On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 08:07 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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 utilities and
tools
> needed to keep it runnning, you can expand it to VTAM, TCP/IP, TSO,
ISPF, SMP,
> and keep going.
>
> There are (many) valid cases for including/excluding certain
sub-systems.
> But, I would go with all the ('free') stuff that is bundled inside
z/OS, and
> covered by that single licence, as a start.
Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of
time. (Depending on your definition of "operating system", "usefulness"
and "waste", of course!)
Academically, I cannot call z/VM an operating system, either. CP, yes.
CMS, yes. GCS, yes. Each with different levels of sophistication and
capability. But z/VM, like z/OS, is the name of a *product* that IBM
sells. From a *packaging* perspective, these products contain one or more
operating systems, a collection of utilities, applications, and
documentation. The best part is that everyone knows what I mean when I
say "z/VM". Having to say "You know, the software offering from IBM that
includes CP, CMS, GCS, AVS, TSAF, DVF, SES, ..., and TCP/IP" would just be
too exhausting.
z/OS is the same thing. It's the name of a collection of widgets that
some people find moderately useful. ;-)
"Windows" is the same. The public's definition of "OS" and that of my
Operating Systems professor in college are miles apart.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
