Re: (slightly OT - Linux) Did IBM bet on the wrong OS?

BSD would have been interesting, the environmental differences between Berkley and Armonk. That would have been something that I would have payed good money to watch. Matter of fact I'd still pay good money. B On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In , on > 04

Re: 45 years of Mainframe

In , on 04/17/2010 at 09:31 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler said: >I haven't seen any ref .. but i somewhat guess that 2880 (at least >single-byte mode) would work on any system that 2860 worked with. I don't know the engineering issues, if any, but IBM didn't offer the 2880 for the 2065, 2067, 2091

Re: 45 years of Mainframe

In , on 04/17/2010 at 08:30 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler said: >I didn't remember block-mux being on 360 Consider the model number of the fixed-head disk. The 2 says that it's a S/360 device. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

Re: (slightly OT - Linux) Did IBM bet on the wrong OS?

In , on 04/20/2010 at 03:06 AM, Bob goolsby said: >And what would have been the alternative OS for IBM to have backed? >OS/2??? Yes. Barring that, what about *bsd? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We

On software-hardware licensing bundling

Hello, There is a very well known computer company out there that started out as a hardware company. Indeed, for a time it was synonymous with a certain kind of computer. These days the company has significant business on the software and information side, but still makes a lot of money selling h

Re: Calling unauthorized code from an authorized address space

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:37:28 -0500 Chris Craddock wrote: :>Actually I am not sure that the intent is understood. Peter is correct. :>Unauthorized code MUST NEVER be allowed to run within an authorized address :>space. *ALL* of the schemes being thrown around that involving turning off :>JSCBAUTH

Re: Turning on ACF2 SECURITY Privilege through an exit . . .

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:25:24 -0400 "Bathmaker, Jon" wrote: :>We redefine all 24 PF keys so the SPLIT key disappears and we do CONTROL :>MAIN in the CLIST to prevent PA interruptions from giving them control. :>There's nowhere to enter normal commands so that can't be done. :>Everything is PF key

Re: 25 reasons why hardware is still hot at IBM

Like many things, Anton has obviously no idea about Singapore where most cars are scrapped or sold to other countries when they are more than 10 years old... Definitely the most inaccurate example one could use! > It is like somebody comparing a F-22 Raptor to a Ford Model T .. but > then again,

Re: COBOL - no longer being taught - is a problem

Hi Ed, On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:06:36 -0700, Ed Gould wrote: >My knowledge of IBM's products and therefore IBM's (apparent) definition is that a language has to be compiled and run through the linkage editor. -- IBM calls REXX a language: "...z/OS TSO/E REXX™ Interpreter (hereafter referred to