Re: It keeps getting uglier
I think Americans call them 'subpoenas'. I thought Brits called them 'summonses'? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:43:00 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: It keeps getting uglier To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU I understand certain invitations are about to be issued. They won't have crinkly edges, engraved lettering and gold blocking, though. I think Americans call them 'subpoenas'. -- Phil Payne _ Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 01/07/2008 at 03:51 PM, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There was also LCS (Large Capacity Storage, Low Cost Storage, bulk storage) in the late 1960s that could move a double-word aligned field much faster than with regular storage, Faster? It was an order of magnitude slower. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In a message dated 12/31/2007 2:13:53 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When processors srarted to include High-Speed Buffers, now commonly called cache, any published timings became very difficult to determine. When memory references were simple real memory references, the time required for each was easily determined. There was also LCS (Large Capacity Storage, Low Cost Storage, bulk storage) in the late 1960s that could move a double-word aligned field much faster than with regular storage, thus adding another variable not accounted for in any instruction timing formula. It was installed on a S/360 Model 75 to which I had access. That data center's billing algorithm gave users an incentive to use the bulk storage if possible, thus letting their jobs run faster, thus allowing greater daily throughput of the whole data center. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
At 02:51 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote: ... There was also LCS (Large Capacity Storage, Low Cost Storage, bulk storage) in the late 1960s that could move a double-word aligned field much faster than with regular storage, thus adding another variable not accounted for in any instruction timing formula. It was installed on a S/360 Model 75 to which I had access. That data center's billing algorithm gave users an incentive to use the bulk storage if possible, thus letting their jobs run faster, thus allowing greater daily throughput of the whole data center. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN LCS? Fast? Maybe if the Same Day Service bit was on ... :-) Michael Stack Product Developer NEON Enterprise Software, Inc. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:25:36 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 02:13 PM, Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: When processors srarted to include High-Speed Buffers, now commonly called cache, I don't recall seeing high speed buffer in print until long after cache was common. I don't recall seeing cache until relatively recently. Amdahl used High-Speed Buffer (or HSB) exclusively. The 360/85 announcement called it a high speed buffer. So did the announcements for the 165, 3033, 3081 and others. See http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-ProdAnn/index.html -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Nice argument but do you have any law firbidding reverse engineering to make compatible products ? Patents are the only legal There are also trade secrets and intellectual property, where all you have to do is prove you tried to protect. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Nice argument but do you have any law firbidding reverse engineering to make compatible products ? Patents are the only legal instrument that would deny such a competetion. When no patents are involved it's a fair game. Even when patents are involved they can be challanged for specificity, applicablity etc. Either IBM shows that PSI has voilated a patent or shut up. Restricting the use of software by EULA's is not a fair practice. Think of Microsoft requiring that you run their software on an Intel CPU only. Mohammad On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:34:18 -0500, Doug Fuerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM, spent millions developing the machine, they would be entitled to some exclusivity. How fair is it for every competitor to reverse engineer their machines to mimic the IBM box, and not compensate IBM for that? At least MOBO manufacturers use different chipsets and moderately different designs. I don't believe they are reverse engineering Intel boards, nor is AMD reverse engineering Core Duo's. Doug -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mohammad Khan Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier Nice argument but do you have any law firbidding reverse engineering to make compatible products ? Patents are the only legal instrument that would deny such a competetion. When no patents are involved it's a fair game. Even when patents are involved they can be challanged for specificity, applicablity etc. Either IBM shows that PSI has voilated a patent or shut up. Restricting the use of software by EULA's is not a fair practice. Think of Microsoft requiring that you run their software on an Intel CPU only. Mohammad SNIP While you might actually get a challenge to shrink-wrap open it and you agree to the EULA through a court, and that court might strike down all or parts of the EULA for any number of reasons, you have opened a can of worms. Should Microsoft purchase AMD or Intel, and then start putting out copies of Windoze that will only run on a CPU made by that company (by putting in secret instructions, or specialized code to enhance running speeds), you have just stepped into the problem of IBM vs PSI. As you can see, your argument misses that IBM makes both the hardware and the software. And they architect the hardware FOR their SCPs and they architect their software FOR their hardware. That they have shared information on their hardware for z/Linux is the only saving grace that PSI can grab onto at this point (from this particular perspective). But why by a PSI machine just to run z/Linux? My whole problem with this is, PSI relied on certain information that IBM stated on their web site. I believe this is considered to be holding out (not keeping from, but holding themselves out to do ). The timing of the change in IBM's policy and the filing of the case is somewhat suspect. So it is not quite that simple. And all arguments to the contrary, IBM did license their patents, and so they did BILLIONS of dollars of research. They chose (up to the point they pulled their web page) to license their patents. And at the same time, as I have said before, IBM licenses other patents for their systems (e.g., AMDAHL had several that IBM licensed). Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote: -SNIP-- So it is not quite that simple. And all arguments to the contrary, IBM did license their patents, and so they did BILLIONS of dollars of research. They chose (up to the point they pulled their web page) to license their patents. And at the same time, as I have said before, IBM licenses other patents for their systems (e.g., AMDAHL had several that IBM licensed). Regards, Steve Thompson Steve, You raised some interesting points. Although I am highly suspicious of the IBM posting information on a public site and then taking it down and then calling it a trade secret is well fishy (to me). I think we are all too close to the subject matter to have a real balanced decision. I think IBM blew any chance of having its customers root for them when they decided to go OCO. It will be interesting to see what happens in the courts here in the states as well as the EU courts. I expect this will come out as a mixed bag and no one will be happy. Although IBM may be the long term loser not for this but MVS will slowly sink in the hazes of time and either LINUX or UNIX or MS/ will be the real winners. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Reminds me of a quote I saw regarding the San Jose light rail system: Trains coming from where no one lives, going to places no one wants to go to I think I'll replace my car with a train that can better get my groceries from far away farms. Or maybe use the trains as a back-end server as you suggest. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On 31 Dec 2007 12:45:20 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Twenty years ago, I got a Macintosh SE, in large part so my girlfriend could write her doctoral dissertation in music. Would I have taken an s/370 (XA?) at the time for personal use?. Not if it were free; not if it were in a package I could carry. How many of us today, given a z/OS system that weighed 5 pounds and cost $1000 would make that our only computer and OS? Wouldn't we each still need another computer, or at least a partition on the same one, for Email, Web browsing, document preparation, access to IBMLink, etc.? And IBM recognizes this by giving you an alternative OS. (Although that OS needs to be ASCII with a big GUI library). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Paul Gilmartin wrote: could. But would it happen? Is z/OS at any price a preferred instructional platform? How relevant to mainstream computer science is teaching students to code DD statements for CKD DASD when the view of many sophisticated readers of this list is that CKD should be superseded by FBA? In our case, it would have helped tremendously. A few years ago, our Computer Science (CS) chair and the chair of the College of Business Administration's Management Information Systems (CBA/MIS) departments both wanted to incorporate a few classes dealing with mainframes into their curricula. The CS chair wanted to do a systems programming and OS series that would give his students hands-on experience installing, configuring, and running multiple operating systems while teaching a lot about the underlying algorithms where they could compare and contrast them. He basically wanted some LPARs or (if we could get VM) some virtual machines on our mainframe (one for each project team). The Windows and UNIX portions of the course would be done on the students' own PCs running Windows and BSD. But they couldn't afford a mainframe so came to us to see if they could get time on our 9672. The CBA/MIS chair wanted to incorporate CICS/COBOL/DB2 programming into their curriculum to complement the stuff they do with Windows and UNIX. Our CIO turned them away because he was in the middle of a project to downsize our 9672 (our z890 is about half the capacity of our old 9672) so didn't have the spare capacity to offer ... part of our 5-year plan to phase out the mainframe ... that we started in 1990 ... but that's another story. Anyway, if an inexpensive way of giving our students access to their own z/OS environments were available, the University of Hawaii would be offering mainframe-oriented classes in two separate curricula today. Something like z/OS on Hercules on a Linux laptop would have fit the bill perfectly for us. Unfortunately, the opportunity was missed. The current chairs from those departments are not at all interested in offering mainframe components in their curricula -- they believe, as does our CIO, that mainframes are irrelevant. BTW: this year is supposed to be the last year for our mainframe (but somehow, I'm not convinced). Twenty years ago, I got a Macintosh SE, in large part so my girlfriend could write her doctoral dissertation in music. Would I have taken an s/370 (XA?) at the time for personal use?. Not if it were free; not if it were in a package I could carry. How many of us today, given a z/OS system that weighed 5 pounds and cost $1000 would make that our only computer and OS? Wouldn't we each still need another computer, or at least a partition on the same one, for Email, Web browsing, document preparation, access to IBMLink, etc.? *snip* If IBM can't make z/OS the only OS people need, and the first choice for many, too many customers will find it expedient to seek to use the computer and OS they already need and own to host the additional applications they come to need. Is it even plausible that enterprises seeking to simplify their IT structures by reducing the number of OSes they support would consider eliminating Windows, Linux, OS X, or Solaris and moving all its applications to z/OS? I think that's an extreme view. I don't think anybody is thinking of replacing Windows or MacOS or Linux on the desktop with z/OS. But why not z/OS as a back-end server? Even our CIO acknowledges that, while he would prefer that we only had Solaris/SPARC servers in our data center, it often does make sense to run other server operating systems. He believes that more than one but not more than 4 different server OSes is reasonable. And what I'd be interested in is running z/OS in a virtual machine under Linux on my laptop (I run Windows in a virtual machine on my laptop now just so that I can run the officially sanctioned applications that my organization requires us to run) so I can do development without worrying about hurting any of our LPARs on our z890. I think it would be great if students could get the ability to run z/OS on their laptops to learn about it. Anyway ... Happy New Year! -- Stephen -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 02:45 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Wouldn't we each still need another computer, or at least a partition on the same one, for Email, No. document preparation, No. access to IBMLink, No. etc.? Some yes, some no. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 03:11 PM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory. I seem to have interchanged specifications with characteristics. I just remember it giving me a blow by blow description on the format of the instructions and how it worked plus timings. It was concerned with the things that were specific to the model, and didn't go into nearly as much detail as PoOps for the things that were common to all models. Those manuals were tens of pages while PoOps started at over a hundred pages and was almost 200 by the time S/370 came out. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 02:13 PM, Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: When processors srarted to include High-Speed Buffers, now commonly called cache, I don't recall seeing high speed buffer in print until long after cache was common. any published timings became very difficult to determine. They started to get complicated before that, but I'll agree that cache and TLB considerations made it worse. These effects are one of the biggest reasons why instruction timings tend to vary. By the 3165 timings were very complex even when all data were in cache. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 03:20 PM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: To refresh my memory was the 370 the first public machine that used the HSB? Not even the first from IBM, unless you consider the 360/85 to be a S/370 in drag. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On 2 Jan 2008 13:00:09 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Y Odo) wrote: I think that's an extreme view. I don't think anybody is thinking of replacing Windows or MacOS or Linux on the desktop with z/OS. But why not z/OS as a back-end server? I think I'll replace my car with a train that can better get my groceries from far away farms. Or maybe use the trains as a back-end server as you suggest. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:56:06 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Further, as users I think we could make the argument that IBM's actions are anti-competitive both to the principals of the case as well as to small development shops and educational facilities. I'm not a lawyer either, so my opinion is worth about zero. But as far as I can tell, the only real basis to challenge IBM's position is their anti-competitive actions and their monopolistic position with respect to mainframe systems. Isn't that also the basis for the judgement in favor of Amdahl in some of Phil's past posts ??? So it could be just a replay of that case with a different player ??? Hopefully the results will be the same. I hope I've been neither philosophical nor political. Thus endeth the lesson (oops, preachy! sorry...) I hope I didn't insult. I'm just trying to cut through the fog and understand the strength of PSI's position. I have no desire, expertise nor time to read the legal stuff Phil points to. I like small words and clear concise sentences. Happy New Year !! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
--snip--- .Is z/OS at any price a preferred instructional platform? How relevant to mainstream computer science is teaching students to code DD statements for CKD DASD when the view of many sophisticated readers of this list is that CKD should be superseded by FBA? ---unsnip-- While many readers agree that FBA should replace CKD in the DASD arena, I don't happen to be one of them. Further discussion deferred on this point. :-) But there's no reason that z/OS can't be a viable instructional platform for a computer science curiculum. After all, how much of Computer Science should be platform-dependant? Given the presence of SDB and SMS. most of the JCL requirements might be taught in a single course, or perhaps merged into the basic LINUX or UNIX course. In my mind, data structures and the advantages and drawbacks of each type, for example, can be learned on any platform. snip- Twenty years ago, I got a Macintosh SE, in large part so my girlfriend could write her doctoral dissertation in music. Would I have taken an s/370 (XA?) at the time for personal use?. Not if it were free; not if it were in a package I could carry. How many of us today, given a z/OS system that weighed 5 pounds and cost $1000 would make that our only computer and OS? Wouldn't we each still need another computer, or at least a partition on the same one, for Email, Web browsing, document preparation, access to IBMLink, etc.? --unsnip--- I agree that a single-platform outlook can be very foolish, given the various strengths and weeknesses, and the facilities of each platform. ---snip--- If IBM can't make z/OS the only OS people need, and the first choice for many, too many customers will find it expedient to seek to use the computer and OS they already need and own to host the additional applications they come to need. Is it even plausible that enterprises seeking to simplify their IT structures by reducing the number of OSes they support would consider eliminating Windows, Linux, OS X, or Solaris and moving all its applications to z/OS? --unsnip-- Business requirements MUST be the final arbiter of platform choice, as always. The dog must wag the tail, not vice-versa. And I think that very few businesses are willing to undertake the expense of re-designing legacy applications just to make a platform change, especially if those applications are part of the core business processing. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
---snip To refresh my memory was the 370 the first public machine that used the HSB? My memory says yes but as we have seen the POPS and FUNC manual are indeed different. There were quite a few machines I had no exposure to like the 44 and the 67 and the (1)95 among others -unsnip-- I remember that the 44 I worked with had high-speed general registers, but I was green enough that I didn't know what effect they had. I don't recall any mention of high-speed buffers in my 44 or 67 days, but I was still pretty green at the time so I can't be sure. I remember that on our 44, we had three high-speed channels, but they were all byte-multiplexors; unit-record stuff on 0, 2314 DASD on 1 and 2401 tapes on 2. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thompson, Steve) writes: WANG with their WANG/VS systems came up with an idea that would have met your problem. The workstations had a button that caused the CEC to download microcode for DP/WP (Data Processing / Word Processing). So your workstation could switch between types of work. [ASCII based S/360 type architecture on steroids.] IBM attempted to make a product to market against WANG. They couldn't figure out how to do it economically. Problem was the distance from the tree to the eyeballs of the powers that were was about 2 inches. The problem was solved by having a PC that could do word processing while having an emulator (3270) for the 3270 type tasks, and then the PC would handle the word processing type tasks. for some topic drift ... past posts about PC getting early market traction because it sold for about the same price as 3270 and in single desktop footprint could get 3270 terminal emulation and some local (personal) computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#emulation OPD's displaywriter was in WANG wordprocessing market segment. ROMP was early 801 risc chip originally designed to be used for displaywriter follow-on product. when that was killed, the group looked around for something else to use the machine for and settled on the unix workstation market. they got the company that had done the pc/ix port to do one for the displaywriter follow-on and renamed the product the PC/RT (and the software AIX). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 The PC/RT followon was the RS6000 with RIOS chipset. RS6000 was relogo'ed as hardware platfrom by some number of other companies ... including WANG as it got out of the hardware business. As part of that change-over, some number of the people from RS6000 group went to WANG. old time article from nov80 mentioning wang, word-processing market http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950498,00.html?iid=chix-sphere page mentioning some of the old/70s wordprocessing market http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/DedicatedWPMicros.htm article on demise of dedicated wordprocessor boxes; having given away to multi-application PCs http://www.cbronline.com/article_cg_print.asp?guid=265D4108-6F66-49EC-80B1-E51D2AA8876E note that there was a project in the early 80s to replace the wide variety of internal microprocessors with 801/risc processors (including the ones used for displaywriters). this included all the processors in the low and mid-range 370s ... at the time, the 4341-followon (4381) was going to use a 801/risc processor; the s/38-followon (as/400) was going to use a 801/risc processor ... and lots of others were also. A special flavor of 801/risc, Iliad had additional features for supporting emulation of other architectures ... some old 801-related email, including mention of work on Iliad chips http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#801 for other topic drift, old email mentioning 43xx ... e-architecture machines http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx i.e. while the high-end 370 came up with 370-xa (code named 811 for nov78 document publication date), the low/mid range came up with e-architecture (where dos/vs to vse came from). for some archeological trivia, i contributed to the document killing 801/risc idea for the 4341-followon. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Jan 1, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Rick Fochtman wrote: ---snip To refresh my memory was the 370 the first public machine that used the HSB? My memory says yes but as we have seen the POPS and FUNC manual are indeed different. There were quite a few machines I had no exposure to like the 44 and the 67 and the (1)95 among others -unsnip-- I remember that the 44 I worked with had high-speed general registers, but I was green enough that I didn't know what effect they had. I don't recall any mention of high-speed buffers in my 44 or 67 days, but I was still pretty green at the time so I can't be sure. I remember that on our 44, we had three high-speed channels, but they were all byte-multiplexors; unit-record stuff on 0, 2314 DASD on 1 and 2401 tapes on 2. Rick: FYI according to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the model 85 was the 1st 360 to have a HSB. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:35:36 -, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK wrote: http://www.sva.de/files/RZ_SVA%20z%20Hosting_web.pdf This is the first example I've seen of a hosting service designed specifically for ISVs. Other, that is, than IBM's - and some ISVs may have concerns about hosting their development on an IBM site. SVA have a 2-CP z990 - the sketch in the PDF document is pretty self-explanatory. SVA is a _very_ well-respected company - I've known Felix for years and you won't find anyone with a bad word for him. The company is largely (entirely?) staffed by techies who understand real world problems. For customers with Flex-ES systems additional special incentives are offered. I think SVA was the largest Flex-ES dealership in Germany by a very large margin. Phil, since you know Felix, perhaps you can confirm whether this is true: IBM has now forbidden SVA from offering their hosting services in North America. Regards, Mike Baldwin Cartagena Software Ltd. www.cartagena.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes: Rick: FYI according to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the model 85 was the 1st 360 to have a HSB. re: http:/www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#98 It keeps getting uglier not just me: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1968.html from above: Additions to System/360 family are announced, including the Model 85. The high-speed cache, or buffer memory, found in the System/360 Model 85, is the first in the industry. The cache memory makes highly prioritized information available at 12 times the speed of regular, main-core memory. ... snip ... not only first 360 ... but first in the industry. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:05:53 -0600, Eric Bielefeld eric- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, I suspect that many of the customers had larger mainframes, and are just in a holding pattern trying to get off of z/OS. The way IBM is treating their small customers, I'm sure that will increase the speed of their getting off of z/OS. Then, they will forever be lost to the mainframe. Of the 5 commercial FLEX-ES users I contacted in Canada: - 1 said they are doing OK; bought a second FLEX system for D.R. - 1 said they had 3, but none are in production as they've already migrated to Linux (presumably not Linux for z). - 1 is looking at z9BC; Unfortunately, we're learning that good options (with similar TCO's to the Flex-ES) don't exist. - 1 is migrating to web-based apps (presumably not z) over 2-3 years; running unsupported VM, VSE - 1 no response, or I can't find it. I also remember being at an IBM marketing meeting in Milwaukee, where the issue of smaller mainframes running on PCs was brought up. I think this was between 1 and 2 years ago. The IBM spokesman said Watch this space for furthur developements. Well, there doesn't seem to be any furthur developements. All I see is IBM trying to get rid of any competition. At that time, I think there were high hopes for what turned out to be zPDT. Those hopes were dashed (except maybe for some IBMers). Regards, Mike Baldwin Cartagena Software Ltd. www.cartagena.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:31:16 -0500, John P. Baker wrote: I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with IBM in its ongoing dispute with PSI, but I feel that IBM is on solid ground. PSI didn't spend tens of billions of dollars on RD. IBM did. IBM should not have to give the fruits of those efforts to a latecomer looking to make a quick buck. The money which IBM spent on RD came from the sales of mainframe computers to the companies which run the banking, transportation, manufacturing, and administrative systems which we all rely on. The revenues of those companies comes from the users of those systems. IBM didn't pay for the RD. We did. S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society. IBM does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret, nor to hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing compatible systems. We have a right to expect that the hardware and software to drive these critical systems will always remain available. A competitive marketplace with a choice of suppliers is the way to ensure that the continued availability of mainframe technology is not dependent on the short-term interests of IBM profitability. For many years I trusted IBM to honour its obligations to society. Recent events led me to believe that this trust was misplaced. When IBM pulled the rug out from under the independent software vendors in the autumn of 2006, because the emulation technology in their IBM-supplied development systems got in the way of the IBM vs PSI litigation, it showed that however benevolent IBM may appear to be, in the end IBM's interests override those of the customer. Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200703b.html Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200704b.html Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
xxx didn't pay for the RD. We did. Methinks that we (the consumers etc) pretty much always pay for RD one way or another. Even benevolent individuals acquired their wealth from others somehow. --- Mike Poil Java z/OS Level 3 Service IBM United Kingdom Limited, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN Internal: 246824 External: +44 (0)1962 816824 Java debugging: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/diagnosis/ -- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Roger Bowler wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:31:16 -0500, John P. Baker wrote: I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with IBM in its ongoing dispute with PSI, but I feel that IBM is on solid ground. PSI didn't spend tens of billions of dollars on RD. IBM did. IBM should not have to give the fruits of those efforts to a latecomer looking to make a quick buck. The money which IBM spent on RD came from the sales of mainframe computers to the companies which run the banking, transportation, manufacturing, and administrative systems which we all rely on. The revenues of those companies comes from the users of those systems. IBM didn't pay for the RD. We did. S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society. IBM does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret, nor to hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing compatible systems. We have a right to expect that the hardware and software to drive these critical systems will always remain available. A competitive marketplace with a choice of suppliers is the way to ensure that the continued availability of mainframe technology is not dependent on the short-term interests of IBM profitability. Be very careful with using the word rights; there are no a priori, universal rights anywhere. You might be more accurate to state: We have an expectation that the hardware and software to drive these critical systems will always remain available. But you don't have the right to force that this will always be the way things are. For many years I trusted IBM to honour its obligations to society. And what obligations are those? Recent events led me to believe that this trust was misplaced. When IBM pulled the rug out from under the independent software vendors in the autumn of 2006, because the emulation technology in their IBM-supplied development systems got in the way of the IBM vs PSI litigation, it showed that however benevolent IBM may appear to be, in the end IBM's interests override those of the customer. Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200703b.html Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200704b.html Things change. Some of the changes I don't like; some I do like; the others I'm indifferent to. But most changes are out of my control. I control only my response to the changes I encounter. Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-393-8716 http://www.trainersfriend.com z/OS Application development made easier * Our classes include + How things work + Programming examples with realistic applications + Starter / skeleton code + Complete working programs + Useful utilities and subroutines + Tips and techniques -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Someone Wrote... I just lost track... S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society. IBM does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret, nor to hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing compatible systems. I don't think there are any guarantees anyway... If IBM / Microsoft file for bankruptcy in the morning, all the rights / expectations, will be down the toilet, and I think the reaction on the stock market might be even worse that the current one concerning the troubles that the banks are in, not doubt that some government or institution will bail them out, because of the size of the disaster if either one of them had to be shut down, yet the fact remains that just like the miscalculation that Citibank amongst others, made miscalculations are made, and as I said, in such a case, there are no guarantees. How many people severed their relationships with IBM because they really believed in Amdahl, I guess if they wanted to keep on processing on mainframes, they were with their hats in their hands at the door of IBM in the last few years... no guarantees there... In 1992/3 was in a company myself that showed IBM the door because Amdahl had a 'better' deal... That is probably my last my cent's worth for 2007... Herbie Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
All RD is paid for by the consumer in the end. So what? IBM has not made hardware or software unavailable. US patent law provides for a term of exclusivity. IBM is enforcing the legitimate rights afforded to then under US patent law. You seem to suggest that if an invention is of great benefit to society the rights of the patent holder should be held null and void. The founding fathers felt differently, and more than 200 years of jurisprudence have upheld that difference of opinion. Inventors are granted a limited time during which they retain exclusive rights to their invention, regardless of what society may think about it. Otherwise, what would be the purpose? Under your scenario, if I come up with a new invention which is of great benefit to society, then society should have the right to take it, give it to other (cheaper) manufacturers, and leave me out in the cold. IBM is well within its rights to deny PSI access to its 64-bit patents during the term of exclusivity, which in the US in currently 20 years. You may not like IBM's enforcement of its patent rights, but that does not make their actions illegal. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Bowler Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:14 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier The money which IBM spent on RD came from the sales of mainframe computers to the companies which run the banking, transportation, manufacturing, and administrative systems which we all rely on. The revenues of those companies comes from the users of those systems. IBM didn't pay for the RD. We did. S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society. IBM does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret, nor to hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing compatible systems. We have a right to expect that the hardware and software to drive these critical systems will always remain available. A competitive marketplace with a choice of suppliers is the way to ensure that the continued availability of mainframe technology is not dependent on the short-term interests of IBM profitability. For many years I trusted IBM to honour its obligations to society. Recent events led me to believe that this trust was misplaced. When IBM pulled the rug out from under the independent software vendors in the autumn of 2006, because the emulation technology in their IBM-supplied development systems got in the way of the IBM vs PSI litigation, it showed that however benevolent IBM may appear to be, in the end IBM's interests override those of the customer. Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200703b.html Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200704b.html Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Your point is valid, but WHY would IBM want to shut out this part of the market? One of the big things I keep hearing/reading is that there are concerns that not enough mainframe-trained students are coming out of colleges or trade schools and into the job market. The small-platform mainframe would erase that shortage, because schools could actually use low-cost processors to train students how to program/operate/secure their commercial big brothers. It also keeps smaller developers from creating innovative software for the mainframe platform. How does restricting the marketplace like this HELP Big Blue? Because so far, I've not seen a convincing argument for that case, despite the fact that it seems to be the core thrust of IBM's actions. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John P. Baker Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 09:44 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier All RD is paid for by the consumer in the end. So what? IBM has not made hardware or software unavailable. US patent law provides for a term of exclusivity. IBM is enforcing the legitimate rights afforded to then under US patent law. You seem to suggest that if an invention is of great benefit to society the rights of the patent holder should be held null and void. The founding fathers felt differently, and more than 200 years of jurisprudence have upheld that difference of opinion. Inventors are granted a limited time during which they retain exclusive rights to their invention, regardless of what society may think about it. Otherwise, what would be the purpose? Under your scenario, if I come up with a new invention which is of great benefit to society, then society should have the right to take it, give it to other (cheaper) manufacturers, and leave me out in the cold. IBM is well within its rights to deny PSI access to its 64-bit patents during the term of exclusivity, which in the US in currently 20 years. You may not like IBM's enforcement of its patent rights, but that does not make their actions illegal. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Bowler Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:14 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier The money which IBM spent on RD came from the sales of mainframe computers to the companies which run the banking, transportation, manufacturing, and administrative systems which we all rely on. The revenues of those companies comes from the users of those systems. IBM didn't pay for the RD. We did. S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society. IBM does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret, nor to hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing compatible systems. We have a right to expect that the hardware and software to drive these critical systems will always remain available. A competitive marketplace with a choice of suppliers is the way to ensure that the continued availability of mainframe technology is not dependent on the short-term interests of IBM profitability. For many years I trusted IBM to honour its obligations to society. Recent events led me to believe that this trust was misplaced. When IBM pulled the rug out from under the independent software vendors in the autumn of 2006, because the emulation technology in their IBM-supplied development systems got in the way of the IBM vs PSI litigation, it showed that however benevolent IBM may appear to be, in the end IBM's interests override those of the customer. Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200703b.html Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200704b.html Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
I don't disagree with you. Philosophically, I have a problem with IBM's actions. Legally, I feel that they are on solid ground. In arguing the merits of this case or of any other case we need to remember to distinguish between what we want and what we have a right to. They are seldom the same things. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier Your point is valid, but WHY would IBM want to shut out this part of the market? One of the big things I keep hearing/reading is that there are concerns that not enough mainframe-trained students are coming out of colleges or trade schools and into the job market. The small-platform mainframe would erase that shortage, because schools could actually use low-cost processors to train students how to program/operate/secure their commercial big brothers. It also keeps smaller developers from creating innovative software for the mainframe platform. How does restricting the marketplace like this HELP Big Blue? Because so far, I've not seen a convincing argument for that case, despite the fact that it seems to be the core thrust of IBM's actions. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
I believe you're correct on IBM's legal position - up to a point. But when they provided that information previously for development of the software, did they not in effect diminish the strength of their case merely through that action? I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae brief so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected. Because IBM's actions are not just having a deleterious effect on T3T and PSI. It's whacking us hard too... On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:55:19 -0500, John P. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't disagree with you. Philosophically, I have a problem with IBM's actions. Legally, I feel that they are on solid ground. In arguing the merits of this case or of any other case we need to remember to distinguish between what we want and what we have a right to. They are seldom the same things. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier Your point is valid, but WHY would IBM want to shut out this part of the market? One of the big things I keep hearing/reading is that there are concerns that not enough mainframe-trained students are coming out of colleges or trade schools and into the job market. The small-platform mainframe would erase that shortage, because schools could actually use low-cost processors to train students how to program/operate/secure their commercial big brothers. It also keeps smaller developers from creating innovative software for the mainframe platform. How does restricting the marketplace like this HELP Big Blue? Because so far, I've not seen a convincing argument for that case, despite the fact that it seems to be the core thrust of IBM's actions. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
No, IBM has not weakened its case. IBM previously licensed 31-bit internal documentation to third parties. However, if I recall the reports correctly, IBM has revoked PSI's licensing upon IBM's assertion that PSI illegally obtained and made use of licensed internal code and documentation in the development of their Itanium-based emulator, and that they furthermore are in violation of numerous IBM patents. Also, as I understand it, IBM has consistently refused to license its 64-bit materials. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:10 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier I believe you're correct on IBM's legal position - up to a point. But when they provided that information previously for development of the software, did they not in effect diminish the strength of their case merely through that action? I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae brief so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected. Because IBM's actions are not just having a deleterious effect on T3T and PSI. It's whacking us hard too... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Interesting argument, kind of reminds of an exchange in the movie Godfather: Tatalia : ... I'm talking about all the politicians he carrys in his pocket ... Barzini : ... He must let us draw the water from the well ... off course Don Corleone can present a bill for his services. We are not communists after all ... To me it seems IBM is going way beyond keeping their secrets. It seems they are trying to outlaw all reverse engineering and all emulation. Looks very much like a text book example of unfair business practice to me though a legal expert can surely disagree. On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:14:12 -0600, Roger Bowler ibm- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: S/390-based technology is critical to the functioning of our society. IBM does not have the right to keep society-critical technology secret, nor to hold society to ransom by preventing competitors from producing compatible systems. Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe My heart felt thanks to the creator of Hercules the people's mainframe. Mohammad -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Then, why are the 31-bit licenses also being affected? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John P. Baker Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:27 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier No, IBM has not weakened its case. IBM previously licensed 31-bit internal documentation to third parties. However, if I recall the reports correctly, IBM has revoked PSI's licensing upon IBM's assertion that PSI illegally obtained and made use of licensed internal code and documentation in the development of their Itanium-based emulator, and that they furthermore are in violation of numerous IBM patents. Also, as I understand it, IBM has consistently refused to license its 64-bit materials. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:10 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier I believe you're correct on IBM's legal position - up to a point. But when they provided that information previously for development of the software, did they not in effect diminish the strength of their case merely through that action? I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae brief so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected. Because IBM's actions are not just having a deleterious effect on T3T and PSI. It's whacking us hard too... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
I don't know. However, I expect that there is a lot more yet to come out in the IBM vs. PSI case which may shed light on the situation. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:31 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier Then, why are the 31-bit licenses also being affected? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Roger, Thank you for posting the 2 articles below. I found them very interesting and informative. This whole issue is very controversial. Legally, I certainly can't comment as I don't know the law involved. It just seems to me that it would be in IBM's best interests to have PSI and Cornerstone keep selling selling their small mainframes. They keep getting revenue, however small, from 300 or so customers. If I were IBM, I would rather lose the hardware revenue and keep leasing the software, with the hope that at some point those customers would get bigger, and eventually buy a z9, or whatever is current at the time. But, I suspect that many of the customers had larger mainframes, and are just in a holding pattern trying to get off of z/OS. The way IBM is treating their small customers, I'm sure that will increase the speed of their getting off of z/OS. Then, they will forever be lost to the mainframe. I also remember being at an IBM marketing meeting in Milwaukee, where the issue of smaller mainframes running on PCs was brought up. I think this was between 1 and 2 years ago. The IBM spokesman said Watch this space for furthur developements. Well, there doesn't seem to be any furthur developements. All I see is IBM trying to get rid of any competition. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Des Moines, Iowa 515-645-5153 - Original Message - From: Roger Bowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200703b.html Ref: http://www.tech-news.com/another/ap200704b.html Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:05 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae brief so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected. I'd like to read more about what rights we think we have in this. It seems pretty clear-cut to me. IBM owns this stuff and they're trying to protect it. The patent laws are the patent laws. Retroactively applying some socialistic philosphy to the issue does not change IBM's rights nor the law. While I agree with many of the opinions concerning what should happen and have posted my opinion regarding IBM's seemingly short-sighted strategy, I cannot and will not support a movement to ignore the law and deny anyone's right to protect their property. Without any political nor philosophical preaching, what specific rights do we have in this matter -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:44:26 -0500, John P. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to suggest that if an invention is of great benefit to society the rights of the patent holder should be held null and void. The founding fathers felt differently, and more than 200 years of jurisprudence have upheld that difference of opinion. Inventors are granted a limited time during which they retain exclusive rights to their invention, regardless of what society may think about it. Otherwise, what would be the purpose? Under your scenario, if I come up with a new invention which is of great benefit to society, then society should have the right to take it, give it to other (cheaper) manufacturers, and leave me out in the cold. Um, well... Sections 181-188 of the US patent act provide for just about what you say can't happen. The US government can not only take your invention, but can suppress its publication, and fine you $10,000 and/or put you in jail for two years if you talk about it, first amendment be dammed. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
---snip--- Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS had at least some of them (I presume not all). I ran across them by accident. When I was helping to optimize someone else's code on the 1419 . The damn machine had a timing issue and you had to make a pocket selection decision in x many micro seconds (the micro seconds is a guess) I have forgotten what the time was . The book actually had instruction timing specifics for each instruction. --unsnip-- IIRC, the various S/360 instruction timings were in a manual called Functional Characteristics. The various DIAGNOSE code might have been included there, since the manual was model dependant. Stuff like stacker-selection timings, etc. was in the individual hardware manuals, where appropriate. I remmber hunting for that stuff for the 2540 Reader/Punch. Ours was hanging on a 2821 controller at the time. We were trying to do a read-punch-stack function all on the same card; we finally found a better way to handle the situation. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The critical part is Section 181, which specifically refers to the issuance of an order of secrecy on a patent for national security reasons, and is intended to preclude a patent holder from disclosing the details of an invention where such disclosure would impair national security. For example, there are patents which remain secret to this day in respect to various nuclear technologies. This section is also intended to preclude a inventor from obtaining a patent and then denying the government access to the benefits derived therefrom, particularly during wartime. It is very restrictive, at least in practice, although I feel that the language should be tightened so as to preclude the possibility of abuse. The Act also provides that the inventor must be compensated, and that if the inventor feels that the proposed compensation is inadequate, a suit may be brought in United States Claims Court, both in terms of losses by virtue of an order of secrecy and/or the use of the invention by the government. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 12:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:44:26 -0500, John P. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, well... Sections 181-188 of the US patent act provide for just about what you say can't happen. The US government can not only take your invention, but can suppress its publication, and fine you $10,000 and/or put you in jail for two years if you talk about it, first amendment be dammed. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 01:48 AM, Doug Fuerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I don't think so. Unless of course the Senior IBM factory reps didn't know either. I think they knew where to look. The CE manuals for the 2030, 2040, 2050 and 2065 were all available to the general public, and included those data. Where did you think Gerhard found out about the ones that he used? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 12:38 AM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Shmuel: Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS There was no 360/30 POPS. had at least some of them That would be Functional Specifications, FETOM and the like, not POPS. The book actually had instruction timing specifics for each instruction. If you look at the Functional Specifications for several models, you will see that the formulae get progressively more complicated for the faster and newer models. I believe that that's the reason IBM stopped publishing them. The timings, of course, have nothing to do with the question of documenting DIAG, which AFAIK has never been in Functional Specifications but only in the FE manuals. PS: Please don't quote () your original text. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:31:53 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 12:38 AM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The book actually had instruction timing specifics for each instruction. If you look at the Functional Specifications for several models, you will see that the formulae get progressively more complicated for the faster and newer models. I believe that that's the reason IBM stopped publishing them. When processors srarted to include High-Speed Buffers, now commonly called cache, any published timings became very difficult to determine. When memory references were simple real memory references, the time required for each was easily determined. With the HSB, a memory reference took some number of clock cycles it the data were in the HSB and longer id they had to be fetched from main store. Sometimes still longer if a line in the buffer had to be written back to main store first. Of course, virtual address translation addes yet another layer of complexity to the time required to access storage. Worst case is a memory reference to get the segment table entry, another to get the page table entry and a third to access the storage required. Then if the data referenced crosses a segment boundary, another memory reference to get the next segment table entry and the page table entry. Translation Lookaside Buffers are used to keep these references to a minimum. These effects are one of the biggest reasons why instruction timings tend to vary. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:50:34 -0500, Doc Farmer wrote: Your point is valid, but WHY would IBM want to shut out this part of the market? One of the big things I keep hearing/reading is that there are concerns that not enough mainframe-trained students are coming out of colleges or trade schools and into the job market. The small-platform mainframe would erase that shortage, because schools could actually use low-cost processors to train students how to program/operate/secure their commercial big brothers. ... could. But would it happen? Is z/OS at any price a preferred instructional platform? How relevant to mainstream computer science is teaching students to code DD statements for CKD DASD when the view of many sophisticated readers of this list is that CKD should be superseded by FBA? Twenty years ago, I got a Macintosh SE, in large part so my girlfriend could write her doctoral dissertation in music. Would I have taken an s/370 (XA?) at the time for personal use?. Not if it were free; not if it were in a package I could carry. How many of us today, given a z/OS system that weighed 5 pounds and cost $1000 would make that our only computer and OS? Wouldn't we each still need another computer, or at least a partition on the same one, for Email, Web browsing, document preparation, access to IBMLink, etc.? ... It also keeps smaller developers from creating innovative software for the mainframe platform. How does restricting the marketplace like this HELP Big Blue? Because so far, I've not seen a convincing argument for that case, despite the fact that it seems to be the core thrust of IBM's actions. If IBM can't make z/OS the only OS people need, and the first choice for many, too many customers will find it expedient to seek to use the computer and OS they already need and own to host the additional applications they come to need. Is it even plausible that enterprises seeking to simplify their IT structures by reducing the number of OSes they support would consider eliminating Windows, Linux, OS X, or Solaris and moving all its applications to z/OS? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 31, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/31/2007 at 12:38 AM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Shmuel: Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS There was no 360/30 POPS. Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory. I just remember it giving me a blow by blow description on the format of the instructions and how it worked plus timings. If it was another manual, fine. had at least some of them That would be Functional Specifications, FETOM and the like, not POPS. The book actually had instruction timing specifics for each instruction. If you look at the Functional Specifications for several models, you will see that the formulae get progressively more complicated for the faster and newer models. I believe that that's the reason IBM stopped publishing them. The timings, of course, have nothing to do with the question of documenting DIAG, which AFAIK has never been in Functional Specifications but only in the FE manuals. PS: Please don't quote () your original text. If you have a quibble on how the Apple Mail program works open a PMR with them. I know of at least 1 other feature that doesn't follow spec. Have fun. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: --SNIP- When processors srarted to include High-Speed Buffers, now commonly called cache, any published timings became very difficult to determine. When memory references were simple real memory references, the time required for each was easily determined. With the HSB, a memory reference took some number of clock cycles it the data were in the HSB and longer id they had to be fetched from main store. Sometimes still longer if a line in the buffer had to be written back to main store first. Of course, virtual address translation addes yet another layer of complexity to the time required to access storage. Worst case is a memory reference to get the segment table entry, another to get the page table entry and a third to access the storage required. Then if the data referenced crosses a segment boundary, another memory reference to get the next segment table entry and the page table entry. Translation Lookaside Buffers are used to keep these references to a minimum. These effects are one of the biggest reasons why instruction timings tend to vary. -- Tom Marchant Tom, Of course you are correct and that is (probably) why the 1419 ended up in the DC graveyard. Thanks for reminding us of the history. I had just remembered working on timing of a specific machine. To refresh my memory was the 370 the first public machine that used the HSB? My memory says yes but as we have seen the POPS and FUNC manual are indeed different. There were quite a few machines I had no exposure to like the 44 and the 67 and the (1)95 among others Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:28:22 -, Phil Payne wrote: PSI has also filed its anti-trust suit in the EU. Dearly beloved DG IV is a little different from the New York District Court - it has teeth that it's not afraid to use. http://ww.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html Has anyone from the Hercules team read IBM's rather stunning admission (on the above page - paragraph 176) that there is a confidential version of the PoP? Their words, not mine. Or, perhaps, http://www.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html ... wherein I see: 176. The Technical Information that IBM disclosed to Amdahl under the TIDA and TILA generally was derived from a confidential version of the PoP and from other confidential architecture documents. Confidential aspects of IBM's architecture disclosed to Amdahl are still maintained today in a confidential version of the PoP and in other confidential documents. PSI admits that the technical information disclosed to Amdahl may have initially been derived from a version of the PoP that was different from the public version of the PoP. PSI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 176. Ummm. IANAL. Clearly. It appears that PSI is denying the existence of certain confidential documents mentioned in the remaining allegations. To do so with confidence, PSI must have good industrial espionage indeed. Or is this a legal tactic to compel IBM to present evidence of the existence of the putative confidential documents, which evidence might have collateral benefit to PSI? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes: Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory. I just remember it giving me a blow by blow description on the format of the instructions and how it worked plus timings. If it was another manual, fine. 360/30 functional characteristics ... see if this is what you remember http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/GA24-3231-7_360-30_funcChar.pdf This has directory for -0, -6, and -7 360 Principles of Operation http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/poo/ past posts in thread: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#21 It keeps getting uglier http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#68 It keeps getting uglier for other drift, directory of some 360 FE manuals http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/fe/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier SNIPAGE could. But would it happen? Is z/OS at any price a preferred instructional platform? How relevant to mainstream computer science is teaching students to code DD statements for CKD DASD when the view of many sophisticated readers of this list is that CKD should be superseded by FBA? Twenty years ago, I got a Macintosh SE, in large part so my girlfriend could write her doctoral dissertation in music. Would I have taken an s/370 (XA?) at the time for personal use?. Not if it were free; not if it were in a package I could carry. How many of us today, given a z/OS system that weighed 5 pounds and cost $1000 would make that our only computer and OS? Wouldn't we each still need another computer, or at least a partition on the same one, for Email, Web browsing, document preparation, access to IBMLink, etc.? SNIPAGE WANG with their WANG/VS systems came up with an idea that would have met your problem. The workstations had a button that caused the CEC to download microcode for DP/WP (Data Processing / Word Processing). So your workstation could switch between types of work. [ASCII based S/360 type architecture on steroids.] IBM attempted to make a product to market against WANG. They couldn't figure out how to do it economically. Problem was the distance from the tree to the eyeballs of the powers that were was about 2 inches. The problem was solved by having a PC that could do word processing while having an emulator (3270) for the 3270 type tasks, and then the PC would handle the word processing type tasks. With the advent of Unix System Services, your workstation can make use of Open Office running on the mainframe (I think, I don't have the opportunity to install it here to try it out). And you could chose to make that system a server to handle email if you so desire, or you can get your email direct to the workstation from your ISP. Back to your DD statement arguments, that to me is a strawman. What or how the SCP supports the hard drives is not truly germane. Yes, you and I battle with it because we choose to. But tell me again what SMS is for? And you, like me, may prefer a stick-shift. I certainly do when driving a CLASS B (or above -- to those not in the USofA, trucks of 10,000lbs or beyond w/ or w/o a trailer) vehicle, but these days I kinda like my wife's automatic when I drive in city traffic. I do this because I know I can tune my applications better than the system can (in most cases) and it gives us better through-put than a vanilla all IBM software install. So, if given an opportunity, I would take a PC based z/ARCH development machine. Imagine building a web type interface for doing all my doc writing and printing that runs under z/OS. Imagine having a system with serious security that is very hard to hack (I didn't say impossible, and I didn't say it couldn't be done, because I know of at least one S/370 virus that was written to prove the point). Now imagine every major university having HLASM, COBOL, C/C++, etc. taught in true cross platform environments. How many z/xxx licenses would that make? Imagine being able to develop an integrated application that small offices would want, and IBM could license the software for less than what they do now because the base is no longer a concrete pond -- 100,000 and growing z/xxx installs would allow for software prices to soften a bit. Get that over 500,000 and the prices should drop more. Service would not be that tough because most users would not be pushing the limits (well, except for you, me and those hacker type students of course). Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes: To refresh my memory was the 370 the first public machine that used the HSB? My memory says yes but as we have seen the POPS and FUNC manual are indeed different. There were quite a few machines I had no exposure to like the 44 and the 67 and the (1)95 among others 360/85 was first machine with cache. this web page has some number of ibm product announcements http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-ProdAnn/index.html including the 360/85 http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/IBM-ProdAnn/360-85.pdf -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Darren, please come back. Bob Shannon Rocket Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
This thread is getting kind of ugly! Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Bob Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Darren, please come back. Bob Shannon Rocket Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:16 -0600, Dave Kopischke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:05 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote:
I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae
brief
so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected.
I'd like to read more about what rights we think we have in this. It seems
pretty clear-cut to me. IBM owns this stuff and they're trying to protect it.
The patent laws are the patent laws. Retroactively applying some socialistic
philosphy to the issue does not change IBM's rights nor the law.
While I agree with many of the opinions concerning what should happen and
have posted my opinion regarding IBM's seemingly short-sighted strategy, I
cannot and will not support a movement to ignore the law and deny anyone's
right to protect their property.
Without any political nor philosophical preaching, what specific rights do we
have in this matter
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Well, for example, the freedom to choose what platform we use for
development purposes. In effect, IBM is taking that option away from existing
users, and they're also limiting a market for potential users.
Further, as users I think we could make the argument that IBM's actions are
anti-competitive both to the principals of the case as well as to small
development shops and educational facilities. The fact that this cuts IBM's
own throat by further reducing the numbers of mainframe-ready developers,
technicians, etc., available to the general workplace market, which would in
turn reduce the demand for z Series systems, is an irony the court might find
chuckle-worthy.
Now, do those rights have any force in law? I have absolutely NO idea.
However, there are areas of consumer protection which could apply (and I
speak with all the legal background and experience of any other former tape-
ape here [see also: -all, bugger] {Brits please explain phrase to your Colonial
counterparts}).
I don't see how paying IBM to use its operating system (on a small platform)
is denying them their rights. So far as I'm aware, none of the principals on
the non-IBM side of this issue have stolen any classified data, nor acted
outside their previously negotiated agreements. If I'm wrong about that,
please point out the error because I don't recall seeing anything regarding
such activities. Customers have paid the principals, the principals have paid
IBM, we do the Hokey Pokey and we shake it all about.
When you come right down to it, it would be (from my admittedly naïve point
of view) far better for all of the parties involved to try to come to some sort
of
modus vivendi instead of all this (extremely expensive) legal action.
Unfortunately, once the [bleep]ing lawyers get their hands on something like
this, it is almost impossible to wrest it from their control.
But that's just my opinion.
I hope I've been neither philosophical nor political.
Thus endeth the lesson (oops, preachy! sorry...)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 31, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote: The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) writes: Its been at least 30 years I will yield to your memory. I just remember it giving me a blow by blow description on the format of the instructions and how it worked plus timings. If it was another manual, fine. 360/30 functional characteristics ... see if this is what you remember http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/ GA24-3231-7_360-30_funcChar.pdf Its close but I am not sure after 30 years. My poor memory says the it had the instruction then a figure and a brief description (verbiage) and a time in micro seconds(?) that it took to execute the instruction. Then a full blown description of the instruction. What I saw (at least at page 30) was not close to what I remember. However it is a moot point as far as I am concerned as you came up with something close. This has directory for -0, -6, and -7 360 Principles of Operation http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/poo/ The poo as IBM called it is also close except it did not have the timing of each instruction(s) (which when I think of it wouldn't be in there as it would be model dependent). Apparently my memory is rusting after 30+ years. Thank you for the information it has helped me do some error correction. You have been a great help, as responding to him gets exhausting at times. At least you provide positive information. Ed past posts in thread: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#21 It keeps getting uglier http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#68 It keeps getting uglier for other drift, directory of some 360 FE manuals http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/fe/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM, spent millions developing the machine, they would be entitled to some exclusivity. How fair is it for every competitor to reverse engineer their machines to mimic the IBM box, and not compensate IBM for that? At least MOBO manufacturers use different chipsets and moderately different designs. I don't believe they are reverse engineering Intel boards, nor is AMD reverse engineering Core Duo's. Doug At 10:28 31-12-07, you wrote: Interesting argument, kind of reminds of an exchange in the movie Godfather: Tatalia : ... I'm talking about all the politicians he carrys in his pocket ... Barzini : ... He must let us draw the water from the well ... off course Don Corleone can present a bill for his services. We are not communists after all ... To me it seems IBM is going way beyond keeping their secrets. It seems they are trying to outlaw all reverse engineering and all emulation. Looks very much like a text book example of unfair business practice to me though a legal expert can surely disagree. snip Mohammad -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 31, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote: How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM, spent millions developing the machine, they would be entitled to some exclusivity. How fair is it for every competitor to reverse engineer their machines to mimic the IBM box, and not compensate IBM for that? At least MOBO manufacturers use different chipsets and moderately different designs. I don't believe they are reverse engineering Intel boards, nor is AMD reverse engineering Core Duo's. Doug Doug, An interesting issue and I am sure there is no straightforward answer. Take for instance Blueberry muffins according to your theory only one person is allowed to produce them, yet MANY stores through out the US (and maybe Canada) sell them every day. Do they all have the same ingredients, no but they are probably close. I know you say that the person inventing them isn't getting paid his/her fair share. But hey they do taste good:) Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
LOL, yes they do. But here in Brooklyn we have many bagel places. They all make them differently and have distinct tastes. I wonder if one of them is buying on the sly from one of the others and is trying to make them the same as the guy who makes the best? They protect their recipes, and I personally think that Bagel Boy's are so superior that they are a benefit to society, so I am heading to Bagel Boy in the morning for a dozen, and their recipe. Hey, they have to give it to me right? I mean, it DOES benefit society to produce the best bagels from a number of competing stores, and it will save me all that time, flour, and gas for the ovens to not have to figure out a good recipe myself. ROTFLMBO! Happy New Year all. Doug At 19:50 31-12-07, you wrote: On Dec 31, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote: How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM, spent millions developing the machine, they would be entitled to some exclusivity. How fair is it for every competitor to reverse engineer their machines to mimic the IBM box, and not compensate IBM for that? At least MOBO manufacturers use different chipsets and moderately different designs. I don't believe they are reverse engineering Intel boards, nor is AMD reverse engineering Core Duo's. Doug Doug, An interesting issue and I am sure there is no straightforward answer. Take for instance Blueberry muffins according to your theory only one person is allowed to produce them, yet MANY stores through out the US (and maybe Canada) sell them every day. Do they all have the same ingredients, no but they are probably close. I know you say that the person inventing them isn't getting paid his/her fair share. But hey they do taste good:) Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Fuerst) writes: How do you figure that reverse engineering is an acceptable method of RD or design? Reverse engineering is an easy way to replicate a design. Since the company creating the product, in this case IBM, spent millions developing the machine, they would be entitled to some exclusivity. How fair is it for every competitor to reverse engineer their machines to mimic the IBM box, and not compensate IBM for that? At least MOBO manufacturers use different chipsets and moderately different designs. I don't believe they are reverse engineering Intel boards, nor is AMD reverse engineering Core Duo's. clone controller business was supposedly primary motivation for the future system project ... lots of past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys i've posted before about being undergraduate and trying to get the 2702 communication controller to do some stuff and it turned out it couldn't ... which was somewhat motivation for the univ. to start a clone controller project ... reverse engineering the ibm channel interface and building a channel interface card for Interdata/3 ... programmed to emulate 2702. this was written up blaiming four of us for some part of the clone controller business http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm article from former corporate executive ... including some number of comments about future system project http://www.ecole.org/Crisis_and_change_1995_1.htm including the following: IBM tried to react by launching a major project called the 'Future System' (FS) in the early 1970's. The idea was to get so far ahead that the competition would never be able to keep up, and to have such a high level of integration that it would be impossible for competitors to follow a compatible niche strategy. However, the project failed because the objectives were too ambitious for the available technology. Many of the ideas that were developed were nevertheless adapted for later generations. Once IBM had acknowledged this failure, it launched its 'box strategy', which called for competitiveness with all the different types of compatible sub-systems. But this proved to be difficult because of IBM's cost structure and its RD spending, and the strategy only resulted in a partial narrowing of the price gap between IBM and its rivals ... snip ... above also referenced here http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#17 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly there was recent question about some number of people departing and going to work on vax/vms ... which led to joke about head of POK having been a major contributor to VMS ... long winded story involving termination of Future System project and mad rush to get stuff back into the 370 product pipeline: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#96 source for VAX programmers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#100 source for VAX programmers there is some case to be made that the Future System distraction and leting the 370 product pipeline dry up contributed to giving the processor clones a foothold in the market. past reference to amdahl giving a talk at mit in the early 70s that may be at least partially construed as referring to this ... recent reference http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#68 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly and other parts of postings in that thread: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#69 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#71 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#76 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#77 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#1 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#2 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 31, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote: LOL, yes they do. But here in Brooklyn we have many bagel places. They all make them differently and have distinct tastes. I wonder if one of them is buying on the sly from one of the others and is trying to make them the same as the guy who makes the best? They protect their recipes, and I personally think that Bagel Boy's are so superior that they are a benefit to society, so I am heading to Bagel Boy in the morning for a dozen, and their recipe. Hey, they have to give it to me right? I mean, it DOES benefit society to produce the best bagels from a number of competing stores, and it will save me all that time, flour, and gas for the ovens to not have to figure out a good recipe myself. ROTFLMBO! Happy New Year all. Doug Doug: Just don't hire any of the bakers or you will be sued like PSI:) Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
At 09:39 + on 12/29/2007, Phil Payne wrote about It keeps getting uglier: Some agencies (governments, defence departments, etc.) require vendors to supply FULL documentationn on any products delivered. IMO that would include the trade secret stuff. Someone needs to find a jurisdiction where this rule is completely enforced _and_ where there's a strong local Freedom of Information Act. Than ask for a copy. I think you might run into a NDA provision that overrides the FoI request. Having the secret parts of the documentation covered by a NDA would allow full supplying of the info to the government (as required) but still prevent it from being supplied via a FoI request (or make the FoI supplied copy subject to being redacted). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
DoD, etc., has such requirements, but there is always an NDA in effect, and the identities of those persons having access to the materials subject to the NDA are clearly spelled out, as are the penalties for any disclosure of the contents thereof. The FOIA specifically excludes trade secrets and other confidential business information. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier I think you might run into a NDA provision that overrides the FoI request. Having the secret parts of the documentation covered by a NDA would allow full supplying of the info to the government (as required) but still prevent it from being supplied via a FoI request (or make the FoI supplied copy subject to being redacted). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/27/2007 at 11:16 PM, Doug Fuerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: You bet Ed. I learned things about diagnose that I never saw written down Perhaps you looked in the wrong places. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/28/2007 at 10:10 AM, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The most basic description was present, but all it really said was machine dependant. That's really all that they could say, except for the caveats. I, for one, would like to see more detail, Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. I would much rather have model-dependent data in manuals specific to the relevant models. at least about functions that don't give away architectural details. Then you would have had to buy a new copy of PoOps every time a new model or EC came out. Let me do things like test for features, fetch the IODF ID, channel types, LPAR details, etc. Make those (relatively) harmless functions available, at least. When the S/360 came out, that type of function was different on every model and, as Gerhard noted, wasn't guarantied to be harmless. There are some uses of Diagnose that are standardized now, but they weren't back then. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/27/2007 at 09:53 PM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I could be wrong but I think he is talking about the undocumented option codes that a diagnose could *really* do. There may be many such on current processors, but can you cite any in the 1960's? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 30, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/27/2007 at 09:53 PM, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I could be wrong but I think he is talking about the undocumented option codes that a diagnose could *really* do. There may be many such on current processors, but can you cite any in the 1960's? Shmuel: Its been a LONG time... But IIRC the 360/30 POPS had at least some of them (I presume not all). I ran across them by accident. When I was helping to optimize someone else's code on the 1419 . The damn machine had a timing issue and you had to make a pocket selection decision in x many micro seconds (the micro seconds is a guess) I have forgotten what the time was . The book actually had instruction timing specifics for each instruction. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
I don't think so. Unless of course the Senior IBM factory reps didn't know either. I think they knew where to look. Doug Snip Perhaps you looked in the wrong places. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
John P. Baker wrote: In respect to the subsequent statement perhaps I should have said that I do not expect any competent IT management group permitting its use. Documented or not, DIAG is heavily used, both in IBM and non-IBM code. And, since z990, basic mode is no longer supported. So, all of the PR/SM DIAG functions are guaranteed available. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:39:48 -, Phil Payne wrote: Some agencies (governments, defence departments, etc.) require vendors to supply FULL documentationn on any products delivered. IMO that would include the trade secret stuff. Someone needs to find a jurisdiction where this rule is completely enforced _and_ where there's a strong local Freedom of Information Act. Than ask for a copy. How does one achieve a balance between vendors' interest in protecting trade secrets and customers' interest in knowing what they're buying? Cases that come to mind: should a toy manufacturer be allowed to protect as trade secret the technology of producing toys with particularly brilliant colors, or should the customer be made aware of possible safety concerns? Should a pet food manufacturer be allowed trade secret protection on the ingredients used? Should a vegetable grower be allowed trade secret protection on the working conditions (including sanitation) in the fields? Should an engineering and construction company be allowed trade secret protection on the materials and techniques used in building a highway bridge? Suppose the vendor offers the information, but insists on NDA? How valid is a peer review when all qualified reviewers are likely to be employed either by the vendor or by the vendor's competitors? How critical is a computer system, hardware and software, to the customer's business and the public's well-being, compared to various of the above examples? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:14:48 -0500 Gerhard Postpischil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :On the 360/40, I used diagnose for two functions - one was to :rewind all tapes, open the windows, and power them down; That was not via a CCW? Or did the 360/40 I/O work very differently? -- Binyamin Dissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John P. Baker) writes: The Diagnose instruction has been documented in every Principles of Operation manual issued for the S/360 architecture and for all subsequent superseding architectures, and in every case, has specifically stated that the functions performed by the Diagnose instruction are not published, but may impact any and all aspects of system operation, and if invoked by a user application built without access to that unpublished documentation, may negatively impact the proper functioning of the machine, requiring a Power On Reset and/or the assistance of a Hardware Support Engineer to bring the system back into proper working order. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#21 It keeps getting uglier it also says that the operation of the diagnose may be model dependent. less than a month since it has been 40yrs since I was introduced to (virtual machine) cp67 system ... three people came out to the university from cambridge science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech to install cp67. while an undergraduate I did a lot of rework and optimization of the cp67 kernel. i had also done a lot of work on os/360 optimization ... for the workload at the univ. i gave a presentation at the aug68 share meeting in boston on some of that work ... part of that presentation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#18 CP/67 OS MFT14 one of the other things i did was develop a fast-path ccw translation for cms disk i/o when running in a virtual machine (original cms was implemented to be able to run on bare 360/40). I did this by defining a new channel program op-code for disk read/writes ... which acted as an immediate operation ... held the virtual SIO busy until the operation had completed and then presented CC=1, CSW STORED. I got some grief from the people at the science center since i was violating the 360 principles of operation. however, it was a useful performance improvement ... and so it was explained to me that I could use the diagnose instruction ... since the diagnose instruction was defined as being model dependent ... and for CP67 ... and artificial virtual machine 360 *model* could be defined where the diagnose instruction acted as defined by CP67 (w/o violating the principles of operation). misc. past posts mentioning model dependent diagnose instruction: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#23 Old IBM's http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#32 z900 and Virtual Machine Theory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#31 2 questions: diag 68 and calling convention http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#62 history of CMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003.html#60 MIDAS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#52 dissassembled code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#36 S/360 undocumented instructions? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003p.html#9 virtual-machine theory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#8 virtual-machine theory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#66 System/360 40 years old today http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004q.html#72 IUCV in VM/CMS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#23 360 DIAGNOSE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005j.html#54 Q ALLOC PAGE vs. CP Q ALLOC vs ESAMAP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#33 Historical curiosity question http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#72 A question for the Wheelers - Diagnose instruction -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:44:21 -0500, Warner Mach wrote: Wouldn't it be ironic if PSI, with Microsoft backing, turned out to be the real long-range salvation of z/OS? This is an entirely plausible possibility. It's in the interest of all of us who depend on a viable z/OS market for our livelihood that PSI should prevail against IBM in the current litigation. Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Personally I do not understand what the rant is all about... I have heard of several patents for non-petroleum vehicles that seemed practical, viable, and all the other nice words, but have been blocked by someone unknown. In fact even university students of the past have developed new concepts that was just stalled. IMHO there are 2 main reasons for that, the first is that every country in the world tops up the petroleum prices with taxes that they cannot possibly afford to loose. The second and most obvious is that less oil will be consumed. So who is kicking up a stink about the disappeared concepts of the past? IBM invests a lot of money in the development of the things that we seen in the POPS, and in the operating system in general. One way to get it back is to sell the oil(Software), the other is to sell the Motors that uses it(Hardware), if someone is allowed to just run their software on a machine that cannot be measured in the same way as a mainframe, how do you charge for it? How do you license it, without spending millions more on inventing the licensing structures for PC's that will not bring in the same amount of revenue? I bet anyone out there that if IBM created a look-like-windows, feel-like-windows, to run on the mainframe, that Microsoft will be onto them for patents so quick... In my opinion, the solution is this... For every machine that IBM sells to a customer, they should include effectively 2 separate machines in the same box. It would not cost that much more. The second must only be used for sysprog/development, and a monthly scrt report needs to be sent for that partition. This 'partition must be so separate, that it must have its own 'red-button' with absolutely no connection to the production one, and 2 internal model 27's, and a 3590 of its own. With the kind of networks that we have, this will suffice the need of any sysprog working inside that org to play to his heart's content. Additionally, again, because our networks have progressed to what it is today, IBM US, UK, NL, DUBAI, SA, INDIA, CHINA, must have one development beast, on which you can register a LPAR of your own, almost like registering a website, and pay a monthly fee, and play. Depending on the package you pay for will determine whether you will get FDR / HSM, RACF/ACF2, 3xmod3's of 5xmod27's, agreements can even exist that software vendors like CA will supply those sites with Beta versions, if the 'customer'(sysprog) wants for a slight reduction, almost like whether you take a website with/without adds. And I think the pricing should be relatively the same as 'web space'. And no, I do not smoke, and my lips are still dry. Regards Herbie Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In a message dated 12/28/2007 2:45:03 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:14:48 -0500 Gerhard Postpischil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :On the 360/40, I used diagnose for two functions - one was to :rewind all tapes, open the windows, and power them down; That was not via a CCW? Or did the 360/40 I/O work very differently? You can certainly rewind a tape and/or rewind and unload a tape via a CCW, but I have never heard of a CCW that would power down any device. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end. [Trotsky] **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Gerhard, You could actually power down the tape drives? Someone else mentioned they didn't think that was possible. Ah, the good old days. My first job in IT was a computer operator on a 360/40. We had 2 of the old tape drives that had the columns go sideways. I can't remember the model number. We did a lot of disk to disk backups on the 2914 (I think) so we didn't need a lot of tapes. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Gerhard Postpischil [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the 360/40, I used diagnose for two functions - one was to rewind all tapes, open the windows, and power them down; Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, VT -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Not IBM and not on zServer but there are people who are trying to do something close. The Wine project is developing a compatibility layer which would allow Windows applications to run on any *nix. Then there is ReactOS ( www.reactos.org ) working on cloning Windows itself. Neither of the two is anywhere near completion but has not been hit by a patent suit either. Mohammad On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:00:11 -, Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bet anyone out there that if IBM created a look-like-windows, feel-like-windows, to run on the mainframe, that Microsoft will be onto them for patents so quick... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On 28 Dec 2007 04:00:35 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Van Dalsen, Herbie) wrote: I have heard of several patents for non-petroleum vehicles that seemed practical, viable, and all the other nice words, but have been blocked by someone unknown. In fact even university students of the past have developed new concepts that was just stalled. IMHO there are 2 main reasons for that, the first is that every country in the world tops up the petroleum prices with taxes that they cannot possibly afford to loose. The second and most obvious is that less oil will be consumed. So who is kicking up a stink about the disappeared concepts of the past? But car companies don't care about gasoline taxes. And states want oil independence. It's silly to assume that every single country is controlling every single car company to not give us what the countries are saying they want. IBM invests a lot of money in the development of the things that we seen in the POPS, and in the operating system in general. One way to get it back is to sell the oil(Software), the other is to sell the Motors that uses it(Hardware), if someone is allowed to just run their software on a machine that cannot be measured in the same way as a mainframe, how do you charge for it? How do you license it, without spending millions more on inventing the licensing structures for PC's that will not bring in the same amount of revenue? I bet anyone out there that if IBM created a look-like-windows, feel-like-windows, to run on the mainframe, that Microsoft will be onto them for patents so quick... Those aren't insoluble problems. And with growing competition for IBM mainframes, they either need to adapt or die. IBM has adapted in the past - they will continue to do so. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
---snip- Diagnose was in every edition of Principles of Operation that I've ever seen. Or are you referring to documents from before the S/360 announcement? ---unsnip The most basic description was present, but all it really said was machine dependant. I, for one, would like to see more detail, at least about functions that don't give away architectural details. Let me do things like test for features, fetch the IODF ID, channel types, LPAR details, etc. Make those (relatively) harmless functions available, at least. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman ---snip- Diagnose was in every edition of Principles of Operation that I've ever seen. Or are you referring to documents from before the S/360 announcement? ---unsnip The most basic description was present, but all it really said was machine dependant. I, for one, would like to see more detail, at least about functions that don't give away architectural details. Let me do things like test for features, fetch the IODF ID, channel types, LPAR details, etc. Make those (relatively) harmless functions available, at least. Quite a few of them are listed here: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/HCSE5B20/1.2 z/VM V5R3.0 CP Programming Services -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
-snip--- Yes I know what he *said* but we are not dealing in life and death issues on here and (except for a few on here) this is not a pc (politically correct) place. If I misunderstood what he meant to say he is free to correct me. -unsnip Political Correctness doth not run a system; nor will it fix problems, performance or otherwise. And I don't know a single person of color that likes being called African-American! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Eric, I think you mean the 2415. Two drives above, built in controller below. sounded kinda like Godzilla when first one then the other vacuum column loaded. Eric Bielefeld wrote: Gerhard, You could actually power down the tape drives? Someone else mentioned they didn't think that was possible. Ah, the good old days. My first job in IT was a computer operator on a 360/40. We had 2 of the old tape drives that had the columns go sideways. I can't remember the model number. We did a lot of disk to disk backups on the 2914 (I think) so we didn't need a lot of tapes. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Gerhard Postpischil [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the 360/40, I used diagnose for two functions - one was to rewind all tapes, open the windows, and power them down; Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, VT -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
The problem is that these functions, as well as many other functions implemented by the Diagnose instruction, have been very machine type and machine model dependent. How you would retrieve a particular item of data on machine type X was not necessarily the same as how you would retrieve that same item of data on machine type Y. You could very easily issue a retrieve function on machine type X that would cause a system abort, or worse, on machine type Y. Not exactly the best way of doing things, but the Diagnose instruction is essentially an interface to the Support Processor. Look at it this way. You write a nice little utility to generate a report by retrieving data from the Support Processor using the Diagnose instruction. You leave the company, who later installs a new processor. Your report program gets run and guess what, the machine suffers a catastrophic failure and is down for hours while the hardware engineer is trying to get the machine back up and to find out what happened. The machine comes back up, your report program automatically restarts, and boom!, down again. It is not a pretty scenario. The lawyers would have a field day, going after IBM, and more than likely, going after you. Until and unless IBM fully standardizes the Diagnose instruction interface, its publication would be ill-advised. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:10 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier The most basic description was present, but all it really said was machine dependant. I, for one, would like to see more detail, at least about functions that don't give away architectural details. Let me do things like test for features, fetch the IODF ID, channel types, LPAR details, etc. Make those (relatively) harmless functions available, at least. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
In a message dated 12/28/2007 10:39:46 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You write a nice little utility to generate a report by retrieving data from the Support Processor using the Diagnose instruction. You leave the company, who later installs a new processor. Your report program gets run and guess what, the machine suffers a catastrophic failure and is down for hours while the hardware engineer is trying to get the machine back up and to find out what happened. The machine comes back up, your report program automatically restarts, and boom!, down again. It is not a pretty scenario. The lawyers would have a field day, going after IBM, and more than likely, going after you. This happened once with my buggy program. I hosed CSA, the system crashed, and the operator reIPLed and warm started JES2 which immediately reran my job. Boom - one more crash. I knew immediately after the first crash what to do to fix my bug, but I couldn't fix it until the system stopped autocrashing due to the JES2 initialization parameter to restart all jobs that were running upon warm start. I managed to intervene before the third crash. Your scenario has more blameworthy actions than you described: (1) the programmer whose program uses an interface that is not guaranteed to remain constant; (2) the programmer's (probable) lack of properly documenting his program's dangerous nature; (3) management's allowing such a program to be installed in production while the programmer was still employed; (4) management's not doing a thorough job of review and turnover of that programmer's programs when he left employment; and (5) setting a JES2 initialization parameter that guarantees an infinite loop of crashes as well as production speedup when no wayward program crashed the system (which is usually the case). There is plenty of blame to be shared and lawyered against, although I seriously doubt that management would let the lawyers go after management. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Fochtman wrote: -snip--- Yes I know what he *said* but we are not dealing in life and death issues on here and (except for a few on here) this is not a pc (politically correct) place. If I misunderstood what he meant to say he is free to correct me. -unsnip Political Correctness doth not run a system; nor will it fix problems, performance or otherwise. And I don't know a single person of color that likes being called African-American! Well we agree/disagree. I do know at least 2 people of color that prefers the term African-American. As to PC like it or not its out there and some people do get upset on certain issues. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Exactly my point. It is bad enough with normal programs. The Diagnose instruction interface is constantly changing. I prefer not to shoot myself in the foot. I don't expect to see IBM publish the Diagnose instruction interface specification. I certainly don't expect to see any IT management group permitting its use. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier This happened once with my buggy program. I hosed CSA, the system crashed, and the operator reIPLed and warm started JES2 which immediately reran my job. Boom - one more crash. I knew immediately after the first crash what to do to fix my bug, but I couldn't fix it until the system stopped autocrashing due to the JES2 initialization parameter to restart all jobs that were running upon warm start. I managed to intervene before the third crash. Your scenario has more blameworthy actions than you described: (1) the programmer whose program uses an interface that is not guaranteed to remain constant; (2) the programmer's (probable) lack of properly documenting his program's dangerous nature; (3) management's allowing such a program to be installed in production while the programmer was still employed; (4) management's not doing a thorough job of review and turnover of that programmer's programs when he left employment; and (5) setting a JES2 initialization parameter that guarantees an infinite loop of crashes as well as production speedup when no wayward program crashed the system (which is usually the case). There is plenty of blame to be shared and lawyered against, although I seriously doubt that management would let the lawyers go after management. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
snip-- The most basic description was present, but all it really said was machine dependant. I, for one, would like to see more detail, at least about functions that don't give away architectural details. Let me do things like test for features, fetch the IODF ID, channel types, LPAR details, etc. Make those (relatively) harmless functions available, at least. Quite a few of them are listed here: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/HCSE5B20/1.2 z/VM V5R3.0 CP Programming Services -unsnip That's fine for VM services. What about the real hardware functions? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:35:36 -, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.sva.de/files/RZ_SVA%20z%20Hosting_web.pdf This is the first example I've seen of a hosting service designed specifically for ISVs. My high school German is not up to much, but if I am reading it correctly, SVA says they will look after the administration of the PWD agreements for free software. This is fascinating, since PWD pricing on a shared, non-IBM machine seems to be a privilege that IBM won't grant to others... Other, that is, than IBM's - and some ISVs may have concerns about hosting their development on an IBM site. To say nothing of hosting on a site outside their own country, subject to that other country's rules and courts on data disclosure, copyright, etc. A Swiss ISV, with a Swiss bank as a customer, is going to have quite a fun time convincing its customer to send a dump to Dallas (or Wiesbaden for that matter). The 'old' PCMs had machine-readable (think Backus Naur on steroids) definitions of the architecture. That would be APL, I think... ;-) What now seems to be emerging as zPDT seems to have started in Böblingen, at one time a true hotbed of Hercules use within IBM. Böblingen was always interested because it was the home of VSE, which was highly dependent on small mainframes and thus neglected by PoK. The Germans took this almost as a national insult, given the size of the VSE installed base in Germany. You said in October that Dr Goebel (of Böblingen, I believe) is the most fanatical anti-Flex-ES person within the whole of IBM. Is he anti-emulation, or just anti-Funsoft? One [highly unsubstantiated and dubious] report suggests zPDT is not a JIT emulator but more of an interpreter. Given the rumoured performance wrt Hercules (which is a pure interpreter without any JIT capability), that seems entirely believable. To pick up on Warner's point (4) about IBM not wanting to produce a low-end emulated-on-Intel system - they did. It was called the xSeries 430 Enabled For System/390 and it bombed. http://www.isham-research.co.uk/numaq.html When they announced it, I called it a solution looking for a problem. There was nothing wrong with it as a Flex box, except that IBM tried to push the ability to run Windows and who knows what else on it at the same time, which had no conceivable business case for the customer, and inflated the price. Strangely, PSI is touting the same pointless misfeature for its box, presumably in the hope that by some marketing handwaving it will magically provide a migration path from z/OS to Windows. A fully enabled and licensed Flex-ES system can literally run anything ever supported on an IBM mainframe. Parallel Sysplex? Where would the coupling code come from? While I can easily believe that writing a z/Arch emulator based only on published sources is possible, I'm willing to bet that writing Sysplex coupling code and the emulator to run it in, is not. Phil Payne Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
That sounds right - 2415. They were the cheaper ones. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Jim Phoenix [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric, I think you mean the 2415. Two drives above, built in controller below. sounded kinda like Godzilla when first one then the other vacuum column loaded. Eric Bielefeld wrote: Gerhard, You could actually power down the tape drives? Someone else mentioned they didn't think that was possible. Ah, the good old days. My first job in IT was a computer operator on a 360/40. We had 2 of the old tape drives that had the columns go sideways. I can't remember the model number. We did a lot of disk to disk backups on the 2914 (I think) so we didn't need a lot of tapes. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Eric Bielefeld wrote: You could actually power down the tape drives? Someone else mentioned they didn't think that was possible. Binyamin thought I was talking about a CCW (I/O to the controller?), but powering down would make it a bit difficult to respond with Control Unit End g. Early machines, much more so than current ones (with mixed IBM and other vendor's equipment), had interlinked power control. Rewinding the tapes and opening the windows was a feature built into the controller's power off sequencing. Ah, the good old days. My first job in IT was a computer operator on a 360/40. You had it easy g. The first computer operators I ran into worked on a 7094, and did things like entering data and commands on the console (via switches) to rewind the tapes and things. The lead operator wanted to become a programmer, but couldn't afford to, because with his overtime pay he made more than we. Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, VT -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Gerhard, Actually, on my second job as a computer operator, I graduated from the 360/40 to a 1410/1401 machine. We actually had 2 of them that shared the same 1301 (I think) disk. A huge disk around 2 to 3 feet in diameter. You could only use the disk on one machine at a time, but that was ok as many jobs just did tape processing and didn't use the disk. I remember many times each day typing a long string of numbers, digits, and special characters in each time you wanted to switch between 1401 and 1410 mode or vice versa. The tape drives on those machines were also kind of cool. They had a big wheel at the top that had numbers 1 through 5 (?) on them for addressing. If you were using tape 3, and the next job used the same tape as tape 1, you turned the wheel and reloaded the tape. Can't remember the model number of those tape drives either. The company I worked at was part of Philip Morris at the time. I heard they had a choice of getting a 2nd 1410, or a 360 mod 65 from another Philip Morris company. They chose a 2nd 1410, because they wouldn't have to change any of their programs. I remember one set of sales reports used to take about 24 hours of processing to do all of the processing and printing of reports. They rewrote it and contracted it to AO Smith. I can't remember if they were running on a 360 or a 370, but I remember the processing took about 1 hour, and then it took 3 or 4 hours to print the reports on our 360 Mod 20 that was made to run as a JES remote. Eric Bielefeld Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer Milwaukee, Wisconsin 414-475-7434 - Original Message - From: Gerhard Postpischil [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eric Bielefeld wrote: Ah, the good old days. My first job in IT was a computer operator on a 360/40. You had it easy g. The first computer operators I ran into worked on a 7094, and did things like entering data and commands on the console (via switches) to rewind the tapes and things. The lead operator wanted to become a programmer, but couldn't afford to, because with his overtime pay he made more than we. Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, VT -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Thanks Ed. This is getting a bit silly. The Diagnose instruction was noted along with every other instruction in the POP, but no one but FE's really knew what it could do, and I was an FE at the time,so I knew just what it's capabilities were. Thanks for the defense Ed, and I hope John is now satisfied. Doug At 23:35 27-12-07, you wrote: On Dec 27, 2007, at 10:32 PM, John P. Baker wrote: That may be, but that is not what he said. He referred specifically to the existence of the Diagnose instruction. The Diagnose instruction has been documented in every Principles of Operation manual issued for the S/360 architecture and for all subsequent superseding architectures, and in every case, has specifically stated that the functions performed by the Diagnose instruction are not published, but may impact any and all aspects of system operation, and if invoked by a user application built without access to that unpublished documentation, may negatively impact the proper functioning of the machine, requiring a Power On Reset and/or the assistance of a Hardware Support Engineer to bring the system back into proper working order. John P. Baker Yes I know what he *said* but we are not dealing in life and death issues on here and (except for a few on here) this is not a pc (politically correct) place. If I misunderstood what he meant to say he is free to correct me. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Doug, I am perfectly satisfied. It is just that all of the conspiracy theories raised against IBM have been getting on my nerves. I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with IBM in its ongoing dispute with PSI, but I feel that IBM is on solid ground. PSI didn't spend tens of billions of dollars on RD. IBM did. IBM should not have to give the fruits of those efforts to a latecomer looking to make a quick buck. Just my two cents. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Fuerst Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:07 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier Thanks Ed. This is getting a bit silly. The Diagnose instruction was noted along with every other instruction in the POP, but no one but FE's really knew what it could do, and I was an FE at the time,so I knew just what it's capabilities were. Thanks for the defense Ed, and I hope John is now satisfied. Doug -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Yeah, and I don't expect to see sysprogs decompiling JES2 modules to improve functionality, but I've seen it. Doug snip I don't expect to see IBM publish the Diagnose instruction interface specification. I certainly don't expect to see any IT management group permitting its use. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier This happened once with my buggy program. I hosed CSA, the system crashed, and the operator reIPLed and warm started JES2 which immediately reran my job. Boom - one more crash. I knew immediately after the first crash what to do to fix my bug, but I couldn't fix it until the system stopped autocrashing due to the JES2 initialization parameter to restart all jobs that were running upon warm start. I managed to intervene before the third crash. Your scenario has more blameworthy actions than you described: (1) the programmer whose program uses an interface that is not guaranteed to remain constant; (2) the programmer's (probable) lack of properly documenting his program's dangerous nature; (3) management's allowing such a program to be installed in production while the programmer was still employed; (4) management's not doing a thorough job of review and turnover of that programmer's programs when he left employment; and (5) setting a JES2 initialization parameter that guarantees an infinite loop of crashes as well as production speedup when no wayward program crashed the system (which is usually the case). There is plenty of blame to be shared and lawyered against, although I seriously doubt that management would let the lawyers go after management. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
I agree with you John absolutely. That's why I said in the beginning that I was shocked that anyone would actually think IBM wouldn't keep secrets. They would, and should. Just because its IBM does not mean the secrets should all come out. Maybe the idea from the consent decree still live, that IBM needs to keep disclosing. Doug At 17:31 28-12-07, you wrote: Doug, I am perfectly satisfied. It is just that all of the conspiracy theories raised against IBM have been getting on my nerves. I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with IBM in its ongoing dispute with PSI, but I feel that IBM is on solid ground. PSI didn't spend tens of billions of dollars on RD. IBM did. IBM should not have to give the fruits of those efforts to a latecomer looking to make a quick buck. Just my two cents. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf snip Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Doug, So have I. I stand by my statement that I do not expect to see IBM publish the Diagnose instruction interface specification. In respect to the subsequent statement perhaps I should have said that I do not expect any competent IT management group permitting its use. John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Fuerst Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 7:38 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: It keeps getting uglier Yeah, and I don't expect to see sysprogs decompiling JES2 modules to improve functionality, but I've seen it. Doug -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 28, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote: I agree with you John absolutely. That's why I said in the beginning that I was shocked that anyone would actually think IBM wouldn't keep secrets. They would, and should. Just because its IBM does not mean the secrets should all come out. Maybe the idea from the consent decree still live, that IBM needs to keep disclosing. Doug Doug, I think someone on here said the consent decree was expired. I don't know this but am just passing along what someone else said. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
Oh I am sure it expired, but I suspect there are still those who feel that the terms are still enforceable or should be somehow. I thought it would have been interesting to see how Microsoft would have reacted to a consent decree. Doug At 23:20 28-12-07, you wrote: snip Doug, I think someone on here said the consent decree was expired. I don't know this but am just passing along what someone else said. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:50 PM, Doug Fuerst wrote: Oh I am sure it expired, but I suspect there are still those who feel that the terms are still enforceable or should be somehow. I thought it would have been interesting to see how Microsoft would have reacted to a consent decree. Doug At 23:20 28-12-07, you wrote: SNIP--- I am sure you would have seen 30 or 40 US Senators lining up to testify how bad it would be. I am sure a number of CEO's would do the same. Its not pretty when you have the most cash in the world will buy. I am not sure myself (I wasn't old enough when it happened) if IBM wouldn't have pulled the same stuff though. Probably not as I don't think they were anywhere close to the big cash as MS is. Its a different world today. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: It keeps getting uglier
I thought it would have been interesting to see how Microsoft would have reacted to a consent decree. Doug Umm, like the Consent Decree issued to Microsoft in 1994? http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f/0047.htm Or perhaps the Consent Decree issued to Microsoft in 2002? http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft is no stranger to receiving Consent Decrees! (But I sense some topic-drift, creeping into the discussion :-) Cheers Andrew -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
