On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Paul Gilmartin <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:33:33 -0500, John McKown wrote:
> >
> >>> If you're talking about BPXBATCH in the "so poor" comment, I'd guess
> that
> >>> it was determined to be needed "late in the game". So something was
> written
> >>> quickly to get some basic functionality going. It then became
> enshrined in
> >>> the temple of backward compatibility. ...
> >>>
> There's some old lore (on MVS-OE?) that the design objective was the
> ability
> to run started tasks from UNIX program objects; nothing more.
>
> >... Just buy the product which supplied AOPBATCH ! {grin} I
> >will agree with you if you say that IBM should just include AOPBATCH with
> >z/OS, with BPXBATCH being an alias to it. But then why should IBM give
> >away what they currently get money for?
> >
> There's a rumor (but perhaps from a beta site) that AOPBATCH is shipped
> with z/OS and works regardless that the customer doesn't "buy the product".
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Just don't ask OCC.
>
I just checked. AOPBATCH is on my z/OS 1.12 system in AOP.AAOPMOD1, which
is a "distribution" library. We don't license whatever the product is
either. So it is shipped. I didn't check to see if it would actually run.
>
> -- gil
>
>
--
I just child proofed my house.
But the kids still manage to get in.
Maranatha! <><
John McKown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
