Re: Reliable source for OCO?

[Seymour J Metz]

I believe that the grammar is corrrect, but the duplication is a typo. Yes, I 
meant to include z/OS. I did not know whther OCO applied to z/TPF.

The {{dubious}} template was at the end of a string of footnotes, so I may have 
misinterpreted its scope.

The logic manuals that I cited are not for z/foo, but for their S/360 
antecedents; the OCO comment was only there to clarify why I didn't cite 
current manuals.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Timothy Sipples [sipp...@sg.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 11:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reliable source for OCO?

Shmuel Metz wrote:

>I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor

>has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary 
>descendants,

>z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the general public."



Is that editor actually challenging you on your use of commas? :-) And did you 
mean to repeat z/VM? I assume you meant z/OS.



If this statement or similar is so important here, what similar statement can 
you make that you can back up with an acceptable source? Sometimes if you find 
another way to write something it’ll be fine. Perhaps you could write something 
like this:



“IBM publicly distributed ‘logic manuals’ that describe ancestors of today’s 
z/VM, z/VSE, and z/OS operating systems.”



Then you link to those three logic manuals in your reference.



Also, z/TPF?

— — — — —
Timothy Sipples
Senior Architect
Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cyber Security
IBM zSystems and LinuxONE
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

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

Re: Reliable source for OCO?

[Timothy Sipples]

Shmuel Metz wrote:

>I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor

>has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary 
>descendants,

>z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the general public."



Is that editor actually challenging you on your use of commas? :-) And did you 
mean to repeat z/VM? I assume you meant z/OS.



If this statement or similar is so important here, what similar statement can 
you make that you can back up with an acceptable source? Sometimes if you find 
another way to write something it’ll be fine. Perhaps you could write something 
like this:



“IBM publicly distributed ‘logic manuals’ that describe ancestors of today’s 
z/VM, z/VSE, and z/OS operating systems.”



Then you link to those three logic manuals in your reference.



Also, z/TPF?

— — — — —
Timothy Sipples
Senior Architect
Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cyber Security
IBM zSystems and LinuxONE
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: Reliable source for OCO?

[Seymour J Metz]

It's right in the GI manual:

Object code only and limited source availability
Some z/VM components, facilities, and features are distributed in 
object code only (OCO)
   form. No source program materials are available for the following:
• AVS
• Dump Viewing Facility
• DFSMS/VM
• Performance Toolkit
CP, CMS, DirMaint, and RACF are distributed partially in OCO form, which 
means that some
modules will not have source program materials available but others will.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Alan Altmark 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reliable source for OCO?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:37:32 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

>I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor has 
>challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their
>contemporary descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the 
>general public." What are the relevant URLs for IBM's
> policy? Thanks.

I've never heard of such a policy.

z/VM stopped publishing its PLMs because the effort to maintain them exceeded 
their value.   A vendor who needs information about z/VM internals uses their 
PartnerWorld relationship to obtain it.  That said, for historical reasons the 
PLM for CP still exists internally.  I know because I made a large update to it 
just a handful of years ago, but it's already out of date again.   But it's 
nice to hand it to a new hire and point to the parts that are still good.

Even though z/VM doesn't publish a PLM, it still publishes most of the source 
code for CP and CMS.  Not surprisingly, we exclude any source code that uses 
unpublished elements of z/Architecture ("not otherwise described in this 
publication"), uses unpublished device interfaces, or that contains other 
protected intellectual property.

Tied to that are source code updates that are included with PTFs, but that's 
really shipped only because we'd have to stick our fingers in the spinning fan 
blades of the long-established maintenance process to stop it.  If we ever 
change the way we maintain the system in the field, those source code updates 
may well end.  But that's again a case where the only people who care are a few 
vendors, and they have other resources at their disposal.

z/VM customer sysprogs in 2022 do not modify or extend CP or CMS, and the 
customers do not want their IT managers to also be in the software development 
business.  Governance rules related to off-the-shelf hardware and software have 
moved to the forefront, and you can't hold the vendor liable if you have broken 
the warranty seal.

And we don't want sysprogs wasting time trying to shoot a dump.  That's what 
they pay IBM to do and the sooner they get the dump to us, the sooner we can 
fix the problem.

Alan Altmark
IBM

--
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: Reliable source for OCO?

[Tony Harminc]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 at 12:16, g...@gabegold.com  wrote:
>
> I'm still here, though not posting much these days.

Hi Gabe!

>I pulled out my source file -- about 1 1/2 inches thick, including SHARE SSD 
>(SHARE Secretary's Distribution, as opposed to solid state device!) #349 from 
>August 1986, and SHARE 64 Session #0042, "All Your Fears are
> Sourceless" (report of the VM Source Committee). But I don't think Wikipedia 
> accepts my file cabinet as secondary source (that word again!). Plus 
> clippings, etc. I'll see whether anything useful I have is available online 
> -- though
> it's likely all from 1980s so might not be conclusive proof of current status.

I don't think Wikipedia requires that sources - primary or secondary -
be available online. SHARE reports and SSD stuff sounds like good
referenceable material to me. But as Shmuel suggests, Wikipedia is a
strange place with strange rules.

This reminds me that there is of course a large archive of 1980s OCO
material on VMSHARE, which is mostly still available online.
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/

Tony H.

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

Re: Reliable source for OCO?

[g...@gabegold.com]

I'm still here, though not posting much these days. I pulled out my source file 
-- about 1 1/2 inches thick, including SHARE SSD (SHARE Secretary's 
Distribution, as opposed to solid state device!) #349 from August 1986, and 
SHARE 64 Session #0042, "All Your Fears are Sourceless" (report of the VM 
Source Committee). But I don't think Wikipedia accepts my file cabinet as 
secondary source (that word again!). Plus clippings, etc. I'll see whether 
anything useful I have is available online -- though it's likely all from 1980s 
so might not be conclusive proof of current status.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:23:09 -0400, Tony Harminc  wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>
>> I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor 
>> has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary 
>> descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the general public."
>> What are the relevant URLs for IBM's policy? Thanks.
>
>The OCO (or more subtle) status of current software is in the
>announcement letters. Using IBM URLs as a reference is a bit of a
>trap, because IBM so frequently removes and rearranges things, and
>seems to have a global robots.txt that prohibits pretty much
>everything.
>
>It's not obvious to me that the existence of published logic manuals
>aligns with the OCO status of a product. IIRC many products that were
>not OCO have still had logic manuals withdrawn in favour of
>"diagnostic guides" and the like. At the same time some of those
>diagnostic books are remarkably detailed, and the logic is described
>or can be inferred even though the source code is not available.
>
>I also seem to remember some discussion of this on this very list,
>including the definitions of terms like "restricted materials of IBM",
>"object code only", and so on. I'm not finding them in a quick search,
>but one thing that did come up is a 2018 post from Gabe Goldberg, who
>said he had "my OCO file -- a decade or so worth of material
>documenting IBM's folly removing source code ("Object Code Only" for
>those who didn't live through it). " Might be worth contacting him.
>I'm not sure he's still active on this list, but g...@gabegold.com
>looks to be current.

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

Re: Reliable source for OCO?

[Matt Hogstrom]

I can’t recall a policy other than a shift to Object Code Only where the 
internals became opaque

Matt Hogstrom
m...@hogstrom.org
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
Facebook   LinkedIn 
  Twitter 

“It may be cognitive, but, it ain’t intuitive."
— Hogstrom

> On Apr 15, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Alan Altmark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:37:32 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> 
>> I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor 
>> has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their 
>> contemporary descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the 
>> general public." What are the relevant URLs for IBM's 
>> policy? Thanks.
> 
> I've never heard of such a policy.
> 
> z/VM stopped publishing its PLMs because the effort to maintain them exceeded 
> their value.   A vendor who needs information about z/VM internals uses their 
> PartnerWorld relationship to obtain it.  That said, for historical reasons 
> the PLM for CP still exists internally.  I know because I made a large update 
> to it just a handful of years ago, but it's already out of date again.   But 
> it's nice to hand it to a new hire and point to the parts that are still good.
> 
> Even though z/VM doesn't publish a PLM, it still publishes most of the source 
> code for CP and CMS.  Not surprisingly, we exclude any source code that uses 
> unpublished elements of z/Architecture ("not otherwise described in this 
> publication"), uses unpublished device interfaces, or that contains other 
> protected intellectual property.   
> 
> Tied to that are source code updates that are included with PTFs, but that's 
> really shipped only because we'd have to stick our fingers in the spinning 
> fan blades of the long-established maintenance process to stop it.  If we 
> ever change the way we maintain the system in the field, those source code 
> updates may well end.  But that's again a case where the only people who care 
> are a few vendors, and they have other resources at their disposal.
> 
> z/VM customer sysprogs in 2022 do not modify or extend CP or CMS, and the 
> customers do not want their IT managers to also be in the software 
> development business.  Governance rules related to off-the-shelf hardware and 
> software have moved to the forefront, and you can't hold the vendor liable if 
> you have broken the warranty seal.
> 
> And we don't want sysprogs wasting time trying to shoot a dump.  That's what 
> they pay IBM to do and the sooner they get the dump to us, the sooner we can 
> fix the problem. 
> 
> Alan Altmark
> IBM
> 
> --
> 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: Reliable source for OCO?

[Alan Altmark]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:37:32 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

>I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor has 
>challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their 
>contemporary descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the 
>general public." What are the relevant URLs for IBM's 
> policy? Thanks.

I've never heard of such a policy.

z/VM stopped publishing its PLMs because the effort to maintain them exceeded 
their value.   A vendor who needs information about z/VM internals uses their 
PartnerWorld relationship to obtain it.  That said, for historical reasons the 
PLM for CP still exists internally.  I know because I made a large update to it 
just a handful of years ago, but it's already out of date again.   But it's 
nice to hand it to a new hire and point to the parts that are still good.

Even though z/VM doesn't publish a PLM, it still publishes most of the source 
code for CP and CMS.  Not surprisingly, we exclude any source code that uses 
unpublished elements of z/Architecture ("not otherwise described in this 
publication"), uses unpublished device interfaces, or that contains other 
protected intellectual property.   

Tied to that are source code updates that are included with PTFs, but that's 
really shipped only because we'd have to stick our fingers in the spinning fan 
blades of the long-established maintenance process to stop it.  If we ever 
change the way we maintain the system in the field, those source code updates 
may well end.  But that's again a case where the only people who care are a few 
vendors, and they have other resources at their disposal.

z/VM customer sysprogs in 2022 do not modify or extend CP or CMS, and the 
customers do not want their IT managers to also be in the software development 
business.  Governance rules related to off-the-shelf hardware and software have 
moved to the forefront, and you can't hold the vendor liable if you have broken 
the warranty seal.

And we don't want sysprogs wasting time trying to shoot a dump.  That's what 
they pay IBM to do and the sooner they get the dump to us, the sooner we can 
fix the problem. 

Alan Altmark
IBM

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

Re: Reliable source for OCO?

[Seymour J Metz]

The best way to address potentially transient URLs in wiki may be to quote the 
relevant text as part of the citation. If I could find a reliable online 
secondary source, that would be better due to wiki's prejudice against primary 
sources.

Back when they were still available, I used to read the logic manuals for 
things that should have been in the reference manuals, and I used to read the 
code for things that should have been in the logic manuals.

I still remember when IBM rewrote some logic manuals as HIPO manuals that were 
missing what the letters satood for, and the appalling VSFORTRAN documentation.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reliable source for OCO?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor 
> has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary 
> descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the general public."
> What are the relevant URLs for IBM's policy? Thanks.

The OCO (or more subtle) status of current software is in the
announcement letters. Using IBM URLs as a reference is a bit of a
trap, because IBM so frequently removes and rearranges things, and
seems to have a global robots.txt that prohibits pretty much
everything.

It's not obvious to me that the existence of published logic manuals
aligns with the OCO status of a product. IIRC many products that were
not OCO have still had logic manuals withdrawn in favour of
"diagnostic guides" and the like. At the same time some of those
diagnostic books are remarkably detailed, and the logic is described
or can be inferred even though the source code is not available.

I also seem to remember some discussion of this on this very list,
including the definitions of terms like "restricted materials of IBM",
"object code only", and so on. I'm not finding them in a quick search,
but one thing that did come up is a 2018 post from Gabe Goldberg, who
said he had "my OCO file -- a decade or so worth of material
documenting IBM's folly removing source code ("Object Code Only" for
those who didn't live through it). " Might be worth contacting him.
I'm not sure he's still active on this list, but g...@gabegold.com
looks to be current.

Tony H.

--
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: Reliable source for OCO?

[Seymour J Metz]

That might be reasonable in a different context, but wiki has rules about 
verifiability. Worse, they consider secondary sources more reliable than 
primary sources, which to anybody with exposure to Academia seems insane.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Thigpen [t...@vse2pdf.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reliable source for OCO?

Seymour,

He is asking you to prove a negative. Call him on it.

Tony Thigpen

Seymour J Metz wrote on 4/14/22 07:37:
> I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor 
> has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary 
> descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the general public." 
> What are the relevant URLs for IBM's policy? Thanks.
>
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> --
> 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

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

Re: Reliable source for OCO?

[Tony Thigpen]

Seymour,

He is asking you to prove a negative. Call him on it.

Tony Thigpen

Seymour J Metz wrote on 4/14/22 07:37:

I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor has challenged 
the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and 
z/VM, are not available to the general public." What are the relevant URLs for IBM's 
policy? Thanks.



--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

--
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: Reliable source for OCO?

[Tony Harminc]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> I'm editing the wikipedia [[Operating system]] article, and another editor 
> has challenged the sentence "The logic manuals for their contemporary 
> descendants, z/VM, z/VSE and z/VM, are not available to the general public."
> What are the relevant URLs for IBM's policy? Thanks.

The OCO (or more subtle) status of current software is in the
announcement letters. Using IBM URLs as a reference is a bit of a
trap, because IBM so frequently removes and rearranges things, and
seems to have a global robots.txt that prohibits pretty much
everything.

It's not obvious to me that the existence of published logic manuals
aligns with the OCO status of a product. IIRC many products that were
not OCO have still had logic manuals withdrawn in favour of
"diagnostic guides" and the like. At the same time some of those
diagnostic books are remarkably detailed, and the logic is described
or can be inferred even though the source code is not available.

I also seem to remember some discussion of this on this very list,
including the definitions of terms like "restricted materials of IBM",
"object code only", and so on. I'm not finding them in a quick search,
but one thing that did come up is a 2018 post from Gabe Goldberg, who
said he had "my OCO file -- a decade or so worth of material
documenting IBM's folly removing source code ("Object Code Only" for
those who didn't live through it). " Might be worth contacting him.
I'm not sure he's still active on this list, but g...@gabegold.com
looks to be current.

Tony H.

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