IBM *could* enhance TSO to do multi-address space processing, now. But MVT, back when TSO was originally designed and coded, did not have the facilities. The problem seems to be that IBM just doesn't think that TSO is really strategic. TSO is for "program development" in IBM's mind (as best as I can tell). Of course, there's still that damn DD statement "problem" to be addressed. So I guess the secondary TSO address space would somehow need to route all OPEN/CLOSE/DYNALLOC requests back to the original TSO address space.
Also RD/z is far superior for program development, from what I've read. And, it is more profitable! Most likely because it is seat licensed, so you need a license for every user. And the base Eclipse is FOSS and so not as expensive for IBM because others are helping to maintain and enhance it. Depending on what you want to actually do, you can use UNIX facilities in TSO. Oh, I'll grant it is a PITA at times. And your points are why I prefer using a z/OS UNIX shell prompt to using a TSO READY. ISPF is all that make TSO tolerable. And neither is as easily scriptable, to me, as UNIX. That's why I wish there were a z/OS UNIX ISPF so that I could run ISPF applications on the z/OS UNIX shell. I already use the UNIX "tsocmd" to run some TSO commands under UNIX. I also use the Dovetailed Technologies Co:Z products to do some things on z/OS UNIX more easily. And I even use them from my Linux/Intel desktop at time. I can use the "todsn" and "fromdsn" commands on Linux/Intel to submit jobs to z/OS and retrieve their output. I use "cozclient" to run z/OS commands (such as lsjes), when I need them in a Linux script. Otherwise, I just switch to my z/OS UNIX shell prompt to run UNIX commands. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function > > What about TSO? > > On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:17, Steve Comstock wrote: > >>> > >> We're both familiar with UNIX, which classically runs each > process in > >> a separate address space. How much simpler or more effective > >> could it be? Likewise z/VM. > > > > Yes, well, each batch job runs in a separate address space, too. > > Isn't that the same approach? > > ... > > But for basic applications (batch and TSO, most CICS and IMS), the > > application programmer has his/her storage protected from > meddling by > > other applications automatically by address space isolation. > > > Not really. You're ignoring the convolutions TSO performs to > execute an authorized program such as IEBCOPY (well, prior > to 1.13). Why can't TSO just launch IEBCOPY in a separate > address space where it would be perfectly safe? Why are > programmers compelled to invent "magic" SVCs and back doors? > Why can't TSO CLISTs and EXECs run commands in background > as I can with POSIX shell "&", and let me use my terminal > in the meantime? > > Submitting to a batch queue is a stopgap. There's no simple > and standard way to get completion status from a program > submitted to a batch queue, or even to tell when it completes. > With POSIX shell, it's as simple as: > > ( command1; command2 ) & > PID=$! > # ... Do other stuff with terminal session > wait $PID > echo $? # display status from "command2" > > command1 and command2 are completely isolated from the terminal > session and, if _BPX_SHAREAS=NO, from each other. In z/OS, > I can't even run an authorized program from an EXEC except with > severe constraints: > > o It must be under TSO, not USS or IRXJCL > > o It must be invoked with CALL, not ATTCHMVS or LINKMVS. > > UNIX provides isolation for interactive commands similar > to that z/OS provides for batch jobs. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
