Try being a vendor and explaining to non-technical or non-REAL Tony: Try being a vendor and explaining to non-technical or non-REAL-Mainframe people what z/OS does and its functions. Its a challenge. I have offen said its not a 'PC'..So to a certain degree I agree with whats been said about confusion of terms. Additionally, as I was once told business/tech expertise has changed a lot. This adds to the confusion. Scott J Ford
________________________________ From: Tony Harminc <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 12:13:26 PM Subject: Re: "Under z/OS Unix" On 3 May 2011 09:29, Kirk Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > What is z/OS Unix, and what do people mean when they say "under USS" > (or the more proper: "under z/OS Unix") ? [...] > My own conception model (perhaps flawed) is that there are a bunch of related >things: [...] I think you're unnecessarily mixing interface definitions (commands, shell(s), APIs, file semantics, etc.), with implementation details. Clearly you don't get the first without the second, but to answer "what is z/OS UNIX?" I think you need to consider only the first. However there is clearly a common usage that groups things like "uses UNIX files, uses a shell, runs executables from a UNIX directory", and perhaps a few more as "runs under z/OS UNIX", but does not comprise things like "uses TCP/IP services, has a UID and GID", and similar service-related details. Somewhere in between lies "is written in C/C++". *We* all know that C/C++ code can run on z/OS without any use of UNIX, but I think many people perceive a tight connection. Perhaps another way of putting this is that there is an "operations" view along the lines of the above, which makes a lot of sense when the important questions are about how to keep the machine humming along, how to handle failures and who to call, and so on. What goes on under the covers is of much less importance and interest to people in those jobs. > I believe that some people have a conception model of z/OS Unix that is > similar to the old OS/2 Windows so called "Penalty Box". Again, I > believe that the TSO OMVS command and BPXBATCH have fostered this > incorrect notion. I agree. As Kernel Don used to say, "There is no wall". I still find myself having to explain that to people who by now should know better. Further confusion is added by the many references to "z/OS Linux" out there. I've been fighting that one for 10+ years now, and I still get asked if we support it. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-main.html
