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

[Jeff Hubbs]

My understanding of the terms mirrors Kenneth's as he said at the end of 
his message.  There's MVS-style or CDC-style batch operation, there's 
VAX-style and UNIX-style interactive usage, and there's real-time - like 
an autopilot or a fuel-injection system.

Kenneth W Cochran wrote:

>>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
>_______________________________________________
>Ale mailing list
>Ale at ale.org
>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
>  
>