Having a network made the problem of command language incompatibility less of an issue. A researcher could use the hardware and OS of choice and at least send messages to a different piece of hardware with some other OS. With the right software, one could send messages to users and also execute commands and jobs. There was less need to learn many different command languages.
According to Bob Taylor of ARPA, this is the problem he wanted to solve. He was an early victim of the swivel chair approach to IS (having to work with many different terminals). We still have that problem, of course, so obviously networks don't solve everything! (I get the info about Bob Taylor secondhand from the book Where Wizards Stay Up Late. It's possible the author slightly misinterpreted what he said about his goals. The book is fascinating but there are a few cases where someone who actually works in the industry kind of wonders about the details described.) Priscilla At 08:17 PM 3/28/02, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >ARPA managers were irritated by the lack of communications between diverse > >systems and the need to learn many arcane command languages to talk to each > >system. > > > >Priscilla > >But ARPANET just gave you the pipes. You still had to use CP/CMS on >the 360/67, MULTICS on the Honeywells, NCP CLI on the Vaxen, JCL or >TSO on the other 360s and 370s, EXEC 8 language on the 1108s, etc.... > >I will agree that the incompatible communications _protocols_ were an >issue, but ARPANET did nothing to solve command language >compatibility. ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39875&t=39657 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
