[ale] "real-time" (was Linux job)

[Kenneth W Cochran]

>From: Christopher Fowler <cfowler at outpostsentinel.com>
>To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale at ale.org>
>Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:54:04 -0500
>Subject: Re: [ale] Linux job
>
>On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:35 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
>> Classified by who?  Microsoft I'm sure.  Does anyone else really 
>> consider these to be real time implementations?
>
>Years ago UNIX was considered a real-time system vs what the main frame
>is.  The MF is not real-time.  More like job oriented.  

Maybe a description/semantic difference?  E.g. maybe they're
using "real-time" in context of what that (roughly) meant some
25 years ago as compared to "interactive?"  Seems I remember
the likes of PDP & VAX (RSTS & VMS respectively) being called
"real-time" because people/users used them in "real time" aka
"interactively" when Big Iron of the day (MVS & descendants)
was more "batch oriented" & kinda "faked it" with the likes
of TSO :).

Nowadays especially I'd refer/consider "batch," "interactive"
and "real-time" as 3 very different scenarios.  :)

-kc