Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Kuredjian, Michael]

I would venture to say that the operating system as we see it today is a 
package of a kernel, API, and system utilities. Some would argue that an 
operating system is only a kernel, and that wouldn't be wrong, just academic.



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Mon 8/28/2006 12:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: What part of z/OS is the OS?



Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the software 
shipped with z/OS would be defined as the "operating system"? 

Thing is, I started thinking about what is an OS and I found myself having 
trouble defining it.  For example, for Unix it seems to me that the OS would be 
the Kernel plus any loadable kernel modules that come shipped with the OS, like 
drivers for I/O and so on.  It probably gets fuzzy when it comes to extensions 
to the OS.  Maybe an equivalent to z/OS would be the shipped SVC's as opposed 
to vendor supplied?

But for z/OS I wasn't how and where to draw the lines.  Especially since z/OS 
comes also with a UNIX kernel.

Any thoughts?  I was just curious about this.

Kind regards,
Lindy

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 06:45 ZE2, Lindy Mayfield 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the 
software 
> shipped with z/OS would be defined as the "operating system"?

It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The classical 
definition is the chunk of software that manages the real system 
resources, allocating them to application programs.  That is, the 
gatekeeper for access to the CPU, memory, and I/O devices.  That would be, 
again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the SVCs.

Of course, as computing has gotten more sophisticated (has it?) the 
definition has become far more complex.  Is JES *really* part of the 
operating system?  Or is it just an application with the same privileges 
as the operating system itself?  H  What about apps that run 
authorized only for performance reasons?  Are they part of the OS?  There 
must be a PhD dissertation on this *somewhere* out there   ;-)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Tom Marchant]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:13:28 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The classical
>definition is the chunk of software that manages the real system
>resources, allocating them to application programs.  That is, the
>gatekeeper for access to the CPU, memory, and I/O devices.  That would be,
>again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the SVCs.
>
With that definition, I think you still need to include a *lot* more.  
Access to I/O devices would seem to require DFSMS, TCP/IP, VTAM, JES and 
RACF if you include DASD, terminals and printers.

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Alan Altmark writes:
> It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The classical
> definition is the chunk of software that manages the real system
> resources, allocating them to application programs.  That is, the
> gatekeeper for access to the CPU, memory, and I/O devices.  That would
> be, again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the SVCs.
>
> Of course, as computing has gotten more sophisticated (has it?) the
> definition has become far more complex.  Is JES *really* part of the
> operating system?  Or is it just an application with the same
> privileges as the operating system itself?  H  What about apps
> that run authorized only for performance reasons?  Are they part of
> the OS?  There must be a PhD dissertation on this *somewhere* out
> there   ;-)

so one of the motivation for original dual-address space ... was that
lots of mvt services (like hasp/jes) ran outside the kernel ... but
used the same pointer-passing paradigm as a "real" kernel service.

in the transition to mvs ... all the different things outside of the
kernel got their own virtual address space ... this made pointer
passing paradigm somewhat problematical for services running in a 
different address space. common segment was the initial solution ... but 
for larger 168 mvs shops ... it wasn't unusual to find the mvs kernel 
taking up 8mbytes of every virtual addresss space (preserving the

pointer passing paradigm between applications and real kernel
services) and csa taking five megabytes (allowing pointer passing
paradigm to work between applications and services in different
virtual address spaces). this was starting to put significant constraint
on some applications ... leaving only maximum of 3mbytes out of every 
application virtual address space ... for actual application use.


access registers then generalized the dual-address space support 
introduced with the 3033.


a few posts this year mentioning common segment in support of
pointer passing paradigm
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#25 Multiple address spaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#28 Multiple address spaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#32 Multiple address spaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006i.html#33 virtual memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#38 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#44 virtual memory

for a somewhat different take ... the vm370 had spool file operation 
embedded in the kernel. as mentioned in this posts:

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#36 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#51 other cp/cms history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#64 The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby 
MVS???


i was running into severe thruput bottleneck with the vm spool file 
implementation in conjunction with the internal network

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

and our high-speed backbone (part of our hsdt project)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt

so my take was to take the majority of the vm kernel spool file 
function, move it to a "service" virtual machine, re-code it in 
pascal/vs and increase the thruput by an order of magnitude ... 
eliminating many of its thruput constraints.


one of the long term issues with virtual machine hypervisor was the 
original code (from cp67) was very small, compact, and consistent. the 
early philosophy was that unless it couldn't absolutely be done any 
other way ... it didn't belong in the kernel. It was a highly efficient 
micro-kernel. The downside was that for people with more of a 
traditional operating system background ... they found the concise, 
compact implementation easy to understand and modify. The result was a 
tendency to take the easy way out and add new feature/function into the 
kernel code itself.


this met that w/o stringently enforced microkernel standards ... the 
micro-kernel tended to become extremely bloated, starting to resemble 
the kernels of more traditionally implemented operating systems ... 
becoming more and more bloating and much more difficult to maintain and 
modify (the ease of modification somewhat leading to its own downfall).


--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Lindy Mayfield]

Thanks Alan.  I realized that coming up with a definition of what is an 
operating system was a slippery slope.  So I thought to ask if maybe it was 
more well defined for z/OS by IBM.

I tried to think of an example where things were clear.  I could think of maybe 
PC-DOS 1.2.  If I remember correctly the OS was quite definable there.  Then 
again, would command.com have been a part of the OS or not.  (-:

Perhaps it all really is just an academic discussion, but I can't help but 
think there should be a clear definition somewhere.  Maybe I'll try to Google a 
bit harder.

Lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan 
Altmark
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 9:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 06:45 ZE2, Lindy Mayfield 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the 
software 
> shipped with z/OS would be defined as the "operating system"?

It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The classical 
definition is the chunk of software that manages the real system 
resources, allocating them to application programs.  That is, the 
gatekeeper for access to the CPU, memory, and I/O devices.  That would be, 
again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the SVCs.

Of course, as computing has gotten more sophisticated (has it?) the 
definition has become far more complex.  Is JES *really* part of the 
operating system?  Or is it just an application with the same privileges 
as the operating system itself?  H  What about apps that run 
authorized only for performance reasons?  Are they part of the OS?  There 
must be a PhD dissertation on this *somewhere* out there   ;-)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

Thanks Alan.  I realized that coming up with a definition of what is an
operating system was a slippery slope.  So I thought to ask if maybe it
was more well defined for z/OS by IBM.

I tried to think of an example where things were clear.  I could think
of maybe PC-DOS 1.2.  If I remember correctly the OS was quite definable
there.  Then again, would command.com have been a part of the OS or not.
(-:

Perhaps it all really is just an academic discussion, but I can't help
but think there should be a clear definition somewhere.  Maybe I'll try
to Google a bit harder.

Lindy


If you are a contract programmer in the state of Ohio, you must charge
sales tax any time the work you do involves the installation or
modification of the operating system!

Ok, so I asked the state to define the O/S in the area of mainframes
(specifically). They agreed that it was very complicated and so told me
that it was any component that exercised control over hardware. And
finally they said that I was the expert so I should make the decision as
to when something was sales taxable! [H. Fox, hen house, what a
mental image!] So I made sure to not write channel commands or work on
anything in JES2 (exits) where it would be argued that I was controlling
or modifying the control of hardware, etc.

Good thing I managed to avoid the install of z/OS during Server Pack
customization (I actually had one of the customer's people answer and
submit certain things  ;-) ).

Looking at a graphic representation of an O/S, most I've seen are a
graphic representation similar to the peeling of an onion.

Later,
Steve Thompson

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
the result was that w/o stringently enforced microkernel standards ... the 
micro-kernel tended to become extremely bloated, starting to resemble 
the kernels of more traditionally implemented operating systems ... 
becoming more and more bloating and much more difficult to maintain and 
modify (the ease of modification somewhat leading to its own downfall).


ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#10 What part of z/OS is the OS?

this brings to my mind somebody's line that goes something like "it 
isn't done when there is no more to add, it is done when there is no 
more to take away"


applied to micro-kernel efforts ... with somebody's related observation 
that maintaining a KISS implementation can actually be significantly 
more difficult than doing a complex implementation.


however, there is a corollary about KISS implementation being applicable 
to the situation. recent posts mentioning how simple handling of FINWAIT 
processing in tcp session close ... made some implicit assumptions about 
the environment that were violated with HTTP use of TCP sessions.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm25.htm#17 Hamiltonian path as 
protection against DOS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm25.htm#19 Hamiltonian path as 
protection against DOS


the mention of the spool file system rewrite in the previous posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#36 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#51 other cp/cms history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#64 The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby 
MVS???


addressed a problem similar to what showed up with FINWAIT handling on 
heavily loaded webservers in the mid-90s. native vm spool processing had 
a linear list of all spool files ... and all spool file operations 
involved searching the linear list. this had non-linear increase in 
overhead as systems scaled. this is also similar to the original cp67 
kernel storage management that used a single linear list ... before 
subpool logic was introduced to cp67 kernel in the early 70s.


in any case, my pascal/vs spool file rewrite introduced both a hash 
table and a tree structure for managing spool files.


--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)]

 
 
In a message dated 8/28/2006 2:43:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>If you are a contract programmer in the state of Ohio, you must  charge
>sales tax any time the work you do involves the installation  or
>modification of the operating system!

>Ok, so I asked the  state to define the O/S in the area of mainframes
>(specifically). They  agreed that it was very complicated and so told me
>that it was any  component that exercised control over hardware. And
>finally they said  that I was the expert so I should make the decision as
>to when  something was sales taxable!
We must also ask these idiotic, confiscation-crazed bureaurats their  
official definition of "control" and "hardware."  E.g., when my LA   R1,5 
instruction 
executes, I am in some sense "controlling" General Purpose  Register 1, which 
is part of the "hardware."  Surely they did not mean at  that low a level.  I 
am certainly glad they left such  a mega-loophole for us.  If I were to write 
a channel program to  read or write on one DASD, I believe my working 
definition of "hardware" would  encompass at least the entire control unit.
 
If in doubt, remember the maxim "You show me the law, and I'll show  you the 
loophole."
 
Bill  Fairchild




--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/28/2006
   at 06:45 PM, Lindy Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the
>software shipped with z/OS would be defined as the "operating
>system"?

Well, historically IBM has used the term OS to include everything
bundled with the system.

>Especially since z/OS comes also with a UNIX kernel.

Which isn't a kernel in the sense that the CS mean. In fact, it would
be hard to find a part of MVS that qualified as a "kernel"; it really
doesn't fit that model.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Leif Rundberget]

z/OS is not an OS.  It is a bundle of packages put together and sold by
IBM as a product solution.  The real OS in the bundle is still MVS clear
back to the 60s or is that 50's.

Leif Rundberget
MVS, VM, Linux Operating Systems Support
Mainframe Network Administrator
State of Colorado
Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA)
Division of Information Technologies (DoIT)
690 Kipling Street
Lakewood,  CO  80215-5844
Phone:  (303) 239-4357

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the Colorado 
Public Records law. It may be subject to monitoring
and disclosed to third parties, including law enforcement personnel by an 
authorized state official.




Lindy Mayfield wrote:

Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the software shipped 
with z/OS would be defined as the "operating

system"?


Thing is, I started thinking about what is an OS and I found myself having 
trouble defining it.  For example, for Unix it seems

to me that the OS would be the Kernel plus any loadable kernel modules that 
come shipped with the OS, like drivers for I/O and
so on.  It probably gets fuzzy when it comes to extensions to the OS.  Maybe an 
equivalent to z/OS would be the shipped SVC's as
opposed to vendor supplied?


But for z/OS I wasn't how and where to draw the lines.  Especially since z/OS 
comes also with a UNIX kernel.

Any thoughts?  I was just curious about this.

Kind regards,
Lindy

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Bob Rutledge]

Thompson, Steve (SCI TW) wrote:


If you are a contract programmer in the state of Ohio, you must charge
sales tax any time the work you do involves the installation or
modification of the operating system!


Having done that very thing in this very state in the dim and distant past, I 
became mildly curious. 
tax.ohio.gov/divisions/legal/rules/final/5703_09/5703_9_46.stm seems to be the 
current incarnation of the applicable rules.



Ok, so I asked the state to define the O/S in the area of mainframes
(specifically). They agreed that it was very complicated and so told me
that it was any component that exercised control over hardware. And
finally they said that I was the expert so I should make the decision as
to when something was sales taxable! [H. Fox, hen house, what a
mental image!] 


If the notion of fox-hen house-state government excercises your imagination, I 
can only infer that you don't live here.



So I made sure to not write channel commands or work on
anything in JES2 (exits) where it would be argued that I was controlling
or modifying the control of hardware, etc.


It's probably just as well that I haven't written either CCW programs or 
device-support code for thirty years.


Bob

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/28/2006
   at 04:49 PM, Leif Rundberget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>z/OS is not an OS.  It is a bundle of packages put together and sold
>by IBM as a product solution.  The real OS in the bundle is still MVS
>clear back to the 60s or is that 50's.

What do you mean by "real OS" and what do you mean by "MVS"? Were you
aware that IBM included utilities etc. back before the OS was a
program product? And where did you get the idea that MVS was that old?
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/28/2006
   at 02:13 PM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The
>classical  definition is the chunk of software that manages the real
>system  resources, allocating them to application programs.

You don't consider access methods to be part of the operating system?
Common services like DAIR and PARSE?

For IBSYS/IBJOB and OS/360 IBM considered the entire code base to be
an operating system.

>That would be, again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the 
>SVCs.

Not all SVC's are in the BCP, and most of the BCP is not composed of
SVC's, at least not for MVS.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

My humble opinion would be the following...
1. OS = Operating system i.e. Any part that operate the system
2. Function = 
a) handle all requests from users / other systems... This implies that
any command thrown at it be it MVC or OI, is handled by the Operating
system.
b) notify users / other systems of its current status... This implies
that any part of the system writing SMF records and or send error
messages.

So all error handlers on the lowest level should be included. Any
program etc that handles requests on the lowest level should be
included.

What would not be included is the next layer... IDCAMS / DFSMS that
intercepts the base error codes and tries its best to send a reasonably
understandable error code. The problem comes when the distinction
between layer 1 and 2 becomes fuzzy ?

Regards

Herbie van Dalsen

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: 28 August 2006 23:49
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/28/2006
   at 02:13 PM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The
>classical  definition is the chunk of software that manages the real
>system  resources, allocating them to application programs.

You don't consider access methods to be part of the operating system?
Common services like DAIR and PARSE?

For IBSYS/IBJOB and OS/360 IBM considered the entire code base to be
an operating system.

>That would be, again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the 
>SVCs.

Not all SVC's are in the BCP, and most of the BCP is not composed of
SVC's, at least not for MVS.
 
-- 
 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
*
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the sole use 
of the intended recipient(s).If you receive this email in error please notify 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized 
dissemination, retransmission, or copying of this email and any attachments is 
prohibited. Euroconex does not accept any responsibility for any breach of 
confidence, which may arise from the use of email. Please note that any views 
or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not 
necessarily represent those of the Company. This message has been scanned for 
known computer viruses. 
*

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Lindy Mayfield]

Would it be correct to say that any "piece" that when removed would result in a 
non-functional OS would then belong to the OS?  I was thinking about JES.  
Nothing works without JES, right?

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Van 
Dalsen, Herbie
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:01 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

My humble opinion would be the following...
1. OS = Operating system i.e. Any part that operate the system
2. Function = 
a) handle all requests from users / other systems... This implies that
any command thrown at it be it MVC or OI, is handled by the Operating
system.
b) notify users / other systems of its current status... This implies
that any part of the system writing SMF records and or send error
messages.

So all error handlers on the lowest level should be included. Any
program etc that handles requests on the lowest level should be
included.

What would not be included is the next layer... IDCAMS / DFSMS that
intercepts the base error codes and tries its best to send a reasonably
understandable error code. The problem comes when the distinction
between layer 1 and 2 becomes fuzzy ?

Regards

Herbie van Dalsen

---

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[J R]

This implies that any command thrown at it be it MVC or OI, is handled by 
the Operating system.


Shirley, you can't be serious!

I'm not familiar with the MVC and OI commands, but if you're
referring to the MVC and OI instructions, these are handled
directly by the CPU. [1]

[1]  other than for recovery from page faults, etc.



From: "Van Dalsen, Herbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:00:51 +0100

My humble opinion would be the following...
1. OS = Operating system i.e. Any part that operate the system
2. Function =
a) handle all requests from users / other systems... This implies that
any command thrown at it be it MVC or OI, is handled by the Operating
system.
b) notify users / other systems of its current status... This implies
that any part of the system writing SMF records and or send error
messages.

So all error handlers on the lowest level should be included. Any
program etc that handles requests on the lowest level should be
included.

What would not be included is the next layer... IDCAMS / DFSMS that
intercepts the base error codes and tries its best to send a reasonably
understandable error code. The problem comes when the distinction
between layer 1 and 2 becomes fuzzy ?

Regards

Herbie van Dalsen

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: 28 August 2006 23:49
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/28/2006
   at 02:13 PM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>It depends on your definition of of "operating system".  The
>classical  definition is the chunk of software that manages the real
>system  resources, allocating them to application programs.

You don't consider access methods to be part of the operating system?
Common services like DAIR and PARSE?

For IBSYS/IBJOB and OS/360 IBM considered the entire code base to be
an operating system.

>That would be, again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the
>SVCs.

Not all SVC's are in the BCP, and most of the BCP is not composed of
SVC's, at least not for MVS.

--
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>


_
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!  
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG


--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 04:49 CST, Leif Rundberget 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> z/OS is not an OS.  It is a bundle of packages put together and sold by
> IBM as a product solution.  The real OS in the bundle is still MVS clear
> back to the 60s or is that 50's.

Must disagree, Leif.  The MVS product contained many subsystems and 
applications.  z/OS contains MVS and yet more applications and subsystems, 
many of which are/were products in their own right.  But even MVS had the 
BCP (basic control program) that provides the core set of services used by 
all the other subsystems and apps.

Someone's gonna have to run to the store and get more fave beverages. 
There's not enough in the cooler and fridge to get us through this 
discussion!  :-)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Daniel A. McLaughlin]

So which part of Windows is the OS?

File handling
I/O
GUI


Obviously it's a sum of its parts, as is Z/OS, Z/VM, Linux, Unix...and so 
on. If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be, 
IMHO, that it is germane to the OS. Can you work without JES, or a like 
function? Not very well.




Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*









--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Ted MacNEIL]

>If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be, IMHO, 
>that it is germane to the OS.

That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the statement.

Can you use z/OS without TSO?

When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Veilleux, Jon L]

Not really, but you CAN get by without ISPF (even thought it would be
difficult).


Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683 


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

>If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be,
IMHO, that it is germane to the OS.

That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the
statement.

Can you use z/OS without TSO?

When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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

-
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the
sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately.
Thank you. Aetna

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[John Ticic]

-- snip --
So which part of Windows is the OS?

File handling
I/O
GUI

-- snip --

The mOuSe. :->


John

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 03:43 AST, "Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps it all really is just an academic discussion, but I can't help
> but think there should be a clear definition somewhere.  Maybe I'll try
> to Google a bit harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system is a reasonable place to 
start if you don't have a classic Operating Systems textbook.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:16 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
> 
> 
> Would it be correct to say that any "piece" that when removed 
> would result in a non-functional OS would then belong to the 
> OS?  I was thinking about JES.  Nothing works without JES, right?

Not right. I've actually managed to run NET, TSO, and a TSO logon in the
MSTR subsystem. All without JES being up. Kids! Don't try this at home!
No, I don't remember all of the steps necessary. It was a royal PITA.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited. 
 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 07:49 ZW3, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You don't consider access methods to be part of the operating system?

Sure they are.  They are controlling your access to the disk or tape.

> Common services like DAIR and PARSE?

Packaging vs. Academics.  If they are just "helper" routines (a la 
gethostbyname() that [could] run in my address space without privilege) 
then Computer Science would not consider them part of the operating system 
proper.  They may well be packaged with the operating system, but the 
operate outside of the pale.

> For IBSYS/IBJOB and OS/360 IBM considered the entire code base to be
> an operating system.

Of course we did.  Who was going to argue?  :-)

> >That would be, again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the
> >SVCs.
> 
> Not all SVC's are in the BCP, and most of the BCP is not composed of
> SVC's, at least not for MVS.

Then perhaps my terminology is faulty.  I was taught that the part of MVS 
that handles memory management, scheduling, dispatching, security, program 
management, address space management, system operation, I/O and so on was 
the BCP; that upon which all else is built, and whose services are 
accessed by SVC and [these days] PC.  Further, while the service routines 
for the various SVCs may not be physically resident in the BCP, I 
understood the SVC handler itself was.

Is there a better term for this?

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Daniel A. McLaughlin]

OK, if MVS or an equivalent can be run without JES or TSO, even though 
it's a RPITA, then would it be reasonable to postulate that the OS is the 
Overall Supervisor and other pieces, like TSO or JES, are there as the 
CBLFIA (Carbon Based Life Form Interactive Agents)?




Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*









--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 12:40 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> >If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be, 
IMHO, 
> that it is germane to the OS.
> 
> That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the 
statement.
> 
> Can you use z/OS without TSO?

Why, sure!  E.g. my Linux guests can still reach over to DB2 on z/OS if 
you take down TSO.  I don't think that makes the OS useless.  I can access 
my files with NFS.

It's true, I wouldn't want to configure a z/OS system without TSO, but 
it's just one of the interfaces.  I have slowly fading nightmares of CARDS 
and KEY PUNCHES before I was ever introduced to a 3270 and TSO  :-)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)]

 
 
In a message dated 8/29/2006 7:50:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>I've actually managed to run NET, TSO, and a TSO logon in  the
>MSTR subsystem. All without JES being up. Kids! Don't try this at  home!
>No, I don't remember all of the steps necessary. It was a royal  PITA.
And how did you manage to do all the PITA work necessary?  Did you  start 
JES2, then TSO (needs JESx alive to get started), then update files,  then run 
batch jobs (needs JESx to start) or started tasks (needs JESx to  start) to 
test 
out your changes?  Or did your MSTR subsystem arrive  already pre-customized 
like that from IBM?
 
My point is you can't do any meaningful work without some means of  starting 
a process (JESx) that either interacts with you (TSO) or at least  reads card 
images from some device (JESx), so that you can do the necessary  PITA work.  
After having used JESx to help you do all the work to  customize the system, 
then you can run TSO from MSTR, but not as the system  comes from IBM.
 
Bill  Fairchild




--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Lindy Mayfield]

What would stop working if you removed TSO?  

Oh, I think I see your point, though.  You're thinking of TSO as an I/O device 
rather than a development tool, yes?  It's necessary because there are no more 
card readers?

But the subsystem part of TSO is mostly VTAM isn't it? And IKJEFT01 is like a 
utility program, for example when running a DB2 batch job.

The reason I asked this in the first place was because I found it confusing.  I 
guess in this instance it was justified. (-:

Alan is right, not enough ginger beer in the fridge.


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Veilleux, Jon L
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?


Not really, but you CAN get by without ISPF (even thought it would be
difficult).


Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683 


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

>If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be,
IMHO, that it is germane to the OS.

That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the
statement.

Can you use z/OS without TSO?

When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:58 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
> 
> 



> > 
> > Can you use z/OS without TSO?
> 
> Why, sure!  E.g. my Linux guests can still reach over to DB2 
> on z/OS if 
> you take down TSO.  I don't think that makes the OS useless.  
> I can access 
> my files with NFS.
> 
> It's true, I wouldn't want to configure a z/OS system without 
> TSO, but 
> it's just one of the interfaces.  I have slowly fading 
> nightmares of CARDS 
> and KEY PUNCHES before I was ever introduced to a 3270 and 
> TSO  :-)
> 
> Alan Altmark

And even though it is "perverse", I'm trying to see how much I can get
done from a UNIX shell in z/OS without using TSO at all. OK, not too
much right now. I'm too stuck on things like SDSF. And the vi editor
which comes with z/OS is not very good, compared to the vim that I'm
used to on Linux/Intel. I've really made myself a PAIN over on MVS-OE
wanting things in z/OS UNIX simply to make like easier in a "UNIX shell"
environment.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited. 
 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Kuredjian, Michael]

If z/OS doesn't fit a traditional CS definition of a kernel, then what is it? 
Does the BCP act as a micro or nano kernel with all other services sharing its 
address space? Does the concept of "rings" or "kernel address space" even exist 
on these machines?

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?


In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/28/2006
   at 06:45 PM, Lindy Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the
>software shipped with z/OS would be defined as the "operating
>system"?

Well, historically IBM has used the term OS to include everything
bundled with the system.

>Especially since z/OS comes also with a UNIX kernel.

Which isn't a kernel in the sense that the CS mean. In fact, it would
be hard to find a part of MVS that qualified as a "kernel"; it really
doesn't fit that model.
 
-- 
 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

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM]

"Ted MacNEIL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>...
> >If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to
be, IMHO, that it is germane to the OS.
> 
> That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the
statement.
> 
> Can you use z/OS without TSO?
> 

Yes, you can, as well as you can without JES.

On the other hand, if a system mainly runs CICS, removing CICS would
render it useless. Is CICS therefor part of the OS?

I think it is useless to try to find a watertight definition of an OS.

How should we interprete the question: what part of z/OS is OS, so: what
part is 'z'? z/OS *is* the OS.

Kees.



**
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: 
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and 
privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the 
addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be 
disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this 
e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have 
received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), 
its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or 
incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for 
any delay in receipt.
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch 
Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 
33014286 
**


--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Daniel A. McLaughlin]

It would appear that usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. If CICS is 
your main reason for running the OS and it's removed, the OS is not 
incapacitated. To me dropping CICS is like removing the spare tire from 
the trunk of your car. Your car still runs, but one of its pieces is 
missing, in a broad sense.






Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*









--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Wayne Driscoll]

John,
Om my z/OS 1.7 system, (which is not customized), I have both vi and vim
in /bin
The vim is version 6.3, which is the same as I run on my PC.
Wayne Driscoll
Product Developer
JME Software LLC
NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.
  

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:58 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
> 
> 



> > 
> > Can you use z/OS without TSO?
> 
> Why, sure!  E.g. my Linux guests can still reach over to DB2 on z/OS 
> if you take down TSO.  I don't think that makes the OS useless.
> I can access
> my files with NFS.
> 
> It's true, I wouldn't want to configure a z/OS system without TSO, but

> it's just one of the interfaces.  I have slowly fading nightmares of 
> CARDS and KEY PUNCHES before I was ever introduced to a 3270 and 
> TSO  :-)
> 
> Alan Altmark

And even though it is "perverse", I'm trying to see how much I can get
done from a UNIX shell in z/OS without using TSO at all. OK, not too
much right now. I'm too stuck on things like SDSF. And the vi editor
which comes with z/OS is not very good, compared to the vim that I'm
used to on Linux/Intel. I've really made myself a PAIN over on MVS-OE
wanting things in z/OS UNIX simply to make like easier in a "UNIX shell"
environment.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited. 
 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[J R]

Not really, but you CAN get by without ISPF (even though it would be 
difficult).


We tend to refer to the parts we deal intimately with by name,
e.g. TSO, ISPF, HLASM, VTAM, TCP/IP, JES2, SDSF, etc., etc.
Unless we are looking at some component in particular, we tend
to refer to everything else non-specifically as "the system".

Is it reasonable to say that "the system" is the OS?  Maybe.

However, most wouldn't consider "the system" enough to work
with.  We all expect everything that was delivered to be available.



From: "Veilleux, Jon L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:43:48 -0400


Not really, but you CAN get by without ISPF (even thought it would be
difficult).


Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

>If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be,
IMHO, that it is germane to the OS.

That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the
statement.

Can you use z/OS without TSO?

When in doubt.
PANIC!!



_
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE   
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline


--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Lindy Mayfield]

John,

I don't think it is perverse at all.  One should be able to do almost 
everything from the shell.  Why should I work in ISPF if I am more comfortable 
with sh or bash?  (We definitely need more ported editors, too.)

There is some sdsf thingy on the tools and toys page, if you didn't already try 
it:

http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/unix/bpxa1ty2.html

--

Lindy

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?


And even though it is "perverse", I'm trying to see how much I can get
done from a UNIX shell in z/OS without using TSO at all. OK, not too
much right now. I'm too stuck on things like SDSF. And the vi editor
which comes with z/OS is not very good, compared to the vim that I'm
used to on Linux/Intel. I've really made myself a PAIN over on MVS-OE
wanting things in z/OS UNIX simply to make like easier in a "UNIX shell"
environment.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[McKown, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Driscoll
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:11 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
> 
> 
> John,
> Om my z/OS 1.7 system, (which is not customized), I have both 
> vi and vim
> in /bin
> The vim is version 6.3, which is the same as I run on my PC.
> Wayne Driscoll
> Product Developer
> JME Software LLC
> NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.

Wayne.

No vim on my z/OS 1.6 system at all. I cannot determine the version of
vi. There is a copyright from MKS in it, however.

Most likely my main problem lies in the keyboard mapping. I cannot get
them (using PuTTY) to work exactly as I am used to. Mostly likely a
PEBKAC problem.

--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited. 
 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)]

 
 
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 07:49 ZW3, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >That would be,  again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the
>  >SVCs.
>> Not all SVC's are in the BCP, and most of the BCP is not  composed of
>> SVC's, at least not for MVS.
 
In a message dated 8/29/2006 7:50:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
>I was taught that the part of MVS 
>that handles memory  management, scheduling
Not sure what you mean by scheduling.  You schedule an SRB by  using the 
SCHEDULE macro, which invokes the BCP via a BALR instruction.   You schedule 
batch 
jobs by using JESx.  You schedule an I/O request at the  lowest level by 
using the STARTIO macro, which invokes the I/O part of the BCP  via a BASSM 
instruction.
 
>, dispatching
Dispatching is handled by the Dispatcher, which, as far as I know, has  never 
had an interface involving an SVC.
 
>, security
Security is, like scheduling, a very broad topic.  It is enforced at  a data 
set level, device level, job level, address space level, individual 4K  pages 
of virtual storage level, etc.
 
>, program 
>management, address space management, system  operation, I/O
You can initiate I/O requests with certain SVCs, but also with BASSM (see  
above).  And you can also manipulate I/O resources by BALRing  into various I/O 
modules (halt a previously started I/O, modify a SCHIB,  vary devices, e.g.).
 
 and so on was 
>the BCP; that upon which all else is built,  and whose services are 
>accessed by SVC and [these days] PC.   Further, while the service routines 
>for the various SVCs may not be  physically resident in the BCP, I 
>understood the SVC handler itself  was.
The handlers (FLIH and SLIH) for all classes of interrupts are in  the BCP.



 
Bill  Fairchild

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Mark Zelden]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:40:15 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Can you use z/OS without TSO?
>

Yes. 

--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

J R wrote:

We tend to refer to the parts we deal intimately with by name,
e.g. TSO, ISPF, HLASM, VTAM, TCP/IP, JES2, SDSF, etc., etc.
Unless we are looking at some component in particular, we tend
to refer to everything else non-specifically as "the system".


previous posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#10 What part of z/OS is the OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#11 What part of z/OS is the OS?

in the past, kernels tended to refer to privilege/supervisor execution 
and protected storage. lots of kernels have implemented protected 
storage with virtual address spaces ... i.e. cp67 on 360/67. mvt used 
360 storage protection.


as technology progressed there was a direction (like for fault 
isolation) to provide greater granularity for both privileges and 
storage protection/isolation.


so from a structuring standpoint, system services got a lot less 
distinct with much greater levels of privileges and storage isolation.


a couple months ago there was talk by one of the vendors about moving 
SSL processing into the kernel. the issue was that they were going to be 
supporting SSL crypto hardware accelerator devices. In order to provide 
support for potentially multiple different applications sharing a common 
device ... SSL processing (used of a shared external device) became a 
resource and protection management issue (typical requirement for system 
services).


Discussion of some of the repercussions in the SSL security model that 
were the result of the SSL crypto processing overhead ... as well as 
some discussion as to how many of the requirements for SSL might be 
addressed in other ways:

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#7 SSL, Apache 2 and RSA key sizes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#8 SSL, Apache 2 and RSA key sizes

in the referenced discussion (about moving SSL support into the kernel) 
there was also mention of repeated efforts trying to get tcp/ip protocol 
stack out of the kernel in the secure, capability coyotos secure 
operating system

http://www.coyotos.org/

coyotos heritage is eros
http://www.eros-os.org/
http://www.capros.org/

the eros/capros heritage is keyKOS
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/#keylogic

keykos is the renamed gnosis by the key logic spin-off of tymshare after 
MD bought tymshare. gnosis was a secure 370-based operating system 
developed by tymshare. tymshare happened to have been one of the early 
cp67/vm370 commercial time-sharing offerings in the late 60s and 70s

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#timeshare

disclaimer, i was brought in to do gnosis audit and evaluation as part 
of the gnosis spin-off for key logic. misc. past posts mentioning 
gnosis/keykos
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#69 TSS ancient history, was X86 
ultimate CISC? designs)

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#22 No more innovation?  Get serious
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#73 7090 vs. 7094 etc.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#33 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital 
Equipment in the 70s?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#35 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital 
Equipment in the 70s?

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#10 TSS/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#59 Blade architectures
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#0 Blade architectures
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#4 markup vs wysiwyg (was: Re: 
learning how to use a computer)

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#43 IBM doing anything for 50th Anniv?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#63 Hercules and System/390 - do 
we need it?

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#75 30th b'day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#18 Multiple layers of virtual 
address translation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003h.html#41 Segments, capabilities, buffer 
overrun attacks

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003i.html#15 two pi, four phase, 370 clone
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#50 Slashdot: O'Reilly On The 
Importance Of The Mainframe Heritage

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003l.html#19 Secure OS Thoughts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003l.html#22 Secure OS Thoughts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003l.html#26 Secure OS Thoughts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#24 Intel iAPX 432
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#54 Thoughts on Utility Computing?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#4 OS Partitioning and security
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#27 NSF interest in Multics security
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#29 Shipwrecks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#49 EAL5
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004n.html#41 Multi-processor timing issue
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004o.html#33 Integer types for 128-bit 
addressing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004p.html#23 Systems software versus 
applications software definitions

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005.html#7 How do you say "gnus"?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#6 [Lit.] Buffer overruns
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005b.html#7 [Lit.] Buffer over

Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Ted MacNEIL]

>>Can you use z/OS without TSO?
>>

>Yes.

Comfortably?
Productively?
Do you really want to?

I can/have used Windows (& OS/2) without a mouse.
That doesn't mean I want to!

When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/29/2006
   at 08:21 AM, J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>I'm not familiar with the MVC and OI commands, but if you're
>referring to the MVC and OI instructions, these are handled directly
>by the CPU. [1]

Or simulated by the Licensed Internal Code.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/29/2006
   at 03:33 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>I can/have used Windows (& OS/2) without a mouse.

I use OS/2 without a mouse. It's perfectly comfortable.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/29/2006
   at 08:55 AM, "Kuredjian, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:

>If z/OS doesn't fit a traditional CS definition of a kernel, then
>what is it?

If an airplane doesn't fit a traditional navigator's definition of a
boat, then what is it? z/OS is the most recent version of MVS. There's
no reason to expect or want it to fir an artificial academic model.

>Does the BCP act as a micro or nano kernel with all other services
>sharing its address space?

No. MVS doesn't have a micro kernel, and the BCP runs in multiple
address spaces.

>Does the concept of "rings" or "kernel address space" even exist on
>these machines?

Those are two separate concepts, neither of which is applicable to
MVS. MVS was designed in a more amorphous and distributed fashion.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/29/2006
   at 08:50 AM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Sure they are.  They are controlling your access to the disk or tape.

Not really; they are using the same services that I could use. SAM
doesn't even use STARTIO, much less directly access the channel
subsytem.

>Packaging vs. Academics.  If they are just "helper" routines (a la 
>gethostbyname() that [could] run in my address space without
>privilege)  then Computer Science would not consider them part of
>the operating system  proper.

Vendors were using the term operating system before the CS folks
jumped on the bandwagon.

>Then perhaps my terminology is faulty.  I was taught that the part
>of MVS  that handles memory management, scheduling, dispatching,
>security, program  management, address space management, system
>operation, I/O and so on was  the BCP; that upon which all else is
>built, and whose services are accessed by SVC and [these days] PC.

No; the BCP is that part of the SCP that is not JES2 or JES3. It
includes a huge body of code that is not accessed by PC or SVC, other
than the ATTACH used for any jobstep program.

>Is there a better term for this?

I'm not sure that there is any utility for a term that refers only to
PC and SVC routines. Especially when a lot of those don't do much more
than validate requests and queue them for other code to process.

Put it this way; is a virtual; machine running SFS part of the
operating system?

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Wade Curry]

Daniel A. McLaughlin([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:24:54AM -0400:
> So which part of Windows is the OS?
> 
> File handling
> I/O
> GUI
> 
> 
> Obviously it's a sum of its parts, as is Z/OS, Z/VM, Linux, Unix...and so 
> on. If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be, 
> IMHO, that it is germane to the OS. Can you work without JES, or a like 
> function? Not very well.
> 

This comment pretty much encapsulated my thoughts.  The Windows GUI
isn't part of the OS *functionality*, but has become part of the OS
*code base*.  I could certainly digress into the technical reasons
this is undesireable, and what about it was prompted by lousy
ethics, but I'll resist.

With respect to MVS, when I see these blurry lines I have to wonder
which parts actually provide the core OS functionality.  I tend to
think of that functionality along similar lines as those Lindy and
others mentioned ... The software that 
1) enables the devices to be used at all
2) provides the API for accessing those resources 
3) schedules the access to the hardware
That doesn't eliminate all the fuzziness, but I don't like to stray
to far from that when defining the term "OS".

Where IBM might like for their customers to think of the OS as the
entire package solution,  it seems reasonable to me to discard that
notion long enough to ask which parts actually provide that core
functionality.

After four years in operations, I've pushed myself pretty hard to
understand the system beyond batch and online systems (and beyond
what our other operators learn, for that matter), but I still don't
know many of the components, yet.  So, I wonder along with Lindy
which parts are the OS, and which are not.

Wade Curry
Sr. Implementation Mgr., AT&T
San Diego, CA

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Wade Curry]

Daniel A. McLaughlin([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:24:54AM -0400:
> So which part of Windows is the OS?
> 
> File handling
> I/O
> GUI
> 
> 
> Obviously it's a sum of its parts, as is Z/OS, Z/VM, Linux, Unix...and so 
> on. If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be, 
> IMHO, that it is germane to the OS. Can you work without JES, or a like 
> function? Not very well.
> 
> 

I meant to address one more thing in my previous post.  When you
ask "which parts would disable the system when removed", it isn't
as practical as it may seem.  The parts that your business relies
on might not be part of the OS.  If your mission-critical wintel
application  requires the GUI, does that make the GUI
part of the OS?  If you were to remove the programs that comprise
the GUI would the computer become unuseable?  Windows (in it's
current incarnation) probably would fail to be useable without the
GUI, but that still wouldn't indicate that it is part of the OS in
my opinion.

This removal => uselessness criteria would be useful if the issues
were not conflated by the users' definition of "useless" and the
mixing of OS and non-OS functionality in the system software.  (Each
case would need to be evaluated separately.  I'm not making any
judgement with that statement.)

Wade Curry
Sr. Implementation Mgr., AT&T
San Diego, CA

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Daniel A. McLaughlin]

It all becomes one big philosophical debate based upon where you sit. I've 
worked on OS/MFT, OS/MVT, VS1, MVS/SP, ESA, XA, OS/390, and Z/OS.

The core functions have grown over the years, and the OS has gotten more 
complex as things like 31 bit and 64 bit came along. What does your own 
experience lead you to believe is necessary and not...and we come back to 
it depends. If I have a CICS user, then CICS is part of his or her OS 
cloud. If it's a NOMAD user, or SAS, PL/1, COBOL, FORTRAN, or HLASM, that 
would be part of that percieved universe.

It begins to sound like the blind men trying to describe an elephant based 
on touch.




Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*









--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Walt Farrell]

On 8/29/2006 2:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The core functions have grown over the years, and the OS has gotten more 
complex as things like 31 bit and 64 bit came along. What does your own 
experience lead you to believe is necessary and not...and we come back to 
it depends. If I have a CICS user, then CICS is part of his or her OS 
cloud. 


I will agree that if you require CICS, then your system must have CICS 
on it.  That does not make it part of the OS, however.


If you require Firefox for some reason on your Windows box, that does 
not make Firefox part of Windows, after all, and Bill Gates would 
certainly object if you claimed it did.


Walt

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Daniel A. McLaughlin]

that's the whole point, your OS is what you and your customers perceive it 
to be. 

This would be a great topic about 11:00 PM Thursday at a certain social 
gathering at Share...too bad I can't be there to fuel it.




Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*









--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[john gilmore]

Attempts at definitions like this one are seductive, but they always fail.

I was at the ICM in Madrid last week, and there was a session called 'What 
is Mathematics?'.


There was consensus only about the usual operational definition, 
'Mathematics is what mathematicians do'.


Ergo, an OS is . . .

John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA

_
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!  
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG


--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Craig Mullins]

But Mr. Gates sure did try to make IE part of the OS, didn't he?

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Walt Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

On 8/29/2006 2:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The core functions have grown over the years, and the OS has gotten
more 
> complex as things like 31 bit and 64 bit came along. What does your
own 
> experience lead you to believe is necessary and not...and we come back
to 
> it depends. If I have a CICS user, then CICS is part of his or her OS 
> cloud. 

I will agree that if you require CICS, then your system must have CICS 
on it.  That does not make it part of the OS, however.

If you require Firefox for some reason on your Windows box, that does 
not make Firefox part of Windows, after all, and Bill Gates would 
certainly object if you claimed it did.

Walt

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of john gilmore
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

There was consensus only about the usual operational definition, 
'Mathematics is what mathematicians do'.

Ergo, an OS is . . .

...what z/OS do?

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Edward Jaffe]

john gilmore wrote:
There was consensus only about the usual operational definition, 
'Mathematics is what mathematicians do'.


Ergo, an OS is . . .


what OS-ticians do? :-)

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Patrick O'Keefe]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:59:35 EDT, IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>...
>And how did you manage to do all the PITA work necessary?  Did you  start
>JES2, then TSO (needs JESx alive to get started), then update files,  
then run
>batch jobs (needs JESx to start) or started tasks (needs JESx to  start) 
to test
>out your changes?  Or did your MSTR subsystem arrive  already pre-
customized
>like that from IBM?
>...

But that's all beside the point.  You have a pretty locked-down MVS without
JES and TSO (although I know some Roscoe bigots that would argue that last
point), but you still have a usable operating system.  You can still run
start tasks under MSTR and they work just fine without JES and TSO.  In 
fact HASP and ASP per comopletely separate addons in the olden days, and
wasn't available at all.  (Pre-MVS but definitely not pre-OS.)

Pat O'Keefe 



>My point is you can't do any meaningful work without some means of  
starting
>a process (JESx) that either interacts with you (TSO) or at least  reads 
card
>images from some device (JESx), so that you can do the necessary  PITA 
work.
>After having used JESx to help you do all the work to  customize the 
system,
>then you can run TSO from MSTR, but not as the system  comes from IBM.
>
>Bill  Fairchild
>
>
>
>
>--
>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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Ted MacNEIL]

>Ergo, an OS is . . .
>
>...what z/OS do?

Or:
Do that voodoo you do so well!

The definition is never going to be nailed down properly.

If you define the OS as just BCP, then you are going to have a lot of things 
that you cannot do.
So, if you expand the definition to BCP, JES2, all the utilities and tools 
needed to keep it runnning, you can expand it to VTAM, TCP/IP, TSO, ISPF, SMP, 
and keep going.

There are (many) valid cases for including/excluding certain sub-systems.
But, I would go  with all the ('free') stuff that is bundled inside z/OS, and 
covered by that single licence, as a start.

When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 08:07 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> If you define the OS as just BCP, then you are going to have a lot of 
things 
> that you cannot do.
> So, if you expand the definition to BCP, JES2, all the utilities and 
tools 
> needed to keep it runnning, you can expand it to VTAM, TCP/IP, TSO, 
ISPF, SMP, 
> and keep going.
> 
> There are (many) valid cases for including/excluding certain 
sub-systems.
> But, I would go  with all the ('free') stuff that is bundled inside 
z/OS, and 
> covered by that single licence, as a start.

Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of 
time.  (Depending on your definition of "operating system", "usefulness" 
and "waste", of course!)

Academically, I cannot call z/VM an operating system, either.  CP, yes. 
CMS, yes.  GCS, yes.  Each with different levels of sophistication and 
capability.  But z/VM, like z/OS, is the name of a *product* that IBM 
sells.  From a *packaging* perspective, these products contain one or more 
operating systems, a collection of utilities, applications, and 
documentation.  The best part is that everyone knows what I mean when I 
say "z/VM".  Having to say "You know, the software offering from IBM that 
includes CP, CMS, GCS, AVS, TSAF, DVF, SES, ..., and TCP/IP" would just be 
too exhausting.

z/OS is the same thing.  It's the name of a collection of widgets that 
some people find moderately useful.  ;-)

"Windows" is the same.  The public's definition of "OS" and that of my 
Operating Systems professor in college are miles apart.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Ted MacNEIL]

>Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of time.

That I disagree with!
Usefulness is the only indicator.

If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?
When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Patrick O'Keefe]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:51:56 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of 
time.
>
>That I disagree with!
>Usefulness is the only indicator.
>
>If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?
>...

"Defining an operating system..."  "Defining", not "using", not "buying".

The definition of "Operating System" should not depend on the usefulness
of a particular instance.  The definition shouldn't even depend on the 
*existance* of an instance - any instance.

Pat O'Keefe 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Ted MacNEIL]

>The definition of "Operating System" should not depend on the usefulness of a 
>particular instance.  The definition shouldn't even depend on the 
*existance* of an instance - any instance.

Too Zen for me.
What is the sound of one disk IPLing?

If an OS is not useful, why am I using it?
The purpose of a computer is to automate and (unfortunately) reduce head-count.

That is the reason I purchase it!

When in doubt.
PANIC!!

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 09:51 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> >Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of 
time.
> 
> That I disagree with!
> Usefulness is the only indicator.
> 
> If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?

LOL, Ted!  :-)  You would only purchase something if you find it useful, 
of course. 

In the words of Lewis Carroll:
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it 
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' 

Since we cannot agree on what an "operating system" is, we cannot hope to 
agree on it's shape, size, weight, speed (laden or unladen), or, in this 
discourse, usefulness.  I find operating systems immensely *valuable* 
since they enable all kinds of *useful* applications.  But by my 
definition of "operating system", it is not useful by itself.  It just 
sits there and contemplates its cybernetic navel.

I contend that when you bought "z/OS" you did not buy an operating system. 
 Rather, you bought a data warehouse, a transaction processor, security, 
scalability, reliability, world-class support, expandability (hey, the h/w 
is there, too!), and all the other "inherent mainframe coolness" (TM) from 
which you derive business value.  The operating system itself was not the 
driving force.  All the stuff around it (e.g. CICS) is where the action 
is.

Likewise, when someone sees the business value of large-scale, flexible, 
server consolidation or test environments, they turn to z/VM because it is 
the world's most scalable and flexible provider of virtualization 
services.  They didn't say "Ooooh!  Ah!  CMS!  Way cool!".  :-)

Ruh roh!  The cooler is empty again!!!

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Bruce Hewson]

And I like to stir up people by:-


MVS is UNIX


but


UNIX is NOT MVS


:-)

Regards
Bruce Hewson

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shane]

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 02:55 -0500, Bruce Hewson wrote:

> MVS is UNIX
> but
> UNIX is NOT MVS

Similar for Linux; good thing too.
Whilst you still have to deal with the vagaries and personalities of
developers and policy doyens, at least if you don't like the way the
code works, you can "fix" it.
At times I get all motivated and go grab a beer and meander into the
(Linux) memory management code.
The beer *always* wins out ...

Shane ...

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Thomas Berg]

This is of course a case with very blurred borders, but:

* An OS is what is not an application * (but still software).

Generally.  For z/OS specifically, it maybe is the BCP as some suggest.
The reason for this is that when You look at software in "all purpose" computers
(in contrast to e g digital controlled amplifiers etc.), there is almost no 
general
attribute that is unique for any type of programs.  (Of course, e g a backup 
program
could be said to have the "unique" attribute of the group "backup programs", 
but I don't
consider here "backup function" to be a "general" attribute.)

But there is only one group of programs that is not depending on, or requires another 
"lower"
level of software.  And which is also *never* useful alone.  And which is 
always distributing
CPU and memory resources to other programs.

That group of programs is what I see as OS'.


Thomas Berg



--

__

Mundus Vult Decipi
__

 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 - Benjamin Franklin

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Lindy Mayfield]

That's a reasonable way to describe it.

If I write an SVC, does that become then an extension of the OS?  In a way, 
sort of.  



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Thomas Berg
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

This is of course a case with very blurred borders, but:

* An OS is what is not an application * (but still software).

Generally.  For z/OS specifically, it maybe is the BCP as some suggest.
The reason for this is that when You look at software in "all purpose" computers
(in contrast to e g digital controlled amplifiers etc.), there is almost no 
general
attribute that is unique for any type of programs.  (Of course, e g a backup 
program
could be said to have the "unique" attribute of the group "backup programs", 
but I don't
consider here "backup function" to be a "general" attribute.)

But there is only one group of programs that is not depending on, or requires 
another "lower"
level of software.  And which is also *never* useful alone.  And which is 
always distributing
CPU and memory resources to other programs.

That group of programs is what I see as OS'.


Thomas Berg



-- 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Craig Mullins]

Perhaps this site is "helpful" in narrowing down what an OS is?

http://www.answers.com/topic/operating-system

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thomas Berg
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

This is of course a case with very blurred borders, but:

* An OS is what is not an application * (but still software).

Generally.  For z/OS specifically, it maybe is the BCP as some suggest.
The reason for this is that when You look at software in "all purpose"
computers
(in contrast to e g digital controlled amplifiers etc.), there is almost
no general
attribute that is unique for any type of programs.  (Of course, e g a
backup program
could be said to have the "unique" attribute of the group "backup
programs", but I don't
consider here "backup function" to be a "general" attribute.)

But there is only one group of programs that is not depending on, or
requires another "lower"
level of software.  And which is also *never* useful alone.  And which
is always distributing
CPU and memory resources to other programs.

That group of programs is what I see as OS'.


Thomas Berg



-- 

__

 Mundus Vult Decipi
__

  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  - Benjamin Franklin

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/29/2006
   at 05:07 PM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Academically, I cannot call z/VM an operating system, either.  CP,
>yes.  CMS, yes.  GCS, yes.  Each with different levels of
>sophistication and  capability.

Each has components that the academic world would claim are not part
of an OS.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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] (Craig Mullins) writes:
> Perhaps this site is "helpful" in narrowing down what an OS is?
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/operating-system

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#10 What part of z/OS is the OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#11 What part of z/OS is the OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#13 What part of z/OS is the OS?

... from recent posting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#15 "25th Anniversary of the Personal 
Computer"

involving some copies of some old email from long ago and far away ...
one of the items was 2 chip operating system processor:

To: wheeler
Date: 29 September 1982, 10:46:37 EST

Hm, interesting article you sent

I obtained advance information about the Intel iAPX286  it looks
very interesting also have some data on the iAPX 86/30 and 88/30
Operating system processors  this looks extremely interesting, and
one can assume that the 286 cannot be far behind in getting an
operating system chip to go with it

iAPX86/30 is a 2 chip processor, with 35 operating system processor
primitives as instructions... things like job and task management,
interrupt management, free memory management, intertask communication,
intertask synchronization, and environmental control... It also
supports 5 operating system data types: jobs, tasks, segments,
mailboxes, and regions.  Someday we'll be able to look back at the big
RISC vs. CISC and wonder what all the fuss was about

... snip ...

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Patrick O'Keefe]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:04:42 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>...
>Ruh roh!  The cooler is empty again!!!
>...

In the spirit inspired by Alan's cooler, I suggest a difinitive answer:
"Everything following the slash".

Pat O'Keefe

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Daniel A. McLaughlin]

 From: Introduction to the New
Mainframe: Z/OS Basics (redbook) and NOT the "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Universe"

Works for me.






Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*

Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 8/30/2006 2:50:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Works for me. 



>>
Yeah, sorta like the time our CS dept. ordered a VAX without one. We're  
going to write our own? Um, our new machine won't boot! Yeah, it's waiting for  
your OS. Well, piece of shi*-send it back.
 
Then there are the Cray stories about how mad Seymour used to get after the  
'software' slowed down his designs.bad old  instructions! 

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Alan Altmark]

On Wednesday, 08/30/2006 at 03:49 AST, "Daniel A. McLaughlin" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  From: Introduction to the New Mainframe: Z/OS Basics (redbook) and NOT 
the 
> "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" 

LOL.  "Simplest terms".  No kidding there!

I suggest Madnick & Donovan's "Operating Systems" textbook (McGraw-Hill, 
1974), the one everyone seemed to use back in college in the Good Ol' 
Days.  (Remember? Icky yellow book? Appearing in garage sales all over 
town these days?)

According to them, an operating system manages memory, processors, 
devices, and information.  "Information" in their model is the file 
system.  They discuss 3 ways of viewing the operating system: 
- resource view
- process view
- Hierarchical/extended machine view

No discussion of transaction systems or databases (those are 
applications), but lots of talk about how OS/MVT and VM/370 are 
structured.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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] (Alan Altmark) writes:
> LOL.  "Simplest terms".  No kidding there!
>
> I suggest Madnick & Donovan's "Operating Systems" textbook (McGraw-Hill, 
> 1974), the one everyone seemed to use back in college in the Good Ol' 
> Days.  (Remember? Icky yellow book? Appearing in garage sales all over 
> town these days?)
>
> According to them, an operating system manages memory, processors, 
> devices, and information.  "Information" in their model is the file 
> system.  They discuss 3 ways of viewing the operating system: 
> - resource view
> - process view
> - Hierarchical/extended machine view
>
> No discussion of transaction systems or databases (those are 
> applications), but lots of talk about how OS/MVT and VM/370 are 
> structured.

note stu worked at the science center in the 60s and early 70s
(virtual machine and cp67 days)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

among other things, stu implemented cms script ... that supported
"dot" formating commands (similar to runoff). later, at the science
center, "G", "M", and "L" invented gml ... and gml tag processing was
added to script (for quite awhile you could find gml tags intermixed
with "dot" formating controls in script documents).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#sgml

old post mentioning document formating history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#32 who invented the "popup" ?

  PDP-1 Expensive Typewriter   (Peter Sampson)  about 1962
CTSS RUNOFF   (Jerry Saltzer)  1964-65
  CMS SCRIPT   (Stuart E. Madnick)  1967
  CTSS BCPL runoff   (Rudd Canaday, Dennis Ritchie)  1967-68
Multics BCPL runoff   (Canaday, Ritchie, Ossanna)  1968
  UNIX troff(J. F. Ossanna)  dunno

...

misc other past posts mentioning madnick
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#91 Documentation query
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#0 What good and old text formatter are 
there ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#50 IBM 705 computer manual
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#54 DSRunoff; was Re: TECO Critique
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#46 ... the need for a Museum of Computer 
Software
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#67 Coulda, Woulda, Shoudda moments?

http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#73 Specifying all biz rules in 
relational data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#74 Specifying all biz rules in 
relational data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#34 Thou shalt have no other gods before 
the ANSI C standard

--
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: What part of z/OS is the OS?

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/30/2006
   at 05:36 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>  UNIX troff(J. F. Ossanna)  dunno

Don't forget nroff, eqn and tbl.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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