Talk:IBM CP-40

message: I am currently revising/creating a series of articles related to the early days of CP/CMS. This involves the various systems referenced by the family tree at the end of this article, plus entries on Cambridge Scientific Center, Lincoln Laboratory, Type-III product, etc. Kindly bear with me while I get the various pages in synch. (I was doing some of this work in a private sandbox, but thought it would be better to start putting out some text. I do intend to provide a good number of citations and references, plus do some systematic editing/wordsmithing, over the next few weeks. Obviously feel free to jump in and fix anything that needs attention. Trevor Hanson 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan

message: You know that I applaud your efforts, but it is frustrating to see the confusion caused by sloppy terminology.  The naming of projects and products was very specific and, in many cases, illuminating.  Let me put on my pedant's hat:
*CP-40 was the experimental hypervisor kernel developed for the IBM CSC System/360-40.
*Cambridge Monitor System or CMS was a single-user, standalone "shell" that could run directly on a System/360 or in a virtualized System/360.
*CP-67 was the second-generation hypervisor kernel developed for the IBM System/360 Model 67.
*CP-67/CMS was the packaged system including both CP-67 and CMS.
*Virtual Machine Facility/370 was the official IBM product name of the third-generation System Control Program (SCP) developed for the IBM System/370-Advanced Function (S/370-AF) processors; VM/370 was the abbreviated designation.
*VM-CP was the proper name for the hypervisor kernel component of VM/370; VM/370-CP was often used as an alternate designation.
*VM-CMS was the proper name for the Conversational Monitor System or (ambiguously) CMS component of VM/370.  It was one of several subsystems distributed in the VM/370 package.
*Subsequent versions and options of the Virtual Machine Facility/370 package were developed and marketed for supporting specific IBM processor features and software capabilites:
**VM/370-VMA - Virtual Machine Assist (microcode feature)
**VM/370-BSEPP - Basic System Extension Program Product
**VM/370-SEPP - System Extension Program Product (I think)
**VM/HPO - High Performance Option
**VM/XA - Extended Architecture
**zVM - eServer zSeries (currently available)
*Over the years a widening collection of related subsystems were made available, as well:
**CLMON
**CPREMOTE
**CP2780
**VMREMOTE
**VNET
**RSCS
**RACF
Melinda Varian's paper is likely to be the best source for the earlier variations, but IBM Product Marketing took over the naming game in 1972.  If you mix up the names of components with the names of packaged collections, you fall into the naming trap epitomized by UNIX, Linux, OpenBSD, etc.  Is it the kernel?  Is it a package?  Is it a project?  Whose Linux?  Which processor(s)?
Dave Tuttle 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very, very helpful comments, much appreciated. I completely agree with your lament about inaccurate terminology, and regret my own additions to the confusion. Over the years, we have tended to abbreviate or misapply names, to the point where backtracing is difficult. This is precisely the kind of cleanup that I think is so badly needed -- to try to get a really good, accurate record of what happened, when, and what it was called. I will try to pull all this together shortly. Perhaps I jumped the gun – but by putting out some rough text, at least it elicited this nice summary from you. :) Trevor Hanson 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What is this, "naming trap," of which you speak?  UNIX has no problem, each UNIX is it's own operating system developed by a company, there is no issue telling AIX apart from A/UX, Solaris will never be mixed up with IRIX.  Nor does OpenBSD, it is an operating system developed by a group of people, it's development is referred to as a project and it it makes and distributes OpenSSH, nothing getting, "trapped," as far as I can see.  The only potential, "trap," is the issue regarding the Linux naming controversy, where the Linux kernel and it's GNU/BSD/public domain UNIX/X Windows/random other people userland are sometimes called Linux, or GNU/Linux as a set of codebases.  Each Linux-based distribution desides if it's going to call itself a Linux or not.  Fedora Core, or Ubuntu, Debian GNU/Linux, they're all pretty much the same operating system with minor variance.  There is a minor issue of confusion because of stupid people bumping egos, but I see no, "trap," with it.  Care to explain what you're going on about?  Janizary 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll let Dave answer with specificity but I presume he's talking about the unclear naming lines between kernels, distros, packages, sets of packages, etc. When you say "Linux" do you just mean the kernel, or the ecosystem of code installed on a particular Linux machine? Again, he said: "Is it the kernel?  Is it a package?  Is it a project?  Whose Linux?  Which processor(s)?" The answer can range from "One of the above" to "All of the above." This led to a lot of confusion in the SCO litigation. To say that there is no confusion about the UNIX name with OpenBSD is to miss the point, I think. The fact that there may be a strict legal/trademark definition ignores the reality of how the name UNIX is used and misused. Trevor Hanson 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How an idiot misuses the term irony does not change the meaning of the word itself, it still means, "the use of words to express something other tham their literal intention."  It doesn't matter what Alanis Morissette says or does, coincidence and bad luck will never be ironic.  X is X, it is not Linux, GNU is a bunch of poorly made userland tools, it is not Linux, the Linux kernel, the centre of a whole bunch of operating systems referred to as Linux distributions, is Linux, though mob rule attempts to dictate otherwise and call those operating systems which contain Linux simply Linux.  Packages have no problem, somerandomprogramme-1.3.7p.rpm is the 1.3.7p release of somerandomprogramme in binary form.  Each and every operating system which uses the Linux kernel has it's own name, I cannot fathom any issue with their nomenclature, Ubuntu is Ubuntu, it is not Yellow Dog Linux, nor is it openSUSE.  Processors have nothing to do with the naming confusion caused by mass stupidiy, there has never been a Linux processor, it's just a bunch of people who refuse to speak clearly, as with many people referring to their computers and their operating systems as the same thing, your Dell Latitude is not Windows no matter how many times someone asks to see your Windows.  How one may illegally use a trademark is not going to change the meaning of the word, UNIX is not a generic term, it is a specific licensed term controlled by a company.  If Dave was simply saying, "let's not all be stupid," he could simply have said that rather than go on about Linux.  Janizary 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Although this issue seems so clear to you, I don't believe everyone shares your view. There is no "official" definition of the term 'irony' – like all other words in the language, its meaning is determined by usage, and may undergo semantic change over time. Thus, although today 'irony' indeed does not mean coincidence or bad luck, who knows what it will mean in 50 years? You assert that "UNIX is not a generic term, it is a specific licensed term controlled by a company." However many observers disagree. It is indeed a licensed term controlled by a company, but as seen with 'Xerox' and 'Coke,' tradenames are difficult to protect. Many people use the term UNIX is a generic way; see Unix-like. You and OSF argue that they are wrong, and are violating a trademark; but others disagree and are pursuing the matter in court. Bottom line: I understood immediately what Dave Tuttle (who speaks from the perspective of a long and distinguished career) meant when he referred to a naming trap involving UNIX, Linux, and related technologies. Anyway, this discussion has drifted off topic, and probably belongs on a blog or forum somewhere. It has nothing to do with CP-40. It certainly did not merit what are close to ad hominem comments about the contributors. Trevor Hanson 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate Terminology