Re: Official current definition of MVS

[John Gilmore]

In rereading that portion of my post that Shmuel quoted it has
occurred to me that it could be read as characterizing his 'typo' as
vulgar.  That was not at all my intent.

In classical rhetoric oxymora were and are figures of speech that make
use of an apparent but in the event not substantive contradiction.  In
current subliterate use 'oxymoron' has become a fancy synonym for
'contradiction'.  Alexius Meinong's round square is thus converted,
not very helpfully, into an instance of an oxymoron.

--jg

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 09/24/2012
   at 09:39 PM, John Gilmore  said:

>and he has here committed a [vulgar sense] oxymoron. 

Actually a typo; that should have been "It started as a feature of
OS/360 MVT."

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 Atid/2
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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[John Gilmore]

Shmuel wrote:


TSO was never a separate order number. It started as a feature of OS/360 MVS.


and he has here committed a [vulgar sense] oxymoron.  OS/360 had an
MVT but no MVS.

--jg

On 9/24/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)  wrote:
> In <50606024.6020...@us.ibm.com>, on 09/24/2012
>at 09:29 AM, John Eells  said:
>
>>MVS might have at some point included TSO.  Perhaps sooner, but since
>> MVS Version 1 if I recall correctly, TSO and later TSO/E have been
>>either:
>
>>a) Different products with separate product (order) numbers
>
> TSO was never a separate order number. It started as a feature of
> OS/360 MVS. TSO Command Package and TSO/E replaced portions of the
> free base until TSO/E became a standard set of components and the free
> base went away. Initially TSO was originally a SysGen option, but then
> SysGen went away.
>
>>b) For TSO/E, an element of OS/390 or z/OS.
>
> I normally read "element" as meaning a single FMID, which is not the
> case here.
>
> --
>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>  Atid/2
> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Robert A. Rosenberg]

At 01:47 -0500 on 09/23/2012, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: Official 
current definition of MVS:



Some people will insist that Manhattan is included by the "continental
United States"; the map says otherwise.


That depends on your definition. If you want to go by the map, only 
the Bronx qualifies - The other 4 boroughs are islands which are thus 
not on the continentally land mass (although part of it). The usual 
definition is in North America (thus only Hawaii and possibly Alaska 
are excluded).



I had an extended friendly argument with a girlfriend (from eastern 
Long Island) who insisted that "Long Island" does not include 
Brooklyn. The map says otherwise.


Again this is a definition issue. The usual use of Long Island is to 
refer to the two counties which are not part of NYC. Thus "I Live in 
Long Island" means somewhere on the island other than Queens or 
Brooklyn - Thus the eastern counties as well as the off the physical 
island landmass islands.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <50606024.6020...@us.ibm.com>, on 09/24/2012
   at 09:29 AM, John Eells  said:

>MVS might have at some point included TSO.  Perhaps sooner, but since
> MVS Version 1 if I recall correctly, TSO and later TSO/E have been
>either:

>a) Different products with separate product (order) numbers

TSO was never a separate order number. It started as a feature of
OS/360 MVS. TSO Command Package and TSO/E replaced portions of the
free base until TSO/E became a standard set of components and the free
base went away. Initially TSO was originally a SysGen option, but then
SysGen went away.

>b) For TSO/E, an element of OS/390 or z/OS.

I normally read "element" as meaning a single FMID, which is not the
case here.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 Atid/2
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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Scott Ford]

I remember a lot of products were separate then bundled together. 
Nccf,NDM and npda for example then it became Netview, just product evolution.

Scott ford
www.identityforge.com

Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll 
understand. - Chinese Proverb


On Sep 24, 2012, at 9:29 AM, John Eells  wrote:

> Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. wrote:
>> There is a discussion inn the news group a,lt.folklore.computers as to
>> whether the term "MVS" includes TSO. Can anybody point to an explicit
>> statement from IBM? Thanks.
> 
> MVS might have at some point included TSO.  Perhaps sooner, but since MVS 
> Version 1 if I recall correctly, TSO and later TSO/E have been either:
> 
> a) Different products with separate product (order) numbers
> b) For TSO/E, an element of OS/390 or z/OS.
> 
> -- 
> John Eells
> z/OS Technical Marketing
> IBM Poughkeepsie
> ee...@us.ibm.com
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[John Eells]

Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. wrote:

There is a discussion inn the news group a,lt.folklore.computers as to
whether the term "MVS" includes TSO. Can anybody point to an explicit
statement from IBM? Thanks.


MVS might have at some point included TSO.  Perhaps sooner, but since 
MVS Version 1 if I recall correctly, TSO and later TSO/E have been either:


a) Different products with separate product (order) numbers
b) For TSO/E, an element of OS/390 or z/OS.

--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Timothy Sipples1]

Paul Gilmartin writes:
>If it [TSO] appears as a separate line item on invoices from IBM...

To my knowledge it does not, at least in relation to z/OS.


Timothy Sipples
Consulting Enterprise IT Architect (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz  , Seymour J.) writes:
> OS/VS2 Release 3.8 was the last free MVS[1], and TSO was a part of it.
> There were various products that enhanced the free base, including
> MVS/SE and TSO Command Package. These were later bundled into larger
> products, e.g., MVS/SP subsumed MVS/SE, DFP subsumed DF/DS and TSO/E
> subsumed the TSO Command Package. Eventually IBM got rid of the free
> base.
>
> [1] There were later free selectable units and service upgrades,
> but no new free release.

various litigation resulted 23jun69 unbundling announcement started to
charge for application software, SE services, maintenance, etc
... however the company made the case that kernel (operating system)
software should still be free. misc. past posts mentioning unbundling
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle

In 1971, FS was motivated largely by clone controllers ... completely
replace 360/370 and totally different (with complex & tightly
integration between system and controllers) ... during FS period, 370
efforts were being killed off. The dirth of 370 products during the FS
period is credited with giving clone processors a market foothold.
misc. past posts mentioning FS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

I had continued to do 360/370 stuff during the FS period ... even
ridiculing FS activity ... claiming what I had running was better than
their blue sky stuff. With death of FS, there was mad rush to get
stuff back into 370 product pipelines ... reference here how
3033 & 3081 were q&d efforts trying to use warmed over FS stuff
... but compared poorly to clone processors
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm

in any case, the mad rush to get stuff back into 370 product pipelines
contributed to decision to release various pieces of stuff that I had
continued to do all during the FS period.

One of the pieces was dynamic adaptive resource manager that I had done
for (virtual machine) cp67 as undergraduate in the 60s ... and was
dropped in the simplification morph from cp67->vm370. The rise of the
clone processors also contributed to decision to start charging for
kernel software ... and my dynamic adpative resource manager was
selected for guinea pig ... and I got to spend a lot of time with
business & legal people regarding kernel software charging policies
misc. past posts mentioning my resource manager (default resource policy
was fair share which become common reference)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare

The original kernel pricing policy was new kernel software that wasn't
directly involved in hardware support, could be charged for (but things
like device support. and new processor support would still be free).
This resulted in some amount of confusion when it was finally decided to
release vm370 tightly coupled multiprocessor support (which had to be
free) ... however, I had already shipped numerous pieces required for
multiprocessor support in my dynamic adaptive resource manager (but not
the actual enabling pieces of code). Having free (hardware support)
kernel software that was dependent on charged for software ... violated
the kernel pricing policies. What they finally did was move 90% of the
lines of code from the resource manager into the free kernel (for the
release with multiprocessor support), but kept the price of the
radically reduced resource manager unchanged. Eventually company
transitions to charging for the whole kernel.

misc. posts about having been involved in various tightly-coupled
multiprocessor activities
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp

As part of mad rush to get stuff back into the 370 product pipeline, the
head of POK managed to convince corporate to killoff the vm370 product,
shutdown the vm370 product development group and move all the people to
POK (or otherwise they wouldn't be able to make the mvs/xa product ship
scheduled). However, eventually Endicott managed to save the vm370
product mission ... but had to reconstitute a development group from
scratch. Later Endicott saw massive increase in vm370 installations
(both inside and outside the company) with the extremely popular 4300
machines. various old email related to 4300 product
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx

The upswing of vm/4300s was so great that corporate got around to
declaring vm/cms the strategic interactive computing product (to the
extreme dismay of POK, the MVS group and especially TSO).  This is long
winded old email about the TSO product administrator trying to talk me
into doing my dynamic adaptive resource manager for MVS ... as an
approach to trying to improve TSO's interactive computing
characteristics (I pointing out that the structural flaws in MVS for
interactive computing went far beyond what could be fixed by my resource
manager):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#email800310

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Scott Ford]

Maybe I am odd, but it doesn't matter to me , working big OS since OS/VS2/HASP

Scott ford
www.identityforge.com

Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll 
understand. - Chinese Proverb


On Sep 23, 2012, at 11:28 AM, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" 
 wrote:

> In , on 09/23/2012
>   at 09:37 AM, Binyamin Dissen  said:
> 
>> Define what "term" means in this context.
> 
> 'The term "MVS" in this context means the letter M, the letter V and
> the letter S, in that order.
> 
>> I believe that it was a separate FMID,
> 
> More than one.
> 
>> but both MVS and TSO were free.
> 
> OS/VS2 Release 3.8 was the last free MVS[1], and TSO was a part of it.
> There were various products that enhanced the free base, including
> MVS/SE and TSO Command Package. These were later bundled into larger
> products, e.g., MVS/SP subsumed MVS/SE, DFP subsumed DF/DS and TSO/E
> subsumed the TSO Command Package. Eventually IBM got rid of the free
> base.
> 
> [1] There were later free selectable units and service upgrades,
>but no new free release.
> 
> -- 
> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In , on 09/23/2012
   at 09:37 AM, Binyamin Dissen  said:

>Define what "term" means in this context.

'The term "MVS" in this context means the letter M, the letter V and
the letter S, in that order.

>I believe that it was a separate FMID,

More than one.

>but both MVS and TSO were free.

OS/VS2 Release 3.8 was the last free MVS[1], and TSO was a part of it.
There were various products that enhanced the free base, including
MVS/SE and TSO Command Package. These were later bundled into larger
products, e.g., MVS/SP subsumed MVS/SE, DFP subsumed DF/DS and TSO/E
subsumed the TSO Command Package. Eventually IBM got rid of the free
base.

[1] There were later free selectable units and service upgrades,
but no new free release.
 
-- 
 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:58:03 -0400 "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
 wrote:

:>There is a discussion inn the news group a,lt.folklore.computers as to
:>whether the term "MVS" includes TSO. Can anybody point to an explicit
:>statement from IBM? Thanks.

Define what "term" means in this context.

I believe that it was a separate FMID, but both MVS and TSO were free.

--
Binyamin Dissen 
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel


Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Official current definition of MVS

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:58:03 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:

>There is a discussion inn the news group a,lt.folklore.computers as to
>whether the term "MVS" includes TSO. Can anybody point to an explicit
>statement from IBM? Thanks.
> 
Who cares?  And this is another case where prevailing usage may differ
from official sources, and even those may disagree with each other.

Some people will insist that Manhattan is included by the "continental
United States"; the map says otherwise.  I had an extended friendly
argument with a girlfriend (from eastern Long Island) who insisted
that "Long Island" does not include Brooklyn.  The map says otherwise.

The "O" in "TSO" stands for "Option".  I believe that long ago TSO was
optional, but that is no longer the case.  If it appears as a separate
line item on invoices from IBM, that may be as meaningless as the
itemized overhead charges on a garage bill or utility bill.

Does the term "MVS" include z/OS?

Can we return to the chartered discussion of the proper usage of "USS"
now?

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN