Re: Mandatory ESMs?
At the risk of ignoring his assertion about the length of this thread, Richard has provided the perfect opening for me to mention Open Object Rexx. :-) That's the Open Source evolution of IBM Object REXX, supported by a team of developers lead by Rick McGuire (an original developer of IBM OREXX), is freakishly powerful, and currently runs on every major platform (32/64-bit Windows, Mac, UNIX/Linux, looking into Android) -- except z/VM and Z/OS. Believe me, it's not for lack of desire, interest, or love of CMS. We simply don't have access to the necessary resources (hardware and wetware) in order to effect a proper port of the (predominately C/C++) code. If you would be interested in contributing in some way to the effort to port ooRexx to IBM's Flagship Operating System (and/or z/OS ;-) please go to the ooRexx website www.oorexx.com and contact the Project Manager, David Ashley. You may find you don't need PL/I as much as you think... :-) -Chip- On 12/17/10 03:30 Richard Troth said: This thread has gone on too long. If you want tools for CMS, make a biz case or make the tools. We should leverage open source. We should take advantage of things IBM *is* developing, such as the BFS resident critters. ALL of the programs I have compiled on USS have dropped right in to OpenVM. (one man's experience; YMMV; actual mileage will probably be less)
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Yes you have Harry, and we are very grateful for the hardware resources. Now if we had someone(s) with the necessary CMS and C/C++ skills (and time) to take a look at the software side of the portage, we might make some progress. -Chip- On 12/17/10 17:21 A. Harry Williams said: On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:10:14 + you said: If you would be interested in contributing in some way to the effort to port ooRexx to IBM's Flagship Operating System (and/or z/OS ;-) please go to the ooRexx website www.oorexx.com and contact the Project Manager, David Ashley. I've offered access to a z990 running z/VM to David previously, and I can workout access to a z/OS system too. I thought they were doing some Linux on z work on the z990, but I could be wrong.
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
In fact if history and memory, or is it memory of history serves me there was no buisness case for CP67 (VM) to even be born. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: Hi, Alan. On 12/13/2010 02:38 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 09:41 EST, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: I'm just grateful z/VM is still alive and well and getting stronger and better every day especially with the advent of the z196 and that it is only a question of time before the compiler issue will be addressed. Not likely, George. The problem with CMS as an application platform isn't the compilers. As others have noted, that's easily and [relatively] cheaply solved. The problem is that application developers use compilers as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Business application programmers want to write web-enabled apps and services for UIs and database access. They want WebSphere, WAS, DB2/UDB, Oracle, and WebLogic. They want to write RESTful applications. They want to write in Java. And, of course, they don't want just some minimal core level of function, they want the whole enchilada. Great, let those developers use whatever tools and platforms they choose to; they are not the group I am speaking of. I think we can all agree that the time of CMS hosting large scale business applications has long since passed. And in case it's not evident, business cases for compilers are developed around *business* application development, not systems management. Firstly, companies don't *want* to write their own systems management software - they want to buy it. Secondly, the number of people wanting to write their own systems management software on CMS is vanishingly small. So to have a viable business, you have to have enough demand to drive significant revenue. I say significant because there are lots of places IBM can invest. Should it invest those resources in something that returns a small profit, or large? (Note: I'm a stockholder, so I'm biased.) So what you are saying is that the only interest folks might have in using modern compilers on CMS is to write business applications and nothing else? Remember that IBM first sold us on PL/I as an all-purpose language, one that could be used for systems programming applications as well as business ones.so I don't see thjis as an issue of nobody writes business applications anymore on CMS, so we don't need to provide the compilers. Those who are in the *business* of CMS-based [systems] software development might *prefer* COBOL or PL/I, sure, but they know what languages are available to them and they have to decide whether the market conditions and the availability of development infrastructure are sufficient to meet their business goals. In IT, as in almost all walks of life, it is unfortunate yet true that that the wishes of the Few or the One are ignored in favor of the wishes of the many. Yes, we know what's available for development work on CMS, but surely you're not saying we should not ask for more tools.or that we should simply sit down, shut up and be happy with whatever IBM thinks we need? It is certainly true that there are a relatively few of us interested in developing such software but I believe that we make the overall z/VM environment more attractive to potential customers, and thus fill an important role in the zSeries ecosystem. and it's not a case of the wishes of the Few or the One are ignored in favor of the wishes of the many.it's more of a case of out of, say, 100 VM advocates, 4 want IBM to port PL/I to CMS and the other 96 simply don't care, and not that the other 96 are actively against it. You will see that z/VM continues to invest in its native back-end System Management APIs and in the CIM lowware that pushes on them in order to free the systems management software from *having* to run ON CMS. Ultimately being able to manage system configuration, virtual machine provisioning, real resource provisioning, operation, event management, accounting, security, DR and HA, all from modern front-ends UIs with their own scriptable CLIs. As you suggest, this is all part of the appeal of zEnterprise. That's great, and I hope IBM is successful in doing that, as I am an IBM stockholder as wellbut we all know that there is no one size fits all in such software and sites will continue to tweak their capabilities with site-specific modifications (exits, glue routines, etc.). All I want is IBM to add one more tool to VM's kit to aid those sites. By the way, none of the above in any way denies the acknowledged inherent coolness of CMS. It's a simple and fast operating system; it's single userness eliminating huge amounts of complexity. Of course, we make up for that by having invented SFS and BFS, reintroducing some of that
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Au contraire. It was necessary for MVS development.
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Not in the beginning. It was a 'face saver' after IBM lost the bid for Project MAC and was an outgrowth of CP-40 and the failure of TSS/360. Yes, at one point it was 'saved' by making the case for MVS development, but by that time there was considerable customer pressure that preceded the politics of Batch vs. Time-Sharing. I'm sure Lynn Wheeler can provide all the gory details, as I'm working from memory of what he and Melinda have written. Les Alan Altmark wrote: Au contraire. It was necessary for MVS development.
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
To this best of my knowledge, I don't believe that there was a business case made; at least it was not mentioned in any of Melinda's History of VM papers. DJ On 12/16/2010 6:37 PM, Schuh, Richard wrote: Did anyone build a legitimate business case for CP-40 before it was built? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? Au contraire. It was necessary for MVS development.
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
A few weeks ago, Dick MacKinnon touched on these subjects during his invited remarks DEFINING YOURSELF -- LIVING YOUR LIFE PREVENTING SOME BAD THINGS at the University of Maine. Richard A. MacKinnon has, among many titles, Former Head of IBM Cambridge Scientific Center. Cheers, Wayne On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Les Koehler vmr...@tampabay.rr.com wrote, in part: Not in the beginning. It was a 'face saver' after IBM lost the bid for Project MAC and was an outgrowth of CP-40 and the failure of TSS/360.
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
KRIS was working on some GUI for z/VM That's too much expectations. CMS GUI: was introduced in 1995/1996 (VM/ESA 2.4). TSO used the same software to replace the 3270 ISPF screens with GUI screens. The underlying thing is DT, Distributed Toolkit. The logic can run on system A, the presentation on system B. Was suppose no to be limited to VM and MVS, but also on Windows, OS/2, AIX, etc. Great idea, but too late, Java became the thing that runs everywhere. There was also a visual GUI builder, it was supposed to be able to create not only the GUI panels, but also the program's logic. The WSA GUI Builder program that can be found now only does the first part, and the Windows 95 version fails on modern Windows. The OS/2 version runs fine. I think I can indeed be called the CMS/GUI specialist: I was lucky to be able to participate in the creation of a CMS GUI redbook: SC24-2542. So I learned it and created subroutines to make using it easier from REXX. Later, as the WSA GUI Builder was stopped too, I created my GUIWIRE tool that helps to create the program logic. CMS GUI is no longer supported, and some pieces of it are no longer delivered with z/VM, and must be downloaded from VM's download library. But, if you do you can: - install and start the WSA on you workstation - issue SET WORKSTAT IP x.x.x.x - issue CMSDESK And you get some GUI for basic CMS usage. On the VM download lib, you can find various CMS/GUI tools I created, all in REXX, and -apart from CPQUERY- with GUI in their name. The only things I still work on every now and then are: - CPQUERY: when someone tells me about a bug - PTKGUI: a tool to make graphs of Perfkit Summary files, such as the %CP used and %CPU wait of a given user. But, PTKGUI is still not ready, maybe a beta version will go to the download lib the coming days. 2010/12/13 George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com In our *stuck on GUI* discussion, I though it was said that KRIS was working on some GUI for z/VM, possibly CMS GUI? If so, maybe we can resurrect the CMS pig with some lipstick. *Edward M Martin emar...@aultman.com* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/13/2010 04:50 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? Unfortunately, I must agree. There is so much talent out there that just needs an outlet and systems to work on. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-363-5050 ext 35050 -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Kris: I don't understand why we cannot interface with JAVA on the client side with z/VM and CMS as the server side functionally equivalent to PHP or CGI or ASP, maybe even run PHP, CGI, and/or ASP on z/VM, CMS.. There is no magic in these things and with your expertise and the talent here it should be doable. Kris Buelens kris.buel...@gmail.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/14/2010 07:52 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? KRIS was working on some GUI for z/VM That's too much expectations. CMS GUI: was introduced in 1995/1996 (VM/ESA 2.4). TSO used the same software to replace the 3270 ISPF screens with GUI screens. The underlying thing is DT, Distributed Toolkit. The logic can run on system A, the presentation on system B. Was suppose no to be limited to VM and MVS, but also on Windows, OS/2, AIX, etc. Great idea, but too late, Java became the thing that runs everywhere. There was also a visual GUI builder, it was supposed to be able to create not only the GUI panels, but also the program's logic. The WSA GUI Builder program that can be found now only does the first part, and the Windows 95 version fails on modern Windows. The OS/2 version runs fine. I think I can indeed be called the CMS/GUI specialist: I was lucky to be able to participate in the creation of a CMS GUI redbook: SC24-2542. So I learned it and created subroutines to make using it easier from REXX. Later, as the WSA GUI Builder was stopped too, I created my GUIWIRE tool that helps to create the program logic. CMS GUI is no longer supported, and some pieces of it are no longer delivered with z/VM, and must be downloaded from VM's download library. But, if you do you can: - install and start the WSA on you workstation - issue SET WORKSTAT IP x.x.x.x - issue CMSDESK And you get some GUI for basic CMS usage. On the VM download lib, you can find various CMS/GUI tools I created, all in REXX, and -apart from CPQUERY- with GUI in their name. The only things I still work on every now and then are: - CPQUERY: when someone tells me about a bug - PTKGUI: a tool to make graphs of Perfkit Summary files, such as the %CP used and %CPU wait of a given user. But, PTKGUI is still not ready, maybe a beta version will go to the download lib the coming days. 2010/12/13 George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com In our *stuck on GUI* discussion, I though it was said that KRIS was working on some GUI for z/VM, possibly CMS GUI? If so, maybe we can resurrect the CMS pig with some lipstick. Edward M Martin emar...@aultman.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/13/2010 04:50 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? Unfortunately, I must agree. There is so much talent out there that just needs an outlet and systems to work on. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-363-5050 ext 35050 -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
While not a free z/OS, I believe Rational provides a greatly reduced in price z/OS on linux. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:27 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 05:06 EST, Tom Duerbusch duerbus...@stlouiscity.com wrote: IBM had a program. If you were a developer, you could sign up and have time on one of IBMs' mainframes. Kind of like the old time sharing services back in the '60s and '70s. It seems to me that it resurfaced with Linux development but I haven't heard anything about it in, at least, 5 years. Yes, it's offered by the Dallas Systems Center as part of the IBM Innovation Center, but it is open only to PartnerWorld members. If you are in the *business* of software development, IBM has programs to help you. I'm not aware of anything within IBM to address hobbyists' needs. There is an opportunity for others to fill that niche, but I think it's telling that no one has done so in a general way. Remember that the service provider has to pay licensing costs for the software on their system, including 2nd level z/OS guests. (There's no such thing as a free z/OS.) Further, they accept responsibility for YOUR use of the software, which triggers risk management. (Gotta read those license agreements carefully!) And even a niche provider has to break even on wetware, software, hardware, and environmentals. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Ahh !!! D i s c o u r a g e m e n t The devil's best tool. I'm just grateful z/VM is still alive and well and getting stronger and better every day especially with the advent of the z196 and that it is only a question of time before the compiler issue will be addressed. I could say life is just a bowl of jello And appear more intelligent and smart But I'm stuck like a dope With a thing called hope And I can't get it out of my heart Not this heart Oscar Hammerstein David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/11/2010 10:13 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Dec 10, 2010, at 23:41, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. LE has two parts: the common libraries and the compilers that use them. The libraries have been maintained, the compilers (with the exception of C/C++) have not been made available on CMS. So, yes, it really IS that bad. I understand why: no business case to do the testing and doc, but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Sad. It's like having a dear relative on a life support machine. You almost wish the doctor would finally tell you it's hopeless, so at least you'd know. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Have a good one, too. DJ On 12/13/2010 08:40 AM, George Henke/NYLIC wrote: Ahh !!! D i s c o u r a g e m e n t The devil's best tool. I'm just grateful z/VM is still alive and well and getting stronger and better every day especially with the advent of the z196 and that it is only a question of time before the compiler issue will be addressed. I could say life is just a bowl of jello And appear more intelligent and smart But I'm stuck like a dope With a thing called hope And I can't get it out of my heart Not this heart Oscar Hammerstein David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/11/2010 10:13 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Dec 10, 2010, at 23:41, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. LE has two parts: the common libraries and the compilers that use them. The libraries have been maintained, the compilers (with the exception of C/C++) have not been made available on CMS. So, yes, it really IS that bad. I understand why: no business case to do the testing and doc, but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Sad. It's like having a dear relative on a life support machine. You almost wish the doctor would finally tell you it's hopeless, so at least you'd know. -- db -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Cost avoidance does not a business case make. Business cases are made based on projected sales and profitability, and that business case is weighed against others vying for the same resources. And as you know, IBM doesn't offer experimental licenses such as you describe. A product either goes out the door as a supported product, or it doesn't go at all. Occasionally IBM does offer beta programs that are similar to what you describe, but those are within the context of having intent to release a fully supported product. After all, it takes manpower to create unsupported programs, too. That's just The Way Things Are. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 09:41 EST, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: I'm just grateful z/VM is still alive and well and getting stronger and better every day especially with the advent of the z196 and that it is only a question of time before the compiler issue will be addressed. Not likely, George. The problem with CMS as an application platform isn't the compilers. As others have noted, that's easily and [relatively] cheaply solved. The problem is that application developers use compilers as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Business application programmers want to write web-enabled apps and services for UIs and database access. They want WebSphere, WAS, DB2/UDB, Oracle, and WebLogic. They want to write RESTful applications. They want to write in Java. And, of course, they don't want just some minimal core level of function, they want the whole enchilada. And in case it's not evident, business cases for compilers are developed around *business* application development, not systems management. Firstly, companies don't *want* to write their own systems management software - they want to buy it. Secondly, the number of people wanting to write their own systems management software on CMS is vanishingly small. So to have a viable business, you have to have enough demand to drive significant revenue. I say significant because there are lots of places IBM can invest. Should it invest those resources in something that returns a small profit, or large? (Note: I'm a stockholder, so I'm biased.) Those who are in the *business* of CMS-based [systems] software development might *prefer* COBOL or PL/I, sure, but they know what languages are available to them and they have to decide whether the market conditions and the availability of development infrastructure are sufficient to meet their business goals. In IT, as in almost all walks of life, it is unfortunate yet true that that the wishes of the Few or the One are ignored in favor of the wishes of the many. You will see that z/VM continues to invest in its native back-end System Management APIs and in the CIM lowware that pushes on them in order to free the systems management software from *having* to run ON CMS. Ultimately being able to manage system configuration, virtual machine provisioning, real resource provisioning, operation, event management, accounting, security, DR and HA, all from modern front-ends UIs with their own scriptable CLIs. As you suggest, this is all part of the appeal of zEnterprise. By the way, none of the above in any way denies the acknowledged inherent coolness of CMS. It's a simple and fast operating system; it's single userness eliminating huge amounts of complexity. Of course, we make up for that by having invented SFS and BFS, reintroducing some of that complexity. :-) It is a two-edged sword! Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
I realize this isn't really a fair comment, but I'll say it anyway. It's why the z is going down the toilet so far as number of installations are concerned. There is no way for poor techies to contribute to the z ecosystem any more. Companies, such as the one I work for, don't want employees wasting time and money on the z (in my case using MSUs for non productive work. MSUs cost real money.). I definitely cannot afford a z development system of my own (and zPDT is so encumbered that it is not for poor techies like me). And people wonder why Intel is taking over the world with their less advanced architecture? The only z machine I can afford is Hercule-390. And I can't get a z/VM or any other z licensed OS on that platform. I know why, but still. So, for techie fun, I use Linux/Intel. I can afford it. Wish it were otherwise. But IBM's apparent attitude appears to be: If IBM can't make some money directly from you, then you can just go somewhere else. So I have. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Cost avoidance does not a business case make. Business cases are made based on projected sales and profitability, and that business case is weighed against others vying for the same resources. And as you know, IBM doesn't offer experimental licenses such as you describe. A product either goes out the door as a supported product, or it doesn't go at all. Occasionally IBM does offer beta programs that are similar to what you describe, but those are within the context of having intent to release a fully supported product. After all, it takes manpower to create unsupported programs, too. That's just The Way Things Are. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Maybe we can get a Windoze version of CMS to do developement... Dear Santa ... On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: I realize this isn't really a fair comment, but I'll say it anyway. It's why the z is going down the toilet so far as number of installations are concerned. There is no way for poor techies to contribute to the z ecosystem any more. Companies, such as the one I work for, don't want employees wasting time and money on the z (in my case using MSUs for non productive work. MSUs cost real money.). I definitely cannot afford a z development system of my own (and zPDT is so encumbered that it is not for poor techies like me). And people wonder why Intel is taking over the world with their less advanced architecture? The only z machine I can afford is Hercule-390. And I can't get a z/VM or any other z licensed OS on that platform. I know why, but still. So, for techie fun, I use Linux/Intel. I can afford it. Wish it were otherwise. But IBM's apparent attitude appears to be: If IBM can't make some money directly from you, then you can just go somewhere else. So I have. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.comhttp://www.healthmarkets.com/ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Cost avoidance does not a business case make. Business cases are made based on projected sales and profitability, and that business case is weighed against others vying for the same resources. And as you know, IBM doesn't offer experimental licenses such as you describe. A product either goes out the door as a supported product, or it doesn't go at all. Occasionally IBM does offer beta programs that are similar to what you describe, but those are within the context of having intent to release a fully supported product. After all, it takes manpower to create unsupported programs, too. That's just The Way Things Are. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Huegel Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:27 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? Maybe we can get a Windoze version of CMS to do developement... Dear Santa ... I would rather use Linux as a base. I hate and despise MS more than I ever have IBM (and I can get upset with them at times). I wouldn't do anything to help MS in any manner, form, or fashion. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Unfortunately, I must agree. There is so much talent out there that just needs an outlet and systems to work on. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-363-5050 ext 35050 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? I realize this isn't really a fair comment, but I'll say it anyway. It's why the z is going down the toilet so far as number of installations are concerned. There is no way for poor techies to contribute to the z ecosystem any more. Companies, such as the one I work for, don't want employees wasting time and money on the z (in my case using MSUs for non productive work. MSUs cost real money.). I definitely cannot afford a z development system of my own (and zPDT is so encumbered that it is not for poor techies like me). And people wonder why Intel is taking over the world with their less advanced architecture? The only z machine I can afford is Hercule-390. And I can't get a z/VM or any other z licensed OS on that platform. I know why, but still. So, for techie fun, I use Linux/Intel. I can afford it. Wish it were otherwise. But IBM's apparent attitude appears to be: If IBM can't make some money directly from you, then you can just go somewhere else. So I have. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Cost avoidance does not a business case make. Business cases are made based on projected sales and profitability, and that business case is weighed against others vying for the same resources. And as you know, IBM doesn't offer experimental licenses such as you describe. A product either goes out the door as a supported product, or it doesn't go at all. Occasionally IBM does offer beta programs that are similar to what you describe, but those are within the context of having intent to release a fully supported product. After all, it takes manpower to create unsupported programs, too. That's just The Way Things Are. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
In our *stuck on GUI* discussion, I though it was said that KRIS was working on some GUI for z/VM, possibly CMS GUI? If so, maybe we can resurrect the CMS pig with some lipstick. Edward M Martin emar...@aultman.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/13/2010 04:50 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? Unfortunately, I must agree. There is so much talent out there that just needs an outlet and systems to work on. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-363-5050 ext 35050 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? I realize this isn't really a fair comment, but I'll say it anyway. It's why the z is going down the toilet so far as number of installations are concerned. There is no way for poor techies to contribute to the z ecosystem any more. Companies, such as the one I work for, don't want employees wasting time and money on the z (in my case using MSUs for non productive work. MSUs cost real money.). I definitely cannot afford a z development system of my own (and zPDT is so encumbered that it is not for poor techies like me). And people wonder why Intel is taking over the world with their less advanced architecture? The only z machine I can afford is Hercule-390. And I can't get a z/VM or any other z licensed OS on that platform. I know why, but still. So, for techie fun, I use Linux/Intel. I can afford it. Wish it were otherwise. But IBM's apparent attitude appears to be: If IBM can't make some money directly from you, then you can just go somewhere else. So I have. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Cost avoidance does not a business case make. Business cases are made based on projected sales and profitability, and that business case is weighed against others vying for the same resources. And as you know, IBM doesn't offer experimental licenses such as you describe. A product either goes out the door as a supported product, or it doesn't go at all. Occasionally IBM does offer beta programs that are similar to what you describe, but those are within the context of having intent to release a fully supported product. After all, it takes manpower to create unsupported programs, too. That's just The Way Things Are. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
What happened to IBM had a program. If you were a developer, you could sign up and have time on one of IBMs' mainframes. Kind of like the old time sharing services back in the '60s and '70s. It seems to me that it resurfaced with Linux development but I haven't heard anything about it in, at least, 5 years. It seems to me that a time sharing option would be the first rung of the ladder. zPDT would be the second rung and your own full system, would be the third rung. A lot, not everything, can be done with time sharing. Gee. I wonder if z/VM could ever evolve into a time sharing system? Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com 12/13/2010 2:56 PM I realize this isn't really a fair comment, but I'll say it anyway. It's why the z is going down the toilet so far as number of installations are concerned. There is no way for poor techies to contribute to the z ecosystem any more. Companies, such as the one I work for, don't want employees wasting time and money on the z (in my case using MSUs for non productive work. MSUs cost real money.). I definitely cannot afford a z development system of my own (and zPDT is so encumbered that it is not for poor techies like me). And people wonder why Intel is taking over the world with their less advanced architecture? The only z machine I can afford is Hercule-390. And I can't get a z/VM or any other z licensed OS on that platform. I know why, but still. So, for techie fun, I use Linux/Intel. I can afford it. Wish it were otherwise. But IBM's apparent attitude appears to be: If IBM can't make some money directly from you, then you can just go somewhere else. So I have. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down on IBM's up front costs significantly. Cost avoidance does not a business case make. Business cases are made based on projected sales and profitability, and that business case is weighed against others vying for the same resources. And as you know, IBM doesn't offer experimental licenses such as you describe. A product either goes out the door as a supported product, or it doesn't go at all. Occasionally IBM does offer beta programs that are similar to what you describe, but those are within the context of having intent to release a fully supported product. After all, it takes manpower to create unsupported programs, too. That's just The Way Things Are. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
I have a vague memory of this. But I was under the impression that was was for development partners who had a business plan on how to then market their application to customers. Which indirectly benefitted IBM. And IBM had to approve your plan and you had to make reports on your progress to continue to gain benefit. Again, I understand that IBM is not a charity set up to allow techie nerds to play around with z/OS. And somebody has to foot the bill. Which I would do myself, if I could. But I can't. Perhaps I could mug George Soros? GRIN So I do foot the bill for what I can afford: Linux/Intel. I can even foot the bill for z/Linux by using Hercules-390, which is legal as far as I can tell. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? What happened to IBM had a program. If you were a developer, you could sign up and have time on one of IBMs' mainframes. Kind of like the old time sharing services back in the '60s and '70s. It seems to me that it resurfaced with Linux development but I haven't heard anything about it in, at least, 5 years. It seems to me that a time sharing option would be the first rung of the ladder. zPDT would be the second rung and your own full system, would be the third rung. A lot, not everything, can be done with time sharing. Gee. I wonder if z/VM could ever evolve into a time sharing system? Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com 12/13/2010 2:56 PM I realize this isn't really a fair comment, but I'll say it anyway. It's why the z is going down the toilet so far as number of installations are concerned. There is no way for poor techies to contribute to the z ecosystem any more. Companies, such as the one I work for, don't want employees wasting time and money on the z (in my case using MSUs for non productive work. MSUs cost real money.). I definitely cannot afford a z development system of my own (and zPDT is so encumbered that it is not for poor techies like me). And people wonder why Intel is taking over the world with their less advanced architecture? The only z machine I can afford is Hercule-390. And I can't get a z/VM or any other z licensed OS on that platform. I know why, but still. So, for techie fun, I use Linux/Intel. I can afford it. Wish it were otherwise. But IBM's apparent attitude appears to be: If IBM can't make some money directly from you, then you can just go somewhere else. So I have. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 11:12 EST, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: As far as getting the new z/OS PL/I compiler over to z/VM, I'd be happy if IBM just offered it unsupported on CMS, with only a short bit of documentation noting the differences between usage in the z/OS and CMS environments, much like what IBM now does with the z/OS C/C++ port to CMS. Any problems with the compiler would have to be recreated on z/OS before IBM would take an APAR. I think that this approach might help make a business case, as it would cut down
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 05:06 EST, Tom Duerbusch duerbus...@stlouiscity.com wrote: IBM had a program. If you were a developer, you could sign up and have time on one of IBMs' mainframes. Kind of like the old time sharing services back in the '60s and '70s. It seems to me that it resurfaced with Linux development but I haven't heard anything about it in, at least, 5 years. Yes, it's offered by the Dallas Systems Center as part of the IBM Innovation Center, but it is open only to PartnerWorld members. If you are in the *business* of software development, IBM has programs to help you. I'm not aware of anything within IBM to address hobbyists' needs. There is an opportunity for others to fill that niche, but I think it's telling that no one has done so in a general way. Remember that the service provider has to pay licensing costs for the software on their system, including 2nd level z/OS guests. (There's no such thing as a free z/OS.) Further, they accept responsibility for YOUR use of the software, which triggers risk management. (Gotta read those license agreements carefully!) And even a niche provider has to break even on wetware, software, hardware, and environmentals. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
I don't think I ever said it should be free As a side question, isn't Cloud ComputingTime Sharing? Aren't we paying for Cloud Computing? I don't think, we, as individuals are paying into it, much...yet, but we are. Yahoo isn't free. We a flat rate, get some email services and storage and virus protection. Cobormite (the online backup service) isn't free. Back on the CMS/hobbiest side. Have a fixed rate charging system. $10 per month. Gives you 5 minutes CPU time (perhaps charged a MIP/Seconds used). And cut off when you run out. Gives you 100 cylinders. Gives you 32 MB machine. You can pay for additional bumps in resources. But a total limit as a hobbyist. Of course it isn't us, as a general rule, but the amount of money spent on ring tones, text messaging, ATM fees, etc. makes me wonder. Last year, I bought a new desktop (Lenovo). My first Lenovo. Unlike IBM PCs, it didn't come with a free copy of Lotus. My old PCs are still running, so it isn't a problem yet. But eventually, I have to buy a Suite. Lotus is compatible with what I have, but MS is compatible with my clients. I might be willing to consider a Cloud version if the cost is small enough vs a few hundred for the standalone product. The IBM commercials are touting the Cloud version of Lotus Notes. $3 per user per month. How much for CMS? Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com 12/13/2010 4:26 PM On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 05:06 EST, Tom Duerbusch duerbus...@stlouiscity.com wrote: IBM had a program. If you were a developer, you could sign up and have time on one of IBMs' mainframes. Kind of like the old time sharing services back in the '60s and '70s. It seems to me that it resurfaced with Linux development but I haven't heard anything about it in, at least, 5 years. Yes, it's offered by the Dallas Systems Center as part of the IBM Innovation Center, but it is open only to PartnerWorld members. If you are in the *business* of software development, IBM has programs to help you. I'm not aware of anything within IBM to address hobbyists' needs. There is an opportunity for others to fill that niche, but I think it's telling that no one has done so in a general way. Remember that the service provider has to pay licensing costs for the software on their system, including 2nd level z/OS guests. (There's no such thing as a free z/OS.) Further, they accept responsibility for YOUR use of the software, which triggers risk management. (Gotta read those license agreements carefully!) And even a niche provider has to break even on wetware, software, hardware, and environmentals. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
The problem with CMS as an application platform isn't the compilers. As others have noted, that's easily and [relatively] cheaply solved. The problem is that application developers use compilers as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Business application programmers want to write web-enabled apps and services for UIs and database access. They want WebSphere, WAS, DB2/UDB, Oracle, and WebLogic. They want to write RESTful applications. They want to write in Java. And, of course, they don't want just some minimal core level of function, they want the whole enchilada. True, Alan, But every time such middleware application development goes on it directly triggers COBOL changes in the COBOL mainframe back end. I just did such COBOL mainframe application development changes for a client the first 6 months of this year. There is no reason the application developers at this client could not have used CMS instead of TSO/ISPF if COBOL had been available on it. At least, it would have saved the client, which was out-sourced to IBM Dallas, enough CPU time so that they did not have to shutdown the DEV LPARs for days at every month end to run PROD because they did not have enough CPU. Not exactly a Six Sigma process. I rode out the Wall St melt down at a large NY Investment Bank which had tons of UI's with the latest and greatest of every imaginable middleware offering available. It was all GUI, no *green screen* to be seen any where. But that was about all the middleware frontend did, GUI, no real processing. For any real processing, it all still had to go through the billions of lines of COBOL code in the back end to get to the data in the 44 CICS/DB2 applications which really ran everything, contrary to senior management's perception. Every time there was a change to the middleware software it triggered a change to the COBOL code in the back end. If this company had done its COBOL support under CMS instead of TSO/ISPF it would have saved not just millions, but billions. How much client savings does it take to justify a business case? Let's face it. COBOL is here to stay whether clients realize and want it or not. But IBM had better realize it. That the client's mainframe COBOL back end is never going away however much they delude themselves, put lipstick on the pig. So here's the business case: Optimize CPU time by moving COBOL maintenance from TSO/ISPF to CMS. Contrary to what some may say, I do not believe IBM intentionally introduces software inefficiencies to sell more hardware. But unless things change, that is exactly what is happening in the *real* world. COBOL is here to stay, like it or not, so why not optimize the process, especially when doing so is a problem easily and [relatively] cheaply solved? Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/13/2010 03:38 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 09:41 EST, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: I'm just grateful z/VM is still alive and well and getting stronger and better every day especially with the advent of the z196 and that it is only a question of time before the compiler issue will be addressed. Not likely, George. The problem with CMS as an application platform isn't the compilers. As others have noted, that's easily and [relatively] cheaply solved. The problem is that application developers use compilers as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Business application programmers want to write web-enabled apps and services for UIs and database access. They want WebSphere, WAS, DB2/UDB, Oracle, and WebLogic. They want to write RESTful applications. They want to write in Java. And, of course, they don't want just some minimal core level of function, they want the whole enchilada. And in case it's not evident, business cases for compilers are developed around *business* application development, not systems management. Firstly, companies don't *want* to write their own systems management software - they want to buy it. Secondly, the number of people wanting to write their own systems management software on CMS is vanishingly small. So to have a viable business, you have to have enough demand to drive significant revenue. I say significant because there are lots of places IBM can invest. Should it invest those resources in something that returns a small profit, or large? (Note: I'm a stockholder, so I'm biased.) Those who are in the *business* of CMS-based [systems] software development might *prefer* COBOL or PL/I, sure, but they know what languages are available to them and they have to decide whether the market conditions and the availability of development infrastructure are sufficient to meet their business
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Yes there is now a ported version of a recent GCC that runs on z/VM (or more precisely on CMS); it is distributed as part of the so-called VM/370 sixpack distribution, available from here: http://vm370.31bits.net/beta/ It includes both a traditional runtime library (PDPCLIB) and a native CMS runtime library (GCCLIB). This distribution is meant to be run under the S/370 emulator Hercules (http://www.hercules-390.org/). If you don't want to mess with downloading and installing Hercules and the sixpack just to get a VM GCC compiler, drop me a note and I will make the compiler and runtime material available for download in a VMARC file. Have a good one. DJ P.S. BTW The base operating system is IBM's VM/370 Release 6 operating system, the last unlicensed version of VM/370, so there are no legal issues with its distribution. On 12/10/2010 03:10 PM, Michel Beaulieu wrote: Hello, Don't we have at least a GCC compiler that would run in z/VM? Michel Beaulieu |*| Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:51:56 -0600 From: dbo...@sinenomine.net Subject: Mandatory ESMs? To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU (Retitled because the current discussion has nothing to do with VSWITCH authorization...) Does anyone run applications in z/VM? That's the saddest statement I've seen in a long while. That used to be true across the board. It's really sad that IBM continues to constrain the ability to deploy applications in the CMS environment -- it's a decent system for writing really good applications, but without the tools and compilerswe're reduced to asking whether anyone can. -- db -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Been out of the game for a long time.. Does IBM not distribute some version of HACS .. I worked on in the 90's ? took over from Aad Van Tol .. IBM Uithoorn? An amazing programmer and top guy! From: George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:41 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Nope - we never distributed HACS externally. I also worked on HACS for HONE/IBMLINK in the 80's - putting in mods for those specific systems in the US. I remember when we hit the architectural limit of HACS when we reached 64K guests on a single system .. Scott Rohling On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:59 AM, James Laing - Hotmail james_la...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Been out of the game for a long time.. Does IBM not distribute some version of HACS .. I worked on in the 90's ? took over from Aad Van Tol .. IBM Uithoorn? An amazing programmer and top guy! *From:* George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 11:41 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Mandatory ESMs? z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein *David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Yes and no, George. Yes, CMS has LE ported over to CMS, but other than for C/C++ IBM has made the decision not to port the modern z/OS compilers (PL/I and COBOL). I was told several years ago by one of the PL/I developers that they actually had the compiler running under CMS, butt hey had no business case to release it to customers. They could not justify the time and expense of testing, documentation, support, etc. So it's not a technical question, it's building a business case. DJ On 12/10/2010 05:41 PM, George Henke/NYLIC wrote: z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
From an old internal web page: HACS (Hiearchical Access Control system)is the primary security system that runs on the HoneLink systems in Portsmouth UK (ElinkNL) and Bouder USA (ElinkGB). It is propietary RACF for WW Hone/IBMLink platform and applications. Even though I was once primary (2nd level) support for HACS (1986-88) in Boulder - it's been way too long for me to remember all it's features. It was all written in assembler .. actually the last time I coded in assembler in any serious way. Development was out of Uithoorn, Netherlands... but we maintained several modifications for US systems. Scott Rohling On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: Scott, for those of us not in the loopwhat is/was HACS? On 12/11/2010 07:42 AM, Scott Rohling wrote: Nope - we never distributed HACS externally. I also worked on HACS for HONE/IBMLINK in the 80's - putting in mods for those specific systems in the US. I remember when we hit the architectural limit of HACS when we reached 64K guests on a single system .. Scott Rohling On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:59 AM, James Laing - Hotmail james_la...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Been out of the game for a long time.. Does IBM not distribute some version of HACS .. I worked on in the 90's ? took over from Aad Van Tol .. IBM Uithoorn? An amazing programmer and top guy! *From:* George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 11:41 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Mandatory ESMs? z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein *David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
On Dec 10, 2010, at 23:41, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.commailto:george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. LE has two parts: the common libraries and the compilers that use them. The libraries have been maintained, the compilers (with the exception of C/C++) have not been made available on CMS. So, yes, it really IS that bad. I understand why: no business case to do the testing and doc, but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Sad. It's like having a dear relative on a life support machine. You almost wish the doctor would finally tell you it's hopeless, so at least you'd know. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
... So, yes, it really IS that bad. I understand why: no business case to do the testing and doc, but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Business cases are real. (And they are Very Important to some of us.) But the most game changing developments were NOT done because of the business case. Some had no business case at all. Others became game changers way out of scope of their business case. IBM is not going to do this. If you want it done, either give them a business case, or get someone else to do it, or ... NIKE. -- R; Rick Troth Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/ On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:13, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net wrote: On Dec 10, 2010, at 23:41, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. LE has two parts: the common libraries and the compilers that use them. The libraries have been maintained, the compilers (with the exception of C/C++) have not been made available on CMS. So, yes, it really IS that bad. I understand why: no business case to do the testing and doc, but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Sad. It's like having a dear relative on a life support machine. You almost wish the doctor would finally tell you it's hopeless, so at least you'd know. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Dave. It was the in-house ESM (Hierarchical Access Control System) James. -- From: Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? Scott, for those of us not in the loopwhat is/was HACS? On 12/11/2010 07:42 AM, Scott Rohling wrote: Nope - we never distributed HACS externally. I also worked on HACS for HONE/IBMLINK in the 80's - putting in mods for those specific systems in the US. I remember when we hit the architectural limit of HACS when we reached 64K guests on a single system .. Scott Rohling On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:59 AM, James Laing - Hotmail james_la...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Been out of the game for a long time.. Does IBM not distribute some version of HACS .. I worked on in the 90's ? took over from Aad Van Tol .. IBM Uithoorn? An amazing programmer and top guy! *From:* George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 11:41 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Mandatory ESMs? z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein *David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Yeah that's right .. I took over the development of the access audit tail when Aad left .. as I said .. he designed it's last incarnation brilliantly .. a real cool piece of code .. it actually serviced the UK, US and EMEA systems. James. From: Scott Rohling Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 3:07 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? From an old internal web page: HACS (Hiearchical Access Control system)is the primary security system that runs on the HoneLink systems in Portsmouth UK (ElinkNL) and Bouder USA (ElinkGB). It is propietary RACF for WW Hone/IBMLink platform and applications. Even though I was once primary (2nd level) support for HACS (1986-88) in Boulder - it's been way too long for me to remember all it's features. It was all written in assembler .. actually the last time I coded in assembler in any serious way. Development was out of Uithoorn, Netherlands... but we maintained several modifications for US systems. Scott Rohling On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: Scott, for those of us not in the loopwhat is/was HACS? On 12/11/2010 07:42 AM, Scott Rohling wrote: Nope - we never distributed HACS externally. I also worked on HACS for HONE/IBMLINK in the 80's - putting in mods for those specific systems in the US. I remember when we hit the architectural limit of HACS when we reached 64K guests on a single system .. Scott Rohling On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:59 AM, James Laing - Hotmail james_la...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Been out of the game for a long time.. Does IBM not distribute some version of HACS .. I worked on in the 90's ? took over from Aad Van Tol .. IBM Uithoorn? An amazing programmer and top guy! *From:* George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 11:41 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Mandatory ESMs? z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein *David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Hello, Don't we have at least a GCC compiler that would run in z/VM? Michel Beaulieu |*| Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:51:56 -0600 From: dbo...@sinenomine.net Subject: Mandatory ESMs? To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU (Retitled because the current discussion has nothing to do with VSWITCH authorization...) Does anyone run applications in z/VM? That's the saddest statement I've seen in a long while. That used to be true across the board. It's really sad that IBM continues to constrain the ability to deploy applications in the CMS environment -- it's a decent system for writing really good applications, but without the tools and compilerswe're reduced to asking whether anyone can. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
It has a robust POSIX feature set too. The only thing wrong is how fork() works, and there are substantial constructive reasons for that. It's up to us to use it or lose it. To this day, CMS is the single most efficient runtime environment available. One can only hope that the newbes who bring up z/VM for the sake of hypervisor hosting of Linux (and maybe VSE or even z/OS) will discover oh ... look at this!. -- R; Rick Troth Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/ On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 15:51, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net wrote: (Retitled because the current discussion has nothing to do with VSWITCH authorization...) Does anyone run applications in z/VM? That's the saddest statement I've seen in a long while. That used to be true across the board. It's really sad that IBM continues to constrain the ability to deploy applications in the CMS environment -- it's a decent system for writing really good applications, but without the tools and compilerswe're reduced to asking whether anyone can. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
There is a GCC which runs on CMS. I have not used it. Perhaps those on this list who have will chime in. GCC is a volunteer project, so the CMS port (which is closely related to the MVS port) will lack some features of compilers from IBM or Dignus. -- R; On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 16:10, Michel Beaulieu beaulieumic...@live.ca wrote: Hello, Don't we have at least a GCC compiler that would run in z/VM? Michel Beaulieu |*| Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:51:56 -0600 From: dbo...@sinenomine.net Subject: Mandatory ESMs? To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU (Retitled because the current discussion has nothing to do with VSWITCH authorization...) Does anyone run applications in z/VM? That's the saddest statement I've seen in a long while. That used to be true across the board. It's really sad that IBM continues to constrain the ability to deploy applications in the CMS environment -- it's a decent system for writing really good applications, but without the tools and compilerswe're reduced to asking whether anyone can. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Troth Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:28 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? There is a GCC which runs on CMS. I have not used it. Perhaps those on this list who have will chime in. GCC is a volunteer project, so the CMS port (which is closely related to the MVS port) will lack some features of compilers from IBM or Dignus. -- R; I am not very up on the Dignus or IBM compilers. But, although a volunteer effort, the GCC is a fairly advanced C/C++ compiler. As well as FORTRAN and Ada. I am not 100% sure, but I think that IBM Germany does a lot with the Linux on z version of GCC. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets® 9151 Boulevard 26 . N. Richland Hills . TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone . john.mck...@healthmarkets.com . www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets® is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company®, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
Go to Hercules-os380 yahoo group and talk to BFN. Paul. I believe he has one working on VM, MVS and VSE. His email is: kerravo...@yahoo.com From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Michel Beaulieu Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:11 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mandatory ESMs? Hello, Don't we have at least a GCC compiler that would run in z/VM? Michel Beaulieu |*| Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:51:56 -0600 From: dbo...@sinenomine.net Subject: Mandatory ESMs? To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU (Retitled because the current discussion has nothing to do with VSWITCH authorization...) Does anyone run applications in z/VM? That's the saddest statement I've seen in a long while. That used to be true across the board. It's really sad that IBM continues to constrain the ability to deploy applications in the CMS environment -- it's a decent system for writing really good applications, but without the tools and compilerswe're reduced to asking whether anyone can. -- db == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's not much. 3 out of 6 aren't widely portable outside VM at all, and the other 3 are restricted to a small number of interfaces with a tiny subset of their function on other platforms. The writing is pretty much on the wall. I know the reason why, but it's still sad. -- db
Re: Mandatory ESMs?
LE has been kept up to date, as have things like the binder to support functions like MPROUTE which were also ported from z/OS. This makes acquiring and maintaining things like this so much easier. I'm a long time CMS fan. In an earlier life we had a lot of complex apps centered on SQL/DS including an online credit union system. Our MIS that supported our VSE-based homegrown OLTP was written using SQL/DS, Rexx, a 3270 Rexx interface (that could also drive the CMS GUI), and PL/I. We had a homegrown Dirmaint also built using SQL/DS and Rexx. When PL/I stopped being enhanced around 1996 we knew the writing was on the wall. I'm particularly proud of our Rexx fullscreen tool that allowed you to drive the 3270 (either your CMS console, a dialed device or CMS GUI) using Rexx variables (e.g. If you had a field on the screen called Surname then to change its color the simply say colour_surname = 'RED' or its protection attribute the prot_surname='Y'). It supported multiple windows and so on. The syntax was straightforward unlike DMS and it had a very small footprint. It also allowed me to learn a lot about LE, PIPI and enclaves. However, I know building apps based around logging on to a 3270 and the need to integrate with things like XML parsers like xerces mean that as an app hosting environment CMS's best day are behind it and that other than for nostalgic reasons (and the discipline to extract maximum function from a minimum if resources) I'm okay with it. All those systems are gone now as, after a takeover, TPTB decided the Alpha and Itanium were the way of the future and 30+ years of collaboration with IBM and 25+ years of VM ceased to be. Another couple of years later I think Linux would have complemented if nit supplanted our VSE systems, but it was not to be. I'm glad I left when the systems were in their prime and I didn't have to decommission our A$GREY, B$BLUE, C$BROWN and D$GREEN VM systems (they had those names for years and before they were LPARs, IBM used to supply the processors in those colours. It must be Friday and I must be getting old to indulge in such nostalgia. Time for a drink or ten. On Dec 10, 2010, at 18:41, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.commailto:george_he...@newyorklife.com wrote: z/VM has LE ported over from z/OS. So things cannot be all that bad in the world of CMS compilers. I have heard people rant and rave and bellow That we're done and we might as well be dead But I'm only a cockeyed optimist And I can't get it into my head Oscar Hammerstein David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.netmailto:dbo...@sinenomine.net Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 12/10/2010 05:34 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mandatory ESMs? GCC for CMS [snip] Building a non-trivial program that involves existing libraries or code that must access things like CSL services is pretty hard to do with the CMS GCC port. It's a good tool for writing apps totally from scratch, but it's not something yet that I would rely on for really large mission-critical applications. The generated code is still very conservative in the instructions it uses and what machine functions it can/does exploit, to it's detriment. I'm concerned that there's no Enterprise COBOL, no more development on FORTRAN, no up to date PL/1… etc, etc. The IBM C/C++ compiler is still maintained and current, but only because it's necessary for CP development. You can't order CMS VSAM any longer, so there's no direct access file capability from the old compilers without directly interfacing to assembler yourself. Nothing's been touched in SQL/DS for VM for ages now. TSM is gone. 2/3 of the function of DFSMS/VM is pretty much gutted in terms of usability or functionality. ISPF/VM is ancient, and pretty much no longer maintained in any real sense (a lot has happened in ISPF since 3.2). No Java since 1.3 (although that's no real loss, IMHO). APL2 is frozen in time. Pascal is frozen in time (and only still exists to service the bits of the VM TCP stack that aren't in C or assembler). Ditto RXSQL. Ditto Kerberos (the shipped K4 is nothing you'd want to build new apps on). Interactive Debugger? DMS/CMS? All pretty much in a zombie state. OpenVM? Not much to see there either — although we finally have some reason for BFS to exist with the new SSL server (not that it's all that much fun to use). You're pretty much left with assembler, C, C++, XEDIT, REXX and CMS Pipelines as the supported application development languages on CMS. That's a pretty powerful set of tooling by itself, but if you're trying to preflight applications and do development in the CMS world that is intended for other places and other uses, that's
