On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:40:40 -0600, Chris Craddock wrote: >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Scott Ford wrote: >> >> I dont want to knock IBM but for us developers this is UGLY ... >> Maybe the problem is they never intended for it to be called that way ... > >Yes, exactly right on both counts. Don't forget that TSO is older than >dirt and all subsequent efforts to graft on functionality are limited by >its original design assumptions. Modern it ain't. > Actually, I suspect the roots go deeper than that. The original design assumptions of OS/360 never included the requirement to support TSO; TSO was designed within the resulting constraints, and so on ...
John M's BPXWUNIX -> address TSO is the seed of a good idea. If only each of several concurrent BPXWUNIces addressing TSO could run ISPF attached to its own (emulated) 3270. Ah, for something like the DIAL command in VM! -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
