corbato:32:John McCarthy and research on time-sharing, cooperation between corbato:35:session include: time-sharing, the development of MULTICS by the corbato:1433:of time-sharing - this time especially on MULTICS. I would like to corbato:1438:facility in the computing system was required if time-sharing corbato:1477:Seymour Cray didn't believe in time-sharing. He was preoccupied corbato:1601:occasion. McCarthy gave a pitch for time-sharing, trying to get corbato:1739:CORBATO: Yes, with their own time-sharing system. They ultimately corbato:2062:a continued... Time-sharing only revealed the problem. We have corbato:2091:reasons why it didn't get the kind of attention that time-sharing corbato:2117:time-sharing systems to get cheaper and simpler. Let me back off. corbato:2142:that we assumed when we were building time-sharing systems, a very fano:29:the Information Processing Techniques Office of ARPA; time-sharing fano:205:Now by that time the idea of time-sharing was already moving, and fano:206:they proposed the development at MIT of a time-sharing system. fano:216:that was when I first learned about time-sharing really. I also fano:377:FANO: Oh, yes. I was aware. You see, the history of time-sharing fano:435:was around I went with him to see the time-sharing system that was fano:472:with a time-sharing system. I agreed. In other words, they were fano:487:on a time-sharing system there too. And Licklider, at that time, fano:519:computer science focus on time-sharing. Well, that was Friday. fano:637:standpoint, this was the opportunity to really push time-sharing fano:657:Licklider's mind to get people hooked on time-sharing, man-machine fano:668:that time that thought that time-sharing was for the birds. The fano:691:right now I do not recall, was well aware of time-sharing, and he fano:692:would have loved to use time-sharing, but you know, Jay Forrester fano:697:FANO: He had already developed a compiler for a time-sharing fano:719:around with time-sharing. We had a lot of terminals in homes, fano:729:using the time-sharing system. That inhibited their family life. fano:786:nine-page summary of what he thought the time-sharing project was fano:826:skeptical about time-sharing, like Hamming and most other fano:828:became one of the strong protagonists of time-sharing. He has fano:842:major result. The second is that we had two time-sharing systems fano:843:available to the participants. One was the SDC time-sharing fano:865:useful time-sharing system. One was a disk file, and the IBM 1301 fano:868:critical technologies that helped time-sharing physically. fano:873:exploring time-sharing. I think basically those were the two fano:922:chance to try a time-sharing system. Lincoln Laboratory, you know, fano:1103:standing there when he saw a demonstration of time-sharing, the fano:1170:about the recommendation of having a time-sharing system if it had fano:1297:Santa Monica? They were using the time-sharing system between feigenbaum:24:recruitment by ARPA in 1964 to work on a time-sharing system at kahn:1101:by virtue of its transition through industry. Time-sharing was an kahn:1111:and how they started using time-sharing, not directly but by having kleinrock:115:first paper on the mathematical evaluation of time-shared systems kleinrock:143:to time-sharing performance evaluation and to computer network kleinrock:146:began in queueing theory and in time-share modeling, in the early kleinrock:232:work on time-sharing. And every time an investigator got a new kleinrock:242:motivating reasons, namely, to reduce the number of time-sharing kleinrock:301:on time-sharing and said, "If this network can't give me a half a kleinrock:302:second response time, then I can't use it for time-sharing." kleinrock:487:time-shared modeling, and then moved into networking with support kleinrock:490:was the ARPANET, for me.Now, of course, the time-sharing work was kleinrock:1136:with a number of projects. You named them before: time-sharing, lick:368:Naval Research, I think, to develop a time-sharing system.That started lick:505:We even built a time-sharing system on it,although it was more just an lick:507:really to time-share.But,just to prove it could be done,we divided the lick:513:LICK: Well, there's a paper about that time-sharing system. I do lick:516:them for letting usget ahead of them in demonstrating the time-sharing lick:518:BBN one was quite special purpose. It was a time-sharing system for lick:521:ASPRAY: Do you know the origin of the time-sharing concept in this lick:537:rather stimulated BBN into doing the time-sharing system.At that point lick:551:people working on besides this time-sharing and trying to make thePDP1 lick:891:big, time-shared computer. lick:1213:turn a machine into a time-sharing system, which I think he enjoyed lick:1222:ASPRAY:You were clearly committed to this time-sharing,or interactive lick:1353:LICK: Well, some of them were to build time-sharing systems, lick:1354:because we needed to have time-sharing systems before we could do man lick:1728:them. ONR had had Corby started on the time-sharing system and the lick:1731:gotten it going. Berkeley had a time-sharing system running on an SDS lick:1734:ASPRAY: Had they already started time-sharing before you came along? lick:1736:LICK: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory lick:1737:and a computer and everything else,and the time-sharing part was lick:1740:exciting.At SDC,well,I think their time-sharing system ran before I left lick:1757:interactive computing;I wanted time-sharing.I wanted:"Computers are lick:1782:got to be artificial intelligence.There's got to be time-sharing lick:1876:then,but sure:operating systems,time-sharing systems and thelike, lukasik:1080:general purpose time-shared computer, don't expect to make as much mccarthy:24:establishment and development of time-sharing at the Massachusetts mccarthy:59:set up a time-sharing project at MIT he wanted me to be the head of mckenzie:68:the documentation of the time-sharing system that BBN had built for mckenzie:431:they'd be connected to a time-sharing system where they had an mckenzie:454:10 TENEX systems. And ARPA gave accounts on those time-sharing mckenzie:1282:(Incompatible Time-Sharing) system, and a few other computers. mckenzie:1293:another one,and UCLA where they had a Sigma 7 time-sharing system newel:1360:trying to get a time-sharing system? newel:1363:decision that we couldn't bring up a time-sharing system that we newel:1368:build a time-sharing system. The thing that was not in the newel:1390:basic machines and so forth. They were interested in time-sharing. newel:1398:to construct a time-sharing system that involved supporting Project newel:1399:MAC, and supporting the time-sharing system there, CTSS, and a newel:1400:time-sharing system at SDC, and supporting us here, which was a newel:1438:like, turn out to be time-shared. newel:1440:NEWELL: '65. When the IBM time-sharing system comes in, and newel:1442:time-sharing. newel:1448:was again our working towards time-sharing. It was a form of time newel:1454:others. In fact, you don't get good time-sharing out of things newel:2340:interested in time-sharing; so in fact, there were clearly things newel:2344:issue of their time-sharing system. I think, in fact, that Al newel:2346:sharing efforts, the time-sharing efforts here, none in which I was newel:4494:to time-sharing -- John McCarthy in particular. But what was going newel:4497:time-sharing, and tablets, and communications and so forth. I newel:4501:times in his life. He had it for time-sharing too. The AI newel:5395:for the program and therefore continue the time-sharing activities newel:5396:and things around time-sharing in the few universities that are newel:5607:of the earth -- networks, graphics, time-sharing -- partly because newel:5796:then, in fact, the time-sharing, list processing, which in one ornstein:36:views on artificial intelligence and time-sharing. This interview ornstein:1455:don't see much in the way of time-sharing in places these days. ornstein:1465:O'NEILL: Did you use any of the early time-sharing systems? ornstein:1503:user machines.Up until then, you either time-shared, in parallel, ornstein:1511:After the LINC group left Lincoln Laboratory, time-sharing became ross:118:until just before (i.e. in 1962 ?) we got into the time-sharing ross:414:the starting of the time-sharing idea took place in some meetings ross:427:in any case, the actual start up of the idea of time-sharing and ross:445:applications you were doing versus the time-sharing idea of having ross:447:difference there or was time-sharing seen as just a step in the ross:464:evolution to have the time-sharing idea come along. Again, that ross:472:was slow in recognizing how important time-sharing was, and that it ross:549:where the time-sharing idea could've been pushed more within IBM ross:553:think. Anyhow, there were a couple of other big time-sharing ross:559:the other inside-IBM time-sharing projects. ross:599:other time-sharing systems at the time--were you familiar with the simpson:1361:NORBERG: ...including time-sharing and networking and so on in the sutherland:1260:they needed to have some push into the time-sharing world. They sutherld:1261:had this big computer called theQ32 that they made a time-sharing taylor:173:Genie at Berkeley, a time-share project at the Systems Development winston:442:on separate floors, the staff were working with the time-sharing winston:1135:example of that is time-sharing. I guess I've kind of lost track winston:1136:of who actually invented time-sharing. I know John McCarthy must ==== corbato:32:John McCarthy and research on time-sharing, cooperation between : Corbato discusses computer science research, especially time- sharing, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Topics in the first session include: Phil Morse and the establishment of the Computation Center, Corbato's management of the Computation Center, the development of the WHIRLWIND computer, John McCarthy and research on time-sharing, cooperation between International Business Machines (IBM) and MIT, and J. C. R. Licklider and the development of Project MAC. Topics in the second session include: time-sharing, the development of MULTICS by the General Electric (GE) Computer Division, IBM's reaction to MIT working with GE, the development of CTSS, the development of UNIX ============================== corbato:35:session include: time-sharing, the development of MULTICS by the : establishment of the Computation Center, Corbato's management of the Computation Center, the development of the WHIRLWIND computer, John McCarthy and research on time-sharing, cooperation between International Business Machines (IBM) and MIT, and J. C. R. Licklider and the development of Project MAC. Topics in the second session include: time-sharing, the development of MULTICS by the General Electric (GE) Computer Division, IBM's reaction to MIT working with GE, the development of CTSS, the development of UNIX in cooperation with Bell Labs, interaction with the Information Processing Techniques Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, interaction with Honeywell after they purchased ============================== corbato:1433:of time-sharing - this time especially on MULTICS. I would like to : TAPE 3/SIDE 1 NORBERG: Today is November 14, 1990. I am in the offices of Fernando Corbato for session #2 of our interview on the development of time-sharing - this time especially on MULTICS. I would like to begin by referring to the opening of a publication by Glaser, Couleur and Oliver in 1965 which appeared in the fall Joint Computer Conference of 1965. The article starts out "In the late spring and early summer of 1964 it became obvious that greater facility in the computing system was required if time-sharing ============================== corbato:1438:facility in the computing system was required if time-sharing : of time-sharing - this time especially on MULTICS. I would like to begin by referring to the opening of a publication by Glaser, Couleur and Oliver in 1965 which appeared in the fall Joint Computer Conference of 1965. The article starts out "In the late spring and early summer of 1964 it became obvious that greater facility in the computing system was required if time-sharing techniques were moved from the state of an interesting pilot experiment into that of a useful prototype for remote access computer systems." What considerations led to the design of the MULTICS system? Do they emerge out of this kind of statement that is made here? ============================== corbato:1477:Seymour Cray didn't believe in time-sharing. He was preoccupied : responses varied. Some companies viewed it as an opportunity to bid in a military defense contract - a way to make money on the margin rather than affecting any product plans. That was my view of Burroughs. CDC was disinterested. That is my recollection, although I would have to check notes to confirm that. Again, Seymour Cray didn't believe in time-sharing. He was preoccupied with his own directions, and he dominated the company at that time. Some of the junior CDC people, who were chafing under the dominance of Cray were a little more interested. DEC didn't think they were big enough to take on something. They saw themselves as still too small a company, which in that day may have been true. IBM treated ============================== corbato:1601:occasion. McCarthy gave a pitch for time-sharing, trying to get : visited, do you remember, other than Seymour Cray at CDC, who you talked to at CDC, who you talked to at Burroughs, and so on. I want to come back to Burroughs for a moment. CORBATO: At CDC we went out and gave a site visit at least on one occasion. McCarthy gave a pitch for time-sharing, trying to get people to recognize the vision of what it could mean to have a machine organized in this particular way. NORBERG: Is this after he went to Stanford or before? ============================== corbato:1739:CORBATO: Yes, with their own time-sharing system. They ultimately : very lame in performance. And they basically, after a period of a year or two, withdrew it as a product. By this time it was obvious that we were not a competitor. So a saga in their... NORBERG: This is the model 67 that you are talking about. CORBATO: Yes, with their own time-sharing system. They ultimately salvaged their commercial interests by using the system that later came to be called VM - virtual memory. But I am digressing a bit here. So that's how IBM reacted. The way we picked up partners was also important because it set the tone of how MULTICS developed. We started by our deciding to work with GE. ============================== corbato:2091:reasons why it didn't get the kind of attention that time-sharing : NORBERG: Let me quote for you something that Jack Dennis said, because it follows from this, and I want an elaboration of it actually, because when Judy O'Neill interviewed him she didn't follow up this point. In talking about MULTICS and some of the reasons why it didn't get the kind of attention that time-sharing generally received he said that "Certainly, what actually happened is that microprocessors came along, and distributed computing came along. And that turned out to be so economically attractive that the advantages that MULTICS had to offer in terms of being able to build subsystems and all the protection capabilities in it and so ============================== corbato:2117:time-sharing systems to get cheaper and simpler. Let me back off. : that is trying to think of future solutions. What happened was that, you know, the economic priorities became paramount, and the microprocessor and distributed systems were things that were basically so important to give people the autonomy they wanted. They were prepared to go that route rather than to try to wait for time-sharing systems to get cheaper and simpler. Let me back off. It seems to me there is a very deep and powerful reason why the computing field didn't go the route of every organization having a MULTICS. It's the same reason why the public transportation systems have been, in many instances, replaced by the private individual automobiles. The thing that people treasure in the ============================== corbato:2142:that we assumed when we were building time-sharing systems, a very : concerns. So Jack is absolutely right. All the problems that we tried to lick from a central point of view are now coming back to us. The solutions will probably have to be somewhat different in detail because of the distributed nature of the problem, and because of the distributed responsibility, which is the one thing that we assumed when we were building time-sharing systems, a very deep-seated assumption, is that there was a central group responsible for the integrity of the system. And the one thing you have to assume when you have distributed private systems is that there is no central group. There are traffic laws when people know how to behave to each other, but they are based in part on good ============================== fano:29:the Information Processing Techniques Office of ARPA; time-sharing : Fano discusses his move to computer science from information theory and his interaction with the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Topics include: computing research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); the work of J. C. R. Licklider at the Information Processing Techniques Office of ARPA; time-sharing and computer networking research; Project MAC; computer science education; CTSS development; System Development Corporation (SDC); the development of ARPANET; and a comparison of ARPA, National Science Foundation, and Office of Naval Research computer science funding. Robert M. Fano Interview ============================== fano:205:Now by that time the idea of time-sharing was already moving, and : was a member. But I do not recall -- he probably left for Washington. But he did not really play a part. We promptly appointed a technical committee, which consisted of the various computer types at MIT: Corby, and John McCarthy, and Minsky, and Doug Ross, and Jack Dennis were there. Herb Teager was chairman. Now by that time the idea of time-sharing was already moving, and they proposed the development at MIT of a time-sharing system. NORBERG: They, meaning the technical committee. FANO: Yes. At that time they were thinking in terms of using a ============================== fano:206:they proposed the development at MIT of a time-sharing system. : Washington. But he did not really play a part. We promptly appointed a technical committee, which consisted of the various computer types at MIT: Corby, and John McCarthy, and Minsky, and Doug Ross, and Jack Dennis were there. Herb Teager was chairman. Now by that time the idea of time-sharing was already moving, and they proposed the development at MIT of a time-sharing system. NORBERG: They, meaning the technical committee. FANO: Yes. At that time they were thinking in terms of using a special computer or whatever. Now there was some argument in the ============================== fano:216:that was when I first learned about time-sharing really. I also : special computer or whatever. Now there was some argument in the committee. I really do not know the details. Herb wanted to present his report and it was that thick [indicates several inches]. Eventually the committee said, "No." The report that eventually came out was essentially chaired by John McCarthy. Now, that was when I first learned about time-sharing really. I also got to know Corby. There was a little more connection there, because when John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky were getting going as assistant professors on the faculty, they were jointly sponsored by RLE and the Computation Center. And in RLE I was kind of in the role of senior faculty talking to them. The fact was that my field ============================== fano:377:FANO: Oh, yes. I was aware. You see, the history of time-sharing : question from Licklider spurred me to develop that. NORBERG: Were you aware of what he was doing out at BBN in timesharing in 1961? FANO: Oh, yes. I was aware. You see, the history of time-sharing dates back to January 1, 1959, with a memorandum by John McCarthy to Phil Morse. Now what happened at MIT was that, again, Herb Teager started working on that. TAPE 1/SIDE 2 ============================== fano:435:was around I went with him to see the time-sharing system that was : and the administration, or not? FANO: No, there was none. The thing moved very fast. I knew Licklider's goal. You know, I knew Licklider pretty well. When he came around, I talked with him. As a matter a fact, once when he was around I went with him to see the time-sharing system that was already in operation in an elementary fashion. So I saw the people sitting at the typewriter, working. Well, I had this thought. You know, I felt bad that nothing was happening. NORBERG: Yes. Can I get something clear, Bob, if you do not mind? ============================== fano:472:with a time-sharing system. I agreed. In other words, they were : which was Licklider's point. NORBERG: In what way was it a mess? FANO: Licklider's point was that those things ought to be done with a time-sharing system. I agreed. In other words, they were trying to use batch processing to handle those kinds of operational things, and that was just nonsense. Basically that was the idea. So, you know where the Old Homestead is? NORBERG: Yes. ============================== fano:487:on a time-sharing system there too. And Licklider, at that time, : talked and talked and talked about the situation, what needed to be done, and the man-machine interaction. He had written this paper on man-machine symbiosis by then. I was familiar with what he was doing at BBN, and incidentally we stopped talking about that. You see, John McCarthy was a consultant at BBN, and he got them started on a time-sharing system there too. And Licklider, at that time, was on a library project at BBN. He started using computers as part of that project. He got enamored with computers. He got a PDP-1; I remember seeing it. So, I came back to Boston... NORBERG: Can we finish the train ride, though? Did the two of you ============================== fano:519:computer science focus on time-sharing. Well, that was Friday. : NORBERG: [laugh] What did you propose to him though, that he would so quickly respond? FANO: It was the sort of thing that Licklider wanted, namely a computer science focus on time-sharing. Well, that was Friday. During the weekend I wrote a two-page memo outlining what I had in mind, which probably you have a copy of in those documents, because I wanted a tie with education because I always thought education was the primary goal of MIT. So I wrote this and I distributed it to key people, like my department head, who was Peter Elias at that ============================== fano:637:standpoint, this was the opportunity to really push time-sharing : FANO: Well, computational facilities were scarce. That was why that committee was set up. We were very limited and people wanted more computer time. Furthermore, of course, although they were supported they always had an idea of doing more if they could get the money. From an MIT standpoint and the computer center standpoint, this was the opportunity to really push time-sharing and experiment with it and improve it out of the constraint of supplying the traditional batch processing service to the MIT community. So everybody had some stake in it. NORBERG: How did you decide who got money and who did not? ============================== fano:657:Licklider's mind to get people hooked on time-sharing, man-machine : sharing. So most of the money that was supplied, let me say, outside the core computer science effort. You know, there was a user community, and a community of computer types -- regardless of where they were physically. Now the user community was very important. It was important in my mind, and it was important in Licklider's mind to get people hooked on time-sharing, man-machine interaction. So the biggest contribution to the community was in the form of computer time, which initially was free. There were lots and lots of people. As a matter of fact, it not only was free but we were pushing it on people, because we wanted to get them involved. ============================== fano:668:that time that thought that time-sharing was for the birds. The : NORBERG: Did anyone refuse to participate that you remember? FANO: There are some funny stories about that. Like the story of... Well, maybe to preface this, there were lots of people at that time that thought that time-sharing was for the birds. The general attitude was, you know, when you compute something then you have got to look at the result and think before you do anything else. So this man-machine interaction was a waste of computer time. As a matter of fact, that went to an extreme. Hamming at Bell Laboratory said to me something that I cannot quote perfectly, ============================== fano:691:right now I do not recall, was well aware of time-sharing, and he : to do so." Then I said, "Why don't you come along too? You may be interested to see it too." He said, "Yes, maybe I will come along." Well, it was a little bit of a conspiracy, because his chief programmer Pugh -- was it Pugh? Yes. -- who had developed the language for industrial dynamics, and the name of the other, right now I do not recall, was well aware of time-sharing, and he would have loved to use time-sharing, but you know, Jay Forrester has his way. NORBERG: I see. ============================== fano:692:would have loved to use time-sharing, but you know, Jay Forrester : interested to see it too." He said, "Yes, maybe I will come along." Well, it was a little bit of a conspiracy, because his chief programmer Pugh -- was it Pugh? Yes. -- who had developed the language for industrial dynamics, and the name of the other, right now I do not recall, was well aware of time-sharing, and he would have loved to use time-sharing, but you know, Jay Forrester has his way. NORBERG: I see. FANO: He had already developed a compiler for a time-sharing ============================== fano:697:FANO: He had already developed a compiler for a time-sharing : would have loved to use time-sharing, but you know, Jay Forrester has his way. NORBERG: I see. FANO: He had already developed a compiler for a time-sharing system. So he could run a compiler on the timesharing system and see what resulted. You see, and Dick Mills knew that, because they knew each other quite well. So when Forrester came here with a visitor, Dick Mills demonstrated this whole affair. I was away that... ============================== fano:719:around with time-sharing. We had a lot of terminals in homes, : NORBERG: Just like that. FANO: Just like that. I'll tell you where we failed. We put a terminal in Claude Shannon's home, and he really never used it, although his wife, Betty, did. I just could not get him to play around with time-sharing. We had a lot of terminals in homes, which was a decision that I made, and it turned out to be the right decision -- but a lot of people found it was not right. NORBERG: Was not right? ============================== fano:729:using the time-sharing system. That inhibited their family life. : FANO: Yes. But you know, it was in peoples' homes. Look, you have got to bring yourself to that time. The reason why I did it was because I was very well aware of how hard people worked. They were willing to stay here even in the evening for the purpose of using the time-sharing system. That inhibited their family life. So I said, "My God, it's cheap." I only need the terminal, probably, the telephone line -- a private line to people's homes. NORBERG: Were the lines effective as a communication device, though? ============================== fano:786:nine-page summary of what he thought the time-sharing project was : study. That went very well. NORBERG: That is where I would like to pick up tomorrow, with the summer study itself. But I have one more question about Licklider. I have seen in the Project MAC memorandum that Licklider wrote a nine-page summary of what he thought the time-sharing project was in April of 1963. Do you recall this at all? It's downstairs where we can look at it tomorrow if you like. FANO: For ARPA, you mean? ============================== fano:826:skeptical about time-sharing, like Hamming and most other : the one, for instance, that brought Maurice Wilkes here for the summer study. He knew Wilkes quite well. So he invited him. As a matter of fact, Wilkes was here before the summer study on a visit for some reason. I met him then and invited him. And he came. He was quite interesting, because he started out being very skeptical about time-sharing, like Hamming and most other oldtimers. He completely switched sides during the summer, and became one of the strong protagonists of time-sharing. He has visited here many, many times since. As a matter of fact, recently he was in Cambridge for two or three years. Yes, he was visiting Harvard. He was also an adjunct professor here. ============================== fano:828:became one of the strong protagonists of time-sharing. He has : a matter of fact, Wilkes was here before the summer study on a visit for some reason. I met him then and invited him. And he came. He was quite interesting, because he started out being very skeptical about time-sharing, like Hamming and most other oldtimers. He completely switched sides during the summer, and became one of the strong protagonists of time-sharing. He has visited here many, many times since. As a matter of fact, recently he was in Cambridge for two or three years. Yes, he was visiting Harvard. He was also an adjunct professor here. NORBERG: How did the summer study work? What went on during the ============================== fano:842:major result. The second is that we had two time-sharing systems : each other and presented orally. Quite often we had some kind of meeting. I remember going around the corridor with a cow bell (laugh) to call everyone to come. There was not any specific focus and tangible output. Really, what took place was two things. People got to know each other and form a community. That was a major result. The second is that we had two time-sharing systems available to the participants. One was the SDC time-sharing system. NORBERG: SDC? ============================== fano:843:available to the participants. One was the SDC time-sharing : meeting. I remember going around the corridor with a cow bell (laugh) to call everyone to come. There was not any specific focus and tangible output. Really, what took place was two things. People got to know each other and form a community. That was a major result. The second is that we had two time-sharing systems available to the participants. One was the SDC time-sharing system. NORBERG: SDC? FANO: System Development Corporation. ============================== fano:865:useful time-sharing system. One was a disk file, and the IBM 1301 : installed, while the SDC system worked on tapes. So CTSS was relatively fast for any user trying to get hold of a file or using any material in the system, while SDC took quite awhile, because they had to search the tape. This certainly made it clear to me that there were two technologies that were essential to having a useful time-sharing system. One was a disk file, and the IBM 1301 had just arrived. And the other was the transistor. The vacuum tube machines were not up long enough. So those were two clearly critical technologies that helped time-sharing physically. NORBERG: What do you think the summer school accomplished? ============================== fano:868:critical technologies that helped time-sharing physically. : they had to search the tape. This certainly made it clear to me that there were two technologies that were essential to having a useful time-sharing system. One was a disk file, and the IBM 1301 had just arrived. And the other was the transistor. The vacuum tube machines were not up long enough. So those were two clearly critical technologies that helped time-sharing physically. NORBERG: What do you think the summer school accomplished? FANO: Well, I would say, the first was getting people together, exploring time-sharing. I think basically those were the two ============================== fano:873:exploring time-sharing. I think basically those were the two : critical technologies that helped time-sharing physically. NORBERG: What do you think the summer school accomplished? FANO: Well, I would say, the first was getting people together, exploring time-sharing. I think basically those were the two things accomplished. Originally a report was supposed to come out. When I started thinking about it I did not have a thought about what had... It just did not make sense to make a report of the study. ============================== fano:922:chance to try a time-sharing system. Lincoln Laboratory, you know, : NORBERG: Number 23. FANO: Yes, there is a lot of that flavor of getting a community together, and at the same time, for most of them, it was the first chance to try a time-sharing system. Lincoln Laboratory, you know, was involved. NORBERG: What was your interaction with DARPA after the summer study? Do you remember observing the activities inside the IPTO office, especially after Licklider left? ============================== fano:1103:standing there when he saw a demonstration of time-sharing, the : installation. It could be done because of the mutual trust of those two men. Well, at one point the head contract man from ONR probably signed the contract, so it should be there someplace. Essentially he said, "Well, we are putting a lot money in Project MAC. I had better go and visit it." This was in the fall. I was standing there when he saw a demonstration of time-sharing, the things that were close to his interest, his eyes popped. He wanted the stuff. (laugh) So he gave a contract out of ONR, for the development of a business system. Now, when you talk about interaction with industry, there were people from everywhere that came to the lab. Very quickly it became like a shrine. You know, ============================== fano:1170:about the recommendation of having a time-sharing system if it had : NORBERG: Are we still talking about Evans? FANO: No, with Jay Stratton, who was president at that time. Well, you had asked me a question about what MIT would have done about the recommendation of having a time-sharing system if it had been circulated within the community. He would have that answer. NORBERG: I wonder if anything can be gained from talking to him that cannot be found from memoranda and various records of the ============================== fano:1297:Santa Monica? They were using the time-sharing system between : sharing system. This is something that at a certain point I tried to fix in collaboration -- start a project in collaboration -- with Bell Laboratory. But the laboratory backed out. NORBERG: Would this be similar to what Rand and SDC had going in Santa Monica? They were using the time-sharing system between them. FANO: No. The point is, how can you end the technical isolation of the individual who works at the terminal remote from other people? When he tries to do something that does not work he can't ============================== feigenbaum:24:recruitment by ARPA in 1964 to work on a time-sharing system at : 3 March 1989 Abstract Feigenbaum begins the interview with a description of his initial recruitment by ARPA in 1964 to work on a time-sharing system at Berkeley and his subsequent move to Stanford in 1965 to continue to do ARPA-sponsored research in artificial intelligence. The bulk of the interview is concerned with his work on AI at Stanford from 1965 to the early 1970s and his impression of the general working relationship between the IPT Office at ARPA and the researchers at ============================== kahn:1111:and how they started using time-sharing, not directly but by having : "Hey, great! We'll take it." [INTERRUPTION] O'NEILL: We were talking about the interaction with the military and how they started using time-sharing, not directly but by having it available from industry. KAHN: That was the typical method that was used before by the particular office that I was involved with. This approach was somewhat different from some of the other offices, however. If you ============================== kleinrock:115:first paper on the mathematical evaluation of time-shared systems : communication networks and that resulted in an MIT book called Communication Nets. It pre-dated its time. The work was good (I might say very good) but it was of no interest to people at that time. People had yet no idea about data networks. So it was early. I also did some work on timesharing. In fact, I did the first paper on the mathematical evaluation of time-shared systems in the same book, in the same thesis. And Larry, and I, and Ivan were very close. In fact, we all took our final thesis defense at the same time at Lincoln Lab because we had all run some packages on the TX2 computer as part of our research. So all of our supervisors came out including Claude Shannon, who was on my ============================== kleinrock:143:to time-sharing performance evaluation and to computer network : offered a position here although I had had no intention of teaching. I figured, "Why not try it?" I tried it, and I'm still here. It was great. I love teaching, I love research, I love the environment. My research interest at that time involved the mathematical specialty of queuing theory and its application both to time-sharing performance evaluation and to computer network performance evaluation. It turned out to be the right tool. But there was not yet much application for networking, so my research began in queueing theory and in time-share modeling, in the early 1960s and mid 1960s. In 1967, Larry, who was already at DARPA, was interested in putting together an ARPA network. He brought a bunch ============================== kleinrock:146:began in queueing theory and in time-share modeling, in the early : environment. My research interest at that time involved the mathematical specialty of queuing theory and its application both to time-sharing performance evaluation and to computer network performance evaluation. It turned out to be the right tool. But there was not yet much application for networking, so my research began in queueing theory and in time-share modeling, in the early 1960s and mid 1960s. In 1967, Larry, who was already at DARPA, was interested in putting together an ARPA network. He brought a bunch of us back to Washington to help him specify what this network would look like and what performance characteristics it would have. So he brought me back as well as some other people, and we ============================== kleinrock:232:work on time-sharing. And every time an investigator got a new : it. I was aware of but not participating in that experiment. I know that is what triggered Larry to try to get a system that would work more smoothly. The interesting thing is, as I recall, that part of the motivation for this network is the fact that in 1967, in the mid 1960s DARPA was heavily supporting a lot of people doing work on time-sharing. And every time an investigator got a new contract, the first thing he wanted was a computer - the best and biggest. Pretty soon Larry said, "This is getting ridiculous," because each facility they created evolved into a specialized kind of facility, like the graphics capability at Utah, the database capability at SRI, and the simulation capability at UCLA. So Larry ============================== kleinrock:242:motivating reasons, namely, to reduce the number of time-sharing : capability at SRI, and the simulation capability at UCLA. So Larry came up with the concept of a resource sharing network, where there would be specialized sites, and if you wanted that special capability, you connect to that site to get it, or you would pull back data or programs and use them locally. That was one of his motivating reasons, namely, to reduce the number of time-sharing systems he had to support. O'NEILL: Were you also keeping track of what Paul Baran was doing in his Rand reports? KLEINROCK: I was well aware of his results. In fact I quoted his ============================== kleinrock:301:on time-sharing and said, "If this network can't give me a half a : went to a meeting in Washington. KLEINROCK: I remember some of the people there. I remember that Tom Cheatham was there. I believe Herb Baskin was there also, and I think it was he, or it may have been Doug Engelbart, who was hot on time-sharing and said, "If this network can't give me a half a second response time, then I can't use it for time-sharing." So we specified that there should be a half a second response time. We soon found out it could give two tenths of a second response time using the 56 KBPS lines we had. But it was there that it was decided. And I banged my fist on the table and said, "We've got to ============================== kleinrock:302:second response time, then I can't use it for time-sharing." So we : KLEINROCK: I remember some of the people there. I remember that Tom Cheatham was there. I believe Herb Baskin was there also, and I think it was he, or it may have been Doug Engelbart, who was hot on time-sharing and said, "If this network can't give me a half a second response time, then I can't use it for time-sharing." So we specified that there should be a half a second response time. We soon found out it could give two tenths of a second response time using the 56 KBPS lines we had. But it was there that it was decided. And I banged my fist on the table and said, "We've got to put measurement software in there. If this is going to be an ============================== kleinrock:487:time-shared modeling, and then moved into networking with support : KLEINROCK: Very much so. And it had to do with the fact that I had this large ARPA contract that was supporting the things I was interested in, but also helped point the direction as to where the research should go. For example, there were phases of research that I passed through. I started doing some queueing theory, some time-shared modeling, and then moved into networking with support from DARPA. The ARPANET was the first piece of that. There were various waves of research that occurred from there on. Wave one was the ARPANET, for me. Now, of course, the time-sharing work was already being supported by DARPA elsewhere. I was not being supported at the time, but I was heavily involved in that research. ============================== kleinrock:490:was the ARPANET,for me. Now, of course, the time-sharing work was : research should go. For example, there were phases of research that I passed through. I started doing some queueing theory, some time-shared modeling, and then moved into networking with support from DARPA. The ARPANET was the first piece of that. There were various waves of research that occurred from there on. Wave one was the ARPANET, for me. Now, of course, the time-sharing work was already being supported by DARPA elsewhere. I was not being supported at the time, but I was heavily involved in that research. All of the money I received was used to support Ph.D. students. But also a big piece of the money that I was given by DARPA was used to support the implementation. You see, UCLA was in charge of ============================== kleinrock:1136:with a number of projects. You named them before: time-sharing, : KLEINROCK: Yes. I think that DARPA IPTO (now ISTO) was a prime mover for the United States in the advancement of computer technology through advanced thinking and... what shall I say... heroic funding of the things they thought were worthwhile. Their motto was, "High risk, high payoff." That's exactly what they did with a number of projects. You named them before: time-sharing, networking, AI, a few other areas. Networking was one of their major successes. They backed it fully; lots of money, lots of freedom in terms of what we were doing, really advanced technology. It was a great, great experiment - I can't applaud them more. It was one of the great experiments in science, I think. It ============================== licklider:368:Naval Research, I think, to develop a time-sharing system. That started : was he not? LICKLIDER: No, Phil Morse, the physicist, was head of the Computation Center, and Fernando Corbato was the Associate Director. At least somewhere along in there Corby had a contract with Office of Naval Research, I think, to develop a time-sharing system. That started before there was a Project MAC. It is conceivable Gordon Brown was director of the Computation Center at one time, but when I knew it, it was Phil Morse. NORBERG: I guess what I was trying to get you to say was something ============================== licklider:505:We even built a time-sharing system on it, although it was more just an : almost exactly a Radio Shack TRS 80-100 computer. It had about that computing power, a little less memory, and it ran a little slower. Everybody connected with it just sat at the console and did on-line interacting programming and since I was of the first one, I got most of the time. There were enough of us; we kept that thing running day and night. We even built a time-sharing system on it, although it was more just an exercise: because it was such a weak little computer, there was nothing really to time-share. But, just to prove it could be done, we divided the scope into four quadrants and let each person have a quadrant of the scope. ============================== licklider:507:really to time-share. But,just to prove it could be done, we divided the : Everybody connected with it just sat at the console and did on-line interacting programming and since I was of the first one, I got most of the time. There were enough of us; we kept that thing running day and night. We even built a time-sharing system on it, although it was more just an exercise: because it was such a weak little computer, there was nothing really to time-share. But, just to prove it could be done, we divided the scope into four quadrants and let each person have a quadrant of the scope. ASPRAY: This was when? ============================== lick:513:LICK: Well, there's a paper about that time-sharing system. I do : scope into four quadrants and let each person have a quadrant of the scope. ASPRAY: This was when? LICKLIDER: Well, there's a paper about that time-sharing system. I do not know whether it was 1960 or 1962. It was probably 1960. I have a copy of a memo from Minsky to some of his colleagues here, chastising them for letting us get ahead of them in demonstrating the time-sharing system. I simply do not know what the precedent was there. But the BBN one was quite special purpose. It was a time-sharing system for ============================== licklider:516:them for letting us get ahead of them in demonstrating the time-sharing : ASPRAY: This was when? LICKLIDER: Well, there's a paper about that time-sharing system. I do not know whether it was 1960 or 1962. It was probably 1960. I have a copy of a memo from Minsky to some of his colleagues here, chastising them for letting us get ahead of them in demonstrating the time-sharing system. I simply do not know what the precedent was there. But the BBN one was quite special purpose. It was a time-sharing system for writing and debugging programs. ASPRAY: Do you know the origin of the time-sharing concept in this ============================== licklider:518:BBNone was quite special purpose.It was a time-sharing system for : LICKLIDER: Well, there's a paper about that time-sharing system. I do not know whether it was 1960 or 1962. It was probably 1960. I have a copy of a memo from Minsky to some of his colleagues here, chastising them for letting us get ahead of them in demonstrating the time-sharing system. I simply do not know what the precedent was there. But the BBN one was quite special purpose. It was a time-sharing system for writing and debugging programs. ASPRAY: Do you know the origin of the time-sharing concept in this larger community? ============================== licklid:521:ASPRAY: Do you know the origin of the time-sharing concept in this : them for letting us get ahead of them in demonstrating the time-sharing system. I simply do not know what the precedent was there. But the BBN one was quite special purpose. It was a time-sharing system for writing and debugging programs. ASPRAY: Do you know the origin of the time-sharing concept in this larger community? LICKLIDER: Yes, probably the first person who wrote about it was a young Britisher. He mentioned the concept at a computer meeting in Paris, I think in 1960 -- sponsored by UNESCO, maybe. ============================== lick:537:rather stimulated BBN into doing the time-sharing system.At that point : was pretty much discussion in the community very soon. People were saying that what they wanted was interaction and memory sharing. Processors were so expensive that for a time it was really just barely making processing available for more people. I think John McCarthy was probably the source of most of the motivation and action. I think he rather stimulated BBN into doing the time-sharing system. At that point he was, I believe, head of the thing called the Long-range Study Planning Group here. He did not administer that very well. So, eventually they made Al Hill, who had been director of the Lincoln Lab head of it. Al was a very soft-spoken but driving administrator, who would get things done. Al got the report to come out about what the requirements were. ============================== lick:551:people working on besides this time-sharing andtrying to make thePDP11 : responsible thinking. Now it would not be responsible thinking either. Anybody that did not want more than a million words in a memory would really... (laugh) NORBERG: Let's go back to BBN. What sort of problems were you people working on besides this time-sharing and trying to make the PDP1 work in this way? LICKLIDER: Well, one of the things was libraries -- The Council on Library Resources gave us the money to explore what the computer was going to do to libraries. We did some things, but they were never ============================== licklider:891:big, time-shared computer. : LICKLIDER: I was going to say, the institute thing never really did work, because Behavioral Science didn't want to move. They wanted money where they were, and did not want to move together just for facilities. They were not very convinced they wanted any facilities. In my view every research enterprise like that ought to be centered about a big, time-shared computer. NORBERG: Yes. What sort of man was Ruina? LICKLIDER: In my view, brilliant; for a scientist, amazingly competent in finance and all kinds of fiscal administration. As a manager, it seemed ============================== lick:1213:turn a machine into a time-sharing system, which I think he enjoyed : fact. There is a fellow named Jules Schwartz, who is the father of the language called JOVIAL. Really good programmers are fairly easy to spot, especially for other really good programmers. I will not claim to be one, but I certainly was associated with them, and I spotted Schwartz as a really positive character. We supported him to the hilt. We got him to turn a machine into a time-sharing system, which I think he enjoyed doing. So, it went well. I did not really have a bad battle with SDC, but I was aware that this was cheating a little bit. I would insist on my philosophy, my vision of what I wanted to happen here, and these people had every right to have their own vision. ============================== lick:1222:ASPRAY:You were clearly committed to this time-sharing,or interactive : had every right to have their own vision. NORBERG: That's fine. I am just trying to set up an extreme contrast to get you to remember some of these things more clearly. ASPRAY: You were clearly committed to this time-sharing, or interactive mode of operation. Did Ruina have the same kind of commitment, or would he have been happy if he had developed computing for command and control in the existing way and improved upon it? LICKLIDER: Well, I think his attitude was something like this; that I ============================== licklider:1353:LICKLIDER:Well, some of them were to build time-sharing systems, : and, oh, where else? Quite a few places; I have forgotten how many contracts there were, but they came pretty fast. NORBERG: To do what? What were these contracts specifically about? LICKLIDER: Well, some of them were to build time-sharing systems, because we needed to have time-sharing systems before we could do man computer interaction research. So, for instance, Berkeley built a time- sharing system. SDC built one; MIT built one. That may have been it. There was not really very much graphics. We didn't have the facilities for doing graphics. There were contracts on displays, controls, data ============================== lick:1354:because we needed to have time-sharing systems before we could do man : contracts there were, but they came pretty fast. NORBERG: To do what? What were these contracts specifically about? LICKLIDER: Well, some of them were to build time-sharing systems, because we needed to have time-sharing systems before we could do man computer interaction research. So, for instance, Berkeley built a time- sharing system. SDC built one; MIT built one. That may have been it. There was not really very much graphics. We didn't have the facilities for doing graphics. There were contracts on displays, controls, data bases, organization of the main computer interface. Stanford Research ============================== lick:1728:them. ONR had had Corby started on the time-sharing system and the : LICKLIDER: Oh, I'd almost rather not deal with that, because there was a real problem there. I went for one year and stayed for two, and the time scale for doing anything significant is longer than that. So I had to buy into things and finish them and make them demonstrable, so that there would be something for people to look at without realizing that I didn't do them. ONR had had Corby started on the time-sharing system and the computation center, and he came along and greatly increased the speed with which that project was going. We could never have started it and gotten it going. Berkeley had a time-sharing system running on an SDS computer before I left. ============================== lick:1731:gotten it going. Berkeley had a time-sharing system running on an SDS : buy into things and finish them and make them demonstrable, so that there would be something for people to look at without realizing that I didn't do them. ONR had had Corby started on the time-sharing system and the computation center, and he came along and greatly increased the speed with which that project was going. We could never have started it and gotten it going. Berkeley had a time-sharing system running on an SDS computer before I left. ASPRAY: Had they already started time-sharing before you came along? LICKLIDER: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory ============================== lick:1734:ASPRAY: Had they already started time-sharing before you came along? : computation center, and he came along and greatly increased the speed with which that project was going. We could never have started it and gotten it going. Berkeley had a time-sharing system running on an SDS computer before I left. ASPRAY: Had they already started time-sharing before you came along? LICKLIDER: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory and a computer and everything else, and the time-sharing part was relatively simple. What looked good when they demonstrated it was that it had some graphics; they had applications that were interesting and ============================== lick:1736:LICK: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory : gotten it going. Berkeley had a time-sharing system running on an SDS computer before I left. ASPRAY: Had they already started time-sharing before you came along? LICKLIDER: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory and a computer and everything else, and the time-sharing part was relatively simple. What looked good when they demonstrated it was that it had some graphics; they had applications that were interesting and exciting. At SDC, well, I think their time-sharing system ran before I left Washington. But they had a hundred or two hundred programmers, or ============================== licklider:1737:and a computer and everything else,and the time-sharing part was : computer before I left. ASPRAY: Had they already started time-sharing before you came along? LICKLIDER: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory and a computer and everything else, and the time-sharing part was relatively simple. What looked good when they demonstrated it was that it had some graphics; they had applications that were interesting and exciting. At SDC, well, I think their time-sharing system ran before I left Washington. But they had a hundred or two hundred programmers, or something like that, working before I got there. We were responsible to ============================== lick:1740:exciting. At SDC, well,I think their time-sharing system ran before I left : LICKLIDER: They hadn't started time-sharing, but they had a laboratory and a computer and everything else, and the time-sharing part was relatively simple. What looked good when they demonstrated it was that it had some graphics; they had applications that were interesting and exciting. At SDC, well, I think their time-sharing system ran before I left Washington. But they had a hundred or two hundred programmers, or something like that, working before I got there. We were responsible to channel that a bit, but... So I think that there's nothing I can point to with pride and say, "I did that." ============================== licklider:1757:interactive computing; I wanted time-sharing. I wanted: "Computers are : say, MIT? LICKLIDER: Well, in that one, my main condition was that they should produce a proposal that would be a statesmanly work, because it was going to be my first one, and I wanted a real good proposal. I wanted interactive computing; I wanted time-sharing. I wanted: "Computers are as much for communication as they are for calculation." A lot of these themes in it. Then I wanted assurance there were going to be good people working on it. I wanted a summer study that would bring people from all over the industry, that was going to try to shape up this field and make it clear what we were doing. I also said that I wanted a lot of help, ============================== licklider:1782:got to be artificial intelligence. There's got to be time-sharing. There's : LICKLIDER: No, the Project MAC, for example, did not prescribe what the groups should be. The reason for calling it Project MAC instead of a laboratory was that it was going to use existing labs to a considerable extent. Existing research groups were going to come into it. MIT had a lot of flexibility in just which projects to do. But it was clear that there's got to be artificial intelligence. There's got to be time-sharing. There's got to be interactive stuff like the Teaager Tablet and graphics like the thing called the kluge, that Sal Loventhal did. I would have been very unhappy not to have Sal Loventhal modeling protein molecules, because, to me, that's going to be a dramatic step. I really had to have that, and lots of other things, like the civil engineering Stress and Strudel and those ============================== lick:1876:then,but sure:operating systems,time-sharing systems and the like, : ASPRAY: Can you break up the interactive into a few categories into which we can fit the research that you funded during that period? LICKLIDER: Well, I don't remember what categories were in my mind then, but sure: operating systems, time-sharing systems and the like, graphics, data, databases, datatypes, languages, displays, controls, theory of algorithms -- it sounded like almost any computer science center laboratory, all focused on interactive computing. I probably spent more time with more energy than most of my colleagues on what I thought of as not an interface, but an intermedium -- the skills and capabilities that ============================== lukasik:1080:general purpose time-shared computer, don't expect to make as much : And, I put it in the budget because I thought it was a good idea.=20 And the reason I thought it was a good idea was because I was interested in AI, and I felt that if you give the researchers better facilities they'll, of course, work faster. I mean, if you have a =C4 if you're slugging out some artificial intelligence on a general purpose time-shared computer, don't expect to make as much progress as if I give you a $100,000 or $200,000 special LISP machine. And that was rejected by DOD management on this argument, that said that industry should do it. Consequently, what happened was I think things were held up and it wasn't, therefore, until somewhere around later on in the '70s that people like Symbolics ============================== mccarthy:24:establishment and development of time-sharing at the Massachusetts : 2 March 1989 Abstract McCarthy begins this interview with a discussion of the initial establishment and development of time-sharing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the role he played in it. He then describes his subsequent move to Stanford in 1962 and the beginnings of his work in artificial intelligence (AI) funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency. This work developed in two general directions: logic-based AI (LISP) and robotics. ============================== mccarthy:59:set up a time-sharing project at MIT he wanted me to be the head of : related to command and control. Then when DARPA was formed he advocated that it do it, and eventually they said, "Well, it will do it if you lead it." He had gotten from me some ideas about timesharing and maybe AI. I'm not sure, he may have had sources about AI independent of me when we were at BBN. When he wanted to set up a time-sharing project at MIT he wanted me to be the head of it, and was disappointed when I left MIT and went off to Stanford. At least somebody told me; I forget whether it was Licklider himself. He sort of forced the project on MIT. Now that doesn't correspond to what I heard at this 25th anniversary reunion of Project MAC. So it's possible that it was different from the way ============================== mckenzie:68:the documentation of the time-sharing system that BBN had built for : the Fortran compiler department of Honeywell Information Systems until February of 1967. I started at BBN in February of 1967. The first few years I was here I asked for, and was mostly assigned to, projects that would give me a good opportunity to learn about innovative things that were going on at BBN. My very first job was the documentation of the time-sharing system that BBN had built for the National Institutes of Health and the American Hospital Association, so I could learn about time sharing. Then I participated in a number of consulting, and study, and design projects until early 1970. ============================== mckenzie:431:they'd be connected to a time-sharing system where they had an : the San Francisco area. The users didn't know anything about networking particularly, or whether a problem was a modem problem, or a network problem, or a TIP software problem, or a host problem. They only knew they were supposed to be doing their work by dialing this number and then typing some magical stuff and pretty soon they'd be connected to a time-sharing system where they had an account. And if they weren't connected to it, then it was a problem, and they wanted one person to call up. They didn't want to be given the run around. So a lot of energy, ultimately, went into the Network Control Center assuming responsibility, or doing its best to try to assume responsibility, for monitoring things ============================== mckenzie:454:10 TENEX systems. And ARPA gave accounts on those time-sharing : But we began adding instrumentation and tools and equipment in the NCC to monitor critical hosts, the ones where a lot of people from other sites had their accounts. For example, USC ISI ran a complex of time sharing systems on PDP- 10 TENEX systems. And ARPA gave accounts on those time-sharing systems to many small contractors, so the NCC began monitoring the status of those hosts, whether they were up or down, and to the extent that it was possible whether their protocol machinery was running properly, and so forth, so that we could call them up and say, "Hey, it looks like you're having a network problem; let's ============================== mckenzie:1293:another one,and UCLA where they had a Sigma 7 time-sharing system : interface. If they all matched that interface, then they'd all be connected. If they could talk over the ARPANET to California, they could also talk to the guy next door. So, in the early days, at a few sites at least - and MIT was a striking example, I think Lincoln Labs was another striking example, and BBN was probably another one, and UCLA where they had a Sigma 7 time-sharing system and an IBM 360 91 was another example - we were, we the ARPANET, were the local area network. Not very fast, and not very efficient, by today's standards. But the contribution to local area networking was more the idea that it was possible, and might be useful, rather than the technology. The technology doesn't ============================== newel:1360:trying to get a time-sharing system? : about whether to get that or to get the CDC 6600, or whether if we couldn't afford the 6600 to get the 6400 which was just being talked about. NORBERG: Does that imply that it was not a decision based on trying to get a time-sharing system? NEWELL: No. The decision to go with the 65 was fundamentally a decision that we couldn't bring up a time-sharing system that we could live with. We had a lot of talk about how to do this on the 6400. In fact, you looked at those things entirely in terms of ============================== newel:1363:decision that we couldn't bring up a time-sharing system that we : NORBERG: Does that imply that it was not a decision based on trying to get a time-sharing system? NEWELL: No. The decision to go with the 65 was fundamentally a decision that we couldn't bring up a time-sharing system that we could live with. We had a lot of talk about how to do this on the 6400. In fact, you looked at those things entirely in terms of what you thought you could do with the machine. So it wasn't a question of buying.....not that the 65 wasn't a major attempt to build a time-sharing system. The thing that was not in the ============================== newel:1368:build a time-sharing system. The thing that was not in the : decision that we couldn't bring up a time-sharing system that we could live with. We had a lot of talk about how to do this on the 6400. In fact, you looked at those things entirely in terms of what you thought you could do with the machine. So it wasn't a question of buying.....not that the 65 wasn't a major attempt to build a time-sharing system. The thing that was not in the picture, because it was a little early, is the DEC machines. So that keeps us out of the growing ARPA community defined by Stanford and MIT, which had the PDP-6s and then the PDP-10s. I don't remember when the PDP-10 came out... ============================== newel:1390:basic machines and so forth. They were interested in time-sharing. : which, you finally have to get a guy from the other environment, bring him in, and then, all kinds of things change. None of those characters were interested in management science. None of those characters were interested in psychology. None of those characters were interested in programming, which was Al Perlis and running basic machines and so forth. They were interested in time-sharing. NORBERG: Who's the they that you are talking about. NEWELL: MIT and Stanford. Actually there was more to the DARPA community than those guys - as you now know probably better than ============================== newel:1398:to construct a time-sharing system that involved supporting Project : NEWELL: MIT and Stanford. Actually there was more to the DARPA community than those guys - as you now know probably better than most everyone else - it was always the case that... In particular, there was the System Development Corporation. Licklider attempts to construct a time-sharing system that involved supporting Project MAC, and supporting the time-sharing system there, CTSS, and a time-sharing system at SDC, and supporting us here, which was a much more modest effort in terms of his ambitions, because we actually went up to remote entry procedures and whatever. My model is nobody cared. Of course, they cared, but none of the aspects of ============================== newel:1399:MAC, and supporting the time-sharing system there, CTSS, and a : NEWELL: MIT and Stanford. Actually there was more to the DARPA community than those guys - as you now know probably better than most everyone else - it was always the case that... In particular, there was the System Development Corporation. Licklider attempts to construct a time-sharing system that involved supporting Project MAC, and supporting the time-sharing system there, CTSS, and a time-sharing system at SDC, and supporting us here, which was a much more modest effort in terms of his ambitions, because we actually went up to remote entry procedures and whatever. My model is nobody cared. Of course, they cared, but none of the aspects of the ARPA community that you now see in which everything is driven, ============================== newel:1400:time-sharing system at SDC, and supporting us here, which was a : community than those guys - as you now know probably better than most everyone else - it was always the case that... In particular, there was the System Development Corporation. Licklider attempts to construct a time-sharing system that involved supporting Project MAC, and supporting the time-sharing system there, CTSS, and a time-sharing system at SDC, and supporting us here, which was a much more modest effort in terms of his ambitions, because we actually went up to remote entry procedures and whatever. My model is nobody cared. Of course, they cared, but none of the aspects of the ARPA community that you now see in which everything is driven, okay, none of that existed. ============================== newel:1438:like, turn out to be time-shared. : fairly personal point of view. NORBERG: That's fine. That's what an interview is all about. Let me go back to one other thing here that I'm still not clear about. When does the Carnegie Mellon situation, CIT situation, if you like, turn out to be time-shared. NEWELL: '65. When the IBM time-sharing system comes in, and whenever you want to estimate that it finally gets around to doing time-sharing. ============================== newel:1440:NEWELL: '65. When the IBM time-sharing system comes in, and : NORBERG: That's fine. That's what an interview is all about. Let me go back to one other thing here that I'm still not clear about. When does the Carnegie Mellon situation, CIT situation, if you like, turn out to be time-shared. NEWELL: '65. When the IBM time-sharing system comes in, and whenever you want to estimate that it finally gets around to doing time-sharing. NORBERG: Then how was the system run before that, was it all done on batch processing? ============================== newel:1442:time-sharing. : When does the Carnegie Mellon situation, CIT situation, if you like, turn out to be time-shared. NEWELL: '65. When the IBM time-sharing system comes in, and whenever you want to estimate that it finally gets around to doing time-sharing. NORBERG: Then how was the system run before that, was it all done on batch processing? NEWELL: Oh no. No, no. We had remote job entry on the G20, which ============================== newel:1448:was again our working towards time-sharing. It was a form of time : NORBERG: Then how was the system run before that, was it all done on batch processing? NEWELL: Oh no. No, no. We had remote job entry on the G20, which was again our working towards time-sharing. It was a form of time sharing where people could do their editing on line and submit their jobs and get there things back. So it was sort of batch run, but interactive, editing called RJE, Remote Job Entry. We actually pushed that very strongly and that's what I meant when I said we were kind of conservative and so forth compared with some of these ============================== newel:1454:others. In fact, you don't get good time-sharing out of things : sharing where people could do their editing on line and submit their jobs and get there things back. So it was sort of batch run, but interactive, editing called RJE, Remote Job Entry. We actually pushed that very strongly and that's what I meant when I said we were kind of conservative and so forth compared with some of these others. In fact, you don't get good time-sharing out of things like the PDP-6 and so forth for quite a while. CTSS, of course, was not on a PDP machine. The damn system out at SDC never worked. NORBERG: You mean the Q-32? Why didn't it work like a damn? ============================== newel:2340:interested in time-sharing; so in fact, there were clearly things : program plan for these places to go off and generate a sort of a unique culture. So I have a feeling of passivity. Proposals were like these, you talked about this, and you were the guys were the carriers of this and didn't care otherwise and so there were funds that flowed. Okay. On the other hand, Licklider was really interested in time-sharing; so in fact, there were clearly things in support of CTSS and the generation of Project MAC and the attempt to push SDC around a lot. SDC didn't perform very well, so, there was lots of awareness of them being pushed around on the issue of their time-sharing system. I think, in fact, that Al Perlis had a number of conversations with Lick about the time- ============================== newel:2344:issue of their time-sharing system. I think, in fact, that Al : that flowed. Okay. On the other hand, Licklider was really interested in time-sharing; so in fact, there were clearly things in support of CTSS and the generation of Project MAC and the attempt to push SDC around a lot. SDC didn't perform very well, so, there was lots of awareness of them being pushed around on the issue of their time-sharing system. I think, in fact, that Al Perlis had a number of conversations with Lick about the time- sharing efforts, the time-sharing efforts here, none in which I was much of a party to but not one where Lick was very unhappy, because the evaluation was always: if you guys are doing some good things - I can't remember. I would reconstruct now by saying that it was ============================== newel:2346:sharing efforts, the time-sharing efforts here, none in which I was : in support of CTSS and the generation of Project MAC and the attempt to push SDC around a lot. SDC didn't perform very well, so, there was lots of awareness of them being pushed around on the issue of their time-sharing system. I think, in fact, that Al Perlis had a number of conversations with Lick about the time- sharing efforts, the time-sharing efforts here, none in which I was much of a party to but not one where Lick was very unhappy, because the evaluation was always: if you guys are doing some good things - I can't remember. I would reconstruct now by saying that it was always in the background that you had to go do excellent science. But if you did some excellent science, it didn't matter what. ============================== newel:4494:to time-sharing -- John McCarthy in particular. But what was going : people, the various significant people in the community, did not instantly turn and begin to devote all of their time, unlike time- sharing, in which there's a piece of mythology, which I think is true, that AI took a hit in the '60s, in the early '60s, because a number of its significant people devoted their time not to AI but to time-sharing -- John McCarthy in particular. But what was going on at MIT, when they should have been doing AI -- should have been doing AI; of course they were -- was concerned with all sorts of time-sharing, and tablets, and communications and so forth. I don't mean network communications, but how the humans were going to act. John McCarthy's great claim to fame is that he has had a kind ============================== newel:4497:time-sharing, and tablets, and communications and so forth. I : true, that AI took a hit in the '60s, in the early '60s, because a number of its significant people devoted their time not to AI but to time-sharing -- John McCarthy in particular. But what was going on at MIT, when they should have been doing AI -- should have been doing AI; of course they were -- was concerned with all sorts of time-sharing, and tablets, and communications and so forth. I don't mean network communications, but how the humans were going to act. John McCarthy's great claim to fame is that he has had a kind of a correct perception of what you ought to worry about about 5 times in his life. He had it for time-sharing too. The AI argument was we aren't going to be able to do AI unless we finally ============================== newel:4501:times in his life. He had it for time-sharing too. The AI : doing AI; of course they were -- was concerned with all sorts of time-sharing, and tablets, and communications and so forth. I don't mean network communications, but how the humans were going to act. John McCarthy's great claim to fame is that he has had a kind of a correct perception of what you ought to worry about about 5 times in his life. He had it for time-sharing too. The AI argument was we aren't going to be able to do AI unless we finally get so we have this sort of communication. Therefore, it is really worth it for me, John McCarthy, to go off and devote big chunks of my life to do it, which he did. He did it at BBN -- a PDP-1 timesharing system. So, my model was there was actually there were ============================== newel:5395:for the program and therefore continue the time-sharing activities : it clearly isn't happening... TAPE 6/SIDE 2 NORBERG: ... stick to the principles that Licklider established for the program and therefore continue the time-sharing activities and things around time-sharing in the few universities that are involved with it, and add to that the networking. And until... NEWELL: There were no graphics people. ============================== newel:5396:and things around time-sharing in the few universities that are : TAPE 6/SIDE 2 NORBERG: ... stick to the principles that Licklider established for the program and therefore continue the time-sharing activities and things around time-sharing in the few universities that are involved with it, and add to that the networking. And until... NEWELL: There were no graphics people. NORBERG: Well... ============================== newel:5607:of the earth -- networks, graphics, time-sharing -- partly because : in fact, again, this is related to the five year model, but no longer with a kind of a time scale in it, the issue is when you enumerate the big DARPA successes, mostly what you enumerate -- not you, Arthur Norberg, but you, DARPA apologists -- what you enumerate are all these new things that are brought onto the face of the earth -- networks, graphics, time-sharing -- partly because new things are easy to count. But there are other things. When you write the history of computer science, not the history of DARPA, they represent major things, partly because computer science does not have the equivalent of the discovery of laws and so forth, that sort of substitute for these, so that the big event is finally ============================== newel:5796:then, in fact, the time-sharing, list processing, which in one : NEWELL: I'm just thinking about that. So let me try a number of things on you, and maybe it's okay with the word "stimulated" as opposed to the words "was totally responsible for," because for many of these things there are other parts of computer science and parts of technology that are also have had big effects on them. So then, in fact, the time-sharing, list processing, which in one sense it owned, the interactive computing. Much less sure about networking, and now, of its role in networking. But, we actually have two levels of networking. We have the original ARPANET and then we have local area networks, the Ethernet, and so forth. The answer is, probably not at all, to any significant extent. So that ============================== ornstein:36:views on artificial intelligence and time-sharing. This interview : working environment of the group at BBN, his relationship with Lawrence Roberts, his interactions with Honeywell, and his work on the Pluribus multi-processor IMP. Ornstein also discusses the contributions of Wesley Clark and Norman Abramson, his involvement with the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and his views on artificial intelligence and time-sharing. This interview was recorded as part of a research project on the influence of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on the development of computer science in the United States. ============================== ornstein:1455:don't see much in the way of time-sharing in places these days. : remember the gesture even; he was giving a talk about TX2 at the time. So a lot of us felt that time sharing was an enormous waste. As it's turned out, it's not important any longer. It's an important place in history, but the advent of very powerful personal machines these days - you go into a research center, you don't see much in the way of time-sharing in places these days. It's small machines - networked together, a very different emphasis. TAPE 2/SIDE 2 ============================== ornstein:1465:O'NEILL: Did you use any of the early time-sharing systems? : ORNSTEIN: Wes was a vocal critic at the time, when he was a much more important figure. I was a minor figure compared to Wes at that time. You can get from him his feelings. He's very articulate and will remember, I'm sure. O'NEILL: Did you use any of the early time-sharing systems? ORNSTEIN: Some. Not very much. O'NEILL: Was your criticism based on your usage of them, or just the whole idea? ============================== ornstein:1503:user machines.Up until then, you either time-shared, in parallel, : O'NEILL: Generally the people working on LINC? ORNSTEIN: Well, and at DEC there were people who were working on the PDP5 and the PDP8. These were small and were thought of as one-user machines. That was the beginning of the notion of one- user machines. Up until then, you either time-shared, in parallel, or you shared serially. TX2, for example, which was a powerful machine, in the early part of its life was shared but only in series. You signed up for a specific time, and when that time came you had the whole machine to yourself. It was only much later that it was time shared. I think we understood that TX2, while a ============================== ornstein:1511:After the LINC group left Lincoln Laboratory, time-sharing became : series. You signed up for a specific time, and when that time came you had the whole machine to yourself. It was only much later that it was time shared. I think we understood that TX2, while a powerful machine at the time, only barely represented what was going to be available to people individually in future years. After the LINC group left Lincoln Laboratory, time-sharing became a big shtick for a while because, of course, it was a while before the development of miniature stuff that made it economically possible for people to have powerful individual machines. For a while you could only access a really powerful machine as a shared facility. During those years TX2 became a timed-shared machine, ============================== ross:118:until just before (i.e. in 1962 ?) we got into the time-sharing : O'NEILL: Other people had mentioned the Licklider article as being quite influential. ROSS: I don't think I ever read it, and I never got to know Lick until just before (i.e. in 1962 ?) we got into the time-sharing project (summer 1963), I believe. I knew a lot of other people, but I'd never run across him. He was at BBN at that point, I guess. O'NEILL: Do you remember any formal influences to your concern ============================== ross:414:the starting of the time-sharing idea took place in some meetings : Flexowriter hooked up to go with our data reduction programs in the secret room. And Arnie Siegel actually was the one who lashed that together for me. Although I think Corby remembers things slightly differently, and I've never checked with Herb Teager himself, there are several references in my resumes (and what I recall) that show the starting of the time-sharing idea took place in some meetings that we held with (John) McCarthy and (Marvin) Minsky and (Dean) Arden and me with people at Lincoln Lab, and.... Gee, I'm getting this all screwed up in sequence. But in any case, when Herb Teager was going to put the first Flexowriter onto the IBM 704, the resumes show how we got ... I referred them to Arnie's earlier ============================== ross:427:in any case, the actual start up of the idea of time-sharing and : with Herb at that early handoff time. And maybe even Earl Pugh, who at that point was running the TX-0. He was in our Lab and when the TX-0 moved from Lincoln Lab down to campus, even though it was housed in Building 24, it was our responsibility and Earl Pugh ran that before Jack Dennis took over and then the PDP-1 as well. So in any case, the actual start up of the idea of time-sharing and how to get it going and so forth does have trails back into that very early stuff of mine on Whirlwind. I was up with it all along because, you see, we (John Ward and I) copied the design of the Whirlwind stuff to put a console on the 1103 in Florida, and that included a keyboard input. And then with Whirlwind on its way out ============================== ross:445:applications you were doing versus the time-sharing idea of having : TAPE 1/SIDE 2 O'NEILL: The issue I was trying to get at was computer efficiency and capacity that were required by an application or kinds of applications you were doing versus the time-sharing idea of having the improved interaction with the programmer. Did you see a difference there or was time-sharing seen as just a step in the direction of getting better access - were there debates about efficiency and things like that? ============================== ross:447:difference there or was time-sharing seen as just a step in the : O'NEILL: The issue I was trying to get at was computer efficiency and capacity that were required by an application or kinds of applications you were doing versus the time-sharing idea of having the improved interaction with the programmer. Did you see a difference there or was time-sharing seen as just a step in the direction of getting better access - were there debates about efficiency and things like that? ROSS: Oh sure, there was lots of that, but my own interest in it was, of course, that as long as you had the capacity in the machine ============================== ross:464:evolution to have the time-sharing idea come along. Again, that : light pens, making a focusing one and improving the sensitivity and the electronics and so forth. We even made the innards for pens that we shipped out to Lincoln Laboratory from our lab for the TX- 2. So all the things that had to do with man/machine problem- solving was right along our line, and it seemed a very natural evolution to have the time-sharing idea come along. Again, that wasn't too much different from the communications work that was part of the Cape Cod/SAGE. So it seemed a very appropriate and natural thing to do. O'NEILL: This kind of leads into another question I was going to ============================== ross:472:was slow in recognizing how important time-sharing was, and that it : natural thing to do. O'NEILL: This kind of leads into another question I was going to bring up later, but this looks like a more appropriate place for it. There have been several comments along the lines of "Industry was slow in recognizing how important time-sharing was, and that it took a lot of effort and large lag time." Do you basically agree with that? ROSS: Sure. Again, it's not merely that they were slow, but that they had a lot of investment in the batch processing--getting the ============================== ross:549:where the time-sharing idea could've been pushed more within IBM : with IBM and influence developments. But the main thrust, I think, was toward things that would increase the standard kinds of use, because that's where everybody had the most problems. O'NEILL: It seemed to me that maybe SHARE would be some place where the time-sharing idea could've been pushed more within IBM early on, if that had been a priority. ROSS: Well there actually was a competition with TSO and TSS, I think. Anyhow, there were a couple of other big time-sharing projects in IBM, and when they got started I'm not sure, because a ============================== ross:553:think. Anyhow, there were a couple of other big time-sharing : O'NEILL: It seemed to me that maybe SHARE would be some place where the time-sharing idea could've been pushed more within IBM early on, if that had been a priority. ROSS: Well there actually was a competition with TSO and TSS, I think. Anyhow, there were a couple of other big time-sharing projects in IBM, and when they got started I'm not sure, because a big problem for IBM, as a result of our committee study and so forth, we chose to go with GE (or Honeywell) at that point. Heads really rolled at the vice-presidential level and so forth in IBM with that shock. But I was always on the periphery with respect to ============================== ross:559:the other inside-IBM time-sharing projects. : projects in IBM, and when they got started I'm not sure, because a big problem for IBM, as a result of our committee study and so forth, we chose to go with GE (or Honeywell) at that point. Heads really rolled at the vice-presidential level and so forth in IBM with that shock. But I was always on the periphery with respect to the other inside-IBM time-sharing projects. O'NEILL: The committee that produced the report in 1961 about the need for a large machine, did that end there, or did you continue on with further activities in terms of actually getting into the MULTICS and looking at manufacturers? ============================== ross:599:other time-sharing systems at the time--were you familiar with the : O'NEILL: I personally have not, although Arthur Norberg has interviewed him and is going back for a second interview, so I'm sure that's one of the areas that will get covered. You talked about looking at other manufacturers. Do you recall looking at other time-sharing systems at the time--were you familiar with the Dartmouth System? ROSS: There weren't any. O'NEILL: I guess that would be a little later wouldn't it? ============================== simpson:1361:NORBERG: ...including time-sharing and networking and so on in the : the establishment of the IPTO program, back in the days when AI was a portion of a lot of other activities... SIMPSON: Well, it still is. NORBERG: ...including time-sharing and networking and so on in the 1960s and early 1970s. The two characteristics are a certain convergence between the objectives of the research community and the objectives of the people in DARPA - not just in IPTO, in that sense, because you need to know something know about military requirements and so on in order to be able to understand how this ============================== sutherland:1260:they needed to have some push into the time-sharing world. They : SUTHERLAND: Well, I guess we have not talked about SDC at all. SDC was part of the main thrust of great activity. It was always kind of a puzzle as to what SDC was about. It was clear that they were one of the major suppliers of software for the Air Force and they needed to have some push into the time-sharing world. They had this big computer called the Q32 that they made a time-sharing system on. I think that was an important way of getting technology transfer going, but it was awful damn expensive. I remember trying to get rid of the Q32, because it cost a million dollars a year just to keep the doors open. That was just the support costs for ============================== sutherld:1261:had this big computer called theQ32 that they made a time-sharing : SUTHERLAND: Well, I guess we have not talked about SDC at all. SDC was part of the main thrust of great activity. It was always kind of a puzzle as to what SDC was about. It was clear that they were one of the major suppliers of software for the Air Force and they needed to have some push into the time-sharing world. They had this big computer called the Q32 that they made a time-sharing system on. I think that was an important way of getting technology transfer going, but it was awful damn expensive. I remember trying to get rid of the Q32, because it cost a million dollars a year just to keep the doors open. That was just the support costs for the machine. I remember going to Strategic Air Command (SAC), who ============================== taylor:173:Genie at Berkeley, a time-share project at the Systems Development : research in one form or another, and told us about this very modest program that he had just gotten underway, his "modest" budget was greater than the sum of all the other budgets represented on that committee. It was $15 million a year, which by today's standards is certainly modest. It had in it Project MAC at MIT, Project Genie at Berkeley, a time-share project at the Systems Development Corporation of Santa Monica, and other projects that I can't remember. But I think those -- the MIT and SDC projects -- were the largest monetarily. The Berkeley project in the early days was pretty small; it got larger later. ============================== winston:442:on separate floors, the staff were working with the time-sharing : separate my own particular circumstances from those of others in the laboratory. When I was a graduate student, there was what seemed at that time to be a large staff and there were graduate students. Those groups definitely formed two different nuclei - the staff and the graduate students. They were for the most part on separate floors, the staff were working with the time-sharing system on the ninth floor to a large extent. Graduate students for the most part had offices on the eighth floor. I tend to be a sort of shy type myself, so as a graduate student, I didn't have very much interaction with Minsky. A number of staff people were much more comfortable with blazing into Marvin's office and striking up ============================== winston:1135:example of that is time-sharing. I guess I've kind of lost track : a consequence of that isolation. But I think it was a necessary period of isolation because it was a time when we were very fragile and we needed just to roll up our sleeves and get to work and separate ourselves from endless debates about whether we could do it and just go out and do it. On the periphery, a conspicuous example of that is time-sharing. I guess I've kind of lost track of who actually invented time-sharing. I know John McCarthy must have been heavily involved in it. Maybe it's arguable that AI was an influence or the demands of AI were an influence on the development of computing, even in that context. But in any case, in the early 1970s here at MIT, we were doing amazing things with ============================== winston:1136:of who actually invented time-sharing. I know John McCarthy must : period of isolation because it was a time when we were very fragile and we needed just to roll up our sleeves and get to work and separate ourselves from endless debates about whether we could do it and just go out and do it. On the periphery, a conspicuous example of that is time-sharing. I guess I've kind of lost track of who actually invented time-sharing. I know John McCarthy must have been heavily involved in it. Maybe it's arguable that AI was an influence or the demands of AI were an influence on the development of computing, even in that context. But in any case, in the early 1970s here at MIT, we were doing amazing things with ITS. The hackers were: Richard Greenblatt, Tom Knight, and Jack ==============================