to researchers.  The main
	   restriction will be that no SALABLE derivatives will be allowed
           without extensive negotiations with MS.  This further indicates to
           me that:

		1. MS is really serious about trying to displace UNIX.
		2. WindowsNT pricing will be so low that it won't make sense
                   to try and build the distribution from sources.
		3. WindowsNT will definitely be as "open" as UNIX.

	   He indicated that the source release won't occur until MS is
	   satisfied that they have reasonably robust product.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: operating systems research hosed?? (Re: WINDOWS/NT)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 17:33:39 GMT
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <1a9td2INN9rl@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes:
|> Gimme a break.  The reason companies don't hand out credit is that the
|> companies add significant value.  With the exception of the FSF/GNU
|> effort, most widely available code is at the prototype level.  Just
|> proving that it can be done by demonstrating a prototype is, in my
|> opinion, doing all the fun part and none of the hard part.  It's no
|> wonder that companies aren't very thrilled with research - it grabs the
|> headlines but doesn't solve the real problems.
|> 
|> Research has its place.  Companies have their place.  Don't under value
|> one and over value another.

Oh please!  If it weren't for CSRG at UC Berkeley and others at
Stanford, the company you're posting from, Sun, wouldn't even exist.
Several shipping products from companies that provide workstations are
based directly on work done in university research.

Which real problems are we discussing here that research has not addressed?

I agree with your last statement but it doesn't jive with your first
paragraph.  Your bias is clearly showing.

Later,
George


-- 
Who needs the NEA when you have NBC?
From: Silvano Maffeis <maffeis@ifi.unizh.ch>
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: CODA
Date: 5 Oct 1992 05:27:16 GMT
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <1aj0acINN5s5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> eric@cs.sfu.ca (Eric Kolotyluk) writes:
>2. As a systems adminitrator, `I don't want to deal with this shit!'.
>   Can we build systems that can adapt to the user requirements without
>   systems administrator intervention?

I know CODA only from papers I read about. I have no practical
experiences, I must admit.

But I think Eric addresses a very important problem here. For example, the
replication of files/volumes has to be steared manually in many
known flexible filesystems. If I remember right, in coda one has to
set an importance-value (a "hint") for many files. The replication 
process is parametrized with these hints. But what happens in future large
scale filesystems (>10000 nodes and >1'000'000 files)? 

I think an automated mechanism, a "heuristic", is needed for dynamically
steering the replication process in a large scale system. The heuristic
should take into account the actual update traffic, r/w ratios etc
before allowing additional replicas etc. Replicas should also be
generated by this mechanism by avoiding manual intervention as much as
possible.

..just a few thoughts...

silvano maffeis

-- 
Silvano Maffeis       CS Dept. University of Zurich, Switzerland
   RFC822: maffeis@ifi.unizh.ch            voice: +411 257 43 27
   X.400: /S=maffeis/OU=ifi/O=unizh/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/
From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: distributed shell
Date: 26 Sep 1992 19:55:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University College, UNSW/ADFA, Canberra, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

I am working on what I call a distributed shell implementing a
`poorman's distribution'.

The idea is that I don't want to change the OS kernel and I don't want
to change precompiled applications, but I want the shell to use a
(homogeneous) network of hosts as if they were a single site of
execution, and to make the shell choose execution location and make
redirections work remotely.  (There's a lot more to it than that.)

Currently, I'm using SunOS (4.1.2) and modifying the shared library to
turn things like remote read into something more like an RPC to where
the data is without changing the compiled program.  (We can't afford
SunOS source, and I don't think I should have to bother with most of
the sources anyway.)

Is there any work in this area I need to be aware of?  Any references
I should read or contacts I should make?  (I am aware of something in
a recent SIGOPS about binary wrapping.  My technique is similar but
with a different goal.)

-- Christopher
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: NT sources and other info.
Date: 1 Oct 1992 05:01:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <1a9thlINN9s3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
...
> [...]
>	1. Disk buffers are first class objects whose ownership changes from
>           the OS to the application when a read is complete.  This alleviates
>           any need for copying in the device driver.

    The idea of integrating disk I/O and VM subsystems was originated two
    decades ago, if not earlier.  Besides, if NT is to become Posix-compliant,
    some byte-copying must take place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------