Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
Timothy Sipples of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List
wrote on 12/14/2007 12:11:48 AM:
Peter Hunkeler writes:
Isn't it about time for one more name change since
z/OS is approaching release 10?
Any nominations? :-)
z/MVS for nostalgic reasons.
Regards,
J
On 14 Dec 2007 09:50:15 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>-
>Why the UNPRINTABLE should services for what should be a basic data set
>type NOT be in the Nucleus?
>
>That all depends on how large you
On 14 Dec 2007 09:50:22 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Corneel
Booysen) wrote:
>So I wonder if it is true that the original name of "HAL" was really a
>dig at IBM. (As in each letter of the name is one place higher
>alphabetically than the letters in IBM. Remember the evil computer
>killed all the peop
On 14 Dec 2007 09:32:53 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
>We know the speed of light; what's the speed of dark?
A Nebula award winning novel with an autistic hero - written by a
space opera writer with an autistic son.
--
lphabet) was strictly a coincidence.
Tom Kelman
Commerce Bank of Kansas City
(816) 760-7632
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon Brock
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.E
On Dec 14, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Kelman, Tom wrote:
How about something simple like "HAL" ala "2001: A Space Odyssey".
Tom Kelman
Commerce Bank of Kansas City
(816) 760-7632
Tom:
An idea but I think it won't get past the PR people as HAL turned out
to be not so good.
Ed
-
No, they denied it. See here:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#slot7
Jon
I don't know if it was a dig, but Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrek did
admit HAL was based on IBM's name.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
>So I wonder if it is true that the original name of "HAL" was really a dig at
>IBM.
(Sorry about the previous [blank] post)
I don't know if it was a dig, but Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrek did admit
HAL was based on IBM's name.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
>
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-ma
al Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chase, John
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Kelman, To
-
Why the UNPRINTABLE should services for what should be a basic data set
type NOT be in the Nucleus?
That all depends on how large you want NIP and the nucleus to be.
Personally, I'd rather not see my IPL
-
For me, it's Friday morning. I haven't slept well due to a restless dog.
And I'm insane.
---
Aren't we ALL just a little insane? Look what we're doing for a living,
what with these "dead" systems? :-)
---
We know th
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Kelman, Tom
>
> How about something simple like "HAL" ala "2001: A Space Odyssey".
Probably not available (in the US) for 50 years plus Arthur C. Clarke's
remaining lifetime, due to copyright
-jc-
-
ember 14, 2007 8:04 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
> >
> > Peter Hunkeler writes:
> > >Isn't it about time for
Exactly.
Jon
As in "Boss! z/PLAIN, z/PLAIN!"?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.
Depending on how things go here in the next couple of years, either
Nessus or Laomedon.
Jon
Any nominations? :-)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Brock
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:32 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
>
>
> Instead of z/BASIC, it should be "z/
Instead of z/BASIC, it should be "z/PLAIN."
Jon
z/BASIC, z/DEVELOPER, z/BUSINESS, z/ENTERPRISE, and of course z/ULTIMATE
.
Keep in mind that I'm in the U.S.A. where we pronounce "z" as "zee", not
"zed". Also keep in mind the bad German accent in English movies where
"zee" is "the".
On 13 Dec 2007 04:34:08 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>It is certain that PDS's will exist for the entire life of z/OS (or
>whatever name it might have down the road, if that ever changes again).
>
>It is almost certain that PDSEs will never be allowed in the LPALST
>(chicken and egg
on List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ed Gould
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:52 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Bob Shannon wrote:
>
> >> And, why would they? What's wrong with
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
>
> Peter Hunkeler writes:
> >Isn't it about time for one more name change since z/OS is
> approaching
> >release 10?
>
> Any nominations? :-)
"Computer" should last through the Star Trek era...
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 19:51 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Bob Shannon wrote:
> > Refer to the "PDS Pain" white paper for what's wrong with PDSs
> Can you give us an idea where we might find it?
Dave Crow presented the "PDSPAIN White Paper" at session O232 of SHARE
70 (Anah
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John P Kalinich
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:49 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
>
>
> Timothy Sipples of the IB
John P Kalinich wrote:
Timothy Sipples of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List
wrote on 12/14/2007 12:11:48 AM:
Peter Hunkeler writes:
Isn't it about time for one more name change since
z/OS is approaching release 10?
Any nominations? :-)
z/MVS for nostalgic reasons.
IMHO it will be someth
> Peter Hunkeler writes:
>>Isn't it about time for one more name change since
>>z/OS is approaching release 10?
>
> Any nominations? :-)
> z/MVS for nostalgic reasons.
> Regards,
> John K
That sounds good and I'll vote for that.
warm regards,
Raj
Timothy Sipples of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List
wrote on 12/14/2007 12:11:48 AM:
> Peter Hunkeler writes:
>>Isn't it about time for one more name change since
>>z/OS is approaching release 10?
>
> Any nominations? :-)
>
z/MVS for nostalgic reasons.
Regards,
John K
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
[...]
o Cross system sharing of members and data sets
That's one of the reasons why people still choose PDS.
Sharing of PDSE out of sysplex scope is actually impossible.
Sometimes PDSE performance can be worse than in PDS. See Barbara Nitz
postings related to PDSE.
Wha
Peter Hunkeler writes:
>Isn't it about time for one more name change since
>z/OS is approaching release 10?
Any nominations? :-)
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:36:54 -0500, Bob Shannon wrote:
>And, why would they? What's wrong with PDS?
>
It is what it is; WAD.
>Refer to the "PDS Pain" white paper for what's wrong with PDSs. I suspect you
>already know. I didn't start this thread, I just provided an opinion.
>
I can find excerpts
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Bob Shannon wrote:
And, why would they? What's wrong with PDS?
Refer to the "PDS Pain" white paper for what's wrong with PDSs. I
suspect you already know. I didn't start this thread, I just
provided an opinion.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
Bob,
Just curiou
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:34:02 -0600, McKown, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hum, like a morphing of z/OS as legacy + UNIX to more of UNIX + legacy?
>I.e. the UNIX portion "takes over" more and more of the initial
>processing so that instead of IPL'ing z/OS and OMVS coming along later,
>you boot
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:30 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:33:1
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:33:19 -0500, Peter Relson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is certain that PDS's will exist for the entire life of z/OS (or
>whatever name it might have down the road, if that ever changes
again).
>
>It is almost certain that PDSEs will never be allowed in the LPALST
>...
B
>And, why would they? What's wrong with PDS?
Refer to the "PDS Pain" white paper for what's wrong with PDSs. I suspect you
already know. I didn't start this thread, I just provided an opinion.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
For
Bob Shannon wrote:
It depends. Are we now allowed to use a PDSE in LINKLIST or LPALIST?
Unless or until that restriction is lifted, the PDS will continue to
exist.
PDSs will be around as long as MVS. There is no way for IBM to insist that
every user PDS be converted to a PDSE.
And, w
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: The future of PDSs
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:38:32
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:38:32 -0600, Rick Fochtman wrote:
>
>> -
>>
>>> IBM created the PDS a long time ago - giving us some conveniences that
>>> fit within its OS design.Other computer companies either did not
>>> see this ad
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:38:32 -0600, Rick Fochtman wrote:
>-
>
>>IBM created the PDS a long time ago - giving us some conveniences that
>>fit within its OS design.Other computer companies either did not
>>see this advantage or had OS structures that h
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:08:03 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:09:40 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>>
>>IMHO both PDS and PDSE have some limitations which we would like to
>>relieve.
>
>One in particular is the 64K track limitation because of TTRs in the directory.
>Wouldn't it be interestin
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:09:40 +0100, R.S. wrote:
IMHO both PDS and PDSE have some limitations which we would like to
relieve.
One in particular is the 64K track limitation because of TTRs in the directory.
Wouldn't it be interesting if PDSE could emulate very large tracks?
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:09:40 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>
>IMHO both PDS and PDSE have some limitations which we would like to
>relieve.
One in particular is the 64K track limitation because of TTRs in the directory.
Wouldn't it be interesting if PDSE could emulate very large tracks? It could
conceiv
>.(or whatever name it might have down the road,
>if that ever changes again).
Isn't it about time for one more name change since
z/OS is approaching release 10?
--
Peter Hunkeler
Credit Suisse
--
For IBM-MAIN subscr
It is certain that PDS's will exist for the entire life of z/OS (or
whatever name it might have down the road, if that ever changes again).
It is almost certain that PDSEs will never be allowed in the LPALST
(chicken and egg problem, all of PDSE processing would have to be in the
nucleus in order
> It depends. Are we now allowed to use a PDSE in LINKLIST or LPALIST?
> Unless or until that restriction is lifted, the PDS will continue to
> exist.
PDSs will be around as long as MVS. There is no way for IBM to insist that
every user PDS be converted to a PDSE.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
Rick Fochtman wrote:
[...]
It depends. Are we now allowed to use a PDSE in LINKLIST or LPALIST?
Unless or until that restriction is lifted, the PDS will continue to exist.
PDSE is allowed on LINKLIST and partially allowed on LPA (not at IPL
time, can be added dynamically).
However having PDSE
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Fletcher, Kevin
>
>
> --
> It depends. Are we now allowed to use a PDSE in LINKLIST or LPALIST?
>
> Unless or until that restriction is lifted, the PDS will
> continue to exis
Kevin Fletcher of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List
wrote on 12/12/2007 08:44:22 AM:
>
> --
> It depends. Are we now allowed to use a PDSE in LINKLIST or LPALIST?
>
> Unless or until that restriction is lifted, the PDS will continue to
> exist.
>
> Rick
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> IBM created the PDS a long time ago - giving us some conveniences that
> fit within its OS design.Other computer companies either did not
> see this advantage or had OS structures that handled it other ways.
>
> Do we use PDSs now because that's what we have been usi
--
It depends. Are we now allowed to use a PDSE in LINKLIST or LPALIST?
Unless or until that restriction is lifted, the PDS will continue to
exist.
Rick
Rick,
You can use PDSE in LINKLIST (not sure about LPALIST). We do this for
DB2.
Fletch
-
-
IBM created the PDS a long time ago - giving us some conveniences that
fit within its OS design.Other computer companies either did not
see this advantage or had OS structures that handled it other ways.
Do we use PDSs now because that's what we
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
>
> IBM created the PDS a long time ago - giving us some conveniences that
> fit within its OS design.Other computer companies either did not
> see this advantage or had OS structures that handled it
IBM created the PDS a long time ago - giving us some conveniences that
fit within its OS design.Other computer companies either did not
see this advantage or had OS structures that handled it other ways.
Do we use PDSs now because that's what we have been using for decades?
Or is it possible t
52 matches
Mail list logo
