On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:34:17 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <shmuel+ibm- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >>Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has >>always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program > >In such boxen there was no node type or PU type independent of the >software. >... I think you misunderstood my point. All boxen. The Finite State Machines in your FAP describe what programs have to do - programs written in whatever is appropriate for the node in question. a PUCP is a chunk of code executing in the node. It may be microcoded, but it's a program. It may be executing on some other node on behalf of a piece of hardware that is too dumb to execute a program (like the way NTO let a TTY device participate in the SNA world.) Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
