On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 13:54:46 -0500, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
>Wait a minute ...
>
>Two flaws with the below.
Both of which you already successfully (in my opinion)
counter-argued yourself. :-) So I'll just reinforce your
own counter-argument.
>1. MVS 3.8j is unsupported. Well, I suppose it is unsupported
> in the same sense the Linux is unsupported
Exactly. It's fundamentally a clown show either way. Only
when your startup is making a reasonable profit and can
finally afford real IBM equipment, have you finally made
the move from the circus to a path to the Fortune 500.
Otherwise, for the time being, have fun dealing with clowns.
They/we are a laugh a minute.
> -- the publisher, the owner of the IP rights, does not support it.
IBM doesn't own the IP rights. It's public domain. They did
publish it though.
> Third parties support it. I suppose if enough companies ran
> MVS 3.8j there is no reason that a vendor could not come
> along and provide support for MVS 3.8j, like Red Hat does
> for Linux.
Hey, we're already here. I'll give you the same terms on MVS 3.8J
that ever other vendor of "free" software gives you. Oh - you expect
me to fix the bugs in the software I just gave you for "free"? Not a
problem. Pay me full western contract rates for an indefinite time,
and I'll work on "your" issue.
Welcome to the clown show.
I am perfectly happy to disassemble MVS 3.8J object code or
whatever is required to investigate "your" problem.
So long as there is some sucker who went for "free" and is now
paying the REAL price, no problem.
> But I still think you run into a massive "unsupported!!!" objection.
Well, first of all it's technically not "unsupported". In fact - don't
IBM have a contract division? You can probably hire them to
disassemble MVS 3.8J if you don't like the service you get
from "me".
All is possible once you join the circus.
Secondly - we're talking about a theoretical sensible startup
that may consider AIMING for IBM. So they already know
that they can't afford REAL "supported" YET.
> 2. It's not just your compiled executable that has to fit into
>16MB. It's your compiled executable, all of the operating
> system components that it needs direct addressability on,
> and all of its in-memory data ("buffers").
Sure.
> For some applications that in-memory data could be voluminous.
Sure. So don't do that. For your NEW application for your startup.
Your bank didn't do that in the early 1980s. The biggest bank in
the entire world didn't do that. But your shitty little startup "needs"
to do that? Seriously?
What language will you even choose? I'm only really familiar
with C90. I know I can make that work. With an escape route
no matter where you go. It may be odd to write a business
application in that though. But it also may be odd to tie yourself
down to a single supplier (IBM), and use EBCDIC.
Sometimes there simply isn't a known viable alternative that
doesn't have a first name of "Clown".
> And maybe the IT industry is wrong to expect more than 16 MB
Exactly. And perhaps that's why the software portion of the
IT industry is one huge clown show (as per that link I posted
earlier - written by someone else).
People writing apps that are beyond the ability of a single
person to understand and maintain.
So when you ring up your bank to complain that something
isn't working, you get an answer of "no-one else is complaining -
try again another time". And that answer is repeated for months.
Because no-one knows any better. That's what the PC
"revolution" literally is.
No-one escalates to the IT staff who know their stuff - because
they don't exist.
> but you don't make sales by arguing with the customer.
I believe we were positing a sensible new startup that would
consider IBM in the first place.
They need to go to IBM on wounded knee, and as someone
else mentioned - the risk is that IBM will laugh them out of
the room.
It's a different situation. IBM doesn't need to argue with the
customer. They laugh them out of the room.
So the onus is on the customer to find a backdoor path so that
one day they will be allowed to sit in the same room as IBM.
Or they can join the circus like all their friends did.
I'm just suggesting what that backdoor path could look like.
BFN. Paul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
