Exactly. You got me mixed up with someone else. Now, one could easily argue they sucked in some way. Especially in interfaces for some (eg mainframes, minicomputers) given they were created before PC's were invented or computers could even do much more than batch or terminal ops. Then, due to backward compatibility, they had to maintain these warts. One might also talk supported features, speed, cost, and so on for anything on the list. LISP machines got too slow, OpenVMS was too expensive, BeOS lacked Windows ecosystem, and so on.

Yet, each contributed architectural or feature innovations that are worth considering or copying to this day. Some you still can't buy on the market: Burrough's hardware security or Genera LISP's development capabilities. Some FOSS hasn't quite caught up to: BeOS's amazing, consistent, desktop experience; OpenVMS's bulletproof clustering and other availability features [1]; OS/app security of KeyKOS or EROS; low 0-days in kernel code due to use of high-level language with extra type or memory safety. So, they still kick UNIX and Windows ass in numerous attributes. Ironically, it's Microsoft and Windows trying to copy as many techniques as possible from old systems rather than UNIX. Their quality and security levels have skyrocketed vs Dark Ages of Microsoft. UNIX (or alternatives) have plenty room to grow by using differentiators like on my list.

Note: I especially encourage you to carefully read the Genera LISP machine page. Some points are obviously old news or even laughable today ("has TCP/IP"). 8-13 for debugging down to OS level and 16 are a pretty badass combo you ain't getting with UNIX, C, and GCC. ;)

[1] Maybe Amazon Web Services would've gone down less if they, instead of UNIX, were running on VMS boxes known for individual uptime of 3-5 years and cluster uptime of up to 17 years in hands of average sysadmins. Ya think? :)