Talk:Compatible Time-Sharing System
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought about moving this to "Compaitble Time-Sharing System", and turning this into a disambig page, but I don't have the energy; the Cray system is so rare, and the MIT system so historic, I'm not sure it's the right move anyway. Noel 19:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The system is best known by its abbreviation. I think having a disambiguation page where 99% of all people will go one way is pretty lame, so I think the current setup is the right way to go.
- By the way, what was CTSS compatible with? I never could figure that out. [Ans: FMS; see article.]
[edit] CTSS Source code
Paul Pierce's CTSS source archive is at
http://www.piercefuller.com/library/ctss.html?id=ctss
There you can find a 5MB ZIP of the CTSS listing tape, with everything. Supervisor, commands, salvager, etc. This is a wonderful resource. You'll have to know a little FAP and MAD to understand it. There are even a few programs in AED-0, an Algol variant.
Rob Storey has been posting in alt.folklore.computers about the 7094 emulator he's writing. It has progressed to the point where it can run IBSYS and FORTRAN IV. Some folks suggested that he try CTSS next. Sounds like a great project.
[from alt.folklore.computers http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=thvv-22E63B.22555910092004%40comcast.dca.giganews.com]
[edit] Cambridge Time Sharing System
I removed the reference to an IBM "Cambridge Time Sharing System". I don't think there was such a thing. This may have been a conflation of "Cambridge Monitor System" and "TSS" which of course had nothing to do with each other. I also changed the reference from Project MAC to the Comp Center. Trevor Hanson 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 27K?
The statement that users could only use 27K and the "monitor" took 5K is incorrect. It may have been true for FMS but it does not apply to CTSS commands, which could use all 32K. (Just because it is written in a book doesn't make it true. I was there, I remember.) What is the protocol for fixing errors like this so that some weenie doesn't unfix it? Thvv 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The key first step is what you did: Discuss it here, and include whatever specifics you can track down. Then fix the article as well as possible. If possible, try to find some kind of documentary evidence, e.g. an old reference manual, and cite it in the text, or at least (if it's something that might be disputed) include a footnote. Your note might be something like this: <ref>CTSS commands could use all 32K. A citation is sought to document this; please see the discussion page.</ref>. Provide your best available information. With luck, somebody else will be able to provide a source. As you know, the intent of Wikipedia to include verifiable information; firsthand knowledge, even if accurate and interesting, does not strictly speaking belong here (otherwise there is no way to weed out false or misremembered firsthand claims). On the other hand, and particularly with technical subjects, most Wikians would prefer to get the facts straight first, and then assemble the citations to back them up. By all means, don't leave known falsehoods in place. At the very least discuss them, and challenge them with a {{fact}} tag. If a citation is wrong, and we know this does happen, then challenge the source on the discussion page. Even the weenies here are generally well-intentioned, and don't want falsehoods to persist. I hope this is helpful input. Trevor Hanson 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
