Are the IBM VM and VMS OSes the top operating systems ?

[nameta9]

I read an article where it is claimed that IBM MVS OS was 500 MB in size already in 1980. I also read how refined and powerful the OS has gotten over the decades, along with VM. So does this mean that the IBM OS is the rolls royce of Operating systems and will always be way ahead of all the other "toy" systems like windows, linux and unix ?

 

After all, their mainframe OSes (VM, MVS) have been constantly under great research for over 40 years, so how can any other OS even match theirs ? of course they are very expensive but then again so is a rolls royce. I also see how crappy the toy OSs are even when they have 500 MB RAM! I read that some programs like kylix on linux can't even load properly..... It makes you wonder

[Klaynos]

Differnt OS's are good for different things, IBM's os's are not great desktop os's, and incidently are nearly all if not completly all UNIX systems. There are lots of programs that wont load on limited ram systems, we've got a UG suite of mac's, and it's very very easy to be using matlab (a matrics maths program) and have memory errors with just a few hundred elements.

 

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/z890/glance.html

 

Thats the cheapest server that IBM sell for their z/OS to run on, it has gigabytes of RAM

[Silencer]

Try using a mainframe to write a paper for school or listen to some music.

 

You could say that your watch has the best OS because of what it does for the amount of memory/cycles. But you don't call that the best OS.

 

Also, Linux is not a "toy." It doesn't even belong in the same category as windows.

 

If you really want answers, why don't you actually go check them out yourself, instead of reading what some asshat freshman in comp sci wrote on his blog?

[nameta9]

Well already by 1980 IBM had done very extensive research for 20 years into all kinds of OS problems and had already achieved MVS and VM. Now windows is nowhere close to solving those kinds of problems and linux is still young and is hacked up constantly. I am not sure if the linux method really takes into account all the OS problems that IBM had to systematically solve. This is an interesting question. Anyways I read that IBM's VM can host hundreds of linux operating systems as "guests" therefore simulating hundreds of servers. Now that is really high class stuff!

[Klaynos]

I'm just going to point out to you that IBM helps develop the linux kernel, and put their own research into it.

 

"Linux is hacked up constantly" if you mean maintained and altered, then yes it is, if you mean bodged with little patches to solve funny security holes in perviouse hacks then I ask if you've fun windows update recently....

 

The "linux method" takes into account the needs of the people who actively develop it if you want it to solve a specific problem download the code and edit it yourself, if you thinks others will like it give it back to the community.

 

"Anyways I read that IBM's VM can host hundreds of linux operating systems as "guests" therefore simulating hundreds of servers." <--- I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, you can run virtual machines ontop of existing operating systems if that is the case then have a look at something like VMware.

 

If you mean having lots of people connected at once, then linux and even windows server can handle that, (take a look at x server)

 

And as Silencer said try using a mainframe for desktop usage...

 

And on another note have a look at Solaris, it's a UNIX system, and has therefore been in development since around 1965, is that more or less "perfect" than IBM's equivalents?