In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/30/2006
at 05:36 PM, Anne Lynn Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
UNIX troff(J. F. Ossanna) dunno
Don't forget nroff, eqn and tbl.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html
And I like to stir up people by:-
MVS is UNIX
but
UNIX is NOT MVS
:-)
Regards
Bruce Hewson
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 02:55 -0500, Bruce Hewson wrote:
MVS is UNIX
but
UNIX is NOT MVS
Similar for Linux; good thing too.
Whilst you still have to deal with the vagaries and personalities of
developers and policy doyens, at least if you don't like the way the
code works, you can fix it.
At
This is of course a case with very blurred borders, but:
* An OS is what is not an application * (but still software).
Generally. For z/OS specifically, it maybe is the BCP as some suggest.
The reason for this is that when You look at software in all purpose computers
(in contrast to e g
-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
This is of course a case with very blurred borders, but:
* An OS is what is not an application * (but still software).
Generally. For z/OS specifically, it maybe is the BCP as some suggest.
The reason for this is that when You look
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/29/2006
at 05:07 PM, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Academically, I cannot call z/VM an operating system, either. CP,
yes. CMS, yes. GCS, yes. Each with different levels of
sophistication and capability.
Each has components that the academic world would
://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#10 What part of z/OS is the OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#11 What part of z/OS is the OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#13 What part of z/OS is the OS?
... from recent posting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#15 25th Anniversary
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:04:42 -0400, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
Ruh roh! The cooler is empty again!!!
...
In the spirit inspired by Alan's cooler, I suggest a difinitive answer:
Everything following the slash.
Pat O'Keefe
From: Introduction to the New
Mainframe: Z/OS Basics (redbook) and NOT the Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Universe
Works for me.
Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*
In a message dated 8/30/2006 2:50:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Works for me.
Yeah, sorta like the time our CS dept. ordered a VAX without one. We're
going to write our own? Um, our new machine won't boot! Yeah, it's waiting for
your OS. Well, piece of
On Wednesday, 08/30/2006 at 03:49 AST, Daniel A. McLaughlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Introduction to the New Mainframe: Z/OS Basics (redbook) and NOT
the
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe
LOL. Simplest terms. No kidding there!
I suggest Madnick Donovan's Operating Systems
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Altmark) writes:
LOL. Simplest terms. No kidding there!
I suggest Madnick Donovan's Operating Systems textbook (McGraw-Hill,
1974),
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: 28 August 2006 23:49
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/28/2006
at 02:13 PM, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It depends on your definition of of operating system
Dalsen, Herbie
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:01 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
My humble opinion would be the following...
1. OS = Operating system i.e. Any part that operate the system
2. Function =
a) handle all requests from users / other systems
for recovery from page faults, etc.
From: Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:00:51 +0100
My humble opinion would be the following...
1. OS
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 04:49 CST, Leif Rundberget
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
z/OS is not an OS. It is a bundle of packages put together and sold by
IBM as a product solution. The real OS in the bundle is still MVS clear
back to the 60s or is that 50's.
Must disagree, Leif. The MVS product
So which part of Windows is the OS?
File handling
I/O
GUI
Obviously it's a sum of its parts, as is Z/OS, Z/VM, Linux, Unix...and so
on. If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be,
IMHO, that it is germane to the OS. Can you work without JES, or a like
function?
If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be, IMHO,
that it is germane to the OS.
That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the statement.
Can you use z/OS without TSO?
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be,
IMHO, that it is germane to the OS.
That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the
statement.
Can you use z/OS without TSO?
When in doubt.
PANIC
-- snip --
So which part of Windows is the OS?
File handling
I/O
GUI
-- snip --
The mOuSe. :-
John
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 03:43 AST, Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it all really is just an academic discussion, but I can't help
but think there should be a clear definition somewhere. Maybe I'll try
to Google a bit harder.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Would it be correct to say that any piece that when removed
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 07:49 ZW3, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't consider access methods to be part of the operating system?
Sure they are. They are controlling your access to the disk or tape.
Common services like DAIR and PARSE?
Packaging vs. Academics. If
OK, if MVS or an equivalent can be run without JES or TSO, even though
it's a RPITA, then would it be reasonable to postulate that the OS is the
Overall Supervisor and other pieces, like TSO or JES, are there as the
CBLFIA (Carbon Based Life Form Interactive Agents)?
Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS
On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 12:40 GMT, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to be,
IMHO,
that it is germane to the OS.
That can be stretched quite a bit, even though I agree with the
statement.
Can you use z/OS without TSO?
In a message dated 8/29/2006 7:50:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've actually managed to run NET, TSO, and a TSO logon in the
MSTR subsystem. All without JES being up. Kids! Don't try this at home!
No, I don't remember all of the steps necessary. It was a royal
Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Veilleux, Jon L
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Not really, but you CAN get by without ISPF (even thought it would be
difficult).
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
snip
Can you use z/OS without TSO?
Why, sure! E.g. my
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/28/2006
at 06:45 PM, Lindy Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is there a general
the question: what part of z/OS is OS, so: what
part is 'z'? z/OS *is* the OS.
Kees.
**
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential
It would appear that usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. If CICS is
your main reason for running the OS and it's removed, the OS is not
incapacitated. To me dropping CICS is like removing the spare tire from
the trunk of your car. Your car still runs, but one of its pieces is
missing, in
Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Tuesday
List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:43:48 -0400
Not really, but you CAN get by without ISPF (even thought it would be
difficult).
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683
-Original Message-
From
already try
it:
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/unix/bpxa1ty2.html
--
Lindy
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Driscoll
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
John,
Om my z/OS 1.7 system, (which is not customized), I have
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 07:49 ZW3, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be, again classically, just BCP: the thing that holds the
SVCs.
Not all SVC's are in the BCP, and most of the BCP is not composed of
SVC's, at least not for MVS.
In a message dated
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:40:15 +, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you use z/OS without TSO?
Yes.
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
z/OS and OS390 expert at
Can you use z/OS without TSO?
Yes.
Comfortably?
Productively?
Do you really want to?
I can/have used Windows ( OS/2) without a mouse.
That doesn't mean I want to!
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
As long as the subject has been raised, does anyone know whether there are any
plans to port Ruby to run on z/OS?
Perl is in the Ported Tools product, right?
Jon
snip
I don't think it is perverse at all. One should be able to do almost
everything from the shell. Why should I work in
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/29/2006
at 08:21 AM, J R [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not familiar with the MVC and OI commands, but if you're
referring to the MVC and OI instructions, these are handled directly
by the CPU. [1]
Or simulated by the Licensed Internal Code.
--
Shmuel (Seymour
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/29/2006
at 03:33 PM, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I can/have used Windows ( OS/2) without a mouse.
I use OS/2 without a mouse. It's perfectly comfortable.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/29/2006
at 08:55 AM, Kuredjian, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If z/OS doesn't fit a traditional CS definition of a kernel, then
what is it?
If an airplane doesn't fit a traditional navigator's definition of a
boat, then what is it? z/OS is the most recent version
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/29/2006
at 08:50 AM, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sure they are. They are controlling your access to the disk or tape.
Not really; they are using the same services that I could use. SAM
doesn't even use STARTIO, much less directly access the channel
Daniel A. McLaughlin([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:24:54AM -0400:
So which part of Windows is the OS?
File handling
I/O
GUI
Obviously it's a sum of its parts, as is Z/OS, Z/VM, Linux, Unix...and so
on. If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to
Daniel A. McLaughlin([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:24:54AM -0400:
So which part of Windows is the OS?
File handling
I/O
GUI
Obviously it's a sum of its parts, as is Z/OS, Z/VM, Linux, Unix...and so
on. If a component is removed and renders it useless. it would seem to
It all becomes one big philosophical debate based upon where you sit. I've
worked on OS/MFT, OS/MVT, VS1, MVS/SP, ESA, XA, OS/390, and Z/OS.
The core functions have grown over the years, and the OS has gotten more
complex as things like 31 bit and 64 bit came along. What does your own
On 8/29/2006 2:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The core functions have grown over the years, and the OS has gotten more
complex as things like 31 bit and 64 bit came along. What does your own
experience lead you to believe is necessary and not...and we come back to
it depends. If I have a CICS
that's the whole point, your OS is what you and your customers perceive it
to be.
This would be a great topic about 11:00 PM Thursday at a certain social
gathering at Share...too bad I can't be there to fuel it.
Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford Company
PH: 770 621 3256
*
Attempts at definitions like this one are seductive, but they always fail.
I was at the ICM in Madrid last week, and there was a session called 'What
is Mathematics?'.
There was consensus only about the usual operational definition,
'Mathematics is what mathematicians do'.
Ergo, an OS is .
But Mr. Gates sure did try to make IE part of the OS, didn't he?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Walt Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
On 8/29
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of john gilmore
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
snip
There was consensus only about the usual operational definition
john gilmore wrote:
There was consensus only about the usual operational definition,
'Mathematics is what mathematicians do'.
Ergo, an OS is . . .
what OS-ticians do? :-)
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:59:35 EDT, IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
And how did you manage to do all the PITA work necessary? Did you start
JES2, then TSO (needs JESx alive to get started), then update files,
then run
batch jobs (needs JESx to start) or started tasks
Ergo, an OS is . . .
snip
...what z/OS do?
Or:
Do that voodoo you do so well!
The definition is never going to be nailed down properly.
If you define the OS as just BCP, then you are going to have a lot of things
that you cannot do.
So, if you expand the definition to BCP, JES2, all the
Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of time.
That I disagree with!
Usefulness is the only indicator.
If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
--
For IBM-MAIN
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:51:56 +, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of
time.
That I disagree with!
Usefulness is the only indicator.
If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?
...
Defining an operating system...
The definition of Operating System should not depend on the usefulness of a
particular instance. The definition shouldn't even depend on the
*existance* of an instance - any instance.
Too Zen for me.
What is the sound of one disk IPLing?
If an OS is not useful, why am I using it?
The purpose
On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 09:51 GMT, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of
time.
That I disagree with!
Usefulness is the only indicator.
If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?
LOL, Ted! :-) You would only
on behalf of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Mon 8/28/2006 12:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the software
shipped with z/OS would be defined as the operating system?
Thing is, I started thinking about what
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 06:45 ZE2, Lindy Mayfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the
software
shipped with z/OS would be defined as the operating system?
It depends on your definition of of operating system. The classical
definition
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:13:28 -0400, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It depends on your definition of of operating system. The classical
definition is the chunk of software that manages the real system
resources, allocating them to application programs. That is, the
gatekeeper for access
Alan Altmark writes:
It depends on your definition of of operating system. The classical
definition is the chunk of software that manages the real system
resources, allocating them to application programs. That is, the
gatekeeper for access to the CPU, memory, and I/O devices. That would
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan
Altmark
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 9:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
On Monday, 08/28/2006 at 06:45 ZE2, Lindy Mayfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What part of z/OS is the OS?
Thanks Alan. I realized that coming up with a definition of what
to maintain and
modify (the ease of modification somewhat leading to its own downfall).
ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#10 What part of z/OS is the OS?
this brings to my mind somebody's line that goes something like it
isn't done when there is no more to add, it is done when
In a message dated 8/28/2006 2:43:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are a contract programmer in the state of Ohio, you must charge
sales tax any time the work you do involves the installation or
modification of the operating system!
Ok, so I asked the
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/28/2006
at 06:45 PM, Lindy Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is there a general consensus about what pieces or aspects of the
software shipped with z/OS would be defined as the operating
system?
Well, historically IBM has used the term OS to include everything
z/OS is not an OS. It is a bundle of packages put together and sold by
IBM as a product solution. The real OS in the bundle is still MVS clear
back to the 60s or is that 50's.
Leif Rundberget
MVS, VM, Linux Operating Systems Support
Mainframe Network Administrator
State of Colorado
Department
Thompson, Steve (SCI TW) wrote:
If you are a contract programmer in the state of Ohio, you must charge
sales tax any time the work you do involves the installation or
modification of the operating system!
Having done that very thing in this very state in the dim and distant past, I
became
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/28/2006
at 04:49 PM, Leif Rundberget [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
z/OS is not an OS. It is a bundle of packages put together and sold
by IBM as a product solution. The real OS in the bundle is still MVS
clear back to the 60s or is that 50's.
What do you mean by real
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 08/28/2006
at 02:13 PM, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It depends on your definition of of operating system. The
classical definition is the chunk of software that manages the real
system resources, allocating them to application programs.
You don't consider
71 matches
Mail list logo
