In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/21/2006
at 08:27 AM, Phil Smith III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>As you noted, you can do this with an add-on. Which illustrates a
>point that I don't think has been raised yet: the Perl folks think
>it's such a wonderful language, yet the language *itself* seems to
So all the VM Assist instructions are gone? Wow!
Later,
Steve Thompson
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby
On Sunday, 08/20/2006 at 12:39 ZE2, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. I knew that VM had to use some special instructions but
not much
> more.
z/VM has the B2F0 instruction (IUCV/APPC) and z/VM-specific extensions to
the DIAGNOSE instruction (e.g. diag 8 to issue a CP comma
"Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I'd prefer a cleaner syntax then Unix regexen, more like ICON,
>SNOBOL and SuperWylburR, and I'd also like support[1] for parsing
>keyword parameters.
As you noted, you can do this with an add-on. Which illustrates a point
that I don't
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/20/2006
at 12:35 AM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You mean as in regular expressions ?
Well, I'd prefer a cleaner syntax then Unix regexen, more like ICON,
SNOBOL and SuperWylbur®, and I'd also like support[1] for parsing
keyword parameters.
>Right. (B
, August 18, 2006 8:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby MVS???
(I had the impression that there were very little support(ing
developement) needed
for VM, especially compared to MVS.)
Thomas Berg
IEF (Interpretive Execution Facility) was done for VM to
== Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) == wrote2006-08-18 22:27:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/18/2006
at 03:43 PM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Yes, but at least regarding REXX I haven't found any mentionable
"wartifications". Do You think of any specific points ?
Quite a few
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/18/2006
at 03:43 PM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Yes, but at least regarding REXX I haven't found any mentionable
>"wartifications". Do You think of any specific points ?
Quite a few. See my "Safe REXX" article. Off the top of my head:
The lack of su
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thomas Berg
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 8:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby MVS???
(I had the impression that there were very little support(ing
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 09:46 -0400, Daniel A. McLaughlin wrote:
> Almost sounds as if there ought to be two flavors of ZVM - heavy duty
> where it's used for more than a hypervisor as in our case where we have a
> client who uses it with NOMAD; and a light ZVM for containing multiple
> images of
Almost sounds as if there ought to be two flavors of ZVM - heavy duty
where it's used for more than a hypervisor as in our case where we have a
client who uses it with NOMAD; and a light ZVM for containing multiple
images of LINUX.
As for the latter, it could almost be a black box operation. In
== Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) == wrote2006-08-18 01:46:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/15/2006
at 05:44 PM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
VM have always given me the same feeling of a smart design as e g
REXX do.
Both have serious warts.
Eeek! :)
As it seems to fit
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/15/2006
at 05:44 PM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>VM have always given me the same feeling of a smart design as e g
>REXX do.
Both have serious warts.
>As it seems to fit well in the KISS principle that I try to follow.
Sometimes making a language or a
I'm very happy to hear that.
It would be a waste of a very good software (and hardware) otherwise.
Thomas Berg
== Alan Altmark == wrote2006-08-17 20:14:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:00:28 -0500, Eric Bielefeld wrote:
Is IBM really giving up on VM? They tryed that once before, but t
Alan,
Thank you for giving us an I assume official word on VM's future viability.
I was pretty sure that IBM was not giving up on VM, but its good hear it
ffrom the developers.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: "Al
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan
Altmark
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby MVS???
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:00:28 -0500, Eric Bielefeld wrote:
>Is IBM really giving up on VM? They tryed that once before, but then
>started promo
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:00:28 -0500, Eric Bielefeld wrote:
>Is IBM really giving up on VM? They tryed that once before, but then
>started promoting z/Linux under z/VM. Or is this just speculation. I
>would think that if they are stilling promoting the z boxes to run Linux,
>unless they come up
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:55:02 -0600, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
>On 16 Aug 2006 08:28:34 -0700, "Mickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Moving to a PC based platform is the best way I know of to engage in
>>empire building. I oft times suspect that some managers do it for just
>>that reaso
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:58:54 -0400, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Last I knew, VM was heavily used by the IBM z/OS developers.
>
>2. My impression is that VM is a strategic part of IBM's Linux commitment.
>
>Charles
>
I don't know about the z/OS developer part, but everything I've
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#49 The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby
MVS???
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#51 The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby
MVS???
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#52 The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby
MVS???
email from long ago and far away
To: wheeler
cal skills THAT lead to :)
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#49 The Fate of VM - was: re: Baby
MVS???
in the late 70s and early 80s ... there was joke about pulling 4shift
... working in sjr/28 1st shift ... there was the original
relational/sjr implementation system/r
h
Tom Marchant wrote:
Is IBM really giving up on VM? They tryed that once before...
Once? I think the first time was about 1970.
pretty much all during cp67 ... at least tss/360 group was trying to
cancel it ... since the 360/67 (w/virtual memory was supposed to be a
"tss/360" machine). i w
06 11:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: The Fate of VM - was: Re: Baby MVS???
About VM: I don't understand why IBM seems to have sidestepped z/VM.
VM have always given me the same feeling of a smart design as e g REXX do.
As it seems to fit well in the KISS principle that I try to
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:00:28 -0500, Eric Bielefeld wrote:
>Is IBM really giving up on VM? They tryed that once before...
Once? I think the first time was about 1970.
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
Say what you will about VM, but it sure makes a Disaster Recovery test a
lot easier.
> virtualize addresses to match 'back home'
> virtualize CPUID to keep from playing ISV games to come up
> faster than building up an LPAR image, but I could be wrong on that one
If anything, there ought to
Mickey wrote:
My opinion of VM has been essentially the same as yours. For lack of a
better term, I have always thought of both VM and Rexx as being
elegant.
part of the issue was that CMS (under cp67 and then vm370) was mainstay
personal computer offering of the late 60s and through-out the 7
Is IBM really giving up on VM? They tryed that once before, but then
started promoting z/Linux under z/VM. Or is this just speculation. I
would think that if they are stilling promoting the z boxes to run Linux,
unless they come up with something else soon, that z/VM would be an
integral par
Not sure,
certainly with most of my ex-customers, the "rush" of the first (z) VM
renaissance is wearing off.
Hopefully, IBM will start the 2nd wave (see above) with more sensible CPU's.
To have from 1 to 10k servers running on one box (z/VM) - as an idea or
business model, excellent.. but the CP
Interesting thought that Big Blue is whacking VM. I just took a class on
Z/VM for Linux and we had 8 students. A couple of larger institutions, one
being a bank, are heading that way.
Curiousor and curiouser
Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*
D
In a message dated 8/15/2006 12:19:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But AFAICS IBM is "demounting" VM. There seems to be diminishing incentives
to
use VM (maybe apart from running multiple Linux systems).
Is the reason support costs ? I don't know, but would like
About VM: I don't understand why IBM seems to have sidestepped z/VM.
VM have always given me the same feeling of a smart design as e g REXX do.
As it seems to fit well in the KISS principle that I try to follow.
(I have mostly worked in a MVS environment (or the older variants), but I have
alwa
31 matches
Mail list logo
